From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #798 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 Friday, August 9 2002 Volume 01 : Number 798 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:31:53 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance The passage Bill quotes was delivered by Spencer W. Kimball to an audience in South Africa in 1978, by the way. There is an excellent article by Dale LeBaron (who owns the tape) on the subject in a collection of talks given at the Sperry symposium of 1992. The collection is called _The Heavens Are Open_. Now, to Bill's last suggestion--that we shouldn't be arguing over whether or not past prophets made mistakes but should instead be focusing on the marvelous revelation of 1978 and the now open door throughout the world--I do see one problem. Guess what one of the favorite subjects of the anti-Mormons is? If you have an African American friend in the Bible Belt who gets interested in the Church, I can almost guarantee you that he or she will be visited--probably weekly--by well-intentioned anti-Mormon missionaries (often CERTIFIED in their anti-Mormon education), who will proceed to give them every ugly thing past leaders have said about "the Negro race." Can you guess how many of these investigators suddenly quit investigating? Just ask a missionary who has served in Atlanta or Nashville. And ask that missionary what materials they had to help the investigators move past that huge stumbling block. Ask them if they relied on what they had learned in seminary--that Blacks were cursed as descendants of Cain. Sadly, most don't even have Bruce R. McConkie's "I was wrong" talk (actually called "All Are Alike Unto God.") My own feeling is that the time is coming when we will realize how important it is for us to courageously and publicly correct false doctrine which was taught in the past. We are in a marvelous position to welcome MANY saints of African descent. We are not segregated! That's rather exceptional. In most areas, Sunday is the most segregated day of the week. Yet despite that, we have a terrible retention rate, particularly for African Americans. I'm certain Church leaders are looking at the problem. I have full faith that we will be urged towards our potential as a Church, and that prophets will continue to speak and sometimes to reitterate what McConkie said: "[We] were wrong. Forget what ANY CHURCH LEADER SAID ON THIS SUBJECT prior to June 8 1978." [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:09:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Chevy's is an excellent choice. The atmosphere is fun, the food unusual and tasty, and the prices are very reasonable. Would Thursday or Friday night work better for most of us? "Richard R. Hopkins" wrote:Sounds good. Anyone like Chevy's on University right off the I-15? I asked my wife about a date, but she said I'd have to take her or go by myself. Don't know which yet. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:33:42 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Jan Karon's Mitford Series Gordon's poetic phrase "good books that go bust, and bad books that break the bank" sounds like something we could put into a song. Of course it's not always true. But it always tickles me to hear that somebody REALLY popular who MADE IT often can't really guess why, (like Elvis Presley who just couldn't figure out why those girls were screaming for him--it had him puzzled). It's like hitting a public nerve. And unfortunately there's no (reliable) formula. Or no way (really) to predict. No one knows why or why not. In my experience all an artist really knows is that he himself in his isolation must do what he must do, and he keeps doing it in the face of opposition, which sometimes includes death. Thanks for the comment, Gordon! Marilyn - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:41:26 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Polemical Style (was: Newspaper Wars) Man, oh man, can we really do this, go off on Marianne Jennings?Seriously, = if she's not off-topic, it won't be long until any discussion of her work = becomes off-topic. For starters, she's the worst political columnist ever. = Heaven knows I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but she makes Rush look like = Molly Ivins. Okay, I tend to think of 'bad' political columnists as = conservatives, but imagine a really extreme, shrill, idiotic liberal = columnist. Imagine the worse one ever. Well, Marianne is worse still. = She's worse even than Pat Buchanan, and that's saying a lot. And I think = she's the worst Mormon writer ever. I know, I know, I'm the original guy = who says there's no such thing as immoral writing, and that 'bad' writing = is very subjective and all that. Toss it all out; no rules apply when it = comes to Marianne Jennings. =20 First of all, I buy the P.J. O'Rourke-Mencken comparison. I quiite enjoy = O'Rourke's travel writing, while reserving my own judgment regarding his = politics, but he's very funny when he wants to be, and has some of = Mencken's bite and wit. But I don't think Marianne Jennings even aspires = to be Mencken. I think she's a Dr. Laura wannabe, or maybe even worse, an = Ann Coulter wannabe. =20 Look, heaven knows I can be excessive and polemical in my writing, = although I really am trying to be fair and reasonable. Maybe that's the = reason I loathe her column so thoroughly, because I see some of my own = worst traits in her writing. Marianne never even tries to be fair or = reasonable. She's pure vitriol, all the time. She just despises = 'liberals,' especially those found in Hollywood or academia. (And, of = course, there are plenty of kooky liberals in Hollywood or academe, I = don't deny that at all). And, here's the thing, I think she thinks she's = funny. I think she thinks that accusing Bert and Ernie of being gay role = models on Sesame Street is funny, that that's what passes for satirical = wit in her particular corner of the political right. But it's funny like = those really aggressive t-shirts you see at county fairs are funny, the = kind that say "I go from zero to horny in 6.8 beers." =20 At the same time, I should say two things about her. I do read her. I = read her column every week. Every Monday, I try to take a double dosage = of my blood pressure medication, because Monday is Marianne day, and I = know I'm going to read her column, even though it's bad for me. She's = sort of fascinating. I do find myself wondering what silly nonsense she's = going to spout (as offensively as possible) this week. =20 And she's an interesting study in a certain segment of contemporary Mormon = society, an interesting study in a certain kind of Mormon conservative. = Now, take Jacob Proffitt as one kind of Mormon conservative. Jacob and I = disagree all the time, but we're still friends. Maybe, if I sat down with = Marianne, I'd feel the same way about her. But it's one thing to have two = people study certain public policy issues and come to different opinions = about them. It's quite another to turn absolutely every dispute and = disagreement ad hominem. There's such an 'us vs. them' streak in = Marianne, and I see that in a certain kind of Mormonism. Such a tremendous= tendency to judge and condemn, which we see sometimes, unfortunately, in = Mormonism. =20 I also think the Deseret News should keep her column. I don't think they = should fire her, or whatever it is you call it when you don't renew a = syndicated columnist. She's so extreme and so nutty that she does my side = more good than hers. I personally know two former conservatives that have = become card-carrying liberal democrat pinkos, solely because of Marianne. = Frankly, she makes all conservatives look like loonies, which conservatives= all aren't, but as a liberal, I find it hard to mind much. Really, those = of you who don't read her column, you're missing a treat. She's out = there. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:46:02 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" I have tried to remain neutral here, but my spirit won't let me. I don't know who wrote: >snip > >>With all due respect to the idea of music being neutral--hogwash. >snip But, I couldn't agree more. In my humble opinion- Our senses - sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, - are what generates what we feel. What we feel is in fact our spirit. Without our spirit, we are just a lump of clay. The spirit is what animates and gives meaning and purpose to our soul (body and spirit combined). Our body may go into idle when we are bored to tears by the umpteenth time we've heard the story of how uncle John caught the biggest fish in the pond, or brother Jones, of the Stake High Council, give his standard talk on repentance. But the only time our body can be in neutral is when our spirit leaves it. The spirit will always be animated, and it is animated to its highest when it is exposed to the things of beauty the senses feed it with. Beautiful music, art and writing, good food, scents, and the tender touch of loved ones. All of these things generate feelings and feeling is what makes the difference between being physically alive and physically dead. When our body is dead our spirit will still respond to most of our senses. So! How could music be neutral? Regards, Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:08:03 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] Re: Invoking Emotions Richard R. Hopkins wrote: >snip > There is only one emotion that I believe is not morally or spiritually neutral--anger. >snip What about apathy, boredom, and indifference? To me, these seem to be neutral emotions, and they seem to be negative as far as progression goes. So maybe a better word would be reverse? Anger would be to the far side of the neutral point with hatred at the very extreme end. On the positive side, which leads forward to progression, we have Love, joy, peace, kindness, selflessness, service, and caring. I do not see anything neutral, morally or spiritually about emotions. Regards, Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:07:00 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >>> Of course, if we're certain the Lord ended it, [the ban on blacks and the priesthood] it stands to reason that we are equally sure he started it (or at least approved of it) as well. <<< Are we sure that He started--or even approved of--it in the context of the Restoration? I ask for a couple of reasons. There are a (fairly large, I think) number of times where the Lord has allowed things that he didn't necessarily approve of, and approved of things he didn't necessarily consider to be the best of all possible choices. It seems to me that the Lord has been frustratingly obstinate in requiring that we take a step in His direction before he gives us greater light and knowledge, in the process allowing even his chosen people to continue in inappropriate practices despite his strong desire that they behave otherwise. I'm just not sure that the fact a thing was allowed is the same thing as saying that it was approved or that it originated with the Lord. >>> The church was and is either operating with his blessing and direction or it was and is not, after all. <<< But hasn't the Church and its leaders gone from lesser to greater--and sometimes greater to lesser--understanding over the years and through the dispensations? It seems to me as though we sometimes put too much stock in an idea of infallibility or institutional perfection than is useful--especially when you put imperfect people into the mix. For example, Moses' original intent (and arguably his original command of God) was to bless the children of Israel with the fullness of the covenant and priesthood authority. But based on their weak faith and lack of righteousness a lesser law was implemented--not because the Church was not under the direction and blessing of the Lord, but because the people were not ready. The Lord declared in clear and unequivocal terms that the Saints were to build a great city in Missouri in the 1830s, and that this city would be the New Jerusalem, the City of God. Yet somehow that great city never came to be--not because the Lord didn't declare it possible, but because the Saints were unable to live up to their own best hopes, desires, and expectations. The Lord wasn't wrong when he stated what was possible--it *was* possible if the peoples' hearts and mind had been right. But his words were not fulfilled because of the limits of the people, not the limits of his blessing or direction. The same could be said of the United Order experiments in both Missouri and Utah. It's arguable that the law of tithing was a backup plan to full consecration--aka, a change of policy--not because tithing was the best or most approved solution, but because it was an adequate substitute until the people learned to do better. Allowed and even sanctioned, but not the practice He wanted or asked for. Operating under the blessing and direction of the Lord didn't stop either David or Solomon from messing up, the children of Israel from a great many follies, or the apostacy of the Church after the first coming of Christ. The blessing and direction of the Lord does not equate to infallibility, only to a the best possible chance of success. I think we sometimes conflate the current (often limited) law given to us by the Lord with the perfect (and unchanging) law that has always been our goal. The result is that many feel that any change from the current law (or policy) represents proof either of apostacy or of a false foundation. But they're two completely different things, in my opinion. >>> There are a multitude of reasons that God could have had for blacks being barred from the priesthood that have nothing to do with racism. <<< Absolutely! I don't think anyone has accused God of racism. But I think I have heard speculation that the policy after the Restoration may not have been directed of God, and that the leadership may have used their own wisdom in the absence of specific instruction (which is not the same thing as accusing that leadership of racism, either). It may be that God specifically commanded the early leaders of this dispensation that the priesthood be withheld from the blacks. As it turns out, the general authorities in 1978 believed that there was no such specific commandment, despite the strong personal beliefs of some of them that the policy had been specifically instituted of the Lord, and as a result sought clarification and understanding from the Lord. The understanding they received was that the policy should be changed. Which says absolutely nothing about where the policy came from. While it's fair to assume the policy in this dispensation was instituted of the Lord, I think it's equally fair to assume that it evolved out of the prevailing wisdom of the day with no direct input from the Lord. The closest thing to authoritative statements we have are some of what Elder McConkie said about his own experiences, and the information from Ed Kimball that Margaret Young referred to in her post of 8/7 where she quotes from her forthcoming novel. Both of those sources seem to suggest that the policy was allowed, not commanded. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I would like to know as much truth as I can about this and many other issues so I can develop my own understanding on a basis of knowledge instead of supposition. So I ask the questions and challenge the answers in the hope that I will gain knowledge from all of the people on this list. >>> The fact that some folks are presented with trials different than mine (like being denied the priesthood) means nothing in the long run. <<< Except that I think it does. To me the commandment to share one another's burdens requires that we understand and learn empathy for all kinds of trials that are not our own. Until recently I had never been faced with a trial of poverty, but the last year has taught me a lot of empathy for people that I had very easily dismissed in years gone by. I can learn empathy by my own direct experience or I can attempt to learn it from other peoples' direct experience. I think you're right--the specific trials are largely irrelevant. But what isn't irrelevant is the connections we build one with another, the communities we build and eternal relationships we develop. To build the kingdom of God on earth I believe we need to understand and appreciate the many trials that our brothers and sisters face. One of the ways to gain that understanding is through story--either fiction or essay. There are many stories to be told--stories of rage, patience, acceptance, confusion, ambivalence, and all the other emotions that experience brings to us. Both sharing our own stories and hearing the stories told by others is ultimately to our advantage--even when those stories seem to have no relevance to our own lives. In my opinion. (Not much of a connection to literature, except that to a very real degree I think the stories we tell each other on this list through our individual viewpoints and posts are very much a part of the ongoing dialog of Mormon letters. Frankly, I hope to see novels and stories published in the coming years that touch on some of the things we discuss here; I know that I've been pleased to see Eric Samuelsen use this list to develop some of the ideas he later offered in his plays. I hope others will take up the gauntlet and do the same. I know that our discussion of Mormon utopias and programs for poverty are playing substantial roles in the development of a novel project I'm currently working on. Now if I can only get off the research phase and into the writing phase...) Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:43:46 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance Me two days ago: "Of course, if we're certain the Lord ended it, it stands to reason that we are equally sure he started it(or at least approved of it) as well." Thom: "Not necessarily. It could have been that the Lord was letting his leaders make their own mistakes and waited until they wised up enough to ask for further light and knowledge." Denying blacks the priesthood was either for their betterment or their detriment it either furthered the plan of salvation or hindered it. I don't find it reasonable to assume that God would have allowed his leaders to implement a policy that hindered his plan of salvation for some of his children so that others of his children could wise up. He is, after all, no respecter of persons. Therefore, the policy furthered the plan and enjoyed his approval while it was extant. ME two days ago: "I don't have a problem with that. There are a multitude of reasons that God could have had for blacks being barred from the priesthood that have nothing to do with racism. The idea of God, the father of us all, being racist is internally absurd." Thom: =20 "But does it necessarily follow that his children, even his chosen leaders, can't be racist on occasion? All of us (even prophets) learn precept by precept." True enough. McConkie's theory as to why blacks were denied the priesthood, as presented in the un-sanitized version of Mormon Doctrine, offended me even when I was a child. In my opinion it was deeply racist. However, I feel I must point out that just because a leader acts according to a false precept, even sin on his part, does not mean that he can foil the plan. I point to Judas as evidence. God can has and will make use of the personal foibles of his leaders to further his purposes. I certainly will not argue that individuals in the church and church leadership are never racist or never wrong in any of a million ways. What bothers me is this notion of "institutional repentance." It always comes down to the individual. The policy against blacks holding the priesthood was not implemented by "the institution". It was implemented by individuals within the institution (as are all policies). If the policy was not divinely inspired (a possibility I am not willing to bet against) some individual came up with the notion, some individual/s failed to point out that it was ludicrous and some (or many) individuals taught it to the rest of the church. If those individuals furthered the notion because they were racist, (regardless of its source) then they need to repent, make restitution, feel remorse, etc. . . Most of them are probably dead today and thus the whole thing is water under the bridge. To call upon "the institution" to repent is to free those _individuals_ of responsibility for their actions and to lay that responsibility at the feet of people who had nothing to do with the whole thing, but simply happen to be part of the same institution. - -Ethan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 02:43:14 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Invoking Emotions on 8/7/02 9:09 PM, Thom Duncan at ThomDuncan@prodigy.net wrote: >> There is only one emotion that I believe is not morally or spiritually >> neutral--anger. > > Think about Christ rebuking the folks outside the temple? Joseph Smith > rebuking the guards at Liberty? Strong emotions both. Was the spirit not > present at those times. > > I think Mormons have a misconception that anger is not a Chirst-like > emotion. Anger toward sin and hypocrites -- you can't get more Christ-like > than that. The uncontrolled anger due to pride is the bad kind. > > Thom > This is not so much a Mormon thing as a Comptist thing. Ever since that idiot came up with his positive/negative philosophy it's encroached more and more on thought, literature, etc, etc. Psychology and "therapy" goes along with this idea, and now there are such things as "negative" emotions. Compte's goofy theory is based on electrical positive/negative. Really. Positive and negative are not nearly so useful as good and evil. There is good anger, good hatred, and good passion. There are evil versions of each. I agree with Thom that the difference is entirely a matter of pride. Pride ruins everything good. As with so many other things it becomes a matter of definitions. Hatred has become such a hackneyed word that it means nothing anymore. It can't be good in modern parlance because it has become equated with evil. It's quite difficult to think of a good version of hatred anymore because of its modern usage. I tend to think it's similar to opposition versus competition. In the Yorgason Brother's _Becoming_ they describe the Cheyenne version of opposition and competition. They use Louis Lamour for the example. If he is opposition to another writer then his every improvement and success is a good, making one work ever harder to keep up with him. Competition, the ugly sister of opposition, is much less kindly. If Louis Lamour is competition then what is wished for is his utter defeat. Every clumsy phrase is a triumph, every poor-selling book a victory. Every person who likes his books is an enemy. The same idea is more difficult to apply to hatred because there aren't really two similar words to make splitting hairs easy. Through history war does not always involve hatred. It is possible for either side to admire the other and even be friendly to individual enemy soldiers. This is a reason why pickets often got together in a impromtu swap meet between the lines during the Civil War, or why the Germans invited the British to Christmas Dinner during WWI. Hatred usually comes closer to home. When fighting outside one's own country, with relatively chivalrous enemies, hatred is a little hard to build up and keep rolling. In the Pacific part of WWII I don't doubt that many of the captured Allied soldiers on the Bataan Death March hated the Japanese soldiers passionately. It would be next to impossible to watch the Japanese officers having a beheading contest with your buddies and not hate them. Does that mean that they were evil for feeling hatred? I don't think so. It was an earned hatred. On the same note I'd wager that the many thousands of Korean "comfort women" that were forced to be pretty compliant for Japanese soliders had a hatred every bit as justified. Strangely enough the concept of hatred is undergoing a radical change again right now, moving towards the line I'm describing. Since 9/11 how many different people have said "Why do they hate us?" as if there is some justification for that hatred in something America has done. Though I disagree that America is to blame for all the world's ills, I agree that hatred is not just based on ignorance or fear or pride. It can be entirely justified and right. A couple of years ago they called people like me "Clinton-haters" and assumed naturally that there was no good reason for such hatred. While he was president I never felt any hatred for him, only disgust, though since 9/11 I have hated him for minutes, sometimes even hours at a time. I don't think it comes from evil within me; I prayed daily for the last three years of his presidency that nothing serious would happen, but I never prayed for him to die. I was pretty agitated during the Serbian ruckus and REALLY nervous after the Cole was bombed. I never expected something as big as 9/11 but I expected many hundreds of casualties and prayed that Bush would be able to pull things back together before the bad guys managed another strike. A number of my email/online friends were worried about the same thing; I have friends in several parts of the government and found out lots of things that have only become public recently. I knew that Sudan had made four attempts to give us bin Laden in 1997, which came out only a few months ago in the mainstream media. I do not much worry about this feeling because in terms of what I know about how foreign policy had been so incredibly bungled it is entirely justified. The only thing I want from a president is a good foreign policy--otherwise I want to be left alone. If we have a war then I would expect more, but in peacetime I want Silent Cal. Were this short-term hatred to take an evil turn, however, it would not be a mere feeling. Evil hatred is an action, not a feeling. It has to be stoked, tended, and built up, so that it consumes more than just a few calories and neurons. Vendetta is hatred's avatar, even when justified. Revenge can consume and destroy both avenger and quarry. This is why God said vengeance was His. He knows we'll never be able to balance the scales of justice exactly, and its even more difficult for an ignorant, blind mortal to balance justice and mercy. A hatred that lasts a few moments and burns itself out is not very dangerous. If pride gets a good hold, however, then things like 9/11 happen, or Auschwitz, or the GULAG. The difference is easy to detect. Nazis hate Jews because they are to blame for all the evils in the world. Communists hate the Bourgeoisie because they are to blame for all the evils in the world. Islamists hate Americans because they are to blame for all the evils in the world. The KKK hates Africans because...well you get the idea. On a personal level it works the same way. When you dwell on all the wrongs someone has done you, it begins to swallow up some things that they didn't really do. I unfortunately have experience with this kind as well and I didn't like it at all--afterwards. It was actually quite comforting for a while. For myself the reason I turned away from it is because I really couldn't do anything that would punish the guilty without punishing the innocent along with them. Indeed after considerable research I believe it was only one person who wronged me, and the organization he worked for is only slightly culpable. Since I don't know who he is I can do nothing to hurt him, and since the government wasn't interested I'll literally just have to wait for God to render justice. About six years ago I was not satisfied with that turn of events, but I have reconciled myself to it. After I broke free of this mordant hatred I discovered that I was not so entirely right in my own position. Some things I had blamed on my foe were mistakes of my own, and I just had to swallow the truth. I believe that this is the reason why destructive and evil hatreds are so common and pernicious. Everything one does is justified by hatred. The perpetrators of 9/11 were entirely justified in their own minds. The attribute thousand-year-old wrongs to present-day individuals. They blame America for things that were done centuries before she was a nation. Every evil thing they wish to do is justified by their hatred. As I said, this is not an emotion they feel. It's an active, well-tended, fully grown kind of hatred, and the emotional part was left behind long ago. Just so's ye don't think that I can demonstrate only one example of the first kind of hatred, let me add a second. I hate, above all things, pederasts and pedophiles and rapists. I've been writing them in as bad guys since I was 7 years old. Nonetheless when somebody I knew was accused of molesting a few little boys while teaching them the piano I actually helped him out before his trial--allowed him to buy a computer (modemless, of course) on payments while his trial was going on. It was at the request of his father and I didn't really like doing it though he was of course supposed to be presumed innocent. He was found guilty, and is still in prison last I heard. When I found out that he was guilty I felt the same hatred I always feel when I hear about a child being harmed--but I didn't regret that I had helped him. Whether or not he deserved it I had behaved as justly as I could in my ignorance of the truth. The emotional part did not affect my actions--though if I met such a one in a dark alley it certainly would. Even then it would require incontrovertable evidence, because I can think of nothing worse than to be falsely accused of such a thing. I'm a very big man and any sort of rapist that came afoul of me would not enjoy the experience, even if he survived. No matter what anyone says I could not think that such a thing is evil. Hatred in that sense is entirely justified, and the action might be as well. If it led to torture or mutilation it could not be just, because justice is not really a matter of an eye for an eye. Justice is when somebody guilty of that kind of evil has to face God again with that stain scarlet upon him. As for this world I just want them gone so that nobody, little children particularly, never have to suffer at their hands. A vain wish, but improvements can be made. Ashcroft upped the kiddie porn task force's budget back to pre-Clinton levels and knocked off that vile Candyman ring in less than a year. I don't know that hatred was any part of his motivation, but whether of no, it was a good deed, and by their fruits shall ye know them. Any hatred that bears a good fruit then it ain't an evil. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 10:10:01 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance I AGREE WITH THOM. God didn't prevent anyone from building the Rameu= mptom tower, but he certainly blessed those who had been excluded by the self-righteousness of the self-exalted, lofty worshippers. I find it= fun to read scriptures with a particular theme or question in mind. Try rea= ding the Book of Mormon to get a message on racism. You might need a little h= elp in the beginning. I'll include an endnote (also early draft) from _Stan= ding on the Promises_. The chapter preceding this depicts Darius's conversio= n and his question about the differences between Nephites and Lamanites. "At the time Darius joined the Church, the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 30= :6) had been modified from its original text to read: =93[The Lamanites] shal= l be a white and delightsome people.=94 The original text (and current one,= which has been revised since 1964) says instead =93pure and delightsome people.= =94 The difference is significant. Because the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 5: 21= ) refers to a =93sore cursing=94 which came upon the =93Lamanites=94, that bei= ng =93a skin of blackness=94, and because of ideas formerly held in much of America a= bout the Curse of Cain or of Canaan, many well-intentioned Mormons (particular= ly in the past) have interpreted dark skin as a signifier of a divine curse. A= curse, however, refers to distance from God. The Hebrew word for =93curse= =94 means =93separate=94 or =93separation.=94 The fact that righteous =93Laman= ites=94 are referred to frequently in the Book of Mormon shows that their skin color is no= t a mark of their separation from God. Hugh Nibley is very clear about =93thi= s race business in the Book of Mormon=94 (Teachings of the Book of Mormon Se= mester 1 Transcripts p. 286). As he describes the cultural interpretation of =93blackness=94 and =93whiteness,=94 he discusses paintings in Greece= and Egypt, and suggests that =93the people who live in...'the houses of hair, out in= the desert are always painted with dark complexions. The people who live in...= =92the houses of stone=92 are always depicted with light complexions. The w= omen never went out; they would paint their faces with white lead, as a matter o= f fact. It=92s a cultural thing.=94 He suggests that the Book of Mormon refer= ences to skin color have more to do with lifestyle than any divine mark. =93[R]aci= al change,=94 he says, =93isn=92t necessary for this at all. After all, they [the = Nephites and Lamanites] are members of the same family; we know that=94 (p. 287). = In other words, the Lamanites, who were hunters in the wilderness (2 Nephi 5:2= 4), had a lifestyle which naturally gave them darker skin than their Nephite br= others, who are described as being studious, =93priests and teachers=94=96an = indoor people (2 Nephi 5:26). (End of endnote). In addition, it's necessary to remember that t= he Book of Mormon is essentially a FAMILY HISTORY. Nephi interprets what he = sees from his own expectations, perceptions, and traditions. That doesn't say = he isn't often inspired, but we're on very thin ice when we suggest that every= thing ANYONE says--even a prophet--is consistently inspired. Anti-Mormons = love to tell potential Mormons what Joseph Smith said about all those Quakers= on the moon. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:30:25 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Bill Willson wrote: > Isn't this the Lords plan to teach every kindred tongue and people the plan > of salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ? > > This is what we need to be writing about instead of arguing over whether or > not our early prophets made any mistakes. Of course they made mistakes. We > all do. That is what we are here for. No mortal, save Jesus, was ever on > this earth in a perfect state of grace. We come to earth to learn how to > apply principles of righteousness. The process of learning requires that we > make mistakes, and hopefully we learn from those mistakes. Even Joseph Smith was called to repentence, and even a young Jesus grew in stature and wisdom day by day. Just a clarification on my own stance here--I don't believe the early Church leaders made mistakes on the priesthood ban so much as they acted in good faith based on what they understood. But I also believe that knowledge was incomplete. They relied on a prior understanding in the absense of specific instructions on the matter. It was not a question that they felt necessary to take to the Lord, and so they were not instructed of the Lord on the issue. Perhaps the policy was allowed by the Lord, perhaps it was even supported, and perhaps it was specifically commanded; we don't really know, because the documentary history we have access to doesn't appear to contain evidence of a direct command of the Lord--only the explications of the understandings of his servants when asked. But as has been pointed out before, the policy is now different and that's all that really matters. (My personal opinion is that whatever limits were placed on who held the priesthood in former dispensations--and the reasons for those limits--are very interesting and important to know if we are to understand the overall development of the Church, but are also largely irrelevant to how we do business in this dispensation. For a while the Levitical priesthood was only available through the direct bloodline of Aaron--but not any more. Somewhere between then and now the decision was made to take the gospel not only to a chosen bloodline, but to take it to all the world. Paul taught--and presumably bestowed authority on--many congregations of foreigners. When the gospel was restored again to Joseph Smith, the last limits on offering the blessings of the gospel to the world were eliminated; a new covenant was made that supplanted all previous limits and conditions. In the case of the blacks and the priesthood, I suspect an understanding of the old covenant interfered with understanding of the new one and led to some policies that were allowed by, but not specifically commanded by the Lord--at least not as part of the new covenant. When the hearts of the people--all the people, not just the Mormons--had changed sufficiently that the Lord's authorized servants sought a confirmation of their righteous desires to change a policy that no longer seemed to make sense to them, the policy changed and with it greater light and power came into the world. This is a pattern that has been repeated many times in the history of the world, and we believe that yet more transforming knowledge will be revealed to us in the coming years.) No blame, no recrimination. We went from a state of less knowledge to a state of greater knowledge, from a less fully implemented covenant to a more fully implemented one--a pattern that has recurred throughout time. To ridicule or dismiss the early leaders of this dispensation for their understanding and the policies that came out of it is as silly as mocking Moses for the sins of the children of Israel or mocking Galileo for the fact that Einstein extended and replaced parts of his understanding. Line upon line, depending on our ability to understand and execute on that understanding. The ban on the priesthood is a fact that is every bit as much a part of our history and theological development as polygamy, the Word of Wisdom, the United Order, the establishment of the New Jerusalem in Jackson County, or any number of other policies or programs that have been offered and changed over the the years. The fact of this change and the revelation of new doctrine, policy, and practice, is a critically important aspect of our religion and has nothing to do with whether leaders are perfect, whether their understanding is perfect, or whether the Lord is changing the game part way through. As I understand it, the covenant has been the same from the beginning; we've just been given access to more or less of it at different times and places depending on our overall (and sometimes individual) righteousness. The fact that a policy changes or that the Church functions differently--or is even organized differently--has no bearing on the Lord's unchangeability, only our own understanding and ability to implement his perfect plan with our imperfect knowledge. But many people struggle with the idea that a change in Church policy somehow casts all prior policies in shadow and the people that implemented those policies in doubt. It's certainly one of the favorite tools of the anti-Mormon crowd. So it seems to me that one of the best things we could do as an organization is to directly and specifically address some of those substantial changes in policy in our internal educational programs. It's a stumbling block that I believe is best removed by direct address; the best way to stop the bickering is for an authoritative arbitrator to issue an authoritative statement. IMO. I don't believe asking for that direct education is a criticism of either the current or previous leadership. I offer a suggestion based on my (quite incomplete) understanding of a problem and my desire to solve it. By asking the question and offering a (quite incomplete) suggestion for a solution I hope to spur greater minds and brighter lights to address what I believe is a real problem in the modern Church. In the meantime, I try to gather knowledge and understanding as well as I can. And because I want to share what I've learned and to learn more, I talk about it. A few months ago the question was asked on this list whether anyone had written stories that they later wanted to repent of. The general response was that no, few authors thought that they should be asked to repent of their earlier work--that instead they grew and expanded. And if their later work refuted some of their own earlier work, it only proved that they had changed (and hopefully grown) over the years. Each of us is a storyteller. The fact that at 38 years old I have very different stories to tell than I did at age 23 doesn't require that I hate, mock, or pity my younger self. At 60 I hope that I will have very different stories to tell than I have now--and if those stories are not a little better and more complete, I will be very, very disappointed. But my knowledge of the fact (likelihood? possibility?) of future growth should not stop me from telling the stories I have now to best of my ability and with the greatest vigor I can. FWIW. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #798 ******************************