From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #762 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, July 8 2002 Volume 01 : Number 762 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 15:12:03 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures At 05:13 PM 7/2/02, you wrote: > ___ Annette ___ >| From what we know, it looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" >| the plan at all. If he had, he wouldn't have bothered to >| tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let them sit in >| the garden forever, > ___ >Clark: >Well he may not have "gotten" the plan. But he at least knew what the plan >was. So he knew how he could foil it. So that is why his actions in the >garden and with Christ are so interesting. They fit Satan's role as a >literary plot device. However as a real person, his motivations must have >been much more complex. Without going into too much depth outside temple walls, I have another theory which makes more practical sense. What if Satan, by tempting Adam and Eve, thought he could usurp Christ's role? Just food for thought. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:25:23 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures > From: "Annette Lyon" > > Scott said (with snips): > In my version of Lucifer's paradise there would actually be plenty of pretty > much everything . . . The end result being that people simply have no need > to adapt, no need to change. . . . Keep people in paradise, and they're > unmotivated to do much of anything--either good or evil. They never actually > leave the starting line. > > Sounds good at first, but I see a problem with it. From what we know, it > looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan at all. If he had, he > wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let > them sit in the garden forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would > have wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. But somehow he > thought that getting rid of their garden paradise would fit into his own > purposes. I tend to side with D. Michael and others who believe that the > force concept was real, for many of the reasons already posted. I'm torn between the 'force', 'instinct', and 'keep 'em in Eden' models. But, especially tied in with what Scott said, there's a very apropos quote here from a decidedly non-Mormon but yet very (IMHO) accurate source: If there is, in fact, a Heaven and a Hell, all we know for sure is that Hell will be a viciously overcrowded version of Phoenix -- a clean well- lighted place full of sunshine and bromides and fast cars where almost everybody seems vaguely happy, except for the ones who know in their hearts what is missing.... - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine Ties in well with D&C 76:89, I think. "And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;" I suspect the 'keep 'em in Eden' model is the least likely of the three. However, I suspect the 'instinct' model is the most likely; that is, that Lucifer's plan would have made us instinctively sinless, much as how animals are. (As I read it, all non-human living things have only one commandment -- 'be fruitful and multiply' -- and sociobiological studies of mating behaviour seem to confirm that indeed, they're all following that commandment to the best of their ability.) That's one way of looking at Thompson's Phoenix metaphor. (ObAML: A planet full of instinctually sinless humans would be a cool setting for a SF/fantasy story. Hmmmmm....) I think Lucifer's convincing Adam and Eve to transgress re: TFOTTOKOGOE* wasn't so much to 'get rid of their garden paradise'. Rather, I think he fundamentally misunderstood the concepts behind the plan of choice, the nature of sin and repentance, and the nature of Jehovah's mission as saviour. If he'd really understood it, I think he would have realised that the transgression was, indeed, part of the plan, rather than a wrench in the works. Much as how many modern criminals just plain don't seem to understand the concepts of 'rule of law', contrition, restitution, etc. However, in the end, all those sinners worthy of telestial glory will indeed inherit a kingdom 'which surpasses all understanding'. They will, though, know *exactly* 'in their hearts what is missing'. Robert ObFootnote: * The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Acronym, anyone? ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:43:52 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mod message on Satan Figures thread Folks, It's a fairly slow time right now, and I think that this thread started with an interesting literary tie-in--that is, how one depicts either Satan or satanic figures in fiction, and how those different views accord with Mormon thought. Given that focus, it's not too much of a stretch to share our various notions of what Satan's motivations might be, based on clues in scripture etc., as we've been doing. But I think we're starting to get past that point, into scripturally based debate and a discussion that's on the verge of becoming pretty purely theological--not the purpose of AML-List. Since it is a slow time, I'm going to go ahead and post several messages that have come in along these lines, but I'd like to make two requests for moving forward with this thread: * First, do what you can to bring back some connection to literature. * Second, focus on presenting your own ideas, not debating what other people have said. Thanks for your thoughts. Please keep the ideas coming... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 22:23:11 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures on 6/29/02 11:34 AM, D. Michael Martindale at dmichael@wwno.com wrote: > Therefore I stand by Mormon culture's traditional interpretation of what > Lucifer's plan was. One third of the hosts of heaven were terrified of > their own ability (or lack thereof) to succeed at this new project > Father had spelled out. They must have been sure they wouldn't measure > up. Their great brother Lucifer proposed an alternative, and they jumped > at the chance. Force? What did they know of force? It sounded great: > force meant they did not have to be responsible, nor would they have to > endure the painful consequences of failure that Father described as part > of his plan. The lash probably sounded like a cakewalk compared to that. >> From their earliest memories they had lived in the glorious presence of > Father. Losing that for eternity must have been unimaginable--talk about > the ultimate separation anxiety! A few lashes on the back to avoid > that--where do I sign up? The point is not so much that 2/3-1/3 split, but rather that force doesn't exist. The only way to destroy freedom is to remove the consequences of the action. Then and only then is there no choice. If all 10,000 roads lead to the same place and you have to travel to the end then it really doesn't matter which road is taken, does it. The reason that nothing has changed my mind since is because then I believed in force, and now I do not. How can Satan have offered something that we all knew was a lie? It had to be plausible at least. If he was offering to take over ALL of our bodies then we wouldn't have bodies--no spirit=no soul. We would each have to inhabit these bodies and as such there would be independence of thought and action. Power and force are mere lies, but false compassion sells. It's a lie too, but it sounds desirable and has elements of truth in it. Overstating the truth is by far the most effective way to lie. Every example of a police state on earth includes massive complicity by the populace. There are only democracies in the world; people get as much government as they will tolerate. The fact is they CHOOSE to allow themselves to be "forced." They are still responsible. They are still accountable to God. If that was what the Old Scratch was offering then every one of us would've laughed. He still wanted to rule, and no doubt when on earth he probably would've run a overweening state such as our world has never seen. That doesn't mean that he could personally control the actions of every person on every world in the galaxy and leave them no volition of any kind. Especially since many of us were his spiritual equals or betters before we came here. I'm not buying. It may be a traditional belief but it isn't scripture. The father of lies would've lied sweetly, not promised to take away the most valuable thing anyone had. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 22:45:28 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures on 7/2/02 2:16 PM, Clark Goble at clark@lextek.com wrote: [snip] > One the most sensical vies of Satan I've read actually is the Gnostic one. > Say what you will about gnosticism, but at least Satan made a little sense. > He is almost a competing God who thinks that matter isn't all bad. The > Satan figure there is a demiurge who creates all of the material world. > Indeed, considering how much I like this world, I have to sympathize with > him over the Gnostic true God who views matter as bad. I like the play that > the film _The Matrix_ does on this in which the demiurge and idealistic god > seem to switch roles in various ways. [snip] I think the Gnostic view of Satan is Satan's own (wishful) view of himself. That wicked Jesus went out and created the material world while he remained pure and spirit. Just turns the truth on its head. The Gnostic scriptures do that a lot. Since the admixture of that stuff has lead to all sorts of wickedness in small 'c' christianity at large I not over fond of it. Old Scratch is 'god' of this world, and I'm sure he can appear amazingly glorious. I think he's behind most of the mystery cults. It's always the god of reason or wisdom or magic back ot it all. The more mortals that think he's THE God the better for him. When Arianism was defeated in the late 4th it was a triumph for the Old Scratch. Traded in the Godhead for the Three-in-one without form and physical being. When other Christians say we don't believe in the same God as they do they're right. Practically all other Christians believe in Trinity-in-Unity. They don't worship Satan, but have confused God's real attributes with the ones Old Nick want's them to believe. Evil really is irrational. Every evil deed harms the doer as much or more than the victim. If one really wishes to be selfish then it's best to act selfless. That's why lassez faire works and socialism doesn't. A man hoping to make a pile of money invents something that benefits everybody. A man working to feed other people endlessly with no benefit to himself does it grudgingly and not well. Though motives matter, so do results. If a rotten bounder with a ego the size of Manhatten invents a new drug that saves millions of lives the fact remains that he saved millions of lives. A greedy old money type who keeps his money to himself still hires servants and spends money, doing good he doesn't intend. Tight fists are never tight enough. This is the reason why so many people die in communist countries. When the new Intellectual Aristocracy discovers that they really don't have any power and people really won't do as they say they have to back up their threats and next thing you know we've got Kampuchea. Man is that he might have joy. Being good makes one happy, even in the midst of horrors. Wickedness never was happiness. So which is rational? The reason why those who worship rational thought murder so many people is because they don't really believe in reason. They think they have the corner on the market. They rationalize, they don't reason. And since the stupid peasants and wicked bourgeoisie won't see what's best for them, they may as well be dead so that the Elect can fix the world for those that remain. Insanity is not necessarily irrational, though its logic may be hard to discover. Evil is always, always irrational, and Old Scratch is the best example of it. He's just spinning his wheels. How does it benefit him to ruin as many people as he can? It doesn't. He won't even rule in the Outer Darkness. He's just wasting his efforts because he can't win. Since we see his same attitude on earth all over the place its not that surprising that he would keep at it. He's the center of the universe after all. It's like that old Russian folktale about a man who hated his neighbor because the neighbor had two cows and he only had one. He goes to a witch for help and she asks what he wants--and he wants one of his neighbor's cows to die. Doesn't help him a bit, but at least now they're "equal." Humph. Equality. Another one of those myths that could do with slaying. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:13:54 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Rachel, I understand your feelings. And your theory may actually have some basis. Men with facial hair or an abhorrence of white shirts might also "suffer" from someone else's bias. And what about those that have not been terribly successful in financial pursuits? However, I don't agree that anyone suffers spiritual deprivation from the consequences of such biases unless they choose to. In fact, recognizing such biases and remaining humble, teachable, and faithful can strengthen their relationship with Christ as much as being called into some position of responsibility. It reminds me of a conversation with my adopted brother some years ago. He spent several years attending church with us but somehow didn't grasp much. When my other brother was called as a Bishop he said, "Isn't it great about Kelly's promotion to Bishop!" We really need to be careful about seeing status or opportunity for growth in any calling over another--IMO. Tracie Laulusa PS--I vote with the most-members-will-be-accepting (even if it does cause some struggle) camp - ----- Original Message ----- > > If he had stayed in his native Portugal instead of immigrating so that I > could be here to write, he would have had many more opportunities to grow > spiritually. His leadership ability, his compassion for others, perhaps even > his understanding of the gospel would have increased. I know these traits in > myself always increase when I am put into such positions. So by insisting we > stay here in this basically egocentric culture (the Church is the only true > Church; Americans are the smartest most capable people in the world), I > sometimes feel I've cheated him. > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:54:02 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Mormon Utopias - --- Scott Parkin wrote: > Scott Parkin > > (who is very, very interested in having private discussions about > different > people's ideas of an idealized Mormon society and how it would > compare/interact with the rest of the world) > Not exactly the same thing as your soliciation above, but I'm fascinated by the way Mormons conceive the Millennial reign of Christ. Specifically, I've met those who see it as an idealized, rightous end point of socialism, and those who see it as an idealized, rightous end point of capitalism. So you get the socialism wouldn't be bad if it was correctly implemented and people actually lived it line. And the reply that socialism is evil and that capitalism is the most correct economic system because it preserves free agency--it's just that once Christ comes everyone will have each others best interests in mind and so everyone will choose to live in harmony and share with those in need. I find it interesting that the "Utopia" that we know the most about--the one in 3 Nephi--came about after a major catastrophe that broke down the existent economic systems. But it sounds like you're talking about a Utopian society that is pre-millennial, so the model would be closer to Enoch's city---which is the same model for many of the collective communities that have been tried in American history---a gathering of like-minded individuals. The problem with this model (and really we don't know much about Enoch and Zion) is that it's too much like a gated community for my taste. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:55:52 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet "We have laughed at many things, and hope to be able to laugh at all things." http://thesugarbeet.com MTC Now Powered by Its Own Methane New Church Buildings to Include Primary Playplace Church Warns Against Cola-Flavored Sprite Eckhart, Paltrow not Having Sex High Councilman Calls 11th Article of Faith "No Longer Relevant" Study Shows Cheerios May Cause Restlessness and Crying Little Cloud Demands More Exposure Supreme Court Ruling Disappoints Missionaries Area Woman Sacrifices for Her Visiting Teachers Church Leaders Perform Mass Food Blessing Editorial: God Touches the Heathen's Heart Plus our regular departments - ----- To make a donation toward Sugar Beet web-hosting fees, click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=chris%40thesugarbeet.com. Want to try your hand at Sugar Beet reporting? Send your story to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Do you draw superhero comics? The Sugar Beet needs your help. Click here: http://www.xmission.com/~thebeet/business/jobs.html Coming July 24: The Sugar Beet Pioneer Issue OPT OUT: To stop receiving Sugar Beet updates, reply to this message with REMOVE in the subject header. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:14:05 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars If anyone's concerned about the Salt Lake newspaper situation, here's an interesting Trib editorial with a call to action at the end. This situation makes me both mad and scared. I would hate to see us lose the Trib as a fully independent voice. Tribune Ownership Matters The Deseret News announced last week that it would attempt to block the repurchase of The Salt Lake Tribune by the Kearns McCarthey family. This is the same family that has owned and controlled The Tribune since 1901. This is the same family that agreed in 1952 to take in the Deseret News when it was on the brink of bankruptcy, creating Newspaper Agency Corporation with the News to handle printing, circulation and advertising sales for both papers. This is the same family that has allowed the News, in order for it to stay competitive, to collect 42 percent of the NAC profits though it only produces 30 percent of them. The News said it would object to the Kearns McCarthey family because of disagreements The Tribune and News have had in the last five years. That is not true. News leaders have concocted complaints about The Tribune's management in the last five years to cover their attempts to initially purchase The Tribune and later, when that didn't work, to find a buyer for The Tribune who would agree to give favorable coverage to their owner, the LDS Church. Documents still kept secret by the federal court make clear that silencing The Tribune's coverage of the church was a driving factor in many of the News decisions of the last five years. Specifically, the News said the Kearns McCarthey family, through its management of The Tribune and NAC, has kept the News from publishing in the morning field. That is also not true. The News publishes every Saturday and Sunday morning, and it published every weekday morning as well during the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Tribune has offered three different plans since 1999 to move the News to full-time morning publication. The News has not developed one, single plan. Not one. The News said The Tribune has objected to "neutral" NAC management. That is also not true. NAC is managed by a four-person board, of which two members are representatives of the Deseret News. Tribune managers offered to hire an independent general manager or add an independent fifth member to the NAC board to address News concerns. News representatives rejected the offer. The News said The Tribune objected to the construction of a new production facility. That is also not true. Tribune representatives signed an agreement to acquire land for a new production facility. Two clarifications were made to the signed contract and News representatives objected to the modifications, but contractors continue to work on the site. News leaders also said Tribune representatives have questioned the value of the agency they have shared with the News for the last 50 years. Those questions have undermined the trust and confidence the News has in the Kearns McCarthey family. Again, that is not true. The Tribune has repeatedly told News leaders The Tribune hopes to move forward peaceably with the News, as long as it is allowed to practice independent journalism. Finally, any News complaint about how the NAC has operated is a grossly unfair insult to the 1,200 professionals who work at the agency. These hard-working men and women have helped grow NAC profits from $24 million in 1990 to $60 million in 2000. It's an insult to those NAC employees who have worked exceptionally hard to make the News one of the fastest growing afternoon newspapers in the country. It's an insult, and it is not true. If the News is successful in its attempt to determine who owns The Tribune, Utah will have lost its independent voice, which speaks not only for the good of the minority but also for the long-term good of the majority. It also would be a violation of the federal Newspaper Preservation Act, which allows an exemption to anti-trust law for two newspapers to form a joint operating agreement like NAC, so long as the editorial policies of the two newspapers remain independent. If the News controls Tribune ownership, particularly with an eye on silencing its traditional voice, there is no independence, nor can there be any under subsequent owners. If you would like to help maintain an independent Tribune, you can. Write to the Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Suite 10011, Washington D.C., 20530. Or e-mail them at newcase.atr@usdoj.gov. You can also call toll-free 1-888-647-3258 to register your objection to the Deseret News claiming the right to determine who owns The Salt Lake Tribune. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 05:03:27 +0900 From: Kari Heber Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Annette said [snip] >Sounds good at first, but I see a problem with it. From what we know, it >looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan at all. If he had, he >wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let >them sit in the garden forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would >have wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. But somehow he >thought that getting rid of their garden paradise would fit into his own >purposes. I tend to side with D. Michael and others who believe that the >force concept was real, for many of the reasons already posted. And then Linda said: >Without going into too much depth outside temple walls, I have another >theory which makes more practical sense. What if Satan, by tempting Adam >and Eve, thought he could usurp Christ's role? And Robert added: >Rather, I think he fundamentally misunderstood the concepts behind the >plan of choice, the nature >of sin and repentance, and the nature of Jehovah's mission as saviour. If >he'd really understood it, I think he would have realised that the >transgression was, indeed, part of the plan, rather than a wrench in the >works. I have been thinking a lot recently about the whole Garden of Eden thing and the fact that Adam and Eve were given directly conflicting commandments, namely to "multiply and replenish" and to avoid the fruit of the two trees. Why would God do this? I have never really bought the argument that Elder Oaks has put forward, namely that the partaking of the fruit was something less than a sin, a "transgression" (a paraphrase from memory since I can't find the quote. If anyone has it could you forward it to me? I know it was used in SS this year, at least by my teacher). I think this is Elder Oaks legalizing the situation into misdemeanors and felonies, but both are still wrong. And in my heretical way, I don't believe Lehi's supposition that Adam and Eve would have lived forever in the Garden if they hadn't partaken (any comments on 2 Ne 2:17 and just what Lehi meant to cover in his supposition? Was it just that Satan was a fallen angel, or does it apply to further verses?). If we believe this supposition then God planned to let Adam and Eve succomb to Satan's tempations. I find it hard to believe that God would devise a plan whose outcome was *dependent* on a sin. I don't believe God works that way, He wants us all to be sinless. It is my belief that Adam and Eve would have been tought, "line upon line," while in the garden and that ultimately they would have been allowed (or even directed) to partake of the fruit of the tree in order to progress and keep the commandment to have children. I agree wholeheartedly with Linda, that Lucifer was attempting, *again*, to usurp the power and authority of Christ by enticing Adam and Eve to partake before it was time. Therefore, letting them just sit in the Garden would not have interferred with God's plan for Adam and Eve, he had to act. - -Kari Sorry for not finding a literary tie-in for this. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:35:00 EDT From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars For those with the fairness to read both sides of the story or the desire to read facts conveniently omitted from the Tribune article, see: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405015041,00.html and related articles in the Deseret News of 30 June 2002. The same laws that allow the joint operating agreement between the two papers also erect firewalls to prevent either paper from exercising editorial control over the other -- the Tribune resorts to distortions and scare tactics when it asserts that Salt Lake will lose its so-called "independent voice" when the terms of legally binding contracts are carried out. This has a connection to Mormon letters because an "independent voice" does not necessarily equate to a "fair voice" or an "accurate voice" or even guarantee true independence. I cannot give a URL for the article that appeared in the Tribune of 21 April 2002 where the Tribune reported on a then-recent court decision in which ___ Jacobsen is suing Dean Hughes and Deseret Book about the POW plotline in _Children of the Promise_. That article contained not one word to represent Hughes's side of the argument; it did not acknowledge in any way that Hughes's side had any merit, although obviously there WAS merit since a lower court had already ruled in his favor; it did not disclose that Mr. Jacobsen is the father of a prominent Tribune columnist (so much for independence). But the article did manage to juxtapose "plagiarism" and "LDS church" in such a way as to suggest that the church not only condones but endorses plagiarism. That kind of public disservice will not be changed in the slightest by the outcome of the newspaper wars, because neither the Deseret News nor the church will have any control whatsoever on the editorial voice of the Tribune. But it does demonstrate the speciousness of the Tribune's claim to speak for the best interests of the people of Utah. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 08:37:08 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars For those of you on the List not residing in Utah, this Newspaper War has been going on for quite a while. I recall that the Trib sued to block the sale of the NAC just a couple of years ago because the buyer was a Mormon from Colo. or somewhere (they lost). They've been playing the 'religion card' for quite a while. It is true that the Trib does not want a morning competitor, and because the NAC does the printing for both, it is problematic. And it has been nasty. Alan Mitchell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #762 ******************************