From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #611 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 Wednesday, February 13 2002 Volume 01 : Number 611 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:02:27 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony - ----- Original Message ----- From: "BJ Rowley" To: Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony > We're apparently all quite willing to make the necessary > sacrifice in the name of safety and security. Those of us who aren't willing have just stayed home. Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that they could get on TV? BJ's job sounds exciting -- at least he gets to see the greats up close and personal, and the people at speed-skating probably have a pretty good view, but the ones I really can't undertand are the folks who line the bob-sled track, freezing their fannies off, just so they can see something blur by in a micro-second. All the foregoing should be read as the rantings and ravings of a man who literally hates crowds and does all he can to avoid them. I don't like the way crowds can be manipulated. I'll stand up and do the wave when *I* want to. I was disappointed when I attended my first concern (as an adult) at BYU in the early 80's; the Beach Boys. I *had* thought I would get the opportunity to listen to the great songs I grew up with but I spent most of my time standing because everybody in front of me stood. Then my wife, years later, won tickets to see Barbara Streisand in concert. We go, in a limousine provided by the radio station and we end up sitting so far up that we couldn't see anything unless we looked at the monitor. If I want to look at a monitor, I'll do it at home, in my underwear, with a bowl of popcorn at my side, thank you very much. Having said all this, and despite my distate of crowds, if ever a collection of people large enough to be called a crowd were to attend a production of one of my plays, I wouldn't mind it at all. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:26:54 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony [MOD: This is a compilation of two responses by Amy.] - ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric R. Samuelsen > Of course, the TV coverage was beautiful, technically accomplished, and utterly tin eared. Bob > Costas seemed to think we needed all the symbolism explained to us, Katie Couric kept > stepping on his lines, and Jim McKay, sadly, was frequently incoherent. You forgot to mention Costas's skewering of the name "Sacajawea." Ear-hurtingly funny. Amy - ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Bigelow > When the large group at my house was speculating on who would light the > torch, my suggestion of O.J. Simpson got the biggest reaction. I tried to > argue that he would make a nice bookend with Mohammed Ali in '96. > Chris Bigelow My family throught that Osama bin Laden should be lit on fire and shot out of a cannon at the torch. What a spectacular lighting THAT would be. Amy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:44:14 -0700 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism I am disturbed by a general trend that I detect in all these posts on Race Issues in Mormonism. Having just read through all 19 posts in one sitting it seems to me that the general consensus is that God denying someone the priesthood is somehow mean; that someone not being able to have the priesthood is a detriment to them. Perhaps my understanding is skewed but I just don't think that's the case. My understanding is that we mortals will be judged at the end of time by how well we lived our lives according to what we knew to be true, nothing more nothing less. Having the priesthood is not a box that we ourselves must check while on the Earth. What else are temples for? I am not saying that gaining the priesthood at some point during one's participation in the plan of salvation is not necessary. I say again, what else are temples for? (priesthood along with other things being accomplished by proxy) One certainly does not have to gain the priesthood while here in the flesh to be exalted, any more than one must be married in the temple while in the flesh. Emphasis on "in the flesh" My own reaction to the race question is to remember that this life is but a moment. The only goal that God has for us down here is, as I said before, to see if we will live according to what we know to be true. =20 "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;"=20 Different people have different levels and permutations of the truth and those are the rulers by which they will be measured. I believe that God crafted this planet and this plan in such a way as to provide each one of us with the particular lessons we needed to become worthy of Godly power and responsibility. Just because some of us needed to learn lessons attendant upon having the priesthood and some of us needed to learn lessons attendant upon being denied the priesthood does not make God a racist. Anymore than his allowing billions of oriental folk/african folk/northern european folk/island folk/... to live and die on this Earth never having heard of His Son does. To claim that this church either divinely or secularly did the brown people among us a disservice is to deny that God's in charge. Does anyone really believe that a black man who did not receive the priesthood in 1950 got screwed out of his chance to keep his second estate, derailing the plan of salvation in his case? I hope not. Break. Although it has absolutely no bearing on my statement above, when it comes down to whether or not the decision to deny blacks the priesthood was a revelation or, as Eric Samuelson put it, an "invention" of Brigham Young's, I'm curious. Does anyone have documented evidence either way? Break. Group guilt. Why should I feel guilty about the way other people treat other people? I am not responsible for other people's actions. I am responsible only for my own. This means that _I_ must not judge others according to their race. It means that _I_ must not stand idly by while others judge others according to their race. It means that _my_ writing must not, advertently, teach others to judge others according to their race. It means that _I_ must teach _my_ children not to judge others according to their race. Ad nauseum. Even though the people that commit/ed terrible acts in the name of racism live/d in the same country I now live in and were/are of the same skin color as I, I had/have no control over their actions and bear no responsibility for their actions. An apology from me for those actions would be the worst kind of sentimental sophistry. Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:12:53 -0500 From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Origins of Revelation (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) [MOD: I appreciate Tony's response here. I think it would probably be a good idea, however, if we simply leave it at this, rather than opening up yet another doctrinal thread at this point...] Jeff Needle wrote: > I'm rather astonished at this note. As a non-member, perhaps I'm missing > something here. But if you have a strong testimony of the Scriptures > (including the book of Abraham), does this not extend to a testimony of the > prophetic calling of the Presidents of the Church? You accept Joseph > Smith, Jr., as a prophet, with the authority to deliver new Scripture > through revelation, with no feedback or polls to affect his > revelation. But you don't accept that modern prophets can receive > revelation without the members becoming dissatisfied with the status quo. > > Can you tell me when you think this all changed? Without getting too far off the subject, and hoping the moderators will allow a bit of latitude here, and also asking Jeff that if he wants to really probe, that we do it through personal correspondence--my personal belief is that at the beginning of this church, progress came from the top down. God sent revelation to the one person at the top of the hierarchy and he told the members what was what. I think that increasingly, progress has come from the bottom up. We as 11 million members will progress as we see fit through our prayers and diligence. When we want to move forward, as expressed through our prayers, then the revelations will be sent. That's why so many people were "ahead" of the presidency on the priesthood revelation. That's fine. Every time a temple project has been announced by the presidency, I think it has been as a result of the fervent prayers from the people in that region and then God moves the prophet and then he makes the announcement and people say, "We've been asking for this for years." I think this is part of our Progression. When we are little, our parents tell us everything from the top down. As we mature and become more comfortable exercising our free agency, we are expected to give input. Our parents are still our parents, but instead of dictating to us they allow us to move forward in fits and starts and even make mistakes. I have no trouble applying this to the Church. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:42:01 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jews Thank you for this interesting and useful information. I'm not sure we can rely entirely on deduction to resolve the issue, however. My understanding of the skin-color of first century Jews comes from secular historical sources. (Though I can't put my finger on them right now, I think someone on this list quoted or cited them already.) Richard Hopkins - ----- Original Message ----- > [From Darius Gray via Margaret Young] > > > > Brother Hopkins; > > There is an interesting tidbit to be found in the Pearl of Great Price at > > [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:55:37 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism ___ James ___ | Your benign racism is anything but; the idea that race determines | character, ability, etc is merely the old form of racism, ie | the standard belief of all humanity since the Tower of Babel. ___ Hmm. Exactly how does the above differ from more or less denying the place of genetics in human characteristics? Now certainly within the categories we call races there is great diversity. And what constitutes a "race" is in many ways socially defined. We pick certain traits/geographic locals and then define a race. Yet upon close examination those break down. Yet there still are characteristics within races that are generally the case. I think we worry about race more than we should. However at the same time all evidence points to genetics making up a sizable portion of what makes us who we are. So long as we don't ascribe "superiority" to our heritage I don't see the problem. Yet there is a danger that because of the many many abuses in the name of racism that some deny race any place at all. Further the notion of "race" as it used seems to include a kind of social entity as well as physical characteristics. Consider for example the Semetic race which includes many more social features than anything that could likely be tied to genetics. In that sense Mormonism probably could have become a race, had we remained isolated long enough. I bring up this social aspect because I think the concern in Mormon literature, especially the scriptures, is with a combination of social/heritage race. Consider the promises and covenants of the Book of Mormon. That is essentially a promise to a given race. Likewise the doctrines of blood Israel, especially as it relates to priesthood and the Holy Ghost, are tied to race. Call that "racism" if you wish. However perhaps a better term would be heritage, given the place the word race has come to take. So, while we might not be racists, we definitely are heritagists. ___ Konnie ___ | I can believe that we are placed where we are on this earth | according to how valiant we were in the preexictance. ___ I think that it is the notion of a pre-existence that still causes us the most concern in this regard. It seems like our place on this earth is determined by two factors. The first is what use we could be to the Lord (our valiance) and then what things we need to learn (our growth). By the end of our sojourn here and in the spirit world, we'll all have equal chances. The danger is that successful Mormons can come to take a kind of Calvinist view that our place is our blessing due to pre-existent righteousness. Yet that need not be the case. It might simply be that we needed to learn something different from others. Elder Ashton gave an excellent talk on this in the early 90's. Basically he affirmed the basic doctrine of blessings and curses but pointed out that our judgments of what was a blessing or curse was often determined by the values of the world. A person living in the poor rural south, for instance, might well have been blessed by that birth more than had they been put into a rich Mormon home in Utah. Indeed, given the activities of many rich young Utah Mormons, they might well learn the gospel better as well. Going along with that, consider the work for the dead that Wilford Woodruff did. The founders of our country were not born into the covenant, but certainly were among the valiant in the pre-existence. Further the old testament often portray Cyrus as one of the chosen ones of the Lord. I can well believe that figures like Malcom-X or Martin Luthor King, for all their flaws, were also valiant in the pre-existence. (Are their foibles really worse than those of our founding fathers?) My point is that I think the problem with all this isn't the doctrine, it is how we decide to apply the doctrine. We tend to look at what is good or bad from a narrow cultural field. The view from God's council might well be quite different. While I am glad to have been born in the church, I'm not sure that it has made my personal challenges less than were I to be born in different circumstances. Given how much of my personality is a result of my genetics and upbringing, I can't say what I'd be like having been born an African American living in Atlanta in the 1950's. I'd like to think, however, that there was some purpose for my birth. Hopefully whatever it is I need to learn I can learn and whomever I'm supposed to help I can help. While my Patriarchal blessing tells me many things were blessings, overall I have a hard time separating blessings from curses. Given that God seems to like to build character I often think that blessings and curses are the same thing. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:17:04 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Thingmaker? At 07:51 PM 2/11/2002 -0700, you wrote: >What kinds of "things" does a "thingmaker" make, Richard? WAs it puppets? >Did we ask this once before? Have you ever "made" a novel? This is very >interesting stuff! Marilyn Brown > A fair bunch of short stories and a bunch of plays, and a lengthy memoir of my childhood which I hope to extend into my adulthood (if such really exists)-no novels, but the thingmaker really relates to puppets and one-of-a-kind dolls, Santas, and the environments in which they fit. (sleds, reighndeer and other sorts of "crafty" things.) Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:32:57 -0700 From: Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Depictions of Jesus I wrote: >> My father (who is 5'5") has always held the theory that after the >> resurrection everyone will float around at eye-level so height won't be >> much of an issue anymore. And Bill Willson responded: > Whose eye level? If we float around, will we not have legs? Does that mean > we won't be able to look up to anyone? Oh, the questions this raises. Some > one should write a speculative fiction story about the floating spirit > world. 8-) My take on it is that long legs and comely ankles will become status symbols in the eternities. - --Mike South - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:59:17 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] A Third Phase, Please From: GrayTesla@aol.com To: All who have contributed As the only "openly" black person involved with this string, thank you for your thoughtful and considered comments concerning race in the LDS Church. However different our views may or may not be, open communication is the key. I am personally grateful to each of you for sharing views about a topic that has for too long been little addressed. I hope we can meet and continue the discussion in person. Best Regards, Darius A. Gray - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:53:29 -0800 From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism I began writing an eloquent post on this subject when the call for discussion first went out last week. Unfortunately, I was interrupted and a one-second power-outage shut down my computer and erased my message. So I missed whatever deadlines there were, but with my apologies I want to respond and add just a couple of things. I'm trying to keep it short, and failing miserably. Please bear with me. There's a good story at the end. I forget who it was that said how helpful it would be to have an "official" clarification on the race issue in the church. I want to agree and elaborate somewhat. Some of you will probably recall a few years back (1997?) when a rumor of this nature went around--published in the LA Times, I believe--that the LDS church was set to apologize for its past policy. That turned out to be false, of course, though I did experience one brief moment of exhilaration at the possibility. On the one hand, I agree with many who say that they can accept the ambiguities and discomforts of the past on faith and move ahead without dwelling on them, and for the most part that is my approach. We need to be spiritually self-reliant and not look to Salt Lake City for a pronouncement on everything. It seems evident that whatever the reasons for our seemingly racist past, if indeed the policy was divine, the Lord has chosen to keep them to himself. It's not a satisfactory answer, but that's part of having faith. On the other hand, the lack of official clarification leaves a space for lots of speculation and tradition to prevail. This is NOT to say that racism among church members is the fault of the leadership for not clarifying a policy that was discontinued over 20 years ago. Certainly the prophets' statements on the subject speak for themselves in urging us to be loving and accepting of all people, and those who perpetuate racism will be accountable. However, we have to admit that the institutional racism--in American society and in the church--has left a cultural mark that manifests itself in subtle ways to this day (among others the subconscious belief by Mormons that "we gave 'them' the priesthood; therefore there is no more racism in the church). As long as there are people who grew up in the church hearing the kinds of things I heard in seminary and still regarding outdated writings and talks on the subject as valid (since there has been no clarification or repudiation), certain attitudes and behaviors go unexamined and unchallenged. I grew up in Utah Valley in the 70s and 80s and I pretty much heard all the "official" doctrinal explanations for the policy (those of you who went to seminary in small-town Utah will know what I mean). My mother had served a mission in Brazil in the 60s and told us about having to ask people if they had "the blood" (i.e. of Cain) before they were baptized. She did not show any discomfort with this practice: the policy on race (and the underlying construct of "race") was not something that she questioned. And yet she taught us not to be racist, especially towards mexicans and indians--which were the groups against whom racism was aimed most frequently in our white world, since there were literally no blacks in our town. I moved to Texas in the early 90s when my husband was stationed at Fort Hood, and of course from then on race was a completely different concept and experience for me. I was not distanced from it anymore, and neither were my children. My husband and I worked hard to teach our children to be as unbiased as possible. Then we moved back to Utah, and unfortunately this time we came up against racism in a way we had not experienced before. We lived in a small town in south Utah County, and as far as I could tell it was simply a given among our neighbors and fellow ward members that "mexicans" were scum (and so were the other races, probably, but hispanics took the brunt because they were practically the only 'minorities' in town). My oldest son was in 3rd and 4th grade; our twin boys were in 2nd and 3rd. The twins were mostly oblivious, but our oldest (who had been praying for homeless people since he was 2) caught right on, and he was outraged. "Mom," he said to me, "I thought that when we moved to a place with so many Mormons that the kids would be better than they were in Texas. But they're worse." I had no answer for him, except to try to re-teach what I believed and encourage him to be patient and tolerant and show a good example. We moved back to Texas (Houston, this time) in 98 and our son is now in high school. He has discovered that a family we are friends with in the ward are openly racist, and he is disgusted in the all-or-nothing way that only a 15 year-old can be disgusted with other people. I've tried to talk to him about being tolerant, even of others who are clearly wrong, but he's not ready to see the complexities of human relations yet. They're racist; therefore, they are bad, and how can they call themselves good members of the church? He was excited at first to become friends with the boys in this family; now the racism issue has pretty much ruined that. What ever changes the attitudes of people like this? To my ears, the prophet has made many statements that should leave no room for excuse. But could it be said more emphatically and more often? Could it be said emphatically or often enough? Another anecdote: One time my husband and I were visiting with some older family members (i.e. in their 60s) and somehow the subject turned to matters of race. The woman told me that she had figured out that the "curse" on blacks (and "orientals" and other "minorities," as she put it) was that they do not look like Jesus. The dark skin, the "slant eyes" (sorry, her term), etc were all marks of the curse. And this is a woman who has NEVER expressed tolerance for racism in any form! She has always espoused equality and tolerance and has considered herself "liberal" all her life. Needless to say, my husband and I still have carpet burns on our chins from our astonishment at this idea. I'm astonished all over again every time I think of it. This is the kind of thing that happens when an idea that was once considered quasi-doctrinal is allowed to float around unchallenged and uncorrected: it leaves room for all kinds of speculation and nonsense, and it allows attitudes and behavior to go unchanged. I have not heard the issue of race and the church discussed openly in Sunday School for many many years, but I suspect if we were to bring it up and really get people talking we would come up with all kinds of similarly astounding ideas, all based on the perception that the Cain-race theory of blacks and the priesthood is doctrinally correct. I would love to open my house to you all for the discussion that Margaret suggested. Unfortunately, I'm still in Houston. Still, the invitation stands. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:28:59 -0700 From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:00:57 -0800 Jeff Needle writes: > I'm rather astonished at this note. As a non-member, perhaps I'm > missing > something here. But if you have a strong testimony of the > Scriptures > (including the book of Abraham), does this not extend to a testimony > of the > prophetic calling of the Presidents of the Church? You accept > Joseph > Smith, Jr., as a prophet, with the authority to deliver new > Scripture > through revelation, with no feedback or polls to affect his > revelation. But you don't accept that modern prophets can receive > revelation without the members becoming dissatisfied with the status > quo. > > Can you tell me when you think this all changed? > ---------------- > Jeff Needle > jeff.needle@general.com I'm going to take a stab at this, while logging in with my opinion of the whole race issues in mormonism. I've read every scriptural and modern excuse ever given for the reason the blacks were not allowed the priesthood prior to 1978. I've also read Pres. Kimball's biography, in which he stated that he, like every president before him (I don't recall how far back he meant, but at least the several prior to him) he had prayed mightily that the Lord would change the policy toward blacks and allow them the full blessings of membership in His church. I remember a story of a black woman who joined the church in Joseph Smith's day who throughout her life had asked every single prophet since him if the time had come yet when the priesthood could be given to her people. Each prophet answered her with great compassion, and some with the same puzzled sadness she felt, that no, the time hadn't come. This comforted me to know that the prophets HAD in fact been praying for revelation that would change things, and were refused until Pres. Kimball. I used to think that the Lord withheld the priesthood from the blacks, knowing it could be made up eternally through proxy ordinances if necessary, because of the church membership's prejudice, but then that seemed bogus too, because such a policy only perpetuated the prejudice. My original supporting "evidence" to myself for this was that the Lord first revealed the fullness of the gospel (ie: saving ordinances as they existed at the time prior to the Savior's ministry and sacrifice) to the Israelites through Moses, but they refused to accept it, and refused to "seek the face of the Lord," fearing that they would be destroyed if they did so, though such sanctification was offered them. Instead they pleaded that Moses would be their go-between, which disgusted both Moses and God. We know that because of the Israelites refusal of the higher laws and ordinances of salvation, they were given instead a lesser law, the Law of Moses. So, God at times gives the people what they ask for, instead of what they *should* want, and what is truly best and right for them. So I justified to myself the policy as the same type of thing -- the membership weren't ready to receive the "higher" law, until, like Tony Markham said, there was a majority who could handle it. Other laws that have been given in their fulness and then repealed in favor of a lesser law for the time being are that of Eternal Marriage the Law of Consecration. (Yes, I know we still covenant with regard to the latter, but it is not required to be lived in it's fulness the way it was spelled out in the D&C at this time. 'nother discussion.) So it does happen that the status quo has something to do with the revelations we receive as a church. The Lord does indeed reveal to us as a church only as much as we are willing to live. IMO we've barely been given the equivalent of the missionary discussions regarding what it is possible to receive of eternal things, and so we have this confusion with regard to the blacks and the priesthood. I'm less willing to accept this explanation now, though I think it in some measure was part of the reason. I'm less willing now to fully and completely accept it, because it isn't always the case that we get what we ask for. I don't think there was anyone in the early church who was asking for the higher law of eternal marriage in the form they were given it, and it was a sore trial to every single member, and has enormous repercussions today, as we well know. (Personally I'd love to have it brought back legitimately through proper channels, but I'm not holding my breath!) I think Joseph Smith was a product of his time to some degree, in that he taught that if he had a say, he'd require all the Blacks to remain with their own "species" (what a word to use! Makes me cringe.) but also far more radical in his belief that the Blacks, if given the same advantages and social position as the Whites would be and live the same as the Whites with all the same intelligence, etc. (_Teachings_ p. ?) Oh, heck I'll find the quote. ... oops, sorry, can't find my book, and mysteriously the gospellinks CD doesn't bring that quote up using the key words. hmm. The Lord is no respector of persons, as he has said. But he has also said that his ways are not our ways. We need to keep in mind that God sees mortality from an eternal perspective, with the past, present and future as one to him, so to look at the blacks and the priesthood from our limited mortal linear viewpoint is going to come up with flawed answers every time. Thus like so many others before us in every religion, we end up thinking God has failed to live up to his word, and we lose faith in Him, when in fact we just fail to understand his purposes because we don't have enough information or His perspective. I do find this quote interesting, though, in terms of God's perspective on the entire human family, and our questions regarding the whys and wherefores of revealed truth and doctrine: "But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right." (_Teachings_, p. 218) I personally believe that we don't have the truth -- the full, eternal Truth -- regarding this former policy and why it finally changed in 1978. I am positive that there is a lot more to this than we know, since God's ways are not man's ways. For me, it's a question that will remain on my "shelf" until such time as I die and get to ask Him personally, because there isn't a single explanation yet given that satisfies me. Yet I also have prayed for and received a witness that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and right on down the line to President Hinckley have all been and continue to be true and faithful prophets of God. So that's where I leave it -- on the shelf, knowing that a true prophet of God leads this church and has since Joseph Smith's day. Sorry for the ramble. Hope in all this I answered your question a little bit, Jeff. Kathy Fowkes ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:11:58 -0700 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony >(Katie and Bob certainly weren't aware--they never even mentioned >who was conducting, and barely mentioned the names of the symphony >and chorus), Just a small point of correction here: One of them did mention it was Craig Jessop conducting the Utah Symphony. I remember it distinctly, because I had been curious who it was, and they finally said it, and I was curious no more. And you'll never hear me stick up for Bob Costas again. Eric D. Snider - -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:28:42 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Dishonest Singles Ward Ads [This is a feature Eric D. Snider recently put on his website. Thanks to Eric for giving permission to repost it here] Dishonest Advertising for "The Singles Ward": If You Can't Get a Good Review, Make One up! It is clear to anyone familiar with the art of filmmaking that "The Singles Ward" was made by people who were new to the process. This is not a liability, necessarily; many films have been made for very little money, often with some technical imperfections, but have still been worthwhile as entertainment. However, when the lack of expertise turns into outright unprofessionalism,= =20 we begin to have a problem. The reviews of "The Singles Ward" were not favorable. I gave it a C-; the Deseret News and Ogden Standard-Examiner each gave it two stars (out of four); the Salt Lake Tribune gave it only one star. Some critics have reported receiving e-mails and phone calls from people within the Halestorm Entertainment office, chiding them for their reviews. One such e-mail even indicated they were waiting for a public apology from that critic. Perhaps none of this correspondence= =20 was from anyone acting officially on behalf of the company, but it was from= =20 within the organization, anyway. And then the ads hit. The Feb. 8 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune had a display ad for "The Singles Ward," complete with glowing endorsements= =20 from three critics. Here is how those quotes appeared in the ad: "Cameos ... equal laughs ... fresh-faced cast ... amusing." -- Jeff Vice, Deseret News "A ... spiritual celebration ... truly funny ... amateur hour is over." --= =20 Sean Means, Salt Lake Tribune "Endearing ... a definite sense of fun ... over-the-top performances." -- Eric Snider, Provo Daily Herald (We will temporarily ignore the attribution errors: Sean goes by Sean P. Means, and I go by Eric D. Snider; that's how our names appeared on= =20 the reviews they quoted. Also, the word "Provo" does not properly appear anywhere in the name of the newspaper I write for.) What they have done is to take three very negative reviews, find=20 positive-sounding words, and create an ad in which we three critics appear= =20 to endorse the film. This is unprofessional, dishonest, and possibly=20 illegal. Our words have very clearly been taken out of context to promote a movie that, if you were to ask us, we would heartily=20 encourage you NOT to attend. So where did those quotes come from? Let's look at them in context. >From Jeff Vice: "Celebrity cameos do not automatically equal laughs." "Still, one thing does save this LDS comedy from being completely excruciating - -- the appeal of the fresh-faced cast." "While the appearance by LDS filmmaker Richard Dutcher (making fun of his hit '"God's Army') is amusing enough, the other [cameos] are either unsuccessful (bits involving local sports heroes Danny Ainge, Steve Young and Wally Joyner) or downright irritating (those with TV weatherman Mitch English and computer pitchman Super Dell)." >From Sean P. Means: "Their caustic attitude toward community life within the LDS Church is at odds with the spiritual celebration they mean their movie to be." "The= =20 movie's one truly funny moment is also the most telling: When Jonathan's ward friends watch 'God's Army' on DVD, Dutcher himself appears, declining an invitation to join them because 'those toilet scenes are kind of offensive.' You know 'The Singles Ward' is= =20 in trouble when it cannibalizes a movie genre that has barely gotten off the ground. It's tempting to go easy on 'The Singles Ward,' since it's a local production. But when you must pay the same $7 that gets you into 'A Beautiful Mind' or 'The Lord of the Rings,' amateur hour is over." And from Eric D. Snider: "Its amateur nature is sometimes endearing, but other times, the over-the-top performances ruin what might have been passable jokes."=20 "There's a definite sense of fun within the large cast; everyone involved=20 clearly had a good time. But there's also a definite sense that Hale and Moyer wanted to cram in every LDS culture-related joke they could think of, often at the expense of the story and characters." I encourage you to click the links and read the complete reviews, to get a sense of how fully and perversely they have twisted the intent of our words. Basically, since "The Singles Ward" couldn't get any good reviews, they made some up. Just when I thought amateur filmmaking couldn't get any lower, it did. Copyright =A9 Eric D. Snider. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.=20 http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #611 ******************************