From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #469 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 Monday, October 1 2001 Volume 01 : Number 469 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:04:58 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Literary Expectations At 03:35 PM 9/25/01 -0700, you wrote: >I've slowly read _Mansfield Park_ >and _Pride and Prejudice_ over the last three months just so I can feel >grounded in the familiar once a day. I'd take Austen over any LDS >novelist, however. I LOVE Pride and Prejudice (especially when Darcy looks like Colin Firth). Another favorite of mine is Persuasion. Some people think Austen turned a love story of her own into this novel and gave it the happy ending she didn't get in real life. She did once accept an offer from a gentleman who could have made her life much more comfortable financially, but apparently she couldn't bear the thought of being married to him. She broke the engagement after a day. The men on this list who like irony and satire might like her--she wrote social commentaries that we tend to view as romances. Think of the satirical first line of Pride and Prejudice! barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:13:58 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: RE: [AML] The List and the WTC Jacob Proffitt wrote: ...a whole bunch of interesting and thought-provoking stuff. Responses to a few of those thoughts follow. >---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > A difficult question, and one of the reasons that I cringe at what I > > see as a developing war hysteria in the US. War is almost always the > > wrong answer, in my opinion. While it may be justifiable, I don't > > believe it's the most correct answer in most cases. And I > > specifically don't believe it is in this case. > >So the question is, when do you believe war *is* justifiable? You say >that we are developing war hysteria, but I have to tell you I am far >more concerned with the ostrich syndrome developing. And I >fundamentally disagree with you on the justifiability of war in this >case. I don't know when war is justifiable. In a post that crossed in the mail I commented to the fact that the scriptures support both a pro-war and an anti-war stance. I submit that each individual is responsible to their own conscience and understanding, and must work out that response with their god in prayer and serious contemplation. I also submit that one can take either stance and be correct; it's a matter of whether your heart is right before God. On justification...Actually, I believe we *are* justified in declaring war and in prosecuting that war against a clearly defined enemy. I will support the war that we choose to wage, but that will not stop me from urging restraint and mercy. I have seen little evidence of an ostrich syndrome, myself. Every night I get an update on operation Enduring Freedom and its progress. Whatever else is true, the wheels are certainly moving. Overall our views appear to be broadly incompatible. I hope this doesn't mean we have to go to war to utterly eliminate one of our stances. I think the gospel allows for both views. >And here is the single, unifying thing about war--it takes only one side >to start one. Those who are attacked have three options, and three >options only: surrender to the tyranny of the other side, join in the >tyranny of the other side, or absolute defeat of the other side. >Anything that is less than any of those three is simply a decision to >wage the war a little longer. Maybe it's a semantic thing, but it does take two separate and distinct actions--both an attack and a response--to cause war. War is an agreement between two parties to pound each other senseless until one is either utterly destroyed, or until one submits to the will and policies of the other. No matter the provocation, it's not war until both sides commit. I agree that Bin Laden, his supporters, and his benefactors have earned their positions as the first targets of this war. I do not agree that the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan have earned that same destiny. And we simply disagree as to whether our liberty is in imminent danger of collapse to Bin Laden and his ilk. I'm not sure this is the right forum to continue that part of the discussion. >Loving your enemies does not mean you can't fight them to preserve your >liberty. The Nephites who accepted the Anti-Nephi-Lehis showed great >love for their enemies and still went out and fought others just like >they used to be to preserve their liberty. I don't perceive the same danger of losing our liberty that you do. And I do want to point out that the reason the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were able to convert and repent was because at least one faction of the Nephites chose not to fight, deciding to give their own lives rather than take the lives of their enemies. I do not and will not accept that urging restraint is somehow wrong in this or any other case. > > To me, this is one of the many reasons that literature has the power > > to change the world, because it has the power to change the hearts of > > individuals. In the end, that is the world. > >Ah, but what change of heart do you want to make? I'm afraid that, in >war, literature becomes the tool of ideologies. I think that it is >inevitable. You can't, really, avoid it. You can choose what ideology >to support. But I don't think that, in the immense, overarching shadow >of war, you can avoid making ideological statements, however well >nuanced. If you want to show how some Arabs are good-hearted, you will >have to depict how that connects to the war or else have that connection >made for you. The same if you want to show how some Americans are as >bad as the Arabs who attacked us. War, once it starts, tends to >overwhelm everything else taking place in a society. As we see in our >discussion on AML-list--you just cannot avoid the implications forever. >And I believe that if you try, you will end up supporting an ideology >after all. Here is where the context changes for me. When I talk about literature, I mean all of it--not just the stuff written for or about the coming war. We will see a great deal of what I would consider propaganda during the course of the war, and it serves the purpose for which it was created. But the other stuff, the literature written because someone felt a need to tell a story--be it about war, peace, slavery, mercy, grace, fishing, baseball, love, money, or corruption--the stuff told out of a desire to understand some idea or thing that was not chosen to fit a wartime agenda, is what I prefer to read and hopefully create. Literature can enflame as well as calm, and that's just fine. The difference is that literature is a place where we can exercise our passions and present our arguments without placing anyone in immediate mortal danger. I can rage against an enemy and sorrow at the poignancy of loss without firing a shot--or getting hit by one. I believe that if we tell enough stories about who we are, who we wish we were, and who we're afraid we might become, then we create a greater chance for understanding. If we seek out the stories of those different from ourselves we increase the chance for understanding. Maybe that understanding alters the approach people take to political decisions. Maybe it helps create a better world. If telling our stories has no other purpose than a moment's entertainment, that's fine. I believe literature has more enduring power to enlighten both the mind and the spirit, and that's the kind of work I both support and hope to learn to write. It my desire that our wars of ideology be fought on paper so the words are written in ink, not blood. Today my ideology is that I'd rather die than kill. Part of that comes from my own fear that once I started killing I would come to enjoy it and whatever small spark of goodness is in me would be snuffed out completely. It's a selfish motive born of a sense of self-preservation. But that has been my belief for many years, and I hope it will continue to be for many more. If I succeed in publishing a body of work, I hope that the overall ideology it espouses is one that seeks peace when possible and a rapid end to war when not. And if your belief is different, I wish you peace and acceptance in whatever you choose to believe. So long as we act in faith, not doubt, our hearts remain right before God. In my opinion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:10:14 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] What's Wrong with Me Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: > Who was most correct, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies or Captain Moroni and his > crew? Pages and pages later I still don't know, and that really > annoys me. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies, because of their vow, needed others to die for them to protect them. As a result, they regretted their vow and had to be encouraged by a prophet to hold true to it. Then they did an end-run around their vow while technically upholding it by sending 2000 of their own children to fight for them. The Nephites who did fight for their liberty, as far as the record shows, had no regrets over their decision. Perhaps this can help us decide your question. Frankly, I think both responses were correct. But I think the people of Ammon were a special case. They had committed murder, and therefore took an extraordinary vow to facilitate their repentance of extraordinary sin. For them, total pacifism was their way to make amends for their transgressions. But those who had not committed murder felt no need to go to such extraordinary lengths, and felt blameless for the killing they did in a justifiable defense of their lands. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:05:33 -0400 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: [AML] FW MN Hatch-Perry Song Makes Movie Hatch-Perry Song Makes Movie HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA -- A song written by US Senator Orrin Hatch and well-known LDS composer Janice Kapp Perry has made the soundtrack for the new movie "Rat Race. " Producer Jerry Zucker chose the song "America Rocks!" by the songwriting duo of Hatch and Perry, and used a recording of the song by the Provo, Utah group, the Hatch-Perry Singers, a group of fifth and sixth graders that include several of Perry's grandchildren. Hatch has reportedly written more than 300 songs. http://www.boston.com/dailynews/213/variety/Archerd_Hollywood_campaigns_fo:. shtml By Army Archerd: Daily Variety Senior Columnist >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 08:55:26 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Savior Complex (was: Religious Fundamentalism) Gotta put in my two cents. I had hoped to let D. Mike's exuberances slide, but now that Barbara has jumped on his band wagon. Barbara Hume wrote: > At 01:55 AM 9/25/01 -0600, you wrote: > >I'd like to save the world from Microsoft if I could. > > Yes! Yes! Not the software, but the mentality. > > >I want to save our society from Hollywood. > > Yes! Yes! Without Hollywood, there would be no Richard Dutcher. > > >What I wouldn't have given to save my country from Bill Clinton for eight > >years. > > Yes! Yes! Too many people focuses on Bill's peccadillo's (his own fault, to be honest) and didn't appreciate the consummate politician that he was. > >I feel a need to save Southern Baptists from their wrong-headed Christianity, > > Hey! Wait a minute! It's only worth a grin if D. Mike didn't actually mean then. Knowing how he feels about Clinton and Hollywood, though, I'm not so sure he wasn't serious. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:56:59 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Juanita Brooks Query Isn't it interesting that so much attention is being paid to this terrible incident now? I guess the 1999 discovery renewed interest. I highly recommend Marilyn Brown's wonderful book on the subject, _Wine Dark Sea of Grass_, and I found Gerald Grimmett's _Ferry Woman_ extremely interesting as well. (I wonder if Tom Rogers's play about John D. Lee will get some renewed attention too.) Actually, I think it's pretty irresponsible for the writer to not give a source for the suggestion that Brooks withheld information. Juanita Brooks was threatened with Church action for what she DID write. Interestingly, as I understand it, none of her children even knew what she was going through in trying to uncover what really happened at Mountain Meadows, and how John D. Lee was scapegoated. Several of Sister Brooks's descendants served in my parents' mission in the Baltic States. Somehow, Juanita Brooks maintained her membership and still worked relentlessly on what is unquestionably the most definitive research into that sad event in Mormon history. And her family stayed in the Church. I really do wonder how she managed to confront so much controversy and overt lying by Church leaders and yet keep her faith and devotedly raise her children up in the faith. [Margaret Young] "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > The October 2001 issue of "American Heritage" magazine contains a long > article by Sally Denton titled "What Happened at Mountain Meadows?" It is > a review of the controversy from its beginnings until the 1999 discovery > of human remains at the site. Denton is described as "working on a book > about the massacre, to be published by Knopf in 2002." The article is > harshly critical in tone, and one allegation the author makes caught my > eye. On page 84 she writes about Juanita Brooks, author of the seminal > history of the massacre: "But only last year was it revealed that Brooks, > herself a descendant of one of the participants, had admitted to burning > crucial historical documents because 'they were just too incriminating' of > the church." No source for this is given. Is this really true? I > hesitate to believe it. The destruction of evidence is one of the worst > sins a scholar can commit. Does list member Levi Peterson, the author of > an excellent biography of Brooks, have any comments about this? > > ===== > R.W. Rasband > Heber City, UT > rrasband@yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. > http://phone.yahoo.com > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:37:19 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Fantasy Canon My two bits are for the dark and wonderfully-written Elric of Melnibone = series, written by Michael Moorcock. Great prose, wonderful fantasy, and = fine philosophical reads as well. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:54:24 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: [AML] Mormon Keillor (was: The WTC and the Death of Irony and Satire) In a message dated 9/27/01 9:08:52 PM, petersent@suu.edu writes: << I would like to read a satire of Mormon life--a good one with real teeth but a good heart, like Garrison Keilor's satires of Minnesota Lutherans. >> I wonder if you would consider Don Marshall's stories (The Rummage Sale, et al) as approaching this end? Marvin Payne - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:51:53 -0600 From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] The List and the WTC I had to respond to the contention that no Mormons were killed in the attacks. I have heard no official comments on this but I do know of at least one member that was killed by the terrorists. I can't remember his first name but his last name is Howell and he was born in Sugar City, Idaho. He was killed at the Pentagon. He is also the little brother of one of my classmates at Sugar-Salem High and since Reagan is a member I would have to assume that his brother was at least raised a member. But I don't see why that would make a difference in our responce to this violent act. We are Americans and Americans were killed. I cannot comment on Bin Laden's motivation for what he does but feel compeled to believe that HE either feels a religious motivation or he wants everyone to believe he feels that way. Which, as Eric Samuelsen pointed out, is just what Richard the Lionhearted did in the Crusades. I have always felt that he used religion as a reason to start a war so that he could prove how strong and brave he was. Who's right? In my opinion the person that is right is the one who didn't strike first. In this case Bin Laden would defend himself by claming the attack was in retaliation for wrongs done to his people by Americans. So who is justified in their responce and where does it all end? Afganastan has already promiced to fight back if attacked. Would they be wrong if they did? They are not all followers of Bin Laden. Are we justified in killing inocent people just because they did? Which side are we The Hatfields or the MaCoys? 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/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:33:26 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: MN New Products: Current Books on Suffering: Kent Larsen 26Sep01 US NY NYC A2 Jonathan asked, << I notice that according to the original post from Mormon-News, the title from Anita Stansfield is nonfiction. Is this accurate? >> Way, way fiction. My wife read it into a microphone, as she does with most of Stansfield's books. Marvin Payne - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:52:17 -0700 From: Kathy Fowkes Subject: [AML] re: What's Wrong With Me Scott Parkin wrote: "Who was most correct, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies or Captain Moroni and his crew? Pages and pages later I still don't know, and that really annoys me." I never asked this question before in my reading of the BofM -- I've just always assumed they were both exactly correct for their time and their particular circumstances. Perhaps an answer lies in asking not who was most correct, but asking what would have been the consequences had they chosen a different path. What if Moroni had bowed to the inevitable, whined at the apathy in his country, and sat at his desk writing the equivalent of emails to his legislative representatives as the Kingmen overthrew the government? Would another Moroni by some other name have had the vision and the courage to rouse the people to defend their liberty? What happens when one who is called ignores the message? And no, I'm not advocating a military overthrow of our current government, even if I think there are a lot of parallels to the BofM regarding corruption in the US government right now. The point being, Moroni did what he had to do to preserve his country's liberty and way of life. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies were another story. These men were killers many times over prior to their conversion. Their hands were bloody, and their hearts knew the powerful pleasure of lusting for the kill. They were raised to be warriors, and called themselves "murderers" in Alma 24:9. So, when they were converted to the truth and made their covenants, accepting the atoning sacrifice of the Savior, they experienced a true change of heart, including a complete removal of all guilt for their past sins, for which they gave great gratitude to God, through the merits of his Son. Their days of killing were over, and they never wanted to experience that lust again, just in case they could be corrupted through it and become like they once were, and forever unable to become clean again. They felt it was better to close that door forever, rather than risk their eternal souls, even if it meant losing their liberty, their property, the lives of their families, or their own mortal lives. No matter what the Lamanites chose to do with them, if they never raised their hands again to kill, they knew that the prize, the real prize, was won. (Alma 24). It's true, God did not ask this of them. They imposed this on themselves. But it seems to have pleased God immensely, just as Moroni's rallying cry to arms in defense of Nephite liberty, etc. pleased God immensely. So for me, anyway, that's really the only measure of "most correct". Was God pleased with Moroni? Was He pleased with the Anti-Nephi-Lehies? Unequivocally. The measure of correctness in choice you are seeking to apply to the two situations doesn't fit. An Apples and Oranges comparison. I guess Mormon summed it up in verse 27 of Alma 24 when he comments, "thus we see that the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people." I'm praying that the Lord will reveal to our leaders today the way salvation and peace can be worked out in our current crisis, because I'm clueless. (Of course, that's not an uncommon state of mind for me... ) I have to admit, in reading everyone's posts, especially Jacob's and Scott's, but everyone's regarding Bin Laden's motives and psyche and justification of war, I would be very interested in devouring a book that pits two different warriors and their armies against each other; both warrior generals having the appearance of religous fanaticism, but only one has a heart truly devoted to God, while the other is in fact motivated by greed and the adoration of his followers. To delve into the hearts of both as the story unfolds would be riveting. A Last Days novel, LDS perspective, LDS general against the anti-christ, with many of the elements we currently can see interfering with the ability to wage war effectively -- the media, the pacifist liberals like Jesse Jackson (*he* wants to go to Afghanistan? What in heaven's name for?).... as well as modern-day prophesy. In fact, I am wondering how much public opinion will swing too and fro in the coming months and years, and will sway how this war is waged. I can even see for the first time the possibility of seeds being sown for the eventual fulfillment of John's prophecy in Revelations regarding all or nearly all nations in the world being at war with Israel just prior to the Savior's coming. I have often wondered how the US could be turned against Israel, or become passive in our support. Considering Bin Laden's motivations and beliefs, it looks like it could actually happen someday. Enough terrorists' successful attacks against us, a deep enough economic depression, enough reports in the media regarding how we've brought this war upon ourselves because of our support of Israel, enough food shortages, enough fear, and the tide can actually turn given time. Maybe the world turning against Israel will have next to nothing to do with anti-semitism, as just a purely economic and political choice for survival -- we agree to stay out of Arab/Israeli affairs, they stop their terrorist attacks. And the rest is easily predicted. Of course, I'm also generally very naive and simplistic in my world-view. I am woefully ignorant, and I shamelessly blame it on the fact that I have been busy these last 16 1/2 years having and raising seven children. Maybe I'm just insane due to long-term sleep deprivation, too :-). Kathy kathy_f@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:42:20 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Keillor ><< I would like to read a satire of Mormon life--a good one with real teeth >but a good heart, like Garrison Keilor's satires of Minnesota Lutherans. >> I think the books from Hatrack River, such as Paradise Vue, fit this description. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #469 ******************************