From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #759 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, July 2 2002 Volume 01 : Number 759 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:03:47 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Nauvoo Temple Dedication Oh I agree that Pres. Monson handled Jane's quote beautifully, but I live to make unenlightened comments just to make the rest of you look good. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:31:12 -0600 From: "Cherry Silver" Subject: [AML] Call for Papers: Annual AML Conference 2003 To AML-List subscribers We are now calling for papers for the 2003 AML Annual Conference to be = held at Gore Auditorium, Westminster College, February 19, 2003 from = 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Directions in Mormon Letters:Voices and Vision for the Twenty-first = Century Contributions solicited:Individual papers of 20 minutes length, panel = discussions, or hour sessions formed from related papers. Help us = review, analyze, and project what is happening in Mormon letters Topic areas now developing: Film and drama; Young adult literature; = Reviews and columns; Speculative fiction; Tall tales & folklore; = Fiction; Poetry; and New developments Submit topics and bios by September 1, 2002 to AML conference chair: = cherry.silver@worldnet.att.net For more information call 801 278-7141 [Cherry Silver] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:49:28 -0700 From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience - -----Original Message----- "You had me till here. I don't mind if people are weepy in spiritual meetings. We shouldn't judge them as maudlin or manipulative just because they shed tears. But this part at the end is simply going too far. I get weepy at really odd things--pretty much exclusively based on personal, internal maunderings. So I don't cry much and I have yet to shed tears based on external emotional stimulus--including some pretty spiritual meetings. Now, I didn't attend the Nauvoo dedication, so I can't really speak to the specific circumstances, but I'm relatively certain I'd have stood dry eyed to the end. Maybe I *am* lacking some emotional component that is otherwise common to mankind. But if I do, I don't feel the lack (I wouldn't, would I?). So while I'm willing to withhold judgment of the weepier people around me as you request, I ask the same in return. I don't want or need your pity." You have me there. Hoisted on my own pitard (or is it petard) if you will. > The biggest point that I want to make here is that we, as > individuals, tend to make things unversal based on our own > limited paradigms. "Right. Judging others is a tricky business and should be undertaken only with fear and trembling--whichever side of the spectrum they occupy. And really, making values universal is a form of judgment. That's why universals are best received from divine sources. Crying (or not crying) in meetings is definitely *not* a universal so we'd probably be best served if we left both poles alone." Jacob Proffitt Yep!!!! Richard B Johnson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:34:21 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures The Laird Jim wrote: > > One of my own beliefs about the Old Scratch is somewhat at odds with what is > generally considered to be the standard Mormon belief. I don't think that's > Satan's plan was to force us all to be righteous. > the only way to destroy agency is to make human life "outcome-based > education." No matter what you do you pass. Every soul of us. That would > be appealing, that would be something people would go for. I have a hard > time buying the idea that 1/3 of the Host of Heaven would've gone for the > lash rather than the troll's lollypop. I had a seminary teacher who > demonstrated this idea by giving everybody in our class the choice between > high schools--a normal high school where you graduated based on your merits > (which is how high schools work at least in theory), a wild & crazy high > school where no matter what you did you got straight A's and a Force HS > where they watched your every move and forced you to get A's. Strangely > enough 2/3 of the class voted to stay in a normal school and 1/3 voted for > Wild & Crazy HS. > that teacher convinced me, and nothing I've heard or read > or seen since has changed my mind. Anecdotal evidence is not considered the strongest evidence among the scientific community, but at least those who use it generalize from a series of experiences, not a single instance. I think your one instance of anecdotal evidence is unconvincing--rather than "nothing since" being convincing--for the following reasons: 1. It being a single instance, there's no way to draw meaningful cause-and-effect conclusions. The 2/3-1/3 split is impressive, but what caused the split? The students were given three choices, whereas in the council in heaven we were offered only two. Does your example show that the outcome-based way is required to attract one thrid of the vote, or does it just show that one third of the people fear having total responsibility for themselves and will pick whatever alternative helps them avoid responsibilty? I mean, seriously--throw in a third alternative of party-party-party, and who wouldn't choose it? Show me some anecdotal evidence with only two choices: merit-based grades or guaranteed grades from a military-school-style philosophy, and then let's see the vote. Would it also come out 2/3-1/3? 2. I have to assume that the attendees of the council in heaven were not immature adolescents, as are high school students. They were individuals who had progressed (i.e., matured) as much as they were able in their current existence. They knew the score, and I can't imagine very many of them not being able to see the utter fallacy of an outcome-based plan of salvation. A bunch of high-schoolers, sure. Mature adults instructed at the feet of God, no. 3. On the other hand, high school kids, immature as they are, are not remotely naive about what high school is all about. They know from experience what a pain it can be to work for good grades. They also know what it means to be forced to do things. Holy Moley, do they know! Spirits attending the council in heaven, no matter how mature they may have been, had absolutely no experience with mortal life. They were completely naive about what this life would be like. I'm sure they were completely naive about what force is like, since I can't imagine their heavenly parents ever using it. So they would have no fear of the lash. But they could easily have had great fear of not making it back to Father. Never having felt a lash, many of them might consider a plan that guarantees results very appealing, not understanding the price they would be committing themselves to pay. (A great deal of anecdotal evidence exists to prove that humans are good at choosing the immediately expedient without counting the painful costs of the consequences.) Therefore I stand by Mormon culture's traditional interpretation of what Lucifer's plan was. One third of the hosts of heaven were terrified of their own ability (or lack thereof) to succeed at this new project Father had spelled out. They must have been sure they wouldn't measure up. Their great brother Lucifer proposed an alternative, and they jumped at the chance. Force? What did they know of force? It sounded great: force meant they did not have to be responsible, nor would they have to endure the painful consequences of failure that Father described as part of his plan. The lash probably sounded like a cakewalk compared to that. >From their earliest memories they had lived in the glorious presence of Father. Losing that for eternity must have been unimaginable--talk about the ultimate separation anxiety! A few lashes on the back to avoid that--where do I sign up? - -- 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, 29 Jun 2002 13:53:44 -0400 From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Essays on Infertility Thanks for forwarding the message to this list. I'll let my friend know. It's curious that in all her searching, my friend didn't find this list. I think she would have mentioned it to me if she had. What is more interesting to me is the fact that she was looking specifically for books, rather than for online discussion groups. If we define Mormon literature broadly, can we think about self-help books as a very different genre from fiction? This raises interesting questions about marketing and accessibility. Are people more likely to look for books to help them out when they're experiencing tough times? If so, is it because books are more familiar? Are they more accessible to those who may not be up to speed on computer stuff? Do they have a certain kind of authority that online discussions lack, even if the book is a collection of essays relating personal experience? Or are books somehow more private? I know a couple in my ward, for example, who chose not to go to a support group for childless couples in our ward because they didn't want to talk about such stuff in a group setting. - --Laraine Wilkins Quoting Linda Adams : > This is tangential, but... I'll forward this to the LDS infertility list I > know about. (My website on miscarriage was a springboard for starting it, > but I no longer listen in on the discussion.) > > Anyone interested in joining may sign up by sending blank email to: > LDS-infertility-subscribe@yahoogroups.com > > (Unless it's changed recently.) Very good people have been moderating it. > They have also addressed miscarriage issues, and parents coping with > secondary infertility are welcome. > > > Linda Adams - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:34:10 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Reader response criticism focuses on how one's background and expectations influence the interpretation one makes of a text. Richard Johnson gets something a little different than I do from some of the list postings. For example, he got: > People who weep while giving testimonies are doing some kind of maudlin > manipulation But I got: Emotions can often be evoked through stimuli: music, story, etc., and that factors into verbal representations of belief in church. He got: > Missions are generally unpleasant exercizes in number generation and > satisfying number crazy mission presidents. I got: Missions have ups and downs and are challenging (which is what I also got from what Richard said about his mission). He got: > > Using personal experience, if it includes mention of church callings or > tasks is an indirect method of competing with others. Ah, one of my own posts. What I meant was: Such mentions can or could be competitive in nature, although certainly are not all the time. Of course I may not be getting what Richard intends! Maybe he is just exaggerating his response for humorous effect. But if he is being serious, as I think he is from the tone of the rest of his post, I wonder why I read these postings as thoughtful, articulate musings about some of the underlying implications of various Mormon cultural traditions, while others see them as harshly castigating? Of course the answer to my question is exactly what I mentioned earlier, background and expectations. I've attended so many English conferences in my years of teaching that I've taken on the mindset in which the cultural critique we read on the AML list would be judged as fairly gentle and would certainly be valued. I admit that in my Sunday School class, it would not be appreciated. That is why the AML list is such an interesting place--half Sunday School, half literary. > that matter, I frequently spend tears on the testimonies of others, But I do find some common ground with Richard! I too get very teary-eyed, and it is pretty much every Sunday. However, I don't count it as a particular virtue, just that some of us are built that way. Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:45:11 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Richard Johnson wrote: > I wept through much of this aftenoon's meeting. If you did not, > at least a little, frankly I am sorry for you. Jacob already touched on this so I won't belabor the point (too much), but I have to say that the cliche swings both ways on this one. I don't think Richard means to sound quite as condescending as this sounded to me, but the language often betrays the meanings we intend and triggers our individual defenses against familiar, oversimplified condemning judgments that we've all been subjected to. I think all of us have overreacted to something that was intended only as a statement of individual belief but that we took as a generalized truth--and a judgment against us. Whatever the intent, I choose to believe that his point was that he *hoped* (desired, wished for) that others felt as powerful a personal spiritual moment as he did, because that personal spiritual moment was precious and important to him and prompted a complex internal reaction whose outward sign was the shedding of tears. He hopes that others were edified and experienced a similar joy at that moment that he did (not unlike Lehi), whether that experience included tears or not. If some were not touched as deeply as he was, I think he feels honest regret that they could not (for whatever reason) share in the same kind of joy and hope that he felt. At the risk of abusing prior discussions about the importance and role of authorial intent, that's my interpretation and I'm stickin' with it, even if the author informs me that I got it wrong. It's the interpretation that most closely resembles what I would most hope to hear, and that paints a world that I would most like to live in. I once heard it said that offense cannot be given, it can only be taken. Why do so many Mormons find it so hard to simply ignore judgments (real or imagined) that we find irrelevant? If we don't believe a person (or group or institution) is qualified to make a judgment, why do we give that judgment any weight--whether the judge comes from inside or outside the Church? It's part of what makes humor so difficult--one writer's humorous truism is another's irreverent rejection of holy things. If there are a lot of stories about goal-happy, numbers-oriented missionary experiences does that have to mean that all missions were run that way, or even that those that were run that way were inherently devoid of any true intervention of the Spirit? Why? A series of "Seven Habits"-like fads hit the Church *very* hard in the early 1980s, and many well intentioned mission presidents hoped to improve the effectiveness of the missionary program by implementing elements of goal-setting, results orientation, and positive thinking--in their zeal, perhaps over-emphasizing the programmed elements of the approach. I suspect that not a few missionaries took those attempts to improve organizational efficiency as gospel truth spoken indirectly from the mouth of God and became quite aggressive and even a little belligerent with their companions in implementing those principals--all the while invoking the name of the mission president to justify their own well-intentioned excess (if drinking eight glasses of water a day is a good idea, then drinking sixteen is twice as good--and thirty two is even better; lengthen your stride, Elder!). We can deny that such things ever happened, but there are too many people who were disillusioned by some of that organizational excess to make me believe it was limited to only a few missions and missionaries. I think it was pretty widespread, both inside the Church and outside. And the really annoying thing is that in many cases it worked; the number of baptisms increased--and the percentage of members retained after those programmed, organizationally efficient baptisms was pretty much the same as those baptized before it. Was there excess? Of course there was. Were some missionaries (and even some mission presidents) caught up in a numbers-oriented utopia that apparently devalued the individual testimonies of missionaries? I think there was quite a bit of that. Does that excessive fervor actually *make* the individual testimonies of missionaries irrelevant? I don't think so, though at the time I remember having a lot of righteous indignation about reducing the souls of people to formulae and flowcharts. Part of that was that I felt devalued, and I resisted the idea that I could be replaced at any time by anyone and the system would function equally well without me. I knew that I had individual value and no one else could do all of what I could do; I was a child of God, dammit, and I mattered. Some of my friends ended up on different sides of that fence--some were certain that it was all a matter of obedience to principles, and that all we needed to do was trust the system that God had revealed to us; a general argument that I can't really gainsay. Others were certain that the Church had indeed become just another corporate numbers game and that spirituality had become a commodity to be brokered along with pork bellies, real estate, and gold futures--a fear that certainly seemed to have a lot of justification. So which story is true? I think they're both true, and depending on the audience and what context you ask me about it in (and what time of the day, and how well my breakfast agreed with me) I can tell stories from either side of that fence with equal vigor and equal honesty. But authentic and universal are two very different things, and I think we need to be a little careful about conflating those two concepts. This is a change in mindset for me. I was pretty aggressive is criticizing Rex Mitchell's _Angel of the Danube_ for claiming a universality about the missionary experience that I didn't think was fair because it didn't match up in either the broad strokes or the particulars of my own experience. As I've continued to think about that, I think I did Rex a substantial disservice and I probably owe him an apology. He told a story that was true to his own mind and experience, and if that story differed from the one I might have told that only proves that he and I are different people who perceive the world through different filters and with different biases. Which is why it's so important for all of us to tell our stories from our own points of view, and that we cut each other a little extra slack (and a heaping helping of charity) when we hear those stories. That someone else came to a different conclusion than I did does not necessarily challenge the validity of my belief or call into question my right to feel as I do. In the end, each of us experiences a subjective reality that is so unique to us as individuals as to beg whether any two of us would experience identical inputs in the same way. But as we tell a wide variety of stories we begin to see the different ways that each of us perceive the world, and we begin to see how each of us as individuals finds both commonality with, and distinction from, each other. But each individual story can only speak from a limited viewpoint and can only reveal a limited scope of experience. So it's in sharing the variety of all experiences (joyful, joyless, uplifting, depressing, dark, hopeful, hopeless, successful, terrifying, trivial, or momentous) that we can finally begin to hope to understand our own very complex--and often conflicting--thoughts on our own experience. But that's a rehash of Scott's Standard Lecture Number 14. So I'll stop now. Most of us generalize. We want to understand how things work and learn how to predict future results, so we tend to generalize as often as we can. But if we're paying attention we refine that generalization as new data and experience comes in until it becomes specific and repeatable. Then we collect up a group of specific observations and attempt to generalize again, and the process repeats--theoretically into eternity. There's nothing wrong with generalizing, and there's nothing wrong with find either our own or other peoples' generalizations to be incomplete or inadequate. We each have to work out our understanding in our own way and by our own methods. Still, sometimes we do take pride in our own understanding and that pride sometimes causes us to reject or ridicule another's understanding--not always because we think the other is silly, but because we think the other is wrong and we want to show them a better way. Given the choice, I would rather that people share too much of their thoughts with me because I can learn to filter out the stuff that doesn't seem to bear on my own areas of interest or concern. But if people don't share their thoughts with me, my own ability to learn becomes limited and I lose. I know I bristle a lot when people tell me I'm wrong, but at least part of the point of a list like this is to hear what each of us has to say so that we can all learn more about the hopes, sucessess, failures, and joys of the other. So for my dime, generalize to your heart's content--and allow me my own method of understanding and interpretting the world I live in. I don't claim I'm always right, but I do claim that I'm honestly trying to learn more. I think we all are, to some degree or another. FWIW. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:33:29 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures The Laird Jim wrote: >I don't think that's >Satan's plan was to force us all to be righteous. =20 I don't think so either. Consider my cat. My cat loves to catch and eat mice. Before catching and = eating mice, he plays with them, torments them. It's kinda hard to watch, = frankly. In so doing, he is not cruel or vicious. He's just being a cat. = Cat's play with mice before killing them. Kill or be killed, eat or be = eaten, fight or flee, satisfying basic reproductive needs and trying to = find some rudimentary shelter, living mostly according to instinct; that's = the way life works for all species on this planet except one, and that one = species, man, lives that way a lot of the time. When it comes to mice, my = cat has no agency. My cat can't choose not to torture. Here's how I think the Council in Heaven worked. (My model requires that = we accept pre-Adamic death.) Lucifer said, 'look at all the other species = we've created. They live by instinct. They fulfill the measure of their = being by killing and being killed, and by eating and being eaten. They = are all intelligences, and they all have spirits, the world is a marvelous = place. Man is another creature, as they are. Let him live as all = creatures live.' And Elohim said, "it won't work. The intelligences we = are about to form into the spirits of men and women can't live like that. = They are intelligent in different ways. They must have agency. They must = be capable of making choices, moral choices, as we are. Some will be = lost, to be sure. But their future growth depends on it.' =20 In other words, the metaphor we usually use when we think of Satan's plan = is that of a prison, where we're forced to do as we're told. I don't = think so, though. Put me in a prison, and I'll still have agency, and = I'll still make choices. I think a better metaphor is that of a jungle. = =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:25:28 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] EnderCon EnderCon July 5-6, 2002 Utah Valley State College Orem, Utah http://www.endercon.com/ Orson Scott Card is sponsoring EnderCon in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the publication of his first short story, "Ender's Game," in the August 1977 issue of _Analog_. Janis Ian, Stephen Sywak, Mark Wilkinson, Rich Tenney, Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury, Stefan Rudnicki, K. L. Morgan, Susan J. Kroupa, Ann Chamberlin, Michael Collings, Ami Chopine and Robert L. Maxwell are featured. Registration at the door Friday Evening & Saturday (July 5-6, 2002) -- $25.00 Saturday Only (July 6, 2002) -- $20.00 After EnderCon: Uncle Orson's Writing Class 2002, open to novice and experienced writers alike, is a two-day seminar where you'll get to discuss the essence of writing with the master storyteller. Participants will take part in discussions, lectures and idea sessions from morning until night, with Orson Scott Card leading the way. Find out how he molds character and makes obscure ideas accessible for his readers. The class meets on Monday, July 8, from 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. and on Tuesday, July 9, from 9 a.m. - 9 p.m. The cost for this two-day seminar is $150. See http://www.hatrack.com/bootcamp2002/index.shtml for registration. EnderCon Schedule: July 5 - Friday Evening 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. Registration - Sorenson Student Center 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. OSC booksigning at the EnderCon store Hampton Inn - Timpanogos East Room (across the street) 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. Ragan Theatre OSC reading "The Polish Boy" Janis Ian concert 10:00 p.m - midnight Star Party (meet in the parking lot to share rides) July 6 - Saturday 8:00 - 8:45 a.m. Registration - Sorenson Student Center 9:00 - 10:20 a.m. OSC's opening address - Ballroom 10:30 - 11:20 a.m. "Meet the Moderators" "The Epic of Ender" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 11:30 a.m. - 12:20 p.m. "Speakers for the Living: Audiobooks & OSC" "Teachers Roundtable" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 12:30 - 2:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK 2:00 - 2:50 p.m. "Master Class in Artistry" "Ender's World Technology" "A Beehive of Science Fiction Activity" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 3:00 - 3:50 p.m. "Master Class in Artistry" (continued) "The Reality of Mars" "OSC: Views from Microscope and Macroscope" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Closing Q & A with OSC 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. DINNER BREAK 7:30 - 10:00 p.m. Closing Cantina Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:55:47 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: >>>Consider my cat. My cat loves to catch and eat mice. Before catching and eating mice, he plays with them, torments them. It's kinda hard to watch, frankly. In so doing, he is not cruel or vicious. He's just being a cat. Cat's play with mice before killing them. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, fight or flee, satisfying basic reproductive needs and trying to find some rudimentary shelter, living mostly according to instinct; that's the way life works for all species on this planet except one, and that one species, man, lives that way a lot of the time. When it comes to mice, my cat has no agency. My cat can't choose not to torture.<<< Or is that a learned response? My cats have lived indoors all their lives and were separated from adult cats when only a few weeks old. They never learned to capture mice or to torment them. If anything, my cats seems a bit confused about what they should do with small crawly things. While they will bat at moths and spiders, their only goal seems to be to bop a moving target (a feather, string, pencil, or spot of light will do just as well), not to kill. Once the critters stop moving, my cats lose all interest and walk away. No one ever taught them that crawling things are Nature's neat-to-eat protien treats. So the playing instinct is there, but the killing instinct appears to be absent. They had to be taught that, and weren't. Which is the flip side of the widespread belief that Man is just another kind of animal. Our reactions may be complex, but we are just animals after all and don't have true agency; we're biological machines that must act according to our programming. The only substantive difference between a cat and a person is that a person's programming is much, much harder to decompile and is affected by many more social and environmental factors in addition to the biological ones. The end result, of course, being that we are never truly responsible for our actions. It's always interesting to look at other belief structures and see how they relate. I find this example really interesting in light of Jaina philosophy (a precursor to Hinduism). In that philosophy any five-sensed animal can progress and reach enlightenment. It's why mammals are seen as functional equals to humans--we are all animals of five senses, and are thus equally able to reach the fourth level of enlightenment and have our calling and election made sure (it's also at least partly why their deities are a fairly even mix of human and animal types). Thus, the only inexcusable crime is to kill another being before it has chosen how it will progress during this life; all life is equally precious, and beings of five senses are one conceptual step away from attaining enlightenment and becoming as God. So the question is whether the Jaina raise animals to be equal to Man, or lower Man to be only an animal. Since they expect that any animal can choose to become more than it is, they seem to be uplifting the animals (which formed the basis of a fantasy short story I once wrote where a tiger chooses not to kill while in mid-chew of our POV character). In either case, the idea of agency is critical and forms the basis of the idea that a person who lives like an animal will quite literally become one during the next turn of the wheel. Mix that in with some of Brigham Young's ideas on spirit matter and the nature and organization of intelligences, as well as his take on the dissolution of spirits, and all of a sudden Jaina philosophy (including reincarnation) is not nearly as alien as it might at first sound. The argument can then be made that each and every spirit containing Intelligence is capable of making choices and overcoming its nature, though biochemical interference and limited intellectual capacity make is much harder for some creatures than others. Not an argument; just some thoughts that have been floating around in my mind. Take 'em for what they're worth. >>>In other words, the metaphor we usually use when we think of Satan's plan is that of a prison, where we're forced to do as we're told. I don't think so, though. Put me in a prison, and I'll still have agency, and I'll still make choices. I think a better metaphor is that of a jungle. <<< I've always had a hard time with the "forced righteousness" idea, because it requires that a clear line be drawn with strict enforcement. That creates an either/or situation that actually stimulates a direct moral decision, which is precisely what Lucifer doesn't want--I think he'd rather that we made no decision at all than that we try and fail. It seems like Lucifer said that he would ensure that not one was lost; he never said anything about whether any would rise above the baseline (something there about burying a talent--but at least that one talent wasn't lost). That's why the earth was cursed--for our sakes, and to force us to overcome and discover our potential to become more than we are. In my version of Lucifer's paradise there would actually be plenty of pretty much everything. The animals wouldn't bite and the need to cultvate fields would not exist. Stuff everywhere. The end result being that people simply have no need to adapt, no need to change. Comfort as the great spiritual anesthetic, putting people into a state of both physical and spiritual torpor. Keep people in paradise, and they're unmotivated to do much of anything--either good or evil. They never actually leave the starting line. I think our modern conception of the police state method of Satanic order comes from the fact that we already live in a world where agency is the norm. The only way to attack and defeat the established agency is to make it seem too dangerous, and to emphasize the failures of choice. Even the totalitarian regimes are used as a tool to teach people to resist any authoritarian stance--including the religious one. The law of consequences has been warped from a recognition of natural consequences to a fear of artificially defined consequences, with the result that any discussion of limiting our behaviors by choice is seen as a threat of violent enforcement. For many people honesty really has become little more than the fear of getting caught. I've been researching for a novel that revolves around a Mormon pseudo-utopia and what that might look like. I won't share all of my conclusions (I want there to be some reason to read the novel, after all) but I am starting to see such a Mormon utopia as revising our existing ideas about justice and law enforcement. I tend to see a *lot* fewer police in a society where less energy is exerted in the punishment of offenders--not because the law has become irrelevant, but because the relationship of people to the law has shifted. What's really odd to me is how my idea of a Mormon utopia and my musings on a Satanic utopia merge in some fundamental ways. From a distance they seem awfully similar--until you explore the minds of the inhabitants of each utopia and discover radically different sets of assumptions and desires. We shall see. Scott Parkin (who is very, very interested in having private discussions about different people's ideas of an idealized Mormon society and how it would compare/interact with the rest of the world) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:55:53 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Re: Generalizing from Personal Experiences - ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > Why do so many Mormons find it so hard to > simply ignore judgments (real or > imagined) that we find irrelevant? If we don't believe a > person (or group or > institution) is qualified to make a judgment, why do we give > that judgment any weight--whether the judge comes from inside > or outside the Church? Ooo. I'll answer. We care about the judgments of others because the judgments of others affect us. And I don't mean just emotionally, either. If someone judges me to be incompetent, he won't hire me. If I'm judged educated, I don't have to justify my opinions as much. Right or wrong, we are all connected together and ignoring the judgments that we find irrelevant can lead to tragedy. The most unqualified person in the world can make judgments that will alter our lives. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 03:46:43 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] _Suddenly Unexpected_ Auditions Early August LDSFilm.com is forwarding this press release -- with permission of the production company: New LDS Comedy "Suddenly Unexpected" Set for Production For immediate release: July 1, 2002 MPotter Productions of Houston, Texas has announced the production of its first feature length film, Suddenly Unexpected. The film will be shoot in Houston, Texas in October 2002 with a planned release in 2003. MPotter Production principles are husband and wife, Mark Potter, the director and Marjorie Potter, the producer. Mr. Potter graduated from Brigham Young University with a directing degree and has attended graduate school at the University of Houston. He has been directing and writing for over 20 years. Ms. Potter who attended Houston Baptist University has been working with her husband for eighteen years developing various works. Suddenly Unexpected is the tale of fretting Elder Jones and his green companion, the quirky Elder Smith, who wake up one Saturday morning to discover that they have been evicted, and people are carting away any and every thing that is not nailed down. From there, things go down hill. "Suddenly Unexpected" follows these hapless missionaries through their misadventures as they begin their road trip that leads them to new and different worlds. All filming for "Suddenly Unexpected" will occur in the greater Houston area. Open auditions will be held in Houston, Texas on August 3, 2002 from 9 am to 1 pm at 10200 Autumn Meadow and in Provo, Utah on August 5, 2002 from 1pm to 6 pm at the Holiday Inn Provo, 1460 S. University Ave. This will be a non-SAG production. For additional information, MPotter Productions can be contacted at mpotter1@pdq.net or the web site for "Suddenly Unexpected" at - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:29:49 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Tucker T. Dansie Short Film Opportunity Tucker T. Dansie is a talented filmmaker based in Salt Lake City whose credits are listed on ldsfilm.com (http://www.ldsfilm.com/ ) and whose documentary "Colors" is sold at Deseret Book and other bookstores. He's opening up a couple key roles on his current production to anybody who is interested in working on a short film. Below is his message. You can contact him by writing to us at ldsfilm.com or by writing directly to him at http://www.tuckertdansie.com Hi Everyone, On the 13th of July I will be having auditions for my newest film. I am turning to you all to see if there is one kind soul out there that would like to do some volunteer work for me. On that day from 1-5 we need someone that can work the lobby of the offices where we are doing the auditions. Basically, you would be signing people in and asnwering questions, giving them sides, and then helping use know who the next one to go into the conference room for their audition is. All while keeping them out of trouble!!! If anyone is interested in doing it, you could bring a book if you get bored, that would be awesome, please let me know! It would be a great help to me and I would totally appreciate it. Of course you would get a credit in the film, and I also will give you a walk on extra role in the film in the background. Anyone who is interested please write me ASAP and we can discuss. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #759 ******************************