From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #952 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, January 24 2003 Volume 01 : Number 952 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:16:29 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Newell BRINGHURST, _Reconsidering "No Man Knows My History"_ (Review) Review ====== Title: Reconsidering "No Man Knows My History" Author: Newell G. Bringhurst, ed. Publisher: Utah State University Press Year Published: 1996 Number of Pages: 241 Binding: Hardback and quality paperback ISBN: 0-87421-214-6 (paper) 0-87421-205-7 (cloth) Price: $19.95 paper, hardback price not known Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle One need only read the title to know what this book is about. When Brodie's monumental "No Man Knows My History" was released in the 1940's, it quickly became a polarizing element in the Mormon community -- by reinterpreting the life and work of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by removing him from the realm of the supernatural and accounting for his life and achievements in a purely naturalistic way. Termed a "psychobiography," Brodie's book was quickly dismissed and even initially ignored, by the Church. But, as we shall see, the level of interest in the book finally caused the Church to respond. The question became, "What do we do with Fawn Brodie?" Daughter of a General Authority, niece of a future Prophet, how is she to be dealt with? The clash of "Family First" versus "Church First" was settled with Brodie's eventual excommunication from the Church. Whether friend or foe of Brodie's book, there is no doubt that it has played a pivotal role in subsequent treatments of the Prophet's life. Much like Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History" has been spoken of for good and for ill, and remains a landmark in Mormon studies. The present volume is a collection of contributed articles, some of which have appeared previously in other publications. There is, therefore, a measure of duplication that is, I fear, unavoidable. The reader should not find this distracting. I will discuss the various contributions, and then sum up my feelings at the end. Contents ======== Chapter One of "Reconsidering 'No Man Knows My History'" is offered by the editor, Newell G. Bringhurst, and is titled "A Biography of the Biography - The Research and Writing of 'No Man Knows My History.'" Any person who has ever tried to write a book knows the immense effort and dedication required to finish the task. Bringhurst takes us through the struggles Brodie faced, including opposition from some in her family, the care of a new child, and limited access to source documents. One of the important ideas discussed in this chapter is the observation that the writing of "No Man Knows My History" was a labor filled with uncertainty and a certain lack of clear direction. As she wrote, Brodie developed her understanding of Joseph Smith and the nature of his calling. In fact, she didn't set out to write a biography at all, but rather a history of the Mormon Church. She ultimately changed course as she realized that it was Smith she was really writing about, and the book took a new form, that of a biography. Chapter Two, "Applause, Attack, and Ambivalence - Varied Responses to 'No Man Knows My History'", is likewise penned by Bringhurst, and it documents the various reactions to Brodie's book. Ranging from enthusiasm to censure, everyone seemed to have an opinion. Most interesting to me was the reaction of the Church itself. Initially silent on the issue, they were ultimately forced to go public with a condemnation of the work. I have wondered, from time to time, why the Church today chooses to let certain challenges go by. So much anti-Mormon literature has been published in the past several decades, and aside from organizations like FARMS and FAIR, you hear nary a peep in response. I suppose they believe that some things are better left alone. Brodie's admirers were unsparing in their words of commendation. Her foes, likewise, laid into her with a ferocity that surprised me. A cousin, Ernest McKay of Huntsville, was not content to sit back and let providence take its course relative to Brodie's alleged transgressions. He spoke out against the book as a guest lecturer at various Mormon wards in the Ogden-Huntsville area. Seeing him in action, one observer noted that McKay "knew how to choose the parts [of Brodie's book] he wanted to bring out and then tear them to pieces, and convince his audience that [Fawn Brodie] was a very naughty girl." McKay, on at least one occasion, made the rather curious statement, "One thing is certain from her book, Mrs. Jew is not convinced of the things she has written. It is plain that she has not left her CHURCH." [The reference to Mrs. Jew reflects Brodie's marriage to a Jewish man.] A third relative, Dr. Joseph Morrell of Ogden, an uncle through marriage, projected his hostile feelings toward Brodie and her book in a somewhat different fashion - through Madelyn R. McQuown, a librarian in the Ogden Public Library, whom Brodie had known from her youth. Noted McQuown, "I have a little message for Fawn from the Church via Dr. Morrell - that she had better stay the hell out of Utah from now on." According to McQuown, "He was careful to give me the message while he drank cocoa and ate peppermint ice cream with me." She concluded, "What do they think they could do to her? Call out the Danites?" (p. 45) Bringhurst does a superb job of bringing together the best, and the worst, of the comments that greeted the publication of Fawn Brodie's book. The tone changes with the next chapter. Marvin S. Hill contributes, "Secular or Sectarian History? - A Critique of 'No Man Knows My History.'" This third chapter of the present compilation views Brodie's book as dismissive of supernaturalism, relegating Smith's experience to the secular, and sectarian, worlds, and thus worthy of condemnation: To be sure, Brodie did perceive the church initiated by Smith as "a real religious creation, one intended to be to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism: that is a reform and a consummation," and she did compare the prophet perceptively to other radical religious leaders. But her book is not entirely adequate as a religious history because she did not consider Smith to be religiously motivated. Further, she made no attempt to trace the religious forces which brought the followers of Smith together in a movement but sought to account for Mormonism on the basis of his charisma alone. (p. 63) Hill finds much to fault with Brodie's work. From her research methods, to her conclusions, to her pre-set agenda (that of denying the prophetic role of Joseph Smith), he finds it inevitable that she should produce a deeply flawed work. Hill attempts to pick Brodie's book clean of any flesh. He raises questions aimed at discrediting both Brodie's methodology and her conclusions. It remains for the reader to decide how credible he is. Chapter Four was, for me, an interesting and thought- provoking exposition. Titled "Fawn McKay Brodie - At the Intersection of Secularism and Personal Alienation," and authored by Mario S. De Pillis, it explores the minimal role religion played in the intellectual tradition of the America of Brodie's day. He suggests that Brodie's approach cannot be understood merely as an alienated religionist striking back at the institution of her youth. Instead, the attempt to provide naturalistic explanations for religious phenomena was part of a larger academic milieu of which she was a part. I argue that Fawn McKay Brodie's immediate environment was a rich and ambiguity-fraught intersection of modern secularism with Brodie's own personal alienation from the religious tradition that formed her. (p. 94) ...an important key to understanding "No Man Knows My History" lay in the Chicago environment which, in many ways, was the distilled essence of triumphant academic secularism in the United States during the 1940's and 1950's. (p. 96) This environment, according to De Pillis, emerged as the sciences, and the influence of Freudian thought, subsumed the role of religion and faith in American life. As such, one would expect a fresh view of an intensely religious character to reflect this trend. Brodie's book, then, should have been no surprise to the Church. Interestingly, De Pillis points to a somewhat parallel situation in yet another church of 19th-century American origin, the Seventh-day Adventists. Like Mormonism, Adventism has a founding prophet, Ellen G. White. Her writings continue to influence Adventism and carry great authority among orthodox Adventists. But unlike Mormonism, Adventism makes no claim of continuing prophetic authority. With the death of White came the end of the prophetic line. Ronald Numbers, an Adventist academic, released an important work which, like Brodie's book, reinterpreted the founding prophet's life and influence. Numbers attributed the various phenomena in White's life to naturalistic causes, in essence demythologizing the White heritage. What De Pillis fails to do is to explore the impact Numbers' book had on the wider Adventist community, and how Adventism today deals with its "heretics." I think this bears a brief examination. An organization called "The Adventist Forum" functions much as "Sunstone" does within the Mormon community. Speakers are often at odds with the hierarchy, and present explanations of Ellen White's role as "prophetess" in ways not friendly to the official telling. But unlike Mormonism, Adventism has not found it necessary to isolate the Forum, or its members or speakers. In fact, men and women holding positions much like those in Stake Presidencies and even higher offices, are frequently speakers at the Adventist Forum. Meetings are often held in church-owned facilities. Membership and attendance are not discouraged. Employees and academics at Adventist institutions are not stigmatized by membership. Mormonism, on the other had, has felt the need to isolate organizations like "Sunstone," bar employees from attending symposia, and, in some cases, excommunicate those who speak out against the organization. The interesting lesson -- Adventism maintains a growth rate comparable to Mormonism. And the permission of freedom of expression has served to retain members who otherwise would not be able to continue in fellowship. I look for the day when Mormonism, like Adventism, will embrace diversity, facing it head-on, and winning the hearts of people, not by isolating and stigmatizing the opposition, but by engaging them. De Pillis' essay is rich with insights into the state of religion in the 40's and 50's, the diminishing of the importance of belief among the churches (a phenomenon he is quick to point out is not shared by Mormons). It is compelling reading. My friend Lavina Fielding Anderson supplies the next essay. Titled "Literary Style in 'No Man Knows My History' - An Analysis." Anderson states her purpose at the outset: The complex historical achievement of Fawn Brodie must rest on the assessment of historians: how accurately she used the sources available to her, how limited her history was by its sources, and the extent to which she transgressed beyond their boundaries by her conclusions. But her intuition also took her to frontiers that it has taken a full fifty years to explore and where, upon exploration, that intuition has proved astonishingly correct. Our question here is the more limited but equally important one of the impact of style on content and on credibility. (p. 147) Anderson studies the text, and then categorizes her observations: I have grouped Brodie's dominant literary characteristics into four categories, beginning with the simplest and ending with the most complex: literary devices, scene structure, tone, and reader identification. (p. 130) Anderson then goes on to demonstrate how Brodie's impressive command of the English language enables her to deliver her study, of a complex man who lived a complex life, with grace and extraordinary readability. Much of the praise of Brodie's book is centered on her skill as a writer. Anderson brings this quality into focus, increasing our appreciation for Brodie's work. Chapter Six is an enormously detailed, and very critical, view of Brodie's account of Joseph Smith's plural marriages. Titled "Fawn Brodie on Joseph Smith's Plural Wives and Polygamy - A Critical View," and authored by Todd Compton, author of the widely praised "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," it focuses a critics eye on Brodie's understanding of Joseph's involvement in plural marriage. While Compton is generous in his allowing for Brodie's lack of accessible source materials, he nonetheless is fairly brutal in his denunciation of Brodie's conclusions. He finds her, to coin a phrase, to be sometimes wrong, but always certain. He is troubled by Brodie's affirmative statements about facts that he considers not settled in the literature of history, and calls upon a friend of Brodie's to support his thesis: [Dale L. Morgan] told Brodie once, "You are positive beyond what the facts will support, when all the obscure lights and shadows of those facts are closely examined." He also advised her to express her opinion but not to "claim that [she had] Absolute Truth by the tail." This is a subtle critique - from one of her closest and most scholarly friends and a fellow non- believer in supernatural religion - of her tendency to interpret evidence inexactly and of a pronounced dogmatic streak in her nature and scholarship. The two limitations are of course related -- when Brodie had an *idee fixe*, she sometimes interpreted facts imprecisely in order to arrive at her desired perspective. (p. 171) (Parenthetically, Dale L. Morgan appears in various portions of this book, an ever-present influence in Brodie's evolution as a writer and a scholar. If it hasn't been done already, it may be that his role in Brodie's development will be studied and appreciated by some future historian.) And in an even stronger broadside, Compton takes a swipe at both Brodie and the Church: Perhaps Brodie, despite her brilliance, could not escape the absolutist, doctrinaire mentality she inherited from her father and uncle, both general authorities in the Mormon church. *No Man Knows My History* may be viewed as a conservative Mormon book in this paradoxical way. (p. 172) Compton acknowledges the value of Brodie's accounting of Joseph Smith's plural wives (as no one had yet made such an effort), while at the same time documenting the mistakes she made. He allows that she did not have access to historical sources that he, as an author, had at his disposal for his own study of the subject. But he also points to other kinds of errors, such as duplicate names in the list where she didn't recognize the names describing the same person. Compton takes issue with Brodie's view that Joseph's practice of plural marriage was motived solely by a desire for sexual gratification. He points to other explanations, such as D. Michael Quinn's fine work on the subject of the Mormon hierarchy, that point to the desire to unite the leading members of the group through marriage, a practice not unknown in history. In the end, Compton offers a gracious, but clearly grudging, acknowledgment of the importance of Brodie's work. But he clearly believes we need to move beyond Brodie and engage the subject from a longer historical perspective. The final offering, "From Old to New Mormon History - Fawn Brodie and the Legacy of Scholarly Analysis of Mormonism," is from the pen of Roger D. Launius. It serves well as the closing chapter in this excellent volume. Launius is well known as a first-rate historian in the Latter Day Saint tradition. The very first sentence in his article is, in my opinion, a blockbuster: If there had been no Fawn Brodie, Mormon historians would have had to invent her. (p. 195) Huh? What is he talking about? He develops his thesis in powerful prose, holding back nothing in his critical look at Brodie's work, and his corresponding lack of enthusiasm for what Mormon studies would have been without Brodie. So what is his main problem with Brodie's book? In centers in his objection to Brodie's binary (my word) approach to her subject. Things are either black or white; there is no middle ground. And this approach, forcing Brodie to make what he considers strident statements where moderation would have served better, has effectively tied the hands of subsequent scholars of Mormon history: A fully rounded portrait of Mormon culture has been slow to appear, in part because Brodie's powerful book channeled later research into directions that would respond to it. Like so many trends in historiography, it at first seemed fresh and alive with insights about early Mormonism only to eventually become a straight- jacket for investigators of the Mormon past. (p. 197) In a revealing comment about Mormonism as a discipline, Launius states: ...Latter-day Saints do not so much have a theology as they have a history. Confusing theology with history, therefore, requires that believing Saints accept a specified set of affirmations that are [sic] grounded in the "pure" thoughts and actions of past individuals, especially those of Joseph Smith. (p. 198) If he's correct, then Brodie's book becomes not just an undesirable reconstruction of Mormon history, but a direct hit on the heart of Mormonism, the impetus behind whatever theology survives the historical period under study. As such, Brodie's book cries out for a response from the Mormon faithful. Marvin S. Hill's contribution to this volume is representative of such responses. But Launius takes the point further -- that subsequent research into the Joseph Smith story has been defined, and delimited, by Brodie's work, and thus detracts from the wider task of the study of Mormon history in an objective, non-apologetic manner. The following extended citation illustrates the core of Launius' argument: Since first appearing in 1945, *No Man Knows My History* has exerted a tremendous influence on the Mormon historical community, for both good and ill. It has forced other historians to come to grips with several theories that had been largely ignored beforehand or, when considered, had been dealt with in a decidedly faith-promoting manner. Brodie's heavy- handed either/or approach to interpreting Joseph Smith compelled historians to confront evidence for the purpose of refuting or revising her assessments. Looking at the historical records in a new way, opening new insights, and stretching interpretations are the meat and potatoes of historical inquiry. These are positive developments. At the same time, and Brodie is just as responsible for this as anyone else, the historical inquiry has wrapped historians into a tightly wound set of considerations about Smith. It has contributed to the insular nature of the field, and that helped ensure that it did not thrive as it might have, had new and different and challenging questions been asked that had application and interest beyond the narrow Mormon community. In part because of this, the Mormon historical community seems to be in more of a holding pattern than in the past. In spite of the amount of historical research and writing being done, and there remains a prodigious output in the 1990's, there seems to be little that is new or exciting in Mormon history. (p. 219) I recall saying to myself, "Is this correct? Is the 'Mormon historical community' going to take this lying down?" And I wondered just how anyone could pick up a historical tome and decide whether it falls under the condemnation of Launius' assessment, or whether it goes beyond the constraints imposed by Brodie's work. In the end, I sensed that Launius was overstating his case, much as Brodie is accused of overstating *her* case. Of course, I can't prove it. I am not, after all, a member of the "Mormon historical community." Conclusion ========== "Reconsidering 'No Man Knows My History'" is a fine book, and one that needed to be written. While retrospectives of Brodie's work have appeared over the years, Utah State University Press has performed a valuable service, not just in bringing together several pieces that appeared previously, but in publishing new essays by credible, accomplished scholars whose credentials in the field of Mormon history are unquestioned. And the editor is to be commended for bringing together so many points of view, emphasizing neither the positive nor the negative (despite his own admitted admiration for the work), viewing Brodie's book not just a work of history, but as a literary accomplishment and a driving force in the direction of Mormon studies. The writing is uniformly lively and non-technical. Both fans and detractors of Brodie's work will benefit from reading this collection, even if zealots on either side may find the entirety of the work unsatisfying. While each author clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is pursued vector-like with both velocity and direction, the overall effect of reading this collection is the certainty that there is more to this story than we, perhaps, previously thought. Launius is unsparing in his criticism of Brodie's "either/or" approach to Joseph Smith. Readers may bring that same "either/or" approach to Brodie's book. But fairness, and a desire for a wider understanding of the person and work of Joseph Smith, demands that we take in ideas that cause us to think, and perhaps reconsider, our convictions. There will always be those for whom such a discussion will simply not matter. The hyper-faithful will not hear anything about a fallible Joseph Smith. The hyper-critical will not allow that flawed Joseph Smith to have been motivated by spiritual conviction. As so often happens, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Zealots don't like the middle. And this book, I think, when considered in total, brings the reader into the middle ground, better armed to decide where the truth lies. And being so motivated, perhaps even moved to engage in the deeper study that Launius so desires. I earnestly believe that the Church has a responsibility for educating the membership beyond the current level of engagement. While fine materials are issued on a regular basis, they often lack the kind of depth needed to counter the claims of Mormonism's detractors. In my review of "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon," published by FARMS, I made the point that the time has come for the membership to go beyond "testimony" and fully engage the issue of apologetics. Widely-read publications, like the Ensign, can lead the way. I highly recommend this book to everyone interested in Mormon studies.  - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:49:27 -0500 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Matthew Lee wrote: > I don't believe anyone is able to maintain a > level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day > while willfully viewing things that normally merit an > R rating, for the sake of entertainment. It's a > contradiction to the principles by which the Holy > Ghost operates and communicates with man. Unbrace yourself, because this will not be any kind of attack or rebuttal. I will offer an analogy between living the gospel and martial arts that has a lot of bearing on the discussion of film ratings. When a person first begins with karate (or most any other martial art) they are taught the basics of kicking, punching, and blocking. If they are truly engaged in the art, they will have bruises along their arms as they begin to learn how to deflect powerful attacks. But the longer they practice, their timing will improve and the bruises will fade away. The truly advanced masters will rarely meet an attack head on, preferring to side-step, learning to re-direct the opposing energy using it against their opponent without having to put out their own. It reminds me of sin. Sin is a kind of energy that will harm you. One way to fight sin is to meet it head on, that is, focusing a lot of your own energy into decrying it, identifying it, building walls around it, and generally fretting about your own sins and those of others. Another way to defeat sin is to let it slide beneath you without engaging it on the level it wants you to sink to. If you happen to hear a swear word, or see a lustful image, instead of thinking, "Oh no, I must sing a hymn to defeat the impression the image has made in my soul and once again make my mind a fit place for the spirit to dwell (meeting the energy head on and defeating it by superior energy)," maybe try to let it go--let it pass without dwelling on it. It is nothing. There is no more complete defeat than annihilation. There's this great based-on-a-true-event story about the two missionaries out hiking on their P day. Far up on the trail they find a young woman who has sprained her ankle. It's remote and this is the only other person they've seen all day so it is unlikely that anybody else will come along to help. The woman is limping along using a branch as a crutch, but she is obviously in great pain and it's miles to the trail head parking lot. The senior companion offers to carry her to her car and she gratefully accepts. Days later the junior companion explodes, "Elder! How could you put yourself into such close contact with that hiker? The way she was pressed up against you, the places you had to put your hand. I can't get over the the way she had her arms wrapped around you. It was sinful, sinful, and it's driving me crazy." The senior companion said, "Elder, I let go of that girl down when we got to her car. I suggest you do the same." I've pretty much stayed out of the R-rated movies discussion because it affects me so little. I watch a film and look for the good. There may be swearing, may be people costumed scantily, but --pouf-- it's gone. I can tell in the first three or five minutes if there will be much in anything that's praiseworthy, and if it's just going to be trash and I've turned off plenty of movies during those opening credits. Debating ratings seems to me just throwing energy around to no purpose. I don't need the bruises. Um, and oh yeah, judging that other people may not be eligible for the dwelling of the Holy Ghost seems a lot like inviting a fight. Sorry, but in my dojo, the masters don't spar with the white belts. Tony Markham Delhi, NY - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:25:42 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Matthew Lee wrote: > I'm sure I've just upset some people on this list > which should not be surprising. It's funny how each of us perceives our own positions to be under attack or our own viewpoint underrepresented. Over the years I've heard bitter complaint on this list both about how the discussion is dominated by the R-rated faction and how it's dominated by the G-rated faction. To shamelessly steal a quote from a very good editor friend of mine on the difficulty of meeting the content standards of all readers of his magazine--darned if you do, damned if you don't. We tend to ignore those things that support our opinions and focus hardest on that which challenges our opinions. Which, I suppose, is exactly as it should be. As long as everyone feels that the other side is getting more press we must be presenting a fairly large range of arguments and opinions. > If I was a betting > man I would place a wager that the majority of the > replies to this will be to criticize my approach and > my standards of judgment rather than to answer my > questions. So please, surprise me (I appreciate Clark > Globes honesty on this subject). Was it really necessary to make it a challenge? From my perspective that turns the whole discussion into an adversarial one, and I'm not sure how productive that can be. It seems to polarize the discussion rather than facilitate some sort of middle ground or mutual understanding. And though you apparently disagree, I think pretty much everyone has been honest in their responses on this thread. That Clark Gobles' opinions more closely resemble yours doesn't impart special honesty to his words, only conceptual agreement. In my opinion. FWIW. > What about the excellent non R movies? Why focus on > the exceptions? Isn't it better to learn to live by > the rule and let the exceptions work themselves out? You ask a series of questions here-- First, the discussion began with the semi-annual slugfest over whether good Latter Day Saints can morally or righteously view any R-rated movies. Part of the argument was that not all R-rated movies are evil--and that, in fact, some of them are quite spiritually powerful to some viewers--so when Stephen Carter asked for peoples' lists of excellent films that were R-rated, it was a logical and reasonable extension of the prior discussion specifically focused on R-rated films. In other words, no one asked. Now that you've asked for lists of excellent G or PG films, people can respond. Second, part of the discussion had to do with the question of whether R-rated films were, as a group, any less moral than their more gently rated counterparts. My argument is an extension of an axiom that science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon offered in response to critical rejection of sf as a category--90% of science fiction (or R-rated filmdom) is crap; then again 90% of everything (including G and PG filmdom) is crap. I don't think a G or PG rating imparts any special moral guarantee. From my perspective many PG films are at least as morally putrid as many R-rated films. It seems to me that we should be applying as much intelligent inquiry and judgment when monitoring G or PG films as we do to any other unknown quantity--including R-rated films. You argue that we're better off to avoid R films altogether. My own experience has been that some of the most powerful films I've ever seen were rated R precisely because of their direct, unflinching approach to difficult questions--the kind of approach I hope I can take to any question or difficulty that I'm faced with. The question then becomes whether the insight we gain from those films outweighs the (often) explicit content it's packaged with. I think that's a question whose answer changes from person to person and that can only be answered individually. I don't see a useful blanket here. I've often wondered whether I would be better off to just avoid all R-rated films (or as some have suggested, to avoid films altogether). The general authorities have warned us to be vigilant and not to fill our minds and souls with objectionable material. Some have likened viewing violent or sexually explicity films to a sort of spiritual innoculation--a carefully controlled dose of pretend excess to help us learn how not to be overcome by sudden exposure to those things in real life. Again, the only standard that makes sense to me is to use our own minds and hearts, to study and pray and come to peace with the decisions we make, and to understand that we will be called to account for those decisions at the Judgment. Which applies to G and PG as well as to R, to choices of how fast to drive our cars or how well we treat our fellow beings as well as whether we murder or rape or steal. In the last twenty years it appears that "the rule" has changed from a blanket injunction against R-rated films to a broader, less specific, more expanded injunction against spiritually damaging material. I could argue that the violence of _Pulp Fiction_ was not spiritually damaging for me for a number of reasons, including the fact that I know it to be a fabrication whose purpose is to dramatize some moral, spiritual, or intellectual construct. The truth is that I've witnessed graphic violence where real people died or were maimed, and to this day I can be made to shiver merely from hearing about real injuries. Special effects don't move me, because underlying every one is the fact that they're not real. You ask about rules and exceptions. Where I agree that rules are important, it's in understanding the exceptions that the rule goes from being simple ritual to becoming personal, intimate, and deeply moral choice. To be obedient by faith is good; to be obedient by faith and understanding seems to me to be better. Which requires inquiry and study. Which requires that one face both the sublime and the ugly--whether in real experience or vicariously through story. Again, that's my opinion as it currently stands. Which is decidedly different that my opinion was five years ago. Which will almost certainly change and evolve as time goes on. > Why the sense of superiority over those who > maintain a blanket policy not to view rated R movies? > Superiority is certainly the underlying message many > of you have sent. You've implied that you are immune > to the sexual images, the extreme and gruesome > violence, and the crude humor contained in many R > rated films. There's been plenty of superiority to go around on both sides of this issue. No one in this discussion has been free of easy judgment and dismissal. Differences of opinion are not always meant as personal attacks, and I've seen an awful lot of thin skin on both sides. As I said above, I'm not convinced that all people respond to the artificial stimulus of a film in the same way. I've seen people shot and killed. I've seen a man cut in half in a car accident--and seen the horror on his face before he died at seeing what had happened to him. I've seen a living teenager's brain exposed when his skull was crushed during gym class in high school. A film special effect can hardly equate to the violence I've seen in reality, and as such I believe it has no power to injure my spirit. Which is not to say that it has no power to injure anyone. Each person is different, and has to make decisions as best they can based on their own temperament, understanding, and emotional response. I've severed my own thumb and failed to be grossed out; when my six-year-old son got a little paper cut on his finger a couple of days ago I got a case of the radical heebie-jeebies. Oddly, I'm trained in emergency first response and major injury doesn't bother me until after aid has been rendered and I'm alone; then what bothers me is not the blood, bone, or tissue, but the thought of a human being having experienced the injury--a sort of empathetic horror. I have no such response to film. Period. Part of the difference for me is the question of how we interpret anything that we see. If we see evil and call it good, whether in real life, G or PG film, or R-rated film, then we err and have need of both education and repentence. If we see real violence or injury and call it funny, then I believe we're ill and have need of counselling and healing. But entertainment is just entertainment and has only as much power as we choose to grant to it. In my opinion. I still believe it's a decision each of us has to make for ourselves through study, prayer, and intense spiritual introspection. I don't believe in one-size-fits-all in much of anything where choice is involved. > I don't believe anyone is able to maintain a > level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day > while willfully viewing things that normally merit an > R rating, for the sake of entertainment. It's a > contradiction to the principles by which the Holy > Ghost operates and communicates with man. I disagree. It's not the thing itself that causes spiritual injury, but our responses to it. For me the discussion in Romans 14 applies. I offer the scripture not in the spirit of bashing, but in explanation of my own views on the matter. Some selections: - ----- 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another. . .eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. . . . 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. . . . 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. . . . 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. . . . 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. . . . 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. - ----- Of course the discussion is generally over whether it's acceptable to eat meat, but I think the discussion applies to anything we choose to take into ourselves, whether into body or mind. There is little that's damaging in and of itself; it's our response to it, our expression of faith that makes the difference. If we feel that watching R-rated movies is wrong, then we shouldn't watch them because it's an act of sin rather than faith. But some of us don't see the act itself as evil or unclean, and so we watch in faith and with hope and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. I think judging each other for what we choose to watch (or choose not to watch) puts the focus in the wrong place--we focus outward on comparative righteousness rather than inward on personal righteousness. I think this applies equally condemningly to both sides of the R-rated film debate. There has been a fair amount of smugness about how the ability to extract good messages from sometimes grotesque packages makes that viewer more righteous (or at least spiritually tough) than those who choose to shun certain kinds of films. Likewise, there's been plenty of exasperated condemnation of those who choose to watch certain films for their spiritual corruption and inability to see the plain and simple truth that abstention is the best possible decision. I think both are wrong to at least some degree. It's not a useful judgment because it's outward- rather than inward-looking. The decision--and its consequences--is between each person and their god. Of course Paul also addresses the issue of offending others with our choices. Other selections from Romans 14: - ----- 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. . . . 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. . . . 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. - ----- I suppose this suggests that if watching R-rated films offends some of our fellow Saints then we should refrain out of charity and love for others. Of course the extension seems to apply as well--that we ought not use our own sense of right as a bludgeon to enforce certain kinds of behavior from others. Either way. My individual search for understanding and acceptance has taken me to places that will offend some people. I talk about some aspects of that search so that those who are like me can find a little companionship on the road of life's journey and perhaps gain something from my own struggles. My goal is not to offend or to condemn--only to explain. It turns out that many of the less difficult stories I see or read don't move me. So I seek stories that do move me. As long as the stories bring me to a greater contemplation or appreciation of God, his mercy, and our place in his plan, I'm not sure what difference the MPAA rating makes. I understand the argument that the Spirit can't attend an R-rated film; I just disagree. The Holy Ghost speaks to the both the sinner and the righteous, to those burdened by pain and those free of such burdens. What matters is whether the individual is truly seeking better understanding and faith, or is just looking to watch a little T&A. The Holy Ghost will guide the spirit of the first, and the second is uninterested in that guidance and will not feel it. It's the mind and choice of the individual that makes the difference. In my opinion. > I understand that there are some powerful events > in history that cannot not be accurately portrayed on > film and receive a G, or PG rating. Some of these > maybe considered exceptions but I wonder how much > trash people are exposing themselves to while holding > up the exceptions as justification. No doubt about it--there's a lot of junk out there. I'm willing to sift a lot of junk to find pearls of great price that speak to my spirit and enrich me. I don't recommend the method to everyone, though. Each has to learn and decide for themselves. > I wonder, how long did it take before the > uncomfortable-ness of the sex scene wore off? It hasn't worn off for me, though I've seen hundreds of films containing explicit sexual content. I hold sex to be a private, personal thing so any public exhibition of sex is difficult for me. Sadly, sex is America's number one indoor spectator sport so there are plenty of uncomfortable public exhibitions every day. For me most of the sex portrayed in film borders on the cartoonish. It's not real and it can't touch the personal intimate concepts of real love that I hold in my heart. The images become irrelevant--not because my soul has a layer of scar tissue built up around it, but because they depict something whose reality and validity I doubt. I read a little bit of literary criticism, specifically criticism by and about sf authors. I'm regularly faced with sf writers decrying the closed minds of religionists the world over in their efforts to defend sf as a superior form. They try to explain the mindset of the religious and almost invariably get it wrong--they've built their own narrow, dismissive definitions and try to stuff all people of faith into their exclusionary little box. As an actively religious person I'm viewed by many sf authors and fans as inherently suspect and possibly mentally deranged. It turns out that I can argue science with nearly anyone, and that I draw few of the conclusions that they think religious people always draw. They've discovered that their definition was inadequate for the complexity of real people. I think the same becomes true of building little boxes for people who do or don't watch certain kinds of films. We tend to be more complex as people than simple labels or judgments can accurately portray. Just a thought. > Or how > long did it take before you began to look forward to > the crude humor? I started looking forward to crude humor when I was about three and thought farts were funny. That hasn't really changed over the years, though I have pretty strong opinions on when and where such humor is appropriate. Of course the fact that a joke is crude doesn't bless it with automatic funniness. Some jokes are funny and others aren't, regardless of subject matter. 90% of everything is junk. It turns out that I tell my wife dirty jokes now and again. Fortunately, my wife and I are married and the subject matters of those jokes are a point of shared experience, or at least empathetic interpretation. We are not squeamish about discussions of sex with each other, though we won't have certain discussion in front of the children. There's a time and a place for nearly everything. You seem to be trying to point out my spiritual corruption because I think vulgar humor can be funny. As it turns out, I think John Cleese can make wonderfully insightful jokes about human behavior (including sex), but I think Pauly Shore is an abomination in pretty much every case and can turn even the sublimely funny into the simply tawdry. That's been the complaint I've heard a lot of people offer regarding _Singles Ward;_ things that could have been funny and inclusive ended up being silly and exclusive. Humor is a difficult beast, sometimes. I don't accept easy judgment as either accurate or valid. Because I find some vulgar humor funny doesn't mean that my soul is a cesspool or that I'm incapable of appreciating the finer things. The one does not always imply the other, though many ugly people also enjoy rank humor. Everyone is the exception to some rule. IMO. > Do you guys have kids? How can you > teach them the standards of the gospel and hope to > maintain any sense of credibility while watching David > Lynch films, The God Father, Boogie Nights, or many of > the other movies that have be listed in this thread? I have four kids, aged three to eight. They know that I watch some films that I won't allow them to watch, and I explain why I won't let them watch each and every time they ask. I explain why some parts of those films are wrong or damaging, and try to discuss with them the difference between what's good and what's bad. My children are learning from me to sift what they see, to reject that which makes no sense or which denies the gospel and to search for the truth in all things. The problem is that I don't watch _Boogie Nights_ for its sexual content or its depiction of evil as good. I watch it because it reveals a deeply lonely, desperate community that has been judged and excluded by their society to the point where they can only find community with each other. I find that idea to be so horrifying that every time I watch the film (or think about it) I am renewed in my desire to create larger communities of inclusion--even for the most horrible of sinners. It turns out I didn't enjoy _The Godfather_ nearly as much. In fact, I don't really care for the film at all. It doesn't speak to me as an individual and so I avoid it. That I like one R-rated movie doesn't mean that I like all of them. That I like a violent film doesn't mean that I like it for its violence. In most cases what I'm responding to is not the violence itself, but the emotional injury it causes the characters in the story--and their efforts to find hope despite their very good reasons for losing it. I consider that search for hope to be a good thing. To me that's precisely the goal of this life, and is a direct expression of revealed gospel. Not because of the sex or violence inherent in some films, but because of what those things can reveal about how people act and react. My eight-year-old is really mad at me because I want her to hold off on reading _Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban._ I think it contains some material that would be very disturbing for her and I want her to be a little older before she is exposed to that material. Not because it's evil or wrong, but because it's dark and intense and I want her to be a little more emotionally mature before she reads it. We've set an arbitrary date of her next birthday. My six-year-old is much more sensitive, and I probably won't let him read the book until he's ten or eleven. It depends on the person. In any case, I want my children to know that they can discuss any subject with me, be it light or dark, physical or sexual or emotional. > How about listing some of the non R rated films > that contain messages equally as powerful and well > presented, but without those elements that we have > been counseled to avoid? Here are three to start; > Empire of the Sun, Les Miserables, and the Walt Disney > version of Hercules. I'll offer my comments on some of these (and other) films in a separate post. As it turns out I have some problems with at least one of the films listed there that I believe depicts moral corruption and calls it good. As it turns out, I still have a love/hate reaction to _The Iron Giant,_ a film that some on this list have called a wonderful Christ analogy, but a film that makes me mad every time I see it. But that's a separate discussion, and reflects only that a film that touches some people can just as easily offend others. In the end it's a deeply personal exploration that individual have to make for themselves. In my opinion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #952 ******************************