From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #605 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 Friday, February 8 2002 Volume 01 : Number 605 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:44:36 -0700 From: "K.D. Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:23:51 GMT From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus (Comp 1) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:26:01 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:06:33 EST From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:00:49 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons on Saturday Night Live (Comp 1) [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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:30:33 -0700 From: rwilliams Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:32:02 EST From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:47:41 -0800 (PST) From: Colin Douglas Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism - --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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:33:56 EST From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dynamic Relationships with God 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:13:26 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:24:12 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:49:29 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:31:22 -0700 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] re: Depictions of Jesus 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:17:13 -0700 From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:17:36 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Roots Plagarized? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:21:58 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:40:34 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ----- From: > > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:43:39 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:35:40 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers [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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:46:47 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #605 ******************************