From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #604 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 Thursday, February 7 2002 Volume 01 : Number 604 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:50:56 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _Roots_ Plagiarized? [MOD: I'd like to hear more about this from additional sources. (Hence my addition of a question mark to Nan's original thread title.) I know there's been a lot of criticism of Alex Haley's _Roots_ on a variety of grounds since it came out, and a lot of controversy over whether those criticisms were justified, but I haven't kept up with the particulars. In any event, issues of plagiarism are certainly of interest to AML-List. Does anyone have more details to report on what these charges are, how they came about, and whether they are generally considered to be justified?] (This might be of interest, in light of the LDS connection to Alex Haley = and the activities in Washington D.C. last weekend.) NATIONAL REVIEW/FEBRUARY 11, 2002 On January 18, NBC commemorated the 25th anniversary of the miniseries = _Roots._ _Roots_ was a tale of the persistence of black memory, in the = face of white abduction and brainwashing, that resonated powerfully with = aspects of the black experience in America. Yet it was a lie, in two = senses. Alex Haley's book, on which the miniseries was based, was a = fraud--a made-up tale about his own family, leavened with plagiarized = passages from a novel, _The African,_ by Harold Courlander, a white = author. White editors and producers, and the white judge in = Courlander's plagiarism suit, gave Haley a free ride. (Courlander won = $650,000, but was told not to discuss the case.) But now black = columnist Stanley Crouch admits _Roots_ was "one of the biggest con jobs = in U.S. literary history." Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:07:29 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Yes, Michael, I agree with the translation you've provided: > Translation: our music is inspired, so if you don't like it, you must be > out of tune with God. But isn't this how all Church-sponsored music or art is presented? I mean, it's not just peculiar to the "Light of the World" production, is it? Or is it just me? Anyway, such a presentation certainly shuts up people like me, who didn't really care for "Legacy," for example. Amy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:02:45 -0700 From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 Kumiko wrote: > With two Mormon casino bandits, "Ocean's Eleven" is STILL the top > money-maker of this list, dropping from 11th place last week to 15th this Having seen this movie three times now - I really don't believe that these guys are actually Mormons. My impression is that is their nickname and they come from Provo - hence the rest of the gang calls them Mormons. So the "Mormon" or "LDS" element/connection under this category is, in my mind, really stretching it. By the way, I enjoyed the movie each time. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:25:36 -0500 From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers [snip] I had a completely different reaction to those two paragraphs. I can listen to my six-year-old sing a simple primary song (out of tune, no less) and feel the spirit of her sincere little heart and be moved to tears that such a sweet little soul can have such a testimony. (She amazes me, but I digress). I read into the article, not arrogance, but humility. Sure some people will criticize it, just as they would my daughter singing her little songs, or what I say when I bear my testimony, or, for that matter, some people will criticize the greatest works of art. (I'm not implying that this WILL be one of the greatest works of art, although I hope it is good.) I read into it, that people who come prepared to hear the sincere messages of testimony and love that we have for the Savior, will accept it, even if it has shortcomings, in the sincerity in which it was intended - "inspired" or not. Kristy Thomas _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:39:08 -0500 From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Can I copy a whole message???? I found ALL of Rob Lauer's comments (below) to be right ON! I have often thought the very same things about the "human-ness" of our "heroes", particularly how we fictionalize our deities and our prophets. Although I understand that it is human nature to do this, I can't help but feel it is in some ways detrimental, because it promotes one of the difficulties with the mormon culture (and other cultures, too, maybe), in that we expect everyone to be perfect, particularly our prophets, based on our conceptions of what past prophets were like. My favorite excerpt from what Rob says was this: >I think if we were to run into the historical Savior or Joseph (or Moses, >Elijah, Nephi or Mormon) on the street, not only would we probably not >recognize them, but--once their indentity was pointed out to us--we would >probably have a mighty trial of our faith. > >All of which, I find fascinating. I as well find this concept to be fascinating. Thanks for the thought-provoking post! Kristy Thomas >From: "robert lauer" >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God >Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:21:13 -0500 > > >Thom Duncan wrote: >>We idolize our deities and our prophets at a level that is quite >>appropriate for fiction but not for reality. > >This is because real people (be they prophets, warriors, mothers or even >the >Messiah) do in fact become to a degree fictional characters--historical >fiction--in the human/Divine story embraced by their followers. >I might go so far as to suggest that perhaps the "fictional characters" >into >which the prophets are transformed by their followers are more powerful >than >the historical figures from which they sprung. > >Then again, one a personal level, I prefer the real historical >figures--though I do find the path by which mere humans are transformed >into >demi-gods fascinating. > >Jesus was a Jew--a member of his particular time and culture. (This takes >nothing away from his being the Messiah--in fact, in my opinion, it adds to >it.) > >Joseph Smith was a product of the first generation USA. > >There is a reason that prophets are NOT accepted in their own homes, by >their own people, during their lifetimes. There is a reason that, only in >hind sight, does it seem clear that certain people were playing a divinly >ordained role; and that is because, after the particular person is dead and >gone, and time seperates us from their day, age and circumstances, we >inherit the mythos surrounding that person. > >The mythos might very well embrace the actual truth of that person. But we >who inherit the myth have a great luxury: we are not blinded by the >prejudices of the time and culture in which that particular person lived. > >Of course, the myth is often time the PRODUCT of prejudices of believers >of a later period. An interesting question might be "Who most clearly sees >the truth about a perticular person--their friends and followers, or their >detractors? Or do both see perhaps the very same thing?" > >I think if we were to run into the historical Savior or Joseph (or Moses, >Elijah, Nephi or Mormon) on the street, not only would we probably not >recognize them, but--once their indentity was pointed out to us--we would >probably have a mighty trial of our faith. > >All of which, I find fascinating. > >ROB. LAUER > >_________________________________________________________________ >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:58:37 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home >From what I understand, the Powers That Be are now encouraging missionaries to NOT write home ANYTHING NEGATIVE. At all. Is this true, those of you who are more in to the MTC scene these days than I am? If that's true, then I can't see that advice as anything but harmful. Sometimes, letters are the only places that missionaries can let out all their steam and venom. When / if my son goes on a mission, I'm going to tell him to not worry about worrying me. Tell me everything you want to, I'll say. Going along with this trend is an interesting sub-topic in the YW lesson I teach this Sunday: having a positive attitude. The lesson doesn't talk about learning to see the good in things, or overlooking the bad, or coping with negativity. No, it says to keep a cheerful face and only say happy things, and eventually, that's what you'll turn into. Someone cheerful. Is it any wonder that we are all so Prozacked? Amy Chamberlain - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:14:35 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _I Am Jane_ Just wanted y'all to know that the wonderful Thom Duncan has directed the latest version of _I Am Jane_ which will be presented for Black History Month at BYU's Varsity Theater (Wilkinson Student Center). The play will show only two times: Thursday Feb. 14 and Friday Feb. 15 at 7:30 p.m. Cost is $5.00. Tickets may be purchased either at the door or at the Wilkinson Center Information Booth. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:56:41 -0800 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God > > I've always wanted to cast a movie of the Savior's life . . . > > . . . with Danny DeVito as the Savior. (All SORTS of interesting discussions > might come from that.) > > Kurt Weiland. > Have you read _I Hated Heaven_? It has a Danny DeVito-ish God and is quite funny. Jana Remy Irvine, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:16:59 -0700 From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] FIELD, _In The Bedroom_ 2001 was a banner year for film noir, with "The Man Who Wasn't There", "Mulholland Dr.", "Memento", and Richard Dutcher's "Brigham City." Add to these Todd Field's "In The Bedroom" which I finally saw this week. It's a meticulously constructed, suspensful film where every line of dialogue and shot has significance. It corncerns Sissy Spacek (who pulls off a tricky performance that may get her another Oscar), an upper-middle-class woman whose promising college age son becomes involved with a working-class older woman (Marisa Tomei) with a couple of young kids and a glowering soon-to-be ex-husband. There are some surprises to be had, including a screeching big one right in the middle of the movie which I shall not reveal (although many critics ignorantly have.) Suffice it to say that the moral fault (or responsibility) is not where you initially think it is. The film is based on a short story by Andre Dubus, an explicitly Catholic writer. At one point in the film a priest offers a vision of faith as as healing and redemptive force (which is sadly not accepted). The movie is ultimately about the absolute necessity of faith and forgiveness for spiritual survival in the face of the most extreme, muderous human situations. Think of it as a Catholic companion to Dutcher's "Brigham City." "In The Bedroom" would be a perfect selection for Brigham Young University's "International Cinema" series. It's a smart film based on a respected literary source and has a resounding moral message. I don't see it happening in the near future, however, because of its "R" rating (for some language and violence.) This is an excellent example of the difficulties involved in enforcing such a rigid attitude about "purity" in art (as commented on by Jonathan S. Walker's "The Internal Mormon-Media Conflict" in Meridian Magazine, as brought to the Lists' attention by Chris Bigelow.) R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:27:45 -0600 From: "b5dorsai" Subject: [AML] Mormons on Saturday Night Live This last Saturday (2 Feb 02), Saturday Night Live started off its episode with a segment on the Olympics and the LDS Church. As far as I can tell from talking with the members in my ward here in San Antonio, I am the only one who saw it (and I guess stays up that late) :-) Most of it was harmless although one section made the Church seem a bit over the top and actually more "born-again". I actually found it amusing in that the writers assumed that everyone would immediately recognized who the "missionaries" were and what they represented. I guess that in one sense that is good because we are recognizable and we should not take offense at the occasional humourous remark from comedy shows. Isn't there an unofficial rule for television and movies, that if you have to explain an item too much, then you should not use it? That is why you do not see many jokes about the Heisenberg theory. Were any of you able to see it? If so, what did you or any of the other members think of the segment? Rick Thomas San Antonio - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:07:43 -0800 From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: [AML] RE: Missionaries Returning Home How heavily does the average mission president, stake president, or bishop weight the sin of coming home early from a mission without a medical reason? Say there is no other sin involved. The missionary has simply had enough and comes home. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:10:50 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From jerry.tyner@qlogic.com Wed Feb 06 15:03:36 2002 Thom Duncan wrote: Based on the part of the world he came from and the lineage he came = from. He most certainly did NOT look like the Greek God we like to think of = him as. Thom Thom, You are probably right about the physical body Jesus had while he was a = mortal being. However, since we do not know anything about his Father's = physical appearance we can't say for sure exactly how he looked. = Speculation by many sources align with what you said but again this is = based on historical evidence of the local population. My guess is he was = taller than an average person with some kind of unique characteristics = like a strong voice. Scriptures teach he wasn't handsome but I'm sure he = was not deformed or short. However, the resurrected Christ is a totally = different matter. Speaking personally, I hope my resurrected body is not a perfected form = of my current body. I am 5'6" tall and 125 pounds (I was 105 lbs. in = high school and 112 lbs. in College and on my mission). I do not think I = would be very impressive figure to anyone, resurrected or not. I want to = look like Arnold! Kidding aside, I think the Savior is probably more impressive now in his = resurrected form. When he appeared to his disciples he would have to = look similar along with the prints of the nails in his hands and feet = and the pierced side from the Centurions spear. Also remember, they were = sore afraid the first time he appeared in the closed room until he told = them they could handle Him and see it was the Savior. When he appeared = to Nephites and Lamanites I'm sure he appeared as Joseph Smith probably = described him, as a glorified, resurrected being (although maybe not as = bright and scary). My guess is he is fairly tall and impressive a = physical presence when he appears as he did in the First Vision and as = described in D&C 110.=20 Will I be disappointed if He isn't like I envision Him? No, absolutely = not. I just hope I'm worthy to stand in His presence and know Him for = myself. Hey, if He is my height that would be very cool. I wonder how = many people would be bothered by that?! Jerry Tyner Orange County, California - --------------------------------------------- >From Jacob@proffitt.com Wed Feb 06 15:09:41 2002 - ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > > How do you know that? He could very well have been white, six feet > > tall and all of that. > > Based on the part of the world he came from and the lineage > he came from. > > He most certainly did NOT look like the Greek God we like to > think of him as. Like I said, no matter what part of the world he was from, he was at least 50% alien to that world. So while Mary may or may not have been representative of the region, we know that Christ's dad, God, was most assuredly *not* from that part of the world (um, or *any* part of the world for that matter). That's enough variability for me to state with some certainty that we don't have any idea what Christ looked like and any definitive statements one way or another are unsupportable. You just can't make assumptions here because the normal rules are out. So barring personal experience or contemporary account, you can't really say that He couldn't be white, black, six feet, four feet, or anything else. You just don't know what genes he got from Mary and which he got from God. Thus, he could very well have been a buffed-out white guy six feet tall. We *do* know from scripture that men wouldn't follow him for his looks. But that could as easily mean that he was strange for the region as that he blended in with everyone else. It becomes particularly interesting when Joseph Smith tells us that Heavenly Father and Christ looked exactly alike when he saw them together. But I'm not sure if that wasn't a transformation that happened after resurrection, so even that doesn't really inform us much. Which is why I don't have much problem with pretty much any physical representation of Christ. More important to me are his characteristics and personality. So when I hear about a depiction of "Cowboy Jesus", for example, I don't really care what the author might say he *looked* like as I care about what Christ says or does. I think the real danger isn't whether we depict him as buff or wussy. I think the real danger is if we depict him consistently in a single way (*any* single way). So I think it is good for Catholics (as in the original post that started the thread) to see him drawn confident and strong. And I think it is good for us to see him drawn homely and weak. I've personally been interested in those pictures by some African-American denominations that draw him black. The savior wasn't significant for what he looked like, but for what he was. And if we can picture him as looking like the people who are around us, so much the better. Because in the end, "as you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me." (um, to paraphrase :) Jacob Proffitt - ----------------------------------------- >From kristymariethomas@hotmail.com Wed Feb 06 15:44:21 2002 These are links I found on the internet on the subject. I don't take any of them very seriously. I think the best comment I read was something like "Does it matter what Christ looked like? NO!" Anyway, I thought you might enjoy what various webpages have to say about this popular debate. - --- At the following link the Christian Separist Organization claims that he was white... http://www.christianseparatist.org/other/whitejesus.html - --- http://www.ahherald.com/pastor/pc001207.htm - - This one is annoying because it brings up ads. But anyway, it talks about how every culture likes to depict Christ like themselves. This man believes he would have looked "Jewish", but has no problem with us portraying him as long as we remember the rendering is not really him. - --- http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/looklike.htm - - This one claims that Christ couldn't have looked any different from his friends for reasons like Judas had to show the arrestors who he was. - - It also claims that Christ had short hair, was probably muscular and tan, and quotes Isaiah to argue that Christ's physical appearance was not out of the ordinary. (It also says that the effeminate Christ so often depicted probably looks more like Satan - ha, whatever!) - --- The following is the funniest to me, because they have taken the official LDS Christ and changed his eyes to blue!!! Too funny. This site quotes three allegedly historic accounts of Christ to argue that he was golden-haired, tall, and blue-eyed. http://www.israelsregathering.org/jesusdescription.htm - --- This one claims to have an actual likeness of Christ. O-kay...What-eva... http://www.revealed.org/likeness.htm - --- This one has "over 1000 images" of artists conceptions of Christ through the ages. This one is the coolest, because, from what I saw, it doesn't actually speculate about what He looked like, just what we through the ages have imagined that He looked like. http://www.clark.net/pub/webbge/jesus.htm - --- Kristy Thomas - ----------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:15:48 -0700 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers So far, I haven't heard anything about this music. But I have a big issue with people who make part of their claim to fame that God gave them their work, as in "others that will come with the spirit and soul to receive it. . . ." "We can't worry" about what naysayers may think. Those who have ears to hear, will hear." Aside from being hugely egotistical and presumptive, it is also manipulative. It implies, "If you don't like this, you are out of tune" (pun, well, intended). I think that if God DOES give an artist some aspect of his/her work, the last thing s/he should do is talk about it. This is nothing personal; I like Sam Cardon and his work. I just think that speaking this way is a big mistake. It reminds me of Lex de Azevedo's "Gloria." The composition fails artistically over and over again, but in his cover text he makes the same kind of claim. Big mistake. Let the work speak for itself and if it's inspired, that will come through. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:23:42 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism What is my theory on race? I think that God loves diversity. Just read Moses 2-3, or Genesis 1, or go watch the temple film if you doubt this. An overly simplistic response? Maybe. But I think it's true. I think it's we humans who have complicated the matter. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 10:39:25 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Roots Plagarized? I had heard of this accusation about Alex Haley plagarizing Roots when I was a teenager. I had a History teacher, who was liberal by the way, who talked about it in class. But I remember being skeptical of his information. He said it had been proven the Griot, (oral storyteller), that Haley found in Africa had been proven to be a fraud and also I remember him saying something about the book, "The African". But he never brought that book in to back up what he said, and he never produced any news clippings about the Griot. I heard only a small amount of news about the lawsuit, the media kept it low key. Obviously, since Haley had the characters in the book speaking dialogue from Kunta Kinte on, much of it would have had to come from someone's imagination. People who were purposely kept illiterate don't leave primary, written sources behind. But if there were others in the family who could confirm the older family members saying the African words he said helped him to trace the family to Gambia, that would go to his favor and credibility. I had the good fortune to be at BYU when Alex Haley came to speak. It was at night, and I got there early thinking it would be packed. It wasn't, might have been friday night and no one would think to make this into a good date night. I was fascinated. He make it into a intimate gathering. He had the cadence of a natural storyteller and elaborated on his boyhood summers in Henning, Tennessee and the nights on the porch listening to his grandmother and great aunts tell the family stories about all the different personalities that had graced their family line, especially one flamboyant fellow who was called "Chicken George". He said they were shocked by this man, but delighted in all the juicy details of his exciting life. He opened it up to questions and I don't remember him avoiding any thing that was brought up. I was impressed with the spirit of the man. I cherish the memory of having been there. I, however am concerned about having the truth stand in such matters. There has been recent proof of a couple of noted historians who have had bestsellers in the national market having plagiarized material. This is not a light matter, and I hate it when someone gets a pass because of political correctness or fear of whom is being criticized. But, until I see any firm proof of this accusation about Alex Haley, I will give him the benefit of the doubt about his quest and the book he said sprang from that quest. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:14:03 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] RE: Missionaries Returning Home Responding to Levi Peterson: <<>> It probably depends on how much energy that leader has invested in trying to talk the missionary into staying. The more spiritual logic and persuasion the leader puts on the table, the greater the sin is in not following it, I imagine the thinking goes. I know I grade my freshman English students harder when I've given them advice that they don't take or find an equally good solution. (This probably mostly applies to mission presidents, but I think stake presidents and bishops often get involved by phone in these situations.) Although I despised 90% of missionary life--really hated it--I somehow managed to last out the two years, although many weeks were utterly wasted. (In one completely demoralized apartment, four of us filled almost all our time with extra sleep and videos through the entire hot fly-blown Aussie summer.) Although I couldn't summon the motivation or discipline to live like a missionary much of the time, somehow I never seriously considered going home, just as I never seriously considered divorce during my 7-year marriage to a troubled personality. I am glad that my character does have some bedrock, though there's plenty of topsoil too. A lot of missionaries reported to the president that I seemed depressed and unmotivated, which was absolutely true, but I didn't do much direct complaining to him myself. About halfway through I said I'd love to be a mission secretary, and that wish was granted for the last 3 months of my mission, which kept me from ending at the rock-bottom level. (My mission trajectory looks like a backwards check mark.) I don't know if any missionaries in my mission went home without sin or medical reasons. How often does someone actually have the guts to say, "I don't like this, it's not for me, I'm out of here?" Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:31:57 -0700 From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home >Sometimes, letters are the only places that missionaries can let out all >their steam and venom. When / if my son goes on a mission, I'm going to = tell >him to not worry about worrying me. Tell me everything you want to, I'll >say. I loved my mission (it was because of serving that mission that I = eventually met my husband) but the three most difficult months of my life = came during a companionship with a sister who had some serious emotional = and mental problems. I'm not sure why she was never sent home early, = because her behavior had caused a lot of problems for missionaries and = members. I think it may have been because a) she didn't have anywhere to = go (no familial support, no money, no education) and b) she was a native = missionary (this was in Thailand), and had she left the mission early the = scrutiny and gossip of the members might have driven her away from the = Church entirely. I had only been in the mission field for three months = when I got a call from my mission president, telling me that she was to be = my next companion, and that my job was to help her be happy. For the next = three months, until she completed her mission, I did everything I could to = fulfill that calling. I can see now that it was an abusive relationship, = that I was verbally and emotionally (and occasionally physically) abused. = I stuck it out by praying a lot, by asking for a blessing once, and by = writing about everything in letters home. I wrote my family and one very = close friend everything--writing those letters helped keep me from going = crazy. When I got home, my friend and my mom presented me with binders = full of copies of all my letters--it's better than any journal I ever = kept. On the other hand, I never really told my mission president the = full extent of what happened (I think I was afraid that if I did, I would = have failed in the job I had been given, which was to make her happy). In = hindsight, I think that may have been a mistake, because he probably could = have helped. But we made it through, and I am happy to say that she is = still an active member of the Church, and very proud of her full-time = missionary service. Her problems have started to get resolved, and she = has gone through the temple. Each time I've returned to Thailand we have = met joyfully. She trusts me and loves me, and I can honestly say that I = love her. I learned so many priceless lessons from that experience--I = learned how to really listen to the Spirit, I learned how to trust my = prayers, and I'll never get into an abusive relationship again, because = I'll see it coming from miles away. And I can relive those lessons by = reading the letters my family and friend saved for me. They are priceless.= Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:52:12 -0700 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus > > > > Hey, if He is my height that would be very cool. I wonder how = >many people would be bothered by that?! > >Jerry Tyner >Orange County, California > My vision of our immortal existence is that physical height won't matter at all. Not one "little" bit. We, as mortals, make all of our size judgments based on our attachment (forced by gravity) to the face of the earth. We all stand on the ground, where our feet are all toe-nail to toe-nail. As resurrected beings, we won't be bound by that attachment. (i.e. God and Christ standing in the air in the First Vision; Moroni appearing at Joseph's bedside; the various appearances in the Kirtland Temple; etc.) When we approach one of our peers in the next life for a little chat, we will probably face them on an eye-to-eye basis, standing in the air (or empty space, or wherever). And how far down our legs and feet hang, won't count for anything. (I'm reminded of the BYU basketball team picture that I saw several years ago, where all the players, except the 7 foot tall center [Bradley?], were standing on customized little platforms, so that their heads were all the same height.) And then as Gods, when we make our dramatic appearances to our own mortal Joseph Smiths, we will be so brilliant and glorious as exalted beings that the height won't even factor in. Maybe God and Christ ARE only 5' 6", 125 pounds. Standing high up there in the air like that, and shining like a million combined spotlights, who could tell? So don't worry, Jerry. I'm sure you'll be absolutely imposing as a God. Hey -- even midgets and dwarfs have exaltation potential. Right? - -BJ Rowley (at 5' 7" if I stretch, but MUCH more than 125 lbs., unfortunately) Orem, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:05:23 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Scary invitation here, though I appreciate very much the way Jonathan has = framed it: [MOD: Actually, Andrew deserves the credit...] Essentially, I think there's a very long legacy of American racism that = found its way into Mormon culture and theology. First of all, a few historical facts that are, I think, pretty well = uncontested by any legitimate historian of Mormonism. Joseph Smith was = probably less racist than any other white man of prominence in his day, = with the possible exception of John Brown. Many many abolitionists held = quite racist views and had attitudes towards blacks that were paternalist = and patronizing. Abraham Lincoln was, by our standard, racist. John = Brown was almost alone amoung white abolitionists in believing in the = intellectual and moral equality of blacks. Joseph Smith's own views on = race (which he very seldom articulated) were shockingly similar to = Brown's. =20 Brigham Young, on the other hand, was essentially as racist as most white = men of prominence of his generation. The policy on priesthood was = invented by Brigham, and perpetuated by subsequent presidents of the = Church. I think it's possible that Brigham Young believed that if Deseret = were seen as abolitionist (as a final stop for the Underground Railroad, = for example), as a place that welcomed runaway slaves, that the Church = would inevitably have been dragged into the Civil War, and that that would = have destroyed us as a Church and culture. The Civil War did not begin in = South Carolina in 1861, it began in 'bloody Kansas' in the mid-'50's, and = the seeds of bloody Kansas were clearly visible in Missouri in the '30's. = And Missouri was utterly devastated by the Civil War, as Utah might well = have been. I think that it's quite possible that a formalized policy on = blacks and the priesthood came out of Brigham's experiences in Missouri. Having said that, I think that such a policy went unchallenged or = unexamined in the Church for far too long, and that Gene England was right = when he suggested that the policy was not overturned earlier due to white = racism within the Church, which we needed to repent from. =20 Since the policy existed, however, I believe that a great deal of = speculation grew up around it, including the notion that Cain's seed were = Africans (which is, as I understand it, a Protestant notion invented in = the sixteenth century to justify English involvement in the slave trade), = including the 'fencesitters' doctrine, and including all sorts of = speculation regarding the pre-existence. An interesting example of such = doctrinal speculations is a famous talk given by Alvin R. Dyer (which was = printed by the Church as a pamphlet and handed out in a D&C class I took = in 1977), called, I believe, The Three Degrees of Glory. In this talk, = Elder Dyer said that there were three degrees of glory in the preexistence,= and that celestial spirits were born in the covenant, terrestrial spirits = were born as Gentiles, and telestial spirits born as blacks. The purpose = of earth life was for celestial spirits to prove that we belonged there, = terrestrial spirits to rise or stay where they were, and for telestial = spirits to rise to terrestrial. I remember when I was in the LTM = (predecessor to the MTC), a talk in which a Ricks College professor = expanded on Dyer, and spent a lot of time describing the ethnic branches = of humanity that had come from Noah's children. Blacks, of course, came = from Ham's wife, Africanus. [MOD: actually, Egyptus] As for the Ten Tribes, well, I really went on = my mission to Norway hoping to baptize a Lapplander (Sami), certain that = his/her patriarchal blessing would show him/her as coming from Naphtali or = something. We did baptize a Samisk girl, but no such luck; she was = Ephraim, like everyone else. =20 The Book of Mormon does specifically mention skin color as a curse. But = our perceptions in this regard are warped by the fact that Alma, the = largest book in the Book of Mormon, actually covers a relatively short = time period, and the first really in which there were substantial = Nephite/Lamanite interactions. Those interactions are fairly common = cultural clashes, in a war setting, where racist language is commonly used = to demonize one's opponents. Through most of the Book of Mormon period, = Nephites and Lamanites are either separated geographically, or so = intermixed through marriage that the terms themselves represent more = political/religious divisions than racial ones. =20 I remember a mission companion telling an investigator that we believed = that blacks couldn't have the priesthood because they'd descended from = monkeys, while whites could because we came from Adam and Eve, created by = God. I remember another companion refusing to teach a black guy who was = very interested in our message, because 'those people just aren't ready.' = I remember a wonderful black family who came to church for ten years, and = then, in 1978, the Sunday after President Kimball announced the revelation,= the husband coming to the bishop and presenting himself and his family = for baptism. I remember hearing Alan Cherry's comedy routine for the = first time and laughing my head off and wishing I could meet him. I = remember finding a church MIA manual from the early '60's with detailed = instructions on how to rehearse and produce a minstrel show, together with = a recipe for blackface makeup. =20 We have a shameful legacy, in my opinion, when it comes to matters of = race. I credit great men and women like Gene England and Darius Gray and = Margaret Young and many others with doing something to overcome it. But = in my opinion, we have a long way to go. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #604 ******************************