From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #775 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 Friday, July 19 2002 Volume 01 : Number 775 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:58:26 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Barbara Hume responded as follows: I think a lot would have to change in order for celestial > corporations to be possible! Indeed, the *people* would have to be righteous. > >2. The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established > >as an ideal. > > On what basis do you say that? Because the Mormons tried it? D&C 82:20 and other passages, suggest this. > >3. Communism doesn't work for the following reason: An individual has no > >perception of ownership without possession. Possession is the right to > >exclude others from using, possessing, or consuming of the thing in > >question. If I possess nothing (as I do when we all own it in common), I do > >not perceive that I have anything. > > Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the Indians get > along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans came along and > decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in it was free > for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. I don't wish to suggest that ownership is a good thing, merely that it is human nature to desire it...well Western human nature, anyway. :-) > Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) > >their property. > > To me, owning and stewardship are two different things, so I don't know how > to deal with this statement. What is a stewardship to you? Stewardship involves the right to exclude others from possession, use, or consumption of the property which is the subject of the stewardship. Therefore, it involves ownership, though it is not unfettered ownership. There are conditions subsequent (legal contract term) to retaining ownership, namely accounting for its use. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:22:27 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) >You wrote what you wrote and I applaud you for its creativeness, >quality, and effectiveness. I think you wrote a very good book (something I >have yet to say about any other Mormon apocalyptic novel, btw), and I hope >that opinion came through in my review. Yes, it did, and thank you. >My complaint was not that you should have done anything differently than you >did, but rather to suggest that I wish other authors would explore other >apocalyptic scenarios. I do too. It would be interesting. >I just worry that the general Mormon public isn't really thinking it through >for themselves. Many people take this black-helicopters/despotic-overlord >vision as the one and only possible way for the Apocalypse of Saint John to >come about-- I have the same worry, yet here I am contributing to it. :) And it isn't just Mormons. I haven't read the _Left Behind_ series yet (I keep meaning to, but there are so *many* volumes now), but I keep up with what is going on with it. The evangelical Christian ideas presented there are far more literal than the apocalyptic stuff Mormons come up with. A friend told me the latest volume includes a form of beetle that literally matches the description presented by John (those verses we LDS usually interpret to be the black helicopters). In that way, the "standard" LDS take on gathering and New Jerusalem is a fresh new voice to non-LDS persons who see Revelation as literal rather than symbolic, or those who see it as a nonsensical piece of gibberish. I suspect that if I could get my book out nationally somehow, the general public might appreciate this story--one which, although familiar to us, is new to them. >Whether conciously or not, I think Mormons do participate in this sort of >symbolic--almost talismanic--preference of one place or building or >authority over another. [snip] Let's break the increasing superstition >and reverence for places rather than ideas. Allegedly we don't believe in >icons as concentrations of God's power--that power is found in each and >every one of us as individuals, not in a particular place or structure or >artifice. This is an excellent point, well made. Yet I'm guilty of similar things myself--I chose Manti over the Provo Temple for my wedding, and there will be times I will spend the extra hour driving to attend in Nauvoo rather than St. Louis, although (like your relative) I do believe in attending in one's own temple district. The architecture and ambiance of Nauvoo is refreshing to my mind and spirit. I'm a sucker for old buildings and antiques. It may be a replica, but it appeals to my personal aesthetic senses in ways the St. Louis temple can't. Thank you for the review and this dialogue. Richard, thanks also for responding. I hope I didn't force a premature acknowledgement of circumstances, but I suppose it is safe to say here, now, that I am seeking a new publisher for the second volume. On the plus side, my website has had 500 hits in the last few months (not huge, I know, but when you consider only a few thousand copies were sold in the first place, that's a good percentage... plus a major increase in traffic, for me), so I know people are out there looking for the next installment. It will sell. I just have to convince someone else of that. I have serious housework calling me. Signing off for now. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:02 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Richard said, "The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established as an ideal. But it is far more capitalistic than most members of the Church realize. For example, every member of the United Order was entitled to borrow money from the Order once--interest free! You could do it again only if you faithfully repaid the first loan. That's a fabulous way to create wealth and make a society grow rich fast. It obviously works well in a capitalistic system." Capitalism isn't just doing business or making money or selling. Capitalism is a system whereby the primary economic goal is not bettering people's lives or creating things of utility or beauty. Instead it is to create more capital. At least that's what Marx says. Capitalism wants to turn goods and materials into money. I hope I have my terms right here, but the United Order seems more like a Mercantile system. The United Order is an economic system designed to help people take care of their needs and the righteous portion of their wants. Lots of LDS people describe the United Order as capitalistic simply because money is involved, and that's not really what capitalism is, and certainly not what industrial capitalism is. - -- Todd - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:27:09 GMT From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Education Week Get-Together OK, let's do it. Anyone who is interested in getting together for dinner at a Provo or Orem restaurant during Education Week (August 19-23), please e-mail me your choice of date and a suggestion of a dining joint, if you have one. I'll pick the most popular date and place and then make Chris Bigelow call the restaurant for a reservation. (OK with you, Chris? Since you're down there, you know. And since you're such a nice guy.) You have, oh, two weeks or so to get back to me. - -Darlene Young p.s. I already have two plugs for Monday night. Sounds fine with me because I won't be with my family anyway, but that might be a problem for the locals. Opinions? ________________________________________________________________ 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, 17 Jul 2002 14:31:16 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Here's my question: what happens when we get the first generation of = General Authorities who grew up liking, and kept liking, rock and roll? Fact is, I don't think we have any yet. So far, the stance of the Church = vis a vis rock seems to be, after an initial period where talks periodicall= y would declare it carnal, sensual and devilish, a grudging recognition = that it's probably not going away, and that our youth do seem to like it, = so let's damage control as much as possible. And now we seem to be at a = cultural moment nationally where the main response to rock is to mourn its = passing, which may mean it's about time for a more positive reassessment = of it. Me, I like it all, from the Carpenters to gangsta rap. I think = it's all a valid cultural expression. But what if we had leadership in = the Church today who remembers Buddy Holly fondly, and rocks out to Little = Richard. Or a hardcore Dylan fan. Or a hardcore Led Zeppelin fan. Or = Smashing Pumpkins. =20 I mean, for Father's Day this year, my wife got me the best FD present = I've ever had; two third row center tickets to see Jethro Tull. And my = son tells me that Tull was always one of those bands seminary teachers = were particularly fond of attacking, but I grew up with Tull, have been = listening to their records for thirty years, have all their albums, and = have most of their songs memorized. I've had spiritual experiences = listening to Locomotive Breath. And I also love classical music, spent = years working professionally as a classical music DJ. I make no differntia= tion, IOW, between Mozart and Jerry Lee Lewis. So what if that were the = attitude of the Church? What if we in the Church actually took Psalm 150 = seriously? =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:14:50 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) My LDS bookgroup is reading this book (Prodigal Journey)for our "summer reading" selection. We were looking for something engrossing that you could get caught up in--you know...an escape. All 10 of the women reading this book have reported to me it has been just that--something they couldn't put down. They were all concerned at the size of the book when I announced it, but they all say it's a fast read, since they can't make themselves stop. I highly recommend it as a great story when you're looking for something to take you away from it all. I'll report back on the discussion we'll have on July 31 about Prodigal Journey. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:36:26 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Paris Anderson wrote: > Scott Parkin wrote: > > > I hoped you would, and I admit freely that I trolled specifically for your > > response (among others, not all of whom have responded yet...darn). > > Although the above line was addressed to Jacob Profitt I can only assume the > "others" Scott was me--perhaps me several times and that is why he used the > plural. Thank you, Scott. I had no idea you respected my opinions and > rantings so highly. I am flattered that you would like to hear from me on > this subject several times. It's not flattery if it's the truth. Thank you (both) for responding. > I think things will remain pretty much the same. There will several > different economic systems to choose from and variations within those > systems--kind of like what we had last week. The only thing that will > change will be the number of "enlighten" or spiritually evolved people in > the population--I guess Mormons call them Zion People. When the ratio > between Zion People and regurlar people changes the regular people will > naturally change. When all your neighbors are loving and Christ-like it's > hard to be a son-of-a-bitch all your life (I'm really trying, though). I spoke with both my bishop and his second counselor in separate conversations last night on this very topic, and both made pretty much this same point. They suggested that the hearts of the people are just not right, and that no external system will change their hearts. I was a little surprised at how ready both were to suggest the failure of the Saints--and they both seemed to believe that we have already passed the high point and that the number of people whose hearts are (close to) right are declining rapidly. That sort of semi-cynicism seems almost apocalyptic. Which is kind of the basis of my assumption. There are a few external institutions that are known to change peoples' hearts--war and poverty being the ones most discussed in scripture, with war being the one most generally emphasized in Mormon millennial speculative fiction. Both change peoples' focus from gathering wealth to surviving calamity and hopefully stopping it; community formed through crisis. Of course we have one rather substantial historical example that shows the results of a communal approach versus a strictly individualistic approach--the pioneers of the Mormon Trail versus those of the Oregon Trail. One had as it's goal the creation of a unified community, the other had the acquisition of individual wealth and advantage as its goal, with the result that very different stories are told about each. So the question remains--if people become loving and charitable and concern themselves with the welfare of others as much as their own comfort, how would that change of attitude manifest itself? Would the goal of distributing wealth more evenly result in changed social, economic, or political institutions? What kinds of changes would that entail, in your opinion? I think that's the basis of failure for most of the social/political/economic experiments: the focus was on creating the institutions first and hoping those institutions would change hearts. When the hearts failed to change, the institutions failed. Whichever came first--chicken or egg--the end result is that now we have both. In describing a utopic place it's a description of the new behaviors and institutions that most effectively illustrate the fact of a changed heart. In fiction, at least. Of course the possibilities are endless, as are the stories that could derive from those possibilities. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:20:08 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Originality in Art At 02:01 PM 7/17/02 -0500, you wrote: >Those who see the artist's >primary responsibility as linked to originality of thought are likely to be >seen as presumptuous by the other group at precisely the point when they >succeed best as artists, according to their own values. On the other hand, >those who do not place high value on originality are likely to be seen, by >those who do, as sellouts, or not real artists, or (at least) as unworthy >of serious attention. Jonathan's post does an excellent job of clarifying the discussions we've had on the list for some time and showing how these two disparate points of view relate to each other. I think he's right to wonder whether a reconciliation of these views is possible. Perhaps what we need more than reconciliation is acceptance. I don't object to someone else creating the kind of art that reflects his artistic vision, whether or not I find it pleasing. On the other hand, I do not appreciate having someone else telling me that my work is less valuable because it reflects my vision rather than his own. I disagreed, for example, with Thom's position that Greg Olsen's work isn't "art" because it doesn't do something new -- who says it has to? And I personally feel great distaste for the Dali portrait of Christ that he praises for being different -- it does nothing for me except distance me. There's room in the world for both types of art. There will always be both literary fiction and genre fiction -- perhaps the best we can do is to stop sneering across the dividing line at each other. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:35:11 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias on 7/12/02 5:00 PM, Jacob Proffitt at Jacob@Proffitt.com wrote: > I really dislike the whole capitalism = greed trope. I went so far as > to pen an essay describing why that is just not so > (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/Greed.html). Capitalism doesn't *create* > greed, it cripples it. And capitalism can't violate the principles of > charity and love, that requires agency. Capitalism makes charity less > *necessary*, but it doesn't stand in the way at *all* if people want to > practice charity and love. Not sure what you meant on that one. > [snip] > > Jacob Proffitt If I might add something to your excellent response, capitalism was invented by Marxists. Adam Smith didn't invent it--he merely observed and extrapolated his ideas from what he saw. Socialism and communism and every other form of collectivism is anti-specialization. Capitalism was a slur that they invented for those who were trying to adapt to the real world that Smith expounded. It's rather like yankee--a slur worn proudly just to show 'em. Whereas all the varied forms of collectivism are attempts to revive feudalism, capitalism is really just an attempt to adapt to the facts. I don't have any problem with the idea that capitalism will be the economic form of the millenium because its the only form in which there really can be no poor among us. Capitalism embraces freedom, and with a leader and ruler who is truly divine what need could there be for all the coersive evils of collectivism. Charity isn't charity if it be forced or coerced. It absolutely positively must be of each individual's free will. I must admit that I count Adam Smith as Mormon literature. Truth is truth, and everyone who wrote truth I call brother. If I can ever merit a seat among them it would really please me. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:36:26 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature on 7/15/02 12:15 PM, Todd Petersen at petersent@suu.edu wrote: > Writing is not a science. Science is a science. Writing is a craft, it's > an art, but it's not a science. Some have thought literature followed > some kind of algorithm and have written about it, but it doesn't. [snip] Couldn't disagree more. Science is merely too full of itself to admit it. Science is a craft like any other. There's nothing magic about it. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:36:29 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society At 01:18 PM 7/17/02 -0500, you wrote: >I've got a historical question, from somebody who lives in the south, >but was fairly young in 1978--wasn't this official Church doctrine? >I'm not quite sure what makes something "official", but I heard this >doctrine preached from the pulpit, and I'm pretty sure I read it in >lessons that had made it through the correlation committee. I was living in the south in 1970 when I was first tracted out by two young missionaries. When I learned about the restriction and asked about it, the explanation they gave me was that certain people in the pre-existence chose not to receive the priesthood here because they were afraid that would open them up to too much flak from Satan, and they were born into black bodies so that wouldn't happen. I was told that there was a finite number of such people and they would soon run out and worthy black males would then be given the priesthood. Has anyone ever heard that one? The restriction bothered me, because I was the one who had defended blacks against my redneck, good-ole-boy relatives as not being an inherently inferior race, and here I was about to join some weird church who kept blacks (and women, natch, but I was used to that) from positions of authority! I prayed about this issue, and the answer I got was that the church was true, so join it, and these problems that had their basis in human weakness would eventually be resolved. So that's what I did >barbara hume, who still hasn't prayed about some issues because she might >not like the answer - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:13:01 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Millennial Economics - ---Original Message From: Barbara Hume > > I read somewhere that it isn't so much that power corrupts -- > it's that > power attracts the corruptible. Large corporations spawn unrighteous > behavior like a swamp spawns mosquitoes. That environment enables the > self-serving and back-stabbing that characterize much of the > corporate > world. I think a lot would have to change in order for celestial > corporations to be possible! This is a false impression. The belief that corporate executives are self-serving and back-stabbing arises from an unfamiliarity with running businesses (and an unfamiliarity with people who run businesses). Executives have to make a lot of tough calls and are often forced to balance the pain of one group against the pain of another. Command decisions are rough and often no path exists that will make everybody happy. Anybody who lays people off knows that there's just no way to express adequate sympathy and that people are supremely uninterested to hear about the pain you went through when the pain of others is so obvious. Even discontinuing an obviously failing product means that you will be unpopular and called all kinds of unjust names. And when it comes to commerce, the fact is that companies run more on trust than on anything else. You see this at companies like Enron and WorldCom where that trust was abused. A huge amount of resources are saved if you can establish a trusting relationship. As such, most executives rely on their reputation for integrity more than pretty much anything else. There are exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are rare and often short lived. > Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the > Indians get > along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans > came along and > decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in > it was free > for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. The Indians got along (on those occasions when they weren't killing each other) because they were so few spread out on a land so large. And they led short, brutal lives that ensured that their numbers remained few. When the Europeans came, they were able to support the same population as the Indians on a fraction of the required land. It wasn't a difference of ownership, it was a difference of technology and culture. > Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) > >their property. > > To me, owning and stewardship are two different things, so I > don't know how > to deal with this statement. What is a stewardship to you? Interesting. How are they different? To me, you can't have stewardship over something you can't control, and the fact of being able to control something means ownership. Unless you bring in unrighteous dominion or illegal force--in which case it would be neither ownership nor stewardship. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:01:03 -0500 From: "Travis Manning" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries [Jonathan, I hope this will work to post on the AML list.] I have three questions, the third for a Mormon lit buff. First, is the "Ensign" mag allowing more poetry these days, if it's of a "higher quality?" Page 7 (a prominent position for poetry in the "Ensign") of July 2002's Ensign contains the historical poem "At Journey's End," by Elaine Wright Christensen.  It's really a fabulous poem about an 1847 pioneer entry into the Salt Lake Valley; I really like "At Journey's End" because it has a historical/nonfiction quality about it, while gripping the reader with a strong sense of endurance and faith. Are "Ensign" editors allowing more poetry now, because it's of a "higher quality" (my emphasis added).. Second, are any of you located in Spokane, Washington, or do you know of any LDS writers in the Spokane/northern Idaho area? My wife and I moved here two weeks ago so I can pursue an MFA in literary nonfiction at Eastern Washington University. I want to get a writing group going here. Third, does anyone know if author John D. Fitzgerald is Mormon? Fitzgerald is the author of the "Great Brain" children's book series of the 1940s. He also wrote a biography/family history book about his own father's family called _Papa Married a Mormon_, copyright 1955, by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 298 pp. Thanks for any help you can provide on any of these three questions. Travis Manning Travis K. Manning "Men and women die; philosophers falter in wisdom, and Christians in goodness: if any one you know has suffered and erred, let him look higher than his equals for strength to amend, and solace to heal." (Jane Eyre) - ---------- MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <'http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENUS/c156??PI>Click Here - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:13:24 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Writing as Science (was: Thoughts on Art and Literature) on 7/17/02 11:23 AM, Scott Parkin at scottparkin@earthlink.net wrote: Writing is a science as much as any other discipline. The difference is that human beings are individual unique mentally, and therefore the same set of stimuli do not affect them equally. Beer is one of the first things to be invented--a recipe is one of the oldest writings in existence. Animals were genetically engineered for millenia, only they didn't know that was what they were doing. Their efforts were "artistic" because they didn't really understand all the ins and outs of the systems they were toying with, but they still got results. Right now these extremely ancient sciences are much better understood. Genetic engineering could become civilization-altering for better of for worse. The fact is they're still playing with things they don't fully understand but they've gained ground and are gaining more daily. So it is with writing. The search is the same--for truths. Writing that survives is universal and timeless, that can be understood by people generations or centuries apart. That is the "greater" desire of writing, but there are simple, consistent, reproduceable formulas that appeal to certain groups of people. That's why they call them formula novels. So long as all the blanks are filled correctly it will sell to the target audience. The fact that nobody's figured out a universally appealing way to write a novel doesn't mean that it can't be done. People gravitate to genres because it fits them. Someday somebody may write a novel that EVERYONE will want to read, and EVERYONE will understand. Bit of a tall order, methinks, but you never know. Sort of like solving one of the mysteries of the universe. As for physical sciences, there are portions that are scientific, but there are hundreds of competing theories for anything you want. There is no single standard for almost every theoretical framework in any discipline. I have read 19 different versions of the theory of evolution that are currently being debated, and none of them is much like Darwin's original. I haven't read Gould's monstrous swan song, but his theory is rejected by most scientists. So are all the others. Each has a small minority, and everybody thinks that HIS version is the most common one. In reality the most common one dates from the 30s and is horribly obsolete and really quite funny--but it's the one that shows up in most textbooks. When science becomes scientific I might consider altering my opinion. So long as it produces good technologies I'm all for it, but in terms of explaining the world, or even figuring out what causes cancer, please. The jury hasn't even been selected yet. The recent bombshell about estrogen is a perfect example. Or oat-bran. Or eggs bad for you good for you bad for you good for you. The list goes on forever. The fact of the matter is, writing is much more scientific that most science. It uses a different laboratory and its own logic, but the formulas aren't hard to memorize. It's the big picture that's hard to master. This is the reason I say that Einstein or Newton or Curie or Pasteur were artists. They rose above formula and mastered formulations that have stood the test of time. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:53:10 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Count me in. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:11:59 -0500 From: The Laird Jim (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias >on 7/16/02 12:07 PM, Scott Parkin at scottparkin@earthlink.net wrote: >>I know that during the mid-1800s there were >> a number of experiments put on by a set of what might be termed >> "intellectual elite" (Emerson, et al) that required every person to both >> work on the collective farm--all participated in the physical maintenance of >> the farm--then gave every person time to develop their intellectual >> facilities, most particularly literature and the pursuit of the natural >> sciences. One of the explicit goals of those collectives was to escape a >> hectic world, with physical labor as a necessary evil and leisure time as >> the functional goal. The result was a willingness to accept a minimal >> comfort as the cost of minimal work, with specialization as a function of >> leisure time rather than communal growth. Limited luxury was part of the >> plan--perhaps the only part that was executed flawlessly. >> >> So why is specialization impossible in a socialized system? The equity issue >> and the relative power of one person to earn more in a free market system >> than another person? The inherent tendency of people to create >> hierarchies--with the social stratification that tendency supports? Intellectual elite is the very purpose of socialism. Socialism replaces the warrior feodality with an intellectual feodality that knows best for everyone. It proposes nothing but the return to inefficient agrarian feudalism with new masters. The rest of us still get to be serfs, and of course intellectuals could never be as cruel as warriors. Specialization requires eduacation, desire, and reward, all of which were denied to serfs and slaves throughout history. Capitalism provides all three, which is why it's the best form of society. Everyone may not act rationally, which is why Utopia=noplace, but they get to decide for themselves what rational is, and if they're wrong they suffer for it. Capitalism lessens the damage that an individual can do--because it can only work in a free society. China will soon learn that. They loose the chains just a bit and capitalism will break them. Specialization is the natural outcome of capitalism, and the natural order of life. It is what is, and capitalism is just a recognition of the facts. Socialism attempts to curb specialization as it attempts to curb every other freedom. There has never been a pure socialism because people just won't stay in their assigned pigeonhole. If you've read Marx's ramblings about working the fields in the morning, the tavern at midday and watching the flocks in the afternoon then it's obvious what he felt about specialization. It's also ludicrous--imagine being a surgeon in the morning, a geologist at noon and a nuclear physicist in the afternoon. Those things wouldn't exist without specialization, and wouldn't exist without capitalism. Zion is not utopia in any way. More's original concept is a place where everyone acts rationally. From a mortal perspective there are plenty of things that are not necessarily rational but symbolic or spiritual. Take baptism as a for instance. Reason is not the cure-all that Kant and other imangined. It's not that hard to string together a self-consistent logic to explain anything or everything you want. The fact that it's well-reasoned doesn't make it true. There are vast bodies of belief that sound very rational, that are believed with religious faith, and which are based entirely on falsehood. The modern form of socialism is predicated on the idea that the human race can and more importantly will evolve into a higher species. Socialism is the breeding and education program. Socialism is nothing more or less than the jump-off to the next stage of human evolution. Evolution itself is just such another, a "scientific" religion, believed dogmatically and reflexively, but no less self-consistent and rational, unless one actually looks at the exiguous evidence. Zion could be decribed in literature much more easily than in fact. It could be achieved on earth but not without the intervention of God. For the whole world to swallow the narcissistic pride that governs so much of mankind would take an intervention of global proportions, on the order of, say, the return of the Christ. There have been eras of peace before, usually a less than a decade long, and they have always been through the strength or hegemony of some nation or other, with the exception of the Nephites after somebody who's name escapes me visited them. The colonial period was such a time, from the Treaty of Vienna to WWI. Wasn't nearly as fabulous as all that, though wars were rare and localized during that time. Peace is merely the absence of war, and there are worse things than war, as the survivors of the Kolyma camps could tell you. World peace is impossible without something of the kind. There could be a watchful peace, or a cold war sort of peace, or a glaring over the borders kind of peace, but real peace is something that will never happen so long as the world remains ungrateful to God. Zion does not equal Utopia. Zion is the embodiment of gratitude, not reason, which is the source of charity. Pity doesn't cause charity necessarily, since it can easily include the comfortable supposition of superiority. Gratitude is the enemy of pride and the source of charity, and when Jesus does come back it will rule the world beside him. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:02:27 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Interesting Literary Device This has little to do with Mormon literature, but more with a way of writing I've just encountered that I don't recall seeing before. I picked up a novel called "Violets are Blue" by James Patterson. It's a mystery novel. I didn't get too far into the book before I realized I was lost without having read the previous volume, titled "Roses are Red." So I stopped reading the second book, got the first one, and became very interested in the story. Behind all the mayhem is a character named the Mastermind. The chief protagonist is a copy named Alex Cross. On the last page of the first book, we learn who the Mastermind is. But Alex Cross does not learn this. I now have returned to the second book. Readers who read the first book know the Mastermind's identity. Readers who begin with the second book are just as much in the dark as is Alex Cross. I suppose this is kind of a reward for having read book #1. But this is the first time I've seen this done in a series. - ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:36:41 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Faith-Building Literature? Cathryn Lane asked: >Maybe another question we should ask is their literature out there that = >would=20 >decrease faith? Should we censor our reading?=20 It seems to me that there are two separate issues here. I think it likely = that there is reading that would damage our relationship with the Holy = Ghost. Pornography, I suppose, would be an example of that. =20 But when we ask about writing that might decrease faith, that seems to me = a different question. Then we're asking, is there stuff out there that, = if we read it, will cause us to question our testimony so substantially = that we might stop believing in God or in the Church. And to that = question, I would say that the answer is an absolute, unequivocal, no. It = is not possible that anything could be written that would cause us to lose = our testimony, if indeed a testimony is something worth having. =20 There can't be. If the gospel contains all truth, then anything we read = will either be filled with truth or falsehoods, or, obviously for most any = piece of writing, a mix of the two. But most writing is simply a = testimony itself, a person describing the world she lives in and how she = copes with it. That can't possibly damage anyone's testimony. Anti-Christ= ian or anti-Mormon writing might be an attempt to deliberately and = intentionally damage one's faith. But the only methods that can be = employed are truth or lies or a mixture of the two. We can generally sort = them out pretty easily, or if a particular piece of writing bothers us, = then find ten more pieces of writing to put the one troublesome piece in = context. =20 The answer, in other words, is never to censor ourselves, but to educate = ourselves, not to read less, but always to read more. The same perhaps = could not be accurately said of the kind of writing that might damage our = relationship to the Holy Ghost. Then, perhaps, the answer might be to = avoid such works. But in my experience, such works are easily recognized = and easily avoided. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #775 ******************************