From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #842 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, September 27 2002 Volume 01 : Number 842 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:16:16 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Charly_ (Film) (Review) I'm grateful for Thomas Baggaley's review of Charly. Obviously, I hope the = movie will do well; a rising tide lifts all boats. I don't quite agree = with him, but I do think in some ways the movie is quite well made, and = it's worth seeing. A few positive comments first: I made an offer on the List a few months ago, to read people's screenplays = and respond to them, and it's been an interesting experience since. Okay, = in one screenplay I read, a young guy, high school age, tells his = girlfriend that he loves her, that he wants to be with her, but he also = thinks they should break up. The reason is, he's hoping to go on a = mission, and the more they see each other, the more he wants to have sex = with her, so better if they just don't ever see each other again. Now, I = find that believable and convincing, but let's face it, it's also an = example of jerk guy behavior, and he comes across like a self righteous = weenie. That's okay too, as long as the movie sometime acknowledges that = he's being a self-righteous weenie. That script never did, so I didn't = like it. This one does. The guy in Charly behaves like a self-righteous weenie = too. Charly is a Woman With A Past, in that she had been living with her = boyfriend when she met the LDS guy, forget his name, played by Jeremy = Elliott. Jeremy can't deal with it, and says he can't spend time with = someone who is 'used merchandise,' or some similar putdown. Okay, that's = a nice example of self-righteous weenie behavior. But Charly, the movie, = calls him on it, in the person of his mother, who, in my favorite scene in = the movie, raps him sharply on the knuckles and tells him to get over = himself. =20 I also like the whole way in which the film deals theologically with = Charly's death. Jeremy's character struggles to fit it in to his belief = system, the fact that his wife could die so unfairly, and I like that, and = I like his conversation with his father, who does not offer pat answers, = but does offer comfort and support. The last third of the movie is very = affecting. The biggest problem the film has is one that it probably couldn't = overcome; the source material. Charly, the novel, is one of those love it = or hate it books, I'm afraid. It's this compendium of sentimental = cliches; when I read it, I really did get the giggles. I mean, it's just = Camille, but preachier. Outgoing young woman meets uptight guy, teaches = him Lessons About Life, and dies tragically of cancer. All it needed was = for Timmy to fall down the well. Okay, some of y'all like it better than = that, and if you did and do, you'll like the movie. I don't like the book = at all, and thought the movie wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, = so that's praise, I guess. =20 Okay, cliched material does, occasionally get made into successful films, = like, say, A Walk To Remember The Love Story Made Back in Sweet November. = But Charly's worse than that. It's also good and preachy. It's got the = depth and subtlety of those Sunday School lessons where you read, say, = Moroni 10:4, and then the teacher says 'so, when we have received these = things, what are we supposed to do?' =20 The film can't overcome it. Charly's parents are supposed to be Rich and = Sophisticated, but they don't seem like rich, sophisticated people; = instead they seem like some Mormon rube's idea of rich sophisticated = people. Charly is given no reason to even be interested in this boring = Mormon guy, and really really really no reason to be interested in the = Church. We are asked to simply assume that, of course, she's interested, = wouldn't anyone be? Charly's smarmy git of a former boyfriend is another = huge mistake; he's the sort of self-absorbed jerk Mormon culture assumes = non-Mormons are, and none of his scenes work at all. He's not real; he's = just this projection of worldliness. Capital W. =20 Charly's supposed to be an artist, but when she joins the Church, and = finally paints something From The Heart, (her boho grandmother beaming = proudly), the result is this treacly crap you'd see, well, on the cover of = a Jack Weyland novel. What's wrong with her painting something abstract, = or at least something with some life and energy and guts? She also talks = about being 'an intellectual.' We don't seem much sign of it, but okay, = she's part of the general aesthetic and intellectual world of Greenwich = Village, say. Which, of course, she gives up to become a Mormon. Why? = The two aren't incompatible. You can be a Mormon woman and not can. What = I would have given to see a scene in which she met a Mormon who shared = some, or all, of her aesthetic, political and intellectual world. I hope = the movie does well in Mormon cultural circles, but part of me hopes no = one who isn't Mormon even sees it. It confirms some of the outside = world's worst cliches about us. =20 It's not a great movie. Part of it works, and a lot of it doesn't work. = It's pretty well acted and the production values aren't bad. The script = doesn't make sense for the first third of the movie, but the last third is = pretty affecting, if you like weepy movies. It's better than the book, = but then, I think the book is flat awful, so that's not saying a lot; it = overcomes the book, but not by much and not enough. =20 Unlike Thomas Baggaley, I think the script is the problem. It needed = another complete rewrite, and it needed to forget the novel more than it = did. Still, it's probably worth seeing, if you're in a chick flick mood, = and if you promise not to bring your non-LDS neighbors. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:49:25 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad As much as I dig Mormon theology and begrudgingly admit that the basic behavior standards are correct (WoW, LoC, etc.), I'm definitely one who finds the Mormon culture glass half empty, or even 9/10ths empty. When I think of Mormon culture, my main reference point is having lived in two of the most conservative, homogenous wards imaginable: the Bountiful [Utah] 50th Ward (1977-1984) and the Pleasant View 4th Ward in Provo (2001-present). I've also lived in two of the most liberal, diverse wards possible: the Cambridge [Mass.] University Ward and the inner-city, Haitian-immigrant-dominated Boston Branch (1988-1992). However, I consider those Massachusetts units very much the exception. Another main reference point is having worked as an Ensign editor from 1993-2000. Some ramblings about what I can't stand about Mo culture: I know that stripping everything of any sense of imagination or exploration or provocation is not a conscious desire of Mormonism, but it is very often the result of the cultural mindset. Once you get yer testimony, your job is to endure to the end by filling your time with traditional Church, bread-winning, and family stuff and trying to avoid the dreaded "inappropriate." You already have the complete truth, and now you just get to keep reviewing it and rehashing it ad nauseum. I find the general Mormon mode of expression and self-presentation, at both the individual and group level, EXTREMELY disingenuous. There is so much ultra-positive brainwashing-style talk that registers as B.S. on my radar. Meanwhile, my radar also constantly pings against dark masses that aren't ever really discussed or acknowledged. So many people and institutions steeped in the kind of Mormon culture I'm talking about are almost downright liars--not really, but almost--in their lack of candor and frankness. Everything they say has to be somehow "uplifting" or "spiritual" or "building the kingdom," otherwise they feel guilty and dirty. They become walking propaganda machines. The cultural fodder that comes through official and semi-official channels is mostly all watered-down, derivative pap, a misguided, ersatz version of the real thing. If by their fruits ye shall know them, mainstream Mormon culture is a real wash. It is so conservative, so conformist, so tradition-bound, so agenda-addled that it can barely be called a real human culture at all. It's not a culture, it's a missionary tool. A culture should be a sounding board where real human fears, mistakes, desires, doubts, fantasies, foibles, sins, etc. are fully expressed, explored, and dealt with, not a rug under which they are mostly all swept so we can keep ourselves looking "good" to the lowest common denominator both within and outside the faith. I find that Mormonism basically forces me to hang out mostly with people whose personalities and perspectives I don't relate with hardly at all, people who are conscientious rather than creative, conformist rather than innovative, conservative rather than progressive, principled rather than passionate, WASPy rather than bohemian, etc. Or maybe some are just better at checking their real personalities at the door than I am. (That's why I like being involved with things like the AML and Sugar Beet, because I simply don't make social connections at the local wardhouse and most of my friends I'm attracted to in day-to-day life through work or whatever are either non-Mormon, inactive, or on their way to inactivity. At least the AML and SB are made up of mostly believing Mormons who are looking for ways to influence the Mormon culture from within.) I get tired of the collective influence of all the elderly people, both in general Church leadership and in my own local ward, which is currently skewed demographically toward the retired. Sometimes it seems there's just so many older people dominating everything in Mormonism, setting the tone and calling the shots. When the younger generation in Mormonism speaks up or goes into action, it's usually just to reaffirm or execute what the older generation says or models. It's more the Asian mode than the American--and the Asian mode really bugs me, how beholden the younger generation is to the older. We need more of the equivalent of hippies and yippies in Mormonism, people who aren't afraid to leave off their ties on Sunday and wear sandals to church, maybe even strum a guitar for a musical number. I'm the kind of guy who goes to Church functions but very rarely experiences enjoyment, stimulation, or edification from them--I generally feel a lot more emotion watching Disney videos with my kids. (I'm talking Sunday meetings, general conference, temple sessions, Nauvoo temple dedication, all that stuff.) Where I really live emotionally is in "worldly" music, magazines, books, movies, etc., which is not a statement I'm 100% comfortable with, but that's where I'm at. I suppose I keep going to the Church stuff because occasionally I pick up a good insight or vibe, but that's precious rare for me. I put up with what I see as the minimum necessary to keep a temple recommend because of family pressures and because I do believe in the eternal promise of Mormonism, even if its earthly manifestation almost always makes me either doze or gag. For me personally, it seems like everything related to the Mormon religion, from full-time missions to home teaching to reading scriptures to attending meetings to the art, literature, and music produced within orthodox Mormonism, is about 95% flat, mediocre, and empty and maybe 5% transcendent. That's not a very compelling ratio, but I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bath water, even when the baby's currently only the size of a tadpole. Well, I'll stop ranting now. I'm sure there's a lot of flaws and holes in what I've said, but it's straight from that region between the hip and the heart. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:56:12 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Elijah Abel Monument Dedication For those who are interested and who live in the Salt Lake City area, a new monument to honor Elijah Abel will be dedicated this Saturday at 11:00 a.m. at the Salt Lake Cemetery (South Temple Street, off of "N" Street and 4th Avenue). For more information, see the Deseret News announcement at: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view2/1,4382,410015091,00.html?textfield=Abel While Brother Abel's story is more about Mormon history than Mormon literature, I thought the dedication to be a fit topic for this list as it dovetails with our discussions of black Mormons, institutional racism, Margaret Young and Darius Gray's (AML Award winning) novel series on black history in the Church, true stories versus folklore, and other topics. For example, many believe that Elijah Abel's Melchizidek priesthood ordination was later revoked, along with his son's; I'm told that Elder Ballard will lay that bit of folklore to rest and will address other topics of interest regarding the Church's relationship with black Mormons. I hope to see some of you there. Scott Parkin (A small correction to the article listed above--the Calvary Baptist Choir was not able to attend and will not be singing as part of the dedication.) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:12:43 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Truth & Responsibility in Writing Travis Manning wrote: >>> Scott, are you saying your mud slinging adventure is fiction? I don't quite understand. How can it be fiction if it's being specifically reported about by an eyewitness and active participant such as yourself? Your story sounded very nonfiction-like to me. You may not have quoted individuals word for word from a taperecorder, but didn't you describe actual events, people, situations, memories? <<< All the events described in the several posts I've offered on my experiences with the Santaquin mudslide are true to facts as I witnessed them. Maybe fiction is the wrong label--maybe personal essay based on true events? My point being that I wasn't trying to offer history or even journalism; just my very individual and probably slanted view of events. As you say, it didn't feature interviews or quotes, and I didn't double-check the facts against both primary and secondary sources. I offered my own direct, limited observations without claim to some sort of comprehensive Truth. In reality it was a sort of testimony of my renewed hope in the potential goodness of both human beings and Mormons. Is a testimony fiction or essay? History? Journalism? How much of the stylized presentation of a well-written personal essay is fact, and how much is creative license that while true to both events and facts is also an extended creative effort that reaches into a subjective, interpretive something that isn't quite fact (or at least not objective reality)? I backpedalled because I know that there are some who have found nothing but horror or pain in their experience of the same events. Some may have seen only the petty nature of certain individuals and organizations. They're just my thoughts, and I can't vouch for their perfect accuracy. But they are true to my own experience, with all the limitations, personal filters, and unintended revisionism that implies. In other words, one of many true stories to be told that may contradict with other true stories to be told of the same events. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:08:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LaBute's "Shape of Things" Reviewed at SF Chronicle Here is a positive review of Neil Labute's play, "The Shape of Things" by the "San Francisco Chronicle" from a new production in the Bay area: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/23/DD99671.DTL > "Shape" is bracingly funny, > painfully moving, unexpectedly sexy and as trenchant as only a > passionate > moralist like LaBute could make it. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:32:27 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Hays Code and Moral Perception on 9/13/02 3:21 PM, Robert Slaven at robertslaven@shaw.ca wrote: > So I guess one question is, How much has cinematic art (and by extension, > other written works aiming at the same audience) suffered by being subject to > such strict guidelines for the middle third of the last century? Next, was > the explosion of morally-questionable films in the late 60's and 70's > attributable to 'pressure build-up' from 30-odd years of the Code? How tied > together were the 'sexual revolution' of the 60's and 70's and the 'escape' > from the Code. How tied together were the concepts of 'mindless moral > absolutism' (what I call the blinkered black-and-whiteness that many North > Americans, *especially* Mormons, often display) and the Code, and how tied > together were the moral relativism and the end of the Code? Finally, to take > a huge stretch, how much of America's foreign outlook and foreign policy was > shaped by the movie-going experiences of today's leaders, who were weaned on > stories where everyone wore either a white hat or a black hat, and you always > knew who was on what side and who would win at the end? > The "questionable" movies after the mid-sixties started rolling out when the Catholic and Protestant film guidance offices closed up. They were begged not to but they just closed down and left. The Hays code was somewhat silly, but there were as many real stinkers made despite it as because of it. The idea that all stories were good guy/bad guy clear and plain is just plain untrue. There are plenty of movies made during that time which took on serious moral questions and had characters that were tortured by the pull between good and evil. The real difference that the Hays code made is that you had to read between the lines while it was in place and now everything is so obvious it's gotten ridiculous. Some of the greatest of all literature was created despite ferocious censors, Shakespeare for example. Though I disagreed with this point vehemently in high school, the fact is that constraint produces better work. Ingenuity is required to get the point across--unlike current movies and books where the the only question is whether things are vulgar enough. As far as the whole "pressure build-up" idea goes, it's unproved and insupportable. The fifties were not particularly puritanical by any standard. The fact that things were not discussed openly doesn't mean that they weren't actually doing them. I believe that the idea that that talking everything out openly is good at all times in all cases is a deliberate deception perpetrated by the psychiatric community. Some things are far better left unsaid. I'd give just about anything to unlearn some of the things I've learned. Ugh! I don't want to know how rotten people can be. The old standard was bad enough, it doesn't help a bit to know that it was only half-way to the bottom. The real problem with the "realist" versions of literature and movies is that they aren't realistic. I have seen only a few movies with realistic characters, and only a few more books. Most are overdrawn, fake, or just goofy. So much time is spent showing the "human" side of a character that the rest gets lost. Movies haven't gotten better in general. There's a reason for those ever-shrinking audience numbers. Some few are better than anything before, but that is by far the exception. Movies today are obvious--you can tell whodunnit from the preview, and the bad guys are much badder than ever before. What's morally ambiguous about a rapist/murderer? The fact that he's not wearing a black hat is irrelevant. Besides, plenty of good guys wore black hats back when. Saturday matinees were not the whole of the industry. The cliches are so thick about the 50s that the truth is lost in the haze. Try on _The Perfect Furlough_ with Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh if you want to see some racy double entendre from 1956. It's one of my favorites, and none the worse for being limited in explicivity. The real reason for avoiding such stuff as a writer, and particularly a Mormon writer, is that instead of aiming for the nether regions of the lowest common denominator you can raise your sights a bit. The whole idea of "no limits" is both utterly false and arrantly foolish. There are always limits, and they aren't necessarily a bad thing. I'll take _Some Like it Hot_ over _American Pie_ any day. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:05:43 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Abel Monument Dedication Scott, do you have more information than I do? The last mailing I got (this morning) said Calvary Baptist WOULD be there. Maybe I don't know something. I do know Pres. Gray attended their services Sunday. Anyway, I know our Genesis choir will be present--and anyone who wants to join can meet us at Elijah's gratesite (SL Cemetery) at 9:30 for a rehearsal. We could use more voices! [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:21:48 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Abel Monument Dedication > Scott, do you have more information than I do? The last mailing I got (this > morning) said Calvary Baptist WOULD be there. Maybe I don't know something. I > do know Pres. Gray attended their services Sunday. Anyway, I know our Genesis > choir will be present--and anyone who wants to join can meet us at Elijah's > gratesite (SL Cemetery) at 9:30 for a rehearsal. We could use more voices! I talked to President Gray for a moment yesterday and he mentioned that the Calvary Choir thing had fallen through a while ago and should have been removed from the announcement--or at least I thought that's what he said. I should probably have left that out, shouldn't I, since it's really irrelevant to the core annoucement. I just hope I didn't misrepresent what President Gray said. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:12:02 -0400 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > >Okay - here's a challange to all of us - I'll get the ball rolling. > >I hear a lot of condemnation "the culture" on this list. To me, it's an >easy straw man that remains undefined. I find Mormon culture to be >diverse, multi-faceted and generally good. Of course, I am a cultural >conservative, so that changes how I view it, of course. > >But I'm asking all of those who constantly condemn "the culture" to be more >specific. List the specific cultural practices you like/dislike. Ivan's right. I doubt the point is, when some of us criticize Mormon culture, to jettison Mormon culture. And, Ivan, I have to say a thank you in advance for making me think about this because it is very easy for me to get frustrated and forget some of the beauty. But that beauty is what always makes me hold on in spite of my frustrations. so here is a list of my own likes and dislikes: like: that i learned to sing at church. i grew up singing all the time and only discovered when i first lived in a predominately non-mormon culture how unusual that is. and the presence of music in my life brings me great joy--especially that i can help create that music if only through my rather untrained voice. dislike: that more often than not the young women are taught that they are to be in control when it comes to sexual contact with a man. the unfortunate translation of this (what I realize is meant to be) practical advice is that too many young women are taught by inference that (1) they are not sexual creatures with sexual drives of their own, (2) that they should be able to control a man and his sexual drives and what he does to her because of them, and (3) they end up feeling guilty for even very simple sexual contact or for feeling a sexual drive within themselves. And the young men are given almost free license because they "can't control themselves" as easily as girls. All of it complete humbug. I suppose that the general dislike here is of how sexuality and chastity are handled. like: that we work hard to help ourselves and to help others and all the while that we are working hard we find plenty of opportunities to play and laugh. we are not about doom and gloom even though we are about not sinning. We are a happy people and I believe that helps to make us a godlike people. dislike: that we are very exclusive. That we draw lines around ourselves and refuse to let certain "elements" in for fear of what they could do to us. and we do this in the name of protecting ourselves from evil influences. However, we don't always take the time to make sure that the influence of what we are excluding is really evil and not merely different. like: The films and plays of Neil LaBute, which I consider to be Mormon art to some extent because they are created by a Mormon artist. I like that there are some among us who have the strength to face the darkness that lies within humanity and to chase it out into the light of day so we can see it in all its ugliness and recognize how we as individuals might possess the seeds thereof. I like this art that makes me a little uncomfortable. dislike: most of the "Mormon" music I've heard (excluding hymns although I dislike some of them, too, including the never-endingly repetitious If I Could Hie to Kolob). And I will readily admit that I am perhaps guilty of Ivan's accusation that we don't give this music a chance. But when I hear songs for years that are maudlin, sacchrin sweet, cheesy, and have little artistic merit as music, I have to make a decision that I am not interested in the work of that artist and I no longer pursue knowing his work. That's true of any artist, regardless of their religious orientation or their type of art. Now if I'm surprised by a song because someone made me listen to it, maybe I'll reconsider. But I will not continuously subject myself to what amounts to aesthetic torture simply because I hope that someday I will discover a jewel among all the swill. and, yes, this is my personal opinion and i have no problem whatsoever with others loving what i hate. like: that we can do silly things to have fun without the excuse of being drunk while we do them (by the way, please do not mistake this as a complete intolerance for drinking. some of my dearest friends drink and I love them. I don't love them in spite of their drinking or even if they drink. I just love them.). It bespeaks a comfort with ourselves as humans and a willingness to live in many ways, not just ways that will preserve our dignity for fear that occasionally doing something silly will make others lose respect for us. dislike: that we take doing silly things too far far too often. I am thinking of dating practices among Mormon youth and young adults--all the cute ways of asking someone out and silly date ideas. Not that I have a problem with them per se, just that I have a problem with their domination of Mormon relationships (especially in Utah and at BYU). They make for a lot of fun and they also tend to prevent a lot of honest conversation. I also dislike that silly games and very light social fare tend to predominate at ward socials. I find a discouraging dirth of honest, interesting, intriguing conversation at Mormon social gatherings. like: our emphasis on the family. dislike: our strict limitation on the definition of family. and i'm not talking about gay marriage or adoption or unwed parenthood or anything like that, although I could. I'm talking about the ways in which we so strictly limit roles within traditional heterosexual marriages and families. I dislike our notions of gender roles and how willing we would be to fight tooth and nail to defend them. I don't mind people possessing the notions but I wish that they would be willing to let other people possess slightly different notions, even and especially other Mormons. like: the sense of trust and community I find at church and especially in the temple. dislike: that in spite of the sense of trust we expect within the church, we don't trust others to be true to their testimonies. we constantly worry that other members of the church will fall victim to the influences of the world, that they will be pulled away from the church and their friends and their families if they are in the "wrong" (what we deem to be wrong) circumstances for any amount of time. So we try to hold on so tightly and to contain ourselves and others so strictly that we break the trust we treasure. I shouldn't have to prove my testimony, especially not through appearances. The fact that I attend church and speak of my beliefs and my testimony should be enough. I should be able to go to a bar and drink my coke while my friends drink their beer without my ward family members questioning if i'm going astray. i should be able to offer my apartment as a place where a male friend can stay for a few nights when he is visiting from out of town without the ward whispering about how i had a man spend the night and wondering how my testimony is. like: minerva teichert, clay christiansen, eric samuelsen, levi peterson, gene england. i'm sure there are others I would like if i only knew their works better. dislike: that we are frightened of new art forms and that we often push away from the avant garde. not that the avant garde is always wonderful and good or that the old is not wonderful and good. just that there is good to be found in all places. i remember arguing for hours with a friend who was convinced that all contemporary literature was dark and depressing and evil and full of sin. i hate that attitude and i encounter it often. like: that we value education and seeking knowledge. dislike: BYU, in almost every one of its aspects. and I studied there so I am not speaking without foundation. It is unrigorous. It coddles its students both intellectually and spiritually. Especially spiritually. There is a spirit of fear there, fear that somehow someone who is teaching something that may be perceived as contrary to the gospel will cost a student his or her testimony. For that reason it is difficult to teach theories such as feminism or marxism or psychoanalytic theory in a humanities type class--because teaching it in a realm where it could be mistaken for a moral or ethical statement might shake a student up too much. This is ludicrous! where better could such theories be explored in such a way that students with questions could ask them and could have teachers who share their beliefs respond to them in such a way as to reaffirm the truth of the gospel and remind students that the theories taught are simply that--theories. i hate that the approach at BYU seems always to be an approach to the lowest common denominator. that for that reason, they have to be carefuly about what art they show in their museum or what books they teach in their classes or even what scientific theories are presented and how they are presented. i hate that i have seen countless students hold up the doctrines of forgiveness and tolerance as reasons for a teacher having to allow students to turn in late work or to do shoddy work or to excuse inexcusable irresponsibility in scholarship. It is unacceptable and it is dishonest in the extreme on the part of all parties involved, whether they are the originator of such behavior or the facilitator of such behavior. perhaps you can tell that my relationship with my religion and my church and the accompanying culture is sometimes fraught. i generally think that is a good thing. There are elements of Mormonism that I love and other elements (always cultural) that I intensely dislike and even hate. Such a relationship could be an unhappy one. But, although it is difficult, it's not unhappy. I like being engaged with my culture. If I were not, I'd rather not be a part of it. Sorry to go on at such length. There are many more likes and dislikes, some trivial and some not trivial. I agree with Ivan that we have to be able to substantiate our claims that there are problems. But I would also like to add that we have to substantiate our claims of good. Things aren't good merely because they are Mormon. And good and bad generally come together. I personally mistrust an all rosy view of the world, although I personally prefer having a predominantly rosy view of the world. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:42:32 -0700 From: John Dewey Remy Subject: RE: [AML] Feeding Your Inner Gnostic Eric said: "the Media depicts Mormons as very white bread, bland, conservative, buttoned down, more than a little corporate. If only they knew the deep and all abiding weirdness that lurks under the surface of much of Mormon culture." I wholeheartedly agree with Eric. There's a lot of wierdness that active LDS folks grow accustomed to. I sometimes wonder how the average gentile would feel if he was dropped into one of our temple ceremonies. He would see their normally conservative and staid Mormon neighbors transformed. Then he might sit back and think about how that nice, sensible Mormon accountant who does his taxes believes in a god who lives on a planet called Kolob, in a boy who received sacred scriptures engraved on a bunch of golden sheets in a three-ring binder from a brilliant floating white guy, and in baptizing dead folks. What's more, when they last played raquetball, he noticed that his LDS friend Helaman wears underwear that looks what Grandpa wore in the Fifties, and Helaman's wife LaDonna thinks that it's a great idea to mix carrots, pineapple, lettuce and cool-whip in with lime Jell-O. Then again, the majority of Americans believe that a bearded itinerant preacher somehow won their entrance into heaven and made possible the reconstitution of all dead bodies that have mouldered or ever will moulder in the grave by getting caught and painfully executed by the Romans some two thousand years ago in a tiny, "god-forsaken" desert land full of stubborn Jews. Many of these same Americans think that a great way to celebrate their 21st birthday is to get so drunk that they puke all over themselves and their friends. They may even brag about it later. The bottom-line is, we're all peculiar, every one of us. If you claim you're not, then, well, I think that's weird. John Remy UC Irvine P.S. I feel a connection to an arch-angel I once found in the Book of Enoch called Remi-el (sometimes Rami-el). I'm not sure what he's responsible for, but it seems like he wasn't able to make it to the Feast of the Trumpets. Pity. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:54:06 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Feeding Your Inner Gnostic Eric, if you don't turn this experience into an interactive play, I'm going to. It just screams for a production. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:26:41 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Call for Papers - Life, The Universe and Everything XXI Ivan Angus Wolfe: Call For Papers ... Abstracts must be received by February 1st, 2002. _______________ Too late, unless you folks are into time travel or something else like that? Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:32:52 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad Let's see if I can annoy everyone on both sides of this question. Just call me Chester McTroll... D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Only McCleanesque pop music is inspirational. On this list just a few weeks ago we had people posting lengthy lists of songs they considered inspirational (or at least mildly prophetic) and I saw *very* few McClean songs relative to the number of both "worldly" pop and classical titles. And while I recall GAs recommending classical music (and naming specific composers) I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I heard a GA tell us that only McCleanesque pop music is inspirational. I can't argue that some people feel that way, but I question the ubiquity of the assumption. > Only somber music is sufficiently inspirational to be allowed in church > meetings. Make sure to add in the Catholics and most Protestants to the list. Church music has always been intentionally controlled so as to either speak a specific doctrinal message (the Masses) or to be essentially nonintrusive so as to keep the worshipper focused on God rather than the music. Then again, I'm still chuckling about the missionary farewell in my ward a few weeks ago that used Queen's "We Are the Champions" as its unifying theme (the song was only quoted, not played). And the practice hymn at the Genesis branch is usually a good, energetic gospel song complete with hand clapping and a chorister who will shake her head at you and demand more energy just before making the entire congregation sing it again. > Missionaries can't feel the spirit if they consume any music, > literature, or other art. Only by playing basketball. We weren't allowed to play basketball in my mission, though we were encouraged to listen to orchestral music (rock and pop was against mission rules). Of course those of us who loved orchestral and choir music got to rock out anyway, and the most popular tape in the mission was The London Symphony Orchestra Performs Rock Classics (hearing "Purple Haze" done with violins and tubas is an experience every Jimi Hendrix fan should have). Of course the reasoning was quite pragmatic--most missionary injuries occurred during basketball, and the mission president wanted to keep missionaries focused on preaching the gospel rather than reading books or seeing movies. I got so bored I actually read twelve years of Ensign magazine--and learned a lot in the process about both Church history and doctrine. > If the church hasn't approved a work of art, we shouldn't be consuming > it. (I've personally been on the receiving end of this one.) I can't argue with your experience except to say that mine is almost a polar opposite. People in my ward know that I'm into literature and regularly ask for recommendations on books or films. While demolishing a house this past week I recommended science fiction series to one of the Elder's quorum counsellors. The bishop overheard (while talking with the High Priest group leader) and came over to hear our discussion, then wrote down my recommendations for his own reading list. (The reader asked for a military space opera series and I recommended the Honor Herrington books by David Weber as well as anything by Lois McMaster Bujold or Elizabeth Moon). I have heard a lot of general suggestions to avoid works that offend the Spirit. I've even heard some recommendations of specific works or titles that I thought were bland or trivial. But I've never been made to feel evil for liking any particular work of art. The fact the you and I seem to have such opposite experiences suggests to me that the trend isn't quite as universal as all that. Then again, I like science fiction and fantasy as well as more "literary" fare. Maybe I've just built up a thick skin to the disapproval of others and am less sensitive to it. > If we don't show Mormons as more or less continually righteous in our > stories (with a few minor foibles thrown in to make things look good), > we are writing anti-Mormon literature. (Ditto on this one.) And yet we study the mistakes of David and Solomon and Lot and Noah and Peter and Paul and Alma and the Sons of Mosiah as part of our Church curriculum. While not Mormons in name I suspect we tend to see most of those folks as Mormons in fact. Part of the difference, I think, is that we all trust the source of scripture far more than we trust the sources of fiction. We know what fundamental message the scriptures offer (that doing evil is bad), but we're not as sure about the messages fiction is offering us, and thus we are more leary in our acceptance. I can't argue that it happens, because I see it all the time. Then again I've seen precious little Mormon literature that doesn't live at one extreme (real Mormons are only good, continuously) or the other (real Mormons are only pompous fools with no true spirituality). How much of that cultural reticence happens because so much of the published "critical" work really has tended to question the value of the institutional Church as being of real value? It's more than a bit unfair to characterize critical stories as "anti" anything but foolish behavior. But a large percentage of those stories do strongly suggest the failures of the institution without acknowledging its successes. One of the things I've noticed in talking with "ordinary" Mormons about literature is how many of them say something to the effect of "I live in a dark and dreary world; when I pick up a book I want something better than the world I live in, not the same or worse. I read to be uplifted with positive stories of hope and possibility, not reminded of sin and error." So my question is where are the books between those two artificial extremes? The stories where people struggle and doubt and question, but with a fundamentally hopeful outlook and at least a few characters who find goodness in the Church, its members, and its institutions. There are more true stories than we're telling, and the single most common complaint I hear from people is that they tried to read Mo-lit a few years ago, picked up a clinker, and lost interest in the genre. An example: Recently in Utah, a man was convicted of rape. The man was a security guard at BYU and the girl was a summer school student. After he raped the 17-year old girl, he dropped her off outside the Provo temple and told her that she would now be forever unworthy to enter that holy building. Not surprisingly, the girl struggled with her testimony. A man in a position of trust used that trust to attack her, then tried to keep her quiet by using one of the most powerful symbols of the Church to pile guilt on her and shut her mouth. She felt betrayed, not just by the man who raped her, but by both the school that had employed him and the Church that sponsored the school. She felt spiritually cut loose from all of her sure foundations. But the story doesn't end with the unbelievable cruelty of that man or the damaged testimony and loss of trust of that young woman. BYU acted quickly, accepting her report of events and launching an investigation. Her bishop was a source of great support for her, as were her (student) ward home and visiting teachers. Her friends and family rallied around her and she discovered that the vast majority of Mormons were not rapists, were not sadistic players of mind games. She stayed in the Church and found great strength in it. Some true stories end up with the girl losing all trust in the institution, in men, and in humanity in general. Some true stories end up with the girl struggling to understand, to find peace with the true evil she faced--and not finding it. And some true stories end up with the girl finding not only solace but active spiritual healing in the institution--and the people that it's made of. There are crooks, rapists, murderers, adulterers, liars, swindlers, and thieves on the records of the Church. But not everyone is harboring a secret sin (I tend to blurt my own sins out to whoever will listen), bishops really are (generally) trying to do the right thing in most cases, and the majority of injuries done to us are done by people rather than institutions--though many a scuzbucket tries to hide behind the institution to escape retribution or deflect blame. In the end, I end up feeling very tired of having the whole of Mormon culture defined by a few people who really are narrow, unbending, judgmental goons. All of us have run up against someone who just ticked us off because they were so inflexible in their estimations of what constituted "proper" behavior. But are these people really representative of the whole? Is the whole really as homogeneous as we keep trying to make it? Part of the reason I ask is that the Mormons I know are far more complex than we on this list tend to give them credit for being. Yes, the institutions of our culture tend to be conservative, but that should hardly be a surprise, should it? Yes, the institutions of our culture tend to emphasize the inoffensive, but that shouldn't really be a surprise either. That's what institutions do--maintain a bland center where the wide variety of individuals can meet in relative safety. But the culture is made of the people in it. Paris Anderson is not bland, and neither is Harlow Clark. Yet Paris has offered some of the most directly useful and honest spiritual guidance I've received on this list, and I was fortunate to attend a temple session with Harlow just a few weeks ago. I number Thom Duncan, Rachel Nunes, Jacob Proffitt, Ivan Wolfe, and Chris Bigelow among my friends (among many, many others), despite the enormous range of (often incompatible) beliefs and esthetic lines each of them draws. The thing that draws us together is our Mormonness. And together we are Mormon culture--not just despite our often extreme differences of opinion, but in many ways because of it. If the culture doesn't provide you with artistic sustenance, go get your own. It's not the institution's job to provide every flavor of good work, and the opinions of some do not necessarily reflect those of the management. If your mileage varies...good! It's supposed to. Besides, Mormon pop has been specifically outlawed in our ward and is not sung in our Sacrament meetings, though many a speaker quotes lyrics from a wide range of sources--to our ultimate benefit. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #842 ******************************