From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #696 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, May 1 2002 Volume 01 : Number 696 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:01:38 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Art and Money Robert Starling wrote: > Perhaps it should be noted that Orem DOES have a good theater company, = > -The Hale Center Theater- which operates quite well _without_ any = > subsidy, as do all the several Hale theaters. > > I say let the people vote with their feet and dollars about the art they = > want to see. Just a thought. Perhaps if government-subsidized theater didn't exist, the private theaters wouldn't have such a thinned-out audience to fight for and could attract a larger crowd. - -- 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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:15:39 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] BROWN, _Throwing Stones_ (Daily Herald) Local playwright finds theater involvement rounds out life The Daily Herald Friday, April 26 By KAREN HOAG SPRINGVILLE -- Bill Brown is a lot of things. He's a husband, dad and grandfather; he's also co-founder, with wife, Marilyn, of the Villa Institute for the Performing Arts (VIP). He is a director, actor and Realtor, and today he is a graduate of BYU. Along with graduation, Brown is celebrating the premier of his comedy, "Throwing Stones," at Little Brown Theatre this evening. Brown is also a playwright; "Throwing Stones" is his third and, he feels, his best offering. The student's theater arts degree took 40 years to complete, with some stops and starts along the way. "In my 20s, going to school was something you had to do if you wanted to get ahead," he said. "Today, it is the thing I want to do because it has enriched my life." Brown, who lives in Springville, enjoyed rubbing shoulders with the 20-somethings in college classes. "They are cream of the crop, sharp young people," he said. "In theater, the classes are smaller and we interact with each other. We share ideas; it is a delightful experience." Brown, 61, points to a teacher he had in his teens who "changed the course of my life." It was Ray Jones at Provo High School. "I was drifting along, not getting into trouble but unsure of what I wanted to do," Brown said. "Ray Jones asked me to try out for this play." Then the high school student acted in another production and another. The self-esteem Brown gained from acting helped him decide to pursue a theater arts major in college. It overflowed to his real estate business later. That's why Brown and his wife wanted to establish a children's theater program. "This is my payback to society," he said. "I want to see young people excel." Brown said he remembers a young man who was "going nowhere" and planning to drop out of high school. "I asked him to help build sets, then we got him up on stage," Brown said. "He graduated from high school and is now successful (in his career) in Atlanta, Georgia." Brown returned to school in 1994 after his family was reared. When he first entered college after high school, he wanted to be a drama teacher. But life happened with marriage, military and raising a family. After a job in real estate proved successful, Brown changed his major to business management. With 96 credits in his field, he dropped out because he already had a job. His new degree took him eight years part time to complete. During that time, Bill and Marilyn established the VIP Foundation, which covers the Villa Theatre and the Little Brown Theatre in Springville. Even though it took eight years, Brown feels his example of gaining higher education has motivated siblings, kids and grandchildren to go to college. "Hopefully, it's planted some seeds," he said. "It's never too late." "Throwing Stones" is the result of classes taken with playwright and instructor Tim Slover. "I took one major experience in my real estate experience in the 1970s," he said of the comedy. "It cost us a lot of money and embarrassment at the time, but looking back I can laugh at it." Betty Lee, theater instructor at UVSC and Salt Lake Community College, is directing the comedy. "It's a very funny play," the Provo resident said. "Bill is a talented comic writer. He's very good with puns." One character, Rick Jogger, is an obvious take off on a rock star, Lee said. Because it takes place in the 70s with disco music, she said, the theater is hosting a disco after each Friday night performance in the lobby of the Little Brown Theatre. "Come and laugh at some of the characters who remind you of your neighbors," she said. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:36:22 -0500 From: The Laird Jim (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: LDS Activism [MOD: I'm allowing this post through because I think it is relevant to the original topic that was raised--that is, how Mormons view environmentalism--as well as to Jacob's comment, and because it includes a strong connection to Mormon letters at the end. Again, though, my preference as moderator would be that any further comments focus on these points of connection. I don't want us to get into a general discussion of political theory...] >> >> on 4/19/02 12:21 PM, Jacob Proffitt at Jacob@Proffitt.com wrote: >>> >>> Personally, I think that this struggle may be more obvious with liberal >>> politics (because of the mainly conservative Church population), but I >>> think anybody who is politically (or academically, or any other area >>> that involves strong philosophies and/or beliefs) active has to do the >>> same. i.e. they must seek out and achieve a balance, a boundary or >>> limit, that puts their activities in perspective with regards to the >>> Church. The thing is, unless you privilege the Church above your own >>> Philosophy, your Philosophy will eventually conflict with the Church and >>> you'll distance yourself from the Church. Even if you remain a member, >>> you'll find a wedge between yourself and your fellow members--a wedge >>> you'll need to either overcome or allow to come between you and the love >>> and service you could provide. >>> >>> Jacob Proffitt >>> >> A very sound argument. The concept of politics above all has a very unhealthy history ever since French peasants started shouting "may the blood of our enemies water our fields." All extreme leftist (not to mention Libertarian, Populist, Constitutionist) politics have this danger in common, and since American leftists still have an element of traditional liberalism in their makeup they are not so extreme as others. It is known as the "French School" of politics, and it has some great names as well as some infamous in its line, including Thomas Paine. When every word, thought and deed are judged from a political viewpoint, it is no longer a political viewpoint, it is a religion. One can't serve two masters. That's why Tom Paine wrote a refutation of the Bible. That's why they built a Temple of Reason during the French Revolution. That's one of the reasons so many Nazis worshipped the old "Teutonic" gods instead of retaining their Catholic or Lutheran origins. Their politics controled every aspect of their lives and every fact or experience was viewed through the lens of those "religious" beliefs. Most flavors of socialism run into the same problem. Talk to any "Gender" Feminist (as opposed to traditional or iFeminist) you like and you'll see what I mean. Everything, and especially literature, is viewed through the prism of the domination of the patriarchy. It is faith rather than belief. A thing not seen which is hoped for. It is only throuh this sort of worldview that anybody can be called "anti-evironment." Nobody in the world is "anti-environment." It's easy to be anti-environmentalist, however. When they were predicting a new ice age in the seventies there was only one possible cure: socialism. Now that the earth is warming instead of cooling for exactly the same reasons cited in the seventies, they prescribe the same solution. Now that the UN has admitted that there is no global warming we'll have to wait a few weeks for the next chicken little scenario and I'm sure there will be only one cure. The fact is nobody wants to live in a dirty environment, nobody wants the forests to vanish, and nobody wants the wilderness to vanish. Nobody wants any animals to become extinct. I have read many LDS books with wonderful descriptions of the wild, and the language used is not one of hatred but of love. I personally can't go more than a month or two without getting out to where I can't hear any engines. I take pictures and translate both the beauty and the feeling of awe into my own fiction. My grandmother's book, "Beyond the Hills," has several descriptions of the wilderness which are very stirring, even though it was written before modern environmentalism was born. The wilds are dangerous as well as beautiful, and wild animals don't like us even if we like them. As Earth Day rolls around again think of the gains instead of worrying about the sky falling. The air and water are cleaner, the forests are wider, and about 3/4 of the West is now a federal wilderness area. I know for a true believer it's never enough, and therein lies the difficulty. You can't be a true believer in Gaia and God. Eventually a choice has to be made. Jim Wilson "The Laird Jim" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:44:05 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Brett Helquist Query I'm curious about this artist bio I found at . Does anyone know if he's LDS?... Brett Helquist says that he was born in Ganado, Arizona, grew up in Orem, Utah, and now lives in New York City. He purportedly earned a bachelor's degree in fine arts from Brigham Young University and has been illustrating ever since. His art has appeared in many publications, including Cricket magazine and The New York Times. Thanks, Jana Remy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:20:01 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ (Daily Herald) 'Brigham City' video release offers new view The Daily Herald Friday, April 26 By ERIC D. SNIDER "Brigham City" tells us, among other things, that we all make mistakes. What matters is how we deal with them. Taking this lesson to heart, I want to use this week's video and DVD release of "Brigham City" as an occasion to say that I erred in my original assessment of the film -- or, rather, in the way I presented that assessment. I said it was a great spiritual drama surrounded by a bad murder mystery. Having watched the film a second time, I still feel that way. However, the second viewing drove home a point I had not considered, which is that the quality of the murder mystery is almost irrelevant. It is not the point of the movie. Let me compare it to another movie I admire very much, the Italian film "Life Is Beautiful." In it, a Jewish man interred with his little boy in a Nazi concentration camp goes to extreme lengths to keep the lad from knowing what's really going on. He pretends it's an elaborate game, thus shielding his son from the horror. When "Life Is Beautiful" was released in the United States in 1998, some critics attacked it for making light of the Holocaust. It was unconscionable, they said, to use a concentration camp as a setting for light-heartedness. How could the film take place during World War II and not graphically depict what went on? These critics missed the point. You can't criticize a movie for not accomplishing what it wasn't trying to do in the first place, and "Life Is Beautiful" wasn't trying to be a faithful depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust. It was a fable about a man's love for his family. It wanted to show that love and humor can triumph even under the most dire circumstances; it used a concentration camp as the backdrop because that was the most dire circumstance imaginable. It is no more "about" the Holocaust than a joke beginning "A man walks into a bar" is necessarily "about" bars. It is merely the setting. "Brigham City" uses a murder mystery as the setting for a story about faith, redemption and loss of innocence. It follows a man in a small Utah town who is the sheriff and also a local LDS bishop, who must contend with a serial killer. There are surprises I don't want to spoil, but suffice it to say the sheriff (played by writer/director Richard Dutcher) feels he could have done a better job of protecting the people in his town and in his ward. The thriller angle of the film, I maintain, is not very well done. As a thriller alone, it would never stand up against other films of that genre that are more suspenseful, more surprising and more logical. But my point is, that's not the point. "Brigham City," more than any movie I have ever seen, offers penetrating insight into the nature of repentance and redemption. It speaks directly to people of faith and offers hope in a very personal, spiritual, Christian way. Its framing story could have been better told, but its core message is beautiful and sublime. Now that it's readily available, I recommend this film to all people with even the slightest belief in God. The final scene alone, set in an LDS sacrament meeting, is more gently instructive than a thousand sermons. Hopefully, one forgives the movie's lesser mistakes in exchange for its masterful successes. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:18:29 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Scott Parkin wrote: > At the risk of speculating on doctrine, I wonder sometimes if this is not an > opportunity for us to exercise the same kind of trust and faith with our tax > dollars that we should be exercising with our tithing dollars. I'm not sure > it's possible for one person to know how every tax dollar is spent and > whether it was for a purely worthy cause. But aren't we blessed for learning > to trust others--whether that trust ends up being earned or not? This may well qualify for the most frightening statement of the month award. Have the same faith in government as we pay taxes that we have in God as we pay tithing? This is tantamount to saying have the same faith in the arm of flesh as in God. I pay my taxes for one reason and one reason only: if I don't, I'll go to jail. I know, I know, as a good Mormon I'm supposed to be happy to pay taxes for the services our "inspired" government provides yada yada. If that's all taxes were used for, I might feel the same way. But the majority of my thousands of tax dollars go to things I don't believe in, things that have nothing to do with the basic, necessary services a government exists to provide. Art isn't one of those things. And with the insane tax burden we have these days at every level of government, I consider it absolutely immoral for our government representatives to spend tax dollars on anything except the essentials until we can get this burden under control. Then come and talk to me about spending a few tax dollars on supporting the arts. - -- 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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:04:10 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? >It's a movie about how sexual attraction can get someone interested in >stuff like dog sledding. It's a movie in which sex drives all the most >important major decisions made by all the major characters. It's a movie >about, in other word, sex. >Sex drives the plots of nearly all Disney children's films. Even good >ones, like Beauty and the Beast; >Don't even get me started on Hunchback of Notre Dame--a nice kiddie flick >about perverted sexual obsession. Or Pocahontas, with Indian Barbie >winning John Smith essentially via a wet tee shirt contest. [post snipped >for brevity] Eric Samuelsen Eric, I haven't seen Snow Dogs yet, so I can't argue those particular points as accurate or not. But I can say that romantic attraction can and does interest people in each other's hobbies or activities. It happens all the time. I doubt I would ever have played golf in my life, if I hadn't married a golfer. I completely agree with you on Hunchback and Pocahontas: I've allowed my children to see them ONCE (only because they begged) and I will never own them. (I'll never buy Little Mermaid, either, but for different reasons.) Those two, in particular, are far too overtly sexual for small children. Don't get ME started on them either. However, with the other issues you cite, you boil down romantic love, attraction, and romance to its basic component: the hope for eventual sex. Isn't this true of not just Disney, but life in general? Biologists agree that a main function of instinct and survival is to propagate the species--some say sex is THE main function of life, period. I, however, disagree with Tina Turner that love is "a secondhand emotion," and think that just because Disney includes falling-in-love and romantic relationships in the storylines--many borrowed from the original romantic fairy tales--does not mean they are instructing children on matters of mature sexual relationships, or in my opinion, are "about sex." When you put it that way, even our Church-approved Stake Dances are "about sex." Why else have functions where young men and women may dance together and enjoy each other's company, with the potential to find a future romantic attraction? Why else is dating even allowed, if it's not going to lead eventually to (we hope) a temple sealing and fulfilling marriage and family life? Granted, the Lord requires us to keep His commandments and wait until marriage for consummation of these desires, but it's still, by your broad definition, "about sex," isn't it? Again, even five-year olds fall in love; they are very romantic about it; but rarely do they think of anything beyond kissing. Rarely do they imagine there *is* anything else, unless exposed to it prematurely. Physical relations beyond kissing--with the EXCEPTION of Hunchback and Pocahontas--are not even hinted at in the other Disney fairy tales. (Which is why I take such exception to those two in particular.) I'll agree with you on many points where it comes to Disney currently deficient in quality and other areas, including ethics or morality, and I imagine Walt is rolling over in his grave when it comes to some things they're doing just to make a buck these days (the straight-to-video "sequel" to Cinderella comes to mind). But as you broadly define this issue, I think you need to complain about life being about sex (which you could argue that it is), not just Disney films. Yet knowing you like I do from this list, I'm guessing you threw that comment out in the first place so somebody WOULD argue with you. :-) Oh well--I'll bite anyway. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:06:48 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) As usual, an intelligent, balanced, well written review by Jeff Needle. = One very brief response: >Consider his take >on Mormon families: > For those who know a lot of Mormons, or live in communities > where there are large Mormon populations, they realize that > Mormons lead a very "Leave-It-To-Beaver, Father-Knows-Best, > Ozzie-And Harriet" kind of existence. And for those who > feel that no one actually lived like the families in those > TV sitcoms, they must not know many Mormons, because that's > the norm among most Mormon families. (p. 42) >Is this really true?=20 Jeff is far too polite, judicious and kind to say what needs to be said in = response to this particular bit of idiocy. I'm sorry, I'm in a bad mood, = and my back hurts, so here goes.=20 Is it true? Not hardly, and I find it tremendously insulting. My wife = does not wear high heels and pearls when she cooks dinner; in fact, mostly = I cook dinner, while she takes it easy after a very hard day at a very = demanding job. Father, in our family, most certainly does not know best; = in fact, Father, in our family, feels very much, as a parent, like he's in = over his head. My kids deal with actual real problems, and we don't = always counsel them wisely, and they don't always make great choices, and = problems are not always solved neatly. And we more than occasionally = interact with people from other ethnic backgrounds than the uniformly WASP = populations depicted in '50's sitcoms. No one actually did live like that = back then, and nobody today does either, thank heavens. What's really = frightening is the idea that there was once a time where the lily-white, = trivial, brainless, sexist, racist, oppressive world of the fifties sitcom = was seen, not as a reality, because nobody then thought that, but as a = kind of utopian ideal. That's what's really scary. =20 Please, let's all fervently, with all our hearts, pray to a merciful = heaven that this moronic book sells poorly.=20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:18:07 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Look, I tossed in a little throwaway line, dissing the Diz, and then, = stuck with it, looked at a few films. Of course there's a difference = between sex and romance. Of course, sex is a motivator; certainly is for = moi. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a nice romantic subplot. My = point is that Disney drags these dreary romantic subplots in, kicking and = screaming, when there's no reason for them, no justification for them, and = when they get in the way of the story. We're talking kids' films here; = movies where we have a chance to help kids learn something about the = world. The romantic subplots are, with few exceptions, tedious, predictabl= e, boring, unnecessary and extraneous. =20 Snow Dogs: You could make a terrific movie about dog mushing, even about a = Florida dentist who gets interested in dog mushing, and not have the = entire film revolve around a romantic subplot. The dentist goes to = Alaska, meets his mother's dog team, is taken with the beautiful scenery = and the glorious intelligence and tenacity of those dogs, and decides he's = going to put in the many hours hard work it's going to take to learn how = to excel at this particular difficult and rewarding sport. There's a = great movie there, which could teach children about forming a relationship = with nature, about hard work and steep learning curves, about the = excitement of competition. And you could even add a romantic subplot that = would make sense, in which two people put in the hard work to get to know = each other. Instead, the dentist falls in love with the beautiful = bartender, without the two of them ever having had a single meaningful = conversation, or worked together on a single project of mutual interest. = =20 Princess Diaries: The romantic subplot involving the chauffeur was = completely unnecessary, and the way it was presented made kind of a cute = little film quite sordid. Watch the film carefully; there's a wink and a = nod understanding between Julie Andrews and the Prime Minister guy; a = worldly undercurrent that's quite inmistakable. My fourteen year old got = it, and pointed it out to me. =20 Again, don't get me started on Pocahontas. To Disneyfy that particular = unbearably tragic story is beyond despicable. =20 I'm not opposed to romantic comedy; in fact I've written them. I'm = opposed to romanticizing things that can't be romanticized, to romance = stories without the slightest foundation in character, to romance used as = a short cut. Because that's when movies ostensibly about something else = turn into movies about sex. And that's not a compliment. Eric Samuelsen =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:54:50 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants What Thom didn't point out is that the Utah Arts council didn't fund the AML publication Irreantum last yeard because it was Mormon. That's what you get around here. Plus most of the money for literary endeavors went to U of U projects. We don't see much of that money for things down at SUU. - -- Todd - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:08:00 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art ___ Paris ___ | What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of | the arts is that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding | of the military or the space program. No one questions the | morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. ___ Actually the morality of particular weapons systems are questioned all the time. Look at the huge debates about the Osprey, the B1 Bomber, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. So the parallel to what goes on in the NEA is actually rather pronounced. Also, much as with the NEA, events get politicized a great deal. Further even people who are for the military in general (or art in general) can be against the choices of those handing out grants, research dollars, or general spending. I think we should keep in mind a distinction between spending for the arts and then specific ways spending for the arts is allocated. I should also point out that those of a more libertarian streak tend to see the role of the federal government as being necessarily limited. Defense is justifiable as that (to them) is one of the proper functions of government. Spending on making beautiful things is inappropriate as that is a function that should be reserved for the individual and self-organized collections of individuals. So even someone who is very pre-arts spending might feel it inappropriate for the federal (or perhaps even state) government to spend money on the arts. ___ Paris ___ | We have no more right to scrutinize the NEA than we have | to scrutize NASA. So what if they fund a few embarassing | projects. Do they do any good? ___ Actually I think we have not only a right but a duty to scrutinize all government spending. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:11:19 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Corportations aren't secrect combinations? Never killed for gain. Hmm. This is what prompted my question in the first place. LDS people are really so fond of the corporate system that they can't see its faults. Standard Oil Every coal mining company ever Phillip Morris Ford All of these corporations have killed people based on cost-benefit analyses, so I don't know what Jacob's talking about. And by the way, not all consumer transactions are entered into by free choice: going to the hospital is one example. I know that one could say they could choose not to go, but that's a cruel and absurd thing to say, finally. Buying food is another (especially if you live in the inner city). It's rare for people to be able to grow all they need anymore. There are, you will notice, grocery stores in agricultural communities. Nevertheless, Monsanto and ADM are starving and killing people right now. That's evil in my book, and the scriptures do talk about that, even though most Mormons don't, at least through their religion. Maybe it feels too Unitarian. I don't know. But the scriptures do talk about corruption in high places. Paul talks about that. I haven't looked closely enough at latter-day scriuptures in this regard but we are told in D and C 59 that we're to use the creation without extortion and not to excess, which seems to be something corporations are fond of. Not writing of the basic problems of human systems is something that is going to keep LDS writers from being great. I often wonder what an LDS Steinbeck or or George Orwell or Nadine Gordimer or Chinua Achebe or Simon Ortiz might be like--social writers who write wonderful stories but also illuminate the human condition in response to extreme economic and social forces. It seems like LDS people just want to write about their religion in a way that won't offend other LDS people. Perhaps this doesn't happen because we like the status quo as a people. We want the money and so we're not really willing to take up with the man, even on God's behalf. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:34:36 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Paris Anderson wrote: > What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is that > no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of the military or the space > program. No one questions the morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. I think it is a > very elitest tank--as it destroys only that which it targets. We have no more > right to scrutinize the NEA than we have to scrutize NASA. So what if they > fund a few embarassing projects. Do they do any good? Actually, NASA and the DoD _do_ have to pass public scrutiny, as does the NEA. When enough people strongly dislike what any government agency is doing, they make a fuss, and Congress responds. I don't think anyone is arguing that the NEA should be directly controlled by the voters. That would clearly be as silly as letting the voters decide (by referendum, I suppose?) specific items in this year's defense appropriations bill. No, when I say I want the NEA to be responsible to the public, I want it the same as I want it for any other government agency. And that's the way we get it, and I don't think that will change. The NEA (like NASA) will always have to defend its budget, it will always get extra scrutiny when it funds something the public finds absurd or outrageous, and it will respond to defuse criticism and avoid budget cuts. That's as it should be in a republic. Now if you want a situation where the public has no say, take LDS church art. Please. Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:13:06 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) In his review of the book WHAT IS MORMONISM ALL ABOUT?, Jeff Needle wrote: > >But as to his (the author's)understanding of Mormonism, he seems to have a >fair >grasp of his subject matter. His bio states that he is >"president of the National Institute for Organizational Research, >an expert in higher-education marketing, and an accomplished >marketing strategist, writer, and public speaker." (back cover) >It should not be surprising that the book should have a marketing >bent to it, putting forward the best possible face. I read this book when it came out at the beginning of the year (clearly in preparation for the Winter Games) and was horrified not only at the author's poor grasp of Christian history, but also at his ignorance of Mormon doctrine. In a book that is designed to explain the religious differences between Mormons and others, he ignores theology and concentrates on such things as attending R-rate movies! Excuse me, but prior to my baptism I was never asked if I rejected certain types of popular entertainment; nor is the subject brought up at Temple recommend interviews. What about the Mormon conception of God? The Gospel presents a unique concept of Divinity that is positive, humanistic and rational. Any religion is centered upon the worship of a god. Yet the Mormon docirtine of God--that which truly sets us apart from all other religions and which is, I think, the most attractive aspect of our faith--is not explored in the book. If the Gospel and Church had been presented to me as the bland, dull, socially-retro "product" described in this book, I would never have given the Restoration a second thought. The point of the book seems to "Sell" the reader the idea that Mormons are nice people just like you (maybe even nicer), that you have nothing to fear from them, that they're not weird or strange, and that deep down they believe the same things you do. As a devout Latter-day Saint, I would never give this book to any non-member I truly respected. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:22:41 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Paris wrote: > >What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is >that no one is arguing about government funding of the military or the >space >program. I question the morality of the space program--even though I completely support the concept of space exploration and consider man's achievements in this arena to be among his greatest. But frankly speaking, I would say that, like the NEA, it is immoral and contrary to the philosophy upon which the Constitution rests to tax people to fund this program. As for the military, I think it is COMPLETELY MORAL to task citizen to fund their own defense. Our military is currently composed of volunteers--men and woman who, for a variety of reasons, have agreed to put their lives on the line to protect the Constitution. It is both good, moral and rational that we--the benefactors of any sacrifices they may make--should be taxed to pay them and supply them. If I don't want to be protected, then I am free to immigrate to a country that has no military. I think I'm being completely consistent in my reasoning regarding these things and government funding of the arts--although I open to any insights into how my reasoning may be faulty. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:29:32 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? - ---Original Message From: Marvin Payne > > Eric writes: > > << Sex drives the plots of nearly all Disney children's films. >> > > And all the Covenant Communications fiction. So I raise my > hand to object, > and then remember that, oh yeah, sex pretty much drives life. > I think we're > stuck with the driver. I think we need, as consumers and > creators, to pay > close attention to where it drives. > > Everybody watch for Steve Perry's and my choral celebration > of the Family > Proclamation, all about (you guessed it) sex. I'm with Eric on this one. I enjoy Disney films well enough, as I think does Eric. But can't they find other motivators, sometimes? Pixar does an excellent job of giving us children's movies where sex isn't the motivating factor driving the plot. Toy Story is a stellar example. Someone else mentioned that there was a romantic sub-plot in Monsters, Inc. but I think that's Eric's *point*. It was a *sub*-plot. Disney seems incapable of telling a story that isn't motivated from start to finish by infatuation with an attractive form. And I don't buy the love connection brought up, either. Disney characters are motivated by their hormones. They don't *know* each other well enough to be motivated by love. The hero/ine sees an attractive member of the opposite sex and decides they want them. The rest of the plot falls in line from there. I've been disgusting people for years whenever I watch Aladdin by singing along with "I Can Show You the World" with just a *slight* change in emphasis that draws out the sexual conquest/seduction underlying those lyrics. There. I've ruined that experience forever for you now. I'm not sorry at all... :) Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:48:46 -0600 From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Environmentalism > From: "Jacob Proffitt" > Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism > - ---Original Message From: Jana Pawlowski > > I keep thinking of the comment reported by the AML-lister of > > the LDS person who didn't believe in environmentalism because > > the scriptures say there is "enough and to spare". I think > > the scriptures also speak of the abuse of the corporate > > conglommerates, etc. in the last days (maybe?), > > They do? Where? I don't think I've ever seen the phrase corporate > conglomerates in the scriptures. Are you saying that corporate > conglomerates are equal to secret combinations? Gee, Jacob, I was sort of kidding about the scriptural reference (as in, you can make any case for anything in the scriptures if you try hard enough, forgive the subtle humor). I can't think of any tie in to Mormon Letters, other than it can help form the content of what we write about.....For or against it. We should be more politically active, like the prophet says (Mormon) and social concerns could be a major focus of what we are inspired to write about (Letters) since it is so pertinent to our local environment. Specific to this issue, I would just say, look it up in the Tribune. There are many allegations of misuse of power. PFS struck a deal with a Goshute Indian that wasn't authorized to make a deal, etc. and now the recognized leader and his followers do not WANT the nuclear waste. I hear a lot of your arguments from my husband, who is a scientist, so it HAS to be okay to disagree with you as well. However, a BYU professor, a geo-physicist? also gave a good argument for not storing the waste here on Friday night. Becoming educated in the pros and cons, as I said, is part of becoming politcally active. Writing about our findings is a whole genre of mormon literature waiting to happen. Jana Pawlowski - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #696 ******************************