From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #46 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, May 22 2000 Volume 01 : Number 046 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 23:40:15 -0400 From: Shawn Ambrose Subject: RE: [AML] Women in Scriptures "And it came to pass" isn't a typical English language construction because it's too wordy. They must have had one character they could write to mean what we translate as an entire phrase. Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:32:00 -0400 From: Shawn Ambrose Subject: RE: [AML] Jesus on CBS I remember learning to read and to comprehend society by reading the comic strips with my dad. He'd be laughing so hard he could hardly speak, trying to explain to me why it's funny. Now I'm reading them to my children and they're learning and laughing. Of course, my dad was about 58 then. I'm only 29. I'm certain that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ both laugh sometimes. They must! Children are just too funny! To think of Jesus Christ as stern and stone-faced all the time is to deny the joy he has said he has. Melinda L. Ambrose - -----Original Message----- From: Richard C. Russell [SMTP:lderlore@xmission.com] Do people lose their sense of fun and practical joking at age 30 or something? I especially liked the water fight. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 08:57:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Darlene Young Subject: RE: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Lynn Gardner says, "My married characters, though I depict them in only g-rated situations, in g-rated language, are barely allowed to kiss and caress each other. How can I depict the pleasures and joys of being married - (keep in mind that this is all strictly G-rated because I'm very aware of the teen audience reading my books) - if I'm not allowed to show any kind of affection between the two? But maybe if we could show a little realism, and I'm not asking for ANYTHING that I wouldn't read aloud to my bishop or stake president or my grandaughters, our LDS readers would buy more of our books instead of things they really shouldn't be reading!" To say nothing of the benefit such literature would be to our society. We could definitely use a jolt of depictions of the true joy that can come from sex used rightly. I know too many young couples (and older, too!) with hangups of too much "No, no, no!" and not enough positive depictions from WITHIN our own culture. Marriages would be improved, I think. ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 16:10:32 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit I'm not sure, about the teasing or toying I mean. I've never tried to write such a scene but I've read quite a bit. I think a person who is used to reading a descriptive portrayal might feel that something was missing. Do you think most readers just fill in with what they're familiar with? I don't mean that they actually sit there trying to picture the couple in the bedroom. I mean they just fill in the feelings of being romantically involved. Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of putting this into words. I think they fill in the warm, loving relationship-if that's the kind of relationship it is, without needing a play by play account. Tracie Laulusa (who is going to lurk forever more if this is the best I can do at putting two words together!) - -----Original Message----- So I try not to leave sexuality out of my fiction. However, I think that writing good sex (by that I mean sex that doesn't drain all the narrative tension out of a scene) is very difficult. Going back to Hardy, I think that often what is strongest is leading up to a scene but leaving the actual sexual description out (as Rex Goode just suggested). Sometimes I think that even that method can backfire and seem like teasing or toying with the reader. I think there are no easy answers. ________________ Professor John Bennion 3117 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: (801) 378-3419 Fax: (801) 378-4705 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 14:07:42 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Sexuality in LDS literature On Fri, 19 May 2000 16:59:30 -0600, Darvell wrote: >With the current discussion here about sexuality in LDS literature, I >couldn't help pointing out that KSL TV in Salt Lake City today has done = a >story on what they are calling the "Sex book for LDS couples." This = might >have relevance to our discussion. Apparently it was written by an LDS >professor. NO pictures, just text. _Between Husband and Wife_ has been selling out of stores everywhere here= in Utah--to the point that bookstores can't keep it in stock, as the radio = has been telling me every half-hour today. It is a non-fiction book, = apparently a kind of self-help thing, and equally apparently it's got enormous = market appeal. One of the news reports (I was listening in the car while cruising I-15 = so I was paying more attention to the insane drivers than the radio) quoted = some expert as saying that not only Mormon couples, but very religious couples= of all denominations, are more likely to have difficulty discussing sexual problems within their relationships, especially if one or both partners = had parents who didn't talk about sex. Again, it comes back to sex being = some kind of secret shame, doesn't it? Like it's not essential to = reproduction, and to a healthy married life...the fact that sex is *private* has become transmuted to mean that it's *dirty*. I think this book is selling as well as it is not just because it's very much needed, but because in some way it makes talking and thinking and reading about sex officially sanctioned activities. And this relates to = why I think so many Mormons are reluctant to read novels that contain sexual scenes of any degree of intensity. A good novel is like a window into someone else's life--as though the characters are real people who just happen to be able to tell you what they're thinking. To some degree, reading a description of sex between such characters is like peeking = through their bedroom window. It's not quite voyeurism--though it's likely that = a percentage of the people who will be "offended" by sex scenes in books = are offended because of the vicarious turn-on--but it is certainly an = invasion of privacy. It's sex! Something that should be kept behind locked = doors! A society that treats sex as something shameful has little ability to = judge the context in which sex in literature is presented. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about two married people in love or a Las Vegas prostitute; in either case, it's just wrong wrong wrong in some people's eyes to even mention the s-word, let alone describe it in any level of detail. While I can understand readers not wanting to read graphic descriptions of sex, it's their objecting to even the mention of beds or nakedness or kissing that scares me. It suggests a fearfulness that = cannot possibly be healthy for a married couple--particularly one that has = children and has therefore presumably had sex at least *once.* I will stop rambling now, as my computer informs me that my name has just come up on the library hold list for a particular book in which, I assure you, there is plenty of tastefully done sex between married people well = past the age of consent. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:12:35 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit I want to comment on what John Bennion said regarding describing a scene up to, but not including the sex act: "Sometimes I think that even that method can backfire and seem like teasing or toying with the reader." I do believe that is true. So much depends on the message and the audience. The novel that I'm working on has a parital intention of really bothering the readers. I want them to be uncomfortable, not aroused, but I want them to see why the characters are aroused. It's a very difficult tight rope. I want to expose some traps that many people fall into, even show characters falling into those traps. It is not supposed to be erotic. It is supposed to be tragic. While working in a writer's group, I shared one scene in particular, perfectly clean, but somewhat intense. It was not an incident that doesn't happen every day, but it is one that most people don't want to believe happens at all. The general consensus of the group was that such things were so far removed from every day life that it is hard to make it believable. The sad fact is, it most certainly is a part of every day life for some people, full of pain and anguish, but real. My tactic to deal with this disbelief is to surround the realism with light fantasy, strung together by coincidence. Individual elements and threads are fantastic and too coincidental, but the individual experiences are real. It seems to work, but if I were not frank about what is happening, it would not be worth reading. [Rex Goode] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:42:31 GMT From: "Clive Romney" Subject: [AML] Copyright-fair use With regards to fair use, this may be of help...or it may not! Title 17 of the United States Code is the Copyright Law. Section 107 states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works), the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-- 1-the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2-the nature of the copyrighted work; 3-the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4-the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In addition, several statements of Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Uses of copyrighted materials under Copyright Act of 1976 were developed by a House of Representatives Judiciary Committee "Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision" in consultation with national publishing organizations. I only have access to excerpts from that which applies to music, but even it is not an exhaustive list, but merely a more descriptive guide to what types of uses might be permissible. The law is vague, and it is left to the courts to determine according to the above criteria what is fair use. Clive Romney ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 15:25:37 -0700 From: eedh Subject: Re: [AML] swim wear in Mormon literature There were no pant-legs attached to the swimsuits, that I remember, when I was at BYU in 1981. I asked my husband, and he said he didn't remember any legs on women's swimsuits at that time either. Beth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:11:23 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] swim wear in Mormon literature <> 1969. Ogling from the balcony. No attached legs. Marvin Payne - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:11:27 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Fallible Prophetic Characters Thom Duncan: "But then you have a main character who doesn't change, who has no character arc, from beginning to end. Very difficult to make that kind of character work as a protagonist at least.... To me, the struggle for deity or perfection is what drama is about. The Biblical prophets all change and grow, struggle toward perfection." But there must be a lot more possibilities for change than always starting the arc at utter doubt that God called the prophet. I'm not complaining about the existence of such arcs in stories. I'm complaining about the frequency with which this arc seems to be exploited. The same protagonist changes over and over gets as boring as no protagonist changes. I get no sense that Jonah doubted his calling. But he still had a whopper of a changing arc. At first he didn't want to fulfill the calling. God certainly straightened him out on that. Later he didn't understand the intent of his calling as he sat on the hill waiting to enjoy the pyrotechnics of the destruction of Nineveh. When none came, he was angry at God for making him a liar. But the Ninevites had repented. Jonah hadn't lied: his message had been successful in a way rarely accomplished by preachers of repentance. Jonah needed to come to understand that. Even Jesus grew, I believe. For all the talk of his divinity and sinlessness, there came at least one moment when he reacted like Jonah: he didn't want to fulfill his calling. He handled the challenge much better than Jonah--thus preserving his sinless state--but I can't help but believe the Garden of Gesthemane was a growing moment for him. It was something neither he nor any other person had experienced before. An angel even needed to come and strengthen him at some point during the ordeal. I don't think growth has to include doubting the truthfulness of God, the Gospel, or the calling one receives. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 08:03:29 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Lynn Gardner: "The first sentence in my newest book brought howls of protest from some quarters at my publishers: 'Clutching the sheet like a shield in front of me, I sat up in bed, poised for flight.' To me, that is a normal, natural reaction to being awakened suddenly in the middle of the night. To some, it evokes images not to be published in LDS fiction." Now that's nonsense! If a person afraid in bed protecting him/herself with the sheets isn't G-rated, I don't know what is. Every child on earth has experienced this. You might as well say "she sucked on her lollipop" is offensive, because one word in that sentence has been known to be used in a sexual manner on occasion. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 08:24:41 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Rex Goode: "In some ways, though, I can see their point. Many things I've read that have a sexual element to it are more pornographic than useful." I don't see their point. Well, I do, but I have a low opinion of it. This is just sloppy, lazy thinking, IN MY OPINION (don't want to offend). Has anyone ever heard of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? If you think about that saying, throwing a baby out the window with bathwater would be a terrible thing. Usually this saying is applied to much less harrowing analogies, but in this case I think it's very relevant. In the short time this topic has existed, we've already been presented with several examples of truly destructive results of the denial approach to sex. I think there are many cases where we really are throwing our babies out into the world because we take the easy route of pretending sex doesn't exist rather than dealing with it in a healthy and responsible way with our children. The tragic thing is, we think we're protecting them as we commit the very act of heave-ho-ing them out the window. Already in this discussion I am even more convinced that it is immoral for us as authors to succumb to the overly prudish attitude of too many members of the church. Sex is too powerful and the consequences of abusing it too destructive to just ignore it and pretend it will go away. Now I ask you, if we in our literature for our LDS audience do not gently educate fellow members on this subject, who else will? We may have to nudge the envelope ever so slightly each time with gradual changes, but I dearly hope we don't just roll over and play dead on this issue. And if that gradual approach sounds suspiciously like the approach Hollywood and television have used to lead their art down the primrose path to the licentious and prurient state it's in now, you're right. It means the responsibility is placed squarely on our shoulders to make sure we don't do the same. We need to be sure our literature is honest to life--life as we understand it within the paradigm of LDS theology. We need to be sure it is restrained in the depiction of sensitive things--not timid in discussing that which needs to be discussed, but not gratuitous in the way we discuss it. We need to examine one another's art and, not resort to knee-jerk reactions when we see code words or code situations (like the mention of sheets in bed), but honestly assess and discuss with one another the impact our writing may have on the audience. Banning is unthinkable, but, as we've hashed out in another topic, moral implications of art is a relevant part of the discussion. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:34:41 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit >I believe shame and secrecy has been used to teach chastity because it's >an easy out. But ineffective. To assume ignorance and innocence are the same thing is really stupid. I knew girls who got "in trouble" as we put it in the olden days because they did not understand what the guy was doing. But they liked it, so they let him. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 16:33:38 -0700 From: "Allison and Ray Blackham" Subject: [AML] Editing Ethics I have a question for you copy editors out there. Background: I write nonficition articles for several publications. Last week, facing a deadline, one of my publishers/editors asked me if I would edit a short story he wanted to print but which "needed some rewriting". I've never done that before, but said I'd take a look at it. What I found was a story that started well, but never made its point, or found its way to a conclusion. I told the editor that the rewriting it needed was more than I could do unless he wanted give me a byline as co-author. He was offended (maybe his wife wrote it?) and told me that it needed minor proofreading and editing for length. Question: to what extent an an editor do you "rewrite" a fictional piece? I think he was hoping I could give it a quick fix with the addition of a sentence or two in the right places. If I was really clever perhaps I could have, but that would have changed the emphasis of the other writer's work. How much can you alter something and still call it editing? Allison Blackham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 16:13:18 -0700 From: "Allison and Ray Blackham" Subject: [AML] Jesus on CBS Linda Adams wrote > Did anyone see the conclusion last night? What did you think? > > I felt the portrayal of Pilate was in error. But it was a new tangent of > thought for me--that the Romans knew what they were doing and tried to turn > the Jews against their own King, and succeeded, so in that way it was > interesting to follow. I have never seen Pilate as nearly the villain the > movie portrayed, though, as a politician who was literally stuck between a > rock and a hard spot. I didn't see the show, but do have a (borrowed) insight about Pilate. I just got back from a week in Israel on a very scripture intensive tour. Our guide, who bills himself as "an Israeli, a Mormon and a Jew" (you've seen the ads in the BYU alumni magazine) shared his view. Pilate and Herod hated each other, and there was always an underlying tension as to who was really in charge. It wasn't the Jewish people, o the whole, who had a problem with Jesus. Most of them were flocking to him in droves, being healed, welcomed him on his trimphal entry into the city, etc. It was the Jewish religious leaders. He was a threat to their authority. So they charged him with blasphemy and tortured him, but took him to Pilate because they didn't have power to execute. Pilate, according to this reading of the events, used this as an opportunity to exert his power and authority over the Priests. The priests wanted Jesus executed. They had no legal authority to kill him. Pilate taunted them with Jesus blamelessness, that Jesus was their King, until they finally shouted out that Caesar was their king. Pilate was not concerned about Jesus, his innocence or guilt, but used his case to solidify his power over the leaders of the people in the country he was sent to occupy. Don't know who has the right interpretation of events. Do know that being there, seeing the places, walking in the marketplace, smelling the smells, made scripture come alive. It also made me realize what a complacent Christian I have been, reading the scriptures but not fully understanding the implications of the events, the politics, the history, the relationship between Judaism and modern day revelation. The more I learn, the more I need to learn. Allison Blackham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 17:20:04 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit >So I try not to leave sexuality out of my fiction. However, I think >that writing good sex (by that I mean sex that doesn't drain all the >narrative tension out of a scene) is very difficult. Going back to >Hardy, I think that often what is strongest is leading up to a scene >but leaving the actual sexual description out (as Rex Goode just >suggested). Sometimes I think that even that method can backfire and >seem like teasing or toying with the reader. I think there are no >easy answers. The best of the historical romance novelists handle it well on a regular basis. The love scenes are about a man and woman finally uniting in love and committing to their permanent relationship--a married relationship. The sexual act is portrayed both as an expression of love between the two and as a means of creating their children so they can build a family. Readers choose the line most consistent with their comfort level: the sweet romances if they want the whole thing to lead up to a line of asterisks, and more sensual lines if they find such abrupt door-slamming unsatisfactory. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 06:39:58 -0600 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: Re: [AML] Fallible Prophetic Characters At 02:08 PM 5/19/00 -0600, Thom Duncan wrote: >"D. Michael Martindale" wrote: >> >> I am already familiar with how >> non-divine, self-doubting humans are--depressingly familiar. But I am >> fascinated with how a real flesh-and-blood god or completely converted >> prophet might act as either one interacts with the realities of corrupt >> mortal life. Therefore any work of art that shows the former instead of >> the latter does not interest me. > >But then you have a main character who doesn't change, who has no >character arc, from beginning to end. Very difficult to make that kind >of character work as a protagonist at least. Ghandi has the main >character change, so does Malcom X. Jesus of Nazareth doesn't change, >but he's not the main character in that mini series. The Last >Temptation of Christ -- the protagonist changes, Brigham Young by >DeMille, the protag changes. The Ten Commandments. The Godfather >movies. Having a static main character is a recipe for a boring film. > >To me, the struggle for deity or perfection is what drama is about. The >Biblical prophets all change and grow, struggle toward perfection. Enos >prays all day and into the night. Thom, surely you're not saying that the spirituality or the certainty of conviction in a character is the only thing that can change in a story? What's wrong with having a character who is absolutely certain about one thing and yet has struggles in some other area? Just because an author shows a converted character doesn't mean that character is completely unable to change in any way (even a prophet without doubts about his calling can continue to receive line upon line; even Christ changed from mortality to immortality, after all). Consider Sherlock Holmes, a very popular character when he first appeard on the literary scene and even now. His certainty about his main calling in life, criminology, is unshakable. He is only "defeated" once, and that because he decided not to continue the "fight" until he had won. Regardless of his flaws (his cocaine addiction and his moodiness when there was no case to challenge his mind), he was and still is a fascinating character to many readers--not boring at all. (And I submit that he would have been so without the flaws.) There is more than one way to present a main character. A main character who is full of certainty, even one who doesn't change (I can't recall much change in Holmes over the time frame of his stories), does not have to be avoided by writers. Perhaps to you the drama of struggling to improve oneself/attain godhood is the only worthy drama to write about, but that doesn't mean it is the only thing a writer can show a character struggling with. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:16:35 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Compact English (was: Women in Scriptures) Shawn Ambrose wrote: > > "And it came to pass" isn't a typical English language construction because > it's too wordy. They must have had one character they could write to mean > what we translate as an entire phrase. But "And it came to pass" is all through the Bible. Why, if not a typical English phrase? This brings up another language related idea. American English, more than any other language, has condensed itself over the years so that it takes less words to say the same things as, for example, French, or even British English. This was not always so. Jacobean English, in which the KJV is written, is substantially more "wordy" than today's English. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Edgar Snow Subject: [AML] swim wear and jeans in Mormon literature Thanks for the responses. I've actually never encountered these swim suit pants legs in person, but I remember in 1978, someone I hometaught complained about them. I got the general idea they were about 1-2 inches long and that most swimmers rolled them up anyway. As a hometeacher, you're always asking "Is there anything we can do to help you? When I heard the complaint, I wasn't sure exactly what to do, and neither was my companion. We were stuporfied. Maybe they disappeared with the 1979 public scandal when the student banned from the BYU testing center for wearing jeans went into the restroom, removed her jeans, and returned to the testing center wearing only an overcoat and was allowed to take her test. Hey ... I just got a great idea. I think Eric S. or Steve K.P. should write a play about this testing center episode. I'd suggest a musical. "Jeanetic Evolution?" "Survival of the Fittest?" "Testing Center Blues?" I can think of some great dance numbers using really oversized blue jeans. I've been tempted to weave this thread with the one about sexuality in Mormon literature, but I won't. Ed [Snow] ===== My collection of humorous essays entitled _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ has just been released and can be ordered from Signature Books at 1-800-356-5687, or from their website at http://www.signaturebooksinc.com/curious.htm or from Barnes & Noble at http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD&mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:16:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Sexuality in LDS literature Melissa Proffitt wrote: > On Fri, 19 May 2000 16:59:30 -0600, Darvell wrote: > > >With the current discussion here about sexuality in LDS literature, I > >couldn't help pointing out that KSL TV in Salt Lake City today has done = > a > >story on what they are calling the "Sex book for LDS couples." This = > might > >have relevance to our discussion. Apparently it was written by an LDS > >professor. NO pictures, just text. > > _Between Husband and Wife_ has been selling out of stores everywhere here= > in > Utah--to the point that bookstores can't keep it in stock, as the radio = > has > been telling me every half-hour today. It is a non-fiction book, = > apparently > a kind of self-help thing, and equally apparently it's got enormous = > market > appeal. I've read the LDS "sex book" that has come out and it basically covers the same ground as "The Act of marriage" which is a Christian book on the smae subject. Both books are tastefully done, tame yet explicit enough for the clueless, but sensitively written and always expressing religous values throughout. However, I prefer the Christian "Act of Marriage" to the LDS "Between Husband and Wife." Why? Well, the Act of Marriage is written by a Husband and Wife - and the feamle perspective sheds a whole new light on things. The LDS book, as good as it is, is written by two men and while they try to get a women's side across, it doesn't succeed as well. IMHO. (Another main difference is the LDS book doesn't have a chapter on "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and you're saved by grace not works so say this prayer here:") - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:23:40 From: Marilyn Brown Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Michael Martinadale wrote: "Moral implications of art is a relevant part of the discussion." I just wanted to say HOORAY. I haven't said anything to this post yet, but I appreciated Michael's statement so much. I remember the 60's when everyone wanted to make love instead of war. They translated love into sex. Well, it just so happens sex and charity (the love of Christ) are two different things. If young people really understand the love of Christ, and care about each other truly, if they have respect for each other and the future families of one or the other, they will treat sex with the respect and dignity it deserves, rather than abuse it or experiment with it. This discussion exemplifies why the Church is my champion. The MIA classes saved me! And I'm so glad as Mormon writers we're discussing this and the implications of what our literature may promote. I think as writers in the LDS market we have a responsibility together, supporting each other, to build something better than what the world is giving us at the present time. So onward, Christian soldiers! Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:28:23 From: Marilyn Brown Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit I like this reply, Darvell. I think none of us realizes how much we can say in literature by NOT SAYING SOMETHING. When I was studying the minimalists I admired them so much for that! I love that approach, because I as the reader can fill in, participate more, etc. This NOT SAYING IT goes for not only sex, but violence, and abusive conversations, etc. Marilyn Brown At 04:23 PM 5/19/00 -0600, you wrote: >It may be hard, but you can portray sexuality with what you don't say. >I've seen this done in PG movies in an annoying way, tho, like panning the >camera away from the bed and defocusing with romantic music playing. I >hate that. > >I don't mean to direct the discussion back to the opposite of what we've >been discussing, which would be putting the sexuality back into the closet >-- I'm not saying that. I think it can still be discreetly done in the >open, but it probably needs to be less noticable to the naive. That way, >both types of people can enjoy it. > >Darvell Hunt > >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > >Darvell Hunt, Las Vegas, NV > > >_____________________________________________ >Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! >http://www.MyOwnEmail.com > > > > > >- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature >http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm > > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:26:47 -0400 From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Rex, the story you're working on, is that the one where the guy is at the bus stop or riding the bus? I remember reading something by you once that was pretty intense, but to me very believable, and well written Debbie Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus Dianna said: > > It is our right to agree or disagree with the portrayals in > > different productions but obviously no one knows all > > things about the Master for a surety. > This made me think of another interesting point. The co-opting of Jesus by anyone and everyone to prove a particular point. The most blatant of recent attempts at this was PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) with no evidence for them and some strong evidence against them, put up billboards saying "Jesus was a Vegetarian. Follow his example and respect all God's creatures." (guess he didn't eat the paschal lamb at passover and passed on the fish after his ressurection). Other examples are: 1. A sort of friend of mine (I later found out he was alluding to a Sunstone article) once said that he felt Jesus would rather stay outside the temple and be with the honest "unworthies" rather than go into the temple with us exclusivist hypocrites. 2. John Le Carre has a semi-famous quote saying (badly paraphrased by me) that only those who go against the grain and express individual acts of courage that are not part of the status quo can change the world and isn't that what we used to admire Jesus for? (with the subtle implication that Christianity with it's rules and structures has lost the individuality aspect) 3. Many people often quote Jesus's unjudgemental aspects and unconditional love and propensity to hang out with sinners, publicans and whores as reasons to "let the people be and let 'em do what they want." The Jesus in the NT is a complex individual. A man who bucked the status quo and rebelled against the rules of society yet demanded that his followers live by another set of rules that were nearly as strict, though focused more on the inward than the outward aspects of religion. A man who spent time with sinners in seedy places yet often spent his time preaching in the holiest spot around - the temple. A man who loved everyone, yet rebuked the scribes, called Herod a "fox" and said his enemies would perish. A man who cared for all life, yet cast demons into pigs and cursed a fig tree. A teacher who healed a gentile woman's daughter and preached to the outcast Samaritans, all the while caliming to be only sent to the lost sheep of Isreal and confining most of his ministry to the Jews. He may have spent time with the "honest outcasts" outside the temple, but he wasn't telling them that it was okay to sin. He called on all to repent. He dined with publicans and harlots, but did not accept their lifestyles and told them to sin no more. Jesus was more complex than we often give him credit, and everytime someone co-opts one characteristic to promote a particualr view ("don't judge! don't eat meat! Be an individual and ignore the rules! Christ would despise our exclusive temple rules!" etc.) we do a disservice to the multi-facted and complex individual he was. And yet everyone does it. Conservative, moderate, radical, reactionary, liberal, whoever. Of course it's also hard to portray such complexity in only a few hours, so I don't fault the Jesus mini-series for not totally succeding. They did as well as could be expected, and while not thrilled, I was mildly pleased. But I do fault the rhetoricians I read in Sunstone, Dialouge, BYU studies, the Utah Evangel or Bible Review that always say something like "well Christ would have done it this way beacuse he did this." It reduces Christ to a cipher, a mere token to be bandied about in the war of ideas for who gets to have his/her viewpoint win out. Christ was more complex than any of the general co-opting would have us believe. - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #46 *****************************