From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #738 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, June 10 2002 Volume 01 : Number 738 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:09:47 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Eric Samuelson has a MARVELOUS story on cliche over gospel. I hope he shares it. I was laughing out loud as I read it. Tony Markham wrote: > I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane > platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level > lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. [snip] [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:51:37 EDT From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: [AML] Carolyn HOWARD-JOHNSON, _This Is the Place_ In a message dated 6/7/02 11:49:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jeff.needle@general.com writes: > Thank you for this lovely note. It is much appreciated, and > very encouraging. > > I'm not sure I know about your book, mentioned in your > tagline. Has it been reviewed here? > > Thanks again for the good thoughts. > Dear Jeff and All: I did send my book to someone on this list who handles reviews but I joined after my book was published so I don't know if it has ever been reviewed here. This is the Place has had wonderful press in general, though, primarily, I think, because the interest in Salt Lake City was so high before and during the Olympics. The SLC airport sold hundreds of copies. That, of course, made me smile. Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:18:09 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Lynching the Speaker - ---Original Message From: From Amy Chamberlain > > If you hear an utter and complete piece of garbage like this > in Sunday School or RS, you can at least raise your hand and > say: "Although that has worked out well for Brother Whoever > and his family, I just want to point out to the rest of you > that this concept is not a gospel teaching." It's direct, > it's friendly, and it doesn't start a huge fight. Hopefully. > If you use the right tone. > > BUT if it happens in Sacrament Meeting, that's another > problem. What do we do when we hear such tripe coming over > the pulpit? How do we voice our disagreement, or should we at > all? Personally, I consider the above comment a form of > blasphemy--perhaps not evil-intentioned, but still. I have > gotten up and left in the middle of Sac Mtg talks before > (only a few times) because I've been so put off by hearing > personal opinion preached as gospel. Is that the best way to > react? Probably not. All I know is I sure feel a lot better > in the foyer. That's what bishops are for. If the bishop blows it, let him know in private afterwards that false doctrine was preached over the pulpit and it is his stewardship to correct such. Recently in our ward, they've (not sure if this came from the stake or the church) asked that the bishop speak last in every Sacrament meeting, including Fast and Testimony Meeting. This gives him the opportunity to correct or emphasize things said during the meeting. The Elders' Quorum President does the same in Priesthood Meeting. It's probably a good idea--if you're going to be up there anyway, you're likely to think of corrections or extensions. I suppose that if the bishop or EQ President is the one spreading false doctrine that you should probably bring it up the chain-of-command--that's one of the benefits of *having* a chain-of-command (aka hierarchy). In my experience, it's rarely necessary, but not entirely unheard of. We had an example of corrective doctrine delivered from above recently when the Stake President asked us to make sure our ward understands Priesthood Keys because some misunderstandings were becoming common. Not Earth-shattering, but illustrative of the process to, um, enforce dogma :). Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:41:26 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Dealing with Consequences Russ Asplund wrote: > > From: Richard Johnson > > > > As for debt. None of the "Brethen" I've listened to said "don't go > > into debt at all" They just say except for a house or _maybe_ a car be > > very hesitant to go into debt. Anyone who has been in the position of > > giving out welfare knows how frequently the dire straits that families get > > into are the result of stupid debt. > > > And some of us know because we _are_ stupid. Reading this and the other > threads on stresses, be it baby or financial or social, reminds me of the > book I always wished someone would put out. It would be title something > like, "So You've Screwed* Up, Now What?" Yeah...what Russ said. I wish I could learn to pack so much concept density into so small a space, but that's one of my areas of rather extreme stupidity (though I am working on it, believe it or not). For a church that so thoroughly preaches the doctrine of repentence and the reality and importance of wisdom obtained through failure (which may not be as good as wisdom obtained without failure, but is surely better than wisdom not obtained), we seem to have a hard time extending aid to those in need without an accompanying sigh and shaken head (often with a free "I told you so" and a lecture on "correct principles" thrown in as a bonus). We seem anxious to condemn not once or twice, but as often as we can. I believe we mean it with good intent. We want to teach correct principles so people can govern themselves, but we treat them as both stupid and incapable, unwilling to understand correct principles and unable to govern themselves. Often I think our delivery of charity reveals as much of our own sinful pride as anything else. We don't trust that the experience itself is enough to hammer the message in, so we give it a couple of extra whacks while rendering aid. An example. In Utah nearly two years ago a man went hunting and left his two year old child alone in the truck while he went off to scout for game. In the forty-five minutes the father was gone, his child woke from a nap and wandered away from the truck without a coat, wearing only his pajamas. Eventually the child got lost in the woods and froze to death before the father could find him. I was personally incensed by the situation. Though I live in an area where it seems that everyone hunts, I've always been repelled by the idea of killing animals for sport. So my righteous indignation against what I see as a cruel bloodsport piled onto my father's indignation against a man who could leave his child unattended in such an obviously dangerous situation. I wanted to get that guy--and good. I wanted him to suffer nigh unto death for the unspeakable selfishness that put his desire to kill an animal above the ordinary safety of his own child. That evening, the father made an impassioned statement about how he deserved to be imprisoned and even shot for his irresponsibility. In the weeks that followed he seemed to fall silent, the passion of the moment gone, the remorse for his actions lost. My anger against this man increased as the district attorney failed to file charges, then finally ended up charging him with only misdemeanor negligence. After pleading no contest the father was finally sentenced to only thirty days in prison for causing the death of his child. I was incensed. Thirty days for the life of a child? Thirty days for the complete abrogation of parental responsibility? Then Paul Wayment committed suicide and it finally occured to me that he had lived in his own private hell since the day his child wandered away and froze to death. It finally occured to me that if my two year old had wandered away from me and was lost (as mine once did in a shopping mall while I was supervising him and his brother and sister at a playground), I would condemn myself with greater vigor than any court could. When my own son wandered away (and was recovered without incident) I did condemn myself with great vigor. This man who made a mistake--and who had been taught by experience just how critical that mistake was--had been completely isolated by the Mormon community that should have found some small compassion for him, that should have comforted him in his time of comfort. Instead, we rushed to condemn him because it was by his own error that those terrible consequences occurred. We didn't trust that he had gotten the message. He deserved no compassion because he had brought it on himself. Theoretically we should be offering our charity with an eye only to serving those in need, not to determining whether they deserve the consequences they're facing. If I understood my King Benjamin properly, none of us is right in withholding our alms because "they brought it on themselves." (Tying back to the issues of generations past, I think this is an area where broad Mormon culture has softened a bit in the last decade or so. After two decades of relentless preaching of self-sufficiency and food storage, many Mormons still find themselves being affected by a declining economy and are forced to conclude that their inability to obtain self-sufficiency is proof of their moral inadequacy. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. Yet we still tend to judge those with need harshly, especially if the father is healthy but unemployed.) We seem very willing to give of materials--and even of time. But we seem much less willing to give of compassion and trust and respect, which are often the things that those in need crave as much as the more material offerings, and which they can't ask for. How disgusting is that--to ask for respect and trust after failing so miserably to solve your own problems? I think we are in need of repentence on that issue. (And yes, I can't help but cringe a little at how my own logic traps me--I condemn us for being too condemning. But the fact that I stand condemned by own condemnation doesn't alter the reality of the need; in some ways it illustrates my point.) > My favorite character in the Book of Mormon is Zeezrom, because he is one of > the few bad guys in the scriptures you ever get to see repent. Not with some > huge experience, like Saul or Alma, that set him up to be a prophet. But > just by realizing he screwed up and feeling bad about it. You here about him > later, doing work as a missionary, but he never becomes a prophet. I just > hope he toughed it out and made it. I can envision myself as Zeezrom far > easier that I can seeing myself as Moroni. I'm just not the type. Which is exactly what I articulated so poorly in another post. If we always tell our stories of Moroni and Nephi and Alma and all other the exceptional people--prophets all--do we set the bar for success so high that we actually alienate and disenfranchise the vast majority of us who are reaching for that ideal but from much farther away? Do we really demand that all people be prophets or be irrelevant? That's the message I seem to hear as often as not--whether that's the message we intend to send or not. No, we should not settle for less. But we should also accept progress a step at a time and tell the stories of that stepwise progress, that line upon line development from being weak in the gospel to being less weak, if not yet strong. Not always the big transformations, but sometimes the small recognitions or even the trembling survival of hope in times of adversity; sometimes less a great leap forward than a failing to be blown backward. Because our lives are not a series of momentous happenings, but most often are a series of small steps, of living an ideal hour by hour or day by day and looking up to find a year gone by and a quiet change of heart and mind. The stories of faith are a great deal wider in scope than we have allowed them to be. I think at least part of the problem lies with writers rather than readers. And there is certainly some responsibility left over to lay at the feet of the publishers. What we currently publish is good; there can be more and varied. In my opinion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 02:09:07 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Alien Mormons? (was: Censoring Comments) Susan Malmrose wrote: > You know, almost every time I see someone on this list describe their ward > or a particular church experience, I end up thinking, "What world do *they* > live in?" > > And then I realize--oh yeah, Utah! I've lived in Utah for over a quarter century now, and I also wonder what world some people live in. I've heard all sorts of stories about the weirdness of Utah Mormons, but I've never seen any of it personally in any of the wards I've lived in. (And I've lived in quite a few.) Oh, I hear some odd things now and then, but I heard them in Minnesota too. I'm not doubting these weird Utah things happen, but why don't I ever see it? Am I just too unsociable to be around to see it, or am I oblivious to it because I just don't worry about what other people think so much? Where are the alien Mormons I hear tell about? - -- 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: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 02:55:05 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Tony Markham wrote: > > I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane > platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level > lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. > > No more. I talk and express myself and take the contrary view and try to get good > discussions started. > And oddly, whenever visitors from on high (the stake) > visit our tiny branch in the middle of nowhere, they invariably comment on how > good the lessons are. I've had similar experiences, both when commenting during other people's lessons and when I go nutws giving one of my own. I don't always speak up because sometimes I calculate that what's on my mind would be too disruptive to the lesson and not worth the price. But if it seems relevant, I speak up. I've never had a negative experience as a result. In fact, I got made elders quorum secretary because of it, because my comments drew the attention of the president. Often I'll make comments afterward to various authorities, like "I'll bet you regret asking me to do the lesson now," or "I guess I don't have to worry about being elders quorum secretary anymore." Always they reject my self-effacement and say they thought it was good. I even contradicted my bishop in Gospel Doctrine once. I'm not entirely sure he liked it, but I survived without a stern talking to or probation or a court--oops, disciplinary action, police action, final solution--whatever it's called these days. > I have come to believe that we who can think and have some ability to apply reason > and intelligence to our church doctrine have a gift and we ought not to sit on > it. To you self-censorers out there, quit hiding your light under a bushel. > Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. I agree. And I have to ask again, where are these alien Mormons who react so negatively? - -- 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: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:22:16 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Money Matters In the discussion on money matters, somebody wrote, about the difficulties of a widowed mother: "But in this case, your friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings." Someday, when I've achieved enough distance, I will write about what it was like to be a divorced single mom in the Church. No matter how everyone tried to be nice, it was very hard. I remember once when my son took my van out one day and overheated the engine, blew it up, and it ended up costing over $1000 to fix. It was my only vehicle, and I had refinanced my house to get money for it since I didn't get much child support and I wasn't earning enough to add a car payment. Desperate, I asked the bishop for help. The bishopric came over and wrote me a check for the repair, with a lecture about how you need to put money away for just this sort of emergency. Truly, I had so little. I don't know how I could have put away $1000 for an emergency. During the time of my my marriage, my husband had a belief (common among fundamentalist types--and somebody needs to put THIS stuff in a story or novel, because I've since learned that it is a common character trait among the far right and among polygamists) that he didn't have to work but had a higher, loftier life to live, writing about godly things, and lesser beings would support him financially. So he did not work, and we were poor, having child after child (God's will, as discussed in the thread on Baby Exhaustion), and had very little in consumables, which little I mostly took with me when I got my divorce. And to talk to you about welfare food services. . . .it is a difficult thing. To make up a food order and go down to the warehouse to pick it up was so difficult for me. I saw everyone going easily to the grocery store, to McDonalds, and paying money, and I toodled down to the bishop's storehouse with this food order. It made me into this weird noncitizen. I remember hating it so much that I finally just stopped doing it. One morning, I got a call from my Relief Society president. "I couldn't sleep last night, thinking about you. I finally got up and wrote your name in lipstick on my bathroom mirror so I could sleep. What's going on?" "Oh, nothing." "Cathy, do you have enough food for your family?" "Well, no, not really, but. . . " "I'm coming over to fill out an order for you." "Terri, I just can't do this anymore. It's so hard. I'm sorry. . . ." "Then I'll do it for you." She did. For several weeks, she did. Fortunately my business picked up a little and I was able to pay for food again. Believe me, if you haven't gone through this for an extended period, it may be hard for you to know how it is. A few years ago I edited a book for an LDS author about finances. It was his main theme that you should put a certain percentage away for savings, a percentage for kids' college educations, a percentage for missions, both the kids' and your future mission, and so on. I told him that many people of my acquaintance barely made their payments and commitments each month, and that putting away these percentages was impractical. He responded that these people could cut back by budgeting carefully, buying second-hand, reusing things, and of course, that's all good advice. But again, I'd lived that way throughout my life and still couldn't consider putting away these percentages. I think he didn't like my responses, though he was very gracious. Look at it another way. Our son-in-law has been a public school teacher for almost five years in a posh Utah valley district. Without revealing his salary, I will assure you that after their modest rent, utilities, and very modest way of living, they have NOTHING left over at the end of the month. They are happy together and raising their sweet children well, but financially, life is hard. I believe that many people are in exactly the same boat. I had no idea of course that my financial situation would someday improve, as I added my earnings to my husband's when I would remarry. It is so much easier, though still not a piece of cake. I think it must be hard for EVERYone on a typical salary, and for single parents, it is just plain hard. This can segue nicely into the discussion on honoring each others' gifts. As an example, we know a man who is a superb accompanist--the absolute best you've ever heard. He's got a gift! Yet in our society, accompanying jobs are almost always part-time and on-and-off as well. Due to a variety of circumstances, their family is struggling hard financially because he hasn't found other work that is suitable, although he works very hard. But what a gift he has! In Zion, I imagine, there'd be work WITH a proper financial standing for such a person. Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:28:21 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Secret Combinations long held a fascination for me. I was first introduced to the concept by the Book of Mormon, and became an avid reader of conspiracy theories and secret societies. When I was eighteen years old I was in desktop publishing and a fellow who was a member of about six different Masonic groups brought in a bunch of their rituals for me to type up and swore me to secrecy--he accepted my word because I was an Eagle Scout. I was quite disappointed by the content of the ritual, since there was nothing majestic or awesome or even interesting. I have never divulged them for my word's sake, but have often said how amazingly innocuous it all was. Since that time I have read numerous books about the Masons, the Illuminati, the Rosicrucians, etc, and dozens of other secret societies real and unreal. As far as which conspiracy really exists and controls what part of the world I am completely agnostic--I don't believe any of them, but any of them could be partially true. The best of conspiracy theories is the Jupiter ignited by Galileo spacecraft/Jason 13 theory--I ought to say the funniest. Anybody who wants to hear it contact me off the list and I'll sent it you. Naturally this interest has found its way into my own writing, but there are a number of pitfalls I wish to discuss. There are several forms of secret combination, and not all exist to murder and get gain. The Mafia would be the closest modern analogue to the Gadianton Robbers, but they don't really go for political power the way Gadiantion (and Akish) did in the Book of Mormon. The John Birch Society, Socialist International, and Green Party all believe in different Master Conspiracy theories. Birchers say that the communists are behind everything that's gone on in the past few years, the Socialists say it is the imperialists and the Greens say it is corporations. There are many others besides. In my own literature I've combined them and given them a supernatural master that forces them to work together, which is why I don't believe any of the aforementioned theories. What worries me are several problems that come up when creating even a false secret brotherhood dedicated to evil. First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write about, but to make the good guys good the bad guys have to be bad, especially when the society is quasi-medieval and the heroes are all warrior-types. Creating characters that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them believable is even less fun. There is a fine line between making a character too human or two inhuman. Right at the border he may become sympathetic, and since he's going to lose and possibly die that isn't necessarily the best idea. Making him too inhuman makes him overdrawn and outside the experience of most people. The fact is even Nazi camp executioners were human and once had human motivations, no matter inhuman they became. How villainous can a villain be and yet exist in literature that Mormons would not object to? What would be the point of writing a book that my own people wouldn't read? Especially because it wasn't uplifting. A second problem is the oaths. In the Book of Mormon there are several places where the writers were forbidden to list the oaths of the Gadianton Robbers or the earlier followers of Akish. In Moses it mentions a little about how the Old Scratch swore Cain and his followers but the oaths are very short and certainly incomplete. One would expect that the oaths would be similar to the covenants had in the temple, or may have rituals that mirror baptism and confirmation because who would the devil emulate except God? The problems comes in when making up fake oaths as a literary device--what happens if one hits too close to the truth? I've shied away from detailing the oaths a number of times in the four books that deal with my own fake conspiracy but the sequel to one of the completed ones is going to expose the secret works of these bad guys and I've been hesitating over it for a couple of years. It's one thing to shout the secret works of darkness from the rooftops and its another to create false ones that are plausible and then expose them. Which brings me to plausibility. Naturally real conspiracy theories don't need plausibility--some people will believe anything. As literature many of the extant conspiracy theories would be too goofy to be readable. Some of the UFO theories aren't half as plausible as good SF, and some of the "scientific" conspiracies are downright insane. The question becomes more difficult when not happening in our earth. First a plausible backdrop and history, then a plausible religion, then a plausible counter-religion and conspiracy, and then plausible villains who operate in the secret combination. In a Mormon worldview it has to be both sinister and pragmatic. The trouble is with the sinister end of the equation. Most people don't really desire freedom, but to Mormons it is above price. Many Americans feel the same, but the story of modern society is the attempt to escape responsibility, which is the same thing as freedom. If the bad guys exist to destroy freedom, how can what they replace it with be portrayed as both desireable and undesireable at the same time? While remaining plausible. In _The Screwtape Letters_ CS Lewis mentions how little he enjoyed writing the book, thinking like a devil and trying to second-guess the methods by which a devil would attempt to seduce a soul to Hell. The same problem exists when writing about secret combinations. To the unititiated they sound exciting and fascinating, but once the "mysteries" are penetrated the societies behind are really squalid, sordid things, nasty and wicked without grandeur or even terror. I have four chronologically separate storylines that deal with the secret combination I designed, but only one of them has to really deal with these issues. The other three books (and eventually their sequels) deal with specific plots that are thwarted and the fighting that ensues because of those even unsuccessful plots. The fourth series is about essentially a new prophet for my fantasy world, and he has to learn more. The first book, _The Inquisitor_ is complete and he learns much about the secret societies, and especially that he was raised among them and took some of their oaths without realizing what they were. In rebelling he is violating his oaths to the combination but he does it successfully and escapes to the second book, which has been languishing since 1998. In writing this post I am looking both for some discussion on the specific questions above and also trying to grease the skids and get over the block that's been there for so long. The good news is that in the meantime the world backdrop has grown into the most detailed I've ever seen, so that as this character accomplishes the end of history he has a history to end. I have had 20,000 words of _The Heretic_ sitting there waiting for me for nearly five years. That seems long enough. Many Thanks, Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:28:59 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Book Signings (Daily Herald) [MOD: It's not clear to me whether the main events described below have already happened or not... Writers speaking at Read Leaf The Daily Herald on Friday, June 07 SPRINGVILLE -- The Read Leaf Bookstore will welcome seven authors who write books for middle readers and young adults in the national market. The event will be from 7-9 p.m. Thursday at The Read Leaf, 164 S. Main St., Springville. The authors will speak about their latest books, and a reception will follow. The authors will be happy to sign copies of their books, either purchased at The Read Leaf at a special event discount or brought from home. The line-up: * Laurel Brady, a Mapleton resident, is the author of "Say You Are My Sister" (ages 10 and up). When disaster strikes, 12-year-old Mony and her two sisters are left to fend for themselves in their small Georgia town. Mony must fight the one secret she fears will destroy the family. * Chris Crowe, who teaches at BYU, has just had his first novel published. "Mississippi Trial, 1955" (ages 12 and up) gives a fictionalized account of the racist murder of black teenager Emmett Till. Crowe stays true to the horrifying facts reported in newspapers during the trial, and gives readers a chance to think about how easy it is to be a bystander to bigotry. * Dean Hughes, well known for his "Children of the Promise" series for the LDS audience, has also been writing books for children for years. In his latest novel, "Soldier Boys" (ages 12 and up), two boys are eager to get into the action as the United States enters WWII. Spencer, 16, leaps into Army paratrooper training, needing to prove some things to his father and to himself. Half a world away, Dieter, 15, succeeds as a model member of the Hitler Youth, rising through the ranks to defend the Fatherland. Spencer and Dieter are destined to meet on the battlefield. * John H. Ritter, who will be visiting from California, has written popular books for children ages 9-12. In "Choosing Up Sides," a talented pitcher has to decide whether to follow his dreams or obey his father, a preacher who believes that playing baseball is a sin. In "Over the Wall," a baseball player has to control his temper or he'll blow his chances of making the all- star team. Help arrives in the form of his coach, a Vietnam vet who knows a thing or two about anger. * Michael O. Tunnell teaches at BYU and has written a variety of books for children and teens. His most recent book, "Brothers in Valor" (ages 9 to 12), is a fictionalized account of German resistance to Hitler. Three young boys, who are all LDS, join the Hitler Youth, but secretly hate the Nazis and ultimately work to undermine their efforts. Tunnell is also the author of "Mailing May," "Children of Topaz" and "Halloween Pie." * Carol Lynch Williams, who lives in Springville, writes engaging books for girls in fifth grade and up. Her latest book, "A Mother to Embarrass Me," which is set in Mapleton, Utah, is a humorous story about a girl who is mortified that her mother is going to have a baby. Williams is also the author of "My Angelica," "Carolina Autumn" and "The True Colors of Caitlynne Jackson." * Ron Woods, who teaches at BYU, is a first-time novelist. His book "The Hero" (ages 12 and up) is about three boys, including one boy who is the town outcast, and how their lives are drastically altered after a deadly river accident. For more information on the event, call The Read Leaf at 489- 1390. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com [Here are some more signings happening this week] At ZCMI Center: ZCMI Center Deseret Book, 36 S. State St., Salt Lake City, will host several book signings this week, all at noon unless noted. * Glen Leonard, author of Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise, will sign his book on Monday. * Timothy Robinson, author ofNauvoo Temple Stone; Three Days Without Light, A Fountain of Pure Water and A Night Without Darkness, will sign his books at the store on Tuesday. * At the same time, Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray, co-authors of the Standing on the Promise series, will be at the store signing their books. * Kathleen H. Barnes and Virginia H. Pearce, authors of Prayer Time and Sacrament Time, will be at the store Thursday. * And photographer John Telford will sign his book Nauvoo: The City Beautiful, Saturday at 3 p.m. JERRY JOHNSTON, author of "Dear Hearts, Gentle People," and a Deseret News columnist, will sign copies of his book Friday, June 14, 12-2 p.m., Deseret Book, ZCMI Center. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:28:36 -0600 From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: RE: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings [MOD: One of the things, I may say, that makes Jennifer's response AML List-appropriate is that rather than focusing just on positions, she gives her experience--in terms that, I think, are very useful for a discussion of how to portray Mormon culture (in all its variations) in literature. Thanks, Jennifer.] >I think one root cause of anger in Mormon women is the destruction of >her autonomy. Mormon women learn to interact deferentially, as if >powerless, in their relationship to both the church and to their >husband. However,powerlessness is a fundamentally harmful posture. The >example of no family planning (resultant 15 years of pregnancies and >nursing) illustrates the extreme extent to which female autonomy is >destroyed. Imagine in hind-sight, not owning the decision to conceive >and to raise a child. I don't know if my response is list-okay or not, but here goes: I cannot imagine anything more hellish (and I mean that) than not owning one's reproductive rights (the decision when and if to have a child). I was 34 when I had my son (my first, and so far only). We'd been married 6 years before we felt ready to begin, and it took us nearly 2 years to have our baby. Did the LDS *culture* give us grief? Oh yes, in the *looks* and awkward silences that I got in Relief Society when I introduced myself (and hence, my childlessness) to a new ward, in my great-aunt "humorously" instructing my husband & I on how to make a baby at my predominately LDS family reunion, and so on. Did the LDS *doctrine* give us grief? Not at all--it was by heeding the SPIRIT that we decided we needed time to prepare ourselves (and isn't the doctrine about heeding the Spirit--what was Joseph Smith, anyway?). And re: powerlessness (as in the quote above)--you'd better believe I felt and feel a sense of power and self-esteem, because *I* made my choice, and because I knew it was a spiritual choice. I have seriously toyed with the idea of writing something that explores the tension between living the LDS doctrine and the LDS culture. I think that theme would make for a great book, especially regarding women (in additon to my own stories, I personally know of many women who have walked this tightrope). But frankly, I do not know if very many people want to read about the culture not being as true as the gospel (with apologies to Eugene England). - --Jennifer Breinholt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:49:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker > >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 06 21:55:13 2002 > > Barbara Hume: > > Once a brother in my ward gave a talk about how his > wife always gave birth without the benefit of painkillers, ... > > He was fortunate he did not make his speech in Sunday > School, where he could have been lynched from the > basketball standard. There would not have been enough > husbands in the crowd to save him. > > _______________ > > Some husbands around here, myself included, would > have helped with the lynching. > > Larry Jackson > I'm not sure I understand this one - My wife gave birth without painkillers at home - and it was her choice. And it was an amazing experience. (Although my wife said, in response to some women talking about how spirtual birth is - "The closest I got to a siritual experience was when i started to pray it would be over soon.") Why lynch the guy? Was he making an offhand comment, or was he preaching it as doctrine? The first may have been inappropriate, but hardly cause for lynching. The second - well, that's up to the ward. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:16:48 -0600 From: "Christine Atkinson" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Eileen Stringer said: > Maybe I have the luck to be in the few wards in Salt Lake that are like > this, but I have been in 5 in the past 13 years since moving here and have > not had the excruciating experiences that others on this list have had. > Nobody has ever questioned what is on my walls, in my bookcase or my video > shelf, very little of it from Deseret Book. Maybe I have found a way to be > "in the culture, but not of the culture." I think Eileen HAS been lucky. I haven't. Besides being single in a family ward (which creates a funky, tentative, be-friendly-but-don't-scare-her-away attitude and which throws people for a real loop - I actually had a visiting teacher struggle through a lesson on the joys of having children in our lives!), I have the added challenge of being in an old, established ward in Spanish Fork, Utah. Multi-generational, non-confrontational, and very comfortable with how it's always been said and done. I'm not much of a challenger, mostly because I've only recently started going to church regularly after a long period of sporadic attendance and I don't feel that I know enough to challenge anyone. I'm honestly there to learn. But I'm struggling in this ward because I am not learning *anything*. The Gospel Doctrine teacher does what Tony Markham said in his post - he flounders in platitudes. He asks the wrong questions and the class is so complacent that no one even bothers to answer. For example, he once asked, "Who is our savior?" There was silence until I answered out of frustration. It wasn't a trick question. Relief Society is worse. More platitudes, less information. I occasionally go to Orem to my mom's ward, where the Gospel Doctrine class is energetic and loud and well educated. I actually learn in that class. I don't feel like I'm just there to get my name on the roll and mark my time. (I'm also struggling with the language barrier. Spanish Forkian is difficult for me to listen to. If you say "crikk" instead of "creek," I'm probably going to cringe, if only internally.) So anyone who is censoring himself, KNOCK IT OFF! Some of us quiet, non-challenging types need you to say something. Seriously! - -Christine Atkinson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #738 ******************************