From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #712 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 Tuesday, May 14 2002 Volume 01 : Number 712 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:38:17 -0600 From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] re: LDS Environmentalism Frankly Melissa, you lose me in your verbiage below. Let me say in my *defense*, it's my belief you have extrapolated certain points from my original post, instead of judging from the whole tone *or* content of it. I believe my original post ended with (endings always give the heaviest weight to a mesage keep in mind) that it would be "interesting to attend whether you were 'for or agin' it'." (and my, haven't we had some wonderful conversation on it, I'm thrilled to be further enlightened on the general topic of environmentalism by everyone on the list) As far as (and this gets far more nit-picky than I like to get with or without sick kids: the slicey-dicey nature of heavy-handed analysis and rhetoric makes me a little queasy to read or write) the "speak against" the nuclear waste part of my phrase, was taken from the news article announcing it as I remember it. Utah government and business leaders are calling for people to speak out against it. That's in the papers. (And it looks like we're going to beat it in Utah at least) With or without that bit of information, I think my post lent itself to a common sense interpretation of offering the information for those who were interested in either side of the topic for reasons mentioned above. I don't think anybody on this list is in danger of being subversively fed environmental propaganda from me or anyone else......I give everyone here FAR more credit than that. As for my reasons or apologies that seem to annoy you (altho' thanks for holding back on the full-out attack ) I think both are very applicable and not irrelevant to myself as a writer. 1)a bias, a thinking female. 2) sick kids, well I think it's important as a female LDS writer and just a female in general to use my family as, not an excuse, but an explanation of why my writing may be eliptical at times. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it if I wasn't being pushed to the wall about a particular phrase in my post. But I wouldn't want to be criticized then have my hands tied behind my back so as not to defend myself. Fair game. Did anyone else mind my explanation? And hey, I'm removing the mote from my eye as we speak, if it ever was there. Jana - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:47:40 -0500 From: "webmaster" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office report May 12, Part 1 CHARLY WORKS WITH DESERET BOOK: The producers of the upcoming feature film "Charly" announced a major deal with Deseret Book to re-print Jack Weyland's novel "Charly" with a new cover reflecting the movie. Details of the marketing agreement include television, radio and print advertising, as well as in-store and Web-based promotion. The new edition of the book will hit stores in August; the movie will be released in September. Read the full press release on the official "Charly" movie website: http://www.charlythemovie.com/04302002.html CHRIS HEIMERDINGER: THE MOVIE: You can get your first glimpse at Chris Heimerdinger's upcoming documentary "LEHI'S LAND OF FIRST INHERITANCE" at http://www.cheimerdinger.com/other/books.asp?BOOKID=8 There is a preliminary mock-up of the video cover, brief description, and a video clip viewable by users who register with the site. Heimerdinger has written that he hopes this project will be a major stepping stone toward eventual feature film versions of some of his very popular LDS young adult novels, including his "Tennis Shoes" series. YET ANOTHER HIT IMAX FILM FROM REED SMOOT: Reviews are coming in for "Ultimate X", Reed Smoot's IMAX documentary about extreme sports. Mostly positive reviews, although not ecstatic. RottenTomatoes.com so far tracks 8 positive reviews and 3 negative ones, a "freshness" rating of 73%. Smoot, one of the most successful Latter-day Saint cinematographers in the history of film, has photographed an astonishing range of films, including "Mysteries of Egypt", "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure", "Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man", "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey", "Legacy", "Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets", "Harry's War", "Windwalker", "The Lost Manuscript", "Cipher in the Snow" and many others. YET ANOTHER DISASTROUS MOVIE CHOICE BY A TALENTED ACTRESS WHO DESERVES BETTER: Reviews are coming in for "The New Guy", which features Eliza Dushku as the lead actress and the nerd-turned-hipster's love interest. Most of the reviews are really, really negative, including ratings of 1 star, zero stars, or "F." RottenTomatoes.com tallied 22 negative reviews and 1 positive one: a "freshness" rating of 4%. Ouch. On the other hand, Roger Ebert gave it two stars -- exactly the same score he gave "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" this week. RICHARD DUTCHER STARRING AS NOT QUITE HIMSELF: There are finally images and text up on the official "The Work and the Story" movie website. Starring Richard Dutcher as a convenience store clerk who dreams of making movies, this mockumentary by Nathan Smith Jones is currently in the editing stages, targeting a September 2002 theatrical release. Check out the graphics and trailer: http://www.theworkandthestory.com/ NO LONGER A SECRET: Blair Treu dropped us a line to to note that his latest movie "Little Secrets" (aka "Secret Keeper") will have a nationwide release on August 16. This family-friendly film has already garnered an armful of major festival awards and critical notices. Starring Tayva Patch ("Out of Step", "Brigham City", "Testaments"), Jan Gardner and Rick Macy ("Out of Step", "Brigham City", "Testaments"). Music is by Sam Cardon ("Brigham City", "Mysteries of Egypt"). Cinematography by long-time Treu collaborator Brian Sullivan. Jerry Stayner and Wynn Hougaard ("Out of Step", "The Singles Ward") are the editors. Christian Vuissa ("Roots and Wings") served as assistant director. CARD REVIEWS JOSHUA: This column previously mentioned the release of "Joshua", a feature film produced by a Presbyterian minister, based on a popular novel by a Catholic writer. The movie has been written about in the trades as another foray into Christian-themed feature films. But whereas recent entries into the genre have been either Evangelical-oriented (e.g., "Left Behind", "The Omega Code") or Latter-day Saint-oriented (e.g., "God's Army", "Brigham City", "The Other Side of Heaven", "The Singles Ward"), "Joshua" appears to be neither. Based on Card's comments and those of other reviewers, "Joshua" appears to reflect a Liberal Protestant position. Latter-day Saint writer (and frequent movie reviewer) Orson Scott Card weighed in on "Joshua" in his weekly newspaper column "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything." Card calls the movie much better than he expected. He states that the acting is uniformly excellent, and notes some of favorite performances, particularly those by stars Tony Goldwyn and F. Murray Abraham. But Card goes on to say that "the script was not very good." His most pointed criticisms are of the movie's theology: "This is the official nice-guy forgive-everybody feel-good Jesus that is only believable if you ignore half the New Testament... Where's the Jesus who said his law was even more rigorous than the law of Moses? No, they showed only a Jesus who doesn't actually expect you to obey commandments or, really, do much of anything except be helpful and say pious things about God. As if the gospels were just chapters in James Redfield's Celestine Prophecy. Most annoying, however, was the depiction of the priest who opposes him. Yes, I know the movie ends with Joshua visiting the Pope and calling him Peter, thus confirming his authority, but until that moment all the depictions of F. Murray Abraham's down-the-line priest showed him -- and the official church -- as dark, oppressive, and condemning. Am I the only one to whom this movie seemed deeply anti-Catholic?... In the effort to show us how Jesus doesn't want us to judge anybody, the film judges 'judgmental' people very harshly, cruelly, and unfairly. It's just like all politically correct puritanism: It becomes intolerant in the name of tolerance, unfair in the name of fairness." The rest can be read on Orson Scott Card's official website at: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2002-04-29.shtml THE FIRST ANNUAL L.A. LDS FILMMAKER/ALUMNI GATHERING, hosted by the Theatre and Media Arts department at Brigham Young University, will be held June 8, 2002. Students interested in attending to showcase their films or talents should contact Nancy or Heidi in D-581 HFAC. NELEH WATCH: This week's episode (9 May 2002) of "Survivor: Marquesas" (a.k.a. "Survivor 4") had an impressive amount of Neleh material to watch. This isn't surprising, considering the fact that she shared the screen with only 5 other remaining contestants. The big surprise of the episode was that each of the survivors had a loved one visit them: Kathy's son, Robert's sister, Sean's friend, Vecipia's husband, Paschal's wife, and Neleh's mom. The visits were short, but very emotional and watchable. The loved ones competed in the turtle shell-themed puzzle, and by winning this reward challenge Kathy's son earned the right to stay on the island for a day or a night. Vecipia had moments to shine when she won the sling shot immunity challenge, barely beating out Neleh, who was in great form. Neleh has rarely performed so well in a challenge. This episode featured much talk against Neleh. Sean, Vecipia and Kathy all seemed to be plotting against her, all accusing her of not being as sweet as she seems. "You know, cute little Mormon girl, sweet little Mormon girl ain't got jack to do with this game," Vecepia said to Sean, letting her Baptist-based anti-Mormonism slip out. Interestingly enough, the competitor most widely identified as being a Baptist on the show is Paschal. Before this season got started, many writers and online "Survivor" fans predicted that Paschal, an active Baptist, would hate Neleh simply because she is a Latter-day Saint. It turned out that this Baptist from the deep South and the Mormon from Utah formed the tightest bond on the show. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:42:02 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism - ---Original Message From: bob hughes > And Jacob earlier wrote that Mormons are skeptical of > Environmentalism > because Mormons are 'practical,' 'don't scare easily,' and > resist 'following > the crowd.' The clear implication is that if you choose to embrace > Environmentalist arguments, you are not practical, scare > easily, simply > follow the crowd, you ignore extensive study, and write trite > platitudes > (bromides). Not at all. What I am saying is that we don't typically follow *any* specific agenda. You could as easily apply my comments to any "ism". Since Environmentalism isn't a pressing concern for most Mormons, they don't typically have a broad opinion about it. Those "isms" that gain LDS support do so only after undergoing some pretty intense scrutiny. So what about the "Conservatism" of Utah culture? I find this so-called conservatism pretty over-stated in general. Personally, I don't consider Utah a Conservative state at all, but that is based on my own definition of conservative (which is strongly libertarian). I think that Utah provides a lot of friction for change, but as much as that friction is attributable to LDS members, I think it is more a function of the reluctance to implement change without analysis and the paucity of time or lack of urgency to become personally informed. Some issues that *are* personal get a lot of push (like land use in Southern Utah). But that push isn't based on devotion to an "ism" as much as it is based on a personal understanding of the issue (like, don't tell me what I can or can't do with my land). We don't trust authority very well. My point is that this mistrust has a basis in our theology and is therefore a trait attributable to Mormons in general. I'm not saying anything at all about people who disagree with me about something they believe. > I disagree with these gross generalizations about > Environmentalists in > general, Mormon Environmentalists in particular, their positions and > arguments, and their willingness to accept factual data. > Quite the opposite, > actually. Although I am not a member of any Environmental > organization, > those I have dealt with are more open to new information and > show more > flexibility that those on the other side of the issue. I disagree with this characterization of Environmentalists. Environmentalists may have more credentials and may publish more studies, but I find that they are as agendized as any other political group and they are *not* open to new information nor do they show any more flexibility than their opponents. The touchstone of this lack of flexibility is the Environmentalist reaction to Bjorn Lomborg. Attacks on his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" are loud, emotional, and accredited, but they aren't very open or flexible. The most telling, and oft repeated, gripe about the book is that Bjorn isn't an environmentalist and his book wasn't peer reviewed. Environmentalists bemoan the time they have to spend countering the book, but then, they haven't bothered to *actually* spend the time to do so. To me, if you are going to refute a claim, you are going to have to do more than point at your credentials and whine about wasting your time. To be fair, there has been the rare refutation that deals with general vs. local topical aggregations, but those have hardly served to cripple the data *or* the conclusions derived from them. Even given Lomborg's book, though, the biggest problem I have with Environmentalists is that they tend to overstate their case--that they seem reluctant to admit weaknesses in their data and that they often simplify on the side of the greatest possible scare. They skew their conclusions in order to evoke the strongest reaction they can. I find that irresponsible and find that it weakens their case even when they *are* right. Stop telling me what *could* happen and let's discuss probability and cost vs. benefit in taking possible corrective action. And don't be so quick to discard ice cores studies that undermine your assertions or so quick to advance computer models that can't even accurately predict the *past*. > You > may trust the > Enrons of the world, but I do not. I may choose to further > research a topic; > but if I choose *not* to further research, I may take a base > position one > way or the other. Choosing to side with Environmentalists as > a base position > is no worse than choosing to side with the opposite side as a > base position. Again, I disagree. It isn't that I choose to trust Enron or any other corporation. I don't trust *any* group to act in my best interest. I'll trust principles and systems if I feel that I understand them. Which is why I prefer free markets, the rule of law, and representative democracy. But I won't translate that into automatic endorsement of any specific group. I trust corporations more than I trust governments as a general rule because corporations are forced to follow principles I feel I understand and trust, but that's a general rule and not anything I implement in any specific instance without care and scrutiny. And I trust corporations that are forced to answer to consumers more than I trust advocacy groups that claim to answer only to the morality of their positions. But really, my point is that choosing to side with Environmentalists is *as* *bad* *as* choosing to side with their opposite. If you are going to propose that we take actions that will cost billions of dollars and eliminate thousands of jobs then, IMO, you are irresponsible to do so unless you have taken the time to understand the issues. Trust the Environmentalists if you wish, support them if you feel they're doing worth while work (personally, I think some of them do--the research and data collected by some Environmental groups is invaluable), but if you are going to support forcing people to do things they don't want to do then you had better be aware of the issues, costs, and expected benefits of that force. And you had better have oversight and error checking integrated at the heart of your solution as well. For me, that is the baseline for taking political action. If you are aware of the issues, costs, and expected benefits, then by all means, advocate away. My point is that it is a personal responsibility to be informed and that faith in *any* organization is misplaced. How does this relate to Mormons in general and our lack of support for Environmentalist groups? It is my opinion that Mormons in general function largely on the same basis I outline above. They prefer not to act without knowledge and are skeptical of authoritative sources and groups. After all, a church that teaches its members to ask God if they speak for Him is installing a very fundamental check against appeal to authority. If we are verifying our theological sources, it isn't that big a step to verify economic, political, or environmental sources. That doesn't mean that I think Mormons who choose to be Environmentalists are following the crowd--quite the opposite. It means that I think that Mormons are Environmentalists due to personal conviction and a study of the data--not out of emotion. Just as my antagonism to Environmentalism is due to personal conviction and a study of the data. Other Mormons who don't fall into either camp don't typically vote with the Environmentalists, but that is because they haven't studied the issue and don't feel qualified to support Environmental initiatives. > Once again, I refer you to the book _New Genesis: A Mormon > Reader on Land > and Community_. Here are some of the essay titles: > > "Conservation versus Conservatives: How the Gospel Fits" > "Poverty, Population, and Environmental Ruin" > "Navigating the Environmental Crisis: Mending Policy and Mythology" > "The Mormon Village: A Model for Sustainability" > "Sustainability: Will the Children Return?" > "Stewardship of the Air" > "Stewardship in the Backyard" > "Wilderness in the Hand of God" > etc. > > Clearly this is a book written by Environmentalists. Mormon > Environmentalists. Some of authors of the essays in the > collection are: > > Vaughan J. Featherstone > Hugh W. Pinnock > Hugh Nibley > Eugene England > Emma Lou Thayne > Ted Wilson > etc. > > I could be wrong, but I thought these Mormons were respected > academics, > artists, church and political leaders, and intellectuals who > have chosen to > be allied with Environmentalists. So? I agree with some of the essays, disagree with some of them, haven't read most of them. I don't care if they are respected academics, artists, church and political leaders, and intellectuals. Their credentials just don't matter. And any book with a paperback list price of $20 isn't one I'm going to run out and buy any time soon... > The are very articulate, yet often in their > writings they > indicate that it was not logical arguments that brought them to this > position, or simply emotion, but rather walking through a > clear-cut forest > or looking out over the valley smog on a summer afternoon. How is that not emotional? Nevermind. To me, there are only two valid reasons to instigate force: a) logical and skeptical reasoning that has been researched, debated, tested, and brought to a vote or b) direct revelation from God. And make no mistake, Environmentalism is all about force. > I'll keep my mind > open, but for now I will side with them and be proud to have > that 'E' label > attached to me, too. If I come across any anti-environmental > essays (or even > bromides) by folks of the same stature, I'll reconsider. Try Bjorn Lomborg. He started out as "an old left-wing Greenpeace member" (his own description). He was outraged by the claims of Julian Simon in an interview he read. Simon said that our environment was actually *improving* in every way we could measure--improving most in the most industrialized countries. Lomborg wanted to show how Simon was simply spouting American right-wing propaganda. To his surprise, he couldn't. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" consists of the data he took from publicly available studies, his analysis of that data, and what it means for our Environment and for Environmental issues. He stands so far un-refuted in the majority of his points and he is quick to acknowledge counter-points and not just to refute them (though he does refute most of them). The thing I find most puzzling about Bjorn Lomborg, though, is that his opponents have so far mainly neglected to actually take on his research. The attacks against him have been unconvincing for their lack of detail or data. When they aren't simply ad hominem, they are vague or refer to some "scientific consensus" or Lomborg's lack of environmental credentials. But even if you don't agree with me, or him, I want to reassure you that I don't think you are acting merely out of emotion or feeling. One of the more harmful (and subtle) assumptions human beings make is that "if you know what I know, you'll do what I do." Or, similarly, "if you know what I know, you'll believe as I do." It is often the motivating factor in calls for "education". I think it would be useful to be able to hear and understand one another without being expected to conform to their standard. Similarly, I think that we shouldn't assume that just because people don't conform to our own expectations of behavior that they must necessarily be functioning from a different set of beliefs or knowledge. If you know all that I know and I know all that you know, I want to preserve the ability for us to disagree without having to assume that one of us is stupid or crazy. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:51:56 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Michael, Your point is well taken and your argument sound. I think I need to = clarify my positions (as originally written) so it is clear where I = stand on this issue. I feel like Michael, Margaret, and Gae Lyn (and I know my wife feels = much this same way). The Law of Chastity needs to be emphasized in more = ways than to say "No sex before marriage." Our Children, if no one has = noticed, are the "Y" Generation. The reason I say this is they ask "why" = all the time from when they are real small until they get much older. = Before they believe they want to know all the details for everything. = This is not a bad thing. The adults/parents at this time are dealing with more difficult = situations than our parents ever dealt with. The problem is many still = have the old stigmas regarding Sex. That was not my problem. My problem = was my parents did not talk about the whats and wherefores. The why nots = were always talked about but I think at the time I was growing up the = problem was not enough details were disclosed. Like others said = "Masturbation is wrong." But they would only talk to the boys one on one = (if even that) to tell you what it was. You learned more (WTMI) in Sex = Education Classes in Jr. High and High School than at home or Church. = Not that my mom and Dad wouldn't have talked to us but I didn't know the = questions and they never gave us the "birds and bees" talk. The other = bad thing was no one explained what molestation was. These kind of = things adults know about but kids do not and it is the kids in this = generation who are better armed for those kind of things than we were. Do we need to talk about this? Absolutely!!! Where should it be = discussed? My guess is some, and not watered down, in Sacrament. Some in = Priesthood and Relief Society meetings and some in joint = Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. There are things children must know = to protect themselves and also to help them overcome the guilt of some = situations (date rape, molestation, incest, etc). Young adults need to = know some things to stay morally clean and prepare mentally for marriage = (sex is not dirty once the ring is on but keep your hands to yourself = before you are married). There are things married adults need to know!!! = Again, way to many cold showers being taken by husbands and not because = all the hot water is used up. If the wife has a problem with what the = husband wants or visa versa or frequency, or anything to do with this = topic there are councilors who are trained to deal with this - even LDS = councilors. One councilor said it very well: Sex is how married people = play with each other. If it isn't fun - why isn't it? Sex is the glue = and it should be stronger than superglue! When I was living in Woodland = Hills and my family was in Temecula before we moved to Northridge Friday = night and Sunday afternoon mom and dad were not to be disturbed. Our = children knew mommy and daddy needed some time alone. They understand = now (eeeeeeeeeeeyw, gross!) but it is something that keeps us men = focused on the meaning of marriage and not get wrapped up in office = situations.=20 I agree with Margaret - any man who strays after several years of being = married to someone who will not have sex with you she will be judged. = The man should have divorced her then got married again so I don't have = that much sympathy that way but the woman is in for a real awakening. My grandmother used to say "Call a spade a spade!" If we do not bring = this topic to the front when given the opportunity and explain every = aspect clearly to our children and grandchildren (and anyone else who = needs to hear it - adult or young adult) who will be judged? I know I do = not want this responsibility. I know there are probably many leaders who = have not said enough to make Sex a clear subject. You can tell from = President Hinckley's talk in Conference the box is being opened and = those who violate covenants will be dealt with. It is the leaders who = need to have the courage to do so!!! If they ask us to talk follow the = Spirit no matter how difficult it seems because the words you speak may = help someone. The only hurt that would be done would be to the hearts of = the innocent who have been violated and never knew what had happened. = They are the only ones (like Jacob in the BOM) who I would ache for. = Those who are the perpetrators deserve to have themselves exposed to the = blinding light of the Gospel. I have a friend who even after President = Hinckley's talk doesn't realize he is at fault and he screwed up. That = to me is sad. Just a brief explanation: The reason I used the part from the Word of = Wisdom was because I have heard that statement used before when I was = given a topic to talk on. I think that time is long past and I agree = with what Margaret, Gae Lyn and Michael has said - we need this to be = talked about frankly and clearly for all ages who need to know at the = level they need to know about. As well as the particulars they need to = be aware of - good and bad! Like I said above - this should be something = that is FUN not dark, dirty, and hurtful.=20 There is a reason there are booklets in the Cub Scout and Boy Scout = Manual about sex and molestation. They don't need to know the mechanics = but what people should not do to them. The adults may need to get frank = about the mechanics and what should and should not be expected by = husband and wife. There are books people can be referred to but they = need to be careful - an awful lot of worldly stuff out there. I think = the good books that have recently been published by Deseret are good but = some need more. We should not be afraid of this especially if we want = our children and grandchildren not to have the same problems we had. = Thanks about that. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:54:10 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Thom Duncan: But one day I was talking to James Arrington about this and he turned my eyes around. He said, paraphrasing, "If the ward meetinghouse bathroon springs a leak and they want Brother Jones the Professional Plumber to fix it, they pay him. If the ward wants a stake dramatic production, they call James Arrington the Professional Actor but they expect him to donate his time. What's wrong with this picture?" _______________ Not that I necessarily agree with the position, but where I came from, they wouldn't have paid Brother Jones, either! Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:22:34 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing As obvious as it may have been to everyone else, I just figured something out--it appears to me that Michael is using the word frank to indicate "direct" or "plain," whereas I have been using the word frank to indicate "explicit" or "detailed." I think we've been (to at least some degree) discussing different things. In the sense of being direct, I absolutely agree with the vast majority of what Michael has said. I offer as my only caveat that I'm not convinced that direct or plain speaking (at least not in a general-audience meeting) requires offering explicit detail. Once again, I think I responded to the ghost of arguments past rather than paying close attention to what Michael actually said. Sorry. D. Michael Martindale wrote: > As hardnosed as I get about subjects like this in a theoretical > discussion, I actually wouldn't go barging in like the proverbial bull > in the china shop and try to change everything in one day. I do believe > in showing some respect to the sensibilities of others. But I don't > believe in giving in to them if I think they're wrong. Envelope-pushing > is in order here. I couldn't agree more. To me this is part of what's meant by "long-suffering." People are far more likely to accept an idea or to learn to think differently if they're brought along line by line (to abuse that familiar phrase) rather than forced into a binary evaluation when they have insufficient background to deal with it. It's part of what's frustrated me a bit about parts of the environmentalism discussion; it feels like there's too much line drawing and not enough fact sharing and explaining. People are condemned for not having an opinion on a matter that they haven't researched yet. I find it a bit unfair to raise a question and demand a reasoned answer all in the same moment. Which I think has happened a little bit with the idea of discussing the importance of sex in both individual intimacy and the larger gospel context. It's a bit of a fad right now because a decades-long reserve has been broken and a new generation of Mormons feels more ready to discuss the issue than previous generations did--a good thing, in my opinion. But I resist the wave that wants to make discussion of sex the most important element of the gospel. It is one of many, many important principles that should be discussed openly and plainly. But it is one of many equally important topics. > > But I have a hard time demanding that all people discuss everything at my > > preferred level of detail in a general meeting. > > Even as they demand that you discuss everything at their preferred level > of detail. Yes. Because my choice to defer certain levels of detail in one forum does not stop me from having those discussions at other times and places. As you point out, a fireside is a far more appropriate forum for explicit discussion than a sacrament meeting. > > According to which scripture or Conference address is the discussion of > > sex--at any level of detail--*required* in the general public meetings of > > the Church? > > According to the admonition that we are to preach the gospel to one > another in those meetings. According to the doctrine, specifically > mentioned by Elder Packer in General Conference, that sex is the very > key to that gospel. According to the need to help members of the church > avoid grievous sin that many are committing out of ignorance. According > to the definition of exaltation as eternal marriage, and sex being a > vital component of making a marriage work so it can become eternal. > There is no other aspect more central to human existence, both in > mortality and in the eternities, that is so neglected at the pulpit. You > can't say that sex is a precious gift of God and the key to the > eternities, then say we have no obligation to teach about it in our > meetings. This is where we diverge. I don't believe that sex is *the* key to the eternities, or *the* key to the gospel. It is one of many keys, and neither more or less important than any number of other elements such as obedience, honesty, charity, faith, repentence, or baptism. Again, part of my resistance is how the terms are defined. If by sex we mean emotional intimacy and full devotion to another, I'm in more than complete agreement with you. If by sex we are talking about physical intimacy (including simple touching, such as holding hands or rubbing shoulders or just sitting close), I'm still mostly with you--though there are some people who are unable (as opposed to unwilling) to share physical intimacy, and I'm not prepared to say that they're spiritually retarded by definition or limited in their ability to progress in the eternities by this physical (or emotional) limitation. Far too many Mormons already condemn far too many childless couples for bad reasons; I don't think we need to create a new class of people to condemn for not meeting our own expectations. If we're defining sex only as copulation, then I begin to agree somewhat less. As much as we pity the man whose wife wouldn't have sex with him, he still sinned in his adultery; he still disrespected his eternal covenant and his committment of faithfulness to his wife. While the wife will yet be required to answer to her sins, so will he. They both sinned, and in neither case am I qualified to condemn; of me it is required to forgive both and to support both with my concern and respect. Part of what I resist is the sudden urge to put sex above all other principles and ordinances of the gospel. I believe there is such a thing as disproportionate emphasis, and I believe that the current fad is to elevate sex to a higher position of importance in the eternal hierarchy than is strictly correct. Which is a natural part of learning more--we tend to elevate a single principle above all others when we first become convinced of it. We tend to put the entire gospel in one practice or idea when we have finally understood it. For some number of years, speculation on the eternal role of sex may well dominate our stories and discussions. We've not talked about it for so many years that we seem bent on catching up on all that lost time in a few short months. And we certainly can't gain greater understanding until we discuss it. I'm just not convinced that a satisfying sex life is the most important element of the gospel. I'm not even convinced that sex is a required component of (earthly) marriage, though it is certainly most desireable wherever possible--and not possible in every case. Contrary to popular belief, we do not perform proxy sex on behalf of the dead in the temple; it isn't that kind of necessary. > Prophets don't do this. They have a tendency to preach about that which > violates the comfort level of people. Some prophets have died because > people were "offended for a word." But the prophets keep on preaching. They tend to call their particular generation to repentence for violation of specific principles of the gospel. I don't believe that it's an explicit requirement of being a prophet that you find some point to offend people on; they offend by speaking the principles of revealed gospel and calling the people to repent and follow that gospel. Anchoring on the distinction between direct speaking and explicit detail, I fully agree that discussion of the role of sex in an eternal relationship is appropriate fodder for discussion in the general meetings of the Church. But if the prophet stands up during General Conference and instructs us in the explicit details of the range specifically approved techniques for sexual intercourse, I will probably have a moment of pretty serious cognitive dissonance and my faith will be sorely tested. Which is not to be confused with the prophet standing up in General Conference and instructing us on the importance of both emotional and physical intimacy with our spouses, and calling us to repentence for not paying enough attention to both parts of that equation. I think there is a distinction. If and or when the prophet crosses my line, I will be forced to deal with it. Until then, I will tend to speak on general principles rather than specific techniques and details. > I was there. Nothing in her words or demeanor or tone of voice > communicated squeamishness. She was lively and spoke rapidly as she > usually does and glowed in her face and spewed those words out very > easily. She didn't bat an eye or miss a beat when she uttered "S-E-X." > To my best judgment, she was catering to a sensibility that had been > habituated into her, in spite of her claim to be able to speak openly > about sex. No squeamishness, just habit. So what was the great tragedy of her habit? If she was open and frank and clear, then the silly social convention of spelling a word is just that--a silly social convention worthy of no more specific notice or condemnation than the style of her hair or the amount of eye shadow she wears. Whether she spells the word or speaks it directly, the message is the same--unless some are offended for (the spelling of) a word. > Or speak in a frankness that you believe is correct, and when the > inevitable squeamish people complain to the bishop, have him back you up > and explain to them, kindly and with love, that it's okay to talk about > sex like that, that such frank talk is needed. Absolutely. Though I think it would be good form to talk about it with the bishop beforehand to make sure that we are not getting carried away in our own missionary zeal to speak on a once-avoided topic--and to take his counsel if he asks us to tone down a bit. > In the New Testament, the Saints were taught to avoid eating meat > consecrated to an idolatrous god, not because it was evil, but because > it might offend some of their brothers and sisters. Because eating or > not eating such meat is a trivial decision, it certainly would be > charitable to avoid it solely to avoid offense. But the topic of sex is > a very critical one in our times, as it was in the time of Jacob when > the law of chasitity was being wantonly violated. To discuss or not > discuss it is not a trivial decision--it's one with eternal > consequences. Preaching repentence on the law of chastity and instructing us in the particulars of sexual relations within marriage are quite different discussions. Because I thought the discussion was not about preaching chastity and fidelity, but rather of discussing the specific role of sex within a properly appointed marriage, both on earth and in eternity. To me they are very different discussions that are best handled in different ways. Which is what I keep coming back to. Sex is not a single topic--it's a broad collection of topics that touch on a wide variety of subjects. In and of itself sex is just physical act that is trivialized by the vast majority of the people on this planet. But sex in a context is something else entirely, and that context demands careful consideration precisely because it is not a trivial decision--it's one with eternal consequences. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #712 ******************************