From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #705 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, May 9 2002 Volume 01 : Number 705 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 14:59:04 -0600 From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire I spent my teenage years as a scout in the Adirondack Park and every year we had bears in our campsite. They would saunter in around lunchtime, scatter us to the trees and steal our food. After they had left we would go and pick up what they had left, usually the lunch meat... Peter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:01:13 -0500 (CDT) From: pichtj@nsula.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art I appreciated Steve Perry's comments on writing as work. People occasionally tell me that what I do isn't really work, or that I don't work in the real world (whatever that is). In a way I agree - I'm lucky enough to enjoy doing something that also pays a regular salary. I just took a break from reading student essays to read some Nabokov, and before I go home I'll play the piano for a while (I have one in my office). I spent an hour this morning discussing European labor laws and the perils of the Euro experiment with a colleague. Is this work? Yes, it is. I'm planning to develop a course on Nabokov (yes, I'm an economist, but teaching in an interdisciplinary honors college means never having to say "I can't teach that"), I'm playing some of the prelude and postlude music for our commencement, and I'm working on a paper about the effects of EU agricultural policy on former East Bloc countries. All of which offers some sort of value to someone. Work isn't about breaking a sweat or a fingernail. It isn't about getting dirty, nor is it about making something that someone can touch. It's about improving the lives of people around you, about making your society a better place. If the baker wants to bake loaves of bread and then toss them in the lake, fine, but that's not work. If he sells one to me, he makes both of us better off, and that's honorable work. My piano teacher works (I wouldn't pay him if he didn't), Marie-Claire Alain works (I'm listening to her performance of a Widor organ symphony as I write this), and the person who came up with the beurre blanc recipe I'll be using for dinner tonight works. They take resources (if only their time and fertile imaginations) and turn them into something worth more than what they started with. That's work. Mormons have a distorted view of work. Hugh Nibley once remarked that we have more respect for the man who gets up early to write bad manuals than for the one who sleeps in until ten and writes a masterpiece. We hold in higher esteem the person who paints houses than the person who paints canvases, probably because the former is doing something practical and certain to be remunerative. It's a puritanical point of view, as Steve noted, holding that work is a function of sweat, misery, and wages. It's a view enshrined in our tax code, the differentiation between "earned" and "unearned" income (that "unearned" income often results from the willingness to put resources into the financial systems that are the life-blood of a modern economy and to manage them - work as important as making steel). It's the belief that making other people better off is just a happy side-effect of work, irrelevant to the nature of work. Painting, writing, and playing the piano well are all work, though usually of a very poorly paid variety. If it's wealth you want, get an MD or open a dry-cleaning establishment. Mormons are often enamored of medical and business schools - very practical, very dependable wages, high likelihood of being able to take care of your family while serving as a stake president. I'm happy there are people who learn to be anaesthesiologists - I wouldn't want an operation without one - and I don't begrudge them their enormous fees (well, to the extent that those fees are due to a badly functioning medical industry I do, but not to the extent that they represent the high cost of getting that training and the very inelastic nature of supply and demand in that market). I also don't much regret the low pay of artists and writers. In the nature of markets, these things just are, sort of like gravity. I have much more to say on this, but I don't suppose this is the forum for a lengthy discourse on the economics of labor markets and the price system. Let me just note that I think it's sad that so many people have jobs they dislike, or study to enter professions they don't care about but which offer financial security. Work isn't about being miserable, but many of us think that that's a natural part of the work experience. Our priorities and expectations are distorted, I think. Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:21:05 EDT From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith In a message dated 5/8/02 1:55:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > >> The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral > >> character in his personal life as well as on screen. > > > >"In his personal life" I understand, but "on screen" absolutely baffles > >me. How is the actor going to lead an immoral life on screen? At least > >without the director and editor being in cahoots with him. > > > That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have > portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. > > Thank you all for this conversation. My husband submitted for an audition. I don't think he caught this, so I'm copying this post for him. Though he hasn't had a long screen career, he does have a psychotic part in a movie that has yet to be released. Mmmm. Wonder if that would count? 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: Wed, 8 May 2002 15:11:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] QUINN, _Elder Statesman_ (Review) Just an excellent review by Jeff Needle of Quinn's "Elder Statesman." I am reading the book myself and was thinking of reviewing it, but after Jeff's, I can't think of much more that can be said:-) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:16:22 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism >Ronn: >Many, if not most, environmentalists seem to think that the ultimate cause >of all environmental problems is overpopulation. I came across this in an up-close-and-personal way recently when I moved to Seattle (land o' liberal). One of my co-workers is a very dedicated zero-populationer and when Bill Gates and his wife (Melissa? Melinda?) announced they were having another baby she just went ballistic. You would have thought they had announced that they had the cure for AIDS but had decided to keep it as their own little secret. Such anger! It blew me away. To be honest, until I met my co-worker I never thought of zero-population in terms other than those of Saturday's Warrior. Now I know that crazy ideas never really die. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 15:52:29 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing - --- Jonathan Langford wrote: > "Nature writing" per se is a very narrow literary vein. I'm not > surprised > that we haven't seen much of it in Mormon letters. I don't see much of > it > in the western literary tradition. Literature, on the whole, tends to > be > about humans; literature that takes nature as its major focus will > always, > I suspect, be a minor literary footnote at best. Still, there are a > number > of genres where nature shows up in an important way, and those genres > have, > I think, a healthy representation within the Mormon tradition: > nature-oriented poetry and poetic imagery (e.g., the writing of John S. > Harris, and I believe Sally Taylor too); western writing; science > fiction > and fantasy (e.g., Shayne Bell); and probably pioneer journals and > narratives as well. As a result of Jonathan's post and the thread as a whole, I've been trying to think of some narrative tensions that might make for distinct Mormon narratives. Something that isn't exactly "Nature Writing" but dramaticez narratives that relate to Mormon attitudes toward the environment. What I came up with could actually be extended to other communities in the West, but here we go... One of the interesting tensions that I witnessed growing up in southern Utah and something that continues to fascinate me is the way Mormons living in the West express themselves in relation to nature, in particular, it seems to me that many Mormons connection to the land has moved from that of harsh place that nevertheless provides the means to survive and make a living (or not in many cases) to that of a recreational wilderness. The desert has blossomed like a rose so let's pluck it and put it in a vase for our own enjoyment. This manifests itself in two major ways, I think: One is a slavish devotion to gardening and the other is an emphasis on outdoor recreation. I like the gardening thing (although I am always cracked up by Thorsten Veblen's observation that the American lawn is a trope taken from the European aristocracy who had large lawns to prove that they not only held pasture land but could afford to not graze animals on it), but I have mixed feelings about the outdoor recreation thing -- hunting, tearing through the desert on motorcycles and ATV's, waterskiing and boating at Lake Powell, etc. Now it's been a while since many Mormons have had to eke out their living through the land, but it seems like my grandparents generation has a different way of looking at nature than my parents (baby boomers) generation. The saints have always had outdoor recreation, but I see distinct change in tenor that began with the 50s and, imo, got worse in the 80s. This trend I goes hand in hand, I think, with the suburbanizing of Mormon cities and even small towns (where the homes became pre-fab, the occupations more professional, service or business oriented, the attitudes and fashions more in line with mainstream American culture, etc.). Okay, a couple of concrete examples: The tension that arises when motorcyclists tear through a rancher's (or sheepherder's) main grazing area, creating ruts, fowling water troughs, littering, etc. The tension that occurs when the poorer families in town can't get hunting permits because the guy that runs the office has given him to his buddies, or they can afford to buy more up, or whatever. This is especially difficult when the poor families are the older, more established families (i.e. grandpa and his seven wives settled there back in 1874 or 19ought6), and the folks with the big trucks and the new guns, etc. are 'newcomers.' That's what I can come up with at the moment. I'm sure there are other situations, and it's quite likely that there are already some examples of Mormn fiction out there that pick up on this theme. All I'm saying is that considering that while many of us agree that latter-day saints aren't 'anti-nature,' there is room for exploring the range of LDS attitudes toward the environment and how they create tension in modern (or recent) LDS life and society. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 18:44:36 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Church News Articles What is the cover story of this issue? I pick up my issues at the Mormon Batallion Visitors Center and don't want to miss it. Thanks. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 22:15:27 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism I heard a similar story on NPR. The focus seemed to be on an only child not only having aging relatives to support, but also four grandparents. It talked about how the changing economy is allowing more Chinese to circumvent the monetary and educational penalties for having more than one child. I'm not real up on the zero population argument, but I don't think that the rate of death in other countries should somehow make us feel good about our level of repopulation. I'm not saying I'm against having large families. Just that I don't think some other countries dire straights should factor very largely in our reasoning. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- > > Another interesting issue I recently read (and sorry, can't remember where > now--probably the newspaper) said that China is running into a problem they > hadn't predicted with their one child policy: no extended family support. > They now have a generation with increased problems that run the gamut from > crime and drugs to poverty because no one has siblings, no one has aunts or > uncles, no one has a family to fall back on for support. (Not to mention the > lack of females to marry because of aborting and killing female babies and > the nasty problems that is generating, like forced marriages for the man who > bids highest and prositution.) > > Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 20:17:41 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art If the baker wants to bake loaves of bread and then toss them in the lake, fine, but that's not work. If he sells one to me, he makes both of us better off, and that's honorable work. Jim Picht So . . . that means unless I publish and sell--then I'm not working? If I sell well, does that mean I'm working more than if I sell poorly? And raising children . . . it's not work getting them off to school and changing diapers unless I sell one or two? Wait . . . I just got an idea. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 20:48:33 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Environmental Questionnaire Peter Chamberlain: ... [The bears] would saunter in around lunchtime, scatter us to the trees and steal our food. After they had left we would go and pick up what they had left, usually the lunch meat... _______________ In other words, even bears know the value of spam when they see it? (Sorry.) Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 21:55:16 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Todd Petersen: Larry was laughing all over the place about getting paid in exposure, and my response is: get a day job. To even think that one could reasonably pay the rent writing is about as absurd a notion as any. . . . Maybe the root of this discussion is planted in this notion that getting paid is a pretty good indication that what one is doing is legitimate. _______________ Time out. I have a day job. I have a night job. I have a part-time job, too. And I'm pretty dedicated to my unpaid clergy job, as well. I learned a long time ago that I would not be able to rear a family on the income I would receive in what I had hoped would be my fun and fulfilling profession (not writing). So I used my degree and did something with it that pays the rent. (The fun and fulfilling part is the part-time job.) I do not believe pay has any relationship at all with the legitimacy of work. Books have been written on the subject (pardon the literary tie in here). I have also noticed that, at least in my experience, the more fun the work, the less the pay. I believe that writing is legitimate work. If I didn't, I wouldn't have just spent three weeks agonizing over a silly little book review for which I won't be paid, probably won't be noticed, and which has given me much grief. But I did it for two reasons. First, I said I would. Second, I love to read and write. And so this was an opportunity for me to hone my writing skills and deliver an honestly crafted message in a way that I felt was fair and wouldn't offend too many people. (I lied. Third, thanks to Terry Jeffress, I will be able to look it up on the internet and see my name in lights.) Believe me, it was tempting to bag it and return to my day job. But my day job is not nearly as fun. I didn't mean to offend you in making fun about being paid in exposure. Exposure is the key to success in what I had hoped would be my fun and fulfilling profession. We use it all the time. I was having a little fun with you, just as you and the staff at the Sugar Beet are having a little fun with us, too. I believe what you are doing is as legitimate for no pay as it would be if you gave your entire staff a 20% raise. Just like the work I do in my unpaid clergy job is as legitimate as the work I do that pays the rent. The reason I don't pick out an article in each issue of the Sugar Beet to be offended about is because I have a deep respect for the work and talent and effort that went into writing it in the first place, and I have an admiration for those who are able to write so well. So don't tempt me. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 18:41:54 -0700 From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Jim Picht wrote: ."A human population of six or seven or twenty billion can probably be sustained indefinitely on this world. " I for one vote for a world with few enough human beings to leave some wilderness nearby. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 23:41:05 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism On Tue, 7 May 2002 22:13:07 -0600, Jana Pawlowski wrote: >I don't=3D20 >*think* that what I was writing was a bromide, or even emotional; or = =3D >that I was attempting to veto further discussion of things I disagree =3D >with (although, I REALLY have the potential for that kind of debate, =3D >I've been trying to reform for the list and will only use it for my =3D >family and church callings henceforth.) Mostly, I was mentioning a =3D >recent environmental issue that I think most people would like to =3D >educate themselves about. You know, it didn't strike me as particularly emotional or argumentative. But your original comment (posted 26 April) on the subject of nuclear = waste storage read as follows: >Anyway, if anyone in Utah is interested, there is one last chance to = speak against >N-Waste storage in Tooele. That sounds more like a suggestion as to what people ought to think about the issue than a plea for us to educate ourselves about it. Or--at the = risk of becoming argumentative myself--does this mean that in examining the = pros and cons of the issue, we will all naturally see what the correct = conclusion is? I agree that it is important to learn the facts about environmental = issues before taking sides on them. What frustrates me (and this is a general comment, not directed at Jana, by the way) is that so many environmental activists would prefer us *not* to do the research ourselves. Many of = them are dedicated people who have come to the conclusions they support = because of extensive study, but instead of encouraging others to do the same, = they try to sell us on their conclusions. The idea that we should find truth for ourselves is firmly embedded in = the Mormon psyche (see Moroni 10:4-5 and D&C 9:8, for example). Last week = Jacob and I argued (at home; don't you all just wonder what our dinnertime conversations are like?) his contention that this is why the LDS people aren't generally involved with environmental activism (at least the kind that implies there are Truths handed down from Paul Ehrlich that should neither be questioned nor doubted. Shoot, I was trying to keep the = cynicism monkey in its box, and I failed). *I* think it's either apathy or the = fact that most Mormons are slightly more worried about the irregularity of = their =46amily Home Evening schedule, i.e. "haven't had it since, like, ever, = but we know it's important and we feel totally guilty about it." But I think Jacob's partly right. I think that, at least for some people, the unwillingness to simply accept what they're told collides with their perceived inability to devote enough attention to learn about = environmental issues, and produces...not a lot of nature writing. Which honestly doesn't bother me much. Like Jonathan, I prefer a good scientific study and peer-reviewed commentary. And since I don't think = the scarcity of LDS nature writing reflects any institutional oppression, I'm not going to get worked up on that count either. I just hope that the people who *do* care about this kind of writing don't feel that they shouldn't produce it, simply because it doesn't have a strong Mormon tradition. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:21:10 -0500 From: "Robert Reno" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Review of GARDNER, _Urantia_ [MOD: I am forwarding this comment, which came to me as moderator from a non-AML-List member.] You web site posts a review by Kevin Christensen of a book written by Martin Gardner called Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B199536.html It is full of grossly false statements and flawed arguments. I found it inconsistent that Kevin questions Mr. Gardner's grasp of the Mormon religion, but accepts Gardner's understanding and statements of the teachings of the Urantia Book uncritically and repeats his lies and slandorous falshoods. It is clear Kevin has never read the Urantia Book. His review is little more than falsehoods, rumors, inuendo without any supporting facts or evidence. I would expect such behavior from a man such as Martin Gardner, but was disappointed to see if on a Mormon web site. Do not misunderstand. I have no problem with honest criticism even if it is negative; but statements should be based in fact and truth, not rumor and falsehoods. How much Mr. Gardner has read I don't know, but he has managed to make numerous false statements and gross mispresentations of what it says. One response to Gardner's book can be found at the following link: http://urantiabook.org/archive/mjs_archive/mjs_purpose_of_revelation.htm http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/mblock1.htm Robert Reno - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 01:43:11 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > I'll never forget the sacrament meeting where a woman speaker > > was raised in a home with "an open attitude toward S-E-X." > Couldn't? You have no evidence that she couldn't bring herself to utter > the word in sacrament meeting. Being comfortable about discussing sex > doesn't mean you should feel free to discuss it in any forum imaginable. > I don't > consider the temple endowment dirty or shameful, but I don't think > sacrament meeting is an appropriate setting for discussing it, either. > With sex, even uttering the word can be inappropriate depending on the > circumstances because of the weight and intimacy of the topic. So if I want to acknowledge the existence of the temple endowment in sacrament meeting, I should say, "T-E-M-P-L-E-E-N-D-O-W-M-E-N-T"? I don't recommend going into detail on how to have sex in sacrament meeting, any more than quoting at length the endowment ceremony. But I've heard the endowment ordinance discussed in many a church venue, including sacrament meeting. Not once did anyone feel compelled to spell it out instead of just name it. > We are very sensitive of > context and situations for discussion, but that is only appropriate for > something we hold so sacred that is so easily, and frequently, degraded. > We don't cast our pearls before swine, we > don't discuss the temple ceremonies outside of the temple, we are *not* > open about anything and everything. These are two responses that inevitably seem to appear in discussions about sex or nudity: "appropriate" and "pearls before swine." I've come to loathe these words. As far as I can tell, people generally invoke "appropriate" when nothing more concrete can be thought up. Where's the definition of appropriate? Where's the list of what is and what ain't? In which scriptural passage is the concept described or defined or even commanded? Answer: none. (I just did a search on Deseret Book's scripture website.) As far as I can figure, when most people say "appropriate," they means how my momma raised me, and how I think everyone else should act. As for "pearls before swine," I see ugliness in calling everyone a swine who isn't us. This assumption that everyone who doesn't think like me is automatically going to mock what I hold in reverence is something I can't accept. > That is a *good* thing, not > something to castigate. Sex has meaning, it is intimate, it is > something we discuss only when we are in the appropriate context for the > discussion. That is not at all the same thing as shame. There's that word again: "appropriate context." Who's deciding what the appropriate context is? Where's the list? Where's the Official Proclamation? Why is one person's judgment of appropriateness better than another's? > I have the > privilege of being considered a sensitive man. As such, I have been in > situations where I was surrounded by women and considered part of the > group--someone they could trust to be sensitive in ways they trust. I > have heard the discussions they have about sex. Believe me, there is > nothing shy or shameful in those discussions. I would classify these women as not having shame, but rather having fear that if they discuss sex like that in other venues, people will give them that "look" I talked about. They may not remain publicly silent because of shame, but they remain silent because they fear the thought police. People will talk about intimate things in an environment where there is trust. And that's exactly my point. The woman I mentioned in sacrament meeeting probably said "S-E-X" instead of "sex" because she couldn't trust her fellow "Saints" to not be offended by such an innocuous thing. > I have heard, very rarely, a joke involving sex in Gospel Doctrine followed by a delightful > chuckle and appreciative nods. But that is rare because it is so rarely > appropriate--not because sex is a hidden and shameful act. Again, appropriate by whose standards? By some rational, objective standard, or by the standard of those most easily offended? > Sometimes > sacred really *does* mean secret--or at least restricted, private, and > appropriately self-censured. But Mormons seem to believe that sacred _always_ means secret, and I don't buy it. > You forgot "flaunted" in your list. I figured "defiled" covered that. Nothing in your Britney Spears example contradicts what I'm saying, unless you think I'm saying girls should get up in sacrament meeting in skimpy outfits and dance provocatively. > Sure, there *are* appropriate times to discuss and/or express sex. But > there are also times when it is *in*appropriate. And who draws the line? The lowest common denominator. I'm saying it's time to educate our fellow Saints to raise the bar, so actual information about sex can be disseminated to those who need it. I'm not imagining this need, else why did that Deseret Book about sex for LDS couples sell like hotcakes? For heaven's sake, a person ought to be able to say the word "sex" in sacrament meeting if that's what she's talking about. Being _that_ discreet is not appropriate, is not righteous, is not hiding pearls from swine, is not reverencing sacred things. It's discomfort from misguided social conditioning. > Anyone who talks about > sex in certain contexts, while maybe not sinning, are at least > cheapening something I hold sacred and I will not hesitate to either > remove myself or express my displeasure. Which certain contexts? How am I supposed to know what they are? Where's the list? Is it the list of God, the list of the Prophet, or the list of the LDS person standing in front of me at the moment? Why is one list superior to another? > > I say, bring on the sex! > > You can bring it on all you want. But, I won't be a participant. Oh, I > don't want us to be so hesitant about it that it never comes up. And yet you applaud spelling the word instead of saying it. > Sex does have its place in our stories and art. It has a place in our > sermons and discussions. But that place is not universal. According to which scripture or General Conference address is the discussion of sex restricted to certain environments? The _extent_ to which we discuss sex may not be universally equal in all environments, but to say there are some venues where the word can't even be uttered? I'd like to hear an _actual_ reason why not. Something that doesn't invoke "appropriate" or "swine." > And sexual > details are so rarely appropriate that I don't expect to encounter them > in *any* public forum I participate in. Why not? The personal details of a specific couple's sex life--sure. But details in general? Why are abstract details that apply to no one in particular so sacred? Why is education "inappropriate," just because it's about sex? > As far as I'm concerned, we > already talk plenty about sex in our lives, sermons, discussions, and > literature. I don't agree at all with your call to make it more common, > to discuss it more often. We already talk plenty about sex in negative and degrading ways. I want a balance, not just more of the same. I don't think it's making sex common to try to talk about it in positive, uplifting ways more often. On the contrary, it's combatting the existing trend to cheapen it, which silence is incapable of doing, because silence loses by default. > > It _is_ a gift of God, after all. > > I don't discuss or share every gift of God. In fact, gifts of God > deserve respect and care. I have experienced more than one occasion > when the spirit told me not to share a thought or experience I had > planned to share. I don't display my garments for all to see, I don't > discuss the temple endowment outside of the temple, I don't share > details of my sex life with anybody (um, yet, I suppose there could > arise circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I expect that to > be very rare). And I recommend that if the spirit whispers to you not to bring up sex, that you don't do it. But what on earth does that have to do with general policy? I may feel uncomfortable discussing a specific instance where a gift of the spirit was manifested unless I was prompted to do so. And I wouldn't discuss specifics of my sex life with my wife except in extraordinary circumstances. But what on earth do these things have to do with discussing either subject generally? I've heard discussions on the sacred gifts of the spirit a zillion times in church. I've heard endowments discussed often, as well as garments. True, I've never seen anyone model garments in church, but I'm not advocating live demonstrations of sex in sacrament meeting either. There is a difference between intrusive details of a specific individual's life and speaking generally on the subject. > God expects us to pursue every good gift in the measure > he has given it. We need to seek the balance and priorities of God. > They are His gifts, after all, and not our own to do with as we please. Since I haven't read any official statement from God about what is and what isn't appropriate when discussing sex, your statement cuts both ways. You are no more free to substitute your concept of "appropriateness" for God's will than anyone else. People's definitions of "appropriate" are culturally developed, and have nothing to do with God's will, unless a specific reference can be put forward to demonstrate it's God's will. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:23:38 -0500 From: "Jeff Needle" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Title: One Nation Under Gods -- A History of the Mormon Church Author: Richard Abanes Pub: Four Walls Eight Windows (c) 2002, hardback, 651 pages (text, notes, bibliography and index $32.00 ISBN: 1-56858-219-6 Rather than a review, I've decided on a brief book report on a book that I've started and am not sure I'm going to finish. But I thought a few words were in order, since this book has been part of some discussions on the internet. The book is "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes. It is just another in the ever-growing corpus of anti-Mormon tracts that have appeared over the years. Upon first glance, the reader is impressed by its sheer size. More than 450 pages of text, nearly 150 pages of notes, plus bibliograpy and index. A lot of work went into this effort. I opened it in the hope that this would be, at last, a new and more challenging effort. Alas, it was not to be. Having read only 25 pages or so, it is unfair for me to judge the whole book. I'll just note a few things that caught my attention: 1. Abanes' introduction contains a quote from Orrin Hatch where utters the words about the Constitution "hanging by a thread." Familiar words to most Mormons. This then follows: "The prediction by Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, contains what has always been the Mormon American dream -- i.e., the transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy divinely ordained to 'not only direct the political affairs of the Mormon community, but eventually those of the United States and ultimately the world.' This lofty aspiration, which dates back to Mormonism's earliest years, continues to be a dominant element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers." (p. xvii-xviii) Really? Are you all out to take over the world? Is this a "dominant element" of your faith? I've been in and around Mormons for more than a dozen years, and somehow you've managed to hide this from me. I vow from this day forward to be more vigilant. Seriously, Mr. Abanes, I believe, reveals something here. He really hasn't spent much time among the Mormons. This theme continues, more later. On page 14, Abanes relates the problems correlating the various versions of the First Vision. Yes, this has been treated many times. Bookcraft published a nice volume on this very subject; BYU Studies (I think) also had a nice article some years ago. No big secret here. Abanes' conclusion? "Although Smith's First Vision is a requisite part of Mormonism's past, historical documents reveal that it probably never happened." (p. 14) Quite a leap, don't you think? Here's the corker, and here's where I stopped reading. I trust I can cite this without comment, saying only that Abanes clearly, clearly has never read the Book of Mormon, and clearly has no knowledge of Mormonism beyond the flash cards supplied by Sandra Tanner (to whom he gives much credit throughout the book): "Smith's 'second' vision (including the 1827 retrieval of his golden plates) is just as rife with internal and external inconsistencies as is his 'first' vision. For example, in 1842, when the LDS publication 'Times and Seasons', published a version of the second vision, the angel was named 'Nephi' rather than Moroni. Joseph's 1832 account of the 'second' vision does not even identify the angel, but instead, refers to the entity as an 'angel of the Lord' who told him about plates engraved 'by Moroni.' Obviously, if the angel in Smith's room spoke 'about' Moroni, then he certainly could not have 'been' Moroni." (p. 25) Honest, he really says this. I kid you not. My advice -- save your money. - -------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com - -------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #705 ******************************