From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #784 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 26 2002 Volume 01 : Number 784 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:04:39 -0700 From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald Lund's Fiction Scott, I guess I was a bit blunt in my adjective about Lund's fiction. I respect and admire him as a man and a brother for all the same reasons you state, and think he's a marvelous person. I was absolutely THRILLED when he was called to be a General Authority. Nothing could have been more right then that. I am also absolutely certain he was inspired to right the WATG series as well as his newest series, and think its fantastic the impact it has had on its readers. Which is why I am so frustrated by the quality of the writing itself which he's put his good name to. You pointed out just the kind of thing that drives me up a wall -- "her eyes were twin volcanoes belching fire." I've read far too many grade-b novels in my day, and his writing style just isn't polished, to say the least. Some of it is no better than a harlequin romance. And some of the harlequin romance junk is far better! Basically, what it all boils down to is I have so much respect for his ability and integrity, that I expected more from him than is there in the quality of his fiction, hence my disappointed criticism of his work's writing quality. Kathy Fowkes - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:36:28 EDT From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies In a message dated 7/25/02 6:00:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net writes: [Chaim Potok] > is a role model for how many of us would like to write > about the LDS culture and religion You know, I'm not sure that is true, although it is a formulation that I=20 myself have used to describe the writing I want to do. But as I've thought= =20 about it more, I've decided that one of the reasons Chaim Potok was so=20 popular at a time when spirituality was not okay to talk about was that he= =20 told his stories from the point of view of young adults who were leaving the= =20 "fold," who ultimately believed that, despite its gifts of community and= deep=20 emotional resonance, traditional religion limited the range and power of=20 human understanding and accomplishment. He may have been sympathetic to the= =20 goals of Hasidism and to the goodwill of those who practiced it, but in the= =20 final analysis he believed that Believers were mistaken. I think this=20 argument is most obvious in _The Gift of Asher Lev_ which was written fairly= =20 late in his career. Although _My Name is Asher Lev_ is one of my favorite= =20 novels ever, I found its sequel to be deeply disturbing because of its open= =20 rejection of the relevance of both traditional religious and familial=20 relationships to the life of an "artiste." I guess what I'm saying in all= =20 these run-on sentences is that I loved his early stuff because it seemed to= =20 hint at the richness that I have always found in the creative tension that= =20 exists between my spiritual faith and intellectual endeavors. In the end,= =20 however, his argument seemed to be firmly on the side of individual=20 intellect, a position that I find sterile and predictable. IMO, of course. Kimberley (Heuston) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:43:05 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Letters: Mid-Year Observations Hi. Just happened to be "lurking" and sorry, Margaret, (although of great benefit to me) Andrew got us "twins" mixed up again! It is Marilyn Brown, who is indeed "sixty-something going on sixty") (actually more) (And now feeling it, actually) to quote the brilliant Alan R. Mitchell and she has not been on the list for several months trying to catch up with MANY things (including lots of theatre problems left us by a board walk). And yes, my GHOSTS OF THE OQUIRRHS is out now from Salt Press/Cedar Fort--and here's hoping somebody will read it. Nice to see the regulars still posting! Sincerely, Marilyn Brown - ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Hall > > Margaret Brown and Marilyn Arnold have new novels out recently > at Cedar Fort. Arnold used to be a Covenant author, and has > gotten good reviews. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:57:22 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Blogging (comp 1) (was: English Departments Etc.) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From Jacob@proffitt.com Wed Jul 24 16:42:17 2002 Blog is short for "weblog" which is a form of writing that has become very popular very recently (mainly with the explosion of "war blogging" that occurred after 9/11 when tons of people who lived in New York City decided to open a kind of online journal/news broadcast for family and friends). Blogging can be just about anything, though. Any topic, any form, limited only by the whim (and talent) of the author. You can see my blog as an example (with links to other blogs for contrast), or visit www.blogger.com for FAQs (as well as a tool used by the vast majority of, er, those who blog). Jacob Proffitt - ---------------------------------------------- >From jremy@uci.edu Wed Jul 24 17:44:39 2002 Blog is an abbreviation of "Web Log" and refers to a regularly updated online journal. Blogs make up a category with very fuzzy boundaries, but they are typically daily postings of internet links and opinions, often focusing on a common theme. (see http://portal.eatonweb.com/cat.php for a whole mess of blog links indexed by category) Blogs have proliferated thanks to sites like http://www.blogger.com, which allows people with absolutely no prior knowledge of html and web design to have an online journal up in minutes. To add entries, the author simply goes to the Blogger.com site, logs in, fills in a form with their latest gripes, rants and raves, and clicks on the submit button. Their words are instantly available for the entire world to see. What's more, readers can submit their own opinions of the author's journal entries after reading them. Thus a blog is much more than a daily posting of personal monologues-it is an interactive experience. Writing in a diary can be a very private experience, but blogging can be a mix of very public and private at the same time. You could say that blogging is emotional exhibitionism. One drawback of the ease of blog creation is that the web is now cluttered with bad writing. For every fifty blogs out there, there is probably only one worth reading. On the other hand, some blogs are a rich blend of beautiful photography and graphic design and heartfelt, thought-provoking, and poetic personal revelations. Some form the cornerstones of entire online communities. I'll include links to a few blog sites here-visiting one of these will you a much better idea of what a blog is than my long-winded explanation. They are not representative-just places I'm familiar with. Warning: A lot of bloggers use colorful language or speak explicitly about topics which may offend some of you. Follow at your own risk. These two are by influential web developers: http://www.scottandrew.com/ http://www.zeldman.com/ For some reason this one is really popular: http://www.jish.nu These are personal blogs that I follow regularly: http://tycho.i8.com/ http://www.bluishorange.com My own blog is at: http://www.mindonfire.com Hope this clarifies more than it confuses! John Remy UC Irvine - ----------------------------------------------------- >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Wed Jul 24 23:16:18 2002 I know that blogging is what they call those personal webpages where the author rambles on about anything and everything...an internet journal, if you will. But I can't figure out where the term derives from--biography and log? blabby and log? Anyone know? Kim Madsen - --------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:25:32 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias on 7/23/02 7:34 PM, Eric R. Samuelsen at ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu wrote: >> Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no >matter >> how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. The belief that they >> are is contributing to those problems. > > Demonstrably false. A great many governmental programs to alleviate poverty > are quite successful, provided that they are adequately funded and > intelligently administered. There is not a single government program that alleviates poverty, except for those who administrate the program. They would certainly be poor if they weren't consuming 73% of the welfare dollars. > >> They are personal problems and >> must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only >> possible if people are motivated to solve them. > > This sounds very much like blaming the poor for their poverty. It is quite > true that the motivation of someone in poverty is a key to escaping it. But > the working poor I've met (and in our old ward, they were very much the > majority), work a good deal harder than I do, and are highly motivated to > escape poverty. They can't, not because they're not smart enough, not > motivated enough, not driven enough, but simply because it's next to > impossible. And the programs which could help aren't adequately funded. This > is an article of faith on the right, that programs intended to alleviate > poverty don't work and make bad situations worse. It's not true; never has > been. Obviously some programs work better than others. > In many cases the poor are to blame for their poverty. King Benjamin said not to judge them but to give freely. So far so good. He did not say "I shall point a gun in your face and threaten you with ruin and jail unless you fund the poor with more money than you make working." Welfare programs in some states bring in more than $40,000 per family. That's a fabulous living in some of the places I've lived. When I was making $20,000 I was paying 15% of my pay so that someone who didn't work could get $32,000 per year (which is the AZ level). Utterly unfair because I was not given a choice. How can somebody who gets $32,000 per year in Arizona remain poor? It takes real work to manage that--this is a really cheap place to live. If the problem of poverty is to be solved by taking from productive and giving to the lazy, then what good is it? It has only made a change for the worse, which is why the pilgrims abandoned their little "communism" at Plymouth. >> Again, I like the >> church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however >> flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, >> available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge of the real >> situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often >> eschewed for the easier options available from other sources-->preventing >> the long-term solutions that would truly alleviate suffering. > > I'm a big fan of the Church welfare program. It helps. In conjunction with > government programs to alleviate poverty, it can make a difference. Up to a > point. > The difference is that the Church welfare program works. Government programs aren't doomed to failure merely because they're administered by the government. Bureaucracy is the weakness of government, it is not inherent. The distance from the problem and the insulation of many layers below makes for foolish decisions and immoral behavior in the extreme. The federal and state welfare system is immoral because it operates by force and because it perpetuates problems to always get a yearly increase in funding. It requires the poor to continue to exist, so they will always remain among us. The weakness of all totalitarian systems is force and deceit--which are really the same thing. >> King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at *all*. He >> didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so I'm >> going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He *could* have done >> so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual good if >> he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by refusing to live a >> life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the poor among >> them. He rallied them to their personal duty, not to some governmental >> program. He *had* force he could have employed, he chose instead to >> teach and leave people to their responsibility. > > We don't know that. His great talk, the greatest ever given on the subject, > doesn't address issues of taxation at all. It doesn't say anything about the > existence of government programs or the lack thereof. We can conclude that > what he's talking about urging greater private support for private charity, or > we could just as easily conclude that he's urging his people to be less > grudging in their support of public assistance. The text supports either > interpretation. What I think he's saying is "I'm the king, but look at my > palace. Pretty shabby! I've kept your taxes pretty low when it comes to > supporting me. That was so tax dollars could be spent where they're most > needed, to support the poor. So get with the program and pay up what you > owe." > > Eric Samuelsen > If our present government would say that there really would be no poverty in America. In the eighties when taxes went down charitable giving rose much more sharply than ever before. People don't like being forced. The most generous person in the world can get riled when somebody tries to force her to pony up. It makes on mulish. I dont' resent any of the charitible donations I've made, and I don't resent the people who benefit from them, quite the contrary. But I resent every single person on government welfare no matter how deserving because they are robbing me. I resent social security because three generations ago they voted my pay into their pockets by falling for that ridiculous ponzi scheme. Like I'm ever going to see any of that money back. I'd have had more fun burning it. Adam Smith did not invent capitalism. He didn't really invent anything. All he did was observe more lucidly than anyone had done before--or since. Capitalism was invented by Karl Marx, and reactionaries fell into the trap and took up the label. There is no capitalist system--it is just the natural order. A commercial republic like the USA has the rule of law and the absolute need for religion and morality to harness nature instead of trying to contain it. Every other system tried is just an attempt to subjugate the free decisions of free people. No society is free that does not have the freedom to spend money freely. Since God puts such a high value on personal responsibility it is impossible that any society where Jesus openly rules would be ordered in any other manner than freely. Freedom and responsibility are the same thing, and by accepting welfare from the government one surrenders freedom along with responsibility. I have lived in several areas where poverty is indeed difficult to escape, particularly in TN and Chile. People do it every day despite the difficulty. I've done it myself--twice. I know what it is to be utterly desperate and seemingly trapped, but it turns out that traps can be broken and desperation doesn't really last if you struggle on. Poverty will only vanish when vice does, so in the meantime it would be best for people to personally take an interest in someone they can help, instead of paying 10,000 bureaucrats to administer a program for 800 people. There is no lack of funding--if funding would solve the problem then the $6 trillion dollars spent so far would've made a larger dent. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:13:14 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" > I thought myself really cool to be still into rock music on into the > eighties. But when it deteriotated (pardon the opinion word) into grunge > and alternative (don't hate me, Parkin), I mourned the end of true rock and > roll. But never, from Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock on to The > Scorpions, did I think of it as evil, or think I should give it up when I > joined the Church. You know, the waltz, now considered suitable mainly for > the old poops, was considered scandalous and fast when it was first > introducted to English society around 1814. I was with ya until the bit about grunge. (I grew up as a teenager in the Seattle grunge scene, got to see all the bands in little clubs before they got popular. It wasn't grunge that destroyed rock'n'roll--it was the major labels over producing cookie cutter bands left and right.) But don't dispair. There is still good rock being made, it's just not on the radio. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:18:38 -0600 From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Rich Hammett 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. This is a long reply, but I have wanted to share this for a long time. I hope it will help us be able to heal this wound, to cease to continue to rip it open. I did live in the South from 1969 to 1980 and will never forget the joyous day of 1978 and the revelation on the priesthood and all worthy members. I know for a fact that when I was challenged in the school court yard on this issue which had never been taught in my home, I went straight to my father/bishop and challenged him. My father grew-up in the Avenues in Salt Lake City and had personally known several general authorities and one or two presidents. His father had actively proselyted the soldiers on State Street during WWII, with my father at his side. My father had served in young mens programs in Washington, New York and New Jersey, in a bishopbric in California, and as Branch President/Bishop in Illinois before being Branch President/Bishop in Asheville, North Carolina. He had served as a seminary teacher of early morning seminary in New Jersey and Illinois. Maybe that doesn't qualify him to know what church doctrine was then, but when I asked him my questions, he seemed to have been exposed to the question and comfortable in telling me his answer. While my father validated the restriction of priesthood authority for black members, he explained that we really did not know why this was so. He said that he expected that we would some day know, but that for now, it was not nearly so important as that we pray that the day would soon come that the rule would be changed. He expressed to me and reassured me that he was sure that the rule would change sometime soon. It was later that I came back because of a member's casual reference to the curse of Cain. Again, my father stated that we really did not know and did not need to know, so much as we needed to pray that the day for change would come soon. It was often a matter of prayer for me for sometime after that. I was 20 1/2 years and visiting/working for my aunt in Germany when that fateful June day occurred. Funny how it was June. I remember thinking how strange my convert uncle's reaction was to my happiness. His question was "Are you happy about this?" "Oh yes, we've waited for this for so long!" He walked away to ponder that one and I to wonder. Maturity has taught me about his concern, though it has not changed my viewpoint. I understand that many members of the church covered this issue and used such things as the curse of Cain theory to justify prejudices and/or concerns. However, it remained just that, a theory. There was never a revelation canonized into the accepted LDS scriptures that supported it. I think that even now in LDS church meetings I meet everything on the rule that we are all given as members the responsibility to ask for revelation. When I hear anyone, even a general authority speak, I am constantly evaluating what is said by what I read in all the scriptures and hear from the prophet. I have had many a personal revelation validated by what is said in General Conference. I have also heard things there occasionally and nearly every Sunday in my Ward that I put a cautionary flag on and post it in my "wait and see" shelf or my "experiment up the word" shelf. That, I was taught as a child, is the duty for each Latter-day Saint. It has been a wonderful journey to see the growing up of the United States under an inspired constitution and the LDS church under inspired leadership over the 40+ years of my life. How grateful I am for the miracles of God's handy work among men. And we are not done yet. President Hinckley has said that the United States Government will never again be able to stand apart and allow 20,000 of her citizens be forced from their homes in the dead of winter. Well, neither will she ever be able to tolerate slavery again. The next step is that we must still strive against the sex slave trade. It will someday be conquered, but only with the freewill of the people of this country. I would like to include the following if Jonathan does not mind: These are some earlier thoughts on the matter of the transition time of the 1970's. I often wonder if I will ever find a way to tell you what it is like to earn the respect of people who look upon you as a stranger. I was never one of them, but then I was a Yankee moving into southern town and a 8th generation Mormon among staunch Baptists, Evangelists and Presbyterians. I was a woman educated in world politics living brought into the back hills of isolated Appalachia by my father's job change. I was never one of any of them. However they respected me in spite of the choices I made to be peculiar and I was as happy as a teenage with my challenges could be. I made a choice to be so. I did not realize at the time that I entered Valley Springs Elementary School that I was entering upon an historic moment. I did know that I had left good friends behind in Moline, IL. I never again was able to form a friendship like those I had left behind. I have found as a mother that this is a problem typical to 11 years old who move out of reach of their old neighborhoods. But, at the moment, in my naivety, I sought out a friendship among my classmates. In the process, my differences where brutally brought into my awareness. There was not one piece of playground equipment for the fifth grade when we went out to recess. There was not even a bat and ball to use on the ball diamond. So the pass time, three times a day was to stand about in groups and gossip, discuss, interrogate and challenge. Watching each other, and learning a lot about the class distinctions in our groups were our daily fair. I just had no clue, not having grown up in such a situation. I had left a school that had been populated by mixed races and incomes. We had either brought our jacks, ropes Chinese jump ropes and balls from home or shared with those who had them. We rotated among the groups and had very loving and thorough adult supervision. Unlike the tails I hear from my children here in Utah, we were kept busy enough to avoid serious consideration of class or other distinctions. We all loved getting out for recess. Now, I was in a nearly all white school, though I did not realize it at first because I take such delight in seeing differences, even within families. The process of finding friends to associate with, peers who would let me join their discussions, and something to play with was frustrated by the fact that the children had grown up with class distinctions. I ruled my conduct by the standards of the gospel: 1. Everyone is a child of God. 2. Heavenly Father wants all of his children to someday return to him. 3. In order to return to Him, all of his children must have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel. and then the last from my father, 4. If a person is not yet ready to accept what you have shared, they are still a child of God, loved by him and by me. 5. My own rule, no matter who was walking toward me, I would offer them a smile and a welcoming greeting. We didn't UNDERSTAND each other, but through my efforts to share the gospel and learn where each of them was on the path back to Heavenly Father, we did learn to allow for our differences. Things began to settle down. Little did most of us understand the history in the making of our own community. Finally, two and half years after I moved to North Carolina, the school district condemned the "Shiloh" school so that the black community would consent to permit their children to be integrated into the larger school. Our Elementary School (grades 1-8), was at last integrated. My class elected our first class president as eighth graders. Marvin Johnson was the best candidate and we thought the world of him. So what if he was black. (1971) When we graduated in 1976, he was the best singer and he sang our class song as well as doing a number of other things in the program. He was still the best. Well, we're ALL growing up now. All of us are learning to be happy to be ourselves, finally. We are also finding a self-respect in our ancestry and how it defines who we are. And isn't it nice that we're closer to the point where we can all CELEBRATE diversity! Hooray! Of course there are differences, and how wonderful differences are (even when they hurt or take away from us, we have such a wonderful opportunity to grow from pain ). Diversity keeps the world from being boring! It wasn't till I moved to Utah in the 1985 that I realized that there were actually LDS who were still apologizing for the church and Heavenly Father. I realize now that I probably met them in other places, but they never found it necessary to enlighten me. I have gradually come to understand the purpose of professional apologists. They have their place. We must as a church and as individuals answer criticisms and judgements of others. Through this process we will continue to define ourselves. That is part of growing up. I feel like Utah is behind much of the rest of the church in this matter. I feel like saying to a lot of 8th generation Utahns, "Get your head out of the sand!" Aren't we funny, how we think we have so much here in Utah. What if even funnier is how much we don't realize that we are missing out on. What troubles me most here in Utah is that even now, I have only met one black person in Utah that did not meet my smile and greeting with suspicion. I am very grateful that I finally met that wonderful young woman in the temple the other day. I hope to go to Genesis Group soon. May be that will be a good experience too. Just a few years after I moved to Utah, I had an interesting experience at a Stake Women's Conference. Our featured speaker was a African American woman in the Tab Choir who once marched with Rev. King and Rev. Jackson. I started to share with her some of my experiences and she stopped me and told me in her own words that love will conquer all. And so it is. Even after a heated discussion, that increase of love will allow both sides of any disagreement to agree to disagree. Parley P. Pratt has said of the South that there is more of the house of Israel there than any other part of the United States. My impression when I read the quote in context was that he was referring to the lost 10 tribes. They are a precious, devout group of people. My High School Graduating class reunions are fun time for me to return to the Appalachian Hills to celebrate the love I feel for a large group of diverse people, none of whom, to my knowledge ever joined the LDS Church, but I know the seeds were planted in the great faith of a little girl who trusted that all her pain and effort was not wasted. It just has not started to rain on the lost 10 tribes yet. [Lynette Jones] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:37:18 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" John Williams wrote: >snip >Of course, when you begin to distinguish between >"music" and the lyrics in music, then it becomes a little >harder to conflate the "good" and the "bad." But it is, of >course, still the same--just sound in the air. Swear >words are just more sound in the air (have you ever >noticed how non-threatening a cuss word in another >language sounds?). >snip No! I've been sworn at in several languages while serving in the navy during the `cold war,' and in my years of working in construction or commuting on public transportation in San Francisco. Even though I didn't always catch all the ramifications, innuendos, references to genetics, connotations and denotations of the words being flung at me, It was unmistakably derogatory, threatening and offensive. >snip >Now, you may feel that those particular letters, strung >together like that, have been unjustly ascribed this >terrible connotation (well, denotation, really). Maybe >your last name is F---. Whatever. But it would be an act >of supremely forced innocence to declare that those >letters placed together--considering the enormous >interpretive power of our language community--are >neither "good" nor "bad." (A bit like continuing to use the >word "gay" when calling someone happy). One would >have to be supremely confident in one's spirituality to >begin using the F-word on a regular basis, and not >experience at least SOME spiritual backlash, mainly >because one NEEDS an interpretive community in order >to progress spiritually (if you are a Mormon, it's difficult >not to accept that point). >snip I wonder how Mr. Frick feels when he hears people saying things like, "The frickin' cop gave me a ticket." Unfortunately our signifiers are metamorphic by nature. Over time the meaning of words change. Sometimes it is difficult for older speakers to change their mental lexicons to suit the times. I got accused of being a sexist because I used the word housewife when discussing the availability of technology to the general public in our world marketplace. And I have been guilty of referring to myself, or worse yet, others, as feeling `gay' when what I truly meant was in a euphoric mood. As far as the F word goes I agree that it isn't advisable to go around using that word, nor any of its substitutes. If the message we intend to communicate must needs refer to sexual intercourse, then that is what we should say. However in our writing, especially in vernacular dialogue, it sometimes becomes necessary to write F_ _ _ (sorry). Not too many people know that this word is derived from a perfectly innocent acronym that became a word simply because it was easier to say it than say the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went along with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. First they began writing in the logs- F._._._. then they began pronouncing it like it sounds, then people began using it to denote the act of soliciting or procuring the services of prostitutes. Now people who find the word too offensive use words like frick, freak, frig, etc. It's kind of like darn, heck, sugar, or Cheese and Rice. My point is if you have to think about the meaning of the inappropriate word long enough to come up with an acceptable euphemism then you've already tarnished your mind. But that is why we have repentance. I grew up on bad language. I didn't join the church until I was 17, and by the time I was 5, I could swear like a drunken sailor. When I was baptized and ordained I had to give the young men in the priesthood my permission to slug me as hard as they could on the shoulder every time I uttered an expletive deleted. And even now 49 years later when I'm alone and something happens that raises my ire, I might just utter a blue streak. In order to maintain a personal relationship with the Holy Ghost, I think we each should try, to the best of our ability, to keep our speech impeccable, and refrain from listening to, uttering, or writing offensive words. I realize that in our writing, when we are dealing with conflict or evil, it is sometimes necessary to write these kinds of words, just as it is sometimes necessary to get the point across on stage, on screen, or , I suppose, in music. When these occasions come up I think we (enlightened writers) need to take extra time to decide whether it is really necessary in order to make our point. Regards, Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:58:52 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance ___ Thom ___ | It allowed the untruths of certain very important Apostles | and their Sons-in-Law to be published with the apparent | agreement of the Church. We realize now that Mormon Doctrine | by McConkie contained thousands of doctrinal errors and even | though it was initially quashed, it was eventually published. | Several generations of Mormons were influenced by MD and its | personal opinions posing as official doctrine. The | institution (meaning the Church) could have insisted that | the book never be published and even now, could insist that | it be taken off the market. ___ I'm not sure how this relates to institutional repentance. You obviously don't *like* _Mormon Doctrine_ but I'm not sure how its existence is an institutional "sin" nor what you mean in the above relative to the notion of institutional repentance. Is there anything without error? Let us not confuse error with sin nor repentance with perfection. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:13:35 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. ___ Gae ___ | I think you are right about English professors not being | (on average) as thoroughly grounded in history of | philosophy as those in the philosophy department. But | nonetheless English departments use deconstructive | criticism and most current literary theory is derived | from poststructuralist, postmodern-kinds of (non)roots. | Not only in English departments, but throughout the | academy, postmodernism has changed the way we do | business. ___ I think the problem is that it isn't an issue of being grounded in the *history* of philosophy but rather philosophical thinking. I personally don't think one can do deconstruction (at least of the sort Derrida and de Man engage in) without that philosophical background. While I think the line between literature and philosophy gets blurred, that doesn't mean that it reduced. Derrida in particular makes very careful readings. Postmodernism has changed the way literature and the humanities in general do business. However I think that the critics of postmodernism are able to make the attacks they do because the way it has changed business isn't always in a rational fashion. ___ Gae ___ | So one way to respond to the critics of the changing politics | of scholarship is to say that nobody really knows what is | going on (except in the Father discipline of philosophy) so | how can we be critical. ___ If no one knows what is going on and people admit that to the critics it establishes the critics point. The problem is that the originators of postmodernism required a careful, examined, reasoned reading of texts. This is true of Heidegger, Derrida and others. When you raise the statement/question of "how can we be critical" it can be read in two ways. The first is as a statement in which one is ironic. The point is to assert that we can't be critical. The second is the question which asks how to be critical. While I suspect your writing that in that manner was unconscious it is interesting how it does illustrate the issue. ___ Gae ___ | I think the critics are often just saying (perhaps as you | note very ignorantly of the philosophical roots) that | they don't like the new politics and the way power is | shifting. ___ I think the critics are actually saying that there is a lot more gobbly-gook out there. Further that postmodernism allows some to justify a rejection of rigor and the assumption that if you can fake the style that you've delivered the content. The fact that so many people *can't* tell the difference between solid work and questionable work suggests that perhaps many ought not to be writing in that genre. The problem with power and politics is that because people can't tell what is or isn't good that it is easy to hoodwink the ignorant. Thus you have lines of power developing which aren't based upon scholarship or reason. My criticism is simply to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get people who *can* discern what is good and emphasize rigor. Don't simply give up on it. ___ Gae ___ | Religion is "in" again, along with all other marginal | discourses, because scientific discourse has lost its | absolute stranglehold on truth. ___ What do you mean by "scientific discourse?" I think that aspects of postmodernism have "rediscovered" the transcendent. However I'm not sure that relates to science. What *did* happen is that certain humanity departments, when science was so successful in organizing the world, tried to appropriate it to realms where it wasn't suited. However realize that I'm suggesting that a lot of philosophical discourse is being likewise misappropriated. Only it is even harder to follow than traditional science and has therefore greater degree of abuse. (Although I personally think most advanced physics is still more difficult than any postmodern text I've studied) I think that many of the critical schools of the first half of the 20th century epitomized this abuse of science. I think Marxist criticism and thinking in general is the epitome of this kind of misappropriation of "science." Karl Popper has written a great deal on that. While he is definitely in the modernist tradition, I think his comments about Marxism in several books applies in many ways to the "new" revolution of "postmodernism." Of course all of this is my view as an outsider to the humanities departments looking it. ___ Gae ___ | I don't know if I would like to judge the value, interest or | even usefulness of a philosophy or a philosophical movement | by how well it can be used to prop up the Mormon position. | I think Mormons are very good indeed at finding correspondence | between Mormonism and almost any philosophy we may find | important. ___ That's not really what I'm saying. While we might find correspondence (parallels) between any two systems of thought, the fact is that some systems can't explain others. So, for example, Newtonian determinism can't explain modern science nor can it explain the mind. I'll not go through why I think postmodern phenomenology or process thought is important for Mormons. It's quite beyond the scope of this discussion. However there are many elements of Mormonism (such as our view of spirits) which can't be explained by many kinds of philosophy. I think that the philosophy of modernity (roughly the manner of thinking after Descartes) tended to adopt a way of thinking about the world in terms of *things*. This has led to certain ways of approaching problems that makes some issues unclear. Further I think that the early form of this tendency to think of the world in terms of *things* also led to a lot of the problems (from an LDS point of view) in early Christianity. It is why such things as the notion of the Trinity arose. (The problem of the Trinity really is only a problem when you have a certain view of "substance" as a thing) ___ Gae ___ | But I think one reason that Lacan and Rorty appeal to English | department people is because the metaphor and play of language | they employ is so fascinating, so complex, that the poetic | mindset is drawn in. ___ Which can be fine. But then some people say the same about free verse. There is a lot of crappy free verse out there. Actually I don't mind Rorty. I think he is the modern heir to the skeptical school. I'm uncomfortable calling him a pragmatist, given his differences from some of my favorite philosophers, like Peirce. But I think some of his writings are interesting even if they turn out to be subtle reformulations of old skeptical arguments. Skeptics are important because they often drive the real creative thinkers to create their works. After all Kant wrote what he did in trying to avoid the nihilism that seemed to arise from Hobbes. Neitzsche both anticipated the nihilism contained in pushing modernity too far and then tried to overcome that nihilism. Heidegger too was trying to overcome that. Indeed a lot of philosophy and movements arise just out of that conflict. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #784 ******************************