From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #891 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, November 12 2002 Volume 01 : Number 891 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:29:14 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Y'All Need to Get Out More Well, Linda, all I can say is that maybe there are two parallel Utahs? Because the state you describe isn't at all like the state where I (mostly) grew up. With very few exceptions, I've found that Utah Mormons are more tolerant, more generous, more cultured, and generally more knowledgeable about the world in general than are Mormons outside of Utah (and, yes, I have lived outside of Utah--fairly extensively). The non-Utah Mormons that I've met are generally much more uptight about the "rules" and doing things "just right" than the Utah Mos are. I guess that's why Utah has so many baptisms--the Mormons here are nicer. Just my experience. I generally roll my eyes and laugh when I hear Utah Mormons stereotyped so negatively, because I have to assume that the speaker has never been here. But you have. So my answer is a shrug and a bemused "huh." Amy Chamberlain - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:46:30 -0700 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Kofford Books (New Publisher) >>> fcp@email.byu.edu 11/08/02 08:59AM >>> > >I am tremendously disappointed at how long it has taken Kofford Books to = get >Boyd Peterson's excellent biography of Hugh Nibley out the door. What has = it >been--five years now since I received your announcement that it would be = out >soon? And I still can't get a straight answer from Boyd about when it = will be on >the shelves. As there is an advance reading copy for sale on the Deseret Book auction = site even as we type, I'd guess that the wait will not be long. http://deseretbook.com/auctions/show-auction?auction_id=3D135312 MBA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:09:55 -0800 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Film And Its Critics Article "Am I the only one that thinks that Sentimentality is the enemy of Pointed Honesty, not it's result?" asks Russell Asplund. We find ourselves in that gray area where language, meanings and nuances of words begin to color the understanding of our ideas and what we are trying to communicate. As I read through the posts about LDS film (and which can be extrapolated to the written word as well) I found myself becoming confused as to the meaning of "sentimentality" and "sentimental" as being used by list members. So I did the dictionary thing: sen=B7ti=B7men=B7tal 1 a : marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism b : resulting from feeling rather than reason or thought 2 : having an excess of sentiment or sensibility sen=B7ti=B7men=B7tal=B7i=B7ty the quality or state of being sentimental especially to excess or in affectation I don't know about the rest of you, but this feelings vs. reason/thought (see 1b)is one of the top issues my husband and I discuss in our marriage. It's very shaky ground when one person begins proclaiming how another "ought" to feel, or the type of response they "should" have to given stimuli. Fact: feelings exist. They are different for everyone. Move it to a discussion of literature and film--does that mean a work that emphasizes "feelings" over action/plot is less than? People who are more rational and less emotional in their approach to the world certainly aren't going to be moved by it...more likely annoyed. But (as my husband will tell you I've said many times) that doesn't make people who approach the world through feelings wrong. Why does it devolve into a right/wrong, correct/incorrect, more artistic/less artistic argument? Why can't both sides just be, enriching the world through their differences? If you don't feel comfortable in one arena you'll be less likely to hang out in it, but why point fingers at those who like it there? Why the condescending tone towards them? It almost "feels" like the age old and very tired argument about male/female roles and reactions (refer again to 1b under "sentimental" above). The thing each should ask him/herself is if the work in question has moved into the realm of "affectation". That would be the opposite of honest. Where that line is will be markedly different for different folks. Most of us will have the social grace not to belittle or try to fix those who see the line in a different place than we do. Except maybe the critics...who have the amazing job description of trying to convince others that their point of view is the "correct" one, who get paid to draw their line in full public view, and who get to suffer the slings and arrows of everyone who disagrees with them. More power to them I say too--they are brave souls. And they definitely get the rest of us thinking and talking about it. As a woman I can say I "feel" talking is a good thing. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:34:29 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Y'All Need to Get Out More - ---Original Message From: Linda Adams > >Speaking as someone who has lived in the "mission field" (though I > >haven't > >heard it called that since I was a kid) for your proscribed > five years and > >more, I have been trapped in Utah the last three and a half > years and I > >can tell you that you don't have the whole picture. > > No, I'm sure I don't; but observe your own words, "trapped in > Utah" and > remember please that my comments were not actually directed > to you: my post > was geared toward native Utahns, as should have been clear. I > was talking > to people who have never left the state. You are not a native > Utahn. And by > your own admission, you feel trapped. So would I. You are not > pleased with > many of the aspects of living in Utah. I agree. I don't feel trapped because of the people here. I *like* the people here and that is my point. I hate the climate. I hate deserts. I want to go back to Washington state because I like rain and green things. > I was in Utah only three days last weekend, and heard my home > called the > "mission field" at least once. Members of my ward from Utah > _still_ call > Missouri the "mission field," after living here over seven years. I'm > *surprised* you haven't come across it at all yet. (I was > also offered > green jello for breakfast. I politely declined, and about > died laughing.) Haven't seen green jello yet, going on 42 months (orange and red, maybe some yellow). Haven't heard "mission field" in that long, either--not as an identifier to take seriously at any rate. > On a personal note, so you may know that I *am* more aware of > how it is > there than I came across, I have watched my immediate family, > ALL of them, > leave Church activity as a direct result of living IN UTAH. > True, I only > spent the obligatory four BYU years living there, but my > family lived there > longer. I know how it was for them. I observed many > heart-wrenching things > happen to my family as a result of interacting with Utah > Mormons, beginning > with unpleasant reactions of Utah ward members to my sister > (moving home > after her first divorce: the dreaded Single Mother), and > increasing when my > mother attempted going to a new ward alone, the wife of a > > _less-active_ man. The stigma! No, I can honestly report, you > won't find > those shameful attitudes *nearly* so prevalent outside Utah. > > My family left Utah after enduring all they could take. Right. How long ago? Things have changed drastically here even in the last two years. We have had, and continue to have, a flood of new immigration (some from other states, but others from Mexico, South America, California and the Pacific Islands). And Utah's shell of provincialism has suffered possibly fatal set-backs. The stigma your mother felt is gone--at least from my ward. > >We are not the clear majority we used to be and that has cracked our > >provincialism to an extent yet to be recognized in our > literature or art. > > Isn't that part of what I was trying to say? That such things are NOT > recognized in our literature or art, and ought to be? I don't think that's what you were saying. You were saying that we need to get out of Utah to overcome faults I'm not sure we have. > You weren't there to hear them, though. One person > mentioned, "We're so geographically isolated." I had to > scratch my head. Sometimes, those in the vanguard are the last to recognize changes back in the ranks... > I don't have that > unique-to-Utah perspective of Us vs. The World Outside. And I don't find that perspective here. No more than any other area emerging from a provincial past. > >Second, those who are *not* LDS are often actively hostile > to Mormons > >to > >an extent I did not find outside Utah. > > Yes, and have you stopped to think about WHY that is? As a matter of fact, yes. I think about it a lot. Two things I've noticed. First, I found fliers from Christian fundamentalist denominations actively recruiting their members to move here to "Christianize" us. This shouldn't be a big surprise because it is only natural that those motivated by a hatred of something will turn their efforts to the largest concentration of it they can find. You see the same thing in Israel as well. This action has been apparent throughout the history of the church and contributes to feelings of persecution. Fortunately, with increasing immigration, hostile immigration is thinning and the hostility is increasingly apparent for the nuttiness it is. And where the church has public visibility, their opponents want and receive it as well. Second, Joseph Smith pointed out that the presence of the gospel has a polarizing tendency. Those following the gospel will tend to be elevated, but those sinning will tend to harden themselves as well. You see that with fallen Nephites (who were always more wicked than their Lamanite brethren). Utah has enough of a population of bitter excommunicants to make their voices heard in ways not possible in other places. And I'll point out that this is going to be a dynamic present *anywhere* you find concentrations of Mormons. It has nothing to do with members getting out more. It flows from fundamental aspects of human nature. > > I've been threatened with physical violence for being "one of those > > arrogant Mormons" during a traffic dispute that would have > ended with a > > simple finger wave anywhere else. > > Exactly. "Arrogant Mormons." That is the reputation. Mormons > who ward off > their children from playing at non-members' houses. Mormons > who keep to > their own kind, and if you are not interested in becoming > one, will treat > you as a sub-citizen. And that *doesn't* *happen*. Not in my ward, or in my area. The Mormons are open and inviting and not in the stereotypical way commonly depicted as mercenary and shallow. > > Regular business relations are heavily complicated by my Mormonism > >here in ways that would have no meaning outside Utah.. > [snip]. . . It's > >tense and it's inevitable and there is no cure for it as long as > >Mormons are a substantial part of the population here. > > I know that. That's what I was fussing about. "Getting out > more" might help > solve these problems. Help the natives relax a bit. It's a > good thing to > get a feel for how it is in other places. It has nothing to do with getting out more. It has to do with the raw concentration, not the attributes of the population. As long as this is a terrestrial world, this strain is going to exist wherever you have large concentrations of LDS people. It isn't curable because the cause isn't the provincialism you decry. You can't make the Mormons so perfect that non-Mormons will not view them with any skepticism. You can't make the non-Mormons so easy-going that they won't be a little self-conscious doing things they know Mormons don't do. > The way I see it, if we're to be the salt of the earth, and > all that salt > is squashed into one place, that's not Salt Lake, that's a > Salt Lick. And > salt licks are not a form of salt that is easily ingested by > most human > beings. Salt is not meant to be that concentrated. It's just > not a good > thing. So get out and scatter that salt. Pretty, but not terribly relevant. You could as easily draw on the preservative attributes of salt and pack ourselves around the meat of the gospel to keep it fresh for the hard times ahead. The point of the "saltiness" metaphor is that we don't weaken and find ourselves cast out. > >Finally, I'd love to get out more, but I'd rather have a date with > >Melissa (who is sadly neglected, frankly) than try to find > common cause > >with the hunter across the street. > > But my comments > were not personally directed at *you.* And I meant, get out > of Utah more. > Which you probably wouldn't mind too much either--if it were a viable > option, wouldn't you prefer going back to the Northwest? Sure. But you'd have a hard time paying me enough to move to New Mexico, Texas, or Arizona. My dislike of Utah isn't population-based... > . . . I was simply trying to present the POV of an outsider of some > prevalent attitudes I noticed while I was at the conference. > And to me, a > simple solution is that if you leave the state, it's easier to gain a > better perspective on how it is in the rest of the world. And my point is that you don't have to leave the state to gain perspective. Too many of us are bogged down in judgments passed decades ago that are no longer descriptive of our environment. Too many of our artists are painting with their eyes shut. Getting out more isn't going to help if you keep the blinders up. > All I'm saying is I seemed to encounter some odd assumptions > during the > workshop sessions of the conference, that didn't fit with my > experience as > one who has lived most of my life outside the Book of Mormon > Belt. And if > the LDS publishing and artistic industry is operating on > those assumptions, > they are missing a whole lot of the rest of the story. Most of us would agree that the publishing and artistic industries are missing a whole lot of the rest of the story. I just attribute the cause differently than you have. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:40:07 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] re: Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call I'm sorry that my comment was innacurate, I looked up the name "Gary Rogers" on idmb.com, the best place to look up the history of film and tv casts and crews. I came up with a Gary Rogers that had worked on some TV shows, so I thought that was the one, sorry. It appears the BOM Movie Gary Rogers has no known dramatic film history. I saw a message from an actor on a Utah actors' list (www.playersanonymous.com) that the BOM Movie web site casting call page changed around the time the call occured, it no longer says anything about "appearance", rather: "All actors must be in excellent physical condition, with EXCEPTIONAL acting talent and ability." The actors on that list were all pretty positive about the experience. Some excerpts: "Met the producer, who is also the producer of Charly, by the name of Lance Williams. He auditioned us, and was very nice without being gushy. He made no attempt to weed out the unattractive. He simply expected us to fill out the information sheets, and give a monologue." "I thought Mr. Williams was very patient with the less-than-professional." "I couldn't believe how aweful some of the people were. I thought people would be more prepared then they were. I also noticed that they didn't attept to "weed out the unattractive." Overall, the producer, casting director, director and all the other prodution staff was super nice." Of course, niceness is no assurance of anything in the future. Anyway, sorry (just for myself) to Gary Rogers, we tend to be more gossipy here then we should sometimes. I hope you stay on the list and give us updates occasionally on how the movie is going. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan Gary Rogers wrote: For example; On November 1st, Andrew Hall stated: "the Book of Mormon Movie will be directed by Gary Rogers who mostly has done advertisements and has been an assistant director on a few TV shows." Where in the world is Andrew getting his information? I have never been an assistant director on a TV show in my life? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:05:30 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call Gary Rogers wrote: > As I said, I had to laugh at most of the comments. and > Mr. Samuelsen has made false charges, misrepresentations, defamatory and > slanderous statements that I do not take lightly. and > People are certainly welcome to their opinion, but to print false and > slanderous comments is a disgrace. I've stared at Mr. Rogers' post for over an hour now and I admit that I'm stumped as to how to respond. I guess all I can say is that I'm disappointed. This could have been a fascinating discussion about how films are made and why certain kind of decisions are made during casting, production, and post-production. It could have been an opportunity for an education on LDS film in general and this film in particular that clarified some (quite common) misconceptions for an audience that's quite active in creating and popularizing LDS art. But it won't be. Which I find sad, because we've chosen to limit our own discourse in a particularly ugly way. I had no opinions about Mr. Rogers or his film prior to reading his post. But I have very distinct opinions now--opinions that I take no joy in. Opinions that make me very, very tired and a little ashamed. I hope Mr. Rogers makes an excellent film that shames his critics. Please let me know, because I have lost all desire to find out for myself. Which is the saddest thing of all because it was so unnecessary. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:10:16 -0800 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Y'All Need to Get Out More Linda, I've read your comments on the "get out more" thread with great interest. I'm wondering if there is an age thing connected with the kind of unkind behavior you described (not allowing kids to socialize with no-Mo's, etc.). I've been a native Utah Mormon for 44 years now. I was thinking the other day that my ward is more diverse than the ward of my youth and that it's been 12 years or so since I heard of a person in my immediate neighborhood feeling ostracized in such ways. Maybe it's something to do with money/class as well. I live in a 20 year old suburb area in the "west" side of my town. People are comfortable here, but not rolling in it. My experience has taught me that people in my mother's age group (60's plus) tend to be more narrow minded (i.e.: they don't get Robert Kirby's humor and consider it sacrilegious much of the time, they still hold canning in high regard not so much as a life-sustaining activity but as a "correct" thing to do, etc., etc.) Anyone want to do a study on age and attitudes in the church? Having read Virginia Sorensen's and other's of the "lost generation"'s work, I wonder if the further we move in time from our pioneer roots, the less strident and divisive the majority of (even Utah) Mormons are. Maybe it's the "time heals all wounds" maxim coming true. Those who had close family connections and recall about the bigotry, hatred and persecution early Mormons endured had a greater desire to be isolationist. I'm five generations out from my pioneer ancestors. I feel amazement and gratitude when I learn of their lives and what they went through, but it doesn't translate into a distrust of non-LDS people or their motives in life. Here's an interesting twist on it all--in my Utah neighborhood, the people of other faiths or non-faiths became greatly offended three years ago (is it necessary to say at the instigation of one sour apple?) when the bishop thought it would be a good idea to socialize more, and organized block parties. These were to be held at various homes throughout the neighborhood with 10 to 15 families being invited to each party. It went through the NON neighbors like wildfire that this innocuous activity was being organized by the "Mormon's" which meant, of course, that it was a thinly veiled attempt to trap them all and get 'em baptized (no kidding, this one sour apple claimed he read in USA Today that The Prophet proclaimed a church wide "Get to Know Your Neighbor Day" or something...of course anything THE PROPHET says is immediately suspect). Not one of the Non families attended any of the parties. The whole thing was a dismal failure. The following Sunday they had a hootin' and hollerin' loud kegger in the backyard of my backdoor neighbor. I found it exceedingly funny and spent the afternoon hanging out in my backyard reading, so I could be on hand to throw their badminton birdies back over the fence. The first one came my way as I walked in my garden. It soon became obvious I was fulfilling a real need for them. The drunker they got, the more often the birdies came flying my way. They continue the tradition of loud parties on Sunday afternoons every month throughout the summer. It's in the 3rd year now. The Bishop tried the block party thing again this year, even saying on the flyer "this has nothing to do with church. BYOB if you want". We were asked to host, but we declined saying it was an obvious sore sport with the neighbors, and we didn't want to exacerbate the problem (that caused some raised eyebrows at Ward Correlation). Even being "allowed" to bring booze, the No-Mo's opted not to participate. They have never invited anyone they remotely considered Mormon to their shin-dig, although a good 50% of them are baptized members who choose not to participate in church activity right now. Here's the best part. One of my NON neighbors, who happens to be our family hairdresser, mentioned how hard it was to gather up enough tables and chairs for their party. I offered mine. I bought a bunch from the ward when they remodeled several years ago. Not many people have 40 folding chairs and 5 eight foot banquet tables in their garage (Did I mention my husband comes from a family of nine kids, so Thanksgiving is a BIG do?). So, now The No-Mo Sunday Afternoon Kegger finds my neighbors enjoying their brewskis with their butts in seats that say "property of Deuel Creek Ward" on the bottom. And me throwing birdies over the fence. How's that for delicious? Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 05:25:17 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call >From: Gary Rogers >On October 31st, Thom Duncan stated: "this project is horribly >underfunded and will probably stink to high heaven if it ever >gets done in the first place." Where is Thom getting his >information? No details of the budget have been released, >other than the movie will be a multi-million dollar production! Unless you mean, by using the term "multi-million" a figure in the neighborhood of fifty million and above, I stand by my original assessment. There is no way you or anyone can make a movie about any story in the BofM in the way it should be made without a budget like the one I'm proposing. It's like trying to make Saving Private Ryan on a home video system. >I know that >EVERYONE wants nothing more than to see a beautiful motion >picture on the Book of Mormon. I don't know about anybody but I want a good Book of Mormon movie done. Now my definition of good may be different from someone else, but I would not consider a film about the Book of Mormon using non-SAG actors aimed at a limited LDS audience as a good film, no matter how technically profiencient it may. To me, the thing would require at the very least, an A-list director and at least one A-list actor in a prominent role. But that's just me. I realize we have to start somewhere in bringing the story of the BofM to film and that the first one out of the chute may not be the film it needs to be. I know it took many versions of the life of Christ on film to finally get it right with Zefferrelli's Jesus of Nazareth. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 04:18:52 -0700 From: "Andrew W. Gallup" Subject: Re: [AML] Kofford Books (New Publisher) In response, I guess this is a fair complaint. It has taken longer for us to have this title ready to go than we expected. The five-year estimate might be a little long, but it has been a while. The wait is almost over. We have advance reading copies going out to reviewers this week and the book goes to press this week as well. We are expecting an early to mid-December release date. I apologize for the delay. After having read almost half of the book I am excited to complete it and I hope our readers enjoy it as well. I will post a firm release date and information about book signings as soon as we have this information nailed down. Thank you, Andrew Gallup Greg Kofford Books Inc. (801) 523-6063 Office (801) 671-7470 Cellular (801) 576-0583 Fax P.O. Box 1362 Draper, UT 84020 agallup@koffordbooks.com www.koffordbooks.com Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:59:15 -0700 (MST) From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Kofford Books (New Publisher) I am tremendously disappointed at how long it has taken Kofford Books to get Boyd Peterson's excellent biography of Hugh Nibley out the door. What has it been--five years now since I received your announcement that it would be out soon? And I still can't get a straight answer from Boyd about when it will be on the shelves. Fred Pinnegar - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C28A02.9BC2D580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In response, I guess this is a fair = complaint.  It has taken longer for us to = have this title ready to go than we expected.  The five-year estimate might be a little long, but it has been a while.  The wait is almost = over.  We have advance reading copies = going out to reviewers this week and the book goes to press this week as = well.  We are expecting an early to = mid-December release date.  I apologize = for the delay.  After having read = almost half of the book I am excited to complete it and I hope our readers = enjoy it as well.  I will post a firm = release date and information about book signings as soon as we have this = information nailed down.

 

Thank you,

 

Andrew Gallup<= /p>

Greg Kofford Books = Inc.<= /p>

(801) 523-6063 = Office<= /p>

(801) 671-7470 = Cellular<= /p>

(801) 576-0583 = Fax<= /p>

P.O. Box 1362 <= /p>

Draper, UT = 84020<= /p>

agallup@koffordbooks.com<= /p>

www.koffordbooks.com= <= /p>

  =

 

 

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:59:15 -0700 = (MST)

From: Fred C Pinnegar = <fcp@email.byu.edu>

Subject: Re: [AML] Kofford Books (New = Publisher)

 

I am tremendously disappointed at how long it = has taken Kofford Books to get

Boyd Peterson's excellent biography of Hugh = Nibley out the door. What has it

been--five years now since I received your announcement that it would be out

soon? And I still can't get a straight answer = from Boyd about when it will be on

the shelves.

 

Fred Pinnegar

 

 

 

<= /p>

 <= /p>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C28A02.9BC2D580-- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #891 ******************************