From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #688 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 Tuesday, April 23 2002 Volume 01 : Number 688 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:19:30 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? Christopher Bigelow asked: > What exactly happened on Oct. 3? Was it just the standing up in his own > ward's Sunday school class, or is he referring to something else? I don't know. That was a Saturday, so I assume Gene is referencing a meeting with the Brethren. But that's only conjecture; I don't know. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:49:37 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference > > > > >I don't know about you, but I've had it up to here with people who seem to > >brag about their righteousness. You hear this all the time in Church > >("Last > >week, in the temple," "During morning study of the scriptures, I.."; > >."When > >my husband was a bishop...") I want to just stand up and remind them all > >about the parable of the Publican who publically announced his > >righteousness > >in his prayers and what the Lord said about such persons. > > But, Thom, maybe it really *did* happen last week in the temple or during > their morning scripture study or when her husband was a Bishop...those > things don't necessarily say to me "Hey look at how righteous I am" any more > than saying "The other day when I was walking" is bragging about my > mobility. I define humility (which I also profess to not have one iota of) as the inability to speak of one's own accomplishments in a positive light. Such public proclamations as I list above remind of the Publican braggin about how often he pays tithing while standing on the street corner while the truly humble sinner can hardly raise his eyes to heaven. I think the Lord wants us to see an example in that parable. Basically, "Keep your righteousness between you and me. No one else has to know about it." There is a difference between bragging about one's righteousness and one's mobility. The second one does not make one appear to be "holier-than-thou." Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:23:49 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] Graffiti Art Marvin Payne wrote: >I'm just resonating with Eric's bold "IDEA of Art." Is there a "graffiti" >art, even in various disciplines, that ought to be defended? Or that might >even be useful in advancing the Kingdom? It may be about the only form left >if all the bucks dry up. There's a lot of graffiti art worth defending, and although my respect for private property leads me to prefer such art on commissioned (or abandoned) spaces, I think graffiti art in general brings a great deal of value to society for a relatively minor violation of social mores. Check out this web site for resources that examine the distinction between "art" and "vandalism," at least as defined by some: http://www.graffiti.org/ There are also some great photo archives of graffiti art & murals. Many graffiti artists go legit. A good friend of mine has had probably hundreds of spraypaint murals commissioned (there were still dozens in various spots in Portland, OR, when I last lived there, but I don't know how many are still around), a few of which can be seen here: http://www.alek.org/murals/ And here are a couple of his earlier, non-legit efforts on top of an abandoned warhouse visible from I-84 in SE Portland (I took the photo): http://www.shrubwalkers.com/photos/stony.jpg I, myself, made a couple of abortive stabs at graffiti when I was a teenager -- despite the fact that I'm no artist (not much of a visual artist, at any rate). I remember one time I "decorated" a concrete wall in a neighborhood playground with a friend at about 3 a.m. (we thought it looked nice, and there was nothing offensive about it -- other than the existence of the graffiti in and of itself, of course). The next afternoon we were dismayed to find a woman and a child already in the process of painting over it with what seemed at the time to be the most drab shade of gray we'd ever seen. I felt a mixture of loss at having lost my creation so soon, and guilt at having caused a couple of people to lose their afternoon to the eradication of an admittedly selfish act of expression that they clearly didn't appreciate. Even though I was conflicted at the time about painting on someone else's property, I vowed that if I ever owned my own house or commercial property, I'd invite neighborhood graffiti artists to decorate it for me... Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:24:42 EDT From: MarieUtah@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Graffiti Art In a message dated 4/22/2002 1:50:54 PM Mountain Standard Time, Paynecabin@aol.com writes: > I chose, at a certain point, to stop being offended by graffiti on freight > cars. I thought, "Dang it, a lot of this is somebody's passionately felt > idea > of art." And I had to admit that some of it looked kind of cool and > interesting. I suddenly felt that the "artists" had some rights--that there > > was something virtuous in overpainting the ugliness of freight cars and > other > surfaces that no one cared enough about to make them be beautiful. I feel the same way about the freight cars. Driving through Salt Lake recently I mentioned to my husband that "taggers" should be invited to do their very best art on the sides of the freight cars. That way the train would function as a moving art gallery and the work of the artists would be on display across the country. People would talk about "sightings" of particularly good work and the taggers could feel some pride in accomplishment. I think it's fun when someone else has similar thoughts. I sometimes wonder if I'm a tad eccentric. =D Shirley Hatfield - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:30:08 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Tone in Persuasive Writing Harlow Clark wrote: > Thus the tone, the open disrespect towards another scholar, helped me > decide I would rather read Durham's article. That's a profoundly > literary > question: What effect does the tone of our apologetics have on the > people > they're putatively supposed to help convince? > - --AND-- > > So while I like a great deal of what F.A.R.M.S. does (particularly the > Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (which I haven't read much of either), > I'm > wary of its tone. I think we could have some good discussion on tone in > LDS writing, and its effects on audience, particularly since we produce > so much apologetic, hortatory, didactic and devotional writing. Harlow has better captured much of what I was referring to in my post on 'subsidiary discources' in my March 7 post on the "Educating an Audience" thread. I'm going to take the liberty of re-posting part of my discussion because it pertains to my comments below: "Because the official discourse of Mormonism already has a strong print culture (the scriptures, church magazines, and conference talks being the most widely-disseminated examples), it's easy to see why some Mormons don't feel the need for more. Their identity is already reinforced by the official discourse. This official discourse must by necessity be as orthodox as possible because it has to reach the widest swath of Mormon culture. This is further complicated by the fact that it is trying to reach an international audience along with an audience of converts that do not have the same cultural foundation as much of the 'historic' Mormon audience. I have no problem with this strategy although I think that the brethren could be a little less careful at times. I don't see Mormon literature as successfully challenging this discourse, nor do I think most Mormon artists want to do that. However, I do believe there is a field of struggle. Alongside the official Mormon discourse there are subsidiary discourses in the form of doctrinal commentary, non-fiction works (self-help), historical work, political discourse, and discourses built around things like food storage, family history, missionary work and 'Mormon values' (i.e. books and products that keep Mormons 'unspotted' from the world) etc. Part of the problem for Mormon literature, as I see it, is that many of these discourses are much better established than Mormon literature. Both in terms of market share and products available and in terms of what marketers call 'mind share' (the legitimacy of a product or brand in the minds of prospective consumers)." The discourse of apologetics that Harlow refers to above is one of the primary subsidiary discourses in Mormon thought. It is a highly seductive discourse because it reinforces aspects of official Mormon discourse in a seemingly rational, scholarly manner. It is also a form of discourse that (obviously) directly counters those scholars and Christian activits who actively try to poke holes in Church history, doctrine and practice. It's also great because it can accomodate lay-scholars and even better because it lends itself to the back and forth, nit-picking style of the Internet. Harlow mentions in his post, specifically the tone of apologetics. What is most disturbing to me about the tone I perceive in apologetic discourse is that it is not only antagonistic, but it is also shrillfully, willfully embattled. Language is used not to add nuance or to elucidate but to combat. As Harlow mentions, it breeds an us versus them stance. It also channels thinking in one direction and to one conclusion only. It is concerned very much with sources (and both sides tend to source only from those that agree with them, or when sourcing the opposition to reduct and decontextualize the other side). I also seem to recall (when reading apologetic texts) experiencing leaps of logic or odd parallelisms that strain my standards for credulity. Apologetics fosters a way of reading that is highly selective. Evidence is either rejected, seized upon or simply ignored. One searches only for the pieces that will easily fit into the "Mormon paradigm," whether that be by affirming historical evidence or by suggesting striking parallels. Reading is not a dialogue, but a scavenger hunt. That said, I see room for apologetics. I accept the notion that people like to know that there are responses to the charges of our critics. I also think that the kind of research that apologetics can lead to is wonderful. Mormon scholars and readers are much more engaged with historical and theological texts because of it. And I have no problem with not completely staying within the bounds of accepted academic discourse. Nibley, although he has his faults, has created some compelling work---even though there are many who would quibble with the way he uses sources. Of course, Nible uses a more literary, even metaphorical, approach in my point of view. He looks to stretch the Mormon paradigm in many cases---to show us our gaps, gaps that Joseph Smith and others anticipated but that we don't really see. And that's something I relate to well. As I see it, the danger in apologetics is when it becomes simply a game, when research moves from discovery to anticipation of the moves of the opponent. Literature is also a kind of game. But its attributes of complexity, nuance and ambivalence, of narrative, metaphor and characterization are, imo, an excellent way of exploring life, history and theology without supplanting (although there is room to challenge) official Mormon discourse (the Gospel, if you will). That's why the scriptures work and yet are so maddeningly complex. Imagine the Bible or Book of Mormon stripped of narrative. Even the Doctrine and Covenants takes on complexity with the life of Joseph Smith and the history of the Church as its background (plus I love the language of the Doctrine and Covenants--the metaphors employed, the doctrine elucidated, but that's my bias). Apologetics is the mark of a young, insecure faith. We are just that. But I'd prefer to see more of our energy focused on how our beliefs shape our conception of society and history and how they affect the way we live. What are the repercussions of this whole free agency thing? What exactly do we believe about the nature of evil? Why and how does mortality and temporality help us become more like God? Why families, and what happens when families don't work? Why is our religion so pragmatic in its practice and yet so mystical in its beliefs and ordinances? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:07:54 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Tone in Persuasive Writing In a message dated 4/22/02 1:51:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Paynecabin@aol.com writes: << The other day I heard Richard Dutcher say that he thought that "Honesty will serve the aims of propaganda better than propaganda ever will." I don't know the connection, if any, between propaganda and apologetics, hortatorics, didactics, or devotics, but I thought I'd report it, because it kind of rang for me. >> Lest anyone think me wiser than I am, the above quote is an extension of an idea Eric Eliason shared with me after I spoke with his BYU Mormon Literature class. I suppose, in regards to Mormon letters, we should say something like: "Sincerity and honesty from Mormon artists will serve the missionary aims of the gospel more effectively than church propaganda ever will." Something like that. Just a thought. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:57:13 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art - ---Original Message From: Laraine Wilkins > There's a real stereotype among the world's elite > culture experts that the U.S. has no "real" culture. The > definition of culture is one that is perhaps narrowly defined > for such elites, and perhaps one could argue that the best, > most original American art is really its commercial kitsch. > But there is something to be said for helping U.S. artists to > be included among the most innovative, cutting edge, > interesting, fantastic, disturbing in the world. It helps > give the U.S. a better name in the rest of civilization. But why? What's the point of getting a better name in the rest of civilization? And is that really possible, anyway? What benefit will we receive that justifies the burden of the added taxes? That Cultural Elites *might* like us better isn't much of an incentive to me. I disagree with much of their sense of aesthetics, anyway, so appeasing them isn't appealing to me. And it's an endeavor I don't think we can really accomplish anyway. Cultural elites will bash the United States until we are exactly like them--and maybe even then. Be honest, the European Elites don't like us for a lot of reasons pretty much unconnected to how we fund our arts. And finally, peer pressure wasn't very compelling to me when I was a teen-ager and I find it even less compelling now. Not that we should reflexively denigrate European elites, their tastes, or methods of supporting the arts. But doing things a certain way just because that's how others are doing it and they won't like us as much unless we do things like them isn't a very good reason for doing them. If the European Elites jumped off a cliff . . . Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:57:59 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Center Street Oops Hey Friends, I chimed in on a number of threads on Saturday after the ward clean-up and bonfire up the canyon, and I was too tired to be trusted with a computer. Of course, the metaphor in the following congratulatory note is reversed. Oops. << Thom, May you three husbands-in-law break a leg. If the bride is Christ, the marriage ought to work.>> Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! __________________ "...come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:17:39 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference During the most recent General Conference (Thom, I don't mean that to sound like "while attending the temple" or "somewhere near the conclusion of my daily 4:00 am scripture hour") I wrote down what Elder Holland said about how Satan whispers to us that if the Lord is smiling on someone else, He must be frowning on us. The next weekend I spent a couple of days examining that notion very carefully, and realized with a jolt that a film of envy hangs over my professional life. I have been responding to the successes of others by either devaluing them or scrambling for ways to exploit them. It was an awakening, and if I can genuinely repent, my life and work will be a whole lot more like what the Lord sent me here to do. Conference is like a meal at which we are waited upon by swift angels. They put in front of us a variety of foods. If we seem disinterested, they sweep them away and put something else in front of us. If we fall asleep, they gently clear the table so completely that when we wake up, it doesn't appear that there has been a meal at all. When I have come to the table hungriest, I have been fed best. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! __________________ "...come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:52:29 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Laraine Wilkins wrote: > I find Eric Samuelsen's argument about encouraging dissenting (potentially > offensive) viewpoints through artistic expression to be infinitely compelling. _Infinitely_ compelling?! How extraordinary! > I'd like to offer another argument in favor of government-supported art > projects, namely, that it helps promote a certain kind of ambassadorship among > the most elite > art communities in the world. My populist side bristles a little at that word "elite." It's not that I'm not elitist - I've been extremely vocal in arguing for higher admission standards to our college, and I don't like to pay good money to see bad art. But when we talk about elite art communities and intellectual elites, we often mean, "people we want to impress" or "people like us," that is, people with our tastes or who appreciate our tastes. To be honest, I can't imagine why we want to impress the artistic elites of Europe. Doesn't that usually involve trying to be like them, and isn't that antithetical to the idea of art? Mormon art is a way to let the world see the world through Mormon eyes, and American art should let the world see itself through the lenses of American eyes (whatever that means - sometimes when I write about the arts, the economist in me tells me I've left the path of virtue and am using the glitteriest of generalities). I doubt the artistic elites of the world will ever be impressed by that, especially given that: > All of these arguments against government support of the arts seem to be > grounded in a very American way of looking at things... There _is_ an American way of looking at things, one that my European friends persist in seeing as naive - sometimes amusingly naive, sometimes terrifyingly so. That very American way of looking at things is only meaningful if it translates into our broader culture - politics, economics, and ethics. Otherwise it's like a costume, a cultural pair of boots and a cowboy hat that we put on just for local color. We _do_ see things differently, and getting back to the subject at hand, that includes seeing art as something popular, not just for the elites. Art for the elites can be funded by the elites. They can afford it. Art isn't just cultural, it's political, and our political system is broadly democratic (republican, but the _demos_ has its say). That doesn't mean that we vote on art, or even vote on which art to fund, but a funding decision that involves tax-money must be fundamentally democratic - subject to review, comment, and approval by the people - else it's un-American. In that even the art that's produced is only American in the trivial sense; it's so much local color. > The best art films from Germany are probably much better known around the > world through promotion by the various Goethe Institutes than they were in > Germany > itself. You seem to be promoting the idea of art as national propoganda. American popular culture is so heavily imported by European countries that U.S. government attempts to influence our cultural image through the promotion of alternatives would almost certainly be lost in the background noise. The problems facing German and American film artists aren't symmetric, not in the least. > There's a real stereotype among the world's elite culture experts that the > U.S. has no "real" culture. The definition of culture is one that is perhaps > narrowly defined for such elites... It is indeed, and I wonder why we care so much about that stereotype. If the German government needs to step into the film industry to ensure that something other than porn is produced (surely an exageration on your part!), one need hardly worry about what German critics think of American culture, let alone the German masses. If Germans think our culture isn't real, it's because they're watching the buxom Pamela Lee (a Canadian, by the way) ask, "Mitch, vas ist loss?" on their own television sets. There are arguments to be made for government support of the arts, and I buy some of them (though I find them only finitely compelling), but I don't believe that only the experts can or should decide what art is, decide what should be funded, and decide which artists will flourish. Only rich people who get to fund their own art should get to do that. Some here don't like the idea of artists being beholdin' to patrons, but if the government funding decision is left to an elite group that doesn't face public scrutiny, you simply create a patron committee. Is that really better than letting the public have its say? Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:10:59 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Activism - ---Original Message From: Gae Lyn Henderson Gae Lyn had a number of small responses to my post on activism, but I think the essence of it is in her conclusion and I'll respond to the general rather than all the specifics. > I believe you must follow what your heart and conscience > tells you to follow--The Church as an entity only exists to > teach the individual to become a free agent who acts with > moral responsibility. Obedience is not a virtue if it is > practiced against one's social or moral conscience. I agree with your first point that each must follow their heart and conscience. That is certainly true and I don't want to detract from that message. I would only add the caveat that both heart and conscience are many-layered and many ideas and philosophies can find comfort there with varying degrees of certainty and rank. In following heart and conscience, I think it is important to remain as informed as possible, to be as open as possible, and to weigh carefully the meaning, implications, and consequences of what you find there. Action should be informed by heart and conscience, but an unexamined belief can be more dangerous than unthinking action. Sometimes, the uncertainty, or low priority of a belief justify a compromise where pain and suffering can be averted. I believe that my neighbor does himself a disservice walking around in just his shorts but that belief is of a low priority and frankly, I could be lacking key information, so I don't act on that belief and risk my otherwise good relationship with him. I disagree with your next point (that the Church as an entity only exists to teach the individual to become a free agent who acts with moral responsibility). That may be one reason the Church exists, but it is not the only reason--or even the most important reason. The Church exists to administer Priesthood authority, to lift the weary, comfort those who mourn, teach the gospel, stand as a beacon to all nations, build temples, pool resources for worthy projects, administer the sacrament (and other essential ordinances), correct doctrinal impurities (i.e. enforce dogma if you wish to see it that way), to bring members together for companionship and support and other purposes I can't list off the top of my head. Further, the Church has, as its head, Jesus Christ and I try to inform my conscience based on His precepts. I think that heart and conscience have to follow priorities--particularly when ideas or beliefs come into conflict. In the hodge-podge that most of us deal with in our internal dialogues, we need to have a way to choose the better part. The Church isn't the same as God, so I separate them in my list of priorities. That said, my list of priorities goes God, Family, Church and then spreads out from there. To me, the Church trumps politics, philosophy, work, play, hobbies, and ideologies. The virtue of Obedience (to me) follows that list. Obedience to the Church (for me) trumps work, politics, play, hobbies and even ideologies. If I believe that the Church is wrong about something, I'll speak up, and if I think they're wrong about God or my family, I'll disobey. In a heart beat. Anything less, though, and it isn't worth it to me. So that is what I mean when I say that activists (of whatever stripe) who make the personal political can then put politics into a realm it doesn't naturally occupy and find themselves drifting from the Church. If you place politics in a category that is above Church in priority, then it shouldn't be a huge surprise if you find yourself gradually separating from the Church. That is a natural consequence of having the priorities that you (plural, hypothetical, not Gae Lyn) do. As you follow your conscience, the ideas that are political that are in conflict with the ideas that are from the Church will win your attention and your action. I don't mind if others have priorities different from my own. They have their own conscience and stewardships and a key part of my belief in God prohibits force in matters of conscience with very specific exceptions. I can see how others might have priorities that would place things like politics, or social agenda above the Church. I *have* seen that happen with people I love and admire. But I don't share those priorities and I have no problem saying that a consequence of those priorities can be separation with the Church. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:18:21 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: [AML] Writing/Editing Work Ideas After eighteen years in data processing, the bottom fell out of my = industry in this area in the last few months. I imagine it will pick up = again, but I am not really in a position to wait for something that may = not happen. I am applying for student financial aid and to enter a two-year program = that leads to certification to do addiction counseling in the state of = Oregon. For the next two years, I need to find a way to make some money = to help support my family. My wife is being laid off by CES and will = also be looking for a job. My earning potential in my present vocation, = when I can get work, is much greater than hers. We will not be able to = live on her income alone. I expect I'll get some kind of financial aid, = but not enough to support the family. This week, we are sending the = first of three sons on a mission to the Philippines. Just when we need = more money, not less, we both get laid off. I love life. I am looking for ideas about ways I can earn money through writing, = proofreading, editing, groveling, etc. My web sites make virtually no = money, even though they help a good many people. I'm not talking about = getting published. I'll always pursue that. I'm thinking more along the = lines of piecework of various kinds. When the economy can (hopefully soon) support more DP professionals, I = can return to it easily enough, but it isn't what I really want to do. I = want to do social work and write about social issues. If y'all don't mind a little brainstorming, I could use some ideas. Rex Goode - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:35:21 -0100 From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: [AML] Writer/Editor in DC Area? Hi, sorry to post an off-topic question, but I was wondering if anyone on this list living near the Washington DC area might know of any job leads in writing and editing; or, alternatively, if someone knows of someone living in the DC area with such leads. I'm a new graduate of Columbia's School of the Arts and am looking to move there next month. Thanks, Tom Johnson thj5@columbia.edu - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:46:15 -0600 From: "gae lyn henderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference Tracie: >Maybe no one you and Jeff knows has repented after conference. Or maybe a >lot of members make changes in their lives in whatever small or large degree >because of something they heard at conference and they just haven't told the >world about it. Maybe some members prepare to put on a show, and maybe some >think RS is a safe environment to share their hopes for the experience and >love and support each other in their efforts. I agree with you Tracie. I think you are completely right that motives vary. I did try to allow for that with my phrase "heartfelt humility" when describing the members who did indeed make thoughtful changes in their lives after listening to General Conference, reading the scriptures, or at many other points of inspiration in their lives. My husband pointed out to me that he introduced me to the term "competitive righteousness" (and I have to agree with Marvin Payne that it is not a weapon/term to be thrown about lightly--maybe only applied to onself?), but my husband said he noticed that tendency to some degree while a student at BYU (to be competitive about righteousness), when it seemed a common tendency to let others know of one's rigorous adherence to duty. Gae Lyn Henderson > _____________________________________________________ ___________ Sent via the Mstar2 mail system at mail.mstar2.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:54:34 -0600 From: "gae lyn henderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference As you may have noticed Amy, several people were not pleased at the way I point out this dutiful expression of Mormon spirituality. I was actually trying to point out exactly how people do take Conference very seriously. Mormon culture is often very devout and intense. Gae Lyn - ---------- Original Message ------------------------- - --------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" >> >Ah, what a lovely topic for a Sugar Beet article. Do you mind if I use it? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:25:41 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Announcing: Center Street Theater Will you be posting audition notices on the list for those of us who live in Salt Lake County? Surely hope so. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:11:07 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Snider in S.L. Weekly Though y'all might like to know our own Eric Snider made this year's Best of Utah issue of S.L. Weekly. The citation: BEST UNREAD HUMOR COLUMN Eric Snider's "Snide Remarks" Who says no one in Utah County has a sense of humor? Well, we have on occasion, but never mind. Provo's Daily Herald employs one of the state's funniest writers in Eric Snider, a Renaissance man who also co-founded the now-defunct Garrens comedy troupe and doubles quite capably as the Herald's film critic. His satirical insider takes on Utah culture--including his brilliant series of Olympics columns--are often hilariously caustic, enough to inspire plenty of humorless angry responses from Utah County readers. OK, so maybe Eric's the one exception. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:04:46 -0700 From: Julie Kirk Subject: Re: [AML] Graffiti Art Personally, there is alot of graffiti that I like. But let me put that in a context - I've gone to school with former graffiti artists. I've taught a number of graffiti artists. I don't like big ugly names on walls - I do like the graphic lettering and design. Some artists steal the paint - and some don't. One of my art teachers gave us this quote regarding graffiti art - "Graffiti is the cry of an entire generation of poverty". There is something very real and raw about good graffiti - maybe too real for some people. And the reason that it happens is sometimes as simple as marking territory, like a dog on a tree. But part of the reason it happens is a defiant act against a society that many people feel holds them down. I'm not going to deny or defend that position, but it is part of the reality behind why people paint graffiti. So, useful in advancing the kingdom? I guess I can say that I have seen graffiti artists use their work as a creative outlet and a way to express themselves, so does that count? And, while it doesn't happen all of the time, I've seen some of the artists to go on to "official" roles as artists. So that would be an advance also, I think. I think one very important aspect of what graffiti does do, is it is pretty much documenting a side to society that we don't always think about. It's hard to ignore. So, advancing the kingdom or not, my personal opinion is that graffiti does have artistic merit. Maybe the part of advancing the kingdom comes when we find people like this who have this talent and ability, and help them channel it, to use it as a way to pull themselves up. I kind of like that idea. As a side note - some forms of graffiti actually began as a way to make money. Street painting, which is my art form, is one of these. Julie Kirk - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:14:51 EDT From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Silencing the Internal Critic In a message dated 4/23/02 8:44:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, JenniferV@vmh.com writes: > Then some other stuff happened, and > I haven't written in almost two decades, and the urge is scratching to get > out, but I know I can't write, or write well [enough to silence the inner > critic] unless I KNOW someone will read it.) > Dear Jennifer and all: Oh, Jennifer. This is my story. Please, please write to me off line and I will send you my first person story of how my novel took 40 years to gestate. For me I just convinced myself that everything else was more important--my husband, my kids, my new career with my husband (because, after all, it was "designed" so that I could be more with him and with the kids), but the result was the same. That novel almost didn't get written excepting for a bout with cancer that taught me a few things about taking care of yourself (even if you're a woman!) Read Ann Lamott's book, Bird by Bird. She talks about writing a "shitty first draft" (her words, not mine) because you can always fix that draft later and you won't write if you're too caught up in the work being "good." She has a way with language (the above quote not being typical) and anecdote that make it really worthwhile and entertaining reading. You will be inspired! Gotta go rework that--you know what--first draft! (-: Let me know if you need me for a cheerleader! Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:16:11 -0700 From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Gen. Conference I need to get in here. Thom writes, "There is a difference between bragging about one's righteousness and one's mobility." There probably is a difference, but you're the one saying that they're bragging about their righteousness. To me, they're talking about their lives and trying to put their experiences in context. Some may be nervous and feel the need to introduce their comments. But bragging? I think you read too much into their comments. Greg Taggart - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #688 ******************************