From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #118 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, August 12 2003 Volume 02 : Number 118 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:16:35 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] Re: Wives as Chattel referred >to his wife or wives as chattel? I don't know if anybody actually referred to the wives as chattel, but there was a strong belief that having wives would take you to heaven, so you needed more than one to make that happen. Indeed, although it's been a LONG time since I've looked in the Journal of Discourses, I remember reading there that you couldn't make it to the highest level of the celestial kingdom without more than one: period. There is also a belief, perhaps a folk belief but fairly strong in the conservative way of thinking, that the wife's/wives' righteousness would make up for the man's insufficiencies and drag him along into the higher realms :). In these ideas, it's more about having than about relationship, IMHO. Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:19:55 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Definitions of Mormonism - ---Original Message From: Eugene Woodbury > > Mormon is still singular and exclusively used to refer > > to the LDS church. People don't even call the RLDS > > church Mormon. I confess that I'm confused with what > > you mean by "currently promoted usage of 'Mormon'", > > though. I hadn't been aware of anyone promoting a > > new definition or usage for the term. >=20 > Yes, the church does officially "discourage" the use of=20 > "Mormon" as an adjective when followed by "church" to refer=20 > to itself. Although "Mormon" may be used as a noun to refer=20 > to members of the church, and also in conjunction with=20 > "Tabernacle Choir," "Trail," etc. They have made this usage=20 > quite explicit, though it is confusing enough that only the=20 > Utah media seems to follow it with any kind of discipline. Ah. You are referring to the church guidelines recently released as the currently promoted usage of "Mormon". I understand, now. From your original post, it was hard to figure who you considered the promoter and what the promotion was. I hadn't considered the Church as a "promoter" of the term as they are actively, um, demoting (?) it. As you say, it gets confusing and even local media seems to have difficulty.=20 > They have at least convinced the Associated Press, whose=20 > stylebook reads (quoting from the above site): "The term=20 > Mormon is not properly applied to the other . . . churches=20 > that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death." >=20 > But there is a huge difference between what we want and what=20 > we get, and as the grammar scolds have long learned (if they=20 > have learned; they're a never-say-die bunch), language usage=20 > can't be dictated, proscribed or prescribed (except by your=20 > English teacher). It is at best leveraged. Shame and/or=20 > approbation works well, too, but that requires significant=20 > social momentum to be on your side. Now you've lost me again. I thought I *was* talking about common usage. I don't much care for style-guides as they are more an accepted norm within their applicable organizations than anything useful for every-day communication. I have never heard the bald term "Mormon" apply to anything other than the LDS church. Which is precisely why adding modifiers to it to describe other churches implies a relationship with the LDS church and why "Fundamentalist Mormon" is misleading and an objectionable term. It implies that they are derived from official LDS church doctrine and simply applying a narrower definition of it. Which is not true--they are counter to LDS church doctrine in several very important and explicit ways. I would suggest calling them "Fundamentalist Polygamists", maybe. Or simply "Religious Nutcases"... > At any rate, obviously "Mormon" is not used "exclusively" to=20 > refer to the LDS church, else we would not be having this=20 > discussion, and nobody would know what Krakauer was talking=20 > about. Viewed in terms of its relative size, "Mormonism" has=20 > riven itself into quite a number of sects, many extinct, some=20 > extant. We do our best to pretend they don't exist, but we=20 > all know what Krakauer is talking about (does anybody not=20 > know what a "Mormon Fundamentalist" is?), so we are able to=20 > make that distinction, even if others are not. Even Krakauer=20 > makes the distinction when probed on the subject, so he gets it too. Again, Mormon is used exclusively to refer to the LDS church. Have you ever heard of any other church referred to as simply Mormon, no modifiers? I haven't. Frankly, I can't think of any usage of Mormon outside of "Fundamentalist". Unlike Islam, Christian, or Jewish that can be applied broadly without modifier to many different churches or congregations, "Mormon" without modifiers is only ever applied to the LDS church. To get back to your original point that we cannot disavow Fundamentalist Mormons as part of our tradition, I believe that we can and should. You bring up that Islam includes Sunni and Shiite as a distinction with a common heritage. I disagree with this comparison. The comparison would more accurately be if we referred to Sunni and Fundamentalist Sunni. The Sunni's could and should object to such a modifier and would be perfectly reasonable in expecting others to find some different, more accurate and descriptive label. In short, Christian, Islam and Jewish all describe traditions that contain a number of different branches. Mormon is not a comparable term and should not be treated as such. Mormon refers to a single church and not a tradition or group of beliefs. And I'll reiterate that I am not here referring to Church guidelines, Associated Press style guides or anyone's desire for the term. I'm speaking to the application of the term as I understand it and as I've heard it used. If we want to change the definition to be a tradition, that'd be fine, but we'd have a tough row to hoe because for most people, the term "Mormon" is a single, distinguishable church. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 21:27:18 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Definitions of Mormonism Eugene Woodbury wrote: > The Catholic church, it would seem (I could be wrong), doesn't really care what > Gibson calls himself. Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of thing? > Or do we only care when it starts to look bad for us? I don't know either, but I suspect the Catholic church would prefer that unaffiliated organizations not refer to themselves as Catholic with pretty much the same level of concern that the LDS church does--a statement of self-definition and a request that the media respect our right to define our right to label ourselves as we choose (sounds vaguely like parts of the GLBT discussion). Nary a lawsuit in sight over the naming issue, as far as I can see. But there's a substantial difference between the official pronouncements of a church (LDS, Catholic, or otherwise) and the expressed opinions of the individual members of that church. Just as I've heard Mormons complain about people calling themselves Mormon when their opinions differ from some arbitrary standard, I've heard Catholics and Lutherns and Hindus express almost identical frustrations in almost identical language. One could almost create a standard, fill-in-the-blank organizational complaint: "I hate it when people claim to be a when they obviously don't pay attention to the of the . People who act/speak that way are not *true* 's." ( can include doctrines, creeds, platforms, tenets, bylaws, constitution...whatever.) Within the past two weeks I've heard this complaint from Mormons, Atheists, Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, Democrats, Republicans, Americans, Germans, Iraqis, Men, Women, Gays, Lesbians, Raider fans, Jazz (basketball) fans, Cubs fans, and residents of the City of Santaquin. Today on the radio I heard this complaint regarding people who listen to the rock band Aerosmith who didn't think "Sweet Emotion" was the rocking-est Aerosmith song ever--along with a spit-flying, screaming argument about it between two callers on the show. Mormons like to beat each other up about how uptight they are, and that's fine. But we dare not believe we're the only ones who engage in the practice--carping about who is/isn't or who should/shouldn't be part of any particular group is one of the most common activities in the world. I'm far more concerned about apathy than excessive social exclusivity at this point. It's human nature, not a particular flaw of Mormons. We should give ourselves neither special dispensation nor special condemnation for it, IMO. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 00:09:01 -0600 From: "Quinn Warnick" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher on KRAKAUER, _Under the Banner of Heaven_ I read _Under the Banner of Heaven_ the weekend it came out, and I was excited that I'd be able to the first person on the list to review it. A few weeks later, my eagerness is still buried under my procrastination, and several others have beaten me to the punch. Richard Dutcher's non-review resonated with me (your fishing expedition was successful, Richard), so I'll use that as a springboard for my own informal review. Richard Dutcher wrote: | First of all, the book is very well-written. Compelling. The author | knows how to put words together. I read the first few pages, which | instantly hooked me, and I finished the book within 48 hours. I had the same experience. My shelves are full of half-read books, but I couldn't put this one down -- I bought it on a Saturday afternoon and finished it by Monday. Whatever else can be said about the novel (and I have some strong criticisms of the book), Krakauer deserves credit for being a great storyteller. | It was clear from the author's overview of early Mormon history that he | did his research. Or (at least) Michael Quinn did his research, and | Krakauer read Quinn. The Church has taken issue with Krakauer's scholarship (or lack thereof), issuing a short press release by Mike Otterson, director of Media Relations, as well as a longer rebuttal by Richard E. Turley, Jr., managing director of the Family and Church History Department. I read Turley's statement before I picked up the book, and I assumed that he was being overly defensive (as we in the Church are wont to do with each new Mormon-themed book), but in rereading it after I finished the book, I found myself wishing that Krakauer had taken the time to interview someone -- anyone -- from Church headquarters. The mistakes Krakauer makes -- from simple, copyediting mistakes (refering to Mark E. Petersen as a former president of the Church) to more egregious ones (ignoring evidence about Josiah Stowell, Orrin Porter Rockwell, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre) -- could have been greatly reduced with a little effort. The fact that Krakauer never made the effort seems to reveal the author's willingness to disregard journalistic standards when crafting a good read hangs in the balance. [Note: the Church's response can be found here: http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-17190,00.html ] | So the writing was emotionally effective. I was duly horrified. Krakauer | succeeds in making Mormon Fundamentalists look like homicidal, | incestuous lunatics. He also makes mainstream Mormons look like closet | lunatics, and he makes religious folk in general look like potential | lunatics. But I guess that's one of the main questions the book grapples | with: is religious faith a brand of insanity? In the "Author's Remarks" at the end of the book, Krakauer admits that "I don't know if God even exists," and his lack of belief permeates book. Early on, he writes that "faith is the antithesis of reason," and you get the feeling, as Richard Dutcher notes above, that Krakauer has a personal heirarchy of insanity: the lowest level being the standard Christian (deluded but harmless), followed by the mainstream Latter-day Saint (fanatics living in your cul-de-sac, just waiting for the right time to do something drastic), with the Mormon Fundamentalist (already did something drastic) at the top. And while the book makes a few token attempts to distinguish between average Latter-day Saints and the more extreme Fundamentalists, you get the feeling that Krakauer believes mainstream Mormons are all part of some Fundamentalist sleeper cell, having integrated ourselves so deeply into American society as to go almost unnoticed, but secretly awaiting the time when our leaders will summon us to take multiple wives and carry out blood atonement against anyone who has ever wronged our people. | as well-written and | high-profile as it is, it really seems to me to be nothing more than the | latest sensational anti-Mormon, anti-faith expose. I found myself mentally rushing to Krakauer's defense before I read the book, wanting it to be a fair and balanced look at the Church by an outsider. With each chapter, though, I liked the book less. And not just because it became more anti-Mormon as it progressed (though that certainly affected my opinion). The book seems to lose its focus. Krakauer is at his best when he's writing about the Lafferty brothers. There's no denying that it's a compelling (albeit horrific) tale. Richard Dutcher points out some holes in the Lafferty story, and I think Krakauer would have been wise to abandon a few unrelated chapters and fill the space with a more thorough look at the aftermath of the murders and the current state of the other family members (though it's likely they declined to be interviewed for the book). My biggest pet peeve came about two-thirds of the way through, when Krakauer takes a sharp detour and spends three chapters (eighteen through twenty) on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the killing of two members of Major John Wesley Powell's expedition. Numerous times in the book, Krakauer links polygamy and violence, trying to show that they go hand in hand. But these three chapters have little or nothing to do with polygamy -- just violence. The incidents in question have been written about numerous times (can anyone count how many Mountain Meadows books have been released in the last twenty years?), and Krakauer does them a disservice by glossing over the facts in an attempt to somehow link them to present-day fundamentalism and, in turn, the LDS Church. In the "Author's Remarks," Krakauer writes that he originally set out to write a book entitled _History and Belief_, which was "going to focus on the uneasy, highly charged relationship between the LDS Church and its past." I suspect that the chapters I mentioned above were written long before the rest of the book and wedged into the new narrative so Krakauer wouldn't have to abandon them. Even if I'm wrong about their origin, that's how the chapters felt to me -- out of place and unnecessarily harsh. For those who h aven't read the book, Krakauer intersperses chapters about the Lafferty murders with chapters about various polygamist groups, the mainstream Church, and early Church history. While some of the tangential chapters fit into the Lafferty narrative quite nicely, as the book wore on, I found myself hoping at the end of each chapter that the next would go back to the Lafferty story line. Each time I'd catch myself thinking this, it seemed I had to wade through an extra chapter or two before Krakauer would grant my wish. | 1. There was very little treatment of Allen Lafferty (the widower) after | the murders. How did he deal with this? Is he still LDS? Does he have | any opinion on his brothers' mental state? Does he struggle with guilt? Good point. In fact, the Lafferty family is painted as a very large clan, but we never get to hear anyone's story but Dan's. Again, this may not be due to Krakauer's lack of effort. I suppose if I were in that position, I would refuse to be interviewed, too. | 3. Also, there was very little treatment of the Lafferty boys' mother. | The author made her a fascinating character without attempting to | explain her. To me, her behavior causes suspicion that perhaps all was | not right in the Lafferty home when the boys were growing up. When Krakauer reports that the mother sat and calmly listened to her sons plot the murder of her daughter-in-law and granddaughter, and then failed to report it to the police, I was blown away. This was NOT your typical Mormon family. | Interestingly, the murdered woman, Brenda Lafferty (I hope that's the | right name. I don't have the book in front of me) is portrayed as | courageous, strong, and sane. And yet she was a Mormon. The rest of the | book would lead one to believe that she was practically the only Mormon | with these qualities. But then again, she was the victim in the story. | And, in modern American journalism, it seems that we all fall into three | categories: heroes, villains, and victims. I think Brenda played a dual role: obviously the victim, but I think she's made out to be one of the book's strongest heroes, too. Again, though, it's a back-handed compliment by Krakauer. Brenda is the hero because she was a strong enough woman to encourage her sister-in-law to get a divorce. Krakauer writes it as if everyone else involved in the situation was just a pawn of the partriarchal Church heirarchy, sitting on the sidelines as Ron Lafferty slowly went insane. But wait! There's one woman who knows better -- Brenda Lafferty. And what happens to her as a result of her independence? She's murdered by the villians, making her both hero and victim, or in this case, a martyr for the cause of feminist enlightenment. [Please don't take this paragraph as a statement of my beliefs about feminism and its merits. I'm just trying to show that even when Krakauer paints a strong, intelligent Mormon, he does so knowing that he can portray her as being killed, not just by two deranged men, but by Mormonism itself.] | Perhaps I'm taking it too seriously. It's just a book, after all. It's just a book that debuted at number four on the New York Times bestseller list and has remained in the top five for the last three weeks. It's a book that's being read, and I suspect it's not just being read by Mormons. But, long term, perhaps we don't really have to worry until Krakauer sells the films rights. ;-) | In many ways, Krakauer's book had an unexpected effect on me (and surely | not the author's intended effect). I felt compassion for the | fundamentalists. They are surely the victims of misrepresentation here. I can tell you exactly why I bought this book. My wife had put my name on the waiting list at the library to get this book, but I knew it was going to be a long wait. And then we were in Costco, and I saw a stack of them on the table. The deep-deep discount almost persuaded me, but I was willing to wait my turn on the library list (I was number ten). Then I opened the cover and saw the beautiful map printed on the end papers. The map is a detail of Southern Utah and the Arizona Strip (home to Colorado City and not much else). I guess some context would be helpful here -- we were in the Costco in St. George, a popular shopping stop (along with the infinitely more popular Wal-mart) for Fundamentalist families. There I was, holding the book in my hand, watching them do their weekly shopping, and curiosity overtook me. I couldn't wait for nine other people to read the book. I had to read it NOW. This is a long way of me getting back to Richard's statement about compassion for the Fundamentalists. Having moved to St. George last year, I now see polygamists on a regular basis. I've met the mayor of Colorado City a few times at community meetings, and if I didn't know which city he came from, I wouldn't suspect anything amiss about him at all. He's one of the kindest people I've met. And yet, knowing that he is the mayor of Colorado City makes me uneasy around him. I notice the same thing at Wal-mart. The men almost blend in, but people stare at the women and girls wearing long dresses with jeans underneath. I often wonder what it must be like to be stared at everywhere you go. I felt that way on my mission, but I took a certain pride in it. I wonder if the polygamists have that same sense of pride. | Granted, they are an easy target. They are unpopular and few in number. | Who is going to stand up and defend the polygamists? >From my experience, they're not looking for anyone to defend them. They just want to be left alone. I assume Krakauer's book has many of them worried that additional national attention will ultimately mean additional legal and political action against them. But they've been through that before (in the 1950s), and they managed to survive. It's a sticky issue for politicians, and places like Colorado City may simply be ignored. Which will suit the residents of Colorado City just fine. Quinn Warnick - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:59 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan, replying from the Web" Subject: Re: [AML] Review of Krakauer and Others in _Salon_ - --- Original Message --- From: thelairdjim >decide to call Starr a Mormon, since his church is a splinter off of >ours as well. But then again it's a legal church and has been for more >than a century. I suppose it's only the illegal sects that get to be >honorary Mormons since they can't form their own churches dedicated to >breaking the law. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints is not an illegal sect. It is an incorporated religion. So is the True and Living Church, another polygamous group. Was Starr a member of the Community of Christ (RLDS)? Their separation from us in the eyes of the press has a lot to do with their distancing efforts for several decades. Also, they are not as "weird" as the polygamous break-offs are. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 09:14:49 -0600 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: [AML] Re: Dutcher on KRAKUER, _Under the Banner of Heaven_ > > Richard Dutcher asked me to forward this to the list. > I recently finished Krakauer's book. The following is not a critique. > It's just a partial response with random thoughts. And a fishing > expedition to see if anyone else had similar thoughts. > > So the writing was emotionally effective. I was duly horrified. Krakauer > succeeds in making Mormon Fundamentalists look like homicidal, > incestuous lunatics. He also makes mainstream Mormons look like closet > lunatics, and he makes religious folk in general look like potential > lunatics. But I guess that's one of the main questions the book grapples > with: is religious faith a brand of insanity? Perhaps, as a person with > religious faith, I am especially sensitive to the question. Richard, Robert Wright addresses this question in the book in his intriguing _NY Times_ review (which can be found at http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/07/26/mormons/index_np.html If you haven't signed up with the NY Times, you have to complete a free registration to read the article.) He notes that Krakauer strongly implies that to be religious means to give up thinking for oneself and he wishes that Krakauer had addressed the "vibrancy of mainstream Mormonism" which he (Wright) doubts is "just the dark energy of residual authoritarianism." Wright states in the review: Krakauer writes that ''as a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane . . . there may be no more potent force than religion.'' But sheer instinctive self-righteousness may ultimately be a bigger part of the problem. It is a common denominator of crimes committed in the name of religion, nationalism, racism -- even, sometimes, nihilism. (Back to me) I think the weakness of Krakauer's book may be that he imputes to religion essentially what is the human weakness for self-justification no matter what the belief system. > In many ways, Krakauer's book had an unexpected effect on me (and surely > not the author's intended effect). I felt compassion for the > fundamentalists. They are surely the victims of misrepresentation here. > Krakauer's fundamentalist villains are so villainous. The polygamists > lifestyles and belief systems themselves are revealed as so > reprehensible. I simply cannot believe it. These people are being > attacked. And I don't like to see anyone being attacked. > > Granted, they are an easy target. They are unpopular and few in number. > Who is going to stand up and defend the polygamists? Well, not me. :) While I appreciate your compassion--it's what, among other things made _Brigham City_ such a moving, wonderful film--it's hard for me to work up much empathy for a system of belief that truly oppresses women and children. In the world view of fundamentalists, women simply are not equal to men. While I certainly don't believe all fundamentalists are monsters, and I know that many of them are good people who are trying sincerely to live the "right" way, it distresses me that what they consider the right way is so limiting to women, who often don't seem to have a real choice in how they live their lives. Susan Kroupa www.susankroupa.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:45:41 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] Episcopalean Revelation An interesting conversation on _The O'Reilly Factor_, top news commentary program (not verbatim; from my memory): O'Reilly: I would assume that as a Christian church, the Episcopaleans rely on scripture. Priest in Interview: That's true. O'Reilly: Then confirming Robinson as Bishop would be against your religion, since being gay is anti-scripture. Priest: Well, we don't rely on scripture as the last word. Above that is the Holy Spirit in community. O'Reilly: You're telling me that the Holy Spirit told you to confirm a gay bishop? Priest: Yes, that's what we're saying. O'Reilly: Well! I have a very hard time accepting that! Interesting that another religion is saying that ongoing revelation can supersede the written word :). Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:45:20 -0500 From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: [AML] Cedar Fort Query Has anyone on the list had dealings with Cedar Fort/Bonneville Books? = Please email me privately at LHKimball@pobox.com. Thanks! Linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:37:59 -0600 From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Query on Eagle City Video/Film Preston Hunter wrote, "I went to high school in Smithfield Utah, back in the 70's. There was a movie that was so corny that even the seminary teachers thought it was too earnest, and they would show it once a year for a seminary party. I thought that it was called Eagle City, but I've searched for it with google to no avail. I don't know if it was made by the church, but I always thought it was. It was an anti-drinking film, in which the good naive kid goes off with the bad kid to Eagle City to buy some beer. Ever hear of it?" Is that the one where one kid says to the other, "Yeah, let's go beer and pretzels!" We in the know always laughed because, hey, why waste money on pretzels? Greg Taggart - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:09:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] SL Tribune: 2003 Sunstone Symposium =20 SATURDAY August 09, 2003 =20 LDS black experience tops themes of SLC symposium,=20 By Brandon Griggs=20 The Salt Lake Tribune=20 =20 Forty years ago this month, Martin Luther King Jr. electrified a crowd in Washington, D.C., with his spoken hope that people "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Fifteen years later, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opened its priesthood to black men. The legacies of those landmark events will converge next week at the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, where King's eldest son will address the annual gathering of Mormon intellectuals. In the days following Wednesday's keynote speech by Martin Luther King III, three panels will explore the LDS black experience. One panel will consider why the LDS Church's message does not play as well with blacks in America as it does in sub-Saharan Africa, where Mormon missionaries have converted more than 160,000 people. Others will feature black Mormons discussing their personal experiences of joining the church or finding a comfortable=20 spiritual home among fellow Saints. King, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will discuss his late father's messages of justice and equality as they apply to the 21st century. His 8 p.m. lecture at the Sheraton City Centre, host to the symposium, is free and open to the public. Sunstone officials, who sent King materials on=20 LDS Church history and doctrine, expect him to=20 tailor his remarks to a Mormon audience. The Sunstone Symposium runs through next Saturday and is rich with anniversaries. Besides marking four decades since the elder King's "I=20 Have a Dream" speech in 1963, the event commemorates the 25th anniversary of the LDS Church's priesthood policy change and the 25th anniversary of the Sunstone Foundation. It also marks 10 years since six Mormon scholars were disciplined by the LDS Church for expressing views that challenged church teachings. In a high-profile rebuke in September 1993, five Mormon intellectuals were=20 excommunicated and another disfellowshipped. Five of the "September Six," as they became known -- Lavina Fielding Anderson, Maxine Hanks, D. Michael Quinn, Paul Toscano and Lynne Whitesides -- will appear on a Sunstone panel Thursday to discuss their journeys of faith over the past decade.=20 The remainder of the four-day conference features the usual smorgasbord of spiritual, doctrinal and cultural topics -- many inspired by recent headlines. One panel will probe the Mormon prophetic tradition as it relates to accused Elizabeth Smart kidnapper Brian David Mitchell. Another has Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and guests discussing the firestorm over the LDS Church's contested Main Street Plaza. Others will explore recent controversial books by Judith Freeman (on the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and Jon Krakauer (on violence within Mormon splinter groups). "Sunstone naturally reflects the issues that are going on around the country and that people are discussing in their wards," says director Dan Wotherspoon, who edits Sunstone's bimonthly magazine. Wotherspoon succeeded longtime foundation director Elbert Peck two years ago and has=20 worked to make Sunstone more inclusive to voices across the Mormon intellectual spectrum. Attracting conservative Mormon scholars to Sunstone has been difficult since the LDS Church urged its members to avoid "symposia" in 1991. But the church has remained silent on the subject since, and Wotherspoon believes that in recent years most Mormon intellectuals have felt freer to participate in Sunstone without fear of reprisals. Tickets to the 25th annual Sunstone Symposium range from $6 for a session pass to $75 for the entire conference. Tickets are available from the Sunstone Foundation at 355-5926 or over the Internet. For tickets and a detailed program, visit http://www.sunstoneonline.com.=20 =20 =A9 Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:16:23 -0500 From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: [AML] What Is Gender? (was: Definitions of GLBT etc.) [MOD: I'm introducing a broader thread title here in the interests of pursuing Lisa's question, which I think is an interesting one that we might pursue here. Keep in mind, however, that our purpose is not to discuss LDS doctrine per se. As much as possible, I'd like to keep this as a sharing (not debating) of various ways of conceptualizing this within an LDS context, with an eye (as always) to how that might affect the literature we read and write, or even how we read and write literature.] - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Curtis" > > So far as I have been able to determine, the Church does not have a stance > on intersexuality. Does anyone have further information? > I saw a Discovery Channel special about this condition a few months ago. >From what I can remember it seems that there are some pretty strong feelings among those who have and treat this condition that it would be best to let the child grow up some before surgically or otherwise determining its sex because one will often turn out to be dominant in puberty and if he/she has already had the other sex "imposed" on him/her it is a real crisis. But then, the whole thing is a real problem and my heart goes out to those who have to deal with it. I don't know about the church's official position, but I remember my cousin telling me once about a family she knew who had had a child with this condition and they had to decide which sex he/she should be. Her comment was that they really struggled with the question of the implications of choosing a sex for the child, particularly whether it was supposed to be a boy and have the priesthood. Which brings up a question that I find compelling and pretty much unanswered in our theology. What is gender anyway? I mean beyond the definition of gender as the social constructs surrounding biological sex. We believe that our Father's spirit children have eternal gender identities both pre- and post- mortal. So what does that mean? What does it mean to be "male" or "female"? What is the essence of each gender that causes the division? Most Mormons seem content to accept some form of the priesthood/motherhood dichotomy, but that doesn't satisfy me. The priesthood/motherhood assignments seem to be, if anything, the result of gender, not the cause. As far as I have seen there is nothing in the scriptures anywhere that addresses this subject. Sure would be interesting to know. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:21:46 -0500 From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Review of Krakauer and Others in _Salon_ - ----- Original Message ----- From: "thelairdjim" > I was quite surprised during the Lewinsky embroglio tht they didn't > decide to call Starr a Mormon, since his church is a splinter off of > ours as well. But then again it's a legal church and has been for more > than a century. I suppose it's only the illegal sects that get to be > honorary Mormons since they can't form their own churches dedicated to > breaking the law. > Okay, I have to ask for more information about this. I read Newsweek and other sources throughout the imbroglio and I don't remember any references to Starr's religion. What church does he belong to? Can you give a source? Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:17:03 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher on KRAKAUER, _Under the Banner of Heaven_ At 12:09 AM 8/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >It's a sticky issue for politicians, >and places like Colorado City may simply be ignored. Which will suit the >residents of Colorado City just fine. Not all of them. I've recently met several women who are enraged at the way they were abused by this system, which seems structured to suit the kind of men who think that dominating and controlling women and children makes them God. One woman wanted to know why the law allows this illegal system to exist when it's hurting so many people. I also met a very fine young man who was thrown away by his family because he didn't want to be ordered to marry a bunch of women he didn't want. There is a lot of abuse going on there in the name of the "priesthood." Sounds like priestcraft to me. As a Mormon, I don't want to be connected with this stuff in people's minds. But Krakauer is making a lot of money by doing just that. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:13:02 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] SL Tribune: 2003 Sunstone Symposium I'm curious if anyone knows and can tell me if anyone from The Genesis Group, an official branch of the Church for African-Americans and their friends and families, has been asked to be on any of the panels exploring the LDS Black experience. Darius Gray was just released as the Branch President and is uniquely qualified to be on any of these panels. Also, will there be any mention of the documentary that Richard Dutcher and former ASBYU Student Body President Rob Foster just completed on the Revelation on Blacks and The Priesthood? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:14:57 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Definitions of Mormonism I have friends who belong to the former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ or Latter Day Saints, who call themselves Mormons. I am not currently in touch with them so I can't ask them how things are done now that they have changed their name to Community of Christ. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #118 ******************************