From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #673 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, April 10 2002 Volume 01 : Number 673 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 12:48:20 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? I don't think any reputable scholar of Mormonism denies that Joseph Smith = practiced polygamy, that he was married many times, perhaps to as many as = sixty different women, and that he cohabited with them. The documentation = for Joseph's plural marriages is extensive, overwhelming, and beyond = serious dispute. Where matters become a little murkier has to do with the = issue of Joseph's children by his other wives. Some scholars believe that = they can document as many as nine children by other wives, and that those = children were covered up in Nauvoo, with a catch-all explanation that = their (non-existant) husbands were on missions. That's what I personally = believe happened, but there is room for the belief that no children were = born to him by any wife aside from Emma. I do apologize for not including = sources for any of this, because I'm writing in a big hurry and without = notes or library. But really, the question of plural marriage for Joseph = is beyond dispute. =20 >Having read much of the Documentary History of the Church, >written or kept by Joseph Smith, and the Comprehensive History of the >Church, by B.H. Roberts, it seems to me that the history of the Church = >has >been accurately presented to the best of knowledge available without = >>bias. This is simply untrue. Of course the official histories of the Church = have a bias. To take the most obvious example, they all describe the = First Vision as an actual event that really happened. Now, I accept as a = matter of faith and testimony that the First Vision WAS an actual event = that really happened. But what any serious historian would be professional= ly obliged to do with that story is to say 'this is what JS said happened' = and leave it at that. Certainly an historian would acknowledge that, = whatever happened there, it changed JS's life. But you can't present as = fact something to which there were no witnesses except the chief participan= t. Leaving out the question of whether or not it's even possible to write = 'unbiased' history at all, we must certainly acknowledge that official LDS = histories are not, by any standard, unbiased. They are faith-promoting = histories. I don't mean to say that they falsify anything, or that they = are deliberately deceptive. But they do not approach the story of = Mormonism with anything even resembling scholarly skepticism or evidentiary= rigor. Of course, by the same token, there are any number of 'histories' = and accounts that are just as strongly biased against the Church. Which = means that real historians nowadays face a historiographical nightmare--who= can we trust? Who hasn't an agenda? Which sources can be regarded as = reliable? But there are historians writing today who are doing remarkable = and valuable work in this field, beginning, I suppose, with the Leonard = Arrington/Juanita Brooks generation of historians. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:49:31 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Bye Bye Oprah? Although I'd like to agree with Todd Petersen, I just can't. I wish things worked this way, but it doesn't. I'll describe the reasons for my pessimism below. - ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > Maybe things won't go through the roof all at once, but they > might do well enough if some books were put out there and > allowed to brew in the public consciousness for a while. Let > people talk about the books. Develop some avenues of > discussion beyond this list (or invite people to join the > list). It won't do any good. What you are essentially asking for is that publishers develop their back list like they used to. The thing is, the publishers aren't the ones driving the change at all. The blockbuster mentality wasn't something that publishers *wanted* (though they make an easy target because they're the ones bearing the bad news to us). There are two things that came together in a really bad way to produce the current book market and the problems we perceive with it. First, people have lumped books in with other mass-market media. This is a *huge* mistake. No matter how much books might be *like* movies or TV, they are fundamentally different in very significant ways. The money in mass-market entertainment is entirely tied up in the fact that a large up-front investment generates huge back-end profits because incremental costs are negligible. Once a movie is made, the studio doesn't have to do a whole lot different whether a hundred people see it or a million people see it. The cost of presenting a movie, TV show, or radio broadcast are the same whether the theater, family room, or car stereo is packed full, or contains a single person. Every extra person over break-even is 100% pure profit. The difference with books is that you cannot scale the experience the same way. Each person has to buy their own physical copy of the book for their own consumption. For each book purchased, the publisher has to print it, bind it, deliver it, and risk its return if it doesn't sell. Further, if someone shares a book, the publisher gets *less* revenue, unlike when a person takes a friend to the movies. What I'm saying is that books *aren't* mass-market entertainment and as long as we use mass-market entertainment models to publish books, we'll run into trouble. Books aren't mass-market, they are retail sales. The power relationships are very different between retail sales and mass-market entertainment. Power in the book-selling world rests with the retail outlets. Publishers have to woo the retail outlets to have their wares made available to the public. Retail outlets sell perks like prominent placement and shelf-space to publishers and publishers are, frankly, grateful for any consideration they receive. Retail outlets, on the other hand, have severe pressure placed on them by their own constraints. They have heavy enough competition that they can't inflate prices at their whim. Further, retail book stores pay the same lease prices as the gift-shop next door. The nature of retail sales means that they cannot afford to carry books indefinitely in the hopes that they will sell. They need to make sure that they get a certain degree of turn-over for every book they carry. If a book is "building a following" then it isn't moving very fast. It *might* someday have a large following as word-of-mouth slowly penetrates a market. But while demand is building, that book is taking up valuable shelf-space that could be actually generating revenue. So it's a catch-22. If the book isn't available when someone hears about it and goes to buy it, then the word-of-mouth campaign will fall apart--after all, a book can't be all that good if you can't actually buy it when you want it, can it? And if it is available, but people aren't buying it in sufficient quantities, then the book stores are seeing a wasted spot on their shelves that could be generating the revenues they need to make that next lease payment. In short, the nature of retail sales is that if something isn't selling at a very specific level, then it has to make way for something else that *will*. The retailer cannot afford to waste space on a book that *might* sell well later, maybe, if people find out they like it and talk about it with their friends. That's why books today have a shelf-life measured in months and if they don't pick up in that time, they disappear. That's why you have the block-buster mentality and it has nothing at all to do with Oprah. > Organize reading groups. This last one is important. I > know of three such groups of LDS readers and writers: one in > Portland, one in Seattle, and one in Chicago. If 10 percent > of the people on this list started an LDS reading group of > ten people, we'd see a pretty nice jump in the audience. Maybe. I think it's an effort worth making. The LDS market in particular is so small that even an extra hundred readers could make a significant impact. > Finally (and it hurts me to say this) I think that writers > should forget about money. If it comes, fine. If not, fine. > It's so rare to be able to support oneself by writing anyway. > I know a lot of writers and I don't know any who can hack it > on their writing alone. Money seems to corrupt the whole > process. We could have more LDS books out there if LDS > presses offered royalty-only contracts without an advance. > That would leave more available cash out there for production > and distribution. Royalty-only contracts will only decrease the commitment that publishers have to a book and I don't think that authors are going to make it up on the back-end. The author's percentage frankly doesn't add that much to the price of the book, anyway, so paying the author less isn't really going to decrease the costs of the publishers significantly. And really, decreasing the worth of your labor isn't a good way to convince people of the worth of your labor. In other words, taking less money for the same work is not going to convince people that the work you do is more valuable or worthy. If you want to increase your audience, the key isn't to make less money doing the work--particularly when doing so isn't going to decrease the price of your product significantly. > But what's wrong with a contract that says no cash for anyone > until the book makes money? I think publishers would go for > it, but I think writers wouldn't because there is some ego > cash switch that people want thrown. I know a lot of writers > who grouse about publishers, yet they are unwilling to do > without an advance. This is curious and it reinforces the > business end of things. > > So, in short, I hope that with Oprah's book thing gone, > people will keep reading. But I also hope that publishers > will try to market books on substance rather than hype. And I > hope writers will write books and quit trying to get rich. > Money has always curdled the arts in one way or another. But you can't get rid of the business end of things. The business end of things is the whole key to the process. It's the business end of things that makes it possible to know what people *actually* want. As much as I grouse about the nature of retail sales, people want to go to a retail outlet to purchase their books. They want a comfortable shopping experience with clean sales people, bright marketing, and slick covers. They want to be able to recommend a book and know that not only will the book be good, but their friends and/or family who go to the store are going to have a pleasant experience with a lot of books, comfy seats, low-pressure sales, and maybe a cappuccino. The LDS people want the same thing, only decaffeinated and with a popular inspirational speaker talking in the background. That is what they want, that is what they are willing to pay for, and if we can't provide what they want then we don't deserve to take their hard-earned money. It is the denigration of the business end of things that hurts our artists because it causes a disconnect between them and the wants/needs of their audience. We need to look at how we can make *more* money, not how we can make less. If we are making *more* money then that means that we are meeting the actual needs of people *better*. Now, I'm not advocating that we compromise our values. I don't think that all wants *should* be met, no matter how much money people are willing to pay. But I think we *should* examine what we *can* provide that people actually want. We should be looking at how we can increase the money we make with the caveat that we don't compromise our principles. Kenny Kemp is an example of how this can be done. He comes up with really creative ways to get his book into the hands of people who will pay money for it. Doing so increases the money he makes, but because we don't countenance force in our society, he has to do so by getting his book into the hands of people willing to pay for it. And I'm not advocating that we set our hearts on money (i.e. greed). I know as well as most the dangers of putting money above God, family, or church. What I am trying to point out is that money is how we track value and increasing the money you take in means that you have increased the value you provide to your fellow man. Putting that into the proper context will help us serve others in ways that are valuable and effective. Ignoring monetary concerns means that you are pretty much serving yourself first with little care for others. Money is not important in and of itself. It is *very* important, however, insofar as it indicates to us the wants and needs of our fellow man. Selfless service can be a very good thing. Selfless service can lift those who stand in great need and lack the means to fulfill those needs. But selfless service is best performed in your personal circle of acquaintances or when called upon by those who are familiar with the specific needs and details of a specific situation. Selfless service in a situation where you don't know those details, and aren't prompted by those who do know those details, runs a very real risk of exacerbating and not alleviating the situation. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:38:50 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Advances (was: Bye Bye Oprah?) At 03:29 PM 4/8/02, you wrote: >We could have more LDS books out there if LDS >presses offered royalty-only contracts without an advance. [snip] > I know a lot of writers who grouse about publishers, yet they >are unwilling to do without an advance. ???? Advance? What's an LDS advance? :-) Todd, the LDS market *already* won't offer advances--unless perhaps you're already a best-seller. They won't work with agents, either. They are complete opposites of national publishing methods. Other LDS-published authors--do you mind speaking up on this? Do you get advances for your books? I believe I'm right. While I agree with Todd's basic premise that money "curdles the arts" (amen--has there been much good dance music since the 80's?), in the case of LDS Publishing, it's not demand for advances that's stifling it. And yes, if you plan to remain an LDS-work-only author, definitely forget about money. The market is just too small (and too full of frugality) to generate much. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:02:42 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Good Young Adult Lit At 10:04 AM 4/9/02, you wrote: >The Moorchild, Eloise McGraw I second the vote for this one. I wanted to type it in but couldn't remember the author and was nowhere near my copy at the time. Thanks. Deerskin by McKinley *is* an excellent, but tough read. It is not graphic as to the one incest scene, but the emotional suffering of the protagonist is quite powerful and realistic. It's an incredible book but probably not something to recommend to all the sisters. I might reiterate the common thread I find among many LDS female readers, which I personally disagree with, but the opinion is out there: they don't like reading "hard" things. Not literary-wise, but subject-wise. These are books they call "depressing" even if they end up with happy endings. You may not find books well-received which cover the serious issues such as incest, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and the like--not to give to their children, anyway. But maybe, hopefully, you can expand some horizons! Anyway that's one reason I haven't thrown in a shameless self-promotion for my book. I don't think there's anything wrong with youth reading it, but some of the parents might think so. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:24:39 -0600 From: BJ Rowley Subject: [AML] re: Advances (was: Bye Bye Oprah?) Todd Petersen wrote: > >But what's wrong with a contract that says no cash for anyone until the >book makes money? I think publishers would go for it, but I think >writers wouldn't because there is some ego cash switch that people want >thrown. I know a lot of writers who grouse about publishers, yet they >are unwilling to do without an advance. This is curious and it >reinforces the business end of things. > Did I miss something? As far as I know, Covenant has never given an advance to an author ... especially a first-time author. They published my first two books, and I started getting royalties ONLY when the books started selling in the bookstores. And even then, they withheld a small percentage to cover potential returns. Granted, the publisher still needed to sell a substantial amount of my books to earn back their investment, before it was profitable for them, but there sure wasn't any advance given to me beforehand. I'm pretty sure Deseret Book works the same way. Probably others, too. Unless things have changed in the last couple of years. BJ Rowley Orem, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:25:03 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? Why does LDS history have to be clean. I was raised Catholic, so I don't care if people were perfect, because in that part of my life and faith, people weren't, but God was still God even if people were horrible. Did Brigham Young call out a hit on the Fancher party? I don't know, but I'll find out on the other side. It doesn't keep me from going to the temple. Mormon people spend too much time defending the faith, and it makes us seem like salesmen. We do it in our histories and in our literature. For a good example of this read Stegner's GATHERING OF ZION or MORMON COUNTRY. These are good even-handed books. The LDS history of the pioneers over venerates those people--in short it is false on many occasions. There was discord and the like on the trail. There was murmuring and apostasy, but our accounts rarely tell that, so maybe they break the commandment that we're not to bear false witness. Onto the matter of sanitization. I have a friend who is an immunologist. He says that only about 5% of the bacterial flora in our home environments is potentially harmful. The rest actually feeds on the other 95% percent. When we use anti-bacterial soaps and cleaners, we get rid of everything except the stronger bacteria. If those stronger strains are malevolent, they'll really do a number on us. I think the same thing happens with sanitized history. It can really run us down. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:08:24 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] OS Card Writing Class and Literary Boot Camp >From my experience with OSC, this should be extremely beneficial. He is unique in his ability not only to write superbly, but to explain how he does it. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:04:49 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Sharing Experiences "Clark Goble" quoted Harlow > ___ Harlow ___ > | What we think of as faults may be virtues. > ___ then said: > One can take ones weaknesses and use them to entrap the enemy. Thus > weaknesses can become strength. When I was an attorney in SoCal, I used to do this in my trial work. I would pretend that I was a dunce, totally unfamiliar with trial work, and often my opponents would be lulled into lack of preparation. I then swamped them in court. Unfortunately, after a while this tactic became too well known among my colleagues and I was always matched against the head partner of the firm that opposed me. Then I had to learn a new lesson: how to overcome my weaknesses completely and be really prepared! It was an interesting lesson, a confirmation of Sun Tzu's principles. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:21:11 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? RICHARD HOPKINS: >I've noticed some references on this list to LDS histories as "sanitized >versions," and wonder how the list feels about this issue. Are the more >official LDS histories sanitized, or do they simply omit rumors that have >no >basis in truth? ROB. LAUER: In my opinion these official histories are "sanitized"--though I'm opposed to that word: it infers that there are "dirty" facts that need to be "cleaned up." While there plenty in LDS history that might appear "questionable" in light of late 20th century and early 21st century notions of what is morally and politically correct, when one studies these events in the context of pre-Civil American politics and pre-Victorian morality, the perspective changes somewhat. Also, the first generation of Saints were trying to establish a new culture to contrast that of traditional Christian Orthodoxy--and they were the only religious sect in this period who succeeded. But with the advent of the 20th century and the Manifesto ending polygamy, that culture began to be absorbed (very slowly) into the American religious mainstream. Now, one hundred years later, many Church members are obsessed with being labeled "Christian"--something that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the pioneers couldn't have cared less about. Officially,the Church has recently asked that it not be called "Mormon" anymore. And that sound you hear is Brigham Young banging his head on his coffin lid. To accommodate such DRASTIC CHANGES and at the same time make it appear that these new ideas have always been part of Mormon culture, our history is being dramatically "sanitized." Actually, the facts are simply being ignored and forgotten. In this respect, however, Mormons are no different than other religious bodies who also "sanitize" their histories when the facts don't support the mythos they later develop when interpreting their beginnings. RICHARD HOPKINS: Having read much of the Documentary History of the Church, >written or kept by Joseph Smith, and the Comprehensive History of the >Church, by B.H. Roberts, it seems to me that the history of the Church has >been accurately presented to the best of knowledge available without bias. ROB. LAUER: I think that B.H.Robert's "Comprehensive History of the Church" is superior to "The Documentary History of the Church"--which was not written by Joseph Smith though the title page says otherwise. True,portions were written by the Prophet, but the history as published was compiled DECADES after his death using many sources. These sources were then re-written in the first person as if the history was a continuous first-person narrative by the Prophet. This is nothing new in religion. Much of the Bible is the result of the same--especially the New Testament: the four Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, and John ,and most of the Epistles credited to the Apostle Paul were actually written decades after these people died. Even Mormon abridged his history of the Nephites and Lamanites. None of this means that the events described and ideas presented are false. Even when the "Documentary History" was first published (around the turn of the century, if memory serves me), many Brethren wanted to omit Joseph Smith's greatest sermon, "The King Folliet Discourse" because it was considered too heretical by Orthodox Christians. (I read once that in the very first edition the sermon was indeed omitted, but I've never seen a first edition, and therefore, I can't verify that. RICHARD HOPKINS: >I am particularly interested in the history of Joseph Smith's practice or >non-practice of polygamy because it appears that some questionable evidence >in that regard has even been included in Church histories. Having reviewed >some of the evidence produced during the fight with the RLDS Church >regarding Joseph's supposed plural wives, I find it amazing that it was >ever >admitted to a court of law. Most was in the form of affidavits by members >regarding something they claimed had happened as much as 60 years earlier. >The fact that these events--supposed plural marriages to Joseph Smith--do >not fit the historical characters also bothers me. ROB.LAUER: Are you suggesting that the Prophet DID NOT practice polygamy? The evidence is overwhelming that he did. Brigham Young and every Apostle and Church President in the 19th and early 20th century testified that he did--as did his own plural wives. None of this is inconsistent with the "historical characters," though it is certainly inconsistent with the "sanitized 'historical' characters" that now populate such--for lack of a better word--whimsical works such as THE WORK AND THE GLORY series. Part of the culture that Joseph Smith gave his life trying to establish was one in which human sexuality and family structure was viewed differently than in the culture of Orthodox Christianity. For instance, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Eliza R. Snow and MANY other Church authorities of the day lambasted the sexual hypocrisy of the Victorian Age; philosophically they were opposed to Victorian romanticism. They preached that polygamy was the solution to prostitution, divorce, illegitimate births and poverty among single women and their children. All of this is absent from our current "sanitized" Mormon histories, though one has only to open THE JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES to find such teachings. (Interestingly, on the Editorial page of today's WASHINGTON TIMES [April 9,2002], in an opinion piece on the subject of the Federal Government introducing programs to strengthen marriages, the author brings up Mormons and polygamy. He states that even before Mormons were "coerced" by the Government to give up the theology that supported polygamy, polygamous Mormon families were just as stable and functional as the monogamous families of the day. This author even states that there has never been any evidence that monogamy is superior to polygamy; he points out that Arab Muslim families involved in polygamy are just as close as Western monogamous families.) RICHARD HOPKINS: I mean, Emma was nobody's >fool. I can't imagine Joseph pulling off a plural marriage with her around, >and she was constantly around. ROB. LAUER: Indeed, Joseph did NOT "pull off" plural marriage peacefully. Read the excellent biography of Emma Smith, "MORMON ENIGMA." RICHARD HOPKINS: She was adamantly opposed to the notion. ROB. LAUER: Indeed, she was. Their marriage was extremely "troubled" during the last years of Joseph's life--I believe because they DID love each other so much. Polygamy nearly tore them apart. Emma threatened to walk out on Joseph if he continued in polygamy--and, if memory serves me, she actually did leave him for short periods of time. Their troubled marriage is certainly understandable given the situation, and in no way does this deter from my testimony of the Gospel principles. (It was Brigham Young who once said something along the lines of "I don't care if Joseph did sleep with his neighbor's wives, the PRINCIPLES he taught will save you and me.") The Bible is filled with troubled marriages. Abraham and Sarah (the Father and Mother of the Faithful)are one example. Polygamy almost destroyed this marriage, and if one believes certain Jewish traditions, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice their own child DID destroy the relationship: according to one Jewish legend, after that event Sarah never spoke to Abraham again, and the grief over the event is what eventually killed her. Also King David, whom the Bible says was "the apple of God's eye," had a terrible marriage to his first wife, Michal, Daughter of Saul. Michal refused to sleep with her charismatic husband because of his popularity among the young girls of Jerusalem. Later she divorced him and married another man. Later, David conquered the area in which her husband lived, had Michal brought to him and forced her to remarry him. Then there was David's adultery with Bathsheba which led to the eventual birth of King Solomon--the builder of the first Temple of the Lord. David's own son raped his half-sister, and was then murdered by his half-brother Absalom, who then rebelled against David and attempted to overthrow him. Despite all of this sin, the later Biblical prophets used David as a type for the coming Messiah. When Christ entered Jerusalem the week that he was crucified, he was HAILED by the crowds as "The Son of David"--the then popular title of the expected Messiah. Compared to the personal lives of "the GOOD guys" in the Bible, Joseph's plural marriages were nothing at all. RICHARD HOPKINS: >Also, it appears that Joseph himself denied that plural marriage was being >practiced and suggested rather strongly that it was intended for a later >time and purpose (when the prophet would command that it be practiced). ROB. LAUER: The Prophet did deny it. He knew if he admitted to it that he would be murdered and the Mormons driven out of Nauvoo. When the apostate newspaper THE NAUVOO EXPOSITOR produced incontrovertible evidence of polygamy in its first and only issue, this is exactly what happened. Make no mistake about it, in the end it was polygamy that led to the Prophet's murder. But this is not mentioned in most of the "sanitized histories." RICHARD HOPKINS: I >suspect that he had reference to Brigham Young's era, when it was needed in >order to rapidly establish a large population of good Church members in >Deseret (Utah). ROB. LAUER: I have to disagree with you on that. This is the reason given in some "sanitized histories." Simply put, Joseph lied to the public in order to protect the Church from the narrow-minded mobs of his day. As a convert, I just don't' understand why modern Saints have such a problem with polygamy--especially in the sexually permissive society in which we now live. Polygamy was not "Free Love." Those who entered the practice saw their relationships as legitimate, committed marriages, sanctioned by God. RICHARD HOPKINS: Also, legally speaking, his word constitutes good evidence >that he was not engaged in the practice himself. (Of course, others think >he >lied about it to avoid criminal prosecution in the state of Illinois, but >that comes under the category of witness evaluation, and I have always been >impressed with Joseph's candor.) ROB. LAUER: I'm sorry, but this strikes me as complete historical fiction. If what you propose was true, then Brigham Young, the Twelve Apostles, Eliza R. Snow and all the other women who claimed to have been married to the Prophet,(ACTUALLY married, as in "they shared a bed with..")were complete liars. Oddly enough, you seemto be making the same arguement made by the founders of the RLDS Church (that Joseph was monogamous.) RICHARD HOPKINS: >Has anyone on the list done any serious research on this subject? ROB. LAUER Yes. I've been reseraching the subject since 1976. RICHARD HOPKINS: Todd >Compton wrote a book on it, but my opinion of his work is that he accepted >a >lot of rumors that would never have qualified as evidence, and were >probably >unreliable. ROB.LAUER One excellent book is MORMON POLYGAMY published by Signature Books. I thought Signature Books' other volume IN SACRED LONELINESS was excellent. (Where is the evidence that the author used "rumors." He most often quoted the wives and family members themselves.) Again I would recommend MORMON ENIGMA. Also JOSEPH SMITH: THE FIRST MORMON by Donna Hill. RICHARD HOPKINS: I don't want to start any theological discussions of this issue. >My interest is literary though not really fictional. Then again, a lot of >stuff that's been written about LDS history, and this issue in particular, >seems largely fictional to me. > ROB. LAUER: This last thing I want to do is be insulting, but your statement here completely astounds me if I understand it correctly. Do you mean that the Prophet's practice of polygamy seems fictional in and of itself? Or do you mean that his practice of polygamy has inspired a lot of fictional rumors? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:48:25 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? I don't think there's any question that "official" histories have been sanitized. And this, I think, is how it should be. There *should* be a place for faithful members to read Church history as the Church desires to represent itself. It often says more about the Church today than it does about the Church in history, and this is of great value. On the other hand, there is also a place for not-so-faithful history, presenting another side of the story. I have often used the picture of a large football field with the membership on the field, and the faithful and not-so-faithful historians at opposing goal posts. Each person finds his or her place on the field. Now, having said this, there are times when writers of both stripes will stretch the truth to make their point. This, in every case, is wrong. One big example I remember reading some years ago was in an old D&C manual. The entry on OD1 made a point that the Manifesto didn't so much end polygamy as it announced an already established fact -- that PM ended years before 1890, and this was the Church's way of announcing it to the world. Clearly this is not right. And I'm not clear I understand the motivation for writing something like this. Truth can be told in many ways. But what is written should always be true. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:02:12 -0700 From: Julie Kirk Subject: Re: [AML] Bye Bye Oprah? >> At 01:23 PM 4/5/02, you wrote: >> >Comment: So is Oprah saying there is not one good book per month? That >will >> >help the industry, right? >> >> Oprah only likes a certain kind of book -- apparently, depressing books >> about black people. She actually said that she would never feature a book >> with a happy ending. I tend to avoid any book with her recommendation on >> it, although I like her a great deal as a person. I guess I don't agree with this either. I've read a number of the books she has recommended, enjoyed some, though not all of them. But the first book I think I was truly amazed with (and maybe I'm just easy to amaze) is the book _Jewel_ by Brett Lott. Believe me, I am a reader - I read anything and everything from Tolkein to Vonnegut to Patricia Cornwall, though only occassionaly Mormon Lit because I just don't have easy access to it. This book amazed me because I could not BELIEVE it was written by a male author - the thoughts of the lead female character, Jewel, were so completely female and read so completely honest and real. I remember I kept checking the book jacket, checking the bio, etc convinced it was not a male that wrote that book. It is quite simply, IMHO, a beautiful book detailing a marriage that has it's ups and downs, and the trials and joy and sheer wonder of raising a child with Down's Syndrome. So, even if all the books she has recommended were not favorites, I'll always be grateful for being pointed in the direction of this one in particular. And it is by no means the only one I did enjoy, just one example that really sticks out in my mind. I will say that her choice of words in not continuing the book club were poor, but I would like to believe that maybe they came out harsher than she meant? I think she is only looking at contemporary fiction coming out now, that she has a certain type of book she likes and it doesn't include fantasy, but centers much more on relationships and reality. I can see where she comes from, that it is difficult to find a new book every month that she really does totally recommend in that vein. But I kind of have to think that the book industry survived just fine before she said that, and it will survive just fine afterwards. I believe her bookclub idea served the handful of authors she chose quite well, and maybe now that people are not being "lead by the nose" (so to speak) they'll look for books to read and that will actually open the field a bit. The one good thing she did was actually get people (people who maybe have a tendency to watch too much tv?) to *read* - it's a habit that, once started, is hard to stop. Julie Kirk Chino, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:11:41 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] TUNNELL, _Mailing May_ (BYU Universe) Y professor tells story of mailed girl By Heather Danforth NewsNet Staff Writer 4/8/2002 While researching a book he never finished, BYU professor Michael Tunnell stumbled onto the story of a 5-year-old girl mailed to her grandmother and turned it an award winning children's book. The few paragraphs that Tunnell, a BYU professor of teacher education, found eventually became "Mailing May," an American Library Association Notable Children's Book. The book detailed the adventures of a 48-pound girl mailed parcel post in 1914 under the designation of "baby chick." The National Postal Museum, part of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C., celebrated his work last month with a "Mailing May Day" for parents and children. The museum called him in February to invite him to attend. "Of course I didn't have to think even a second to agree to that," Tunnel said. "When the Smithsonian calls, you come." He autographed books and spoke to more than 100 people at the museum, and children participated in activities about his book and the U.S. Postal Service. "Mailing May" was published in 1997 as Tunnell's fourth illustrated picture book. To date, he has published eight books for a variety of genres. When he is not writing, Tunnell teaches children's literature to future schoolteachers at BYU and consults with students in an office that looks like the children's section of a public library. "Mike is the finest example of what a teacher ought to be," said Lloyd Alexander, a Newberry Medal winner and author of "The Prydain Chronicles," and a long-time friend of Tunnell. "He knows his subjects thoroughly and he has a gift of presenting them, not only in an interesting way, but in a stimulating and exciting way." Tunnell enjoys teaching students the value of good children's literature in reading education, he said. Although he once considered changing careers and attending law school, he realized that the work he was doing was too valuable to give up. "I realized how much I loved what I was doing with literature," he said. "I can teach future teachers how important it is to infuse children with a love of reading." Tunnell's experiences writing children's literature help him understand the creative process and the publishing world in ways he didn't before he began writing, he said. Alexander also sees a connection between Tunnell's teaching and his writing. "He is a fine writer, and he's a fine teacher, and he's a fine teacher of literature, because he's a good writer," he said. Tunnell's wife Glenna is an elementary school librarian, and she frequently reads his books to children during reading time. She is a good salesperson for his books, he said. "I love them," Glenna said. "They're just fun." She attributes her husband's success to his self-discipline. When he sits down to write, he spends the whole day at it, and his books are intensely researched. It took about five years of research and writing to create "Mailing May," Tunnell said. He visited original sites in Idaho, spoke with May's children and requested newspaper clippings and other information from historical societies. This research is typical, he said. "Good authors do that sort of thing," Tunnell said. And Tunnell is a good author, Alexander said. "Mike can write non-fiction and make it as fascinating as fiction," Alexander said. "He can also write fiction, whether or not it's based on real situations, and make it absolutely convincing." Copyright =A92002 BYU NewsNet _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:=20 http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #673 ******************************