From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #912 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, December 2 2002 Volume 01 : Number 912 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:27:57 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Gratitude This is a very difficult question you ask. Can disabilities be discussed without being unctious or condescending? Very tough stuff. I am disabled, and travel most places by bus. We have reserved seating for disabled persons like myself, and those who are young and healthy are supposed to leave those seats for the disabled. A few months ago, there were no seats available on a bus, and one of the reserved seats was occupied by a perfectly healthy-looking young man. I spoke up about this, and the young man quickly told me that he was, indeed, disabled. He was totally blind. I noted he was wearing dark glasses; I just hadn't made the connection. A seat came open next to him, and we began a discussion about blindness, and the efforts he was making to overcome the challenge. He was enrolled in a school that taught massage therapy, a very tactile expression, and was slated to graduate in a few weeks. Now to Jana's comment re: self-congratulatory thankfulness. What a great phrase. I pass homeless people all the time, leaving a buck or so when I have it to leave. I do send up a prayer of thanks that I have a place to live, food to eat and clothes to wear. Is this wrong? I think that thankfulness is misdirected when the thankful one isn't willing to do something about someone else's lack. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:36:45 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] New DB Policy Let me express my own impatience with this whole matter. First, why would DB make such a move as to narrow its selection to "approved" titles? There certainly was no financial motive to do so. Generally, outside Utah, there isn't another LDS bookstore you could go to for Church literature. Was it pressure from above? I don't know. But it seems to me that the new policy is compromised by Deseret Book's willingness to "special order" those titles they won't carry. If the titles are morally unacceptable, why accept special orders at all? On this issue, there are *lots* of alternatives. Internet orders, Barnes and Noble, any bookseller who is pleased to make a buck will special order a book for you. I would be more comfortable if Deseret Book said, "If we don't think the book is proper for our store, then we won't special order it for you, either. Unacceptable is unacceptable." On the other hand, let's not minimize the value of having a "safe" place for Mormons to shop. How many would prefer this approach? How many would like to say, "I purchased this at Deseret Book, therefore the Church thinks it's okay"? My preferred method: my friends at Evangelical Bible Bookstore in San Diego (been shopping there for 30 years or so, great store) are dedicated Calvinists and are very picky what they put on their shelves. No "Left Behind" to be found in THEIR store. But they do have a bargain basement, and in that basement are several shelves marked "Books we don't recommend, but which you may need." Here are the titles they won't carry on their main shelves, but which they think their customers may want to obtain. I like the approach. A clear line is drawn between what the owners of the store approve of, and what they think is off the mark. But they don't make their customers go elsewhere for the less-acceptable (to them) materials. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:41:11 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Snide Remarks on DB Controversy Oh Eric, you are a devil. "The Book of Mormon Sleuth" was written for kids, and it was actually a pretty good book considering the intended audience. (The second volume wasn't as good, by the way.) Shame on you... - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:57:10 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] The Avenging Angel >Except for one thing that it did which was not balanced or >based in reliable historical research. Having read a lot >about the "Danites" - I've discovered that the men who killed >apostate mormons on Brigham Young's behest were largely an >invention of the eastern press (yes, there were some danites >in the Kirtland era, but that's a different story). To write >a tale where the main character is one who kills people for >Brigham Young is to buy into fabrications and rumors. You realize, of course, that this is far from a closed issue, as you seem to imply. If one chose to tell a story wherein the Danites were the devine hitmen of BY, there is sufficient historial data to justify it. To prove it, not quite, but the basis for such speculation is hardly as nebulous as you indicate. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:09:46 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Tickets and Temple Recommends Here's another variation on the theme that one may want to use in a story in the future. A lawyer friend of mine once tried to collect some unpaid child support from the ex-husband of one of his clients. The guy tried to establish his inherent honesty despite having broken the law by offering his Temple Recommend as evidence. "You see? I'm really not a bad guy. Look, I have a current Temple Recommend!"=20 Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:25:19 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] The Avenging Angel I was idiotic enough to get the author of Avenging Angel's name wrong. I = said he was Gary Dixon. His name is Gary Stewart. Dixon is his late = wife's maiden (and pen) name. We're sort of related, which is why I feel = doubly stupid, plus he's a right champion bloke. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:36:41 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] The Avenging Angel - ---Original Message From: Ivan Angus Wolfe > > I said when I first saw it (on my mission) I was sure it was > written by an anti > - although I gave a caveat that the reason was beacause > several investigators found it to be too big of a stumbling > block and stopped investigating - so my view may have been > different if i had seen it just as a movie. They stopped investigating because of a fictional *movie*? I suspect that this is an excuse for something deeper. > Except for one thing that it did which was not balanced or > based in reliable historical research. Having read a lot > about the "Danites" - I've discovered that the men who killed > apostate mormons on Brigham Young's behest were largely an > invention of the eastern press (yes, there were some danites > in the Kirtland era, but that's a different story). To write > a tale where the main character is one who kills people for > Brigham Young is to buy into fabrications and rumors. Er, it becomes clear through the movie (as far as I remember it, it's been a long time since I saw it) that he *wasn't* acting at Brigham Young's behest. That was a part of the mystery--something bound to come up when the antagonist is in the church hierarchy (more or less a given if you base a story in 19th century Utah). Frankly, the whole Danite thing was presented at some remove and functioned as something of a black-box with little exploration of what it was or meant. Even Porter Rockwell is treated as an individual and not an extension of Brigham Young's will and intent. If anything, Brigham Young is depicted as unaware of criminal activities because they had been deliberately hidden from him. > And I'm hard pressed to see how that is fair and unbiased. Because a story that includes Porter Rockwell could have done so *much* to bash Mormons and this one chose instead to treat him as an eccentric individual who was able to do some good despite his eccentricities. Porter Rockwell and the Danites were included to move an adventure/mystery story and the emphasis was *on* the adventure/mystery story. It wasn't on the activities of the Danites, their politics, crimes and/or authority. An anti-Mormon would have found it an easy thing to imply all kinds of nasty things about the church in such a story. In order to interpret Avenging Angel as anti-Mormon, you have to make certain assumptions and judgments about the intent of the creator. It's a result of self-fulfilling assumptions, in my opinion. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:17:43 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences At 09:42 AM 11/23/02 -0700, you wrote: >There's a lot that I like and enjoy about these books, but >underneath it all is a subtle message that bothers me: If your marriage >isn't >happy, just wait, and God will send you your Michael. Then you'll live >happily >ever after. I didn't see that as the message. The book said that you are on the moral high ground to marry a creep who happens to be LDS rather than holding out for a decent man. Of course, Michael had to wind up converting, which was a necessity in an LDS book. In his case, he was sincere; the man's conversion in My Big Fat Greek Wedding bothered me, since I think he did it to please her, not because he was a Greek Orthodox in his heart. I suppose the "right" choice for a woman whose two suitors include an LDS creep and a non-LDS decent man is spinsterhood. That's not a happy ending for most women. What bothered me most about Stansfield's books, as I have said before, is the concept that Michael's children would wind up as Ryan's, but the subsequent discussion on this list reassured me somewhat about that. >barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:30:57 -0700 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences Despite everyone's dire warnings, fairy tales DO come true in real life, and I love a book that will say so. It can take a long time though; in my case, almost 50 years. But the miracle was definitely worth waiting for. I say that if we are honest and try our best to deal properly with the abusive situation, things can work out for the best, whether the abuser comes to himself and repents or perhaps the fairytale marriage arrives later on. I know of course that people also live on alone, does that necessarily mean a sad ending? Maybe not. Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:02:43 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] BERGERA, _Conflict in the Quorum_ (Review) Review ====== Title: Conflict in the Quorum Author: Gary Bergera Publisher: Signature Books Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 300+Preface+Index Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-56085-164-3 Price: $24.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (Please note that my copy is an advance readers copy. Therefore, there is no guarantee that page numbers in this review will agree with the final printed copy. I will also refrain from commenting on typos and like problems that will be treated in final editing.) The full title of this wild ride of a book is "Conflict in the Quorum -- Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith." It chronicles the career of the very smart, and very independent, Orson Pratt, whose teachings and opinions constituted one of Brigham Young's thorniest problems. Pratt, it will be recalled, was one of Mormonism's brightest lights. Generally regarded as highly intelligent and very persuasive both in his writing and his oratory, his teachings regarding divinity and the nature of God were in direct contradiction to those of Pres. Brigham Young. "Conflict in the Quorum" documents the conflict between the two headstrong men, and provides a fascinating behind-the- scenes look at how early Mormonism dealt with its intellectual dissidents, and how the power of organization can dominate even the strongest of men. Early on, Pratt ran head-on into conflict with leadership. While on a mission and away from his family, Pratt's wife was allegedly approached by Joseph Smith with the intention of Mrs. Pratt becoming one of Joseph's plural wives. To say the least, she did not take this kindly. Upon his return, Pratt confronted Joseph about this incident, with a not-unexpected estrangement resulting. But Pratt's devotion to the cause of Mormonism was stronger than his resentment of some of its leaders. And, time after time, Pratt returned to his proselyting and educational efforts on behalf of Mormonism. Following Joseph's death, Pratt found himself in positions of great responsibility, some involving defending ideas that he likely found personally distasteful. Following the incident described above, involving Joseph Smith and Mrs. Pratt, it is indeed ironic that Pratt was sent to Washington, D.C., to begin a work in defense of plural marriage, birthing "The Seer," a periodical wherein Pratt would publish views that would bring him into direct conflict with Brigham Young. Bergera opens a window into the conflict by comparing Pratt's rational approach to religion with Young's reliance on revelation: Pratt's sympathies, which in many ways reflected a more literalistic and absolutist approach to scripture than Young's dynamic theology, lay with those who struggled with contradictions in Mormon teachings. It was his desire that theology be amenable to human understanding and reasoning, especially his own, rather than a "stumbling block." The majority of his writings stressed the rationality of Mormon doctrine. At the onset of the Seer's publication, he challenged non- Mormon readers. "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information." His logical treatment of plural marriage, for instance, was founded on the premise that it existed among the prophets and kings of ancient Israel. Clearly, Pratt thought that Young's teachings needed to meet similar standards of rationality and consistency. (p. 106-7) The conflict continues through extended excerpts from early writings of Church leaders and historians. At times, the cites are lengthy and virtually unreadable. Here is an example: [H]eber C. K[imball:] Since the Organizat[io]n of this Quo,...[I believe] there has been a rev[elatio]n from the Lord appointing bro Brigham as Pres[ide]n[t]. (p. 55) Extend this over several pages, and you can see that a headache is not far behind. I appreciate Bergera's need to edit the text in order to make it understandable, but, frankly, reading extended cites so marked up is difficult, at least for me. There is documentation aplenty in this book. I wouldn't be surprised if at least half the book is composed of citations and observations from those on the scene. As such, "Conflict in the Quorum" is a veritable feast for those who enjoy extensive quotations. In this lengthy quotation from Brigham Young, one can sense the vigor of the discussions and the visceral level of the contention between the two men: The Lord's giving does not diminish His foundation of spirit that our philosopher brother Orson Pratt speaks of, that he believes occupies universal space, or, in other words, that universal space is filled with, and [he further says] that every particle of it is a Holy Spirit, and that that spirit is all powerful and all wise, full of intelligence and possessing all the attributes of all the Gods in eternity. I hardly dare say what I think and what I know, but that theory, though apparently very plausible and beautiful, is not true, for it is, or would be contradicted by the prophets, by Jesus and the Apostles, and by all good men who understand the principles of eternity, both those who have lived and are now living on the earth. Brother [Orson] Hyde was upon this same theory once, and in conversation with Joseph Smith advanced the idea that eternity or boundless space was filled with the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost. After portraying his views upon that theory very carefully and minutely, he asked brother Joseph what he thought of it? He [Joseph] replied that it appeared very beautiful and that he did not know of but one serious objection to it. Says brother Hyde, "What is that?" Joseph replied, "[I]t is not true." With all the knowledge and wisdom that are combined in the person of brother Orson Pratt, still he does not yet know enough to keep his foot out of it, but drowns himself in his own philosophy, every time he undertakes to treat upon principles that he does not understand. When he was about to leave here for his present mission, he made a solemn promise that he would not meddle with principles which he did not fully understand, but would confine himself to the first principles of the doctrine of salvation, such as were preached by brother Joseph Smith and the Apostles. But the first that we see in his writings, he is dabbling with things that he does not understand; his vain philosophy is no criterion or guide for the Saints in doctrine. According to his philosophy, the devils in hell are composed of and filled with the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, and possess all the knowledge, wisdom, and power of the Gods. If he believes his own doctrine pertaining to the celestial and other kingdoms, viz., that the devils in hell possess the same power as the Gods, they being opposed to Jesus and his Father, the whole fabric must fall. When I read some of the writings of such philosophers, they make me think, "O dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got!" (p. 131-32) Bergera points to the irony that many of the neo-orthodox scholars of Mormonism have ultimately come down on the side of Pratt, and not that of Young, in their concept of God. And this brings a question to my own mind -- suppose Bruce R. McConkie, for example, were present for the debate between Young and Pratt. On the one hand, from his writings, McConkie clearly agrees with Pratt in his concept of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God. But would he feel an obligation to side with the higher authority, in this case Brigham Young? How would he have resolved this difficulty? I don't know. So, how then did the men manage to coexist as well as they did? Bergera gives us an insight that is worth considering: Orson Pratt and Brigham Young were inextricably united in a common goal: the expansion of Mormonism. Each pursued this end from a different point of view which as a consequence produced two seemingly separate paths. As the overseer of official church doctrine, Young saw his fundamental responsibility as the maintenance of unity within the church, and he tolerated freedom of thought insofar as it remained subservient to the authority of the First Presidency, the dissemination of sound doctrine, and the cultivation of church unity. Pratt sensed the potential danger in individualism, but he did not believe his own views ran contrary to the doctrines Joseph Smith had established alongside biblical authority. Indeed, Pratt consistently affirmed the unifying aspect of his theology. Young's controversial teachings, on the other hand, were scripturally unsound and divisive, according to Pratt's view. (p. 284-5) What a conundrum. How to keep a church together while maintaining a level of freedom of thought and expression. Add to this the perception that the one responsible for this cohesiveness is actually (in Pratt's opinion) teaching *divisive* doctrine, you have a potentially explosive situation on your hands. Bergera has given us a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at an episode in Mormon history that has received less attention than it truly deserves. It's more than just a chronicle of Pratt's theological, and institutional, wanderings, but rather a slice of Mormon history that lifts the veil on the myth of a united, harmonious early Mormon church. I do have one complaint, and that is the typeface used in the chapter headings. I don't know what the typeface is called; I just call it "unreadable and awful." I trust this name isn't already taken. It's a large script font, perhaps intended to resemble the unreadable handwriting of some of the players in the book. I gave up even figuring out what the chapter headings were supposed to be, and used the chapter headings set in plain type in the Table of Contents. This book will be a welcome addition to the library of anyone interested in Mormon history, and especially those who enjoy the behind-the-scenes looks at the conflict between power and individuality. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:40:11 -0700 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Gratitude >Yet = >I have to wonder, is my life somehow less rich, less valid because I am = >lacking that basic, "gee, at least I have 2 legs so I should be = >grateful" qualification???? I know what you mean. I have never been quite comfortable with the whole "Life could suck more than it does" form of gratitude :-) I think it's a form of fear, really. When I see someone with ALS and I'm grateful I only have MS it's truly because the idea of a quickly and permanently degenerative (and deadly!) form of what I'm dealing with just scares me to death. Same thing with the whole "at least I have 2 legs" gratitude. I think it is rather like being obedient because of fear of punishment...we all know it's better to be obedient because of a love for God but, hey, being obedient because of fear is better than not being obedient at all :-) Likewise it would be better if we felt a higher form of gratitude instead of being grateful for what we have that other people don't have...ok my analogy breaks down there a bit because it only works if people are actively trying to attain that higher form of gratitude when, sadly, some people are really happy with "Life could suck more than it does." It's a comfort. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:24:19 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Gratitude At 08:57 PM 11/26/02 -0800, you wrote: >But also because I am guilty of the same type of = >self-congratulatory thankfulness and tonight I am finding myself quite = >repulsed by it. Do you really think it's self-congratulatory? I think it's a matter of reminding people to be grateful for things they usually take for granted. It's sad that we so often fail to appreciate the blessings in our lives until we lose them. My knees have gone out on me, and I may not be able now to take those long walks that my lazy self so often tried to get out of -- but I did at least appreciate the ability to go for walks while I had it, so I don't feel so bad now. If I feel glad to have two good eyes (well, with trifocals, anyway), that gratitude is in no way a putdown of those who are not so fortunate. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:09:38 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Center Street Theatre's _Joyful Noise_ I knew it was a good play when my friend from New York told me _Joyful = Noise_ by Tim Slover got a standing ovation off-Broadway. Seeing it = done at Pioneer with grand sets and costumes only further convinced me = that this was a play worthy of esteem. I did however miss a few of the = lines and felt that I needed to read the play. I wondered how it would = translate to a small stage. YES. _Joyful Noise_ worked well done in = the intimate setting provided by Center Street Theatre. What a great = cast. I think I caught every line. And what great lines they were. = This is a play where the characters learn to esteem, to trust and = finally to love each other. I liked the strong, interesting,=20 well directed cast. Our own Thom Duncan played King George II. Thom = you were good and very funny. I especially liked your moving graveside = scene. =20 As an actor, I recognize that it took your living some painful life = experiences to make that scene so poignant. Only one suggestion, the = loafers just don't cut it for His Majesty. (Sorry, I had to say it.) = Please all listers, you must see this play. You will thank me and you = will thank the wonderful Nauvoo Theatrical Society for making it = possible. Nan McCulloch - ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C297C1.B7AB62E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I knew it was a good play when my = friend from=20 New York told me _Joyful Noise_ by Tim Slover got a standing ovation=20 off-Broadway.  Seeing it done at Pioneer with grand sets and = costumes only=20 further convinced me that this was a play worthy of esteem.  I did = however=20 miss a few of the lines and felt that I needed to read the = play.  I=20 wondered how it would translate to a = small=20 stage.  YES.  _Joyful Noise_ worked well done in the = intimate=20 setting provided by Center Street Theatre.  What a great=20 cast.  I think I caught every line.  And what great lines they = were.  This is a play where the characters learn to esteem, to = trust=20 and finally to love each = other.  I=20 liked the strong, interesting,
well directed cast.  Our own Thom = Duncan=20 played King George II.  Thom you were good and very funny.  I=20 especially liked your moving graveside scene. 
As an actor, I=20 recognize that it took your living = some painful=20 life experiences to make that scene = so=20 poignant.  Only one suggestion, the loafers just don't cut it for = His=20 Majesty.  (Sorry, I had to say it.) Please all listers, you must = see this=20 play.  You will thank me and you will thank the wonderful Nauvoo = Theatrical=20 Society for making it possible.
 
Nan McCulloch
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C297C1.B7AB62E0-- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:23:19 EST From: Mona214@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences This is a universe that I can get into; one where God will kill people for you so that you won't have to be a martyr for too long. scott Ouch! I had the same feelings as Scott when I read this book. I thought, isn't that convenient? I also agree with Tracie - sometimes it takes years and fasting besides praying. Has anyone read Anne Perry's "Tathea"? There's a point in that book where after the emporer has studied this "book from heaven" he realizes he needs to forego his mistress and reconcile with his wife whom he does not love nor has had any warmth for or from her. But he makes this commitment because it's the right thing to do. I've discovered feelings often times have very little to do with what is right an wrong. Sometimes you really do have to sacrifice. Ramona Siddoway - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:09:56 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] New DB Policy >We see what we're looking for, I guess. Some see only boobs in >"Titanic." >Others see Christ. I saw a film with a crappy love story, wooden chracters that act in unbelievable ways but with a last hour and a half as the ship goes down that is great cinema. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:35:01 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Titanic (was: New DB Policy) At 02:52 PM 11/27/02 -0500, you wrote: >. How can you be offended by a movie you >haven't seen? Have the opinions of others closed your mind? I would be >interested to know why "Titanic" is so offensive. I'm not the one you asked the question, but I'd like to tell you why I did not see Titanic. My feeling is that if I were to die horribly, I would not like for thousands of people to entertain themselves by watching a re-enactment of it while swilling buttered popcorn and Diet Coke. Hundreds of real people lost their lives. How can that be enjoyable to watch? I've not become desensitized to movie violence. It's bad enough when I know they are really actors and after you say, "Cut! That's a wrap!" or whatever movie jargon you use, the chick with the bloody head gets up and goes off to wash her hair. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:10:41 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Kieth Merrill on BOM Movies Concerning the alleged "father figure" of Mormon cinema, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Kieth Merrill a father figure among >LDS filmmakers? I suppose, perhaps, to some. It would never have >occurred to me to think of him as a father figure for LDS film. Not even >with an Oscar. And certainly not for the alleged gems of _Legacy_ and >_Testaments_. > >A father figure is someone who stretches horizons, takes risks, gives >birth to a new phenomenon. What has Kieth Merrill done that is bold and >horizon-expanding? > >He can't even decide whether appropriateness or artistic quality is more >important to LDS film. >Kieth Merrill would be a footnote in the history of LDS >artists without the influence of the true father figure in LDS cinema, >because there would be no LDS cinema for Kieth Merrill to keep writing >articles about in Meridian Magazine. > >I leave it as an exercise for the class to determine who this candidate >is. The answer is obvious! There would be no reason to print these silly, self-serving fluff pieces on "Mormon cinema" if not for RICHARD DUTCHER. HE and his associates singlehandedly have creaeted the ONLY films that have so far been regarded by anyone outside our LDS community as serious art. SO far all others pretending to the title of "Mormon film maker" have followed in his footsteps....and have come up miserbaly short of the mark he has set. The very fact that "Brigham City" supposedly upset so many "good" Latter-day Saints (?!!!) while inspiring and moving so many others, is in itself a testimony to the power of his art. I am still completely befuddled by the claims of some in the Church that "Brigham City" was somehow offensive! Pardon me for throwing off temporarily the cloak of Christ-like charity and screaming at these self-proclaimed "good" Saints: "Get over yourselves! YOU are the embarrassment to 'Mormonism'! It is YOU and your ilk, with your narrow-mindedness and your self-consciousness, your constant worrying over "what the world thinks about the Church" that gives our religion a bad name! It is you--weeping and wailing about the evils of entertainment industry and whinning because there is no "LDS" art--who are the true enemies of the very thing you claim you want to see more of! "Forget cinema, theatre, literature and fine art! Just admit that your taste in art extends no farther than the sickeningly sweet pastels of a mass-produced Thomas Kinekad[sic] painting; that your tastes in literature are for nothing more moving than a Hallmark Mother's Day card! "You are perfectly free to limit the imagination with which you have been Divinely endowed; but please have enough self-respect--please be honest enough with yourself, NOT to pretend to any supposed virtue by turning off your minds and hardening your hearts!" Enough said. RICHARD DUTCHER is the only father of MOrmon Cinema. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:02:11 -0800 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] New DB Policy Matthew Lee writes: "It sounds more like a shelving policy than a banning." This is a valid point. Nonetheless, it gives the impression the book isn't "safe" to read for a moral, believe Latter-day Saint. Having read the book, I cannot understand this decision. The moral behavior shown by the characters is really quite noble given two facts: a) nobody in this book is LDS and b)they are confronted with a confusing area of emotional/spiritual gray. About A: It seems to me much of the broo-haha about THE LAST PROMISE and DB policy centers around the "standards" we claim as LDS people. However, the characters in this book aren't LDS. Why are we holding the Catholic woman and the unaffiliated man accountable for living to the standards we claim as baptized members of the church? They are true to a higher morality that the "world" would allow given their painful dilemma. Evans' has a good idea here. Love is a strong emotion on which to hang a story. The conflict is powerful, painful and has no easy answers. However, I would also tell people that I don't think the book is "safe" to read for a mature person who enjoys fiction written with the power of Leif Enger (PEACE LIKE A RIVER) or Barbara Kingsolver (PRODIGAL SUMMER, POISONWOOD BIBLE, many others). I've begun lending out my copy to the many people who are curious about the book and don't want to spend the money or don't want to purchase something that DB has determined isn't worthy of their shelves. (Yet they want to read mine, go figure...the always ironic behavior of the human animal.) I lend it with a disclaimer: the book isn't well written. It uses trite and cliche language and relies on sentiment instead of exploring emotional depth--but anyone who has read Evans' work in the past knows this is his style. A less mature reader would probably find it a very pleasant romance. Sheri Dew stylized it as follows "The challenge we had with Richard Paul Evans' book is that it paints a very sympathetic view of immorality, never identifies immorality as immorality, and then appears to even reward immorality. That's the distinction." I'm reading between the lines here, but I think she's also saying that the problem exists in the writing. He didn't explore the inner pain of the decision making process to stay/go in an honest way. He relied on plot and dialogue that didn't get to the meat of it. I DON'T believe that DB, or by extension the Church, is saying that someone trapped in an abusive marriage should stay there for the sake of the children. However, Evans tries to redeem the philandering husband in too easy a way. If he has become a good guy suddenly, why shouldn't she stay and try to work it out? I also think Evans tried to second guess the DB reaction to his work by having the "lovers" separated for several years, pursuing their individual lives and still not finding love...until they run across each other in an art gallery, and now with all obstacles removed, they are free to pursue their great love. It's all too easy. It's bad writing. This book could have produced a powerful piece of fiction in the hands of a more artistic writer. On the other hand, it fulfills all of the classic elements of the romance genre, and that's where it belongs. Matthew: "I honestly don't believe there is anything wrong with recognizing selected people, places, and things as "safe". This determination is how all of us make decisions. Where to live, shop, drive, and yes, even what to READ." I understand your point, but would say that the reasons DB is giving for this book being "unsafe" and my personal judgment having read the book are vastly different. Yet I don't think they would or could "get real" (to quote Dr. Phil) about the whole thing, so I don't fault that. It's a matter of niceness to other human beings as well as a policy. I for one, am looking forward to seeing Sheri Dew's words fulfilled (as found in another thread entitled "Sheri Dew on LDS publishing", in a post by Katie Parker, quoted here for easy reference:) "We are constantly looking for novelists who have the skill to weave a great story...all while communicating a meaningful message that doesn't bang their readers over the head in the process. Manuscripts that meet this description are not necessarily easy to find. Sure, there are some things we wouldn't be able to publish. But the range of fiction that we could and would publish--if we could find it--is enormous and surely gives almost any talented writer plenty of room in which to maneuver. So I may just suggest that we feel the quality of fiction overall is absolutely on the rise, that there has been significant improvement in the past ten years or so, and that we're constantly looking to improve even further." My greatest hope is that I can become a good enough writer to do justice to the story I have to tell. And that DB would be brave enough to publish a novel about an LDS couple who hold their marriage together through the ravages of sexual addiction. I'd have to hold down my end of the teeter-totter before I could push off and see if DB would reciprocate. Kim Madsen AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #912 ******************************