From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #846 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, October 1 2002 Volume 01 : Number 846 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:40:07 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Mormon Publishing Options (was: Mormon Culture) D. Michael Martindale wrote: > _Singles Ward_ is more popular than _Brigham City_. (This may very well > be the most biting cultural indictment of all.) ...and... > (And the number one reason to dislike LDS culture:) > > The most popular event in LDS publishing since the Book of Mormon is > _The Work and the Glory_. This is one of the oldest arguments in literature, and is far from being unique to the Mormon publishing industry. It's the essential dissonance between artistic quality and economic success. (I listened to the top sf editors in the field scream at each other over this question at the World Sciece Fiction Convention, except they were using Michael Crichton as their example of good selling, low-quality fiction, rather than _The Singles Ward_ or Gerald Lund.) I think _Brigham City_ was a very, very good film and is artistically superior to _Singles Ward_ in pretyy much all ways. But I'm not surprised that BC sold fewer tickets. Comedy is nearly always more accessible to a broader audience than drama. It requires less of us (unless it's very, very well written), and thus challenges us less. A lot of Mormons are so tired of their daily battles with "the world" that they want something that will give them a nice, silly escape rather than something that will harrow up their souls. A safe little laugh that ultimately tells them it's okay to be Mormon. And yet... BC did well enough to enable Dutcher to make his next film. It got good critical reviews not just within the Mormon press, but in the general press. It awakened larger studios to the possibility of a set of good, small market films that directly address the social or moral issues of a larger audience through the specific examples of a semi-exotic cultural subset. It expanded the minds of filmmakers and viewers. It expanded the market. It succeeded. I wish it had succeeded better, because I want Dutcher to make more films and a good box office is the best way to assure that. But it succeeded enough and it's generated a buzz and lit the creative fires under a whole lot of people. I suspect if we analyzed the numbers we'd find that nearly all of SW's ticket sales were in heavily LDS geographies, where BC reached a more widely distributed audience. And it'll prbably kick BC's but when it comes out on video. So what if _Singles Ward_ made more money--BC made enough. George Lucas has outsold Coppola, DePalma, and Kubrick combined, yet it would be hard to claim that Lucas produced artistically superior work to those three. Still, Lucas touched something basic and important in a *lot* of viewers. So rather than berating the audience for its style blindness and simplicity, maybe we ought to look more carefully at what chord Lucas touched in those viewers--then see if our vaunted artistic integrity can honestly incorporate some of that in our "art." We need to get over the fact that bestsellers are often not the best literature, and that the best literature often doesn't sell well. That's just the way it is, and raging against the audience for not having your good taste isn't going to change their minds. The only thing you can do is produce more of the kind of literature you'd like to see and accept the fact that most authors don't make a lot of money at it and don't garner a lot of fame. I hear that among Mormon authors a lot. We're all being cheated because New York hates us and Deseret Book and Covenant are too narrowly defined to allow for the more challenging kinds of stories, and Signature is only playing at being a fiction publisher with its one or two titles a year. Horizon died, as did Cornerstone. Gibbs Smith seems focused on children's work and Granite is hard to get your finger on (in addition to publishing only a few fiction titles a year). Cedar Fort requires most authors to pay for their own printing costs and has no detectable marketing push. American Book is pretty much incomprehensible to ordinary humans. In other words, the corporate machine of Mormon pop refuses to let we dedicated litterateurs onto the playground, and when we do break through the wall they don't play fair. We're locked out; oh woe is me... So what are we going to do about it? Whine at them? Scuff our feet and cast vicious glances at the twin heads of the Great and Correlated Publishers? Attack them from behind with harsh language? Abandon our hope and go to New York with the festering desire to expose the narrow, provincial Mormons in poorly disguised polemic masquerading as fiction? What about keeping our hope on our way to New York? As much as I hate the idea of vanity press, maybe that's a legitimate option--The Christmas Box rode that pony all the way to an $8M contract with Simon and Schuster. Better yet, how about a third Mormon publisher that's willing to publish not only challenging works but will still go with other kinds of Mormon lit from teen morality tales to angry diatribes and everything in between (in different imprints, of course). Can we pull a United Artists and buck the major publishers by our own power, redefining the Mormon market and expanding it in a fundamental way? The books probably won't sell huge numbers of copies--not at first. But the Mormon public can't know what it's missing until it sees the product and word of mouth takes over. If the major publishers won't offer the product then we have to go around them as best we can--either by playing by their rules at first then slowly expanding the market from within, or by taking our lumps and poor sales figures with alternate publishers and small market presses until enough readers demand our new literature and the major houses are forced to expand or lose market share. Paris Anderson is willing to hand press ten books at a time to get good titles out to the market. Who else will join the effort? If enough off-brand books appear on shelves we'll either prove our salability or prove that Mormons really don't want that kind of fiction. It's better to know for sure. Maybe the reason so many people like Gerald Lund's books is that he takes our foundation stories as true and focuses not on exposing and exploring the foibles and failures of our early leaders, but rather simply celebrates the marvelous work and a wonder that they performed in restoring the fullness of the gospel. I don't think people are reading him for his sparkling prose, so maybe they're resonating with his unabashed acceptance and presentation of the epic nature--and truth--of our foundation stories. His sentences may clink, but Lund never blinks or shies away as he tells the tale. I know, Lund has already poisoned the market; anyone who writes dramatized Church history is just derivative of Lund now. Yet Dutcher is retelling the Joseph Smith story--again. And I suspect he'll bring something powerful and new to the telling and reach audiences that were not touched by Lund. So why can't we do the same? (And please, not another polygamy expose or recreation of Mountain Meadows; neither one of those stories qualifies as subversive any more. Why not try the Mormon Battalion or the Mexican colonies? Maybe the Canadian colonies or the Utah War? We've seen successful work with WWII and with black pioneer history; why not Mormon Gulf War experiences (something as close to a holy war as we've had recently--at least for those fighting on one side) or the history of the Church in Africa, Japan, or Brazil? There's been some, but why not more? Is there a Mormon _Platoon_ or _Full Metal Jacket_ to be written?) As one of the chief snivelers on this subject I find myself getting restless. Complaining hasn't worked, and neither has wheedling the editors as the large LDS publishers. It appears that the only chance I have of seeing more of the kind of work I like on bookshelves is to buy a cheap printing press and do it myself. It's the slow road to success, and right now cash flow is a problem. But it's better than waiting around doing nothing. It's better to fail while trying than not to try at all. Scott Parkin (who feels that cheerleading is as much an integral part of the whole literary development process as writing and editing and publishing; if you can't write, cheerlead; better yet, do both) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:15:21 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Elijah Abel: Fact and Fiction Normally, I try to tell people how historically accurate _Standing on the Promises_ is. Each book has required enormous research, and I feel I have done three dissertations--seriously. However, the truth is, the series is historical FICTION. I'll speak about the writing in first person here, though I know list members understand that Darius Gray was a vital component in the process, providing voice, cultural awareness, and much of the material to document the various pioneer/slave stories. But I was in charge of structuring it, and did the brunt of the research, so I know exactly what we had in documented form and what we didn't. I am in a rather awkward position today of seeing what I recognize as my own conjectures about Elijah Abel (used to further the first novel's plot) touted as facts about his life, and of having a quote I made up attributed to him on the Elijah Abel monument program, and on the TV news. I feel pretty strongly about truth, so I want the facts straight. So here they are. In the _SL Trib_ article by Tim Sullivan, it says Abel was born a slave in Maryland in 1808 and at age 23 fled to Canada and obtained free papers. The truth is, the birthyear is a little unsure (likely either 1808 or 1810) and we DO NOT know when he went to Canada or even if he was born a slave or if he obtained free papers. Research by Lester Bush suggests that he MAY HAVE used the underground railroad. Because Elijah happens to be the character of whom we have the least documented material (all of it from other sources, since Elijah, who we know was illiterate in Nauvoo [we have a Nauvoo document which he signed with an "X"] left no record of his own life, I used Bush's suggestion as a plot thread and had Elijah take the underground railroad at age 23 or thereabouts. But there is a logical problem, of course. If someone has taken the underground railroad, why would he need free papers? Well, he'd need them if he were to return to the U.S. I used the historical context of Ohio's Oberlin College, about to be constructed in 1832, to move Elijah back to the US and give him a motive to get to Ohio. I provided a way for him to have free papers, which also revealed a historical truth: that he was indeed a skilled carpenter. This we also know from historical documents, since Elijah is listed as a founding member of a Nauvoo Carpentry society. The _Trib_ article states that he worked on the Underground Railroad in Cincinnati. Well, he might have, but I made that up. I was trying to understand why he left Nauvoo and moved to Cincinnati around 1842-3, and decided that since Cincinnati was a major port of the underground railroad, he may well have helped with it. My fictionalizing. I have absolutely no evidence that he worked with the Underground Railroad, though we do know he moved to Cincinnati, since he was told to preach to "only the colored population" there, and there is a record of that particular instruction. Finally, the quote in the monument program and read as Elijah's words about his dedication to the faith despite difficult circumstances indicate his attitude, I hope, though I made them up. Darius and I tried very hard to capture the man we IMAGINED Elijah Abel was. I am grateful to have the monument there in the Salt Lake Cemetery. I frankly was disappointed that the talks addressed the priesthood controversy more than Elijah's remarkable life. I did not feel that particular time or place was the right one for grandstanding. Still, the monument is in place. Good people donated their hard-earned money to memorialize Elijah and his family. I am grateful to all of them for that. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:42:18 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Anyone from Seattle? On Oct. 19, I will be participating in a _Sunstone_ conference in Seattle, representing my other book (_Heresies of Nature_) rather than Deseret Book. However, since Darius has family in Seattle, we went ahead and scheduled a book signing/night-with-the-authors for that same night at the Seattle Deseret Book near the temple, where we will display pictures of many of the black pioneers and talk about them and about _Standing on the Promises_. We would like to do a fireside the following day, Sunday 10/20. Are any of you AML listers in that area? Can you help us arrange a fireside or put me in touch with someone who can? If we're going to be out of Utah, we really like to put the time to good use. We've had requests to do firesides in Seattle, but I have no name to refer to to organize one. Obviously, we need to get on this immediately. Thanks for your help! [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:19:45 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Review: The Nauvoo Theatrical Society Last Friday I went to see the first general performance of the first play offered by the Nauvoo Theatrical Society at its new Center Street Theater in Orem, Utah. The show was "My Turn on Earth" and I've spent all weekend trying to figure out how to write this review. Before I go any further let me remind everyone that I'm a pop literary critic, not a trained theater critic. I can tell you how I feel about things, but my opinion is backed up only by my individual sense of what works. If my use of terms is off, I apologize; if I misrepresent the Nauvoo Theatrical Society, its motives, or its intents I hide behind the defense that "this is how *I* feel about my experiences there." The problem is that there are two completely different things at work here. There's the play itself, which I quite enjoyed and which I will comment on in different review. But there's also this whole idea of a "Mormon theater" whose intent is to produce only plays by, for, or about Mormons. So this review will focus on the idea of a Nauvoo Theatrical Society and the specific implementation of the Center Street Theater. This is a great idea. Mormon playwrights have become quite good, and are producing a much larger body of quality work than most of us are aware of. It seems to me that most Mormon plays get one good performance at BYU or the Mormon Arts Festival then seem to vanish. This is a shame, because some of the most interesting work in Mormon letters is being done in drama right now. The problem has not been whether Mormon playwrights are producing worthy material--they are. The problem is whether Mormons are willing to plunk down ten bucks and spend an evening to watch those plays. And the second problem is like unto it: will the paying audience get good value for their time and money, or will they just get a roadshow with an attitude? The Place =========== The Center Street Theater is a converted tent warehouse two doors down from Chuck E. Cheese's just off the corner of Center and State streets in Orem. It consists of four areas--the lobby, the theater proper (also known as the "black box"), the dressing/mingling area, and the shop. The lobby is small, simple, and well done. It features a clean, elegant look that put my initial fears to rest--this *is* a professional theater, not another half-baked homespun semi-scam that relies on peoples' goodwill in accepting that Mormon things aren't quite ready for primetime. The owners of the Center Street Theater have pretentions--they see themselves as real professionals producing real plays worthy of real consideration. It's about time. Thank you for taking this seriously. The black box is rectangular and is painted black on every surface, including floor and ceiling--thus the name. Kitchen-type chairs are set on wooden risers that step up and away from the stage area on the floor. For the play I saw it was configured with the stage against one of the long walls and the risers against the other three walls. This left a large functional stage area where the front row was only eight inches above the floor, creating a very intimate, somewhat informal environment. Seating was relatively limited, and seemed to top out at about 130 seats. In some ways the transition from the lobby to the black box is quite abrupt and is a change from elegance to informality. Of course the play being performed was "My Turn On Earth," a very informal play. Still, the free standing chairs seemed more like dinner theater than Broadway and my mediocrity detectors started to hum--but only for a moment. The creators of the Center Street Theater made some choices--they've chosen reconfigurability over traditional formality. They've chosen keep the focus on the stage, not the house. They've chosen to put that stage in the midst of the audience, not to keep audience and players isolated from each other in physically separated areas. They've given up a backstage and the ability for elaborate set pieces in favor of a setting that focuses on the actors and their craft. The result is something that feels more like an experimental playhouse. Rather than trying to hide the fact of live actors behind a proscenium and curtain, they've chosen to celebrate the medium and expose both the actors and the processes. It's choice that they've made, and it's one that I like. If you go to the Center Street Theater expecting Broadway size, style, and budgets you're going to be disappointed. If you go looking for a good, solid, working professional's theater I think you'll like what you see. The dressing/mingling area is smallish but is decorated in a very neat recreation of Nauvoo-era details. The sunstone motif that makes up the Nauvoo Theatrical Society logo is repeated here, along with faux marble, old books, ceramics, and ironwork. There are two small dressing rooms and a single green room, along with just enough space for an intimate mingle with about half the capacity of the house. It's clean and thoughtful, and reinforces the understated elegance of the lobby. Restrooms are grouped together along the right wall. The shop opens right off the back of the mingling area. It's...well...a shop, with tools and wood and wire and lights and partially built set pieces and piles of scraps and buckets of paint and lots of storage space. There's not much of a break between the public area and the shop, but instead of looking tacky or incomplete I thought it reinforced the idea of being directly and intimately involved with the play, its players, and its subject matters. As with pretty much everything else about the Center Street Theater, it was a choice; I liked that choice. I have to mention that the theater is not quite complete. They're still building parts of the rear public area and parts of the theater still needed a coat of paint or a couple of extra nails. For the next month or so I suspect you will still see some of the seams in the walls or bits of primer poking through the finish coat. But that's trivial stuff that will vanish as the city finally stops making inspections and requiring changes. Sure, I would have loved to see the theater completely finished before they opened. In this case, the promises made by the finished areas eases my concerns and suggests only that the one and true constant of the universe is that nothing goes quite as planned and that no schedule can survive the realities of city inspectors. The Experience ================ I had a very pleasant experience with both the play and the playhouse. As I've already said, the Center Street Theater makes some promises about its levels of professionalism; it promises to give you a good, solid, working pro's theater experience worthy of its ticket price. I believe that the theater succeeds in that promise. Not only does it deserve our support as patrons, it has earned that support with solid conceptual design and a powerful vision of Mormon theater as being worthy of serious consideration and respect. Before the first act was over I had already turned to my wife and asked her if we could scrape together enough cash to buy season tickets. The Promise ============= The Nauvoo Theatrical Society has set a fairly aggressive schedule with plays by AML Award winning playwrights Tim Slover, J. Scott Bronson, and Eric Samuelsen as well as Thom Duncan, Marvin Payne, and Carol Lynn Pearson. In its first season it will explore both serious and comedic subjects, will offer drama and musical comedy and maybe even some readers' theater. The Nauvoo Theatrical Society seems bent on proving to Mormons that the age of Mormon theater has arrived and has something for every kind of patron. I think they're right. And while it's a little early to declare the venture a success after seeing only one performance of one play, all the signs point to a worthy idea conceived well and executed with both pride and professionalism. The quality is there; now the question is whether Mormon theater-goers will find this tiny jewel nestled between an office supply store and a children's pizza paradise. And having found it, will we overcome our reserve and attend, because the only way to make good theater available that addresses our unique culture and heritage as Mormons is to reward the worthy contendors with our patronage. If people will attend plays mounted by the Nauvoo Theatrical Society at their new Center Street Theater (currently, their only theater), they will find a thing that is virtuous, lovely, and of good report and praiseworthy. Which is all anyone can ask. I look forward to seeing you all there. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:57:57 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Nauvoo Theatrical Society: _My Turn On Earth_ (Review) When I went to see _My Turn On Earth_ at the new Center Street Theater of the Nauvoo Theatrical Society, I went with more than a little bit of trepidation. I'm friends with Thom and Scott and Eric, three of the general partners in the venture. I helped in the demolition of the old tent warehouse to make room for the new theater. I helped in some last-minute finish work to meet the inspection requirements of the City of Orem. In other words I had an investment in the success of this thing. I wanted my friends to do well. I wanted to kick off the new age of Mormon theater with a bang. So why did they have to pick _My Turn On Earth_ as their first play? Why couldn't they have hit with a good literary piece like Margaret Young's _Dear Stone_ or Eric Samuelsen's _Gadianton,_ or at least a solid musical like _Trail of Dreams_ with its powerful message of Mormon communal unity? Why did they have to dig out the very icon of fluffy, big-haired, doctrinally dubious, 70s pop kitsch? Why, why, WHY? You could'a been a contender. You could have produced pretty much anything and done it well. But you chose...that! You know I won't give a good review to a bad play, no matter how much I like you guys as people. Why did you put me in this predicament by specifically inviting me to see the show? If I hadn't seen it I could have remained silent on the issue. But you had to invite me... Let me say, for the record, that I am more than happy to eat my hat and my preconceptions on both the play and the production. This is a good play, and it was well produced. I heartily recommend both the play and the playhouse as worthy additions to the ever-expanding world of Mormon culture. See it. See it now. Bring the family. It's worth it. The Play ========== This is the play that kicked off the fad, the one that actually broke out of a few small theaters in Utah County and made money across the country. It spawned copies and knockoffs. It generated both musical and merchandising empires. It made people feel good about being Mormon back in the days when Donny Osmond was a national hit, disco still seemed cool, and we were all trying desperately to find something good to believe in in the wake of Vietnam, Watergate, and the oil embargo. But that was then. We outgrew that. We know better now. It was a roadshow with a perky soundtrack, not real literature, not real theater. That was our childhood; now we're adults. We've grown beyond simple kitsch. Baloney (or "bologna" for the highbrow among us). This is a good show that's well written and well conceived. It tells a story that is intimately familiar to Mormon audiences in a fun, energetic way that still had the power to both touch me and to educate me. It provoked me to think about what I believe and what I hope for, as well as how I make choices. But most importantly, it entertained me. I understand that playwright J. Scott Bronson was given permission to do some light rewriting to update some of the 1970s pop references (though most of them are making a comeback in the broader American culture as we speak). I understand that director J. Scott Bronson chose to leave out a song and combine two scenes into one. And maybe that was the difference. Maybe that light but skilled touch turned this play from a work of humiliatingly trite Mormon kitsch into a fun reminder of some of the joy we must have felt when given the chance to come to earth and gain a body and experiences--and the joy that we can yet feel in being judged worthy of re-entry to God's presence. But I don't think so. Or at least I don't think that fully explains it. A good book and magazine editor once suggested to me that he would buy any story that succeeded on its own terms, whether he personally liked it or not. What mattered was that the story was complete and honest to its own soul; after that it was just a matter of figuring out which audience would respond to it and marketing it correctly. _My Turn On Earth_ succeeds on its own terms. It promises to tell a story that most audience members already know, but it also promises to offer a few surprises that put familiar ideas in odd contexts, that force one to think again and make sure they know what they believe. It leads to a happy and arguably sentimental conclusion, but it never once promised that it would do otherwise. Yes, it's a simple story. That's exactly what it promised to be, and I can only applaud a play that succeeds on its own terms. This is not a literary heavyweight. Then again, it never claimed to be. This is a straight, simple, fun retelling of the most important story Mormons know. I'm sorry that I've let other peoples' opinions sour me on wanting to see it before now, because I had a great time and found the story to be both entertaining and uplifting. The Production ================ As I mentioned above, the Nauvoo Theatrical Society production apparently took a few small liberties with some of the pop references and updated them into modern idiom. But that's what a good theater company does--they adapt the play in subtle ways to the current audience. The actors did a nice job and had generally strong, pleasant voices. But when they sang together, their blend was excellent. No microphones were used which made a few of the lyrics a little hard to hear, but it also kept the audience from being blasted out when the players sang together. Sets were quite minimal--a couple of platforms set up against the wall. Most of the action took place in the open floor space in front of the tiny stage. The small dimensions of the theater made this a perfect presentation. Five actors were able to fill the space as they sang and danced without either being dwarfed by empty space or overattenuated by too small a space. Choreography was good, and the actors regularly interacted with the audience, effectively making them a part of the play and increasing the intimacy of the story. While there were no set pieces, the Nauvoo Theatrical Society had a novel and effective means of creating a complex theater space for both the actors and the audience. The walls of the black box had been painted with chalkboard paint and the actors actually used colored chalk to drew pictures, words, and furniture on the walls as needed during the play. In some cases the words or pictures were comments on the play itself, offering a sort of dual-action presentation with both a foreground set of events and an explicit inline interpretation of some of those events. Each actor carried a handkerchief that served both as a chalkboard eraser and as prop. Because most of the images drawn on the walls persisted from scene to scene and from act to act, the end effect was of a complete story offered all at once--a sort of dramatization of our own memory over time. When the play was over, people were encouraged to add their own words or images to the walls of the black box. This kind of innovative, interactive staging made this play an absolute joy to watch--and participate in. The acting was campy but that's what the script called for, and when they chose to be serious they did just as well. This show was well written, well acted, well choreographed, and well directed. I enjoyed it despite my strong inclination not to, and I think you'll enjoy it too. The Conclusion ================ If you've seen this play before, try seeing it again. The pacing is excellent and the Nauvoo Theatrical Society production is quite well done in a directly interactive, innovatively minimalist sort of way. If you haven't seen it before (as I hadn't) make sure you see this production. The play is much, much better than you may have heard. Or at least this production of it is. Do yourself a favor and see it. The show runs September 27-October 26. Performances are Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are $10 ($8 with student ID). The Center Street Theater is located at 50 West Center Street, Orem, Utah. For more information call the Nauvoo Theatrical Society at (801) 225-3800. [Scott Parkin] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:15:41 -0500 From: "Eric Russell" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad Amelia Parkin wrote: > dislike: > BYU, in almost every one of its aspects. and I studied there so I am not speaking > without foundation. It is unrigorous. It coddles its students both intellectually and > spiritually. Especially spiritually. There is a spirit of fear there, fear that somehow > someone who is teaching something that may be perceived as contrary to the gospel > will cost a student his or her testimony. For that reason it is difficult to teach theories > such as feminism or marxism or psychoanalytic theory in a humanities type class-- > because teaching it in a realm where it could be mistaken for a moral or ethical > statement might shake a student up too much. This is ludicrous! I am currently a senior English major at BYU and while I cannot speak for all of BYU, nor for how BYU used to be, I can say that this is stretching it when it comes to the BYU English Dept. I have recently taken classes where feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis and post-structuralism were all taught in detail and often in ways that could be perceived as contrary to church ideas. I have also taken classes in gothic literature where sexuality was the standard for daily discussion and classes where BYU policy and Mormon culture were criticized on a regular basis. Never once in any of these cases did any of the students have a problem with what was being discussed. But there are a few who come from an ultra conservative bubble, the type who almost seem to enjoy being offended, and unfortunately these are often the ones who speak up the most. There aren’t that many of these at BYU, but of course there are many more than are found outside it. I think it’s this minority that gives a name for the character of BYU as a whole. And it’s these few people that necessitate BYU catering to the lowest common denominator. This idea extends to many of the comments made about Mormon culture so far. Many of the comments apply to less than 5% of the Mormon population, or even the Utah population; but that as many as 5% adhere to actions or attitudes so peculiar, it makes it seem like “everyone” is like that. For example, we can laugh at “The Single’s Ward” because for every peculiarity that is poked fun at, we can say we know someone who does that or is like that. But that is also the point. It is usually just some one. The fact that there is one in almost every single’s ward makes it seem like a cultural attribute. But the reality remains that it’s usually just one or two out of a hundred. This can become dangerous in literature of a more serious nature, when a character is characterized by an attribute or attitude that really pertains to a slim minority of his or her culture. I can see all of the pros and cons of Mormon culture mentioned on the list so far being used effectively in Mormon fiction. But I think it’s important that these idiosyncrasies aren’t represented as characteristic of the group as a whole. Eric Russell - ---------- Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <<'http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENUS/c144??PS>Click Here - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:12:18 -0700 From: John Dewey Remy Subject: RE: [AML] Feeding Your Inner Gnostic John Dewey Remy wrote: "Then he might sit back and think about how that nice, sensible Mormon accountant who does his taxes believes in a god who lives on a planet called Kolob" To which D. Michael Martindale responded: "We don't believe that. The PofGP says that Kolob is "nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God," not that God actually lives on it." Thank you--I stand corrected. At the same time, perhaps the "We" in "We don't believe that" needs to be qualified. It may not be correct doctrine as interpreted by some, but this doesn't change the fact that many run of the mill Mormons do believe this (including at least one institute director and perhaps a number of his students :^). John Remy UC Irvine - -----Original Message----- From: D. Michael Martindale [SMTP:dmichael@wwno.com] Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 1:12 AM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Feeding Your Inner Gnostic John Dewey Remy wrote: > > Then he might sit back and think about how > that nice, sensible Mormon accountant who does his taxes believes in a god > who lives on a planet called Kolob We don't believe that. The PofGP says that Kolob is "nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God," not that God actually lives on it. - -- 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 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:33:50 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad [MOD: This is a logical outgrowth of the conversation so far, but at this point I think we're talking about Mormon doctrine pretty purely, and have moved pretty far away from Mormon letters. Unless someone has a literary tie-in, I'd prefer to let this part of the thread pretty much die here.] > From: "D. Michael Martindale" > Interesting how Robert's list parallels mine. I have one comment on what > he wrote: > > Robert Slaven wrote: > > * Believing that any church authority (certainly our general authorities, > > often our area authorities, and sometimes right down to bishop/EQ pres./RS > > pres. level) is completely infallible in every way, not just in the sphere of > > their calling. > > I don't believe they're infallible even within the sphere of their > calling. Is there some doctrine that requires I should? Or is that more > culture? > Well, for many Mormons, it's a very short leap from 'whether by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same' to 'we should treat everything every GA says as if Jesus himself said it.' This can vary from 'if they said it in General Conference, it's gospel' through 'if they said it in the Ensign or in any Deseret/Bookcraft book, it's gospel' through to 'if they ever were rumoured to say it to my great aunt Fanny, it's gospel.' And, since we as a church are about the least shy Christian denomination when it comes to destroying any wall between spiritual and temporal things, it's yet another very short hop to 'anything any GA says about ANY topic is gospel.' This mindset, of course, is more ovine than divine. I see it as a major problem with missionary work sometimes. New members should be taught to believe that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true scripture cheek-by-jowl with the Bible, and that the Church is the vehicle of the restored gospel in these latter days. Period. Instead, they can get burdened by a lot of other junk -- much of it not even particularly doctrinal -- by well-meaning members. I saw a lot of it as a new member in Victoria BC back in the early 80's. I think the growing diversity of church members has led to a bit of an easing-off in that area, but if you told me the problem persisted in the AZ-UT-ID-southernAB corridor, say, I wouldn't be a lick surprised. Anyhow, Michael, my point is that I agree with you. I don't often see eye to eye with how (not so much 'what'), say, President Packer and Elder Scott say things. (They speak truth, but I sometimes wonder how many flies their occasional vinegar scares away.) And I certainly don't think they're infallible, whether on the podium or quoted by whoever. Worthy examples, with authority to teach and preach and exhort, and a healthy dose of the Spirit to help them get it right, yes; but unerring spiritual robots, no. 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) - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 2002/09/16 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #846 ******************************