From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #740 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, June 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 740 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:12:08 -0700 From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Thanks to Jeff Needle for his enlightening review of Bagley's book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Jeff, could you comment further on Bagley's evidence for the assertion that Brigham Young authorized if not ordered the massacre in reprisal for the assassination of Parley P. Pratt. Juanita Brooks couldn't answer some of the most intriguing questions about the massacre precisely because eye witness accounts were lacking. You say that "Bagley takes us through a minute-by-minute account of the slaughter, accumulated from hundreds of documents, many not available to Brooks when she wrote her important book." Are any of these said to be eye witness accounts? Bagley asserts that Brigham Young would have used oral code if he had authorized the massacre. Isn't Bagley essentially asking us to believe his contention without evidence? Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:14:26 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Virus Heads-up (Comp 2) [MOD: This is another compilation post on this topic.] >From clark@lextek.com Fri Jun 07 13:38:51 2002 If you use outlook, first read all messages with the preview pane which I believe keeps any scripts from running. Then if you think it safe double click the message to read it (if necessary) Outlook is a security nightmare, but a few safety tips like that actually prevent most problems. If you are using Outlook, set the preview pane by going to View and select Preview Pane. This will show you the content of the selected message. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - ----------------------------------------- >From glennsj@inet-1.com Fri Jun 07 16:37:51 2002 Thanks to all of you for your suggestions. I was able to change my e-mail program options quite easily once I knew what I needed to do. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - ----------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:53:49 -0600 From: "Robert Starling" Subject: [AML] Miscellaneous Responses I mostly lurk on this list, but after reading today's digest I just want to= = make a couple of comments: re: the quote from F. Nelson Henderson by Gae Lyn: " Imagine in hind-sight, not owning the decision to conceive and to raise a= = child. By this I do not mean the teaching against birth control by the church. But rather I mean the broad public silence by most Mormon women in failing to publicly organize and oppose this outrageous teaching. Fundamentally, how could Mormon women be told by ANYONE what her family planning decisions should be." What church do these folks belong (or used to belong) to? My wife and I = have never been told by anyone when we should conceive and raise a child. = We've been taught "correct principles" -namely that we shouldn't limit our = =66amily for selfish reasons- which I personally don't consider an = "outrageous teaching". I would like to have had more than our four = children, but my wife's health situation led US to DECIDE when we had had = enough babies. No one told us to have more, or less. If local Church = leaders have taught false doctrine, they'll ultimately pay for it. Don't = lay it at the foot of the Church. Same thing with debt, etc. - - - - - (new subject) =AF and thanks to Preston Hunter for the Historical Mormon Film Tidbits. = =46ascinating! Robert Starling - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for= = the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:17:21 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SILLITO, STAKER _Mormon Mavericks_ (SL Tribune) Heroes and Oddballs Mix In 'Mormon Mavericks' Sunday, June 9, 2002 BY MARTIN NAPARSTECK Mormon Mavericks Edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker; Signature Books, $21.95 Mavericks, the human kind, can be heroes or oddballs. At least four in Mormon Mavericks qualify as heroes. Most of the rest are oddballs (who can be lovable eccentrics or just plain kooks), although at least a few are just plain curiosities. John Sillito and Susan Staker, editors of Mavericks, have selected 13 people who have found themselves at odds with the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They date back to men born in the early 19th century; one, historian D. Michael Quinn, is still alive. The 13 entries are written by 13 writers, and the quality of the writing and insight in the personalities and issues involved vary greatly. Novelist Levi Peterson provides a gentle, loving, credible portrait of historian Juanita Brooks, author of Mountain Meadows Massacre. Like most of the authors in the volume, he clearly admires his subject for her courage in resisting church pressure to not publish the truth. By contrast, Edward Leo Lyman, a professor at a small California college, provides a view of Moses Thatcher, who, among other sins, displeased the Republican church leadership in the early 20th century by running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat. Lyman's essay could have been written by that same church leadership: "It is indeed a tragedy for a man with the seeds of real greatness in his chosen field not to develop the humility and cooperation with colleagues and submissiveness to higher authority that are necessary for retaining a position appropriate to his talents." Peterson, far more so than Lyman, is an admirer of the courage truth-telling often requires, and seems appropriately in near-awe of Brooks' courage in exposing the details of Mormon involvement in the 1857 massacre at Mountain Meadows, even in the face of intense pressure from church officials. Elder LeGrand Richards tried to dissuade her: "Even if her interpretation of the massacre were correct, he asserted, it was not in the interest of the church 'to bring it up at this late date.' " Similarly, Newell Bringhurst writes with admiration of Fawn Brodie, who portrayed church founder Joseph Smith in No Man Knows My History as "having primarily non-religious motives," including lust, in shaping the early church. Late in her life, she wrote in 1979 that Smith's "frantic search for wives in the last four years of his life betrayed a libertine nature that was to me quite shocking." Quinn's portrait is written by his friend Lavina Fielding Anderson, who makes no attempt to hide the friendship or her admiration. Quinn, like Brodie and Brooks, is a historian who wrote books about early Mormon history that displeased church leaders. He lost his teaching position at BYU (which he later would call "an Auschwitz of the mind"). These three historians all qualify as heroes because all were willing to resist intense pressure from high church officials in order to write historical truth. But there is an important difference among the three, and one problem with an anthology of 13 authors is that the editors didn't seem to notice it. Brodie was excommunicated and really didn't care; Brooks was not excommunicated but feared she might be; Quinn was excommunicated and didn't want to be. Those differences probably would have been noticed if the three essays had been written by one person. A study of the differing psychologies of the three historians might have revealed something about the nature of dissent. The fourth hero in the book is Sarah Pratt, one of the wives of key 19th-century church leader Orson Pratt who resisted amorous and obnoxious advances from Joseph Smith. She later played a key role in exposing Smith and other church leaders, reporting their polygamist activities even as they publicly denied it. Their lies not withstanding, Sarah Pratt had the courage to tell the truth. Other "mavericks" in the book seem less admirable than these four. William Smith, younger brother of Joseph, had a bad temper and sometimes displeased his older sibling. Thomas Stuart Ferguson spent years trying to dig up archaeological proof that the Book of Mormon was genuine only to conclude it was a fraud. King James Strang thought he should succeed the murdered Joseph Smith as head of the church but was beat out by Brigham Young. The 13 biographical essays are followed by a definitional one by Esther Peterson, who was assistant secretary of Labor in the Kennedy administration, in which she searches for a way of explaining Mormonism so it can include the obedient and dissenter alike. She writes of "close friends and relatives" who "resented being considered less than good Mormons for being less than good Republicans and for questioning authority." Most of Mormon Mavericks is a tribute to everyone who feels that same resentment. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:24:56 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] AML at RMMLA Call for Papers - AML at RMMLA The Association for Mormon Letters is sponsoring a session at the October 10-12 meeting of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association in Scottsdale, Arizona (See details about the convention at http://rmmla.wsu.edu/callForPapers/call02.asp) Please send proposals to read a paper of 15-20 minutes length to Gideon Burton, who is chairing the session, as soon as possible. All topics relating to Mormon literature will be considered. This is a great opportunity to have Mormon writing discussed in an academic literary forum. Email Gideon directly with your proposal: Gideon_Burton@byu.edu [Forwarded by Chris Bigelow] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:26:25 -0700 From: Julie Kirk Subject: [AML] Models for Mormon Art [MOD: Julie's original subject line read "Mormon flyers and Nazi propoganda posters." I often will trim lengthy subject lines, on the grounds that they won't show up well in the in-box, and to make the tie-in with Mormon lit clearer. In this case, though I think that what I chose perhaps indicates a central direction, there's clearly something lost in the change... Read on, dear AML-List member, and you'll see what I mean.] I had an interesting comment on my work in a painting critique class that I wanted to share... I've been working on a series of paintings that relate to the idea of foreordination in a kind of broad sense. I've been using kids as my models (mostly my own kids), and the paintings are kind of a take on religious individuals commonly represented in art and a reflection on the sort of monumental choices they made. They're done as a "prelude" to the event, so the kind of prophetic feel or idea of foreordination. So, I've done some paintings on Peter, the Savior, Mary, Eve, Judas, etc. Well, I just finished a painting on the Raising of Lazarus and called it "Lazarus' Fort", and it shows two boys, one in a type of foxhole they made, the other squatting behind him, shovel in hand. I'm really happy with the paintings, and have gotten great response to them - and I think they work in the sense of not just being religious paintings, but also about larger issues, so hence, not just aimed at a specific market (i.e. LDS, Catholic, etc) So, to get to the Critique - the people in there do not know me very well and so were not aware that I was Mormon. But one of the guys said that the painting (which he seemed to like, but this was what it related to for him) reminded him of those Mormon flyers the missionaries would hand out and Nazi propoganda posters - very Aryan, and that type of "we are strong and intelligent and meant to conquer the world"..(his words, not mine). I didn't quite know how to take that at first. On the one hand, I thought it was pretty extraordinary that I was subconciously relating back to something that was an integral part of my growing up years (Mormon flyers, NOT Nazi propoganda!). But then it brought up a few other concerns...like, hey, my kids are white and blue eyed, a couple of them blonde - was I not supposed to paint them? And how do I take the fact that he relates Mormon literature handouts to Nazi propoganda? and do I have an obligation to try and change that image through my work? and what if I do find that image a bit too much based on a reality for my tastes - the issue of the priesthood being available to all worthy members is one of my issues that I try to accept on faith, but I'll admit that I have a hard time with it. This actually happened a couple weeks ago but I've been rolling it around in my head trying to figure out how to handle it. And I still don't know how! I think ultimately I need to paint what I feel inspired to paint... and I need to use the models that fit the best for me. I know we have broached these kinds of topics on the list before, but this was just a little bit different take on it and I'd really appreciate some feedback. It was kind of a coincidence that this last weekend I had this type of issue come up again - I was doing a street painting at a big festival in the bay area, and someone commented that my Christ figure was rather light skinned. Well, I was just copying a painting by an Italian master, Guercino, so it wasn't like it was my choice, and it WAS a person who was dead, as it was a variation on a descent from the cross - so his skin would have naturally been lighter than it was when he was alive. But of course we got into the whole discussion of just what Christ might have looked like. I know these are issues that we all deal with on some level, writers, musicians, sculptors, painters. I think this specific issue is a key one with the visual artists who portray religious works though, just as musicians and writers have issues in related areas that might not affect my work very much. I'm rambling on though - so to wrap it up, any feedback would be great. I'm having to rethink all my work now and the direction I'm taking with models, etc. Julie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:12:49 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker At 11:49 AM 6/10/02, you wrote: >Why lynch the guy? Was he making an offhand comment, or was he preaching >it as >doctrine? His point was that God wants women to suffer in childbirth because we deserve it for our evil natures, and it's wrong for us to seek relief from the pain. After all, everything has been our fault from the beginning. Of course the women in the ward took exception to this viewpoint -- I mean, it's obvious who actually. . . . No, no. Strike that. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:29:57 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture (was: Accepting Each Other's Offerings) I think this will only become a more and more pertinant theme--as Mormonism moves from a western US religion onto the world stage. I already think what we imagine as Mormon culture probably relates to only a small minority of the actuall church members. I was talking to Scott Parkin the other day, and imagining what it would be like to have a non-native english speaker as the Prophet. Sure, we expect hispanic and japanese people to accept prophecy in English--but could we, as a (US) culture, be humble enough to except the reverse? Russell Asplund - -----Original Message----- 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 13:38:49 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Alien Mormons? > 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 I was talking it over with my husband, and it occurred to me that maybe I am just oblivious. I don't really care what other people think, particularly people who are closeminded or easily offended. (But my husband's in the same boat--he's never noticed anything, either.) The only experience I can think of that comes close was once in RS the teacher asked something like, "What does it mean to be immodest?" and the Bishop's wife ended up making a comment about people with tattoos. I spoke up and said I'd just attended my old ward in a more rural area, and there was a man there in jeans and a t-shirt with tattoos all up and down his arms--and it made me so happy to see him at church. That we need to be careful in becoming judgemental about appearances. The teacher agreed and said something about having a different standard for someone who has not had the benefit of the gospel in their lives. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:48:13 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature The Laird Jim wrote: "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."=20 In my reading and writing experience, making the bad guy sympathetic is, almost always, a good thing. As long as he is in opposition to the Good guy and the audience isn't forced to switch allegiance to the loser in the end (because the author made the "good" guy worse than the bad guy), the bad guy being sympathetic is a good thing. It heightens the tension and adds poignancy. As I mentioned, the only time a bad guy becomes too sympathetic is when he exceeds the good guy in that capacity, forcing the audience to change their allegiance. Not only is that change of allegiance easy to avoid, it's hard to do, in my experience. Make your bad guy as human as you want, plop him right on that line, maybe even on the good side of it. Forcing your audience to re-examine just why they think of him as the bad guy will only add depth to the story. Obviously there are genres and story types where having a very clear delineation between the good and the bad is desirable, but it sounds like you're going for a deeper, more subtle approach than that. - -Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:55:34 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Money Matters At 05:22 PM 6/9/02, you wrote: >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. I've been there. When I first showed up in Utah with two kids and no home or furniture or money, I went on Church welfare. It didn't give me the hateful feeling it did you, because I was able to work at the bishop's storehouse to earn the food, so it wasn't a dole. Then when I began making money, I was happy to be able to pay tithing to help someone else out. It's so much better than goverment welfare -- I've known people were on it, and they say they are treated like the scum of the earth. I looked at it as a way of getting over the hump until I had some income. But I know what you mean about people taking for granted doing the things you can't do. And now I sometimes wonder if people are watching me pop into a fast-food place to pick up yet more unnecessary poundage when they can barely eat. To me, that's a great theme for a story, but my attempts at that sort of thing always wind up too didactic. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:49:09 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Telling Our Stories Kathy, I was cleaning out some of my old e-mails and came across this post. I = can relate on many levels to this . My Father was not into alcohol when I was old enough to listen to and = remember his stories but compared to life he lived on the farms in Utah = and his time here in Southern California during World War II while his = family worked in the ship yards and plane factories. My mother didn't tell a lot of stories and consequently we don't know a = great deal about her life except for the few pictures we have. I guess = she felt she would never be able to hold our interest like my father's = stories could so she didn't want to be embarrassed. My life in many ways = duplicates my mothers. My brother, on the other hand, was the rascal (although never bad enough = to get in big trouble). He could weave a tale like you would not = believe. He was the "Babe Magnet" in the family. Girls would come over = at all kinds of hours just to talk with him.=20 I longed for recognition but for some strange reason never felt I was = worthy of it or something may have happened to shut me down in the = "children should be seen and not heard" culture of the late 50's, 60's, = and 70's. Maybe that was why I was so sick as a child and in my early = teens. I guess that is another reason to go on a mission - it gives you = at least a few good stories to tell. The real hard part is overcoming = shyness or social anxiety to be able to tell the stories. I guess that = is why I am working on my book about the life long fight I have had to = even be able to open my mouth and tell a story of any kind. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Fowkes [mailto:kathy_f@cox.net] I am always telling my = story or pieces of it to someone, whether it be stranger or friend. It's, = well, like watching a little 3 year old jumping around an adult's legs and = saying, "look at me, pay attention to me, know me!" It's that last that is the strongest. Know me. And in that need to be known is a desire to be loved unconditionally. Why am I like this? Is it a weakness? Is it a strength? = Did I come pre-pregrammed this way or did my environment provide the programming? I did everything and anything to obtain the unconditional love of my = father, a man almost completely wrapped up in his own demons and trying to anesthetize the pain with copious amounts of alcohol. [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:20:18 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments >I've probably asked fifty colleagues that over the years. The unanimous >answer, from every one of them, was no. They wouldn't 'fess up. They >would rather risk facing the Lord with unrepented sins on their conscience >than risk losing their jobs. That's where we are right now. > I so could not live like that. I think I'd rather go work for Satan's school in SLC (all you UofU grads can take some gentle ribbing, right?). As a BYU grad I am both surprised and not surprised at this post. I know it's a tough climate as far as orthodoxy is concerned, but it strikes such a discordant tone to me to think of my dear professors chosing employment over being right with God. Yowsa. That's a pretty serious situation and one that, were I BYU's prez, I'd want addressed in a big way. Was it always this tough? Was I in an undergrad fog and missed it? Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:30:03 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Any word of when the other book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is coming out? Supposedly they had access to a lot of sources Bagley didn't. On the other hand they'll certainly have a different bias than Bagley. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:59:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Maren Allen Subject: [AML] Re: Baby Exhaustion Book Kellene, As a frustrated young mother of 2 little angels who often wonders if I really knew what I was getting myself (and my poor little girls, and husband, who have to live with me) into. OKay, I know I didn't really know, but would I send them back? NEVER. Anyway, I think a combination of options A and B would be ideal. I would love to read what the experts have to say. However, at the same time, I would very much enjoy reading about some experiences that others are going through. It would help me realize I'm not alone in my journey. Maren Allen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:21:57 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker > > 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. In the ward where I grew up (in Central California), there was a brother who had some type of mental illness. Each Fast Sunday he would get up and bear testimony about his special secret mission from the prophet, about the the signs he'd received (from aliens or something like that) that Christ's coming was near. Though it was great fun for us teenagers, it did pose a problem for my dad who was the bishop. Dad just got up each time at the end of the meeting and gave a disclaimer about the testimonies being born not necessarily being doctrinally correct. My most interesting Fast and Testimony meeting happened last Sunday when the bishopbric counselor who was conducting started off his testimony by describing his favorite Far Side cartoon and how this related to the gospel. The next speaker did the same, and so on, till after about 4 people, the person bearing testimony started out by saying that he was at the pulpit to "bear his Far Side". Except for one person (a computer guy) who told of his favorite Dilbert, everyone who bore testimony had a Far Side to talk about. A member of the Stake Presidency closed the meeting (and BTW, shared his FS, too). It was a fun meeting, everyone stayed awake, and lots of folks got up to bear testimony that don't usually make the trek up to the stand. Jana Remy Irvine, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:10:58 -0600 From: BJ Rowley Subject: [AML] Pres. Monson Endorses _Other Side of Heaven_ We attended a Regional Conference on June 1st and 2nd for 10 Stakes of Orem, Utah (which, incredibly, is only 1/3 of our city). The Sunday session was held in the Marriott Center at BYU, and we had three GAs in attendance: Pres. Monson, Elder Wirthlin, and Elder Groberg. As you know, Elder Groberg is the author of the book, "The Eye of the Storm," which was the basis for the recent movie "Other Side of Heaven." Elder Groberg never mentioned the movie or his mission to Tonga, in either the Priesthood Leadership Meeting on Saturday or in the General Session on Sunday. But Pres. Monson took a unique opportunity to blow Elder Groberg's horn for him. As the closing speaker Sunday, Pres. Monson mentioned "Heaven" as he began his talk, applauding it as a wonderful film, and encouraging us all to see it, if we hadn't already. He said that his favorite part of the movie was at the very end when the young actor and actress playing the newly-married Grobergs are departing for their honeymoon and waving good-bye. And there in the crowd, making a cameo appearance as extras on the set, are the real Elder and Sister Groberg, waving back. Pres. Monson said (paraphrasing), "It was worth the price of admission, just to see the Grobergs standing there waving at themselves." - -BJ Rowley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:39:50 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments (I said I didn't think it was the end of the world if a young woman dated, or even married, outside the Church.) You have my permission to use my personal story the next time you feel inclined. As a youth, I dated a non-Mormon because, frankly, I looked around my ward and couldn't find a girl who lived the Mormon standards I had been taught. She was Episcopalian. I set her up with the missionaries. While I was on my mission, she joined. Her parents joined. Her two sisters and their husbands joined. When their kids were old enough to go on missions, they did. Two of my five went on missions. At last, all the people who have been brought in to the Church because I "dared" to date a non-member number around 150 since 1968. I use this story whenever I hear this nonsense that you shouldn't date non-members. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:15:46 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments > From: Tony Markham > > 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. There have been a lot of great comments on this thread, but the above is the highlight. Thanks, Tony. I'm a weird combination. I have one heck of an intellectual testimony, although my emotional testimony is almost non-existent. (This is probably the opposite of >50% of active LDS out there.) I'm a very fast reader and quick learner. So I seem to always keep getting called to teach, whether Sunday School, priesthood, or (very occasionally) Primary. (In fact, since I would have been baptised but for my parent's consent at 17, and therefore had a whole year of 'active but not wet' status, and since I lived most of my life in the Yellowknife Twig, I was even teaching lessons before I was baptised....) I'm now living in Prince George BC; moved here last August. And I never shut up in Sunday School or Priesthood. If no-one answered a teacher's question -- whether from shyness or not knowing the answer or not having read the lesson -- I'd pipe in just before the silence grew too long. If I thought the teacher or someone else in the class said something, uhhhh, unhelpful (I hesitate to use the word 'stupid' %-), I'd jump in with my opinion. Always orthodox, in the sense that I wasn't being a heretic; but certainly not conventional. Result? For probably the 4th or 5th time over more than two decades in the church, I'm a Gospel Doctrine teacher again. And my lessons are, to be nice, weird. Yes, I follow the manual; yes, I use the scriptures extensively. But I'm not above doing things like: * Paraphrasing the scriptures, since no-one seems to know how to read 16th c. English anymore. Example: Moses on the mountain talking with the Lord while Aaron and the bunch are whooping it up around the golden calf. My paraphrase: "Moses, get outta the way. I'm gonna reach down and zap all those fools right out of existence. We'll start all over again with your seed." "Uhhh, Lord, there's a problem with that; all the other people who know You helped us out of Egypt would laugh at You if You took all Your 'chosen people' out of bondage just to fry 'em all." " Yeah, I guess you're right, Moses. C'mon, go on down there and straighten 'em out for me, willya?" * Not shying away from sensitive topics. Yesterday's lesson we were talking about Eli and his sons and Samuel. We talked about how Israel wanting a king was putting the world's approval ahead of the Lord's. (Paraphrase: "Mom, why can't we have a king? Everyone else on the block has one!") From there, a discussion on the world's standards vs. the Lord's standards, e.g. as discussed in 'For the Strength of Youth'. (So far, all in the manual.) From there, a discussion about how Elder Cook came to our stake conference recently and told a leadership session "You've got to be more open and frank with your youth; some of them are coming out on missions and confessing past misdeeds because they didn't know they were sins until they clued in on the mission. Don't get explicit and don't put ideas into their heads, but don't be afraid to get into some detail; we'd rather you found out about things here before we find out in the mission field." From there, a discussion about how, thanks to Bill Clinton, parents all over North America have had to 'step up to the plate' and talk to their kids about certain sex acts and how, even though 'the world' says they're OK (no danger of pregnancy, don'tcha know, and besides, it's "not really sex"), and how we as parents have to overcome our distaste or shyness or whatever and teach the truth to our kids before the world teaches them untruths. And one mother of grown kids saying she wishes she'd done that, and urging all the rest of us to do so. There are some who might have had a heart attack at that last lesson, but important messages were learned, the Spirit was there, and people definitely went away with something to think about. So continue to speak up; politely, respectfully, but don't turtle. And who knows, some day maybe you'll be the teacher, too! %-) > 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. > Hear hear! Well spoken, Bruce! (uh, Tony, that is) ObPeeve: 'Especially for Mormons'. May green jello haunt the dreams forevermore of whoever put that awful bunch of very-often-not-even-very-compatible-with-Gospel-teachings tripe. I can't wait until I get a lesson or a talk assignment on 'perfection' so I can deconstruct -- slowly, carefully, and painfully -- the 'mowing the lawn for the old lady story'. Grrrrrrrrr. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:39:52 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature > From: The Laird Jim > 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 > 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 Let me tell you something. When I think of 'secret combinations', I think of two possibilities: * Any organised crime (even two bozos planning a stickup); * Corporate greed. Now, even though I think the above are the biggest concerns re: 'secret combinations' (terrorists fall under #1, and Communism's basically had it; China almost falls under #2 now), I don't think they consist of people actively planning evil for evil's sake. They are doing it because they think it's the right thing to do (or at least an OK thing to do). Terrorists really think that God's on their side. Ordinary criminals are usually in a state of arrested development, like 3-year-olds; if I want it, it's mine, and if it's in your hands, I'm gonna take it from you if I can. And corporate moguls really think that profit is the most important thing in life, more so than jobs for families, the environment, or consumer safety. > A second problem is the oaths. In the Book of Mormon there are several I think the 'oath' or 'secret' given to Cain was this: You can get gain from killing someone (or having the power to kill someone and threatening to use it). Without Satan's influence, this idea would probably not have occurred to humans, given that we have such a strong aversion to death (both our own or others'; ask yourself how you'd feel if you found a dead human body anywhere). When you 'cross the line' into thinking that it's OK to kill someone or threaten to kill them for gain, you've 'taken the oath', IMHO. > 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. I agree, that's a very tricky problem. Leave it out? Make it almost mundane? (From what I've heard of the Hell's Angels' initiation ceremonies, they're foul and disgusting, but not particularly high-falutin'. A little research should give you something to work with that might be both plausible and yet relatively harmless.) > > Which brings me to plausibility. Naturally real conspiracy theories don't > 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. Maybe 'many' Americans (or Canadians, or Europeans, or...) feel that freedom is above price, but 'most', IMHO, couldn't care less about freedom. As an American Internet acquaintance of mine on another forum once said, "I'm of the opinion that the majority of people in this country would happily ignore Jews being herded into gas chambers as long as the TV cable wasn't interrupted." Another such said in the same forum, "We are *not* a noble people. Get over it. We are a despicable, selfish, yammering horde of fatuous apes who would sell our birthrights to the highest bidder to afford a few extra lounge chairs for the patio. We are worse than the decadent Romans. Even our decadence is submerged under a tidal wave of hypocritical psuedo-Puritan pablum." I think that in most cases (at least at present; can't speak for the past), bad guys don't so much 'exist to destroy freedom', as much as they 'exist to take advantage of the way people ignore their freedom'. Consider how many break-ins, petty thefts, etc. are never solved -- or, for that matter, are never seriously investigated because the police know they won't find the crooks and therefore can't be bothered. If we cared enough about our freedom, wouldn't we all be more vigilant in our neighbourhoods, work harder with our kids, etc? > 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 Yes. I despise how 'The Godfather', and stories about Dillinger, Jesse James, and even Robin Hood glamourise and give glory to crime. Criminals aren't mythical beings; they're generally sordid, nasty, wicked, and often very, very stupid people. I'd actually like to write some stories in this vein; showing criminals for the fools they usually are. (My dad was a judge for over 13 years, logging about half a million air miles doing circuit courts in the NWT and what is now Nunavut; and I could tell you some stories....) > 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 Well, I hope all my babbling above has helped. Heck, a lot of what you wrote is giving me ideas to pursue for stories. (Nothing direct enough to be called 'stealing', but certainly some which could be called 'inspiration'.... %-) Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #740 ******************************