From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #86 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 Tuesday, June 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number 086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:52:24 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Redeemers Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Also, I remember hearing that this planet was the only one among God's=20 > billions of worlds that was wicked enough to kill the Savior, whose=20 > atonement applies to all the planets. However, elsewhere I've read=20 > that each planet has its own redeemer, which is what I buy into. Cool, LDS speculation time. I believe Jesus was the redeemer of the entire universe. I believe he was the creator of the entire universe. But I also believe that this universe is one of countless universes, and that God resides outside this universe in a space that has more dimensions than our three (or four, if you want to get Einsteinian about it). I don't necessarily "believe," but I speculate that the beings that inhabit this universe and are saved by our savior are the progeny of the same mother in heaven. We are brothers and sisters, not half-brothers and -sisters. The progeny of other wives of God (yes, this assumes polygamy in the celestial kingdom) may live win other universes created by other saviors who save those souls. It's essentially the same belief that Chris Bigelow has, except I believe the division between saviors is at the universe level, not the planet level. - --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:57:25 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism At 10:19 AM 6/13/03 -0500, you wrote: >Preston Hunter wrote: The reason there is a stigma about feminism in=20 >the >Church is for the most part not because of any problems with the Church of=20 >its members, but because the word "feminism" has been hijacked by people=20 >with illogical, dishonest and immoral agendas. Feminism is thus very much=20 >like Islam. We need a new term--but then, since there are so many variants, feminism=20 might wind up like the many flavors of Unix. All it means to me is that=20 women are as valuable as men. And I've seen that idea promoted by Church=20 leaders in recent years. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:11:36 -0700 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] SSA The Salt Lake Tribune article below ends with the notion that accepting gays into the clergy is about "inclusion and liberation." Contributing to the discussion on SSA, would we be wise, as artists, to take a similar open view with homosexual characters in novels, essays, film, etc? In our literature, hypothetically, should we be so accepting of gays that we ought to include these Other personae in Relief Society presidencies, bishoprics, stake presidencies--like platform the Episcopal Church is advocating? Generally, how would writing about fictional SSA Mormons substantially contribute to the body of Mormon lit? Yes, there are gay Mormons, but how would creating art with them be both "inclusive" and "liberating"? Yes, the discussion thus far has been somewhat interesting on the various theories advocated by gays, about their gay-ness, but was is the real relevancy? Travis Manning ************************************************************** Otis Charles, a former Utah Episcopal bishop, revealed in 1993 he is gay. (Courtesy of Episcopal Church of Utah) By Peggy Fletcher Stack The Salt Lake Tribune Episcopal Bishop Otis Charles kept his secret for decades. It wasn't until 1993, when he was 67 and ready to retire, that he acknowledged being gay. After all, he thought he had much to lose -- his wife and family, respect in the Utah diocese he had once served, possibly even his position in the church. With his announcement, Charles became the Episcopal Church's first, and only, openly gay bishop. Until now. This week Episcopalians in New Hampshire elected as bishop the Rev. Gene Robinson, who has been in a homosexual relationship for more than 20 years. Charles hails Robinson's election as a historic day and breakthrough for gays in the church. "It shatters the closet, banishes shame, and dissipates duplicity," he said. "It demolishes the fiction that an openly gay priest cannot be elected to serve in the highest office." Adds Utah's current Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish: "I see no obstacle whatever in [Robinson's] sexual orientation. . .just as I would not with reference to women, people of color, or varying backgrounds." But Episcopal conservatives are already angling for a showdown at next month's General Convention in Minneapolis. "The union in which Canon Robinson participates is not Holy Matrimony but an intimate relationship outside the bounds of marriage. This would be true whether he were cohabiting with a man or with a woman," said Bishops Edward Salmon J. and William Skilton of South Carolina in a statement posted on the diocese's Website. "If Gene Robinson's election is confirmed by General Convention, it would bring through the back door a practice that the Episcopal Church has never agreed to bring through the front door." Homosexuality has long divided the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the U.S. Episcopal Church. At the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in 1998, Anglican bishops concluded that sex between homosexuals is "incompatible with Scripture." Recently a Nigerian archbishop "broke communion" (akin to excommunication) with a Canadian bishop after the latter performed a same-sex "marriage." But the Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and titular leader of the world's 78 million Anglicans, has shown some support for such unions. This fractious issue will be center stage once again at the General Convention, where the battle over gay clergy has been raging since 1976. Charles, 77, still a voting member of the Episcopal House of Bishops, sees irony in the scene. The church's official position is that gays can be ordained, but only if they are celibate. "The convention will be debating whether or not Gene Robinson is fit to serve in the church because he is in a committed relationship," Charles said this week from his home in San Francisco. "I will be there with my partner, showing the very thing they are saying 'no' to exists." When Charles wed Elvira Charles in 1951, marriage was the only reasonable path for those seeking a life dedicated towards a life of service in the Episcopal Church. "If I had been open when I was ordained in 1971, I would not have been ordained," Charles said. In 1979, when the convention voted to allow people to be ordained if they were gay but celibate, the Utah delegation signed a dissenting statement. "We said we could not abide by that resolution," Charles said. "If qualified candidates for ordination came forward, the question should be how they lived their lives -- not what their sexual orientation was." Over the years, he made quiet contact with other Episcopal bishops who shared the same secret. At one convention, he found himself in a room with five other gay bishops. By 1992, the internal church debate had grown acrimonious, Charles said. But still, he kept quiet. "Bishops were saying things that were just uninformed, totally unconscious of what they were saying," he said. "I was so chagrined at my behavior. My integrity was as stake." Within a year, Charles made his fateful announcement. None of the other four followed his example. People in Utah's Episcopal diocese responded with surprise, disappointment, anger and respect that he was finally "being honest with himself and others," said the Rev. Lee Shaw of St. James Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City. Some felt sad for Charles' wife, Elvira, "who was a big part of his ministry when he was here," Shaw said. But Charles' acknowledgement of his homosexuality helped moved the Utah diocese forward in its support of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered Episcopalians. Shaw himself came out to his congregation after the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Now the diocese has a strong GLBT ministry that includes Integrity, a support group that holds monthly meetings and socials. The group participated in last week's Pride Interfaith Service at the Jewish synagogue. For his part, Charles is delighted with Robinson's election. It is as important, he said, as the 1988 election of a woman to serve as an Episcopal bishop. "We've lived through racial integration. We've lived through the inclusion of women in all orders of ministry," he said. "We are now living through another inclusion. And that's what the gospel is all about -- inclusion and liberation." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:17:59 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone At 09:21 PM 6/10/03 -0600, you wrote: >I know people would say that's against the rules. To touch people, and >get into situations where I going to end up feeling a bond with people. >What you have to do is recognize it for what it is--a spiritual or >energetic bond that exists between two people. It's going to go away. >If you fight it, it will get stronger. If you obsess about it, it will >get stronger. If you detach your emotions from it, it will go away. >(Oh, yeah, if you don't ride in cars with it, it will get left behind.) > >Maybe it is against the rules. Maybe it's bearing each other's >burdens. I strongly agree with Paris. We are so darned uptight and so focused on rules and so busy trying to be perfect that we forget to show love. Not just in limited ways--in 100% visiting teaching in which we say "Let us know if you need anything" and disappear for another month. People need human contact. They need to feel that they matter, that they are not too insignificant to be loved, in some real way and not just in words. Love is what it's all about. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:46:31 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Thom said the following: > Then let me give you an example. In a previous ward, my Bishop=20 > admonished all MP holders to avoid giving women rides in cars even if=20 > it was an emergency. The example he gave, "You are driving home on a=20 > rainy day and notice that Sister Smith, your neighbor, is totally=20 > drench. Now your first inclination would be to stop and offer her a > ride. Don't do it. FIRST GO HOME AND GET YOUR WIFE THEN RETURN AND > OFFER A RIDE TO SISTER SMITH." > > Can you think of anything more insane than that? Or anything that=20 > undermines the beautiful teaching of the Good Samaritan than such, and=20 > I don't shy away from using the word, "Pharasaic" teachings as that? To which Jacob, replied: >I think that's an accurate characterization, Thom. I'm sorry you had >such an inappropriate >leader. That's an example (as related mind, I hesitate to pronounce judgment on the actual >situation) of an insane personal doctrine being taught as truth and if=20 >I had been there, I >wouldn't have hesitated to say so. I wish the rest of the men in the >room had had the guts to >speak out against such a bizarre statement. I'd hardly characterize it=20 >as common teaching in >the church, though. In all my travel and the different wards I've=20 >lived in, I've never heard >anything that ridiculous. I pretty much agree with all of you on this point regarding the Bishop's advice, but (and forgive me if someone has already mentioned this) has anyone considered that this is a bishop talking? I would not be surprised if the bishop who made this statement had been required to listen to at least one confession of adultery or fornication that began with "Well, the first time we were ever alone was one afternoon when he/she was walking home. It was pouring, and I just couldn't leave him/her there..." If you are a bishop and have to listen to confession upon confession year after year about adultery, fornication, masturbation, beastiality, etc., I think it would be very difficult to not passionately cry from the pulpit, "Don't even flirt with temptation! Just play it very safe." That said, I can appreciate why it would be a frustrating thing to hear your ecclesiastical leader say that. This thread kind of reminds me of something. I studied a bit of dance at the Y, and in a few of my classes, the teacher started the semester/term with a something like the following speech: "Now, from time to time, I'm going to go directly to one of you in the class and make a correction in your technique. Just because I single out one of you doesn't mean that noone else in the class needs the note. One or two other people may have the same problem. So, please, when I give someone a note, please just automatically apply it to yourself and benefit from it, okay?" Advice like that really helped me to be a better dancer. I think applying that principle can help in a lot of areas and ways. True, we cannot go through life being paranoid that we've done something wrong every second of the day. We still have to live. Sometimes when the teacher would give another student a note, I'd check the mirror and see that I was doing just fine. Often, though, when the teacher would give a note, I realized that I needed it too. The point to my little anecdote is that if what we're about is improving ourselves, then we don't need to defend ourselves everytime some imperfect person out there spouts out some kind of advice. I would venture to say that at least one person (man or woman) in Thom's ward could have benefitted from the advice to just play it really safe with regards to being alone with someone of the opposite sex. Love, Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:38:11 -0500 From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism/invite to submit On the topic of Mormonism and women's issues, anyone (male or female) interested in writing an essay for Exponent II is invited to submit manuscripts to ExponentII@aol.com. Topics cover a broad range. Exponent II has printed nostalgia pieces about old appliances to edgy pieces about gender identity; articles on blended families to pieces on grieving; personality profiles to essays on the pitfalls and success of dating services. Folks on this AML list have already proven themselves to be more articulate, engaging, and thoughtful than the average bear so your chances of seeing your work in print are not bad. But even if you're not a writer, give it a shot. Poetry submissions are welcome as well. "Payment" is in copies. You can also send copies via snail mail to Exponent II, P.O. Box 128, Arlington, MA 02476. Linda [Kimball] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:47:04 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: [AML] Broken Wrist Friends, I have broken my wrist. Got a new metal plate. Mangled it pretty badly. Will respond when I can. Feel free to share this info. Rex Goode - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:49:56 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Mormon Actress [Mod note: So far, each mention of Eliza Dushku has carefully specified that she is not an active member, as Preston here reiterates.] Linda Hoffman Kimball wrote: >>As a convert to the Church back in the early 70's, I remember=20 >>distinctly hearing a woman (Judy Dushku) speak in an institute class >>in Cambridge, MA. She talked about how she told her colleagues at the=20 >>college where she taught "Of course I'm a feminist! I'm a Mormon,=20 >>aren't I?" Judy Dushku, the feminist Latter-day Saint professor from Massachusetts, is the mother of the most successful (in terms of box office gross) Mormon actress working today: Eliza Dushku ("Faith" from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). (See other story posted to AML a few days back about the FOX TV show "Tru Calling," starring Eliza Dushku and A.J. Cook). But Eliza isn't an active Church member. Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:26:36 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [AML] Authorial balance (was: William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 03 15:38:58 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Eric Samuelsen" To: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Great question, with a simple answer: >Does the author have a responsibility to balance a wayward character >with a believing practicing character in a novel? >Nan McCulloch And the one word answer is, no. Authors have no responsibility at all, except to tell an engaging story in an amusing manner. Of course, it's best if the author were to tell a story truthfully, or even plausibly. But this is not an absolute requirement, far as I can tell. To pull this out of the incendiary subject of religion, take the new Michael Crichton novel Prey, which I just finished. The subject of this novel is nanotechnology. The plot is identical to Jurassic Park, except that instead of an eccentric millionaire, it's a Nasty Corporation, and instead of great big monsters it's about a few trillion itty bitty ones. Still, an experiment goes bad, monsters are unleashed, and Our Hero has to see if he can escape with his skin intact. Is it fair? Balanced? No. I presume that those corporations involved in research in the area of nanotechnology would find it unbalanced and unfair, and would probably protest that their area of research is being maligned. As a reader, I didn't much care. I also didn't care that the characters were cardboard, the dialogue stilted and the story a rehash.=20 Dang thing still scared the wee out of me. And I enjoy a good scary book. So no, authors have no responsibility at all to anyone, except to their readers, to amuse them. There's a fine debating corner I've painted myself into. So let's have at it. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:35:11 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) About the laughable film musical PAINT YOUR PAINT, Eric Samuelsen wrote: >And then this guy we've never heard of shows up to sing They Call the >Wind >Maria, This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of Broadway's great=20 leading men n the 1960's...and someone who still has a film career as a=20 character actor. He starred in both the orginal Broadway version of THE=20 UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN (for which I believe he won the Tony Award) and in=20 the film version with Debbie Reynolds. In recent years he starred in the=20 disastrous Broadway flop "ANNIE II" as Daddy Warbucks. An extremely gifted=20 actor with a great voice and fantastic good looks, he arrived in Hollywood=20 fresh from numerous Broadway successes just as the film musical died. PAINT=20 YOUR WAGON, in fact, was one of the last nails in the coffin. ROB. LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:14:58 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit "Is one born homosexual or is it a choice?" In my opinion, neither. You might as well ask, "Were you born understanding English or do you chose=20 to understand it." Again, the answer is neither. Though born with a capacity for language (as=20 well as a capacity for sexual arousal and expression), the individual child=20 is not born understanding English, nor does he/she make a conscious decision=20 to learn it. A child developes language skills as he/she developes concepts.=20 Use of a particular language goes hand-in-hand with concept formation. Concept formation is the result of the individual's free agency; it starts=20 in infancy. All the "nurturing" in the world will not FORCE a child's mind=20 to accept as true and valid a particular ide and concept, and endow that=20 idea or concept with the same emotional importance as the parent(s) doing=20 the nurturing. Human beings are aroused by IDEAS, by CONCEPTS. A particular gender, a particular body type, body part, physical attitude, social attitude is linked in the individual's mind to a particulatr CONCEPT which the=20 indivdiual has endowed with a particular value. That VALUE triggers an emotional response which may then trigger a physical response..i.e. sexual=20 arousal. Many scientists are now of the opinion that ALL sexual orientation is set by=20 the age of 3 or 4, coincidentally, around the same age at which language=20 skills become solidified. People may chose to perform any kind of sexual act they want, but sexual=20 ATTRACTION is not a matter of conscious choice; it is deeply embedded in a=20 long chain of ideas and abstractions stretching back to an infant's first=20 conceptual formulations. Neither a heterosexual nor a homosexual can "undo"=20 that chain without "undoing" his/her own mind. SEXUAL orientation in humans is primarily an EMOTIONAL orientation. It occured to me recently that with all the public discussion of=20 homosexuality, emphasis has not been placed on the fact that homosexual's=20 become aware that they are different from heterosexuals when they are very=20 young children; that for the rest of their childhood, teenage years, young=20 adulthood, they live in a horrible state of self-denial, self-repression and=20 a fear of being rejected by their families. In short, the homosexual child raises himself...a job for which he/she (being only a child) is completely unequipped. Is it then any wonder that one finds sexual pathologies in segments of the=20 adult homosexual community. These are human beings whose journeys childhood=20 to adulthood were derailed...NOT because homosexuality is in itself a=20 pathology, but because their own fears of rejection by those they loved the=20 most (their parents and family and God.) lead to pathological behaviors and=20 moods of thinking. In short, many adult homosexual men are Lost Boys....they've never really=20 grown up. Is THAT inborn? Of course not. Is that a choice? Yes, but it was a=20 choice made by young children who were too immature to make such a=20 choice.(Most homosexuals fekt they were different from heterosexuals when=20 they were a young as six, seven and eight) PArents need to be eduacted on how to deal with a child who at a young age=20 seems "different," on how to make that child feel loved regardless of the=20 difference, on how to teach that child to channel that "difference" so that=20 his/her developing character isn't warped by years of fear, self-hate and=20 emotional repression. In short, the hearts of the fathers need to be turned=20 to their children and the hearts of the children need to be turned to their=20 fathers. Does God create homosexuals. No. For the simple reason that (according to=20 the Restored Gospel) God CANNOT create anyone. (It's scriptural. Look it up=20 in the D&C; also Joseph SMith's King FOllett Discourse.) The individual is=20 eternal and uncreated...as the Prophet Jopseh taught "Co-equal with God=20 himself." Given Mormonism' unique theology on the nature of man and God, it seems to=20 me that we are way behind in how we could be addressing the entire issue of=20 homsexuality. And yet our unqiue theology gives us an edge over every other=20 existing theological school of thought. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:12:36 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Broken Wrist This is terrible news. Please get well soon. - ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com=20 (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net > -----Original Message----- >=20 > Friends, I have broken my wrist. Got a new metal plate. Mangled it=20 > pretty badly. Will respond when I can. Feel free to share this info. >=20 > Rex Goode - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:28:44 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone We are overlooking a basic truth: Nobody jumps into bed with someone without thinking about it beforehand. A good deal of thinking/feeling/imagining precedes adultery. Of course, that's the interesting stuff of story--how we arrive at our choices, then seeing how it all plays out. So the never-drive-with-opposite-sex rule--perhaps--could be based on the presumption that we're mostly untrustworthy, in our minds anyhow :). Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:23:30 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 05:35 PM, robert lauer wrote: > About the laughable film musical PAINT YOUR PAINT, Eric Samuelsen > wrote: >> And then this guy we've never heard of shows up to sing "They Call >> the Wind Maria," > This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of Broadway's=20 > great leading men n the 1960's...and someone who still has a film=20 > career as a character actor. He starred in both the orginal Broadway > version of THE UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN (for which I believe he won the=20 > Tony Award) and in the film version with Debbie Reynolds. In recent=20 > years he starred in the disastrous Broadway flop "ANNIE II" as Daddy > Warbucks. An extremely gifted actor with a great voice and fantastic > good looks, he arrived in Hollywood fresh from numerous Broadway=20 > successes just as the film musical died. PAINT YOUR WAGON, in fact, > was one of the last nails in the coffin. And of course those of us in Provo in the late 70's - 80's got to see=20 him lip sync to his own voice in the humongous gigantic monster titanic=20 pageant/musical "Brigham!" from the back rows of the Marriott Center. He was playing Brigham Young, of course. There were several reasons that show never had a second run. Perhaps Mr. Presnells blonde, tanned and Hollywood-beautiful Brigham was one of=20 them? :-) Steve [Perry] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:07:01 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] BUCKLEY, _Getting It Right_ (Review) R.W. Rasband wrote: >Meanwhile a young Jewish woman, Leonora Goldstein, becomes involved=20 >with the intimate circle in New York City around Ayn Rand, the novelist=20 >and libertarian philosopher. There she witnesses at first hand the=20 >sexual intricacies of Rand and her very married lieutenant Nathaniel=20 >Branden (later one of the fathers of the "self-esteem" movement.) =20 >Buckley is witheringly satirical about the Randoids. He targets their >cruelty, self-deception, and intellectual arrogance. (The very title >of the novel could be a double-entendre about the romantic=20 >entanglements of the various right-wing characters.) The word "creepy"=20 >comes up more than once in referring to the Objectivists. It's pretty=20 >outrageous material, but Buckley appends a "Notes" section where he=20 >lists the sources for every chapter (when he's not relying on his own >recollections.) I didn't get around to reading this review until Nan's response to it piqued my interest. Although this response is also belated, I think this passage deserves an observational comment. But first of all, I should point out even Rand's closest associates were in the dark about her affair with Nathaniel Branden. It didn't become common knowledge until Barbara Branden published her biography of Rand in the 1980s. So Leonora wouldn't have seen any sexual intricacies. They were going on, but pretty well hidden. Now for the observational comment. I've met both Buckley and Branden on multiple occasions. Of the two, the only one who struck me as "creepy" was Buckley. FWIW. And, incidentally, the usual epithet is "Randroids" -- with the extra r. A friend of mine (Michael Malice, at michaelmalice.com) insists that people call him a Randroid, rather than an Objectivist, when referring to his philosophical orientation. He does everything ironically... Eric D. Dixon shrubbloggers.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:04:13 -0700 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:35:11 -0400 "robert lauer" writes: > This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of > Broadway's great leading men n the 1960's...and someone > who still has a film career as a character actor. He was in the TV series, The Pretender. I thought he was the evil guy who walks around with the oxygen tanks, but then my son bought me Patch Adams a couple of years ago so he could watch it endlessly, and Presnell is in that film as the scientist who commits himself to the asylum, gets Patch to try and see things fuzzily, then sells him the land for the Gesundheit Institute. Which means he wasn't the evil oxygen carrier in The Pretender. He was the female lead's evil father. I saw Presnell onstage as Brigham Young in the Mariachi Center in 1975. It was a big glitzy BYU Centennial project called _Brigham_. I read somewhere that he subsequently joined the Church, as did that other Brigham, Dean (not Mick--he just sat on the plane next to a G.A.) Jagger. Harlow Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:39:29 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Barbara Hume wrote: > We need a new term--but then, since there are so many variants, > feminism might wind up like the many flavors of Unix. All it means to > me is that women are as valuable as men. And I've seen that idea > promoted by Church leaders in recent years. All feminism means to me is I don't give a rat's behind whether a person is a woman or a man, unless there is a very compelling, objective reason to make the distinction. Otherwise, they should be treated the same. - -- D. Michael Martindale - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:42:14 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit I had this lovely, long response written, and was in my final read-through. And then my computer froze. So I'll try for the short version now, and you can all heave a sigh of relief. (Later: And this was the short version? Oh, well, what can I say...) Travis asks: >The Salt Lake Tribune article below ends with the notion that accepting=20 >gays into the clergy is about "inclusion and liberation." Contributing=20 >to the discussion on SSA, would we be wise, as artists, to take a=20 >similar open view with homosexual characters in novels, essays, film, >etc? [...] Generally, how would writing about fictional SSA Mormons >substantially contribute to the body of Mormon lit? Speaking only for myself, I can say that I'm not really interested in a Mormon literature that has as its agenda greater acceptance of homosexuality or a homosexual lifestyle within the Church. I'm not denying that there are those who may wish for this, and see literature as a way of achieving it; but it's not what I'm advocating, and wouldn't meet what I think is the great unmet need (or challenge) in this area in Mormon literature. First, there's an important distinction between SSA and being gay. Being gay, as generally used nowadays, refers to a particular lifestyle choice that includes homosexual behavior. Being same-sex attracted refers to feelings one may have, through no apparent choice of one's own, about which one can choose to act in a number of different ways. The church condemns homosexual behavior; SSA, on the other hand, is treated something like any other problem or challenge with which people must contend: depression, or chemical addiction, or anger. (This is an oversimplification, but I think it gets us into the ballpark.) The fact that one experiences these feelings is not a cause for condemnation or a sign of unworthiness necessarily; what one does with them is what's important. What I was calling for was more literature dealing with the reality of SSA among faithful LDS, or those who strive to be faithful. Yes, that can include bishops and RS presidents. Also youth, missionaries, and people in basically every category. The value of literature is that it depicts real-life experiences and challenges. I'd like to see SSA included in the set of challenges that can be depicted in Mormon literature. There's a particular need for it. Those who may feel this way certainly aren't represented in gay literature--which places value on accepting one's homosexual feelings and acting on them: not a positive outcome for believing, committed LDS. I'd like to see a literature that helps us accept more fully the fact that our community of faith includes those who have these feelings, and helps us learn to view them as simply another challenge people face--a condition of life for some. These may be our friends, our fellow quorum and class and Relief Society members, even ourselves. I think that's an entirely appropriate and relevant goal for Mormon literature. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:59:51 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] Different Translations Hey, anyone have that quote from Brigham Young which went something=20 like "were I to have translated the Book of Mormon I would likely have rendered it differently." I forget how it goes exactly. Sort of the=20 idea that the translation was partially from Joseph's mind and that=20 were Brigham to have translated it the translation would read=20 differently. I thought it was in Discourses of Brigham Young but I can't find it=20 there. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:24:09 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] VUISSA, _Unfolding_ (Review) LDSFilm.com Review of "Unfolding" By Preston Hunter "Unfolding" 2003 Written, produced and directed by Christian Vuissa Cinematography by Brandon Christensen Music by Thomas C. Baggaley Starring Kristen Hill, Levi Larsen, Reb Fleming, Kenneth Norris, Phil Riesen and Dan McDonald Publisher/distributor: LDS Video Store Written and directed by the award-winning Austrian filmmaker Christian Vuissa, "Unfolding" is about a teenager named Lila (Kristen Hill) who finds a connection with her father (Kenneth Norris), despite the fact that as long as she can remember he has suffered from a mental disease (probably early onset Alzheimer's) which leaves him seemingly healthy on the outside but essentially unresponsive to his surroundings and incapable of talking to anybody. Lila has long since given up on visiting her father in the institution where he lives. But when looking for an old record player in her attic, Lila discovers a cache of artwork, poetry, home movies and photographs that belonged to her father. In a powerful and evocative scene Lila these physical objects from times past draw Lila into the life of her father as he was in times past: an artist, a writer, an immigrant from Europe, a young man in love with Lila's mother. The experience is a shocking revelation to Lila, and prompts her to visit her father for the first time in years. Accompanied by her best friend Max (Levi Larsen), Lila makes the trip to visit her father, and despite his condition, she feels she might really be able to communicate with him. Max's own father (played by news broadcaster Phil Riesen) is healthy, but distant and absorbed in his political career. The contrast between Max and Lila's families is poignant but not forced. Max and Lila hatch a plan to draw out something of the younger man from within Lila's father. Their plan is surprising, entertaining, and yields a powerfully moving climax to the film. I write about a lot of films. I enjoy describing a new and unfamiliar film to readers interested in hearing about it. I usually don't hesitate to do this. But let me be up front about what happened with Christian Vuissa's new short film "Unfolding." It has been many weeks since I first saw it. Although I was honored to be given the chance to see it before its release on video and DVD, I have procrastinated writing about it. I simply feel that my words are inadequate, and that this film deserves a far more qualified film reviewer to do it justice. I'm simply a fan of good, entertaining films. As such, I can wholeheartedly recommend "Unfolding." If you love a good story, uplifting ideas, superb and entirely natural acting, compelling images, and magnificent music perfectly supporting the film, you will find all of it here. These are the types of readily evident film characteristics which I am most comfortable describing. In all of these areas director Christian Vuissa has been unsparing in his commitment to excellence and a professional quality production. What is wonderful about "Unfolding" is that in addition to excelling in an artistic and cinematic sense, it is also morally excellent and truly inspiring. Many films by young (and even more experienced) Latter-day Saint filmmakers are content to do one or the other, either strive for high production values and artistic standards, or skimp on those aspects and simply transfer to the medium of film an inspiring story or message. Inspirational videos absolutely have their place and purpose. I love watching many of them. I have little complaint with a film that has a wonderful heart and message, even though its lacks in other areas. Such a film achieves its goals and speaks to its target audience even if it has little potential to reach an audience interested primarily in form and craft rather than content or message. Yet it is a breath of fresh to encounter a film such as "Unfolding," which is so much more, which doesn't rest merely on "being clean" or inspiring on the one hand, or being "daring" or well made on the other. Yet even as I describe "Unfolding" in these terms, I recognize that there is so much more there that I am unable to convey. It is clear that this is a film which works on many levels, and which rewards multiple viewings. Each time I watched it I picked up on nuances and significant gestures and images that I had not seen before. The way scenes are framed and lit and even the objects which populate the corners of a scene feel both natural and significant, enhancing the film's impact without calling attention to themselves. The music is particularly instrumental in enhancing the film's emotional impact. The score features an original musical score by professional film composer Thomas C. Baggaley and two songs by a Lindsay Smith, talented contemporary singer whose lyrical delivery blends folk and light rock sensibilities. These combine with each other and with the film's visuals elements smoothly and organically. One impressive aspect of the score involves the Lila's quest for an old record player, which is what leads to her pivotal trip to the attic. She wants the record player so she can listen to a classic Rachmaninov album that she found in a used record store. Baggaley's score heavily incorporates a newly orchestrated and performed version of Rachmaninov's actual Opus 23, but then blends it seamlessly into original orchestral music. Without copying anybody, Vuissa seems conversant in the filmic language of Godard, Truffaut, Polanski, Besson, Hitchcock and other masters of the craft of filmmaking. I only point this out for those few readers who may be interested in the very best in filmmaking artistry: "Unfolding" has it. But there is nothing elitist about "Unfolding." It is also accessible and enjoyable for audiences (such as myself) whose favorites include "Legacy" or "Johnny Lingo" or "Saturday's Warrior." In these qualities, "Unfolding" is -- not surprisingly -- quite similar to Vuissa's previous film, the award-winning "Roots & Wings." Both films bridge the gap between purely artistic and purely inspirational filmmaking. Among recent feature films they can be best be compared, even in their look and tone, to Richard Dutcher's "God's Army" and "Brigham City." While Dutcher's feature films were undeniably mounted on a bigger scale, Vuissa's short films exhibit greater attention to detail and refinement, with stories that are more subtle and open to different interpretations. Is "Unfolding" a better film than "Roots & Wings"? I think that it is. "Unfolding" is more multi-layered, more expert in technical details, and moved me much more deeply on an emotional level. But I like "Roots & Wings" more, because it is more unique and purposeful in its premise. The "setup" for for "Roots & Wings" -- a Catholic man's perspective of his family members joining the Church -- is simple to describe and fills a valuable niche. The characters are Latter-day Saints or Catholics in identifiable and important ways. "Unfolding" has no denominational or ethnic demarcations. It may appeal to a broad general audience, but it has less appeal to a specifically Latter-day Saint audience. Perhaps the film's biggest drawback is that its basic themes are not unique or even unusual: learning about one's parents and dealing with mental illness. Although "Unfolding" is a joy to watch and handles these subjects in interesting, original ways, it is debatable whether the film actually makes a distinctive and important contribution. Perhaps "Unfolding" has distinct significance if it is taken not simply as a film about families or mental illness, but as a specific exploration of the scriptural verse on its cover: "He shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers." In this regard, the film resonates powerfully, although its meanings are not always on the surface. These themes lie below an enjoyable, moving, and beautifully told story. - ------ Christian Vuissa is the founder of the LDS Film Festival, which celebrated its 2nd successful year last November in Provo, Utah, and has toured internationally. He is also only the 2nd director (after Richard Dutcher for "God's Army") to receive the Award for Film from the Association for Mormon Letters, which has been annually recognizing excellence in Latter-day Saint literature for over 20 years. "Unfolding" is currently being sold only by LDS Video Store (http://www.ldsvideostore.com). - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #86 *****************************