From: "Christine" Subject: Re: [AML] Box Office Report Jan. 25 Date: 31 Jan 2002 17:38:41 -0700 ___ Kumiko ___ | This marks the first time in months that a movie with | Latter-day Saint characters or made by Latter-day | Saint filmmakers was not among the nation's top at the | box office. ___ Clark: I just rejoined, so I presumably missed some discussion. But what exactly did Oceans 11 have to do with Mormons? There was that scene in Provo when gathering the thieves, but they weren't Mormon were they? I don't recall any dialog suggesting they were. Me: Actually, they were specifically described as "the Mormon twins" right at the beginning of their little intro. -Christine Atkinson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] Play at Little Brown Theater Date: 01 Feb 2002 09:49:10 -0700 While we're on drama, come and see "The Passing of the Third Floor Back" by Jerome Jerome, done by a graduate group from BYU, held at the Little Brown Theatre, 239 S. Main in Springville, 7:30 on Thurs. Fri, Sat, Mon., this weekend and next. We're seeing it tonight. Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Web Articles on Mormon Art Date: 01 Feb 2002 01:30:34 +0000 Here are some links to recent stories about creative work by LDS artists in the two major Mormon web magazines, Meridian and Mormon Life. 1. Telling Forgotten Stories Together by Margaret Blair Young About how she met Darius Gray and their collaboration. http://deseretbook.com/mormon-life/people-places/one-article?article_id=854 2. Forgetting Your Lines by Marvin Payne Talks about his participation in Tim Slover's play Hancock County. http://meridianmagazine.com/backstagegraffiti/020130lines.html 3. Behind the Scenes with Jerhico Road by Rod Simpson About the new boy band made up of former Young Ambassadors. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan http://meridianmagazine.com/music/020104jericho.html _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Apocalyptic Thrillers Date: 31 Jan 2002 18:29:56 -0800 (PST) Last night on Letterman the guest was Tim Russert, the moderate, level-headed host of NBC's "Meet the Press." He said something that took my breath away; something that many have thought but few have til now said out loud: "We are now in a race with the terrorists. We must destroy their networks before they are able to detonate a nuclear device in the United States." And since September 11, we instinctively know what the first target of such an attack will probably be. The destruction of New York City has been the subject of popular apocalyptic thrillers in the past. Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler's novel "Fail-Safe" (1962)ends with the obliteration of the city by a nuclear weapon. Larry Collins and Dominique LaPierre's The Fifth Horseman" (1980) concerns a fictional plot to blackmail the U.S. bu Libya's Qadaffi where an explosive device is hidden somewhere in the city. These days, such scenarios seem more than just abstract theoretical possibilities. It is likely we could witness such horror in our lifetimes. The impact of such an event on our culture is unforseeable and unfathomable. One is reminded of the terrible final chapters of the Book of Mormon, when the Nephite population is exterminated by war. Such genocidal furies must have seemed alien to the readers of 1830; they are all too familiar to us today. What can we hope for; whar to expect? Divine intervention--the hand of god in history--seems to be an incerasingly relevant idea at this point. In Matthew 24:22 the Savior says that in the latter days the tribulations would be so great that all flesh would be destroyed if "the days were not shortened." In 1940, Hitler was rampant and his ally Stalin ruled with blood and horror. Not much stood between us and world domination by totalitarian barbarism. Our faith must reside in the possibility that God will act again in human history. Such possibilities seem to me to be at the heart of LDS doctrine. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Pop Culture and Cultural Conservatism Date: 01 Feb 2002 01:24:38 -0700 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > Whenever asked about it, Seinfeld's glib answer was 'it's a sitcom about nothing.' In other words, it's an expose of nihilism; it's literally, about nothing. So there we are. A hip, with it, funny piece of avant-garde theatre arguing for, not against, our view of morality. So could we write a Mormon Seinfeld? What would a Mormon Seinfeld be like? If the real Seinfeld was a cautionary tale showing how not to do it, then how would a Mormon one be very different? You would still have the same characters doing it all wrong, being unhappy in the process, and getting theirs in the end. The values the Mormon Seinfeld would backhandedly promote would have to be specifically Mormon values. Superlatively insincere home teaching. All sorts of rationalizations to get around the Word of Wisdom. Extraordinarily shallow dating on BYU campus, with the high-pressure goal of finding "the one" always in the conscious foreground, but with the usual hedonistic and selfish reasons for attraction constantly getting in the way. Heavy-duty aspiring to office: "When I'm President of the Church..." Gestapo backbiting over anyone who doesn't act "just so," according to the character's defitinion of righteous living. The more I think about it, the more it could work. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Stephen KING, _On Writing_ Date: 01 Feb 2002 07:54:51 -0700 cgileadi@emerytelcom.net wrote: > I'm just reading Steven King's _On Writing_, a combination autobiography and > writing manual. I have always disliked King's novels, but this is one > excellent book. He's a dang good writer. (I just agree with his high school > English teacher who said, "Why do you waste your talent, writing that trash?") King has also given us many great and uplifting stories. _The Shawshank Redemption_ is a movie version of one of his greatest. _Stand By Me_ based on another King Story. His English teacher was a myopic idiot, just as was mine when she scrunched up her face and asked me why I was wasting my time reading science fiction. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture Date: 01 Feb 2002 08:09:21 -0700 Clark Goble wrote: > ___ Thom ___ > | I cornered a few of them afterwards and they shared a few > | stories about other LDS friends who had sincerely asked > | them, "How can you be a Democrat and a good Mormon?" > | That is an example of Mormon culture that some people > | think is the same as religion. > ___ > > That's an example of Utah culture which is hardly Mormon culture. I expect > that the average Mormon in Japan, for example, has no clue what a Democrat > or Republican even is. Widen this to US culture, I would agree with you. I found the same sentiment among the California Saints. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 30Jan02 US NY NYC X1 Date: 01 Feb 2002 11:16:56 -0500 LDS Seminary Declines to Participate in Neighborhood Art SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- The art project of a Salt Lake City sculptor has become quite popular among his neighbors, but apparently not at a neighboring LDS Seminary building. Sculptor Dave Malone, who creates sculptures from "found" metal, has created a "random act of sculpture," a series of half circles cut from a huge, 3-foot-wide metal spool. The circles stretch from his yard, snaking through the neighborhood in what has become a group project as nearly everyone has asked to participate. "It's kind of a coming together of the neighborhood," he says. "They like the idea of being involved in something big." But a local LDS Seminary building has declined to participate, leaving a void in the middle of the project. Officials at the Seminary say that the sculpture doesn't fit into their "guidelines," according to Malone. Source: Random acts . . . of sculpture Deseret News 21Jan02 A1 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,365009191,00.html By Stephen Speckman: Deseret News staff writer Salt Laker's creations unify neighborhood LDS Author Publishes Nationally with Mormon Character PROVO, UTAH -- LDS author Dean Hughes has managed to accomplish something unusual -- publish a book with a national character that includes a faithful LDS Church member as a main character and make religion part of the book. Hughes says his latest book, "Soldier Boys," a World War II novel from national publisher Atheneum, is the first he's published with a national publisher that features a Mormon character and talks about his religion. Hughes says "I think part of what is changing is the realization that certain books about or by Mormons have done very well financially," Hughes said. "The best example is President Hinckley's Standing for Something." Source: Author includes LDS character in book BYU NewsNet 22Jan02 A2 http://newsnet.byu.edu/story/36044 By Adrianne Barrett: NewsNet Staff Writer BYU Loses Bid to Host National Media Association COLUMBIA, MISSOURI -- BYU lost a bid to host the National Newspaper Association headquarters when the 117-year-old association decided to locate at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism. The NNA is the largest newspaper organization in the U.S., representing 3,000 mostly small- to mid-size newspapers with lobbying and support services. Currently, the NNA is located in Arlington, Virginia. Source: National Media Group Plans to Settle in Columbia, Mo. Columbia MO Daily Tribune 24Jan02 D3 LDS Author Honored With Library Name MURRAY, UTAH -- The Kimber Academy will honor noted conservative LDS author W. Cleon Skousen by naming a library after him. The library, located at the academy in Murray, Utah, will showcase books, journals and historical documents on American and LDS Church history, the Constitution and the Middle East. Skousen is best known for his books "The Naked Communist" and his series of "Thousand Years" books tracing the religious history of the world. His most recent book is "The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution." Source: FAITH IN ACTION Salt Lake Tribune 26Jan02 P2 http://www.sltrib.com/01262002/saturday/170696.htm >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN New Book Explores Church's Power in America's Fastest-Growing City: Ken Ward News Release 30Jan02 US NV LV A2 Date: 01 Feb 2002 11:19:03 -0500 New Book Explores Church's Power in America's Fastest-Growing City LAS VEGAS, NEVADA -- Mormons took a big gamble when they settled Las Vegas 150 years ago. That bet paid off as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints helped plot the growth of America's gambling mecca. Now, for the first time, the deep and symbiotic relationship between America's fastest growing religion and the country's fastest growing city is exposed in a book, "Saints in Babylon: Mormons and Las Vegas'' (1st Books Library, Bloomington, Ind.). Through never-told-before accounts and exclusive interviews, veteran journalist Kenric F. Ward traces the guiding influences of a conservative church in a city that deals in the wages of sin. "It's a sociological odd couple. Las Vegas is eight hours and light years from Salt Lake City. But amidst the bright lights and the non-stop partying is a thriving Mormon community," says Ward, an author and free-lance writer who has lived in Nevada for the past decade. >From its first organized settlement in 1855, when missionaries built a fort along the dusty Old Spanish Trail, Las Vegas and Latter-day Saints have been inextricably linked. As polygamists and farmers gave way to gaming executives and corporate attorneys, today's Mormons shatter many of the religion's stereotypes. There is virtually no corner of Sin City they do not inhabit. Among the colorful cast of characters in Ward's work: a polygamous patriarch who pioneered Southern Nevada with a collectivist plan that would make Karl Marx proud; a banker who funded casinos and brought them respectability; Howard Hughes' closest confidants; decorated and controversial Vietnam War hero Bo Gritz; a tough-talking sheriff who took on the Mob; and the U.S. Senate's second most powerful member. In this fast-paced book highlighted with historical photos, Ward tells the uniquely American story of a strict, sober Church that found a way to co-exist with - and profit from - the gambling industry. It's a testament to the adaptability of a people, a city and a faith. About the Author Kenric F. Ward is an award-winning journalist and author who has written and edited extensively throughout Nevada, California and Indiana. Earning a bachelor's degree in political science from UCLA, Ward graduated with Phi Beta Kappa honors. He was an editorial writer at the San Jose Mercury News and editor-in-chief of the Columbus (Ind.) Republic before moving to Las Vegas, where he served as an editor with the Las Vegas Sun. In addition to writing weekly columns for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Ward co-authored "The Insiders Guide to Las Vegas" in 1997. Las Vegas correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, Ward also has been published by the Los Angeles Times, FoxNews.com and other Internet news sites. His investigative reports and commentaries won first-place awards from the Nevada Press Association, the Hoosier State Press Association and the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Education Reform. "Beautifully written. By far the best thing I have ever seen on the LDS role in politics and the community. A great book." -- A.D. Hopkins, Las Vegas Review-Journal. -30- Source: New Book Explores Church's Power in America's Fastest-Growing City Ken Ward News Release 30Jan02 A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Meridian Magazine Article on Media Tastes Date: 01 Feb 2002 10:20:11 -0700 Interesting little editorial: The Internal Mormon-Media Conflict by Jonathan S. Walker http://www.meridianmagazine.com/videos/020201media.html Tidbit: The purists who do not believe that there should be a single instance of baseness-no matter how mild-in a film look at those who watch a broad range of films as heathens who are very nearly in the unredeemable clutches of the adversary. And those who believe that entertainment and art need not be sanitized look at those who aggressively protect themselves and their families from the taint of the world as unsophisticated and naive country bumpkins. Most members of the church fall into one of the two of these categories. There are varying degrees of acceptance within them, but most seem to sit on one side of the fence or the other. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture Date: 01 Feb 2002 10:39:28 -0700 robert lauer wrote: > Again I think the Jewish culture offers a great model. Jews--with whom we > claim a literal connection, being part of the same covenant people, > Israel--debate and argue interpretations of scripture and law > constantly--and one's Jewishness is never questioned because of it. So if > members disagree or debate a passage from the Book of Mormon, D&C or a > sermon by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, one can't say that one side is > "more Mormon" than the other: both are arguing FROM a distinctly Mormon > source. A non-Mormon would have no interest in such a discussion. The fact > that both sides of such a debate have such an investment in the debate > proves that BOTH sides are Mormon. I think this has been a sticking point for a lot of people (or maybe I'm just exposing my own reasonably intense dislike of conflict--competition I have no problem with, vigorous but respectful argumentation is fun, but conflict with its intellectual stonewalling, judgment of valuelessness, and dismissal really bugs me). Whether it's true or not, I think there is a sense among Mormons that arguing meaning of scriptures or historical events or doctrinal implication amounts to wresting the word and is a sure step on the path to apostacy. This concern has led many to avoid confrontation or argument at all costs, and has led to much of the bland institutional behavior we all recognize (and many of us cringe at to varying degrees). Which I think is too bad, because for me part of the whole concept of the community of saints is to share and question and even to struggle. How can we bear one another's spiritual burdens when we seem afraid to express them for fear of either rejection or exclusion? Certainly we've seen harsh judgment in our culture for books and plays that either question certain ideas or that present them in unorthodox contexts--a harsh judment that I've participated in rather vocally in the past, though I'm cutting back on it day by day. Neil Labute, Levi Peterson, and Maureen Whipple have all received sharp criticism and even condemnation from within the Mormon culture because their works seemed to mock or question or dismiss ideas or behaviors that others found inviolable. Which is odd, because the response to that perceived mockery is a often a particularly brutal return of exactly the same behavior--questioning of faith, value, or membership in the community. The questions are often taken as judgment, and many of us are concerned about awaking the ire of our fellows. Oddly, the best answer is for brave souls to ask the questions anyway, but to do so in a way that arouses the critical faculty without necessarily making people feel mocked or dismissed--something I don't think our literature has done very well to this point. But at this point I begin to cover very old ground, so I'll stop now. It just strikes me as unfortunate that we're often ready to go in and help with a meal or yard work or the rent, but we often are afraid to go in with a listening ear and a soft shoulder--and sometimes a good, rousing argument based around discovery rather than defending a perceived bastion of truth under siege. I still think good literature is the most effective means of at least reducing the height of the walls, if not breaking them down completely--which may be the biggest limit I perceive to Mormon literature: that we've tried to batter down the whole wall at once rather than examining the bricks one by one. Over time, both methods reconfigure the wall, but the less violent method does so with fewer casualties. Still, we need both kinds. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 31Jan02 US NY NYC X1 Date: 01 Feb 2002 16:37:01 -0500 LDS Filmmaker's Newest Effort Released OREM, UTAH -- A BYU film student is putting his own effort into the mix with the recent run of films featuring Mormon stories. John Lyde's film, "The Field is White," tells the story of a returned LDS missionary who struggles with his testimony. Lyde, who has been making short films since age 12, ultimately wants to have his own company that produces films. His next project is a full-length action film. Source: Lyde films break into LDS market BYU NewsNet 26Jan02 A2 http://newsnet.byu.edu/story/36185 By Brittany Brough: NewsNet Staff Writer CD Sent by Hatch Destroyed by Mail Decontaminating Equipment WASHINGTON, DC -- A CD of Olympics music featuring several LDS performers was destroyed by mail decontaminating equipment last week when Utah Senator Orrin Hatch tried to send the CD to Interior Secretary Gale Norton. The copy of the CD "Light Up the Land" was sent off to be decontaminated, and returned looking like it had been put through a microwave, "The end product was unfortunately that the CD itself looks as if it was zapped in a microwave oven for just under two hours and then thrown on a broiler and put on high heat for just a while longer to finish it up," Interior spokesman Mark Pfeifle said Monday. The CD included performances by Gladys Knight, Donny and Marie Osmond and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Hatch plans to get Norton a new copy of the CD. Source: Hatch CD is zapped by mail inspectors Deseret News (AP) 29Jan02 T2 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,370008472,00.html Associated Press Tunes mailed to Norton ended up as a melted glob >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Pop Culture and Cultural Conservatism Date: 01 Feb 2002 15:51:11 -0700 On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:00:16 -0700 "Eric R. Samuelsen" writes: > Whenever asked about it, Seinfeld's glib answer was 'it's a sitcom > about nothing.' In other words, it's an expose of nihilism; it's > literally, about nothing. So there we are. A hip, with it, funny > piece of avant-garde theatre arguing for, not against, our view of > morality. So could we write a Mormon Seinfeld? > > Eric Samuelsen I hated Seinfeld right up until the last episode, and loved the last episode because those selfish, etc. (all those wonderful adjectives Eric used) got what they deserved. It was beautiful. :-) I knew Seinfeld said it was a sitcom about nothing, and understood on a gut level what he was doing, but I still couldn't stand to *watch*. I lived that particular hell already and don't ever won't to go back to it again. I've lived a few hells, actually, before I found a place, a people and most especially the Gospel, and my life was suddenly about Everything temporal, spiritual and eternal. Anything left in it that was nothing I would work diligently the rest of my life to leave by the wayside. Easier said than done, naturally, which is why it is called Refiner's Fire, and why I repent daily. So, if the faith and the church, and the goal of eternal life and exaltation, joint-heirs with Christ, godhood, and eternal progression -- if all this is everything, how can there ever be a Mormon Seinfeld without making it the saddest, most agonizing show ever to be produced? Here is a people who have everything of eternity at their fingertips, offered on a silver platter to them, and they spend their days pursuing nothing instead? Eric, I must hope that no one ever writes or produces a true Mormon Seinfeld. I can see writing something that includes the dichotomy, but without *some* of the main characters pursuing the "everything" part, to watch it would be even more of an agonizing waste of time than the original Seinfeld was. Just my opinion, as always. Predictable, I know. Kathy Fowkes ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Pop Culture and Cultural Conservatism Date: 01 Feb 2002 16:17:35 -0800 Speaking of movies like "A Walk to Remember" that uphold principles of chastity, I saw a really good one the other day that surprised the socks off me. It was "Bubble Boy." I did not plan to see this movie, but it was recommended to me by my son and it was very funny. What expecially impressed me, however, was the romance. The girl was played by Marley Shelton, who is extremely engaging in the part. She likes the Bubble Boy, but he can't date her so she goes out with this "cool" creep, who is constantly after her. In one scene, she's leaving with him and he puts his hand on her rear. She says "Hands!" as they leave, obviously warning him to keep his hands off her bottom. Every so often you hear her repeat the warning. Later, you hear her talking to the creep outside the Bubble Boy's window. She is explaining to him that she won't do "that" with him because she's saving herself for marriage. It is done in a very cool way and she is definitely a girl any guy would want to marry. The creep eventually asks her to marry him, it being obvious that this is the only way he's going to get to do "that" with her. Smart girl! WARNING: this movie makes fun of almost every ethnic and religious group on the planet. If you find that kind of thing offensive, heed this warning. However, in my opinion, it was done with the perfect touch of humor. For example, the father is writing a ransom note at the mother's instructions and it says something about having a ransom of $100,000 paid for return of the Bubble Boy. He has signed the ransom note, "The Jews," which, of course, is amusingly ridiculous. The mother gets after the father for writing a ridiculous ransom note, but identifies the problem as follows: "It's from The Jews...They'd ask way more than $100,000." Hysterical, imho. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: [AML] Bad Personal News Date: 01 Feb 2002 10:48:34 -0800 I hope to keep participating on the list, but we've been dealing with a family crisis lately. Our son has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and has been having a real struggle out in the Mission Field. He never showed any signs of this before he left, or we'd have never sent him. He has been put on Zoloft out in the field and was receiving some help until his therapist was transferred out of state. We have had to take control of the situation ourselves and arrange for a counselor here who has determined he wasn't receiving a proper dosage and has been working with him over the phone and working out a program for him. But our son is miserable and wants to come home, full release. He feels he has to face this and here at home is the way to do it, without the timetable of a medical leave of absence. Our therapist is fully supportive of this,and admires his determination to take control of the situation. And the therapist is definitely mainstream LDS who has a full grasp of the consequences. Our doctor is not LDS, but very respectful and has told when someone with an anxiety disorder feels pressured and cornered they may act out to get people to leave them alone. We support our son, although we wish he would try the medical leave first. It looks like we will have to circle the wagons to a certain degree here, and face some form of being ostracized because that is the indication of there being some consequences to follow. But we've both prayed about it and been in the Temple and the answer seems to be to keep doing what we have done, we're handling it correctly. It's our son's decision, of course and he needs our support to get well. If anyone has some insights or thoughts on this issue, I'd be happy to hear them. Just being able to talk about it feels cathartic. Kathy and Jerry Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Irreantum2@cs.com Subject: [AML] News from the AML Date: 01 Feb 2002 13:48:03 EST The nonprofit Association for Mormon Letters is pleased to announce the following two items: * Annual Meeting on March 2, 2002: "Walking the Cultural Tightrope: Mormon Writers and Their Audiences" * Eugene England Memorial Issue of Irreantum (Scroll down for an AML order form you can print out and use to access all our current offerings. For more details about anything related to the AML, visit www.aml-online.org.) ANNUAL MEETING "Walking the Cultural Tightrope: Mormon Writers and Their Audiences" March 2, 2002 Gore Auditorium, Westminster College (approx. 1700 S. 1300 E., SLC) REGISTRATION: 8:30-9:00 (For those who don't preregister by mail [see order form below], at-the-door registration will be $15, with a limited number of luncheons available for an additional $15.) 9:00 Plenary Session: "Walking the Tightrope: Are Mormon Audiences Naive, or Are they Making Choices? Do They Need to Be Educated? If So, How?" Moderator: Tyler Moulton Panelists: Jerry Johnston, Richard Cracroft, Marilyn Arnold, Margaret Young 10:00 Plenary Session: "Walking the Tightrope: Balance Requires Academic Scrutiny" * A reading of the Sunstone Foundation's contest-winning essay honoring AML co-founder Eugene England * Neila Seshachari, "Terry Tempest Williams's Interrogation of Faith and Earthly Life in 'Leap'" * Gideon Burton, "The Critical Divide: Where and Why Mormon Literary Criticism Needs a National Audience" 11:00 Plenary Session: Doug Stewart, "'Saturday's Warrior': Satisfying the Popular Market" Response: Noreen Astin, "'Saturday's Warrior': The Pioneering Art of the Mormon Ethos" 12:00 Awards luncheon in the Jewett Center * Administrative changes: Marilyn Brown * Awards presentation: Scott Parkin * Presidential address: Cherry Silver, "The Elegant Angst of Mormon Essays: How to Mine These Literary Gems" 2:30 Breakout sessions: Option 1: Youth and Fantasy Lael Littke, "Great Plots Leap Over Many a Tightrope" Laurel Brady, "Communicating with the National Youth" Ivan Wolfe, "Stuck Somewhere Before the Golden Age: The Two Mormon Science Fiction Markets" Option 2: Unique Heritage Peter Sorensen, "Mormoniad: The Book of Mormon as Proto-Epic" Carolyn Campbell, "Strong Enough to Face the Dark" Matthew Hansen, "Meanings and Inferences of LDS Missionary Clothes Burnings" Option 3: Opposing Forces John Charles Duffy, "Serpents in Our Midst: What 'Brigham City' Tells Us About Ourselves" John Bennion, "Isolation and Community: Bennion's 'Maps'" Gae Lyn Henderson, "Tension of the Opposites: John Bennion's 'Falling Toward Heaven'" 3:40 Plenary Session: Lawrence Flake, "What the Mormon Audience Wants: Telling our Story with Stories" 6:30 Readings from award-winning works and buffet Home of Ann Edwards Cannon, 75 "O" Street, Salt Lake City IRREANTUM'S EUGENE ENGLAND MEMORIAL ISSUE Now at the printer, Irreantum's first issue with a color cover is devoted to appreciating Mormon literature founding father Eugene England, who recently passed away. This 96-page issue features editorials, essays, letters, and tributes from a variety of writers who have something to say about England's contribution to the field of Mormon letters. In addition, this issue reprints four of England's most important essays and is leavened with photos of him at various times in his life. To order this special issue or subscribe to Irreantum, see the order form below. Association for Mormon Letters Order Form The AML is not yet equipped to handle online or credit card orders. Please print this order form, fill it out, and mail as instructed below. AML Membership Includes Irreantum magazine subscription, book-length AML Annual, and discounted preregistration to AML events. ( ) Regular - $25 ( ) Contributing - $50 ( ) Full-time student - $20 ( ) Sustaining - $100 AML Annual Meeting "Walking the Tightrope: Mormon Writers and Their Audiences" Saturday, March 2, 2002 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (registration desk opens at 8:30 a.m.) Gore Auditorium, Westminster College, Salt Lake City (Note: The following admission prices are for preregistration only. At-the-door admissions will be $15 for all parties, with only a limited number of luncheons available.) ( ) General public - $12 ( ) AML member or full-time student - $9 ( ) Awards luncheon - $15 additional Irreantum Magazine Please note that Irreantum is included with AML membership. Use this section of the order form only if you are subscribing to Irreantum without an AML membership. ( ) Sample copy (current issue) - $5 ( ) One-year subscription (4 issues) - $16 ( ) Back issues (prices include postage) ___ March 1999 ($3): Premiere issue ___ June 1999 ($3): Interview with Marvin Payne ___ Sept. 1999 ($3): Interview with Levi Peterson ___ Winter 1999-2000 ($3): Interview with Rachel Ann Nunes ___ Spring 2000 ($3): Interview with Margaret Young ___ Summer 2000 ($4): Interview with Dean Hughes ___ Autumn 2000 ($4): Interviews with Richard Dutcher, Robert Van Wagoner ___ Winter 2000-01 ($4): Interviews with Dave Wolverton, Mary Clyde ___ Spring 2001 ($4): Interview with Robert Kirby ___ Summer 2001 ($4): Interviews with Anne Perry, Brian Evenson ___ Autumn 2001 ($5): Eugene England Memorial Issue Donations The AML is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, so donations are tax deductible. We seek donations for several purposes: improving the quality of Irreantum and our website, bringing more of the big names in Mormon letters to the annual meeting and the writers' conference, and creating an endowment to ensure the AML's future financial stability. Your donation of any size will help these endeavors. ( ) Please accept my donation of $_____. Total enclosed: _____ Make check payable to AML and mail to: AML, P.O. Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605-1364 Name __________________________________ Address __________________________________ __________________________________ E-mail __________________________________ For more details about anything related to the AML, visit www.aml-online.org. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DiannRead@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Apocalyptic Thrillers Date: 03 Feb 2002 15:51:07 EST I agree with R.W. Rasband's comment, and I also trust in the intervention of God. However, as we also know from the Book of Mormon, this is conditional. All through the Book of Mormon we are warned of both great blessings and cursings on this choice land, dependent upon our righteousness as a nation. (For example, 2 Nephi 1:7-11) I keep getting this gut feeling that the events of Sept. 11 were only a warning. I was somewhat reassured in the first week or two after the attacks when even prominent news anchors openly spoke of prayer and renewed faith and turning to God. Mindful of the Nephite cycle, I began wondering how long it would last. Our repentance, both as individuals (and boy, have I deepened my own soul-searching since then!) and as a nation is our only hope. Because of that, I constantly pray for the people as well as the leaders of our nation and our troops in harm's way. Diann Read San Antonio, TX -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home (was: Bad Personal News) Date: 02 Feb 2002 19:44:40 -0600 I have sent a more detailed and personal note directly to the Tyners, but this information may be of general interest to the list, if Jonathan allows. A missionary returning home with medical problems happens to be one area where Life in Mormon Culture collides head-on with reality. The stake president, the mission president, and the Missionary Department will make the decision. A medical leave of absence is for short-term problems that can usually be resolved within 30 days. A medical release is for medical problems that will take longer to resolve. If the problem can be medically resolved after a medical release, the missionary will usually be allowed to return to service. It is not the end of a mission. In many circumstances, he may even return to a different mission than the one he originally came from. A missionary on a leave of absence is considered to be on his mission and is still counting time toward the two-year call, even though he is at home trying to get better. A medical release "stops the clock" while the problem is being resolved. The time is not counted toward the two years. When he is again certified medically able to serve, his time continues again from when he was medically released. The decision will depend primarily on how long they believe it will take to get him medically able to serve. A missionary will often get better medical resources at home than in the mission field. As concerned as his mission president may be, he is not really equipped to handle serious medical problems. It is very traumatic when a missionary returns home. Many missionaries return due to unworthiness, and when a worthy one returns because of a genuine medical problem, the members are skeptical. Ignore the members. Most don't have a clue about any of this. If you ask, your stake president and especially your bishop will help you with ways of dealing with them. I have had personal experience with this, both in my priesthood callings and as a father. One of our sons had been out nearly six months when he came home on a medical release. We are just beginning to get the problem under control after over a year now. To this day, I still don't believe his mission president knows what was wrong with him. He was losing weight and strength. The doctors here quickly diagnosed his problem and began treatment. So far, we have avoided the need to operate. If he had stayed in his mission, where his problem was misdiagnosed, he may well have died. Our son came home around the same time as three others who returned less than honorably. Because of my calling, I knew the circumstances, but few of the members did. The heartbroken families certainly weren't going to say anything. And so it was a very, very sticky situation. And, to be perfectly honest, we weren't at all happy that our own son was coming home, either. It was tough to deal with. But, our son went to Church each week and sat with his family. The stake president asked him to go on exchanges with the missionaries in our ward, as his strength allowed. At first he was only able to go out once a week. Several months ago, he didn't go out at all because he was in the hospital, but he is home again and improving. The bishop asked him to speak in Church and to give an occasional prayer. For a while, he taught the Gospel Essentials class. I didn't take long for the members to see that he had come home for medical reasons, and not for any other reason at all. It took months, but they have become supportive. My wife and I spent a lot of time in prayer and consultation with our priesthood leaders. We do not know if our son will ever be well enough to return to the mission field, but we hope he will. Others with his medical condition have, but his disease is one that is controlled, not cured, using current medical knowledge. We had no idea at all there would be a problem when he left to serve. His complete medical examination didn't turn up anything (and shouldn't have). Stay close to the Lord. Be honest with and supportive of your son. Work through it together. Talk about it. At first, we spent a lot of time each Saturday discussing how we would respond to insensitive comments from unknowing members. They meant no harm, but we still had to take the time to deal with it, and so we did. Along with everything else is this miserable telestial world, this is one of the tougher tests. Listen to the spirit. He knows the answers and is willing to share. You'll still have to do the work, though. And a lot of people whom you will never know will be praying for your success. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Bad Personal News Date: 02 Feb 2002 19:13:18 -0700 Your son's health should be the priority. There should be no ostracism whatsoever. One of the finest church leaders that I know came home from his mission early, because of a health problem. There is no better husband, father or church leader. This isn't a case of-- pull yourself up by the boot straps. Good luck supporting your son during his illness. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Play at Little Brown Theater Date: 02 Feb 2002 13:49:43 -0700 Is it as funny as the Three Men books by Jerome? barbara hume At 09:49 AM 2/1/02, you wrote: >While we're on drama, come and see "The Passing of the Third Floor Back" by >Jerome Jerome, done by a graduate group from BYU, held at the Little Brown >Theatre, 239 S. Main in Springville, 7:30 on Thurs. Fri, Sat, Mon., this >weekend and next. We're seeing it tonight. Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 01 Feb 2002 18:10:18 -0800 I have a picture similar to this in my den/computer room. It is an = Arnold Freeburg (sp) of the resurrected Christ after he has appeared to = the Nephites and Lamanites. The way a contact I had on my mission = described this picture (his son was a Bishop in Great Falls, Montana but = he wasn't a member): "This is how I see Jesus Christ - as a man's man." = When Kathy had it matted and mounted in a frame for my birthday her = girlfriend had to beat people off so they wouldn't steal it. Jerry Tyner Orange County, Calif. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: [AML] Re: Stephen KING, _On Writing_ Date: 01 Feb 2002 18:31:00 -0800 > I'm just reading Steven King's _On Writing_, a combination autobiography and > writing manual. I have always disliked King's novels, but this is one > excellent book. He's a dang good writer. Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I _loved_ ON WRITING and it made me a Stephen King fan even though I'm not interested in much of his fiction! > He says that plotting is not particularly useful to a writer, because stories > have a mind of their own. "Stories are relics," he writes on page 163, "part > of an undiscovered pre-existing world. The writer's job is to use the tools in > his or her toolbox to get as much of each one out of the ground intact as > possible. . . . . No matter how good you are, no matter how much experience > you have, it's probably impossible to get the entire fossil out of the ground > without a few breaks and losses. . ." He calls plotting a "jackhammer" among > these tools because it messes up the emergence of the story. "Plot is,I think, > the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice. The story which > reuslts from it is apt to feel artificial and labored." There was so much good advice for writers in that book. I loved the part where he describes his "muse" as a grumpy, gnarled man who won't even give him the time of day if he (King) doesn't keep regular hours at his keyboard. > So far, I have a handful of published books on the market, all nonfiction > (though not big sellers--very niche). I'm playing with the idea of writing some > more nonfiction to see if royalties can smooth the way to try to emerge some > fiction. I'd love to see some fiction from you, Cathy! > > Back to Steven King--he says you should at least write 1000 words a day, every > day (I guess we Mormons would skip Sundays). That's only four pages at 250 > words a page. Hey that's doable, no? Yes!! I've found that my tendency toward writer's block increases in direct proportion to the days I don't sit down to write. Sue -------- "The Niman Project" now out in the sff.net anthology BONES OF THE WORLD -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture Date: 01 Feb 2002 19:38:37 -0500 At 08:09 AM 2/1/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > >Clark Goble wrote: > >> ___ Thom ___ >> | I cornered a few of them afterwards and they shared a few >> | stories about other LDS friends who had sincerely asked >> | them, "How can you be a Democrat and a good Mormon?" >> | That is an example of Mormon culture that some people >> | think is the same as religion. >> ___ >> >Widen this to US culture, I would agree with you. I found the same >sentiment among the California Saints. > >Thom Duncan > Taint so out her in the Southeast, which is interesting because this area in desperately conservative, but two of the three Stake Presidents under which I served in the High Council were Democrats.(11 years) At least one third of the high Council most of the time I served were not only Democrats, but liberal ones. I would argue with much about which many have called Mormon culture because it is so "western U.S.", but unfortunately some of the Utah silliness is beginning to migrate here. I wonder how it would be if no-one out here went "back there" for college? Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Apocalyptic Thrillers Date: 01 Feb 2002 17:34:06 -0700 ___ R. W. ___ | Such genocidal furies must have seemed alien to the readers | of 1830; they are all too familiar to us today. ___ Actually, despite recent events in Germany (WWII), Ruwanda (mid-90's), Cambodia (70's) and so forth, I think that they were *more* familiar to the people of the 19th century. Consider the various tribes that were wiped out. Not just in the United States, but around the world various sorts of genocide were rather common. It's just that back then they didn't care like we do today. For instance take the case of the Pontiac revolution when American/British troops used biological weapons to nearly wipe out those tribes. Not only did is work beyond their wildest dreams, but the smallpox got out of hand and took out large numbers of Sioux and Plains Indians and decimated tribes from California to Alaska. Similar events took place among the Spaniards and so forth. Indeed many Caribbean islands had lost their indigenous populations by the mid-19th century as I understand. I think worry about genocide is valid, however the closest parallels to the current situation were when we were on the other side. . . Remember that Pontiac, in the war, had conquered basically every British position west of Niagra before the advent of a bio-war. Even with the British victory the Indian successes scared the British into banning settlement west of the Appalachians. Of course that then led to some of the pressures leading to the American Revolution. Further while we think of the destruction of whole cities as only capturing the popular imagination this century, it actually has been around for quite some time. Leaving the Book of Mormon and the destructions of prior to the coming of Christ, remember that such earthquakes and volcanoes are rather common. Just this last week we saw something similar in Congo. The story of Pompey was very well known. I think that these sorts of fears have always been with us and always will. Even the height of apocalyptic film making and literature - the Mad Max like stories of the 80's - can be found in much older stories. The idea of losing technology and regressing is quite common. Once again this element is found in the Book of Mormon with the story frequently portraying a conflict of people with some technology (Nephites) against a group who regressed into savagery (Lamanites). The Hermetic movement, which many believe was quite influential on Joseph Smith, saw the society of the Renaissance as a fallen society from a formerly more advanced society. (Usually either Adam or Egypt) The Atlantis myth is an excellent and more popularly known story of such a fall and destruction of an advanced society. These myths remain with us still with those claiming "alien" visitations to the Egyptians to explain pyramids and so forth. (Although admittedly they aren't taken as seriously) These stories may make a comeback with terrorists rather than superpowers as the instigating factor. Of course Tom Clancy had terrorists doing this 10 years ago in _The Sum of All Fears_ (now a movie with Ben Affleck). James Cameron had Arnold Swartzenegger battling terrorists attempting to nuke a US city in _True Lies_. Even going back to the 60's James Bond battled terrorists planning on detonating a nuclear device in London in _Moonraker_. (Obviously the plot of the movie was completely different) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] HALE, "The Singles Ward" (Daily Herald, Deseret News, SL Tribune) Date: 04 Feb 2002 01:29:11 +0000 "The Singles Ward" Review by Eric D. Snider for The Daily Herald If you got your Family Home Evening group together one Monday night and made a little "movie," except you got dozens of your friends to help out, found some editing and sound equipment, and made the thing last 102 minutes, you'd have "The Singles Ward." There are very few jokes in it that the average Mormon with a sense of humor couldn't come up with on his own, and most of the performances are nothing beyond what your friends could muster. That's not to say it's a bad movie, although it's certainly not a very good one. Its amateurishness is sometimes endearing, but other times, the over-the-top performances ruin what might have been passable jokes. (This occurs mostly among the one-scene characters, who exist only to provide punch lines and who apparently thought, incorrectly, that bigger was better.) The central character, who also talks to the camera Ferris Bueller-style, is Jonathan Jordan (Will Swenson), a 27-year-old stand-up comedian who got married while still at BYU but whose wife subsequently left him. Now he's single and inactive and resistent to change, though he finds the church's efforts to reactivate him more amusing than annoying. ("I'm a spy who joined the other side," he says. "I know all their tactics.") As befitting real life, he starts getting involved in the singles ward activities due to his interest in a girl. She is Cammie (Connie Young), a pretty, headstrong gal who thinks Jonathan makes jokes to cover up his real feelings. Jonathan is also egged on, patiently, by his pals: Franklin Planner enthusiast Eldon (Daryn Tufts), urban legend-spouting Dallen (Kirby Heybourne) and all- around good guy Hyrum (Michael Birkeland). Most of the humor is derived from the sights and sounds of an LDS singles ward in Utah. It is generally broad- side-of-the-barn stuff; you've made a lot of the same observations yourself, probably. It does win points, though, for being first to put those observations in a movie. Jokes about LDS life are one thing when you're whispering them in the back of Sunday School class; there's something delightful about seeing them on the big screen, even if they're not exactly original. The film, written by Kurt Hale and John Moyer and directed by Hale, boasts numerous celebrity cameos. There's Lavell Edwards, Danny Ainge, Steve Young, Johnny Biscuit and Richard Dutcher (the man behind "God's Army" and "Brigham City"), among others. Nearly every single one is wasted. Rather than having the famous person show up and do something funny, most of them just show up -- the cameo IS the joke. Dutcher's bit stands alone as clever and amusing, though his presence in "The Singles Ward" is sort of like a student filmmaker inviting Alfred Hitchcock to the set. There's a definite sense of fun within the large cast; everyone involved clearly had a good time. But there's also a definite sense that Hale and Moyer wanted to cram in every LDS culture-related joke they could think of, often at the expense of the story and characters. They make fun of uptight people who get upset over, for example, the missionary-on-the-toilet scene in "God's Army." But later, one of the main characters gets uptight in exactly the same way, overreacting to jokes Jonathan makes at the expense of Mormons -- only now, we're supposed to agree with her. "The Singles Ward" wants it both ways, where jokes about our culture are OK, and where they're also a sign of apostasy. Comedy is tricky business, and this one's too slapdash and undisciplined to make it work. Grade: C- Rated PG for ... I don't know, thematic elements or something. There's nothing even resembling profanity, but there is some drinking and smoking. 1 hr., 42 min. Copyright Eric D. Snider. 'Singles Ward' a fluffy disappointment By Jeff Vice Deseret News movie critic THE SINGLES WARD =97** =97 Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Wally Joyner; rated PG (mild vulgarity, brief violence) A word of advice to the makers of "The Singles Ward": Celebrity cameos do not automatically equal laughs. And neither do cliches, no matter how "inside" they are. Unfortunately, this locally produced romantic comedy, which aims itself squarely at the LDS audience, too often leans on both when the going gets tough =97 and neither are actually funny enough to prop up this flimsy piece of fluff. What is particularly disheartening is that such a move seems to suggest the filmmakers didn't really have enough confidence in their story. Of course, it is based on an extremely creaky premise =97 disaffected Mormon rediscovers his faith when he finds love with a straight-laced churchgoer. Still, one thing does save this LDS comedy from being completely excruciating =97 the appeal of the fresh- faced cast, led by Will Swenson as a stand-up comedian named Jonathan Jordan. The lovelorn twentysomething comic is divorced, a marriage that ended badly when his convert-wife decided that the LDS life wasn't for her. So since then, Jonathan has become slightly embittered toward the LDS Church, even rebuffing all efforts at fellowship. That might come to an end rather quickly, though. Despite his reservations, he finds himself attracted to Cammie (Connie Young), the activities director for the LDS singles ward. Things get off to a rocky start =97 thanks to a lie he told her during their first encounter =97 but the two seeming opposites quickly become inseparable. However, their burgeoning relationship may be put to the test when Cammie receives her mission call just as Jonathan is offered a six-week gig. Co-writer/director Kurt Hale (grandson of local theater legend Ruth Hale) has the unfortunate tendency to linger long after each joke's punchline, and the score (by Cody Hale) is so strident you can practically hear a wah-wah sound telling the audience when to laugh. To their credit, the cast members do their best to make this work. Swenson and Young have a natural, unforced chemistry (though sometimes his range is strained by the more dramatic material). Even better are supporting cast members, especially Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne and Michael Birkeland, who play Jonathan's faithful next-door neighbors =97 and who might have served as the focus for a more interesting, funnier movie. The cameos, on the other hand, are decidedly mixed bag. While the appearance by LDS filmmaker Richard Dutcher (making fun of his hit "God's Army") is amusing enough, the others are either unsuccessful (bits involving local sports heroes Danny Ainge, Steve Young and Wally Joyner) or downright irritating (those with TV weatherman Mitch English and computer pitchman Super Dell). "The Singles Ward" is rated PG for some mildly suggestive talk, brief violence (automotive mayhem) and a scene of helium inhalation. Running time: 102 minutes. 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company 'Singles Ward': LDS Amateur Show Friday, February 1, 2002 BY SEAN P. MEANS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The Singles Ward Not rated, but probably PG for mild sensuality and language; 102 minutes. 1 star (out of four) What hath Richard Dutcher wrought? Dutcher, the writer-director-star of "God's Army" and "Brigham City," is the trailblazer of LDS Cinema. Dutcher's movies -- and his success in self-distribution, slowly building word-of-mouth with LDS members across the country -- was sure to encourage others to follow suit. "The Other Side of Heaven" did, and was a qualified success financially and critically. The latest attempt, the LDS comedy "The Singles Ward," is everything Dutcher managed to avoid: It is parochial, accessible to a chosen few, standoffish to everyone else, and smugly suggests that a superior moral tone is more important than filmmaking skill. Our hero, Jonathan Jordan (Will Swenson), is a BYU- educated stand-up comic who married young and divorced young. Jonathan's divorce soured his view of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints -- and his attitude doesn't improve when he attends a singles-only ward, where he encounters chirpy mate-seeking Mormons. Then he spots the prettiest woman in the ward, Cammie (Connie Young), who -- in Doris Day/Rock Hudson tradition -- hates, likes, hates and loves him. Co-writers Kurt Hale (who also directed) and John E. Moyer make references so obscure (even to LDS members), from the Eight-Cow Woman to Preference dances, that the movie should include subtitles. And their caustic attitude toward community life within the LDS Church is at odds with the spiritual celebration they mean their movie to be. Often the inside references (calling them "jokes" would be charitable) are delivered, like an elbow to the ribs, by Utah celebrities appearing in cameos -- like single-until-38 quarterback Steve Young quoting Brigham Young's admonishment that "if you're 25 years old and unmarried, you're a menace to society." Most of the cameos elicit little more than a "Hey, that's (fill in the blank)" response, though you could make a parlor game of choosing the most annoying local celebrity. (Utah Jazz spokes-baldy Johnny Biscuit is a contender, but not enough to top the grand champion of irritation, computer huckster "Super"=20 Dell Schanze.) The movie's one truly funny moment is also the most telling: When Jonathan's ward friends watch "God's Army" on DVD, Dutcher himself appears, declining an invitation to join them because "those toilet scenes are kind of offensive." You know "The Singles Ward" is in trouble when it cannibalizes a movie genre that has barely gotten off the ground. It's tempting to go easy on "The Singles Ward," since it's a local production. But when you must pay the same $7 that gets you into "A Beautiful Mind" or "The Lord of the Rings," amateur hour is over. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Olympic Commemorative CD Artists Shawn King and Peter Breinholt at Dillard's Saturday: Excel Entertainment News Release 1Feb02 US UT SLC A2 Date: 01 Feb 2002 23:39:16 -0500 [MOD: Again, sorry for getting this out after the event...] Olympic Commemorative CD Artists Shawn King, with husband CNN's Larry King, and Peter Breinholt to appear at Dillard's Stores SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Singer Shawn Southwick King, along with her husband, CNN's Larry King, will be appearing this Saturday, February 2nd, at Dillard's Sandy location from 11am until noon, and then at the Dillard's Provo location at 1pm. The Kings will be mingling with the public and signing autographs in support of "Light Up the Land, A Commemorative CD of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games," on which Shawn performs. Her song, "Smile," is the classic Charlie Chaplin composition, and was produced and arranged by the legendary David Foster. It has been featured on her husband's CNN program, "Larry King Live." Well-known Utah musician, Peter Breinholt, who also appears on "Light Up the Land," will be appearing at the Ogden Dillard's from 11am until noon, and then at the Murray store from 1 to 2pm. Peter's song, "Jubilee," celebrates Utah's Olympic experience. The CD "Light Up the Land" is available in fine stores everywhere, both in Utah and across the country, including WalMart, Tower Records, and Sam's Club. Copies of the CD will available to working media for use or reference in stories. ### Source: Olympic Commemorative CD Artists Shawn King, with husband CNN's Larry King, and Peter Breinholt to appear at Dillard's Stores Excel Entertainment News Release 1Feb02 A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Bad Personal News (But Getting Better) Date: 04 Feb 2002 09:13:25 -0800 First of all, I want to thank the many people on the AML list who have sent kind messages and shared experiences and advice with my husband and I, we are very touched and it's helped more than I can say. In the way of an update I spoke with my son's Mission President saturday night. What baffles him is how my son can be an excellent teacher, sing in front of a congregation, contact homeless people and place Book of Mormons with them, run the computers in the office, but has gut wrenching anxiety attacks on doorsteps, even though recently he was able to go out with the assistants and even add a few comments at the door, although he told the President he was shaking inside. But then the President told me he doesn't understand high math, but it's real. I gave him the Rainman analogy and he seemed to grasp that. He told me my son is a good man, he loves him and would welcome him back with open arms if he should feel the time comes when he might be ready to come back in the field. He said the mission field is not really the place to get medical treatment and he supports my son's decision. I told him if would tell my son this, it would go a long way toward helping him. It would also cement my son's loyalty, a thing not easily given, but once had a thing gotten for life. He said he would. I felt if I am so willing to be critical, I ought to be willing to be quick to praise as well. We did not get a chance to speak with our Bishop yesterday, but his wife spoke with me in Relief Society and offered her love and support. I probably misspoke when I said my Bishop called my son a covenant breaker as someone on the list gently reminded me. I just think this is a real shock to the Bishop even though we've tried to keep him appraised of the situation. But then, Bishops have a lot on their minds. I let the Relief Society know what was happening and both my husband and I got up in Testimony meeting. I was, shall we say, rather emotional. We received lots of hugs and encouraging words afterward. My son's Seminary Teacher approached us and offered his help and shared a story with us. When he was a missionary in Sweden he had a Swedish Companion who was reserved by nature anyway, and told him he couldn't bear to go tracting. So they prayed and figured out a more creative solution, they got permission and set up displays in shopping malls and placed more Book of Mormons than anyone else in the mission. And his companion could easily communicate with people in that atmosphere. A transfer split them up two months later and this Missionary's next companion said you're gonna tract or else. And the Elder took the or else option and went home. He wrote our friend and thanked him for the best two months of his mission. He told us, not for the first time, our son is one of his favorite students and he'll do anything to help him. He also understands the diabetic analogy I have made for a few people as a couple of his family members are diabetics. I also spoke with my Relief Society President saturday and she is an incredibly fine, compassionate person. She is also a nurse and understands the medical components of all this and is at work already getting us help. I have been going out in my garden lately since I am behind in my chores there and it's a place where I find peace, mull over and work out problems and often get writing ideas, dialogue coming freely. And let me tell you if you're frustrated, got some hostility to work out, go PRUNE something, you'll feel better afterwards. :) I wonder if there's a parody in there somewhere, (The touch of the Pruner's Hand)? My husband Jerry has been a rock through all this. As one might guess, I am the talker in the family. I am usually the one who handles appointments, customer service and the one who does not take guff from French Maitre'ds, (See Real Men Eat Quiche). But he is the one who assures me everything will be alright when I bury my face in his chest, quietly shedding tears. What is it Old Fezziwig said? I'll paraphrase, "What a difference it makes to travel the rough road of life with the right partner to help bear the burden!" What a lucky woman I am. Enough for now. Our son comes home friday, in time to see the Opening Ceremonies for the Olympics and order a pizza. I'll try and occasionally send progress reports. Who knows, I might have my son posting here before long as he's a fledgling writer and a good one too, but then I'm prejudiced. :) Again, I want to thank everyone for their kindness, their thoughts and prayers. We would not be able to do this without it, it adds such strength to us. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Stephen KING, _On Writing_ Date: 01 Feb 2002 17:35:30 -0700 I thought that The Green Mile was one of the best Christ allegories I have either seen or read. Normally, I have shied away from King, horror not having much appeal for me--but The Green Mile changed my mind. It is interesting to not that _On Writing_ points out which books he wrote after confronting his problems with alchohol. Those defenitaly seem to have a different spirit to them than the earlier books. There is still darkness, but hope and redemption at least seem possible--which they didn't often in his early works. _On Writing_ was a fascinating and refreshingly honest book by an artist on how they create art, and how it effects them. I admired Steven King the man and artist much more after having read it. candesa Russell Asplund director of multimedia 801.426.5450 russa@candesa.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy Fowkes Subject: [AML] Nonfiction How-to Books Date: 04 Feb 2002 11:24:48 -0700 All my adult life I've focused on how to write fiction. Now I need to study how to write non-fiction. What are the best books out there for skill-development, tips and techniques for non-fiction book manuscripts? I have James Kilpatrick's _The Writer's Art_ which so far looks like a feast for any reader, regardless of reading or writing preference, but that's it. Those of you who write non-fiction, what are your favorite writing manuals? Thanks. Kathy Fowkes ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Nonfiction How-to Books Date: 04 Feb 2002 12:39:20 -0700 on 2/4/02 11:24 AM, Kathy Fowkes at kathy_f@juno.com wrote: > Those of you who write non-fiction, what are your favorite > writing manuals? Thanks. One of the best books for me personally was Kenneth Atchity's "A Writer's Time," which addresses both fiction and non-fiction. This was the book that first convinced me I could write something longer than a 3:30 minute song. Steve -- skperry@mac.com http://www.stevenkappperry.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 04 Feb 2002 14:44:13 -0700 There needs to be more written by LDS writers on this issue of someone coming home from a mission. I'm giving a paper on John Bennion's _Falling Toward Heaven_ at the AML meeting. Bennion's novel is about a missionary who indeed DOES act against the rules and what ensues. > It is very traumatic when a missionary returns home. Many missionaries > return due to unworthiness, and when a worthy one returns because of a > genuine medical problem, the members are skeptical. > > Ignore the members. What a sad commentary on the membership of the church! If someone comes home because he or she is judged "unworthy," then that is exactly when he or she needs the support and love of their home friends and family! What would Jesus do? I think we are at our worst when we ostracize and are "skeptical" of other members because of (mis)judgment. I didn't take long > for the members to see that he had come home for medical reasons, and not > for any other reason at all. It took months, but they have become > supportive. It is good that the members finally got a clue! But what a tragedy to have to deal with nonsupport and insensitive comments for months on end. Who do we think we are when we act like that? > > Along with everything else is this miserable telestial world, this is one > of the tougher tests. There is so much social pressure and stigma attached to not going on a mission or to coming home that it undoubtedly encourages dishonesty. How many young men go because they don't want to disappoint someone? And how does it feel to be figuratively "cast out" of Mormon culture when you don't go on the mission--perhaps because of some very private and personal problem--or perhaps, just because you were the most honest one in the interviews! (I recently heard a comment about the way missionaries in a certain mission agreed that some things were better not mentioned in the interviews. What about the one who doesn't get the benefit of the social deconstruction of absolute idealism?) And what are the destructive effects on a soul of being sent home unworthy? How does someone overcome that kind of castigation and public humiliation? After all, the soul of the sinning missionary is just as valuable as the soul of everyone that he or she was sent out to teach about religion. I think that kind of event absolutely changes the course of a life. If we truly acted as though we believed in repentance, the social stigma wouldn't be as devastating as it is often in practice. Gae Lyn Henderson> -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 04 Feb 2002 14:34:36 -0700 Larry Jackson wrote: > It is very traumatic when a missionary returns home. This is a subject that is very near and dear to me heart. I came home from a mission early, and I know an early return from a mission is more traumatic than emerging from a coma, paralyzed and mute. It much easier to learn to walk and talk and read and wirte again, than it is to learn to love and accept yourself again. And then there's that little thing called God. When you've returned home from a mission early you feel (at least I did) that you've disappointed God somehow. I've found two ways of dealing with the pain, and one of them doesn't give you a hangover. In fact, it can be beneficial spiritually and physically. That's massage. I recommend the eastern types, such as Reiki, Shiatsu, Jin Shin, because of they have a more profound and long lasting effect. Things that caused your soul to boil in anguish suddenly don't matter very much--and if you're like me (my God have mercy on your soul) you'll probably forget what's been eating ya'. And if you don't have the money to get a massage pick up a book on T'ai Ch'i or Ch'i Gung. No one has to suffer. I'm really serious about--Larry--Kathy--Anyone Else--you can't imagine the anguish involved. And the solution is so simple . . . and it even feels good. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 04 Feb 2002 15:19:33 -0700 I'm as bothered by most Protestant (including ours) depictions of Christ as I am by the mamby-pamby Catholic versions. Ours no more depict what Christ was really like than theirs does. He was NOT a white man, six feet tall, light of skin with long (but not too long, mind you) auburn hair. In reality, judging from the part of the world he came from, he was probably somewhat short (around 5 feet 5) of dark complexion (almost Arabic) and probably had long scraggly very curly hair. We would probably call him swarthy today. The "Man's man" Christ does nothing but perpetuate the Western view of the ruddy, strong, handsome hero. Thus our stereotypes that only beautiful people are the real movers and shakers are perpetuated. We don't do much better with Joseph Smith. Most descriptions of him have him at around 6 feet, barrell-chested, with a prominent thin nose, piercing blue eyes, receding chin, weighing in at around 200 plush pounds. Yet most of our art portrays him with movie star good looks and a well-proportioned physique. (And, with the possible exception of Liz Swindle, he's portrayed as always wearing a clean, well-pressed suit, looking off into eternity with the BofM under his arm). We idolize our deities and our prophets at a level that is quite appropriate for fiction but not for reality. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Stephen KING, _On Writing_ Date: 04 Feb 2002 17:45:31 -0500 I started listening to it on tape and couldn't take the swearing. Maybe in book form it wouldn't bother me so much. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- _On Writing_ was a fascinating and refreshingly honest book by an artist on how they create art, and how it effects them. I admired Steven King the man and artist much more after having read it. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ldsbox.com" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] LDS Film Festival on Tour Date: 05 Feb 2002 13:32:32 -0600 MAILBOX NEWSLETTER #01/2002 http://www.ldsbox.com IN THIS ISSUE: 1. LDS FILM FESTIVAL ON TOUR 2. FINALIZED TOUR DATES 3. COMMUNITY OF FILMMAKERS AND FILM VIEWERS 4. CALL FOR ENTRIES 2002 1. LDS FILM FESTIVAL ON TOUR Now that the First LDS Film Festival has successfully been launched at the end of last year it will go on a national and international tour. The first venues are already scheduled. The tour starts in Provo with two free screenings at the new Provo City Library at Academy Square. It will then move on to Chicago and California. Academy Award winner Kieth Merrill ("Legacy," "Testaments") will host a screening near Sacramento, California, at the beginning of March followed by a panel discussion. Other national and international venues are opening up every week. Requests are coming in from as far as Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Mexico. The tour will continue until September 2002. The "Best of 2001" program contains twelve short films by young LDS filmmakers including the winner of the Lightbox Award "The Wrong Brother" by Chris Bowman. A jury and the audience of last year's festival selected the films based on originality, intelligence, authenticity, spirituality and artistic proficiency. The program includes comedy, drama, animation, documentary and experimental films. For more information, go to: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/bestof.php 2. FINALIZED FESTIVAL TOUR DATES The tour program is offered to high schools, university campuses, libraries, wards, stakes, institutes, media arts centers museums and independent theaters across the country and abroad. If you are interested in bringing the "Best of 2001" program to your city, stake or ward, contact us at feedback@ldsbox.com. For more information, go to: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/tour.php The following tour dates have been finalized: Wednesday, FEBRUARY 6 - 6.00 p.m. Provo, Utah - Provo Library at Academy Square Free Admission Saturday, FEBRUARY 9 - 11.00 a.m. Provo, Utah - Provo Library at Academy Square Free Admission Friday, FEBRUARY 15 - 7 p.m. Chicago, Illinois - Chicago 8th Branch (YSA) Free Admission Saturday, FEBRUARY 23 - 8.00 p.m. Rancho Cucomonga, California - Chaffey College Institute of Religion Free Admission Monday, MARCH 4 - 7.00 p.m. Citrus Heights, California (North of Sacramento) Mesa Verde High School This event will be hosted by Academy Award winner Kieth Merrill; some of the filmmakers will be present for a panel discussion after the screening. Saturday, JUNE 1 - 7.00 p.m. Bristol, England - Bristol Stake Center Free Admission 3. COMMUNITY OF FILMMAKERS AND FILM VIEWERS "It is one of our goals to bring the work of young LDS filmmakers to an LDS audience and build a community of filmmakers and film viewers that can appreciate each other," says Christian Vuissa, founder and organizer of the festival. Young filmmakers often struggle with finding an audience, although they have created thoughtful and professionally crafted films that are worth watching. On the other hand, a growing LDS audience is interested in seeing films that are produced outside of Hollywood. "An active LDS film community will automatically create more and better films and filmmakers. It's time to stop imitating Hollywood and start creating films that are imitated by others," concludes Vuissa. 4. CALL FOR ENTRIES 2002 Tell your own story and submit your own film or screenplay to the 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002! The next festival will be held in October in Provo, Utah. Deadline for entries is September 15, 2002. No age limit applies. Everyone can participate and win! Prizes totalling $ 2000.00 will be awarded. For more information go to: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/festival.php You either signed up for our newsletter or were recommended to us by a friend. If you would like to unsubscribe from future LDSBox mailings, simply reply to this message with the word REMOVE in the subject line. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Meridian on _Singles Ward_ Date: 04 Feb 2002 14:27:01 -0700 http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/020204singles.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Stephen KING, _On Writing_ Date: 04 Feb 2002 17:41:53 -0700 King has had good and bad moments, but he is a very successful and prolific author. I think every aspiring writer can learn something of value from one as successful as he. As for the darkness, we need to expose our audience to darkness if we expect them to appreciate the light. Doesn't the Book of Mormon do this over and over again? I admire King for his ability to do this. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 04 Feb 2002 19:54:13 EST In a message dated 2/4/02 5:38:44 PM, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: << I'm as bothered by most Protestant (including ours) depictions of Christ as I am by the mamby-pamby Catholic versions. Ours no more depict what Christ was really like than theirs does. He was NOT a white man, six feet tall, light of skin with long (but not too long, mind you) auburn hair. In reality, judging from the part of the world he came from, he was probably somewhat short (around 5 feet 5) of dark complexion (almost Arabic) and probably had long scraggly very curly hair. We would probably call him swarthy today.>> I've always wanted to cast a movie of the Savior's life . . . . . . with Danny DeVito as the Savior. (All SORTS of interesting discussions might come from that.) Kurt Weiland. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 04 Feb 2002 18:41:08 -0700 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > I'm as bothered by most Protestant (including ours) > depictions of Christ > as I am by the mamby-pamby Catholic versions. Ours no more > depict what > Christ was really like than theirs does. He was NOT a white man, six > feet tall, light of skin with long (but not too long, mind > you) auburn > hair. In reality, judging from the part of the world he came > from, he > was probably somewhat short (around 5 feet 5) of dark > complexion (almost > Arabic) and probably had long scraggly very curly hair. We would > probably call him swarthy today. How do you know that? He could very well have been white, six feet tall and all of that. Christ's genealogy is at least 50% entirely unknown. He could have been green (um, though that is admittedly unlikely). Just about the only thing he could *not* be is female. We just don't know what he was like physically because we don't have any contemporary descriptions of what he looked like. The reasons for the lack of description could be as varied as his potential appearance so I don't buy the "if he were odd, they'd have had to say something" argument, either. Joseph Smith described him a bit if I remember correctly, but who knows what change was made with resurrection? Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 04 Feb 2002 17:11:09 -0900 How interesting that the comments on Shaw's quote all revolved around visual art depicting Christ and Joseph Smith. I sent it in thinking that it would spark conversations on how it is to truly live Christ's teachings (no picnic). The bringing the statue to life thing was just a metaphor. I found it fascinating to read that Shaw was under the impression that those who believe would actually be a bigger thorn in the side of he or she who brought Christ to life than the unbeliever. I guess that's what happened to Christ himself. He tried to bring God out of the written word and into life. It wasn't the non Jews who got on him for that, it was his fellow believers. I guess the same often holds true today. Every time someone tries to personalize some revered spiritual leader, the believers get angry. Consider The Last Temptation of Christ. Consider The Backslider. Consider A Little Lower than the Angels. The greatest lesson I learned from Christ was that an ounce of creativity is worth a pound of dogma (maybe more). Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve" Subject: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 04 Feb 2002 21:39:50 -0700 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,370009233,00.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Play at Little Brown Theater Date: 05 Feb 2002 09:00:25 -0700 Barbara, I haven't read the THREE MEN books by Jerome. Has anyone else? The play is a morality play with layers. Marilyn Brown ----- Original Message ----- > Is it as funny as the Three Men books by Jerome? > > barbara hume > > At 09:49 AM 2/1/02, you wrote: > >While we're on drama, come and see "The Passing of the Third Floor Back" by > >Jerome Jerome, done by a graduate group from BYU, held at the Little Brown > >Theatre, 239 S. Main in Springville, 7:30 on Thurs. Fri, Sat, Mon., this > >weekend and next. We're seeing it tonight. Marilyn Brown > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Anne Bradshaw" Subject: [AML] Re: News from the AML Date: 05 Feb 2002 09:20:01 -0700 If I could ride with a sister going from the Provo area (actually, Mapleton, but I can probably get a ride to Provo) to the Annual Meeting on March 2nd in SLC, I'd love to attend. Please email me at annebradshaw@connect2.com if this is possible. Many thanks, Anne Bradshaw http://www.mountainash.org/Anne_Bradshaw/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 05 Feb 2002 09:50:12 -0700 When I worked as an Ensign editor, we tried to get the missionary department to go along with an article about how to nurture and support missionaries returning home early for whatever reason. As with almost all other missionary-related topics, they flat out refused (about the only thing they will go along with is propaganda to get couples onto missions). I suppose they are extremely worried about anything that could give anyone an excuse to quit their mission early. I remember one time I edited a Mormon Journal about missionary companions who weren't getting along and then prayed (or read a scripture--I can't remember the details) and overcame the problem, but the missionary department killed it because it portrayed some disharmony among companions. I think that department was the most protective, least open department of any that I encountered at the Ensign. The missionary program is a sacred cow and is one of the strangest, most unnatural and intense parts of our whole culture, I find. I think countless people--whether they lasted their whole mission term or not--carry lifetime baggage and scars from their missionary experience. I know I do. Are there any former or current Ensign editors on the list who remember differently and want to correct me? Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Responding to Critics Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:26:29 -0700 Eric Snider and I have been going back and forth, and I can't resist one = more salvo: Of course we like positive reviews, and of course we think that anyone who = praises us is an astute and thoughtful critic and anyone who doesn't like = our work just doesn't understand us sensitive artists, but what do you = expect, the Philistines. Mostly, I want to know, will this review sell = tickets. (I'm actuallly more interested in the headline, which the critic = has nothing to do with, than the content of the review itself). As a = theatre guy, my interests are purely pragmatic. So let's consider this = another way. A critic can tell you four things: He thinks stuff that I thought was really good is really good. I think = this moment in the show works; a critic confirmed it. I haven't learned = much. He thinks stuff I thought was really good wasn't very good. In which case, = I'm not likely to be persuaded; I'm going to assume that he's wrong, and = that I'm right. He tells me that stuff that really didn't work at all really didn't work = at all. I knew that moment was weak, but I just couldn't fix it; I = miscast the role, or I just never found a solution for that scene. Most of = the time, I know that that moment wasn't effective and I know everything I = tried to do to fix it. Nothing worked, so I did my best, crossed my = fingers and hoped the audience didn't notice. Ah well, someone noticed. = Again, I haven't learned anything from the criticism, nor am I overly = concerned by it. Usually the problem is I cast someone who couldn't handle = part of the role. My bad. Or, maybe, just maybe, the critic points out something that I never = noticed was a problem, but it turns out it was one. This is very very = rare, in my experience, but it does happen. And on those occasions, I = learned something, and I'm grateful. =20 I don't mean to be so adversarial. I like Eric Snider, and I have said on = many occasions that I think he's a good critic and that he's good for = theatre in our area. And I'm delighted that he's stopped grading plays; I = hadn't noticed, and I sincerely apologize. But I've been in theatre my = whole life, and my response to critics is pretty mainstream. I don't know = many theatre people who wouldn't agree with me. I know how hard I workd = on the show, how hard I worked each moment of it, how many different = choices I tried and rejected, why I stuck with the choice I made. It's = going to be a rare thing for me to have a review change my mind. =20 On the other hand, I'm very much a neophyte novelist. I don't really know = what I'm doing as a novelist, and I'm nowhere near as confident. And so I = take criticism of my prose very seriously, and learn a lot from it. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Stephen KING, _On Writing_ Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:47:23 -0700 I've said it before, but it bears repeating; Stephen King is a wonderful = YA writer. He understands childhood like no one else, and his best work = deals with children trying to make sense of a dangerous, frightening = world. And he communicates childhood friendship superbly. Yes, he uses bad language. Kids love bad language; they love shocking = adults with it, and they love the liberated feeling of using profanity = creatively. Yes, his books are very scary. Kids love a good thrilling = chill down their spine. Yes, his books are full of product placement; = consumer labels and the like. Kids respond to references to cultural = products. =20 Lots of people on the List (and lots of people in the Church) despise = King. I loved him when I was a kid. I was turned on to him by a = wonderful aunt who said 'this is a good author for teenagers to read. You = should give him a try." Now that I'm sort of an adult (not really, but I = do play on on TV), I find King . . . nostalgic. I just finished The Girl = Who Loved Tom Gordon, and was reminded once again what a wonderful writer = for and about children King is. And the single best piece of sportswriting= I've read in years was a piece he wrote about his son's Little League = team. =20 Would I let my kids read him? Of course. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] News from the AML Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:30:16 -0800 Any sisters interested in driving up to the AML Conf. from Orange County, CA? I'll probably leave Friday afternoon (before rush-hour traffic). I'm willing to drive the whole way, I'm just looking for a companion :) Jana Remy Irvine, CA > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "K.D. Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 05 Feb 2002 13:28:00 -0700 I wish there had been more stories of disharmony between campanions before I left for my mission. In eighteen months I had thirteen companions and had problems with most of them. One put me in such of state of depression that I would have concidered leaving my mission if my Mission President hadn't, wisely, told me that he would get me out of there ASAP. I think a lot of kids go on missions thinking it will be a cake walk but spending 24 hours a day with someone else is never easy. That alone bugged all my companions to pieces. One literally threw a fit. I'm a twin, I had a hard time being alone in a room for 2 minutes. (Parenthood had finally taught me that one.) So why won't the Ensign print more honest looks at what life is like as a missionary? Some people could use the heads up. Konnie Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:53:16 -0800 Christopher Bigelow wrote: I think countless people--whether they lasted their whole mission term = or not--carry lifetime baggage and scars from their missionary experience. I know I do. I think this is a most telling comment. Chris, I can't tell you how = grateful I am to hear this from someone else. Having my son go through = this has been both a revelation and a comfort. Missionaries who suffer = from this condition are made to feel they are a failure - I know I was. = When I was out this condition had no name and you were looked at as not = productive, faithful, or courageous enough. The only way to describe = what I went through is "white knuckle and muscle and shear guts" in = order to endure the full two years. I did not realize it at the time but = the Lord and my mission president blessed me by not calling me to be a = senior companion until the last 5 months of my mission. I know a lot of = missionaries looked at me as a failure. I had many companions who I can = say I loved but there were several who severely tried me. My last = companion I have regrets to this day about since he had an anger = management problem and I never tried to get close to him. My internal = struggles would not let me. Now this demon I have wrestled with for over = 40 years has a name and a treatment and my family will recover together. = Along with my wife I would like to echo how much we appreciate all of = you for your kind words of encouragement and your prayers. It means more = than we can say in words. One more thought I have been kicking around since all of this came to = light with my son and I. I think it is time a book was written = (non-fiction would probably be needed) that would document this = condition so it is more widely known and how important it is to treat = these missionaries who suffer from it with care and not contempt (how = many can relate to that feeling?). It could probably even weave in = stories on how to endure and overcome. Too many Elders and Sisters are = coming home in shame and disgrace and that needs to change. Any = thoughts? Perris - I'm sorry I have not written the review on your book about the = Mormon Battalion. I've been somewhat distracted (as you can tell). It = was very good (IMHO) and thanks for including one of my ancestors in it = - Lieutenant Hulet. It made it very enjoyable. Jerry Tyner Orange County, California -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Responding to Critics Date: 05 Feb 2002 14:27:37 -0800 On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:52:06 -0700 Terry L Jeffress , replying to Eric Samuelsen, writes: > I especially want to make sure that before I invest $30 > or more per seat for a live drama, that I will have a good > experience. I wish I had $30 per seat to invest in a live drama. I wish I had one fourth that per seat. > a review does provide a promotion opportunity, I don't think > that the reviewer has any obligation to write the review with that > goal in mind. If you want to put butts in seats, the theater needs to > run its own promotion department. The theater's press releases and > advertising should generate public interest in the production. But if newspapers ran every press release editors get they'd be PRpapers. Editors have a certain ambivalence toward press releases. They can be a great way to find news, but they're always slanted toward the group sending out the PR, so an editor may see them as free advertising, or may assign a reporter to work up a story and disregard the PR. In theater or movies, such reporters are called reviewers. > The reviewer exists to give an opinion of the work so that other > may judge weather or not they want to view the production. I'm not so sure. Sometimes people write simply because they want to celebrate what other people do. I don't like to review things I don't think I'll like. I don't see much reason reading a book or seeing a play I won't like just so I can write a negative review. I want to tell people about an interesting book I've just read, or a movie, or song. That doesn't mean I gloss over the faults, but I want my criticism to show me as a careful, sympathetic reader, so that even if I don't like something people can tell I've given it a fair reading. > (I also think that we need to keep the terms critic and reviewer > separate. To me, a cricit writes in an academic vein, with an > interest in analyzing the literary merits and functions of a work. I think that's one of the problems, keeping review and criticism separate. I want to combine them, space permitting. It's well worth a reviewer's time to be aware of how literary and dramatic conventions function in a work, and a reviewer with an awareness of those conventions can add a great deal to an audience's ability to appreciate art. My father gave me a terrific tool when he leaned over at the end of Star Wars, as Darth Vader's ship is flying away, and said that that was the film maker's way of telling us there would be a sequel. Similarly, when John Webster told our UW grad seminar on Elizabethan Rhetoric that he would be teaching an undergrad course in the popular novel next semester he gave me a most useful tool for understanding mystery novels and thrillers. The villain is a close moral double of the hero, and the hero and villain have to have a verbal showdown before the end of the story. Applying this to a novel like Anne Perry's Bethlehem Road, it's clear that the true murderer in the book isn't the person who has been killing members of Parliament, but a man who locked his wife in a room and starved her to death because she had embraced a weird American religion. Chester Himes uses these two conventions in a similar, more complex way in The Real Cool Killers, which has three solutions to the murder and several pairs of close moral doubles. In Louis Owens' _The Sharpest Sight_ Mundo Morales never uncovers the murderer, though we know who it is if we've read carefully. However, he does have a verbal showdown with Jessard Deal, and by that point it becomes clear that Deal means what he's said about embracing his evil and trying to reach his full evil potential after becoming aware of it by reading Jonathan Edwards. That novel is also full of moral doubles, both in this world and in the afterlife. Also, the action is not so much uncovering the murderer as forgiving the murder and trying to find Attis McCurtin's bones so his ghost can know some peace, even though he himself is a murderer. > > Besides, we know why we > > made the decisions we made, and why we rejected other decisions. > > And we generally think that 'most audience members' liked what we > > did, even if critics didn't. > > When you say "we" here, I think you mean "the playwrights." And I > say, who cares what the playwright thinks about the play. I want the > opinion of a supposedly unbiased observer. But reviewers have their own biases and relationships to a work of art, and it is sometimes useful to know what a playwright thinks he or she is doing. I was fascinated by the note Eric Samuelsen put in the program for Gadianton, saying that it is a serious thing to call someone a Gadianton robber, and he is not using the play to point the finger at any person but to explore a moral situation. If I read that as a serious note, and not just an attempt at damage control, I see it as an invitation to think about what the play says about corporate structure and motives, and not an invitation to see the people who laid me off as villains. > What playwrights or > directors would say that people should not come see the production. Eric Samuelsen, especially if he's talking about his production of _The Christmas Box_. Eric has been frank about his failings with that show, though I think he's a bit hard on himself. The show accomplished two very intersting things (besides a wonderful carol about the Christ Child): it injected some nordic darkness into a sentimental story that was supposed to be uplifting, and the darkness gave me something to care about. I knew Rick's marriage wasn't in danger, but I cared about how he would resolve the problems. Oh, and I also love the scene where the parents come in to buy a child's tuxedo and he tries to rent them one instead, not realizing that they're buying burial clothes. (Back in my teaching days I used to have my student's write letters of complaint, an assignment from Elouise Bell's class, and one wrote a note to Clark's Tuxedos in Provo complaining for charging the parents of a friend for the tux he was buried in.) > The reviewer needs the reader's trust, not the > playwright's trust. Although I believe that reviewers should make > their criticism in a gentle way, I don't think that they should in > any way pander to the playwrights at the expense of the public. I remember a thread where Benson Parkinson chided us for using the term _pander_ because it implies prostitution (though WP 6's Quickfinder didn't find the post among the fifteen archived months where _pander_ is used at least once). You can see Benson's objection to the word _pander_ if you invert the sentence and say, "Does that mean that reviewers should pander to the public at the expense of the playwright?" I suspect that most critics want to praise a show. I remember a class discussion of Robert Cohen's _Acting Power_ where someone commented that people don't go to a play wanting to hate it. An audience wants to like a show, and negative reactions come from disappointed expectations. [snip] > I also tend to think, why do you look at the reviewer as an > adversary and not just wonder what you could do to get > more consistently higher reviews. I'm not sure it's possible to set out to get consistently higher reviews. One rejection slip I cherish for its wrongheadedness came from BYU Studies Essay Contest judge who said, "If it's possible for a personal essay to be too personal, this one is." I sent another essay that talks about walking down a road to work one morning and stopping to pray for a man who had been dragged to death, and for his murderers, to the Mormon Arts Festival personal essay contest, and was told that the judge felt it was perhaps not quite as personal as the winning essay. So which direction do I take my work in to get higher reviews? [SNIP] > I just write the opinions that arose out of viewing the work. > If you want to hire me as your marketing writer, > then I'll write something that will sell tickets. But can you find a newspaper to publish it? :) Harlow S. Clark (who doesn't believe in smilies) ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Play at Little Brown Theater Date: 05 Feb 2002 15:23:06 -0700 At 09:00 AM 2/5/02, you wrote: >Barbara, I haven't read the THREE MEN books by Jerome. Has anyone else? The >play is a morality play with layers. Marilyn Brown Jerome Jerome wrote a hilarious book called Three Men in a Boat. It's about three young Englishmen in the late nineteenth century who decide to take a boating vacation down the Thames, and they have all sorts of misadventures. They have with them a dog named Montmorency--it's the dog Connie Willis references in the title of her time-travel SF book, To Say Nothing of the Dog. Jerome later wrote a sequel about the same three men, years later when two of them are married, when they take a holiday to Germany together. These books were written early in the twentieth century -- eerily enough, Jerome's narrator says of the Germans that they are a wonderfully disciplined people, and that they should be all right as long as they don't get an evil ruler. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Depictions of Jesus (was: Dynamic Relationships with God) Date: 05 Feb 2002 15:36:49 -0700 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > >> I'm as bothered by most Protestant (including ours) >> depictions of Christ >> as I am by the mamby-pamby Catholic versions. Ours no more >> depict what >> Christ was really like than theirs does. He was NOT a white man, six >> feet tall, light of skin with long (but not too long, mind >> you) auburn >> hair. In reality, judging from the part of the world he came >> from, he >> was probably somewhat short (around 5 feet 5) of dark >> complexion (almost >> Arabic) and probably had long scraggly very curly hair. We would >> probably call him swarthy today. > > > How do you know that? He could very well have been white, six feet tall > and all of that. Based on the part of the world he came from and the lineage he came from. He most certainly did NOT look like the Greek God we like to think of him as. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Responding to Critics Date: 05 Feb 2002 14:55:37 -0800 I want to jump on this one since I am not a critic and my wife and I = have had lots of discussions about the various critics in Southern = California. One thing I have noticed about critics in general is they seem to come = to any show (theatre or movies) with their own preconception and much = baggage. My observation is some critics should stop reviewing movies = they know they will not like. For example (no names) there are some critics in the southland here who = will never give a Sci-Fi or Fantasy movie a good review. I listen to = them and go see it to see if it fits my style. The same goes for certain = directors and actors/actresses. There are some critics that IMO are out = to get those types of movies or the actors or directors and should never = be assigned to do those reviews. That is the fault of the entertainment = editor (it could be on purpose also). Like you said, Eric, most of the time they confirm what you already knew = and sometimes they see something you missed. BTW - do you video tape the = performance to review after reading the critics review just to see if he = or she is correct (if they point out something you missed)? If they are = wrong in your opinion it is just one persons point of view and the = critic could just be in a bad mood that night. My personal opinion is if = you hear a lot of enthusiastic chatter by the audience as they leave you = have done a good job. There will always be those who won't like = something due to casting or whatever.=20 My opinion of most critics is they have a higher opinion of themselves = than they deserve. Some people believe them, many people do not. That is = why many of these junk films make millions in the first few weeks and = then nothing and the really good small films never get reviewed and do = not have a large advertising budget and do not make lots of money until = they come out on video. Such is life....Critics serve their purpose. = They use a lot of ink and paper...unless they are your personal friends = and you can trust them. Jerry Tyner Orange County, California -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Re: Depictions of Jesus (was: Dynamic Relationships with God) Date: 05 Feb 2002 16:37:16 -0800 Actually, the Jews didn't mix much with the Arabs, Egyptians, Canaanites or other darker nationalities in the area and it's my understanding they were very white, much closer to what we think of as Northern and Western European in appearance than what we see now in the Middle East. Remember that Abraham's and Isaac's wives were both described as very fair. The Northern Europeans are, in large measure, descendants of the lost ten tribes and you know how pale the Scandinavians are. It always surprises me that we think the appearance of people in the Middle East hasn't changed in over 2000 years. Also please note that Saul was head and shoulders taller than any of the other Israelites and his armor fit David just fine. The kings of Israel, from whom Christ descended through Mary, were very big guys! Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kumiko" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 Date: 05 Feb 2002 18:09:22 -0600 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 1, 2002 The big news this week in LDS film was the premiere of Kurt Hale's new comedy "The Singles Ward." The gala benefit premiere was on Wednesday, January 30th, after which the film opened in eleven theaters on February 1st. The budget has been reported as $425,000 or $450,000. Either way, it made over 10% of its budget back in box office ticket sales in its opening weekend, with a 3-day total of $46,649. This gave "The Singles Ward" a per-theater average of $4,241, which was enough to put it on the Top 10 list nationwide for per-theater revenue. (It was number 10.) "The Singles Ward" ranked 44th nationwide in total box office revenue, and 5th on this list of films by and/or about Latter-day Saints/Mormons. Critical reaction to "The Singles Ward" was mixed. Audiences seemed to love it, as did some of the critics. The Utah Statesman gave it an enthusiastic "A", and the Ogden Standard-Examiner gave it a favorable review and 2 1/2 stars. Eric D. Snider of the Utah County Daily Herald proved once again that he doesn't play favorites with locals, giving it a C- . The Desert News gave it 2 stars and the Salt Lake Tribune gave it 1. (Tribune critic Sean Means thought the humor might be too "inside" for people outside Utah/LDS culture to enjoy. Of course, nobody has actually watched the film with an "outsider" audience, so this seems like conjecture.) With two Mormon casino bandits, "Ocean's Eleven" is STILL the top money-maker of this list, dropping from 11th place last week to 15th this week after 59 days in release. "Behind Enemy Lines" dropped slightly from 27th to 29th place nationwide -- quite respectable considering the film has been out over two months. "The Other Side of Heaven" and "Mulholland Drive" were in 36th and 37th place nationwide for the second week in a row. "Heaven" is essentially only playing in Utah, Idaho and Austin, Texas (where one of its major investors lives). The Austin Chronicle reviewed "Heaven" favorably and gave it 2 1/2 (out of 4) stars. As the movie continues to open around the rest of the country it MIGHT become the top grossing film in the short history of modern "LDS Cinema" (movies made by AND about Latter-day Saints). But it still has a ways to go before it catches up to "God's Army." LOOKING AHEAD: We're just two weeks away from the release of "Out of Step" the Canadian-Utah-New York film about a Latter-day Saint dancer in the Big Apple. "Out of Step" was produced by Cary Derbidge, directed by Ryan Little ("The Last Good War"), and stars Jeremy Elliott ("Testaments") and Michael Buster ("Elder Kinegar" from "God's Army"). Buster also co-wrote the screenplay. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST: Latter-day Saint filmmaker McKay Daines is currently filming "Dream Catcher," a major feature film written, produced and directed by him. The executive producer (and one of the stars) of this Native American romantic comedy is Ray Tracey, the Navajo Latter-day Saint actor who, as a BYU student, was discovered by Kieth Merrill and later starred in "Joe Panther" and the documentary "Indian." The film features an all Native American cast and is being filmed on reservations near Phoenix, Arizona. [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker or Actor Total Gross Theaters Days ---- ------------------------------ ------- ----- ---- 15 Ocean's Eleven $2,056,615 1,541 59 LDS characters: Malloy twins 178,908,056 29 Behind Enemy Lines 252,458 409 66 David Veloz (screenwriter) 57,802,467 36 The Other Side of Heaven 91,297 35 52 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 1,292,907 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 37 Mulholland Drive 81,305 72 119 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 6,545,178 44 The Singles Ward (NEW) 46,649 11 3 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 46,649 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne Michael Birkeland, Bob-O Swenson Lincoln Hoppe, Tarance Edwards Michelle Ainge, Gretchen Whalley Sedra Santos 51 Out Cold 30,018 88 75 A. J. Cook (female lead) 13,850,403 66 Galapagos 11,151 3 829 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,256,938 73 China: The Panda Adventure 6,624 5 192 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,897,615 80 Island of the Sharks 3,821 3 1011 Alan Williams (composer) 10,625,038 91 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 1,215 2 640 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,056,971 103 Mark Twain's America in 3D 499 1 1312 Alan Williams (composer) 2,147,730 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 05 Feb 2002 19:21:13 -0500 Thom Duncan wrote: >We idolize our deities and our prophets at a level that is quite >appropriate for fiction but not for reality. This is because real people (be they prophets, warriors, mothers or even the Messiah) do in fact become to a degree fictional characters--historical fiction--in the human/Divine story embraced by their followers. I might go so far as to suggest that perhaps the "fictional characters" into which the prophets are transformed by their followers are more powerful than the historical figures from which they sprung. Then again, one a personal level, I prefer the real historical figures--though I do find the path by which mere humans are transformed into demi-gods fascinating. Jesus was a Jew--a member of his particular time and culture. (This takes nothing away from his being the Messiah--in fact, in my opinion, it adds to it.) Joseph Smith was a product of the first generation USA. There is a reason that prophets are NOT accepted in their own homes, by their own people, during their lifetimes. There is a reason that, only in hind sight, does it seem clear that certain people were playing a divinly ordained role; and that is because, after the particular person is dead and gone, and time seperates us from their day, age and circumstances, we inherit the mythos surrounding that person. The mythos might very well embrace the actual truth of that person. But we who inherit the myth have a great luxury: we are not blinded by the prejudices of the time and culture in which that particular person lived. Of course, the myth is often time the PRODUCT of prejudices of believers of a later period. An interesting question might be "Who most clearly sees the truth about a perticular person--their friends and followers, or their detractors? Or do both see perhaps the very same thing?" I think if we were to run into the historical Savior or Joseph (or Moses, Elijah, Nephi or Mormon) on the street, not only would we probably not recognize them, but--once their indentity was pointed out to us--we would probably have a mighty trial of our faith. All of which, I find fascinating. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 06 Feb 2002 01:10:11 -0700 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,370009233,00.html I'm trying to place my skepticism about this whole "Light of the World" thing on hold and give the composers the benefit of a doubt until their results demonstrate otherwise, but that became very difficult when I read the last two paragraphs of this article: ------- "There will always be those who will come and lick their chops" in criticism, Cardon said, and "others that will come with the spirit and soul to receive it. It's a completely different agenda than some Broadway production. We're not trying to impress people, but we've done professional work." Open minds and open hearts are the key for those who see the show, Peters said, knowing each person will take away a different impression. "We can't worry" about what naysayers may think. "Those who have ears to hear, will hear." ------- Translation: our music is inspired, so if you don't like it, you must be out of tune with God. This seems to me to be a public announcement that this officially sponsored art project is going the way of all the rest of them. I'm trying VERY hard to maintain a "wait and see" attitude in the face of such arrogance. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Internet: Women's Websites, Mormon Internet Index Starts: Kent Larsen 4Feb02 US NY NYC I4 Date: 05 Feb 2002 23:07:55 -0500 Women's Websites, Mormon Internet Index Starts NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- The recent women's websites that Mormon News has noticed cover a wide variety of things, from inspirational quotes and answers to quilts to helps with primary, young women and relief society. In addition, Mormon News is starting its Mormon Internet Index this week, and the index declined slightly in its first week as a few domain named were apparently abandoned. Several of the sites for women listed this week are visually appealing and clearly designed, especially EZQuilts.com, Of-Worth.com, and Young LDS mothers. In addition to quilts, inspirational and practical help, the featured websites include clip art, caligraphy, and resources for primary, young women and relief society. The new Mormon Internet Index declined in its first week, mainly because the number of domain names that use LDS terms declined during the week -- most likely because owners abandoned some of the domains they weren't using. The index also reflects the number of Mormon web pages found by the major search engines and the number of links to Mormon domains. Mormon Internet Information: Mormon Internet Index: 98.9 - down 1.1 Mormon-related domain names: at least 3,000 Estimated web pages mentioning Mormonism: over 500,000 Newly Listed Mormon Websites (in alphabetical order): Beautiful Answers http://www.angelfire.com/country/answers/ Visitors can get answers to Real Life questions written in Calligraphy Script on paper suitable for framing. The author currently includes answers to 21 questions. Christy's Clipart http://primary_art.tripod.com/ Clip art pages that include primary, young women and relief society clip art organized in dozens of categories. Also has clip art CDs for sale and cross stitch patterns. EZQuilts.com http://www.ezquilts.com/ LDS Business that offers quilting kits, including several LDS-themed kits. Includes baby quilts, split-rail quilts and even pre-made quilts. Purchases can be made by on-line e-commerce system. Home Family and Personal Enrichment http://www.geocities.com/karielt/ Small, single-page website of links to resources for Relief Society Home, Family and Personal enrichment resources. Of-Worth.com http://www.of-worth.com/ Thoughts and inspirational writing for women organized in categories covering charity, relief society, LDS women, LDS mothers, teaching moments, angels, pioneers, teen tactics, household, humor, etc. Young LDS Mothers http://www.youngldsmothers.com/ Pleasant-looking resource covering everything that a new mother may need to know. Includes resources for teen and single mothers, resources for the mother, parenting topics from breastfeeding to potty training, a kidszone, and a chatroom and mailing list. The Young Women Connection http://www.ywconnection.com/ A site with ideas and helps for young women and their leaders. Readers contribute thoughts to the pages, which are organized in 16 categories. >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Ken Rand Writing Seminar Date: 06 Feb 2002 02:32:28 -0700 Here's an announcement I received that some may be interested in. I can vouch for Ken Rand's seminars as being very useful. ----- For immediate release Contact: Ken Rand 801-568-1666 Writers' Seminar Announced A one-day writers' seminar has been set for Saturday, June 8, in Sandy. Conducted by local writer Ken Rand of West Jordan, the seminar will help new and advanced writers of fiction and nonfiction to write better, write faster, and earn more. The seminar is based on a school curriculum Rand wrote as well as on talks he makes at conventions and workshops throughout the country. Rand, author of a dozen books, 100 short stories, 200 humor columns, and countless articles and interviews, brings more than 30 years experience as a reporter for print and radio, a PR "flack," and a freelancer to his teaching. Rand says writers create in four stages: Coming up with ideas, writing, editing, and marketing. His all-day seminar explores these concepts in depth with a lecture, hand-outs, articles, references, a suggested reading list, and copies of his book The 10% Solution: Self-editing for the Modern Writer. Rand also offers attendees personal "tech support" after the seminar. The seminar will be held Saturday, June 8, at the Best Western Cottontree Inn, 10695 South Auto Mall Dr., Sandy. To register ($60), or for more information, contact Ken Rand, 1498 Bora Bora Dr., West Jordan, UT 84084. E-mail KRand27577@aol.com . Phone 801-568-1666. Details about the seminar as well as Rand's biography and bibliography are on his website at www.sfwa.org/members/Rand . Applicants must register before June 1. Space may be limited, so interested writers are urged to contact Rand soonest. Ken P.S. Watch for my short story "Tail by the Tiger, Bull by the Horn," in Oceans of the Mind (http://www.trantorpublications.com/oceans.htm) this summer. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] Critiques Wanted Date: 06 Feb 2002 11:56:16 -0800 (PST) [MOD: Anyone who is interested in this, make sure to email Darlene directly. Replies to this email will come to AML-List, not to Darlene.] I'm looking for a few people willing to read and respond to my latest short story. It's just under seven thousand words and although it is by no means polished I consider it nearly done. I will take short gut-responses, line-by-line criticisms, whatever. It's mainstream but with Mormon characters and details, and somewhat religious in theme. Please e-mail me if you'd be willing. I am not sure this story wouldn't be better as a one-act play. I'd especially appreciate a critique from someone familiar with drama. Thanks! ===== Darlene Young Eschew obfuscation. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 07 Feb 2002 10:16:59 -0600 Folks, Richard Hopkins' recent comment about Northern Europeans being descended from the lost ten tribes (in the thread on Depictions of Jesus) brings up the whole fascinating question of race in Mormon theology and culture. We (Andrew and Jonathan; see below) believe that this will bring up a host of discussion points which could be very intesting, but which also hold the danger of taking us into doctrinal and historical debates very far off topic, and potentially damaging the spirit of friendship we share. Although there is clear value in having a discussion about race and Mormonism, we also see the need to set some guidelines first. We'd like to see discussion of the variety of ideas Mormons have about race and the impact those ideas have had on our culture--in particular how those ideas show up in Mormon literature and have impacted our own writing. We do not, however, want an extended debate about each other's ideas. So here is what we are going to do. For a very limited time, we will open the list to a short burst of theological discussion, in order to discover the range of ideas found within a population of Mormons. Then we will close the door on the theological discussion, after which time the thread will return to a narrow focus (or focuses) on the literary implications of the variety of ideas presented. For the next three days (i.e., through next Monday, Feb. 11), we invite everyone to send a single post in which you discuss your own personal beliefs/ideas about race, how it fits into Mormon doctrine and culture, and even what you believe is standard Mormon theology about race. You can also present what other ideas you think exist within Mormon culture, and how prevelent you believe those ideas are. You may point out what you believe are misconcpetions some have about race, and speculate where those misconceptions come from. Please discuss the history of your ideas: that is, what stories about race did you hear growing up in or out of the Church, and how have those ideas changed over time. We encourage you to spend at least as much time discussing the history of your ideas as you spend defending your present positions. Some have already sent messages on this subject. It is not our plan post these messages. Rather, we ask you to submit new messages which fit under today's guidelines. After the three days are over, we will begin a second two day period, in which everyone may send a single post in which you may discuss or even critique the positions others have taken, and perhaps clarify your own ideas. Just one post to cover all of that. After the second period is over, all further debate about each other's ideas is closed. We hope, however, that the theological discussion will prompt a discussion of the literary implications of the various ideas. We now set up Andrew's given #1, which will serve as the primary guideline for discussion: "I accept and welcome the fact that anything I have to say about my ideas on race and Mormonism can (and will) face disagreement from others. I am not God or the Prophet, and I do not have the answers." Race is an unsettled area in Mormon doctrine and culture, and therefore we should not claim that we have the answers. Currently there is very little about race which can be deemed to be "orthodox" in Mormon theology, in that it is preached by Church leaders and widely believed by the Church members. There were a variety of widely-believed Mormon doctrnies about race which were based on certain scriptures (ancient and modern) and comments made by Church leaders before the 1978 revelation. The revelation, however, made many of these void, and weakened the foundation of others. Since then Church leaders have said very little about the past doctrines and ideas, including the racial backgrounds of certain ethnic groups, promises given to or withheld from certain races, or the eternal nature of race. Therefore it is unclear how many of the past doctrines and ideas could today be labeled "orthodox," or for that matter what has taken their place. This is an area in which Mormon theology is unclear, and therefore we should avoid saying that our speculations are definitive. We should not belittle each other over our speculations. You can point out racist (or liberal wishful thinking) assumptions that you think are inherent in a certain speculation, but don't call the person who made that speculation (or their ideas) racist (or liberal wishful thinking). Jonathan Langford, AML-List Moderator Andrew Hall, Assistant Moderator [P.S. from Jonathan: Thanks to Andrew for suggesting this format for the debate and drafting the above message. Voila! I leave a problem in his in-box when I go to bed, and when I download the next morning, there's a nice solution waiting for me. There could be advantages in having Andrew in Japan after all...] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _Roots_ Plagiarized? Date: 06 Feb 2002 20:50:56 -0700 [MOD: I'd like to hear more about this from additional sources. (Hence my addition of a question mark to Nan's original thread title.) I know there's been a lot of criticism of Alex Haley's _Roots_ on a variety of grounds since it came out, and a lot of controversy over whether those criticisms were justified, but I haven't kept up with the particulars. In any event, issues of plagiarism are certainly of interest to AML-List. Does anyone have more details to report on what these charges are, how they came about, and whether they are generally considered to be justified?] (This might be of interest, in light of the LDS connection to Alex Haley = and the activities in Washington D.C. last weekend.) NATIONAL REVIEW/FEBRUARY 11, 2002 On January 18, NBC commemorated the 25th anniversary of the miniseries = _Roots._ _Roots_ was a tale of the persistence of black memory, in the = face of white abduction and brainwashing, that resonated powerfully with = aspects of the black experience in America. Yet it was a lie, in two = senses. Alex Haley's book, on which the miniseries was based, was a = fraud--a made-up tale about his own family, leavened with plagiarized = passages from a novel, _The African,_ by Harold Courlander, a white = author. White editors and producers, and the white judge in = Courlander's plagiarism suit, gave Haley a free ride. (Courlander won = $650,000, but was told not to discuss the case.) But now black = columnist Stanley Crouch admits _Roots_ was "one of the biggest con jobs = in U.S. literary history." Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 06 Feb 2002 14:07:29 -0700 Yes, Michael, I agree with the translation you've provided: > Translation: our music is inspired, so if you don't like it, you must be > out of tune with God. But isn't this how all Church-sponsored music or art is presented? I mean, it's not just peculiar to the "Light of the World" production, is it? Or is it just me? Anyway, such a presentation certainly shuts up people like me, who didn't really care for "Legacy," for example. Amy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 Date: 06 Feb 2002 14:02:45 -0700 Kumiko wrote: > With two Mormon casino bandits, "Ocean's Eleven" is STILL the top > money-maker of this list, dropping from 11th place last week to 15th this Having seen this movie three times now - I really don't believe that these guys are actually Mormons. My impression is that is their nickname and they come from Provo - hence the rest of the gang calls them Mormons. So the "Mormon" or "LDS" element/connection under this category is, in my mind, really stretching it. By the way, I enjoyed the movie each time. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 06 Feb 2002 16:25:36 -0500 [snip] I had a completely different reaction to those two paragraphs. I can listen to my six-year-old sing a simple primary song (out of tune, no less) and feel the spirit of her sincere little heart and be moved to tears that such a sweet little soul can have such a testimony. (She amazes me, but I digress). I read into the article, not arrogance, but humility. Sure some people will criticize it, just as they would my daughter singing her little songs, or what I say when I bear my testimony, or, for that matter, some people will criticize the greatest works of art. (I'm not implying that this WILL be one of the greatest works of art, although I hope it is good.) I read into it, that people who come prepared to hear the sincere messages of testimony and love that we have for the Savior, will accept it, even if it has shortcomings, in the sincerity in which it was intended - "inspired" or not. Kristy Thomas _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 06 Feb 2002 16:39:08 -0500 Can I copy a whole message???? I found ALL of Rob Lauer's comments (below) to be right ON! I have often thought the very same things about the "human-ness" of our "heroes", particularly how we fictionalize our deities and our prophets. Although I understand that it is human nature to do this, I can't help but feel it is in some ways detrimental, because it promotes one of the difficulties with the mormon culture (and other cultures, too, maybe), in that we expect everyone to be perfect, particularly our prophets, based on our conceptions of what past prophets were like. My favorite excerpt from what Rob says was this: >I think if we were to run into the historical Savior or Joseph (or Moses, >Elijah, Nephi or Mormon) on the street, not only would we probably not >recognize them, but--once their indentity was pointed out to us--we would >probably have a mighty trial of our faith. > >All of which, I find fascinating. I as well find this concept to be fascinating. Thanks for the thought-provoking post! Kristy Thomas >From: "robert lauer" >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God >Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:21:13 -0500 > > >Thom Duncan wrote: >>We idolize our deities and our prophets at a level that is quite >>appropriate for fiction but not for reality. > >This is because real people (be they prophets, warriors, mothers or even >the >Messiah) do in fact become to a degree fictional characters--historical >fiction--in the human/Divine story embraced by their followers. >I might go so far as to suggest that perhaps the "fictional characters" >into >which the prophets are transformed by their followers are more powerful >than >the historical figures from which they sprung. > >Then again, one a personal level, I prefer the real historical >figures--though I do find the path by which mere humans are transformed >into >demi-gods fascinating. > >Jesus was a Jew--a member of his particular time and culture. (This takes >nothing away from his being the Messiah--in fact, in my opinion, it adds to >it.) > >Joseph Smith was a product of the first generation USA. > >There is a reason that prophets are NOT accepted in their own homes, by >their own people, during their lifetimes. There is a reason that, only in >hind sight, does it seem clear that certain people were playing a divinly >ordained role; and that is because, after the particular person is dead and >gone, and time seperates us from their day, age and circumstances, we >inherit the mythos surrounding that person. > >The mythos might very well embrace the actual truth of that person. But we >who inherit the myth have a great luxury: we are not blinded by the >prejudices of the time and culture in which that particular person lived. > >Of course, the myth is often time the PRODUCT of prejudices of believers >of a later period. An interesting question might be "Who most clearly sees >the truth about a perticular person--their friends and followers, or their >detractors? Or do both see perhaps the very same thing?" > >I think if we were to run into the historical Savior or Joseph (or Moses, >Elijah, Nephi or Mormon) on the street, not only would we probably not >recognize them, but--once their indentity was pointed out to us--we would >probably have a mighty trial of our faith. > >All of which, I find fascinating. > >ROB. LAUER > >_________________________________________________________________ >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 06 Feb 2002 14:58:37 -0700 >From what I understand, the Powers That Be are now encouraging missionaries to NOT write home ANYTHING NEGATIVE. At all. Is this true, those of you who are more in to the MTC scene these days than I am? If that's true, then I can't see that advice as anything but harmful. Sometimes, letters are the only places that missionaries can let out all their steam and venom. When / if my son goes on a mission, I'm going to tell him to not worry about worrying me. Tell me everything you want to, I'll say. Going along with this trend is an interesting sub-topic in the YW lesson I teach this Sunday: having a positive attitude. The lesson doesn't talk about learning to see the good in things, or overlooking the bad, or coping with negativity. No, it says to keep a cheerful face and only say happy things, and eventually, that's what you'll turn into. Someone cheerful. Is it any wonder that we are all so Prozacked? Amy Chamberlain -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _I Am Jane_ Date: 06 Feb 2002 15:14:35 -0700 Just wanted y'all to know that the wonderful Thom Duncan has directed the latest version of _I Am Jane_ which will be presented for Black History Month at BYU's Varsity Theater (Wilkinson Student Center). The play will show only two times: Thursday Feb. 14 and Friday Feb. 15 at 7:30 p.m. Cost is $5.00. Tickets may be purchased either at the door or at the Wilkinson Center Information Booth. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 06 Feb 2002 14:56:41 -0800 > > I've always wanted to cast a movie of the Savior's life . . . > > . . . with Danny DeVito as the Savior. (All SORTS of interesting discussions > might come from that.) > > Kurt Weiland. > Have you read _I Hated Heaven_? It has a Danny DeVito-ish God and is quite funny. Jana Remy Irvine, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] FIELD, _In The Bedroom_ Date: 06 Feb 2002 16:16:59 -0700 2001 was a banner year for film noir, with "The Man Who Wasn't There", "Mulholland Dr.", "Memento", and Richard Dutcher's "Brigham City." Add to these Todd Field's "In The Bedroom" which I finally saw this week. It's a meticulously constructed, suspensful film where every line of dialogue and shot has significance. It corncerns Sissy Spacek (who pulls off a tricky performance that may get her another Oscar), an upper-middle-class woman whose promising college age son becomes involved with a working-class older woman (Marisa Tomei) with a couple of young kids and a glowering soon-to-be ex-husband. There are some surprises to be had, including a screeching big one right in the middle of the movie which I shall not reveal (although many critics ignorantly have.) Suffice it to say that the moral fault (or responsibility) is not where you initially think it is. The film is based on a short story by Andre Dubus, an explicitly Catholic writer. At one point in the film a priest offers a vision of faith as as healing and redemptive force (which is sadly not accepted). The movie is ultimately about the absolute necessity of faith and forgiveness for spiritual survival in the face of the most extreme, muderous human situations. Think of it as a Catholic companion to Dutcher's "Brigham City." "In The Bedroom" would be a perfect selection for Brigham Young University's "International Cinema" series. It's a smart film based on a respected literary source and has a resounding moral message. I don't see it happening in the near future, however, because of its "R" rating (for some language and violence.) This is an excellent example of the difficulties involved in enforcing such a rigid attitude about "purity" in art (as commented on by Jonathan S. Walker's "The Internal Mormon-Media Conflict" in Meridian Magazine, as brought to the Lists' attention by Chris Bigelow.) R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "b5dorsai" Subject: [AML] Mormons on Saturday Night Live Date: 06 Feb 2002 19:27:45 -0600 This last Saturday (2 Feb 02), Saturday Night Live started off its episode with a segment on the Olympics and the LDS Church. As far as I can tell from talking with the members in my ward here in San Antonio, I am the only one who saw it (and I guess stays up that late) :-) Most of it was harmless although one section made the Church seem a bit over the top and actually more "born-again". I actually found it amusing in that the writers assumed that everyone would immediately recognized who the "missionaries" were and what they represented. I guess that in one sense that is good because we are recognizable and we should not take offense at the occasional humourous remark from comedy shows. Isn't there an unofficial rule for television and movies, that if you have to explain an item too much, then you should not use it? That is why you do not see many jokes about the Heisenberg theory. Were any of you able to see it? If so, what did you or any of the other members think of the segment? Rick Thomas San Antonio -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: [AML] RE: Missionaries Returning Home Date: 06 Feb 2002 20:07:43 -0800 How heavily does the average mission president, stake president, or bishop weight the sin of coming home early from a mission without a medical reason? Say there is no other sin involved. The missionary has simply had enough and comes home. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus (Comp 1) Date: 07 Feb 2002 13:10:50 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From jerry.tyner@qlogic.com Wed Feb 06 15:03:36 2002 Thom Duncan wrote: Based on the part of the world he came from and the lineage he came = from. He most certainly did NOT look like the Greek God we like to think of = him as. Thom Thom, You are probably right about the physical body Jesus had while he was a = mortal being. However, since we do not know anything about his Father's = physical appearance we can't say for sure exactly how he looked. = Speculation by many sources align with what you said but again this is = based on historical evidence of the local population. My guess is he was = taller than an average person with some kind of unique characteristics = like a strong voice. Scriptures teach he wasn't handsome but I'm sure he = was not deformed or short. However, the resurrected Christ is a totally = different matter. Speaking personally, I hope my resurrected body is not a perfected form = of my current body. I am 5'6" tall and 125 pounds (I was 105 lbs. in = high school and 112 lbs. in College and on my mission). I do not think I = would be very impressive figure to anyone, resurrected or not. I want to = look like Arnold! Kidding aside, I think the Savior is probably more impressive now in his = resurrected form. When he appeared to his disciples he would have to = look similar along with the prints of the nails in his hands and feet = and the pierced side from the Centurions spear. Also remember, they were = sore afraid the first time he appeared in the closed room until he told = them they could handle Him and see it was the Savior. When he appeared = to Nephites and Lamanites I'm sure he appeared as Joseph Smith probably = described him, as a glorified, resurrected being (although maybe not as = bright and scary). My guess is he is fairly tall and impressive a = physical presence when he appears as he did in the First Vision and as = described in D&C 110.=20 Will I be disappointed if He isn't like I envision Him? No, absolutely = not. I just hope I'm worthy to stand in His presence and know Him for = myself. Hey, if He is my height that would be very cool. I wonder how = many people would be bothered by that?! Jerry Tyner Orange County, California >From Jacob@proffitt.com Wed Feb 06 15:09:41 2002 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > > How do you know that? He could very well have been white, six feet > > tall and all of that. > > Based on the part of the world he came from and the lineage > he came from. > > He most certainly did NOT look like the Greek God we like to > think of him as. Like I said, no matter what part of the world he was from, he was at least 50% alien to that world. So while Mary may or may not have been representative of the region, we know that Christ's dad, God, was most assuredly *not* from that part of the world (um, or *any* part of the world for that matter). That's enough variability for me to state with some certainty that we don't have any idea what Christ looked like and any definitive statements one way or another are unsupportable. You just can't make assumptions here because the normal rules are out. So barring personal experience or contemporary account, you can't really say that He couldn't be white, black, six feet, four feet, or anything else. You just don't know what genes he got from Mary and which he got from God. Thus, he could very well have been a buffed-out white guy six feet tall. We *do* know from scripture that men wouldn't follow him for his looks. But that could as easily mean that he was strange for the region as that he blended in with everyone else. It becomes particularly interesting when Joseph Smith tells us that Heavenly Father and Christ looked exactly alike when he saw them together. But I'm not sure if that wasn't a transformation that happened after resurrection, so even that doesn't really inform us much. Which is why I don't have much problem with pretty much any physical representation of Christ. More important to me are his characteristics and personality. So when I hear about a depiction of "Cowboy Jesus", for example, I don't really care what the author might say he *looked* like as I care about what Christ says or does. I think the real danger isn't whether we depict him as buff or wussy. I think the real danger is if we depict him consistently in a single way (*any* single way). So I think it is good for Catholics (as in the original post that started the thread) to see him drawn confident and strong. And I think it is good for us to see him drawn homely and weak. I've personally been interested in those pictures by some African-American denominations that draw him black. The savior wasn't significant for what he looked like, but for what he was. And if we can picture him as looking like the people who are around us, so much the better. Because in the end, "as you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me." (um, to paraphrase :) Jacob Proffitt >From kristymariethomas@hotmail.com Wed Feb 06 15:44:21 2002 These are links I found on the internet on the subject. I don't take any of them very seriously. I think the best comment I read was something like "Does it matter what Christ looked like? NO!" Anyway, I thought you might enjoy what various webpages have to say about this popular debate. --- At the following link the Christian Separist Organization claims that he was white... http://www.christianseparatist.org/other/whitejesus.html --- http://www.ahherald.com/pastor/pc001207.htm - This one is annoying because it brings up ads. But anyway, it talks about how every culture likes to depict Christ like themselves. This man believes he would have looked "Jewish", but has no problem with us portraying him as long as we remember the rendering is not really him. --- http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/looklike.htm - This one claims that Christ couldn't have looked any different from his friends for reasons like Judas had to show the arrestors who he was. - It also claims that Christ had short hair, was probably muscular and tan, and quotes Isaiah to argue that Christ's physical appearance was not out of the ordinary. (It also says that the effeminate Christ so often depicted probably looks more like Satan - ha, whatever!) --- The following is the funniest to me, because they have taken the official LDS Christ and changed his eyes to blue!!! Too funny. This site quotes three allegedly historic accounts of Christ to argue that he was golden-haired, tall, and blue-eyed. http://www.israelsregathering.org/jesusdescription.htm --- This one claims to have an actual likeness of Christ. O-kay...What-eva... http://www.revealed.org/likeness.htm --- This one has "over 1000 images" of artists conceptions of Christ through the ages. This one is the coolest, because, from what I saw, it doesn't actually speculate about what He looked like, just what we through the ages have imagined that He looked like. http://www.clark.net/pub/webbge/jesus.htm --- Kristy Thomas -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 07 Feb 2002 06:23:42 -0700 What is my theory on race? I think that God loves diversity. Just read Moses 2-3, or Genesis 1, or go watch the temple film if you doubt this. An overly simplistic response? Maybe. But I think it's true. I think it's we humans who have complicated the matter. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 07 Feb 2002 11:15:48 -0700 So far, I haven't heard anything about this music. But I have a big issue with people who make part of their claim to fame that God gave them their work, as in "others that will come with the spirit and soul to receive it. . . ." "We can't worry" about what naysayers may think. Those who have ears to hear, will hear." Aside from being hugely egotistical and presumptive, it is also manipulative. It implies, "If you don't like this, you are out of tune" (pun, well, intended). I think that if God DOES give an artist some aspect of his/her work, the last thing s/he should do is talk about it. This is nothing personal; I like Sam Cardon and his work. I just think that speaking this way is a big mistake. It reminds me of Lex de Azevedo's "Gloria." The composition fails artistically over and over again, but in his cover text he makes the same kind of claim. Big mistake. Let the work speak for itself and if it's inspired, that will come through. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Roots Plagarized? Date: 07 Feb 2002 10:39:25 -0800 I had heard of this accusation about Alex Haley plagarizing Roots when I was a teenager. I had a History teacher, who was liberal by the way, who talked about it in class. But I remember being skeptical of his information. He said it had been proven the Griot, (oral storyteller), that Haley found in Africa had been proven to be a fraud and also I remember him saying something about the book, "The African". But he never brought that book in to back up what he said, and he never produced any news clippings about the Griot. I heard only a small amount of news about the lawsuit, the media kept it low key. Obviously, since Haley had the characters in the book speaking dialogue from Kunta Kinte on, much of it would have had to come from someone's imagination. People who were purposely kept illiterate don't leave primary, written sources behind. But if there were others in the family who could confirm the older family members saying the African words he said helped him to trace the family to Gambia, that would go to his favor and credibility. I had the good fortune to be at BYU when Alex Haley came to speak. It was at night, and I got there early thinking it would be packed. It wasn't, might have been friday night and no one would think to make this into a good date night. I was fascinated. He make it into a intimate gathering. He had the cadence of a natural storyteller and elaborated on his boyhood summers in Henning, Tennessee and the nights on the porch listening to his grandmother and great aunts tell the family stories about all the different personalities that had graced their family line, especially one flamboyant fellow who was called "Chicken George". He said they were shocked by this man, but delighted in all the juicy details of his exciting life. He opened it up to questions and I don't remember him avoiding any thing that was brought up. I was impressed with the spirit of the man. I cherish the memory of having been there. I, however am concerned about having the truth stand in such matters. There has been recent proof of a couple of noted historians who have had bestsellers in the national market having plagiarized material. This is not a light matter, and I hate it when someone gets a pass because of political correctness or fear of whom is being criticized. But, until I see any firm proof of this accusation about Alex Haley, I will give him the benefit of the doubt about his quest and the book he said sprang from that quest. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] RE: Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 12:14:03 -0700 Responding to Levi Peterson: <<>> It probably depends on how much energy that leader has invested in trying to talk the missionary into staying. The more spiritual logic and persuasion the leader puts on the table, the greater the sin is in not following it, I imagine the thinking goes. I know I grade my freshman English students harder when I've given them advice that they don't take or find an equally good solution. (This probably mostly applies to mission presidents, but I think stake presidents and bishops often get involved by phone in these situations.) Although I despised 90% of missionary life--really hated it--I somehow managed to last out the two years, although many weeks were utterly wasted. (In one completely demoralized apartment, four of us filled almost all our time with extra sleep and videos through the entire hot fly-blown Aussie summer.) Although I couldn't summon the motivation or discipline to live like a missionary much of the time, somehow I never seriously considered going home, just as I never seriously considered divorce during my 7-year marriage to a troubled personality. I am glad that my character does have some bedrock, though there's plenty of topsoil too. A lot of missionaries reported to the president that I seemed depressed and unmotivated, which was absolutely true, but I didn't do much direct complaining to him myself. About halfway through I said I'd love to be a mission secretary, and that wish was granted for the last 3 months of my mission, which kept me from ending at the rock-bottom level. (My mission trajectory looks like a backwards check mark.) I don't know if any missionaries in my mission went home without sin or medical reasons. How often does someone actually have the guts to say, "I don't like this, it's not for me, I'm out of here?" Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 12:31:57 -0700 >Sometimes, letters are the only places that missionaries can let out all >their steam and venom. When / if my son goes on a mission, I'm going to = tell >him to not worry about worrying me. Tell me everything you want to, I'll >say. I loved my mission (it was because of serving that mission that I = eventually met my husband) but the three most difficult months of my life = came during a companionship with a sister who had some serious emotional = and mental problems. I'm not sure why she was never sent home early, = because her behavior had caused a lot of problems for missionaries and = members. I think it may have been because a) she didn't have anywhere to = go (no familial support, no money, no education) and b) she was a native = missionary (this was in Thailand), and had she left the mission early the = scrutiny and gossip of the members might have driven her away from the = Church entirely. I had only been in the mission field for three months = when I got a call from my mission president, telling me that she was to be = my next companion, and that my job was to help her be happy. For the next = three months, until she completed her mission, I did everything I could to = fulfill that calling. I can see now that it was an abusive relationship, = that I was verbally and emotionally (and occasionally physically) abused. = I stuck it out by praying a lot, by asking for a blessing once, and by = writing about everything in letters home. I wrote my family and one very = close friend everything--writing those letters helped keep me from going = crazy. When I got home, my friend and my mom presented me with binders = full of copies of all my letters--it's better than any journal I ever = kept. On the other hand, I never really told my mission president the = full extent of what happened (I think I was afraid that if I did, I would = have failed in the job I had been given, which was to make her happy). In = hindsight, I think that may have been a mistake, because he probably could = have helped. But we made it through, and I am happy to say that she is = still an active member of the Church, and very proud of her full-time = missionary service. Her problems have started to get resolved, and she = has gone through the temple. Each time I've returned to Thailand we have = met joyfully. She trusts me and loves me, and I can honestly say that I = love her. I learned so many priceless lessons from that experience--I = learned how to really listen to the Spirit, I learned how to trust my = prayers, and I'll never get into an abusive relationship again, because = I'll see it coming from miles away. And I can relive those lessons by = reading the letters my family and friend saved for me. They are priceless.= Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus Date: 07 Feb 2002 12:52:12 -0700 > > > > Hey, if He is my height that would be very cool. I wonder how = >many people would be bothered by that?! > >Jerry Tyner >Orange County, California > My vision of our immortal existence is that physical height won't matter at all. Not one "little" bit. We, as mortals, make all of our size judgments based on our attachment (forced by gravity) to the face of the earth. We all stand on the ground, where our feet are all toe-nail to toe-nail. As resurrected beings, we won't be bound by that attachment. (i.e. God and Christ standing in the air in the First Vision; Moroni appearing at Joseph's bedside; the various appearances in the Kirtland Temple; etc.) When we approach one of our peers in the next life for a little chat, we will probably face them on an eye-to-eye basis, standing in the air (or empty space, or wherever). And how far down our legs and feet hang, won't count for anything. (I'm reminded of the BYU basketball team picture that I saw several years ago, where all the players, except the 7 foot tall center [Bradley?], were standing on customized little platforms, so that their heads were all the same height.) And then as Gods, when we make our dramatic appearances to our own mortal Joseph Smiths, we will be so brilliant and glorious as exalted beings that the height won't even factor in. Maybe God and Christ ARE only 5' 6", 125 pounds. Standing high up there in the air like that, and shining like a million combined spotlights, who could tell? So don't worry, Jerry. I'm sure you'll be absolutely imposing as a God. Hey -- even midgets and dwarfs have exaltation potential. Right? -BJ Rowley (at 5' 7" if I stretch, but MUCH more than 125 lbs., unfortunately) Orem, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 07 Feb 2002 13:05:23 -0700 Scary invitation here, though I appreciate very much the way Jonathan has = framed it: [MOD: Actually, Andrew deserves the credit...] Essentially, I think there's a very long legacy of American racism that = found its way into Mormon culture and theology. First of all, a few historical facts that are, I think, pretty well = uncontested by any legitimate historian of Mormonism. Joseph Smith was = probably less racist than any other white man of prominence in his day, = with the possible exception of John Brown. Many many abolitionists held = quite racist views and had attitudes towards blacks that were paternalist = and patronizing. Abraham Lincoln was, by our standard, racist. John = Brown was almost alone amoung white abolitionists in believing in the = intellectual and moral equality of blacks. Joseph Smith's own views on = race (which he very seldom articulated) were shockingly similar to = Brown's. =20 Brigham Young, on the other hand, was essentially as racist as most white = men of prominence of his generation. The policy on priesthood was = invented by Brigham, and perpetuated by subsequent presidents of the = Church. I think it's possible that Brigham Young believed that if Deseret = were seen as abolitionist (as a final stop for the Underground Railroad, = for example), as a place that welcomed runaway slaves, that the Church = would inevitably have been dragged into the Civil War, and that that would = have destroyed us as a Church and culture. The Civil War did not begin in = South Carolina in 1861, it began in 'bloody Kansas' in the mid-'50's, and = the seeds of bloody Kansas were clearly visible in Missouri in the '30's. = And Missouri was utterly devastated by the Civil War, as Utah might well = have been. I think that it's quite possible that a formalized policy on = blacks and the priesthood came out of Brigham's experiences in Missouri. Having said that, I think that such a policy went unchallenged or = unexamined in the Church for far too long, and that Gene England was right = when he suggested that the policy was not overturned earlier due to white = racism within the Church, which we needed to repent from. =20 Since the policy existed, however, I believe that a great deal of = speculation grew up around it, including the notion that Cain's seed were = Africans (which is, as I understand it, a Protestant notion invented in = the sixteenth century to justify English involvement in the slave trade), = including the 'fencesitters' doctrine, and including all sorts of = speculation regarding the pre-existence. An interesting example of such = doctrinal speculations is a famous talk given by Alvin R. Dyer (which was = printed by the Church as a pamphlet and handed out in a D&C class I took = in 1977), called, I believe, The Three Degrees of Glory. In this talk, = Elder Dyer said that there were three degrees of glory in the preexistence,= and that celestial spirits were born in the covenant, terrestrial spirits = were born as Gentiles, and telestial spirits born as blacks. The purpose = of earth life was for celestial spirits to prove that we belonged there, = terrestrial spirits to rise or stay where they were, and for telestial = spirits to rise to terrestrial. I remember when I was in the LTM = (predecessor to the MTC), a talk in which a Ricks College professor = expanded on Dyer, and spent a lot of time describing the ethnic branches = of humanity that had come from Noah's children. Blacks, of course, came = from Ham's wife, Africanus. [MOD: actually, Egyptus] As for the Ten Tribes, well, I really went on = my mission to Norway hoping to baptize a Lapplander (Sami), certain that = his/her patriarchal blessing would show him/her as coming from Naphtali or = something. We did baptize a Samisk girl, but no such luck; she was = Ephraim, like everyone else. =20 The Book of Mormon does specifically mention skin color as a curse. But = our perceptions in this regard are warped by the fact that Alma, the = largest book in the Book of Mormon, actually covers a relatively short = time period, and the first really in which there were substantial = Nephite/Lamanite interactions. Those interactions are fairly common = cultural clashes, in a war setting, where racist language is commonly used = to demonize one's opponents. Through most of the Book of Mormon period, = Nephites and Lamanites are either separated geographically, or so = intermixed through marriage that the terms themselves represent more = political/religious divisions than racial ones. =20 I remember a mission companion telling an investigator that we believed = that blacks couldn't have the priesthood because they'd descended from = monkeys, while whites could because we came from Adam and Eve, created by = God. I remember another companion refusing to teach a black guy who was = very interested in our message, because 'those people just aren't ready.' = I remember a wonderful black family who came to church for ten years, and = then, in 1978, the Sunday after President Kimball announced the revelation,= the husband coming to the bishop and presenting himself and his family = for baptism. I remember hearing Alan Cherry's comedy routine for the = first time and laughing my head off and wishing I could meet him. I = remember finding a church MIA manual from the early '60's with detailed = instructions on how to rehearse and produce a minstrel show, together with = a recipe for blackface makeup. =20 We have a shameful legacy, in my opinion, when it comes to matters of = race. I credit great men and women like Gene England and Darius Gray and = Margaret Young and many others with doing something to overcome it. But = in my opinion, we have a long way to go. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "K.D. Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 13:44:36 -0700 When I was on my mission my mission president told us to write problems to him. We had to write to him every week and any problems should be brought to his attention as it was part of his calling. However, we weren't to write that stuff home because it would worry our families. When my mission was done they gave me copies of all my letters to him. Some of them were pretty bad, especially while I was with that one compainion. There are pluses and minuses to this method but I'm sure they have a reason for not sending negative home. They don't want to discourage prospective missionaries. Maybe thats why they won't print stuff about the challenges of missionary life in the Ensign. Your totally right about that YW lesson. And it doesn't work. Maybe I'm a great actress but I can put on a happy face and say happy things and be totally misserable. Konnie Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus (Comp 1) Date: 07 Feb 2002 22:23:51 GMT There are two distinctive strains of Jews today--one is "sephardic," the typical olive-skinned, dark-haired, compact-bodied Jews we most often identify as Jewish. These Jews are from mostly Mediterranean descent. However, "ashkenazi" Jews--from European descent today--are usually taller, fair-haired (including red or auburn hair), and may have blue or green eyes. Both are descended from the tribes of Israel and we cannot be sure what family line Jesus came from. I personally tend to visualize him as tall and ashkenazic, not short and sephardic. I believe that he had an arresting appearance, very compelling, that demanded that people respond to him. On the other hand I like images of Jesus as black or Oriental. These images feel very inclusive to me. I like to think that we would recognize the Savior because of our spiritual receptivity rather than by a visual image. Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 07 Feb 2002 15:26:01 -0700 Here is my view on race in the church. Prior to 1978 I felt the need to apologize, or try to explain to my black friends why the church didn't allow them to hold the priesthood. I even tried to make it seem like a good thing. IE "they got all the blessings of baptism into the church without any obligations." I had heard all the explanations for why some spirits were born to black bodies and cultures, and others to white. Forget all the shades in between. I didn't give much thought about the Nephite/Lamanite issue, or the Book of Mormon account: The Book of Mormon reader need go no further than the account of the Lamanites. At first they were a "white and delightsome people," but their fathers refused to worship God in the manner in which they had been taught. Slothfulness and iniquities of every nature turned their children into dark-skinned haters of God. We cannot deny that the Lord visited the children of Laman with the outward sign of, not an inward grace, but, His displeasure. He caused a to them and their children for many generations, but with this promise that they will again become a "white and delightsome people." George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955-1961], 2: 141.) Just prior to the 1978 revelation on priesthood, I was in attendance at the Oakland Temple. Right in front of me sat the biggest blackest man I think I had ever seen. I had never ever seen a black man in temple robes, or in the temple before. I reflected upon what I was seeing, who this man was, and why he was in the temple. I concluded that I was seeing: one of God's children doing temple work, just like me; he must be a worthy recommend holder, just like me; and that he was in the temple because he believed what he was doing was important, just like me. After the session, I found out he was an Aborigine from New Zealand or Australia. It then dawned on me that the color of ones skin had nothing to do with the priesthood, or one's righteousness. According to my understanding, the priesthood was withheld only from the direct descendants of Cain, and continued after the flood through the loins of Hamm, since he married a Canaanite, and chose to dishonor his father Noah, by looking upon his nakedness. (Genesis 9:22 ) I'm not sure why this "curse" was upon the heads of the decedents of Cain and Hamm for so long, but who am I to question God? Cain made a pact with Satan and conspired to murder his brother, and I do not question God's judgment. I was overjoyed when Spencer Kimball received the priesthood revelation in 1978. At last I wouldn't have to make any excuses or apologize to any of my black friends. Now they could be baptized and hold the priesthood along with its inherent duties and obligations. I love all people, and I have friends and acquaintances among almost every race and nationality there is. I was born and raised in the East-Bay of the San Francisco Bay area. I worked for many years in San Francisco, and for the last few years of my employment there, I felt like I was the minority. There were very few white, Mormon, males, within my workplace, but the people I worked with accepted me anyway. I know there still is racism and bigotry amongst some general membership of the church, but we need to get over it and look beyond skin color, and see all people as children of God. When we write about human conflict and humanity in general, we need to let the error and darkness of racism be seen and the correct principles of forgiveness and tolerance for all people show through. Not just the prejudices and intolerance for blacks, but all intolerance and prejudice which is sometimes shown toward anyone who is different. This is what God is, Love for all His children, and if we want to benefit from his love for us, we need to show that same love for all others. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 18:06:33 EST Missionaries are also encouraged to write in their journals, which is a good place to lay down ones frustrations. HOWEVER, when you think about it, it is true. We become what we focus our attentions on. I know people who look for the good, who give praise, who give uplifting comments & thoughts. These people are generally much happier and pleasanter to be around than the ones who are always looking for the negative aspects of life and grousing about the evil things that are happening. Depression feeds on itself...especially when someone focuses on how awful their life is, how rough they have it, how evil the world around them is, etc. There is a lot of junk out there, and we can fill our minds with it, and it is depressing. Or we can look for the good in the downers and it does help to lighten the load. One hometeacher suggested that we look for ways to turn downers to the Lord's advantage. We can choose to look at the dark side of events in our lives, or focus on the bright side. Looking for good doesn't mean we don't acknowledge things have bleak consequences. 9-11 was a tragedy. We can focus on the negatives, the evil, the tremendous loss of life, material objects, money, etc. Or we can focus on things that are equally true: none of the planes were full of passengers (as they could have been), many, many people were miraculously spared through a variety of interventions, it has brought many Americans to a sharper awareness of our country, many back to their God, brought heroism out in many, otherwise very oridnary individuals. I'm not sure that it's the looking on the bright side of things that causes us to rely on prozac, but the constant focusing on all the negatives in our lives. Much of the media focuses on: the negative. Much of the "entertainment" put out for enjoyment is negative in focus, using violence as a hook to get people to watch. One treatment for depression is to focus on things outside of one's self. Turn outward, instead of inward. Give service to others. I don't think as writers we need to just write "sweetness & light". Good literature has conflict in it. But do we leave the reader full of gloom, or that there is hope for tomorrow. Do we as LDS walk around with gloomy faces? Or do we smile? I sometimes get caught up in things and have to remember to smile, but smiles make a lot of things a lot better. Karen [Tippets] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons on Saturday Night Live (Comp 1) Date: 07 Feb 2002 20:00:49 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From mjjones@xelent.com Thu Feb 07 13:05:38 2002 My husband wondered why they made all three missionaries blond. We also = wished that they had said the full name of the Church instead of just The = Church of the Latter-day Saints.=20 Other than that, it was mildly gratifying to see the Church being parodied = on SNL--I didn't think it was a mean spoof, it just portrayed the = missionaries as pushy and almost annoyingly pleasant. In some ways, being = spoofed on SNL is the ultimate pop culture compliment. Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee >From mcnandon@hotmail.com Thu Feb 07 13:31:18 2002 My son in Seattle saw the Saturday Night Live bit on Mormons and the Olympics. He said that a skier was coming down the slope and 2 missionaries with suits and nametags skied up beside her and asked the golden questions. She politely tried to tell them that she was sort of busy, but they persisted in asking what she knew about the church and if she had read the Book of Mormon. The bit sounded hilarious to me. Of course, my son is a great actor and he can make anything sound funny. I just wish I had seen it. Nan McCulloch >From pichtj@nsula.edu Thu Feb 07 14:09:15 2002 I thought it was quite funny. (For those who didn't see it, it involved two missionaries trying to engage an olympic athlete in religious conversation - on skis, during an alpine ski event.) My wife, who knows very little about Mormon culture, thought it was funny. It was an interesting look at how outsiders see our missionary program, and they clearly don't see it quite the way we do (food for thought, since they're the target of our missionary efforts). I'm less interested in what Mormons thought of the segment than I am in what others thought of it. Jim Picht >From katie@aros.net Thu Feb 07 15:52:47 2002 I didn't see it, but someone I know in Oklahoma caught part of it, where the missionaries are trying to proselyte Picabo Street as she's skiing. She thought it was offensive. But she isn't the type that generally likes SNL, anyway. The way she described it, I thought it might have been funny. She was pretty indignant about it, but my first impulse was to laugh. I think I'm a lot more able to laugh at things like this since I've lived in Utah for the last few years. I imagine that if I still lived in Oklahoma, I would have felt a lot more picked-on, and a lot more defensive. Because in Oklahoma, Mormons are just a weird, very small minority. But in Utah, we're still weird but there's a lot more of us and people at least know who we are. And yeah, sometimes we're funny. Still, though. I don't think I could have taken much of all that without feeling picked on again. Especially if they made light of anything sacred. There is a difference between making fun of something serious and poking fun at something that is, well, funny. --Katie Parker Salt Lake City -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rwilliams Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 07 Feb 2002 16:30:33 -0700 I have a lot to say on the subject of race in Mormonism, so much in fact that this post could easily turn into one of those long list-serve treatises, more likely skimmed than read. So I'll try to keep my thoughts to a minimum, and keep them as civil as possible. Jonathan's proposed guidelines are appropriate and seem like a good set of rules for discussion, mainly because terms like "racist" and "liberal" are already loaded terms, difficult (impossible?) to employ objectively. Still, I think the proposed distinction between a person with racist ideas and an actual racist is a bit specious, and we ought to at least reserve the right to use these terms responsibly. By "responsibly" I mean that we do not use them vindictively, or without at least careful attempts to define them first. That said, I think there are, in fact, two definitions commonly implied in the term "racist." The first, and most popular definition involves discrimination or prejudice based on race, often accompanied by hierarchies of color. The "white" race, it is argued, is superior to all the others, or whatever. No one these days, it seems, besides a few extremists here and there, subscribes to this idea, and this perhaps accounts for the vehemence with which some defend themselves against accusations of racism. The second definition however involves the more simple belief that "race" accounts for differences in human character, ability, or mission in life. This type of "racism" is not necessarily accompanied by feelings of superiority but merely acknowledges (or rather affirms) that races do exist and may determine one's individuality and purpose. In other words, not "racism" but rather "race-ism." Using this second definition, I think it is safe to label most Mormons today "racist." This distinction however naturally raises the question: Is it possible to be a racist of the second type (which, just for now, we'll call "benign racism") without becoming a racist of the first type (for now, "malignant racism")? The malignant version conjures up images of the KKK, Hitler's atrocities, slavery--things we all cringe at, and rightly so. By contrast, the benign version evokes images of, well, seminary teachers, early church leaders, our parents--people we love and respect. So, to state the question another way, how racist are we in our race-ism? I don't think there is any way to avoid the fact that the Mormon church has a long history of racism and race-ism (the former often justified by the latter). For anyone interested in the subject, Eugene England's essay "The Mormon Cross" (published in Dialogue, 1973) should be required reading. Without summarizing his argument here (remember, I'm trying to be brief), I'll just say that his analysis of the church's decision to deny blacks the priesthood from 1853 to 1978 is the best I have read. He was one of the first church members to point out that our benign racism was--contrary to what most were saying at the time--not as benign as we would like to think. It's not a pretty thought, not something I bring up in Sunday School, but it is something to consider. Can any distinction based on something as tenuous as "race" or "blood" really form the basis for one's spiritual identity (in both the pre-earth life and this one)? And, even more importantly, can any insistence that these differences exist NOT imply a hierarchy, NOT imply superiority and inferiority, NOT affect our relationship with "others"? I won't dwell on these questions for long, as I don't want to muddy up the discussion with speculation, but I would like to make one more comment, a connection, something I've noticed that may be of interest here, something that troubles me but is perhaps worth examining. The 1853-1978 decision to deny Blacks the priesthood may in fact be linked to the early Church's rationale for polygamy. Ogden Kraut, whom I consider a quintessential wacko, in his book _Jesus was Married_ inadvertently connected these doctrines, or I should say rather that he points out the connection already made by several members of the early Mormon Church. The argument goes something like this: The Church is practicing polygamy because it is an eternal order, part of the "restoration of all things," something done in times of old and in heaven as well. Jesus, in fact, was married to several women, and had "seed." Now, since Abinadi clearly identifies the "seed" of Christ as the prophets (Mosiah 14-15), and since the Rod that comes forth from the Stem of Jesse (D&C: 113) is Joseph Smith, it makes sense that "he [Joseph Smith] would have the blood of Abraham, Jesse, and the Savior, according to the testimony of scripture and revelation" (Kraut 93). Using this same logic, Heber C. Kimball and others argued that ALL of the latter-day prophets since Christ were literal descendents of Him. Orson Hyde, though, finally polishes the idea when he writes, "How much . . . this doctrine may excite [by which he means "anger"] in persons not impregnated with the blood of Christ, and whose minds are consequently dark and benighted, it may excite still more when they are told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their veins, they are not the chosen or elect of God" (J.D. 4:260). Can you see the connection? J.J. Stewart (another wacko) argued vociferously that the Church would never relinquish its position on polygamy: "As well might the Church relinquish its claim to the Priesthood as the doctrines of plural marriage" (Brigham Young and His Wives, 41). So, the argument goes, the reason the church is denying blacks the priesthood is much the same reason that it is practicing polygamy, both are intricately tied to the concept of _race_. How could one allow someone so obviously not a descendant of Christ (we all know He was white, right) to have the priesthood? Now, please understand, I do NOT subscribe to this idea, but I do think some Church members have implicitly accepted these doctrines as valid racial contingencies. And, as has been suggested already in Andrew's post, we should acknowledge that the Official Declaration of 1890 as well as that of 1978 at the very least introduces some ambiguity as to the doctrinal validity of these concepts. It is also important, of course, to concede that these ideas were fleshed out within a historical context especially conducive to racism. The Mormons were hardly the only ones with racist ideas. Edward Said, in his excellent study _Orientalism_ points out that in the nineteenth century, "_every_ European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric" (204 my emphasis). This blanket accusation may be an exaggeration, but I'm inclined to believe it. The concept of race had been so ingrained in their mush of culture that it would have seemed strange to NOT divide people into races, and to characterize, categorize, and classify accordingly. So what are my thoughts on race-ism? I think Mark Twain's Huck Finn says it best. In a moment when Huck has already decided to write a letter to Jim's owner revealing his whereabouts, Huck begins to have second thoughts. Should he send the letter? Jim has been a good friend, and taken good care of him, but Huck knows that if he doesn't send it, he could go to hell. He's not sure. Should he destroy the note and go to hell, or should he do the "right" thing and force Jim back into slavery? Finally making up his mind, Huck says, "all right then, I'll go to hell," and he rips up the letter, allowing Jim to continue to go unnoticed, a free man. In that decision to "go to hell," I think we finally have a glimpse of an opportunity for redemption. In Huck, I see a childlike innocence to cast aside the culturally constructed pigeonholing of people, and a move into something more Christ-like, something grounded in love. Perhaps this is wishful thinking. Perhaps this is "liberal wishful thinking." If so, then I'm guess I'm a liberal. But I still consider myself a very faithful Mormon. For some reason (and I'm still trying to figure out why), it isn't that difficult for me to accept that our Mormon notions of "race" have been wrong, and that God is still at the helm of this church. Maybe it's precisely because the crucial doctrine of our church has always been revelation, and revelation invites change, changes that seem to be moving in the right direction. The 1978 announcement feels right to me. The decision to abandon all race-ism feels right as well. But whereas 1978 required a church-wide shift in policy, the decision abandon the second "benign" type of racism is more of a personal choice, something one must decide on one's own. I hope we can do it. --John Williams UC Irvine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 18:32:02 EST In a message dated 2/7/02 11:52:36 AM, amyc@xmission.com writes: << Going along with this trend is an interesting sub-topic in the YW lesson I teach this Sunday: having a positive attitude. The lesson doesn't talk about learning to see the good in things, or overlooking the bad, or coping with negativity. No, it says to keep a cheerful face and only say happy things, and eventually, that's what you'll turn into. Someone cheerful. >> This is interesting. Do you have the manual and lesson number or page number? I'd like to read more about this. Thank you. Kurt Weiland. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Douglas Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 07 Feb 2002 15:47:41 -0800 (PST) --0-100382109-1013125661=3D:99755 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Here is an excerpt that touches on one aspect of the subject, from something= I'm working on.---Colin Douglas By the time of the prophet Enoch (not Enoch, son of Cain), some physical= differentiation from the other posterity of Adam seems to have set in, for= it would be said (Moses 7:22) that "the seed of Cain were black" (although= it is not exlicitly stated that this blackness is of the skin, and so it= cannot be said with certainty on the basis of scripture that it does not= refer to a spiritual, rather than a physical, darkness). This passage has= sometimes been cited as evidence that the mark of Cain was a blackness of= skin, but the scripture itself does not make than connection, and,= furthermore, the time of Enoch, the prophet, is five generations removed= from the time of Cain, rather late for a blackness of skin (if that is what= is meant) to be identified with Cain himself. The scriptures also, let it= be noted, make no connection between Cain, or between the posterity of Cain= who were in some sense "black," and any people existing in modern times.= The scriptures mention another people called "the people of Canaan" (Moses= 6:6) and say that "a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that= they were despised among all people" (v. 8). Again, the scriptures do not= say explicitly that this blackness was of the skin. They also do not= identify these people as posterity of Cain (no genealogy at all is given= for the Canaan whose children they are, if indeed "Canaan" is the name of a= person, not the name of a place), and, as with the posterity of Cain, no= scriptural connection is made between these "people of Canaan" and any= people of modern times, and, furthemore, no connection except what may be= an accidental similarity of sound is made between this Canaan of Adamic= times and the Canaan of Abrahamic times. [Colin Douglas] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God Date: 07 Feb 2002 18:33:56 EST In a message dated 2/7/02 11:57:40 AM, jana@enivri.com writes: << Have you read _I Hated Heaven_? It has a Danny DeVito-ish God and is quite funny. >> No, but thank you--sincerely--for the suggestion. (I love Danny DeVito. I think he brings an integrity to the characters he plays. I was sad to see him reduced to a puppet in an iced-tea commercial during the Super Bowl.) Kurt Weiland. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 19:13:26 -0500 I know that *some* mission presidents are sending out a letter with some pretty clear dos and don't about letter writing. The parents were instructed not to write about news from home--nothing about holiday preps and so forth. I guess the idea is that hearing about the family putting up the Christmas tree might make them homesick. I don't happen to agree, but...... Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 19:24:12 -0500 Reminds me of a "re-write" of a popular primary song: "No one likes a gloomy face, So put on a smile! Make the world a happy place By living in denial!" ROB. LAUER >From: "Amy Chamberlain" > > >From what I understand, the Powers That Be are now encouraging >missionaries >to NOT write home ANYTHING NEGATIVE. At all. Is this true, those of you who >are more in to the MTC scene these days than I am? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 Date: 07 Feb 2002 17:49:29 -0700 Eileen Stringer wrote: > Kumiko wrote: > >> With two Mormon casino bandits, "Ocean's Eleven" is STILL the top >> money-maker of this list, dropping from 11th place last week to 15th this > > > Having seen this movie three times now - I really don't believe that these > guys are actually Mormons. My impression is that is their nickname and they > come from Provo - I suppose they could be part of the 3 percent in Provo who aren't Mormon. hence the rest of the gang calls them Mormons. So the > "Mormon" or "LDS" element/connection under this category is, in my mind, > really stretching it. There is nothing in the movie to support your position that these fellows *aren't* Mormons. Since they are called Mormons and no evidence suggests otherwise, it would be stretching it to suggest that ther *weren't* Mormons. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus Date: 07 Feb 2002 20:31:22 -0700 on 2/7/02 3:23 PM, cgileadi@emerytelcom.net at cgileadi@emerytelcom.net wrote: > I believe that he had an arresting > appearance, very compelling, that demanded that people respond to him. "...with no apparent beauty, that man should him desire..." Opens it up for all kinds of images, doesn't it? :-) Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Date: 07 Feb 2002 21:17:13 -0700 I found this in a search on the GospelLinks CD. >From _Who Am I?_, by Alvin R. Dyer, p. 473-474: "While yet among men upon the earth in the days of his minsitry, Marcus, a Roman lawyer who resided at Jerusalem, wrote this description of the personal appearance of the Lord: "'Jesus of Nazareth, sometimes called the Galilian, was a most remarkable person. In stature he was above medium height straight and tall. His complexion was fair. His hair was of a brown color, and fell in heavy curls upon his shoulders. His eyes were blue, and possessed such a penetrating power that no man could meet his gaze. His beard was of a deep wine color, fine and full; it is said that he was never shaved. His countenance was majestic, calm and serene, bearing the impress of wisdom, justice and love' "The Apostle John, while imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos, beheld in vision the resurrected and glorified Son of God, who proclaimed himself to be: 'Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.' His appearance, while the same in image and stature as when he was upon the earth, glowed with light, intelligence, and power. 'His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire; ... his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.' "The Prophet Joseph Smith, with Oliver Cowdery, beheld the Lord in the Kirtland Temple, giving a like description of him, saying: '... his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun.' It is apparent from these two descriptions of the resurrected Lord, that his whole person is enveloped in light or fire, a substance or spiritual element which obtains in the presence of God. Since the Son dwells on the right hand of the Father he also dwells in light or fire which causes his countenance to shine with a brilliance of light." As I understand it, the Lord can appear both in his glory, and as he looked in mortality, without his glory upon him. Kathy Fowkes Mesa, AZ ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Roots Plagarized? Date: 07 Feb 2002 23:17:36 -0700 jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote: > > But, until I see any firm proof of this accusation about Alex Haley, > I will give him the benefit of the doubt about his quest and the > book he said sprang from that quest. I, for one, could give a flaming fig whether Haley's story is true or not. It is still powerful. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 23:21:58 -0700 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > I don't know if any missionaries in my mission went home without sin or > medical reasons. How often does someone actually have the guts to say, "I > don't like this, it's not for me, I'm out of here?" Paul Baines, the missionary in my play _Matters of the Heart_ says essentially this same thing. Everytime I produce the show, I find a good percentage of the audience are men and women who came home early from their missions for various reasons, all of whom have similar stories of alienation to tell. (Now that was fun, turning the post back to a literay theme plus tooting my own horn at the same time) Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 23:40:34 -0700 Sure. All these lessons are online, by the way, but if you have the manual (#3,) it's in Lesson 5, on p. 18. Read the story under the heading "Creating a Spiritual Home Environment Requires Preparation and Work." It's about a young woman who learned to "forc[e] herself to get up and pretend to be cheerful." To me, that's a bit disturbing. Maybe it's just me. Amy Chamberlain ----- Original Message ----- > > This is interesting. Do you have the manual and lesson number or page number? > I'd like to read more about this. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 23:43:39 -0700 I'm not talking about how missionaries shouldn't learn to see the good in things. Of course they should; it's a good lesson for anyone. I'm talking about missionaries being under real psychological stress and not being able to write home about it (not everyone feels really comfortable discussing such stress with their mission presidents). And for me, no, smiles do not make a lot of things better. Amy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 08 Feb 2002 00:35:40 -0700 [MOD: This is a compilation of two responses by Michael.] Amy Chamberlain wrote: > > Yes, Michael, I agree with the translation you've provided: > > > Translation: our music is inspired, so if you don't like it, you must be > > out of tune with God. > > But isn't this how all Church-sponsored music or art is presented? I mean, > it's not just peculiar to the "Light of the World" production, is it? Or is > it just me? That was my point. I'd hoped this one might be different, since the church is trying for image instead of proselyting this go-round. So far, indications are not promising. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. Kristy Thomas wrote: > I can listen to my six-year-old sing a simple primary song (out of tune, no > less) and feel the spirit of her sincere little heart and > be moved to tears that such a sweet little soul can have such a > testimony. (She amazes me, but I digress). > > I read into the article, not arrogance, but humility. Sure some people will > criticize it, just as they would my daughter singing her little songs, or > what I say when I bear my testimony, or, for that matter, some people will > criticize the greatest works of art. But these artists are not your daughter singing primary songs. They are passing themselves off as professionals, writing professional music for the consumption of the world during a world-class celebration. They had better be producing professional music and not be relying on the standard Mormon audience's easy tears, or the end result may be an embarrassment for the church, not an image-builder. > I read into it, that people who come prepared to hear the sincere messages > of testimony and love that we have for the Savior, will accept it, even if > it has shortcomings, in the sincerity in which it was intended - "inspired" > or not. Who are these people you're talking about? Is this supposed to be more feel-good, faith-affirming stuff for the local Mormon audience? I thought this was for the consumption of a wide assortment of people from all over the world. Are you saying the luge team from the Congo ought to know to come with the right spirit, or they're just out of luck enjoying the program? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 08 Feb 2002 01:46:47 -0700 I grew up having to deal with the blacks and priesthood issue, in spite of the fact that I personally knew virtually no blacks. Knowing no blacks whom the policy impacted, I was free to keep the whole thing arm's length at a theoretical level. Then the 1978 policy change occurred. My biggest memory of the time was a letter to the editor in Time Magazine, which said something to the effect that, if the Mormon Church was so racist, why was there this big sigh of relief from its members when the change came? That's how I felt. I defended the policy as best as I could at the time, because I believed it was of divine origin and felt obligated to. But hoo boy! was I glad when I could stop. Many years later I made the dubious decision to join AML-List, where my simple, pristine views of eternity became forever corrupted by actual thought. When the likes of Thom Duncan and others suggested that the policy had never been of divine origin, I was upset. I was upset because I felt betrayed, having to go through the misery of defending that thing long ago when it wasn't true after all. I was glad it was over, but I had a hard time reconciling that prophets of God could let a fallacious doctrine like that which caused substantial harm to a group of people go on for so long. But now I am swimming in maturity and wisdom, and have a very different view of theology, prophets, and God's modus operandi for dealing with mortals. I have been _forced_ to develop a very different view than I grew up with, because my former, simplistic view does not hold up to muster against the facts. If my current view is incorrect, I'm not sure I could maintain my belief in the gospel. This doesn't bother me, because I think my current view makes more sense and is actually more respectful toward the prophets, toward God, toward members of the church, and toward human beings generally. I feel confident that it won't prove incorrect. Applying all this to the issue of blacks and the priesthood, I have come to the conclusion that there are three possible ways to account for that doctrine: 1. It really was of divine origin. For some reason there were a group of pre-existent spirits who would not be called to hold the priesthood in mortal life, and God set up a way for us to recognize them. There is a serious danger to this theory which can easily come about, but which is hardly inevitable. The danger is assuming the reason has to do with an inferiority about those spirits. I wouldn't dare assume such a thing, and never did. Such reasoning would necessarily result in a form of racism, something which is clearly contrary to the gospel. Even if this theory turned out to be true, anyone who justifies racism from it is in serious need of repentance. 2. There was no divine reason to withhold the priesthood from a specific group of people, but the policy was divinely inspired for pragmatic reasons. Much as the framers of the Declaration of Independence chose the lesser of two evils by removing the censure of slavery to get the South to sign on, otherwise the whole issue would become moot, God's primary concern about the early church was survival. In the cultural environment of the times, to have blacks put on a truly equal footing with whites, even to the point where they could have authority over whites, may have been more than society could stomach, and might have destroyed the church. Then what would it have mattered that blacks were given the priesthood? I am not nearly enough of a historian to know how viable this theory is, but if it turned out to be true, then I could only assume that the delay in changing the policy (all the way to 1978) was to ease the members of the church into a position where they were ready to handle it. Perhaps the years of criticism toward the church and this doctrine were necessary to get members to accept it without massive desertion. Criticism from the rest of the country toward the policy didn't even start until a decade before the change, so if it took that long for society as a whole to start seeing the injustice in it, is it surprising that Mormons took a while? 3. The doctrine was spurious all along. It grew out of the attitudes of the times, which church leaders were subject to as much as anybody else. God, ever the respecter of free agency, did not intervene until a church leader did some serious questioning and praying about it, and God said, okay, enough is enough, you've finally shown me you're ready to get rid of this tragic legacy from an earlier age. God made room for slavery within the Law of Moses, doing what he could to make it as humane as possible in a worldwide culture which hadn't yet even thought the idea that slavery was evil. There is ample evidence that God respects human culture, even if aspects of the culture are highly questionable. As revolutionary as divine revelation can be, it never revolutionizes the status quo to the point where God's children can't handle it. Which of these theories are true? I would tend to lean toward 2 or 3 as the most likely. But my real answer is, I don't care. Even if I had a personal vision stating that #1 is true, I wouldn't care. My feelings are, it's in the past now, and the important thing is, we have a whole segment of God's children which are understandably and legitimately offended by our past policy. If I were president of the church, I would gladly proclaim theory #3 as true (even if I knew better) and offer up an apology for the past, in an attempt to reconcile this painful schism. The souls of our brothers and sisters are much more important than saving face. There is one other area where official LDS doctrine seems to make a statement about race: Lamanites and the Book of Mormon. The Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin because they were evil and loathsome. I have no problem assuming that this is purely a legacy of the racist attitudes of the times, and not genuine divine doctrine. I question whether the "Lamanites" really were Lamanites. One man's family sailed the ocean and landed somewhere in Central America, most likely. He died, and his family split into two factions called Lamanites and Nephites, based on who supported which of two rival brothers. The Nephites flee for their lives and settle elsewhere. All of a sudden they start talking about how they're surrounded by a bunch of Lamanites. Were they really? Or were these "Lamanites" actually natives to the area, and the Nephites merely assumed were descendants of the original Lamanite faction? But these natives were darker-skinned than the original Lamanites. By gosh, God must have cursed them with dark skin to punish them for their evil and loathsomeness. I can see such a folk doctrine easily developing under the circumstances, and dutifully reported within the chronicle Nephi made. In other words, I think it most likely that all the issues of race that Mormonism has been plagued with are of human, not divine, origin. As a clincher, I recently came across a paper on the Internet that says there is no such thing as race. There are merely trends in genetics within geographical regions that humans have categorized as race, but which trends do not easily fit within set categories. If there really is no such thing as race at a genetic level, how on earth can there be a divine policy toward race? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons on Saturday Night Live Date: 08 Feb 2002 09:07:12 EST In a message dated 2/7/02 6:55:03 PM, jlang2@pressenter.com writes: << We also = wished that they had said the full name of the Church instead of just The = Church of the Latter-day Saints.=20 >> Last night's "Biography" (on A&E) profiled Gladys Knight. Towards the end of the program came the comment she joined "the Church of the Latter-day Saints." Bam! So much for reportorial accuracy. Kurt. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deborah and Mike South Subject: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus Date: 08 Feb 2002 08:55:21 -0700 Jerry Tyner wrote: > Speaking personally, I hope my resurrected body is not a perfected form = > of my current body. I am 5'6" tall and 125 pounds (I was 105 lbs. in = > high school and 112 lbs. in College and on my mission). I do not think I = > would be very impressive figure to anyone, resurrected or not. I want to = > look like Arnold! > Will I be disappointed if He isn't like I envision Him? No, absolutely = > not. I just hope I'm worthy to stand in His presence and know Him for = > myself. Hey, if He is my height that would be very cool. I wonder how = > many people would be bothered by that?! My father (who is 5'5") has always held the theory that after the resurrection everyone will float around at eye-level so height won't be much of an issue anymore. --Mike South -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:03:36 -0600 I have no inherent problem with the notion that descendants of the House of Israel may be scattered among many different lands and places. What I'm not sure I buy into is the common Mormon notion that this makes a difference in how well people do or don't respond to the teaching of the gospel or corresponds to any innate spiritual condition. I hear a lot of that from time to time in various venues in the Church: statements, for example, that the work of missionaries is to "seek out the blood of Israel," which sometimes seems to be meant figuratively (i.e., that anyone who would embrace the gospel becomes the blood of Israel) but seems clearly meant literally at other times. (I seem to recall that even Pres. Kimball made statements to this effect.) I find that some Church members--a minority, but including many of those who are considered by other members as "gospel scholars" (the type who speak up a lot in gospel doctrine class)--make reference to this notion of the blood of Israel very often. Others (including some that fall into the "gospel scholar" type) make little mention of this idea, or in a much more metaphoric way. This seems to me to be a great, but largely undiscussed, dichotomy in how different members view the gospel: those who take the notion of the blood of Israel literally, and those who don't. (A much larger third class, I suspect, would include those who have never thought about it much one way or the other.) I think the literal-blood-of-Israel viewpoint used to be much more common in the Church than it is now. It is my perception that those from the literal-blood-of-Israel camp (at least at the typical ward level) tend to be unaware that there are others who disagree with this interpretation. The reverse may be true as well: that is, many of those who interpret this metaphorically may be unaware that there are those who very seriously interpret it literally. (It would be interesting--but outside the bounds of this post--to consider whether this dichotomy correlates to other literal-figurative splits in gospel interpretation: e.g., views on organic evolution and on the literal historicity of the first part of Genesis. Possible fuel there for thinking about Mormon character types in fiction.) As to my own views: I don't want to deny the blessings that are pronounced on the descendants of Israel, but it seems to me that these are fulfilled primarily in a temporal and historical sense: that it was through the Jews and other descendants of Israel that (a) Jesus came to earth, and (b) vital gospel ideas were dispersed. The latter of these, in particular, played an important role in preparing the way both for the initial spread of Christ's message and then for the restored gospel. Once we pass from those historical relationships to statements about personal spirituality, I become very uneasy. I have a hard time believing that anyone can earn spiritual blessings as a result of the actions of an ancestor. This seems to me (among other things) to place our temporal ancestry (parentage on Earth) above our spiritual ancestry (as offspring of Heavenly Parents): a reversal of priorities, or so I would think. Any difference in blessings that comes from earthly ancestry would have to be, so I would think, an earthly difference only. It's harder to argue on doctrinal grounds with the notion that God may simply place more valiant spirits into particular lineages--but it's hard for me to see why this would be the case, unless it was that there were particular missions that could be best accomplished by placing particular spirits into particular ancestries. I think that probably is the case, and I have no problem with the notion that God sends specific spirits to specific circumstances, both for their own good and to carry out specific missions. But it seems to me that following this kind of logic, it would be at least as likely that a particularly valiant spirit would be sent to a dysfunctional family or community to help them improve as that a particular lineage would get consistently righteous or valiant spirits. (On this note, I had a companion on my mission who claimed that anyone who was born into the Church was inherently a more valiant spirit than anyone who had been born outside the Church--possibly based on that talk of Alvin R. Dyer's that someone else has cited. Even including prophets like Joseph Smith, I asked, who were born outside the covenant but with a clear mission to help restore it? Even including them, he said. I thought this was one of the most bizarre ideas I had ever heard, and treated it as an anthropological curiosity--evidence that fellow active Church members could believe things I would never even have considered believing.) I have a real problem with language that describes a lineage as "righteous" or "unrighteous." I'm not sure that righteousness has any real meaning, outside its application to individuals. I *do* believe that it's possible to have communities where it is more or less easy to grow up with a knowledge of truth, and of how to live to be truly happy. I even think it's possible for a community to become so corrupt that it's almost impossible for a child to find his or her way to light and truth growing up in that community--which is (I would tend to believe) when a community is truly ripe for destruction. But that's an extreme case. Part of the promise of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ for me, however, is that any such differences in our temporal conditions of mortality can and will be made up for by Christ's atonement and God's timeline. In other words, regardless of any handicaps of birth condition and rearing, every child of God has an equal opportunity at exaltation. Some will take advantage of it, others won't; but the actions of others will not, in the end, stand between anyone and his or her chance at exaltation, in even the slightest degree. That's a fairly bedrock belief for me, part of what makes the God I understand one who, in my view, deserves worship. So I'm likely to have problems with any statements or interpretations related to race or lineage that seem to imply eternal advantage or disadvantage to any particular group of God's children, based on or as a result of (or even as evidenced in) earthly ancestry. A lot of other people have already commented on the question of blacks and the priesthood. I'll only share briefly a few thoughts on my part. When Pres. Kimball's proclamation was announced, the reaction on the part of every Church member I personally knew was unalloyed joy--even among those who had propounded theories like preexistent choice. (I've since found one or two disgruntled Church members, but never more than a tiny minority in any area where I've lived.) I haven't studied the historical record, but I have no problem personally with the notion that this may be a policy that was instituted for reasons of unrighteousness among the Saints, or even that it may have been a policy that was *not* instituted by commandment but that, once instituted, required revelation to reverse. Leonard Arrington's account of this in _Adventures of a Church Historian_ ("The Long-Promised Day") is brief but suggestive (and excellent). Someone else already made mention of Gene England's excellent essay on this topic, "The Mormon Cross." I didn't read it until after the 1978 change in policy, so it was more a historical curiosity than a burning issue for me at the time. (I was 16 in 1978.) But I found his reasoning both convincing and superb, as he carefully dismantled every major justification of which I'm aware that had been offered for the policy of denying the priesthood to black members, and was left with simply the fact of the policy as a cross that Church members had to bear, until it was changed by revelation. (I found Gene's attempt to do the same with polygamy in another essay less convincing, but that's a topic for another time...) What struck me most about the essay, though, was his account of an interview with Joseph Fielding Smith (at that time an apostle), in which England asked whether it was Church doctrine that the reason for blacks not having the priesthood was because of status in the preexistence. Smith said yes; England asked (with trepidation) if he could show him where it appeared in the scriptures; they looked at scriptures together, and Smith (as I recall) essentially ended by saying, "You know, I always thought that this was in the scriptures, but it doesn't seem to be clearly spelled out, so I guess Church members are free to believe in that reason for the policy or not as they please." Of course, we don't have Joseph Fielding Smith's account of the conversation! But I was particularly impressed (in Gene's account) by Smith's willingness to go to the scriptures and reconsider a long-held view in their light. I wish more of us (myself included) might be so willing to reconsider long-held views. (This essay of Gene's has been reprinted in one of his essay collections, possible _Dialogues with Myself_; it's worth getting hold of.) At this point, I think there's little overt racism on the level of beliefs among Church members. There's probably still a lot of racism at the level of actions and reactions, independent of conscious belief. But except for small fringe groups, it seems to me that at this time, statements about the blood of Israel and claims on how ancestry interacts with righteousness are less a matter of concern in relation to possible racism than because they may reflect a misunderstanding of personal responsibility and choice. If that makes sense. Jonathan Langford Speaking not as AML-List moderator, but on my own responsibility and choice... jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Roots Plagarized? Date: 08 Feb 2002 09:57:04 -0700 [MOD: From what I saw from looking at this Web site, it appears that Williams is primarily a commenter on economics and politics, not literary composition and scholarship, and that this venue (Townhall.com) is very much the same crowd that contributes to _National Review_. Williams may have some useful things to say, but I doubt that his words will get us any closer to knowing what the generally accepted view is outside that particular community.] Send an email to Walter Williams. I don't have his email address but it can be found at Townhall.com. He will send you an email back with all the details, he's a great guy, though a real stickler for honesty. He is black himself and has no patience with dishonesty regarding black history. He's an economics professor of the Austrian persuasion and a really sharp fellow. I haven't corresponded with him for a couple of years but I still read all his columns. He recently wrote a couple of columns about Haley. Jim Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 07 Feb 2002 20:50:06 -0700 When a good friend of mine came home from her mission, she confided to me that for a good portion of her mission she believed she was a failure as a missionary. No matter how hard she tried, she wasn't having tons of those big experiences you hear about in homecomings. It wasn't until the end of her mission that she realized that when a missionary reports at home and tells those stories, he's probably telling ALL of the big events of his mission, not a sampling of dozens. She said how much she wished she would have been told that bit of information ahead of time. Then she would have known how hard a mission is, and what to expect. And she wouldn't have beat herself up for nearly a year and a half, either. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Stealth Religion in Literature Date: 08 Feb 2002 10:47:45 -0700 There have been several posts over the last couple of months about Mormon culture versus the actual religion, and how to put it into literature. I want to argue that the best way is via stealth. By that I don't mean by deception, rather that the sources are just left out. Philosophy, religion, and politics have been the primary purpose of literature until only a few years ago, and novels of every stripe are rarely considered great unless there is some socially redeeming element. Nobody considers Mac Bolan or The Babysitter's Club great literature, despite the inclusion of philosophical arguments in those and most formula novels. Even a formula novel may be political screed in disguise. >From Jonathan Swift to Charles Dickens to Tom Wolfe political or religious or philosophical points have been made in novels, with greater or lesser stealth depending on the writer and the topic. They did not invent the concept, however, even though novels are themselves quite a recent invention. During the 19th century an old argument was taken up regarding the parables of Jesus. It had been argued off and on since the 1st century that the parables must be true because Jesus would never tell a lie. Others argued that they weren't necessarily lies just because they didn't take place. The parables were illustrative stories to make specific points, and were not to be taken literally. In the 19th century this debate was raised again in several places, the Prebyterians particularly were adamantly certain that the parables were literally true stories. This was used as one more reason why novels ought never to be read by any God-fearing person. The concept of novels as lies has since fallen by the wayside, and we may say the opposite extreme has been reached. Hemingway or Faulkner are often quoted as holy writ in some circles, and there have been some truly terribly "political" novels written that are given far too much weight. For Mormons a middle road would probably be best. I have tried to do this in my own writing but it is difficult, because it is only natural to want to share all the things one has learned. Instead of writing something that can only be understood by another Mormon, it would be better to throw in Mormon beliefs as if they were common, everyday beliefs that are not much challenged by the world in general. There are not that many differences in everyday life between our beliefs and those of almost any other religion, the differences are usually more theological than practical. Instead of accentuating differences it might be better to accentuate similarities. The religion I manufactured for my fantasy world has elements of Zoroastrianism, Islam, various brands of Christianity, and Norse, Etruscan, Vedic and Greek myths. The overall tone of that religion, and the common beliefs of how things are supposed to work, are very obviously Mormon, but only to a Mormon reader. This religion is very well documented, including several of their texts and prophecies, because it's used by five different books (so far) and so has to be cover a large area. In each particular novel, however, it is best to stick to a single principle or theme. Like giving a good talk in church, having a single religious theme that is seen from several different sides makes the story both more comprehensible and enjoyable. When I pick up a novel that tries to make the point "just be yourself" I throw it down in disgust, but I'm grateful to the author for making it easy for me to catch on quickly. I heartily sick of that argument, since I doubt anybody would say such a thing to Hitler or Ted Bundy. The stuff I enjoy reading can have a point I disagree with, but a book that preaches on too many different issues, even if I agree with it, gets boring quickly. A good current example is the Honor Harrington series by David Weber. The underlying theme of all nine books in the series is the overwhelming importance of duty. These are science ficiton novels, not generally read for instruction, but almost every point, subtly or blantantly, relates to that theme. That is how the good characters are told from the bad; the good guys do their duty, the bad guys don't. The good guys politically do their duty by the people; the bad guys refuse their duty and exploit the people. It goes on and on. At one point the heroine refuses the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor because she didn't consider her actions as "above and beyond the call of duty;" it was merely her duty and she did it. This is something I hope to see more of in literature in general. I want to like the characters in the novels I read. Even a point that is not really instructive to me is something I welcome. I don't need to be told that duty is important, but I still like reading it. Every single individual on earth is alone, because we never know what the world looks like from behind another set of eyes. Even if you put yourself in somebody else's shoes you're still seeing with your eyes and thinking with your brain. Writing is one of only a few ways to catch a glimpse of somebody else's brain, because it unconsciously reveals more than even the author wants. By making a religious point clearly but stealthily it is possible to transmit even more than is intended and make others who might think the same feel less alone. Even if they are not LDS themselve they might recognize a truth when they read it, and after all "Man is that he might have joy." We ought not be too miserly with the joy that comes from being a Latter-day Saint. Jim Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frances Subject: [AML] Books on History and Old Testament Date: 08 Feb 2002 12:14:35 -0800 I am looking for scholarly and faith-promoting books which integrate LDS doctrine and the Old Testament with current research and theories in history, anthropology, geology, evolution, geography, palaentology, etc. Any suggestions? Thanks, Frances Warden, warden@burgoyne.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 08 Feb 2002 14:33:37 -0600 Amy Chamberlain wrote: >> The lesson doesn't talk about learning to see the good in things, or overlooking the bad, or coping with negativity. No, it says to keep a cheerful face and only say happy things, and eventually, that's what you'll turn into. Someone cheerful. << I was stuck in the MTC with a weeper. He was from Provo, and he could look out the window of our room and see the roof of his house. We could walk to the Wilkinson Center and he could see the table where he'd eat every day with his girlfriend. We could walk across campus on p-day and he'd see his father's office window. And every time he'd see these things he'd weep. I wanted to strangle him. When he wasn't weeping, my companion was a smile-Nazi. He was one of those people who feel that the lack of a smile betrays the absence of the Spirit (he did often smile through his tears, forming a ghastly grimmace that still shows up in my nightmares). I imagine he used to walk around campus telling people to "smile - it can't be that bad!" The first time he told me to smile I bared my teeth and said that a grin is preparatory to ripping out someone's throat. He thought I had a bad attitude. I learned Portuguese better than anyone else in the MTC, and told him the Spirit must like my attitude just fine. One day in the cafeteria they served liver. I sat down with the rest of my district, said a quick and silent prayer, looked at the liver and prayed again, then stabbed it with my knife. It bled. Copiously. I'd pierced a vein, and when I cut it open, the vein hung out, limp, fibrous, dripping. I expressed my disgust in elegant Portuguese. My companion told me (in very bad Portuguese) that I should always have a positive attitude. I'd have plunged my knife into his heart if I hadn't been wearing a white shirt. I had a wonderful time in the MTC, and it continued on my mission. I wrote about it in graphic detail in my journal and in letters to friends. The details were less graphic in letters home - I didn't want my mother calling the COB and my mission president and raising a fuss - but I never misrepresented the joyful time I was having. My first companion was consumed by fungus which left his clothes in tatters and his skin red and weepy. I fell in a pothole and my ankle quadrupled in size. We got lost in the night and ended up in a field filled with Macumba fires, bleeding animals, and scary-looking people beating drums. I had a fever of 105 and my weight fell 20 pounds in a month (to 130; I'm 6'2"). My companion made me crazy and I threw a frying pan at him. I made my companion crazy and he threw my suitcase off the balcony. It really was a good time, and my friends and family knew it. It would have been a better time if I hadn't been surrounded by people with utterly unrealistic expectations about the people they were with and the experiences they'd have. My MTC companion turned into a reasonable human being about a year into his mission (alas, we were assigned to the same city, the same house, when we arrived in Brazil, so the entire time I lived with him he was a weepy-cheerful twit). Not everyone did. Some got very bitter, some never lost the desire to make the world sing in perfect harmony, some just went ahead and played footsy with female investigators. Then Ensign may not be ready to publish negative mission experiences, or even ho-hum experiences that don't leave everyone dazzled by the Spirit. I didn't go into the mission field with any illusions, though, and even without cautionary Ensign tales, I don't see why anyone should. I guess Mormons just have unreasonable expectations. Go on a mission, marry in the temple, do your home teaching, pay your tithing, and fulfill your callings, and life will be sunny and you'll die in your sleep, surrounded by dozens of weepy-smily descendants who'll later report seeing your parents reach through the vail to welcome you home. Please. Life is full of bumps, and we need to learn to enjoy them, to go "whee" when we're tossed in the air and our marbles all go flying. There's much joy to be had in contemplating the horrible death of your mission companion. I know. I wrote it all down. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Re: Depictions of Jesus Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:05:45 -0700 I sent my co-author Richard Hopkins's post about depictions of Jesus. What follows is Darius Gray's response. I know it's long, but for th= ose with an interest, it should offer a fruitful trip through the scriptures. > The standard Kings Jame version is replete with endless accounts of > intermarriage and interbreeding.I refer you to Genesis 10: 6-20, > wherein the descendents of Ham are clearly identified. You may also > wish to consult the Joseph Smith Jr. translations at JST Genesis 10= :4 > and JST Genesis 10:9 (included below). A similar listing of Ham's l= ine > is found in > I Chronicles 1:8-16. After becoming familiar with these names a rev= iew > of the scriptures present further light and knowledge. > Ham's offspring are cited in both the old and the new testaments: > Hagar, the Egyptian, provided a son to Abraham while probing Sara's > love for Abraham > (Genesis 16:1, Genesis 16:3) > Rahab, the harlot of Jericho, a Canaanite, gave shelter and safety = to > the Israelite spies; > (Joshua 2:1, Joshua 6:17) > Jebus, grandson of Ham, who founded the holy city of Jerusalem - Go= d's > chosen city. (Judges 19:10-11, 1 Chronicles 11:4-5, Joshua 15:8, > Joshua 15:63,) > Pharaoh's daughter who raised Moses as her own son. > (Exodus 2:9, Exodus 2:10, Acts 7:21) > Shuah, the Canaanite wife of Judah; > (Genesis 38:2, JST Genesis 38:2) > Tamar, who was impregnated by her father-in-law, Judah; > (Genesis 38:6-24, Ruth 4:12) > Uriah the Hittite, husband of Bathsheba and loyal servant of king > David; > (2 Samuel 11:3-24) > The Ethiopian wife of Moses defended by God Himself when Aaron and > Miriam > were troubled by her race; > (Numbers 12:1) > Asenath, wife of Joseph and daughter of an Egyptian Sun God priest; > (Gen. 41:45, 41:50, 46:20) > Pharaoh's daughter whom Solomon took to wife; > (1 Kings 7:8, 1 Kings 9:24) > Sheba, the queen who undertook to prove Solomon > (1 Kings 10:1, 2 Chronicles 9:1) > Simon the Cyrenian who carried the cross for The Savior; > (Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26, JST Mark 15:24) > Simon the Canaanite, listed as an apostle of the Lord. > (Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26, JST Mark 15:24) > The Zidonian widow who gave her last cake to Elijah the prophet > (1 Kings 17:9) > Many Eurocentric writers have hastened to depict each of these > individuals as non- black. Surely not all of them have been > mislabeled. Possibly, none has been. There is little to suggest th= ese > individuals -- and thousands more cited in the Bible -- are wrongly > placed in Ham's family tree. And if we consider the accepted premis= e > that one drop of Negro blood "makes" a person black, than there is > even greater reason to not deny the possibility of blackness among > these individuals. > Genesis 36:2 > 2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter= of > Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter = of > Zibeon the Hivite; > Genesis 38:2 > 2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name > [was] Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her. > Exodus 6:14 > 14 =B6 These [be] the heads of their fathers' houses: The sons of R= euben > the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi: thes= e > [be] the families of Reuben. > > Exodus 6:15 > 15 And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, > and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman: these [are] th= e > families of Simeon. > > Judges 3:5 > 5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, = and > Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites: > > Judges 3:6 > 6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their > daughters to their sons, and served their gods. > > 1 Kings 11:1 > 1 =B6 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the > daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, > Zidonians, [and] Hittites; > > > JST Genesis 10:4 > 4 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And > the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and > Sabtechah. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. > > JST Genesis 10:9 > 9 And Canaan begat Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth, and the Jebusite= , > and the Amorite, and Girgashite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, an= d > the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and Zemarite, and the Hamathite; and > afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. > > Darius Gray -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Walter Kirn on Mormonism and Olympics Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:33:53 -0700 Writing in Time, former-Mormon novelist and writer Walter Kirn makes some interesting statements. Some highlights, followed by the link to the complete article: Mormons and the Olympic Ideal Walter Kirn on why 'A sound mind and a sound body' is followed more closely by the Saints than by modern-day Olympic athletes As a Mormon teenager in the 1970s, I was constantly admonished by church elders to keep my body strong and pure - free of alcohol, drugs and nicotine, and even of the caffeine in Coca-Cola. My spiritual health, according to church doctrine, was contingent on my physical health, as if my soul and my bloodstream were connected. These teachings were outlined in the Word of Wisdom, a crucial prophetic revelation given to Joseph Smith, the church's founder. Smith had a unique conception of God. Far from being some misty omniscient presence, God was a being of flesh, bone and hair who'd once been a man but became, in time, through a mysterious process known as "eternal progression," a kind of superman. Lay off the six-packs, cigarettes and sodas, and I could be one too someday, I learned. As an aid in this process, the chapel where I worshipped adjoined a full-sized, well-equipped gymnasium that put my high school facility to shame. Few Christian sects that I know of place such an emphasis on physical development, or link it so closely to moral virtue, which makes Mormon Utah a fitting setting for the Olympic Games. The athletic prowess revered by ancient Athenians is equally important to modern Mormons. Steve Young, the Hall-of-Fame-bound NFL quarterback and a distant relation of Brigham Young, was, for the duration of his career, the quintessence of Mormon manhood--an earthly model for aspiring gods. No wonder that Utah, in survey after survey, has ranked first in the nation in longevity and last in the prevalence of certain diseases. [. . .] when the Olympians land in Salt Lake City, they'll be coming home, as surely as if they were visiting ancient Athens. Both cities are centered on temples and both believe that the body is a temple too. It's an archaic teaching nowadays, and as kid who liked to share a beer with schoolmates who weren't bound by Mormon doctrine, I found it hard to follow. Still, it was something to shoot for, and by trying I probably moved an inch closer to future godhood than I would have had it not existed. Hey, a lot of Olympians fall short too. It's the attempt that matters, though. The struggle. One hopes that this struggle hasn't been abandoned yet - that deep inside all of our temples, that light still shines. http://www.time.com/time/olympics2002/article/0,8599,198830,00.html Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:14:44 -0700 I have been systematically forwarding all posts on this subject to my co-author, Darius Gray. I have wanted to respond to EVERYTHING, but finally just realized I do not have time. Publicity for our second book of the _Standing on the Promises_ trilogy (which covers some interesting information on the priesthood restriction, by the way) is in full swing, and I am drowning in events and that precarious balancing act of raising children while promoting a book. Besides, I couldn't say what I would want to say in a simple post. Nor could Darius. We'll be doing a press conference, as part of the Olympics, on Wed. Feb. 13 at 8:30 in the morning. I guarantee, the race question will be raised. Darius said that if any AML folks want to pursue the subject further at a give-and-take, we'd love to participate in that. But not at my house, please. The subject is so difficult and fraught with controversy, I think it'd be good to get together and just talk. Anyone have a roomy place to do that? Darius and I can certainly present what we have. Last week in D.C., after a fireside and during the q/a section, a young black woman asked about the curse of Cain. She said the missionaries had taught her about it and asked her to pray about it. Well, she had never gotten a "peaceful" feeling regarding that particular piece of supposed doctrine. And Darius dispelled it as folklore, and took on several other bits of folkore (valiency in the pre-existence, fence sitters, etc.). He was met with huge applause. I sensed a HUNGER from African Americans--who have joined this Church despite tremendous opposition from friends and family precisely because we Mormons are yet perceived as racist--to be validated, vindicated, and fully INCLUDED as fellow citizens in the household of faith. That's all I have time to write. I suggest further dialogue at someone's home. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] GILMORE, _Shot in the Heart_ (Review) part 4 Date: 08 Feb 2002 00:17:07 -0800 [Note, Parts 1 & 2 of this review were published Jan. 17, part 3 was published Jan. 19. If you missed them and want them drop me a note.] "Can you imagine what it feels like to mother a son whom you love that deprives two other mothers of their sons? "If I had been there, he never would have killed those two boys. I know I could have stopped him, I could have calmed his heart," she said, and then buried her face in her hands, and all the tears they held (p. 323). Part 4 "I am the brother of a man who murdered innocent men" When I had almost finished part 3 and put it away for the night it occurred to me (never start thinking when you're trying to go to sleep) that someone was going to read the review and say something like, "Typical bleeding heart liberal trying to excuse Gary Gilmore's murders because he had a bad childhood." Some observations. First, knowing Whose heart bleeds such an epithet is an honor I am hardly worthy of. Second, if you think Gilmore's purpose is to excuse murder, read the book. A story will give a better sense of what a phrase like 'bad childhood' can mean than any abstract argument. Third, as Bessie Gilmore's words above indicate, having a murderer in the family is not something you write a book to excuse. You write to try and understand what produced the murder because it's something that rends your family every bit as much as it rends the victims' families. You write to save your life, for though Mikal Gilmore mourns profoundly for his brother and the rest of the family, the book is not so much a requiem for the dead Gilmores as a way to keep from joining them. So it might be worth talking a bit about what it means to write a book to save your life. Mikal starts with a dream of Gary coming back and handing him a pistol. He puts it in his mouth, pulls the trigger, feels his teeth dissolving, brains falling out his mouth and the back of his head, then nothing. He is not with his brother and family as promised. Gary has lied. That's a tension all through the book, does he join in the violence of his family or save himself from it? Clearly his choice to write the book is a choice to save himself (the choice Gary rejected when he rejected art school), but he longs, in several places, to be part of the pre-Mikal family, and part of the task of saving his life is to delve as deeply as he can into the pain of that family, uncover as many of their secrets as he can--which means causing pain to his brother, Frank Jr. "He endured much to tell it," Mikal says in the dedication, referring to long conversations about the family. So it might be worth commenting on the value of saving a life. There is a lovely phrase in Chaim Potok's _The Promise_, a paperback Agda Harlow gave me after I lost half my hearing in that protracted encounter with my brainy sturgeon. It haunted me for years because I couldn't remember it exactly. Finally, one summer day I took the book with me on the bus. I may have been going over to the NewUtah! offices because I remember searching all over American Fark (home of the wuzzers, as A.E. Cannon says in _Amazing Gracie_) for that phrase, and finding it on the grass in front of Deserted Industries, right there on page 204, pikuach nefesh, "to save a life." It means, Reuven the narrator tells us, that life is more important than law. A law not only can but must be broken if breaking it is necessary to save a life. I mention Gilmore's purpose here because my criticism over the last 10 years has been trying to re-image literature, and the relationship between artist and audience. As I have said repeatedly, the critics (men, mostly) who trained the post-war generation (and boy was there a war about that post--left a lot of people cold) in literary criticism and theory imaged modern literature and art, the literature and art that predicted and moved towards the World Wars, as acts of violence. It doesn't take much to transfer that image from one period to all periods, so I want to re-image literature and art as acts of community, or healing, or testimony. Of course, Mormons might not feel like part of this book's community. _Shot in the Heart_ could certainly be read as an anti-Mormon book, a salvo back at the heart of Mormon country, though Gilmore's relationship to the religion and culture in which he once served as a deacon is much more complex. >>>>> Like many things teenage, and most things rock & roll the Beatles were about sex and pushing or raising the limits; you might even say they were about disruption and revolution. The Mormons were about freedom and salvation through order and authority; they did not abide non-marital sexuality, nor progressive culture or politics. In time the contradictions between the two devotions would become apparent and I would have to make a choice. But in those days I was hungry for anything that resembled a direction, a way out of the curse that I already saw as my family's lot. Rock & roll and the Mormons--each in important ways--helped give me that direction. In fact, I think the confluence of the two probably saved my life. In religion and rock & roll I would find a sense of community where before I'd known none (p. 257). <<<<< This raises an issue for people who believe that rock & roll (or other kinds of entertainment) is a corrupting influence. It may have saved Mikal's life, but what about all the young people sex & aids & rock & drugs have destroyed, what about all the souls that have been lost? Stating the question that way oversimplifies the relationship between art and behavior. You can get a sense of what the question is really asking if you invert it: Is Mikal Gilmore's life really worth all the souls that have been lost because of rock & roll? That is, the question cannot help but weigh the value of one life against the value of another, and conclude that one life is less worth saving. But even if the question in the second sentence of the last paragraph does reduce the relationship between book and reader to a cause-effect link, ignoring the reader's will and desire, it can be an agonizing question. Even to someone like Eric Samuelsen, outspoken in his defense of the virtue (or vertu--life-force or moral strength) of all art. A year ago, Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Eric ([AML] Dealing with Mormon History) wrote about a student whose father was excommunicated due to his mother-in-law's gossip. She wanted to write a play about it, but worried, "I wonder if I should write this play. It might make the Church look bad." "That's a very tough issue, isn't it?" Eric said in his post, and mentioned how well it would work as "a wonderful cautionary tale, and also a play that's very important for a young woman struggling with her own issues. But can I lightly pass over her concerns? I don't think so." Eric encouraged her to write the play, and ended his post with, "But I don't want to pretend that this is an easy, cut and dried issue. It isn't." D. Michael Martindale replied, on 27 Jan 2001, "Then let me pass lightly over, cut, and dry the issue. Yes, she should write it--no question, no hesitation. It doesn't make the church look one minuscule bit bad. It makes the bishop and the grandmother look bad. One bishop and one elderly member are not the church." I agree with D. Michael, but his cutting, drying and bundling the issue like Halloween cornstalks isn't likely to give much comfort to people who worry about the moral effects of art, even people as eminent as Lionel Trilling, a great critic and teacher who worried that exposing his students to the raw power and energy of modern literature would be like putting them in the path of a howitzer. (See his 1965 book _Beyond Culture_, in the opening essay, "On the Teaching of Modern Literature.") Is there another concept that might help, maybe a companion concept to pikuach nefesh? (Besides the concept of at-one-ment, I mean, the idea that all truth can be brought into a circle described by arms that end in holey wrists and hands.) Well, since we'll be reading the Book of Numbers (or maybe just one or two numerals) in Gospel Doctoring this year, how about that haunting concept in the 35th chapter, the six cities of refuge where those who inadvertently kill can flee to safety? Of course that doesn't give much comfort to the loved ones of the person inadvertently killed, but Joseph Smith taught that there is an infinite atonement that can heal all wounds. "All your losses will be made up to you," he said, probably in the King Follett Discourse, I'll have to find it again sometime. But if we may at times need a city of refuge from the ill effects of art, if artists may occasionally need a refuge to flee to, art can also be a city of refuge. It could have been Gary Gilmore's refuge, could have saved his life and two others. It did save Mikal's life. I love it when I'm pondering some issue and a phrase comes into my head and I know that's going to be the title of a major essay, and that the essay will work out the implications of the title. "Cities of Refuge." Lovely phrase, as lovely as pikuach nefesh. Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 08 Feb 2002 12:00:18 -0700 I'd substitute chocolate for smiles. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling 800 South Main Pleasant Grove, UT 84062 Pchamberlain@westcon.net -----Original Message----- And for me, no, smiles do not make a lot of things better. Amy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frances Subject: [AML] re: Stealth Religion in Literature Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:57:28 -0800 I loved this quote from "The Laird Jim's" mini-essay on Stealth Religion in Literature. One of the best reasons I have ever seen given for getting over one's shyness about writing! "We ought not be too miserly with the joy that comes from being a Latter-day Saint." Frances Warden -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:56:33 -0700 > There is nothing in the movie to support your position that these > fellows *aren't* Mormons. Since they are called Mormons and no evidence > suggests otherwise, it would be stretching it to suggest that ther > *weren't* Mormons. > > Thom And the overwhelming evidence that says they are Mormons is.......................? Eileen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Date: 08 Feb 2002 12:06:53 -0700 kathy_f@juno.com wrote: > I found this in a search on the GospelLinks CD. > >>From _Who Am I?_, by Alvin R. Dyer, p. 473-474: > > "While yet among men upon the earth in the days of his minsitry, Marcus, > a Roman lawyer who resided at Jerusalem, wrote this description of the > personal appearance of the Lord: > > "'Jesus of Nazareth, sometimes called the Galilian, was a most remarkable > person. In stature he was above medium height straight and tall. His > complexion was fair. His hair was of a brown color, and fell in heavy > curls upon his shoulders. His eyes were blue, and possessed such a > penetrating power that no man could meet his gaze. His beard was of a > deep wine color, fine and full; it is said that he was never shaved. His > countenance was majestic, calm and serene, bearing the impress of wisdom, > justice and love' Does Dyer give a source for this quote. It is my understanding (not comprehensive, mind you) that there are no known contemporary descriptions of Jesus. I would like to check the source. I have a sneaky (and skeptical) opinion that this is a second- or third-hand description. > > "The Apostle John, while imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos, beheld in > vision the resurrected and glorified Son of God, who proclaimed himself > to be: 'Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.' His appearance, while > the same in image and stature as when he was upon the earth, glowed with > light, intelligence, and power. 'His head and his hairs were white like > wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire; ... his > feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice > as the sound of many waters.' John doesn't say in his vision that the Lord's appearance was "the same when he was upon the earth" -- Dyer does, again, apparently without citation. > > "The Prophet Joseph Smith, with Oliver Cowdery, beheld the Lord in the > Kirtland Temple, giving a like description of him, saying: '... his > countenance shone above the brightness of the sun.' It is apparent from > these two descriptions of the resurrected Lord, that his whole person is > enveloped in light or fire, a substance or spiritual element which > obtains in the presence of God. Since the Son dwells on the right hand of > the Father he also dwells in light or fire which causes his countenance > to shine with a brilliance of light." > > As I understand it, the Lord can appear both in his glory, and as he > looked in mortality, without his glory upon him. Joseph once called a woman to task who said she had seen the Lord because she said he had brown hair. Joseph told her she had seen a false vision. Had her vision been real, his hair would have appeared white, so said Joseph. Having said that, there is still the possibility, I believe, that a person can see Christ without the shining lightsetc. That is in the form of a Vision. The First Vision is actually the First Visitation. A vision as traditionally described in the Scriptures is a viewing of the eternities filtered somewhat through the spiritual eyes of the recipient. Thus, Elijah sees many-eyed and multi-winged beings when he looks into heaven. What Josepoh experienced is rare in religions history: an actual, three-dimensional visit by deity to the earth. The only other time we know of that is when God visisted Adam. What Joseph saw in Kirtland was not the actual visistation by Christ, but a representation of Christ in heaven. Of course, not being a prophet, seer, and revelator, all the foregoing represents my own personal understanding of the nature of holy visions. I could be (and probably am) off the mark in several places. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:08:36 -0800 (PST) I think we're only beginning to see literature that shows the true hardship of a mission without being sappy, simplistic, or, at the other extreme, ending with everyone leaving the church. This is a big step forward for us and one that, I believe, will bring more light into the world. People recognize truth and when we leave out the warts they might smile and say they were uplifted but I don't believe they can be truly moved unless we admit that there are hard things. I wish I could see the same kind of progress being made in our portrayals of marriage in literature. I'd like to see more "true" (not hiding the negative or ending in dramatic all-better or all-falls-apart) stories about how people stay married. The novel that I want someday to write will be about a marriage. ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Roots Plagarized? Date: 08 Feb 2002 14:07:48 -0700 I agree with Thom- > I, for one, could give a flaming fig whether Haley's story >is true or not. It is still powerful. > > Thom Duncan I'm sure you've all heard, even so it bears repeating; "all biography contains fiction all fiction contains biography." What Haley wrote was his entire family history based on years of intensive research from very sketchy records, family oral tradition, and finally the oral history from his progenitor's village, oral historian. I'm sure anyone with any imagination at all could see how some of the gaps that Mr. Haley had to fill in were bound to contain some imagined or fabricated facts garnered from reading works of others who wrote about the slaves and their history. I think what he produced was a very fine work of literature, which should become a classic. Given what he had to work with, I'd like to see anyone do as well. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Date: 08 Feb 2002 14:28:50 -0700 > My father (who is 5'5") has always held the theory that after the > resurrection everyone will float around at eye-level so height won't be much > of an issue anymore. > > --Mike South > Whose eye level? If we float around, will we not have legs? Does that mean we won't be able to look up to anyone? Oh, the questions this raises. Some one should write a speculative fiction story about the floating spirit world. 8-) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 08 Feb 2002 14:47:59 -0700 I nominate Jim's piece for publication in a future issue of Irreantum. It is an excellent essay on several levels, especially the last paragraph about the ability of literature to act as a safe purge for otherwise unrighteous emotions. Over the years, I've been asked what I get out of acting. I tell people that, through acting, I've been able to explore many different kinds of people in a safe environment where, whatever happens, I get to go home at 10 o'clock. Just off the top of my head, I've been a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a Jew, a doctor, a gay waiter, an apostle, a black man (back in the days before that was considered politically incorrect), a woman (several times), a Baptist preacher, a red-neck Viet Nam Vet, a stake president, a drunk child abuser, a drug addict, a husband, a father, a son, a writer -- just about every kind of person, good or bad, you could imagine. Therefore, I further tell those who ask that I've never felt the need to experiment with drugs, alcohol, etc. because I've played characters who do that and have learned that I don't want to do those things in real life. Literature is a great outlet for those of with inchoate personalities. If we're interested, we can live the lives of people we would probably never actually meet in real life (or wouldn't want to). Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 08 Feb 2002 17:10:07 EST In a message dated 2/8/02 11:10:22 AM, amyc@xmission.com writes: << Sure. All these lessons are online, by the way, but if you have the manual (#3,) it's in Lesson 5, on p. 18. Read the story under the heading "Creating a Spiritual Home Environment Requires Preparation and Work." It's about a young woman who learned to "forc[e] herself to get up and pretend to be cheerful." To me, that's a bit disturbing. Maybe it's just me. >> Naah. It's not just you. Thank you for the references. Kurt Weiland. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers Date: 08 Feb 2002 14:30:17 -0700 Michael asked who the 5 composers are. I read in the paper that they are Sam Cardon, Staci Peters, Tyler Castleton, Kenneth Cope and David Zabriskie took over for Kurt Bester when he had to drop out. I saw _Light of the World_ last week. I am anxious to hear how others liked. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 08 Feb 2002 14:19:24 -0800 (PST) Writing in the conservative Catholic magazine "National Review Online", columnist Dave Shiflett has a sardonically funny but not unsympathetic take on "The Mormons and the Olympics." It's at: http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020920.shtml ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 08 Feb 2002 15:27:21 -0800 [MOD: Also contains references to the Depictions of Jesus thread.] Darius Gray gives a fascinating and educational analysis of this issue. However, I don't think that intermarriage with descendants of Ham necessarily implies a particular skin color. Ham's wife may have been dark skinned, but Ham was no more dark skinned than his brothers. Some assume that the mark of Cain was a black skin, but that is not at all clear from the scriptural record. Thus, I'm not sure that dark skin has to do with anything at all except protection from sunlight, and it may have developed, not because of descent from Cain or Ham, but because certain groups or their ancestors lived for generations in countries located close to the equator. So, although we know that many ancient Israelites intermarried with Egyptians and Ethiopians, etc. we cannot, from that, determine their skin color or the skin color of their offspring. It is my understanding that the issues of concern in intermarriage expressed sometimes in scripture (and sometimes not, as Darius notes) are related to matters of spiritual concern only, i.e., whether or not the individuals involved and/or their families were believers. I think that has always been the concern God has had about intermarriage, to the extent any such concern can be identified in the scriptures. (Of course, there appear to be instances when a particular group of unbelievers were, for a limited time, identified by their skin color, as in the Book of Mormon, but I don't think the skin color was ever the issue with God.) Concerns about skin color (like "one drop of Negro blood makes a person black"), I believe are not scriptural at all, but are cultural and reflect problems arising as the result of black slavery that blighted civilization through the mid-nineteenth century. Not surprisingly, some of these cultural issues are reflected in the LDS literature and writing of the period. BTW, my earlier comments were directed not to ancient Israel, but to the Jews at the time of Christ, who tended to be extremely clannish. That clannishness, as I understand it, became a much stronger part of their culture during and after the Babylonian captivity. So the skin color of the Jews at the time of Christ cannot easily be determined based upon their earlier intermarriage with other nations. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Public and Private Mormon Lit Date: 08 Feb 2002 16:12:30 -0700 On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Richard R. Hopkins wrote: >Melissa Proffitt wrote: > ><believe they would succeed well on the national market for those = reasons.>> >Richard Hopkins wrote: >This may well be a very accurate analysis, but I wonder if it is = completely >true. I look at popular books in the national mainstream that preach = their >own doctrines (e.g, those by Ayn Rand and Upton Sinclair) or are = thoroughly >immersed in a particular religion (e.g., Chaim Potok's books) or a >particular culture (e.g., Amy Tan's books). These have been immensely >popular with people outside the backgrounds of the authors. I wonder if = a >well written public LDS novel could do the same. And on Fri, 25 Jan, Tracie Laulusa wrote: >Literature is an even different question. It seems to me that a reader = in >general comes to know the main character better than the other = characters in >the book do. So I think it would be very difficult to have a satisfying >Mormon main character whose religion didn't enter the picture anywhere = in >the story line. Yet, from Melissa's comments it would appear that = inclusion >of these private Mormon things can very easily come off as preachy. It appears that I haven't been very clear on this topic, because this is = not at all what I've been saying. In the first place, I already said in my *very first response on this = topic* that I think the kind of Mormon fiction that will succeed best in the national market is one that shows in detail what LDS culture, religion, = and values are, and that Chaim Potok is the shining example to which we = should all aspire. (I didn't actually say that, but it's what I believe.) I disagree with Richard that it's better to be subtle; I think readers = would be eager to read about our weird little culture, and would be accepting = of books that revealed it. D. Michael's post about the pagan lesbian ex-Mormons in the writing group is very telling: Mormon characters should behave like Mormons. Not that I think it's a bad idea to do it with subtlety; I just think it's less effective (if the point is to make the national audience aware of Mormonism as something other than a fringe = cult). But that's actually a side issue. The thing that turns so-called public LDS fiction exclusive, or preachy, = or whatever word you like, has absolutely nothing to do with how many overt references it has to praying or Sunday School or temple attendance or visiting teaching or any of the things that make our religion (and our culture) unique. Got that? NOTHING. It's completely irrelevant. What makes such fiction inaccessible to a national/non-Mormon market is = the underlying assumption on the part of the *writers*, as expressed in their fiction, that what Mormons believe is not only true, it's universally = true. Their writing depicts a worldview that excludes other people's beliefs as potentially true. There's no wiggle room. Therefore, anyone who doesn't believe this way, and who isn't interested in being convinced, will feel excluded to some degree. Oddly enough, in reading the AML annual I came across a long-ago AML-list posting that addresses this exact subject. In John Bennion's = presidential address "'All Is Well in Zion'? Publishing Among the Gentiles," he quotes Pauline Mortensen's comments to AML-List dated 17 May 1995: "If one writes with a tacit understanding of truth that excludes most of what the non-Mormon audience views as reality, I think the writer will = have problems. In other words, it is the silent spaces in a text which speak = the loudest, the assumptions that one writer or another believes to be true which need not be spoken, but yet determine the outcome of the plot. = These can be most annoying even within a culture.... In the end, I guess what I= am talking about is narrative technique and closure. While your characters = may come to certain conclusions, your text should be more careful about = drawing small circles of enclosure in a big world." This is precisely what I've been trying to say. What the characters do = or say or think isn't nearly as important as the presumptions of the author that are woven inextricably into the text. If the writer (now I'm = quoting John Bennion) "recognizes that her knowledge of the truth is limited and that answers are seldom easily earned," then it won't matter whether your character prays on every other page, or isn't revealed to be LDS until = the last chapter. For the most part, our public LDS fiction to this point = has not had this quality. I'm going to put this next part in a separate paragraph, just to be sure it's obvious: There is NO REASON why fiction that depicts Mormonism overtly has to come from a worldview that excludes the existence of other points of view. So far, it just HASN'T. I love Rachel Nunes's books. There's so much that's good about them, and= it kills me that I can't figure out how to convey those qualities accurately= to other people without sounding elitist and snotty. She is doing something really remarkable in her depiction of a subset of American Mormon = culture; I'm not a part of that subset, but reading her books helps me feel more compassionate to women who are (because, in general, their real-life counterparts tend to make me nuts). But it's still true that she is = writing to people who share her belief. I would like to see her complete the fantasy novel she's started, because I am interested in whether or not = this book (which I think is intended for a national audience) shares the same characteristics as her Mormon fiction. (Plus the chapter I read was very interesting.) I figure it could go either way. As a teen, I discovered Rumer Godden's book _In This House of Brede_, = which is about a Benedictine monastery for nuns (yes, they have monasteries, = it's not just the monks) in England. It's still one of my favorite books. = The author is not a nun, but she did a tremendous amount of research and = ended up with this dazzling illustration of what it's like to devote your life = to God's service so exclusively. The nuns are not perfect at all; there's politicking and animosity and irritation, but there's also forgiveness = and faith and prayer and repentance. If I were to pick another shining = beacon for aspiring Mormon writers, it would be this book. The subtext is not "Catholics are the only ones who will go to heaven," it's "here's an = example of how one faith applies the universal virtues of patience, love, and service." Obviously you could still debate whether those virtues are = indeed universal, but the book still allows for agreement between Buddhists and Mormons and Lutherans and agnostics who simply differ in how such virtues should be exemplified. That's the kind of open-mindedness I'd like to = see overtly LDS fiction promote. I am afraid that I *haven't* clarified my position, given that it took so many words to say it. But I hope that I have. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christine Atkinson" Subject: Re: [AML] Stealth Religion in Literature Date: 08 Feb 2002 23:45:26 -0700 James Wilson wrote: <> I agree that both our religion and our culture should be more natural in our literature. (Although I think the word stealth implies a sneakiness that I would try to avoid.) The thing is, no one thinks that much about the things they do on a daily basis. If you pray, you simply pray because it's what you want to do. If you say, "No, thanks," to the offer of a drink, you don't think about your upbringing, the Word of Wisdom, your children's expectations, and your personal convictions. You just say no. But we often carefully describe a Mormon character's motives and background in order to explain what he's doing. We give the small things too much weight. For example, we wouldn't think twice about a Catholic character crossing himself after narrowly missing being hit by a bus. But if we explained why and how he was making that gesture, it becomes too heavy and important. I could write it two ways. "Tony blew out his breath and hurriedly crossed himself. Thanks for the save, he thought." Or- "Tony took a deep breath and expelled it loudly as he brought his right hand up with his thumb and first two fingers together. This, he knew, signified the three persons of the Trinity, and in his moment of fear he silently prayed to them, thanking them in the ancient tradition of his faith for the preservation of his life. His remaining fingers touched his palm, signifying the two natures of Christ - human and divine - and then he touched his forehead, his chest, his right shoulder, and his left shoulder in the pattern he'd learned as a small child in Sunday School. Although he didn't say it aloud, he thought the words along with the movement of his hand - 'In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Blah, blah, blah! Did Tony really think all that? No, probably not. Did we need that whole explanation? Nope. Did it make Tony seem like a self-important, overly-analytical religious nut instead of a regular joe with a religious background of some sort? Yep, I think so. Obviously, *our* actions and traditions and jokes are not as easily recognizable as my example, but if you explain why and how long and in what position your main character is saying his morning prayer (instead of just mentioning that he prayed), it looks like your character is a bit . . . weird! My point is . . . Wait, did I have one of those? Oh, yeah! My point is, just write about people. Doing what people do and thinking what people think. Put religion in there - it's in *my* life - but let's stop explaining, describing, justifying, and qualifying simple things. All right, I'm guessing that that wasn't what James was going for, but that's where his comment took me! -Christine Atkinson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Re: Missionaries Returning Home Date: 09 Feb 2002 01:58:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I remember my own experience as a missionary, and at that time I would not have conceived the smallest possibility that a missionary could use the term" mission left scars on me". My only real complaint at that time (early 50's) was that missionaries came home constantly talking about the "best two years of my life" and I went into the Mission home more or less expecting to be picked up and carried by the spirit for the next 30 months. I felt really betrayed to discover that being a missionary (even a lousy missionary) is some of the hardest work in the world. It was offensive to me that getting up at six A.M. was just as hard in the mission field as it was at home- - harder because the parent who shook you awake had his/her place taken by a companion that was less than thrilled about early mornings (not so bad in Finland during the summer, but absolutely disgusting on days when the sun rose at 11:30 A.M. and set at 1:30 P.M.. I puttered through my mission rather blissfully when I was being an effective missionary and rather guilty when I was not (depending somewhat on the companion, the social situation, and the assignment. I had studied language, Russian and Spanish to the stage that I could read Russian (slowly and painfully) and, thanks to a Spanish speaking foreman during the summer preceding my mission, knew the depths of Mexican profanity, so I was not thrilled by being put off the boat (yes we went by ship back then) never having heard a word of Finnish spoken, with a mimeographed language manual written by an Elder who was still in the field. I lucked into a first companion who spoke the language really well, was a mature missionary, and, deep in his heart would rather give me language lessons than go tracting. ( he wasn't beyond encouraging the occasional mis-speaking - I went to a milk store one morning and asked for a litre of milk, not knowing the fine points of case endings, and by implication asked the clerk to milk herself of that amount of milk. When all the clerks dissolved in hysterical laughter, turned to my companion and discovered him being pretty hysterical too.) My next assignment was with a wonderful, thoughtful and absolutely dedicated missionary who taught me to proselyte and to teach. The fact that we lived in a rented room in a farmhouse that had no indoor plumbing, that had a fireplace that had to be properly fed and banked or you would wake up in the morning with a bedroom well below freezing, (which, for some reason never affected the bedbugs at all- - they functioned at all temperatures - - and, sometime in private you can ask me why there was a kilo weight hand sledge hammer chained to the "chair" in the outhouse. Its use is not really within the scope of public comment) really was what I expected from a mission. The months went on largely like that with some misadventures. We changed living quarters, got an apartment with a bath, and woke up one morning to find our landlady almost dead, from a stroke, on the kitchen floor. Picturesque baptisms were held in a freezing lake (once summer came)and members got used to checking the add in thursday's paper to find out where meetings would be held, and so forth. Many of the rules of todays missions hadn't been worked out yet. We often went to a movie on "P" day (which wasn't called "P" day yet,) skiing was common, how can the young men's president (who was also the Branch President) take the youth on a ski retki (hike) without putting on skiis? We even got to stay out all night on Midsummers night and build bonfires with the members, boat a little and so forth. After transfers (I served in every city but my first for at least nine months) The change of scenery was interesting even though with one companion we got caught up in a riot when there was a national strike, and with another, when we went to the train station to get a _Time_ magazine (another rule?) we walked into a bloody knife fight between a bunch of lumbermen (deep woods types) and a bunch of "flathats" (Black leather jacket and boots types) The first really negative personal experience was a junior companion (greenie) who had been more frisky with his girlfriend than was appropriate for a departing missionary and spent most of his days weeping in guilt. To be locked in a room with a crying elder 24/6 (we did get out to church on Sunday) for three months was not fun. It wasn't till I became a Branch President in a somewhat troubled branch that the proselyting took a real dip, and I fear that I became trunky before my time. (Which was extended for three months- - thirty three months is a while) but I still came home oblivious to the possibility of scars- And indeed I had none. It was only as I got older when I began to appreciate the difficulty my crying elder had and was to have for awhile. I think he finally sat down with the mission president and had a heart to heart-(he wasn't sent home, and didn't ask to be) because he settled down and, at least, continued his mission with some success. Other missionaries received scars. I look back at some who were in the field for their whole time and never really managed to carry on a conversation in Finnish. One new elder in one town, at his fourth month- that terrible time when the members think they are helping you by no longer talking to you in English, received within two weeks, a dear John, word that his dog was killed in a car accident, and that his parents were getting a divorce. The next month was spent in quiet desperation. Almost every elder in the town gave him a blessing at one time or another. I always had the sense ,when there, that the harder you worked the happier you were, and I know that was true for many, but on reflection, it rarely made you popular with other elders, and it has to hurt when you are giving your all and some other elder says about you (name of dedicated elder- John) "I only know two types of Johns one type you wear in the winter and the other one you want to sit on and ****. Guess which one is our DP?" (District President- fore-runner to zone leader). I was particularly struck by the innacuracy of my conclusion while reading the last Sunstone - the young woman's experience in china was intense , at the very least. When I got home, got married, and moved out into the mission field to live I learned about scars. I really became aware of how personally difficult missions are for some people. I also became aware of the dangers of pushing every young man to go on a mission. I have seen some real sociopaths sent out into the field, and wondered if they would last a mission, and sometimes been surprised when they did. I have been asked to give referrals to missionaries that I really didn't want to even associate with. Some of these went into the field with no desire except to not embarrass their parents. I reached the stage that when my twenty two year old son came to me and told me he had decided to go on a mission, I took him aside and asked him if he really wanted to go, and assured him that I would love him and honor him anyway, and didn't want him to go just to please me. A look of shock came on his face and he asked me if I didn't think he was worthy. I took my foot out of my mouth, assured him that if he thought he was, I did too, and we had a long and enriching talk that was probably overdue. Probably the most wrenching experience of understanding the difficulties that some have on their missions came when, as a branch president, I gave a talk (I actually have given it relatively often) that I title, JERKHOOD AND PRIESTHOOD ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. In it I use my own frequent insensitivity as and example but also refer to the Old Testament Prophet (slips my mind whether it was Elijah or Elisha) who, being ticked off because the children of the town teased him about his baldness, called the bears in from the forest to eat the children. Now that's a real jerk. Everyone in a priesthood calling behaves like a jerk sometimes and we need to just say to ourselve. "Okay, so he is my Stake, Mission, Branch, Young Men's president, he is behaving like jerk, and I won't let his behavior affect my spirituality and testimony. After Sacrament meeting, a sister came up to me in tears, threw her arms around my neck and sobbed, "Thank you, Thank you! Ever since I returned from my mission I have felt guilt because I felt that my mission president was terrible. He was intolerant, hated sisters, and I thought he hated me. I almost left the church because I thought, if he had the priesthood and had that calling he must be close to God, and if God was like that, I couldn't stay. You have given me permission to put him in his place. He was trying hard, doing his job, but when he related to me, he was a jerk." It happens. On the other hand in our small ward, we have had two elders terminate their missions early in the last eight months. One developed cancer, came home for treatment, and after two months at home his doctor told his mission president he couldn't come back. He more or less instantly married a young lady who had been writing to him and they went through the temple with him bald from Chemo. Another came home, ostensibly to have back treatment, but I really think he came home because his father passed away when he had been in the field about a year, and though he stuck it out for several months, I think he felt he needed to come home and help his mother (They have four other children). Both came back into loving caring and appreciative arms of the ward. Both are great young men. I wish everyone could have loved the mission as much as I did (most of the time) but I pray that those who don't will find a way to overcome the jerkhood of others, or their own jerkhood, and find a place in the fellowship of the saints. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 09 Feb 2002 11:55:21 -0500 I always figured, "In for a penny, in for a pound." At some point I had to decide that the scriptures were inspired by God, or they weren't. I wasn't going to be selective and say that because this particular scripture made me feel uncomfortable, then I would simply ignore it. Abraham 1:27 says: "Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of the Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham..." Lots of scriptures can be hedged on and skirted, but I have to admit that a reasonable reading of this verse seems to indicate that certain people's lineage keeps them from holding the Priesthood, and it would take a prophetic revelation to erase the meaning that is pretty clear in this scripture. Do I like it? No. Am I comfortable with this? No. Am I 100% sure that this lineage applies to African bloodlines? No. Do I wish this scripture didn't exist? Yes. But since it does, I have to admit that the presidents of the church were simply following their testimonies that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and when he gave us the book of Abraham he didn't just make it up in order to propagate some hare-brained racist propaganda. They most likely took the Book of Abraham as inspired communication from God. As I do. There was a Noah, he had a son Ham. There was a curse that kept Ham's lineage from holding the priesthood and this lineage included the Pharaohs. The curse is over now, but don't blame the presidents of the church or call them racist because of something Noah did that the Lord communicated to us. I don't know for sure that every president of the church and every apostle didn't pray fervently and daily for the curse to be lifted. My own feeling is that when the majority of the members of this church want something, they get it, whether it's good for them or not. Probably until 1978 the majority of the members were happy with the status quo, but when we reached a critical mass in our prayers, the Lord sent the revelation. I apply this to other people who are denied the priesthood today. The majority of the church is happy with the status quo, but if we can ever convince enough of our friends and neighbors, then we'll get the revelation. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on History and Old Testament Date: 09 Feb 2002 13:06:13 -0700 On scientific matters, I highly recommend Of Heaven and Earth: Reconciling = Scientific Thought With LDS Theology, edited by David L. Clark. Deseret = Book published it in 1998. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 09 Feb 2002 14:11:24 -0700 I don't know about y'all, but I was nervous. The opening ceremony of the = Olympics is a daunting thing, part civic ceremonial, part theatrical = presentation, part pageant. The trick is to create a kind of theatrical = ritual that encompasses the Olympic ideal and hopes for world peace, while = also reflecting the culture of the host nation and city. And I was = scared. This is exactly the kind of thing we Mormons tend to do badly, = and these are the Salt Lake Olympics. And all the augury was bad. The bribery scandal, for starters. September = 11, raising the stakes. A doping scandal involving speed skaters. The = female bobsledder controversy. Neil Maxwell was a torch runner, and of = course, his torch was the one that went out on national TV. And all that = security. Yikes. Well, I needn't have worried. The Opening Ceremonies were wonderful. I'm = not very sentimental, but the producers just did so much right, made so = many terrific choices. The decision to create yet another ritual, an = invented ritual to be sure, but a great piece of ritual theatre, by having = the chiefs of the Native American tribes from Utah bless the athletes and = the games, that was superb, and it was handled with the right kind of = sensitivity. The skaters with those great Lion King puppets were = similarly striking and unusual and lovely. The theme, "The Light Within" = was well chosen, and strikes a wonderful balance between LDS theology and = the Olympic ideal. The emphasis on children again created a nice parallel = with LDS family beliefs and the Olympic youthfulness and dream fulfillment = mythos. Okay, I thought the costumed icycles (which looked like a cross = between Imperial Storm Troopers and the Ku Klux Klan) were an unfortunate = choice, but I liked the white standing for evil, and red symbolizing good = in that opening ice capades number. Above all, I loved the balance. It = reflected LDS theology (and made sufficient reference to our sustaining = pioneer myth), but did so in ways that could also reflect and support = other symbolic systems and interpretations. It wasn't even remotely = heavy-handed. It balanced Sting with Yo Yo Ma. It gave us the Dixie = Chicks, but they didn't give us their latest hit; instead they played for = a hoe down, with music sequeing into pop from Aaron Copland. And the = Tabernacle Choir . . . how can I say this . . . they felt right, somehow, = in that setting. It didn't feel like they were there to make any kind of = point, except merely to say that we happen to have a world class choir in = Utah, and so let's use them extensively. Above all, the choices of people = involved in the ritual were all sublime. I loved seeing Lech Walensa, = John Glenn, Bishop Tutu, Jean-Claude Killy, Jacques Cousteau's son and = Stephen Spielberg carrying in the Olympic flag. Pairing Bonnie Blair with = Dan Janzen, or Phil Mahre with Bill Johnson, or Peggy Fleming with Dick = Button as torch carriers were all simple, appropriate, inspired choices. = And finally, Eruzione and the '80 hockey team got to light the torch. = Again, a good choice, a right choice. =20 Of course, the TV coverage was beautiful, technically accomplished, and = utterly tin eared. Bob Costas seemed to think we needed all the symbolism = explained to us, Katie Couric kept stepping on his lines, and Jim McKay, = sadly, was frequently incoherent. And they did the Opening Ceremony well, = compared to the frighful hash they're going to make of the rest of the = Olympics. (Let's face it, commercial American TV is institutionally incapable of = broadcasting an Olympics. Of course, the camera work will be first rate, = the announcers well prepared and expert in their commentary, the editing = sharp and perfectly timed, the sound innovative and clear. The Olympics = will nonetheless grow increasingly unwatchable, and we'll grow ever more = irritated with them until we can finally take it no longer. Capitalism = does many things well and many things poorly, and broadcasting an Olympics = is something that commercial TV cannot do. The Olympics are an athletic = competition, and I predict that the ratio of intrusive and annoying and = repetitive commercials, smarmily sentimental personal features and cutesy = irrelevancies to actual footage of athletes competing will be, at best = 50-50. 60-40, if you count jingoistic tubthumping during medals presentati= ons. In Europe, the ratio is 5-95. American TV remains David Sarnoff's = dream; commercials selling products, interrupted by programming sufficient = to entice us to watch the commercials. It doesn't need to be. NBC's = Olympic coverage will be, I predict, execrable. That's not hyperbole. = Last night, the commercial breaks were . . . less offensive than they = could have been. It's going to get worse.) Anyway, the opening ceremonies set a tone, and a wonderful tone it was. = We're off to a good start. Fingers crossed. (And yes, by the way, I am planning to see some events, though I couldn't = afford tickets for last night. Short track speed skating, cross country = skiing, Nordic combined and ski jump are all on my calender. What about = y'all?) Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Major Productions Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 09 Feb 2002 15:43:34 -0600 As the mother of two adopted biracial children of elementary school age, I have thought long and hard about this very topic. It has been especially interesting of late as my kids and I have read both of Cain and the Lamanites in the scriptures. My theory on dark skin--based not on deep scholarship admittedly!--is that it is not a curse, but a consequence. Cain made choices and was set apart with a mark, as were the Lamanites. The sins of Cain, and of Laman and Lemuel, were visited upon the heads of their children. (I believe whole-heartedly that this is what that scripture means! Each of us with children sees how our choices have results in our children. In my family, there's a legacy of clutter, for example. My grandmother was a housekeeping disaster. Her daughter, my mother, is compulsively neat in reaction. I am like my grandmother, in direct reaction to my mother's hyper neatness. The "sin" of a too-tidy house is being visited on my head.... And, of course, I like putting it that way rather than saying I'm messy and slothful.) What I'm trying to say, and not very well, is that those who go around spouting how blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and similar such asinine theories have obviously got it all wrong. When Cain begat his little Cainlings, were they born bad? Absolutely not! But they were born into a home where the father contributed genetic material which resulted in the combination of eye color/skin color/hair color/etc AND, more importantly, they were born into a home where they were taught the doctrines of their father, and learned their take on life by watching and learning from his actions. I have green eyes. Who do I blame this on? God? Or genetics? Two additional thoughts, at random: I found it very interesting that, when my husband and I were living in California (where we adopted our son) there were a great many more Church members who had a hard time covering up their disapproval and/or shock at our "brown" baby than there were non-members. The lady in the LDS bookstore who said it was just wonderful how "those" people were accepting the gospel. The woman in our ward who practically shrieked, "But he's so dark!" The other one who said, "He doesn't look like your group." The man who said to his granddaughter, "They adopted a brown baby because there aren't enough white babies to go around." I have lots of instances where my maternal feathers got badly ruffled. Church members saw skin color first. Non-members saw his beautiful dimples, the light in his eyes. Or at least that's what they remarked on. Maybe they were just better actors. Or maybe, in California, nothing is that mind-boggling, since minds are boggled there every day. Random thought #2: I read Dean Hughes' THE WRITING ON THE WALL and it was a profoundly moving experience for me. I strongly recommend this book to any who have not yet taken the time. It will probably make you squirm. I know it did me. But it has some very important things to say about children of our Father in Heaven. All of His children. (I'm not a deep thinker like the rest of you guys, but there are a few things I feel passionately about. "Race" is one of those things. So maybe some of the early leaders of the Church were racist. My grandparents were bigots, but my mom made another choice and taught HER children to be otherwise. And now she has biracial grandchildren. So racism CAN be inherited, but it doesn't HAVE to be.) Robbin Major Sugar Land, TX motto: There is no Equal..... -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: [AML] re: Missionaries Returning Home Date: 09 Feb 2002 16:15:17 -0800 I can't help adding the following to the discussion. I was with my last companion in Liege, Belgium, for three months. I stood up under the ordeal because I knew I was going home soon. He was exceedingly belligerent, obviously having come under duress. He slept in till noon, went off by himself when he wished, and, when he did go out proselyting with me, was surly and mean about it. One day I became aware that he was trying to tip my bicycle over while riding a little behind me. Another day, a Sunday morning when I wanted very much to visit a sick member in the hospital before Sunday school and needed my companion to go with me, he wouldn't. I got mad, went over to the nearby chapel and told someone I wouldn't be there for opening exercises, went back to the apartment, and had an hour long fist fight with my companion. It wasn't total war because we both pulled our punches when it came to the face, but we thumped each other in the chest and abdomen as hard as we could. That combat cleared the air for him and he was reasonable for about a week. After I went home, an idealistic district president asked to have this fellow assigned to him. He was going to love him into obedience. I was told the district president had a nervous breakdown. This fellow stood behind him at doors while they were tracting, and while the district president spoke to people at the doors, the fellow punched him in the kidneys. The last I heard of him, he had abandoned his mission and joined the US army in Germany, where I imagine he got some discipline that had a little bark to it. Why did he join the army? Maybe because he didn't have any money to buy his passage home. As I found out when I tried to leave my mission after being out for ten months, the church won't pay your way. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 23:51:46 -0600 My name is Angela and I am new to this list. I have spent the last couple of weeks reading and enjoying what many of you have had to say, but the topic of race and the Church has been particularly meaningful to me, since it is a part of our history that has always puzzled and disturbed me. I am so relieved to read that many of you think and feel the same way I do, and still consider yourselves to be faithful and dedicated Latter Day Saints. I was born in 1972, so I have only a vague memory of the priesthood being given to all worthy male members. I do remember a well loved Black man in our ward crying in sacrament meeting, saying how glad he was that this happened before his sons turned twelve; he had so dreaded having to try and explain why something so sacred was available to all of the other 12 year old boys in the ward but them. I grew up in the church subtly influenced by, but never understanding or embracing, both the "fence sitting" theory and the "mark of Cain" theory. By the time I was in my early twenties, I had decided that it was wrong for me to believe in either of them if God was, in fact, no respecter of persons. I decided that it was much more difficult for me to believe that the God I so loved and trusted was a respecter of persons, "marking" our potential or our former valiency on our faces by the color of our skin, than it was for me to believe that our prophets and leaders were also men, products of their lives and times, influenced by the prejudices that surrounded them. I decided that, until President Kimball, the prophets may have simply never asked, and because God allows his children to make mistakes--even the leaders of his church--this wrong had been allowed to go on. I often felt somewhat guilty for believing this, because it seemed as if I wasn't being faithful to the leaders of the church, wasn't believing in everything they said or did. But, in my searching, I found it to be much easier to reconcile a prophet--a man--making a misake, then forcing my whole understanding of who God was and how he saw his children into what I believed to be a racist philosophy. I would love someday for a church leader to clarify this history. There is so much speculation in the church, so many false doctrines still being (often innocently!) taught in Sunday School and Relief Society, so many good Black men and women who--understandably--don't want to hear the gospel message because of what they perceive to be a racist history. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I learned a lot, and felt some much needed like-mindedness. Angela [Hallstrom] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] re: Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 11 Feb 2002 11:13:56 +0000 I was hoping to write a nice comprehensive essay, but it doesn't look like I'll have any time in the next couple of days. Several others have already expressed much of what I was thinking of saying, in any case. So I'll just give you a series of random notes. As far as I can tell, before 1978, the idea of "the Blood of Israel" was a big deal in the Church. There really was an idea that some people had it more than others, and that they were the ones the missionaries were going to teach. Also, certain ethnicities were assumed to have more the blood of Israel. Europe, America, and the South Sea islands in particular. A lot of the pre-1978 ideas came from the Old Testament and general 19th century Protestant theology, both of which I see as flawed on the subject. The Old Testament was a time when tribal allegiance was everything, and blood lines were emphasized for practical reasons. Also, as others have mentioned, 19th century leaders like Brigham Young and Orson Pratt were influenced by racist Protestant ideas about which were part of the conventional wisdom at the time, and which seemed to fit in with some of the Restoration ideas like the gathering of Israel. Although some don't see the idea about the importance of lineage and the priesthood ban as linked issues, I think that they are. The New Testament, on the other hand, does not seem to emphasize race much at all. Paul in particular emphasized the universality of the gospel. Thankfully, the Church has now moved in a New Testament direction in regards to race. I read with fascination and sadness D. Michael Quinn's (quite sketchy) outline of racism among past Church leaders in an article in the latest Dialogue, "Prelude to the National 'Defense of Marriage' Campaign Civil Discrimination Against Feared or Despised Minorities." These include mission president and soon-to-be general authority John Morgan's 1881 sermon at Temple Square, in which he spoke approvingly of lynchings, and the policy of the Church owned Hotel Utah not to allow blacks to stay up through at least 1955. It was all pretty much the same as American society as a whole, but still disappointing. I pretty much throw out everything about race taught by Church leaders before 1978. Bruce R. McConkie's 1978 talk "All Are Alike Unto God" even gives me a good authoritative source to back up my tossing out this big chunk. "There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them." While the revelation (and Elder McConkie's comments) seemed to destroy the idea of black inferiority in Mormon theology, ideas of the superiority of certain groups that have more of the "blood of Israel" have not been officially discredited, and still float about in the ether. I find it interesting the Church leaders, especially recently, do not appear to be interested in cleaning up the theological speculations of the past very much. President Hinckley, when asked about past practices like polygamy and the priesthood ban, usually says something like, "It's in the past." I think I can see why he chooses to do that, but it does result in some confusion about whether doctrines which accrued around these past practices still belong in the theology. Anyways, it seems like Mormon doctrine has some kind of half-life nature to it. If it hasn't been mentioned in general conference for a number of years, we can assume that it not something that we do not need to be concerned with at all. It would be interesting to study how long it has taken doctrines that are allowed to wither away to be abandoned by the mainstream Church population. Am I correct in assuming that there aren't any active theologians among the General Authorities today? By that, I mean people like Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie, people who would try to synthesize the various scraps of scripture and comments by past leaders into logical and consistent doctrines. Honestly, it is fine with me, the focus in the current Church seems to me to be more like the New Testament than the Old, stressing Christ more than other theology, and that's the way I like it. I was born in 1968, so the more overtly racist aspects of Mormon culture had disappeared to a large extent while I was growing up. Even the “racialist” ideas of the superiority of those with the blood of Israel no longer came up much. For those willing to look, however, you certainly could find a lot of it in Church-related literature. I think it stuck most firmly in my mind around middle school, when I read Cleon Skousan's commentaries on the Old Testament, The First Two Thousand Years, The Third Thousand Years, and the Forth Thousand Years. My parents were pretty careful about not teaching the attitudes they had grown up with to us, I appreciate them for breaking that chain. My grandmother, for example, certainly felt uncomfortable around black people. I once saw her react strongly after a black salesman had knocked on the door. My dad says that he had to teach her not to use the word "nigger" sometime in the 1960s. They had lived in Compton from around 1940 to 1962, when the previously white middle/ working class city began changing to the black-dominated slum that it remains today, and I think that seeing that deterioration had something to do with her attitudes. But she was not a complete racist. She served a Spanish-speaking mission in Mexico and Texas around 1920, and kept her strong love of Mexican people (and her Spanish skills) all her life. She served for years as the Whittier California Stake Relief Society's liaison to the Spanish Branch/Ward, and many of the members of that congregation spoke lovingly of her at her funeral. So, I think she did pretty well in some things, but not in all. Except for some remarkable individuals, that is the norm. I also discovered late in her life that my grandparents had never kicked their coffee habit, even though they were active temple-goers all their lives. The Church did not get serious about making the Word of Wisdom a temple requirement until the 1930s, I think, and it appears that older people like my grandparents were "grandfathered" into not having to live by all of it to keep their temple blessings. With a few exceptions, I never spent a lot of time around black people until I moved to Pittsburgh in 1991. The Pittsburgh 1st Ward is one of my favorite groups of people in the world, and my main reference point when I think about Mormon society. It covers about three quarters of the city, and contains a lively diversity of members, including very wealthy bankers and doctors, lots of graduate student couples, and unemployed ghetto residents. A few years ago the Church built a new meeting house near the bus lines in the central city, largely to make it easier for the inner city members to get to meetings. I had the privilege to work with many black members through my callings as a home teacher and in the youth. Mostly the past was not brought up, but it was interesting to see the different reactions when it was. Brother Thomas, certainly the most powerful speaker in the ward and a shepherd for the many older black sisters who found it difficult to get to Church, often proudly mentioned his lineage as a "descendent of Ham" in his testimonies. I never did approach him with my strong doubts about the truth of that idea. I leant him my copy of _Standing on the Promises_, which he said he enjoyed. I also talked to our close friend Maesha Davis about reading it, but she had no interest. She was a very well-educated, artistic woman, and I think she bristled a bit about being lumped in with many of the other black members, who tended to be less educated. She said she had no interest in being a "black Mormon", just a "Mormon". Not that she avoided her ethnicity, she often wore African clothes to Church. Her son, one of our Deacons, on the other hand, seemed to be less connected to black culture than I was. Another family which often wore bright African clothes to church were the McBrides, whom I home taught for a year just after they were baptized. Vickie McBride seemed to take it as her personal challenge to bring diversity to the Ward. One of my favorite Pittsburgh memories is when Vickie's sister, a choir director at a Baptist Church, led the three McBride kids (as well as my wife and another young white woman) in a gospel rendition of "I am a Child of God" for a musical number in sacrament meeting. It included a call and response section, "Who are you?" "I am a child of God!" While most everyone appreciated their spirit, the format took many aback. One very conservative member told me that he felt a bad spirit during it. The McBrides moved away, but after six years they moved back to Pittsburgh. One of her daughters has a baby that she gave birth to when she was 15. The whole family reacted in unfeigned horror when we told them about how we adopted our son from a teenage mother through LDS Social Services. They said they could not imagine giving up a baby that way. She said their Bishop brought the option up to them, but they immediately shot it down. Another black member was a medical student at the University of Pittsburgh, whose white husband was a dental student. Naturally, the black members were as diverse a group amongst themselves as they helped make the ward as a whole. Finally, a literature tie-in. The ward hosted a performance of "Daughters of Eve," an amateur production by a group of local black Christian women, only one of whom was Mormon, Sister Thomas. It was a series of monologues about the experiences of women in the Bible, with by black gospel music sung between each scene. Situated as it is, and with the leadership in the ward, I have high hopes that the new building will continue to act as a place for exchange with the local community, and the site of further positive developments in Mormon culture. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] re: Race Issues In Mormonism Date: 11 Feb 2002 12:51:01 -0800 (PST) The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was not because of any pre-existence fault in African-Americans, but because American society as a whole (and by extension, Mormons as a sub-culture) was so racist that it was until the 1960's that we were unable to see them clearly and simply as human beings (let alone in positions of priesthood authority.) Perhaps Martin Luther King, Jr. was foreordained to prepare the way; to call America to repentance so that the full blessings of the gospel could be extended to all (a very far cry from his being "a Communist agent" as some prominent LDS said, very loudly.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 11 Feb 2002 14:09:07 -0800 (PST) Oops, that link didn't work. Try this one: --- "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > Writing in the conservative Catholic magazine "National Review Online", > columnist Dave Shiflett has a sardonically funny but not unsympathetic > take on "The Mormons and the Olympics." It's at: http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020920.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 11 Feb 2002 16:23:34 -0800 Thanks, Jonathan, for opening up the discussion of race issues. It gives me a chance to finish a post that's been in my drafts folder since Oct. 14, addressing something I wanted to talk about since 1997. On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 Tony Markham ( [AML] Gen. Conf. Music) writes, of the Table Nicker Choir's performance of "Could You Say Hi to Kolob?": > Any arrangement that can obfuscate the lyric, "there is no end to race," > is wonderful. How the choir, GA's, congregation, and church sing this > without going cross-eyed is beyond me. > Try "There is no end to _GRACE_" Or "There is no end to _my > embarrassment over this lyric in an otherwise sublime song_" Why the embarrassment? It echoes the embarrassment expressed when we discussed this song in 1997. I've been thinking about this off and on since then, curious about the underlying assumptions of the embarrassment. I'll say why the embarrassment puzzles me in a moment, after I quote a couple of posts from the 1997 thread. >>>>> I remember an interesting conversation about the line, "There is no end to race," at the end of verse 3, with the editor who taught me at BYU. She was appalled by the line, which she thought meant that members of different racial groups would remain eternally identified in that way. I countered that I had always thought it had reference to the human race as a whole. I think she bought my interpretation, which apparently had never occurred to her before. Yet another example of how different people can read the same words completely differently. (Just for the record, this editor is generally one of the sharpest, more perceptive readers I know.) Jonathan Langford The new tune for If You Could Hie to Kolob works great sung as a quartet or double quartet, a capella. That way, you can break up the "There is no end to"s by giving each to a different voice. The only one that bugs me is "there is no end to race" which I usually change to "nor to the human race." PC, but it makes me more comfortable. Otherwise, I'm with Steve; a wonderful, weird hymn. Eric Samuelsen <<<<< I never replied, but I've wanted since then to write an essay called, "There is No End to Race?" I keep thinking about how deeply our sense of self is tied to our language and our ethnic or racial background. Think about the 60s slogan, "Black is Beautiful," about the assertion that your body, your color, your heritage is beautiful, despite everything others might say otherunwise. I think of all the wonderful expressions of Black heritage, like Countee Cullen's "Heritage," or "What is Africa to Me?" or Nikki Giovanni's "Ego Tripping," or the voice of someone like Darius Gray's mother talking about the preacher power that came from deep down inside Elijah Abel, and how he wouldn't return Heber C. Kimball's "brother" because the way he said it, Elijah understood that the man he had worked beside on two temples wasn't really addressing him as a brother. I think of many wonderful and painful and joyous expressions of life that are tied to the experience of living in a particular color of skin or seeing through a particular shape of eye socket, or being able to plant a seed, or grow and deliver that seed from your own earth. So much of our identity is tied up in the particulars of our bodies that it is surely worth asking what happens to that part of our identity if there is an end to those particulars. So also is much of our experience tied to our language. Indeed, people who can't oppress others based on their skin color may choose to destroy their language. I remember our uide in Moscow, New Year's, 1971 (we got on the train in Oulu, Finland, where my father was Fulbright professor at U of Oulu, just after Christmas and headed for Helsinki, then boarded a train for Moscow--which train became rather more somber as it crossed the border) saying, "I am not Russian. I'm Estonian," and explaining how Stalin had exiled him and his countrymen and women after the war, forbidden them to speak their language (of course he was our guide because Estonian and Finnish are cousins). Stalin was not the only person who has tried to wipe out a culture by destroying its language. Hal Borland's novel _When the Legends Die_, is about the effects on one boy of the US attempt to destroy Indian cultures and languages by taking students away from their families and sending them to schools where they can't speak their languages or practice their culture. (Interesting, I'm listening to Talk of the Nation (1/7/02) where someone called in to decry the rodeo that is part of the Cultural Olympiad. Borland's character becomes a horse killer on the rodeo circuit--taking out on the animals all his rage at the white destruction of his culture. And yesterday I was helping a woman in Heber get her house ready for 19 Olympics renters and she told me her ex-husband was a rodeo cowboy and she stopped going to see him, and letting her children see rodeo, after a calf's neck was broken in a practice. "I was the only one who was upset," she said. Her husband's reaction was, "It happens all the time." Her refusal to support his rodeoing hastened the demise of their marriage, but "It turned out animals weren't the only thing he liked to beat up on," she said.) Michael Fillerup's "The Last Code Talker" also explores the effects of being taken away from your family to a place where you can't express your culture. I gather from the reviews I've read that Brady Udall's _The Dream Life of Edgar Mint_ explores similar themes. But why am I including language with race? Partly because I have heard the same thought, that language is not eternal. Once in a Scungebone presentation (don't remember the topic) I mentioned a passage from Duane Crowther's _Life Everlasting_ which talks about a bishop named Glen Wood who was apparently summoned to the other side in June 1933 because his knowledge of Samoan was needed to preach the gospel. He told his father (president of the Calgary Alberta Canada temple) that he had had a vision to the effect that he wasn't going to recover from his illness because he was needed. His father wrote, "Near the end he began speaking in Samoan to Saints in the Spirit World, then died" (207). I didn't give as much detail as here (didn't have the book with me), but was interested in how glibly one woman in the audience dismissed the idea that we might still speak our languages in the next life. But again, what does it mean if we lose our language? There is a very strong longing in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition for a perfect language, for the language we apparently lost at Babel. (I like Ann Chamberlin's take on that in _The Virgin and the Tower_ where the slaves at work on the tower agree amongst themselves that at the moment Mahonri Moriancumr pronounces his curse on the tower they will no longer speak Gilgamesh's Babylonian tongue, but will speak only their own languages.) That longing for a pure language seems a longing for utter clarity. That is, the longing for a pure utterly clear language is tied to a rejection of ambiguity, even the ambiguity of the rich wordplay throughout the scripture, things like "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Ne. 26:33). You can get a sense of the richness of that passage if you consider that the conjunction it uses can function both to join opposites and to suggest that the conjoined nouns are both things at once, that people are both bond and free, both male and female. We are both bond and free because our existential condition is freedom and we bind ourselves to each other physically, emotionally and through covenants. Biologically every person is both male and female because we have genes from both a male and a female. And we are all black and white because the words come from the same root. Terry Blodgett, a linguist at Southern Utah University, had a fascinating article in the Feb. 1994 Ensign called "Tracing the Dispersion," looking at the influence of Hebrew on European languages. There's a table of some Hebrew words and their English descendants. I particularly cherish one root 'BLK' parent of words such as the Hebrew BALAK, BILEK, BLIYK, the English BLACK, BLEAK, BLEACH, and BLANK and the French BLANC (white). So there it is, black and white come from the same root. Given the richness of language, I'm skeptical about claims that we won't use particular languages or even language at all in the next life. It's possible (or it would make an interesting premise for a speculative story) that the language our Father spoke as a mortal was something like Hebrew, or Proto-Indo-European, and he taught that language to Adam and Eve, and that mortals in this world who become exalted will teach their children Urdu or Cakchiquel or whatever language they spoke here. Hmm, speaking of speculative fiction, it might make an interesting premise for a alternate universe or alternate history if the chosen people were black, like the God who chose them, but they suffered great persecution, and under the pressure of the persecution fell into apostasy and when their God decided to restore all things to the earth he noted that once again they were being persecuted, so he withheld them from the priesthood--refused to let the rest of the world be blessed through their priesthood--until the rest of humanity made some progress toward not persecuting each other. But I digress. The question of whether there is an end to race is complicated by our belief that resurrection is a permanent state defined by the union of the spirit and our physical body. Physical characteristics include skin tone and other things that define difference, like hair color and eye color and handedness. I don't see why I wouldn't still be left-handed in the resurrection. (It might be interesting to be ambisinister.) Why shouldn't there be exalted beings who are black, or yellow, or red, or green (surely on some world the people are green, maybe even chartreuse? Because resurrected bodies are physical they will have physical properties, so what color will they be? Why not the same color they were in this life? If the embarrassment at assuming that race or skin color continues after this life comes from the shameful way the human race handles race, it may be worth noting that we seem to have a knack for finding differences among ourselves and oppressing each other based on those differences, yet I don't hear other LDS professing embarrassment at the idea that we continue throughout eternity as separate beings, independent and with separate personalities. Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Scott and Maurine Proctor Date: 11 Feb 2002 15:10:16 -0700 [MOD: If anyone has information on this, please email Margaret directly.] Jonathan--Since I am basically illiterate in computer technology, I can't seem to find an address for Scott and Maurine. (BYU changed my computer and I lost all previous addresses.) They're on the AML list, aren't they? I received a note from someone Maurine had referred to me, but when I responded, it came back as undeliverable. If you don't have an address for them, could you post this on the list so the Proctors can get back to me and we can answer this sister's questions? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SLOVER, "Hancock County" (SL Tribune, Deseret News) Date: 11 Feb 2002 05:15:23 +0000 'Hancock County' Weighs Justice,Values, Revenge Sunday, February 10, 2002 BY CELIA R. BAKER THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Tim Slover was commissioned by Brigham Young University to write something that should "not just interest Mormons, but others too." The theater and media arts department of the LDS Church-owned university wanted to make a contribution to cultural events surrounding the 2002 Winter Games. Slover came through with "Hancock County." Set in the 1840s, it is more, Slover says, than a Mormon history play. "Hancock County" is a drama about the trial of five men accused of conspiring to murder Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but, Slover said, it also is a study of the conflicts that arise in any time when different groups of people live side-by- side. "To me, it's about any community, like Salt Lake City, that has the potential to be divided by competing interests," Slover said. "Are we too hung up about revenge, and even justice, to make peace? The hope is, we're not." In 1844, Smith and his brother Hyrum were under state protection at Carthage Jail in Hancock County, Ill., when the jail was overrun by a mob. The Smiths were murdered. It was impossible to determine which mobster's bullets felled the two men, but a grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge five prominent citizens with conspiracy to commit murder. "Hancock County" opens Friday on the BYU campus in Provo. It is underwritten by a Discovery Grant funded by Don Oscarson. Slover's characters -- a legal defender, prosecuting attorney, judge, defendants, witnesses and Smith's successor Brigham Young -- each show sympathetic qualities and noticeable warts. Earlier, Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill chronicled the little-known events of the trial in the book Carthage Conspiracy. The play was inspired by the book, but not drawn from it. Slover stresses that his finished product is distinct, maintaining that plays have a different purpose than history books. He explains: "I think it's important to hew to the line of the known facts, but there are plenty of places where there aren't known facts. There are a lot of things we don't know, and that's where I can make my best guesses. . . . That would be the kind of thing where a historian or lawyer would say, 'There is no evidence.' My answer would be, 'Right. Exactly.' " Faculty members at BYU and the authors of Carthage Conspiracy gave the play intense scrutiny and offered input, but "nobody made any demands, and it ended up improving the script," Slover says. He is pleased that BYU is producing the play, even though it contains "material about church history that hasn't been aired much before." Slover says that examining places like Hancock County, where neighbors were unable to live harmoniously, can be instructive. "In Hancock County, they failed. If you go to the play, you can look at what happened there and do better." "Hancock County" is directed by Tim Threlfall; the cast includes Marvin Payne, J. Scott Bronson, Anna McKeown, Stephanie Foster-Breinholt, R. Jeremy Selim, Bob Nelson and Robert Gibbs. At BYU Brigham Young University's department of theater and media arts presents Tim Slover's "Hancock County" in the Pardoe Theatre in BYU's Harris Fine Arts Center, Provo, starting Friday at 7:30 p.m. The play continues Tuesdays through Saturdays until March 2. Half-price previews are this Wednesday and=20 Thursday. Tickets are $12; $9 for students and BYU faculty. Call (801) 378-4322. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune 'Hancock County' opens this week By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret News theater editor Only one major production is opening locally this week =97 Utah playwright Tim Slover's historical drama "Hancock County." "HANCOCK COUNTY" is Tim Slover's original drama chronicling the trial of five prominent citizens in the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in Illinois in June 1844. This is Slover's first fully staged play at Brigham Young University since "Joyful Noise" (1998). (The latter has been produced not only by Pioneer Theatre Company in Salt Lake but at several regional theaters in the United States and Canada, including a successful off Broadway run.) "Hancock County" is set during the 12-day trial in the aftermath of the assassination of Joseph Smith, founder and first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and his brother, Hyrum, by a mob at Carthage Jail. Two of the play's seven characters are key witnesses for the church =97 Brigham Young and Eliza Graham. Slover, in his production notes for the play, comments that some of the material in the play is based on the book, "Carthage Conspiracy," by Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill. The drama is centered on redemption =97 and told through the stories of the men who murdered Joseph and Hyrum. Tim Threlfall is directing the production. The cast includes Marvin Payne as dissipated prosecuting attorney Josiah Lamborn, a disgraced former attorney general; J. Scott Bronson as Brigham Young, Stephanie Foster as Eliza Brown, Anna McKeown as Ann Fleming, R. Jeremy Selim as Orville Browning, who leads the defense team; Bob Nelson as Richard Young and Robert Gibbs as Thomas Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, the newspaper that had called for the "extermination" of Smith and the forcible removal of the Mormons from the county. Performances will be Tuesdays-Saturdays at 7:30 p.m. in the Pardoe Theatre of BYU's Harris Fine Arts Center. There will be half-price preview performances on Feb. 13 and 14. Tickets for remaining performances are $12 for the general public and $9 for BYU faculty, staff or students. For reservations, call 378-4322. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] WILLIAMS, _Red_ (SL Tribune) Date: 11 Feb 2002 05:20:58 +0000 Campaign Slogans, Erotic Passages Collide in Williams' Uneven 'Red' Sunday, February 10, 2002 BY MARTIN NAPARSTECK SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE Red Passion and Patience in the Desert By Terry Tempest Williams; Pantheon, $23 Terry Tempest Williams says she writes to save the erotic from the pornographic. She also suggests that she writes to politicize her readers ("place + people = politics"). There is no conflict between her eroticism and her politics in Williams' latest collection of nonfiction, Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert, and, alas, that is the weakness of this compact book from one of Utah's -- and America's -- finest, most original environmental writers. The strongest parts of Red are directly about the erotic. In a reprint from one of her earlier books, Desert Quartet, she writes, "It feels good to sweat, to be engaged, to inhabit my animal body," and "The silence that lives in these sacred [canyon] hallways presses against me. I relax. I surrender. I close my eyes. The arousal of my breath rises in me like music, like love, as the possessive muscles between my legs tighten and release. I come to the rock in a moment of stillness, giving and receiving, where there is no partition between my body and the body of Earth." In another selection, also from Desert Quartet, she writes of standing next to a small fire, her legs spread: "I allow myself to be ravished. My generosity becomes my humiliation." Williams is a master of the startling and lasting image, a gutsy writer unafraid to expose herself, her emotions and her desires, to the reader. No other writer has so fully melded human emotional needs with our surrounding environments. But Red (the title refers primarily to the red-rock landscape of southeastern Utah, where she lives) also includes a statement she made to a U.S. Senate subcommittee criticizing a pending piece of land-management legislation. She defends President Clinton's designation of 1.7 million acres as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and frequent slaps at politicians she doesn't like (high on the list is Utah Congressman Jim Hansen). These are, sad to say, uninspired politics, the statements of the morally certain. There is never any doubt, not in a single one of her political statements, that she might be wrong. Her erotic statements, by contrast, report her inner self and the conflict she consistently finds there: In the paragraph preceding the one where she stands before a fire, we read, "How is it that pleasure exists between such beauty and violence? Feed the fire. No. Yes." Williams refers to many of the entries in Red as stories, but none of them truly are. Many are vignettes; that is, pieces of stories. Others are essays. The political essays amount to extended bumper stickers. Characters in conflict are the building stones of stories, but stories are never complete unless that conflict is resolved. The single finest piece of writing Williams has done (not included in this new volume) is the final section of Refuge, "The Clan of the One-Breasted Women," about the conflict between the values of her church (she is Mormon) and the reality of the high rate of breast cancer among women in her family brought on, she believes, by nuclear testing. Conflict drives that story/ essay. It is a powerful political statement precisely because it is addressed to readers, not to politicians. It doesn't seek to influence legislation and succeeds in influencing hearts. There is no literary interaction between Williams' political position papers in Red and her beautiful and revealing erotic passages. Over and over, the sublime is interrupted by campaign slogans delivered through a bullhorn. Then there are the lists. Like Wordsworth, when she runs out of something to say, she makes a list. She lists 180 place names in Utah's red-rock wilderness (seven pages), 63 reasons she writes (three-plus pages), 10 pages of the names of places she believes should be designated officially as wilderness, and six pages of organizations that agree with her (these last two in appendices), plus a dozen or more mini-lists within her essays and "stories." Of the political comments (and lists), an applicable piece of advice comes from Gertrude Stein, who told a young Hemingway, "Comments are not literature [nor are lists]." Yet, Terry Tempest Williams, when she is good, is so good that Red can be justified by a generous reading of its subtitle: Passion and Patience in the Desert. Unlike anything pornographic, the passion she gives us is convincing, rewarding and revealing. We need only have patience when we read the other stuff. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Walter Kirn on Mormonism and Olympics Date: 11 Feb 2002 08:38:38 -0700 This is great, Chris. And make no mistake--I want to substantiate this post--my father is a healthy ninety-three--look at our "old prophets," etc. And I'm feeling (at my age, imagine!) that I'm just beginning my career, and I have at least thirty years to go! TV's 60 minutes last night brought up another grave area of concern for me--the diet of our youth. The biggest culprits are french fries (any related corn and potato deep-fried chips), carbonated drinks, and sugar. Diabetes is now rampant among young people. I'm frightened not for Mormons, but every school child out there who likes fast food better than celery and beets. Marilyn Brown ----- Original Message ----- > Writing in Time, former-Mormon novelist and writer Walter Kirn makes some > interesting statements. Some highlights, followed by the link to the > complete article: [snip] > > http://www.time.com/time/olympics2002/article/0,8599,198830,00.html > > Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "K.D. Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 08 Feb 2002 12:44:18 -0700 [MOD: Oops--this is a Phase 1 post that was accidentally skipped until now... Konnie, you're still allowed to post another "Phase 2" message.] Ok now I have to comment on this thread. 'We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgressions.' All spirits are created equally and not punished for the sins of their ancestors so no race is less then another so there were other reasons for the policy. Personally I didn't even know the Church had the policy till it was repealed. But then again I joined the Church in July of '78. (Jonathan, I was 16 in '78 too.) I can believe that we are placed where we are on this earth according to how valiant we were in the preexictance. But couldn't that mean that a loving Father placed the least valiant of his children in active member homes in largely active member communities because otherwise they could very easily be swayed from the truth and the very most valiant ones were put where they would have to really search for the truth or may not find it till they died because they were so valiant he knew they would immediately accept it. It seems to me that our loving Heavenly Father would place us where he knew we would live a rightous life or would accept the gospel, without much questioning, if and when it was presented to us. Because he loves us all and wants all of us back with him. To view it any other way would be saying that he is a partial God and favors some of his children over others and I can't imagine that he is. I treat my five children differently because I love them and they are different individuals. How I treat one would annoy or upset another but I love them all and want the best for them. I can't imagine that Heavenly Father would love his children any less. But I can imagine that some of his children would see a physical difference and assume it meant that they were in some way inferior to them (kids can be cruel like that). It's not hard for me to believe that this is what did happen. As far as being punished for something they did in the pre-exictence, those were thrown out of Heaven with Satan. A far as what the truth really is. Does it matter? Shouldn't we treat others as we would want to be treated? Konnie Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 08 Feb 2002 09:47:24 -0700 on 2/7/02 4:30 PM, rwilliams at rwilliams@virtual1.rp1750.usu.edu wrote: > That said, I think there are, in fact, two definitions commonly implied in the > term "racist." The first, and most popular definition involves discrimination > or prejudice based on race, often accompanied by hierarchies of color. The > "white" race, it is argued, is superior to all the others, or whatever. No > one these days, it seems, besides a few extremists here and there, subscribes > to this idea, and this perhaps accounts for the vehemence with which some > defend themselves against accusations of racism. The second definition > however involves the more simple belief that "race" accounts for differences > in human character, ability, or mission in life. This type of "racism" is not > necessarily accompanied by feelings of superiority but merely acknowledges (or > rather affirms) that races do exist and may determine one's individuality and > purpose. In other words, not "racism" but rather "race-ism." Using this > second definition, I think it is safe to label most Mormons today "racist." [snip] > > --John Williams I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject both of your definitions of racism. The version you ascribe to Hitler et al is a very new and specific form of racism that has its roots in the late 19th century, whereas the form of racism which existed before might be called the standard belief of every people, culture and race since the Tower of Babel. Your benign racism is anything but; the idea that race determines character, ability, etc is merely the old form of racism, ie the standard belief of all humanity since the Tower of Babel. There are specific individuals who rose above this concept of humanity, but generally speaking even humanity didn't exist until recently. Hitler's version of Racism, and that which still infests groups like the KKK, is based on the theory of Atlantis. The fabulous, stupendous "Aryan" race of Atlantis for some reason began to mate with subhumans (ie Jews and Blacks) and for that the Gods destroyed Atlantis. The few pure (white) Aryan survivors fled to Ultima Thule and from there they eventually spread out a bit, being the origin of the Germanic tribes, and in some versions also the Celtic tribes. The postulatedAryans of India are also included in this elect group of Atlantean descendents. This is not the standard sort of racism that exists practically everywhere for all of history. The standard racism generally never brought about so much carnage, though the Mongols may be considered the first wave of the new racism. The Mongols are still unequaled in their butchery, unless one lumps all socialists together, in which case the socialists win. Most people don't group Jacobins, Nazis and Communists together, however. I do, but that's me. I tend to group vile with vile, and good with good. I don't like Ivan the Terrible any better than Subotai or Pol Pot. The fact is that the world was not yet prepared for the death of the common racism. From some of Joseph Smith's words it is very obvious that he considered black folks limited by education rather than race. "Give a black man and education and he'll take the shine right off his so-called master." The fact that early Mormons were mostly abolitionist (if not extremely so) was a large part of the reason that we were ejected from Missouri. There was fighting all over Missouri & Kansas for twenty years before the Civil War, and though we tend to see it as larger, our part was really rather small in that whole struggle. We were gone before it got really bad, but the sort of attacks and massacres that we suffered only got worse. The fact is if we had advocated what is generally pretended to be believed by all today, ie that race is only skin deep, there might've been a much more damaging reaction. As it happened, we were merely ejected from state to state, attacked twice by the Federal government, and the second time stripped of all our temples. It was a close thing, and I figure God knows what he's doing. What Said, and progressives in general, really want is not progress. They want feudalism to return, with themselves as masters. He, and they, are trying to maintain the standard racism of history. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the world, it turns out that the inherent racist chauvanism of practically every culture in history is really based on false premises. At most race may include tendencies, genetic, cultural or otherwise, but individuals are able to overcome those tendencies, negative and positive alike. The tendency is not enough to destroy freedom. Said believes that the fact that my skin is white necessitates my inherent racism; I cannot see the "oriental" culture correctly because of inherent biases that I have no control over. I am blinded, and can never, no matter what I do, see clearly. In such a case we may as well throw in the towell for peace on earth--since nobody can ever see the other guy's perspective in even the smallest degree then we're in for endless wars. Dang this is turning into a book. Let me sum up. There have been Mormon racists of the traditional type. One of the reasons that the gospel was restored only after the reformation and enlightenment is because it would only then be possible for a church of any kind to be truly universalist. Joseph Smith would've liked to have seen it occurr in his own day, and from the writings of several others of the prophets they would too, but the world does obtrude. While it would be nice to say "this is right and (expletive-deleted) the world," at most points in history it would only make a pretty epitaph. The constant wrangling that goes on these days about which ancestors were the most guilty is pointless. They were all guilty. They were all wicked. They have only one hope for salvation and it won't come from an academic racist like Said. The search for the idyllic ancient civilization is vain, because the city of Zion left no artifacts behind, and the Nephite centuries of peace were followed by constant strife, and wars do tend to knock things down. Historical fiction should have characters with historical attitudes, rather than trying to push modern ideals on people who never heard of them. You can do what you want with Fantasy or Science Fiction, but history is mean, nasty and cruel, and that's just how it is. I have no problem with the fact that my Viking ancestors used to torture their captives to death, blood eagles, last marches, etc. Some of their beliefs and ideals made their way to our day--it doesn't bother me one bit. I'll take the good with the bad and sort through them as best I can. Jim Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 09 Feb 2002 13:32:03 -0700 And now for a few stories: Last time I went in for a physical, my doctor told me the following story. = I don't vouch for the accuracy of the details, as I heard this second = hand. I've been trying to find time to write this as a novel or play, but = wanted to meet the actual guy first, and the doctor wouldn't tell me his = real name. He has another patient, who I'll call David. David lived in a small town = in southern Utah, and was known to his fellow townspeople as the only = black guy in the town. He didn't look black, but it was well known that = his mother, a schoolteacher, had had an affair with a passing black = athlete back in the '30's, and that David had been the result. David's = mother died when he was very young, and he was raised by an aunt and = uncle. He was not allowed to eat at the table with the other family = members, nor was he allowed to live in the house. They built a room for = him in the garage, and he ate when the rest of the family was finished. = David was not allowed to join the Scout troop, and although he attended = church, he was not, of course, allowed to hold the Aaronic priesthood. He = was allowed to attend the local school, but a drinking fountain was set = aside for his use, and when he got to high school, he was not allowed to = use the common shower after gym class, and there were additional restrictio= ns on where he could go and what he could do. Couldn't eat in the = downtown cafe, etc. =20 Then David turned 21. And per his mother's wishes, he was given the = contents of her safety deposit box. And in that box, he found her = journal, where he learned that he was not the son of a passing black = athlete, but the son of the town's most prominent citizen, a banker and = the local stake president. The story of the athlete had been invented by = his mother to protect the reputation of her lover. David went to the bishop with this information, and asked to be ordained = to the priesthood. The bishop (a grandson of the stake president in = question, who by this time was long deceased), refused. So David went to = Salt Lake, and met with Elder Kimball, who sent a note to the bishop = ordered David to be ordained, in public, by that bishop. The bishop again = refused. So one Sunday, the bishop was called from the stand during = Sacrament meeting, and told he had an urgent phone call from Salt Lake = City. He left the meeting, came back looking greatly chastened, and = ordained David to the priesthood on the spot. David subsequently served a = mission, and when my doctor knew him, was a dedicated and active member of = the Church. =20 Second story. I don't remember where I heard it, and again don't vouch = for the details: A young man, returned from his mission, is preparing for a temple = marriage. This was supposedly during the tenure of Joseph Fielding Smith, = which would put it in 1971 or so. As this lad prepared for his temple = marriage, he decided to do his geneology, and there he learned that he had = a black ancestor. As I heard the story, it turns out that his ancestor = was quite prominent, a Frederick Douglass type figure. He contacted his = bishop, who went to the stake president, who decided it was too big for = him, and eventually found himself on the phone with President Smith. He = explained the situation, and President Smith is said to have sighed, = moaned, and then told the man to wait a day and he'd get back to him. The = next day, the phone call came, and President Smith told the stake = president, "tell the young man that he cannot be married in the temple. = He is not to practice his priesthood. Our apologies, but this is how it = must be." =20 So the Stake President told President Smith that the situation was more = complicated. The young man in question was from a very prominent family = in the Church. His grandfather was the stake patriarch. His father was = on the High Council. He had three brothers in bishoprics. Did they all = need to be released? More sighs and groans from President Smith. "I'll = call you back tomorrow," he said. Next day, another phone call. And President Smith said to the Stake = President, 'tell the young man to get married, stay active, and keep his = mouth shut." Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Public and Private Mormon Literature Date: 11 Feb 2002 15:06:44 -0800 I have to admit up this point I have been confused about the discourse between Public and Private Mormon Literature. I want to thank Melissa for making it much clearer what she was trying to say. I think I've got it now. That distinction between telling what goes on in our religion and culture and not automatically assuming that we're right on everything and no one else has truth to offer is instructive, one I'll take to heart. Something I probably knew down deep anyway. I'd also have to agree with her assessment of Rummer Godden's, "In This House of Brede". Excellent book. I could understand much of it coming from a Catholic background, but she makes it really accessible to most anyone. Even though you may not agree with the reasons for choices these nuns make based on the doctrine they believe, you come away with a greater understanding and probably respect, I know I did. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home Date: 11 Feb 2002 15:47:34 -0700 "Darlene Young" wrote: > I think we're only beginning to see literature that > shows the true hardship of a mission without being > sappy, simplistic, or, at the other extreme, ending > with everyone leaving the church. I published my first novel WAITING FOR THE FLASH back in 1988. It approached the true hardships of a mission in a very fair and balanced way--at least I thought so (but then anything more the sly grin that follows an evil fart is sappy to me, so what I think may not be a good barometer). It was not a happy book, because it hasn't a happy subject. Anyway, the book sold remarkably well, considering it was a first novel from a complete unknown with absolutely no marketing or advertising--the first run almost sold out in the first year. To me that indicates the audiance for darker portrails of life is already there. The problem is publishers. They are businesses. They need to make money to stay in bussiness. They're not willing to take chances that might result in their deaths. But judging from your short story--DARLENE YOUNG--you are very qualified to write the novel you want to see one the market. And once it's finished it will find its way into print. And it will be appriciated. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 11 Feb 2002 17:06:40 -0700 I'm just glad they didn't have square dancers or cloggers (did they?). Of all the corny, square (ha), embarrassing things. . . I too was bothered by the announcers' frequently cutting each other off and the one voice that I often couldn't understand. And I do remember thinking Ku Klux Klan at one point. When the large group at my house was speculating on who would light the torch, my suggestion of O.J. Simpson got the biggest reaction. I tried to argue that he would make a nice bookend with Mohammed Ali in '96. I'm being swept along with family to women's hockey in Provo, and the thing I'm most looking forward to is seeing what my $10 concession coupon buys me (our seats turn out to be obstructed, so SLOC is buying us off with the coupon). One hotdog and a 12-ounce soda? Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 11 Feb 2002 18:24:45 -0600 (CST) [MOD: I've failed to find the article following any of these links...] On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, R.W. Rasband wrote: > Oops, that link didn't work. Try this one: > > --- "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > > Writing in the conservative Catholic magazine "National Review Online", > > columnist Dave Shiflett has a sardonically funny but not unsympathetic > > take on "The Mormons and the Olympics." It's at: > > http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020920.html Actually, I got there by using http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020902.html (The year was transposed in both versions you sent) rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net \ They that can give up essential / liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve \ neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 11 Feb 2002 17:36:13 -0700 I respectfully disagree, my friend. It was excruciatingly long (and I know, that's a drawback of all ceremonies that involve parading thousands of people by, but...) and though the costumes and puppets were eye-catching, the ice dance was predictable and not terribly engaging (oooh, the KKK icicles are skating in his general direction....I'm shaking in my boots....) I too liked the use of Red and White (loved all those white turtlenecks too--how much did that cost? Hmmm) but mostly I was just waiting around to see the lighting of the big torch and to see who would light it. At around "L" in the parade of nations we called mom & dad in Utah and asked who lit the torch (it wasn't live here in Seattle). Kept the tv throughout the rest of the event, hoping to be engaged, but wasn't. My final analysis was that I hope it was more exciting to be there cuz it wasn't exciting to watch it on TV. And I HATED the constant commentary during the performances. Katie, Bob, I love you but please please please stop talking. It was like a cellphone ringing in the middle of Act II, like fingernails on the chalkboard etc. Oh, and I know we had to have pioneers in there somewhere but could someone PLEASE come up with some original pioneer choreography? Grumpy because she's 16 driving hours away from all the fun-- Marianne Hales Harding >From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" > >Well, I needn't have worried. The Opening Ceremonies were wonderful. I'm >not very sentimental, but the producers just did so much right, made so >many terrific choices. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 11 Feb 2002 15:55:57 -0800 This is the first time I've seen National Review described as "Catholic." Aside from the Catholicism of its founder, Wm. F. Buckley, what evidence do you have of this? ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com At 02:19 PM 2/8/02 -0800, you wrote: >Writing in the conservative Catholic magazine "National Review Online", >columnist Dave Shiflett has a sardonically funny but not unsympathetic >take on "The Mormons and the Olympics." It's at: >http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020920.shtml > > > >===== >R.W. Rasband >Heber City, UT >rrasband@yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 11 Feb 2002 16:00:57 -0800 At 11:55 AM 2/9/02 -0500, you wrote: >I always figured, "In for a penny, in for a pound." At some point I had >to decide that the scriptures were inspired by God, or they weren't. I >wasn't going to be selective and say that because this particular >scripture made me feel uncomfortable, then I wou >ld simply ignore it. > >Abraham 1:27 says: > >"Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right >of the Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from >Noah, through Ham..." > >Lots of scriptures can be hedged on and skirted, but I have to admit that >a reasonable reading of this verse seems to indicate that certain people's >lineage keeps them from holding the Priesthood, and it would take a >prophetic revelation to erase the meaning >that is pretty clear in this scripture. > >Do I like it? No. >Am I comfortable with this? No. >Am I 100% sure that this lineage applies to African bloodlines? No. >Do I wish this scripture didn't exist? Yes. > >But since it does, I have to admit that the presidents of the church were >simply following their testimonies that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and >when he gave us the book of Abraham he didn't just make it up in order to >propagate some hare-brained racist prop >aganda. They most likely took the Book of Abraham as inspired >communication from God. As I do. > >There was a Noah, he had a son Ham. There was a curse that kept Ham's >lineage from holding the priesthood and this lineage included the >Pharaohs. The curse is over now, but don't blame the presidents of the >church or call them racist because of something No >ah did that the Lord communicated to us. > >I don't know for sure that every president of the church and every apostle >didn't pray fervently and daily for the curse to be lifted. My own >feeling is that when the majority of the members of this church want >something, they get it, whether it's good for t >hem or not. Probably until 1978 the majority of the members were happy >with the status quo, but when we reached a critical mass in our prayers, >the Lord sent the revelation. I apply this to other people who are denied >the priesthood today. The majority of >the church is happy with the status quo, but if we can ever convince >enough of our friends and neighbors, then we'll get the revelation. > >Tony Markham I'm rather astonished at this note. As a non-member, perhaps I'm missing something here. But if you have a strong testimony of the Scriptures (including the book of Abraham), does this not extend to a testimony of the prophetic calling of the Presidents of the Church? You accept Joseph Smith, Jr., as a prophet, with the authority to deliver new Scripture through revelation, with no feedback or polls to affect his revelation. But you don't accept that modern prophets can receive revelation without the members becoming dissatisfied with the status quo. Can you tell me when you think this all changed? ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Diversity Among Mormons (was: Stealth Religion in Literature) Date: 11 Feb 2002 18:02:05 -0700 In his excellent post, James Wilson outlined thoughts on why he believes a Mormon literature intended for a general audience is better served with a middle of the road approach that doesn't force non-Mormons to make personal evaluative judgments about whether Mormon thought excludes their own beliefs, and that focusing on our commonality of belief will build more bridges than (intentionally or un) exclusive work that directly or tacitly rejects all but specifically Mormon ideas. I absolutely agree. In her excellent post on Public and Private Mormon lit, Melissa Proffitt suggested that an intensive internal look at Mormonism that directly exposed the inner culture (like Chiam Potok's work with Jewish culture) would do more to demystify some of the odder notions regarding Mormon belief and create a bridge of legitimate understanding that didn't apologize for who we are and what we believe. Such a literature would expose and perhaps explain Mormon belief and culture without the toe-scuffing or shrugging (or defiant glaring) that so many explicitly Mormon stories seem to contain--and in so doing would clarify us both as unique and ordinary in that belief. I absolutely agree. I love discussions where people offer their visions or their ideals of what they would like to see Mormon lit do. I especially like it when I then see works from those people on my local bookstore shelves. And if their approaches are different--even incompatible--I glory in the diversity within our Mormon culture and look forward to seeing how others that share certain cosmological foundations perceive their world. Because I believe that those apparently incompatible visions of the world and how it is (or should be) can each be absolutely true and praiseworthy. I keep hearing about the relentless sameness of Mormons, and I'm sorry but I just haven't experienced it. Without denying others' experiences on that issue, I can only say that the Mormons I know and choose to associate with are anything but homogeneous. Unified in hope, but certainly not stamped out of the same mold. We are not machines, and given the same experiential events we will not all generate the same interpretations. Richard Johnson can't imagine using the phrase "emotionally scarred" to describe his mission, and Chris Bigelow can't describe his own experience without using that phrase. Should I reject one because I find the other's viewpoint compelling? What if each viewpoint resonates equally (if not in the same way)? I know that my mission was the best two years of my life (minus six months for the vagaries of the Church's attempts to deal with unpleasant economic realities of the early 1980s), but it was only the best time of my life *after it was over.* During my mission I experienced the most spectacular highs and lows of my life to that point. It was uplifting. It was was scarring. It was marvellous and terrifying, intense and boring all at the same time. It was certainly transforming, though I can't say all of those transformations were ideal--or even improvements. Every approach to telling our Mormon stories will work, and every approach will fail--for some audience. Some approaches make me cringe in fear of edge or false doctrine, others make me cringe in fear of their blind simplicity. Sometimes I worry that people will attribute those beliefs to all Mormons, and thus to me. But rather than apologizing for how someone else believes, my job is to explain how I believe. No need to stamp out other beliefs, only to refine my own--and even proselyte them in my own way. How we tell our stories is less important to me than simply that we tell our stories. Which is not to say that I don't think we should debate the merits and liabilities of different approaches--how can we learn to refine our viewpoints and our art if we don't discuss, analyze, and judge? But those conclusions are ultimately our own to make as individuals. I don't embrace all approaches, but I do appreciate the sheer guts that leads one to put their words and ideas and feelings out into the world. I respect it even when I don't agree with it. The point? Nothing much. Just a rambling appreciation of each and every voice on this list and a call to share your opinions even when you think you're in an unpopular minority. And to respect that others have a right to their often different conclusions. I know that my own views on art and culture have been transformed during my years on this list--I think for the better. Thank you. All. And keep it up--especially those of you who don't speak out as much as others of us. It's in our diversity that I believe we will discover the commonalities that define what it is to be Mormon. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 11 Feb 2002 18:03:50 -0700 I was also very nervous about the Opening ... not just because I live here and am naturally worried about our fair community, but because I'm currently doing a stint as a Security Manager for the Olympics. But not at Rice-Eccles or the Opening Ceremony, thank goodness. I'm supervising round-the-clock crews at the three Practice Ice Venues in the valley. I admit, it HAS been very rewarding. After all, I get to see all these famous Olympic athletes up close and personal, away from the spectators and the crowds, but equally thrilling and professional in their practice performances. As they say, "A once in a lifetime opportunity." But working Security has been very eye-opening, as I rub shoulders with Law Enforcement Officers of all kinds. Everyone's working hard to make sure things run right and tight. I can assure you all, it's a well-greased wheel. It's exciting, actually. The one thing that has surprised me a little is that hardly anybody complains about all the delays and hassles, like having to be "Magged & Bagged" (Magnetometer, aka Metal Detector, and Bag Check) at every single venue, being wanded and/or patted down when you can't get the dumb thing to quit squawking, having your cellphone (and everything electronic) turned off and on, having your bags turned inside out because we just don't have X-ray machines everywhere, and even having a blank picture taken on your camera. Even the staff and volunteers, out there braving the weather, take it all in stride. It's a great reflection on us locals, and all the visitors and participants in general. We're apparently all quite willing to make the necessary sacrifice in the name of safety and security. Post 9-11 syndrome, we call it. But it's also a sad commentary on the state of the world, and probably a predictable piece of the "signs of the times" happening around us. We're definitely in the eleventh hour. I, for one, can hardly wait until it's all over ... and successful. (The Olympics, I mean ... not the world.) Then all the Osama-wannabees can turn their eyes and attention elsewhere for a while. Under the circumstances, I'm not very comfortable being the focus of such intensive scrutiny, and I won't be breathing very easy until March sometime. Here's hoping for Great Games! BJ Rowley Sector Coordinator, Event Services (Security) Salt Lake Organizing Committee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] Thingmaker? (was: Missionaries Returning Home) Date: 11 Feb 2002 19:51:53 -0700 What kinds of "things" does a "thingmaker" make, Richard? WAs it puppets? Did we ask this once before? Have you ever "made" a novel? This is very interesting stuff! Marilyn Brown ----- Original Message ----- [Snip] > Richard B. Johnson > Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, > Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool > I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important > http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ > Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mormons in _Ocean's 11_? (Comp 1) Date: 12 Feb 2002 14:01:39 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation of two (differing) replies to Eileen Stringer's query about evidence that the two actors in _Ocean's Eleven_ were really Mormon.] From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Mon Feb 11 14:23:35 2002 > And the overwhelming evidence that says they are Mormons > is.......................? They are called Mormons and they don't deny it. Absent any denial, one is forced to accept the writer's description. Saying they weren't implies there is evidence elsewhere in the film that they aren't. Mormon Twins may be their nickname, but no one in the film suggests that. To suggest they are not in forcing the text to a conclusion that is not implied. Thom Duncan >From lajackson@juno.com Mon Feb 11 22:51:46 2002 I saw (and enjoyed) the film. IIRC, they are called "The Mormon Twins". It was a single reference, and I think that's the only evidence there is. I suspect their bishop would be concerned about their spiritual well-being, if he even knew they were living in his ward. It's the old saw, "If someone were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict?" In this case, it seems it would all be heresay evidence. Larry Jackson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 00:07:25 -0700 I loved this post from Tony Markham. Prior to 1978 I lived in an integrated neighborhood in Foster City, California and had very close black friends. I had seen an interview with Pres. Kimball on T.V. where he was asked if he expected any revelations concerning giving the priesthood to blacks and he answered, "No." I was devastated. When the ban was lifted I went to the temple and confided in the matron there that I had been praying fervently for this to happen. She said, "Isn't it wonderful to know that Heavenly Father loves us enough to answer our prayers." Thanks for your comments, Tony. Nan McCulloch ----- Original Message ----- > I always figured, "In for a penny, in for a pound." At some point I had to decide that the scriptures were inspired by God, or they weren't. I wasn't going to be selective and say that because this particular scripture made me feel uncomfortable, then I would simply ignore it. > [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] UDALL, _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ Date: 12 Feb 2002 08:30:49 +0000 Brady Udall's "The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint" was chosen as the second best fiction book of 2001 (after The Corrections) by Entertainment Weekly, and one of the twelve best works of fiction by Newsweek. It didn't make a much longer list of significant 2001 books put out by the New York Times Book Review. Andrew Hall Pittsburgh, PA _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Depictions of Jews (was: Depictions of Jesus) Date: 12 Feb 2002 10:36:25 -0700 [From Darius Gray via Margaret Young] << I don't think that intermarriage with descendants of Ham necessarily implies a particular skin color. Ham's wife may have been dark skinned, but Ham was no more dark skinned than his brothers. >> > Brother Hopkins; There is an interesting tidbit to be found in the Pearl of Great Price at > > > "And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and > forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth > , and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham." > > Note that it specifically states that both Japheth and Shem had the same > mother but it does not say the same for Ham. Most of the old testament > prophets had more than one wife and often concubines. Consider that [Noah] > MAY have had a second wife (who did not make that famous boat trip) and > that she was of the same lineage as Ham's wife, Egyptus. Enter Gregor > Mendel and the dominance of "color." Ham, as biracial, married to a black > female would produce a preponderance of dark skinned individuals, > especially if the Israelite line were also dark due to environmental > conditions. The question than arises: where do these white Jews come in? > They hadn't yet returned from the Diaspora. That took another 2000 years. << So the skin color of the Jews at the time of Christ cannot easily be determined based upon their earlier intermarriage with other nations.>> I disagree and believe, that to a point, skin color can be deduced from the evidence. The Savior was a Jew, on that we agree. However, the premise that he and the other Jews of the first century had somehow had their color "bled out" strikes me as counter to historic and scientific fact - Alvin R. Dyer not withstanding. There WAS intermarriage with the descendants of Ham. That point is made clear by the scriptures and you either believe them or you don't. The Israelites of Christ's time, like those before them, had an economy based on agriculture and worked outdoors under the same sun as did their earlier brethren. So how did this transformation in pigmentation occur? By the way, thank you for adjusting your position about intermarriage between Ham's descendants and the Israelites. After all we really are bothers and sisters. Darius Gray -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 12 Feb 2002 11:18:57 -0700 on 2/9/02 2:11 PM, Eric R. Samuelsen at ERSAMUEL@byugate.byu.edu wrote: > (And yes, by the way, I am planning to see some events, though I couldn't > afford tickets for last night. Short track speed skating, cross country > skiing, Nordic combined and ski jump are all on my calender. What about > y'all?) Eric et al, I agree--the opening was smashing. Just got back from a day at the Olympics--we had a blast! Watched the men's half-pipe finals and waved our US and Canadian flags ( I married an alien, you know) and then went to couple's free program finals last night. I missed all the medals controversy while in the bathroom with a 10 yr old who'd had too many polish hot dogs unbeknownst to us, but everyone else had a great time. I'm ready to write a glowing letter to anyone with anything to do with arranging the public transportation and shuttling. I've never seen so many people moved so quickly with so little fuss. Disney needs to hire these folks. Mormon lit. connection? During breaks in the half-pipe I was working on a song. ;-) Steve P. S. Comments on "The Light of the World" in the conference center? -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] [AML-Mag] Race Issues in Mormonism (Phase 2) Date: 12 Feb 2002 14:08:18 -0600 Folks, I think we've had a good discussion so far. We're now past the initial three-day period for posting first comments. I'd now like to invite people to take part in the second two day period, in which everyone may send a single post in which you may discuss or even critique the positions others have taken, and perhaps clarify your own ideas. Remember, just one post during this phase as well. (I will probably let it stretch through Thursday since we aren't getting started on this until Tuesday p.m.). After this second period is over, all further debate about each other's ideas on the political/theological questions is closed. We hope, however, that the theological discussion will prompt a discussion of the literary implications of the various ideas. Thanks again for your help, interest, courtesy, and thought-provoking views. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 14:45:28 EST Forgive me for commenting when I haven't carefully read this whole thread. I respect the fervor and faith that seem to prevail in the few posts I've read. Our priesthood policy/doctrine/folkway (who knows what to call it?) feels a certain way to us because it has Exluded a segment of God's children. That seems odd to some of us, and wrong. I wonder how the discussion would be going, how we would be feeling, if we were living back in the days when the priesthood Included only a very small segment of God's children, the Levites. Someone here (again, forgive me, I deleted the day's posts) shared the story of their missionary companion who had the bizarre notion that deeply-colored people were descended from lower critters, whereas more shallowly-colored people were descended from Adam and Eve, whom God made. C.S. Lewis, who in "Mere Christianity" dances deftly, lucid and confident, through most of the doctrines of the Savior, suddenly gets, by his own admission, less lucid and confident when trudging through the doctrine of the Trinity. He would have us believe the reason is that the doctrine is difficult. Some of us would suggest Lewis' problem is that the doctrine is wrong. Lewis is not as inventive as the unfortunate missionary companion. Thank goodness. But something in me refuses to surrender entirely to the reasoning of Darius Gray, Margaret Young, and Eric Samuelsen. (Some of my best friends are Eric Samuelsen!) I'm deeply reticent to assail Gray and Young particularly, given their passion, commitment, and experience. I want very much to embrace the view that the whole priesthood denial was a big mistake, mortal-driven. But I don't want to trade one easy explanation (the missionary's, Elder Dyer's, Brigham Young's) for another. I want to know more, from Gray and Young (M.) and from the Lord. "I Am Jane" helped. (My great-great grandfather John Brown owned some of those characters.) But there is still this notion of family, and particular family responsibilities. It was understood by the ancients well enough that they were surprised at the idea that Jesus would claim priesthood authority, simply because he was a Jew, of which family "Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." I hope I'm not being like the dwarves at the last battle of Narnia, who shot arrows at warriors on both sides because they didn't want to be "taken in" by one side or the other. But the bottom line for me is "I don't know." I'm okay with "I don't know." It applies to most of the issues in my mortal adventure. I think the problem with the missionary "evolution vs. creation" idea is that it was spoken as an "I know." Same with Elder Dyer's "fences in pre-earth life" idea. It was an "I know." The pivotal post-'78 moment for me was when I stood in Macomb, Illinois, across the pizza counter from a young black employee. His was the first black face I'd peered into since the revelation came. I was filled with this liberating, exhilarating, wonderful feeling of "Man, there's nothing WRONG with you!" It was great. That was an "I know" moment that infused me with life and joy. How much else do I know? Not much. Something I do know is that all of us are mortal and fallible. I know Joseph Smith struggled, Brigham Young struggled--a description of Spencer Kimball's struggle is published as part of the revelation. What I don't know is what any of them were struggling with. Racism? What the Lord has in mind with his sovereign distribution of gifts and responsibilities? The errors of our fathers? To know the hearts of prophets and gods is sometimes hard. To know our personal responsibility is easy: Honor the pizza guy. Marvin Payne Alpine, Utah ---------------------------- Visit marvinpayne.com! "...Come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 13:28:38 -0700 I've been restraining myself from responding to the posts on this subject, but am keeping them all nicely filed. But I do want to clarify my position and my co-author's. I doubt the Church would have let us publish with their official company (Deseret) if we were going to suggest that past Church leaders were hopelessly racist and that the whole priesthood issue was their big mistake. Our position, succinctly put (and copied to Darius so he can add or detract) is that God did indeed ALLOW the priesthood denial. I won't go so far as to suggest He invented the idea, but He allowed it just as He allows us all to make choices and progress according the the light we have. And I believe that He was blessing and proving ALL his children--white and black, male and female, bond and free--through their dealings with each other and the challenges of their particular times. I believe we all came to earth with callings, assignments, and pre-mortal covenants, and that many of our challenges--regardless of race--are results of assignments we fully accepted. NONE of us came to earth bearing a curse. (See D&C sec. 93). Certainly, to judge another generation from a position of chronological snobbery is unfair. But when we are associating words like "curse" with black skin--and when we are STILL doing it--we really do have a problem, one serious enough to keep us from becoming a Zion society. The scriptures are the ultimate reference, and God never rescinds his position as being no respecter of persons. I have no doubt that Spencer W. Kimball received revelation to change the Church policy. I'm tempted to suggest some ideas about the "why" which appeal to me, but we have had so much speculation on this issue, and much of it has been so damaging, that I will resist the temptation. As Alma said, "I do not know all things; therefore, I will forbear." And Marvin, I'm thrilled to know that John Brown is your ancestor. His autobiography was vital in the writing of _Bound for Canaan_. I was tempted to use his discourse of "fogyism" in the book. It would serve this discussion well, even though its purpose was to defend polygamy. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 13:56:38 -0700 I'm not sure how/if this fits into the guidelines Andrew and Jonathan have devised for this discussion. I trust that our humble (and much appreciated) moderator will request appropriate alteration to meet those guidelines. Like others on this list, I grew up in a world that was rapidly changing its attitudes about the role of race in culture (I was born in 1964). To at least some degree I remain confused about the things that I have heard and learned and believed over the years. Some marginally related anecdotes... --- My first memory of irrational hate by one human being for another was when I saw a man spit on a hippie in San Francisco when I was four years old. The man shouted foul words and spat on a dirty white man with long stringy hair and wearing a serape. The hippie wiped spit out of his hair and told his attacker to "learn some peace, man." Then the hippie walked away. I didn't know anything about race issues at that point, but I knew what the man did to the hippie was unfair. --- At about the same time I learned that my grandfather didn't like Mexicans. He was a Wyoming cowboy and thought Mexicans were lazy and dishonest. I knew he was wrong because I had several friends in preschool who were Mexican. It would be a source of quiet amusement for me many years later when my uncle married a full-blooded Mexican girl (about two weeks after coming home from his mission to San Diego--but that's a different story), and when my father married a first-generation American from East L.A. --- I was six and living in Denver when I memorized the Gettyburg Address. It was one of the things you could do to earn a school pencil that was given out at assembly, and I thought memorizing the address was much easier than memorizing the names of the planets. I recognized the hundreds of words in the Gettysburg Address as real words so I could memorize them much easier than the nine strange words that named the planets--what was a Jupiter or a Venus or a Uranus, after all? I thought the words of the address were moving, and was proud to think of the idea of fundamental rights that would never be taken from the earth as the foundation of my nation and my belief. --- I grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons that celebrated racial diversity. When Aquaman explained how silly it was to hate someone based on the color of their skin, all I could do was agree. It seemed silly to hate anyone for superficial reasons--even hippies or Mexicans. The Jackson 5 cartoon was much cooler than the Osmonds cartoon, and the black Pussycat was much, much smarter and cooler than Josie. And who didn't love Fat Albert--especially if you were a fat kid yourself? --- I became explicitly aware of racial tension while living outside Washington D.C. when I was seven. My parents watched the news and talked, and I listened quietly as many, many people commented on the problems of race and society. I understood that conflict existed but I didn't understand why. Still, I slowly began to wonder if I was broken because skin color and nation of origin seemed irrelevant to me. After all, didn't white people try really, really hard to get darker skin by staying out in the sun all day? If anything, I was the defective with my aggressively ruddy skin that didn't tan, but rather reddened with exposure. --- When I was in third grade a black kid named Jacques was the smartest kid in the class, and I ran a close second. A Pakistani kid (I can't remember his name) thought we were both inferior because we'd never lived outside the United States like he had. I didn't like either Jacques or the Pakistani kid, but that was because I was competitive and they were the competition. I don't recall really being aware of their race as anything but a physical fact, like height or sex or shoe size. On the last day of school Jacques and I came into conflict (he accused me of stealing something that I hadn't taken). As we each pled our case to the teacher the idea popped into my head to do a little word play on the idea of the white lie, and when Jacques had finished his version of events I called him a "black liar." You know--white lie transforms into black lie because his skin is black and it was clever not racist but that didn't stop Jacques from physically crumpling in front of me as the words came out of my mouth. The teacher gaped at me and I realized what it sounded like I had said, but by then Jacques had begun to cry and the teacher sent me away. I knew that they both thought I was evil even though I had only been trying to be clever, because I had heard about racial hate and knew that I had just said something unforgivable even if that hadn't been my intent. The pain in Jacques' face was clear and my guilt was instant and I never tried to defend myself. I don't remember seeing Jacques after that. Of course it was the end of a school year and he probably ended up in a different class. But from that day forward I understood the power of words to injure, and mislead, and betray. I also understood that intent had nothing to do with perception. People could hate me for words I had said but meanings I hadn't intended. And there was no way to retract unintended injury. I had become part of the oppressing majority and had perpetuated race-related distrust. I had become the bad guy that Aquaman and the rest of the Justice League wanted so much to destroy. --- When I was ten my parents moved to the Chicago area. We were buying tires at the Sears store in Hawthorne Mall when a tall, heavy black man wearing a Sears vest came up and began speaking to me. He had a gruff, gravelly voice and a heavy New Orleans accent and I had not the vaguest idea what he was saying (I have a slight hearing loss and have a very hard time decoding accents). I just stared at him uncomprehendingly as he asked the question again and again, becoming slightly more aggressive with each repetition. All I could think of was Jacques who I had hurt with ill-considered words, so I said nothing lest the words betray me again. I knew I looked stupid, but it was the best thing I could think of at the time. --- In the spring of 1978 I went to the Great America theme park with my eighth grade graduating class. In Illinois the drinking age is 21 so it's generally easy to tell when underage kids try to buy beer. At one of the food stands I saw a black kid who couldn't have been more than 14 trying to buy beer from a white vendor. The vendor asked for ID and the kid began to shout about how the man was racist and wouldn't serve because the boy was black. The vendor quietly asked for ID but the kid kept up his loud complaints and a crowd soon formed. I walked away confused. Why would the kid say something that was so obviously untrue? And why wouldn't the white vendor respond directly to the ludicrous claim of racism? --- I was playing softball with some of the priests in my ward (I was fourteen and a teacher) the day after the announcement on the priesthood. One of the priests, Chris, was talking to his friends and said "The world's about to end; they're letting niggers have the priesthood now." Another priest told Chris to shut up, and a third punched him in the face, bruising his left cheek. I had always known Chris to be an idiot, so I never took his words to mean anything other than that he was still an idiot. Then they all looked over at Kent, an Argentine immigrant with a very dark complexion, the fourth in this tight-knit little group of friends. Chris blinked and said "But you're not a nigger. Not a real one." Kent walked away and Chris followed after him, pleading "Mellow out. You know what I mean." --- When I was nineteen I worked for Avis Car Rental driving cars back and forth between O'Hare Airport and the downtown location as a last-minute rush for mission money. I was on a sixteen man crew with twelve blacks, three Hispanics, and me. I had always been a little bit of a social outcast so I didn't feel particularly put upon when the crew largely ignored me. We all drove the cars one way, then drove back together in a big fifteen passenger van (the goal was to move lots of cars to O'Hare early in the week and to Chicago at the end of the week to ensure that cars were where people needed them). As the odd man out I lay on the floor between the back seat and the rear door and usually took a nap during the off part of the trip. I was in my tenth week before one of the black drivers looked over the back of the seat and stared at me. I smiled and asked if I could help him with something, and he asked why I chose to sit behind the seat. I told him that it was obvious the rest of them were friends and I didn't want to force one of them to be left out. Besides, I didn't mind the chance for a short nap. He shook his head and said something to the effect that he had been wondering for ten weeks if I was a just racist punk or if I was being cool by taking the sh** seat. I told him I hadn't noticed the racial breakdown and apologized for being rude. For the next four weeks it became a game to peek over the back seat and talk to the weird white kid. Race was an issue, but in a fun "educate the white suburban kid on black Chicago pop culture" sort of way. It ended up being one of the funnest summer jobs I ever had. --- While serving a mission in Germany, I noticed that there were no black Germans. Sure, there were Africans and Brits and other blacks, but they were all transplants. The Germans took particular joy in condemning the United States for our poor race relations. Of course they didn't seem to notice their own poor treatment of Turks--a legally oppressed minority. Also while in Germany I heard a news report that the number one cause of death among German teens was suicide. The reason most commonly given was a sense of national guilt over the Holocaust--an event that occurred nearly twenty years before they were born. --- Four years ago my father and his fianc=E9 came to visit us. We were sitting= in the living room watching TV off the satellite dish (a big old C-Band dish) and I was showing them the wide variety of channels available to us, including the German Deutsche Welle channel, the Japanese NHK channel, and the two entire satellites devoted to Spanish programming. Susanna (the fianc=E9) asked me to stop on one of the Spanish satellites and I asked if= she spoke Spanish. She looked at me like I was stupid and informed me that she was Mexican, had grown up in East L.A., and was first generation American with roots in Mexico City. In over a year of her dating my father I honestly hadn't noticed. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Sitting quietly in the basement office of my central Utah home, I've been separated from the powerful American race issue for a long time. In my own mind I've tended to see racism as an artifact of an older generation, an outdated institution that once had great power but that is now little more than a curiosity and a rarity. Yes, I see news reports of ongoing racial rage, but those are the gentiles, the people outside my community. None of my friends are racist, nor are the people I choose to spend time with. A non-problem in my world, right? I honestly hadn't directly experienced a lot of racism in my not-quite forty years of life--even in the rare times when I was the racial minority. Maybe it was there, but I didn't see it. A year ago I had the honor of presenting the AML Awards at the annual meeting. While reading the citation for the play "I Am Jane" it suddenly occurred to me that I shared a cultural guilt for over a century of racism in the Church. It was not something I could point at others and say "they're the ones, not me." It was my culture. My people had mistreated others of my people in the name of race. We. Us. It was a troubling thought for me, and I suddenly felt myself overwhelmed by a sense of cultural guilt followed by a sense of national guilt. I wanted desperately to apologize, to say that it had all been a horrible mistake and I would gladly pay whatever price was necessary to make the whole history vanish. I have not been racist that I am aware of, but my people have been and I wanted absolution and a clean start. And then it hit me that racism had worked on me, because I was acutely aware of race as a separating issue. It had become a barrier to me that I couldn't recall being bothered by before. I wanted to talk about racism and the curing of it with its victims, but like discussing hearing loss with the deaf it seemed somehow inappropriate to me all of a sudden. Condescending, maybe. I knew that wasn't how I intended it, but I already knew my power to hurt in that arena and I didn't have any desire to hurt again. I struggled with that for the rest of the AML conference. Later that night at the reading I sat in the living room and listened as Darius Gray told about the important events happening over the next few days as the Freedman's Bank project was announced and the Church made those genealogical records available to the world. I was proud, because Mormons had done good on the race issue. We had works to prove my faith that racism was yesterday's problem, that the mind of my people had changed and that hearts would soon follow. The reading ended and I went to thank Darius for his work and his patience and his love for Mormons of all races despite the hate and dismissal he had faced for so many years. Darius was very tired--he'd been preparing for the national press conference the next day. He sat in his chair, clearly exhausted. I stepped forward and reached out my hand and again felt overwhelmed at the inadequacy of my small thanks in the face of his extraordinary experience. I couldn't speak. And Darius seemed to understand the shared guilt that I felt, my desire to repair the sins of the past. This was a man who deserved to be angry, who had earned the right to reject my desire for personal absolution. Had he shaken my hand and looked away I would have been happy. Had he denounced the sentimentality of my self-pity I would have agreed and thanked him for exposing my sins so that I could start to repent of them. Instead, he stood up and hugged me and whispered "thank you, brother" in my ear. And in that moment I felt more brotherhood, more communion with another Mormon--another human--than I can remember. I can't erase history, but at least I know that one man was willing to give me a chance to create a new history. I don't know if that's enough, but it's all I have and his acceptance of my small offering was important to me. I'm no longer certain that passive non-racism is enough. So maybe it's time to be active in working for racial healing, to offer the remorse and apologies that have been so long deferred, because ignoring the issue hasn't bought me freedom from shared guilt. Maybe it's not my job to apologize for others, but someone should do it. Or is that condescending? Is racial awareness and special deference unwelcome? How does one ask without being offensive? What is the right thing to do? It makes one long for perfect language that precludes misunderstanding. It make one hope that redemption is real. It's part of a heritage that needs to be redefined. I wish I knew the right answers. I wish I could tell Jacques how truly sorry I am for the terrible thing I said all those years ago. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 12 Feb 2002 13:25:21 -0700 I woudn't have noticed, except that Bundit (my conductor husband) pointed = this out to me as we watched the ceremony on tape: Did anyone else notice = the music that was being played while the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" Hockey = team lit the cauldron? It was an excerpt from Shastakovich Symphony No. = 5. Shastakovich was, of course, one of the greatest Soviet-era composers, = who was both embraced and blacklisted by Stalin over the course of his = career. And we remember that US Hockey team for having beaten the = unbeatable Soviets. I don't know if organizers planned that moment (Katie = and Bob certainly weren't aware--they never even mentioned who was = conducting, and barely mentioned the names of the symphony and chorus), = but the irony and symbolism are pretty intriguing. =20 Shastakovich was asked by Stalin to attend the International Cultural and = Scientific Conference for World Peace (Waldorf Conference) in 1949 (I = think that's the right year. W.E.B. DuBois helped organize the event). = At the time, Stalin's cronies had banned Shastakovich's works, but Stalin = still wanted Shastakovich to attend as the Soviet representative. Against = his will, Shastakovich went, and ended up playing the Scherzo from his = fifth symphony in front of 30,000 people in Madison Square Garden. He = wrote in his journal that he thought it would be the last time he would = perform in front of such a large audience. And now his music is being = used to celebrate the culminating moment one of the year's most powerful = international statements of unity (and it's being done as America = remembers a defeat of the Soviets). Fascinating how the tables turn.... Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 20:25:25 GMT As I read these posts on race, I'm feeling that Eric and Bill Wilson and others have said everything I would have said--only much better. The question that arises is this: if some of our religious practice is informed by enculturation, thus possibly being found to be wrong (or misplaced, or misunderstood, or something. . . .) at some point, can we be all right with this? For me--yes, of course, I'm fine with it. None of us can escape our enculturation, even leaders of the church. We can grieve when things cause pain, but we don't have to question the truth of the Gospel over it. Don't you think that there may be many things cultural that are present religious practice, that someday may be considered irrelevant or even wrong? Like the "uniform" of the priesthood (boys in my ward cannot pass the sacrament if they forget to wear their ties. This is purely cultural)? I can't think about some of the stuff too hard--especially when I hear stories of racial exclusion--because of the pain--it makes me think of that old lyric my mom used to sing: No more money in the bank No more children left to spank What to do about it? Let's turn out the lights and go to sleep. :) Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Tooting Own Horn (was: Responding to Critics) Date: 12 Feb 2002 13:38:00 -0700 For those who read my reply to Darlene, the story I told has a new ending. For those who didn't read the post or have forgotten: I mentioned a book I had entered into a contest, which the judge practically shredded, he/she hated it so bad. I didn't take the judge's comments about my writing ability too seriously, but I did figure something had to be wrong with the book. A year later and much soul searching and revising later, another contest judge loved it and suggested I look for a publisher. So I submitted it. And (yippee!) it was accepted by Covenant! (Insert Toyota jump here.) I always hoped I'd get to toot my on horn on the list. I've been working toward this day for many years. :) Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 15:47:04 -0500 harlowclark@juno.com asked, re. the lyric "There is no end to race": > Why the embarrassment? It echoes the embarrassment expressed when we > discussed this song in 1997. [big snip] > Why shouldn't there be exalted beings > who are black, or yellow, or red, or green (surely on some world the > people are green, maybe even chartreuse? Because resurrected bodies are > physical they will have physical properties, so what color will they be? > Why not the same color they were in this life? > > If the embarrassment at assuming that race or skin color continues after > this life comes from the shameful way the human race handles race, it may > be worth noting that we seem to have a knack for finding differences > among ourselves and oppressing each other based on those differences, yet > I don't hear other LDS professing embarrassment at the idea that we > continue throughout eternity as separate beings, independent and with > separate personalities. I wasn't on the list in 1997, so was writing in a vacuum as far as that goes. I grant the possibility that the song lyric intended "the human race," and that the writer was simply sloppy instead of inventing doctrine about the preservation of racial distinctions in the eternities. My embarrassment stems from the church's pre-78 institutionalized racist policies in tandem with the lyric. Most people will hear the song as a continuation of the racist policies and that embarrasses me. I don't know if race is carried over into the Celestial Kingdom. I haven't had a vision or a revelation. It doesn't seem important enough to me to even ask about it in prayer. But if I could apply reason to the issue I might say something like, race is a result of the Fall. Adam and Eve and all their kids were the same race. Over the years through climate and who knows what all, certain genes became dominant in certain populations and natural selection takes care of the rest. There is no such thing as race, because we can breed with other humans and still produce fertile offspring. Any concept of humans divided into various races is myopic and will hopefully not survive too much longer. I look forward to the Rastafarian ideal that given time and interbreeding, all the people on this planet will merge into a single bronze-colored species with no discernible difference in color--much like what is happening in Brazil. Go up to one of those honey-colored Brazilians and ask what race they are and they'll probably laugh at the idea. I see this as a good thing. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 15:01:29 -0600 Here's a hodgepodge of thoughts/responses on this issue: Item #1: Richard Hopkins originally wrote: >The Northern >Europeans are, in large measure, descendants of the lost ten tribes and you >know how pale the Scandinavians are. I know this is an idea that was very popular (I believe) in the 19th century and early parts of the 20th century, and is still cited by some. I'd be very cautious, however, about accepting any such conclusions. My sense (although this is not an area I have studied) is that this is not a view that is held by professional contemporary historians, archaeologists, or comparative linguists. A lot of the "evidence" that is cited for this comes from a time when many wild (and since disproved) ideas were thrown around. I'd be very cautious about citing this as fact without some contemporary mainstream scholarship to validate it. Item #2: John Williams wrote a very interesting post on different types of racism. I'd like to point out, though, that it's possible to behave (in my view) in a racist fashion (or at least, in a fashion that has a racial bias) without embracing racist ideologies. To explain what I mean, I'll borrow some research of which I'm aware that relates not to race discrimination, but sex discrimination. There's been a fair amount of research (as I understand it) that verifies that boys, in American classrooms, are called on more frequently than girls--even by female teachers. The teachers, mind you, were not aware they were doing this. And yet this difference in their behavior existed, was verifiable, and (according to some fairly convincing arguments) had a strong potential impact on student performance. (Being called on is one of those factors, as I understand it, that correlates to school success.) My point? Simply that many of us who do not accept racist ideas may act in ways that have (unintended) racist impacts. I think that often it takes far longer to alter behavior patterns than it may take to change conscious ideas. Item #3: Eric Samuelsen wrote: >Joseph Smith was probably less racist than any other white man of >prominence in his day, with the possible exception of John Brown. [snip] >Joseph Smith's own views on race (which he very seldom articulated) were >shockingly similar to Brown's. Eric, would you mind citing or providing source references for these? (Maybe these are in places like Margaret and Darius's notes to their books; in that case, feel free to point toward those sources.) I'd be interesting in knowing. Item #4 Angela Hallstrom wrote: > I >decided that, until President Kimball, the prophets may have simply never >asked, and because God allows his children to make mistakes--even the >leaders of his church--this wrong had been allowed to go on. Actually, from Leonard Arrington's account, it seems clear that at least two Church presidents (David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee) had sought guidance on this issue but did not feel they had been authorized to rescind the policy, though evidently that was something both of them desired. One of the more interesting things that comes out of Arrington's account is a sense that Church leaders at the highest level during the 1960s and 1970s differed considerably in their interpretations of whether the denial of the priesthood to blacks had a scriptural basis or not--whether it was a matter of doctrine or policy. (However, it does not necessarily follow that those who felt it was policy believed that it had been instituted through human error rather than divine direction.) In the absence of unanimity on the issue, there seems to have been a sense that there would have to be a clear mandate from the Lord to change it. Eventually, that change came. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 12 Feb 2002 14:02:27 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:03 PM > We're apparently all quite willing to make the necessary > sacrifice in the name of safety and security. Those of us who aren't willing have just stayed home. Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that they could get on TV? BJ's job sounds exciting -- at least he gets to see the greats up close and personal, and the people at speed-skating probably have a pretty good view, but the ones I really can't undertand are the folks who line the bob-sled track, freezing their fannies off, just so they can see something blur by in a micro-second. All the foregoing should be read as the rantings and ravings of a man who literally hates crowds and does all he can to avoid them. I don't like the way crowds can be manipulated. I'll stand up and do the wave when *I* want to. I was disappointed when I attended my first concern (as an adult) at BYU in the early 80's; the Beach Boys. I *had* thought I would get the opportunity to listen to the great songs I grew up with but I spent most of my time standing because everybody in front of me stood. Then my wife, years later, won tickets to see Barbara Streisand in concert. We go, in a limousine provided by the radio station and we end up sitting so far up that we couldn't see anything unless we looked at the monitor. If I want to look at a monitor, I'll do it at home, in my underwear, with a bowl of popcorn at my side, thank you very much. Having said all this, and despite my distate of crowds, if ever a collection of people large enough to be called a crowd were to attend a production of one of my plays, I wouldn't mind it at all. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 12 Feb 2002 14:26:54 -0700 [MOD: This is a compilation of two responses by Amy.] ----- Original Message ----- > Of course, the TV coverage was beautiful, technically accomplished, and utterly tin eared. Bob > Costas seemed to think we needed all the symbolism explained to us, Katie Couric kept > stepping on his lines, and Jim McKay, sadly, was frequently incoherent. You forgot to mention Costas's skewering of the name "Sacajawea." Ear-hurtingly funny. Amy ----- Original Message ----- > When the large group at my house was speculating on who would light the > torch, my suggestion of O.J. Simpson got the biggest reaction. I tried to > argue that he would make a nice bookend with Mohammed Ali in '96. > Chris Bigelow My family throught that Osama bin Laden should be lit on fire and shot out of a cannon at the torch. What a spectacular lighting THAT would be. Amy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 15:44:14 -0700 I am disturbed by a general trend that I detect in all these posts on Race Issues in Mormonism. Having just read through all 19 posts in one sitting it seems to me that the general consensus is that God denying someone the priesthood is somehow mean; that someone not being able to have the priesthood is a detriment to them. Perhaps my understanding is skewed but I just don't think that's the case. My understanding is that we mortals will be judged at the end of time by how well we lived our lives according to what we knew to be true, nothing more nothing less. Having the priesthood is not a box that we ourselves must check while on the Earth. What else are temples for? I am not saying that gaining the priesthood at some point during one's participation in the plan of salvation is not necessary. I say again, what else are temples for? (priesthood along with other things being accomplished by proxy) One certainly does not have to gain the priesthood while here in the flesh to be exalted, any more than one must be married in the temple while in the flesh. Emphasis on "in the flesh" My own reaction to the race question is to remember that this life is but a moment. The only goal that God has for us down here is, as I said before, to see if we will live according to what we know to be true. =20 "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;"=20 Different people have different levels and permutations of the truth and those are the rulers by which they will be measured. I believe that God crafted this planet and this plan in such a way as to provide each one of us with the particular lessons we needed to become worthy of Godly power and responsibility. Just because some of us needed to learn lessons attendant upon having the priesthood and some of us needed to learn lessons attendant upon being denied the priesthood does not make God a racist. Anymore than his allowing billions of oriental folk/african folk/northern european folk/island folk/... to live and die on this Earth never having heard of His Son does. To claim that this church either divinely or secularly did the brown people among us a disservice is to deny that God's in charge. Does anyone really believe that a black man who did not receive the priesthood in 1950 got screwed out of his chance to keep his second estate, derailing the plan of salvation in his case? I hope not. Break. Although it has absolutely no bearing on my statement above, when it comes down to whether or not the decision to deny blacks the priesthood was a revelation or, as Eric Samuelson put it, an "invention" of Brigham Young's, I'm curious. Does anyone have documented evidence either way? Break. Group guilt. Why should I feel guilty about the way other people treat other people? I am not responsible for other people's actions. I am responsible only for my own. This means that _I_ must not judge others according to their race. It means that _I_ must not stand idly by while others judge others according to their race. It means that _my_ writing must not, advertently, teach others to judge others according to their race. It means that _I_ must teach _my_ children not to judge others according to their race. Ad nauseum. Even though the people that commit/ed terrible acts in the name of racism live/d in the same country I now live in and were/are of the same skin color as I, I had/have no control over their actions and bear no responsibility for their actions. An apology from me for those actions would be the worst kind of sentimental sophistry. Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Origins of Revelation (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 12 Feb 2002 16:12:53 -0500 [MOD: I appreciate Tony's response here. I think it would probably be a good idea, however, if we simply leave it at this, rather than opening up yet another doctrinal thread at this point...] Jeff Needle wrote: > I'm rather astonished at this note. As a non-member, perhaps I'm missing > something here. But if you have a strong testimony of the Scriptures > (including the book of Abraham), does this not extend to a testimony of the > prophetic calling of the Presidents of the Church? You accept Joseph > Smith, Jr., as a prophet, with the authority to deliver new Scripture > through revelation, with no feedback or polls to affect his > revelation. But you don't accept that modern prophets can receive > revelation without the members becoming dissatisfied with the status quo. > > Can you tell me when you think this all changed? Without getting too far off the subject, and hoping the moderators will allow a bit of latitude here, and also asking Jeff that if he wants to really probe, that we do it through personal correspondence--my personal belief is that at the beginning of this church, progress came from the top down. God sent revelation to the one person at the top of the hierarchy and he told the members what was what. I think that increasingly, progress has come from the bottom up. We as 11 million members will progress as we see fit through our prayers and diligence. When we want to move forward, as expressed through our prayers, then the revelations will be sent. That's why so many people were "ahead" of the presidency on the priesthood revelation. That's fine. Every time a temple project has been announced by the presidency, I think it has been as a result of the fervent prayers from the people in that region and then God moves the prophet and then he makes the announcement and people say, "We've been asking for this for years." I think this is part of our Progression. When we are little, our parents tell us everything from the top down. As we mature and become more comfortable exercising our free agency, we are expected to give input. Our parents are still our parents, but instead of dictating to us they allow us to move forward in fits and starts and even make mistakes. I have no trouble applying this to the Church. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jews Date: 12 Feb 2002 15:42:01 -0800 Thank you for this interesting and useful information. I'm not sure we can rely entirely on deduction to resolve the issue, however. My understanding of the skin-color of first century Jews comes from secular historical sources. (Though I can't put my finger on them right now, I think someone on this list quoted or cited them already.) Richard Hopkins ----- Original Message ----- > [From Darius Gray via Margaret Young] > > > > Brother Hopkins; > > There is an interesting tidbit to be found in the Pearl of Great Price at > > [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 15:55:37 -0700 ___ James ___ | Your benign racism is anything but; the idea that race determines | character, ability, etc is merely the old form of racism, ie | the standard belief of all humanity since the Tower of Babel. ___ Hmm. Exactly how does the above differ from more or less denying the place of genetics in human characteristics? Now certainly within the categories we call races there is great diversity. And what constitutes a "race" is in many ways socially defined. We pick certain traits/geographic locals and then define a race. Yet upon close examination those break down. Yet there still are characteristics within races that are generally the case. I think we worry about race more than we should. However at the same time all evidence points to genetics making up a sizable portion of what makes us who we are. So long as we don't ascribe "superiority" to our heritage I don't see the problem. Yet there is a danger that because of the many many abuses in the name of racism that some deny race any place at all. Further the notion of "race" as it used seems to include a kind of social entity as well as physical characteristics. Consider for example the Semetic race which includes many more social features than anything that could likely be tied to genetics. In that sense Mormonism probably could have become a race, had we remained isolated long enough. I bring up this social aspect because I think the concern in Mormon literature, especially the scriptures, is with a combination of social/heritage race. Consider the promises and covenants of the Book of Mormon. That is essentially a promise to a given race. Likewise the doctrines of blood Israel, especially as it relates to priesthood and the Holy Ghost, are tied to race. Call that "racism" if you wish. However perhaps a better term would be heritage, given the place the word race has come to take. So, while we might not be racists, we definitely are heritagists. ___ Konnie ___ | I can believe that we are placed where we are on this earth | according to how valiant we were in the preexictance. ___ I think that it is the notion of a pre-existence that still causes us the most concern in this regard. It seems like our place on this earth is determined by two factors. The first is what use we could be to the Lord (our valiance) and then what things we need to learn (our growth). By the end of our sojourn here and in the spirit world, we'll all have equal chances. The danger is that successful Mormons can come to take a kind of Calvinist view that our place is our blessing due to pre-existent righteousness. Yet that need not be the case. It might simply be that we needed to learn something different from others. Elder Ashton gave an excellent talk on this in the early 90's. Basically he affirmed the basic doctrine of blessings and curses but pointed out that our judgments of what was a blessing or curse was often determined by the values of the world. A person living in the poor rural south, for instance, might well have been blessed by that birth more than had they been put into a rich Mormon home in Utah. Indeed, given the activities of many rich young Utah Mormons, they might well learn the gospel better as well. Going along with that, consider the work for the dead that Wilford Woodruff did. The founders of our country were not born into the covenant, but certainly were among the valiant in the pre-existence. Further the old testament often portray Cyrus as one of the chosen ones of the Lord. I can well believe that figures like Malcom-X or Martin Luthor King, for all their flaws, were also valiant in the pre-existence. (Are their foibles really worse than those of our founding fathers?) My point is that I think the problem with all this isn't the doctrine, it is how we decide to apply the doctrine. We tend to look at what is good or bad from a narrow cultural field. The view from God's council might well be quite different. While I am glad to have been born in the church, I'm not sure that it has made my personal challenges less than were I to be born in different circumstances. Given how much of my personality is a result of my genetics and upbringing, I can't say what I'd be like having been born an African American living in Atlanta in the 1950's. I'd like to think, however, that there was some purpose for my birth. Hopefully whatever it is I need to learn I can learn and whomever I'm supposed to help I can help. While my Patriarchal blessing tells me many things were blessings, overall I have a hard time separating blessings from curses. Given that God seems to like to build character I often think that blessings and curses are the same thing. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Thingmaker? Date: 12 Feb 2002 18:17:04 -0500 At 07:51 PM 2/11/2002 -0700, you wrote: >What kinds of "things" does a "thingmaker" make, Richard? WAs it puppets? >Did we ask this once before? Have you ever "made" a novel? This is very >interesting stuff! Marilyn Brown > A fair bunch of short stories and a bunch of plays, and a lengthy memoir of my childhood which I hope to extend into my adulthood (if such really exists)-no novels, but the thingmaker really relates to puppets and one-of-a-kind dolls, Santas, and the environments in which they fit. (sleds, reighndeer and other sorts of "crafty" things.) Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Date: 12 Feb 2002 16:32:57 -0700 I wrote: >> My father (who is 5'5") has always held the theory that after the >> resurrection everyone will float around at eye-level so height won't be >> much of an issue anymore. And Bill Willson responded: > Whose eye level? If we float around, will we not have legs? Does that mean > we won't be able to look up to anyone? Oh, the questions this raises. Some > one should write a speculative fiction story about the floating spirit > world. 8-) My take on it is that long legs and comely ankles will become status symbols in the eternities. --Mike South -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] A Third Phase, Please Date: 12 Feb 2002 14:59:17 -0700 As the only "openly" black person involved with this string, thank you for your thoughtful and considered comments concerning race in the LDS Church. However different our views may or may not be, open communication is the key. I am personally grateful to each of you for sharing views about a topic that has for too long been little addressed. I hope we can meet and continue the discussion in person. Best Regards, Darius A. Gray -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 17:53:29 -0800 I began writing an eloquent post on this subject when the call for discussion first went out last week. Unfortunately, I was interrupted and a one-second power-outage shut down my computer and erased my message. So I missed whatever deadlines there were, but with my apologies I want to respond and add just a couple of things. I'm trying to keep it short, and failing miserably. Please bear with me. There's a good story at the end. I forget who it was that said how helpful it would be to have an "official" clarification on the race issue in the church. I want to agree and elaborate somewhat. Some of you will probably recall a few years back (1997?) when a rumor of this nature went around--published in the LA Times, I believe--that the LDS church was set to apologize for its past policy. That turned out to be false, of course, though I did experience one brief moment of exhilaration at the possibility. On the one hand, I agree with many who say that they can accept the ambiguities and discomforts of the past on faith and move ahead without dwelling on them, and for the most part that is my approach. We need to be spiritually self-reliant and not look to Salt Lake City for a pronouncement on everything. It seems evident that whatever the reasons for our seemingly racist past, if indeed the policy was divine, the Lord has chosen to keep them to himself. It's not a satisfactory answer, but that's part of having faith. On the other hand, the lack of official clarification leaves a space for lots of speculation and tradition to prevail. This is NOT to say that racism among church members is the fault of the leadership for not clarifying a policy that was discontinued over 20 years ago. Certainly the prophets' statements on the subject speak for themselves in urging us to be loving and accepting of all people, and those who perpetuate racism will be accountable. However, we have to admit that the institutional racism--in American society and in the church--has left a cultural mark that manifests itself in subtle ways to this day (among others the subconscious belief by Mormons that "we gave 'them' the priesthood; therefore there is no more racism in the church). As long as there are people who grew up in the church hearing the kinds of things I heard in seminary and still regarding outdated writings and talks on the subject as valid (since there has been no clarification or repudiation), certain attitudes and behaviors go unexamined and unchallenged. I grew up in Utah Valley in the 70s and 80s and I pretty much heard all the "official" doctrinal explanations for the policy (those of you who went to seminary in small-town Utah will know what I mean). My mother had served a mission in Brazil in the 60s and told us about having to ask people if they had "the blood" (i.e. of Cain) before they were baptized. She did not show any discomfort with this practice: the policy on race (and the underlying construct of "race") was not something that she questioned. And yet she taught us not to be racist, especially towards mexicans and indians--which were the groups against whom racism was aimed most frequently in our white world, since there were literally no blacks in our town. I moved to Texas in the early 90s when my husband was stationed at Fort Hood, and of course from then on race was a completely different concept and experience for me. I was not distanced from it anymore, and neither were my children. My husband and I worked hard to teach our children to be as unbiased as possible. Then we moved back to Utah, and unfortunately this time we came up against racism in a way we had not experienced before. We lived in a small town in south Utah County, and as far as I could tell it was simply a given among our neighbors and fellow ward members that "mexicans" were scum (and so were the other races, probably, but hispanics took the brunt because they were practically the only 'minorities' in town). My oldest son was in 3rd and 4th grade; our twin boys were in 2nd and 3rd. The twins were mostly oblivious, but our oldest (who had been praying for homeless people since he was 2) caught right on, and he was outraged. "Mom," he said to me, "I thought that when we moved to a place with so many Mormons that the kids would be better than they were in Texas. But they're worse." I had no answer for him, except to try to re-teach what I believed and encourage him to be patient and tolerant and show a good example. We moved back to Texas (Houston, this time) in 98 and our son is now in high school. He has discovered that a family we are friends with in the ward are openly racist, and he is disgusted in the all-or-nothing way that only a 15 year-old can be disgusted with other people. I've tried to talk to him about being tolerant, even of others who are clearly wrong, but he's not ready to see the complexities of human relations yet. They're racist; therefore, they are bad, and how can they call themselves good members of the church? He was excited at first to become friends with the boys in this family; now the racism issue has pretty much ruined that. What ever changes the attitudes of people like this? To my ears, the prophet has made many statements that should leave no room for excuse. But could it be said more emphatically and more often? Could it be said emphatically or often enough? Another anecdote: One time my husband and I were visiting with some older family members (i.e. in their 60s) and somehow the subject turned to matters of race. The woman told me that she had figured out that the "curse" on blacks (and "orientals" and other "minorities," as she put it) was that they do not look like Jesus. The dark skin, the "slant eyes" (sorry, her term), etc were all marks of the curse. And this is a woman who has NEVER expressed tolerance for racism in any form! She has always espoused equality and tolerance and has considered herself "liberal" all her life. Needless to say, my husband and I still have carpet burns on our chins from our astonishment at this idea. I'm astonished all over again every time I think of it. This is the kind of thing that happens when an idea that was once considered quasi-doctrinal is allowed to float around unchallenged and uncorrected: it leaves room for all kinds of speculation and nonsense, and it allows attitudes and behavior to go unchanged. I have not heard the issue of race and the church discussed openly in Sunday School for many many years, but I suspect if we were to bring it up and really get people talking we would come up with all kinds of similarly astounding ideas, all based on the perception that the Cain-race theory of blacks and the priesthood is doctrinally correct. I would love to open my house to you all for the discussion that Margaret suggested. Unfortunately, I'm still in Houston. Still, the invitation stands. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 17:28:59 -0700 On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:00:57 -0800 Jeff Needle writes: > I'm rather astonished at this note. As a non-member, perhaps I'm > missing > something here. But if you have a strong testimony of the > Scriptures > (including the book of Abraham), does this not extend to a testimony > of the > prophetic calling of the Presidents of the Church? You accept > Joseph > Smith, Jr., as a prophet, with the authority to deliver new > Scripture > through revelation, with no feedback or polls to affect his > revelation. But you don't accept that modern prophets can receive > revelation without the members becoming dissatisfied with the status > quo. > > Can you tell me when you think this all changed? > ---------------- > Jeff Needle > jeff.needle@general.com I'm going to take a stab at this, while logging in with my opinion of the whole race issues in mormonism. I've read every scriptural and modern excuse ever given for the reason the blacks were not allowed the priesthood prior to 1978. I've also read Pres. Kimball's biography, in which he stated that he, like every president before him (I don't recall how far back he meant, but at least the several prior to him) he had prayed mightily that the Lord would change the policy toward blacks and allow them the full blessings of membership in His church. I remember a story of a black woman who joined the church in Joseph Smith's day who throughout her life had asked every single prophet since him if the time had come yet when the priesthood could be given to her people. Each prophet answered her with great compassion, and some with the same puzzled sadness she felt, that no, the time hadn't come. This comforted me to know that the prophets HAD in fact been praying for revelation that would change things, and were refused until Pres. Kimball. I used to think that the Lord withheld the priesthood from the blacks, knowing it could be made up eternally through proxy ordinances if necessary, because of the church membership's prejudice, but then that seemed bogus too, because such a policy only perpetuated the prejudice. My original supporting "evidence" to myself for this was that the Lord first revealed the fullness of the gospel (ie: saving ordinances as they existed at the time prior to the Savior's ministry and sacrifice) to the Israelites through Moses, but they refused to accept it, and refused to "seek the face of the Lord," fearing that they would be destroyed if they did so, though such sanctification was offered them. Instead they pleaded that Moses would be their go-between, which disgusted both Moses and God. We know that because of the Israelites refusal of the higher laws and ordinances of salvation, they were given instead a lesser law, the Law of Moses. So, God at times gives the people what they ask for, instead of what they *should* want, and what is truly best and right for them. So I justified to myself the policy as the same type of thing -- the membership weren't ready to receive the "higher" law, until, like Tony Markham said, there was a majority who could handle it. Other laws that have been given in their fulness and then repealed in favor of a lesser law for the time being are that of Eternal Marriage the Law of Consecration. (Yes, I know we still covenant with regard to the latter, but it is not required to be lived in it's fulness the way it was spelled out in the D&C at this time. 'nother discussion.) So it does happen that the status quo has something to do with the revelations we receive as a church. The Lord does indeed reveal to us as a church only as much as we are willing to live. IMO we've barely been given the equivalent of the missionary discussions regarding what it is possible to receive of eternal things, and so we have this confusion with regard to the blacks and the priesthood. I'm less willing to accept this explanation now, though I think it in some measure was part of the reason. I'm less willing now to fully and completely accept it, because it isn't always the case that we get what we ask for. I don't think there was anyone in the early church who was asking for the higher law of eternal marriage in the form they were given it, and it was a sore trial to every single member, and has enormous repercussions today, as we well know. (Personally I'd love to have it brought back legitimately through proper channels, but I'm not holding my breath!) I think Joseph Smith was a product of his time to some degree, in that he taught that if he had a say, he'd require all the Blacks to remain with their own "species" (what a word to use! Makes me cringe.) but also far more radical in his belief that the Blacks, if given the same advantages and social position as the Whites would be and live the same as the Whites with all the same intelligence, etc. (_Teachings_ p. ?) Oh, heck I'll find the quote. ... oops, sorry, can't find my book, and mysteriously the gospellinks CD doesn't bring that quote up using the key words. hmm. The Lord is no respector of persons, as he has said. But he has also said that his ways are not our ways. We need to keep in mind that God sees mortality from an eternal perspective, with the past, present and future as one to him, so to look at the blacks and the priesthood from our limited mortal linear viewpoint is going to come up with flawed answers every time. Thus like so many others before us in every religion, we end up thinking God has failed to live up to his word, and we lose faith in Him, when in fact we just fail to understand his purposes because we don't have enough information or His perspective. I do find this quote interesting, though, in terms of God's perspective on the entire human family, and our questions regarding the whys and wherefores of revealed truth and doctrine: "But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right." (_Teachings_, p. 218) I personally believe that we don't have the truth -- the full, eternal Truth -- regarding this former policy and why it finally changed in 1978. I am positive that there is a lot more to this than we know, since God's ways are not man's ways. For me, it's a question that will remain on my "shelf" until such time as I die and get to ask Him personally, because there isn't a single explanation yet given that satisfies me. Yet I also have prayed for and received a witness that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and right on down the line to President Hinckley have all been and continue to be true and faithful prophets of God. So that's where I leave it -- on the shelf, knowing that a true prophet of God leads this church and has since Joseph Smith's day. Sorry for the ramble. Hope in all this I answered your question a little bit, Jeff. Kathy Fowkes ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 12 Feb 2002 18:11:58 -0700 >(Katie and Bob certainly weren't aware--they never even mentioned >who was conducting, and barely mentioned the names of the symphony >and chorus), Just a small point of correction here: One of them did mention it was Craig Jessop conducting the Utah Symphony. I remember it distinctly, because I had been curious who it was, and they finally said it, and I was curious no more. And you'll never hear me stick up for Bob Costas again. Eric D. Snider -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Dishonest Singles Ward Ads Date: 13 Feb 2002 01:28:42 +0000 [This is a feature Eric D. Snider recently put on his website. Thanks to Eric for giving permission to repost it here] Dishonest Advertising for "The Singles Ward": If You Can't Get a Good Review, Make One up! It is clear to anyone familiar with the art of filmmaking that "The Singles Ward" was made by people who were new to the process. This is not a liability, necessarily; many films have been made for very little money, often with some technical imperfections, but have still been worthwhile as entertainment. However, when the lack of expertise turns into outright unprofessionalism,= =20 we begin to have a problem. The reviews of "The Singles Ward" were not favorable. I gave it a C-; the Deseret News and Ogden Standard-Examiner each gave it two stars (out of four); the Salt Lake Tribune gave it only one star. Some critics have reported receiving e-mails and phone calls from people within the Halestorm Entertainment office, chiding them for their reviews. One such e-mail even indicated they were waiting for a public apology from that critic. Perhaps none of this correspondence= =20 was from anyone acting officially on behalf of the company, but it was from= =20 within the organization, anyway. And then the ads hit. The Feb. 8 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune had a display ad for "The Singles Ward," complete with glowing endorsements= =20 from three critics. Here is how those quotes appeared in the ad: "Cameos ... equal laughs ... fresh-faced cast ... amusing." -- Jeff Vice, Deseret News "A ... spiritual celebration ... truly funny ... amateur hour is over." --= =20 Sean Means, Salt Lake Tribune "Endearing ... a definite sense of fun ... over-the-top performances." -- Eric Snider, Provo Daily Herald (We will temporarily ignore the attribution errors: Sean goes by Sean P. Means, and I go by Eric D. Snider; that's how our names appeared on= =20 the reviews they quoted. Also, the word "Provo" does not properly appear anywhere in the name of the newspaper I write for.) What they have done is to take three very negative reviews, find=20 positive-sounding words, and create an ad in which we three critics appear= =20 to endorse the film. This is unprofessional, dishonest, and possibly=20 illegal. Our words have very clearly been taken out of context to promote a movie that, if you were to ask us, we would heartily=20 encourage you NOT to attend. So where did those quotes come from? Let's look at them in context. >From Jeff Vice: "Celebrity cameos do not automatically equal laughs." "Still, one thing does save this LDS comedy from being completely excruciating -- the appeal of the fresh-faced cast." "While the appearance by LDS filmmaker Richard Dutcher (making fun of his hit '"God's Army') is amusing enough, the other [cameos] are either unsuccessful (bits involving local sports heroes Danny Ainge, Steve Young and Wally Joyner) or downright irritating (those with TV weatherman Mitch English and computer pitchman Super Dell)." >From Sean P. Means: "Their caustic attitude toward community life within the LDS Church is at odds with the spiritual celebration they mean their movie to be." "The= =20 movie's one truly funny moment is also the most telling: When Jonathan's ward friends watch 'God's Army' on DVD, Dutcher himself appears, declining an invitation to join them because 'those toilet scenes are kind of offensive.' You know 'The Singles Ward' is= =20 in trouble when it cannibalizes a movie genre that has barely gotten off the ground. It's tempting to go easy on 'The Singles Ward,' since it's a local production. But when you must pay the same $7 that gets you into 'A Beautiful Mind' or 'The Lord of the Rings,' amateur hour is over." And from Eric D. Snider: "Its amateur nature is sometimes endearing, but other times, the over-the-top performances ruin what might have been passable jokes."=20 "There's a definite sense of fun within the large cast; everyone involved=20 clearly had a good time. But there's also a definite sense that Hale and Moyer wanted to cram in every LDS culture-related joke they could think of, often at the expense of the story and characters." I encourage you to click the links and read the complete reviews, to get a sense of how fully and perversely they have twisted the intent of our words. Basically, since "The Singles Ward" couldn't get any good reviews, they made some up. Just when I thought amateur filmmaking couldn't get any lower, it did. Copyright =A9 Eric D. Snider. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.=20 http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Two Black Mormon Firsts Date: 13 Feb 2002 01:50:37 +0000 Here are two recent news stories about some black Mormon firsts. I thought they went along well with our discussion. Deseret News Tuesday, February 12, 2002 Black BYU student is elected president Foster and female v.p. have ambitious agenda for campus By Sharon Haddock Deseret News staff writer PROVO =97 Rob Foster believes being tall and black probably gave him an edge when it came to Brigham Young University students remembering=20 him when they cast their votes for president on Friday. Foster and his running mate, Eisha Tengelsen, were basking in their win Monday. They captured 43 percent of the campus vote -- 2,580 of 5,959 cast for three sets of candidates. Foster is the first African-American ever elected at the predominantly white university of= =20 30,000 students in Provo. Just 0.7 percent of BYU students are=20 African-Americans. BYU is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tengelsen isn't the first female leader, but she's the first to be part of a clearly diverse candidacy. "We made a stand for multicultural acceptance where the others just talked about it," Tengelsen said. "I think that was noticeable." While Foster and Tengelsen recognize the attention they'll draw, they have goals that they hope will take the spotlight away from race or gender. "We want to make everyone feel more of a sense of belonging here," Foster said. "We don't want to split the campus up into the special interest or minority groups. We want to view the campus as a whole, unify the BYU campus." Foster said he was initially recruited from North Carolina by BYU sports officials to play basketball, but after a year playing for Ricks College, he decided to tackle issues being bounced between the administration and the common student. "If there are concerns, I can be an ear. I can take those concerns to= =20 the administration," Foster said. "We're going to make a difference, and we're going to have it done before fall semester," Tengelsen said. "We're setting up mentoring, expanding the legislative offices, increasing our public relations and getting the students to care," she said. "There's like a huge morale problem right now." Foster said oftentimes, students get discouraged because they feel=20 isolated and alone. He hopes to find ways to reach those who need a connection to the university outside their classes. "When I was at Ricks, that's what I did. I joined clubs. I got involved. That made a difference," Foster said. To accomplish his goals, Foster -- along with Tengelsen, the seven council vice presidents= =20 and the 39 members of the student advisory council at BYU -- will meet with students, each other and the administration. For Foster, that will mean juggling his classes, his new marriage and his job with the demands of the presidency, which he estimates will take about 40 hours of his time each week. He has been one of the council vice presidents, so he's prepared for the rigors ahead. "I haven't been president of this large a body before, but I've been in the program for about two years now, and I know its possibilities," Foster said. "I don't plan on butting heads with the administration, but on building a Zion kind of communication." Copywright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company FIRST BLACK WOMAN LUGER IN OLYMPICS See http://www.msnbc.com/news/700552.asp?cp1=3D1 Dinah Browne, a member of the Church, who is the first black female Olympian to compete in the luge. Browne grew up in troplical St. Croix island, and saw snow for the first time when she was 17 and a freshman at Rutgers University in New Jersey. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 12 Feb 2002 17:48:24 -0700 I have been reading _National Review_ for a long time. William F. Buckley is Catholic as are several of the contributors, but I don't think you would accuse NR of being a Catholic magazine if you read the lead article in this months issue--_The Sins of the Fathers_ the Catholic church's unspeakable problem with pedophile priests. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 12 Feb 2002 21:11:07 EST ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves > through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue > which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that > they could get on TV? This amazes me, coming from a theater man. If all that mattered were the raw facts on the theater stage/in the sports area, if there were nothing to be added by the group energy and emotion, we'd all stay home and watch videotapes of Thom's plays in our jammies. I go in to downtown Salt Lake to work every day. The month leading up to the Olympics was horribly stressful, with new barricades and detours every day, with everybody focusing on the visitors and nobody seeming to care about the locals. I hated it, and I expected to cower down defensively in my house until everybody left. But once the party really started, all the stress melted away. There have been no new changes, and the old ones are easy to adapt to -- even if it does mean my computer bag is searched on an average FIVE TIMES A DAY, and the only places I go are the Church Office Building and Family History Library! There was a Finnish journalist on the bus last week who needed me to help him find the Salt Palace. I held the door at Wal-mart for the German hockey team, wondering how disappointed they were going to be with all that Utah beer they were buying. I helped a mob of Brazilians get on the right bus at UVSC to get back to Salt Lake. I laughed at the dumb joke of the Dutch TV producer (son of a Mexican mother) who was working at the microfilm reader next to mine at the library. I waited patiently for the guys in the Belarus jackets to get their film of the temple before walking across the plaza. I have a real knack for languages, but I can't even identify some of the languages I hear every day. It's wonderful. Even the oddball protesters, the earnest young women in their ACLU hats protecting the rights of the protesters, and the bizarre behavior of drivers who halt in the middle of South Temple traffic to jump out and take pictures of the building wraps, are wonderful. Only the herds of overly-aggressive immitation security guard wannabes in the Church Office Building are a drag, and they became almost tolerable once I could accept that they played tug-o'-war with my bag only because there are too many of them and they all want to do something to feel like they too are a part of the Games. You all oughta be here, and some of you who can really write oughta record the experience. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Shostakovich Irony (was: Olympics Opening Ceremony) Date: 12 Feb 2002 19:47:03 -0700 This is very interesting. There is another musical irony that involves Shostakovich. In 1987 when we were in Volgograd, the city almost destroyed in the war with Germany, we climbed the Mamayev Hill which was the most famous scene of battle. The _Fallen Heroes_ music by Shostakovich was played on the pilgrimage up the hill to the imposing memorial of _Mother Russia_ at the very top. Then you enter the _Hall of Military Glory_ which is their _Holy of Holies_ containing a huge arm with a burning torch where the names of the war dead appear on gold plates, lining the walls. As you enter this hall, music by Brahms is played. When our guide was asked why music by a German composer was played in this holy place, she answered that music is universal. It belongs to all. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rwilliams Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 12 Feb 2002 15:06:47 -0700 [MOD: This is a compilation of two replies by John Williams.] Jim wrote: >I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject both of your definitions of racism. >The version you ascribe to Hitler et al is a very new and specific form of >racism that has its roots in the late 19th century, whereas the form of >racism which existed before might be called the standard belief of every >people, culture and race since the Tower of Babel. Your benign racism is >anything but; the idea that race determines character, ability, etc is >merely the old form of racism, ie the standard belief of all humanity since >the Tower of Babel. There are specific individuals who rose above this >concept of humanity, but generally speaking even humanity didn't exist until >recently. Jim, I don't think we disagree nearly as strongly as you suggest above. In fact, it seems like in rejecting both of my definitions of racism, you have actually just defended them. What I called the "malignant" form of racism is precisely this "new and specific form of racism that has its roots in the late 19th century," and what I called "benign race-ism" is exactly this "standard belief of all humanity since the Tower of Babel." So, in what way are you rejecting my distinction? If you are merely suggesting that the benign version is much more malignant than people like to admit, well, then great, that's what I meant to say in my first post. As I stated before, Eugene England's essay clearly illustrates that the "standard belief" you mentioned above can have (and has had) the damaging effect of validating the more violent--and, as you point out, "recent"--forms of racism. So, when you say benign racism is "anything but," I am a bit shocked that you would feel the need to point that out, as that was my point to begin with. I think you probably reacted in a somewhat confrontational manner because I included a quotation (and a page number, mind you) from Edward Said, who, granted, is a somewhat controversial figure in cultural studies. But you call Said a "racist" several times without any specific evidence of how or why he is so racist. In fact, your explication of Said seems like a monumental misreading to me. Specifically, you said: >What Said, and progressives in general, really want is not progress. They >want feudalism to return, with themselves as masters. He, and they, are >trying to maintain the standard racism of history. Unfortunately for them, >and fortunately for the world, it turns out that the inherent racist >chauvanism of practically every culture in history is really based on false >premises. At most race may include tendencies, genetic, cultural or >otherwise, but individuals are able to overcome those tendencies, negative >and positive alike. The tendency is not enough to destroy freedom. Said >believes that the fact that my skin is white necessitates my inherent >racism; I cannot see the "oriental" culture correctly because of inherent >biases that I have no control over.... >....They have only one hope for salvation and it won't come from an academic racist like Said. I've read quite a bit of Edward Said, and I've just reviewed some of his work recently, and try as I might, I can't find any passage that would validate your statement that "Said believes that the fact that my skin is white necessitates my inherent racism." Could you clarify, perhaps, where you read that? I would agree that Said emphasizes the inherent role of culture and place in determining one's worldview (but, then again, who doesn't?). Said is not a racist, and I think any attempt to call him one without summoning at least a quotation or two in evidence is precisely the problem Jonathan mentioned in setting up the rules for this discussion. --John Williams UC Irvine Jonathan wrote: >John Williams wrote a very interesting post on different types of racism. >I'd like to point out, though, that it's possible to behave (in my view) in >a racist fashion (or at least, in a fashion that has a racial bias) without >embracing racist ideologies. To explain what I mean, I'll borrow some >research of which I'm aware that relates not to race discrimination, but >sex discrimination. There's been a fair amount of research (as I >understand it) that verifies that boys, in American classrooms, are called >on more frequently than girls--even by female teachers. The teachers, mind >you, were not aware they were doing this. And yet this difference in their >behavior existed, was verifiable, and (according to some fairly convincing >arguments) had a strong potential impact on student performance. (Being >called on is one of those factors, as I understand it, that correlates to >school success.) > >My point? Simply that many of us who do not accept racist ideas may act in >ways that have (unintended) racist impacts. I think that often it takes >far longer to alter behavior patterns than it may take to change conscious >ideas. Excellent point, and I couldn't agree more, though I'm not sure what to make of it. The above example implies that sometimes we may be operating (at an unconscious level) within ideologies we did not specifically choose; or, more accurately, that certain ideologies choose US. In short, we don't embrace the ideology; it embraces us--a scary thought. But maybe it's not as scary as it seems. If we can, through dialogues like this one, become more aware of our own conscious ideas, then perhaps we can be more aware of our behavior patterns as well. If, for example, a teacher reads the aforementioned study, and is suddenly aware that he or she is discriminating unconsciously, perhaps a more concerted effort at self-awareness is possible. It's a romantic thought, I know, but worth arguing. In any case, I think that opportunity for self-reflection is one of the great benefits of a discussion like this. I have really appreciated everyone's comments, and, like Margaret, am carefully filing the entire thread away for future reference. --John Williams UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting Own Horn (was: Responding to Critics) Date: 12 Feb 2002 23:42:02 -0700 > And (yippee!) it was accepted by Covenant! (Insert Toyota jump here.) I > always hoped I'd get to toot my on horn on the list. I've been working > toward this day for many years. :) > > Annette Lyon > Yay! Annette, this is great news! Also shows what some hard and honest re-working of a manuscript can do. Good thing you didn't call it quits when you got the comments back from the judge. --Katie Parker SLC, UT -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 07:37:58 -0700 >From: "Thom Duncan" Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that they could get on TV? Its like watching Les Miz (or whatever your favorite production is) on video. You can't beat the view in front of the television for that performance, can you? Nothing beats being there. I was at the finish line for the first race of the Olympics, and to feel the excitement as the Italian skier nipped her opponent by less than two seconds after breaking her pole cannot be replicated on the tube. I was at the base of the ski jump and to see skier after skier fly over the hill and land at my feet and spray my face with snow cannot be beat. I was surrounded by loyal Poles, Swedes, Japanese and Germans and high-fived them at the moment of impact. I got home after attending the luge and the television showed the top four or five runs. What happened to the other fifty? What happened to the Korean who sent actual sparks over the crowd as his luge bounced from top to bottom of the course. And all those great wipe-outs were pre-empted by commercials. Ugh! I've got another dozen to go. I'm not scalping. Bob Hughes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:56:42 GMT The article is at: http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020902.shtml (Put it all on one line if my mailer breaks it up.) Not only was the year time shifted, the S was missing from html at the end. Picky, these computers -- do exactly what you tell them to do, don't they? Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Diversity Among Mormons Date: 13 Feb 2002 08:57:50 -0700 Scott, I for one certainly appreciated the "at-one-ment-ing" effect of your essay. (Pardon the invention of a word.) It is exactly right. We all have a story to tell, and we all are trying to tell it the best we can. As soon as somebody wants to listen, we should be SO GRATEFUL! Thank you! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] 2001 in Review: Mormon Plays Date: 13 Feb 2002 18:13:54 -0600 [MOD: Apologies about this, which is going out under my name rather than Andrew's for technical list reasons. This was posted to AML-Mag on Feb. 4, but did not apparently make it out over AML-List at that time.] 2001 Mormon Plays in Review Although I have read a fair amount of 2001's Mormon novels and short stories, I have not seen a single play, living, as I do in Japan. So for the plays I am relying solely on newspaper notices, other people's reviews, and AML-list scuttlebutt. Although there were fewer main stage productions of plays written by Mormon artists in 2001 than in 2000, the large number informal productions and staged readings which occurred and the development of a number of theatrical institutions gives me great hope for the future of Mormon drama. An especially interesting development is that New York City has become a hub of Mormon drama outside of Utah. As always, the epicenter of Mormon drama is Utah County, particularly since the BYU theater department has for many years now acted both as a training ground for new talent and a performance venue for established artists. There is usually one main stage production of a Mormon play each year at BYU, and this year it was a revival of Susan Howe's 1987 play "Burdens of Earth", about Joseph Smith and his companions at Liberty Jail. I have read Howe's script several times and it never fails to move me. Eric Snider and Robert Paxton have commented, however, on the weakness of the play's dramatic structure. Besides Howe's play, there were many smaller- scale student productions and staged readings of Mormon plays at BYU in 2001. These included productions of graduate student Melissa Larson's "Lady in Waiting", about one of Anne Boleyn's servants, Mormon drama veteran Eric Samuelsen's new play "What Really Happened," and three readings at the annual Writers/Directors/Actors Workshop. One of the reasons that there were so many productions of Mormon plays in Utah County in 1999 and 2000 was because Marvin Payne was the artistic director of the Little London Theater in Pleasant Grove in those years, and scheduled a significant number of new and old Mormon plays. In 2001, however, the job was given to someone else, and as a result there were no Mormon plays produced there in 2001. Although the theater continued to bring in large crowds and receive critical praise, the owners recently announced they were closing it down. Also the Provo Theater Company, which had an even stronger critical reputation and had produced a small number of Mormon plays, closed down indefinitely in 2001. Bill and Marilyn Brown's Villa and Little Brown Theaters in Springville have stepped into the breech to become a frequent sites for Mormon drama in Utah Valley. Certainly the most significant work performed there last year was J. Scott Bronson's "Stones", a pair of one-acts about the Isaac and Christ and their families. The play received glowing reviews from several AML-list members and from Eric Snider in the Daily Herald for both the strength of the script and the actors' powerful performances. This is the 2001 play I regret missing the most. The Villa was also host to performance of James Arrington's "J. Golden" starring Marvin Payne and to a reading of BYU student Nathan Christiansen's musical "Heart of the Heartland", which was the winner of the Browns' 2001 VIP Arts drama contest. In May-June the Playwrights' Circle, an organization founded in 1998 by James Arrington for the support and improvement of Mormon playwrights, held its Summer Festival at UVSC, where Arrington is on the faculty. The festival featured a series of one-act science fiction plays by Arrington, Bronson, Thom Duncan, and Shannyn Walters, and another performance by Payne of "J. Golden". Also at UVSC there was a benefit performance of Steven Kapp Perry's excellent musical "Polly". BYU professor Eric Samuelsen, probably the most prolific Mormon playwright, did not have any main stage productions in 2001, but did have as many as four works which appeared in "under the radar" performances and readings, as well as a script published in a magazine. The above-mentioned student production of "What Really Happened", a disturbing story about a couple's evil acts, received excellent reviews from several AML-list members who attended it. An excerpt of his new farce "A Very Good Impression", about a BYU professor and his graduate students trying to impress each other, was performed at the Handcart Company gala. The drama "Peculiarities" was to be performed at the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival, but I believe it was cancelled. A drama for young audiences, "Slaying the Greeble", was read at the BYU Writers/Directors/Actors Workshop near the end of the year. Finally, the script of his 1997 play "Gadianton", the winner of the 1997 AML drama prize, was published in the July 2001 issue of Sunstone. I have wanted to see the play for years, especially after Gideon Burton, in an article in the Fall 1999 issue of Dialogue, used it as a model of great Mormon literature in that it successfully appealed to the heart, mind, and sprit. Now that I have read it, I agree. Samuelsen's ability to portray contemporary characters in difficult moral quandaries is world class, and the fact that he almost always uses Mormon characters makes him among the most fascinating Mormon authors presently in the business, whether in prose or drama. For years Sunstone has had a policy of publishing about a play script a year, so it is very good to see it back in business publishing quality Mormon work. Speaking of AML drama award winners, the Genesis Group continued to perform Margaret Blair Young's 2000 winner "I Am Jane" at a variety of venues in 2001, including BYU and a stake center in Bountiful. Salt Lake County, where theater is expected to be a bit edgier than in the south, was also the scene of a few Mormon plays. Besides its annual farce "Saturday's Voyeur", the Salt Lake Acting Company sponsored a reading by its playwright-in-residence, Julie Jensen, of her play "Wait!", about a small-town Utah theater. New York actor and former Young Ambassador Steven Fales gave a reading of his one-man play "Confessions of a Mormon Boy", about his experiences as a homosexual and a Mormon, at the Salt Lake City Sunstone symposium, and performed it at the Leona Wagner Theatre. Playwright and lyricist Pat Davis revived her 1996 Utah Centennial musical "Bands of Iron, Rings of Gold" (music by Kenneth Plain) at the SLCC Grand Theatre, where she is the artistic director. Finally Tim Slover, the award-winning author of historical plays, led the New Renaissance Theatre Company in a reading of a new work, "Hancock County". The play, which dramatizes the trial of five men accused of participating in the killing of Joseph and Hyrum, was originally scheduled to premiere at BYU in 2001, but was postponed to February 2002, presumably because it was not yet ready. I did not see reviews of any of these works. As far as international attention, Neil LaBute's newest play, "The Shape of Things", certainly went far beyond all the other works I mention, although it contained no overt references to Mormons or Mormonism. It primarily tells the story of a female art student who successfully reconstructs the entire life of a young man who falls in love with her. The play ends with the woman cruelly presenting her changed "boyfriend" to her faculty as her graduate thesis. It premiered at a prestigious Off-West End London theater early in the year, where it received almost universal praise in the British press, as well as from our reporter on the scene, Eric Samuelsen. It received a much less friendly reception when it opened at the prestigious Off-Broadway Promenade Theater soon after September 11th, perhaps because the critics and the public were less in the mood for misanthropy at the time. Both the New York Times and the New Yorker gave it poor reviews, while two reviewers in the New York Post were split in their opinions. Ultimately its run was not extended beyond its planned December closing date. Besides LaBute, there has been a growing amount of plays by Mormon authors in New York City. The main source of this action is the Handcart Ensemble, a small off-off-Broadway theater company formed in 1999 by a group of mostly former BYU students. They appear to specialize in the restaging of largely forgotten classical works, adapted by J. Scott Reynolds, the group's artistic director. In November they staged their first original work, Reynolds' verse play "David and Bathsheba", which received some good notices and positive reaction from a friend of mine who saw it. The group also held a benefit gala in May, with original theatrical readings, music, and films produced by Mormon artists. Another New York City artist creating original theater is Matt Toronto, who read two new works this year at the Theatre Studio, "Mysterious Ways", about the relationship between a pair of missionaries and their investigator, and a one-man play titled Before Your Eyes. AML-list member Tom Johnson saw the former play and spoke very highly of it. Arrington, James. J. Golden. 1982. Produced at the 2001 UVSC Playwrights' circle and at the Villa. Youtahneeks. The M.A.K.E.R. Comic one-acts at the Playwrights' Circle Summer Festival SFx5. Bronson, Scott. Fata Morgana. 1998. Absurdist. 2001 Playwrights' Circle SFx5. Stones. Villa Little Brown Theater, Nov-Dec 2001. Cazier, Tawnya. Let Me Call You Sweetheart. BYU WDA Workshop reading, 2001. Romantic comedy. Recent BYU graduate. Christiansen, Nathan F. Heart of the Heartland. Winner of the Browns' 2001 VIP Arts drama contest. Musical about a modern Gulliver. BYU student. Davis, Pat (playwright/lyricist) Bands of Iron, Rings of Gold, 1996. Music by Kenneth Plain. Revised in July 2001 at Salt Lake Community College. Duncan, Thom. Let the Memories Die. 2001, Playwrights Circle SFx5 one-acts. Fales, Steven. Confessions of a Mormon Boy. Sunstone symposium reading, 2001. Nov-Dec, 2001 at Leona Wagner Theatre of the Rose Wagner Center for the Performing Arts. Hales Harding, Marianne. Next Rest Stop 78 Miles. 2000 and 2001 Utah Shakespeare Festival reading. Squish. 2001, Seattle Fringe Festival, Greenstage company. Comedy. Hammond, Wendy. Road Rage: A Love Story. Charlotte, NC. Handcart Ensemble. The Mistress of the Inn by Goldoni, March 2001. David and Bathsheba by Reynolds, Nov. 2001. Howe, Susan. Burdens of Earth. Sunstone, Nov. 1987. Produced at BYU in 1987, 2001. Jensen, Julie. Two-Headed. 1999. About the Mountain Meadows Massacre and polygamy. SLAC, 2000. Ford Theater, Los Angles, Jan-Feb. 2001. Wait! (formerly No Small Actors), SLAC reading. Small-town Utah theater and family struggle. Playwright-in-residence at SLAC in 2001. Keely, Brigham. Self Interest. Existence. American Fork Amphitheater, 2001. One-act comedies. BYU student. LaBute, Neil. The Shape of Things. Alameida, London, 2001. Promenade Theater, Off-Broadway, Oct-Dec. 2001. Larson, Melissa. Lady in Waiting. BYU, Aug. 2001. BYU Student Showcase. Graduate student play. Nelson, Char. For Name's Sake. BYU WDA Workshop reading, 2001. BYU graduate student. Perry, Steven Kapp. Polly. UVSC, 2001. One-woman musical. Reynolds, J. Scott. Artistic Director of the Handcart Ensemble in NYC. David and Bathsheba. Nov. 2001. Verse. Samuelsen, Eric. What Really Happened. 2001, BYU. Nelke, student-produced. Aug. 2001 Sunstone reading? A Very Good Impression. Farce excerpted at the NY Mormon artists gala. AML Writers Conference reading cancelled. Peculiarities. About weird Mormon sex. Playwrights Circle Summer Festival? Slaying the Greeble. BYU WDA Workshop reading, 2001. For young audiences. Gadianton. BYU 1997. Sunstone, July 2001. 1997 AML drama prize. Slover, Tim. Hancock County. New Renaissance Theatre Company, April, 2001. BYU, 2002. The Carthage martyrdom and the trial of five men a year later. Stewart, Gary. "Joseph Smith Project." Attempted to write a play about parts of Joseph's life but decided he wasn't good enough to write it. Spoke about it and read portions at a 2001 Sunstone Symposium. Toronto, Matt. Mysterious Ways. 2001 NYC reading. About missionaries and an investigator. Before Your Eyes. Theater Studio In. (NYC) in September 2001. One man play. Walters, Shannyn. On the Way Out. 2001, UVSC, Playwrights' Circle SFx5 one-acts. Young, Margaret Blair. I Am Jane. 2000. BYU, 2001. Union Fort Stake Center (Bountiful?), Oct. 2001. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - AML-List Magazine, a daily selection of posts from AML-List. See AML-List archives at http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 08:26:44 -0800 I have read the many posts on this subject with interest and learning. Some I have found agreement with, some not with varying degrees of both. All points well expressed in my opinion, and I appreciate Jonathan's giving the rest of us more time to respond in the first round as some of us have had other pressing matters, to say the least. This issue had a direct bearing on my life in a roundabout way. The main reason my father gave me permission to be baptized was because of the example of a single man and the way he lived his life, including the way he treated Blacks. Much of this is anecdotal from my father, and I unfortunately didn't write it down at the time, so if there are errors, they are mine. I was born in the city of Compton, California where my father was a Police Officer. My parents had moved from upstate New York at the urging of my father's best friend, an old war buddy. They loved it, and packed up my two oldest brothers and moved west. The next brother and I were both born in California. My parents had certain attitudes toward certain races and ethnicity's that was common at the time and I have always found disturbing. But, in my parent's defense, they have always admired anyone that worked hard and wanted something better for themselves and their families. And they were and my mother is basically fair people and hate blatant injustice. My mother was one of the few people in her community in Troy, New York who publicly condemned the interment of American citizens of Japanese descent. But they are hardly activists, few people were then. Compton was a white middle-class city when I was born in 1960 in the midst of changing. Andrew, I believe, said it changed into a slum. Partially true. While white flight did take place and some gangs moved in, part of Compton became Black and middle class and has remained so to this day. Venus and Serena Williams come from there. It is currently experiencing more growing pains as many Hispanic residents have moved in and want a say so in the running of this their community as well. I have given this background to set up how my life was affected because of all this. My father, who became the Police Sergeant in charge of the station and officers had a officer under him named Des Fipps. ( I hope I spelled it right). Des was a Mormon and my father greatly admired him. He was honest, he was upright and fair, and no one had a bad word to say about him. My dad could remember him coming to the jail on Sundays, his day off, and visiting with the inmates and giving them scriptures, doing kindnesses, ( I was in prison and ye visited me...). Des, I believe was the first white officer who would willing partner with a black officer. That may be looked at today as paternalistic and maybe condescending, but in the 1960's it took courage to do that. One night, he and his partner were in a car chase with some suspects. (I don't remember if he and the Black officer were still partners). The suspects were chased into a dead end alley and decided to turn their car around and ram the police car at high speed. Des was the driver and only had time enough to turn the car around so his side was the one that took the brunt of the hit. The impact tore his aorta and he died in his partner's arms. He sacrificed himself. "No greater love hath any man..." My father never forgot this, and that is why he gave me his permission to be baptized and persuaded my mother to give her consent. I have lived off the goodness and light of a man I never met, but it changed the course of my life and the family I have, because he lived as he did. Unfortunately, there was also an event surrounding his death that left a bitter taste in my father's mouth and everyone who went to Des's funeral. Somebody, my father said it was the Bishop wouldn't let the Black officers into the Chapel to honor their fallen comrade. My father was appalled, so were the others. He didn't tell me this until many years after I was married and my husband and I were thunderstruck. I quickly told him whoever did that was wrong, horribly wrong. Everyone was welcome to come to our Chapel and worship. I didn't want to believe it was a Bishop, I wanted to believe it was an idiot Sunday School President, but I came to believe it indeed could have been a Bishop, sadly enough. I wish that person could understand the negative consequences of their disgusting behavior. I hope they have found a way to repent. And I am glad that the righteousness of Des's life held more sway with my dad than this negative experience did. My family moved to Orange County when I was five. And although it's considered an upper middle class white county there is and was more diversity than most people know with large communities of Hispanics-Americans, Japanese American, in my early teens and a large influx of Southeast Asian Refugees who settled here. But very few Blacks, unfortunately. That is changing, but slowly. I grew up with a Buddhist Temple not far away, a Jewish Synagogue, and we have a prominent Islamic Center that the press frequently consults within walking distance from my home. The Latter-day Saints became a presence here in the 1950's with two Chapels near where I lived when I was growing up. I didn't become aquaintanted with the Church's policy toward Blacks and the Priesthood until I had known them a few years and I saw President Kimball interviewed right after Pres. Lee died in 1973. A reporter asked him when the Mormon Church intended to let Blacks have the Priesthood. Pres. Kimball said when the Lord was ready to give it to them. I was appalled. I questioned my best friend the next day about this. She repeated the Curse of Cain belief to me and I didn't buy it. Now to give you a better picture of her and her family, as I have said in my post on Life in Mormon Culture they are wonderful people. There is not a racist bone in their bodies. My friend's mom was greatly affected when as a young bride she was sent with her Army husband to a military base in Georgia. She was agast at the way Blacks were treated, even to the humiliating way they had to walk on the outside of the sidewalk to let whites by even if they had to step in the gutter to do so. They were supportive of civil rights laws. There isn't' anyone I didn't see them help or be kind to in all the years I have known them. They are serving a mission in Inner City Chicago as I write and they love the people and the people love them. They were just obedient to their Church and if that was the policy, unfortunately that's how it was. They didn't question, but I was told that the day would come when the Blacks would have the Priesthood and rise in education and influence in the Church and out of it and they would welcome the day. In spite of my misgivings about this, I became interested in the Church a couple of years later and was baptized. My ward was a mostly conservative white congregation, but one who welcomed anyone and we had a number of whites married to darker skinned polynesians with a growing number from my teens on of hispanic and asian couples some of them mixed pairs. I don't ever remember an situation of attitude problems or incidents because of race in my ward, including from the older members. I remember some teacher giving the "Blacks not as valiant in the preexistence" crap when I was a youth. I rejected it out of hand. In my opinion, everyone who was here had kept their first estate, even Hitler and Stalin and that was good enough for me. I remember a part-Black sister in the Ward getting up at Testimony meeting and telling us she was preparing because she felt strongly the day was coming soon that she could go to the Temple, we all fervently desired this. When someone asked me and another guy from the Ward in math class what was up with Blacks not getting the Mormon Priesthood we looked at each other and said it was a long story, but we felt they would get it in our lifetimes. He seemed satisfied with that. We just didn't want to get into all of the theories. The Revelation on the Priesthood came the very next year. My best friend called me at work and we were ecstatic and rejoicing. Shortly before that, a family had moved into our Ward. He was Black, she was White and they had eight children. He was quickly ordained and the Sealing Room in the Temple was packed with Ward members when they went to become a forever family. We also rejoiced when another couple moved to our Ward, again he Black, she White, he was raising her three kids and it was an incredible event when they had a baby girl of their own and he brought her before the Ward for her Blessing. He came from a family of ten children and his mom and dad came for it, what incredible people, so spiritual, so dignified. Sam, was an interesting man who would chuckle about the grief he got from others for being both a Black Mormon and a Black Republican. I admire the courage and spirituality of people like Sam, Darius Gray and Alan Cherry who say past the policies and many of the people to the heart and truthfulness of the Gospel, and joined anyway. Especially when they knew they'd face trouble from both in and out of the Church for having made that choice. When this subject has come up over the years in Gospel Doctrine, I remember the conclusion being, even among the older members of my Ward feeling that it was not that the Black people weren't ready for the Gospel and having the Priesthood, the problem was us, the White people weren't ready and the Lord treated us almost like the Children of Israel wandering in the desert for forty years until the older generation died off. Unfortunately, the people who paid the price in this case were the ones who least deserved it. To some that may be something of a cop-out, but it was an admission of sorts to others and took some courage to make instead of falling back on the old theories and excuses. I do think we need to face our past and the things that were written and said about Blacks and the Priesthood from our leaders and other authors. I once came across an old book titled "The Negro and The Priesthood" that was in some old books given to us. I read the first few paragraphs and did something I never do with a book, I threw it in the trash. It just disgusted me that much, but those things need to be aired. I can understand why Pres. Hinckley wants to focus on the future, it moves us forward and his attitude has always been up and forward about any number of subjects. The reluctance to visit this subject probably has to do with if we consider our Prophets past and present to be inspired, how could they be inspired in policies like this? And people outside and some in question the issue of divine authority in any subject because of this. Yes, I still think our past Prophets were indeed inspired Prophets and no I don't understand all of this, and yes I'd like to understand it, and I've appreciated many of the sources and thoughts posited on this subject in this thread. I also often tell people I don't know why this policy existed, I may be able to guess, but I really don't know and I'd like to find out more. And I also bring up to someone who keeps bringing this up with me, think back-Was there ANY church they could name, the Parish I went to as a children, the church they grew up in, many churches even now-Name me the Church congregation of White people who would've accepted a Black Pastor or Minister or Preacher who would have been in charge of their Church. They can't do it. They tell me they never thought of it that way, and they back off stunned as I've given something them about their past and their own faith to think about. One last note, my son has told us the finest people he met tracting were Black. They were always polite and although they often weren't interested they recognized him as a representative of the Lord. He told me he has never understood racism and it bothered him that he could go back to the apartment and take the shirt, tie and name tag off and people would treat him differently, but that the Black people didn't have that luxury. He detested the hypocrisy of many of the people he dealt with in Ohio, mainly non-LDS. I'm sorry this is so rambling, but I had to share it. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 10:10:10 -0700 >Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves >through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue >which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that >they could get on TV? Oh, Thom, that's exactly what my mom said. There's something about being there in person, though (for me at least). Ok, so maybe I'd get a better view of the expression on the ice skaters face from the vantage point of my living room. BUT I wouldn't get the excitement of bundling up, fighting the crowds, drinking my overpriced hot chocolate, cheering my lungs out....sigh....all those things you hate, I love! I don't much care to watch football on tv because I'm not too interested in the up-and-close of the sport. I did, however, have a total blast attending the few football games that I have attended. I mean, when BYU scores you get to sing the whole fight song! Every single time they score! How fun is that??? And you get to stand up and scream as loud as you can scream. Can't really do that at home (not when you live in apartments, anyhow). I don't know, there's something about actually being there. Being physically present as they're striving striving striving.....as if by sheer will you could supernaturally push them a little faster and then when they win you were a part of that. That doesn't really translate through the TV waves, at least for me it doesn't. It's kind-of like watching a wedding on TV vs. watching a wedding from the pews. Ok, I'm stretching here. Not all Olympic/athletic events are like that for me. But, in defense of those people watching the bobsled event in person, the coolness (no pun intended) of being there has nothing to do with having the best vantage point on the race. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 10:48:42 -0700 >Did anyone else notice the music that was being played while the 1980 = >"Miracle on Ice" Hockey team lit the cauldron? It was an excerpt from = >Shastakovich Symphony No. 5. =20 Fascinating, for all the reasons Mary mentions. But I think, actually, it = was John Williams ripping off Shastakovich. Williams, of course, is a = notorious borrower. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Nineteenth Century Ideas (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 13 Feb 2002 11:08:15 -0700 This question of acculturation which Cathy Wilson raises is a wonderful = one, and one worth contemplating. Acculturation IS difficult to identify = or escape. Peter Gay has a new book (Schnitzler's Century, I think it's called) out = on the Victorian middle class, which I'm finding quite fascinating. He = points out any number of ideas which the Victorians (by which he means = 'all Europeans during most of the nineteenth century) held, and which were = relatively unchallenged in their day. A short list: A) Women were inherently more spiritual than men, more immediately in tune = with God's Will. =20 B) However women were not as physically robust, nor as capable of abstract = thinking. C) Europeans were racially superior to all other peoples on the earth, as = evidenced by expansionist conquests and colonial settlements, which proved = Darwin right--the strongest had in fact prevailed. Manifest Destiny was = not a radical notion, merely an expression of mainstream thought. = However, white races did have an obligation to try to raise the benighted = and culturally inferior races over whom they held dominion to something = approaching level. D) Masturbation was morally and physically crippling, and almost any means = should be undertaken to prevent it. There were any number of physical = devices which were commercially successful which were supposed to stop = masturbation. E) Generally, married Victorians enjoyed far more satisfying sexual = relations than has been commonly supposed, and the notion of Victorian = squeamishness has been vastly overstated; they weren't a particularly = squeamish lot. But sexuality was certainly not a subject to be taught in = school, and it needed to be discussed with children with the greatest = possible delicacy. F) Corporal punishment in school was a norm in England, not so much so on = the continent. American practice was closer to Europe. G) Of course, men were to work and support the family and women were to = find their satisfaction in life through domesticity. H) Intercultural dating or marriage was unheard of, let alone interracial. = One was expected to marry one's own kind. This meant Italian-Americans = would never dream of marrying the Irish. =20 I) In America, the Irish were thought of as natural athletes, able to jump = higher and run faster than other mortals. Any number of (to us) absurd = physiological and sociological studies confirmed this. And so on. Let me just add that President Hinckley is the FIRST prophet = of the Church born in the 20th century. I do not mean to suggest that = prophets aren't prophets or anything like it. But I do suggest that = acculturation is a powerful force, and that God works with it and through = it. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 13 Feb 2002 11:23:21 -0800 (PST) I first discovered "National Review" in the high school library during the depths of the Carter administration. As Peggy Noonan wrote years later, discovering NR at a young impressionable age during the collectivist 1970's was like being invited to join a secret, special club. What appealed to me was that it was so frickin' *funny*. Most political reporting was (and still remains, to some extent) incredibly solemn and long-faced. Buckley and co. weren't afraid to mix it up in the best emperor-has-no-clothes way. Buckley is famously a Catholic and his magazine looks at culture through that lens, although it's not an official publication of the church (as many a liberal Bishop would hasten to point out.) A good example is the recent cover story on the ongoing child-abuse scandal among the clergy in Boston. NR disdains the libertarian strain of the conservative movement as morally rudderless; it champions a form of Burkean moral traditionalism. Plus, there's also all those funky little ads for Catholic liberal arts colleges scattered throughout the pages of the magazine. Meridian magazine tries to do much the same thing in an LDS way in its cultural/political writing, but without NR's elan and cosmopolitanism. --- Jeff Needle wrote: > This is the first time I've seen National Review described as > "Catholic." Aside from the Catholicism of its founder, Wm. F. Buckley, > what evidence do you have of this? > ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Olympic Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 11:35:01 -0800 (PST) Dave Letterman's take on the opening ceremony was, um, interesting. "There was the Child of Light skating his little heart out.. and then, bam, there's SATAN! He's chasing the Child of Light! How did Satan get a pair of skates, especially in Utah? He must be from out of state...then 10 or 12 Mormons came out of the stands and beat Satan up." Dave in apparently planning to skewer the "NBC Olympics". He's sent his cute little deadpan assistant Stephanie to Park City to do some deliberatley low-key reporting from the games, in contrast to NBC's overbearing coverage ("NBC practically won't let us in Utah. We're almost in Wyoming!") Should be fun. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: [AML] Story on Mormons in _The Economist_ Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:07:19 -0500 "The Economist" has an excellent story on the Church in its most recent issue. (It's also very in-depth considering it runs only two pages.) What continues to impress me about recent news magazine stories on Mormonism, is their understanding of our unique theology--and their positive reaction to it. (If only official Church spokespeople and more ordinary members were as comfortable discussing such doctrines as that of God having once been human!) This particular story, while praising the Church's growth and accomplishments, also explains our theology and how it differs (and therefore inspires criticism) from that of orthodox Christianity. The writer points out that when one takes a tour of Temple Square, one comes away thinking that Mormons are just another Evangelical Christian denomination. (This has certainly been the reaction of most of my non-member friends when taking the Temple Square tour.) The writer then discusses (in a very POSITIVE light)our unique doctrine of God, Eternal Progression, Free Agency and the Plurality of Gods. He points out that most of the Church's recent problems stem from its attempts to distance itself from this unique theology. He asks a very important question: if the Church distances itself from the theology that makes it different from mainstream Christianity (the theology that has always brought about criticism from others AND persecution), it becomes more "mainstream Christian" (MY term there), can a unique Mormon identity survive? You can click on to the story at the magazine's website: www.economist.com I'd love to hear some of your reactions to this piece. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:30:28 -0700 Marvin Payne Alpine, Utah Wrote: >snip> I wonder how the discussion would be going, how we would be feeling, if we were living back in the days when the priesthood Included only a very small segment of God's children, the Levites. >snip> I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Sure I felt bad, and everyone else who was capable of feeling, felt bad. I think what we felt bad about was that all worthy males in the church were offered the priesthood at age 12, except for one very small segment, those whom were determined to be descendents of Cain. And this is because of our prophets' interpretations of the scriptures. But does any of the other churches on the earth today have this sort of guilt trip over the priesthood? No. The priesthood in other churches is only conferred on those who actively seek it and even some of those who seek it are denied the privilege. In our church, "Many are called but few are chosen." What we have to remember is God is in charge. Who are we to question him? >snip> But there is still this notion of family, and particular family responsibilities. It was understood by the ancients well enough that they were surprised at the idea that Jesus would claim priesthood authority, simply because he was a Jew, of which family "Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." >snip> I think Jesus' claim to the priesthood has more to do with the fact that he is the literal son of God. I also think that all of us mortals who have come to this earth can be traced back to the same first parents. I've said it before and I'll say it again, none of us mortals are perfect, that is why we are here. God has trusted us in our imperfection with his priesthood power so we can learn how to use it. We all make mistakes, and hopefully we learn from our mistakes. What we have to keep reminding ourselves is that God is in charge, and he loves us. We need to lighten up and love one another. Let God be the judge. We just need to love each other and try not to judge. Since 1978 the priesthood has been offered to all worthy males. The presiding authorities in the wards and stakes determine who is worthy and we have the option to either sustain their judgments or not. We are not responsible for the fact that in the past the priesthood was not offered to the descendents of Cain, anymore than we are responsible for the acts of slavery and oppression which were perpetrated against any of our brothers and sisters before the civil war and prior to the progress we have made in the civil rights movements. I for one do not believe any true Christian, or for that matter, anyone who believes in a higher power of truth and righteousness, can be a racist, and we should be very careful before we make the accusation of racism against anyone. There have been many great books written about this subject, but apparently we need many more. In our writing we need to point out or emphasize the mean minded despicable nature of bigotry and racism. I was so overjoyed to see the movie "Remember the Titans." It was so positive and yet it showed the depth of prejudice and bigotry which is often prevalent in society. Traces of it can be found not only in the south but almost everywhere. Writers should focus on this terrible blight on society and expose it so it can be eliminated from our mores, or at least diminished. I don't think we can completely eradicate racism, but I think we could do more to lessen its prevalence. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Diversity Among Mormons Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:57:16 -0500 On Mormon literature, Scott Parkin wrote; >In his excellent post, James Wilson outlined thoughts on why he believes a >Mormon literature intended for a general audience is better served with a >middle of the road approach that doesn't force non-Mormons to make personal >evaluative judgments about whether Mormon thought excludes their own >beliefs, and that focusing on our commonality of belief will build more >bridges than (intentionally or un) exclusive work that directly or tacitly >rejects all but specifically Mormon ideas. > >I absolutely agree. To a great extent, I agree also. Then again, a religion is a set of ideas/concepts. And there is a place, I think, in Mormon literature for a writer--through his/her story--to challenge the reader to consider these ideas. Having said this, I don't think that conversion to the Church can be the goal of Mormon FICTION. A novel can not be a religious tract. I think the key to reaching a universal audience is to present in our stories Mormons and non-Mormons wrestling HONESTLY with the ideas/values/ethics of the Restored Gospel and the culture of Mormonism. If the struggle is depicted honestly, if the characters have integrity in their struggle, then it won't matter in the end whether the Mormons in the stories leave the Church or the non-members convert. But again, HONESTY and INTEGRITY within the fictional characters must be--I think--absolute. (Chiam Potok is a master of this.MY NAME IS AHSER LEV is a beautiful example: the title character--a artist--in the end distances himself from his Jewish culture, and yet the reader never sees the character as being any LESS Jewish. [Side note: Was anyone on the list attending BYU in December of '82 when Potok visited the campus for a week or so and presented a series of lectures and classes? The experience was a highlight in my education as a writer AND a Latter-day Saint.]) Why attending the Y in the late 70's/early 80's, I often heard ordinary Saints say, "Someone should write a Mormon 'Fiddler on the Roof.'" My reaction then was that most Mormons would never stand for it; they'd label such a story "anti-Mormon." After all, in "Fiddler," a devout Jewish man watches his three daughters marry men, ecah of whom is distancing himself from his Jewishness. At the story's high point, the father "excommunicates" his favorite daughter because she marries a Gentile ("a non-member.") The father realizes that there can be no compremise with his religion and her child's decision to marry outside of this tradition. Then at the climax, the father realizes that his love for his daughter is stronger than his Jewish orthodoxy. The story ends with his making a move towards his daughter and AWAY from his previously held religious convictions. Are Mormons ready for a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or Stake President) compromises on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple? Such would be the message of a "Mormon 'Fiddler on the Roof'." What makes "Fiddler" attractive to Orthodox Jews (and the general public) is the same thing that COULD make a "Mormon Fiddler" attractive to Mormons (and the general public): the honest depiction of a character's struggle in living his/her religion. One more thing that I find stimulating artistically: We Mormons think of ourselves as part of modern-day Israel; we have become literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--we are part of the Children of ISRAEL. "Israel" was the name given to Jacob after he wrestled with God. (Check out the scriptures: there was no wrestling with an angel. Genesis says that "a man" came to Jacob and wrestled with him throughout the night. When morning comes, Jacob WINS and having pinned down his opponent, DEMANDS a blessing. The "man" is hereafter addressed as if he is God, and gives Jacob a blessing as if he is God. Most Biblical scholars think that this story has been re-worded over the past 2000 years or so in order to cover up the messy theology that would result if it blantantly depicted a man physically wrestling with a god. Most scholars are now firm in the conviction that the story comes from a time when belief in a physical God and in a pluarity of Gods was part of ancient Israel's orthodox religion.) Back to my main point: The name that God gives Jacob--"Israel"--means "contending with/wrestling with God." (There's even a new theory among some Biblical archeologists that the name "Palestine" comes from the Greek "plstn" which signifies "Wrestler"--not "pHlstn" which signifies "Philistines." The Greeks named the land "Palestine." With their many gods and sporting events, they would have been intrigued by a people like the Jews whose founding father wrestled with a God--AND WON!) Back to my main point: "Israel" means to wrestle with God--and, as God in that particular story tells Jacob, not just to wrestle with God, but also to PREVAIL. Jewish literature succeeds beautifully in presenting this "wrestling." Since LDS theology presents a noble view of humanity, "working out their own slavation with fear and trembling," and progressing eternally towards what was meant to be their birthright (namely, Godhood in the presence of their Heavenly Parent), then it seems to me that this concept of wrestling should also be a component of what we might call "Mormon Literature." And for the reader, it matters not how the wrestling match concludes as long as it is depcited honestly. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 15:14:38 -0700 [MOD: I'm allowing this as as exception to the "one post" rule for this phase of the discussion, because as I see it what Margaret is doing here is not presenting her own views but sharing her knowledge based on research. Thanks, Margaret.] There are indeed quite a few things about Joseph Smith's racial views in _One More River to Cross_--the reference to his presidential campaign, for one thing, and his lovely quote about "many a black boy [who] will outshine the ones he waits upon." D. Michael Quinn said that Joseph Smith was a RADICAL in his anti-racist views, but we shouldn't go too far with the expectation such a statement provokes. In the same letter where Joseph Smith talks about Blacks being fully capable of progressing as much as whites--given proper education--he also says, "But I would confine them to their own species." He was adamently opposed to interracial marriage (misogenation), though he did want to adopt Jane Manning [James] as his child for the eternities. Those who think that Brother Joseph's writings will always reflect the sort of anti-racist ideas we'd want him to express will be quite disappointed--especially by things he said during the Missouri years. And by the way, Mormons were NOT universally abolitionist. For the most part, they were an isolated people who saw themselves as quite distinct from both abolitionsits and "pro-slavery men." They were PERCEIVED as being abolitionist because of an article William Phelps wrote in _Times and Seasons_ addressed to "people of color." The Missourians thought Phelps (and thus Mormons) were inviting insurrection of slaves and offering fugitive slaves a place of refuge. Phelps immediately retracted this implication, but the perception continued. Instructions to missionaries during that time were quite explicit: They were not to baptize slaves without the master's consent, and they were not to ordain any slave to the priesthood. That last part became the fodder of great controversy in 1879, and I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say, it's in the book. When the Mississippi Saints joined the Mormons either at Nauvoo or at Winter Quarters, they came with their slaves, and their slaves were NOT emancipated. Many people don't realize that in the California Compromise, Utah chose to be a slave state. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 23:16:13 -0700 I've avoided making any comments on this thread because I felt my opinion on this matter really didn't add much. I've always been hesitant about blacks, but that reaction was based more on speech than on skin color. (Once I got into a heated arguement with a friend about whether the man we just met was black. The guy didn't talk black, but when I saw him again I noticed his skin was black.) I am a massage therapist and I trust my hands at least as much as I trust my eyes. My hands don't lie very often, but my eyes (eye) are constantly fooled. Anyway, I've worked on several . . . is Afican-Americans the correct term (how about AfroUtahns). Two inparticular stand out. Johannes was a supreme court judge in Etheopia. I guess he was just plain African. He was giving a speech at the University of Mishigan and accidentally said the wrong thing and had to defect. Somehow he joined the Church and moved to Provo. He got hit by a car and had a hard time of it for a while. He came over to a mutual friend's house while I was working on the friend. Johannes needed to be kneeded (sometimes I am so damn funny), so I worked on him too. The reason the massage stand out is that his scapulas were about three times as big as those of white Americans. Black Americans I've worked on have scapulas slightly larger than white Americans. I've worked on women with Scandanavian blood who scapulas that aren't much larger than the wedges used for doorstops. I worked on a guy named Dwight--he was black--who taught theater at the University of utah. He was really cool. I remember that massage because Dwight was so cool and his quads were so out of balance with his hamstrings. I still can't figure out what kind of exersize would cause that. That's really off target and doesn't add much to this discussion. I was really happy in 78 when the Priesthood was given to black members. I hadn't thought much of it before then, but I really did feel relieved. I don't know why the Priesthood was with held for so long. It very well may have been that God was being unfair. There have been many times when in my life when I thought God was being unfair. I was a Junior companion my entire mission--now that's unfair. My companions always kept the appointment book and told me where we were going next. That was so unfair. About ten years ago I realized, I was completely oblivous about this before (it must be the head-injury), that I didn't have a very good concept of time. Everything was Now or Not-Now. There was no way I could have kept an appointment book. It made absolutely no sense to me and actually was very threatening. Even through I'm 10,000 times better now, I still have trouble schedualing things (My massage clients have to call me up the day before and remind me. It make me feel good--like I'm safe or something.) So I'm thinking maybe the Lord understood the problem before I was even aware there was one, and He decided on an easy way get around it. Yeah, it made Him look bad for a while, and made me think the mission President was a dink. But now I understand better. I'm just trying to say maybe it's not so bad. Maybe the Lord's looking out for us. Maybe He's done some things that make Him look bad. Maybe He's done some things that make the prophets look like dinks. But maybe we'll understand better someday. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] A Third Phase, Please (Comp 1) Date: 14 Feb 2002 13:17:31 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post. I'll let Nan and Michael fight it out who gets it when... As Michael states, however, it would be good for there to be some input on this *quickly* so that it actually happens.] >From mcnandon@hotmail.com Wed Feb 13 22:46:32 2002 I would be happy to open my house to the discussion Margaret Young has suggested. I live in Draper, which is centrally located. Just say the word and I'll start fixing the refreshments. Nan McCulloch >From dmichael@wwno.com Thu Feb 14 00:56:49 2002 Since no one else has come forward to get the ball rolling, I'm willing to open up our home to a gathering. We have a pretty sizeable family room in the basement (if we shove the air hockey game to the side). This would be a very informal gathering. We'll straighten up, but if you want refreshments or anything, everyone has to bring them, including all throw-away plates and stuff so we don't have to do dishes. Possible weekend evenings: Saturday, Sunday, or Monday of this holiday weekend. Sunday the Feb 24 or Mar 3. Or we could shoot for a weekday evening sometime in the next two weeks. Personally, I think the sooner the better, while the topic is fresh on our minds. Perhaps Margaret and Darius can say when they'd be available and the rest of us work from that. Please respond quickly, so this doesn't just fizzle out like so many ideas do. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _Light of the World_ Thoughts Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:54:00 -0700 I'm forwarding my thoughts on _Light of the World_ below. Nan McCulloch > I liked the spectacle, the lighting and special effects, the choreography > and the marvelous venue. I liked the music, but kept waiting for that one > blockbuster song that never came. The theme development was broad and > disjointed. I feel those unfamiliar with our history and culture may have > had a hard time putting it all together. I liked much of the material, but > feel it could have been tied together and connected in a simpler, more > satisfying way. Much of the show was very moving. The 800 or so performers > did well. What a major effort from all involved. In many ways it was > impressive and inspirational. > > Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Orson Scott CARD, _Rebekah_ (Review) Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:27:57 -0700 REBEKAH by Orson Scott Card 2001, Shadow Mountain Hard cover, 413 pages ISBN 1-57008-995-7 $22.95 "Insight, But Into Whom?" reviewed by D. Michael Martindale Long known for his science fiction and fantasy stories, with some branching out into horror and a notable historical fiction novel, Orson Scott Card is now making a significant dent in the Biblical fiction category--specifically the Old Testament. Beginning with _Stone Tables_, a novel about Moses, he has continued on with a series known as "Women of Genesis." His first book in the series was titled _Sarah_, after the wife of the patriarch Abraham. His second book, the one we are addressing now, is _Rebekah_, the wife of the son of Abraham, the second in line of the patriarch. Presumably the third book will be about one of the wives of Jacob, probably Rachel? These books about giant figures in Old Testament history are fascinating studies of bigger-than-life legends. Who doesn't remember hearing the stories of Moses, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah in Sunday school? Card brings these virtually mythical figures back down to earth where we can see them with the clarity of the person next door. He untangles the ambiguities of actions and occurrences that are hard for us to understand today, making them seem like perfectly reasonable events. The only problem is, the Biblical record is so devoid of the details necessary to accomplish these things, Card is obliged to resort to his primary novelist tool, which he has long wielded with the skill of a master--his towering imagination. Most of the details are filled in by Card himself, speculating on motives, feelings, and actual behavior of individuals that are more icon to us than flesh. The result is inevitably a mixture of fascinating conjecture and almost-unsettling deflation of sacred heroes. The protagonists of the Old Testament suddenly become card-carrying Card characters with all the earthiness and smart-mouthed banter that that involves. _Rebekah_ falls into this pattern without a glitch. The book is divided into five parts. Not until the third part--page 145 of a 413 page book--does Card begin to intersect with the Biblical record at all. Everything up to that point establishes the backstory of Rebekah, all the past experiences needed to explain the part of her history we do have. Card uses all the plot development skills he knows to fill in a sizeable period in her life that is a complete fabrication. He then meshes this in with the sparse information the Bible provides, embellishing his way through the paltry three chapters the Old Testament spends describing Isaac's life, and comes up with a portrait of Rebekah, Isaac, and their sons Esau and Jacob, that is fascinating to read, imaginative in its detail, and self- consistent in its speculation. The book begins with Rebekah's life in the tents of her father Bethuel, who, in Card's world, is deaf. We meet her brother Laban, the future marriage-nemesis of her future son Jacob, who is now just a barely-grown lad. In addition to the embellishment of a deaf father, Rebekah also has a mentally-challenged nurse and an absent mother who suddenly reappears in an entertaining way that also acts as a foreshadowing of events in the presumed book to come. Rebekah develops a veil fetish for unusual reasons, as if Card thought her use of a veil over her face when she first meets Isaac is a special event that needs explaining, and not a common Mideastern custom. As Rebekah blends in with the Abrahamic family, we get an innovative characterization of Isaac, one that I never saw in the scriptural record, but one that Card no doubt felt was a reasonable extrapolation from the information available. We also get a thoroughly fleshed-out portrait of the feuding brothers Jacob and Esau, which feels much more justified by the scriptures. But as things develop, and as one begins to get the urge to strangle this particular Isaac, or beat a little sense into his head, we find one more curious thing happen under the control of the magic fingers of Card. As Rebekah and Jacob conspire to wrest the birthright from the technically deserving, but completely unworthy Esau, we witness one of the greatest whitewashings of a Biblical figure since Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber painted Judas Iscariot as the good guy. The book ends at a natural climax in the life of Rebekah, but for some reason Card feels a great urgency to wrap things up. The denouement feels rushed, as if Card had contracted for a maximum number of words. Or maybe the too neatly tied-up ending was embarrassing for Card, and he just wanted to hurry and get it done, hoping we would blink and not notice. There wasn't much else Card could do about all the fictionalizing. The information available to him was spotty at best. To conjure up a novel about Rebekah, he had no choice but to embellish on the facts. He did so with the assurance and abandon of an accomplished and award-winning novelist. He drew upon his science fiction skills and set the ground rules for his religious world, which he adhered to religiously. He provided _a_ possible explanation that accounts for all the data we do have, one possible explanation out of many. Without reservation, I can say that _Rebekah_ is enjoyable to read, like a science fiction book by Card always is: to see what clever thing he will think of next as he tells an engrossing story of characters we come to care about. But if you're looking for insights into one of the figures in the Old Testament, look elsewhere. One comes away feeling like one has gained much more insight about Orson Scott Card and his colorful imagination than about Isaac, the placeholder patriarch, and his miraculously provided and impregnated wife. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 08:41:51 -0700 Ethan makes a good point. It appears to be a given that the added responsibility of the priesthood is a thing universally desirable, and that therefore anyone who died without it was somehow harmed. I've read lots of different theories about this issue and I don't really hold with any of it. Guesses are not facts, though we can second-guess the reasons as much as we want. Since there is nothing from Brigham Young citing the specific theological reason for the ban, and there is nothing in the Doctrine in covenants explicitly creating it, we can speculate with the greatest of ease. The fact that old-fashioned racism was a universal of every people ought not to cause anybody any guilt. What are you supposed to do about it? Get a time machine and go shoot them all? It'd be an awfully long list, and the old theories of race wouldn't allow for any slack. Read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to get a clue about racism. This is between the English and Irish! The English and the French considered each other as different races. The Picts and the Scots in Scotland were different Races. How about Latins and Etruscans? You see my point. As the world grew racism grew. The Vikings thought that Africans had been burned black by the Sun. When a few black slaves were brought to England in the middle ages they were considered demons by English peasants. If Brigham Young was a prophet then he, and God, had reasons for the ban. What they were we do not know, but unless Brigham Young was NOT a prophet they were legitimate. He could make mistakes like anyone else, and the possibility exists that this was one, that perhaps got blown out of proportion later. That said, if it was racist on his part, in the true sense, then he could not have been a prophet. That would make his successors suspect as well. Most Mormons don't agree with the Catholic belief that the apostolic office can survive and be passed on by a man like say...John XII. I certainly don't believe that it could. So if President Hinkley is a prophet, then so was Brigham Young. And so was Spencer W. Kimball, and since he revealed by revelation that the ban was ended, well, the rest follows. It wasn't a mistake, but God chose for His own reasons not to explain. Any one of us could learn the truth, naturally, but probably He wouldn't allow any one of us to write it either. Fact is, I don't really understand--I was ten when the ban was lifted, and I didn't even know that there WAS a ban to be lifted. I did know I had been in the same room with President Kimball and I could feel him from two hundred feet away, and that was enough for me. I don't say give up the quest for knowledge...ever, for any reason, but that doesn't mean that once gained the knowledge can be shared. Some things are truly time-sensitive. There's racism left around, sure's sure, but don't look too harshly at the mirror unless you really do share this pernicious wickedness. Deeds are made by beliefs, and if deeds define the man (or woman), then beliefs do too. I don't see that the deeds of the Church have been much harmed by the former ban. The Church never advocated slavery, burning crosses, lynching people, burning houses or churches or Jim Crow laws. Keep it in perspective. Our forebears were victims of the same kind of mobs as the folks in Rosewood. Don't go crazy with "collective" guilt. There's not that much to be guilty for. So long as every form of collectivism lasts, the world going to be in big trouble, but eventually things will change and we'll get to know the truth of all of it. I don't want to wait, but if I have to, I have to. No sense getting bent out of shape about it. Jim Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:45:41 -0800 Mike South wrote: >> My father (who is 5'5") has always held the theory that after the >> resurrection everyone will float around at eye-level so height won't = be >> much of an issue anymore. Why every time I think of this I get the vision of Superman and Mr. = Mxyzpptlk? I'm not being flip or anything (maybe just a little) but I = get the feeling that all the height differences caused by genetics and = environment will go away in the resurrection. I have lots of things that = need to be fixed when that day comes. Jerry Tyner Orange County -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:49:28 -0800 Hoping to abide by the list rules, I post a big thank you to you, Kathy, for the thought-provoking post. It brings many issues into focus. >I'm going to take a stab at this, while logging in with my opinion of the >whole race issues in mormonism. I've read every scriptural and modern >excuse ever given for the reason the blacks were not allowed the >priesthood prior to 1978. I've also read Pres. Kimball's biography, in >which he stated that he, like every president before him (I don't recall >how far back he meant, but at least the several prior to him) he had >prayed mightily that the Lord would change the policy toward blacks and >allow them the full blessings of membership in His church. I remember a >story of a black woman who joined the church in Joseph Smith's day who >throughout her life had asked every single prophet since him if the time >had come yet when the priesthood could be given to her people. Each >prophet answered her with great compassion, and some with the same >puzzled sadness she felt, that no, the time hadn't come. This comforted >me to know that the prophets HAD in fact been praying for revelation that >would change things, and were refused until Pres. Kimball. ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:41:35 -0700 Rob Lauer wrote: > Why attending the Y in the late 70's/early 80's, I often heard ordinary > Saints say, "Someone should write a Mormon 'Fiddler on the Roof.'" > My reaction then was that most Mormons would never stand for it; they'd > label such a story "anti-Mormon." > marry outside of this tradition. Then at the climax, the father realizes > that his love for his daughter is stronger than his Jewish orthodoxy. The > story ends with his making a move towards his daughter and AWAY from his > previously held religious convictions. I have to disagree with you here. You make it sound like this is an either/or situation--either Tevye must renounce his daughter or he must renounce his previously held religious beliefs. Yes, Tevye softens toward Chava at the very end of the play (if you call muttering "God bless you" under his breath as Chava says good-bye to her family, probably forever, softening), but that doesn't mean that he has abandoned his convictions. One can, in fact, love the sinner while abhorring the sin. > Are Mormons ready for a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or Stake > President) compromises on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to > be married in the Temple? Such would be the message of a "Mormon 'Fiddler on > the Roof'." Phooey. First of all, that wouldn't be the message. Acceptance of a child who chooses not to marry in the temple in no way equals a compromise of the belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple. A Mormon audience would be very open to a play that emphasized love and forgiveness in this manner. I say yes! to a Mormon "Fiddler on the Roof." So, who's going to write it? Thom? Eric? (Oh, I forgot. You hate musicals. :-) Marvin and Steve? If you all wait too long, my daughter may end up beating you to it! Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DiannRead@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 23:41:56 EST Eric, To borrow a line from scripture, "O ye of little faith." I'm glad your lack of faith was thoroughly put in its place. That seems to be a big problem with groups like AML. We have become so accustomed to literature/music/drama, etc. being less than skillfully wrought that mediocrity is now expected, even in world-class events. The very existence of the Tabernacle Choir should be proof of LDS capability when the right people with the right talents are involved. And yet cynicism reigns. How sad. My non-LDS friends here in Texas who watched the ceremonies the other night were thoroughly delighted with the whole thing. I expected to be delighted, too, and I was. And, btw, Elder Maxwell's name is spelled Neal. Diann Read San Antonio, TX -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] re: Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 22:15:51 -0700 Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >>> Group guilt. Why should I feel guilty about the way other people treat other people? I am not responsible for other people's actions. I am responsible only for my own. <<< Since I think this is a response to my post, let me suggest that I think you should feel however you want to feel--however your conscience demands that you feel. I can't tell you how to feel, and I wouldn't dream of trying. All I was trying to express was my own feelings. I expect no other person in heaven or earth to feel as I do. That I feel a guilt that you find silly only proves that we are, in fact, different people and underscores my belief that good Mormons come in a pretty wide variety of packages and have a pretty wide variety of responses to their world (the debate about whether I qualify as a good Mormon is outside the scope of this list and will have to be deferred to another time and place...). For me the issue isn't how other people treat other people, but rather how anyone treats members of my own community--the wide variety of races and ethnicities represented within Mormonism, and further within Humanity. In my mind it's all Us rather than Them. Maybe it's silly, but it's how I feel. Maybe I don't have a right to my own guilt and can add enormous presumption to my lengthy list of personal sins. My only defense is that I do it with good intentions. >>> Even though the people that commit/ed terrible acts in the name of racism live/d in the same country I now live in and were/are of the same skin color as I, I had/have no control over their actions and bear no responsibility for their actions. An apology from me for those actions would be the worst kind of sentimental sophistry. <<< I feel sorrow for much pain that I have not caused. Just the other evening as I was talking to a friend he bit his tongue and experienced a moment of intense pain. I didn't cause that pain, but I expressed my sorrow for it. I don't take any responsibility for his pain, but I do have a desire to ease it if I'm capable. In this case, the only remedy I had was to say "I'm sorry," regardless of my guiltlessness at causing the pain. Expressing that sorrow does indeed ease my own sympathetic pain, and is indeed a reaction born out of the utterly selfish desire to make myself feel better. Which certainly calls into question the purity of my own motives in offering that apology. But it in no way changes the fact that I meant well with it and hoped to offer some small--though probably ineffective--remedy for his pain. I suppose I could have ignored his pain, but that strikes me as cold and he is my very good friend. I could have told him that it was his own fault for not paying attention, but I didn't see much theraputic value in that--for me or my friend. I could have mocked his pain, but again it would have given neither of us joy or relief. So I said "I'm sorry" because I sorrowed for his pain. And yes, I couldn't help but feel that if I hadn't been there talking to him the random confluence of events that led to his bitten tongue might not have happened. I feel a certain guilt at American racism because I haven't personally done more to eradicate what I consider to be a reprehensible institution. I feel a certain guilt at Mormon racism because I too am a Mormon and believe that we should know better than to hate on the basis of race. Wasn't at least part of the point of Jesus's first coming to do away with the strict racial limits and open the covenant to all peoples and races and nations (Peter's vision)? And yet we debate the question of his color here on this list, a question that seems largely irrelevant to me because whatever his racial characteristics, the critical fact for me is that he was the Christ, the son of God, the redeemer come into the world to save us from our sins. But the social dynamic isn't that black and white (pardon the pun). Some of my brothers and sisters are in pain because other of my brothers and sisters hate (or ignore or dismiss or pity) them for the color of their skin. Some don't have direct experience with racism, but do live in a context where racism's historical fact creates questions and tensions and barriers to acceptance--both in their own minds and in the minds of others. I can't undo the hurt, but I hope I can help create a wider sense of community that enfolds race and celebrates ethnic or racial origin at the same time that it celebrates common hope and belief. It doesn't matter whether the pain is justified according to my definitions; what matters is that I mourn with those that mourn and that I try to comfort those in need of comfort. My individual conscience demands that I at least try to help create a community of direct and specific inclusion within the larger Mormon community that I love. To me the apology is not an attempt to take responsibility, but rather an attempt to recognize pain and to indicate my desire to help ease it. It's a recognition that issues exist and that I'm willing to subsume my own rights or desires or concerns for a little while and make the concerns of others my first priority. It's my proof of sincerity, not some attempt to emotionally manipulate. In my case, I mean it as a step toward common ground. If it's taken as the worst kind of sentimental sophistry, I can only express my sorrow at what I believe is a misinterpretation of my intent. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Judaism: Race or Religion? Date: 13 Feb 2002 20:45:25 -0700 My very well educated Jewish friends have always been incensed when people refer to Jews as a race of people rather than a religion. She is descended from Spanish Jews and he Polish Jews. I would like to write an essay exploring this theme. Have any of you dealt with Judaism--race v.s. religion? Nan McCulloch ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:55 PM > ___ James ___ > | Your benign racism is anything but; the idea that race determines > | character, ability, etc is merely the old form of racism, ie > | the standard belief of all humanity since the Tower of Babel. > ___ > > Hmm. Exactly how does the above differ from more or less denying the place > of genetics in human characteristics? Now certainly within the categories > we call races there is great diversity. And what constitutes a "race" is in > many ways socially defined. We pick certain traits/geographic locals and > then define a race. Yet upon close examination those break down. Yet there > still are characteristics within races that are generally the case. > > I think we worry about race more than we should. However at the same time > all evidence points to genetics making up a sizable portion of what makes us > who we are. So long as we don't ascribe "superiority" to our heritage I > don't see the problem. Yet there is a danger that because of the many many > abuses in the name of racism that some deny race any place at all. > > Further the notion of "race" as it used seems to include a kind of social > entity as well as physical characteristics. Consider for example the > Semetic race which includes many more social features than anything that > could likely be tied to genetics. In that sense Mormonism probably could > have become a race, had we remained isolated long enough. > > I bring up this social aspect because I think the concern in Mormon > literature, especially the scriptures, is with a combination of > social/heritage race. Consider the promises and covenants of the Book of > Mormon. That is essentially a promise to a given race. Likewise the > doctrines of blood Israel, especially as it relates to priesthood and the > Holy Ghost, are tied to race. Call that "racism" if you wish. However > perhaps a better term would be heritage, given the place the word race has > come to take. > > So, while we might not be racists, we definitely are heritagists. > > ___ Konnie ___ > | I can believe that we are placed where we are on this earth > | according to how valiant we were in the preexictance. > ___ > > I think that it is the notion of a pre-existence that still causes us the > most concern in this regard. It seems like our place on this earth is > determined by two factors. The first is what use we could be to the Lord > (our valiance) and then what things we need to learn (our growth). By the > end of our sojourn here and in the spirit world, we'll all have equal > chances. > > The danger is that successful Mormons can come to take a kind of Calvinist > view that our place is our blessing due to pre-existent righteousness. Yet > that need not be the case. It might simply be that we needed to learn > something different from others. Elder Ashton gave an excellent talk on > this in the early 90's. Basically he affirmed the basic doctrine of > blessings and curses but pointed out that our judgments of what was a > blessing or curse was often determined by the values of the world. A person > living in the poor rural south, for instance, might well have been blessed > by that birth more than had they been put into a rich Mormon home in Utah. > Indeed, given the activities of many rich young Utah Mormons, they might > well learn the gospel better as well. > > Going along with that, consider the work for the dead that Wilford Woodruff > did. The founders of our country were not born into the covenant, but > certainly were among the valiant in the pre-existence. Further the old > testament often portray Cyrus as one of the chosen ones of the Lord. I can > well believe that figures like Malcom-X or Martin Luthor King, for all their > flaws, were also valiant in the pre-existence. (Are their foibles really > worse than those of our founding fathers?) > > My point is that I think the problem with all this isn't the doctrine, it is > how we decide to apply the doctrine. We tend to look at what is good or bad > from a narrow cultural field. The view from God's council might well be > quite different. > > While I am glad to have been born in the church, I'm not sure that it has > made my personal challenges less than were I to be born in different > circumstances. Given how much of my personality is a result of my genetics > and upbringing, I can't say what I'd be like having been born an African > American living in Atlanta in the 1950's. I'd like to think, however, that > there was some purpose for my birth. Hopefully whatever it is I need to > learn I can learn and whomever I'm supposed to help I can help. While my > Patriarchal blessing tells me many things were blessings, overall I have a > hard time separating blessings from curses. Given that God seems to like to > build character I often think that blessings and curses are the same thing. > > > > -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 22:21:26 -0800 I too, watched and waited to see how the Opening Ceremony would shake out. Would we be, as is often the case, too heavy-handed, too obvious, too schmaltzy? But early on I knew it was going great. Yeah, I thought Jay Leno was right, the icicle things looked like the KKK. But such quibbles aside, I thought the blend of showmanship with Native American spirituality meshing with LDS belief and theology to be a great balance, very touching with just a mention of the Mormon Pioneers. I thought another great moment came after the President opened the games and was still in the group of American athletes and got handed a cell phone so someone could prove to the folks back home they were hangin' with the Prez, and to his credit he took the phone and talked to whoever was on the other end, that was a choice moment. I loved it when they had so many pairs of athletes past and present carrying and passing the torch, when it was nearly the end I turned to my husband and said, "It's going to be Eruzione", and it was, but I was happily surprised when he called out the rest of his teammates and they lit the Olympic Torch in that group hug thing. But perhaps the outstanding, defining moment for me was at the end when it all came together, the fireworks are bursting, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was singing Beethoven's Ode To Joy, (I think that's what they were singing), the crowd is waving and cheering, it was one of those rare moments in mortality when it all comes to together in a Kismet-like moment and everything is perfect, even if briefly. I thought the choir never sounded better than that night. The Utah Symphony too. It just felt right. There are probably other moments, but those are the ones that stuck out for me. Hope the Closing Ceremonies are able to come close. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 23:32:23 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:37 AM > >From: "Thom Duncan" > Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves > through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue > which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that > they could get on TV? > > > Its like watching Les Miz (or whatever your favorite production is) on > video. You can't beat the view in front of the television for that > performance, can you? It aint't the same. In Les Miz, at least the audience members are seated in their seats, the lights are down, and your reaction to the show is purely individual between the actors and you. You don't have all this mass hysteria stuff that takes place in concerts and sporting events. Peer pressure has never moved me, even if they are many hundreds of peers. I will give a standing ovation when I think the play deserves it (to me, a standing ovation is like a testimony -- I don't give it unless the "spirit" literally pulls me to my feet. ). Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 13 Feb 2002 23:44:50 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:30 PM > Marvin Payne > Alpine, Utah > Wrote: > >snip> > > I wonder how the discussion would be going, how we would be feeling, if we > were living back in the days when the priesthood Included only a very small > segment of God's children, the Levites. > > >snip> > > I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Sure I felt bad, and everyone else > who was capable of feeling, felt bad. I don't know about you, but I was instructed by no less a personage than Marion G. Romney on how to treat black people one might happen upon while tracting in France, circa 1968. "Pretend you've got the wrong address," he said. That's right. Don't mention your a missionary for the church, just lie. We were further told that we were not to teach Blacks unless they sought us out and "begged" us to teach them. Equating the withholding of priesthood from blacks with the Levite situation doesn't wash. For one, the Levites didn't teach that other tribes were unworthy to hold the Priesthood, that they had done something wrong in the pre-existence, that they were "cursed." The Levites held the priesthood of God because they did. The other tribes had other things to do that were equally as important. > But does any of the other churches on the earth today have this sort of > guilt trip over the priesthood? No. The priesthood in other churches is only > conferred on those who actively seek it and even some of those who seek it > are denied the privilege. > > In our church, "Many are called but few are chosen." What we have to > remember is God is in charge. Who are we to question him? We don't need to question God. But the last I checked, the church's leaders were human beings, and since they are still with us on the earth, we can aassume they have not yet reached the moral perfection required to be translated. This implies that, yes, they can be mistaken on certain things, or in absolute error in other things. This is where the Holy Ghost comes into play, helping us to understand what our leaders say, adapting it to our own needs. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: "National Review" on The Mormons Date: 14 Feb 2002 01:38:13 -0700 [MOD: I have to say that my reaction was similar to Michael's. I doubt this was the author's intent--but the article sure made me wonder.] Larry Jackson wrote: > > The article is at: > > http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020902.shtml What a fascinating study in stealth smearing! I have no idea what the author's true intent was, but if he had intended to smear Mormons while keeping his skirts clean, he did a masterful job of it. He poses as someone defending Mormons, while parading out all sorts of negative comments about the church, its doctrine and history. This parade of mudslinging is balanced out by very little in the way of positive statements about Mormons--well, none actually, except pity for what they went through and admiration that they survived it. I congratulate columnist Dave Shiflett for a cleverly constructed piece of rhetoric. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pdhunter" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Dishonest Singles Ward Ads Date: 14 Feb 2002 13:53:41 GMT I'm a big fan of Eric D. Snider, but there are some factual errors in his piece about "The Singles Ward" ad: Ogden Standard-Examiner review did not give "The Singles Ward" 2 stars. It gave the movie 2 1/2 stars. It is not accurate to say that there were not favorable reviews. The favorable reviews of the movie include the review by the Ogden Standard-Examiner, an extremely positive write-up by the Utah County Journal, as well as an "A" grade and a positive review by the Utah Statesman: http://utahstatesman.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/174 653.html plus a positive review by Meridian Magazine. As the "Utah Statesman" is the newspaper of a state university, Utah State College, and Daily Herald, Tribune, and Deseret News are non-governmental newspapers, one might say even that "The Singles Ward" is a state-sanctioned movie. Also, the practice of picking out words or phrases from reviews in order to create a wildly inaccurate impression of a review is widespread. This was reported on 4 or 5 months ago when the deal about the non-existent reviewers was in the news, and Ebert (and other journalists) have written about this multiple times, although usually with more bemusement than shock. That fact that Hollywood movie hucksters do it doesn't necessarily make it a smart or accurate thing to do. But when I read the ad I took it as a very, very inside joke (although, admittedly, a joke that only Eric D. Snider, Sean P. Means, Jeff Vice, and myself would get). If the Salt Lake Tribune had a problem with the ad (which quoted its own critic), it should not have run it. And of course the ad is not "illegal." As for leaving out a couple middle initials being "attribution errors" and complaining about adding "Provo" to "Daily Herald"... Come on, Eric, that's grasping at straws. I'll continue to read Eric D. Snider with relish. Mistakes in what he wrote were a result of remembering incorrectly (Ogden's number of stars) and his not being familiar with all the reviews that were out there (and perhaps not thinking of these other publications "major" newspapers, hence not checking their reviews out regularly. Preston Hunter www.adherents.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 14 Feb 2002 10:53:01 -0500 [MOD: Interesting article. I don't know how another professional linguist would respond, but the evidence he cites seems at least respectable.] There was an article in the Ensign in 1994 that discussed this theory. I'm not a linguist so I can't comment on its scholarly validity, but I found it fascinating at the time. Terry M. Blodgett, "Tracing the Dispersion," Ensign, Feb. 1994, 64 This is the link at the top of the page but I have no idea what you will get if you use it. http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0 Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- Richard Hopkins originally wrote: >The Northern >Europeans are, in large measure, descendants of the lost ten tribes and you >know how pale the Scandinavians are. I know this is an idea that was very popular (I believe) in the 19th century and early parts of the 20th century, and is still cited by some. I'd be very cautious, however, about accepting any such conclusions. My sense (although this is not an area I have studied) is that this is not a view that is held by professional contemporary historians, archaeologists, or comparative linguists. A lot of the "evidence" that is cited for this comes from a time when many wild (and since disproved) ideas were thrown around. I'd be very cautious about citing this as fact without some contemporary mainstream scholarship to validate it. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 13 Feb 2002 13:55:52 -0700 > >(Katie and Bob certainly weren't aware--they never even mentioned > >who was conducting, and barely mentioned the names of the symphony > >and chorus), > > > Just a small point of correction here: One of them did mention it was > Craig Jessop conducting the Utah Symphony. I remember it distinctly, > because I had been curious who it was, and they finally said it, and > I was curious no more. Yes, but that was when the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was singing. I doubt that Jessop was conducting the Utah Symphony as they played the Shostakovich piece during the lighting of the cauldron. Would it have been Lockhart? Or maybe John Williams again? Anybody know for sure? Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 14 Feb 2002 09:32:34 -0700 >Fascinating, for all the reasons Mary mentions. But I think, actually, = it was John Williams ripping off =20 >Shastakovich. Williams, of course, is a notorious borrower. I checked with the symphony, and they did play the finale from Shostakovich= Sym No. 5 (in an adaptation beginnning with "Ode to Zeus" by Samura). = The symphony played John Williams' new Olympic piece earlier in the = ceremony (with Williams conducting). =20 In response to Eric D., they must have been changing conductors regularly, = because I recognized Keith Lockhart conducting at one point. Craig Jessop = may have been conducting at a different time, and of course Williams = conducted a segment. Rotating conductors... Mary Jane Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Dishonest Singles Ward Ads Date: 14 Feb 2002 10:25:12 -0700 When I noticed these bogus blurbs in the ad for The Singles Ward, it struck me as primarily an attempt at revenge humor, and I thought it was gutsy and funny, not really dishonest. I imagine most people who look at newspaper movie ads also read the reviews and will remember that The Singles Ward was panned, won't they? In the age of that nonexistent Sony reviewer being exposed, it's hard to imagine the filmmakers would actually think they were fooling anybody. All those ellipses are a dead giveaway. . . and technically they are accurate. However, I could be persuaded that if more non-media-savvy people are fooled by it than there are people who get the joke, then maybe it is dishonest. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN LDS Performers Help Welcome the Olympic Torch: Excel Entertainment Press Release 9Feb02 US UT Prov A2 Date: 14 Feb 2002 13:48:27 -0500 LDS Performers Help Welcome the Olympic Torch SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Braving cold temperatures and even colder wind chill, artists from Utah performed in downtown Salt Lake City last night for 40,000 people waiting for the arrival of the Olympic torch. Artists to take the stage included Utah favorite Julie de Azevedo. "It's so exciting to perform in association with the Winter Games," said de Azevedo. "This has been one of the highlights of my career as a performer." Hosted by KSL-1160 radio duo Grant and Amanda and held on a stage at the City-County building, the evening featured performances from de Azevedo, Peter Breinholt, Northern Voices, Seven Nations, Jenny Jordan and Gladys Knight. SLOC President Mitt Romney and Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson also made appearances. Freezing temperatures couldn't keep the crowds away from the festivities which ended in the arrival of the Olympic Torch carried by former Olympic gold medalist Kristi Yamaguchi, Jazz all-star and two-time Olympic gold medalist John Stockton and silver medal skier Steve Mahre. That trio assisted Paralympian Chris Waddell to the stage, where the five-time gold medalist lit the caldron. "We have been talking about the Olympics for so long, and now they are finally here," said de Azevedo. "History is being made where we live, and it's thrilling to take part." The weather was so cold that by the time de Azevedo was performing her second song, she couldn't feel her fingers strumming her guitar. "I had to look down to make sure that I was even hitting the strings at all," she said, laughing. Security surrounding the event was tight, as it will be with all events surrounding the Games over the next three weeks. According to de Azevedo, it was the first time she had ever gone through metal detectors or been searched on her way to a gig. "Each of the performers had escorts that stayed with us the entire evening. The whole event was very well organized, and I felt safe," she said. ### Source: Utah Performers Help Welcome the Olympic Torch Excel Entertainment Press Release 8Feb02 A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] SLOVER, _Hancock County_ (Review) Date: 14 Feb 2002 11:17:10 -0800 (PST) "Hancock County", a play by Tim Slover; playing at the Pardoe Theater, Harris Fine Arts Center, Brigham Young University February 13-March 2, 2002 "Hancock County" is a very fine play; an intelligent, thrilling, tightly-drawn courtroom drama/tragedy that unfolds into a meditation on America, violence, and forgiveness. It bears comparison to Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons" (if I'm not mistaken a line from that play, about how swearing an oath is like taking your soul in your hands, is alluded to in "Hancock County".) HC concerns the trial of the assassins of Joseph Smith in Illinois in 1845. Slover gets a rollicking, frontier, Mark-Twain-like quality to the story that draws you in like good historical fiction. The clash of visions between competing groups in America is a subject that will never go out of style, and those who follow the current state of "identity politics" will find much to think about here. The slipshod application of justice will also remind you of the Simpson case and other trials where fairness and expediency collide. The cast is excellent. Marvin Payne is the hard-drinking, rumored-to-be-corrupt prsecutor Josiah Lamborn. He brings a rawboned, hard-bitten worldliness to the role that eventually dissolves into a humble acceptance of truth and fate. Jeremy Selim is Orville Browning, the lead defense attorney (and eventual co-founder of the Republican Party.) His oily sanctimony is made worse by his total sincerity--he's a nightmare of the lawyer run amok (and a devastating comment on the intolerance of some 19th century Protestant Christians.) J. Scott Bronson makes a doughty, smart Brigham Young. Robert Gibbs is the nasty Tom Sharp, the editor of the "Warsaw Signal", who egged on the Smiths' murder. His flag-waving patriotism conceals a ruthless greed and self-interest. Anna McKeown and Stephanie Foster Breinholt poignantly portray the struggles of women on the edge of society; they look like pictures of my great-grandma's. And Bob Nelson is Judge Richard Young, opportunism personified. Slover deftly deals with the folklore of retribution that grew up around the "fate of the persecutors." He reminds us that justice in this world is seldom so neat. The heart of the play is, interestingly enough, the King Follett discourse of Joseph Smith. Lamborn eventually comes to realize that Smith's enemies *had* to kill him because they could not stand the responsibility Joseph's vision would place on them. And Brigham Young finally comes to realize that sometimes you just have to "let go" in order to move on--and that sometimes they way of the Lord will get you hurt (one of the toughest lessons we have to learns and accept in this life.) This is not a play that appeals just to the parochial interests of LDS audiences. Non-Mormons should find much to appreciate here; the magnificently drawn character of "gentile" Josiah Lamborn should be a vehicle through which many people can get a grip on what happens. Indeed, he contributes the central insight of the story: no one is just "one thing or the other." A crucial scene occurs when Eliza Graham must testify about her knowledge of the murderers' boasting. But she has also become aware of the secret system of "spiritual wifery" in Nauvoo and the pain it has caused the women, and she has been embittered by it. Lamborn tells her that everyone is human, even prophets; and "ain't that what you're supposed to do, forgive?" It's a powerful moment in a play that is full of them. If there were any justice in this world, someone would make an indie movie out of "Hancock County", it would become a hit and Tim Slover would become as famous as Neil LaBute. But as this play reminds us, justice is a slippery thing in this world. DON'T MISS THIS PLAY IF YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET TO IT! ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 14 Feb 2002 12:33:40 -0700 [MOD: Okay--A few follow-up messages today to take care of dangling threads. Dangling strings on the thread? Dangling posts on the fence? Whatever. As of end of the day today, though, I'll expect any posts on this topic to address the more specifically literary dimension of race issues in Mormonism.] I haven't much to add to my previous posts on these issues. A few = clarifications, perhaps. 1) Margaret has done a wonderful job describing Joseph's views on race. = What I find remarkable is his assertion that black people were "fully = capable of progressing as much as whites--given proper education" as = Margaret paraphrased it. Very few mid-nineteenth century Americans would = have said anything like that. John Brown (one of the most enigmatic, = complex and fascinating characters in American history) would have. = Abraham Lincoln would not have. =20 2) I do not believe that all prophets were racist and wrong for not = seeking a reversal of the priesthood policy. I do say that they were = products of a racist time, and that it likely would not have occurred to = any of them to seek counsel on this question.=20 3) I wonder where we get the idea that Cain was cursed with black skin. = Cain was cursed with not being able to farm anymore,and he had it coming, = the murdering jerk. He was 'given a mark' as a special blessing from God = so that people who saw him wouldn't kill him. Nowhere in scripture does = it say that his 'mark' was black skin, and, whatever the mark was, it = certainly wasn't a curse. (BTW: Try reading the Cain stuff in Moses = aloud, only every time Cain talks, preceed his dialogue with the word = "dude." "Dude, am I my brother's keeper?" Clarifies his character = big-time.) =20 4) I think that when The Book of Abraham says that Pharoah wasn't able to = have the priesthood, that doesn't mean anything. I got the priesthood from = my father, who got it from the missionaries who taught and baptized him, = who can, in turn, trace it back to Joseph Smith, Peter, James and John and = from there to Jesus. That's my 'priesthood lineage.' Pharoah and his = line couldn't have the priesthood because nobody ordained him to it. =20 5) One last thing. President Hinckley has said, regarding the priesthood = policy, 'it's in the past." So why cling to and attempt to defend = statements from the past that aren't relevant anymore? What's relevant = now is that black members of the Church hear silly stuff about how there = were fence-sitters in the pre-existence, quite properly take offense, and = leave the Church. So why gratuitously insult a brother in the gospel? = =20 Let me summarize my sense of President Hinckley's approach in this regard: = "there was once a policy in the Church that excluded black people from = the priesthood and temple. That policy no longer exists." And when = people say "why did you have such a policy," his reply is "those were = different times." And when people say "so and so said such and such about = racial questions," he replies "those were different times. We do not = believe that." I may wish that he'd go further. I may wish that he'd = directly repudiate specific statements that do continue to give offense. = But I'm not a prophet. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 14 Feb 2002 14:55:56 -0600 As fascinating as this issue is, I've sat on my hands in my anxiety not to participate. My opinion is that the LDS folk-theology (some of which spilled from the pens of GAs) on race and priesthood was simply wrong pre-1978 (that's no comment on folk-theology _post_-1978), an unseemly attempt to justify spectacular failures of courage and reason on the part of a people who believed themselves led by prophets. I think that view is consistent with the things a number of you have already written here, and I'm generally reluctant to raise my voice with a "me too." What prompts me to break silence is the following, from John Williams: >> I've read quite a bit of Edward Said, and I've just reviewed some of his work recently, and try as I might, I can't find any passage that would validate your statement that "Said believes that the fact that my skin is white necessitates my inherent racism." << I'm not certain whether or how I'll make this relevant to the topic at hand, but Edward Said is a red flag to me, so here goes. I think one of my happiest accomplishments this semester is getting Said removed from our core curriculum (along with Foucault; I also got Isaiah Berlin _in_), and I did it precisely because I read _Orientalism_ as a bit of intellectual terrorism that serves to kill critical examination of Islam and the Islamic world - an anti-intellectual justification for hatred. Said delivers himself of no passages in the book that say clearly that white skin makes one racist (he's come pretty close in his newspaper commentary in the last few months, but his newspaper articles haven't been part of our curriculum, so they don't bear discussion just now). What his book does, I think, is press the notion that Western views of Islam are conditioned by a culture that presses scholarship into the service of imperial ideology, hence our critiques of Islam must be invalid. The implication isn't that I'm racist because I'm white, but because I'm from the Western intellectual tradition. More precisely, it's not that I'm racist, but that the truth of Islam is culturally determined, and my western insistence on finding objective truth is pointless, if not outright pernicious. My way down that path only serves the interests of ideology and oppression. As a Mormon I find it impossible to be a relativist. I _do_ believe in objective truth, and I believe that it's possible to critique on both moral and intellectual grounds the practices and beliefs of other cultures. Intellectual inquiry isn't meaningless when applied to Islam, race, gender, or any other "socially constructed" class. Language is powerful, but there are realities out there that it hasn't created, and I'm tremendously annoyed with the timidity of academics who bow to Orientalism and then play with Occidentalism. Truth isn't just an academic game, it's not a trick of words - it's a goal, the goal, of knowledge. I hope that as Mormons, artists, academics, and people just interested in the life of the mind that we never feel intimidated or squeamish about dealing with problems of race, gender, or religion. Racism isn't just about racial hatred or oppression, but also about the abuse of power to put some questions about race, or questions by some people, beyond the pale of legitimate discourse. In that sense I believe that Said is profoundly racist, as is much of what passes for multiculturalism in academia. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Orson Scott CARD, _Rebekah_ (Review) Date: 14 Feb 2002 18:16:30 -0500 Has anyone on the list read THE RED TENT? It's a best selling novel (just released as a Trade Paperback) about the rape of Dinah; also retells the story of Jacob, his wives, his mother (Rebekah), and others. It's pretty earthy in places, but I found it interesting, and would recommend it to anyone interested in literature inspired by the Old Testament, (Having just joined the list 6 months ago, I don't recall having seen any posts on this novel. But since that book first came out over a year ago, there may have been some posts before I came on board.) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 14 Feb 2002 16:47:50 -0700 Margaret Young shared this: >snip> Joseph Smith was a RADICAL in his anti-racist views, but we shouldn't go too far with the expectation such a statement provokes. In the same letter where Joseph Smith talks about Blacks being fully capable of progressing as much as whites--given proper education--he also says, "But I would confine them to their own species." He was adamently opposed to interracial marriage (misogenation), though he did want to adopt Jane Manning [James] as his child for the eternities. Those who think that Brother Joseph's writings will always reflect the sort of anti-racist ideas we'd want him to express will be quite disappointed--especially by things he said during the Missouri years. >snip> When the Mississippi Saints joined the Mormons either at Nauvoo or at Winter Quarters, they came with their slaves, and their slaves were NOT emancipated. Many people don't realize that in the California Compromise, Utah chose to be a slave state. >snip> I appreciate the history lesson, because I believe as the great Will Durant has tirelessly pointed out to us, If we don't record the mistakes of the past we will only repeat them.(This is not an exact quote, but it is the general idea.) However remembering can sometimes be too condemning, or inflammatory for educational purposes. I think the great war memorials, battlefield museums, statistics and memorabilia are all fine and good. These artifacts do much to remind us of the follies of our past. But, reenacting the battles, focusing on the horror and the errors of human passions or wrong thinking and motivation, and stirring up the atrocities of the past only inflame and renew the bitterness and hatreds which we should be trying to let heal. One quick example: In 1957 while traveling on military orders, in uniform, I was on layover in Jacksonville Florida. Sitting in the terminal waiting room, I noticed a cute little boy (about five) dressed up in Civil War costume complete with a Rebel flag. He was excitedly waiting to meet someone he hadn't seen in awhile, possibly his dad. He snuck up on me and pulled out his side arm, pointed it, and said, "Bang bang, your dead." I smiled at him and feigned a mortal wound and said, "You got me partner." and then, "That's quite a costume you have there sonny." He looked at me with utter disgust, and said, "Die you damned Yankee!" then he ran back to his amused mom and grandparents. To say the least I was shocked at his quick assessment of my social standing, and also at his instant hateful response at what was meant to be a friendly comment. The apparent approval of his family was also disturbing to me. Humanity is a work in progress, and the best way to progress is to celebrate the positive and remember, and learn from the negative, but forgive and forget it. I'm not suggesting we bury the mistakes of the past, just that we don't use them to fan the flames of negative public opinion, or internal strife. We cannot approach a celestial existence if we are not willing to let go of and move beyond our past sinfulness and mistakes. We have all sinned in one way or another, and the only way to be forgiven is to forgive others and ourselves and move forward. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Dishonest Singles Ward Ads Date: 15 Feb 2002 00:22:42 Preston Hunter: >Ogden Standard-Examiner review did not give "The Singles >Ward" 2 stars. It gave the movie 2 1/2 stars. My bad. Furthermore, that review was actually fairly positive, or at least not as negative as the others in the major Utah papers. >It is not accurate to say that there were not favorable >reviews. The favorable reviews of the movie include the >review by the Ogden Standard-Examiner, an extremely positive >write-up by the Utah County Journal, as well as an "A" grade >and a positive review by the Utah Statesman: >http://utahstatesman.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/174 >653.html > >plus a positive review by Meridian Magazine. > You're right, I was not aware of the Utah County Journal or Utah Statesman reviews. > >Also, the practice of picking out words or phrases from >reviews in order to create a wildly inaccurate impression of >a review is widespread. This was reported on 4 or 5 months >ago when the deal about the non-existent reviewers was in >the news, and Ebert (and other journalists) have written >about this multiple times, although usually with more >bemusement than shock. I question some of this. True, Ebert (and others) may react with more bemusement than shock -- but I've also seen them react by asking the studios to pull the quotes from their ads. It's one thing to take a lukewarm review and pull whatever positive you can from it; that, certainly, is fairly common. But I have very rarely seen it where they've taken an utterly negative review and twisted the words to make it into a positive. It's usually not necessary: No matter how bad a movie is, some critic somewhere liked it. That's why you see so many ads quoting critics for local TV stations that you've never heard of. If the sort of twisting I'm talking about were commonplace, you'd see Ebert quoted on every movie, and the local nobodies quoted never. > >If the Salt Lake Tribune had a problem with the ad (which >quoted its own critic), it should not have run it. True enough, though it might be asking too much for the ad department to remember what Sean Means' review said and question the quotes in the ad. Once Sean saw it, and showed it to the managing editor, the ad was pulled. > >And of course the ad is not "illegal." > That's open for lawyers and people like that to discuss, but the lawyer I know points out a number of reasons why it could be a libel case. Someone's words have been taken out of context to present the exact opposite message originally intended. Critics are being quoted as endorsing a film that they in fact do NOT endorse, which, it could be argued, could harm the critics' credibility, and thus their livelihood. Maybe "unethical" would be a better word -- or, given the defense that they were just trying to make a joke, "poor execution of a joke." By the way, though he still clings to the notion that it was a joke that pretty much everyone got except me, the director of the film has sort of apologized. So I suppose the matter is settled, though we'll see what this weekend's ads say. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 14 Feb 2002 19:34:25 -0500 Below is my response to Sharlee Glenn's response to my thoughts on a Mormon "Fiddler on the Roof." Concerning Tevye's "excommunication" of his daughter when she marries a Gentile and his later move towards accepting her, Sharlee wrote: You make it sound like this is an >either/or situation--either Tevye must renounce his daughter or he must >renounce his previously held religious beliefs. In an Eastern European Jewish community this would have been EXACTLY the case. In the text of the play, Tevye says that he no longer has a daughter--that she is dead to him. (Read also the excellent book of stories upon which the musical is based, TEVYE'S DAUGHTERS. The chapter dealing with this episode is heartbreaking!) In the eyes of Orthodox Eastern European Jewry of a century ago, to marry a Gentile WAS to deny one's Jewishness--thus to renouncing God Himself and one's relationship to him as part of His covenant people. Don't strip FIDDLER of it's beauty, truth and emotional power by down playing this or by trying to make Tevye into a nice modern American Protestant/Mormon rural-type. When after debating within himself if he should accept his daughter despite her secretly marrying a Gentile ("On the one hand..." he says..."On the other hand...") Tevye turns his back on the girl while shouting at her, "No, there can be no other hand!" I'm sorry if you missed it in the structure and text of the play, but choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. (Good grief! The show opens with the song "Tradition"--tying all of the communities traditions, along with all the age and gender roles, to the will of God Himself.) The fact that some Saints have a problem with the play's theme when it is blatantly stated, proves my point that they would resist an authentic "Mormon Fiddler." I must add, "More's the pity." I personally think a well-told story like FIDDLER set in Mormon culture would be marvelous! Yes, Tevye softens toward >Chava at the very end of the play (if you call muttering "God bless you" >under his breath as Chava says good-bye to her family, probably forever, >softening), but that doesn't mean that he has abandoned his convictions. In fact, Chava is NOT saying "good-bye" to her family forever; she and her Gentile husband follow Tevye and the Jews when they are force to leave their home. (Her following the jews is the second to last stage picture that the audience sees.) And YES, when Tevye murmurs "God bless you" under his breath that is VERY POWERFUL and TERRIBLY SIGNIFICANT!!! (Sorry, but just remembering the scene gives me goose-bumps!) Jews do not bless people who don't exist, and up until that point, Tevye has maintained that Chava no longer exists--that she is dead to him, that he, in fcat, has no daughter named Chava, that his wife (the girl's mother) is never to even speak her name again! The fact that he whispers the line, that he can't force himself to say it out loud, BEAUTIFULLY reveals his character and his struggle with his God and his child. Again, I beg you, don't strip the story of it's power by assuming that the struggle is not about a man having to chose between his love of his children and his devotion to God. Forgive me again for exclaiming, "Good grief!" but Tevye is going through a test similar to Abraham's--the father of the Jews. FIDDLER is building on a Jewish theme (choosing between love of child and obedience to God) that has its genesis in the Book of Genesis itself! >One can, in fact, love the sinner while abhorring the sin. > Yes, in the CHRISTIAN view of things one certainly can. But in Jewish thought SIN is only defined as DISOBEDIENCE to God's commands. There is nothing approaching "original sin" or even Plato's metaphysics of "the spirit versus the flesh." There isn't even a concept of "The Fall of Adam" in Judaism. The word "Fall" is used by Jewish scholars almost exclusively when they are discussing CHRISTIAN doctrines and metaphysics. Thus, when one sins--and for a Jew that is rejecting the commandments and restraints of the Law (Torah) and Covenant--then those around that person must make a choice between the Law (and thus God) and the person. Also, notice that Tevye never says that he doesn't love his daughter. It's obvious that he does, else why would he go through such Hell over her actions. Excommunication in Orthodox Judaism has nothing to do with hating the sinner. It has everything to do with not allowing one's love for the sinner to cloud one's judgment in doing what God commands. Love of God is the greatest commandment in Judaism (that command is repeated daily, it is written and kept on one's front door, men wear a copy of it wrapped in a leather band around their arms and in a little box on their foreheads between their eyes). No other love is to come before one's love of God--not even one's love for his/her own child. (Do you see how the struggle to live God's Law is a great foundation for drama?) Again, the authors of FIDDLER and the author of the original novel (Shalom Alechiem[sic]) understood this unique Jewish view and dilemma--which is why FIDDLER is such a stunning example of JEWISH FICTION. I wrote: > > Are Mormons ready for a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or >Stake Acceptance of a child >who chooses not to marry in the temple in no way equals a compromise of the >belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple. Sharlee pooh-poohed this, saying that Saints would see no conflict in loving a child who married outside the Church. Here is my response to this: Sharlee, what you've expressed certainly expresses my views and, I believe, the views of most Mormons. But not all. It certainly not the view of MOST devout Saints during the late-19th century and the first half/three-quarters of the 20th century. In fact, why attending the Y, I had several religion teachers and ward leaders quote some past Church president who supposedly said that he'd rather see his child dead in her grave than married outside the covenant. I have no idea if any past Church president actually said this, but I heard this supposed quote so many times in the late 70's and early 80's, that I know without a doubt that it represented the views of MANY Utah Saints at that time. I also know of parents who have distanced themselves from children and others in their family when they married non-members. And someone who would do that(distance himself/herself from a loved one who married a non-member) would make a MAGNIFICENT character-study in a work of fiction--if for no other reason than you and I can disagree and debate the intent and meaning of their actions! A >Mormon audience would be very open to a play that emphasized love and >forgiveness in this manner. I'm sure a Mormon audience would. But FIDDLER is not about FORGIVENESS. Tevye has nothing to forgive his daughter of; she has done nothing against HIM. In the Jewish view, she has rejected her people's covenant with God. According to Jewish tradition, Tevye must now decide if he will continue in the traditional practice of the Torah ("Tradition!") or accept what is indeed a change and COMPROMISE in that tradition. (Again, read this scene in the novel TEVYE'S DAUGHTER. I haven't read it since directing FIDDLER in 1985, but I remember that the writing just blew me away!) >I say yes! to a Mormon "Fiddler on the Roof." Amen and Amen! But first the writer better understand what exactly FIDDLER OF THE ROOF is and how the story springs from a Jewish view of life. Then he better make sure that he's not embracing some white-washed "Gospel According to Hallmark" version of Mormonism--a fluffy, sweet, non-threatening concoction that is totally out of touch with the objective realities of Mormon history, culture and doctrine--not to mention human nature. >From posts I've read over the past six months, I think there are plenty of talented folk here who could do just that. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 14 Feb 2002 22:17:20 -0500 But not, in my understanding, in the Jewish tradition. My impression is that in the Jewish tradition if you married a non-Jew you were considered dead. And I don't think that was the only thing that received that penalty. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > marry outside of this tradition. Then at the climax, the father realizes > that his love for his daughter is stronger than his Jewish orthodoxy. The > story ends with his making a move towards his daughter and AWAY from his > previously held religious convictions. and Sharlee: I have to disagree with you here. You make it sound like this is an either/or situation--either Tevye must renounce his daughter or he must renounce his previously held religious beliefs. Yes, Tevye softens toward Chava at the very end of the play (if you call muttering "God bless you" under his breath as Chava says good-bye to her family, probably forever, softening), but that doesn't mean that he has abandoned his convictions. One can, in fact, love the sinner while abhorring the sin. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Date: 15 Feb 2002 00:47:10 -0700 Jerry Tyner wrote: > I get the feeling that all the height differences caused by genetics and environment will go away in the resurrection. I have lots of things that need to be fixed when that day comes. I just pray the resurrection is the greatest diet pill ever invented. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 15 Feb 2002 00:50:36 -0700 DiannRead@aol.com wrote: > That seems to be a big problem with groups like AML. We have become so > accustomed to literature/music/drama, etc. being less than skillfully wrought > that mediocrity is now expected, even in world-class events. The very > existence of the Tabernacle Choir should be proof of LDS capability when the > right people with the right talents are involved. And yet cynicism reigns. > How sad. We don't doubt the talents of the people. We doubt the ability of the talents to rise above the frightening accusation of "inappropriate." -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deborah and Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Diversity Among Mormons Date: 14 Feb 2002 21:16:23 -0700 Robert Lauer wrote: > (Chiam Potok is a master of this.MY NAME IS AHSER LEV is a beautiful > example: the title character--a artist--in the end distances himself from > his Jewish culture, and yet the reader never sees the character as being any > LESS Jewish. [Side note: Was anyone on the list attending BYU in December of > '82 when Potok visited the campus for a week or so and presented a series of > lectures and classes? The experience was a highlight in my education as a > writer AND a Latter-day Saint.]) > "Israel" means to wrestle with God--and, as God in that particular story > tells Jacob, not just to wrestle with God, but also to PREVAIL. > > Jewish literature succeeds beautifully in presenting this "wrestling." I highly recommend reading _The Gift of Asher Lev_ (Potok's follow-up to _My Name is Asher Lev_) which recounts Asher's continued "wrestling" with his heritage, culture, and beliefs at a time in his life when he thinks he has it all settled. The two books together do a wonderful job of showing a character's changing perception of--and relationship with--his religion and God as he matures. These are beautiful, touching books. After reading _The Gift of Asher Lev_, I did some research about Potok on the Web. I came across a link that contained Thom Duncan's name (I knew Thom when I was a teenager) so I clicked on it. With that little click I discovered the existence of this list. I've felt since then that reading Potok's book blessed me twice. --Mike South --Mike South -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 15 Feb 2002 01:03:03 -0900 >===== Original Message From "Sharlee Glenn" ===== >Rob Lauer wrote: >> Are Mormons ready for a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or Stake >> President) compromises on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints >to >> be married in the Temple? Such would be the message of a "Mormon 'Fiddler >on >> the Roof'." Then Sharlee Glenn wrote: > >Phooey. First of all, that wouldn't be the message. Acceptance of a child >who chooses not to marry in the temple in no way equals a compromise of the >belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple. A >Mormon audience would be very open to a play that emphasized love and >forgiveness in this manner. I think I get what Rob is trying to say here. He's not talking about a particular plot or message, he's talking about taking an axe to the frozen sea of our hearts (Kafka said it better but...). When a play or a book comes around that everyone agrees with, it's usually a real snoozer, even if it sells well. But when something comes around that knocks everyone's hats off and sends them home examining their previous assumptions - there's something worth producing (even if it doesn't sell well). Perhaps the very fact that a Mormon audience would be open to a particular story means that a different story needs to be told. Ibsen shocked the heck out of late Victorian Denmark with A Doll's House and just about everything else he wrote. Now we see his plays as classics because they delve into the human spirit so deeply. Thomas Hardy's novels received the same kind of reception. In our postmodern minds he tip toes around the rape scene in Tess very tactfully, but his first audience was outraged. Fortunately Tess of the Durbervilles is still around for us. The protagonist in Fiddler on the Roof gets some of his main supports knocked out from under him, but in his mind those supports were the only ones he had. Now he has to build his own relationship to his god and religion. Who knows what will happen? Now there's an interesting story. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] PEARSON, _Goodbye, I Love You_ (Review) Date: 14 Feb 2002 19:39:00 -0800 Review ====== Title: Good-bye, I Love You Author: Carol Lynn Pearson Publisher: Random House Year Published: 1986 Number of Pages: 227 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-394-55032-3 Price: $15.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (I will acknowledge that another review of this book is already in the archive. I found my observations were a little different from those expressed in that fine review.) Let me say at the outset that I know nothing about poetry. I've tried to read poems of all kinds. Robert Frost is okay; Walt Whitman confuses me. As did any good flower child of the 60's, I sat and listened to the poems of Ginsburg and the like, nodding my agreement at the deep thoughts, delighted that I was hearing things that I could not possibly understand, but knew, if I stayed the course, would one day become clear. The worst of the lot, in my opinion, were the religious poems. Honestly, I've tried. Helen Steiner Rice left me drowsy. Carol Lynn Pearson's poems were, well, uninteresting. Yes, I know folks just drooled over the thought of a new book of Pearson poetry. But I'm just not built to understand poetry. Even when it rhymes, it doesn't much appeal to me. And so, while you will likely never see me review a book of Mormon poems, I was intrigued at the thought of reading a book about a Mormon poet. I was particularly intrigued by the blurb on the cover of the book: "The True Story of a Wife, Her Homosexual Husband and a Love Honored for Time and All Eternity." Whew. The first surprise about the relationship between Carol Lynn and her husband Gerald was that Carol Lynn *knew* of Gerald's homosexual impulses before they were married. This would likely have been a deal-breaker in a normal Mormon relationship. But Gerald assured Carol Lynn that he was "cured," and all was well. This would soon prove to be untrue. By now the couple has three children, with one more to follow. How would they resolve the difficulty of a loyal Mormon wife (and a Relief Society President, too!) living with a man who now acknowledges that he cannot control his homosexual feelings? A move from Utah to California offers some release, but they ultimately divorce while remaining friendly. Carol Lynn continues to support Gerald, and is with him when he succumbs to the ravages of AIDS. Carol Lynn's devotion to Gerald, and his affection for her, are never in doubt. Throughout the ordeal, there are arguments and recriminations, but they are always overcome by their love for each other. Even as Gerald pursues various gay relationships, Carol Lynn continues to support him, meeting his lovers and attending events sponsored by the gay community. (They live near San Francisco, so there are ample opportunities.) One interesting undercurrent bears reporting here. Throughout the book, Pearson reflects on the rule the Church played in her trials. At one point, she is told to read "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by Spencer W. Kimball. Kimball's harsh rhetoric sends her into an even deeper despair. "Degenerate!" "Revolting!" "Abominable!" These are the words Kimball uses to describe homosexuality. But this, she muses, is not the man she married. Yes, he's involved in a lifestyle contrary to the standards of the Church. But none of these words describes Gerald. She comes to believe that she will have to go outside the "organization" of the Church to find any kind of redemption. She explores alternative metaphysics while maintaining her presence in the Church. Reading between the lines, one cannot help but see the conclusion she comes to: the institutional Church may not be able to help her, but the people who populate that institution will come to their aid when needed. Several horrific episodes of "institutional" involvement are recounted: a bishop who tells a gay man that, if he can't change, he might just as well be drowned in the Great Salt Lake. That young man went out and killed himself. And then the story of a gay man who was subjected to "aversion therapy" at BYU, where electrodes were attached to his body while he viewed gay videos. Upon being aroused, they would send an electric current through his body. He finally abandoned the effort, with nothing to show from it except burn marks on his skin. (I'm accepting that these stories are true, although I've not verified as much.) Near the end, when Pearson gets to the point where she needs help from her church family, she spots several ward members weeding her yard, a thankless job in the hot sun. She reflects: I felt tears stinging at my eyes. Well, of course, that's what they would do. People who won't even drink coffee have a hard time understanding homosexuality and AIDS, but they don't have a hard time understanding suffering and need. (p. 218) And that's the rub -- the people of the Church embraced Carol Lynn and Gerald, loving both them and their challenges. They brought them food, changed Gerald's dirty diapers when he couldn't tend to himself, mowed their lawn and tended their children. But, in Carol Lynn's view, the institutional Church did nothing to help them. There they could only find condemnation. What Carol Lynn seems to have missed is the fact that it was this very institution that gave its members the values the Pearsons so deeply admired. The Church strongly teaches the importance of selfless service and a deep caring for the neighbor. I have mixed feelings about this book. One cannot help but admire Pearson in that she tells her story frankly and openly, hiding none of her feelings, self-doubts and self-recriminations. I wondered how she had the strength to go through the ordeals she relates. The final scenes, tending her husband through the death process with a sense of peace and finality, nearly moved me to tears. But alongside all this, I had this strange sense that Pearson was indulging herself in a steady supply of self-congratulation. She never misses an opportunity to explain to us how wonderful her poems are, how much in demand she is, and how admired she was by those who knew her during this period. With each verbal pat-on-the-back, I was more uncomfortable. And from the outset of the story, there was this sense that she saw herself as a "fixer" -- someone who could "fix" whatever was wrong with Gerald. She ultimately came to one of two conclusions -- a) she really could *not* fix the problem; or b) there never *was* a problem, that homosexuality is not a choice, but an integral part of some people, and we ought not to be about the business of trying to fix them. I'm not clear which conclusion reflects Carol Lynn's thoughts. So why did she write this book? Perhaps it was a synthesis -- a celebration of the life of her beloved Gerald, a diary of the difficult times they shared, an attempt to reinforce feelings of self-worth and value. I will not attempt to judge her motives, only to understand what her motivation was. Estrangement in a religious setting is often defined by the mores of the group. When the beliefs and practices of a group are violated, the offender can be driven away by institutional rigidity. This is what happened to Gerald. Toward the end, he refused a priesthood blessing. His anger toward the Church was evident. Carol Lynn expressed her anger by exploring "New Age" ideas -- in particular, ideas about healing and self-development that are outside the scope of normative Mormon teaching. Reading this book taught me lessons in how harsh rhetoric can inflict real injury on people who are hurting. It reminded me that rules and standards are designed more to instruct than to soothe, and that, at times, the righteous holding up of those standards can block the rays of God's love and forgiveness. The challenge facing the Church today is in somehow balancing the need for certain standards with a compassion that reaches out and embraces even the worst of us. -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LITTLE, _Out of Step_ Reviews (SL Tribune, Deseret News, Daily= Date: 15 Feb 2002 12:39:03 +0000 'Out of Step' Has All the Right Moves Friday, February 15, 2002 BY SEAN P. MEANS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE 3 stars (out of 4) Rated PG for thematic elements and some sensuality; 89 minutes. Opening today at area theaters. Here's a nice surprise: "Out of Step," the latest in the wave of LDS cinema, is a sweet little romance with refreshing characters and a winning cast. Jenny Thomas (played by newcomer and BYU grad Alison Akin Clark) grows up in Salt Lake City with one dream -- to be a dancer. She leaves Utah and her loving LDS home to study at New York University, but misses out on a dance scholarship and works in a coffee shop to pay the bills. There she meets Paul (Michael Buster), a fun-loving student filmmaker whose Casanova talk is betrayed when she spots his CTR ring. Jenny and Paul become friends, though Paul starts to wish for something more. But Jenny is smitten with Dave (Jeremy Elliot), a singer-songwriter in her Philosophy 101 class. It's in this class that Jenny finds her faith challenged, first by her professor (David Morgan) and then by her classmate Keisha (Nicolle White Robledo), a Baptist who calls the LDS Church a cult whose members "don't believe in the true Jesus." Director Ryan Little, another product of BYU, does a lot with a little here, intercutting New York locations with Utah interiors so that only a native of either place would know the difference. The script -- credited to Buster, Willow Leigh Jones and Nikki Schmutz -- offers thoughtful discussions of the LDS faith accessible to members and nonmembers alike, while referencing a few of the stranger aspects of LDS young-adult culture (like some unusual church-party games). Little and his cast have experience in the LDS Cinema genre. Little was the cinematographer on "The Singles Ward," Buster was the doubting missionary in "God's Army," and Elliot and Tayva Patch (who plays Jenny's mom) appeared in "Brigham City." "Out of Step" resonates primarily because of its leads, who invest the characters with grace and depth. Even when the movie takes a few narrative stumbles, it can still get back up and charm your socks off. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune Hard to say no to LDS flick 'Out of Step' By Jeff Vice Deseret News movie critic Friday, February 15, 2002 2 1/2 stars Alison Akin Clark, Jeremy Elliot, Michael Buster, Nicolle Robledo, Rick Macy, Tavya Patch, Peter Holden, David Morgan; rated PG (brief violence, mild vulgarity); Carmike 12 and Ritz 15 Theaters; Cinemark Jordan Landing Theaters. As trite, corny and cliched, and as utterly sticky and sickeningly sweet as "Out of Step" is, it's hard to dislike. After all, few films these days wear their hearts on their sleeves. But this relatively low-key drama =97 produced by LDS filmmakers and obviously targeted at LDS filmgoers =97 does so proudly. And the storyline is not exactly original. In fact, if the concept reminds you of "Flashdance" crossed with "Pretty in Pink," albeit with a decidedly Mormon bent, the film doesn't exactly go out of its way to discourage such comparisons. But as far as first films go, most are much worse than "Out of Step." And it's refreshing to have a relatively squeaky-clean film arrive in theaters at a time when there's a decided dearth of quality cinema that is appropriate for all ages. The film's title refers to Jennifer Thomas (Alison Akin Clark), a Mormon dancer trying to make it big in New York. She's fortunate enough to get into NYU's dance program, though she does miss out on getting a scholarship that would have helped pay for her classes. Consequently, she's having to work twice as hard to make ends meet and is having a hard time making friends. So she's thankful for the presence of Paul (Michael Buster, who helped co-write the script), a fellow student who also happens to be LDS. The aspiring filmmaker encourages her and also records her practices on videotape =97 for a documentary project he's doing for a class. However, she makes it clear to him that they're "just friends." Besides, she's smitten with Dave Schrader (Jeremy Elliot), a fellow student who may be trouble. For one thing, he's not LDS, though that doesn't stop Jenny from falling for him in a hurry. Director Ryan Little and a trio of screenwriters aren't exactly subtle in their attempts to broach some pretty dicey religious and philosophical matters. There also a few obvious technical missteps =97 including some out-of-focus camera work and some bad scene and sound splices. But the majority of these can probably be attributed to the threadbare budget. The performances more than make up for those shortcomings, however. Newcomer Clark is appealing in a way unlike the bland, assembly-line young stars Hollywood tends to produce. And her male co-stars are even better. Elliot ("Brigham City," "The Testaments") may look a bit too fresh- scrubbed for his part, but he's believable, and Buster (who played the rebellious missionary in "God's Army") puts in a serious bid to steal the movie. "Out of Step" is rated PG for brief violence (a scuffle) and mild vulgarity (some mildly suggestive games). Running time: 90 minutes. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company 'Out of Step' cast conquers show's flaws ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Friday, February 15 The first moments may scare you. That cheesy music, that enlightened-sounding voice-over: This is a church video! It's "Together Forever" or "Our Heavenly Father's Plan," or something! What are we in for? Fortunately, two or three minutes into "Out of Step," the newest LDS-themed motion picture, the seminary stuff gives way to teen pop music and images of New York City, and what you thought was going to be preachy or stiff turns out to be a sweet-natured, highly watchable spiritual drama. Jenny Thomas (Alison Akin Clark) is a lifelong Latter-day Saint from Salt Lake City who has just left home for NYU, where she hopes to study dance. Alas, she has not gotten a much-needed scholarship, leaving her with her work cut out for her: Get that scholarship in the spring, or she'll have to head home. She quickly makes friends with another Latter-day Saint, Paul (Michael Buster), a fun-loving film student who chooses her as the subject of his documentary. She also develops strong feelings for Dave (Jeremy Elliot), a non-LDS singer/songwriter who is as attracted to her as she is to him. Her dilemma is how attached she should get to Dave. Her well- meaning parents (Tayva Patch and Rick Macy) don't want her to marry outside the faith, and Jenny realizes the problems such an arrangement would bring. But as she says in a heartbreaking bit of soul-searching, if she's not meant to be with Dave, then "why would God let me feel this way for him?" When it comes to matters of religion, can love conquer all? This is a smart, thoughtful story, acted with intelligence and sincerity by an above-average cast. Clark's weepier moments are not her best, but she otherwise handles the lead role with grace and confidence. Michael Buster and Jeremy Elliot are very likable as her leading men; David Morgan is effective as a tough-minded philosophy professor, and Nicolle Robledo is charming as Jenny's friend Keisha. It certainly is not a perfect movie. There are numerous technical flaws, no doubt due to the shoestring budget (reportedly around $200,000). There are continuity issues, too, such as references to conversations we never heard. And yes, there is a bit of awkward dialogue, particularly in Jenny's kitchen-sink confrontation with her parents. But the film engenders such good will with its honest characters and believable romance that you're inclined to forgive readily. It may wear its heart on its sleeve, but all that does is show us what a good heart it is. B 1 hr., 30 min.; PG for mild thematic elements Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:=20 http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony Date: 15 Feb 2002 08:26:03 -0700 Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that they could get on TV? Its like watching Les Miz (or whatever your favorite production is) on video. You can't beat the view in front of the television for that performance, can you? It ain't the same. Oh, I see. Whatever you are passionate about has value, but if it isn’t your cup of tea it is a waste of time and money, right? Well, listen folks. Skip the community theater stuff, especially the one-act plays. They are definitely a waste of time and money. It is much better to sit in front of your two-dimensional television set and see what productions PBS has chosen for you. They will have edited out the dross, and the commercials offer a nice respite for relieving yourself. The total experience is irrelevant. Sounds pretty arrogant, huh? But, well, I’ve never seen anyone concede any point on this list, so I guess that’s okay. [MOD: I'd have to disagree. I've seen people concede points on the list. Eric Samuelsen, I suspect, sometimes makes extreme statements just so that he'll have space to graciously concede when people respond to him. I've even seen Thom concede a point or two--but I've been on the List a *long* time.] (In reality I support all the productions of my current local theater, the Egyptian Theater Company. But I will admit that some people prefer other types of art and entertainment. And they do have value.) Bob Hughes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 15 Feb 2002 09:20:20 -0700 Yet again I have managed to offend the only person on this list that I actually know. It was not my intent and I offer my sincerest apologies. Yes, Scott's post was one of the last that I read before crafting my own. Yes I did add the section he quoted after I read his post, but it was not in reply to his post that I wrote it. Rather it was in reply to a whole host of opinions and attitudes on "RACE" that I ran into while an English major at BYU, which his post(and others) reminded me of. His post did not remind me of those experiences because it was an echo of them; his post reminded me of them because, in my opinion, it was a sincere and honest example of what they should have been. While an English major at BYU I had professor after professor try and guilt(v.) me and my classmates into feeling _responsible_ and therefore sorry for all the terrible race-related things that have been done in our nation. I don't guilt very well and so ended up on the wrong end of the professor's hostilities more often than not.=20 The last paragraph of Scott's post: "To me the apology is not an attempt to take responsibility, but rather an attempt to recognize pain and to indicate my desire to help ease it. It's a recognition that issues exist and that I'm willing to subsume my own rights or desires or concerns for a little while and make the concerns of others my first priority. ..." Is a perfect example of what, in my opinion, they should have been talking about, if they really had to dwell for so long on race issues in those English classes. The literature we studied opened doors in my mind to new areas of understanding. The cultures of other races were exposed to me in ways that are otherwise unavailable. The discussions in class helped me to understand more deeply and therefore empathize more fully with the "others" depicted. There's certainly nothing wrong with feeling sorrow for the pain someone else has suffered. My only objection to what was taught in those classes was that they tried to make us feel responsible for that pain. To me there is a world of difference between the two states. The "apology" that I labeled sentimental sophistry was one that attempted to claim responsibility for the pain being sorrowed over, not Scott's. I hadn't grasped the idea that there could be any other kind of apology in that arena until I read Scott's post. Blind of me I know but then we all have our blind spots, don't we? I want to thank Scott for showing me the true and honest way to feel "sorry" for others pain on a cultural scale. Since my experiences in those classes I fear that I had closed the door on any kind of sorrow for such things, a door which has now been opened. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Origins of Revelation (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 15 Feb 2002 10:27:58 -0700 I think this is part of our Progression. When we are little, our parents tell us everything from the top down. As we mature and become more comfortable exercising our free agency, we are expected to give input. Our parents are still our parents, but instead of dictating to us they allow us to move forward in fits and starts and even make mistakes. I haven't said anything yet about this "race" and revelation subject yet. And I really like Tony's take on "maturing." (Including our young church.) Remember how when we were kids there was somebody different on the block (Black, Asian, in more poverty than the rest of us). We were "afraid to talk to them or make friends" and part of that was fear that we would say or do something out of habit or out of OUR different take on life to make them feel bad. We didn't UNDERSTAND each other, or ALLOW differences. Well, we're ALL growing up now. Both ways. The blacks are happy to be themselves, finally. And isn't it nice that we're closer to the place where we can CELEBRATE diversity! Hooray! Of course there are differences, and how wonderful differences are (as long as they don't hurt or take away from others who have differences). Diversity keeps the world from being boring! I'm for that! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 19 Feb 2002 11:02:50 -0600 In response to Eric's post, speaking for myself, the problem never has been that I thought God was denying certain races blessings in the afterlife. Many people (myself included) do not hold the priesthood in this life and can receive exaltation. What bothers me is the unsettling assumption that, because those with black skin were denied the priesthood, the color of their skin marked them as people who were less worthy or less valient than those who were born with white skin. Although many church members believe that God loves all of his children equally, I think that some still believe that the white race is somehow populated with more "superior" spirits than other races. This assumption can be directly linked to the denial of the priesthood to black members. It is the earthly assumptions that some church members may make about their black brothers and sisters that troubles me so greatly. I have never had any doubt, however, that God intended for anyone born, in any nation, at any time, with any color of skin, to strive for exaltation. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:44 PM Having just read through all 19 posts in one sitting it seems to me that the general consensus is that God denying someone the priesthood is somehow mean; that someone not being able to have the priesthood is a detriment to them. Perhaps my understanding is skewed but I just don't think that's the case. My understanding is that we mortals will be judged at the end of time by how well we lived our lives according to what we knew to be true, nothing more nothing less. Having the priesthood is not a box that we ourselves must check while on the Earth. What else are temples for? I am not saying that gaining the priesthood at some point during one's participation in the plan of salvation is not necessary. I say again, what else are temples for? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source Date: 15 Feb 2002 12:05:11 -0700 Announcing The Sugar Beet, Mormonism's Onion www.thesugarbeet.com In the enterprising and self-sacrificing spirit of the Mormon pioneers, a crack group of Mormon journalists has banded together to bring you the latest and most relevant Mormon news. If it was gossiped about in Relief Society, if it caused muffled snickers in the deacons quorum, if the high priests mumbled about it in their sleep, you'll see it in The Sugar Beet first. Current articles at The Sugar Beet include: Provo Temple Liftoff Successful Local Weatherman Casts Out "Evil Inversion Spirits" Utahn Sees All Olympic Outcomes as Signs That God Favors Mormons Area Man Hospitalized after Trying to Hie to Kolob Area Stream Requests Charitable Donations Empty Temple Bag Stolen from Atop Temple Locker New Caffeine Patch Announced Primary President Announces "Light the Fire Within" Theme Olympic Organizers Want Angel Moroni to Carry Torch Go to www.thesugarbeet.com to be a partaker in this new dispensation of Mormon news. And don't forget to share the good tidings with your friends and neighbors. They'll thank you for it someday. The Sugar Beet: Mormon Matter Uncorrelated A Twice-Monthly Web Publication -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 15 Feb 2002 13:29:53 -0600 Sharlee Glenn wrote: >> You make it sound like this is an either/or situation--either Tevye must renounce his daughter or he must renounce his previously held religious beliefs... One can, in fact, love the sinner while abhorring the sin. << It may not be your intent, but even without the contextual material removed your statement is easily construed to mean that marrying outside the church is a sin. I wonder whether that's even the case in orthodox Judaism, as opposed to it being a strong cultural taboo. In this regard Rob Lauer wrote: >> Are Mormons ready for a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or Stake President) compromises on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple? Such would be the message of a "Mormon 'Fiddler on the Roof'." << Again, are we dealing with the concept of sin, or with the perceived rejection of one's culture? Marriage outside the temple, even to a non-member, isn't _sinful_ - it's worse. I'm told that when my LDS mother married my Unitarian father, her mother was more distraught, yea, outright grief-stricken than she was over the daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock and about to marry the LDS father. I've always found that story oddly charming. I think one of the things that begins to make us a people, not just a religion, is the fact that we look at some behavior as transcending sin (in a bad sense, not a good one). Smoking isn't bad because it violates a commandment and causes lung cancer, but because it sets you apart from the community. Drinking, marrying outside the church, and getting facial piercings do the same thing. Really, I think some bishops would prefer to deal with plain old fornication among the youth - that's merely sinful. The poignancy of the proposed story of the bishop's daughter marrying a gentile isn't that he has to compromise his beliefs, but that he feels he's really losing his daughter. She may live a pure and virtuous life with her loving husband, but that only increases the odds that she'll learn to find contentment outside the LDS community, hence that her bonds to it may be broken. Sin and repentence would be so much easier to handle. How do you get the lost lamb to come back to the flock when it's found love and happiness in another flock? If only her marriage could turn out to be a miserable failure so that she'll want to come home. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 15 Feb 2002 15:01:40 EST Sharlee wrote: << I say yes! to a Mormon "Fiddler on the Roof." So, who's going to write it? Thom? Eric? (Oh, I forgot. You hate musicals. :-) Marvin and Steve? If you all wait too long, my daughter may end up beating you to it! >> Actually, Steve and I have discussed it. The plot? Eldest son marries out of the temple. Second son lives with his girlfriend. Third son marries a guy. Father still loves them. I like it, but will the saints do what we all do at the end of "Fiddler," which is to stand up applauding, with tears and laughter, saying to our date, "Alright! Happily ever after for everybody in the show!" Who knows? Of course few of us can guess how really fervent Jews (even deeply loving ones) feel about Chava's choice. We don't particularly mind seeing somebody from another faith going inactive. Marvin Payne Visit marvinpayne.com! "...come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] _Slate_ Article on LDS Temples Date: 15 Feb 2002 12:10:39 -0800 (PST) Christopher Hawthorne, an architecture and design writer, considers LDS temples in "Slate" magazine ("The Mormon temple is the architectural icon of the Olympic games--it appears in almost every NBC shot of the city.") It's at: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2061977 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail http://mail.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 15 Feb 2002 15:12:00 EST [MOD: I would with great strength second Marvin's request here, for all thread but for this one in particular. Misstatements of people's opinions can do great damage in the real world, not just damage to feelings on AML-List. 'Nuff said.] A tiny request to my friends on the list: Somewhere in this "race" thread, a post of mine got excerpted (which is fine) but somehow got appended to some observations from other folks. Since I don't presume that anyone here should be expected to remember what I wrote in my one and only post on the subject, I'm worried that views that aren't mine might appear to be mine. This is a very important issue, and my feelings are very important to me. The actual request: Let's all be careful with attribution in general. In particular, I'd like to ask that I not be quoted on this subject if you don't still have access to my original complete post, such as it was. I respect all the views I've read here--I just don't want to own them all. Thanks, Marvin Payne Visit marvinpayne.com! "...come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Judaism: Race or Religion? (Comp 1) Date: 15 Feb 2002 18:03:21 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post. Some longer posts may be sent out separately.] >From barbara@techvoice.com Thu Feb 14 16:49:04 2002 At 08:45 PM 2/13/02, you wrote: >My very well educated Jewish friends have always been incensed when people >refer to Jews as a race of people rather than a religion. She is descended >from Spanish Jews and he Polish Jews. I would like to write an essay >exploring this theme. Have any of you dealt with Judaism--race v.s. >religion? What about secular Jews -- people who are proud of their heritage, but don't want anything to do with religion? barbara hume >From jeff.needle@general.com Thu Feb 14 17:06:51 2002 Of course, it's both. As a Jew, I've confronted this from time to time. Strangely, it's much more of a race, or culture, than a religion. Religious belief among Jews vary widely; sometimes they are barely identifiable as Jews. But the culture seems to always be there. I'll tell a funny story, a true one. I am called from time to time to do what is called "Pulpit Supply" in the Seventh-day Adventist churches in the area. As some of you know, I converted to Christianity early in life and became a Seventh-day Adventist. A few years ago I was preaching at the Tierrasanta Seventh-day Adventist Church in San Diego. The custodian, who is a good friend of mine, came up to me after the service and showed me a bulletin that had been left behind. There was a hand-written message, clearly passed from one person to his friend, that read, "I'd bet my left butt cheek that that guy's Jewish." We howled with laughter! The culture -- it just stays there. Jeff Needle >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Thu Feb 14 17:28:46 2002 IMHO: There is only one race, the human race. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Jews, and they are descendents of Adam, then we are all Jews (racially and theologically). Adam was the first man he is the grand patriarch of the human race, there is no other race, therefore race is nonexistent. Some may balk at the theological implication, because, after all we do believe in Christ. Some Jews believe in Christ also. Remember the first of the converts in Christ's church were Jews. These modern converts got tired of waiting for the Messiah that their forefathers were waiting for and decided that they had made a mistake. These Jews repented, and accepted the forgiveness Christ extended toward his tormentors. These Jews are now on their way towards eternal progression, and some of them have found the true church and have been baptized. This reminds me of the time I was out doing the friends of scouting assignment for our ward. I was dutifully soliciting the aid of every family in the ward boundaries. I encountered two young men on the street, and asked if they lived in the neighborhood. They said they did. I asked them if they thought their parents would be willing to contribute to scouting. The one boy, whom I didn't recognize, as I was new in the ward, said, "My folks will but not his, he isn't even a member of the church." I went to the non-members boy's house anyway and they made a very generous donation, and asked how there boy could get into scouting. I gave them the name of our scoutmaster. Bill Willson >From robertlauer@hotmail.com Thu Feb 14 17:54:51 2002 I serve on an inter-faith council with some of my region's top rabbis--Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed. They've tend to reject "race" while still embracing a conept of being a distinct "people." This can be understood as being almost indentical to the Mormons' claims to being a "peculair people." What I've gathered from my conversations with Jewish friends--and from the redaing I've done on the subject--is that one's "Jewishness" is accepting the call of God to live within a special Covenant with Him, observing his Torah (law) and being a light to the rest of the world. The Jewish idea is that God has chosen Israel for a particular role in history. Most Jews don't define that role; they leave that to God. When one answers God's call to play a part in this "peculiar people's" role, then one is a Jew. Though Jews do not seek converts, one may convert. By denouncing all gods except the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and by then obeying the Law of Immersion (completely immersing one's self in a body of pure water), one becomes "the seed of Abraham, Issac and Jacob"--though one had no biological connection at birth. After conversion, there is no genetic difference under Jewish law between a convert and one "born into the Covenant." One's Jewishness can also determined genetically through one's mother. To be born to a Jewish woman makes one Jewish regardless of the religion or genetics of one's father. For instance, I found out two years ago, that my father's maternal grandparents (who immigrated from Germany to Baltimore in the 1850's) may very well have been Jews who tried "to pass" as Christians once they arrived here. If that is true, then, regardless of my great-grandparents conversion to Christianity, their daughter (my paternal grandmother) was a Jew genetically according to Jewish law. Likewise my father--a life-long Protestant--would also be a Jew genetically, because he was born to a woman who was born to a Jewish woman. Despite all of this, however, the Jews that I know tend to reject the notion that Jews are a distinct "race." Since I consider the entire concept of "race" to be bogus, I agree with them. ROB. LAUER -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pdhunter" Subject: [AML] John LYDE, _The Field is White_ (Interview) Date: 14 Feb 2002 19:59:29 GMT [Interview conducted and written up by Preston Hunter.] 5 February 2002 - Some audiences have seen Lyde's short film "Turn Here," which was included in the Best of Competition show that was part of the 1st International Young LDS Film Festival (October 2001). But "The Field is White" is Lyde's first commercially available film. Like the first feature-length films of many directors, "The Field is White" is a very low-budget production. How low? Let's just say its budget was low enough that anybody reading this could afford it -- if they already had access to the eqiupment used. The budgetary constraints mean that the production quality (sound and image) are not on par with what you would see in a theatrically released film. Actually, I didn't find the sound distracting, but the lack of professional-quality lighting is noticable at times. (Alternatively, one could say that "The Field is White" follows all the rules of the Swedish-originated back-to-basics filmmaking movement known as "Dogma 95," popularized by critically acclaimed filmmakers such as Lone Scherfig and Lars von Trier: hand-held cameras, natural lighting, real locations, no artificial costumes or makeup, no optical effects.) Budget constraints aside, there is much to recommend this video: The story and themes are unique. "The Field is White" is intended to be inspirational, but it also tells an interesting story with unique and believable characters. There is nothing that audiences will find offensive, yet there is much that is informative and thought-provoking. Parents and youth leaders who preview "The Field is White" might decide it would make a useful (as well as entertaining) video to watch with their families, youth or young adults. The film is also very realistic in its portrayal of missionary life -- in many ways it is more realistic and revealing than other available films with higher production values, such as "God's Army" and "The Other Side of Heaven." The writer and director, John Lyde, is a recent returned missionary, as are the actors portraying missionaries and many of the people involved in the production. There are at least a dozen realistic scenes portraying aspects of missionary life that have probably never been filmed before. All of this gives "The Field is White" a very ethnographic feel. The video would be a welcome addition to any public or college library, or to sociology and religious studies departments in universities. We caught up with filmmaker John Lyde in the first week of February 2002, soon after his movie "The Field is White" was shipped to stores as a video. The video is distributed by Thompson Productions, the company that distributes dozens of other videos to LDS bookstores, including "Only Once" and "Christmas Mission." His detailed answers will be of interest to people considering buying "The Field is White", and to budding filmmakers thinking about making their own films. Q. What equipment did you use to make "The Field is White"? Lyde: I purchased a Canon XL1 earlier in the year to use for wedding videos that I do occassionally on the side. That is what I used to shoot this film. So I already had a camera. I also had a big paint job earlier in the summer, which made it possible for me to purchase a computer and editing software. I used Canapus DV Storm. I did have to pay for the tapes. I used about 9, so I spent around 70 bucks. I also had to purchase a pack of cigarettes for one scene. This was a whopping 4 dollars. All the acting was done for free. I was blessed with a great cast. Everyone in the film is a good friend of mine, in my ward, or a co-worker at BYU. Most of the film was shot in Provo around my apartment. The scene at the beginning was filmed at Tyson's grandparents' house in Benjamin, Utah. Once I had a first cut of the film we transferred it over onto a Soft Image system and gave it a Film Look and did some Color Correction. We also did some sound work on Fast Silver. Q. What was the biggest frustration caused by your limited budget? Lyde: The sound quality and the lighting were some of my biggest limitations. I didn't have a lighting kit and a good mic, so I had to do most of the sound in post production. Rocco Devilliers let me use his DAT Recorder to do most of the looping and Lisle Moore let me use his mic. I think if I used this stuff during production the sound would have turned out a lot better. Also, due to the fact that I wasn't paying any of the actors I had to work around everyone's schedule. Most of them were in school and also had jobs. It wasn't an easy thing to get four people in the same shot. Q. Thematically, "The Field is White" is about missionaries, a topic that a few other filmmakers have addressed. One of the many things that makes your film unique is the focus on returned missionaries struggling with their faith. What made you decide to make a movie about this subject? What is the film's purpose and who is the target audience? Lyde: I was read the Doctrine & Covenants with my wife and we were on section 4. She asked me if I could still quote it. I did and then we checked to see if I was right. While looking at verse four, I thought that it would be a good opening scripture for a movie about missionaries. Then I thought if the verse faded out except for the words the field is white, we had a cool opening title. I started looking in my missionary journals for ideas for the script. While reading I was able to think back about many of my experiences that I had forgotten about. It then came to me -- the plot of the movie could be about a returned missionary who is struggling with his faith and he finds his missionary journal and starts to read. I wanted to keep this as the theme of the film -- that once we find the truth we have to hold on to it. I think the main target audience is returned missionaries because I think they can relate to the film more. I also wanted to make it enjoyable for families to see. Q. In addition to Church-produced videos such as "Labor of Love," recent missionary-themed films have included Richard Dutcher's "God's Army", Michael Schaertl's "Christmas Mission" and Mitch Davis's "The Other Side of Heaven." Many (perhaps most) of your potential audience is familiar with these films. Did this have an effect on how you made "The Field is White"? Did it make things easier or harder? Lyde: I think every missionary movie will now be compared with God's Army. I thought it was a great movie. I wanted to make my film not quite as real as God's Army and not as "hollywood" as The Other Side of Heaven. I had a very limited budget which made it very difficult to compete with the technical achievements of those two movies. But I am still happy with the way my film turned out. Q. How many of the events in the film were drawn from real experiences, and how many were completely fictitious? A. The story of the returned missionary going inactive is fictitious. It happens, but I didn't really base that character on anyone. Almost every other story in the movie happened during my mission except for the scene with the minister and the scene when the missionaries are attacked. The scene with the minister is actually based on a experience of one of my home teachers. The other scene is fictitious. The character of Elder Taylor was mostly based on myself and the character of Elder Johnson was a combination of several of my companions. Q. The missionaries in the movie encounter a surprising variety of people who exhibit anti-Mormon prejudice, ranging from people who are simply misinformed or rude, to others who are violent. Anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry have been treated extensively by other directors, and anti-Mormonism was touched upon in "God's Army" and "The Other Side of Heaven." But "The Field is White" seems unique in the way this topic is addressed pointedly and realistically, and addressed from many different angles. Why include this in "The Field is White?" Was this a challenging topic to write about? A. During my mission we met many wonderful people, but also many people who misunderstood the church and had no interest in changing their opinions. In writing the script I wanted to keep it truthful by putting in the hard times as well as the good. Sometimes the spirit was able to soften their hearts, but most of the time their hearts were too hardened. Q. What made Tyson Downey and Kirt Fairbank right for the lead roles in "The Field is White?" Lyde: Kirt and I had wanted to do a movie together for a while. While writing the character of Elder Johnson I thought Kirt would be perfect. Tyson on the other hand was a small miracle. A couple weeks before shooting I still didn't have Elder Taylor cast. I thought about doing it myself, but thank goodness that didn't happen. Tyson was off his mission for a couple of weeks and we shot the opening scene with him and it turned out great. I had shot a short film with Tyson when he was 12 and also he had a short bit in a film I did in 1998. Q. Seeing Lynne Carr in "The Field of White" was a great delight. Her character and appearance is so different from her role in "God's Army" that I can imagine many people wouldn't know it was her if her name wasn't in the credits. What made you decide to cast her? Lyde: Lynne Carr is my neighbor here in Provo. When I moved into the ward someone told me that the ward chorister was in God's Army. I thought, awesome. We became friends and when writing the script I always had Lynne in mind. I knew if I could get someone with a lot of acting experience it would help the production tremendously. Q. Was anything specific done to make her look like a heavy smoker? Lyde: The only thing I tried is to use just one light from outside the window which caused some heavy shadows. But doing so is not very flattering for the actor or actress. I promised Lynne that in our next film that I would use more than one light and there would be no shadows on her. Q. The missionary with the foreign accent gave a stand-out performance. Who is he and where is he really from? Lyde: He was played by Dave Kenchington, who is from England. He is going to school at BYU right now and works as a teacher at the MTC. He worked on the BYU Paint Crew with me over the summer and I thought he would be great as a missionary. Q: I thought the editing (which you did yourself) was one of the film's strengths. Did you have a specific approach in mind while editing "The Field is White"? Lyde: Most of the films I have done previously have been action films. With those I have always used rapid cuts to make the pacing seem faster. With this film I wanted to keep the pacing slower and not cut as much to keep the focus on the actor's performance. Q. What directors do you admire or try to learn from? Lyde: I have always enojoyed Robert Rodriguez (Spy Kids), John Woo (Hard Target), and James Cameron (Terminator 2). However, sometimes I don't like the content in their films, such as the swearing, gore, sexuality, etc. Two Mormon filmmakers I really admire are Richard Dutcher (God's Army) and Rocco Devilliers (Pure Race). I have found their films to be clean and very well done. I really like Richard's directing style and Rocco's editing style. And both of them are nice guys. Q. Imagine you have the opportunity to make a big budget feature. (Up to $40 million, but you don't necessarily have to use that much.) What's the topic? Who's in it? Lyde: I actually have two scripts that I would love to turn into big-budget Hollywood films. One is a martial arts epic, Kurosawa. I wrote the lead for Mark Dacascos (Only the Strong) and parts for every big martial artist in the industry -- Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Jean Claude Van Damme, Wesley Snipes, Dolph Lungren, James Lew, Jason Scott Lee, etc. My other script I don't think I am ready to make yet. Maybe when I have more experience under my belt. It is a love story between a Jewish girl and a German soldier set during World War II. It is called The Broken Wall. I would love Natalie Portman (Star Wars) and Josh Hartnett (Pearl Harbor) to play the leads. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting Own Horn (was: Responding to Critics) Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:34:43 -0700 Annette, Is this the book??? They accepted it???? Yeah! Can all of us in your critique group pat ourselves on the back after we pat yours ; - ) ???? CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Annette Lyon wrote: > For those who read my reply to Darlene, the story I told has a new ending. > For those who didn't read the post or have forgotten: I mentioned a book I > had entered into a contest, which the judge practically shredded, he/she > hated it so bad. I didn't take the judge's comments about my writing ability > too seriously, but I did figure something had to be wrong with the book. A > year later and much soul searching and revising later, another contest judge > loved it and suggested I look for a publisher. So I submitted it. > > And (yippee!) it was accepted by Covenant! (Insert Toyota jump here.) I > always hoped I'd get to toot my on horn on the list. I've been working > toward this day for many years. :) > > Annette Lyon > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] Re: AML-List Archives (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:56:40 -0700 On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:12:00PM -0500, Paynecabin@aol.com wrote: > The actual request: Let's all be careful with attribution in general. In > particular, I'd like to ask that I not be quoted on this subject if you don't > still have access to my original complete post, such as it was. I respect all > the views I've read here--I just don't want to own them all. Just a reminder, you can get the full text of the messages posted to the AML-List from the AML-List archive. Point your browser to ftp://ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/aml-list/archive The messages get archived by month, so you would look for aml-list.200202 for this month's messages. You can also look at the dates on the digest messages and get just the message for a particular day. -- Terry L Jeffress | The first thing an unpublished author should South Jordan, UT | remember is that no one asked him to write in the | first place. With this firmly in mind, he has no | right to become discouraged just because other | people are being published. -- John Farrar -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 15 Feb 2002 21:16:30 -0600 Oops! I am new to this list, so be patient with me. In my latest response, I said "in response to Eric's post." Actually, I was responding to Ethan's post. Please forgive the lapse. Angela Hallstrom > [Original Message] > From: Angela Hallstrom > > In response to Eric's post, speaking for myself, the problem never has been > that I thought God was denying certain races blessings in the afterlife. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Richard Hopkins to Speak Date: 17 Feb 2002 22:14:06 -0700 Our own Richard Hopkins of Cornerstone Publishing will be speaking this Wednesday (the 20th) to the Utah Valley chapter of the League of Utah Writers about beating the slush pile and improving your chances at publication. The meeting will be at 7:00 at the Provo Library at Academy Square, room 201. (The address is 550 North University Ave.) You'll find the room in the renovated building on the second floor (if you enter the north or south doors, go up the stairs, then down the hall). Everyone is welcome! Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:15:20 -0700 Amen! Rob, perhaps you are helping to create a new vision. Thank you. Lynette Jones -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 15 Feb 2002 19:19:20 -0500 I so agree. And how about the 'theme' song about the fiddler himself. I have spent time contemplating exactly what the author was trying to express in that little ditty. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- Don't strip FIDDLER of it's beauty, truth and emotional power by down playing this or by trying to make Tevye into a nice modern American Protestant/Mormon rural-type. When after debating within himself if he should accept his daughter despite her secretly marrying a Gentile ("On the one hand..." he says..."On the other hand...") Tevye turns his back on the girl while shouting at her, "No, there can be no other hand!" I'm sorry if you missed it in the structure and text of the play, but choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. (Good grief! The show opens with the song "Tradition"--tying all of the communities traditions, along with all the age and gender roles, to the will of God Himself.) The fact that some Saints have a problem with the play's theme when it is blatantly stated, proves my point that they would resist an authentic "Mormon Fiddler." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 15 Feb 2002 13:37:36 -0700 Robert Lauer, in his excellent (though somewhat more heated and condescending than I would think necessary) response to my response to his original post wrote: > I'm sorry if you missed it in the structure and text of the play, but > choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious > traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. > (Good grief! The show opens with the song "Tradition"--tying all of the > communities traditions, along with all the age and gender roles, to the will > of God Himself.) > The fact that some Saints have a problem with the play's theme when it is > blatantly stated, proves my point that they would resist an authentic > "Mormon Fiddler." And what exactly would constitute an "authentic 'Mormon Fiddler'"? Your point about Eastern European orthodoxy is well taken, but I have to question your argument that a story about a devout LDS man "compromis[ing] on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple" would a pose a parallel dilemma. You've got me thinking now, though. What *would* be an analogous conflict for a Mormon character? I'd be interested in hearing everyone's ideas. > In fact, Chava is NOT saying "good-bye" to her family forever; she and her > Gentile husband follow Tevye and the Jews when they are force to leave their > home. (Her following the jews is the second to last stage picture that the > audience sees.) Don't mean to pick at nits, but, in fact, she *does* say good-bye (probably forever) and she does *not* follow Tevye. Tevye and Golde are going to America. Chava and her Russian husband, Fyedka, leave too, but they are going to Cracow. > Tevye has nothing to forgive his daughter of; she has done nothing against > HIM. In the Jewish view, she has rejected her people's covenant with God. > According to Jewish tradition, Tevye must now decide if he will continue in > the traditional practice of the Torah ("Tradition!") or accept what is > indeed a change and COMPROMISE in that tradition. Which he does (compromises) time and time again throughout the course of the play. Tevye, in fact, is a pretty flexible guy (he even dances with his wife (a woman!) at the marriage of Hodel (who arranged her own marriage!). The play seems to me to be not so much about whether or not he will compromise and more about where he will draw the line. How far can he compromise without compromising away his soul? A theme very similar to that of Bolt's _A Man For All Seasons_. > But first the writer better understand what exactly FIDDLER OF THE ROOF is > and how the story springs from a Jewish view of life. Then he better make > sure that he's not embracing some white-washed "Gospel According to > Hallmark" version of Mormonism--a fluffy, sweet, non-threatening concoction > that is totally out of touch with the objective realities of Mormon history, > culture and doctrine--not to mention human nature. I absolutely agree with you here. > >From posts I've read over the past six months, I think there are plenty of > talented folk here who could do just that. We agree again! Thanks for the conversation, Rob. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: [AML] DIAMANT, _The Red Tent_ (was: Orson Scott CARD, _Rebekah_) Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:58:20 -0700 > Has anyone on the list read THE RED TENT? It's a best selling novel (just > released as a Trade Paperback) about the rape of Dinah; also retells the > story of Jacob, his wives, his mother (Rebekah), and others. > It's pretty earthy in places, but I found it interesting, and would > recommend it to anyone interested in literature inspired by the Old > Testament, I found it extremely boring. I found even the earthiness mundane and pedestrian. I could not finish it either time I attempted it. I tried both reading it and then listening to it on tape (unabridged) during my longer commutes now during the Olympics. I had to quit listening to it whilst driving it was putting me to sleep. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Judaism: Race or Religion? Date: 15 Feb 2002 21:06:07 -0500 I have only two reflections on the topic: A very interesting gentleman named Irwin Cohen was a member of our Stake in upstate New York. (Mid sixties-- He also wrote a book on Mormonism and Jewishness-- the name of which I have forgotten and my copy of which has disappeared some years ago) He used to go around and do firesides, in part because he was, at least theoretically a direct decendent of Aaron, and that was a hot topic in the sixties. He reflected with some amusement(?) that relatives and friends had rather vitriolically told him that now that he was a Mormon, he could no longer be a Jew. (He really felt that Mormonism had enhanced his Jewishness in many ways) Anyway he claimed to be a Jew through and through, even if he was a Mormon Jew. In 1978 one of my Jewish friends and I organized (with the help of grants from the NEA, the National Council for the Humanities and about four smaller financial "grant-givers" a week long festival at Georgia Southern College which was titled _The World Festival of the Yiddish Spirit_ . We had Jewish people with a Yiddish background from all over the world. Israel, Poland, Rumania, Germany, The Soviet Union, Canada, and many places in the United States. Among the honored guest were Isaac Singer, A Traveling Jewish Theatre (A great group from New York) many representatives of the Yiddish Theatre of New York City a really terrific composer-musician (At my age I can't remember my kids names every time, so forgive me if I can't remember his. We had a wonderful Museum display of materials dealing with the Jewish Settlement of Georgia. (Many folks don't know that one of the first Jewish Settlements in the US was in Savannah GA., Home, to this day of at least three major synagogues) The treasurer of the Confederacy was a Georgia Jewish, David Emmanuel, man who is given credit (if such is the proper term) for keeping the war between the states (Or as Georgians often call it, The War of Northern Aggression) going for at least a year longer than the finances logically should have allowed. After original and traditonal plays, many old Yiddish American Movies, many panels and symposia, it finally concluded. It was one of the highlights of my life and in the concluding session I was nominated and voted unanimously to be an Honorary Jew. I still have the hand lettered certificate of adoption signed by many of the attendees (Chaim Potok was a last minute withdrawal from the group, but many other famous folk were signers. I will treasure it till the day I die, even if no-one will ever point me out on the speakers stand and suggest that particular heritage. I can't quite claim to be a Mormon Jew, but I'm at least an honorary Mormon Jew. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Richard Rennert--Utah Sculptor Date: 15 Feb 2002 19:23:33 -0800 (PST) Anyone heard of him, know him? I'm in Palm Springs on business and went to an art gallery and found some delightful sculptures called "Sunbeams" with about 6 wonderfully individualized kids and another called "Deacon's Bench" with some equally quirky/cute 12 year olds sitting at the Sacrament bench. He's based in Utah. Anyone know how I can reach him? Ed Snow ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Re: James (not Richard) Rennert--Utah Sculptor Date: 15 Feb 2002 19:24:28 -0800 (PST) Oooops. Got his name wrong on the previous post. James Rennert, Utah sculptor. Anyone heard of him, know him? I'm in Palm Springs on business and went to an art gallery and found some delightful sculptures called "Sunbeams" with about 6 wonderfully individualized kids and another called "Deacon's Bench" with some equally quirky/cute 12 year olds sitting at the Sacrament bench. He's based in Utah. Anyone know how I can reach him? Ed Snow ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve" Subject: [AML] Article on Mormons and Race Date: 16 Feb 2002 08:37:21 -0700 Here's a better-researched-than-usual newspaper article from a US paper, which I found to be very informative. http://www.pe.com/lifestyles/stories/10025459_PE_LIV_nblack.html To me, the most telling paragraph ends with the most telling sentence... "...But the revelation has borne little fruit in nearly 25 years. The number of African-Americans in the 11 million-member church is apparently minuscule. While African blacks are joining the church in impressive numbers, American blacks still see it as "a white people's church," according to studies done at Brigham Young University in Utah. The Mormon church does not keep membership statistics by race. Steve Perry -- skperry@mac.com Free music downloads at http://stevenkappperry.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting Own Horn Date: 16 Feb 2002 10:18:12 -0700 This is thrilling, Annette! Tell us the title and something of what it's about! This is your begining, and it can get you started on a great career! Congratulations! Marilyn Brown ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:34 PM > > Annette, > Is this the book??? They accepted it???? Yeah! Can all of us in your critique > group pat ourselves on the back after we pat yours ; - ) ???? > CONGRATULATIONS!!!! > > Annette Lyon wrote: > > > For those who read my reply to Darlene, the story I told has a new ending. > > For those who didn't read the post or have forgotten: I mentioned a book I > > had entered into a contest, which the judge practically shredded, he/she > > hated it so bad. I didn't take the judge's comments about my writing ability > > too seriously, but I did figure something had to be wrong with the book. A > > year later and much soul searching and revising later, another contest judge > > loved it and suggested I look for a publisher. So I submitted it. > > > > And (yippee!) it was accepted by Covenant! (Insert Toyota jump here.) I > > always hoped I'd get to toot my on horn on the list. I've been working > > toward this day for many years. :) > > > > Annette Lyon > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 16 Feb 2002 10:54:04 -0700 I'm really, really curious about who Ethan's English professors were who "guilted" him over race issues. I don't recognize his name, so I don't think I was one of them. Since I know the faculty pretty well, and since I know that we have only one class in African American literature, I'm curious about the who. We have certainly taken some hard hits over some of our professors' feminist agendas (and we lost two of our profs over that issue), and I know Gene England was never hestitant to bring up the subject of race--though I don't recall him sending anyone down a guilt road. I am really curious about who else brings this particular agenda into their classes. I suppose I do, in a way. Not to make my classes feel guilty, but to give them an opportunity to ask questions. Once a semester, I have Darius join me to talk about our project. It ends up being more a testimony meeting than a scolding session, and is usually the one class of the semester that ends with everyone hugging each other. (Quite a sight.) Maybe it's not kosher to name names (only Jeff could officially tell us what's kosher), but I'm real curious. Oh, and Darius and I often speak to Mormon literature classes, and have addressed Eric Eliason's and Gideon Burton's. I don't FEEL like we pass out free tickets for guilt trips, but I would genuinely like to know if Ethan--or anyone else--felt that one of our presentations had that effect. [Margaret Young] [MOD: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with names being named in this context. Perhaps Ethan could give a more general response characterizing the classes, with a private note to Margaret about any specific professors involved? But I'd like to broaden the topic as well, to include anyone who--for any reason, not just race--felt he/she had been "guilted" or otherwise subjected to a particular agenda in literature classes, either at BYU or anywhere else--and how that did or didn't affect your approach to literature, including Mormon literature. In doing this, please keep in mind that some of us on AML-List are, or have been, literature teachers. Bashing the way someone else makes a living is not really appropriate for the List. At the same time, it's clearly List-appropriate to talk about the impact of professional English teaching on literature, including negative effects and reactions. So go ahead and trot out your war stories, relating them as much as possible to these larger issues. At the same time, please keep in mind as well that our chief goal is to have a good, open, vigorous but respectful conversation. Tolerance and an assumption of goodwill on everyone's part is likely to take us further than confrontation and defensiveness.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rwilliams Subject: [AML] Eduard SAID, _Orientalism_ (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 16 Feb 2002 11:24:08 -0700 Jim Picht writes: >I'm not certain whether or how I'll make this relevant to the topic at >hand, but Edward Said is a red flag to me, so here goes. I think one of >my happiest accomplishments this semester is getting Said removed from >our core curriculum (along with Foucault; I also got Isaiah Berlin >_in_), and I did it precisely because I read _Orientalism_ as a bit of >intellectual terrorism that serves to kill critical examination of Islam >and the Islamic world - an anti-intellectual justification for hatred. > >Said delivers himself of no passages in the book that say clearly that >white skin makes one racist (he's come pretty close in his newspaper >commentary in the last few months, but his newspaper articles haven't >been part of our curriculum, so they don't bear discussion just now). >What his book does, I think, is press the notion that Western views of >Islam are conditioned by a culture that presses scholarship into the >service of imperial ideology, hence our critiques of Islam must be >invalid. The implication isn't that I'm racist because I'm white, but >because I'm from the Western intellectual tradition. More precisely, >it's not that I'm racist, but that the truth of Islam is culturally >determined, and my western insistence on finding objective truth is >pointless, if not outright pernicious. My way down that path only serves >the interests of ideology and oppression. [snip] Actually, I'm not an apologist for Said, and have no real vested interest in defending him. In fact, as I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature with an emphasis in East Asian Studies, one could argue that I should join hands with Jim, blasting Said as a career-destroyer. Jim rightly asks, isn't Said totally invalidating my very attempts to understand the orient? If we accept Said's claim that all knowledge is culturally constructed and ideologically tinged, doesn't that force us to more or less just pack our bags and go home? Why try? Why should I even TRY to understand another culture if I cannot approach that culture with ultimate objectively, especially if, as Said argues, my knowledge could in fact reinforce large and ominous things like Western Imperialism? These are very good questions, and I can't say that I have all the answers. But I would like to make a case for Said, and argue that entirely dismissing _Orientalism_ as an act of "intellectual terrorism" may be a bit harsh--I think an overreaction, though, granted, a very popular one. To do so, perhaps a bit of background: I first read Said when I was living and teaching in Mainland China. I was halfway through an M.A in English Literature at Utah State, and my wife and I (we were newlyweds) were excited at the possibilities for adventures in the exotic East. To be sure, I knew very little about China when I arrived. The decision to leave had been rather sudden, and in preparing for the trip I only had time to rent a few documentaries on China, glance over a few books on Chinese language, and talk to some friends who had been to China before. Just getting off the plane it became painfully obvious that we were fish out of water. The plane was late, and our ride was nowhere in sight. Everything was different. It smelled, looked, sounded, and felt so completely foreign that I was, to be honest, terrified. We didn't even have Chinese currency to pay for a cab. What to do? Eventually, some good-natured English speakers must have seen the worried look on our faces, and volunteered to help. We made our way to the school, and tried to get settled. Finding ourselves suddenly immersed in another culture, we were determined to learn as much as we could. There was a rather adequate school library there, and I immediately started reading everything I could find (in English) on Chinese culture and the Chinese language. A lot of the other Western faculty members at the school were also very helpful in providing information. I spent most nights pouring over histories of China, taking copious notes, attempting to gauge everything I learned with the "reality" I saw around me. Gradually, a picture started to emerge, a picture of the "East," a picture that eventually became so clear that I found evidence for it everywhere I turned. I was quite naturally comparing my "Western" attitudes with the "Eastern" attitudes I confronted in the Chinese culture. Things in the "West" were a certain way, and things in the "East" were another way, and, naturally, the more I understood the "East," the more comfortable I felt there. The Eastern mind, I found, is more communal, passive, less organized, and given to certain irrationalities. By contrast, the Western mind is more individual, creative, and much more likely to follow logical thought processes. Oh, there was tons of evidence! Just look at the Chinese writing system. They didn't even have an alphabet. Their language was conveyed using an ideographic system of pictures and symbols, without any reference to phonetics (which, I no longer believe by the way). Their dictionaries were nightmares. And consider the endemic lack of notice in official business! One minute we would be teaching class, maybe giving a test, and the principal would suddenly announce a surprise assembly, and EVERYONE had to go. These dichotomous structures were not racial judgments, I maintained, but cultural realities, things to be inspected and conveyed. I was not a racist, but I knew a different culture when I saw one, and this was undoubtedly a different culture. But then I read Said's _Orientalism_, and I was actually forced to think about how I was thinking, and, more importantly, to consider how my thought processes were affecting my relationship with the Chinese people around me. For those list members not already familiar with Said's argument in _Orientalism_, let me use a summary by A.L. Macfie that I think adequately captures Said's analysis (though, granted, if you REALLY want to understand Said's argument, you'll have to read him yourself, which apparently you won't do anymore if you are at Jim's university): "According to Said, the orientalist [by which he means the scholars that have traditionally devoted their energies to understanding the orient] assists in the creation of a series of stereotypical images, according to which Europe (the West, the 'self') is seen as being essentially rational, developed, humane, superior, authentic, active, creative, and masculine, while the orient (the East, the 'other') (a sort of surrogate, underground version of the West or the 'self') is seen as being irrational, aberrant, backward, crude, despotic, inferior, inauthentic, passive, feminine, and sexually corrupt. Other 'orientalist' fantasies invented by the orientalist include the concept of an 'Arab mind', an 'oriental psyche' and an 'Islamic Society.' Together they contribute to the construction of a 'saturating hegemonic system,' designed, consciously or unconsciously, to dominate, restructure, and have authority over the orient--designed, that is to say, to promote European imperialism and colonialism." To make a long story short, I realized that in my categorizations of "East" vs. "West," I had become, albeit unwittingly, an orientalist. I had been placing all of the realities and evidences around me (and, as any anthropologist will tell you, at any given moment there are an infinite number of realities that one can choose to represent) into an inherited structure, a strict and dualistic dichotomy that in turn was dictating the type of evidence I was gathering. Suddenly (well, not exactly "suddenly"; these things happen with a lot of careful thought), I realized that the infinitely complex situations I was encountering were, in fact, just that, and not simple binary equations. So I started to reexamine the stereotypes I had created, and found that I had been making evaluative judgments without regard to the inherent complexity of the human condition. The effect that this intellectual transformation had on my interaction with my Chinese friends cannot be overstated. I became a better listener. I was more open. I was more willing to spend time with the Chinese faculty at the school. I was, in short, less quick to judge others. Now, if Said's attack on close-minded essentialism can have that kind of effect, then I definitely think there is at least some value in it. Now, a few points of clarification: I have found that most of the time when people say they have "read" _Orientalism_ what they mean is that they have read a chapter or two, skimmed the work, or (worse) just read a lot about it. But if you read _Orientalism_ from cover to cover, you'll find that, in the final analysis, the book isn't nearly as inflammatory as it is often made out to be. Take, for example, Jim's reading of the book: "What his book does, I think, is press the notion that Western views of Islam are conditioned by a culture that presses scholarship into the service of imperial ideology, hence our critiques of Islam must be invalid." Jim is exactly HALF right. Yes, Said's book does argue that Western views of the Orient are conditioned by culture, a culture explicitly linked to the Imperial project (especially in the 18th and 19th centuries), but I think the misreading occurs in Jim's "hence." There is nothing in _Orientalism_ to suggest that any and all Western critique of Islam is "invalid." Whether or not one's understanding of the East is "true" or not is not always the most important question. At the beginning of _Orientalism_ Said makes it quite clear that determining the "reality" of the Orient is not within the scope of his study. He writes, "the phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals principally, not with a correspondence between Orientalism and Orient [that is, between the discourse and the reality represented by it], but with the internal consistency of Orientalism and the Orient . . . despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a 'real' Orient" (5). In other words, whether or not an Orientalist's data is correct or not, is not the question. Something can be "true" and still be Orientalist. You can, for example, have a lot of "true" statistics about black people, and still be a racist. What Said is really saying is that there are good ways to approach the Orient, and there are bad ways, and Orientalism is a bad way. Said is NOT saying that it is impossible for a Westerner to have a valid approach in studying the Orient. No, Said argues quite persuasively that it IS possible to approach the Orient from a healthier, more critical standpoint. Consider this paragraph in the final chapter: "I would not have undertaken a book of this sort if I did not also believe that there is scholarship that is not as corrupt, or at least as blind to human reality, as the kind I have been mainly depicting. Today there are many individual scholars working in such fields as Islamic history, religion, civilization, sociology, and anthropology whose production is deeply valuable as scholarship. The trouble sets in when the guild tradition of Orientalism takes over the scholar who is not vigilant, whose individual consciousness as a scholar is not on guard against idees recues [French for "idea received"] all too easily handed down in the profession. Thus interesting work is most likely to be produced by scholars whose allegiance is to a discipline defined intellectually and not to a 'field' like Orientalism defined either canonically, imperially, or geographically" (326). Said then uses the example of Clifford Geertz, who many of you may already know. Why Geertz? Isn't Geertz a Westerner critiquing and attempting to understand the Orient? Using the straw man caricature of Said as "intellectual racist," wouldn't Said say it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone like Geertz to understand Islamic culture? (Geertz is white, by the way). No, the reason Said likes Geertz is that Geertz's "interest in Islam is discrete and concrete enough to be animated by the specific societies and problems he studies and not by the rituals, preconceptions, and doctrines of Orientalism" (326). In other words, if you are going to investigate the "orient," then fine, go right ahead, but be careful that your critical approach does not produce hasty generalizations and cultural stereotypes (as there is a long history of both in Western understanding of the Orient). That's it. Just be careful. Or, as he says it, be "vigilant." Said repeats this idea several times throughout: "My objection to what I have called Orientalism is not that it is just the antiquarian study of Oriental languages, societies, and peoples, but that as a system of thought it approaches a heterogeneous, dynamic, and complex human reality from an uncritically essentialist standpoint" (333). So is it possible to for a Westerner to produce "valid" critiques of the Orient? Absolutely, as long as one is conscious that one is approaching this "other" culture through one's own cultural lenses that may, in fact, interfere with the ultimate objectivity of one's findings. Does that mean that ultimate objectivity is impossible? Probably, but I don't know why that is so troubling to some people. I don't think it means, as I implied in the beginning of this (now ridiculously long) post, that we need to "just pack our bags and go home." Why, I asked at the beginning, should I even TRY to understand another culture if I cannot approach that culture with ultimate objectively? The answer, I think, is hidden within the question. Perhaps recognizing that we do approach other cultures with preconceived, culturally formed notions, is the _best_ way to proceed. It demands a certain humility. Or, stated another way, maybe we should try to understand another culture if, and only if, we realize that we cannot approach that culture with ultimate objectivity. Otherwise, as humans, we are susceptible to the kind of misjudgment, miscalculation, racism, and hasty generalization that, like it or not, has characterized most Western discourse on the East (and vice-versa). To call Said's work "intellectual terrorism," is, in my mind, a grave misjudgment. And to remove it from one's curriculum because one sees it as "anti-intellectual justification for hatred" (which is it, by the way, intellectual or anti-intellectual?) is equally unfortunate. --John Williams UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: [AML] Re: DIAMANT, _The Red Tent_ Date: 16 Feb 2002 12:34:26 -0600 Ugh. I read it and my sense was that the author thought it would be interesting to write about the family of Jacob because there would be all of these strange interpersonal relationships to drive the story. Just as long as nobody really believes all that religion stuff. You know, we'll just humor the old guys (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in their weird beliefs. I simply can't believe that the women in this family were as ignorant of the gospel as this book seems to say. In fact, I didn't get any kind of religious feeling out of it at all, except maybe to say that religion is pretty strange. I can't figure out why bookstores shelve it in the religion section. I know that any novel inspired by the Old Testament is going to be pretty fictionalized, but I just didn't feel like a) it was very realistic, given who the men are in this story, and b) it was true at all to the spirit of Genesis. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 18 Feb 2002 13:15:24 -0700 On the guilting going on in lit classes at BYU. I will go ahead and not put in any names of the professors who guilted me for two reasons. 1. No offense, but I don't know Margaret from Eve and 2: Because, overall, I respect them and got a lot out of their classes despite the occasional guilt bomb. I will, however, say that Margaret was not one of them and I don't think I ever saw one of her presentations with Darius. I'll give general examples though. For instance, in a Shakespeare class, as we dealt with "The Tempest" as soon as we hit Caliban the discussion either devolved or was led down (who can tell in that setting) into speculation on Shakespeare's feelings on the treatment of black folks, how _we_ felt about the treatment of black folks, etc... with just the barest nod towards actually discussing the work at hand. This little side jaunt into our feelings on racism against blacks and then against Indians and ad nauseum with a great deal of tearful testimonies and silent nodding on the part of the professor and other tearful class members went on for three days and comprised the entirety of our dealings with that play. The general consensus ended up as, "those poor people, don't we feel terrible for keeping them down for so long." At that point, being the cynical person that I am, I had decided that I'd rather keep my mouth shut and get a better grade in the class than take up my lance and blast the windmill. Then we started in on "Othello"... Another example: Class title: Post 1960s American Novel. 8 of the 12 novels we read were by black authors, 2 by Hispanics and 2 by others (white guys). The subject material was certainly not representative and it ended up being a class that should have been entitled Race Issues in Post 1960s American Novels, not at all what was advertised. I felt desperately cheated. Consensus? Same as above. I did take up my lance after awhile in this class. I don't think I got a worse grade because of my tilting but I certainly got a lot of the "poor unenlightened whiteguy" treatment. There were a few classes where I don't remember being guilted but I don't remember if that was because we never happened across a good leaping off point or because the professors dealt with it intelligently. To end. I never took the African American Literature class, although it would have fit my schedule once, because I was pretty sure I'd had all I needed or could handle concerning "Race Issues" All the browbeating and guilting happened in other classes and took up a great deal more class time than I felt was warranted. So, there's my rant. I feel like I must say that, despite my complaining on this issue, I very much enjoyed and profited from my experience as an English major at BYU and would recommend the program to anyone. Just, as with anything, go into it with your grains of salt at the ready. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Nineteenth Century Ideas Date: 17 Feb 2002 21:38:24 -0700 If you read through Eric's post on acculturation (I submit a humble whoops on writing it "enculturation"), you can't help but notice that the Victorian cultural values he cites sound all too close to home. >Women were inherently more spiritual than men, more immediately in tune with God's Will. Just heard this in Stake Conference: Mom raises the boy, and the wife finishes the job :(. >Masturbation was morally and physically crippling, and almost any means should be undertaken to prevent it. One young man recently confided that he learned to masturbate from a long and searching (and detailed) interview with a stake president. >Of course, men were to work and support the family and women were to find their satisfaction in life through domesticity. This one almost needs no comment. Many women do go to work today but if they have children, it's always with huge misgivings and guilt. >Intercultural dating or marriage was unheard of, let alone interracial. Echoes of "marry only in the temple..." For a long time I was fascinated with the image of the perfect-family culture we believed in from the 1940's and 50's, and even earlier. I fantasized that those earlier times might indeed be preferable to our fast and sometimes confusing times today. But something about it kept nagging at me, and I wanted to really know what informed those times. Then I saw three TV shows: "Sins of the Father" and a special preceding it--how the Ku Klux Klan was extremely pervasive throughout the U.S.in the 20's through the 50's--millions of people claimed membership. But even if everyone didn't belong to the Klan, the cultural beliefs were pervasive: fight (and destroy, if you can), that which disagrees with you. This violence, however much unstated, infused much of our thinking during those decades. I saw another program, a dramatization of Woody Guthrie's life, which again reflected those values. Guthrie used his homegrown songs to buoy up (and incite) downtrodden workers in California, but he and those workers were silenced in the most dramatic ways--beatings and destruction of property--because they upset the men in powers. "Father Knows Best" takes on a nasty meaning when you place it in those times. . . I think that much of this is also way too close to home, although we don't go so far as beating each other, most of the time anyway. We simply find other ways to beat each other down when we are Right and They are Wrong. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Dishonest Singles Ward Ads Date: 18 Feb 2002 13:55:54 -0700 Here's what the Deseret News guy has to say: Quote in 'Singles' ad is great - not By Jeff Vice Deseret News movie critic Well, it was bound to happen. It seems I've officially become a shill for the movie studios. OK, so that's an exaggeration. But the studios sure have been quoting me a lot lately in newspaper ads for their movies. Frankly, I was wondering when it was finally going to happen. In five years, I'd only been quoted once - and that was for a "Star Trek" film ("First Contact," which was clearly the best of the three "Next Generation" movies). But in the past couple of months, the quotes have come fast and furious. First came a pair of "for your consideration" ads in the Hollywood trade papers, using bits from my reviews to tout Laurie Holden's performance in "The Majestic" and for Tilda Swinton's leading performance in "The Deep End." (It should be noted that both those campaigns were unsuccessful.) Local ads campaign for the French comedy/fantasy "Amelie" (which received four stars from yours truly), director Robert Altman's class comedy-drama/mystery "Gosford Park" (ditto) and the military thriller "Black Hawk Down" (three stars) also quoted me as well. (I was even quoted in Denver newspaper ads for "The Royal Tenenbaums" - another four-star review - though not locally, unfortunately.) I have to admit, it's sort of gratifying. What isn't gratifying is being misquoted, as I've been with the locally produced comedy "The Singles Ward." An ad that ran in both the Feb. 8 Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune quoted me as saying, "Cameos . . . equal laughs . . . fresh faced cast . . . amusing" about the movie, which I gave two stars. Steve Young has a cameo in LDS film production "The Singles Ward." Needless to say, steam was coming out of my ears when the ad was brought to my attention (even before it happened I'd already been thinking that the review, which ran Jan. 22, read more like a 1.5-star one). For the sake of comparison, here's where the quotes actually came from (italics have been used to emphasize the words that were used in the ad): "Celebrity cameos do not automatically equal laughs." "Still, one thing does save this LDS comedy from being completely excruciating - the appeal of the fresh-faced cast." "The appearance by LDS filmmaker Richard Dutcher (making fun of his hit "God's Army") is amusing enough." By the way, I wasn't alone in being misrepresented. My colleagues Eric D. Snider of the (Provo) Daily Herald and Sean P. Means of the Salt Lake Tribune, who also panned the film, were quoted enthusiastically, and with nearly as many ellipses. For their part, the film's producers have apologized - I won't say whether the apology seemed sincere or not - and say the ads were intended as a joke (oh-kay!). But in a time when truth-in-advertising has been stressed - witness the actions taken by Connecticut state officials after Sony Pictures flacks "created" their own film critic, David Manning, to come up with glowing quotes for the films "The Animal" and "A Knight's Tale" - they really should be more careful about their advertising practices. (And if they're serious about continuing to make films, it would be a good idea to at least try to engender a little more good will with the local critics.) Besides, anytime the bigger studios want positive quotes, all they have to do is pay off the less-ethical critics - the so-called "quote whores" - and enlist the professional junketeers for those purposes anyway. * QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "Everything the critics like I hate, and everything that they hate I like . . . I like lighthearted, girl-flick, love-story movies." - "Crossroads" star Britney Spears, pointing out the differences in her movie-watching tastes and those of film reviewers. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Judaism: Race or Religion? Date: 18 Feb 2002 17:19:45 EST The man that Richard Johnson alluded to is his post is Irving Cohen, his book is called Jews of the Torah. Very interesting book, very interesting man. Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 18 Feb 2002 15:43:08 -0700 One thing that's always gotten me about BYU literature classes is the way they stress meter and rhyme in poetry. I really felt shackled, because that's not the way it came to me. And if I tried to meter and rhyme to please my teacher, it was no longer my poem. I got the impression that my style in poetry was somehow illegitimate. And that was particularly painful, because that was my whole soul. I have come to understand that having an illegitimate soul is the whole "spark" in poetry. That's what makes it all work. Anyway, I started a cycle of poetry back when I was in school. I've added to it and refined it in the last twenty years, and I think I finally got. Maybe I better hand it in. (I hope I don't lose points for tardiness.) Margret Young, if you would be kind enough to give me an address where I could send it. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Eduard SAID, _Orientalism_ Date: 18 Feb 2002 19:19:21 -0600 It isn't my intention to engage John Williams in a debate. He brings up some points, though, that are relevant to the study of literature and of culture, points with which I happen to disagree. I'll make a few comments that are peripheral in response to some of his, but hope to stick mainly to the larger issues at hand. > (though, granted, if you REALLY want to understand Said's argument, you'll have > to read him yourself, which apparently you won't do anymore if you are at Jim's > university) I'm not an academic Ayatollah. I'm not even sufficiently senior to be one if I wanted to. I got Said booted from our core, not from the university. When one of the English profs showed up at my door all weepy ("our students just _have_ to be exposed to Said!"), I pointed out to her that she teaches him in her theory course and no one will stop her. Nor should anyone even try. But people argue endlessly over whom to include in a curriculum, whose books are among the best. We have to, because we don't have time to read them all. I believe that there are good books and bad, hence books that can be counted among the best, and the core curriculum of an honors program should focus on those. We (those of us on the faculty here) will never agree on which are the very best, but the argument wasn't made that Said is even close. Now if you're an honors student at my university, you don't _have_ to read Said. You'll note that I got Isaiah Berlin included in the core. I've made a value judgement that says Berlin is better than Said. His logic is more rigorous, his prose is more elegant, and his ideas are _alive_ - his perceptions sparkle. Who's to gainsay me on this? Isn't it my right as a man with an active mind to form such a judgement? And where in this is the suggestion that any idea, even those of Said, should be banished from the marketplace of ideas? > To make a long story short, I realized that in my categorizations of "East" vs. > "West," I had become, albeit unwittingly, an orientalist. I had been placing > all of the realities and evidences around me (and, as any anthropologist will > tell you, at any given moment there are an infinite number of realities that one > can choose to represent) Not meaning to be snippy, I'd suggest that you might more profitably have read Ruth Benedict before going to China than Said after getting there. Whatever points Said makes about creating a "dualistic dichotomy" and choosing evidence to satisfy it, Benedict and Boas made them with less ideological baggage and more grace decades earlier. > I have found that most of the time when people say they have "read" > _Orientalism_ what they mean is that they have read a chapter or two, skimmed > the work, or (worse) just read a lot about it. What I mean when I say I've read _Orientalism_ is that I've read _Orientalism_. > But if you read _Orientalism_ from cover to cover, you'll find that, in the > final analysis, the book isn't nearly as inflammatory as it is often made out > to be. Take, for example, Jim's reading of the book... My reading of the book is my reading of the book. I find it inflammatory. You can feel free to claim that your reading of the book is superior to mine, but I don't think you can offer objective proof. The fact is, your reading of the book is informed by the lenses you wear, just as my reading is informed by mine. Your statement suggests (strongly) that there's one correct reading of the book, and that it isn't mine. I beg to differ. My reading is a reasonable one, if not uniquely so. > Jim is exactly HALF right... I think the misreading occurs in Jim's "hence." > There is nothing in _Orientalism_ to suggest that any and all Western critique > of Islam is "invalid." The "hence" is the logical conclusion that I draw from Said's words. If you tell me A, B, and C, and if they logically lead to D, then even if you specifically deny that you ever intended D, I'm justified in saying "hence, D." My logical faculties are quite good, and I stand by my "hence." > At the beginning of _Orientalism_ Said makes it quite clear that determining the > > "reality" of the Orient is not within the scope of his study. Of course it's not. What he's doing is creating the terms on which the Orient should be studied. But that's normative, and if you're creating an ideology, reality is as important as the eye-color of Vulcans. > In other words, whether or not an Orientalist's data is correct or not, is not > the question. Something can be "true" and still be Orientalist. You can, for > example, have a lot of "true" statistics about black people, and still be a > racist. Indeed you can, but part of the unhealthy state of the social sciences is related to the fact that you can be labled a racist for even being interested in the statistics. The problem isn't that you can have accurate statistics and be a racist, but that you can be smeared as a racist for asking certain questions or for demanding proof of certain propositions. The tyranny of a Said isn't that he says you can't look at certain issues, but that he seeks to dictate the terms on which they'll be examined. What's the appropriate manner in which Mormonism should be examined? Is Mormonism the same thing in Peru, Utah, and in Russia? Does it make sense to consider such a thing as "Mormon culture?" If you're non-Mormon, you must not believe - you must actually disbelieve - the foundation myth of the church/culture, so how can you study it objectively? Suppose we decide that the LDS GAs will answer these questions for us. Even if they have the best of intentions, is it satisfactory to us as scholars that they, that _anyone_, should set the terms and bounderies of legitimate study of that culture? > Perhaps recognizing that we do approach other cultures with preconceived, > culturally formed notions, is the _best_ way to proceed. We hardly need Said to tell us that. > To call Said's work "intellectual terrorism," is, in my mind, a grave > misjudgment. I call it as I see it. There's a difference between terrorism and open warfare. I think that it's a legitimate activity in academia to propose and combat ideas - Geneva Convention-style academic warfare. We cross the line into terrorism when we attempt to pre-empt ideas, when we use ideology as a weapon rather than truth, however conditional that truth might be. Said doesn't want to control the answers, but the questions, and I think that's academia at its most shameful. > And to remove it from one's curriculum because one sees it as "anti-intellectual > justification for hatred" (which is it, by the way, intellectual or > anti-intellectual?) is equally unfortunate. Again I say that it's been removed from the core, not banned from the College. It was removed because I was able to persuade the faculty that there are other things out there that are more important. Whatever the virtues of Said's book, it's 350 pages long and doesn't justify taking up a tenth of a semester devoted to the great ideas of the 20th century. (And Heaven forbid we should have our students just read excerpts - we read entire works in our honors program, not excerpts.) Life is about making choices, deciding what's valuable and what's not, what deserves some of our time and what doesn't. The study of literature and culture isn't value free and shouldn't be value free. It's value concepts that make art and literature alive. Take those away and you have science - a worthy endeavor, and rigorous, but not what makes most of us rejoice to the strains of Bach. I try to teach my students to be open-minded and critical at the same time (an almost hopeless task). I try to teach them not to be afraid to judge ideas good or bad, art beautiful or ugly. Where analysis and logic can be used, I want them to use them. Good ideas can't be internally incoherent, after all. They have to choose, so they have to evaluate. Clearly my reading of Said isn't universal, but you say that it's "popular." If it's popular, then either Said is really saying what many of us think he's saying, he's saying something else badly, or he's being deliberately misrepresented and the popular reading of him is, as you suggest, just a reading of his critics. I've read him, I've judged him, you've judged him, and I hope my students will be up to the task if they choose to read him (or take a class in which reading him is required). And then I hope they'll turn around and ask the hard questions about Islamic cultures, fundamentalist Christianity, Mormonism, gender and race, and not be afraid that they'll be called racist for their efforts. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting Own Horn Date: 18 Feb 2002 20:10:41 -0700 LuAnn wrote: Annette, Is this the book??? They accepted it???? Yeah! Can all of us in your critique group pat ourselves on the back after we pat yours ; - ) ???? CONGRATULATIONS!!!! LuAnn, Yep, it's the one! Let's hear it for critique groups! Our is terrific, if I say so myself. Annette -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fwd MN: Shopping Center Magnate Ensures "Other Side of Heaven" Opens in Austin Date: 19 Feb 2002 10:53:03 -0500 Shopping Center Magnate Ensures "Other Side of Heaven" Opens in Austin AUSTIN, TEXAS -- An LDS shopping center developer, Mark Palmer, not only invested in bringing "The Other Side of Heaven" to the screen, but also has helped the film make it to Austin, Texas. Palmer, a native of New Zealand, knew Elder John Groberg, whose story is told in the film, while living in Fiji and currently has a son serving an LDS mission in the South Pacific. He helped ensure that the film opened in Austin on February 1st. "This is clearly a first for me," said Palmer, who has built at least three Austin shopping centers. "It remains to be seen if it works out as well as a shopping center." Source: Austin American-Statesman, Texas, Austin Inc. Column Austin TX American-Statesman 1Feb02 B2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Judaism: Race or Religion? Date: 19 Feb 2002 11:26:14 -0500 At 05:19 PM 2/18/2002 EST, you wrote: >The man that Richard Johnson alluded to is his post is Irving Cohen, his book >is called Jews of the Torah. Very interesting book, very interesting man. > >Karen Tippets Sorry, I'm old. I'm lucky to remember one name after thirty-five years. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 10:18:36 -0700 Well, now I'm really curious. My husband teaches Shakespeare. I'm positive he wasn't a "guilter." So, can we consider Shakespeare somewhat Mormon literature? He gets quoted as much as C.S. Lewis in Conference. There's a problem with the Caliban material. 1) Caliban was the bastard son of Prospero and a witch; 2) he tried to rape the ever-innocent Miranda; 3) Shakespeare seems to me to make no effort to make anyone feel guilty about his mistreatment. In fact, Prospero seems pretty merciful to him. The only pitiable one in that particular play seems to be Ariel, who longs for his/her freedom but doesn't receive it until the end of the play. I'm not really sure how a discussion of Caliban would appropriately lead into a discussion of race, but I'd be interested to see a lecture that made that leap. Othello is another story entirely--about a Moor who happens to fit the abusive/battering husband profile down the line. Racism enters into the picture, but again I'd be interested to see how a teacher would lead us from Othello's jealousy to a discussion of his skin color. As for me, the racism of my cultural history matters deeply to me, and it spills into my conversations rather easily. Because I don't believe we've repented as a culture of the wicked traditions of "the fathers" (and I'm not just including Mormon pioneers here, but THEIR fathers and grandfathers and everyone from back before the founding of the country who participated in justifying slavery through the subtle mixing of scripture and the philosophies of men). I don't think I would lead a discussion of _The Tempest_ into a classroom testimony against racism, but I think we need a few of those cathartic experiences where we truly recognize where we are, where we've been, and what our Christian responsibility is towards our brothers and sisters. It does concern me that we dismiss the obvious needs of Native Americans and inner city Blacks as easily as we do. I've heard some apalling chiches used to deny any responsibility for "beggars." We might all want to read King Benjamin's words on the subject again. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Eduard SAID, _Orientalism_ Date: 19 Feb 2002 10:19:04 -0700 CULTURE AND EMPIRE is better anyway. But somehow students, particularly LDS ones, need to be made aware of cultural imperialism in all its forms, since our church and its "standards" are as imperialist as anything else in this world, maybe more so. We want to turn the world into suburban Utah, and that is its own problem, one that has nothing to do with our Savior, or maybe everything. Anything that could help an LDS person understand what it means to be a cultural imperialist is a good thing, in my opinion. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 10:26:32 -0700 To set the agenda that one will have no agenda in a literature course is really just business as usual politics, defending the status quo. For nearly 100 years no one seriously looked at the writing of people who weren't white and male. That's the great tragedy. It's understandable that white males would feel badly about a reversal, but it's a chance for us to feel how the other half lived (without the physical, emotional, and economic pursecution). Maybe it's that walking a mile in someone else's shoes that LDS people need. And I'm serious about that. As HUCKLEBERRY FINN and AMERICAN HISTORY X show us, the only way to overcome racism is by being in those shoes for a while. I say read the classics on your own and let the teachers throw you all something you might not have thought to pick up on your own. Lord help us all if we only read what's been assigned. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 19 Feb 2002 10:26:13 -0700 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > I so agree. And how about the 'theme' song about the fiddler himself. I > have spent time contemplating exactly what the author was trying to express > in that little ditty. > > Tracie Laulusa > ----- Original Message ----- > > Don't strip FIDDLER of it's beauty, truth and emotional power by down > playing this or by trying to make Tevye into a nice modern American > Protestant/Mormon rural-type. When after debating within himself if he > should accept his daughter despite her secretly marrying a Gentile ("On the > one hand..." he says..."On the other hand...") Tevye turns his back on the > girl while shouting at her, "No, there can be no other hand!" > I'm sorry if you missed it in the structure and text of the play, but > choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious > traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. Mormon audiences would have a different reaction were Tevye a Mormon character. When we see Tevye in Fiddler make this decision (even if we are Jewish) we see his decision as wrong. Mormons would tend to see his decision as right. Thus, we Mormons would come away with an entirely different message. To our LDS culture, a man who lowers his standards for any reason is not seen as a hero. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Slover's "Joyful Noise" in Pennsylvania: Kent Larsen 16Feb02 US PA Lanc A2 Date: 19 Feb 2002 14:47:14 -0500 Slover's "Joyful Noise" in Pennsylvania LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA -- LDS playwright Tim Slover's look at George Frederick Handel's "The Messiah" just finished a run at Lancaster's Fulton Opera House just as Slover's most recent work, "Hancock County" debut's at BYU. But a news story about the play in the Lancaster News shows how the play's shot at Broadway was killed by a bad review from a music critic, who saw the play in place of the New York Times' theater critic. "Joyful Noise" debuted in November 1999 in Coronado, California, and was such a hit that the company took the play to New York's Lambs Theatre off-broadway the following February. The buzz about the play was so strong that the venerable Shubert Theatres were looking at producing the play on Broadway, a move that would have catapulted Slover to the top ranks of US playwrights. But the New York Times chose to send a classical music writer to see the show instead of a theater critic. And the music writer covered the show, which used recorded music instead of live performance, as more of a musical performance. "He actually walked out on the play," Slover told the Lancaster News. The review, because it appeared in the influential Times, sealed the play's fate, keeping it off broadway permanently. Slover instead settled for an agent and publisher, and more recently an option to make the play into a movie. In fact, observes the Lancaster News, the play has many compelling, little-known aspects. Unlike modern myth, "Joyful Noise" shows, Handel didn't write "The Messiah" in response to divine inspiration, but because his career was in decline and he desperately needed a hit. Under a tight schedule, Handel wrote quickly and actually "borrowed" some of the oratorio's themes from his own music and from other composers. And when the oratorio was introduced, it had stiff opposition from the Church and from anonymous letters in London newspapers which called it a sacrilegious attempt to make entertainment out of the gospel. It also suffered when the oratorio's leading lady-soloist, Susannah Cibber, was caught in an adultery scandal at the time of "The Messiah's" 1741 premiere -- one that made her "the Monica Lewinsky of her day" says Slover. The Lancaster News also mention's Slover's "Hancock County," which looks at the politics influencing the trial of those accused of killing Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and his earlier play, "God's Fisherman," a one-man play about Slover's great-great-grandfather, Wilford Woodruff. The article also mentions that Slover taught and is good friends with Mormonism's other nationally-known playwright, Neil LaBute. But Slover modestly says he can't claim credit for teaching LaBute anything, "It is overstating the fact to say I taught Neil LaBute anything. He was enrolled in a doctorate program he never felt the need to finish, but we became close personal friends." Source: Getting a new Handel on 'Messiah' Lancaster PA Sunday News 27Jan02 A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: [AML] Meter in Poetry (was: Agendas in Lit Classes) Date: 19 Feb 2002 14:15:44 -0700 >From: "Paris Anderson" > >One thing that's always gotten me about BYU literature classes is the way >they stress meter and rhyme in poetry. I really felt shackled, because >that's not the way it came to me. And if I tried to meter and rhyme to >please my teacher, it was no longer my poem. I got the impression that my >style in poetry was somehow illegitimate. And that was particularly >painful, because that was my whole soul. I have come to understand that >having an illegitimate soul is the whole "spark" in poetry. That's what >makes it all work. > > I don’t know what they are teaching at the Y, but a good understanding of rhyme and meter can only help in reading and writing poetry, regardless of whether you eventually write that way or with your own style. Mary Oliver, who is an award winning poet but does not write with meter or rhyme, nevertheless understands the importance of meter and rhyme. She wrote in her book _Rules for the Dance_ that “Students and other readers of Milton, of Shakespeare, of Wordsworth, of Wilfred Owens, even of Frost, come to the poems, frankly, with tin ears. They cannot scan. They don’t know an iamb from an anapest. They read for comprehension and hear little if anything of the interwoven pleasures of the sound and the pattern of the poem, which are also deeply instructive concerning the statement of the poem, along with the meanings of the words themselves. Not knowing how to listen, they do not hear it sing, or slide, or slow down, or crush with the heel of sound, or leap off the line, or hurry, or sob, or refuse to move from the self-pride of the calm pentameter no matter what fire is rustling through it... Five hundred years and more of such labor, such choice thought within choice expression, lies within the realm of metrical poetry. Without it, one is uneducated, and one is mentally poor. (p. viii-ix) My recommendations for readers who really want to understand the issue are the following books: _Missing Measures: Modern Poetry and the Revolt Against Meter_ by Timothy Steele, and his follow-up book _All the Fun's in How You Say a Thing: An Explanation of Meter and Versification_. Bruce Bawer’s _Prophets & Professors: Essays on the Lives and Works of Modern Poets_ also has some good essays that touch on rhyme and meter. Dana Gioia’s _Can Poetry Matter?: Essays on Poetry and American Culture_ puts the issue in context. Check out the reviews on Amazon for these books. The Steele books get five stars as does Bawer’s. Gioia’s book get four stars, but the title essay is arguably the most influential essay in poetry in the past generation. Check out Gioia’s other books; he writes in rhyme and meter and chairs an annual week-long conference on traditional poetic form at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. Bob Hughes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Mormon Woman to be a Survivor: Kent Larsen 16Feb02 US NY NYC P2 Date: 19 Feb 2002 14:08:51 -0500 Mormon Woman to be a Survivor NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- A Mormon woman will be a contestant on the upcoming CBS "reality" show "Survivor," Mormon News has learned. Neleh Dennis, a native of Heber City, Utah, is a 21-year-old certified nurse assistant working towards a degree in cosmetology who will try to outwit 15 other contestants stranded on the South Pacific island of Nuku Hiva in the show, which airs starting February 28th. Dennis stands out from the other contestants by choosing to bring her scriptures as her "luxury item." With her appearance, Dennis becomes the second Mormon to appear in a "reality" show, succeeding former BYU student Julie Stoffer who was suspended after appearing on MTV's "The Real World." However, since the living arrangements on "Survivor" are markedly different from "The Real World" and because Dennis is not a BYU student, it is unlikely that Dennis will face any similar trouble. "Survivor" is also different from "The Real World" since it is a contest in which the contestants form a "cooperative society," together building shelter, gathering food and making life easier for everyone. However, contestants are regularly voted off the islands by the other contestants until a single contestant wins. Contestants are allowed to bring with them one 'luxury item,' something that they will not find on the island. The items are generally personal remembrances or comforts. Dennis chose to bring her personal copy of the LDS scriptures on the trip. Dennis, whose first name, Neleh, is her grandmother Helen's name spelled backwards, lives in Layton, Utah and is a 1998 graduate of Layton High School who taught dance and donated time to the Special Olympics while there. She then attended Weber State University and graduated with an Associate degree and is still working on a bachelor's degree in psychology. She works full-time as a make-up artist for a major cosmetic company and has acquired 900 hours towards a degree in cosmetology. This season's Survivor premiere's February 28th at 8pm ET, and will continue weekly thereafter for 13 weeks. Source: Survivor 4 Contestant Neleh Dennis CBS Survivor Website 6Feb02 P2 http://www.cbs.com/survivor/ >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DCHuls" Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 15:18:45 -0600 >........I think we need a > few of those cathartic experiences where we truly recognize where we are, > where we've been, and what our Christian responsibility is towards our > brothers and sisters. It does concern me that we dismiss the obvious needs > of Native Americans and inner city Blacks as easily as we do. I've heard > some apalling chiches used to deny any responsibility for "beggars." We > might all want to read King Benjamin's words on the subject again. > > [Margaret Young] > Thank you Margaret, There is too little written about the attrocities brought on by the colonization of this nation. We seem to appease ourselves by looking across the sea for wrongs to right, when as Margaret Young has stated here we have much to be ashamed of. We squelched their spirit their honor and destroyed their cultures and having done that consider them "beggars". Some would not be kept down and it is easier today than it was 40 years ago. But many more have lost the ability to even hope with what their white brothers have done over the past 200 years. A story that needs to be taught more than in literature classes. It will not be fixed with money but it might be with service of us all in the shadow of King Benjamins example. Perhaps some new literature written with the goal of lifting them from the servitude and poverty they have had forced upon them is worthy of consideration. Craig Huls ( Who is descended from some Cherokees who managed to get back on their feet;after "white trash" ran them off their plantations in Georgia to the oilfields of Oklahoma :-) inorder to claim the gold and land for themselves!) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Eduard SAID, _Orientalism_ Date: 19 Feb 2002 16:46:15 -0500 Todd Petersen wrote: But somehow students, particularly >LDS ones, need to be made aware of cultural imperialism in all its >forms, since our church and its "standards" are as imperialist as >anything else in this world, maybe more so. > >We want to turn the world into suburban Utah, and that is its own >problem, one that has nothing to do with our Savior, or maybe >everything. > >Anything that could help an LDS person understand what it means to be a >cultural imperialist is a good thing, in my opinion. Could you give YOUR definition of "cultural imperialism" and then could you explain why it is a bad thing? Having heard the phrase tossed around for many years, I currently consider it something of an oxymoron because it seems to ignore the fact that there are different types of power--and not all of them are immoral. Imperialism has historically been understood as setting up an empire using PHYSICAL FORCE/VIOLENCE or the threat thereof (using the military, the police, etc.) But how does this possibly have anything to do with thinking one's own culture/religion/tastes/system of ethics is superior to others and then trying to convince people of this using rhetoric, the free market, the arts, etc. In using these methods no physical force is being used or threatened; the spreading of the culture happens voluntarily. How then are Latter-day Saints--and other Americans--guilty of ACTUAL imperialism? ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Eduard SAID, _Orientalism_ Date: 19 Feb 2002 16:46:15 -0500 Todd Petersen wrote: But somehow students, particularly >LDS ones, need to be made aware of cultural imperialism in all its >forms, since our church and its "standards" are as imperialist as >anything else in this world, maybe more so. > >We want to turn the world into suburban Utah, and that is its own >problem, one that has nothing to do with our Savior, or maybe >everything. > >Anything that could help an LDS person understand what it means to be a >cultural imperialist is a good thing, in my opinion. Could you give YOUR definition of "cultural imperialism" and then could you explain why it is a bad thing? Having heard the phrase tossed around for many years, I currently consider it something of an oxymoron because it seems to ignore the fact that there are different types of power--and not all of them are immoral. Imperialism has historically been understood as setting up an empire using PHYSICAL FORCE/VIOLENCE or the threat thereof (using the military, the police, etc.) But how does this possibly have anything to do with thinking one's own culture/religion/tastes/system of ethics is superior to others and then trying to convince people of this using rhetoric, the free market, the arts, etc. In using these methods no physical force is being used or threatened; the spreading of the culture happens voluntarily. How then are Latter-day Saints--and other Americans--guilty of ACTUAL imperialism? ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] Race Issues and Literature Date: 18 Feb 2002 00:37:53 -0800 [MOD: Just to clarify: We're past the doctrinal/political/general part of the discussion now on the Race Issues in Mormonism thread, but posts like this with a clear, strong literary connection are still welcome.] Catching up on e-mail after a week of somehow not being able to get mail from Juno's central computers, I came across this 12 Feb 2002 note from Lisa Tait about an "openly racist" family in her Houston ward. > What ever changes the attitudes of people like this? To my ears, > the prophet has made many statements that should leave no room > for excuse. But could it be said more emphatically and more > often? Could it be said emphatically or often enough? Speeches and emphatically said things often have little effect on peoples' behaviour, even the behaviours of thinking and speaking. Speeches and ideas are abstract, but we are not abstract beings. We live in physical, concrete bodies, surrounded by physical space and barriers, things that affect how we move through space. A story is less concrete than the desk I sit at to write it, but less abstract than ideas that may have inspired it. A story can show how ideas affect people, how ideas play out in peoples' lives, and can therefore affect peoples' behavior. Anytime we show someone's life we invite others to consider what it would be like to live that life. OK, enough gibberish, how about an example, a story. Laurel Stowe Brady's _Say You Are My Sister_ (title from the XII chapter of Genesis, which we should all have read for the week 7 Gorsebush Doctrine discussion of the Abramic Covenant (if there was an ASCII symbol for a-macron I'd have used that, as I'm working my way through a facsimile of Tyndale's Pentateuch, which uses a macron over other letters, usually vowels, to denote a missing en or em) partly explores what it means to live in a society where you have to keep your identity secret. It's a gripping story, with many secrets being kept and eventually revealed. (Kirkus Reviews dismisses it as melodramatic, though I think it's not--I'll explain why in my own review.) The title is wonderfully resonant in its meanings, especially if you recall what happened to Pharaoh because Sarai said she was Abram's sister. (I got a kick out of reading it today. I didn't notice till today when Tyndale uses Roman numerals for Abram's age that he was LXXV, and that Sarai must also have been close to LXXV. I'm fascinated by the idea of Pharaoh wanting to marry an LXXV year old woman. Was he the same age, or did he just love older women? Or maybe it's just that we don't have enough stories about people that age as sexual beings. (An excellent one is M. Scott Peck's mystery, _A Bed by the Window_.)) Laurel's story, and her character's actions, invite us to consider what it means to live in a racist society far better than a speech would, because we can see the effects of racism on people we care about. Indeed, the weakest part of the novel is the long speeches about racism at the end, though it's possible that the speeches are a kind of posturing from a woman who would like to love a man, but doesn't know if he's mature enough to let her be herself--as if Sarai were to answer Abram with, "Why do you fear Pharaoh? Don't you think God can protect me? Or are you just worried about yourself?" Of course, to find out if that's true we need another novel. (Don't make me beg, Laurel, but I would love to see these characters in the 1950s and 60s, and I'll beg if that's what it takes.) So I guess my answer to Lisa's question is, stories may change "the attitudes of people like this." Take the concepts that the prophets have spoken often and emphatically and build stories around them, not didactic stories, just stories about people we care about, and let their lives be affected by the issues in the story. Show us. Harlow Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 16:53:41 -0500 margaret young wrote: > I'm not > really sure how a discussion of Caliban would appropriately lead into a > discussion of race, but I'd be interested to see a lecture that made that > leap. I'm only guessing here because it wasn't my lecture and I wasn't there, but I can see a potential route for the thematic leap. Some scholars have written that Caliban is an acronym for Canibal, and have researched contemporary accounts of English explorers to the West Indies that refer to all the natives there as canibals. These scholars have theorized that The Tempest is somewhat allegorical of the European colonization of the New World. Caliban was a native of the island and enslaved. And talk about a guilt trip re: The Tempest--when I was doing graduate work at the University of Utah I wrote a paper on the allegorical nature of the Tempest. I was drawn to the play in a sort of prompting way. I'd exhausted the scholarship on it and felt that the learned men and women were somehow missing the point. So I fasted and pondered and one late, late night I read the entire play at one sitting. It was the oddest sensation. Like I had all the pieces of a jigsaw tossed up into the air and they came down in one perfect piece, joined. Mostly it was like the spirit of Shakespeare jumped inside my brain and made all the connections of the play for me--linking it to all kinds of uniquely Latter-day thinking. So, leaving out the fasting and meditation and all the odd sensations, I wrote up my purely allegorical reading of the play and proudly turned it in. Did I mention this was the University of Utah? The professor called me into his office and blasted me right and left and told me my presence in his classroom was an insult. More than that he failed me exclusively on the basis of my paper. This is the one time in my life I've appealed a grade. Bless you Norman Council (Dean of Humanities) who slapped the professor resoundingly down. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rwilliams Subject: RE: [AML] Edward SAID, _Orientalism_ Date: 19 Feb 2002 15:15:07 -0700 >Not meaning to be snippy, I'd suggest that you might more profitably have read >Ruth Benedict before going to China than Said after getting there. Whatever >points Said makes about creating a "dualistic dichotomy" and choosing evidence >to satisfy it, Benedict and Boas made them with less ideological baggage and >more grace decades earlier. There were a _lot_ of things I would have liked to read before I left, but, as I said, the decision to leave was rather sudden. I'm not familiar with Ruth Benedict's work, and so have no idea how to compare her to Said. I promise to read it for myself. But, even assuming that you are right in saying that Benedict's work does the same thing as Said's but without all the "ideological baggage," my point was not that Said is the _best_ at critiquing close-minded essentialism, only that he does it without being a racist. >The fact is, your reading of the book is >informed by the lenses you wear, just as my reading is informed by mine. I couldn't agree more. That's why I told the whole China story. >Your statement suggests (strongly) that there's one correct reading of the book, and >that it isn't mine. I beg to differ. My reading is a reasonable one, if not >uniquely so. I wouldn't say "one correct reading," but rather another, more sympathetic reading. >The "hence" is the logical conclusion that I draw from Said's words. If you tell me A, B, >and C, and if they logically lead to D, then even if you specifically >deny that you ever intended D, I'm justified in saying "hence, D." My logical >faculties are quite good, and I stand by my "hence." Here I think you are implying that even if Said didn't intend to be a racist, he still is. This is definitely possible. If Said had said something like "people with white skin cannot, ever, under any conditions understand Islam, but I am not a racist!" then, yes, I would agree with you 100%: he is a racist, even if he claims he is not. However, as I read it, the problem Said points to in the discourse of Orientalism is not a genetic one, but a _cognitive_ one (that is, extragenetic), and is therefore subject to change--just as I changed after I arrived in China. That's what I find so valuable in Said. He isn't saying, "Westerners (because of blood or skin or whatever) are forever doomed to produce essentialist discourse," but rather, "Westerners need to watch out they don't allow their own inherited culture to perpetuate certain stereotypes about the 'other' culture." Thus, he is a "culturalist," maybe, but not a "racist," and there is a big difference. The former allows for (even calls for) change, the latter proscribes it. Granted, if you can find somewhere in the book where Said says that skin color, blood-type, bone size, muscle-tone, or any other genetic feature actually dictates how one perceives the Orient, then I will gladly relocate Said to my shelf of shame. Until then, we will perhaps have to agree to disagree. And while I don't foresee an agreement with Jim on this issue, I will say that I have enjoyed this discussion, and will definitely read the texts he recommends (the Berlin and the Benedict). --John Williams UC Irvine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 15:35:58 -0700 Margaret said: "I'm not really sure how a discussion of Caliban would appropriately lead into a discussion of race,..." Exactly my objection. It didn't. We left the textual Caliban entirely and instead leapt off on a tangent starting from his imagined status as an oppressed minority. Margaret said:=20 "I don't think I would lead a discussion of _The Tempest_ into a classroom testimony against racism, but I think we need a few of those cathartic experiences where we truly recognize where we are, where we've been, and what our Christian responsibility is towards our brothers and sisters. " Certainly. I couldn't agree more that such cathartic experiences are valuable, even necessary, in a person's life. However, I don't think that a literature class is the right place to be leading cathartic experiences, especially not at the expense of the subject material. Not only is it not what the students are paying for, not only is it not what they expect when they sign up for the class, but the setting implies that the professor is somehow qualified to lead a cathartic experience. In my experience most literature professors are no more qualified to lead a cathartic experience than their students are. Students attend class to gain from the professor's knowledge of the subject material, not be indoctrinated in the professor's political/social/philosophical opinions. To relate this to the Caliban experience, I would have had no objection if the professor had us read papers exploring race issues inherent in Shakespeare's Caliban and then led a discussion on the matter. That would, IMO have been a perfectly valid choice between hundreds of angles from which to look at Caliban. You certainly can't look at all the angles in the time allotted. It's not what happened though. Todd Peterson said: "To set the agenda that one will have no agenda in a literature course is really just business as usual politics, defending the status quo. For nearly 100 years no one seriously looked at the writing of people who weren't white and male. That's the great tragedy." It is a tragedy. However, the way to avoid "...business as usual politics, defending the status quo" in the classroom, is not to pick a different political stance and teach that exclusively instead, but to teach many viewpoints, striving to plumb the full range and then encourage students to find their own balance. My getting blasted nearly exclusively with black literature in that Post 1960s American novel class was just as bad as if I had been blasted nearly exclusively with middle class white literature or blasted exclusively with anything for that matter. A professor should not look at him/her self (Gosh I wish English had a neuter pronoun.) as an ideological monitor but rather as a guide to the many facets of that particular corner of the world of knowledge they are expert in. "It's understandable that white males would feel badly about a reversal, but it's a chance for us to feel how the other half lived (without the physical, emotional, and economic persecution). Maybe it's that walking a mile in someone else's shoes that LDS people need. And I'm serious about that." If the status quo is drastically unfair, leaning toward one thing over another, then EVERYONE should feel badly about a reversal, for a simple reversal means that the status quo is now drastically unfair and leaning toward one thing over another, just in another direction. It was attempts of this kind to simply reverse the status quo that I found so objectionable and shortsighted in my lit classes. I hasten to agree though, that a healthy dose of walking in other folk's shoes is a good thing, just not an overdose. "I say read the classics on your own and let the teachers throw you all something you might not have thought to pick up on your own. Lord help us all if we only read what's been assigned." Amen. But must all those things that "we all" would not have thought to pick up on our own be reflective of only the professor's own viewpoint? And should a professor teaching a survey class feel free to ignore all but one facet of the field that the class is to cover? I don't think so.=20 -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 15:41:04 -0700 ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > It's understandable that white males would feel badly about a > reversal, but it's a chance for us to feel how the other half > lived (without the physical, emotional, and economic > pursecution). Maybe it's that walking a mile in someone > else's shoes that LDS people need. And I'm serious about that. I don't mind the reversal, per se, but by ignoring *all* the white guys, you ignore a lot of quality literature. Of course, that's the real problem--determining quality. Personally, I'm enough of an idealist that I like the idea of a meritocracy. I would like to read things that are of value--regardless of the author's skin. To me, it comes down to the reason you include an author/book on a reading list. An author being dark skinned doesn't seem like a very justifiable reason to me for inclusion (unless the list is stated as "dark skinned literature"). A course that purports to be "American Literature Since the 1960s" that is weighted 80% African-American doesn't pass the smell-test to me. For one, African-Americans represent less than 30% of the U.S. population. For another, they represent even less of the *writing* population. I find it unlikely that one race is so gifted that they constitute such a skewed ratio of good writers. > As HUCKLEBERRY FINN and AMERICAN HISTORY X show us, the only > way to overcome racism is by being in those shoes for a while. I don't buy this at all. You seem to be saying that I can only not be racist if I am able to walk in the shoes of other races. That doesn't make sense--unless your assumption is that everybody is essentially incurably racist. Even if you don't give any credence to Derrida's (sp?) concept of the unapproachable (or at least very distant) "other", you still have some gulfs that would take some work to overcome. Multiply that by how many different races/cultures there are on the planet and you have way more than a life-time of work if you intend to earn the title of non-racist. Similar to my affection with meritocracy, I much prefer trying to observe people as individuals and take them as they wish to present themselves to me (in action and word). I try to understand the perspective of the oppressed and persecuted. I try to love all my fellow-men(/women). I try to serve with honesty and diligence. If that isn't enough to overcome racism, then I suppose I'll just have to get used to being a racist. Being a white guy, I'll be called racist anyway, regardless of what I do--at least as things currently stand. > I say read the classics on your own and let the teachers > throw you all something you might not have thought to pick up > on your own. Lord help us all if we only read what's been assigned. But the point of college courses isn't just the solitary act of reading a work of literature. The point includes the opportunity to discuss, analyze, and be critiqued in your analysis of those works. If you don't partake of the very best that literature has to offer, then your experience will be severely limited. I wouldn't have gained near as much as I did from my English degree if I hadn't had a class on Shakespeare, for example. Ditto John Donne and T.S. Elliot. I don't mind finding things of good repute and praiseworthy wherever they may be found, but I don't like the too-common agenda in some liberal arts departments/courses/instructors of dismissing white guys in favor of other skin-tones. I'll always treasure my experience with Leslie Silko, but don't tell me that she is all there is to American Lit. I enjoyed "Hundred Years of Solitude", but would resent its use to take away "King Lear". There *is* room for discussions of who should be included in different courses, but criteria other than skin-color should be used in evaluating literature curriculum (with the obvious exception of courses about specific cultures, etc.). Maybe this is something that can be attributed to the difference between teacher and student. A college professor teaches the same course over and over and becomes *very* familiar with the course curriculum over time. To them, an exploration of alternative literature may be very interesting and intriguing. But doing so neglects the fact that for many of their students, this is the only opportunity they will have to study and discuss those authors/works that are so old-hat and thus easily dismissed by the professionals. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Meter in Poetry Date: 19 Feb 2002 17:44:28 EST In a message dated 2/19/02 2:45:15 PM, bobernice@hotmail.com writes: << Mary Oliver, who is an award winning poet but does not write with meter o= r=20 rhyme,=20 nevertheless understands the importance of meter and rhyme. She wrote in her= =20 book _Rules for the Dance_ that =E2=80=9CStudents and other readers of Milton, of Shakespeare, of Wordsworth= , of=20 Wilfred Owens, even of Frost, come to the poems, frankly, with tin ears. >> Does she really say "Wilfred Owen*s*"? Kurt Weiland=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 19 Feb 2002 16:05:40 -0700 ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > CULTURE AND EMPIRE is better anyway. But somehow students, > particularly LDS ones, need to be made aware of cultural > imperialism in all its forms, since our church and its > "standards" are as imperialist as anything else in this > world, maybe more so. > > We want to turn the world into suburban Utah, and that is its > own problem, one that has nothing to do with our Savior, or > maybe everything. > > Anything that could help an LDS person understand what it > means to be a cultural imperialist is a good thing, in my opinion. I need to ask what you mean by Cultural Imperialism here. It's a term I don't understand, though it is used a lot lately. To me, Imperialism means force. Which makes me wonder how a culture can be Imperialist unless it wields a military to force its will on others. The British Empire at its height is my image of Imperialism. Which leads me to wonder how we Mormons are now targets for being Imperialist? We have no military and don't have any power to force anybody to do anything (even if our theology allowed compulsion). As I see it, we have a culture (however hard it is to define) and we discuss our culture with others in the "marketplace of ideas". If somebody else adopts aspects of my culture, then I assume that they do so of their own free will because they like what they see and choose to abandon their current way of doing things in favor of my own. What I don't understand is how Cultural Imperialism enters the picture in such an exchange. Or is Cultural Imperialism something else entirely and I've misunderstood? Cultures interact in strange ways in our world, particularly as things are brought together in new combinations through modern communications media. I guess what I'm asking is if there is a way of looking at those interactions that I am missing? Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Meter in Poetry Date: 19 Feb 2002 23:12:11 GMT > > > I don’t know what they are teaching at the Y, but a good understanding of > rhyme and meter can only help in reading and writing poetry, regardless of > whether you eventually write that way or with your own style. Whenever I get the chance to teach poetry, I always ask the students to play with meters and rhyme, even if it's only an exercise. Most of the time, we keep it playful (although we try to keep it accurate too) so they don't lose a sense of the fun of poetry. And most of the time, the students have a good time with it. I only had one man in a community writing class leave and never return, because he felt that his personal style of free verse was somehow insulted. I certainly never mean to do that! Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 18:01:34 -0600 Todd wrote: >I say read the classics on your own and let the teachers throw you all >something you might not have thought to pick up on your own. Lord help >us all if we only read what's been assigned. I'm hesitant to accept this view because I'm all too aware how few of us *do* read anything beyond what's been assigned. Generally speaking, the purpose of a "core" reading--the assigned reading list, in other words--is considered to be that it focuses in on that which everyone should be able to assume we all have an acquaintance with, if we have completed [fill in the blank] type of academic or professional training. I think we run a very real risk, when we exclude certain works because "everyone should know that already," of guaranteeing that many students never will be exposed to those works. Even if they read them on their own, it will be without the benefit of whatever insight and knowledge a teacher can bring to bear on the work in question. Todd also wrote: >It's understandable that white males would feel badly about a reversal, >but it's a chance for us to feel how the other half lived (without the >physical, emotional, and economic pursecution). Maybe it's that walking >a mile in someone else's shoes that LDS people need. And I'm serious >about that. I'm afraid this makes me wince, for several reasons. First, I think it's an excellent way of guaranteeing that a large segment of those who experience English classes will wind up hostile to the profession of English. Second, it seems to make the justification for teaching specific texts on purely moral and political grounds. Granted that there is no such thing as a nonpolitical ground; still, if it comes down to nothing but politics, what makes our politics as English professors worthy of privileging as part of the university curriculum? If the answer is nothing more than "This is the arena where we have power, and so we'll exercise it to meet the political goals we approve of," I don't think I'm comfortable with that. In other words: What justifies us, as English professors, *besides* our politics--and what implications does the answer have for what we should be teaching? Third, I'm not convinced it's a good idea to use historical and societal inequities as justifications for practices within the microcosm of the classroom. The classroom is a venue of power, and as such is just as prone to abuse as any other. I think there's something questionable, and prone to abuse, in professors justifying their exercise of power over students in terms of identification with an oppressed class. Among other things, it has the potential to recast student challenges of professors' opinions as an act against the oppressed class. This may sound farfetched, but I think I've seen it happening on more than one occasion. I'm aware that I'm overreading Todd's response here, going in a number of directions I'm sure he hadn't intended. But I think it's important to look carefully at this question of what justifications we provide for what we do in the classroom. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynette Jones Subject: [AML] Joseph Smith As a Character Date: 19 Feb 2002 19:01:29 -0700 Well, I've read Sarah and Rebecca. I must say, Rebecca is a great improvement over Sarah. I've also read Drigger three times and am ready to answer the question why I think there are things that could have been done differently. However, I must say here, Rob, that I think Digger is well written and full of good insight. I would not replace it. I would keep it as it is and write a new piece. Digger is a strong statement of all that Mormon culture was struggling with in the 1980's. It is time to leave those issues and dig a little deeper to the simpler one's that resonate through the ages. I've written six pages of thoughts, but I think I do better when I am asked questions. Lynette Jones -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Douglas Subject: Re: [AML] Meter in Poetry (was: Agendas in Lit Classes) Date: 19 Feb 2002 19:02:23 -0800 (PST) I recommend an all-but-forgotten book that you'll have to find in a= library, How Does a Poem Mean?, by John Ciardi.---C. Douglas -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 21:23:36 -0700 ---Original Message From: margaret young > [MOD: I'd like to broaden the topic as well, to include anyone > who--for any > reason, not just race--felt he/she had been "guilted" or > otherwise subjected > to a particular agenda in literature classes, either at BYU > or anywhere > else--and how that did or didn't affect your approach to literature, > including Mormon literature. My experience as an English major at BYU is fading fast in my memory. Right now, I can't think of any "guilting" in my classes. I had one teacher who was an avid feminist (*not* Cecelia Farr), but since the course was Victorian Women's Literature, it played out just fine. In that class, I didn't feel antagonized at all, even though I am something of an outspoken guy (no, really! I know you may find that hard to believe ;). Frankly, it was fascinating. My professors ran the gamut from the old staid guy who wanted everything just *so* (and who gave me an A- on a John Donne formal analysis essay that I wrote entirely in dialogue--I am *so* proud of that achievement) to a very proper young lady who typified old-school formality to experienced and interested professors who brought Shakespeare alive without having to resort to Kenneth Brannaugh. I had a couple of experiences with agendized *students* who would dominate the occasional discussion but, well, I've never been reluctant to express my opinions in the face of opposition. I share some pride (um, good pride?) that we kept those discussions more intense than heated and in the end they were beneficial to me and I hope the others in class. Of course, that's my side. For all I know, I was yet another overbearing male oppressor to them (which I would certainly regret). I *do* remember that my strongly conservative/libertarian view-point was more often than not a minority opinion in my class discussions (though hardly in the wider campus). But I never suffered for my opinions (that I am aware of), however unpopular they might have been with classmates. I thought my professors were uniformly professional, open to discussions, analytical, helpful, and willing to share their knowledge and insights. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Hancock County Tickets Date: 20 Feb 2002 09:33:46 -0700 My wife says we have two extra tickets to this Tim Slover play at BYU tonight. If you want to go, contact me before 5:00 at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. You would meet us in the HFAC to receive your tickets (right by whichever door to the Pardoe Theatre is section 1). (We don't care about payment for them.) [MOD: Please contact Chris *directly* rather than using the "Reply" feature if you have an interest in this. Thanks!] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kumiko" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 8 Date: 19 Feb 2002 19:59:44 -0600 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors - Preston Hunter Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 8, 2002 "The Singles Ward," the cameo-filled comedy directed by Kurt Hale, was going strong in its second week, a box office take bringing its total to over $100,000 -- not bad for a movie that cost only about $425,000 to make. (This week's box office for "The Singles Ward" did not show up at the-numbers.com -- something that sometimes happes with independent films -- but sources inside the production company cite the total box office as over $100,000.) After two months in release the hit film "Ocean's Eleven" has finally dropped out of the top 20 -- at number 21 nationwide. It will probably be a long time before another movie with Mormon characters dominates the box office the way this one did. ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS: LDS genre films were virtually shut out of the Oscar nominations this year, with no nominations going to "Brigham City" or "The Other Side of Heaven." Were Russell Crowe, Sean Penn, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and Tom Wilkinson really better than Richard Dutcher in "Brigham City," or did Academy voters simply not see that movie? You be the judge. We're not aware of any Latter-day Saints who received Oscar nominations this year, although many nominated films had Latter-day Saints in key positions. John Garbett (of "Other Side of Heaven" fame) was the early producer of "Shrek," which was nominated for Best Animated Feature Film and also for Best Screenplay (Adaptation). "Monsters, Inc." (from Pixar) was nominated for Best Animated Feature Film, Best Musical Score, Best Song, and Best Sound Editing. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (which was inspired in part by Latter-day Saint writer Chris Conkling's 1978 version of Tolkien's classic fantasy novel) was nominated for 13 Academy Awards. Although "Mulholland Drive" (co-written and co-produced by Joyce Eliason) received numerous nominations at the Golden Globes and in major critics awards lists, it made hardly a ripple in Academy Award nominations. It was only nominated for a Best Director award for David Lynch. One tenuous but fun connection: Actor Denzel Washington was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as an urban cop in "Training Day," in which he asks his new rookie partner (Ethan Hawke) why he won't use drugs, saying "Why not? You a Mormon?" (For the record, neither Denzel nor Ethan are Mormons.) LOOKING AHEAD: LDS Genre: The producers of the "Charly" movie have changed the title from "Charly, Forever" to "Jack Weyland's Charly." No word on when the movie will be released. Kels Goodman has wrapped up filming of the winter scenes for his upcoming epic "Handcart." An extensive array of photos of the cast, crew, and production can be found at http://www.kelsgoodman.com Upcoming Hollywood movies with Mormon/LDS stars: The release date of "The New Guy" (starring Eliza Dushku) has been pushed back from February to May. You can still look for "Murder by Numbers" (starring Ryan Gosling and non-LDS actress Sandra Bullock) to open on April 19th. [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker or Actor Total Gross Theaters Days ---- ------------------------------ ------- ----- ---- 21 Ocean's Eleven $992,235 812 66 LDS characters: Malloy twins 180,535,266 32 Behind Enemy Lines 188,761 306 73 David Veloz (screenwriter) 58,084,217 39 Mulholland Drive 73,485 71 126 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 6,649,583 42 The Other Side of Heaven 49,369 31 59 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 1,386,677 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 44 The Singles Ward ~45,000 11 10 Kurt Hale (writer/director) ~100,000 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne Michael Birkeland, Bob-O Swenson Lincoln Hoppe, Tarance Edwards Michelle Ainge, Gretchen Whalley Sedra Santos 55 Out Cold 15,979 45 82 A. J. Cook (female lead) 13,883,044 64 Galapagos 9,300 3 836 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,274,898 71 China: The Panda Adventure 6,763 7 199 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,914,205 76 Island of the Sharks 4,176 4 1018 Alan Williams (composer) 10,633,198 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] Alternative Press Report Date: 19 Feb 2002 20:13:21 -0700 I printed and hand bound ten copies of J. Scott Bronson's "The Whipping = Boy" as an experiment. I wanted to see if it would be possible to = create a small run press that would publish the works of list members, = and then market the books back to the list--sort of a law of = consecration for writers thing. This is my report. It might work. The experiment started out well. It took me a while to typeset and lay = out (can those term be used if you're using a computor?). Anyway, I = divided the text into pages, then set the pages up on a sheet so they = would show the pages in order when folded in signatures. Printing it = took a day. Binding it should have only taken 1-3 weeks, but, and this = is the big obsticle I discovered, it took me a few months because I = don't have any free time. I also had a big break down that put = everything on hold. So it has taken much too long. For this idea to work I would have to have several titles availible in = fairly good quantities at once. The amount of work required, the time = constrants I have and unpredictable nature of my head (I think that's = where ptsd is stored) makes it kind of impossible for me. This idea = might work, but not with me at the helm. The next experiment will be to find out whether such books are = marketable. Say maybe with an as in Irreantum, a table at the AML = convention or with on-line sales. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 22:59:21 -0700 I don't have any regrets about getting my degree in English from BYU. I know there was a lot of tension in the department--I was there just as = the controversy over certain professors got very heated--but I always felt = that I had the opportunity to learn from people whose ideas and philosophies = were very wide-ranging. Of the few experiences I had where I ran up against some professor's political agenda, only one is relevant here. It was a literature survey course, English 293, and it covered American literature from the first colonists to some period in the 20th century. The course readings were = very broad; we had some traditional works and some obscure works, and I think = it was a very good combination. I chose that section of the course because = I'd taken classes from the professor before, and I liked her a lot. The problem was that this professor had very strong opinions about race, feminism, and the evils of Western civilization, and she made those = opinions a part of our class discussions. People who disagreed with her were shot down immediately and with a certain amount of sarcasm. There was no free exchange of ideas, in which we might have decided for ourselves what was right; she promoted her own point of view too heavily for that. The end result was that the half of the class who agreed with her had their = opinions reinforced; the half who disagreed saw the illogic of her straw man = tactics and were reinforced in *their* opinions. Nobody walked in anybody else's shoes for ten feet, let alone a mile. You're probably guessing which side I was part of based on the language = I've been using. Wrong. I was in the "agreed with her" camp. In truth, I didn't have much of an opinion of my own. I found it interesting to = argue both sides, but in the end I thought she was right. It wasn't until much later, after college, that I realized that she had never given us both = sides of any issue. To be fair, she'd come to all her conclusions through experience, study, and argument; what was wrong was that she didn't allow her students the same opportunities. All that time she'd made it seem really obvious what the "right" opinions were, when the truth was that = the issues weren't that clear at all. With its broad, nontraditional reading list, the course *should* have = been a great opportunity to reexamine the idea of canon, and to study some unfamiliar works of literature. But, to paraphrase what Jim Picht said = in another post, she gave us issues and then set the terms by which we could discuss them. It made for a very limited classroom experience. I'm = sorry for that. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Draney" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 19 Feb 2002 23:55:42 -0700 Ethan Skarstedt wrote: “You certainly can't look at all the angles in the time allotted.” and “I couldn't agree more that such cathartic experiences are valuable, even necessary, in a person's life. However, I don't think that a literature class is the right place to be leading cathartic experiences, especially not at the expense of the subject material.” I think I agree that Lit. classes should not be structured to be cathartic experiences for the class as a whole, but can’t we allow for the possibility that such experiences happen individually? That was certainly the case for me. Wilfred Samuel’s class at the University of Utah on James Baldwin and Toni Morrison was upsetting and discomfiting enough for me to cause me to reconsider many things I thought I truly believed about myself and my religion. I doubt very much that he set up the course that way, but the convergence of texts, class discussion and my own reading made it happen anyway. And what an experience it was! It shifted my entire career. Anyway, Ethan also said, “Students attend class to gain from the professor's knowledge of the subject material, not be indoctrinated in the professor's political/social/philosophical opinions.” Don’t you agree that we can hardly help teaching from a particular political/social/etc. stance? As much as we might like to imagine that we are objectively presenting Knowledge, we are, in fact, producing and reproducing ideologies. Isn’t the key, however, to make sure students understand that it IS a stance among many and leave the door wide open for them to disagree (and even encourage them to challenge our views)? The resulting “conversation” (what has been called the “conversation of mankind” (Bruffee and those preceding him)) is the core of teaching in the humanities. So, Ethan, when you say, “the way to avoid "...business as usual politics, defending the status quo" in the classroom, is not to pick a different political stance and teach that exclusively instead, but to teach many viewpoints, striving to plumb the full range and then encourage students to find their own balance” I find myself agreeing with you heartily. Clark D. -------- Against the disease of writing one must take special precautions, for it is a dangerous and a contagious disease. --Peter Abelard _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 08:13:43 -0500 I never took an English class while at BYU, but I was "guilted" (is that really a word) about other things--myself. My flute professor used to quote scriptures at me whenever he wasn't pleased with my level of dedication to my flute playing. It left a nasty taste in my mouth and I came to resent both my teacher and, for a time, the scriptures he was using as a tool against me. As for literature, it seems to me that good literature will make you think about your life, the society that surrounds you, the history that shaped you....something. It should challenge you in some way. I have often felt great sorrow for the wrongs of the past through my reading. Whether I felt any guilt on my part was more due to the insight the reading gave to my own life. But from my above experience, I know I would not have appreciated anyone trying to lay that guilt upon me. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: Re: [AML] Meter in Poetry Date: 20 Feb 2002 07:48:58 -0700 >From: Turk325@aol.com >Does she really say "Wilfred Owen*s*"? > >Kurt Weiland > My typo, sorry about that. Wilfred Owen. I should have also mentioned Paul Fussell since he has been referred to in other contexts on this list. His book _Poetic Meter & Poetic Form_ is one of the best on the topic of meter and is geared toward the reader rather than the writer. He analyzes a poem that could have been lifted from a Relief Society newsletter and shows how misuse of meter destroys the poem. He shows how meter helps a free verse poem by Carl Sandburg and hurts a free verse poem by Thom Gunn . My favorite quote from the book, which relates to an earlier thread on this list is: A young friend of Samuel Johnson's once developed feelings of shame over criticizing a tragedy when he reflected that after all he could not write a better one. Johnson responded with characteristic clarity and courage: "Why no, Sir, this is not just reasoning. You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." (p. 155) Bob Hughes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 08:30:30 -0700 on 2/19/02 10:18 AM, margaret young at margaret_young@byu.edu wrote: > As for me, the racism > of my cultural history matters deeply to me, and it spills into my > conversations rather easily. Because I don't believe we've repented as a > culture of the wicked traditions of "the fathers" (and I'm not just > including Mormon pioneers here, but THEIR fathers and grandfathers and > everyone from back before the founding of the country who participated in > justifying slavery through the subtle mixing of scripture and the > philosophies of men). Margaret, How do "we," as a culture, repent of the deeds of fathers generations ago? Especially if we don't carry out those deeds or behave according to their "traditions"? Or, what _need_ have we to repent of their long ago deeds if it's not part of our personal cultural vocabulary? To me this sounds either like Original Sin--which I don't accept--or like deciding to redeem our forefathers by feeling guilty by proxy in their behalf. While that has a peculiarly Mormon ring to it, I don't buy it. Let me be clear that I am not talking about being aware of present cultural or racial inequities and choosing to do nothing about that unfairness. I am just saying that I am not yet convinced that I should bundle up anyone else's sins and chose to stagger through life under the weight of their burden--I have enough of my own. Thanks for considering. Steve -- skperry@mac.com Download free music at http://stevenkappperry.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 09:34:40 -0700 (MST) > I say read the classics on your own and let the teachers throw you all > something you might not have thought to pick up on your own. Lord help > us all if we only read what's been assigned. > -- > Todd Robert Petersen I'm going to agree with Ethan here. I am bothered by the fact too many of my literature classes have really been "we're alla bunch of evil white people." I don't mind a discussion of race issues when it actually deals with the text at hand - but far too often the classes have used the texts merely too spend several weeks condeming western culture, with nary a glance at the text we were suppossed to be studying. I think a healthy interplay between culture and text is great for a class - but I'm with Ethan wishing that the literature classes would balance the two, rather than spend most of the time on the condemnation of culture. Literature classes really should be about literature - culture is nessecary in that, but it has, a few times, become the main thrust - and it ceases to be a literature class. And, as Ethan said - most of my classes have been fine - I've only had this experience in three classes (and being in the second year of graduate school, that is a very small number). --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rwilliams Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 20 Feb 2002 10:42:39 -0700 >> CULTURE AND EMPIRE is better anyway. But somehow students, >> particularly LDS ones, need to be made aware of cultural >> imperialism in all its forms, since our church and its >> "standards" are as imperialist as anything else in this >> world, maybe more so. >> >> We want to turn the world into suburban Utah, and that is its >> own problem, one that has nothing to do with our Savior, or >> maybe everything. >> >> Anything that could help an LDS person understand what it >> means to be a cultural imperialist is a good thing, in my opinion. Jacob: >I need to ask what you mean by Cultural Imperialism here. It's a term I >don't understand, though it is used a lot lately. To me, Imperialism >means force. Which makes me wonder how a culture can be Imperialist >unless it wields a military to force its will on others. The British >Empire at its height is my image of Imperialism. Which leads me to >wonder how we Mormons are now targets for being Imperialist? We have no >military and don't have any power to force anybody to do anything (even >if our theology allowed compulsion). As I see it, we have a culture >(however hard it is to define) and we discuss our culture with others in >the "marketplace of ideas". If somebody else adopts aspects of my >culture, then I assume that they do so of their own free will because >they like what they see and choose to abandon their current way of doing >things in favor of my own. What I don't understand is how Cultural >Imperialism enters the picture in such an exchange. Or is Cultural >Imperialism something else entirely and I've misunderstood? Cultures >interact in strange ways in our world, particularly as things are >brought together in new combinations through modern communications >media. I guess what I'm asking is if there is a way of looking at those >interactions that I am missing? Just to clarify, the title of Said's work on this subject is actually _Culture and Imperialism_, not _Culture and Empire_ or _CulturAL Imperialism_. But the mistake is a fruitful one I think. Technically speaking, Jacob is right. It makes little sense to speak of the Mormon church and the British empire as partners in crime. The Mormon church has no military (anymore anyway), and we angrily recoil at any accusations of coercion. But clearly we do have occasional problems distinguishing Mormon culture from Mormon theology, and this becomes especially problematic when we consider the ways that Mormon culture is connected to American nationalism. For example, a Mormon professor I know here at UC Irvine served his mission in Japan in the 1960s, and had a companion who thought it entirely appropriate for the Japanese congregation to sing patriotic American hymns from the hymnbook on July 4th. It's in the hymnbook, right? It must be part of the gospel. And this raises another point. I think Music is especially interesting in considering the more "imperial" aspects of Mormon culture and missionary work. Why are people from ALL cultures required to learn hymns that reflect a strictly Western tradition? Sure, we say, you can have your little erhu's and fancy exotic instruments, but when it comes to feeling the spirit and singing in church, you MUST have an organ, and you MUST sing in logical verse structure. The implication is that these uniquely Western expressions are universal musical patterns for spirituality. Angels, as we all know, sing Handel and Mozart, not Chinese folk tunes. Why is that? So, in a way, I think Todd is exactly right. We are guilty at times of Cultural Imperialism. We confuse the doctrine with the culture where it originated, and in this sense we attempt to force cultural patterns on other people. Of course, "force" is a strong word, I know, but to say to someone "look, you can either join the Only True and Living Church and take the culture that comes with it, or you can go to the telestial kingdom," to say that sounds a bit coercive to me. I think Todd's point is that any work that makes us stop and think about how our culture may overshadow our message is definitely a good thing. --John Williams UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 13:43:44 -0700 I've been drawn into this discussion by my wife (Margaret Young) who has forwarded a couple of the postings. The matters they deal with are complex, and my perceptions are shaped by my experiences, which certainly differ from those of others. (For instance, I don't have the impression that BYU English classes are saturated with discussions of race--but I guess it depends on the teacher. By the way, I teach English at BYU and specialize in Shakespeare.) Anyway, I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts: 1. I sympathize with Ethan Skarstedt's concern about truth in advertising in course descriptions and titles and his related concern about how representative the material read or taught or discussed in a class is. 2. Another concern I share has to do with use of time in the classroom: how much should be used for general discussion of life; how much should focus on the "material" (i.e., the assigned texts). I think a mix is good, but--though I think it's crucial to help students think about the relation of the material to their lives--my bias is that the larger portion of attention should be given the texts. (Besides the "truth in advertising" issue, I think focusing on the texts is also good moral and intellectual discipline: it helps students--and teachers--learn from someone other than themselves by really attending to the otherness of others, rather than reducing everything they encounter to echoes of their own voices.) 3. I think racism and colonialism are relevant to _The Tempest_ and _Othello_, though these issues are complicated by (among other things) the facts that Margaret noted about Caliban's and Othello's nature, behavior, treatment, etc. In other words, the texts themselves set some limits on what can intelligently be said about the role of race and colonialism in the plays. I think Othello's race is obviously an issue in the play, though not the most important issue, and I think that on the whole the play opposes racism (mainly by having Iago the most blatant representative of it). But for the most part, as is Shakespeare's wont, the issue is treated pretty objectively, as a human reality, not as an excuse for soapboxing. I also think race, along with European colonialism, is relevant to _The Tempest_. But in focusing on these issues, much recent criticism has distorted the play and ignored much of what is valuable in it. At the same time, such criticism has also opened some windows that were previously closed. I just read a nicely balanced discussion of _The Tempest_ yesterday, though one to which (as you'll see) I would add a few reservations. Here's an excerpt (this is from Grace Tiffany's summary--in the Shakespeare Newsletter--of John Cox's article "Recovering Something Christian about _The Tempest_" in _Christianity and Literature_ 50.1 (Autumn 2001): 31-51): Cox summarizes [Stephen] Orgel's materialist critique of Prospero's enslavement of Caliban, which calls Prospero's tactics "a strategy for maintaining colonial power and social dominance" and refers to Prospero's apparent "lust for power" (Cox's paraphrase) as well as to the ways in which Caliban is better than Prospero thinks he is. [Though we need to remember the attempted rape, too!--this is my insertion, bwy.] Yet Cox doesn't ask Orgel a crucial question: if, properly read, the play shows Caliban's unmerited suffering and Prospero's oppressive colonial strategies, how does the play itself operate AS an oppressive colonial strategy? Does it not, rather, operate as a Renaissance Christian critique of Prospero's pride (manifested in his oppressive colonialist ideology), as well as a revelation of the complex humanity of a suffering slave? [Well, Caliban is not actually human according to the play--but of course he's humanish--again, my insertion, bwy.] Cox argues that the play does so operate, but argues it without explicity saying that many of Orgel's and others' materialist readings, or parts of them, actually support a more historically sensitive Christian reading of the play. Cox implies that, though. Most helpfully, Cox distinguishes the "idealist" readings, to which many "materialist" readings object, from Christian readings. He shows that the "commonplace equation of true nobility"--i.e., aristocracy--"with virtue . . . is a commonplace with Platonic, not Christian, origins"; the Christian perspective is, instead, suspicious of the rich. As Cox sensibly reminds us, the "idealist" equation of aristocracy with virtue does not apply to characters in _The Tempest_ (Antonio? Sebastian?) or most other Shakespeare plays (_Hamlet_'s Claudius? _King Lear_'s Goneril and Regan? Please!) [end of excerpt] So, as you can see, on this as on many other issues, I feel I have some common ground with both sides--or with various sides, since there are often more than two sensible points of view on an issue. Anyway, racism is wrong. So is rape and spouse abuse. And so is the sin of the Pharisees, who said, "If we had lived in the time of our fathers, we would not have stoned the prophets." Rene Girard (one of my favorite thinkers/literary critics) has some brilliant things to say about what Jesus may have meant when he said that the Pharisees thereby testified that they were the children of those who stoned the prophets. According to Girard, Jesus is opening a way for us to see the evils of the past for what they are without repeating them (for instance, by scapegoating the scapegoaters). This problem--of how we respond to evil--is of the very essence of the plan of salvation, which focuses on repentance and forgiveness. What Girard calls "mythological" thinking refuses to see evil and violence for what they are, but instead mystifies and mythologizes (and thereby justifies and hides) them. Repentance is not even a possibility, because the evil is not seen for what it is. Pharasaism, on the other hand, sees evil as evil, but focuses on the evil in others without seeing one's own implication in it and condemns others rather than forgiving (and repenting). I think that to adequately deal with race--in the classroom and out--we need to avoid both mythologizing and being Pharasaical. And we need to repent and forgive. (And in this as in many other things, I need to work at living according to what I profess.) By the way, I would love to see Tony Markham's paper on _The Tempest_, if he still has a copy. Best wishes to all, Bruce Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Meter in Poetry Date: 20 Feb 2002 15:54:26 -0500 At 07:02 PM 2/19/2002 -0800, you wrote: > I recommend an all-but-forgotten book that you'll have to find in a= > library, How Does a Poem Mean?, by John Ciardi.---C. Douglas > Not forgotten by a long shot. We had a pot-shot from someone at Wilfred Owens a moment ago, and might have one at Ciardi later but he was a good poet, and a marvelous scholar and editor (Poetry editor for the _Saturday review_ for about twenty years.) Very clear and very helpful to almost anybody. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Press Report Date: 20 Feb 2002 13:55:01 -0800 Careful Paris, you may discover what we do in the publishing world, and all we need is more LDS publishers. :-) Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 20 Feb 2002 11:06:00 -0700 Jacob and Rob indicated that they think that people just take in culture if they like it which isn't true at all. 1. The BIA Indian schools forced language and education on Native Americans in this country, made them cut their hair and beat them when they didn't speak English. 2. England forced Ireland to abandon Gaelic and then imposed the Protestant faith upon them. We're still watching that conflict as well as the Native American one. 3. The simple fact that anyone in India speak English is also witness that people don't always choose this stuff--it is sometimes (often) foisted upon them. 4. Islam has a history of forcing that faith on the tribal people of Africa. 5. Even in small town America, the values of the big cities and their culture is being foisted upon people because it's all that is available through media channels. 6. Coca-Cola is the largest private employer in Africa. It is common for the Imperialist to not see that these people aren't necessarily choosing. What you need to do is read the literature of the oppressed people to see what's really going on. That's why lots of professors are assigning this stuff, so that the sheltered (sheltered by the canon) people will see what's going on for real. And yes, you do have to walk in other people's shoes. That's what our Savior did in the atonement and to think that we can get around that approach even in a mortal way is a big problem. What Jacob and others are missing is the insight that people do not always get to choose what kinds of cultural materials they must accept, how they must learn, what language they must speak, etc. Every empire brings its culture along with it, some parts people end up wanting, others force themselves in virally and never leave. This is one of the things that riles people that we want to marginalize: China, the Saudis, Afghanistanis, Indonesians, North Korea, etc. They don't want Western Culture but it's a package deal with economic growth, so they can't not get it. They don't get a line item veto. Cultural Imperialism is best understood as that impulse that makes developed nations think that it is their right and duty to civilize the "noble savages" of the planet and raise them up to our standards. Look at how corrupt and damaged our families are and how damaged our land, air, and water is. Who would want all that? I know that lots of people still see America as the promised land, but lots don't and those are the ones who are feeling this Imperialism the most acutely. LDS people do this by saying that to be Mormon you must not only be baptized but you must now wear white shirts and listen to western hymns played on pianos. Anyone who watches a church video must think that we all live in homes with pastel color treatments, or that we all live in HOMES. That image of the LDS identity is then held up as the ideal (and this can be done implicitly or explicitly, but it is still done), and then all these folks all over the world start felling like they either don't measure up or that they need to changes things so they will. There has been a certain amount of growth in this area, but it hasn't hit street level in my opinion. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 16:17:48 -0700 Jacob wrote: I wouldn't have gained near as much as I did from my English degree if I hadn't had a class on Shakespeare, for example. Ditto John Donne and T.S. Elliot. Which is exactly why I was horrified when BYU began revamping its English major requirements right about the time I was graduating. I guess in an effort to be more inclusive or whatever, the resulting requirements became, in my opinion, laughable. Students were no longer required to take a class on Shakespeare. And instead of the formerly required three survey courses (two for English lit, one for American lit), plus an elective focusing on one third of each survey area (and then several other electives), the survey courses were turned into one many elective choices. An English major could quite easily graduate without ever reading Milton or Dunne or Tennyson or any number of other writers that are pretty much necessary to at least know about for one to be considered schooled in the discipline, and instead study only cowboy literature, feminist literature, and every other "sub" category out there instead of *anything* in the canon. Yikes. I still say that an English major without Shakespeare is like a chemistry major with the periodic table. I wrote a letter to the department chair expressing my concern, and he responded by brushing me off, saying that aside from the Shakespeare course, there was technically no guarantee that the original program (the survey courses, in particular) would have covered the other "big" names. I was livid, especially when an English minor in my Shakespeare class who didn't know a sonnet from a simile (that is hardly an exaggeration, either) discovered that with the new requirements she could double major with English and still graduate at the same time. Some of you who are teaching at BYU (Margaret?)--please tell me it has changed! I feel lucky to be one of the last graduates of the "real" program. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Shakespeare Paper (was: Agendas in Lit Classes) Date: 20 Feb 2002 18:13:06 -0500 Bruce Young wrote: > By the way, I would love to see Tony Markham's paper on _The > Tempest_, if he still has a copy. I'll dig around my boxes of dusty, yellowed, pre-computer writing. I'm pretty sure I kept the original paper complete with professorial condemnation. I keep meaning to re-type some of that stuff onto disc. This will give me a good excuse. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 20 Feb 2002 17:30:02 -0700 ___ John ___ | For example, a Mormon professor I know here at UC Irvine served | his mission in Japan in the 1960s, and had a companion who | thought it entirely appropriate for the Japanese congregation | to sing patriotic American hymns from the hymnbook on July | 4th. It's in the hymnbook, right? It must be part of the | gospel. ___ That's an interesting question. I say that because I think the United States is related to the gospel in a way somewhat different than most countries. For one it is tied to the prophecies of the Book of Mormon in ways that no other nation, except perhaps Israel is. Further we are told that the formation and structure of the country is of divine inspiration. So dividing the country from the gospel isn't always as easy as it appears at first glance. Yet at the same time there is opportunity for resentment if it is pushed too much. My own feeling is that I could see such things done in a good nature way, *if* there was some kind of accompanying narrative explaining the distinction. Personally I think that the 4th of July is about as much a legitimate "Mormon" holiday as July 24 is. And most wards outside of Utah deal with July 24th in an appropriate way, often using it as an allegory to the struggles of the local saints. ___ John ___ | We are guilty at times of Cultural Imperialism. We confuse the | doctrine with the culture where it originated, and in this sense | we attempt to force cultural patterns on other people. ___ While this certainly is true, let me take the opposite view as well. In the church we are in a sense trying to develop a single culture of Mormonism. It is to be one giant family. Indeed that notion of family is the heart of the gospel. Just as in any family there will be a tension between what culturally unites the family and then the freedom to be ones own person. I think this occurs in the church as well. Many things the church does are to bring that unity. (i.e. consist study in church, consistent structure in church, etc.) Now it is true that far too many artifacts of Utah get brought to the church at large. But at the same time I think we sometimes worry too much about cultural trappings being "imperialist" when instead they are a uniting factor. I forget the book that originated the idea, but there was this view of strong cultures. Basically some of the examples were Egypt and Greece. Even if those cultures lost a battle and were conquered, their civilizations tended to absorb the conquerer rather than vice versa. For instance while Rome conquered Greece, in an other way Greece conquered Rome. Some have argued that this is going on with the United States. While the United States doesn't conquer other nations (at worst they tend to make trade demands and the occasional military base) it does conquer them culturally. Even cultures that promote their cultural values often are assimilated. (Look at France) I think that in many ways the church is like this. (As are Catholicism and Judaism - their influence goes far beyond the influence on active members) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] God's Handicapping System (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 20 Feb 2002 17:32:05 -0700 [MOD: I think Bill takes the discussion in a direction that has a lot of interesting implications for how we handle Mormon letters. To what degree is a person's birth situation destiny, in Mormon literature? I'd welcome some thoughts.] First last, last first-- does it matter where you start or is where you = finish all that counts. There are many great books written and I believe = there are many left to be written about the paradoxical conditions that = affect humanity. Is exaltation an equal opportunity joy luck club, or is it only open to = those of a certain pre-life status? Does our first estate affect our = family status at birth? Who knows? I think it could be possible that God assigns us to our earthly station, = at birth, according to how valiant our spirit is. The more valiant the = spirit, the more difficult the starting position. I think we may each enter this life with a preset = handicap determined by how strong our spirit is. I firmly believe that = those born on satin sheets with a golden cup, plate, and spoon, could = very well have the least chance to find true joy. Look at God's Son. He = was born in a manger to a humble but wise, carpenter and with a meek = young maiden for a mother. Sometimes I feel sorry for those who state, "I ______ having been born = of goodly parents." Maybe that is because by church standards my = starting station in life, an illegitimate child born to an alcoholic = sailor and a waterfront waitress in a greasy spoon hash house, is = considered not so "goodly," but I survived, found the church, was = married in the temple, raised four beautiful children who are doing as = well as, or better than myself, and have managed to get many of my = progenitor's temple work done. I guess that is the reason for my = peculiar twist on God's handicap. I like to think of myself as a come = from behind seeker of joy and I also believe life is an equal = opportunity event. "Destiny is not a matter of chance, it's a matter of = choice." (unknown) Life is a true paradox, that's why it is so much fun to write about. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Meter in Poetry Date: 20 Feb 2002 17:20:37 -0800 On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:48:58 -0700 Bob Hughes writes: > I should have also mentioned Paul Fussell since he has been referred > to in other contexts on this list. Mostly by R.W. Rasband and myself. I was delighted that Dean Hughes mentions _Wartime_ in the annotated bibliography at the end of _Far From Home_ > His book _Poetic Meter & Poetic Form_ is one of the best on > the topic of meter and is geared toward the reader rather than > the writer. I was wondering if someone was going to mention this book. I've so enjoyed _Wartime_ that I borrowed my father's copy (still has the Random House teacher's guide bookmark--one of the nice perks of being a teacher, publishers send you lots of books). I've seen the book on his shelves for years, and its presence there gave me name recognition when I saw a chapter of _Wartime_, "The Real War Will Never Maike It Into the Books" in The Atlantic. I was hoping my father had a copy of _The Great War and Modern Memory_, but he doesn't. I very much want to read that after I finish _Wartime_ (though if a copy came my way before then I'd read it). > My favorite quote from the book, which relates to an > earlier thread on this list is: > > A young friend of Samuel Johnson's once developed feelings of shame > over criticizing a tragedy when he reflected that after all he could not > write a better one. Johnson responded with characteristic clarity and > courage: "Why no, Sir, this is not just reasoning. You may abuse a > tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who > has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not > your trade to make tables." (p. 155) > > Bob Hughes Bless you for this quote. I just went upstairs, got Fussell, and bookmarked p. 155. The idea that we don't have a right to criticize what we can't do is one of those discussion-ending ideas that feels terribly coercive. As the saying goes, "Those that can, teach. Those that can't teach, do," which says a lot about why I'm a writer rather than a writing teacher. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SLOVER, _Hancock County_ (Daily Herald) Date: 21 Feb 2002 03:53:33 +0000 [Thanks to Eric for giving permission to run this version of the review, which appeared on his website. It is slightly longer than the version which appeared in the Daily Herald, and includes a letter grade, which Eric no longer includes in theater reviews in the newspaper.] "Hancock County," at BYU (Feb. 13-March 2, 2002) Review by Eric D. Snider Published in The (Provo, Utah) Daily Herald on February 22, 2002 "Sometimes hurt and the will of the Lord do travel the same road," says Brigham Young in Tim Slover's new "Hancock County." Brother Brigham is a minor figure in the play, but that statement reverberates throughout it as a reminder that no matter how much we might want something, God usually has more information on the matter than we do. "Hancock County" sets up a familiar theatrical and cinematic situation: the legal trial of a bad guy everyone wants to see punished. It's the real-life 1845 trial of five men accused of conspiring to kill Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith. (No one knew which of the 100 mobbers actually fired the bullets that killed him, so "conspiracy to murder" was the best the state of Illinois could do.) It sets up a fine array of historical characters, too: a menacing newspaper owner (Robert Gibbs) among the defendants; a disgraced former attorney general (Marvin Payne) trying to regain some credibility by prosecuting the case; a deviously pious snake in the grass (R. Jeremy Selim) as defense attorney; a conflicted judge (Bob Nelson); a lapsed Mormon (Stephanie Foster Breinholt) too nervous to testify; her battered-wife relative (Anna McKeown); and, lurking along the sidelines weighing sadness with frustration, Brigham Young (J. Scott Bronson). After setting up this tantalizing blend of situations and characters, though, Slover must stick to historical fact, which does not allow for as much justice as the viewer will want to see. It's a difficult dilemma for a playwright: You want the action to be satisfying, but you don't want to betray history. To an extent, though, the frustration felt by a sympathetic audience is part of the point; we feel a bit of what Brigham and the Saints felt, and the cast, directed by Tim Threlfall, gives it their all in conveying the bittersweet emotions of the day. Like Slover's "Joyful Noise," seen and loved by thousands a few years ago, "Hancock County" moves swiftly from one scene to another, using and re-using minimal set pieces and props. It also employs the occasional dose of dry humor, such as when the prosecuting attorney says he hopes he isn't arrested for contempt of court, because "I don't like my chances for surviving the night in Carthage Jail." The cast is top-notch on all sides, from Payne's alcoholic attorney to Selim's offensively smarmy defense lawyer; from Bronson's reluctant but powerful prophet to Breinholt's cowering witness. It is a clear, rich drama that is satisfying even when it doesn't go the way we want it to. Should you go? Whether LDS Church history is your thing or not, "Hancock County" is an engrossing depiction of it. Grade: A- When: 7:30 p.m. nightly (except Sundays and Mondays) through March 2 Where: Pardoe Theatre, BYU's Harris Fine Arts Center Cost: $12 general, $9 students Info: Call 378-4322 Running time: 2 hrs., 5 min., including one intermission Copyright Eric D. Snider. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Mormon Playwrights Date: 20 Feb 2002 23:39:35 -0700 When I moved to Utah in 1995 I had little interest in Mormon literature, = but I was keenly interested in Mormon playwrights and Mormon related = theater. Since my nephew Benson was involved with AML-list I became = curious. I think I joined in 1999. I had seen _Angels in America_ in = Houston, so the first thing I saw here was _Perestroika_. As a result = of my membership on the list I started getting the word concerning what = was going on. Next I saw _Polly_ by Steve Perry, _Prophet_ by Thom = Duncan, _I Am Jane_ by Margaret Young, Eric Samuelsen's three one-acts, = Tim Slover's _Joyful Noise_, Julie Jensen's _Three Headed_, Scott = Bronson's _Stones_, and _Tim Slover's _Hancock County_. =20 The plays that I have missed were playing when I was acting in various = plays with conflicting dates. (I have done eight plays in that time = with fairly long runs.)=20 I am so impressed with the quality of the theater I have seen and I am = grateful to be a member of the list, because I would never know what I = was missing if I didn't have this marvelous source of information. The last two plays I have seen were outstanding--_Stones_ and _Hancock = County. I didn't write a review, because the two that were written were = so in tune with my thinking that I felt I didn't have anything important = to add. I just feel so lucky to be able to experience this diversity = and excellence in Mormon related theater. If you write it, I will come = (unless I'm doing my own shtick). Nan McCulloch Theatergoer =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Re: A Third Phase (Get Together) Date: 20 Feb 2002 23:48:29 -0700 Atten: Margaret Young and List members. D.Michael Martindale and I both = volunteered to host, at our homes, the get-together Margaret suggested. = I am open most nights and I will supply the refreshments. Why don't you = choose the location that would be the most convenient for the people = that will be attending. Nan McCulloch Draper =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 21 Feb 2002 08:18:29 -0800 Jacob Proffitt asked: > I need to ask what you mean by Cultural Imperialism here. It's a term I > don't understand, though it is used a lot lately. Okay, I'm feeling reckless (or rather just trying to avoid cleaning my house and working out) so I'm going to give this one a stab. As usual, my mouth runneth over, so I've labeled the sections of my post to make skimming more convenient. :) BRIEF SUMMARY: Cultural Imperialism is the assumption that your culture is superior to another and that your culture therefore should be imposed on others for their own good. Citizens of the British Empire (and most others, I am sure) would have taken this a step farther and claimed that what other people had did not even qualify for the label "Culture." While some were busy building military and economic empires, those with more noble motives would follow behind--missionaries and teachers, mostly--attempting to bring Culture ("enlightenment," "civilization," "progress," there were many code words for it) to the natives" (another code word synonymous with "savages"). This was the justification for Imperialism--"Culture" had to be imposed on the "Uncivilized" for their own good and the good of the world. The British culture that was exported around the world was backed up by the powerful military, it is true. But the pressures on the "natives" to adopt the culture were more varied and subtle--for example, access to education and religion were often based upon the their willingness to dress in certain ways, learn a certain language, adopt a certain religion, and so on, all of which implied giving up corresponding elements of their own culture. LDS APPLICATION: The early missionary efforts of the church to non-white peoples shared many of the same assumptions as their non-Mormon counterparts--i.e., that they were bringing "culture" and "enlightenment" to people who lived in varying degrees of "darkness." While in strict terms Imperialists probably did not care much for the natives beyond how much cheap labor they could get out of them, missionaries went out in hopes of saving souls. One hopes that this implies a somewhat more humane and enlightened attitude towards those people. But there was no question which culture was superior, and if it seemed a little uncomfortable at first to impose that culture on the natives, well, it was for their own good in the long run. I found many fascinating references to this ideology in my research in late 19th-century Mormon periodicals, which would publish letters from missionaries (or, more often, the wives of missionaries) who were laboring in exotic places. Mormons certainly participated in the discourse of imperialism that was so prevalent at the time, and, as others have pointed out, echoes of that discourse remain to this day. I don't doubt that we've come a long way in the last century, so I'm not suggesting that we still consciously practice the kind of cultural imperialism I've been describing. However, the issue is complicated because of our claim to be introducing people to the Truth. Therefore, if we are asking them to give up parts of their culture, it is because those things are not True. Thus, giving them up becomes a measure of the person's willingness to accept the gospel and put his or her life in harmony with God's will. The question is, how far does this extend? We can make those who feel thoroughly converted to the gospel feel that they are not acceptable unless they also embrace the culture. To me, this is cultural imperialism. EXAMPLES: Watching a documentary about President Hinckley's trip to Africa back in '97 or so, I was struck by the sight of all those hundreds of wonderful saints, and all the men in white shirts and ties. I wondered whether that would have been "normal" attire for them (honestly, I wondered because I don't know), or whether this was something they had been taught was necessary in order to be worthy priesthood holders. (And is it?) I also recalled stories I had heard about the church in Hawa'ii and the Pacific Islands--as one former missionary I heard put it, the people there are so "immodest" it was always a battle to get them to dress "properly." What about cultures in which tatooing or piercing are part of their heritage, not a form of rebellion? How does this reconcile with all the recent furor over the subject from America? A fellow student in one of my classes at BYU described how in the Central American country where he served his mission, the church went to great expense to build a nice stake center, complete with lighted, outdoor basketball courts. The kids promptly tore them down and refashioned them into a soccer field. And so on. LITERARY CONNECTION: I would like to see more dialogue between American Mormons and "Other" Mormons. I would love to read the stories of people who have come into the church and struggled to find their place in the new and strange world it represents. Our discussions of LDS literature tend to be American-centered, if not Utah/Wasatch-front-centered (this is a whole other discussion about the implied geography of the church, with issues of "centers" and "peripheries" and who is "here" and who is "there"). I wonder if what we debate and write about in the name of Mormon literature would resonate with our brothers and sisters in Africa or Bolivia or Japan or Samoa? What's going on (literally and imaginatively) in the church "out there"? I'd like to hear about it from sources other than the Ensign. Could we make way for a multi-cultural Mormon literature? How could this happen? Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 15:09:03 -0800 On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:41:04 -0700 Jacob Proffitt writes: > A course that purports to be "American Literature Since the > 1960s" that is weighted 80% African-American doesn't pass > the smell-test to me. For one, African-Americans represent > less than 30% of the U.S. population. For another, they > represent even less of the *writing* population. I find it > unlikely that one race is so gifted that they constitute such > a skewed ratio of good writers. I suppose it depends on how you define the phrase "AmLit Since the 60s." I could teach such a course by concentrating on Mormon writers and Mormon-related writers, say, Virginia Sorensen, Wallace Stegner, Bernard DeVoto, May Swenson, Eldridge Cleaver, Samuel W. Taylor, Emma Lou Thayne, Michael Fillerup, Orson Scott Card, Linda Sillitoe, Eugene England, Marden Clark, Dennis Clark, Leslie Norris (I think he and Kitty were naturalized a few years ago), Margaret Young, Robert A. Christmas, Lance Larsen, Susan Elizabeth Howe, Richard Scowcroft, Phyllis Barber, Tim Slover, Bela Petsco, Doug Thayer, Levi Peterson, Dean Hughes, Bruce Jorgensen, Wayne Carver, and a bunch of others. Of course that list leaves out dozens of fine writers, and if your goal in a period class is to represent the most significant writers of the period it won't do. No one semester class can do that adequately--you just get a good taste, but together the group represents the broad spectrum of American literary writing in the last 40 years, represents the movements and spirit of the period. And many in the group have written cogently about the literature of that period, and worked with many of the famous writers of the period--especially Bruce Jorgensen. > If you don't partake of the very best that literature has to > offer, then your experience will be severely limited. I wouldn't > have gained near as much as I did from my English degree if > I hadn't had a class on Shakespeare, for example. Ditto John > Donne and T.S. Elliot. I took a modern poetry class from Leslie Norris reading people like Vernon Watkins, Willa and Edwin Muir, Dylan Thomas, Danny Abse, John Ormond and Ted Hughes and ignoring T.S. Eliot, Ezra Lb., and a bunch of others. Leslie explained on the last day or so of class that what he had been doing was exploring an alternate tradition in 20th Century English-language poetry, essentially tracing his line of descent as a poet. I read Eliot and Lb. and others in other classes and on my own, and I'm glad I had someone with Leslie's knowledge to introduce me to a whole tradition I would otherwise not know. If he hadn't introduced me to Abse I might never have found Abse's wonderful, horrifying, tragic poem "In the Theatre" about his father's experience with a steel probe trying to find a tumor in someone's brain. (Much different from my own experience with brain surgery.) And the class also gave me a name for a character when I needed it. I think it was while reading one of Vernon Watkins' or Glyn Jones' poems that Leslie said, "This is about the mari llwd." I forgot the explanation of the mari llwd, except that it means "gray mare" and involves witty banter, but the name stayed with me, and I knew I wanted to create a character with that name. In graduate school I wrote a story about a man trying to cope with a horrific divorce by playing elaborate word games. In one section he starts thinking about his high school girl friend, wishing he had married her instead. I needed a name for her, and the first one I chose just didn't work. About a year ago I realized her name is Mary Lloyd. I checked the Internet for some information about the mari llwd, and found that it does fit the character. The mari llwd is (mostly was) a horse's skull mounted on a stick, jawbone on another stick. One Welsh new year's custom included taking the mari llwd from house to house, clacking the teeth and jaws together as a challenge to trade witticisms (hoping to win a drink or two). Mary isn't a dead horse, but she fascinated by banter and by exotic customs. > I'll always treasure my experience with Leslie Silko, but > don't tell me that she is all there is to American Lit. You could also represent the last 40 years of AmLit through American Indian writing, people like N. Scott Momaday, Louise Erdrich. Barry Lopez, Sherman Alexi, Louis Owens, Martin Cruz Smith, Leslie Marmon Silko, and a whole bunch of others. I suspect Louis Owens' _Mixed Blood Messages_ would make a fine textbook. I need to find a copy somewhere. I haven't read it, but was quite interested at the 1999 RMMLA in Santa Fe to hear that Owens scolds Sherman Alexi for his nihilism. I imagine that the book would reveal among Native American writers every tension and thread that we see in the larger national literature, and while it wouldn't give us the whole range of literary voices any more than my Mormon example above, or Leslie Norris's poetry course, it would give the range of literary themes and influences and cultural tensions you would find in any well-wrought period class. Louis Owens plays around with literature class agendas in _Bone Game_, which is about a literature teacher, and several scenes take place inside the classroom. The novel is Shaxbeardean in the sense that the universe has been thrown out of its moorings (deer committing suicide by leaping in front of cars--reminiscent of the passage in MacBeth about the horses eating each other after Duncan's murder) by a horrific series of dismemberment killings. Speaking of Shaxbeard, what does the chiropractor who's feeling trapped in his profession say? "The spine's out of joint, and cursed be the spite that ever I was born to set it right." Which is exactly how Cole McCurtain feels--he has to set things right. There's some wickedly funny satire in the book, as when a deer throws itself in front of a junior faculty member's car and he hangs the deer in a tree and starts gutting it and the campus police come to arrest him and he pretends he's conducting a ritual. The administration sends for Cole, thinking he'll know how to handle another Indian. He talks briefly with the guy, then tells the others that he's performing a sacred ceremony and "he's bonded with his meat," but he'll agree to donate the meat to a homeless shelter. In another scene, Cole or his colleague proposes a grant to study middle class American culture the way white cultures study indiginous peoples. The scene highlights a theme of the book, that studying a culture or a culture's myth is not the same as living or understanding the myth. It's clear early in the book that the killer is a man who wants to live a mythic life and is trying to recover the mythic meaning of life through ritual violence, but he doesn't understand the rituals he's trying to imitate. Owens makes this lack of understanding clear when the murderer says to one of his victims, "If just one person would let herself be sacrificed willingly everything would be ok." (paraphrase, I got the book a year ago from inter-library loan through the bookmobile--I wish the PG Lib would do ILL.) Owens has shown us by this point that he and Cole are both aware that one person did willingly give his life to set things straight. (Stunning insight in a book where the spirit of Evil is represented by centuries dead Catholic priest who was killed by the Indians after long enacting his lusts and violence on their women.) I found the moment where the Shaman invokes the name of Jesus in his sweat lodge sermon deeply moving, and mentioned it in testimony meeting--January, I think. > A college professor teaches the same course over and over > and becomes *very* familiar with the course curriculum > over time. To them, an exploration of alternative literature may > be very interesting and intriguing. But doing so neglects the > fact that for many of their students, this is the only opportunity > they will have Do you mean _have_ or _take_? Big difference between those words in both implication and implied responsibility. One thing a good lit class should do is to send you into the stacks to look for other writings from the period. I couldn't afford most of the textbooks we used, and my father didn't have them all, so I got good at finding the works in the library--learned a lot, too. > to study and discuss those authors/works that are so old-hat > and thus easily dismissed by the professionals. It's not a matter of easily dismissing a writer. I asked my father one time why he had dropped a particular story and he said that after teaching something for a few years it gets stale. I don't see any problems with picking unfamiliar work to represent a period or movement, as long as your students know that this isn't all that's available. Harlow S. Clark (who is working on a review of Louis Owens' _The Sharpest Sight_, and _Bone Game_, has been since 1998) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] A Third Phase (Get Together) Date: 21 Feb 2002 10:54:39 -0700 I PROMISE to get to this. We've got a trip to Atlanta this weekend and will certainly have an opportunity to figure out a date to suggest. I'll post it Monday. Nan McCulloch wrote: > Atten: Margaret Young and List members. D.Michael Martindale and I both = > volunteered to host, at our homes, the get-together Margaret suggested. = > I am open most nights and I will supply the refreshments. Why don't you = > choose the location that would be the most convenient for the people = > that will be attending. > > Nan McCulloch > Draper =20 > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: [AML] Rob LAUER, _Digger_ (was: Joseph Smith As a Character) Date: 20 Feb 2002 19:17:55 -0500 Concerning my 1981 play DIGGER, Lynette Jones wrote: > >I've also read Digger three times and am ready to answer the question why >I think there are things that could have been done differently. However, I >must say here, Rob, that I think Digger is well written and full of good >insight. I would not replace it. I would keep it as it is and write a new >piece. Digger is a strong statement of all that Mormon culture was >struggling with in the 1980's. It is time to leave those issues and dig a >little deeper to the simpler one's that resonate through the ages. > >I've written six pages of thoughts, but I think I do better when I am asked >questions. Lynette, I re-read DIGGER just last week for the first time since SUNSTONE published it in 1988. (And at that point I hadn't looked at the script since December 1982.) I've always thought that the story structure has major problems--and I would like to make some changes at sometime. There are also glaring anachronism--all inspired by my youthful (and stupid!) enthusiasm for "Gender Feminism." These elements just have to go! I did not start out to write about gender roles. My original objective was to write about a young man who has a secret--God spoken directly to him. He is afraid to tell anyone of it. At times the knowledge he has gained slips out in conversations (like those he has with Emma); but for the most part, he hides this from people unless he absolutely trusts them. The problem is given his background of poverty and ignorance, he doesn't easily trust people. Another problem for him is guilt: his youthful occupation--that of being a "money digger"--is completely out of line with what he know thinks God expects of him, but he is so entrenched in a culture that embraces folk-magic, that he is unable to make a clean break. One thing that I wanted to explore in the play was the idea of a unique American concept of God; a concept radically different from that of European Christianity--a God who did not condemn "self-interest", but inspired people to "work out their own salvation" and strive for exaltation. (Of course, when I wrote DIGGER I considered myself a Democratic Socialist, so my views on these ideas were conflicted to say the least.) I also wanted to somehow convey the idea of "Manifest Destiny"--not necessarily of the American nation, but of individual Americans (here represented by Joseph and Emma.) This is the feeling, the hope that one's life is important in the Divine scheme of things; that one's actions somehow have a cosmic significance. To my thinking, such a feeling, such an attitude is held by most religious people--especially those who, like Joseph, found new faiths. And finally, I wanted to somehow explore the very Mormon concept of male and female having to be united in order for either to progress onward in whatever calling the Lord has extended to them. (This was an important concept in some strands of folk-magic found in certain segments of Colonial American society--and I wanted to show a connection between this folk-magic view of the sexes and Mormon doctrine.) Since DIGGER was the first play I ever wrote (I was 19 when I wrote the first draft), I do not think I lacked at that time many things that would have made for a much better play: I lacked emotional maturity and honesty; I had not come to terms with my personal feelings on Mormon doctrine and traditional Christian doctrine; I was simply ignorant of the craft of writing from the stage. And yet somehow when the play was produced in December 1982 at BYU by director John Clark (and when several other students produced various scenes for Masque Club at the Y), the over-all effect was extremely powerful--if I do say so myself. I came away from the experience knowing that I had latched on to "something" about Joseph Smith; I just hadn't done enough with it, hadn't "figured it out yet." If I were to write DIGGER today (and I do plan on a rewrite at some time) I know the resulting play would be very different--although the over-all tone would be the same. What prompted me to dig out a script a read it last week was that I had logged on to the AML website and noticed that I was now listed under the list of LDS writers. I clicked on to my name and up popped a very well-written review of DIGGER. I take it that the critic's only exposure to the play was its published form in SUNSTONE 1988. I thought he made some excellent comments on the play's weaknesses--all with which I totally agree. There were something's that I assume he saw as weakness in my depiction of Joseph: he thought Joseph seemed sincere at times, deceptive at others, cruel to his fellow "money diggers." In reading this I knew that I had somehow captured something true about the historical Joseph Smith; people who knew him were divided about him as a person. Some loved him and thought the most righteous man living at the time. Others thought he was a fraud and evil. Often times these two extremes came to their conclusions based on THE VERY SAME EVIDENCE. To me this means the historical Joseph Smith was the type of man that inspires writers to create King Lears, Macbeths amd Hamlets. Lynette, I would really love to hear your thoughts, critiques and suggestions regarding DIGGER. What are its major weakness in plot; in the character of Joseph and others? ANY insights you'd like to share would be greatly appreciated. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 20 Feb 2002 17:17:02 -0700 A few thoughts on this interesting thread. First off let me add the caveat that I was a science major, not a lit or English major. So take that bias for what you will. I think I'd also better point out my other bias that literary criticism is as valid and valuable work of literature as the literature criticized. I think some of my favorite reading has been structuralist or post-structuralist criticisms of Shakespeare, Joyce, or Kafka. Sometimes (as with Joyce) the criticism is even more enjoyable than the text they criticize. For instance I've never read Lady Chatterly's Lover nor Fanny Hill, but one of my favorite structuralist essays I've read was a feminist critique of those books. Likewise I relish reading some of Derrida's more literary works, even if sometimes the underlying text is rather obscured by his close readings. Having said all that though, I do think that there is a bias towards heavy, close readings that attempt to bring out what is obscure in a text. I fear that tendency goes back to the psycho-analytic movement that could find the hidden intents and drives of a person. That was quickly adopted in literature with Freudian and Jungian readings of texts. Cultural critiques of texts really are just an other sort of meta-reading of what is hidden in a text. (i.e. cultural assumptions and so forth) While I'm not opposed to such things, I think they are for a second or third close reading of a text and not the primary one. Before you move on to such things one ought to at least get down the author's primary intents and the primary context. That might include some cultural issues (such as the issue of views of African Americans in Mark Twain's America) In general though I think far too many skip this foundation and move on to the interesting stuff. This is their loss since such close readings often end up going widely astray unless one first masters the text as presented. My personal feeling regarding literary criticism is that if you are attempting to teach a school of analysis one ought to analyze texts that students are already familiar with. Thus if you are teaching feminist readings of texts, analyze a commonly read text and show things that the student might never have seen. Feminist readings of _The Taming of the Shrew_, for instance, are always interesting and often quite apt. Tying all this into Mormonism, I think that one thing that all these various schools of criticism do give us are many interesting ways of reading LDS scripture. While we have a bias towards "proof text" styled readings of scripture, the scriptures are far deeper than that. Nibley's rather interesting "mythic" or "ritualistic" readings of scripture are always interesting, although sometimes difficult to wade through for the uninitiated. FARMS has become rather adept at close structuralist critiques of scripture, especially in terms of poetic structure. However there really are many other forms of criticism that can be applied to the scriptures. One very interesting form I've seen touched on is cultural imperialism in the Book of Mormon. Since the text is written by a rather small group with obvious imperialist tendencies, the portrayal of the Lamanites is always VERY interesting. Where this becomes most interesting is when the structures the authors attempt to place the Lamanites into are undercut by the narrative presentation. (Nibley has touched on this several times) For instance the Lamanites are usually the "bad guys" whereas often the Nephites are actually shown to be far worse than the Lamanites. Lamanites are also frequently left out of the story. (Remember Christ had to tell the Nephites to even mention Samuel the Lamanite) This tendency in the Book of Mormon often parallels the presentation of other races in European stories. (Same with women) I think there is quite a bit more work that could be done here. An other issue for Mormons in literary criticism is the very ethics of the criticism applied. Often this gets raised relative to feminist criticism - especially at BYU. (Sometimes unfairly, I might add) However even the culturalist readings can raise issues. If, for instance, the constitution and America is inspired, to what degree can we really accept readings that assume cultural relativism? Given that there is a strong relativist tendency in literature, does Mormonism's pronouncement of some absolutes lead to an intrinsic conflict? (I should add that despite the relativist tendency in literary criticism, there are strong absolutist stances in practice - yet those stances often conflict with Mormonism) One final thought that I think gets missed in the discussion of literary criticism in the classroom. Learning a form of literary criticism doesn't mean we have to accept it or its premises. One can't help but wish that conservative students at BYU learning feminist criticism could see it as a chance to learn the tactics of their cultural foes. Instead far too many react to even learning things they disagree with. (One could make the same case for many other topics, such as learning about Marxism) My own view is that it is a sign of maturity to be able to understand the basis for views you disagree with. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 21 Feb 2002 11:15:17 -0700 At 09:18 AM 2/21/02, you wrote: >LITERARY CONNECTION: I would like to see more dialogue between American >Mormons and "Other" Mormons. I would love to read the stories of people who >have come into the church and struggled to find their place in the new and >strange world it represents. Our discussions of LDS literature tend to be >American-centered, if not Utah/Wasatch-front-centered (this is a whole other >discussion about the implied geography of the church, with issues of >"centers" and "peripheries" and who is "here" and who is "there"). I wrote a couple of essays about this subject when I came to Utah in 1975. I'd been a convert to the Church for five years, but had lived out in the "mission field" for all that time. When I came here, I discovered that a good LDS woman was expected to (please forgive the subjective terms I am going to use, because they reflect my reaction at the time) make a career out of being an unpaid domestic slave to her family, cook from scratch because that was superior to convenient, less time-consuming food, allow her husband to tell her what she could and could not do, make her family's clothes, and otherwise go back in time several decades. The culture shock was disorienting. When I attended church, however, the feeling was what I was accustomed to in my ward back in Virginia. fortunately, my testimony was strong enough not to let the Wasatch Front culture disillusion me -- but then this was minor culture shock compared to what people in other countries must experience. You usually grow up assuming that your own ways are the right ways, but intelligent people should be capable of overcoming that. I've been corresponding online with a young English Catholic, who has asked me many questions about my faith. But he still asks me such questions as, "Do you have niches for statues of the Holy Virgin? Do you have pictures of St. John in your meetingplaces? Do you recite anything besides the Lord's Prayer and the Nicene Creed? Do you have a lector and an acolyte?" To him, these things are so obviously a part of religion that he can't imagine their not being in place. That must be how Mormon missionaries come across when they try to impose culture along with religion. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source Date: 21 Feb 2002 12:43:31 -0600 Congratulations, Chris and all, on an excellent accomplishment _The Sugar Beet_. My wife read some of the articles, then commented that I have truly weird friends. How often will a new issue come out? Jonathan Langford jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] God's Handicapping System (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 21 Feb 2002 10:50:39 -0900 >===== Original Message From "Bill Willson" ===== >I think it could be possible that God assigns us to our earthly station, = >at birth, according to how valiant our spirit is. The more valiant the = >spirit, the more difficult >the starting position. I have read an interesting book on this subject. It's called The Soul's Code, written by James Hillman. He is kind of the founder of current archetypal psychology (and mentor to Thomas Moore, of Care of the Soul and Soul Mates fame). He argues that we are indeed born into this life as a result of something that happened in a pre-mortal life (he uses Platonic theory). But our place isn't dictated on our goodness or badness. We chose the kind of circmstance we wanted to come into, because it was the place, time and body that was best suited to draw out our particular qualities. I'm pretty sure most libraries have this book if you're interested. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Redeeming the Past (was: Agendas in Lit Classes) Date: 21 Feb 2002 10:32:27 -0700 Steve wrote: > Margaret, > > How do "we," as a culture, repent of the deeds of fathers generations ago? > Especially if we don't carry out those deeds or behave according to their > "traditions"? > > Or, what _need_ have we to repent of their long ago deeds if it's not part > of our personal cultural vocabulary? Steve--I think you pose a great question. For me, the answer is pretty clear in the Book of Mormon. The king of the Lamanites (during Ammon's mission) thanked God for "these our brethren" (words he certainly wouldn't have used before Ammon's willing service to him) who "preach unto us...of the traditions of our wicked fathers." It's a pretty sweeping indictment of the Lamanite fathers, and probably not fully fair, but at this point, the king recognizes that much blood has been spilt because of these traditions. He goes on to thank God for the softening of their hearts and for the way to repentence (Alma 24:7-10), and then thanks God for having "forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son." I wonder if the "we" here includes not only those who have recently shed blood, but who have precipitated the tradition of hatred which made the bloodshed inevitable. When the king talks about "stains"--either on the soul or on the sword--it seems to me a long-term thing. A stain STAYS unless something remarkable happens. It can stay through generations. The king and his people then take all their weapons (likely weapons which their forefathers built) and bury them as a testimony to God "that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man's blood" (vs. 18). In effect, they offer their very lives in an act that binds them in covenant to God and godly ways, but also "redeems the dead" because they are burying that legacy of war and hatred along with their weapons. I DO believe that "redeeming the dead" goes far beyond doing temple work for them. I believe it includes correcting any false traditions which have come to us through our ancestors. Thus we become transition figures in time to align our own progeny with truth. How do we accomplish this in terms of racism? (I think just about anyone my age received the wicked tradition of racism in one form or another, whether from parents, grandparents, teachers, or neighbors--and whether or not we accepted it.) It goes far beyond not repeating racist epithets. I believe that you, Steve Perry, are doing redemptive work in what you and your wife are doing in Kenya. I believe that we redeem the dead from the consequences of their traditions by standing up for the truth even if it's awkward--meaning we question the easy transmission of such ideas as skin color being an indication of a curse or of fence-sitting in the pre-existence, etc. (I'll confess that I do this quite a lot. I find so much material in my very outdated Institute manuel which contradicts the essential gospel that I have gone to my supervisor several times to complain. I've been told my "antennae are sensitized." That's true. I admit it and I'm not ashamed of it.) We actively seek out ways we can undo the vestiges of slavery (still very much with us) by helping in whatever charitable organizations we can. We teach the truth to our children, and let them see us interacting in a diverse world. Steve, you ask how we as a culture can repent of "the deeds of fathers generations ago--especially if we don't carry out those deeds or behave according to their 'traditions'?" My answer is that even if we're not "carrying out those deeds" we are still living in the world they gave us, and it is full of damaging folklore and poverty and inequality. It can be overwhelming to see how HUGE the challenge is, but if each of us is committed in our Judeo-Christian covenant to "mourn with those that mourn; comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and stand as witneses of God at all times and in all things and in all places" (Mosiah 18:9), our responsibility to our brothers and sisters currently living, and to our ancestors who understand now--even better than we--how precious our gifts are, and that they are meant to benefit ALL, then we cannot be complacent. It's not just a question of "What do you believe?" but "What are you doing with your beliefs?" And it's not just a question of who we are, but who our children will become and what will matter in their lives. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Subject: [AML] Re: Redeeming the Past Date: 21 Feb 2002 13:05:32 -0700 Margaret has been sending me more postings from AML. I've already responded to one about what's going on in the BYU English Department. Having read Margaret's latest on how to repent for sins of past generations, I wanted to add some quick thoughts of my own, drawing (like Margaret) from the Book of Mormon, but otherwise having a somewhat different perspective. Here are the verses I'm thinking of, which probably speak for themselves: Jacob 4:2-3: ... we can write a few words upon plates, which will give our children, and also our beloved brethren, a small degree of knowledge [i.e., we need to remember how little we really know] concerning us, or concerning their fathers-- Now in this thing we do rejoice; and we labor diligently to engraven these words upon plates, hoping that our beloved brethren and our children will receive them with thankful hearts, and look upon them that they may learn with joy and not with sorrow, neither with contempt, concerning their first parents. Mormon 9:30-31: Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words. Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. So yes, we need to face and learn from--and to the extent that we are implicated in them--repent of the evils and imperfections and distorted understandings of the past. But I believe we need to do so in the spirit suggested by these verses from the Book of Mormon. I've used these verses in introducing a class I teach on world literature, and I've added a few other comments: The past is in us and around us, genetically, culturally, spiritually, and in many other ways. I come to this course with the view that the past--including the people of the past and their thoughts and feelings--should be treated with respect and even with gratitude and humility. We can learn from our predecessors' mistakes and evils, but we should also be grateful for the goodness and wisdom we find in the past. I believe we can even come to love those who have gone before us as we learn of their strivings and sorrows and joys. Newton liked to say that, if he saw further than other men, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. I agree that, where we see better than our predecessors, it is largely because we have benefited from what they have taught us. But I also believe that those who lived before us sometimes saw better and further than we do--and even when they didn't, at least they saw _differently_. Trying to see through those different eyes can be wonderfully instructive and liberating, especially in freeing us (as C. S. Lewis liked to point out) from the blind spots and prejudices of our own time and culture. One of the best ways to see through the eyes of others is to read what they have written. In this course, we will read texts from various periods and cultures of the past, texts of various kinds--scripture, epic, drama, romance, philosophy, and autobiography, among others--but all of them dealing with important human issues and experiences, such as religion, love, family, war, and justice. Most of the material we read will be from the Western tradition, but we will also try to understand texts from other traditions. We will attend to the literary qualities of the texts, as well as to their philosophical, political, and religious implications. But most of all, we will attempt to receive them as the expression of other human beings. We will consider both the connections and the differences between ourselves and these other human beings, how they helped create the world we live in but also how their lives differ from ours. We will try to be open to the experience the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas says we always have when confronted by the Other (the other person, the person who speaks to us): our "being at home with ourselves" is put in question; we are called upon to listen and to respond; we are invited to engage in conversation. Most crucially, "The relation with the Other, or Conversation, is . . . an ethical relation"; and "inasmuch as it is welcomed this conversation is a teaching. Teaching . . . comes from the exterior and brings me more than I contain" (_Totality and Infinity_ 50-51). The texts we will be reading, and the discussions we will have in class, will offer us a remarkable opportunity to receive more than what we now possess, more than we can ever (in any ultimate sense) possess. As we respond to this opportunity, our orientation can change; we can be drawn toward others and inspired to serve and give. I believe that this course can help change us, and change us for the better. I hope that it does. (And ditto, I would add, for all our conversations.) Best wishes, Bruce Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 21 Feb 2002 13:45:55 -0700 ---Original Message From: harlowclark@juno.com > I suppose it depends on how you define the phrase "AmLit > Since the 60s." I could teach such a course by concentrating > on Mormon writers and Mormon-related writers, say, Virginia > Sorensen, Wallace Stegner, Bernard DeVoto, May Swenson, > Eldridge Cleaver, Samuel W. Taylor, Emma Lou Thayne, Michael > Fillerup, Orson Scott Card, Linda Sillitoe, Eugene England, > Marden Clark, Dennis Clark, Leslie Norris (I think he and > Kitty were naturalized a few years ago), Margaret Young, > Robert A. Christmas, Lance Larsen, Susan Elizabeth Howe, > Richard Scowcroft, Phyllis Barber, Tim Slover, Bela Petsco, > Doug Thayer, Levi Peterson, Dean Hughes, Bruce Jorgensen, > Wayne Carver, and a bunch of others. > > Of course that list leaves out dozens of fine writers, and if > your goal in a period class is to represent the most > significant writers of the period it won't do. No one > semester class can do that adequately--you just get a good > taste, but together the group represents the broad spectrum > of American literary writing in the last 40 years, represents > the movements and spirit of the period. And many in the group > have written cogently about the literature of that period, > and worked with many of the famous writers of the > period--especially Bruce Jorgensen. > I took a modern poetry class from Leslie Norris reading > people like Vernon Watkins, Willa and Edwin Muir, Dylan > Thomas, Danny Abse, John Ormond and Ted Hughes and ignoring > T.S. Eliot, Ezra Lb., and a bunch of others. Leslie explained > on the last day or so of class that what he had been doing > was exploring an alternate tradition in 20th Century > English-language poetry, essentially tracing his line of > descent as a poet. > > I read Eliot and Lb. and others in other classes and on my > own, and I'm glad I had someone with Leslie's knowledge to > introduce me to a whole tradition I would otherwise not know. > If he hadn't introduced me to Abse I might never have found > Abse's wonderful, horrifying, tragic poem "In the Theatre" > about his father's experience with a steel probe trying to > find a tumor in someone's brain. (Much different from my own > experience with brain surgery.) And the class also gave me a > name for a character when I needed it. I think it was while > reading one of Vernon Watkins' or Glyn Jones' poems that > Leslie said, "This is about the mari llwd." I forgot the > explanation of the mari llwd, except that it means "gray > mare" and involves witty banter, but the name stayed with me, > and I knew I wanted to create a character with that name. > You could also represent the last 40 years of AmLit through > American Indian writing, people like N. Scott Momaday, Louise > Erdrich. Barry Lopez, Sherman Alexi, Louis Owens, Martin Cruz > Smith, Leslie Marmon Silko, and a whole bunch of others. I > suspect Louis Owens' _Mixed Blood Messages_ would make a fine > textbook. I need to find a copy somewhere. I haven't read it, > but was quite interested at the 1999 RMMLA in Santa Fe to > hear that Owens scolds Sherman Alexi for his nihilism. I > imagine that the book would reveal among Native American > writers every tension and thread that we see in the larger > national literature, and while it wouldn't give us the whole > range of literary voices any more than my Mormon example > above, or Leslie Norris's poetry course, it would give the > range of literary themes and influences and cultural tensions > you would find in any well-wrought period class. I'm not entirely certain I understand what you are saying with the points above, Harlow. Do you mean that you can put together a representative literature class for a period and still have it concentrate on a specific sub-grouping of authors? Or is it more of a case of finding values and concerns that represent a period in any works from that period regardless of sub-grouping? Or do you mean that there is value in exploring sub-cultures of a period for the increased perspective it might give you? I think there are some good general points there. My concern (and what I was trying to express) is that I think that survey courses are valuable and should be required for an adequate English degree (as they were required when I received my English degree at BYU in '94). Further, survey courses should include the very best there is to offer in English literature for the topic of that survey course and should not be skewed to emphasize a particular sub-grouping. In the cases you brought up, it may be possible to teach a course on 20th Century American Lit. with all LDS authors (or American-Indian or African-American) by generalizing the specifics to encompass the particulars of the period. But doing so means that the students must rely entirely upon the experience conveyed by the professor to know what is general to the time and what is specific to the sub-culture. Such an emphasis puts even more power than usual in the professor and his/her "objective" pronouncements of the covered topic. The students would have to trust the professor to inform them which themes, influences, and cultural tensions are representative of the subject of the survey course. If the professor is at all politically agendized then you run a very real risk that the survey course can be subverted to the cause of a specific agenda at the expense of the intent of the survey. So to me, I would much prefer that survey courses concentrate on the best that survey subject has to offer and avoid the added complication of an arbitrary sub-grouping. There might be room to include one or two books from a specific sub-grouping and a resulting discussion/treatment of how that book compares to the other course offerings, but I would not want that to become the entire emphasis of the course. I think it is important for the *students*, and not just the professor, to have the perspective of familiarity with the best the survey topic has to offer. How interesting would it be to read *an* LDS (or American-Indian or African-American) novel in the context of 20th Century American Lit.? Very! But I think that only belongs in a survey course as a single intrusion and not as a pervasive emphasis. That isn't to say that the courses you describe aren't valuable. I *loved* my class on Victorian Women's Lit. It was one of the best classes I had. But it wasn't a survey course. And frankly, that class had a lot more meaning to me because I had already taken a survey that included Victorian literature in general. Similarly, I *loved* Richard Cracroft's LDS Lit. class. But again, my experience with American Lit. was an important backdrop for my participation in that class and added substantially to my ability to relate the LDS works with what was going on around those works. >From your description, I would have greatly enjoyed and benefited from Leslie Norris's poetry course. Frankly, I wish I had known that I liked writing poetry before I graduated (sadly, that discovery was not made until several years later). But I would not give up my experience with John Donne for his course no matter how valuable. You can probably learn as much as you need to know by strictly studying modern poets. But personally, I am forever grateful that I read (and discussed and analyzed) Donne and Eliot. By comparison, most modern poetry leaves me cold. But that is an uninformed perspective. I would very much prefer to have both poetry emphases available. My hope is that Donne and Eliot are *required* for a degree in English while courses like the one you describe by Leslie Norris are also *available*. It seems to me that a degree in English would be lacking if Donne and Eliot were missing. Maybe a degree in *poetry* (if such were offered) should require a Norris-like requirement (and a degree in English *could* include a Norris-like course) but I don't think that a degree in English is lacking for want of a Norris-like poetry course. > > A college professor teaches the same course over and over > > and becomes *very* familiar with the course curriculum > > over time. To them, an exploration of alternative literature may > > be very interesting and intriguing. But doing so neglects the > > fact that for many of their students, this is the only opportunity > > they will have > > Do you mean _have_ or _take_? Big difference between those > words in both implication and implied responsibility. One > thing a good lit class should do is to send you into the > stacks to look for other writings from the period. I couldn't > afford most of the textbooks we used, and my father didn't > have them all, so I got good at finding the works in the > library--learned a lot, too. > > > to study and discuss those authors/works that are so old-hat > > and thus easily dismissed by the professionals. I mean that for many, the courses that they take in college will be the only opportunity they will *have* to study and discuss those authors and works. Not just the only opportunity they will *take*. After graduating, many of us find ourselves in a position where serious discussion of specific shared literary works is simply impossible. I am personally in such a position. My church, work, and family obligations preclude my participation in a class-like environment with a literature emphasis. A college course draws interested people together who are normally very dispersed in the population. I don't know anybody in my sphere (church, work, or acquaintance) who shares my interests in literature. This despite my open advocation for literature (i.e. I am hardly stealthy in my interests). Further, there is a lack of qualified professor-level input to lead such exploration. I get *some* related value from participation in AML, but that is very different from the involvement of a college course. > It's not a matter of easily dismissing a writer. I asked my > father one time why he had dropped a particular story and he > said that after teaching something for a few years it gets > stale. I don't see any problems with picking unfamiliar work > to represent a period or movement, as long as your students > know that this isn't all that's available. I agree that substituting some works for others is probably valuable. But I would not want to have those substitutions ideologically driven (or at the very least, I would want the criteria for selection to be explicit and I would want quality and applicability to be the primary emphases). And I would want to make sure that substitutions are rare and put into a context that allows comparison with a broad, representative perspective. I think it would be very hard for professors to teach survey courses because of the lack of variety. But that lack of variety helps provide a solid foundation for students that will enrich and inform valuable courses later in a degree. For me, the lack of that solid foundation is a scandalous tragedy. And frankly, it's no different than the poor math professor teaching Calculus or the Economics professor teaching Econ. 101 or the Poli. Sci. professor teaching Statistics. You need that solid grounding for the later courses to have meaning and context. You need to have the tools to understand and appreciate further light and knowledge. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 21 Feb 2002 12:43:28 -0700 As someone who teaches English at BYU and has been involved in at least three curriculum revisions over the past 18 years, I have some information (and some opinions) that might be helpful to those who wonder what's going on with the English major at BYU: (1) The latest revision does require survey courses that give a sense of English and American literary history and also requires a Shakespeare course. (2) The previous curriculum (which was technically a transitional arrangement while we worked on a more permanent solution) did not require a Shakespeare course, except for English teaching majors. But it did require a major authors course, which could be filled with Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Milton (occasionally others) and was in practice almost always filled with a Shakespeare course. The biggest weakness of the transitional curriculum was the lack of a sense students had of literary history (unless they made sure on their own that they got it). Its strength was flexibility. It did not allow students to take only fluff or insignificant courses (I hope we don't teach many of those anyway), but did ensure that students had a broad range of kinds of courses, including some traditional British and American literature courses and a variety of courses in language, rhetoric, critical theory, and possibly folklore or ethnic and other "minority" literature courses. The current curriculum tries to correct the weaknesses of the previous one but keep some of its strengths. The previous curriculum was itself a response to some major problems in the curriculum that preceded it, included gigantic sections of literature survey courses that tried to pack in a "great author" or great work or two every week and ended up frustrating many students and teachers--while, for those who could handle the ride, giving a sense of the broad outlines of English and American literature. (3) I too love Shakespeare (my specialty). And in addition to Donne and T. S. Eliot (note the spellings), love many other writers who, in my opinion, are even better (than Donne and Eliot, not Shakespeare-- again, in my opinion): Edmund Spenser, George Herbert, John Milton, Samuel Johnson, Jane Austen, George Eliot, and others. I think English majors ought to know Shakespeare--and Chaucer and Milton-- before graduating. And they ought to know as many as possible of the other giants. But I think English majors also need to know something-- a bit at least--about women writers before Jane Austen and black writers and others from outside the mainstream. As they do so, they may now and again run into a work that is truly great, by any standard. And they should know some literary theory (we've been trying to improve how that acquaintance is made). And (personal opinion) I think English majors at BYU ought to know something of Mormon literature, from its beginnings to the present. The challenge is how to do all of this, and get a broad and balanced university education in other areas as well, and do all of it in four years. Or even five or six. Maybe some of the learning has to happen after the B.A. is earned. Like during graduate school. Or the rest of life. Bruce Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] Re: A Third Phase (Get Together) Date: 21 Feb 2002 12:48:55 -0800 (PST) Couldn't we somehow do this in conjunction with the Annual Meeting that's coming up? (A purely selfish suggestion since I will be in town then.) Maybe the night before, or as an alternate to--or attachment to--the readings in the evening? --- Nan McCulloch wrote: > Atten: Margaret Young and List members. D.Michael > Martindale and I both = > volunteered to host, at our homes, the get-together > Margaret suggested. = > I am open most nights and I will supply the > refreshments. Why don't you = > choose the location that would be the most > convenient for the people = > that will be attending. > > Nan McCulloch > Draper =20 > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of > Mormon literature > ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 8 Date: 20 Feb 2002 18:12:34 >44 The Singles Ward ~45,000 Kurt Hale >(writer/director) ~100,000 There is an error here. For the weekend of Feb. 8, "The Singles Ward" grossed $28,395 (according to Variety). The $45,000 figure was accurate for the weekend before ($43,149, actually). The $100,000 total amount is approximately accurate, due to additional money accrued during the week. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] A Third Phase (Get Together) Date: 21 Feb 2002 20:30:46 -0700 There is an evening session at the Annual Conference, hosted by Ann Edwards Cannon at her home, 75 "O" Street, 6:30 p.m. Hope everybody comes! Cheers! Marilyn Brown ----- Original Message ----- > Couldn't we somehow do this in conjunction with the > Annual Meeting that's coming up? (A purely selfish > suggestion since I will be in town then.) Maybe the > night before, or as an alternate to--or attachment > to--the readings in the evening? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 01:06:24 -0700 [MOD: I sense the danger, here, of getting into the kind of purely political discussion that is really off-topic for AML-List. I appreciate Jacob's efforts both to clarify his own thoughts and to treat with respect the opinions to which he's responding, and to preserve the literary tie-in that makes this topic appropriate for AML-List to begin with. I'll be putting out a separate email message as moderator related to this thread; watch for it.] I am going to respond to a number of posts in this one email. I am sorry for the length. ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > Jacob and Rob indicated that they think that people just > take in culture if they like it which isn't true at all. I indicated nothing of the kind. I didn't say that Cultural Imperialism didn't exist. I said that Imperialism requires force and that I don't understand when I am labeled Imperialist when I employ no force. I personally brought up the British Empire as an example of an Empire. What I specifically said is that I don't see how a culture can qualify as Imperialist if it doesn't employ force and I asked how Mormonism could therefore be considered Imperialistic. > 1. The BIA Indian schools forced language and education on > Native Americans in this country, made them cut their hair > and beat them when they didn't speak English. > > 2. England forced Ireland to abandon Gaelic and then imposed > the Protestant faith upon them. We're still watching that > conflict as well as the Native American one. > > 3. The simple fact that anyone in India speak English is also > witness that people don't always choose this stuff--it is > sometimes (often) foisted upon them. > > 4. Islam has a history of forcing that faith on the tribal > people of Africa. I don't know what you want to point out with these four examples. They are all adequately described as Imperialist. My question is how can you describe Mormons as Cultural Imperialists when we aren't like any of these examples? How is the term applicable in the way it is being used? > 5. Even in small town America, the values of the big cities > and their culture is being foisted upon people because it's > all that is available through media channels. > > 6. Coca-Cola is the largest private employer in Africa. How is this Imperialism? Coca-Cola isn't holding a gun to people's heads forcing them to work there. Coca-Cola offers jobs, people accept them. Coca-Cola tries very hard to sell its products, but all the marketing in the world, all the media in the world, are unable to force a person to change their culture. I am personally a willing participant in the culture surrounding me, but that doesn't mean I am a pawn of that culture. Nor does it mean that I accept all aspects of it. I accept those aspects that I find valuable and worth adoption. Absent some form of compulsion, I assume that others do the same. > It is common for the Imperialist to not see that these people > aren't necessarily choosing. What you need to do is read the > literature of the oppressed people to see what's really going > on. That's why lots of professors are assigning this stuff, > so that the sheltered (sheltered by the canon) people will > see what's going on for real. No offense to you personally, Todd, but I'm getting *really* tired of people telling me that I don't know what I'm doing--that I can't see the effect I have on others. I got enough of that from Jehovah's Witnesses who tried to tell me what I really believed. If I'm a Cultural Imperialist, tell me how that is so. I sincerely want to know what you mean by that term that I am missing. What aspect of that term do I, as a Mormon, or as a person, or as a conservative, or as a free-market capitalist, deserve? How am I forcing people to adopt my culture such that I earn the epithet of Imperialist. I am not going to accept that I just can't see how I am an Imperialist because Imperialists are blind to their Imperialism. That's simply a tautology. I try *very* hard to protect the dignity of others and to extend the courtesy of self-determination that I expect to enjoy myself. I'm vocal about my beliefs. I exercise as much discernment as I can in determining right from wrong. I *do* believe that some cultures are better than others (Aztec ritual sacrifice all by itself makes that culture worse than, say, whatever culture was prevalent in the City of Enoch), but I'm not prepared to say with finality that I know which cultures are better than which others (though I'll offer opinion if you wish). I *do* see that some cultures are being subsumed by my own, but I don't attribute that to Imperialism as much as I attribute that to people changing as they experience new ideas. That happens. I do that myself. I *hope* that cultures are changed to be better. Absent compulsion, I assume that at the very least, cultures change because they *think* they'll be better. > And yes, you do have to walk in other people's shoes. That's > what our Savior did in the atonement and to think that we can > get around that approach even in a mortal way is a big problem. Okay, you conflated this from the racism thread, but it does relate so I'll answer here. I have no problem trying to walk in others' shoes. I actively seek to understand the culture of others. That's a duty not only of Christ's admonition to love and understand others, but also the essence of the 13th article of faith to seek out that which is praiseworthy and good. It's an effort I make as often as possible. But I'm kind of tired of people telling me that I am racist because I haven't walked in *all* people's shoes. Or that just because I haven't changed my mind to agree with them I must not *really* have walked in someone else's shoes. It is a way of telling me that no effort is enough, that no point exists where I won't be considered a racist. What that does is puts me in the position where anybody who wants to can simply label me a racist and I am denied any adequate rebuttal. And, more insidiously, the accusation can be made without ever revealing criteria that might allow one to be considered non-racist. By never, ever, defining a realistic way to be non-racist, I am kept marginalized in issues concerning racism. No matter what effort I might expend, it will never be enough--the bar will simply move further away. One of the things I liked the best about Martin Luther King, Jr. is that he gave a goal, an end point. He had "a dream" that his "children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin." Cool. That's a goal I can get behind. It is something that I can strive for. It is something that I can achieve. > What Jacob and others are missing is the insight that people > do not always get to choose what kinds of cultural materials > they must accept, how they must learn, what language they > must speak, etc. Every empire brings its culture along with > it, some parts people end up wanting, others force themselves > in virally and never leave. Virally? What does that mean? Viral Imperialism? How can the force necessary to earn "Imperialist" be applied virally? Most people have choice over what they accept into their culture. For example, I live in the U.S. and I'm surrounded by messages that tell me that sex is great as long as you kind of like a person and they agree. I don't accept that cultural message. My choice. Absent force, I choose the cultural elements I wish to accept. I may dislike some of the culture that surrounds me, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. media is Imperialist just because that's essentially all they present for my consumption. > This is one of the things that riles people that we want to > marginalize: China, the Saudis, Afghanistanis, Indonesians, > North Korea, etc. They don't want Western Culture but it's a > package deal with economic growth, so they can't not get it. > They don't get a line item veto. Um. "We" want to marginalize? In the words of my uncle, you have a mouse in your pocket? *I* don't want to marginalize people in China, Korea, or anywhere else. They get all the vetoes they want, line-item or otherwise, as far as Western Culture is concerned. They don't *have* to adopt the methods we used to become prosperous. They can try to find another way. They *have* been trying other ways. History is essentially one big experiment of people trying to find ways to be economically prosperous (usually by being bigger and badder than their neighbor, which is actually quite successful on an individual level as long as you are willing to accept certain trade-offs--like paranoia, economic stultification, threatened pay-backs, and going to hell :). Certainly, if they want our success, then one sure way to achieve it is to do what we did. I doubt that the U.S. way is the only way. But the U.S. way is a known, demonstrated way to achieve economic growth and they make improvisations only by risking the intended destination. That said, the people objecting to Western Culture in those countries are mainly the governments who don't want their people to be able to choose an alternative. It isn't the Chinese person going into McDonalds who objects to fast food hamburgers--it's the tyrants who want to ensure that their people don't have the chance to choose McDonalds. The Cultural Imperialists in China aren't the Western companies coming in, it is the communist tyrants who want to keep their subjects ignorant and dependant. If anything, the Western companies have strong incentives to understand others and supply their true wants--as opposed to tyrannical political leaders who can do anything they want to because they have all the guns and the resolve to use them. An invitation or convenience is hardly equivalent to the image of a gun to the head that is evoked by the loaded term Imperialism. > Cultural Imperialism is best understood as that impulse that > makes developed nations think that it is their right and duty > to civilize the "noble savages" of the planet and raise them > up to our standards. Look at how corrupt and damaged our > families are and how damaged our land, air, and water is. Who > would want all that? The impulse to "civilize" the "savages" may be condescending, but it can hardly be termed Imperialism unless it includes force. At least, that is how I understand the term. Some people *do* go around forcing others to adopt their culture. The British Empire is, as I said before, an easy example of this. What I want to know is how we earn being lumped into that same category when we employ no force? Our water quality is better than almost any other nation in the world and improving still. Why should we not want to share how we did that? We are able to support more people on less farm acreage than others. We want to share with others how this was done. Being able to do what we did involves the rule of law, guaranteeing personal freedoms, and secular government. We aren't forcing people to adopt our culture, but those that do enjoy the same benefits we do. Some people accept parts of our culture and reject others. Some people reject our culture entirely. Which is just fine as long as they don't simultaneously want to enjoy the benefits of our culture. Cultural choices have consequences. I don't want the consequences of sleeping around so I reject that aspect of popular media culture. If exposure to our culture causes some people in China to want to adopt parts of our culture themselves, then how is that Imperialism? Some people will want to adopt parts of our culture that we don't like--like sexual immorality or fast-food or utilitarian evaluations of art. But that doesn't give us the right to force them to keep a culture they decided they'd like to abandon. > I know that lots of people still see America as the promised > land, but lots don't and those are the ones who are feeling > this Imperialism the most acutely. > > LDS people do this by saying that to be Mormon you must not > only be baptized but you must now wear white shirts and > listen to western hymns played on pianos. Anyone who watches > a church video must think that we all live in homes with > pastel color treatments, or that we all live in HOMES. That > image of the LDS identity is then held up as the ideal (and > this can be done implicitly or explicitly, but it is still > done), and then all these folks all over the world start > felling like they either don't measure up or that they need > to changes things so they will. > > There has been a certain amount of growth in this area, but > it hasn't hit street level in my opinion. I agree with you that teaching U.S. culture along with the discussions is inappropriate. I *hated* it when Elders in my mission in Germany would teach American values alongside the discussions. I had one District Leader who particularly offended me with his blatant Americanism. He knew that America was the Promised Land and the Germans would do well to emulate us in every way. He as much as told me that my problem was that I didn't teach my investigators enough of "church" culture--by which he meant the way we do things in America. Nothing we did in America was wrong and every comparison between German culture and American culture was accompanied by the assumption that the German was inferior. He thought it was a good idea for native missionaries to be paired with American missionaries because of the culture the *Americans* could teach the *Germans*! Bah. And I don't like the pastel church videos much better. They are particularly telling because they have such interesting in-grained assumptions--like that a family can be depicted as struggling financially when they have a family room separate from the dining room separate from the kitchen (oh, and a piano). Bring welfare assistance to a family in a one-family house? (as opposed to an apartment--even a family living in a duplex is considered very well off) The videos play poorly in Germany because the people look so affluent in a country that crams 40 times the number of people into the same square mileage we have here in Utah. So I don't like the careless conflation of American culture with "the church". But not because it is Imperialist. We don't *force* people to accept any of our customs. I object because our message is an eternal one and should not carry such unimportant trappings that have little eternal purpose. When I was a missionary, I actively avoided discussing America or comparing Germany to America. Not because America is inferior or because Germany is inferior or because I was incapable of making comparisons. I avoided it because my message was a gospel one and involved eternal truths and I didn't want that message polluted by cultural trappings that could only distract from the true message I was trying so hard to share. I don't consider my District Leader an Imperialist. He was just wrong. But even he could only invite. Which is why I re-iterate my original query--is there something more significant in the term Cultural Imperialism that I am missing? What is it that is meant by that term that makes it applicable to Mormon culture? Do you just mean that people abandon one culture for another? You could as easily term it Cultural Emigration. Do you mean that we are eager to explain our culture to others? You could as easily term it Cultural Proselytizing. Do you mean that we have a large culture that others wish to emulate? You could as easily term it Cultural Success. Why is it that we are described as Cultural Imperialists when we employ no force? To me, Imperialism is linked to ruling by force and seems inapplicable to the U.S. in general, and to Mormons in particular. ---Original Message From: John Williams > Angels, as we all know, sing > Handel and Mozart, not Chinese folk tunes. Why is that? That's a very good point and one that is certainly worth exploration. I wonder how many of us will hear the choirs of angels announcing the Second Coming and be surprised that it sounds like, say, an 80's hair band. There *should* be room in a heavenly choir for descant, harmony, a capella, syncopation, and power chords. > So, in a way, I think Todd is exactly right. We are guilty > at times of > Cultural Imperialism. We confuse the doctrine with the > culture where it > originated, and in this sense we attempt to force cultural > patterns on other > people. Of course, "force" is a strong word, I know, but to > say to someone > "look, you can either join the Only True and Living Church > and take the > culture that comes with it, or you can go to the telestial > kingdom," to say > that sounds a bit coercive to me. I think Todd's point is > that any work that > makes us stop and think about how our culture may overshadow > our message is > definitely a good thing. I agree that we should be careful not to package unnecessary cultural trappings into gospel lessons. However, I've never heard anybody say that you have to join the culture to stay a member. There are very few things that will get you kicked out of the church. None of those includes dissing the culture. Or disliking the hymns. If you don't want to sing along, don't. Nobody is going to apply enough force to justify the Imperialism moniker, IMO. If they do, their own membership stands in jeopardy (as, for example, the GA who was teaching that those who didn't support Indian relief funds weren't headed to the Celestial Kingdom). Can you really see a bishop calling a member in and telling them that if they don't like MoTab they'll be excommunicated? Enjoy basketball or get out and never come back? I have a hard time imagining such a thing even being implied by someone in authority. John, did you really mean to imply that as long as the message is good, any excess is justified in getting it across? I disagree very much with your statement that "any work that makes us stop and think about how our culture may overshadow our message is definitely a good thing." At the very least, I'd say that calling somebody a lying nazi scumbag is a bad thing (and possibly libelous) regardless of any introspection it might prompt. I think there would be more advantage to accurate and careful communication than in hyperbole. Being accused of Cultural Imperialism wouldn't encourage me at all to examine my beliefs in any way if I weren't making extra effort to understand what you (and Todd) mean. My natural tendency is to simply dismiss such an accusation as unfounded hate. How (I ask myself) am I an Imperialist when I have no power over others? It isn't possible even if I wished it. That's why I want to understand what prompts the accusation. What am I (or my culture) doing that would prompt such strong censure? ---Original Message From: Lisa Tait > BRIEF SUMMARY: Cultural Imperialism is the assumption that > your culture is > superior to another and that your culture therefore should be > imposed on > others for their own good. I can almost agree with that definition, but I don't think that it is enough. I don't think you can be Imperialist with a belief or assumption. Imperialism is like Murder--it isn't enough just to think it. You can want to force others to do your will all day long--but until you *actually* force someone to do your will, you are only guilty of hubris. What you describe might be termed condescending, but I don't see how the mere desire earns "Imperialism". > LDS APPLICATION: The early missionary efforts of the church > to non-white > peoples shared many of the same assumptions as their non-Mormon > counterparts--i.e., that they were bringing "culture" and > "enlightenment" to > people who lived in varying degrees of "darkness." While in > strict terms > Imperialists probably did not care much for the natives > beyond how much > cheap labor they could get out of them, missionaries went out > in hopes of > saving souls. One hopes that this implies a somewhat more humane and > enlightened attitude towards those people. But there was no > question which > culture was superior, and if it seemed a little uncomfortable > at first to > impose that culture on the natives, well, it was for their > own good in the > long run. Again, I'd term that condescending. I don't like the confluence of culture with gospel, but that isn't Imperialism. It's just wrong. You might as well call it Cultural Homicide because of the desire to wipe out the other culture. > I also > recalled stories I had heard about the church in Hawa'ii and > the Pacific > Islands--as one former missionary I heard put it, the people > there are so > "immodest" it was always a battle to get them to dress "properly." This is a great story and very illustrative. My question is which part of this story did you object to and why? This takes us away from the original discussion of Cultural Imperialism because I don't think any part of this statement is Imperialist. Despite the word "battle", I imagine that the conflict was mainly one of using words trying to convince them that it was important to dress properly. Nothing Imperialist there unless they burned all the natives clothes, prevented them from making more, and left them with nothing but Knickers and neckties to wear. On the other hand, what do you do with the rest of it? On the one hand, there *is* a gospel principle that promotes "modesty". So there *is* a real problem here. Modesty is important (though subverted to many other important principles like preserving life etc.) so teaching the island natives who wished to be members to be modest is a good thing. So one aspect of their culture is out of line with the gospel and should be changed (IMO). But then you have the phrase "dress properly". This *could* indicate that the author is inserting his/her own cultural norm. This isn't a given, really, because "dress properly" can very well be synonymous with "modesty" if you assume an innocent reading, but let's assume it is as harsh as it can be. The problem would be if the missionary decided to teach that "dressing properly" meant corsets and neckties. That would be very regrettable and condescending. We *do* see some of these strains in our culture as we attempt to impart important gospel principles and get tangled in our own culture. I think stories that explore this split would be *very* interesting and educational. I would love to read something that tried to show how important principles can fall foul of unacknowledged cultural assumptions. I don't think that much has been done with this, at least that I am aware of. Okay. To sum up this truly long post. I think that Lisa has a *great* illustration of our misunderstanding. I don't like being labeled an Imperialist with what I perceive as inadequate justification. I'm not forcing anybody to do what I say and I resent being lumped in with tyrants and despots so casually. I am willing to entertain the possibility that I am missing something important to understand so I am asking for clarification. On the other hand, I suspect that what is really at issue here is this problem illustrated by the difference between "modesty" and "dressing properly". The terms look close enough that I can see how honest, caring people could confuse the two and hurt people in ways they never intended. Important gospel principles like modesty, showing respect, and priesthood authority can get mixed up in cultural trappings that don't necessarily have bearing on the actual principle being taught. On the one hand, you can have a culture that is definitely wrong (running around nekkid is wrong--that isn't cultural, that's a principle that has been taught since the knowledge of Good and Evil was unleashed though how much nekkid is too much nekkid is open to discussion). The problem comes when you impose the solution from your own cultural heritage instead of explaining the problem and encouraging people to not only understand, but to find a solution that fits them and that will make them comfortable (as much as possible--some principles just aren't terribly comfortable, really). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Cultural Imperialism (Mod Message) Date: 22 Feb 2002 12:36:18 -0600 Folks, I'm going to take the slightly unusual step of giving my own analysis of a particular thread, and doing it over my name as moderator, for reasons that I hope will become obvious below. As I commented in my note within Jacob's post, I sense the danger, here, of getting into the kind of purely political discussion that is really off-topic for AML-List. And yet at the same time, I think this is an important topic for us to discuss, because of the many ways it interacts with Mormon literature and general literary culture. I'd like to share some observations and lay out a few general suggestions for the discussion. * First, it seems clear that there's a great deal of disagreement about whether the "imperialism" part of the phrase "cultural imperialism" is really appropriate. This is a question of definitions, and so at some level ultimately unresolvable. I think Todd, Lisa, and others have done a pretty good job of describing how the phrase "cultural imperialism" is generally used, as a quasi-technical term within cultural studies, including culturally-based literary studies. I think Jacob, in particular among those whose posts I have forwarded to the list, has done a good job of explaining why, given the generally understood meaning of the term "imperialism," such a phrase is easily seen as an unjustified accusation on the part of those who do not use the term in this way. It's a loaded term--and to some degree intended to be such, I think: meant to be shocking. And it seems to bring with it a lot of assumptions about the value of specific elements of Western culture, and that culture as a whole, with which thoughtful people can (and often do) disagree. Moving forward on this particular point, I think it's appropriate for people to share their understanding of what cultural imperialism means--including making new posts if they don't feel that their understanding has been adequately represented. On the other hand, I don't think it's useful to argue further over whether particular uses of the term are justified or not. Note the distinction I make between sharing one's understanding and arguing over definitions. The first, I think, has the potential for getting us further in the conversation; the second, in my view, is likely to lead simply to people talking past each other. * Clearly there are many different types of cultural influence, ranging from the bottle out of the sky in _The Gods Must Be Crazy_ to forcing people at gunpoint to speak a language not their own. I think it's harmful for our conversation here to conflate these by using the same terminology for them, or implying that one is on the same level as another. It's perfectly appropriate, on the other hand, to take examples of cultural practices that may seem relatively innocent and demonstrate how they may involve coercion at levels we don't typically see. And it's likewise appropriate to disagree with such analyses and explain the reasons for your disagreement, although at some point I'm likely to cut off the discussion if it seems purely political, with no connection to literature. (See below.) * There's clearly a great deal of difference among AML-List members about the degree to which economic influence can be considered coercive. Aside from acknowledging that these differences exist, my ruling as moderator is that we simply won't go there, in terms of arguing whether one point of view is justified or not. This seems to me to be a purely political and ideological difference; aside from understanding how other people see the world, I see no value in debating the point on AML-List. * I see the need for mutual respect among all sides of this conversation. This means (among other things) being *very* careful in use of labels, and in the terms we use to disagree with one another. Dismissive statements, language that suggests "This is the way things are," and appeals to authority (whether religious or academic) are all unhelpful in this regard. Similarly, point-by-point refutations of other List members' posts, I find, come across as inherently more confrontational in style than discursive statements. (This does not mean that they are always out of place, only that this is a rhetorical choice that I find has particular consequences.) Overall, it's not appropriate in a conversation of this kind on AML-List to try to tell someone else why he/she is wrong; rather, what's appropriate is to share your own reasons for thinking the way you do, including *respectful* comparison and contrast with the expressed views of other people. But no calls to repentance, please, either spiritual or intellectual (unless it's the time-honored practice of calling oneself to repentance...) ===================== So, why do I think this topic is appropriate for AML-List at all, and what are the literary connections I think we can and should be making? I'll try to list a few briefly here--inviting others to make their own connections, jumping off from and/or disagreeing with what I'm saying. * First, the thread of academic discussion that uses terms like cultural imperialism is an important one, with great influence in a wide range of fields. To know what's going on intellectually at universities and elsewhere in our culture, we need to know something about this. * In particular, this is one of the most influential threads in how literature is currently being analyzed and taught. Opinions may differ with regard to the legitimacy of this approach; personally, I think it has a lot to offer, but is not the only way to approach literature. But in any event, it's important to understand it, and to treat with respect (at least on AML-List) those who choose to apply such analyses in their reading. * Given the various institutional and cultural issues related to Mormonism and racism, which we have so recently discussed on AML-List, this entire set of issues has apparent relevance to understanding ourselves as a people. Even if you disagree with the term "cultural imperialism" and its inherent assumptions, the discussion provides opportunities for thoughtful self-consideration. Surely that's relevant to how we as Mormon artists and consumers of art choose to represent ourselves and respond to such representations? (I hate the phrase "consumers of art," by the way; it sounds so passive. Alternatives, anyone?) * We are, as many have pointed out, an aggressively missionary church. Some people find missionary sharing inherently imperialistic. Where do we draw the line between truth and cultural practices? Again, a fruitful topic for literature. * Finally, if nothing else, this variety of opinions provides a fascinating window into some of the ways that many different members of the Church look at the universe. Can you imagine Todd and Jacob (related by marriage, say) at a family reunion? I can almost see the scene writing itself... (Apologies to both Todd and Jacob for singling you out this way, by the way; I do this simply to provide an example, and out of respect for how well you've represented your own different viewpoints.) So as moderator, to some degree I'm fine with discussions of these ideas in themselves, given their importance culturally and intellectually. But at some point--as early as possible, preferably--I'd like to see us talking in specific terms about how these ideas affect how we write and read literature. Thanks again to all for your patience and goodwill in our ongoing conversation. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 10:43:01 -0700 Jacob asked: Which is why I re-iterate my original query--is there something more significant in the term Cultural Imperialism that I am missing? Quite simply that Imperialism requires physcial force. There are all kinds of force that don't involve guns and fists. A man doesn't have to his his wife or children to abuse them. The same is true with Imperialism. The film EL NORTE discusses this magnificently. Said, to get back to the roots of this thing, explains this aspect of the imperial in both ORIENTALISM and CULTURE AND IMPERIALISM. I do damage to his arguments, really, by truncating them. Imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. Cultural Imperialism is extending one's culture, in addition to one's empire, over the colony. The problem is that cultures devour other cultures and American culture tends to be the big fish gobbling up all the others little ones. You can say this isn't damage unless it's your culture that is suddenly gone, your religion, your ceremonies, your language, your stories, your cuisine, your agricultural crops, your forms of government, your rites of passage, your local newspapers, your vernacular architecture, your clothes and cosutumes, your siestas (Terry Tempest Williams has a great discussion of how corporate America effective destroyed the tradition of the siesta in a section of Spain in her book LEAP). You get the idea. And just because you're not like this doesn't mean that Mormons in general aren't. I'd suggest reading Stanley Fish's BOUTIQUE MULTICULTURALISM and some Clifford Geertz and definately Krupat's ETHNOCRITICISM. Also if you talk to enough native american people, you'll find out that regular Americans aren't as popular in the States as we think we are. -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: [AML] re: Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 12:24:51 -0800 Just to clarify for Jacob and others: The "force" behind cultural imperialism does not have to be military or physical in nature. The threat (or self-righteous belief) that someone who does not accept certain cultural assumptions will not gain exaltation is about as imperialistic as it can get, IMO. (The term "cultural imperialism" is not original to our discussion, and my sense is that it is used pretty much in the same way we've been using it here, though there are others on the list more qualified to cite sources on this than I am.) We can go around and around debating exactly what qualifies as an "unexamined cultural assumption" and that would be interesting, but as Johnathan points out, not related to our topic. This is where there is a huge area of opportunity for LDS literature to serve as a dialogue WITHIN the church--both to examine those assumptions and to explore how they are played out in various settings. I don't think it would necessarily have to be fiction or drama, either. What forms might such a dialogue take? Oral history comes to mind immediately. Poetry, maybe, though maybe in different forms than we're used to. Am I asking new questions here, or just displaying my ignorance?Has this subject been discussed elsewhere (Dialogue maybe)? I'm sincerely asking what anyone knows. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynette Jones Subject: [AML] DeFonda Virtue Dowdle Collier Date: 22 Feb 2002 12:21:34 -0700 I would like to collect a list of the people on this list who knew DeFonda Collier while she lived in Provo and Taylorsville. I am collecting stories of her influence on Mormon Literature and Art. Lynette Jones [MOD: Lynette, could you tell us more about her, who she was, and what she did?] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pdhunter" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 15 Date: 22 Feb 2002 19:41:43 GMT Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 15, 2002 The biggest news this week is the opening of the year's 2nd LDS genre film, "Out of Step," produced by Cary Derbidge and directed by Ryan Little. "Out of Step" opened just two weeks after "The Singles Ward" was released. Interestingly enough, "Out of Step" Ryan Little was the cinematographer on "The Singles Ward." Also, "The Other Side of Heaven," which opened over two months ago, is STILL playing in many Utah and Idaho theaters. This means that local audiences can currently choose between three different movies in the "LDS Cinema" genre (films made by AND about Latter-day Saints). (Moreover, according to the "Brigham City" website, that movie is still currently playing in one theater in Connecticut and another in California -- but those are places where the other movies are not showing.) What we REALLY want to know is what I don't have yet -- sorry. I've nudged my contacts and checked the usual sources, but I don't have this week's box office performance for "Out of Step" or "The Singles Ward." THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME: Things are certainly shaping up for Neil LaBute's film adaptation of his highly successful play "The Shape of Things." This fast-track motion picture appears to be well under way, as IMDb.com already lists all of the key players. The film uses the cast from the stage production: Gretchen Mol, Paul Rudd (who appeared in LaBute's "bash: latterday plays"), Rachel Weisz, and Fred Weller. Producers are listed as LaBute himself, as long as his producing partner Gail Mutrux, and also Philip Steuer and cast member Rachel Weisz. Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner are executive producers. Cinematography will be by James L. Carter ("My Dog Skip"). Production design is by Lynette Meyer, who did the same job on LaBute's "Nurse Betty." Christopher H. Lawrence will be the Art Director. (He has previously worked on in the art department films such as "Austin Powers 2" and Kevin Costner's "Dragonfly", but this will be his first feature film in charge.) Felipe Borrero is the sound mixer, a position he also held on "Nurse Betty" (and, interestingly enough, on "The Fast and the Furious with Paul Walker). Hey! Where's Aaron!?!? Is LaBute really going to make a movie without Aaron Eckhart in it? NOT MOVIES, BUT FUN ANYWAY: As has been reported in many places, the news season of "Survivor" (taking place in Marquesas) stars Neleh Dennis, a young Latter-day Saint beauty from Layton, Utah. Apparently CBS remembered that MTV's best-ever season of "Real World" owed its success to ex-BYU student Julie Stoffer's charm, and they recalled the original Survivor season's Kelly Wiglesworth, a less active Mormon seen praying on the show's finale just before winning 2nd place. Yet that same year's LDS-less "Big Brother" tanked. The lesson learned: Mormon mojo makes for media magic. CBS reports that the "luxury item" chose to take to the islands is her Scriptures. [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker or Actor Total Gross Theaters Days ---- ------------------------------ ------- ----- ---- 25 Ocean's Eleven $384,150 407 73 LDS characters: Malloy twins 181,373,756 33 Behind Enemy Lines 174,765 278 80 David Veloz (screenwriter) 58,360,599 44 Mulholland Drive 75,925 55 133 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 6,780,398 53 The Other Side of Heaven 30,103 14 66 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 1,473,749 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) ?? Out of Step (NEW) ??,000 7 3 Ryan Little (director) ??,000 Cary Derbidge, Kenneth Marler (producers) Michael Buster, Willow Leigh Jones, Nikki Schmutz (writers) Merrill Jensen (composer) Michael Worthen (cinematographer) Actors: Alison Akin Clark, Jeremy Elliott, Michael Buster, Tayva Patch, Rick Macy, etc. ?? The Singles Ward ??,000 11 17 Kurt Hale (writer/director) ???,000 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne Michael Birkeland, Bob-O Swenson Lincoln Hoppe, Tarance Edwards Michelle Ainge, Gretchen Whalley Sedra Santos 61 Galapagos 12,158 3 843 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,331,778 66 Out Cold 10,411 19 89 A. J. Cook (female lead) 13,903,262 69 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 9,018 2 654 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,081,986 74 China: The Panda Adventure 5,122 7 206 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,933,842 81 Island of the Sharks 2,102 2 1025 Alan Williams (composer) 10,630,313 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: [AML] Re: Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 12:21:34 -0800 I think that Todd and Lisa have had good points in their posts, some of which have clarified what they define as cultural imperialism. But, on the whole, I'd have to say I'm in agreement with much of what Jacob had to say and how well he said it. A few years ago, there was an interesting article in the Ensign that stood out for me in the refreshingly different approach and viewpoint. (I will try and look it up and give the title of the article and date). But the part of it that I really took note of was a sister who talked about a woman from India who took the missionary lessons, began attending church and was baptized. Prior to her baptism, she wore the traditional Sari and had the jewel in the middle of her forehead. Right after her baptism, she came to church in a western style blouse and skirt, the forehead jewel now gone. The sister who wrote the article felt sadness at that change, like something was lost that made the woman unique. She wondered if such a change was really necessary to show a commitment to the Gospel, she had seen nothing wrong with how the woman dressed before her baptism and wondered what had made her think she had to change in that manner to acceptable, if someone had said something or merely that that is how most western women who are LDS tend to dress and she felt the need to conform. I think this took place outside of the U.S., by the way. To some, this might be the perfect example of cultural imperialism, but there seemed to be no indication of coercion in this situation. Yet, it is worth the discussion of how we LDS do mix theology with culture and politics. A few years ago I was chatting in the hall after church with a small group and happened to mention a certain candidate I might vote for if he ran for office, and a certain brother, who shall we say makes me look like some kind of radical, expressed to me his shock at my choice and after I had walked away to meet our daughter coming out of her class he asked my husband if he oughtn't learn to control his wife and her opinions, etc. My husband replied that it hadn't happened in over twenty years, why would he think he could do such a thing now? :) BTW, this brother is married to a sister who is politically and socially active in the community, who is a teacher as well, go figure. To also bring this home for me, all I have to do is think about my own family background. My mother's parents left an affluent life for their times, to come to this country. To them, a free capitalist country was much better than fascism, so matter how much they would miss their native land, they knew there was something better here for them and for their children. They didn't want to go back after the war either, their life was here in their adopted country. They kept many of their Italian customs in their home, but yes, they also adopted ones they found here, especially encouraging their children to learn english. My uncle told me his parents took him out of the local Catholic school and put him in the public school because they did a better job at teaching english. Both english and italian was spoken at home. Did they face prejudice? Yes, there were times when they did, but they so believed in this country's basic fairness they always saw past it and made their life work. My uncle also told me his main tormentors were the Irish boys, who a few generations before had been the ones being discriminated against, (No Irish Need Apply), and my uncle finally handled the situation when the ring- leader of the Irish boys challenged him to a wrestling match. He didn't know my uncle had been the wrestling champion at his Boy's club in Italy and my uncle cleaned his clock. He and the other Italian boys had the Irish boy's respect after that and they left them alone. Did everyone hold hands and sing Kumbya? No. But, they came to an understanding of sorts and discovered they had some things in common. Certainly a kind of conformity was expected of anyone of who came to this country, and in some ways that was what helped forge a certain core set of values and an identity as Americans. What was sad was certain traditions from the old country were discarded that didn't need to be. Sometimes actively to conform and avoid persecution and sometimes because the rising generation wasn't interested in keeping up those traditions. All cultures seem to have a certain conformity to them that preserve the culture as they know it, most every civilization does this, it is not just a western phenomenon. Most Asian cultures still consider the West to be barbarians, but they also find much of our technology and other things to be useful to them and have no problem assimilating that part of our culture, while preserving much of their own. I find in my own part of America, most people can keep much of what they brought with them from their own culture and country. My Muslim neighbors wear the traditional dress for the women, however the women also drive, which they are not allowed to do in many Muslim countries. They thought it strange when I first started waving to them as they drove by, but now, smile and wave back. The Indian guy a couple of doors down owns like at least five mini-mart gas stations, yet he detests this country. My next door neighbor has told me she's had to restrain her husband from telling him off, but she told him he's entitled to his opinion, even if it baffles the rest of us. I find some of Multiculturalism's ideas fine and find much of it's practices insidious. While in the ideal it is about respecting and embracing all cultures, it has a certain conformity and core of it's own, seeming in practice to be all of western civilization is bad and all white guys are evil, therefore discount anything they have to say, and all their history needs to be looked at revised to reflect our version of enlightened thinking. A good book I'd recommend on this is, "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce, my favorite feminist, lesbian, activist, author. I've talked with Tammy a few times and even marched with her on an issue. She and I probably disagree on a lot of things, but we also agree on a number on them and she has respect for other viewpoints. Where am I going with all of this rambling post? Let me think how I want to put this. Is it a good idea to have a discussion of ideas of culture, politics, religion and how it affects our ideas and expressions in literature and the other arts, yes-of course. Can we here set the example of civil discourse that I find sadly missing out in the general culture-I hope so, I think we do better than most at it. Do we need to face things about our past as a Church and culture, and about our country's culture in general? Yes, and I would hope there's room for a number of viewpoints without any being automatically dismissed as often happens currently in the general culture. Do I personally think all cultures are equal, no I don't. Do I think certain things would need to change if a person accepts the Gospel, yes I do. If for instance, someone from a culture that practices female genital mutilation wants to join the Church, I'd say they'd have to reject that tradition. Many women who have come out of that culture have made pleas to the west that we pressure their countries to stop such a horrible practice. Would that be considered cultural imperialism? We would be attempting to force our values on them concerning this issue, wouldn't we? Is that a bad thing on every issue, or a case by case basis? Or is it our business at all? What think ye on such things? Should there be a core set of values that the world agrees to observe? I also think that we LDS also need to think twice about whether we are trying to get someone to conform to a cultural norm or a Gospel principle, which if truly a Gospel principle, we would not be coercive, but gently advising with love unfeigned. And that we have to really think about what the Savior meant, we said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine". Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Date: 21 Feb 2002 12:25:39 -0800 There is a delicious irony in this whole discussion. Rob Lauer said Feb. 13 that Potok's 1982 visit to BYU "was a highlight in my education as a writer AND a Latter-day Saint." (Mine too. I particularly treasure something he said about explanations of human suffering: They have to be sayable. Explanations of the tension between human suffering and God's goodness aren't academic exercises, they're ways of comforting people, so if you can't look someone in the eye who is suffering and give your explanation it's not worth anything.) On Feb 14, Rob said, > choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious > traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. > (Good grief! The show opens with the song "Tradition"--tying all of > the communities traditions, along with all the age and gender roles, > to the will of God Himself.) and ended with the comment: > But first the writer better understand what exactly FIDDLER OF THE > ROOF is and how the story springs from a Jewish view of life. Then he > better make sure that he's not embracing some white-washed "Gospel > According to Hallmark" version of Mormonism--a fluffy, sweet, > non-threatening concoction The phrase, 'not twaddle' suggests itself here. A Mormon "Fiddler on the Roof" should not be twaddle. So here's the irony. A few years ago I heard an NPR interview with Potok, who was working on a musical adaptation of his first novel, _The Chosen_. "Like Fiddler on the Roof?" the interviewer asked. "This will not be twaddle," Potok said. I don't know if he meant the play was hopelessly sentimental, or that that Joseph Stein, Sheldon Harnick and Jerry Bock didn't understand late 19th century shtetl life very well, though there's some indication that they didn't. _Fiddler Made a Goof_ (remember the Mad Magazine parody?) was part of the NPR 100 last year (one of those arbitrary lists of the 100 most influential American musical works of the 20th Century, as determined by jurors and audience vote). The story they did included an anecdote about Harnick and Bock going to synagogues to get a feel for the language and ritual there, and hearing some singing, which they transcribed as "Daidle deedle daidle, Digguh digguh deedle daidle dum." When they cast Zero Mostel as Tevye he looked at that and said, "Do I have to sing this? Because I grew up with this. I can do it for real." And the cast recording is indeed quite different from the transcription. The playwrights also worried that the song, "If I Were a Wealthy Man," might be a little heavy and tragic with its yearning to study the holy books all day long, until Mostel yelled at them and told them that if they lightened the song they really didn't understand the character they had created. As far as the entire theme of the play--the theme I see working itself out is the breakdown of some traditions, the Jewish emigration from Russia and immigration to the US, particularly to NYC, the survival of other traditions, and the creation of new traditions that culminate in plays like _Fiddler on the Roof_. The play has an ambivalent feeling towards the traditions it shows. On the one hand the destruction of Russian Jewish culture is tragic, on the other hand, though nostalgic for Anatevka, the play suggests that no one in the audience would really want to live there--they wouldn't want to live in arranged marriages, or in a culture where men and women don't dance together. The changes Tevye's daughters make to the traditions are the kinds of changes you need to create sophisticated New York theatre-goers--so the play is a celebration of itself and the culture that made it possible. (BTW, heard a wonderful interview with Henry Roth a few years ago, when he finally published his second novel about 60 years after publishing _Call it Sleep_. From what he said, the second novel is partly about how moving from one NY neighborhood to another affects friendships and culture. I wish Ralph Ellison had gotten his second novel out before he died.) However, the play also suggests that even without certain traditions one can still be a devout Jew--a good share of the original audience would be people living the same Sabbath and marriage rituals the play shows. Nothing in the play suggests those traditions breaking down, or that they ought to. Rob says that a Mormon _Fiedler Aeussem Dach_ would be "a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or Stake President) compromises on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple." Rather, I think it would be a story in which a devout man has to decide whether his belief that marrying outside the covenant is a great tragedy is a core belief of the Gospel or a teaching designed by the culture to protect itself. The play doesn't see Tevye's excommunication of Chava as a core element of Judaism. It's a tragic choice Tevye makes, and surely the original audience, because the war was still so recent, would be aware that if Chava and Fyedka stay in Cracow a great tragedy will come upon their family within less than 40 years. They really should be going to America with Tevye, Golde and the others--which makes Tevye's reaction to their marriage all the more tragic. If the family is eternal the last thing a believing parent should do is cast out children who may yet return to the covenant. (Joseph Smith once said that the Lord told him he would take home anyone Joseph asked him to, but he (Joseph) was reluctant to ask, because that person might yet repent. I think he also said that he did ask the Lord for some relief from the governor of Illinois, and the man went upstairs and shot himself.) A Mormon Tevye might well reason, 'My daughter is marrying outside the covenant, but if I keep close ties to her she is more likely to return, or to raise her children well-disposed toward the covenant.' A Mormon audience could see that as a compromise, but also as a statement of hope. Harlow Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 21 Feb 2002 11:23:26 -0900 >===== Original Message From "Clark Goble" ===== I think the United >States is related to the gospel in a way somewhat different than most >countries. For one it is tied to the prophecies of the Book of Mormon in >ways that no other nation, except perhaps Israel is. Further we are told >that the formation and structure of the country is of divine inspiration. >So dividing the country from the gospel isn't always as easy as it appears >at first glance. That's an interesting way of looking at it. Saying that the United States is hooked in with the gospel sounds strange to me. It seems to me that "the gospel" is all truth circumscribed into one great whole. So it could be that God helped put the U.S. together for some very important purposes, but to say that the US or Israel is of central importance seems kind of stretched. Yes, they are part of the gospel, just like a llama herder from Chile is. But the gospel cannot be place based, it's universal and diverse. Sacred books are usually tied to the areas they come from and makes explicit reference to them: the United States (Mormon), the MIddle East (Islam), South Asia (Hinduism, Buddhism), Israel (Judaism). And since God has revealed himself to many more cultures than the ones we currently know of, he probably dealt with their area of residence just as God did with us. We're just one of many. On the cultural imperialism end, I think many of the prophesies in the Book of Mormon that talk about the "Gentile" domination of America, isn't hailing a wonderful, freedom filled process. I think, now that we have the benefit of history, we could read our conquest of America the same way we read Israel's conquests under Joshua's command. To me those conquests are rife with sin stemming from cultural imperialism: "if you aren't us, you are less, and must become us or die." That is certainly the history of the U.S. (as well as many other countries). It seems that God doesn't necessarily condone everything he prophecies. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 21 Feb 2002 16:20:16 -0700 ___ Tait ___ | Cultural Imperialism is the assumption that your culture is | superior to another and that your culture therefore should | be imposed on others for their own good. ___ While that is a common view of cultural imperialism, I think that in this day and age the meaning is somewhat different. Consider American pop culture. Many nations consider it a form of cultural imperialism. Some react to this by putting up quotas of how much American media is allowed in the country. (i.e. the limits on magazines and TV in Canada) This can't prevent people from choosing to read what they wish, of course. But it does attempt to prevent the local culture from being drowned out. I don't think Hollywood thinks that their product is "superior and therefore imposed." Rather they are simply business people who wish to open the markets and then sell as much of their product as possible. Perhaps the model is less the economic imperialism of the European powers and their colonies than it is the Yankee traders going to Asia in the 19th century. But beyond that there is the unconscious type of cultural imperialism. This is simply assuming that a way "works" and why would anyone even want to do something different? In this form of "imperialism" there isn't any force at all. It is just this subtle peer pressure, much akin to what drives fashion among teenagers (or even adults). This is the form that I think is typically found among Mormons. Realistically though, this is the least "imperialistic" of these sorts of things. Indeed one could argue that in the market of ideas, the ideas that win out win out *because* of this kind of imperialism. Now admittedly marketing helps, but what is chosen is chosen freely. ___ Tait ___ | The early missionary efforts of the church to non-white | peoples shared many of the same assumptions as their non- | Mormon counterparts--i.e., that they were bringing | "culture" and "enlightenment" to people who lived in | varying degrees of "darkness." ___ But didn't the Mormons feel exactly the same towards white peoples? Indeed don't we *still* intrinsically feel that way? If other paths were really equally valid, then why have missionaries? Where people have problems isn't really in feeling other cultures are wrong (clearly in different ways they are). It is in considering right what is arbitrary or even wrong amongst us. For instance the basketball court in non-US chapels seems an excellent example. Yet we'd not want to say that our social views of adultery are cultural imperialism, even though many cultures don't share them. Really what we have is a division between cultural imperialism and cultural relativism. There is then a sliding scale between them between how much value we place on the cultural item. Some things *are* relative. Other things are not. The trick is figuring out what is what. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Mormon Culture in Japan Date: 22 Feb 2002 08:09:42 +0000 I'd like to clear one thing up, American patriotic songs did not appear in the 1960 Japanese hymnbook, nor in the more recent 1989 version. July 4th is universally ignored in Japanese wards, it just doesn't come up. Of course, that does not mean that the one missionary wanted the ward to sing the songs, but he would have had a hard time doing it unless he had a bunch of English hymnbooks on hand. ___ John Williams wrote:___ >| For example, a Mormon professor I know here at UC Irvine served >| his mission in Japan in the 1960s, and had a companion who >| thought it entirely appropriate for the Japanese congregation >| to sing patriotic American hymns from the hymnbook on July >| 4th. It's in the hymnbook, right? It must be part of the >| gospel. Related to this, there is some confusion among Japanese members about how patriotic they should be. Outward signs of patriotism are looked down upon somewhat in general Japanese society, as many link them with the ultranationalism of the 30s and 40s. There are no specifically Japanese songs in the hymnbook, patriotic or not. (There are, however, a few LDS hymns from the old 1920s Sunday School hymnal that have stayed in the 1960 and 1989 Japan versions, which are not in the present English version. They became favorites here, and so they kept them. "Waiting for the Reapers" is an especially cool one). Unfortunately Easter is also usually ignored in Japan, since there is no tradition of celebrating it here, and the fact that it falls on different dates doesn't help. We often try to remind the chorister a week in advance to sing Easter hymns the next week. I occasionally wonder abou how much we do here is fundamentally gospel orientated, and how much is cultural and not necessary. I think on the whole that we are doing pretty good. A big example is our English classes. Weekly English classes are taught in every ward and branch in Japan by the missionaries, sometimes with the help of English speaking members. I am the coordinator of it in Fukuoka, part of my Stake Missionary responsiblities. It is a major missionary tool here. It gets people in the door of the Church, allows them to get to know the missionaries. Perhaps as a result people interested in English and Americans tend to join the Church more than others, but I don't think that it is by that much. Now, no one ever says that you need to go to English class to be a member, and only a very small number of baptized Japanese members attend. A lot of Japanese are very interested in learning English, and it is an area in which the missionaries can easily give service (not to say that it is counted as a service activity, it is clearly a missionary tool). I think that all members here with any sense recognize that English speaking ability is not tied to the gospel. Then there is the area of Church traditions. Japanese Church leaders often seem to me to be a little too concerned that practices are the same as in America. Some unique practices have developed. For example, Japanese Mormons often say "Good Morning" to Heavenly Father in public prayers in the morning. Before the prayer they announce, "I humbly pray" (or perhaps it can be translated as the Protestant "Let us pray"), so that everyone knows to be quiet and bow their heads. As a newly baptized person comes out of the font, often the crowd gives them a hearty "Congratulations" in unison. I don't think any of these are tied to Japanese culture pe se, they are just traditions that have grown up in the the Church. Eler Kikuchi, a Japanese Seventy who has recently returned to be in the Area Presidency, seems to be very interested in removing traditions which differ from those in America. He has recently instructed Stake leaders here about correcting these things, although they aren't pushing it too strongly. Here in Fukuoka the Stake leaders have mentioned them in some leadership meetings, and encouraged leadership members to set examples for others, but have decided not to announce them in Sacrament Meeting. I have heard they were announced in a ward in Tokyo, however. I can see how they wold not want the Curch culture to become unrecognizable, but I do like the little local quirks. I would especially miss the "Good Morning". I really can't think of much that I find disturbingly imperialist here (of course, Japan is exteremly Westernized already). Sure, there are lots of lifestyle changes in joining the Church, but it is nothing different than what North Americans joining the Church go through. If making deacons wear white shirts is the worst thing we can come up with, than hurray for us. I suppose allowing some locally written hyms in the hymnbook would be nice. I don't doubt that my skewed perspective is missing something. You could change the general forms of universal Church practices (the way meetings are held, the pattern of prayer, Church titles, etc), but I don't see that as achieving much. There is something comforting to anyone who has moved around about having some basic universal forms, even if they in and of themselves are not intrinsic to the gospel. They serve to set us apart from the world, and create a sense of unity, I think. As for Mormon literature here, I'm sorry to say there isn't much. There are about 100,000 members of the Church in Japan, and so far no major artists have emerged. There are a couple of light inspirational pop singer/composers who have gone around and done concernts and firesides. There was a wonderful little semi-annual intellectual journal, Mormon Forum, around since 1987, which unfortunately stoped publishing last year. They tried to be a Japanese Dialogue, with articles about Church theology and history, personal essays, poetry, and at least one short story (SF about Adam and Eve as computer programs, not very good). Wards and Stakes often put on plays, but usually they are translations of Western children's plays (Wilde's Happy Prince is a favorite) or LDS musicals. There are a few translations of Orson Scott Card's novels by commercial publishers, including the first three in the Alvin Maker series, which I have reccomended to several friends. Unfortunately I haven't noticed any reading groups like the kinds that often spring up in American wards. Maybe I need to start one (which reminds me of my imperialist urges that often came out in our American reading groups, trying to get everyone to agree to read the Mormon lit that I suggest. Down imperialist urges, down!). Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Redeeming the Past Date: 22 Feb 2002 02:19:51 -0700 Bruce Young wrote: > So yes, we need to face and learn from--and to the extent that we are > implicated in them--repent of the evils and imperfections and distorted > understandings of the past. I think people are hiccupping on the word "repent." Repentance is confessing and making amends for sins I've committed. I didn't commit the sins of my fathers, so how can I repent of them? This has nothing to do with the obligation any Christian has to look at the world around him and try to make it better. If legacy consequences of sins from the past are still with us, then we ought to do what we can to ameliate them. But that doesn't mean we have to take on the burden of guilt for them. It's a matter of attitude. I'm not going to sit around and feel bad or worry about any racist ancestors I had. But if I see injustice going on around me, regardless of the source of that injustice, then I've taken on a duty as a Christian to do what I can about it. I'm not about to call it repentance, though. Please, I have enough of my own sins to repent of. Even if an argument can be made that it's proper to call it repentance, it's bad PR to take that approach. Nobody likes being called to repentance, and the common reaction is to turn a deaf ear to that message. But people like to feel noble, and addressing the injustices of past generations because we're noble and want to improve the world is likely to attract more flies than the vinegar of guilt-tripping. Now if we're talking about how we unwittingly perpetuate the injustices of the past through our own ignorance and upbringing, that's a whole other story. If _I'm_ telling non-American Mormons their culture is inferior because I haven't questioned questionable assumptions I've inherited, then I do have something repent of. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes Date: 22 Feb 2002 12:33:20 -0800 The controversy surrounding what should be offered in lit classes is not limited to BYU, of course. This is a debate that rages in universities around the world--and, I suspect, in many disciplines beyond English. The broader questions have to do with what qualifies as "literature" and what is the purpose for studying it in the first place? What about composition and rhetoric? What about cultural studies? So many doors have been opened and there are so many 'new' approaches to literature that just about everything in the "traditional" curriculum is being questioned. I say "traditional" because it's possible to argue that what most of us see as the "old" program for studying literature was itself a construct that developed fairly recently out of a specific tradition in literary criticism and cultural values. The view that there is some "fixed" way of teaching literature and a set canon of works to study is an illusion--maybe a comforting one, and maybe one with some merit, but an illusion nonetheless. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: [AML] Request for Critics Date: 22 Feb 2002 08:55:47 -0500 Hi, My husband and I have written what we intend to be the text for a children's picture book about the creation. We would like to submit it to publishers, but first wanted to get unbiased, third party opinions. The manuscript is about 650 words short. :-) We are interested in those with a background (or at least interest) in children's literature. Please send me an e-mail directly if you are interested. Thanks! Brent & Kristy Thomas _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Moral Lessons from the Olympics Date: 22 Feb 2002 13:03:41 -0700 Sorry, folks, but I'm hooked. I'm completely bedazzled. I can't get = enough of it. Short track rocks, skeleton is the bomb, and curling is the = sport of the next millenium. In fact, I want to start the AML curling = club; any takers? NBC's coverage is, predictably, abysmal, but I've figured out how to deal = with it. Watch curling or hockey on MSNBC, while recording NBC. Then = skip the local news, and watch NBC's coverage at night while skipping the = commercials. I promise you, the Budweiser commercial where the guy skids = across the bed and out his window is ten times funnier in fast motion. My = method does require going to bed at one, which is kind of a problem if you = have to be up at six with the kids, like I do, but hey, it's the Olympics. = If they can sacrifice knee ligaments and shoulder joints, I can give up = a little sleep. =20 Commercial television is not, sad to say, a subtle artistic medium. Bob = Costas carefully explaining what all the symbolism meant in the opening = ceremonies set the tone; at every turn, TV jogs you on the elbow, = shouting, "get it? get it? get it? get it?" Jim Shea's grandpa was an = Olympian! And he died! But his presence is still felt! And, no fault to = Shea or his family, but an actual, honest-to-gosh human drama got = overhyped and overkilled. NBC even gave that ebullient force of nature, = Picabo Street, the bathetic teary eyed end-of-a-long-road-for-a-legend = treatment. It didn't take, thank heavens; she skiied, didn't medal, = looked bummed for about ten seconds, and then it was time to part-ay. = =20 But there are moral lessons to be learned from something as wonderful and = good as the Olympics, as is true of all art forms. And so, a few of my = favorite Olympic Moments: Moral Lesson 1: Trying really hard is overrated. Sometimes, it's better to take it easy = and hope all the folks ahead of you fall down. =20 My personal hero of these Olympic games is, hands down, Stephen Bradbury, = the Australian guy who won the 1000 m short track gold medal because, ten = meters from the finish line, all the guys ahead of him collided and fell. = Twice (it also happened in the semi-final). As Gary Kamiya quipped, = Bradbury's fate is an enviable one: free drinks for life in Sydney bars. = But there's a serious lesson to be learned here, and one we might want to = consider as a literary theme: the race does not always go to the swiftest. = Bradbury COUNTED on getting lucky. Maybe hard work is it's own punishment= . =20 Moral Lesson 2:=20 Teens sometimes do know best, but parents aren't necessarily dummies. =20 Even President Hinckley has weighed in on the merits of half-pipe, that = nutty Winter X-Games import contested on snowboards. It's very fun to = watch, as are all the snowboarding and moguls events. But I also couldn't = help speculate on the family dramas taking place behind the scenes, before = the Olympics. The snowboarding aesthetic is hardly white bread and middle = American. As the parent of three teenagers, I can well imagine the = standard when-will-you-make-something-of-yourself-instead-of-wasting-all-yo= ur-time-snowboarding-with-worthless-friends-who-do-no-believe-me-have-your-= best-interests-at-heart speech that particular set of Olympians undoubtedly= heard more than occasionally. (Notice how little attention NBC paid to = 18-year old gold medalist Kelly Clark's at least 35-year old husband? Bet = there's a story there!) And then that baggy pants kid turning up the = volume on Kid Rock or the Chili Peppers, turns out to be an Olympian. And = watching Danny Kass stand, misty-eyed, with his hand over his heart, while = they played the national anthem suggested to me at least the possibility = that his parents may have had the last laugh after all. Co-opted. Or at = least, a middle ground discovered. Moral Lesson 3: Repentance is good, but we also learn a lot by sinning. Apolo Anton Ohno, the short track sensation (he should get that on his = business cards, so often Bob Costas has repeated it) is the soap opera = story of the Olympics, or rather, would be, if it weren't for the = Sale/Pelletier vs. dark-browed Russkies colluding with the kooky French = judge brouhaha. (And Elena B, the Russian skater in that mess, was she one = cynical kid or what?) Ohno, as was widely reported, was a street kid, a = juvie, a part-time gang banger and petty thief, who discovered a life's = vocation in short track speed skating. Well, we know all that from NBC. = What they've missed is just how sly and clever and sneaky-fast cunning = this kid is. Short track is the right sport for Ohno, because it's not = about a clock, it's about tactics. And Ohno brings street life survival = skills to it. He's the Artful Dodger, adept at slipping punches, sliding = through cracks, working the system, slyly feigning innocence. He won = silver in the 1000 through sheer toughness and presence of mind after a = Chinese skater, driven (it looked to me) to distraction, tackled him. He = won gold in the 1500 by a theatrical reaction which called attention to a = borderline illegal tactic by a Korean skater. I absolutely love the kid, = and I'm glad he's off the street and making something positive of his life = and all that, but let's also acknowledge that street life, which we're all = glad he escaped, also helped make him who he is. I cherish the chance for = repentance offered me by the gospel. But I'm also grateful for my sins, = and think I've learned a lot from them. Moral Lesson 4: Sometimes a real genius is the guy who does it his way. In other words, the Bode Miller story. America's best alpine skiier is = famous for being utterly uncoachable. He skiis too far back, takes too = tight a line, and is essentially always an inch from falling. And when = coaches tell him how to fix his problems, he blows them off. So far, he's = won silver twice by nearly falling on his first run, falling way way = behind, and then blowing away everyone on his second run. He's sort of = grumpy with the media, and his interviews have been great ("How does it = feel to be in tenth place after your first run?" "It sucks. I'm skiing = like crap. What more do you want?") The point is, this guy is like Babe = Ruth. Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever because, basically, he = didn't listen to anyone. Everyone knew that you can't try to hit home = runs every pitch, because you'll strike out too much. Ruth ignored them, = and revolutionized his world. Miller is very young, and the best American = skiier in the world. And utterly uncoachable. Kinda reminds me of Scott = Card. (Mormon lit connection!) Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 15:20:57 -0600 "Cultural imperialism" seems to cover everything from the forcible Europeanization of conquered native Americans by the U.S. to the conquest of mainland China by Colonel Sanders. The first case is clear to me as a case of CI, but satisfaction of the Chinese desire to eat Kentucky fried chicken has been accomplished not only without military force (I believe the Colonel's rank was purely honorary), but with the enthusiastic cooperation of our new fellow finger-lickers. If it's imperialism to introduce people to new ideas and products, then I'm all for it. LDS missionary efforts around the world are firmly on the Colonel Sanders side of CI, I think. Oh, some of our efforts to standardize church practices are a bit high handed. I've attended LDS services in a lot of countries, and I find transplanted Utah practices sometimes incongruous, sometimes bizarre. But people have shown themselves to be able and willing to walk away from the entire church package - gospel, white shirts, lime jello and all. Some accept the gospel part and resist the rest, and their resistance is not futile. President Hinckley isn't the Borg queen, and international saints will only be assimilated to the point that they're willing. But I'll have more to say about that shortly. "In the beginning God gave to every people a cup of clay, and from this cup they drank their life." (Digger Indian proverb) Cultures are like personalities ("personality writ large," says Benedict) - they aren't a single note, and they only exist in a pure state to the extent that they're kept isolated or preserved as museum specimens. The United States doesn't possess a single culture. I have students whose families preserve varients of Cajun culture, though often the kids no longer speak French. I recently attended a Black Bible church and had lunch with the congregation afterwards, and realized that I was surrounded by a culture that was at once familiar and foreign. If culture is that cup of clay, then many Americans often have a cupboard full from which they can choose. We're interracial and interethnic. We're many cultures, sometimes simultaneously. What we're not is homogenized. Yes, you can find a McDonalds, a Starbucks, a Barnes and Noble and a Pottery Barn in just about any mall - sometimes in a shopping mall I experience a sense of unreality, as if I don't really exist in a particular place, and as if I can walk out the door and be in just about any city in America. But culture is much more than our shopping habits. It's music, language, food, marriage rites, puberty rites (yes, we have them), religion, our attitudes toward money and toward time. There are some things common to USAmerican culture, but in some sense it's like trying to define race; any one characteristic can be far removed from its racial mean (skin color, facial structure, hair texture) and a person can still be "black," but then what is it to be black? Biologists tell us there's no such thing; are they right? When I interact with others, it affects my personality in small, subtle ways. Now I think my character is pretty set, but I notice that my students' personalities can be amazingly plastic. Do I have a pure personality that is essentially me? We could only find that out if I could be somehow isolated and kept from going mad, perhaps if I could be raised in isolation and still develop a human mind. The exercise seems pointless and hopeless. I think it makes no more sense to think of applying it to cultures. They aren't museum pieces - they're living things that interact, and in their interractions they necessarily change themselves and each other. Is that bad? In my opinion it's essential. It also means that culture is far more plastic a concept than race or ethnicity.Perhaps what makes a black American black is a set of biological characteristics plus a culture. In the course of interaction some cultures will flourish, some will wither and die. Is that bad? It's life. Cultures aren't artifacts, but living things, and living things change and die. Some elements of them can be preserved and incorporated into other cultures, but the original culture is gone and our understanding of the surviving element is different than it was. What do you understand when you read Exodus? Whatever it is, it's surely not what an Israelite of 2300 years ago would have understood. It's amazing to me that we understand it at all. It's amazing that we understand Shakespeare (and experience tells me that many people don't), Milton, or Dante. As we look at literature closer in time and space to ourselves, it gets much easier to understand what the author intended us to understand, but I'm reasonably certain that some here (where's "here?") won't perfectly understand _me_. Culture writ small in personality will get in the way. There are things that I understand as a Mormon and as an American that are a part of my cultural heritage. Some of the things we teach new Mormons are far from the central core of the Gospel, but when we decry that, we forget that we're a people with a culture, not just a religion. Perhaps one can't truly understand the church manuals if one doesn't understand lime jello. I think that the religion is the essential part of our culture, and it bothers me that some people forget that, but I have to remind myself that they're trying to create a common grammar, a common basis of understanding of what it is to be Mormon. Sometimes we make mistakes - Mormonism and Americanism aren't the same culture, for instance - but it isn't because we want to obliterate Japanese-ness or Somoan-ness, but because we want to create a community that has a basis for mutual understanding that goes beyond "I, Nephi..." You can be a member of the church without any of the other cultural elements that go with it, but you can't be a member of the community. Isn't community important, and can't you reside simultaneously in different communities? It bothers me not at all that there are Africans, even many Africans, working for Coca Cola. They do it because there are things they want that they didn't know of before our culture met theirs, things they want from our culture. Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, has been famously worried that Fanta and Coke have displaced kvass as Russians' soft-drink of choice, upset that Russian culture is being lost. Well, what _is_ Russian culture - the culture imposed by Peter the Great? The culture that absorbed the styles and manners of the Golden Horde? The culture that invited Cyril and Methodius in from Byzantium and was baptized en masse in the Dnieper? And what of the plains Indians culture? It's mostly gone, but it itself was the result of interaction between an older culture and Europeans with their horses and glass beads. What some of us worry about as cultural imperialism seems to me to be simply the natural interactions and changes of cultures. It happens faster now - until the 19th century, cultural interactions were slow and limited - but it doesn't mean wholesale cultural extinction and homogenization. Minnesota will always be different from Louisiana, Iceland from Samoa, Japan from Brazil, even if they all adopted the same language and religion. Nature itself, even in this age of air conditioning and central heat, places constraints and imperatives on us that limit what's possible. Muscovites will watch _Baywatch_, but they'll never be mistaken for the denizens of Santa Monica. This grows longer than I intended, and various lines of thought are branching out that resist being formed into a single logical structure. I suppose my central thesis is that culture isn't the simple set of discrete characteristics that critics of McDonald's seem to suppose, and that given its protean nature, its ability to grow and assimilate and be assimilated and be created anew, only genuine force can be a basis for "cultural imperialism." And even then, I think, what we get is a new culture, not simply the expansion of the conquering imperial culture. I ran into the following, but will leave exploration of that line of thought for another day: "Countries may vary, but civilization is one, and for a nation to progress, it must take part in this one civilization. The decline of the Ottomans began when, proud of their triumphs over the West, they cut their ties with the European nations. This was a mistake which we will not repeat." - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pdhunter" Subject: [AML] Average Reviews of 5 LDS-themed Movies Date: 22 Feb 2002 21:50:35 GMT 22 February 2002 - Two years into the post-Dutcher era of LDS filmmaking there have now been five LDS-themed feature films released, by four different directors. Four Utah newspapers have consistently reviewed (and scored) these movies: The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, Ogden Standard-Examiner, and The Daily Herald. Combining the reviewers' scores from these newspapers, the best-reviewed of these five films were Dutcher's "God's Army" and "Brigham City." Although a plurality of national reviews expressed preference for "Brigham City" as the better film, the numerical average score from the local newspapers is actually identical. After Dutcher's films, the best locally reviewed film is Cary Derbridge and Ryan Little's "Out of Step," the lowest-budgeted of the bunch. Title (Year) Budget OpWknd Thtr STr DN OSE DH Avg. ------------ God's Army (2000) $ 300,000 $ 88,584 3 2.5 3 2.5 B+ 71 Brigham City (2001) 1,000,000 103,629 51 3 2.5 B 71 Other Side of Heaven (2001) 7,000,000 55,765 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 C+ 62 The Singles Ward (2002) 425,000 46,649 11 1 2 2.5 C- 45 Out of Step (2002) 200,000 7 3 2.5 2 B 66 OpWknd: Total gross box office ticket sales in the opening weekend. Thtr: Number of theaters movie played in on its opening weekend. SLT: Salt Lake Tribune DN: Deseret News OSE: Ogden Standard-Examiner DH: Daily Herald (Utah County) Avg: Movie reviews combined into a numerical average. Stars 4 = 100 3.5 = 88 3 = 75 2.5 = 63 2 = 50 1.5 = 38 1 = 25 0 = 0 Letter Grade A = 100 A- = 92 B+ = 84 B = 75 B- = 67 C+ = 59 C = 50 C- = 42 D+ = 34 D = 25 D- = 17 F = 0 Scores from other local reviews: Utah Statesman (Utah State College) gave an A- to "The Singles Ward", but reviews of other movies not found. Daily Utah Chronicle (University of Utah) gave 2 stars out of 4 to "Brigham City", but other reviews not found. Reviewers Average Scores on LDS-themed movies Salt Lake Tribune (Sean P. Means): 60.2 Deseret News (Jeff Vice): 62.8 Ogden Standard-Examiner (Steve Salles): 59.8 Daily Herald (Eric D. Snider): 67.0 Numerically speaking, Eric D. Snider at the Daily Herald actually has given, on average, the highest marks to LDS-themed movies. But this may be partially due to the fact that he assigns letter grades rather than using the 4-star system that the other reviewers use. Snider reviewed 438 movies in the years 2000 and 2001 that he assigned a letter grade to. The average numerical score from ALL of his reviews was 63. The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and Ogden Standard-Examiner all award up to 4 stars, including possible half-stars. Among these three newspapers, the numerical average of reviews ranges from 59.8 to 62.8 -- a span of only 3 percentage points. So, while the Deseret News technically has the highest average score and the Ogden Standard-Examiner technically has the lowest, the difference is purely academic. - Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 15:03:47 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- >(I hate the phrase "consumers of art," by the way; it > sounds so passive. Alternatives, anyone?) ***** How about "patrons of art?" [MOD: Sounds good to me. I'll try to remember that for next time.] ***** >* First, it seems clear that there's a great deal of >disagreement about >whether the "imperialism" part of the phrase "cultural >imperialism" is really appropriate. This is a question of >definitions, and so at some level ultimately unresolvable. >I think it's appropriate for people to share their >understanding of what cultural imperialism means-- On >the other hand, I don't think it's useful to argue further >over whether particular uses of the term are justified or >not. ******* I agree this is an important topic of discussion with many literary implications. The fact is cultural imperialism does exist, but a less invasive form of cultural imposition is cultural hegemony. As Jacob suggest there are several other forms of cultural change out there (Cultural Emigration, Cultural Proselytizing, Cultural Success and Cultural Homicide) and I think this is what living is all about. In any event every individual has the ability to choose alternatives to the cultural choices in which they are immersed and the inherent rewards and consequences of those choices. Even if there are no choices an individual can still choose nonconformance. I agree with Jonathan that it would not be productive for us to get bogged down in a quagmire of semantics. We as writers have the opportunity to try out these various forms of cultural imposition and change in our fictional world with our fictional characters. We also have the opportunity to investigate and report on the effects cultural changes have on various segments of humanity. I for one cannot understand why human nature is such that we insist on trying to impose our individual or collective wills on those around us who are different. I think it is much better to try and learn from each other. As long as the individual cultures do not conflict with the freedoms of each other and there is peace and tolerance, what else matters? Let each do whatever they choose. I thought the modesty issue was a very interesting cultural puzzle. We can teach modesty to those we are converting to the gospel, but "we don't have to impose our knickers and neckties on them." As Jacob so aptly put it. Why not just teach them to cover themselves with the clothing of their own culture, in a more modest way. If they don't wear clothes, then perhaps we should show them the advantages of protective covering and help them to fashion suitable garments from the indigenous materials in their natural environment. I think the most important objective here is understanding. By writing about and examining the various cultures, understanding of the diversity of humanity can be vastly improved. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 15:09:17 -0700 This one is much shorter, though I respond to both Lisa and Todd in it :). I've tried very hard to be relevant to the list and not political. ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > Jacob asked: Which is why I re-iterate my original query--is > there something more significant in the term Cultural > Imperialism that I am missing? > > Quite simply that Imperialism requires physical force. > > There are all kinds of force that don't involve guns and > fists. A man doesn't have to his his wife or children to > abuse them. The same is true with Imperialism. The film EL > NORTE discusses this magnificently. > > Imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or authority > of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of > acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. Cultural > Imperialism is extending one's culture, in addition to one's > empire, over the colony. The problem is that cultures devour > other cultures and American culture tends to be the big fish > gobbling up all the others little ones. > > You can say this isn't damage unless it's your culture that > is suddenly gone, your religion, your ceremonies, your > language, your stories, your cuisine, your agricultural > crops, your forms of government, your rites of passage, your > local newspapers, your vernacular architecture, your clothes > and cosutumes, your siestas (Terry Tempest Williams has a > great discussion of how corporate America effective destroyed > the tradition of the siesta in a section of Spain in her book LEAP). > > You get the idea. > > And just because you're not like this doesn't mean that > Mormons in general aren't. Okay. I can understand that force doesn't have to equal holding a gun to somebody's head. So what kind of force is it that you are decrying? How are Mormons (or the U.S.) forcing others to adopt our culture? What is it that we are doing that would earn such a strong judgement against us? How is China welcoming McDonalds different than, say, Americans adopting acupuncture? American culture is big. True. But are we big because we forced others to be like us? Or did they want to be like us to have the same things we have? Are we Hard-Rock Cafe, or Dachau? Where does invitation end and compulsion begin? You still haven't answered the core question of where have we crossed the line so badly that we should be willing to accept the accusation of Imperialism? (That isn't to say that I don't appreciate this elaboration. I do appreciate your clarification.) I like your example of the siesta in Spain and would like to explore it with my questions in mind. Did corporate America run around in Spain kicking people awake at lunch time? Or did they simply offer well-paying jobs that required a shorter lunch? In other words, did the people choose the prosperity of the U.S. over the luxury of the traditional siesta or were they forced to accept a foreign tradition over their objections? My word-choice reveals my obvious bias, but the questions really are sincere. What force was applied sufficient to make us a target for the harsh term "Imperialist"? The assumption is that corporate executives entered Spain with the intent to "reform the heathen" and teach them to be American (still not Imperialism, IMO, just condescending). The implication of the label "Imperialist" is that some people not only had the intent to change the culture but applied force to do so. I guess that the relevant question is "how do we determine force?" Is it sufficient to say that a culture changed from a local custom to a dominant, popular custom and thus force *must* have been applied? Peer pressure *is* a way to apply force--be like us or we won't like you *is* a kind of tyranny. Is that what you mean, or is there something more sinister that should be explored? To me, compulsion is active and has to be evident and visible. That way, accusations of compulsion aren't just matters of opinion and interpretation. Is that off-base? Do you mean something else when you talk about force? The reason I want to explore this further here is that we Mormons *are* open to cliquish accusations--be like us or we won't like you. I think that is something we are trying to change, but it hasn't fully penetrated, yet. Is *that* what you mean by Imperialism, though? It seems to me that you are as impatient with our "public" literature as I am (remember that public literature was defined as those works where Mormonism was open and pervasive--works like those by Rachel Nunes or Gerald Lund), so that doesn't really make sense as Imperialism. And is that really enough force to qualify as Imperialism, really? ---Original Message From: Lisa Tait > Just to clarify for Jacob and others: The "force" behind > cultural imperialism does not have to be military or physical > in nature. The threat (or self-righteous belief) that someone > who does not accept certain cultural assumptions will not > gain exaltation is about as imperialistic as it can get, IMO. > > This is where there is a huge area of opportunity for LDS > literature to serve as a dialogue WITHIN the church--both to > examine those assumptions and to explore how they are played > out in various settings. I don't think it would necessarily > have to be fiction or drama, either. What forms might such a > dialogue take? Oral history comes to mind immediately. > Poetry, maybe, though maybe in different forms than we're used to. > > Am I asking new questions here, or just displaying my > ignorance?Has this subject been discussed elsewhere (Dialogue > maybe)? I'm sincerely asking what anyone knows. I agree that force doesn't have to be military in nature. However, force does have to be credible and does have to be active (IMO). I can walk around all day long and tell people I meet on the street that unless they are baptized, I will fire them from their job and sell their children into slavery. But that isn't force even though it is active (i.e. it isn't credible). And I could believe in my heart of hearts that some young man is unfit to date my daughter, but unless I run him off with a curse and a threat, that isn't force, either (i.e. it isn't active). Denying exaltation *is* a potent threat and would qualify as Imperialistic. But are we credible and active in that threat such that we can be said to apply force? For one, we don't have the power to determine the exaltation of another. Any who claim to are usurping the authority of God and will be judged for their presumption. It is an active message of the gospel that God will judge the worthiness of individuals and that we should not. Bishops are sort of an exception because they are called as "judges in Israel" so they *do* wield power over membership in the church (though the power over exaltation is still reserved to God). But a bishop who refuses baptism to someone based on cultural assumptions will deserve the censure he receives (by the church if he is caught and by God when he gives an accounting of his stewardship). A bishop who initiates an excommunication based on cultural assumptions will deserve the same. That said, you have a very good point that I'd like to explore. We should *not* be so eager to judge the cultures of others and we should *not* be trying to replace aspects of others that they hold dear. We *should* be accepting of others and try to find the good of others--frankly, with an eye to adopting new things that we find are worthwhile. I think we have two different aspects here that are important to discuss. One aspect is how we affect others. Are people discarding their culture in favor of our own and if so, why? Is it beneficial for others to adopt aspects of our culture that we disagree with, and should we prevent them from doing so even if we could? As such a large, prosperous people (whether you are talking about the U.S. or about Mormons), do we carry some blame for people changing their customs to conform to our own? This aspect of our discussion is at the heart of the term Imperialism and bears careful thought and discussion. I don't think we deserve the label because we don't wield active, credible threats against others. I recognize that I've expanded my definition here based on comments by Todd and Lisa, adding the qualifiers active and credible. In doing so, I have tried to clarify what I believe is the definition of force as it applies to Imperialism in acknowledgement of the existence of non-military compulsion. The other aspect, that Lisa does so well in articulating, is the importance of our intentions and how our intentions reflect back on us. Even if we aren't Imperialistic because we lack credible, active threats, we might very well be crossing important lines by our intentions towards others. We should not judge other cultures based simply on our own cultural norms. We should welcome other viewpoints and look for the best that others have to offer us. We should not have an attitude of cultural superiority and condescension. Such attitudes are harmful to us personally and can damage our relationships with others. I want to be careful here because I don't believe in relativism and I don't believe that all cultures are good and certainly not that all cultures are equal. But we *should* be humble. We *should* be honest and open to new ideas and recognize that some people have better ideas than we do. We should *not* be telling others what they can and cannot do, though we should certainly discuss our views and invite others to accept what we hold dear. And finally, if we are going to discern for ourselves what we accept and reject, we should be careful that we are using eternal truths as our baseline and not the philosophies of men. Kathy Tyner said it well (and shorter): "[W]e LDS also need to think twice about whether we are trying to get someone to conform to a cultural norm or a Gospel principle, which if truly a Gospel principle, we would not be coercive, but gently advising with love unfeigned. . . . [W]e have to really think about what the Savior meant, he said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine"." I think we have plenty of literature that scolds us for our weaknesses. There is plenty out there showing us the unrighteous dominion over others and the pain and suffering that brings. We've read about the pedophile Bishop and the conceited Elders' Quorum President. We have a lot of exploration of our own form of Priestcraft brought about by the use of priesthood authority to dictate the actions of others. What I would like to see is literature that can welcome the things we do right, things that explore our strengths. How can we be a missionary people and not trample the culture of our converts? How can we encourage others to follow gospel principles without enforcing our private cultural assumptions? In the history of the church, somebody *must* have done it right somewhere. I want to see that story and know how it can be done realistically, in all its complex glory. What happened with the African village where the church came in and taught them Western irrigation and farming techniques? I read an article about it at the time in the Ensign or Church News. Is that Imperialism? What effect did that *really* have on the people of that village? How did we choose *that* village and *that* method of assistance? What cultural changes were made and why and who wanted the change? We are such an active, proselytizing church that we really *do* need to explore the ways we treat other cultures and how we can fulfill God's commandment to preach unto all nations with faith and love and care. I've seen enough exploration of how we can do that wrong. Let's see how we can do that right. I've seen the villains, where are the heroes? I think that Eric Samuelsen is very good at doing this right. His plays depict tough situations and can scold our weaknesses. But he takes great pains to make sure that we simultaneously see how it is done right. In "Gadianton", we see the weak shallowness of the company president, but also the authentic devotion of the bishop (I wish I were better at remembering names). In "The Way We're Wired" we see the abuse of an (ex) husband and the damaging cultural assumptions about single people, but we also see caring people come together to help one another with love and caring. I would like more of that kind of exploration--involving people who are not just kind-hearted, but who are effective in their devotion. Too often, the sincere people in our literature are simple and ineffectual and cut-off from reality and only the villains depth. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] DeFonda Virtue Dowdle Collier Date: 22 Feb 2002 16:56:14 -0700 DeFonda Collier was the founder of the first children's book club in Salt Lake City. This grew from her personal studies at the feet of Anne Carroll Moore for two summers at the USAC in Logan. Anne Carroll Moore was the first children's librarian. She started that first library in the basement of the New York Public Library. She was a woman trained by her father to be an attorney. At his early death, she changed her course. She blessed the children of the whole world by this choice. I think she started the Caldecott and Newberry awards. DeFonda taught cultural refinement lessons for over thirty years. She wrote each one up as if it were a thesis. As she continued these two loves of learning, she began to give lectures on children's literature. She was known from the 50's through the early 1980's, the expert on children's literature in the Intermountain West. Her Library was donated to BYU just a few years ago. Then, in 1965, she moved to Provo. There she was finally in a University setting once again. She found people there who shared her love of learning. Students would learn of her and come to her home to learn. She always had a topic on hand that she had been studying. By sharing it, she would learn what to include in her lessons and lectures. I learned from her about art, music and literature. I learned to love every culture and value it's uniqueness. But I also learned the commonalities that ran through them all. People who have learned at her feet and left with a new understanding include Doug Bush and Jeffery R. Holland. I would like to know if any of her other "students" are on this list. I would love to know their stories, since this is the only part of her life that we do not have a history of. I would also love to hear from the Librarians of the Provo and Herald B. Lee Libraries who remember her. I think many are retired now. Lynette Jones -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Available Date: 22 Feb 2002 18:17:06 -0700 Don't miss the new issue of The Sugar Beet at www.thesugarbeet.com. Articles include: Missionaries to Be Unleashed During Last Days of Olympics Area Woman Takes Credit For Canadian Pairs Gold Lack of Closing Prayer Jinxes Olympics Gladys Knight to Release "Midnight Train to Kolob" Tense Standoff Continues Between Bishop and Ward Choir KSL Radio Show Host Uses Term "Taking It In The Shorts" Moving Crew Demands Pizzafication BYU Student Uses Commitment Pattern to Get Date Church Featured in Dirt Bike Magazine Elder Packer Tells Gentile Neighbors to Call Him "Boyd" Pass on this notice to your friends! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source (Comp 1) Date: 25 Feb 2002 12:28:17 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post related to _The Sugar Beet_, Mormonism's new online satiric news source (www.thesugarbeet.com).] >From petersent@suu.edu Thu Feb 21 16:18:14 2002 Jonathan et al, We're going to update it tomorrow 2/22 and have a new issue on 3/8 after that a new issue will go up every two weeks or so, with past issues in an easy-to-use archive. Todd Robert Petersen >From Chris.Bigelow@unicitynetwork.com Thu Feb 21 16:18:33 2002 A team of eight of us (nearly all recruited on AML-List) is working on this, and we plan to put out new issues twice a month. The site is really catching on. We just installed a counter about 24 hours ago and have already counted about 500 hits, just from our e-mail announcements and word of mouth. The Deseret News has interviewed us to be part of a larger article on alternative Mormons that the reporter worries her editor won't like. Today Salt Lake City Weekly (which claims a larger readership than the Deseret News) spent an hour with me on the phone, and the reporter said he was going to interview Todd Petersen as well, who has taken a lead role in putting up the website. The paper is sending down a photographer as well, so they must be planning a feature. We expect quite a bit of traffic from that. We are having a very fun time. But I think I spotted a Danite in my back yard last night. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Kirk Subject: [AML] Julie Kirk Gallery Announcement Date: 22 Feb 2002 22:39:57 -0800 Just a quick link to the announcement for my upcoming show... http://home1.gte.net/boju/announcement.jpg -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Shakespeare Paper (was: Agendas in Lit Classes) Date: 23 Feb 2002 06:28:58 EST In a message dated 2/21/02 10:35:21 AM, markhata@delhi.edu writes: << I'll dig around my boxes of dusty, yellowed, pre-computer writing. I'm pretty sure I kept the original paper complete with professorial condemnation. I keep meaning to re-type some of that stuff onto disc. This will give me a good excuse. >> I'd like to read a copy, as well. It sounds good. Kurt Weiland -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [AML] New Baby Is Here! Date: 23 Feb 2002 11:07:19 -0600 Linda & Steve Adams are pleased to announce the arrival of Joseph Daniel Adams on Wednesday, February 13, at 6:21am. He weighed in at 7lbs 11oz and 21 inches long. Both mom and baby are doing well, however it will be a few more days before Linda is able to negotiate the stairs to get back to her e-mail and writing! Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 23 Feb 2002 12:38:41 -0500 My experience at the new Washington DC Temple Visitors' Center yesterday relates to two of our discussions: Church& racism and so-called "Cultrual Imperialism": Having recently relocated to the east coast after a two year absence, I decided, while attending the DC Temple, to have a look at their new expanded Visitors Center. Having seen many such visitor centers while touring the country, I have to say that this newly expanded facility appears to be one of the largest. When I walked in the sister missionary handed me a pamphlet and suggested that I first take a look at their new exhibit entitled "Shadwed Beneath Thy Hand." I walked into the very large exhibit gallery to find a LARGE "Black History Month" display! All of the items were on loan from the Mark E. Mitchell Collection of African American History. The CHURCH WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED PAMPHLET that I was handed by the missionary read: "This extensive collection of rare African American artifacts honors the spirit of transcendent faith and perservearance of a people whose indentity has been forged in trials and tribulation unto triumph. 'Shadowed beneath Thy hand May we forever stand, True to our GOD, True to our native land. --from 'The Negro National Anthem' by James Weldon Johnson" Among the many displays were items and tributes to well-known people such as Frederick Douglas, Jesse Owens, Billie Holiday, Thurgood Marshall, George Washington Carver, Paul Robeson, B.B. King, Colin Powell--even Malcolm X! There was also a wealth of displays relating to lesser-known African Americans dating from the Revolutionary War period to the present. The room was also packed! (And this was at 8:30 pm on a Friday night!) White folks who I assumed were Church members (perhaps wrongly so, but I was maing a judgement call based on their dress and manner) mingled with black folks who I assumed were not Church members (again, perhaps assumed wrongly, but I was making a judgement call based on their manner and dress. I beg you to forgive these tendencies, but the tendencies of a so-called "Social Imperialist" are hard to overcome.) I ws told by the Brother in charge of the center that the WASHINGTON TIMES was coming today (Saturday) to do a story on the display. Shocked, pleased and very impressed with this special display, I wandered into the other sections of the center--one of which contained large 3-D murals of Book of Mormon scenes. In these scenes I did not see a single blonde haired/blue-eyed character depicted; ALL of them were dark-skinned, dark haired, dark-eyed--in short, they all looked Middle Eastern or Native American--just as I would expect from accepting the Book of Mormon narrative as factual. In front of these displays were various TV/Computers like those found in most Church visitor centers. One touches the screen, various options are given, and once a choice is made, a short movie plays. These particular TV/computers related to specific Book of Mormon stories: Lehi's flight from Jerusalem and Nephi's building of a ship; Helaman and the Strippling Warriors; Mormon, Moroni, the final fall of Nephite culture and the burial of the gold plates. (I'm assuming based on the high production values that these same films may be viewed in other Church visitors; I can't imagine the Church spending so much money for something to be used at only one such center.) What struck me about these films was the absence of blonde/blue-eyed types. The vast majority of actors appeared to be Native American, Hispanic and Black. The few "white" actors seemed to have been made-up with bronzer to tan their skin and dark wigs. The prophet Lehi did not look like a General Authority: he looked Jewish, with a beard that was not at all well-kempt. In short, the Church seemed to be making a concerted effort for historical accuracy and also to reach out to people of other ethnic groups. (Only the actor playing Helaman looked like he stepped off the BYU campus--or more, correctly, the BYU Football field. He had that clean, All-American football hero like--Not that there's anything wrong with that! He was clean shave Ned and I suspect--given his eye and skin coloring--was probably blonde. But his hair was completely hidden beneath a large warrior's helmet.) I tried to look at these films through the eyes of the urban black youth who were also in the center last night. Here were well-made films featuring young men of color portraying virtuous, strong, Godly heroes! There were several short films portraying and praising the Stripling warriors (again, ALL portrayed by Native American, Hispanic and a few Black actors). The films also featured very exciting and well-edited battle scenes with the people of color as "the good guys."(Interestingly the imagined locations seemed to be more in keeping with the Eastern US Woodland cultures of the Native Americans than the Meso-American/Mayan/Aztecs cultures that have become the traditional in depicting Book of Mormon societies.) I imagine that the inner-city young men who saw these displays may have been struck by how different these religious films are from the classic Biblical epics of Hollywood in which clearly WASP actors are on display as "the good guys." In closing, I found in all of this clear evidence that the institutional Church sees very clearly that the Kingdom of God is to include all peoples. As for so-called "Cultural Imperialism," I agree with a post from the other day. (Forgive me for forgetting the name of the person who posted it.) We Latter-day Saints are trying to create a NEW culture; the Kingdom of God on the earth/Zion are to have their own cultural norms. Utah Culture was the product of 19th century American and European pioneers working towards that end. As such, Utah Culture will continue to be a major influence on what I'll call the culture of the newly gathered, restored Israel. But as the stakes of Zion spread across the globe, Utah's influence will lessen--maybe more quickly than any of us imagine. When I read the prophecies of Isaiah and others regarding this, I am moved by the references to the Gentiles (which is nothing more than the Hebrew word for "foreigners") joining the children of Israel in the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I loved the painting by Minerva Techart(sic) portraying this. I think it's entitled "The Return of Captive Israel" (if memory serves me) and it features people of all races and cultures joining together in one regal procession heading towards--what? God? Humanity's destiny? By the way, a lead story on the WASHINGTON TIMES religion page this morning announces that according to figures just released, the Mormon Church is now the fifth largest church in the U.S. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: [AML] _Dragonfly_ and _Queen of the Damned_ Date: 24 Feb 2002 14:26:19 -0700 This weekend we went to two movies with interesting themes on eternal life. "Dragonfly" was the first film I've ever seen with Kevin Costner where I believed him in his role. I won't give away the plot, but the whole story affirms the afterlife and how listening to the whisperings of the Spirit (or whatever you want to call it--messages from beyond) can lead us where we need to go. Perhaps the movie a little new age-y, but Costner's character keeps us totally grounded in the material world, till he finally cann't resist the whisperings and off he goes into what looks like a mad direction--with a sweet conclusion. "Queen of the Damned" is an odd sort of flick, but there's a redemptive-ness to it that we quite liked. You almost have to see it as campy; otherwise, it's a little too ridiculous. A vampire wants to live life openly, without hiding who he really is. He joins a hard-rock band, so that the wanna-be-evil rockers find themselves right in the middle of the real thing (a delicious comment on the quality of that music). Again, I won't give away the plot line, but the whole idea is that even vampires can rise to a level of nobility and that eternal relationships are after all the most important thing in life. We thought the Queen character (the belated Aliyaah) (I hope that was spelled right) was a little too anorexic, but otherwise the casting was fun. (For the record, I had to close my eyes quite a few times; the director should have downplayed the blood-and-guts aspect of the flick. It would have still been effective). Both movies were positive despite their polar-opposite approaches, both affirming good values in a less-than-perfect world. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Boyce Subject: Re: [AML] Two Black Mormon Firsts Date: 25 Feb 2002 00:22:16 -0800 (PST) [Sorry about my tardiness in writing this.] No offense to whoever wrote the first article, but I do believe that it is incorrect about Mr. Foster being the first African-American elected student president of BYU. I remember reading an article (in the Ensign, I believe) about an African-American member who was elected student president sometime before 1978. I don't remember his name but I do remember him stating that he was asked how it felt to be a black president over a white school and that he replied he felt like a Mormon president over a Mormon school. I also remember that I think he mentioned that he was living in Georgia at the time of the 1978 revelation. If there is anyone else who remembers which article I am talking about, I would welcome a confirmation or correction on what I have said. I think that it was in an older issue of the Ensign that I happened upon during my mission. Thank you, David R. Boyce -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source Date: 25 Feb 2002 19:05:09 GMT I just read your site. What a hoot! This is fun stuff. I think you're being brave on some points (e.g. the BKP) article, and makes it all even funnier. Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Average Reviews of 5 LDS-themed Movies Date: 25 Feb 2002 19:51:11 Preston Hunter's admirable research said: Reviewers Average Scores on LDS-themed movies Salt Lake Tribune (Sean P. Means): 60.2 Deseret News (Jeff Vice): 62.8 Ogden Standard-Examiner (Steve Salles): 59.8 Daily Herald (Eric D. Snider): 67.0 Numerically speaking, Eric D. Snider at the Daily Herald actually has given, on average, the highest marks to LDS-themed movies. But this may be partially due to the fact that he assigns letter grades rather than using the 4-star system that the other reviewers use. I suspect another reason may be that, among the four of us, I am the only one who is LDS (or even very religious). As impartial as we try to be, I suspect that plays a part. "God's Army," for example, stirred up more memories and feelings in me than it possibly could have done in the other three critics, and the "Can I marry a non-member?" themes in "Out of Step" surely resonated with me more than with them. To put it succinctly, I guess I'm more the target audience for those movies. Any critic can recognize quality (or lack thereof), but in some cases, it may just be academic, without much personal feeling attached to it. I've noticed some of the New York critics have been much harsher on post-Sept. 11 movies taking place in New York than some of the rest of us have been. The Big Apple is a much more personal setting for them than it is for us, and they may have feelings attached to it from which they cannot (and perhaps should not; that's open for discussion) distance themselves. And as long as I'm rambling, let me say how disappointed I am that "Out of Step" has done so poorly at the box office. I really think it was due to lack of marketing, not lack of quality; obviously the reviews were positive, and I suspect word of mouth would have been, too, if anyone had seen it. People just didn't know it existed, and that's too bad. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Children's Lit Conference at UVSC Date: 25 Feb 2002 09:36:20 -0700 The Children's Literature Conference at UVSC in Orem will be held on March 7 and 8 in the Ragan Theater in the Student Center. See http://www.uvsc.edu/conted/seminars/childlit/ The conference costs $109 for both days or $69 for either day alone. For more registration information, see http://www.uvsc.edu/conted/seminars/childlit/regform.html March 7 8:15 Continental Breakfast 9:00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS "This Is My Work" Kevin Hawkes 10:30 WORKSHOP SESSION A "How We Broke Into Publishing" Mette Harrison, Ron Wood, Sharlee Glenn, Kim Williams-Justesen, Randall Wright "Nothing Works Forever But the Teacher: How to Motivate Kids to Read More" Nancy Livingston "Meet Local Middle Grade and Young Adult Novelists" Carol Lynch Williams, Laurel Brady, Steve Wunderli 11:40 LUNCHEON SESSION "Brothers in Valor" Micheal O. Tunnell 1:15 BOOK SIGNING 2:10 WORKSHOP SESSION B "The Publishing World" Melanie Donovan "Meet Local Illustrators and Non-Fiction Illustration" Julie Olson, Sherri Haab and Laura Torres "50 Books In 50 Minutes" Dwight Liddiard and Nedra Call 3:20 WORKSHOP SESSION C "Thought Process in Illustration" Kevin Hawkes "Authors and Editors Working Together" Melanie Donovan, Michael Tunnell, and Rick Walton "The Caldecott Award: Behind the Closed Doors" Gene Nelson March 8 8:15 Continental Breakfast 9:00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS "From Picture Books to Novels" Will Hobbs 10:20 WORKSHOP SESSION D "Self-Promotions As An Illustrator" Kevin Hawkes "Linking Books to Kids: Getting to the Heart" Nancy Peterson "Meet Local Picture Book Authors" Ken Baker, Trudy Harris, Annette Bowen and Brad Wilcox 11:30 GENERAL SESSION "What's Happening at Harper" Melanie Donovan 12:30 NETWORKING LUNCH 1:15 BOOK SIGNING 2:10 WORKSHOP SESSION E "Will Hobbs Talks About His Picture Books" (Will Hobbs shares anecdotes about the writing of his picture books, _Beardream_ and _Howling Hill_. Using slides provided by Jill Kastner, his illustrator, he'll bring to life the process of creating a picture book, from Jill's initial sketches and photos of live models and landscapes, all the way to matching up story and art.) "Internet Resources for Writers and Readers" Kevin Cummings "Meet Local Middle Grade and Young Adult Novelists" Dean Hughes, Ann Cannon, and Louise Plummer 3:20 WORKSHOP SESSION F "Inspiring Kids to Write Through Children's Novels" Sara Hacken "The Evolution of the Picture Book" Pat Bezzant Castelli "Meet Local Illustrators" Will Terry, Richard Hull, Mark and Cara Buehner -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:37:56 -0700 Responding to the idea that culture is some pure state that dare not/must not/shall not be interfered with without dire damage to the souls of both the outside and inside changers thereof... I had an interesting experience at the BYU sf symposium last week that touches a little bit on this. A BYU student (Ethan Sproat) read an interesting paper where he attempted to analyze the mythic foundations of speculative fiction, a genre often associated with the mythic form. A main point of analysis was the effective contamination by Joseph Campbell of modern sf by his description of mythic structures in _The Hero With a Thousand Faces._ Sproat's method went something like this: Campbell released his book in1959, and that analysis permanently poisoned the waters; there was no longer a pure sample against which to test the hypothesis because so many authors had used Campbell as their guide to mythic forms (George Lucas and the Wychowski brothers [The Matrix] as examples). Campbell's book had described an existing phenomena and then became a prescription for future iterations of that phenomena. He permanently changed how people approached mythic storytelling, thus making it impossible to analyze the question (does sf follow a mythic structure?) with any work published after 1959. (Of course Aristotle did essentially the same thing Campbell did but many, many years earlier--which begs the fundamental question--but that's a different discussion.) The idea is quite an old one. In science the idea is expressed in the problem of Shroedinger's cat--a cat is known to be inside a box, but we don't know whether the cat is alive. Until we open the box and look, either possibility is equally valid--functionally, the cat is both alive and dead. Once we open the box and observe the cat we essentially create a fixed condition for the cat--we now cause the cat to go from both alive *and* dead to either alive *or* dead. We create a fixed event from infinite possibility. We contaminate the cat by forcing a single reality to be created. Heisenberg addressed a similar problem with the uncertainty principle--either we know position or velocity, but not both. Choosing to observe either attribute makes the remaining attribute meaningless and impossible to measure or know. It seems that our interactions with cultures are very similar. The very act of observing a culture changes it. I'm not sure that it's entirely a moral question so much as a simply observable fact. I can argue imperialism on either side of the issue--if our own culture is revealed, the target culture will change and much that is good or beautiful may be lost, much that is different will become familiar. If we intentionally withhold information about our culture, then we deny the target culture at least part of it right of self-determination and/or self modification. In either case, we don't know the rate of change until we observe a fixed point. After that it's impossible to know whether change happened because of observation or in spite of it. One datum is lost in pursuit of another. I think James Picht described it well with his exploration of the myth of the "pure culture." A culture changes minute by minute and day by day. Evolution of culture is a basic aspect of culture. Throughout time some have embraced change and others have feared it--a fundamental story of the human condition (oblique literary connection, but at least I tried). The result is both a loss of beautiful cultures, and the creation of new beautiful cultures (which it seems that we won't recognize until they have become contaminated by the next new culture, sigh...). Still, the exchange of knowledge and experience is at least part of the goal of this life as I understand it. But while change may be inevitable, the minute we stop asking ourselves whether we have done the best we can in our interactions with others is the minute we become precisely the mindless cultural terrorists that so many want to accuse us of being. Scott the Relativist rides again! (or is that Scott the Indistinct? it's so hard to tell sometimes...) Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source Date: 25 Feb 2002 13:40:36 -0800 > The site is really catching on. We just installed a counter about 24 hours > ago and have already counted about 500 hits, just from our e-mail > announcements and word of mouth. I have to say my husband and I thought the first issue was hilarious, especially the article about the CTR caffeine patch. We still laugh about that one. Will you eventually be taking submissions for articles or article ideas? Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Sunstone: Call for Papers Date: 23 Feb 2002 01:14:00 -0700 C A L L F 0 R P A P E R S 2002 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium 7-10 AUGUST 2002 SHERATON CITY CENTRE HOTEL 150 WEST 500 SOUTH, SALT LAKE CITY THE SALT LAKE SUNSTONE SYMPOSIUM is an annual gathering of Latter-day Saints, scholars, and others interested in the diversity and richness of Mormon thought and experience and who enjoy pondering the past, present, and future of the unfolding Restoration. The symposium hosts discussions from all disciplines and presentations of all kinds. The symposium is based upon the principles of an open forum and the trust that both the cause of truth and the society of the Saints are best served by free and frank exploration and discussion. Sunstone welcomes proposals for this year's event, expecting all who participate will approach every issue, no matter how difficult, with intelligence and good will. TOPICS AND FORMATS. Symposium topics should relate to Mormonism, general religion, spirituality, or ethical living. Sessions may be scholarly papers, panel discussions, interviews, personal essays, sermons, dramatic performances, literary readings, debates, comic routines, short films, art displays, or musical presentations. SUBMITTING PROPOSALS. Those interested in being a part of the program this year should submit a proposal which includes a session title, 100-word abstract, a summary of the topic's relevance and importance to Mormon studies, and the name and a brief vita for all proposed presenters. PROPOSALS SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY 30 APRIL 2002 (to receive first-round consideration) and will be accepted according to standards of excellence in scholarship, thought, and expression. All subjects, ideas, and persons must be treated with respect, regard, and intelligent discourse; proposals with a belittling tone will be rejected. ART EXHIBIT AND AUCTION. High-quality art by Mormon and regional artists will be exhibited and sold at affordable prices. Donated works are needed! Bring your friends to enjoy wonderful works; encourage your firm to acquire office art at reasonable prices. VOLUNTEERS. Sunstone needs volunteer office help in the weeks leading up to the symposium. At the symposium, we need help staffing registration and bookroom tables and taking tickets at each session. Volunteer hours may be redeemed for free session tickets, cassette recordings, back issues of the magazine, or lengthened subscriptions. Please call the Sunstone office if you can help out! PRELIMINARY PROGRAM MAILING LIST. Subscribers to the magazine and past participants will automatically be sent a complete preliminary program in mid-June. If you don't think you are on this list, please sign up to receive one. (Ask for multiple copies to share!) You may order the preliminary program by phone, mail, fax, or email (see below); when the program becomes available, you may visit to view it and other updates. STUDENT TRAVEL GRANTS. Help with travel expenses is available for needy college students whose proposals are accepted. Inquire at the Sunstone office. HOTEL REGISTRATION. Enjoy the convenience of staying at the Sheraton City Centre Hotel, the site of this year's symposium. Special conference rates are: $89 for single and double rooms; add $10 per person for each additional occupant. You must reserve rooms at least two weeks before the symposium. For reservations, call toll free 800-325-3535 or, if local, 801-401-2000. To guarantee these rates, be sure to ask for the Sunstone Symposium room rates. The Sunstone Education Foundation, Inc. 343 N. Third West, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 phone: (801) 355-5926 fax: (801) 355-4043 email: -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 22 Feb 2002 22:09:16 EST Whether or not the world finds missionary efforts to be imperialistic, we are bound by commandment to share the gospel. The only choices we have are whether or not to obey that commandment, and if we do share, *how* we share. I've been thinking about that as I've observed the tactics of the activists on South Temple during the Olympics and compared them to LDS missionary activity. Walking down South Temple last week felt like running a gauntlet, with anti-Mormon tracts being thrust in my face every few feet -- it was annoying and much too frequent. This suggests to me that Mormon tracting, while culturally appropriate to the 19th century, may be inappropriate today -- people can fairly complain that our missionaries' too-frequent knocking on their doors is akin to and as annoying as telephone soliciting and email spam. Tracting (and the occasional obnoxious behavior of individual missionaries) aside, Mormon tactics are comparatively benign. We do not march through the streets of Atlanta carrying signs that read "Baptists Tell Lies About My Church" and "Evangelists Will Go To Hell." We do not set up pork barbecues on the sidewalk in front of a mosque so that worshipers have to walk through those aromas on their way to prayers (cf. the group of cigar-puffers near the temple gates). We don't station missionaries with megaphones outside cathedrals or synagogues or Krishna temples to harangue passers-by with the doctrinal errors of those groups. Sometimes, though, that is more or less what popular LDS fiction, especially among new writers, does: Secular culture is uniformly bad, and characters are good or bad depending on whether they are in/out or moving toward/from Mormon culture. Conflict arises from persecution of characters holding Mormon values to a far greater degree than most of us encounter in reality. Narrators presume to speak for other religions or for parts of the secular culture that the author doesn't really understand. What's missing is subtlety, fairness, and accuracy. Activists would be more effective and novelists would be more successful if they toned down their tactics and tuned up their awareness of cultures beyond their own. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Smith Institute Conference: Telling the Story of Mormon History Date: 25 Feb 2002 08:44:09 -0700 Telling the Story of Mormon History Saturday, March 16, 2002 140 Joseph Smith Building Brigham Young University The Smith Institute will host its annual symposium on Saturday, 16 March 2002 on the BYU campus. Titled "Telling the Story of Mormon History," the symposium promises to enlighten attendees on the challenges and highlights of writing Mormon history over the years. Schedule for conference: 9:00-9:50 Opening Plenary Session "The Story of a Disciple's Life: Preparing the Biography of Elder Neal A. Maxwell" Elder Bruce C. Hafen, Assistant Executive Director of the LDS Church Department of Family and Church History 10:00-10:50 Concurrent Sessions "George Q. Cannon and the Faithful Narrative of Mormon History" Davis Bitton "Mormon History for the Outside Audience" Klaus J. Hansen "Telling the Story through Film Documentaries" Lee B. Groberg "Putting History onto Interactive CDs and DVDs" Fred Clark Kesler Jr. "Historiography of Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Pacific Islands" Kahlile Mehr, E. Dale LeBaron, Mark L. Grover, Grant Underwood 11:00-11:50 Concurrent Sessions "Telling the Untold Story: Emmeline B. Wells as Historian" Carol Cornwall Madsen "Telling Mormon Women's History through Advertisements in the _Relief Society Magazine_, 1914-1970" Audrey M. Godfrey "Vilifying the Saints: The Evolution of Historiographic Interpretations of Mormon-Indian Relations in Utah" Sandra Jones "Improving Our Historiography of LDS-Indian Contact" Robert Briggs "Mormon Wards as Community" Jessie L. Embry "Humor along the Trail of Mormon History" Melvin L. Bashore 11:50-1:00 Plenary Session Luncheon The Story behind the Story, or Why and How it Gets Written" Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith Biography Project, and James B. Allen, _The Story of the Latter-day Saints and Studies in Mormon History_ 1:00-1:50 Concurrent Sessions "Writing the History of Mormon Nauvoo, 1839-2002" Kenneth W. Godfrey "The Quest for the 'Real' Nauvoo" Glen M. Leonard "Mormon History as Legal Precedent" Timothy W. Durkin "Education in Pioneer Utah: A Quantitative Approach" Tally S. Payne "Using Historic Sites and Artifacts to Tell the Mormon Story" Jennifer Lund "Church Historic Sites as Institutional Memory" Steven L. Olsen 2:00-2:50 Concurrent Sessions "Teaching Church History in the Classroom" Susan Easton Black "T. Edgar Lyon: A Teacher in Zion" T. Edgar Lyon Jr., read by James K. Lyon "Many Mansions: The Post-Modern Critique and a More Tolerant Mormon History " Steve Taysom "Modern vs. Postmodern Approaches to Telling the Story" Alan Goff "Joseph Smith and Early Mormon Record Keeping" Scott Faulring "Memory as Record and History: The Church's Oral History Program" Matthew K. Heiss 3:00-3:50 Closing Plenary Session Panel: "Handling Sensitivities in LDS History" John W. Welch (Moderator); Ronald W. Walker, Smith Institute; Jill Mulvay Derr, Smith Institute; Doris Dant, BYU Studies; Steven R. Sorensen, LDS Church Archives If you would like to order a lunch ($5.50, includes chips, apple, cookie, drink, and choice of sandwich), see the web site at http://SmithInstitute.byu.edu/lunch/default.asp?qn=sfilunch Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Compensation and Art (was: American Book Publishing) Date: 25 Feb 2002 12:33:42 -0600 (Back to a thread from a while ago...) Terry wrote: >ABP clearly believes in their model and wants to attract authors. But >if ABP does not have to take serious financial risks in publishing >their works, then they don't really have to take their titles as >seriously as a traditional publisher. Vanity presses couldn't care >less about the books they publish since the author has put in all the >costs of publication. ABP's model does involve some financial >commitments, but merely for printing and housing the books. I should perhaps point out that similar arrangments are not unheard-of even in the case of conventional publishers, though perhaps less common than they once were. When Allen & Unwin was preparing to publish J.R.R. Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_, the publisher's son, though he believed it was a great book, thought the firm would likely lose a thousand pounds on its publication. (Keep in mind that it was an extraordinarily long book as well.) So in order to reduce the publisher's risk, they proposed a profit-sharing agreement, under which "Tolkien would not receive conventional royalty payments on a percentage basis. Instead he would be paid 'half profits'; that is, he would receive nothing until the sales of the book had been sufficient to cover its costs, but thenceforward he would share equally with the publisher in any profits that might accrue. This method, which had once been common practice but was by this time [mid-1950s] little used by other firms, was still favoured by Sir Stanley Unwin for all potentially uneconomical books" (Humphrey Carpenter, _Tolkien: A Biography_). Of course, as things turned out, Tolkien made far more under this arrangement than he would have under a conventional royalties agreement. But at first, what it looked like was that he would receive nothing at all but the satisfaction of seeing his work in print. Keep in mind too that this was from a published author with a proven track record: _The Hobbit_ had been quite a successful children's book, and the publisher had specifically requested a sequel. Of course, as everyone connected to the book by then realized, _Lord of the Rings_ was not really a second _Hobbit_, in terms of potential audience. Tolkien of course is the exception: the true work of genius (which his publisher, perhaps surprisingly, realized) which turned out in the end to be immensely popular (which no one expected). I've read comments from a number of publishers and editors to the effect that it's easier to see quality in a manuscript than it is to predict what will prove successful. It seems odd to me that this should be the case, but apparently it is. This makes a point, however, which interests me for other reasons. It seems clear that if Tolkien had been looking for financial reward proportional to his effort, _The Lord of the Rings_ would never have been written or published. The book took 12 years to write. During that time, Tolkien, a professor at Oxford and one of the world's leading scholars on Anglo-Saxon and Middle English language and literature, did a lot of teaching, but almost no academic writing or publishing. (Those of you with acquaintance with university standards will realize just how serious this is.) Instead, all the creative intellectual efforts of his "years of authority" as a scholar (he was almost 60 when _Lord of the Rings_ was finished) went into his fiction. And even this does not tell the tale. The first stories of Tolkien's invented mythology were written during World War I and actually predate his academic career. _The Lord of the Rings_ is erected on a foundation of immense labor over a long period of time. And it shows. Tolkien's work is demonstrably (in my view) almost incomparably richer than that of any other contemporary fantasist. There is more stuff and substance to it. I say this as a lover of modern fantasy literature, of Patricia McKillip and Poul Anderson and Stephen R. Donaldson and Ursula Le Guin and Robin McKinley and Orson Scott Card and Robert Holdstock and Roger Zelazny's _Amber_ series and even (dare I say it) such lesser luminaries as Glen Cook and Andre Norton. (I'm not counting science fiction here, which I also like but for somewhat different reasons.) But all of these I've listed (except possibly Robert Holdstock) are professional writers. That's how they do, or have, supported themselves for significant portions of their life. They could not *afford* to pour the type of energy into one work, with no promise of compensation, that Tolkien put into his. And with all due respect, I think their work, excellent as it is in many ways, shows that. Which leads me to wonder: Are there certain types of literature (or art in general) which are harder to create if you're trying to "make a living" from art? Or more radically: Might the notion of the full-time professional artist itself be a detriment to good art--a mistaken application of the principle of industrialization and specialization to a sphere where it really doesn't apply that well? Historically, I think that the ideal of the professional writer is a pretty new one. Chaucer didn't make a living from his writing. Shakespeare's career was in theater, but my understanding is that he probably made a lot more as a part-owner of the theater than as a playwright. (He also worked as an actor.) In any event, I'm willing to believe that the rules may be different for drama than for, say, the writing of poetry and fiction--though I notice (for example) that most if not all of the most successful Mormon dramatists make their bread and butter from teaching or other careers, not from playwriting. The definition of professional, as some have quoted to me on occasion, is one who gets paid for what he/she does. And yet it seems clear to me that much of the best art is largely uncompensated, or at least heavily subsidized, usually by the author's own efforts in other areas. Up to this point, Mormon literature has been (of necessity) largely driven by those who make a part-time effort of it--if only because there are so few who have been able to make a full-time professional living off their writing (and these have been largely confined to particular niches). I'd like to see us expand to where there is space for more people to make a living from literature. And yet I think that the ongoing contributions of the part-timers may be equally necessary, and perhaps more likely to make the community grow outside of easy or comfortable boundaries. At the same time, it seems to me inevitable that such work will in almost all cases be compensated at a rate which makes it--from a financial perspective--less a career than an expensive, time- and even money-draining avocation (when you consider the--what do economists call it, Jim, the opportunity cost? The other stuff you could be doing to earn money if you weren't writing.) So I think it's true that the writer, like any other laborer, ought to be worthy of his/her hire. But speaking realistically, I think most Mormon writers--even the successful, published ones--will have to continue looking largely to non-economic motivations as a reward for what they do. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself... jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Veteran LDS Actor Robert Peterson to Perform at the Utah Date: 25 Feb 2002 13:29:03 -0500 > CEDAR CITY, UTAH -- The Utah Shakespearean Festival recently > announced that popular Utah actor and Broadway veteran Robert > Peterson has been signed for the 2002 season. Peterson, a favorite of > Utah audiences for many years, will be playing the roles of > Cervantes/Don Quixote in this year's production of Man of La Mancha > and Judge Omar Gaffney in Harvey. > > "I first saw Robert in New York in 1962," said Fred C. Adams, > Festival founder and executive producer. "I've admired his work and > talent ever since and have long wanted him to work with us. To me, he > is 'Mr. Theatre.' Audiences will be blown away by what is one of the > truly glorious voices in American theatre." > > Peterson has performed in over fifty productions with Utah's Pioneer > Theatre, including the role of Cervantes/Don Quixote in Man of La > Mancha, which he last played in 1995. During his career he has > appeared in twenty different productions, or 400 to 500 performances, > of this popular musical. > > He has also appeared in productions of Romeo and Juliet, The Three > Musketeers, Hamlet, Cyrano de Bergerac, South Pacific, My Fair Lady, > The Music Man, and many others. > > Peterson's reputation as an actor was established nearly forty years > ago when he replaced Robert Goulet as Lancelot in the Broadway > production of Camelot. Since that time he has continued to share his > considerable talents with audiences across the country, including > performances with numerous regional symphonies and theatre companies. > > "I am excited to be doing this particular role again, under such > enviable circumstances," said Peterson. "Man of La Mancha is a > powerful story with a great message, and the character of Don Quixote > is just delightful. I'm also looking forward to playing Judge Gaffney > in Harvey. It's a wonderful play, and it's going to be a lot of fun. > The Festival is one of the most highly regarded theatres in the > country, so when Fred asked me to join the 2002 season I couldn't say > no." > > The 2002 season begins June 20 and runs through October 16. For more > information on the Utah Shakespearean Festival, or to order tickets, > call 1-800-PLAYTIX or visit the Festival online at href="http://www.bard.org">http://www.bard.org . > > > Source: > Broadway Veteran Robert Peterson to Perform at the Utah Shakespearean Festival > USF Press Release 18Jan02 A2 > > http://www.bard.org/SectionPress/presspeterson.html > >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events > Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included > Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites > without permission. Please link to our pages instead. > For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source Date: 25 Feb 2002 15:36:27 -0700 <<< Will you eventually be taking submissions for articles or article ideas? >>> Yes, we will eventually, but not quite yet. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 25 Feb 2002 16:12:44 -0700 ___ Stephen ___ | I think, now that we have the benefit of history, we could read | our conquest of America the same way we read Israel's conquests | under Joshua's command. To me those conquests are rife with sin | stemming from cultural imperialism: "if you aren't us, you are | less, and must become us or die." ___ Given that events under Joshua included rather abundant genocide (and I'll avoid that tangent for the moderator's sake) I'm not quite sure how to take your analogy. Often the "others" weren't even given the opportunity to convert. (One of the many things that makes the Old Testament so uncomfortable for us modern readers) Are you saying that, like Israel, we are commanded to eradicate all culture other than our own? I don't think so. Despite such now funny incidents as Brigham Young trying to stop Shakespeare from being performed, we seem largely open to culture. Perhaps we end up adopting the culture of our surroundings, but that was rather what Israel was supposed not to do. So if we are Joshua's Israel in that sense, we are quite the failure. Perhaps you mean something more like the "Borg" model of culture. We ought to adopt all the lines of communication and then assimilate them? While people joke about this relative to MS-NBC, Disney-ABC-ESPN, Fox-NEWS, or Viacom-CBS, the fact is that it never quite comes off as the pendants warn. Plus, despite all the X-files like conspiracy theory of films like _The Godmakers_, our control of media hasn't been that great. Heavens, even media outlets we did control, like the LA Times, seemed to give us far more bad press than good press. And I don't think they ever extolled the virtues of lime green Jello. For that we had to wait for NPR and their fascination with jello pins at the Olympics. I suspect, however, that what you *may* mean is something like along with the more "theoretical" religious beliefs of Israel that Moses brought, he also brought a rather fixed culture that all of Israel had to adopt. To be Israel meant to follow what were often very arbitrary rules about eating, dressing, and so forth. I mean say what you will, but the Law of Moses seems about the height of cultural imperialism. As enforced culture Rome, Stalinist Russia or so forth never came close. (Not that I'm saying that was a bad thing for Israel, but still, lets call a spade a spade) ___ Stephen ___ | It seems that God doesn't necessarily condone everything he | prophecies. ___ That's certainly true, although in the case of Joshua I'm not sure we're necessarily left with that door out. As I said, the OT is oft times an uncomfortable read. However when I talked of culture and how the United States was inspired, I was more thinking of the Constitution and so forth. Many aspects of American culture really tie back to those founding "myths" of this country. It really is interesting talking to people from other countries and then seeing how fundamental assumptions change our views. I was talking last weekend to a woman who was from Romania and she mentioned a common tourist guide available in Europe. It talked about how one of the greatest values for Americans was owning your own home or property. I guess that is more uncommon in Europe but we had a very interesting discussion of how that relates to American mentality and how it contrasts with European ones. Now I'm not saying American views of property ownership are necessarily an inspired cultural value. (I think it is, but am willing to be wrong on that point) I do think, however, that there are many of these subtle often obscured aspects of our culture that we are exporting. And to be honest, I don't think exporting them is wrong at all. Further, I think that the main way we export these values is through our media - whether it be books, film, television, or so forth. For all the silly notions that sometimes get communicated (i.e. there are regular gunfights all over America) there are also those basic values that I think get communicated. Many of those values are things that do contribute to a lot of what make our religion what it is. I think there is a reason why ancient Israel or even the Roman Israel couldn't have what we have. I suspect that a lot of that is our culture. Of course by the same token that culture is also why we don't have the culture of 4th Nephi. So perhaps in some ways our writing and communicating also betrays why we fail at what Enoch succeeded in. That's what's so interesting about a culture's writing. Often it provides a snapshot into what they really are. But if what we really are is good, then exporting culture is providing people the choice to be like us. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 25 Feb 2002 18:50:07 -0500 A response to Stephen Carter's post on Cultural Imperialism: STEPHEN CARTER: Saying that the United States is >hooked in with the gospel sounds strange to me. ROB LAUER: But both the Book of Mormon and the D&C clearly state this--as do the Articals of Faith. The Church believes that the New Juerusalem and Zion will be established on this (The American) continent. Before the Nauvoo period of Church history, this doctrine was central to Mormonism. This belief was what distinquished Mormonism from other US "restorationist" churches. The Book of Mormon gave the nation a sacred, ancient past which in turn linked it's destiny to that of a restored Israel in the middle east. STEPHEN CARTER: It seems to me that "the >gospel" is all truth circumscribed into one great whole. So it could be >that >God helped put the U.S. together for some very important purposes, but to >say >that the US or Israel is of central importance seems kind of stretched. ROB LAUER: It seems to me that one has to ignore most of the Bible and the Book of Mormon to maintain this point of view. I agree that both books of scriptures are certainly NOT politically correct and therefore they seem odd to our modern sensibilities. But how can one "read out" of these books the central concept of a chosen people--a chosen nation--who have entered into a special covenant with God. Israel is that nation--and the Book of Mormon clearly teaches (it seems) to me that the repentant Gentiles and Lehi's descendants in America are to play a CENTRAL part in that work. The D&C, in stating that the US Constitution was divinely inspired, seems to elaborate further in that concept. Certainly the LDS Church has historically behaved as if this was the case--with the doctrine of "the gathering" which required all converts in the 19th century to leave their homelands and "gather" to the US. Again, I understand how this comes up against modern sensibilities, but it seems a stretch to imply that these doctrines are absent from the scriptures. STEPHEN CARTER: Yes,they are part of the gospel, just like a llama herder from Chile is. But the >gospel cannot be place based, it's universal and diverse. ROB LAUER: But in the 19th century the Gospel was "place based." Harold Bloom, Jan Shipps and other non-Mormon scholars have written much about this aspect of the LDS Gospel. This is also explored in a new book from Oxford University Press"BY THE HAND OF MORMON: THE STORY OF AN AMERICAN SCRIPTURE THAT BECAME A WORLD RELIGION." (I just started this book and so far, have found it very inisghtful.) STEPHEN CARTER: > Sacred books are usually tied to the areas they come from and makes >explicit >reference to them: the United States (Mormon), the MIddle East (Islam), >South >Asia (Hinduism, Buddhism), Israel (Judaism). And since God has revealed >himself to many more cultures than the ones we currently know of, he >probably >dealt with their area of residence just as God did with us. We're just one >of >many. ROB LAYER: I certainly accept the Book of Mormon's teaching that God speaks to all nations and commands them to write His word; that by these word they will be judged. But does this mean that EVERY book claiming to be scripture or revered by some people as such, actually is the Word of God? I don't accept the teachings of Buddha or the Koran as divinely inspired. In fact, they contain concepts, doctrines and views of human and divine nature that are the opposite of those found in LDS scripture. While accepting the DOCTRINE (as opposed to a mere policy) that all people are free to embrace and practice whatever religion they please, I certainly don't take this to mean that all religions are somehow equally correct. The message given to Joseph in the First Vision says just the opposite: they doctrines of men, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. This being my conviction, I am perfectly comfortable with those of other faiths and cultures who declare that MY religion is false. In fact if they truly think this, I admire them for the strength of their convictions. But personal convictions do not change objective truth, and to say that all religions have an equal claim on the truth when they contradict each other in their particulars seems to sink the entire religious world in a sea of complete moral subjectivism. STEPHEN CARTER: > On the cultural imperialism end, I think many of the prophesies in the >Book >of Mormon that talk about the "Gentile" domination of America, isn't >hailing a >wonderful, freedom filled process. ROB LAUER: This is an excellent point! And one that is seldom made in the Church. In fact, what I understand from the Book of Mormon is that Lehi's decedents (numbered among the Native Americans) will eventually surpass the Gentiles. STEPHEN CARTER: I think, now that we have the benefit of >history, we could read our conquest of America the same way we read >Israel's >conquests under Joshua's command. To me those conquests are rife with sin >stemming from cultural imperialism: "if you aren't us, you are less, and >must >become us or die." ROB LAUER: I find it interesting that with all our discussions of so-called "Social Imperialism", that many want to impose their own cultural understanding of morality on the culture of Ancient Israel. After years of trying to reconcile the violent, tribal societies of the Bible with post-Enlightment thinking, I have come to the conclusion (in light of September 11th) that it simply cannot be done. My opinion is that at that point in human history (the period of the Bible) the human race had not progressed far enough in their thinking and social structure to deal with the concepts of individuality, human rights, etc. I know that my writing this proves that I am a "Cultural Imperialist" for thinking that those societies of the ancient past were inferior to the post-Enlightment societies of today. So be it. I do indeed think that, and I will always think that. (I might suggest that one read the excellent 1994 book IN DEFENSE OF ELITISM.) BECAUSE I hold that all individuals have equal claims to their lives and rights, I also hold that all cultures and societies are not of equal worth--for many of them reject individualism. But that has not stopped the Lord our God from using one of these societies (Israel) towards accomplishing his great aim which is, according to the covenant He made with Abraham, "Through thy (Abraham's) seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Question: Does this make God a "Social Imperialist?" After all, throughout the scriptures He refers to Himself as "The God of Israel" and "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.") In establishing relationships with humans in ancient, more barbaric times, should it be surprising that God sometimes commanded the destruction of an entire culture or people? Well, yes, that DOES bother me. But that doesn't change the fact (if one accept the accounts as historical) that God and Joshua (and Moses, Samuel, David, etc.) condoned such violence in those particular situations. In the end, I can only marvel at it all (to "marvel" meaning, for me, to be horrified, shocked, amazed and awed) and thank God that I was born in this particular age and in this particular culture. Which is must more evidence that I'm a confirmed "Social Imperialist." (If such a thing exists.) ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] New Baby Is Here! Date: 25 Feb 2002 19:11:03 -0700 Congrats!!! He must be a special kid. He was born on my birthday--only (ahem) 39 years later. Alan Mitchell ----- Original Message ----- > Linda & Steve Adams are pleased to announce the arrival of Joseph Daniel > Adams on Wednesday, February 13, at 6:21am. He weighed in at 7lbs 11oz and > 21 inches long. Both mom and baby are doing well, however it will be a few > more days before Linda is able to negotiate the stairs to get back to her > e-mail and writing! > Linda Adams > adamszoo@sprintmail.com > http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lawrence Choong" Subject: [AML] Horn Tooting (Shelly Johnson-Choong Date: 25 Feb 2002 18:38:27 -0800 Hey Folks,=20 I've been out of commission for a while, but I'm writing again, and I've = got some great news. My fourth novel, FINDING HOME, was released late = January. It was published by Granite. By the way, I really enjoy working = with these folks. It continues to be a pleasure. =20 Also, I've just finished my new website. You can find it at = shellyjohnsonchoong.com. Check it out and let me know what you think.=20 I can't tell you how good it feels to be writing again.=20 Shelly (Johnson-Choong)=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janelle Higbee Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Lessons from the Olympics Date: 25 Feb 2002 21:02:09 -0700 -----Original Message----- Me! Me! Sign me up as AML vice-Skip. Some people look at curling and ask, "= Why?!" I look at curling and say, "Well...and why not?" I knew nothing about curling before last week. On a whim, I got tickets to= attend the men's Bronze medal curling match between Switzerland and Swed= en. It was so much fun that the minute it was over, I got back in the tic= ket line to see the Gold medal match between Norway and Canada. Could no= t have asked for a better day's entertainment. Drama, intrigue, heartbre= ak, last-minute heroics, and the sight of dignified King Harald V throwin= g his hands in the air like a jubilant little boy as Norway pulled off th= e upset.=20 My old sports journalism instincts were reawakened. Now I'm working on an e= ssay/article tentatively titled, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love= Curling." Any sport where a world-class athlete can compete while weari= ng glasses that make him look like Buddy Holly is okay by me. -Janelle Higbee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _Bound for Canaan_ (Review) Date: 25 Feb 2002 20:03:38 -0800 Review ====== Title: Bound for Canaan Author: Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aldan Gray Publisher: Bookcraft Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 414 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-791-1 Price: $19.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle "Bound for Canaan" is the second volume of the "Standing on the Promises" trilogy from Young and Gray. It continues the dramatic stories, so ably begun in the first volume of this series, of the black pioneers of the Mormon religion. These are stories little known because little told. But they form an important part of the Mormon identity. We are fortunate to have this series coming into our hands at this time. "Bound for Canaan" continues the inspiring, and tragic, stories of Elijah Abel and his wife Mary Ann, Isaac and Jane Manning James, and the Flakes, among others. Taking such characters through Nauvoo to the Salt Lake Valley, we follow their lives through the days of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil War, and the end of slavery. Babies are born and die; crops are planted, some fail; loves are lost and found; religion succeeds and fails. Young and Gray take us into the lives of these noble people, sparing us nothing of their tears and shed blood. But while this book is "their" story in essence, it is, in fact, *our* story in so many ways. It is the story of a nation, born in its desire for liberty, losing sight of that most elemental liberty -- the right to live a life free to pursue happiness in an equal and open society. It is the story of a Church that claims to be the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, welcoming the powers of the priesthood back to the earth after a long absence, but denying these powers and privileges to some because of their skin color. The most compelling character, to me, was Elijah Abel. I will spare you a long review by focusing on Abel, leaving you to discover the others in your own reading of the book. Readers will remember that Joseph Smith, Jr., ordained Abel to the priesthood, despite his skin color. In Vol. 1 of "Standing on the Promises," we were given a foretaste of what Elijah would be facing -- several brethren visiting him after the death of Joseph, announcing that his "priesthood" would, to put it mildly, be coming under review. In one extraordinary encounter, Elijah Abel reaches Salt Lake City and requests an audience with Pres. Young. Knowing that Brigham Young would not agree to see him to discuss his priesthood, Abel asks to see the President to discuss how he, Elijah, could contribute to the building of the Salt Lake Temple. And indeed, he intends to help in this building project, regardless of how Pres. Young responds to his request for further blessings. Abel has heard that there were more blessings in store for him as a priesthood holder, but they were being denied to him because of his race. He wanted to appeal to Brigham to open up the Temple blessings to him. What he finds is a recalcitrant leader, unwilling to fully discuss the issue (he keeps changing the subject), and finally handing Abel a copy of the Pearl of Great Price, assuring him he would understand why he couldn't partake of these ordinances after reading the booklet. One cannot help but be appalled at Brigham Young's apparent lack of sensitivity. The authors are careful to note that Brigham Young was a product of his times. His views on race, while considered severe (some can be found in the Journal of Discourses), were not unusual for his time. But Elijah Abel wonders why the heavenly view can't rise above the prejudices of an earthly society: Brigham sat straighter and spoke loud. "I regret that most of your race have known ill treatment. Shame on those who have rendered it. They will be judged by a just God." His voice became sadder. "But, Elijah," he said, leaning across his desk, "you know the burden your race carries by divine decree. That burden is the very sin of Cain. I cannot undo the mandates or the curses of the Eternal I Am. You understand that, don't you? You always understood that the Negro has his separate place on this earth?" Elijah was not about to give up on this. "I know it be separate on this earth, be we talkin' about heaven things." (pp. 149-150) Let it not be said that the authors are overly critical of Brigham Young. In fact, it is made plain that, in light of his times, he was more kindly disposed toward people of color than many of his contemporaries. But on the matter of priesthood, he was unmovable. But there are troubling questions. Can a mortal, even the President of the Church, project a misguided view of earthly racial relations into a heavenly mandate? And so doing, how does he reconcile this to Joseph Smith's contrary actions? We may never know the answers to these questions. Elijah Abel would go to his grave a loyal member of the Church, in fact serving his very last days on a mission for the Church. But we never get the sense that he ever came to terms with how the Church, after Joseph's death, dealt with those who shared his race. He toys with the idea that his lot in life is, in fact, a larger mission. I hope he finally discarded this idea, although we are not told. When we read of the passing of Elijah's wife, Mary Ann, we are gripped with an almost uncontrollable fury. The words of the book tell it best: A recently returned missionary spoke at Mary Ann's funeral. Elijah would hear only a sentence or two before his mind would meander into melancholy paths. For the rest of his life, he could never recall the speaker's name. "Sister Mary Ann was of the African descendancy," said the man. Elijah wondered why that should matter and if the speaker didn't think they all knew about Mary Ann's lineage. "Stanley the traveler has furnished the world with a complete map of the course of that mighty river, the Congo, down in Africa." (p. 315) And the speaker continues to relate how the gospel is being brought to the "benighted tribes of the wilds of Africa." And all the while Elijah's thoughts are elsewhere, just barely hearing the speaker, and wondering why this white speaker thinks this is the time and place to let all the "negroes" know how lucky they are to have white people saving their souls on the Dark Continent. But Abel will have none of it. His thoughts: She is my wife, the beginning of my days and the comfort of my nights. She is all the anguish this world has known and all the joy it might find. Her eyes saw me so clear. She could see me despite the clownin', minstrel paint on my face, despite my need to buy a place in a world that won't take me as a man. Her nose smelled the rankness of our son's disease, and she held his pain. She ministered to him like the angel I kept waitin' for. Why didn't I see her then as full as I'm seein' her now. Her breasts that fed our babies and made my slumber soft. Her hands, her legs, her private self. All, all, all of her. Say her name. Acknowledge my wife: Mary Ann Adams Abel. (p 317) Can anyone read these words and not feel shame, anger, sadness? I had to put the book down and suppress a deep shudder. Even in death, the righteous Mary Ann, wife of righteous Elijah Abel, was, in the eyes of the returned missionary, a non-person. The story of Elijah Abel's life stands as an example of righteousness and loyalty in the face of struggle and disappointment. I'll leave the reader to explore the lives of the others, whose trials and triumphs are recorded in this fine book. Over the years, I've used many words to describe the books I've reviewed. I've called books "very good," "a wonderful read," and have been, at times, less flattering. "Bound for Canaan" merits a word I use sparingly -- "important." It matters on so many levels: 1. To the extent that the story of the contributions, and trials, of the black pioneers of Mormonism remains untold, I believe that the modern Church will continue to struggle with the vestiges of racism. The Church continues to be a reflection of its times. Anecdotal evidence is abundant that pre-OD2 thinking has not entirely dissipated. This is not to imply that institutional racism continues. But while the Church continues to struggle with its past, I am optimistic about the future. 2. Church history has been largely sanitized when it comes to the place of the black man and woman in the building up of the kingdom. But then, the tellers of American history are no different. Efforts are being made in the American historical community to correct this situation. Young and Gray are leading the charge in effecting a similar correction within the Mormon Church. Who should read this book? I say, with no hesitation, every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should own this volume, indeed, the entire series. Here is a story that will fill you with sorrow and anger, but ultimately with hope. Because the story of race relations in Mormonism is not yet ended. Is it possible that this generation will write the final chapter? ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] GILMORE, _Shot in the Heart_ (Review) part 5 Date: 25 Feb 2002 00:10:03 -0800 [Note, Parts 1 & 2 of this review were published Jan. 17, part 3 was published Jan. 19, and part 4 appeared Feb. 8. If you missed them and want them drop me a note.] Mikal Gilmore, _Shot in the Heart_, review, Part 5, A Spectacularly Dysfunctional Family? Sun, 30 Jan 2000 On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 R.W. Rasband wrote: > Not to toot my own horn or anything, but there is a review of > "Shot in the Heart" in the AML-List review archive by yours truly. Yes, I remember it. The subject line originally read "Shot in the Dark." Someone had apparently been watching old Peter Sellers movies. I miss him. I think "Being There" is probably a better film than novel. I read that he got the film made by leaving a message on Jerzy Kosinski's answering machine from Chance the Gardener, asking Kosinski to return the call. I wish Kosinski hadn't killed himself. Such a tragedy to survive the death camps then kill yourself anyway. Someday I'll have to read _The Painted Bird_. I bought it in high school from the remainder table in BYU bookstore, after Mike Lyon told us about it when he was teaching our Sunny Schoodle class. I know it will be a painful thing to read. It sits there waiting for me on the top shelf of the north wall (or would be if that section of shelving hadn't pulled out of the wall--but that's a nother story. (I've repaired that section since I wrote this and now it's on the second shelf. BTW, I saw an episode of Nash Bridges over the weekend revolving around a laptop computer which the thief mails to himself under the name Jerzy Kosinski. Nice touch.) Tadeusz Borowski too. Every so often I reach over to my short-story shelf and pull out _This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen_. I expect it will be a painful and haunting book. It is so sad to me that he survived all that then killed himself when he was only 28 or 29. I kept thinking of R.W.'s phrase "spectacularly dysfunctional family" as I was reading _Shot in the Heart_, wondering if the Gilmore family really seemed that spectacularly dysfunctional. I'm glad you entered the conversation, R.W. It has made me wonder why I occasionally wondered if the family life in the book was really that bad. Part of it is that Mikal admits to a yearning for the brutality his brothers experienced so he'd have more in common with them. (I understand that yearning to have been part of the early life of a family. It astonishes me to think that by the time I was Matthew's age now (8) my parents had been married a quarter-century. There's a whole life before I was born that escapes me, but was part of me. I also understand his yearning for the bad things that happened. 1986, Seattle, was easily the worst year of my life, but I remember the terrible things fondly, trying to hold myself together emotionally in a time of great stress, running through Wallingford towards the building I cleaned across the street from Gasworks Park saying, half shouting, "What's happening?" ("I tell you this by inspiration," said my bishop, "you have to let yourself cry." I did once or twice, felt good ("unmanly tears" was it Lear that said that, my great refrain?). So did laughing hysterically at Neal Chandler's "Benediction" at 1:15 am on the #6 bus.) Thinking about that phrase "spectacularly dysfunctional family" I kept wondering why Gilmore's book seems less horrifying than, say, a Peter Straub, Stephen King, or Dean Koontz novel. Because it's not a novel, surely. In the 20th century, at least, the aim of fiction is to take us right into the mind, yea into the very consciousness of the characters. I remember Charles Johnson telling our aesthetics for writers class at the UW about James Baldwin. "'You don't like Backs,' Baldwin would say. 'I'll show you what it's like to be black. You don't like homosexuals? I'll show you what it's like to be homosexual.'" (Incidentally, Scott Card used the same rhetorical technique in a speech at BYU, when he touched on the epithet "escapist fiction." "Real life is what people do to escape from science fiction," he said, adding, "You read my novel, you'll know what it feels like to be crucified.") (More later. Way past bedtime.) Feb. 8, 02 12:36 a.m. (Hmm, it's about two years past bedtime.) A great deal of modern fiction wants to reproduce in the reader the emotions and experience the fiction is about, wants to take the reader right inside the character's mind, looking out through the character's eyes. But _Shot in the Heart_ is not fiction. It's a family story, one told at a cost of great pain. So much pain there are times Gilmore can't tell the story. (Feb 24, 02 10:25 p.m.) At the top of page 375, talking about his struggles to regain his balance after Gary's execution Gilmore tells about signing a contract to write a book on The Grateful Dead. >>>>> Maybe I could actually have risen to the task this time, but I made a near-fatal mistake: I fell in love. This is not a proud story that I am about to relate. It involved the betrayal of one or two people who loved and trusted me, and it involved embarrassing ruin. <<<<< Then he talks for two paragraphs about an intense affair with a woman he calls Roxanne, a woman he hoped to marry, but it didn't work because she met someone else. He doesn't say who he betrayed or what the embarrassing ruin was, though it's possible it has to do with the breakup of his brief marriage mentioned on the previous page. He gives clues, but can't tell what happened. Instead he tells of drinking himself to sleep for several nights and one night a ghost straddled him and told him she had come to ruin him like all the other family. (Gilmore explains that he doesn't believe in ghosts, and feels it was a night terror, but doesn't try to convince us--lets us believe what we will.) Clearly this is not a novel. If Orson Scott Card had a narrator tell us he had betrayed people who loved him, we would see that betrayal in painful detail, and Card could tell it in painful detail because he wouldn't be telling the story of his life. If this story were a Card novel it would be inviting us to imagine the consequences of betraying those around us, it would be a cautionary tale. As a memoir the passage reminds us there are some things so painful that even the redemption of writing can't take away the pain. (As a counterpoint to the pain I am writing about, I am playing Steve Perry's "This is Jesus," as I write.) Gilmore follows this with an account of seeing Nicole Baker, Gary's girlfriend, on _A Current Affair_, with a tragic statement of regret: "And when I looked at him, I knew that when I go he will kill someone. I knew that if I left him, somebody would die for it" (377). The interviewer and Maury son of a Povich implied strongly that if Nicole hadn't left Gary, had let him continue to batter her, Max Jensen and Ben Bushnell would still be alive. Gilmore ends the chapter with a comment that ties together his failed marriage, failed affair, Maury's exploitation of Nicole Baker, and his own doomed family: "It is not easy to come to such a place--to feel as if there is something in you that should not continue on the face of the earth, something about you that should not survive your own life" (379). This foreshadows the book's end, a shattering dream about Gary killing a child. (And I am now listening to Clayne Robison sing "Pioneer Lullaby," a song to a dead child.) So to return to the question I asked at the beginning? Is the Gilmore family spectacularly dysfunctional? Read the book. Considering the question I remembered Reynolds Price's comments in _A Palpable God_ about the difference between fiction and scripture. Fiction attempts to convince us, tries to get us to suspend our disbelief through accreted details. Scripture simply tells the story, and leaves it for us to believe or not. Scripture is written as testimony, as witness. I believe fiction is too, despite its difference from scripture. And because of its similarity to scripture, autobiography which lays out a life as honestly as it can is also witness, and part of the holiness of this world. I hope that holiness can bring some peace to those who took so many secrets to their graves, and to those they left behind to try and find the secrets out. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Kenny Kemp Goes on the Air and Online: Alta Films & Press News Release 18Feb02 US AZ Phoe A2 Date: 25 Feb 2002 13:29:44 -0500 Kenny Kemp Goes on the Air and Online Self-Published Author Hosts His Own National Radio Talk Show. "I'm as tired of negativity as you are," he says. PHOENIX, ARIZONA --- Kenny Kemp, winner of the National Self-Published Book Award for his memoir Dad Was A Carpenter, isn't stopping there. "It's about total world domination," he says, laughing. "No, it's actually about dumb ideas I have that sometimes work out." Kemp, an award-winning author and filmmaker, as well as a contractor and an attorney, nods when asked if maybe this time it really is a dumb idea, sharing his views with a national audience. "Absolutely," he says. "All good ideas sound dumb at first because such ideas usually answer questions that are just forming. If everyone understood the problem, then solutions would abound, and the field would be crowded." But isn't the talk radio dial already crowded? Kemp maintains that while there are many voices, few are constructive. "It's very easy to grouse about what's wrong. It's much harder to find solutions, which is what my show is about -- making life better." "The show deals with the four elements which must be in balance for us to be happy," says Kemp, adjusting his headphones in the studio, preparing to go on the air. "The body (health and medicine), the heart (culture and relationships), the mind (politics and science) and the soul (the search for the Infinite)." Kenny interviews experts and ordinary people, takes callers, and of course, gives his opinions. "It's not as easy as it sounds," he says as the bumper music swells. "By demanding solutions from my guests and callers, I've set a standard that I also have to meet. I'm tired of turning on the radio and hearing nothing but complaining; that's why I'm doing this kind of show -- I believe there are answers out there, and that's why I'm in here." The Kenny Kemp Show airs live Wednesdays at 12 noon Mountain Time. The show originates from Phoenix's 50,000 watt powerhouse KFNX Hot Talk 1100 AM. It is also simulcast on the Internet at www.nabcinc.com The show's national toll-free number is (866) 277-5369. Questions about the show, as well as guest suggestions and requests for interviews, should be directed to Executive Producer J.C. Clayton at jclucky4u@netscape.com Kenny Kemp can be reached via his website http://www.kennykemp.com or via email at kenny@alta-films.com Source: Kenny Kemp Goes on the Air and Online Alta Films & Press News Release 18Feb02 US AZ Phoe A2 By Alan Smithee, Jr. >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 26 Feb 2002 01:33:33 -0700 Stephen Carter wrote: > Saying that the United States is > hooked in with the gospel sounds strange to me. It seems to me that "the > gospel" is all truth circumscribed into one great whole. So it could be that > God helped put the U.S. together for some very important purposes, but to say > that the US or Israel is of central importance seems kind of stretched. I think there's no question that America (by that I mean both continents in the western hemisphere, not a specific nation) has a special standing, mainly because scriptures say so. I also think that the United States of America has a special standing, because we believe its founding and its current form of government were inspired by God, presumably for the purpose of having a good environment to incubate the latest dispensation of the gospel. I believe it was James Talmage who made the same observation about the Roman Empire: it was established as part of God's plan to bring relative peace and stability to the world to facilitate the mission of Jesus Christ. Even as things stood, Christ was crucified and Joseph Smith murdered and both men's disciples hounded, so there is ample justification for believing that environmental preparation is an essential element of God's plans. The problem comes when sweeping generalities are assumed from these facts. After all, the Pax Romana may have helped protect the mission of Christ, but we are all aware of the atrocities that empire committed. America (both the contintents and the nation) holds a special place in God's plan, but for specific reasons, and generalizing beyond those reasons is not valid. There is nothing in the doctrines of the gospel or even in the apocryphal legends of Mormons to suggest that _everything_ about America (the nation), including its culture, is divinely inspired or has anything whatsoever to do with eternal matters. As Mormons, we have a special place for the country and its government that allowed the gospel to incubate until it could flourish in virtually any environment. But we have no obligation to pledge allegiance to white shirts and ties or somber Methodist hymns or any other part of the culture of the United States that doesn't have a direct scriptural link to the gospel (scripture including official pronouncements of the First Presidency). I haven't exactly analyzed it, but I suspect those cultural elements that do have a direct link are precious few. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Sheri Dew Promoted to Run Deseret Book: Kent Larsen 25Feb02 US UT SLC B2 Date: 26 Feb 2002 11:17:15 -0500 Sheri Dew Promoted to Run Deseret Book SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Sheri L. Dew, 48, Second Counselor in the General Relief Society Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been named the new president and CEO of Deseret Book Company, replacing Ronald A. Millett, 54, who will serve as an LDS mission president starting in July. Dew becomes the first woman to head the company, which is owned by Deseret Management Corp., the for-profit holding company of the LDS Church. Dew is a veteran of the LDS publishing industry, working first in 1978 as an assistant editor at Bookcraft for three years, and then for six years as an editor and associate publisher at This People Magazine. She joined Deseret Book in 1988 and became vice president of publishing in 1993. She was called as Second Counselor in the Relief Society Presidency in April 1997 and in 2000 was appointed executive vice president of Deseret Book. Millett has been Deseret Book's president and CEO since 1983, also after rising through the company ranks after becoming the first manager of the company's University Mall store in Orem, Utah in 1973. He was named director of retail in 1977 and vice president of retail before being named CEO. During his 19 years leading Deseret Book, the company's sales have quadrupled and the number of retail stores it operates has tripled. The company how operates 35 stores in 11 states and has 775 employees. Source: Deseret Book Co. gaining new CEO Deseret News 25Feb02 B2 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,375012389,00.html By Lynn Arave: Deseret News staff writer >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Re: Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 26 Feb 2002 13:31:23 -0800 (PST) I just heard Darius Gray speak at the African American Cultural Library in downtown Atlanta during lunch today on the Freedman's Bank CD-ROM project. I just missed (dang it!) hearing him and Margaret speak over the weekend at book signings and firesides. And I just bought the 2nd volume of the _Standing on the Promises_ series even though I'm only 1/3 of the way into the first volume. Without any hyberbole at all, I can say I think the collective work Darius and Margaret are doing is the one of the greatest developments in Mormon literature ever. (Pardon me for getting worked up here.) I find their achievements a unique combination of personality/spirituality, unconditional public service, and literary excellence. I suspect over time that their work will have an impact on Mormon culture and thought greater than that of Gerald Lund's _Work and Glory_ series. Lund's work is the climax of years of the standard telling and re-telling of the powerful "myth" (in Joseph Campbell terms) of the early Restoration and the pioneer trek. Grey and Young are now "telling it slant" with a new edge that I hope will push current Mormonism into a new era. We've got a new set of heroes in our history to celebrate and who can help us reconcile matters of race in our own church. A question for Margaret. Is there any way we can get "I Am Jane" performed out here in Atlanta next year for Black History Month? If we can't arrange for the original acting group to come out here, can we get permission to have locals here in Atlanta to stage it and perform it here? I think it would appeal to a very broad audience, given the proper publicity. ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Compensation and Art Date: 26 Feb 2002 21:04:31 GMT Jonathan asks: Are there certain types of literature (or art in general) which are harder to create if you're trying to "make a living" from art? We have been discussing this very issue here at home, in the larger sense of making a living and making art generally. It takes time, reflection and resources to create richness and density. We find it almost impossible to do in fifteen-minute or half-hour increments, interrupted constantly by students, children and schedules. We can do good work but we feel it's harder to do really FINE work while making a living. Right now we feel that the answer is to incubate a piece, talk about it, hammer it around, make notes, and then when we have long extended vacations (one blessing of teaching college) we can actually do some writing. This seems to apply both to writing music and writing generally--nonfiction as well as artistic works. Sometimes when I read something layered and rich, I feel the crunch of my schedule, knowing that if I try to write around the schedule, I am NOT going to produce that richness. Fortunately we have the subconscious mind as our loyal friend that catalogs, collects, arranges and composes, so when there's time to write, some of the work is already done :). Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN News Briefs:LDS Sculptor Used Gospel to Reclaim Life Date: 26 Feb 2002 11:18:41 -0500 LDS Sculptor Used Gospel to Reclaim Life SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Utah sculptor Stan Watts says he has "seen both sides." Watts was mired in habits that had taken control of his life as recently as four years ago when he decided to turn to God for help. To make the change, Watts wrote a mission statement, "To enlighten the children of men through fine art" and implementing that statement has turned his life around. He now works on his own sculptures, instead of helping to fashion those of others, and has created a bronze statue of Mormon Pioneers, ornate bronze doors for the LDS Winter Quarters Temple and recently finished a 2,400-pound life-size sculpture of the Founding Fathers that is on display at the Gateway shopping center in Salt Lake City. Source: Sculptor on mission to 'enlighten' via art Deseret News 5Feb02 A2 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,370009946,00.html >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Compensation and Art Date: 26 Feb 2002 15:27:07 -0700 ---Original Message From: Jonathan Langford > So I think it's true that the writer, like any other laborer, > ought to be worthy of his/her hire. But speaking > realistically, I think most Mormon writers--even the > successful, published ones--will have to continue looking > largely to non-economic motivations as a reward for what they do. I think non-economic motivation is largely true for the reasons you point out. The free-market doesn't support a degree of quality that requires years of effort. A work of the quality of _Lord of the Rings_ has to compete with works of lesser merit and won't command a premium for the added effort and quality. Plus, art in the free market puts the rewards after the effort and if that period is too long, the artist will starve before the work is complete. Renaissance Italy had a solution for that, but it isn't a popular one with modern sensibilities. Patronage is a system that could support works of great merit that take years of effort, training, and progress. An artist with a wealthy patron can afford to take the time they need to produce the very best they have to offer. The problems of patronage are well-known (most patrons will want a say in what is produced and will interfere in odd ways and there is certainly no guarantee of continued support forever so favor must be continually reinforced) and abuses weaken the structure as well (con *artists*, heh). But modern sensibilities just can't support a system of direct patronage, anymore (a fascinating illustration of this takes place in "The Philadelphia Story"), mainly for purposes of pride and the near-universal suspicion of wealth. Artists resent dependence on "the money" and will feel shame and bitterness at their dependence. Additionally, since wealthy people are held in such contempt and suspicion today, the artist will have pressure from others (artists, friends, and family) to break away from their patron and little loyalty will exist (thus lessening the value of patronage because the patron can expect that the artist will flee as soon as they are sufficiently popular). So we don't have direct patronage, for good or ill. Personally, I'm not sure if a reintroduction of direct patronage would be a good thing or not. Probably not. Frankly, as a free-market capitalist, I'd say that the absence of direct patronage indicates that the problems entirely outweigh the benefits. What I *do* see, though, is that we have a system of pseudo-patronage today. Universities are the most obvious source of artist support, particularly in theater (would modern theater exist without University theater departments? Maybe, but it'd be pretty different). Jonathan mentioned personal sacrifice and dedication by the artist as a source of support for art. Some endowments exist that are a way of implementing patronage and mitigating some of the conflicts of whim and personality. Many corporations will fund art in different ways depending on the individual needs of those corporations. So we have patronage still today, but only indirectly. I think our modern patronage helps increase certainty (endowments, universities, and corporations base their funding on rules that are, relatively, explicit), but they also increase the problems of the effects of the patronage on the artists (artists will ingratiate themselves to their patron--i.e. meet the rules that undergird funding). Because our patronage is more rules-based, you have no opportunity to have artists producing quality work completely free of constraint. Not that such situations were common before, but it was at least possible. Essentially, we've eliminated whim--of both the artist and the patronage. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Compensation and Art Date: 26 Feb 2002 14:40:37 -0800 (PST) --- Jonathan Langford wrote: > Up to this point, Mormon literature has been (of necessity) largely > driven > by those who make a part-time effort of it--if only because there are so > few who have been able to make a full-time professional living off their > writing (and these have been largely confined to particular niches). I'd > like to see us expand to where there is space for more people to make a > living from literature. And yet I think that the ongoing contributions > of > the part-timers may be equally necessary, and perhaps more likely to > make > the community grow outside of easy or comfortable boundaries. I agree with this characterization and add that I think this is part of the reason why Mormon literature continues to be captivated with the 'prophecy' of Orson F. Whitney. Mormon art as mission so to speak. Earlier in the post (a portion not included here), Jonathan alludes to the fact that many professional writers supplement their income by teaching creative writing or holding academic posts. One can argue about the stifling or generative effects of the teaching creative writing industry (I work at a university with a large creative writing department so I'm familiar with both sides of the discussion), but I think that it along with the other stuff (fellowships, writers-in-residence programs) that goes with it affects Mormon literature. In order to get the endowments, generate the clients, what have you, your reputation and body of work has to be at least somewhat in line with the tastes, the discourse boundaries of the folks giving out the funds or signing up for the classes. This leaves room for Mormon writers who write according to those norms, but it doesn't leave much room for those who are (for lack of a better term) interested in more faithful, highly-ethnic works of Mormon literature. Compounding the problem is that the few places where such work could most easily be fostered (BYU would be the first that comes to mind) don't put much emphasis on creative work. With that in mind, those interested in fostering Mormon letters need to figure out how to support the part-timers. This list, a publishing venue like _Irreantum_, the AML conference which welcomes participants without academic affiliation, writers groups (like D. Michael's) all provide that support. And that's very cool. But where is there room for more? I don't know. But I think that it's important that we keep raising this question---just like we have been doing regularly on this list. I mean _The Sugar Beet_ is totally cool because it brings a community of writers togethers, let's them feed off each others talents, and then provides a regular venue for them to publish in. The creative work that results is important, but so is the intellectual ferment (discussions and opinions) that leads to it. It'd be cool to see a similar enterpise for, say, short fiction. I guess I'm wondering whether there could be more writers co-ops, circles, cabals, and conspiracies. Part-timers are great. But they're even better when they are pushing each other forward. When they feel like they are part of a larger enterprise. Or at least that holds true for me. I'm much more likely to get a creative spark or (more importantly) finish work if there is an _Irreantum_ contest to enter or I have Quinn Warnick telling me he likes my work and I should submit another piece to "The White Shoe Irregular." ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 26 Feb 2002 14:48:34 -0800 Ed, I think you're absolutely right in your appraisal. Margaret and Darius came to San Diego on a book tour for the first volume. During that signing, I heard so much from the audience about how the race situation is still a problematic thing within Mormonism. I think you'll enjoy both volumes. On 26 Feb 2002 at 13:31, Ed Snow wrote: > I just heard Darius Gray speak at the African American Cultural > Library in downtown Atlanta during lunch today on the Freedman's Bank > CD-ROM project. I just missed (dang it!) hearing him and Margaret > speak over the weekend at book signings and firesides. And I just > bought the 2nd volume of the _Standing on the Promises_ series even > though I'm only 1/3 of the way into the first volume. > ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 26 Feb 2002 17:08:56 -0700 on 2/25/02 4:12 PM, Clark Goble at clark@lextek.com wrote: > Heavens, even > media outlets we did control, like the LA Times, seemed to give us far more > bad press than good press. And I don't think they ever extolled the virtues > of lime green Jello. For that we had to wait for NPR and their fascination > with jello pins at the Olympics. I must be totally out of touch. I've lived in Utah for decades now and have heard and laughed at a million jello jokes. Then, hearing about all the lime jello delivered to a certain sorta-repentant Denver Post reporter, I tried to remember the last time I saw lime jello at a church gathering or in my home or anyone else's. It was at least 15 years ago, and only once. ("Honest Bishop, we only served it once!") Have I simply chosen the jello-less wards of Zion? Or is this a joke that grew far beyond it's base in reality? :-) S. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Date: 26 Feb 2002 21:27:48 -0700 I can't help but agree with Ed Snow here. The writing of Margaret and Darius's projects is far superior to any of the other great blockbusters we have seen. And it is as you say, Ed, "beyond Mormonism," challenging us to take a look at our culture and pressing us into the next new world. I plan on getting the book from Read Leaf at the AML conference. And Margaret will be there for the panel discussion. I hope Darius comes, too. Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Free LDS music available at LDS Depression!: LDS Depression News Release 13Feb02 US UT SLC S2 Date: 26 Feb 2002 11:19:07 -0500 Free LDS music available at LDS Depression! WEST JORDAN, UTAH -- LDS Depression - a site dedicated to providing information, resources, and support for the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints and people of all faiths who have been touched by depression's hand, is pleased to announce a music section has been added to the content rich site. Visitors to the web site can find: * Free sheet music appropriate for use in worship services * Free choral arrangements (2 part, SSA, SATB) * Free educational materials for music teachers, complete with rights to use in a non-profit setting such as public school. To be added to the web site in the next few weeks: * Even more free sheet music and choral arrangements * Intermediate level hymn arrangements for the piano, suitable for using as prelude music Commenting about LDS Depression, a visitor posted at a community board, "I am so grateful for your great example to us and for your compassion for others in creating this site. You are a gem. I am tons better than I was, knowing that there are others who understand is a great comfort to me. It is so hard when you feel isolated and alone in the darkness that overcomes you as you struggle with so many mixed emotions and feelings, but there is always a light at the end of the tunnel and for me that was when I logged onto this site and found that I was not as alone as I thought. Thank you again." LDS Depression was created by Rozanne Paxman as a service to the community out of a desire to help lift those who lives have been affected by depression. Rozanne has a varied background in music, as she has a Bachelor's of Music Education in voice and strings and a graduate certificate in Kodaly from the University of Oklahoma. She taught voice, keyboards, strings, band, orchestra, choir, and general music, both privately and in public school. Rozanne has also been a professional theatrical music director in California and Branson, Missouri. She has performed for audiences in California, Utah, Montana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. Some of her students have received full tuition music scholarships at UCLA, Eastman School of Music, and Oberlin. Other students are currently enrolled at Brigham Young University in the Music Education department. LDS Depression site has received over 600,000 hits in the short time it has been available on the internet. Rozanne W. Paxman is the webmaster of LDS Depression, (http://www.ldsdepression.com ) an award-winning website that provides information, resources, and support for anyone who is suffering from the effects of depression. Read her book, "Up the Down Hill, One woman's struggle to overcome major depression." Recordings of her faith-promoting songs and relaxing instrumentals are available at http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/356/rozanne_w_paxman.html . Source: Free LDS music available at LDS Depression! LDS Depression News Release 13Feb02 S2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Re: Third Phase (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Date: 26 Feb 2002 15:47:54 -0700 Ed, I'm so sorry I missed you! I should've let the list know we'd be there. I'll reply to you personally on the other points. At some time when I HAVE time, I'll report on the Atlanta trip to the list. It was miraculous and inspirational. I felt surrounded by some of the greatest people I've ever met. Honestly, the spirit that attended the fireside was similar to what I've felt in the temple. And I have already requested that Deseret Book keep us SOUTH. That's where the need is. I'm working on Book 3 at the moment, and so won't make a lengthy report on Atlanta now, but will get around to it--and will also get around to finding a suitable date for "the third phase" of conversation on the issue. (I thought about the AML date too. We must not interfere at all with the readings that night, but isn't there usually a break between the sessions and the readings? Is there a possibility we could meet during that break? It's short notice--it would be this coming Saturday--but would it be a possibility? Those of you in charge of the AML meetings should respond first. We don't want to interfere in any way with all you've planned.) Thank you, Ed, for your words. I'm sure Darius did a splendid job today. And Jeff Needle already knows how much I love and appreciate him and his review. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Re: Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 00:06:26 -0500 I am now going through some kind of epiphany. I think I am going to remove the term "writer" from my signature. For years I have seen discussions with which I have disagreed or topics that interested me and I could hardly wait to get to the keyboard. Apart from that I have felt somewhat desolated whenever I have not spent at least an hour or two writing "something". Now, I come in at the end of the thread. I have still not written my feelings about race and the church, and am well past the period of "open" field. I mull and mull and meditate, and run topics through my mind, but don't jump in, hoping that one way or another someone else will do my job for me. James Picht and Scott Parkin have come close on the topic of Cultural Imperialism, but the bile still rises in me when I hear the term. It is, in my opinion, a false terminology. It is, like many terms, one of those coined by academia: 1. to limit the discussion to the initiated, or 2. to create a term that can be perjorative by its very use, or 3. To write about something old that has been written over and over but if one uses new terminology, the triteness of the topic and tratment is hidden. It is somewhat like the term "postmodern" which is inherently oxymoronic. To the uninitiated, 'modern' means now, new, the newest thing and for any thing to come later (or 'Post' )than the _newest_ thing is irrational--- But those who are initiated can identify a style and theory which was called modern any where from ten to fifty years ago, so what contradicts or comes after it becomes "post" modern. In that way articles can be published, tenure can be gained and academic journals can be filled with academic clap-trap which ultimately obfuscates more than it clarifies (to the uninitiated, of course). Imperialism has a meaning, as does culture, but in reality the two can rarely be linked. It is true that some of the deliberate attempts to modify culture (Cutting hair, forbidding use of native language and some of similar treatment of American Indians, Native Americans or "the people" as some would term them comes close to making the term valid-- But ultimately it was just plain old fashioned imperialism "According to the closest dictionary at hand, "The policy of extending a nation's authority by acquiring foreign lands, or by establishing economic, political and social dominance over other nations". It is one of the oldest games in the history of human interaction. In a real sense it is not much different from the selecton of the alpha male or alpha female in some animal societies. There is a lot of posturing, some growling or bragging, and ultimately, if that doesn't work, the biggest guy beats up on the littler ones. Every time one culture comes into contact with another, both are ultimately and irretrevably changed. I remember my brief experience as a Stake Missionary (previous to my full time mission). I went with an experienced companion onto the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho (where the objection by the natives there had less too do with what they should all be called: "Native Americans" " Indians" or whatever, than with calling them ALL anything, thus linking them all together as if the Bannacks, the Shoshone, the Blackfeet were the same group, linked together by some sort of invisible Siamese connection). On my second visit we were invited by one family to dinner. This was a prominent family. They ran hundreds if not thousands of head of Hereford cattle, and most of the young men in the family were nationally prominent rodeo riders. After we had sat down to dinner and were well into the food, Papa *****, the patriarch of the family asked me if I enjoyed the stew. I assured him that I did (even though I really thought it was a little tough). After about the fourth questioning, he asked me if I knew what meat it was. I didn't, and said so. He then loudly announced (to everyone's grinning satisfaction, including that of my companion) "PUPPY DOG". There was then a long pause while everyone watched me to see if I would throw-up, run screaming from the house or provide some other satisfactory entertainment. I gritted my teeth a little, smiled grimly and finished the meal though suddenly the meat had become VERY hard to chew. I passed the initiation and became part of the "Mormon coming visit the Bannack and the Shoshone" culture. Not the Shoshone culture, that would never be possible, not the Mormon Culture, I was already one of the fruits of that tree, but a part of a culture which by shared experience created mutual acceptance. I don't know what would have been the result if I had reacted differently. Probably not much, but I will never know. I remember in on early anthropology class (I think it was anthropology) where they talked of studying a primitive society without changing it. Bull hockey. It is a total impossibility. Not only is this true for human groups, but I am convinced that the _Gorillas in the Mist_ were distinctly different from all the other Gorillas because of their interaction and familiarity with the Fosseys and all the others involved. Certainly Diane Fossey was never the same as she had been before that time. Any anthropologist from Meade on up and down the line who ever thought he or she was engaged in a scholarly study which would not change the subjects was him or herself involved in desperate self-deception. Every group struggles for a degree of dominance, initiation, influence of the societies and individuals which come within its scope. Fraternities have intiations, Immigrants have citizenship classes, soldiers and Marines have basic training. When I arrived as a missionary in Finland, one of the first experiences was to be dragged to a Public Swimming Pool-Sauna for a first trip, by the people in the office (many of whom are future mission presidents.) As you walk in, you see guys swimming in the pool naked, but if you, like me, was a YMCA swimmer at that time (50's), that was something you could cope with. The first brutal shock was to come out of your dressing room, naked, save a small white towel which wouldn't cover much, and walk down the aisle to walk straight into a couple of women in white uniforms walking toward you. THe big joke was to see what you would try to cover up with the towel, thus embarassing the two women as well. Later you would find that your companions had prepaid for your "scrub" during which one of those women would take a stiff brush and strong lye soap and scrub your body like one of the people in a chicken preparation plant scrubs chickens for the market (as thoroughly and as impersonally). Soon you become part of the Sauna Culture which is Finnish, but not limited to Finland and not the same in every place, but it is moral and common. (While I was in Finland, President McKay went to the sauna-- Not the same one _I_ went to but, non the less a sauna - with sauna ladies.) In my first city, our Relief Socity President was a Sauna-lady, who often expressed her frustration that none of the missionaries would ever come to her sauna (we weren't "completely" in the Sauna Culture after all- difficult to stand up and preach to a woman, not your mother or wife, who has seen you as nature created you). Cultural Imperialism --- Bah Humbug. It is either non-existent as phrased so perjoratively time after time, or it is so universal in the intermingling of all societies that it has no meaning at all. I'm sure to find some difference of opinion. I will quietly listen and place it with the other acadmemic pseudo-icons I have met over the years (Right beside the one created by Political Scientists that holds that Minorities cannot be Racist. Only those who are in power can be Racist). Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] New Deseret Book CEO (Deseret News) Date: 27 Feb 2002 01:07:34 +0000 Deseret News Monday, February 25, 2002 Deseret Book Co. gaining new CEO By Lynn Arave Deseret News staff writer Deseret Book Co. will have its first woman at the helm next month. Sheri L. Dew, 48, has been named the new president and CEO of Deseret Book, effective March 13. Dew replaces Ronald A. Millett, 54, president and CEO since 1983, who was called last month as a mission president for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, effective this July. Millett confirmed this will be the first time a woman has led Deseret Book. However, he said, female leadership in the book-publishing industry isn't all that uncommon. A native of Ulysses, Kan., Dew entered the publishing business in 1978 as an assistant editor at Bookcraft. After three years there and another six years as editor/associate publisher of This People Magazine, she joined Deseret Book in 1988 as an associate editor. She was named director of publishing in 1989 and vice president of publishing in 1993. She was appointed an executive vice president of Deseret Book in 2000. Dew has also written biographies of two LDS Church presidents, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley. The latter book is titled, "Go Forward with Faith, The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley." She was also called as second counselor in the General Relief Society Presidency in April 1997, a position she still holds. Dew received a bachelor of arts degree from Brigham Young University, attended graduate school at BYU and is also a former Relief Society general board member. "We look forward to working with Sheri and are confident that she will take Deseret Book to the next level in a very difficult and challenging industry," said Robert H. Garff, president and chairman of the board of directors for Deseret Book. "Sheri's expertise and foresight will be invaluable as she directs Deseret Book's future growth and development." Millett also had a lot of confidence in Dew's abilities. "She has proven herself as a leader in the General Relief Society and she has been very successful here too," he said. Under Millett's direction, Deseret Book has more than quadrupled its revenues and tripled its number of retail stores. He joined Deseret Book in 1972 and became the first manager of the Deseret Book University Mall store in 1973. He subsequently held positions in retail administration and marketing before becoming director of retail in 1977 and later vice president of retail. An Orem native, Millett received a bachelor's degree in accounting from Souther Utah State College. "Ron has devoted his entire career to Deseret Book," Garff said. "Under his leadership, Deseret Book has become the premier distributor of LDS and other values-oriented books and materials. We will all miss his hard work and dedicated service and wish him well on his new assignment as mission president." Deseret Book is a for-profit book vendor owned by Deseret Management Corp., a holding company for businesses affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has 35 stores and about 775 employees. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: [AML] Agent/Contract Question Date: 26 Feb 2002 21:32:30 -0800 Hi. As some of you know, I work at Orem Library. I was contacted recently by someone who has sold a children's book to a local publisher, but has been offered one of this publisher's infamous writer-unfriendly contracts. (Let's just say that if this publisher was national, its contracts would be the kind writer's organizations such as the Author's Guild, SFWA and NWU would be warning its members not to sign.) She doesn't have internet access and was hoping to find some help before she signed the contract. Does anyone on this list know of any local agents I might recommend to her who specialize in contracts with local publishers? Or does anyone here have any advice I might pass on to her about negotiating contracts locally? If so, please e-mail me at susank@fiber.net. Thanks! Susan Kroupa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 27 Feb 2002 08:32:46 -0700 Margaret, we plan on ending the meetings at 4:45, which should give you ample time to get together before the buffet at 6:30. You can meet right there in the Gore auditorium if you'd like. Cheers for your fabulous work! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy Fowkes Subject: Re: [AML] Agent/Contract Question Date: 27 Feb 2002 10:00:53 -0700 Could this discussion about current publishing conditions and climate of the LDS market take place on the list along with sending her the replies? This is a subject I will be needing info on later this year as well. Kathy Fowkes [MOD: I see no reason why it couldn't. I also see no reason why we need to keep the publisher involved anonymous. If public shaming will do anything to change dubious practices, I'm all for it.] Original message from "Susan Kroupa" susank@fiber.net "I was contacted recently by someone who has sold a children's book to a local publisher, but has been offered one of this publisher's infamous writer-unfriendly contracts. (Let's just say that if this publisher was national, its contracts would be the kind writer's organizations such as the Author's Guild, SFWA and NWU would be warning its members not to sign.) She doesn't have internet access and was hoping to find some help before she signed the contract. Does anyone on this list know of any local agents I might recommend to her who specialize in contracts with local publishers? Or does anyone here have any advice I might pass on to her about negotiating contracts locally?" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Internet: Websites for LDS Musicians: Kent Larsen 25Feb02 US NY NYC I4 Date: 26 Feb 2002 23:05:30 -0500 Websites for LDS Musicians NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- With the popularity of MP3 services, the growth of websites for individual artists has grown substantially. It seems every musician has his own website, and several services, including mp3.com, provide a way for musicians to post their own information. There are many LDS artists among the group. The sites we feature this week include several LDS musician's websites that have come to our attention recently, including two hosted on mp3.com. Also included is choir music publisher Copy Pack Music and Margo Edgeworth, a composer who won the New Era magazine's music contest six years in a row. Mormon Internet Information: Mormon-related domain names: at least 3,000 Estimated web pages mentioning Mormonism: over 500,000 Newly Listed Mormon Websites: Steven Stewart http://www.stevenstewart.com MP3.com-hosted website for LDS vocalist Steven Stewart. Site includes free mp3's, links to purchase albums, a schedule of live events and background information on Stewart. Copy Pack Music http://www.copypackmusic.com/ Choir music vendor that provides 'copyable' music - which can be copied for use by choirs. Site includes online electronic ordering, samples and information about the company. Margo Edgeworth http://www.margoedgeworth.com/ Composer Edgeworth won the New Era magazine's music contest six years in a row. Her site offers her album for purchase electronically, a biography, news, photographs and mp3 samples. Ellis Hadlock http://artists.mp3s.com/info/184/ellis_hadlock.html MP3.com-hosted website for LDS guitar player Hadlock. Site includes free mp3's, links to purchase albums, a schedule of live events and background information on Hadlock. >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Grammy-nominated artist releases patriotic Album, Plans National Tour: Covenant Communications Press Release 19Feb02 US UT SLC A2 Date: 26 Feb 2002 23:06:31 -0500 Grammy-nominated artist releases patriotic Album, Plans National Tour AMERICAN FORK, UTAH -- Grammy-nominated pianist David Glen Hatch's new CD, Let Freedom Ring, is a collection of newly arranged patriotic songs that capture the American spirit. He will be showcasing these songs on a nationwide patriotic tour this fall. "September 11 left me with a desire to heal troubled hearts and to remind us all of the privileges of patriotism and the blessings of being an American. Music is my language to soothe the soul and make the heart soar," said David Glen Hatch, nationally acclaimed concert pianist. "With that in mind, I specifically chose songs that would show America's resilience through our tragedies and triumphs." Let Freedom Ring features traditional favorites, folk medleys, Broadway and pop hits, and original songs. "The tapestry of America is woven with the familiarity of Yankee Doodle and Battle Hymn of the Republic, the gentleness of the Shenandoah Valley and the exuberance of Dixieland, and with medleys that touch back to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars," said Hatch. "From a Distance became an anthem of the Gulf War and God Bless America defines us as Americans today." Two songs from the Broadway hit Les Miserable give unique perspective on America's stance after the September 11 attack. "Do You Hear the People Sing was written about the French Revolution and becomes a battle cry for Americans as we embark on our own war against terrorism. One line in the song was rewritten to better reflect our current struggle," said Rich Smith, vocal producer. "Bring Him Home is a plea for the safe return of those men and women who have left home and family to safeguard our freedom." "The sensitivity of Let Freedom Ring is astounding and gratifying," said Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch. "The well-arranged songs and spectacular performances will stir patriotic feelings like no other CD." Senator Hatch, a talented musician in his own right, wrote the two original songs for the CD: Morning Breaks on Arlington and Heal Our Land. "Many people who know Senator Hatch politically don't realize that he has the special gift of capturing the thoughts and emotions we all feel and putting them to music," said Smith. "His ability to vividly show the feelings of sacrifice and reverence in Arlington Cemetery is particularly significant because his brother is buried there." "The variety of music allows everyone to connect with their patriotic feelings through a musical medium with which they are comfortable," said Phil Reschke, Managing Editor of Multimedia at Covenant Communications. "From sweeping orchestral pieces to Broadway hits, and from a top-40 tune to an American folk medley, there really is something for everyone." "David is a musical powerhouse who loves to write and arrange, but his passion is playing," said Smith. "He is a true pianist that people respond to because he plays from his soul." David Glen Hatch will be embarking on a national tour during the summer and fall of 2002 and will include the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C., George Washington University in D.C., The Arlington National Cemetery Ampitheater, and Carnegie Hall in New York City. "This is the largest project I have experienced in my 22 years of recording and I want to perform these powerful pieces in the national locations that are steeped in history." Let Freedom Ring, by David Glen Hatch, arrangements by Marden Pond and Richard Smith ($15.95 CD, $9.95 cassette) is published by Covenant Communications and is available at bookstores everywhere, or at www.covenant-lds.com. Founded in 1958 and headquartered in American Fork, Utah, Covenant Communications publishes more than 100 book, audio, and software titles annually, and is the largest independent publisher in the LDS market. ### About the Artist and Arrangers David Glen Hatch is recognized as a distinguished performer, recording artist, and educator. He has toured extensively throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the Far East. Dr. Hatch holds a Bachelor of Music degree from Brigham Young University, and both Masters of Music and DMA degrees from the Conservatory of Music, University of Missouri-Kansas City. He has been a semifinalist twice at the Gina Bachauer International Piano Competition, has received the LDSBA "Listener's Choice Award," and received two Grammy Award nominations. Dr. Hatch lives in Orem, Utah. Marden Pond received degrees from Brigham Young University, Arizona State University, and the University of Northern Colorado. He is the recipient of Utah's Composer of the Year award and winner of the Forte Music Composition Competition. Richard Smith is an award-winning composer and arranger who has worked with many leading studios, including The Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Pictures. Source: Grammy-nominated artist releases patriotic Album, Plans National Tour Covenant Communications Press Release 19Feb02 A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN News Briefs: Director Chosen for Film of "Edgar Mint" Date: 26 Feb 2002 23:08:41 -0500 Director Chosen for Film of "Edgar Mint" NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- Hollywood film studio United Artists has hired director Michael Cuesta to direct an adaptation of Mormon author Brady Udall's novel, "The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint." Cuesta, who is currently being considered for six IFP/West Independent Spirit Awards for his debut film "L.I.E.," will adapt the novel for film along with his brother, Gerald. "Edgar Mint," which was pursued by numerous directors, became something of a cult favorite when it was published last year. Udall was even compared to John Irving and even Charles Dickens because of the book. The story tells of a half-Apache youth who is run over by a mail truck, is raised by a Mormon foster family and joins the LDS Church. The film version is produced by Single Cell Pictures partners Michael Stipe and Sandy Stern. Source: Cuesta pulls off 'Miracle' for UA, Cell Daily Variety 14Feb02 A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 26 Feb 2002 23:38:43 -0700 I don't see much church-related Jell-O anymore, either. And this topic reminded me of something else: All the articles about the church from "outsiders" lately have mentioned the odd notion of us calling non-Mormons "gentiles." But does anyone in the church actually use this term anymore? Or do the non-Mormons just think we do? This may be another thing that, like Jell-O, has become more stereotype than truth. Eric D. Snider -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _Bound for Canaan_ (Review) Date: 27 Feb 2002 08:27:35 -0700 An excellent review, Jeff. I am excited about reading BOUND FOR CANAAN. I loved ONE MORE RIVER TO CROSS. There was not one "false move" in it musically. (The way I judge excellent writing.) Thanks! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] _Angels in America_ on HBO? Date: 27 Feb 2002 00:53:31 -0500 I finished my diatribe a few moments ago (almost one oclock our time) and staggered to the bedroom without logging out of my ISP,etc. My wife had left the TV on and Diane Sawyer was guest on Larry King live. She announced that her husband's (Mike Nichols) next project is a multi part version of Angels in America for HBO. I may be the only person on the list who doesn't know that, but I found it very interesting. HBO may finally get me (If I can't go over to someone else's house to watch). Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 07:24:40 -0800 I have yet to attend a Mormon funeral (inside or outside of Utah) without several varieties of jello. When I lived in student housing at the U a few years ago, I had neighbors who bought jello by the case (watermelon seemed to be the favorite flavor). Jana Remy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 08:34:13 -0700 Do you have your clump of over-sized plastic grapes? If not, shame on you, Steve! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 11:27:15 -0600 (Apologies to Richard for using his post as a jumping-off point for a rant of sorts. His comment touched off some thoughts and responses that have been bubbling around for a while.) Richard Johnson (in a post with a number of excellent points and examples) wrote that cultural imperialism >is, like many terms, one of >those coined by academia: 1. to limit the discussion to the initiated, or >2. to create a term that can be perjorative by its very use, or 3. To write >about something old that has been written over and over but if one uses >new terminology, the triteness of the topic and tratment is hidden. While I can see where Richard is coming from, I think this is to some degree an unfair caricature. Yes, that's one side of the academic equation, so to speak: the self-interest and ego games one finds, in one form or another, in any profession. But the other side is the (in my opinion) attempt to do something inherently difficult, perhaps impossible: that is, to look past one's own cultural and intellectual blind spots to see what's been left out. Yes, there's a lot that goes on in the name of cultural criticism that's questionable, and indeed from what we have seen this approach is just as liable as any other, when in the ascendancy, to the kinds of abuse of authority described in D&C 121. Still, that's not a reason to throw out the entire approach, or what good things can be learned from it. I'm bridging back here, somewhat, to the thread on agendas in literature classes, except that really what I'm talking about is political agendas in literature departments. Personally, I've decided that there's no one right way to read, interpret, and teach literature, but that there are many different approaches, each of which (so far as I can tell) embeds some fundamental assumptions that are at odds with what we as Mormons believe to be true (based, of course, on my understanding of what that truth is), but with significant areas of agreement as well. I see no reason why Mormons can't be good members of the Church and at the same time engage in Marxist criticism, feminist criticism, deconstructionism, archetypal criticism, textual criticism, composition theory, structuralist criticism, or any other brand to which I've been exposed or which that individual might come up with on his or her own--so long as we remember that (as I think Elder Holland once put it, back before he was "Elder" Holland) our membership is in the Kingdom and our passport is to the realm of academic study, not the reverse. I've seen the English department at BYU all but literally (well, I guess literally, when I consider some of what's happened there) split apart by arguments over what are fundamentally the doctrines of men--in large part, I think, because members of the department were unwilling to allow goodwill, spiritual soundness, and intellectual integrity on the part of those whose approach to literary studies differed from their own. (At least that's how it appeared to me as a graduate student, and through my ongoing contacts with department members and students who have been there since.) I'm not speaking of any particular side here, but of all sides in the discussion, from what I could see (though by no means all individuals). Which is a tremendous shame, because I think the result has been that at BYU, which should be a center of talking about what the gospel means in literary terms--with an openness to a variety of different approaches and the insights they can offer--what I see is more a matter of armed camps, with little cross-conversation, and not even that much discussion of how the gospel relates to literature within any of those camps. Though perhaps that's changed of recent years. Gideon, you others who are there: has it? I would be so pleased to hear that it has. And so I feel very strongly about this matter of allowing validity to all different approaches, even if we may not see their value at first; even if we may see the sorts of abuses of our own position that make it difficult not to be angry and take to our own tents. Dialogue and conversation mean not just the freedom to speak, but a sense that one is listened to and heard. My appeal is that we be willing to listen. (Well, I certainly went off on it that time. Never did get to my thoughts about how the "imperialism" fits into cultural imperialism. Another post, perhaps.) Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 11:04:10 -0700 >Have I simply chosen the jello-less wards of Zion? Or is this a joke that >grew far beyond it's base in reality? I think the joke has definitely grown but it is also a part of our heritage. I mean, I hardly ever eat jello in day-to-day life but I have fond fond memories of my grandmother fixing dinner and placing jello, each piece seated on a bed of lettuce because it was, after all, a jello *salad*, in a bowl at each of our plates. Some form of jello is often eaten at extended family dinners too because it's so darn easy to make. So perhaps the jello does not run as freely as the water in Cedar City's gutters but it's still out there. And I'm glad it does because it makes my Green Jello Olympic Pin more valuable.... :-) Marianne _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 27 Feb 2002 11:48:00 -0700 This seems like a really logical, good choice. Copying this to Darius. Shall we just do it? It would mean that we wouldn't get refreshments at Nan's place and we wouldn't be able to see the decor of Michael's or Clive's homes, but this seems like an obvious solution. List members should already be there. I'm in favor. Brown wrote: > Margaret, we plan on ending the meetings at 4:45, which should give you > ample time to get together before the buffet at 6:30. You can meet right > there in the Gore auditorium if you'd like. Cheers for your fabulous work! > Marilyn Brown > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 27 Feb 2002 13:57:09 -0700 Darius Gray has just confirmed that he can be present at 5:00 in the Gore auditorium for our "third phase" discussion--if there's interest. Let's do it. I hope there's enough interest and enough people present for us to have a really good discussion. And dear Marilyn, thank you so much for your kind words. Brown wrote: > Margaret, we plan on ending the meetings at 4:45, which should give you > ample time to get together before the buffet at 6:30. You can meet right > there in the Gore auditorium if you'd like. Cheers for your fabulous work! > Marilyn Brown > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Finnish Saunas (was: Cultural Imperialism) Date: 27 Feb 2002 11:33:48 -0700 Richard Johnson wrote: Soon you become part of the Sauna Culture which is Finnish, but not limited to Finland and not the same in every place, but it is moral and common. (While I was in Finland, President McKay went to the sauna-- Not the same one _I_ went to but, non the less a sauna - with sauna ladies.) In my first city, our Relief Socity President was a Sauna-lady, who often expressed her frustration that none of the missionaries would ever come to her sauna (we weren't "completely" in the Sauna Culture after all- difficult to stand up and preach to a woman, not your mother or wife, who has seen you as nature created you). In defense of a country and custom I love, I must say that in the three years I lived in Finland, I *never* heard of or saw sauna ladies, and can guarantee that none of our missionaries went into a sauna with them. Even public saunas are segregated by gender. I know of at least one general authority and his wife who tried the sauna (a private one--he went twice, she only once, as she was self conscious without clothing and feared for her perm), but both times the men and women went separately--as Finns generally do. The only time I am aware of that Finns mingle the sexes in the sauna is between couples and families with small children. My mother (born in Helsinki), once she came anywhere near puberty, didn't go to the sauna with her father present. Missionaries are welcome to enjoy the sauna (in fact, they often have their first experience their first night in the country, and a their final one the night before they leave--both in the mission home), but the sisters and elders are never together. Finns, like most Europeans, are far more relaxed about the body and nudity, but they still have propriety, and the missionary rules are universal. From my perspective, either things must have changed significantly since Richard was there regarding mission rules, or his mission president was unaware of sauna ladies being with his elders "as nature created" them. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: RE: [AML] Compensation and Art Date: 27 Feb 2002 11:39:06 -0700 >But modern sensibilities just can't support a system of direct >patronage, anymore (a fascinating illustration of this takes place in >"The Philadelphia Story"), mainly for purposes of pride and the >near-universal suspicion of wealth. >So we don't have direct patronage, for good or ill. Personally, I'm not >sure if a reintroduction of direct patronage would be a good thing or >not. Probably not. Frankly, as a free-market capitalist, I'd say that >the absence of direct patronage indicates that the problems entirely >outweigh the benefits. I pondered this very problem in my last subsistance job since, truly, the only reason I was there was for the money & the health insurance and the company I was with spent far more than my salary in charitable pursuits across the country every year. I wrote a particularly glorious proposal for Corporate Patronage (in color and everything :-), with all of the problems of accountability, representation etc. figured out. I have to brag because I do think it was a good idea, not an idea any corporation would buy but still a darn good idea. Basically the company would provide a basic admin assistant-type salary with health insurance benefits in exchange for things like a logo in the program/on posters/published plays/movie credit, recognition of sponsorship in all bios, ads & introductions, a thank you in any awards acceptance speeches etc. Other basic sponsorship stuff like tix to opening night, coming to opening night galas (and being recognized for sponsorship there), doing promo appearances for the company. Your basic lovey-dovey-big-sponsor relationship. In the proposal I thought of every objection they might have and tried to resolve the concern. Alas, the sticking point, I think, was the uniqueness of the idea and the fact that they had no guarantee that I would "hit the bigs." After all, that's where those sponsorship perks would really pay off. Their logo in the program doesn't really do anything in communities where they don't build homes. And they could get good press from their other, less expensive charitable endeavors. I think if I were working there today they might sponsor individual shows but the patronage thing was too big of a gamble. Which bums me out. Because I truly hate the office grind, but not as much as I hate starving or being without medical care. And if anyone out there is the owner of a company and is thinking "I like this idea; I'd like to sponsor this inventive wonderful playwright" then please contact me as THE OFFER IS STILL OPEN. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy Fowkes Subject: [AML] Subcontracting Art? (was: Compensation and Art) Date: 27 Feb 2002 11:58:22 -0700 I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction, if only to satisfy my curiosity and justify my ire. Here in Arizona there's a little town called Sedona where many artists ply their trade. One in particular stood out when I was up there with my husband a few years ago. He had his work in every little tourist shop in Arizona, and I wondered to my husband how he could produce so much. He said the artist doesn't produce it all. He does the "prototype" and has a huge group of hirelings who "hand" make all the rest of it, and he essentially signs his name to it. This struck me as extremely unethical. Mass production of art? How can that be called art anymore? But, not being an artist, I just shrugged, shook my head, and let it go. Then recently I heard a new one along the same lines, this time with regard to writers. Very successful writers. Even a couple of LDS writers. I've always wondered how some authors can crank out 2 or 3 full-length fiction or some non-fiction books a year, and have heard that some are managing to do this with committees of unknowns who do their research (which I don't object to at all--that's a logical use of staff, if you've got the money to pay them) and then actually write entire chapters, subject to the boss's approval, the boss being the one whose name goes on the cover as the author. Is this a practice that is occurring in publishing today? If it is, am I the only one who thinks it is unethical? How can someone claim authorship of a novel he has only overseen the production of, while maybe doing a little editing along the way, and still live with himself? Is the financial compensation worth the lie? Is it even a lie to put one's name on a book one didn't actually labor over with sweat and tears? Or is this rumor false? Does anyone know? Kathy Fowkes, Mesa, AZ kathy_f@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] _Angels in America_ on HBO? Date: 27 Feb 2002 14:20:10 -0500 You are not the only one who didn't know that, Richard. Does anyone know when it will be aired? Is this a near-future or distant-future thing? I wrote my thesis on _Angels_ and would very much enjoy seeing it produced (I think). amelia parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: MN Grammy-nominated artist releases patriotic Album Date: 27 Dec 2002 12:25:37 -0700 on 2/26/02 9:06 PM, Debra Brown at debbro@voyager.net wrote: > "The sensitivity of Let Freedom Ring is astounding and gratifying," > said Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch. "The well-arranged songs and > spectacular performances will stir patriotic feelings like no other > CD." Senator Hatch, a talented musician in his own right, wrote the > two original songs for the CD: Morning Breaks on Arlington and Heal > Our Land. > > "Many people who know Senator Hatch politically don't realize that he > has the special gift of capturing the thoughts and emotions we all > feel and putting them to music," said Smith. "His ability to vividly > show the feelings of sacrifice and reverence in Arlington Cemetery is > particularly significant because his brother is buried there." Because Senator Hatch is so well-known, people almost without exception neglect to mention his co-writers. In this case, both "Heal Our Land" and "Morning Breaks on Arlington" were co-written by Janice Kapp Perry. I haven't heard this album, so I cannot comment on it, but these two songs mentioned were originally released on the albums, "Heal Our Land," and "Freedom's Light," by Prime Recordings, 1-800-377-6788. My mother, Janice, doesn't actually care much about credit, but it really bugs me that reporters and reviewers always leave her off the credits since she's "only the composer of the music and co-writer of the lyrics" and not a US Senator. :-) Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DiannRead@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] _Angels in America_ on HBO? Date: 27 Feb 2002 18:19:09 EST Please keep us posted as this progresses. I'd like to see it, too. Diann Read San Antonio, TX -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Finnish Saunas (was: Cultural Imperialism) Date: 27 Feb 2002 19:14:56 -0500 I confess that many things have changed since I was a missionary, but I should clarify that the Sauna Ladies (When I was there they were often called "Sauna mummot" or "Sauna tatit" [my computer does not willingly make the two dots over the a in tatit] which means Sauna Old women or Sauna aunts, though many of them were not "all that old") They were not participants in the sauna they were the attendants who cleaned up, picked up towels, and as I said "scrubbed" the patrons for a small charge, usually a couple of Finnmarks (Though when I first arrived in Finland one finnmark was 100 finmarks.). They worked only in the larger public saunas. Those saunas too were gender separated, men separate from women participants. When I returned to Finland with my family for a Fullbright, in 1967 I never attended a public sauna. My family had a saunavuoro or turn every Wednesday in our apartment building in Puotila. I confess that our family went altogether in our altogethers,( the oldest was seven--eventually eight, he was baptized in Finland) but there were no attendants. My wife was invited to Sauna at the Helsinki Saunakerho which is a rather elite, membership only sauna, and she did get a scrub while she was there. That is the same facilty attended by Pres. McKay. I have been jealous of that invitation for years. As far as changes go, I have mentioned some before because, as I stated in my rant, when cultures mix, things change. Missionaries in my time frequently skiied (sp), boated a bit, and even went to movies on free days. I bought and read a _Time_ magazine almost every week. Speaking of _Time_ magazine there is a lovely article in one of the 1952 issues (during the Finnish Olympics) where one of the _Time_ reporters tells of his scrub in a most enertaining way (I didn't read the issue but it is quoted in one of the tourist flyers from the late fifties.) I assure you that the Mission Presidency knew of the Sauna Ladies. President McKay while he was there (Dec 1954 I think) suggested to the missionaries that getting a "scrub" was probably not a good idea, and he said it in just about that tone. I was there to hear it. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 15:00:31 -0500 At 11:27 AM 2/27/2002 -0600, you wrote: >(Apologies to Richard for using his post as a jumping-off point for a rant >of sorts. His comment touched off some thoughts and responses that have been >bubbling around for a while.) > What should a rant bring about but another rant. I have, by the way, had no experience at BYU either in the English department or out, but I have experienced almost everything you discuss in other areas of academe and at other institutions (if you modify the LDS context a bit). I agree that I was, perhaps, throwing the baby out with the bathwater (to a Punch puppeteer that has special meaning) in my rage against some elements of the academic process, but when I left being director of theatre because I felt that my six children had reached the ages when they needed more than a father who left for work daily at 8:00 A.M. and except for being home the occasional supper hour returned from work at 11:00 PM. (and spent most of the rest of his time being Branch President. I shifted back to Communication (PhD Speech Communication _and_ Theatre)and grabbed all the appropriate journals to try to bring myself up to speed. I was dismayed to see that I had already read and already knew most of the content of the current scholarship, all that had changed was the vocabulary. It was an irritating and frustrating experience which resulted in last nights rant (as well as a few at various Speech and Speech Communication and Communication conventions.) Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 12:58:54 -0700 >I don't see much church-related Jell-O anymore, either. And this >topic reminded me of something else: All the articles about the >church from "outsiders" lately have mentioned the odd notion of us >calling non-Mormons "gentiles." But does anyone in the church >actually use this term anymore? Or do the non-Mormons just think we >do? This may be another thing that, like Jell-O, has become more >stereotype than truth. I hear that term used in that manner all the time in Gospel Doctrine Class! Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 27 Feb 2002 15:04:23 -0500 Sometimes it is just not fair that I live clear our in Georgia. Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) I feel like a move to Happy Valley would not be as painful as it has sometimes seemed in the past (Back to the Mormon Culture thread, I guess.) [MOD: From Wisconsin, I feel--and share--your pain.] Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 13:37:00 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:08 PM > > Have I simply chosen the jello-less wards of Zion? No. Or is this a joke that > grew far beyond it's base in reality? Yes. Amy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pdhunter" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 22 Date: 27 Feb 2002 20:09:38 GMT Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 22, 2002 Scott Champion of Halestone Distribution let us know that the total box office gross for "The Singles Ward" (as of 26 February 2002) is 208,000, and the movie is still going strong. The film earned $22,902 this weekend, putting it in 57th place nationwide, one place ahead of "The Other Side of Heaven" (which has been playing for over 2 months). This means that "The Singles Ward" has grossed roughly one half of its budget, after less than a month. The movie opens near BYU-Hawaii in March, and throughout the rest of Idaho in April. (Currently its only Idaho location is Rexburg.) "Out of Step" played for a second weekend, but once again, we do not have any box office data for this LDS-themed movie. An analysis of local reviews (Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, Daily Herald, and Ogden Standard-Examiner) shows that aside from Dutcher's "God's Army" and "Brigham City", Derbridge and Hale's "Out of Step" has been the best reviewed of the five post-Dutcher LDS-themed feature films. Unfortunately, few people seem to know about this movie. The astute reader will notice that the critically acclaimed IMAX documentary "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure" is back on this box office list, after many week's of absence. It is ranked #32 nationwide, and it's total box office gross now stands at $7.7 million. Many of the film's makers are Latter-day Saints: It was produced by Scott Swofford, photographed by Reed Smoot and scored by Sam Cardon. It has actually been playing continuously (and quite successfully), but its box office numbers were not being reported regularly on www.the-numbers.com There is now a very informative website up for Rob Sibley's straight-to-video comedy/adventure/time travel/spiritual feature film "The Shadow of Light." Check it out (including a great looking trailer) at: http://www.theshadowoflight.com Writer/producer/director Sibley has made a number of documentaries, but may be best known for "Utah's Blackhawk War: Cultures in Conflict" (1998; PBS). "The Shadow of Light" (featuring time travel back to Utah of the pioneer period and the 1940s) features a cast mostly new to film, including Holt Hamilton, Dallen Johnson, Fred Walters and Christina Shelley. Glenn L. Anderson wrote the film's screenplay. Anderson's previous screenwriting credits include Disney's "The Thanksgiving Promise" (1986). He is also the author of the LDS science fiction novels _The Millennium File_ and _The Doomsday Factor_. He also wrote a number of SF short stories, including "Shannon's Flight" in M. Shayne Bell's _Washed by a Wave of Wind_. COMING SOON: Ads have begun to appear on television for "Murder By Numbers", starring Ryan Gosling (Latter-day Saint actor who starred in "The Believer"). Sandra Bullock also stars, as an FBI profiler charged with catching a bewildering serial killer (played by Gosling). Don't miss it! (And root for Ryan, of course.) IN THE FUTURE: Michael Cuesta and his brother (neither are LDS) have been announced as the directors of the film version of Latter-day Saint writer Brady Udall's immensely popular novel _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_. The movie is being produced by Michael Stipe's poduction company Single Cell Pictures ("Being John Malkovich"). Cuesta's debut feature film was "L.I.E.", and the director became best known for his complaints about the MPAA, after "L.I.E." was given an NC-17 rating. Cuesta erected an extensive website detailing his criticisms of the MPAA, but he still didn't secure an "R" rating. ALSO: Director Mike Nichols (who won the Best Director Academy Award for "The Graduate") is directing an HBO miniseries version of Kushner's Pulitzer Prize-winning play "Angels in America." Neil LaBute had previously been mentioned as the director of a feature film version, but apparently that isn't happening. "Angels" is about gays and Mormons in New York City. Nichols is neither Mormon nor gay, but maybe he lives in New York. (He is married to journalist Diane Sawyer.) [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker or Actor Total Gross Theaters Days ---- ------------------------------ ------- ----- ---- 31 Ocean's Eleven $193,268 176 80 LDS characters: Malloy twins 181,651,711 32 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 192,879 19 381 Scott Swofford (producer) 7,709,153 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) 35 Behind Enemy Lines 143,485 249 87 David Veloz (screenwriter) 58,553,616 47 Mulholland Drive 61,830 54 140 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 6,866,428 57 The Singles Ward 22,902 9 24 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 208,000 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson Lincoln Hoppe, Tarance Edwards Michelle Ainge, Gretchen Whalley Sedra Santos 58 The Other Side of Heaven 22,552 14 73 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 1,503,881 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) ?? Out of Step (NEW) ??,000 7 10 Ryan Little (director) ??,000 Cary Derbidge, Kenneth Marler (producers) Michael Buster, Willow Leigh Jones, Nikki Schmutz (writers) Merrill Jensen (composer) Michael Worthen (cinematographer) Actors: Alison Akin Clark, Jeremy Elliott, Michael Buster, Tayva Patch, Rick Macy, etc. 70 Galapagos 10,675 3 850 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,352,701 66 Out Cold 10,411 19 89 A. J. Cook (female lead) 13,903,262 83 China: The Panda Adventure 6,638 5 213 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,953,972 86 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 5,657 2 661 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,090,135 100 Island of the Sharks 3,421 2 1032 Alan Williams (composer) 10,638,624 104 Mark Twain's America 3D 2,648 1 1333 Alan Williams (composer) 2,161,635 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DCHuls" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 17:58:21 -0600 We assigned salads out in our ward a few years ago (Texas) One Sister from Utah came to the social with orange jello and explained. "They asked me to bring a green salad, but all I had in the cupboard was Orange, so I hope this will be okay?" She was most apologetic, for the color, not realizing lettuce and other veggies were what had been expected. We had to explain to the native Texans what she thought she was to bring. The orange jello did have the obligatory cottage cheese in it which would have made it a 'green salad' in Idaho or Utah.....craig [She has since repented and brings great salads today!] [Craig Huls] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Subcontracting Art? Date: 27 Feb 2002 17:06:20 -0700 On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:58:22 -0700 Kathy Fowkes writes: > [I] have heard that some [writers] are managing to do this > with committees of unknowns who do their research > (which I don't object to at all--that's a logical use of staff, if > you've got the money to pay them) and then actually write > entire chapters, subject to the boss's approval, the boss > being the one whose name goes on the cover as the author. > > Is this a practice that is occurring in publishing today? Yes, it is. It's called Ghost Writing. I've done a bit of it myself. > If it is, am I the only one who thinks it is unethical? Possibly. > How can someone claim authorship of a novel he has only > overseen the production of, while maybe doing a little editing > along the way, and still live with himself? He has probably at least given the ghost an outline, so the "story" still belongs to him. And he may actually do a rather comprehensive rewrite after the ghost has turned in his work. That's the way it went with my job. But, that may not always be the case. I saw where William Shatner had said once that he really liked this writing business, it was so easy. He wondered why he hadn't gone into it before. The reason it was so easy for him was because his books were all ghost written. Keep in mind, too, that ghost writers are generally pretty well-paid for their services. I have a composer friend who was hired by a rather prominent composer to do some ghost composing. The company who had hired the Prominent Composer figured out after awhile that the music they were hearing wasn't written by the PC and pressured him into giving up the ghost as it were. Kathy, ghost writing is rampant. And as far as I know, nobody has gotten TOO upset about it. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 17:23:05 -0700 ___ Michael ___ | After all, the Pax Romana may have helped protect the | mission of Christ, but we are all aware of the atrocities | that empire committed. ___ But even with their atrocities, they were often better than the alternatives. (Give me the Romans over the Assyrians any day) Likewise while America doesn't live up to its own foundational ideology, it is better than most alternatives. Yet even the early brethren who gave the US such a special place also saw something better: the New Jerusalem. They even prepared for the fall of America with political prophecy and preparations like the council of 50. Now I personally think that is most ways we are closer to the "founding myth" of America than they were in the 19th century. I say that even though we've moved away from it in some ways. By the same token the "founding myth of Rome" was lost by the time the Emperors starting gaining too much power. Rome had lost an adherence to their founding myth when they fell to the barbarians. Presumably the same thing will happen to us when the prophecies of the Book of Mormon are realized. Yet what cultural imperialism questions isn't just the lifestyle of the people in a country (be it Rome or the United States) - it is primarily that foundational myth. Can one hold to that foundational myth and *not* be imperialistic with ones culture? It seems to me that the issue is less Levis and Nikes than it is that foundation. I bring this up in an LDS context because intrinsically our works of art, our utterances, and our culture are also tied to that foundational myth. Indeed, if anything, our history gives the foundational myth a greater place culturally than it holds in America at large. ___ Michael ___ | But we have no obligation to pledge allegiance to white | shirts and ties or somber Methodist hymns or any other | part of the culture of the United States that doesn't | have a direct scriptural link to the gospel (scripture | including official pronouncements of the First Presidency). ___ The church is not the gospel. They are related though. And while you might be correct relative to the gospel, relative to the church things are much more complex. This all gets back to the hubbub a few years back over that conference talk linking the gospel and the church. Can you live the gospel as revealed without having a kind of allegiance to the church? I ask this, because it seems a rather serious issue. Often things like white shirts are devalued because of an opposition is created between church and gospel where church is devalued. I'm not saying white shirts are an *essential* part of the church. But they are a part of the church *at this time*. Given proper circumstances, it will change. Heavens, if there is any essence to the church it is in its cultural change. Even ignoring LDS history we see many changes in the scriptural history of churches. Yet at all times there was a kind of allegiance to that church and its culture. (The culture of the church as the church, and not necessarily the members) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: RE: [AML] Compensation and Art Date: 27 Feb 2002 19:34:27 -0500 At 11:39 AM 2/27/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >>So we don't have direct patronage, for good or ill. Personally, I'm not >>sure if a reintroduction of direct patronage would be a good thing or >>not. Probably not. Frankly, as a free-market capitalist, I'd say that >>the absence of direct patronage indicates that the problems entirely >>outweigh the benefits. skip I have to brag because >I do think it was a good idea, not an idea any corporation would buy but >still a darn good idea. > > >Which bums me out. Because I truly hate the office grind, but not as much >as I hate starving or being without medical care. > >And if anyone out there is the owner of a company and is thinking "I like >this idea; I'd like to sponsor this inventive wonderful playwright" then >please contact me as THE OFFER IS STILL OPEN. > >Marianne Hales Harding Actually they still have such things, though, to a degree, you have to have a proven resume. They are called MacArthur Grants, Ford Foundation Grants, Carnegie foundation Grants, NEA Grants, NEH Grants (The NEA and NEH grants are under some pressure now but they still exist.) Most of my friends in Puppetry still exist due to State Endowment for the Arts Grants or NEA grants. My son was a MacArthur fellow in History and lived well in the preparations of his doctorate. I have spent fifty or sixty thousand NEA, GEA, GEH and NEH dollars myself, though my own share was about enough to buy a milkshake. My college theatre received a substantial amount of money from the NEA through the American College Theatre Festival in the sixties. There isn't a symphony orchestra in the U.S. that exists without grant money from either NEA or some foundation or both. Patronage isn't dead, it has just changed its name and become pretty selective. (Though I have seen some theatre performances supported by grants that would belie that selectivity). Bert Reynolds has contributed many millions of dollars to Florida State University Theatre. Mrs. Paul Newman (I am having a senior moment here and can't think of her name) had contributed many thousands, if not millions to selected college theatre programs, both for the programs themselves and for support of individuals. Granny Clampet supported five of my former students in graduate school, at least for a time. Look for someone who is motivated to give (especially for tax purposes) and go after him, her or it. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 17:26:58 -0700 Now that you mention it, I too don't see much jello anymore. I always just assumed that was because I was going to single wards, however. I don't have anything against jello, other than it seems to have no nutritional value and takes too long to make. I loved it as a little kid. Perhaps you are right though and it has become more a well loved stereotype rather than reality. Perhaps because of the stereotype we have, as a culture, reacted against it over the past 10 years. With gentile, I've never heard it really used for non-Mormon, except in historical discussions of the 19th century. I don't even hear the term jack-Mormon anymore among Mormons. I think that as the church tries to be more inclusive and supportive, that labels with pejorative connotations are replaced. I'm not sure that works, of course. I think that "as used" non-Member has pretty much the division and connotation today that gentile did in the 19th century. It's just that we are nicer to gentiles now. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: FW: [AML] Fw: MN Grammy-nominated artist releases patriotic Album Date: 27 Feb 2002 16:55:38 -0800 Steve, Your mother has a wonderful gift and with the humility she has for that gift I'm sure she has a wonderful reward in Heaven just waiting for her. I would not be surprised if the Angels sing her songs along with many others. Jerry Tyner Orange County, Ca -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] re: Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 21:06:40 -0600 Steve I tried to remember the last time I saw lime jello at a church gathering or in my home or anyone else's. It was at least 15 years ago, and only once. ("Honest Bishop, we only served it once!") _______________ In my growing up years, including 5 in the Salt Lake Valley as a teenager, I never saw it at Church. But, we had it at home almost every other Sunday. Lime Jello with grated carrots in it. Still brings back memories ... :-> Larry Jackson Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. However, a significant number of carrots may have been inconvenienced. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 27 Feb 2002 21:32:12 -0700 When I was first divorced, my former husband would call me on holidays to ask how to make the jello for that particular holiday. His excuse was that his wife was Jewish and jello was not part of her cultural heritage. :) Actually I'm a good cook, but I did make a lot of jello when I was raising my kids. I think Mormon's make jello, because it is easy to make and kids like it. I rarely make jello now. I prefer something like avocado and citrus or a Greek salad. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Mormon News Source (Comp 1) Date: 28 Feb 2002 08:27:54 -0700 I just read the site, and you almost have to live in Utah to think it's funny. I got a chuckle out of a couple of things but The Onion it ain't. It's a fine line to walk and requires a particular talent that will be very difficult to maintain. I look forward to seeing the next issue, I think it's a fun idea if a little too parochial. By the bye, I do not have the talent to write such things, but I'm always willing to criticize. Jim Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] _Angels in America_ on HBO? Date: 28 Feb 2002 09:38:42 -0700 Here's part of a news capsule forthcoming in the next Irreantum: In other Kushner news, Newsweek reports he is writing a children's book with Maurice Sendak, a musical with composer Jeanine Tesori, a movie for producer Scott Rudin, and the screenplay for HBO's six-hour Angels in America mini-series starring Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, and Emma Thompson, some of whom are almost certain to play Mormon characters. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Cornerstone Publishing Email Change Date: 28 Feb 2002 09:45:26 -0800 Hi all, Cornerstone Publishing has changed its email address to cornerstonepublishing@attbi.com. The old address at xmission will be disabled tomorrow. Thanks. Richard Hopkins PS: You can still reach me directly at rrhopkins@email.com. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 28 Feb 2002 08:35:44 -0800 [MOD: This is the discussion about race issues in Mormonism that Margaret Young and Darius Gray suggested might be better conducted by an in-person conversation than over email, particularly given the constraints of AML-List.] I can't find the origin of this thread. What is your "third phase" discussion about? Richard Hopkins ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:57 PM > Darius Gray has just confirmed that he can be present at 5:00 in the Gore > auditorium for our "third phase" discussion--if there's interest. Let's do > it. I hope there's enough interest and enough people present for us to have a > really good discussion. And dear Marilyn, thank you so much for your kind > words. > > Brown wrote: > > > Margaret, we plan on ending the meetings at 4:45, which should give you > > ample time to get together before the buffet at 6:30. You can meet right > > there in the Gore auditorium if you'd like. Cheers for your fabulous work! > > Marilyn Brown > > > > -- > > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 28 Feb 2002 10:09:05 -0800 (PST) --- Richard Johnson wrote: > > Sometimes it is just not fair that I live clear our in Georgia. > Sometimes > (not often, but sometimes) I feel like a move to Happy Valley would not > be > as painful as it has sometimes seemed in the past (Back to the Mormon > Culture thread, I guess.) > > [MOD: From Wisconsin, I feel--and share--your pain.] My wife and I, who swore when we got married that we would never leave the Bay Area, have had moments in the past couple of months where we have actually broached the topic of considering such a move. I too feel your pain. I (half-jokingly) lobbied Marilyn Brown for a teleconference link for the upcoming AML conference (I'd even travel to southern CA for that), but now I'm thinking that in the near future the AML could do Web casts. Even if it was just audio, I'd be there (or rather, here). I'm sure the costs are entirely prohibitive at the moment, but hopefully that will change. The first choice is always going to be to be there, but I'd take live audio in an instant. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 28 Feb 2002 12:29:24 -0500 Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > >Have I simply chosen the jello-less wards of Zion? Or is this a joke that > >grew far beyond it's base in reality? > > I think the joke has definitely grown but it is also a part of our heritage. > Back in 1982, I was the political cartoonist for the U of U student newspaper, The Daily Utah Chronicle. Salt Lake was making its first serious bid to host the Olympics and I ran a Top Ten Reasons for Salt Lake to host the Olympics. Number 5 or 6 was labeled "Local Culinary Specialties" and the drawing was a hefty, smiling woman foisting a bowl of lime Jell-O at the reader. One of the cartoons was "Pre-existent Torch Site" and featured the Angel Moroni atop the SL Temple with a flaming torch/trumpet. Hello Sugar Beet!!! I accept the tribute if not the footnote. I was proudest of the caption coined from the then-current license plate slogan: "The Greatest Snow Job On Earth." Or was it, "Utah: The Behave State." So many years ago... Tony Markham [AKA "Buzzard" the once-notorious rabble-rouser] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Finnish Saunas Date: 28 Feb 2002 12:10:35 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > In defense of a country and custom I love, I must say that in the three > years I lived in Finland, I *never* heard of or saw sauna ladies, and can > guarantee that none of our missionaries went into a sauna with them. I found this an odd grace note to the discussion on culture. I wondered why Annette felt it necessary to mount a defense of the sauna custom against the idea that it might involve co-ed nudity, and why gender-segregation in saunas would be evidence of Finnish propriety. I've visited saunas in Russia and Turkey, and have found that the customs are quite different. (The running out and jumping in the snow and flagellation with birch branches that the Russians do - and I did not - is one of the more spectacular differences.) I saw nary a female in the Turkish sauna - they had a different entrance, if not an entirely different building. The women were present in Moscow, though at least partially draped with towels. In Irkutsk (Siberia) the only ones draped were the foreigners. It doesn't seem to me that Russian customs need defending in this regard, nor that there's a greater sense of propriety in Turkey than in Russia. It's a very different sense of propriety, but unlike some other customs (genital mutilation, for example), in this I see no superiority of one culture over the other. One is simply a little more like mine in some ways, and I'm more comfortable with it. Whether Finns sauna together or seperately doesn't seem to really matter. Why should it? Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Subcontracting Art? Date: 28 Feb 2002 10:26:00 -0800 When I was a junior in high school my English composition teacher invited one of her former students, David Balsiger, a published author, (In Search of Noah's Ark),to come and speak to us about writing and the publishing world. He told us it was not uncommon for books to be done by ghost writers. He did all his own writing, but was able to name several famous authors of the time, (whose names escape me), who used ghost writers. I found it a little shocking, but he seemed to accept it as standard practice. For himself, he emphasized he didn't want his name on it unless he had written the words himself. But, he also added he wasn't wealthy like the guys who apparently did. I do remember in answer to a question of mine, he said Leon Uris, (QB VII, Trinity) did all his own writing himself, so it was possible to make a living on your own writing, just not an easy one-have a backup plan and get an education. I've occasionally kept track of what Dave is doing and I know in the early nineties he got a Biblical history special he had written on CBS, so he's still writing and has stayed true to his Christian ideals, which he had also emphasized to us about our writing-Stay true to yourself and your ideals. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Cultural Imperialism Date: 28 Feb 2002 12:02:08 -0800 On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:50:07 -0500 robert lauer replying to Stephen Carter writes: > But does this mean that EVERY book claiming to be scripture or > revered by some people as such, actually is the Word of God? Perhaps not even every word of the Bible is the Word of God. Joseph Smith wrote in margin of his Bible that the Song of Solomon is not inspired, and said more than once that there were errors in the Bible. I am deeply intrigued by the connection in II Nephi 29:4-6 between anti-Semitism, ungodliness and refusing to accept additional scripture. The rest of the chapter goes on to suggest that not accepting the words that God has caused other cultures to write is just as bad. > I don't accept the teachings of Buddha or the Koran as divinely > inspired. I suppose a lot of LDS wouldn't. You could say that if we did we'd be Bhuddists or Muslims, but you could also say that depends on what the phrase "divinely inspired" means. If it means 'dictated directly by God or an angel' there's not much in this world that's divinely inspired. Indeed, I've never heard anyone in General Conference claim their talk was dictated to them, and I don't find very many passages in scripture that claim to be direct dictation. I can tell you about my own experience with inspiration, but there's no guarantee that I was able to draw out into my writing all the implications of the original inspiration. Here's the three opening paragraphs of an essay called, I Have Come to the Whirlwind to Converse with the Father: The Book of Job as a Ceremony of Irony It was in the 1977 AML Annual and is in AML-List archives 15 SEP 1997 (Drop me a note if you'd like a copy). >>>>> I was sitting in the temple one day contemplating the third chapter of Genesis, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, traditionally called the fall, but which Mormons usually see as a step upward, contemplating, specifically, the part where the Serpent says to Eve, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" when the question occurred to me, How does Satan know that God did, indeed, tell Adam and Eve they could not partake of every tree, that one tree was forbidden to them? Perhaps, though it seems unlikely, God told him. More likely, Satan was listening in on the conversation. A second question occurred to me: Was God unaware that Satan was listening in? But how could he be unaware? And if he was aware, was he powerless to stop Satan? Having instructed Adam and Eve, did he just sadly resign himself to the fact that Satan would come in and wreck everything? Surely he knew that, if Satan were listening, he would try everything to stop Adam and Eve from obeying. Perhaps, the thought occurred to me, rather than let that happen, God told Adam and Eve not to do exactly what he wanted them _to_ do. Thus, far from thwarting God's plans, Satan was helping fulfill them. But doesn't that make Adam and Eve pawns in a game between God and the Satan? But I know that story, I thought. That's the story of Job. <<<<< I've discussed inspiration in another essay as well, a section of Lucid Dreaming called "Trivial Inspiration," which title expresses the hope that revelation should become an everyday experience. It's possible that noone is able to capture fully the inspiration they receive. Mormonism may be unique in its belief that God doesn't protect scripture--i.e., that God allows error to be introduced into scriptural texts, and later corrects the error through additional scripture. > STEPHEN CARTER: > > I think, now that we have the benefit of history, we could read our > > conquest of America the same way we read Israel's conquests > > under Joshua's command. To me those conquests are rife with sin > > stemming from cultural imperialism: "if you aren't us, you are > > less, and must become us or die." > > ROB LAUER: > I find it interesting that with all our discussions of so-called > "Social Imperialism", that many want to impose their own > cultural understanding of morality on the culture of > Ancient Israel. We don't have to impose our cultural understanding, all we have to do is impose the ethical teachings found in the Pentateuch. > After years of trying to reconcile the violent, tribal societies of the > Bible with post-Enlightment thinking, I have come to the conclusion > (in light of September 11th) that it simply cannot be done. > > My opinion is that at that point in human history (the period of the > Bible) the human race had not progressed far enough in their > thinking and social structure to deal with the concepts of > individuality, human rights, etc. > > I know that my writing this proves that I am a "Cultural > Imperialist" for thinking that those societies of the ancient > past were inferior to the post-Enlightment societies of today. Am I understanding you correctly, Rob? Are you really saying that the culture which gave us the 10 Commandments--which deal with how to love God and then how to love our neighbors individually, and the ethical teachings in Deuteronomy, particularly such challenging teachings as the year of Jubilee(?) in which all debts are forgiven, had not progressed far enough in its thinking to understand its own teachings? Are you really saying that a culture which gave us the idea of a city of refuge for unintentional killers is inferior to a culture whose Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the execution of mentally retarded people, a culture that aborts x.x-million babies a year? > BECAUSE I hold that all individuals have equal claims to their lives > and rights, I also hold that all cultures and societies are not of equal > worth--for many of them reject individualism. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man in the Lord." That's a far cry from 20th century individualism. The scriptures talk much more about community than about individualism. If you take individualism far enough the logical (illogical? "Dear Bertrand Russell, I am a solipsist, and I can't understand why everyone else is not a solipsist, too.") end of individualism is solipsism. The most telling statement of modern individualism and its contradictions is the famous portrait of Jean Paul Sartre standing on an iceberg to symbolize the pure individuality (i.e., the pure isolation) of twentieth-century man. But the portrait is a self-contradiction because it depends on having someone behind a camera taking the picture. If we were as existentially alone as Sartre says, we couldn't say so. Individualism is not possible without a community to be individual within. (See Walker Percy's "The Man on the Train" in _The Message in the Bottle_ for an expansion of this.) Scripture talks a great deal more about the congregation of believers which makes us individually meaningful than about individuality itself. > (Question: Does this make God a "Social Imperialist?" After all, > throughout the scriptures He refers to Himself as "The God of > Israel" and "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.") I remember a review of George Steiner's play, "The Portage of A. H. to San Cristobal," playing with the premise that Hitler really did escape to Argentina, and the Mossad tracked him down and took him back to Israel for trial. The above and below paragraphs are a fair paraphrase of one of Hitler's speeches (the reviewer called it Steiner letting the Devil speak his piece), where he accuses the Israelites of initiating the concept of genocide. > In establishing relationships with humans in ancient, more barbaric > times, should it be surprising that God sometimes commanded > the destruction of an entire culture or people? > > Well, yes, that DOES bother me. But that doesn't change the fact (if > one accept the accounts as historical) that God and Joshua (and > Moses, Samuel, David, etc.) condoned such violence in those > particular situations. Because of Joseph Smith's continued assertions that the Bible was altered by corrupt politicians and priests (and he apparently meant the ancient people transmitting the text, not people within 1400 or so years of, say, Martin Luther) I don't take Biblical examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing as examples of God's will. I check such things against the Book of Mormon, and I can find no evidence in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price that God ever commanded an entire culture or people to be destroyed. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello and Cultural Imperialism Date: 28 Feb 2002 15:40:51 -0500 I confess to making Jello quite often, especially when we're having company. I have a Salads cook book that has some great recipies. And no it's not published by a Mormon co. I never make plain Jello so unfortunately it doesn't have universal appeal to my kids, some of which don't like "stuff in it". Our stores here in Columbus Oh sell quite a bit of Jello and the equivelent store brand so it must not be just a Utah/Mormon thing (of which I am not). Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] re: Cultural Imperialism Date: 28 Feb 2002 12:45:28 -0800 (PST) There is a bitter anti-Mormon, alleged "humor" site on the web that likes to refer to us as "the Morg"; a pun on the Borg from "Star Trek." (You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!) But most organizations strive to influence others; that's the way they survive. It's hardly confined to Americans or Mormons (there's some pretty good cultural imperialism going on in the Muslim world right now.) On the other hand things can get dicey here in Utah where there are so many LDS and relatively few gentiles. When I was at BYU I had a class from a very well-known religion professor. One day she lamented that many Latter-day Saints were so busy with church work--it was a shame they didn't get more involved in the community. Wasn't it interesting, she said, that the mayor of Provo, the most Mormon community in the world, wasn't LDS. (He was a member of the Rock Canyon Assembly of God church, and a Democrat too.) Her tone, if not her precise words, implied this was a situation that needed to be corrected. And as I recall in the next election, it was. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Third Phase Date: 28 Feb 2002 13:41:22 -0800 Jonathan was kind enough to explain this. I have received a submission to Cornerstone Publishing that is directly on point of this discussion, and I'd like to participate in this "Third Phase." The times have been given (I assume they are PM). Could we get the date and address? That is, if anyone else is invited to attend. I don't want to be presumptuous, but it would be very helpful to me right now. Richard Hopkins [MOD: This information has been given out by bits and drabbles in different messages. Let me share what I think is the case, based on my search through what I've received. My impression is that this conversation is to take place at the location of the AML conference at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, between sessions, this coming Saturday, at 5:00 in the Gore Auditorium. I don't know if it will be open to anyone not attending the conference. Can anyone confirm, correct, and/or amplify?] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature