From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #607 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, February 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 607 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:00:18 -0700 From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:57:28 -0800 From: Frances Subject: [AML] re: Stealth Religion in Literature 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:56:33 -0700 From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 1 > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:06:53 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:08:36 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:07:48 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Roots Plagarized? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:28:50 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:47:59 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:10:07 EST From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:30:17 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Inteview with "Light of the World" Composers 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:27:21 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism [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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:12:30 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Public and Private Mormon Lit 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:45:26 -0700 From: "Christine Atkinson" Subject: Re: [AML] Stealth Religion in Literature 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 01:58:35 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Re: Missionaries Returning Home 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 11:55:21 -0500 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:06:13 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on History and Old Testament 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:11:24 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #607 ******************************