From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #10 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, April 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number 010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:22:14 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Article In a message dated 4/3/03 9:16:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > Richard, I think your perception that "People don't > hate Greeks like they hate Mormons" is a mis-perception. I don't > believe we are hated. I just think we are misunderstood. Thom, Come join me the next time I open a film in Phoenix or in the Bible Belt. Or New York City. We are misunderstood and we are hated. Not by the masses, of course, but by a very vocal minority. Actually, in New York we are not hated as much as we are purposefully ignored. I guess that's an improvement. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:40:57 -0800 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] George W. GIVENS, _500 Little-Known Facts in Mormon History_ (Review) George W. Givens _500 Little-Known Facts in Mormon History_ Published by Bonneville Books, Springville, UT Distributed by Cedar Fort copyright 2002 softcover 282 pages ISBN: 1-55517-651-8 $15.95 Reviewed by Travis Manning I recently started reading _500 Little-Known Facts in Mormon History_ by George W. Givens while on an airplane to Washington D.C. I was enroute to visit my brother attending college at Southern Virginia University, that new, growing Mormon-affiliated university gathering steam on the east coast. Givens lives just 40 miles south of Buena Vista (home to SVU) in Lynchburg, VA, three hours west of D.C. Had I read the About the Author section in the back matter of the book, perhaps I would have stopped by Lynchburg for some hot cocoa and a chat. _Little-Known Facts_ is a hodge-podge of Mormon history tidbits and anecdotal shorts you can put in your Gee Whiz File; 500 such tidbits to be exact. Organized chronoligically, these interesting snippets of fact and story related to members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, covering a 92-year period between 1813 and 1921--pre-First Vision to post World War II. In the books' Table of Contents, the author further divides up the 500 snippets into the following 11 subsections: (1) The Beginning (1813-1831); (2) Seeking Sanctuary (1832-1838); (3) The Nauvoo Era (1839-1846); (4) The Uprooting (1846-1847); (5) Asylum At Last (1848-1852); (6) The End of Discretion (1852-1857); (7) The End of Autonomy (1857-1861); (8) Striving For Integration (1861-1870); (9) Striving For Respect (1870-1877); (10) The Church Survives (1877-1890); (11) A New Era Begins (1891-1921). I couldn't help but think this book would be perfect reading for those bathroom junkies (like my brother-in-law) that receive "serious literary insight" while contemplating other important matters. Let me give you an example: "A Century Early (1813) The story of the operation on young Joseph for osteomyelitis usually revolves around Joseph's stoicism. Less mentioned is the amazing surgical procedures by one of the foremost surgeons in the country. Doctor Nathan Smith of Dartmouth Medical School was probably the only surgeon capable of such a pioneering procedures at a time when surgery was not a medical specialty. Much could be deduced about a seven-year-old future prophet from an impoverished family ending up in the hands of such a skilled medical pioneer at that time, but it is a fact that such work as he performed on young Joseph would not be successfully repeated until the early twentieth century." I had troubling reading _Little-Known Facts_ all the way through. In fact, I didn't read it all the way through. For me, it's not a book you pick up and read front cover to back, like a novel or other nonficiton narrative (or, if it were translated into Chinese, back cover to front). I see this book as a resource instructors could potentially use in Gospel Doctrine lessons or other Sunday School classes, as teaser questions, or engaging starter quotes. Or, as short spiritual thoughts for family home evening, though not all quotes lend themselves to spiritual purposes, many of them do. If I was fishing for an interesting story to emphasize a point in a church talk or other church presentation, I would not hesitate to pull _Little-Known Facts_ from the shelf to supplement my material. Givens writes in the Preface that his intention for this anthology of mini-stories was to "make Mormon history readable and interesting," and I believe he has largely done so. In his Introduction, he continues by explaining that he assumes readers already have some "familiarity with the more prominent early pioneers as well as some of the most notorious apostates." This book is probably not one that you give to your non-member neighbor who knows nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; nor is it a text you'd put under the Christmas tree for your 8-year old niece or nephew. The reading level for the book is closer to a middle-grade, junior high-age student, and above. Missionaries might also find this approach to church history quick and relatively painless, depending upon their attention span and prior church history reading experience, though the book is appropriate for teens and adults of all ages. There are no pictures or graphics of any kind, other than the photo on the front cover of the book of one of the, what appears to be, original sunstones. I found a snippet on Abraham Lincoln particularly interesting: "Lincoln and Polygamy (1857) The Latter-day Saints had good reason perhaps to like Abraham Lincoln even before he, as President, enacted his three-word policy of 'Let them alone.' In a rebuttal to a previous speech by Stephen A. Douglas, who appeared to support the extension of slavery under the guise of popular sovereignty, Lincoln addressed a large crowd in Springfield, Illinois in 1857. 'There is nothing,' he said, 'in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge's 'sacred right of self-government' for that people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose?' This did not mean Lincoln supported polygamy but merely that if popular sovereignty was desirable, the people in Utah should decide the issue." Givens has spent over 20 years teaching American History in schools before opening what became the "largest family-owned bookstore in Virginia." Givens has authored several other church history books, including: _Out of Palmyra: a Convert Looks at the Prophetic Calling of Joseph Smith_; _Nauvoo Fact Book: Questions and Answers for Nauvoo Enthusiasts_; and, _In Old Nauvoo: Everyday Life in the City of Joseph_. His _Little-Known Facts_ is obviously a biproduct of his other historical research, based on like content. Despite typos in the Table of Contents and Preface, I was able to digest much of this collection, though the going was slow because of the abrupt nature and structure of its content. A handy References and Index allow the nibbling reader, or the focused reader, assistance with tracking down additional resources outside the text, and specific page references within it. If _Little-Known Facts_ had been published by the New York clique, I suppose they may have re-titled this book something like: "Early Mormonism for Dummies: 500 Quick Facts;" or, "Points to Ponder While on the Potty: Early Mormonism in a Nutshell." I'll close with this tidbit about Winston Churchill and the Mormons: "Churchill And The Saints (1910) Twenty years after the Manifesto halting plural marriage in 1890, polygamy was still a major charge being made against the church--especially in England. During the year 1910, eight debates took place in Parliament on the 'Mormon Problem' in which the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill was asked what he proposed to do. 'Was he aware,' a member asked, of Mormon efforts to induce English women and girls to go to America and if so was he taking steps to stop them?' Replying to the implication that it was being done for Immoral purpose, Churchill said he had determined it was not true and there was no ground for action. His reply prompted the 'Liverpool Post and Mercury' to say, 'The Home Secretary has an intelligent understanding of the situation and is friendly to the Church.'" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:54:27 -0800 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Jeffrey S. Savage, _INTO THE FIRE_ (Review) [MOD: Let me point out that those with a different take on Jeffrey Savage's book--or any other book for that matter--should feel free to write additional reviews reflecting their own experience. I personally think the AML-List book review archive is all the more valuable when it reflects a diversity of opinions, all well-expressed!] I feel like I need to chime in with Annette to say that I _really_ liked Jeff's book. At the time I read it we were studying the book of Job in SS and I felt like the book echoed many of my thoughts as I considered a modern-day application of Job's story. There were a few sentimental moments at the end (as would be expected with a mainstream LDS novel), but I thought the writing was good and the plot was better than most. I am definitely looking forward to more of Jeff's books! Jana Remy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:50:00 -0800 From: "Aitken, Neil" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit I think for me, the people in the scriptures that seem most real are those who face and deal with a less than perfect world in a heroic yet human fashion. For example, Moroni. I enjoy reading through Moroni's writings in both Mormon and Moroni. I was reading through Mormon 8 this morning and was struck by the very real humanity and pathos with which Moroni writes of his father's death and the death of his people. One can feel his sorrow and frustration in the words. Again and again he begins to write but cannot complete his account without returning to the death of his father. I can't help but feel that Moroni viewed Mormon as not just father, but also a cherished mentor, a valued friend, and a trusted companion. To have such a close friend and father torn away by the violence of war certainly adds to my appreciation of Moroni's dedication to the work. Even in such a dark place, he pushes on for another 40 years -- a remarkable and rather silent accomplishment in my opinion. Perhaps it was the topical nature of these passages, or simply an awareness of my own relationship with my father, but these words moved me and helped me see Moroni in a new light and see as well just how much lies just below the surface of the BofM . The account of Mormon and Moroni in the last years of the Nephite nation seems an incredibly powerful story that would hold meaning and significance to an audience much larger than just the typical Mormon member. In some respects it is a war story, in other respects it is an account of the spiritual journey of two men. For me at least, it calls to mind images from "A Thin Red Line" and asks important questions about faith, integrity, hope, and courage in a dark world. Other figures in the BofM: ========================= *Zoram - a third party look at the events leading to their exodus and their settling in a new land. *Mulek - how did Mulek (of the royal line of king Zedekiah) end up in the New World, and what brought their civilization to the sorry state the Nephites found them in. *Hagoth - the great explorer and possible settler of the Polynesian islands. Reading Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki always makes me think of Hagoth and his travels. *Teancum - feels like Tom Clancy doesn't it? :) *Limhi - it already feels somewhat Shakespearean - a little like Hamlet in fact *Ether - the last days of the Jaredites have always felt like a compelling story that needed to be told, Ether's interactions with Coriantumr and his prophecy of that their lands would be given to others (Nephites) *Coriantumr - after the fall of the Jaredites, Coriantumr wandered for years and was eventually found by the Mulekites who could not speak his language. Interesting settings: ======================== *The land of Desolation - ie. where the Jaredite nation was dwelt and was destroyed *Easter Island - there is an interesting legend on Easter Island which speaks of two races who inhabited the island before the Europeans came-- a light-skinned race and a dark-skinned race. Eventually the light-skinned race was over-thrown at the height of their decadence by the dark-skinned race. My two pennies worth, Neil Aitken - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:09:20 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Barbara Hume wrote: > Freer in what way? Surely you don't mean free of the moral laws that govern > people. It's been tyrants and oppressors like Napoleon who've said that > they were different--that the laws applying to "ordinary" people were not > meant for them. An artist or writer or musician or filmmaker is no more > justified in deliberately sinning than is anyone else. I'd hoped I was being clearer than that. I tried to be clear that I don't believe the artist has carte blanche to do what he wants and expect no eternal consequences from it. I thought I said that the artist is as responsible for his sins as anyone, either by suffering the natural consequences or repenting so they can be avoided. The freedom I mean is freedom from cultural expectations that everyone must tow the line in a certain way. The expectation that because one church authority needs to avoid PG movies the night before interviewing youth so he can feel the promptings of the spirit, that everyone else should adhere to that standard. They must be free to ask questions others are afraid to ask without being called heretical, free to examine the ugly areas of life so they can understand them and present them to their audience in ways that are safer to ingest. They have to be free to contemplate all aspects of the human condition without worrying if they are spiritually in tune enough to be bishops and Relief Society presidents. They have to be free to write things like "bash" or "The Backslider" without their bishop calling them in for scrutiny. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 18:56:27 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] J. Scott BRONSON, _Stones_ (Review) Stones a play by J. Scott Bronson performed at the Center Street Theater "Competition for General Conference" As I write this, the next installment of General Conference is less than twenty-four hours away. Millions of Latter-day Saints will turn to those sermons for spiritual inspiration and insight. This April, General Conference has some significant competition. Not that competition is the best word to use. It's not like it's an either/or proposition. Go ahead and drink in the spiritual nourishment of the Conference sessions. But you would be a fool--yes, a fool--if you pass on an extra helping of nourishment that's available to anyone who can get to Orem, Utah, and back within one evening's drive. I'm talking about the Center Street Theater's production of J. Scott Bronson's play _Stones_. This play could be described as good, it could be described as moving, powerful, or even great. It could be, but every one of those descriptions would be inadequate. To adequately describe _Stones_, you must resort to words like consummate, brilliant, archtypical. This play is transcendent. Bronson has written a quintessential piece of LDS drama that does what all pieces of LDS drama should aspire to. It presents two scenes from Biblical times, one between Abraham and Isaac, and one between Jesus and Mary. Both scenes involve common themes: obedience to God, sacrifice, death, understanding, the love between parent and child. But I will give no synopses of these two plays-within-a-play. I won't attempt to steal their thunder by spilling any more beans than I already have. I will only say that _Stones_ has everything you could possibly want from a play. You want emotion? Deep, powerful, significant emotions will ooze from the walls and drench you in a monsoon of them. Don't leave home without your kleenex. You want insight? You will think thoughts you've never thought, realize things that never occurred to you, understand familiar stories in ways that will make them--not feel new--but _be_ new. You want symbolism? _Stones_ reeks of symbolism. _Stones_ gives Isaiah himself a run for his money on symbolism. You want irony? Mind-bending irony skitters out of the woodwork where you never saw it coming. You want good acting? You will discover superlative acting. You want to care? You will care about Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, and Mary in ways you never thought of before. You want redemption? It's there for the taking, but at a hefty price. You'll understand the price, and you'll rejoice in those that paid it. You want spiritual fulfillment? There'll be enough there to give General Conference some competition. Humor? There's even a few laughs. But not many. They don't belong there. You'll even get fine music that accentuates the experience perfectly, specially written for the performance. But only between the two plays. No mortal music could enhance the power of the simple, direct performance that will blow you away. It can only punctuate it as you contemplate the transcendent experience you just had. If you don't get any of this out of experiencing _Stones_, check your pulse. You are dead. _Stones_ is a masterful example of how vital art is to one's emotional, intellectual, and spiritual development. _Stones_ works on you in ways that worship services never could, important as they are. _Stones_ shows all LDS playwrites how it's done. For a couple of hours, Bronson is the master. DO NOT MISS THIS PLAY. Am I selling _Stones_ too much? Am I building it up so high that it cannot meet expectations, as so often happens? No, not this play. It can't be built up too much. It will transcend any expectation. Every member of the church should attend _Stones_ like every member of the church should view General Conference. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:59:15 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape It seems that is often the case when they are read by the authors. Tracie - ----- Original Message ----- > > I have also had the sad experience of having a terrible reader destroy the > enjoyment of a book for me. This is rare, but it has happened a few times > when a reader is so flat and dead or nasally or bland or just plain > cotton-pickin' awful, that I hated the book in a way that had nothing to do > with the book itself. Interesting. > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 05:20:33 +0000 From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: Re: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews I'm having trouble sorting out who wrote what, sorry, so I'm quoting w/o attribution > >This is the first reason I think we want to be Jews: Vocabulary. Wouldn't >it be wonderful to sit down to write a story and not have to define Relief >Society or stake president or sealing or baptism for the dead or high >councilman or any of a thousand other uniquely Mormon terms? I just workshopped a short story for a graduate level writing class that had the terms "Relief Society," "home teachers," "Primary program," etc and a few references to temple garments. Other than a few specific questions about garments (which I'd deliberately left unclear in the story), nobody seemed to be puzzled by the use of the terms. I like to think they were as clear as they needed to be in the context - or, at least, that any confusion they created was not important to the meaning of the fiction. At least, they were no less familiar to my audience than a lot of Judaism-specific terms were to me whan I first read Philip Roth as a high school student. Yet "Defender of the Faith" was a story that really resonated with me as a Mormon growing up in a non-Mormon culture (rural South), whether I knew shabbat from shul or not. If anything, the apparent exoticism of "Mormon culture" actually seems to help writers like Walter Kirn to succeed in "mainstream" lit. Kirn is seen as reporting from the fringes of American society, or something, when in fact the little of his work that I've been able to stomach seems embarassingly ignorant of even the basics of the faith (in one story, he has the elders in the ward assembling to elect a new bishop when the current bishop disappears. I say, what?) I don't mean to pick on one writer in particular, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to get away with very inaccurate represenations of Mormonism, just because there presumably aren't enough people of Mormon background in the audience for this type of literature - at least, not people who actually care about accurate representation. [Carrie Pruett] _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 18:08:33 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] BofM and DNA (Comp 1) (was: BofM in Mormon Lit) [MOD: This isn't a topic I'm particularly desirous to get into here on AML-List, particularly not at a high-volume time such as this is. However, the original comment was a legitimate part of the BofM in Mormon Lit thread, so I feel I ought to allow some opportunity for response. Please keep in mind that the historicity of the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon archaeology, etc., are off-topic for this list except as they relate strictly to Mormon literary topics. Please. Oh please. Oh please please please please...] >From iaw2@email.byu.edu Fri Apr 04 19:10:30 2003 > Something addressing the recent DNA issue: how can the Book of Mormon be > historically accurate even when no Jewish DNA exists among the natives > in America? I've already worked out the scenario, but I hate the idea of > doing research to evoke the culture accurately, so I don't know if I'll > ever write it. Actually, some DNA in the America's is actually "Jewish" - but that doesn't nessecarily mean it came from Jews. KUER's Radio West had a great program on this - the last person interviewed briefly discussed this idea. here's the link: text: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/RadioWest.html Here's a transcritption of the relevant part: Fabrizio: What about, have you first seen any elements, I don't even know what we would call it, Hebrew/Jewish DNA. Woodward: That's an interesting hypothesis that I think has been set up incorrectly. Let me tell you what I think is going on in that the hypothesis, as I read it, is that, because we have not seen any Hebrew DNA in native Americans therefore the Book of Mormon cannot be true. That is certainly a simplistic view of the hypothesis but that's what I keep getting fed back to me, that that's what people are thinking. But I wonder what would happen if we tried to turn that around. What if we said if there is evidence of Hebrew DNA in the Americas then the Book of Mormon is true. I don't think anybody would accept the reverse of that hypothesis, and the reality is, and I'm going to say this, and then I'm going to come back and clarify it, there has been Hebrew DNA found in the Americas. o.k. Tom mentioned some of the Y chromosome DNA by far, there's one particular marker that we find on the Y chromosome - 199T we call it - that is very characteristic of native Americans of a large proportion of native Americans carry that. However, Tom has mentioned the story about the Lemba in South Africa and the Cohen marker well it turns out that the Cohen marker on the Y chromosome which certainly seems to be an Israelite haplotype DNA marker that has been found in the Americas. It's been found in Columbia, that work was published a little over a year ago. Now, do I claim that that's Lehi's DNA, absolutely not. I think that there's a much more clear explanation of that data but I use it to emphasize my point, yes, there has been Hebrew DNA found in the Americas. Does that prove the Book of Mormon correct? No. But I think we have to be very careful when we turn it around the other way and say because we have not found any Hebrew DNA in the Americas then the Book of Mormon is incorrect and so I still believe that there's a tremendous amount of information yet to come from the DNA information, the DNA story in native Americans. - --ivan wolfe - ------------------------------------- >From Jacob@proffitt.com Sun Apr 06 13:47:51 2003 Easy schmeasy. I'll even go two different answers just for kicks. Note that I don't really care if either is correct and I'm not even willing = to concede the hypothesis (that no Jewish DNA exists among the natives in America--something I'd consider pretty much unprovable really). First, the miraculous answer: We can posit that God monkeyed with the Lamanite DNA while making them darker than the Nephites. Who knows what = all the changes entailed--they can have been quite wide-reaching. And we = know that at one point, the two peoples switched places almost entirely to = where the righteous (designated Nephites) were almost entirely genetically Lamanites whereas those who were robbers and living to prey on others = were almost entirely genetically Nephites. Which means that most of what's = left of those people come from the genetically altered strain. So, then, no = big surprise that they don't bear much semblance to Jewish populations = today. Second, the rationalist answer: You can't use genetics to prove *lack* = of inheritance past a very narrow range of generations. You can use = genetics to prove a connection by showing the strains that have remained, but = that's an entirely different case and pretty fortunate when such traces exist. Populations that have been separated for over 2,500 years with periodic infusions of outside genetic material cannot be adequately compared. On = the Native American side, assuming the Book of Mormon to be true, we know of = a number of possible cross-strains including pre-flood Jaredites (who = probably didn't actually cross at all, but *might* have). Adding historical = records, we also know of a number of Asian/Russian migrations that are more = recent and would therefore leave more definite traces in the overall = population. On the population we currently consider Jewish, there's even wider = genetic variation introduced by years of captivity and dispersal. It'd be hard = to say with much certainty what exactly *does* represent basic Jewish = genetic content that would be representative of over 2,500 years ago. You can *speculate* on what it might be, and you can probably rebuild some of = the genetic tree by digging up graves and so on, but that's going to = necessarily be indefinite (because you can't really tell Jewish remains from = non-Jewish remains and even if you could, you can't build an idea of an entire population based on the very small percentage that left identifiable = remains that we can test). Oh, and for *both* cases, it's clear from the Book of Mormon that Lehi = was from the Tribe of Manasseh, so the whole genetics of the Jewish = population isn't going to be relevant unless you can also show that the Tribe of = Judah was genetically similar to the Tribe of Manasseh. The Tribe of Manasseh *start* *off* only 1/4 related because Manasseh was the son of Judah's half-brother). Even more telling considering that Joseph married an Egyptian woman so Manasseh's half from his mother is likely *very* = different from that of Judah's genetic make-up. Of course, cross-breeding is more-or-less a given in later generations, but even so, they *did* = maintain different identities and tracked genealogy with some fervor all the way = down to the time of Lehi (and you can make a case for less likely = cross-breeding of the Ephraim and Manasseh lines due to their royal Egyptian heritage). Jacob Proffitt - -------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 23:40:57 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Richard wrote: "Jacob said (I'm paraphrasing) that it is a moot question=20 > because the orthodox=20 > Jewish doctrine is wrong, the community is worshipping in=20 > falsehood, and=20 > therefor Gitai has done nothing wrong and is better off outside the=20 > community." Jacob replies: "Oh, I didn't say any of that." Then what did you mean, Jacob, when you said this: "I don't believe at all=20 that his soul is on the line...To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as=20 presented, bear in mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred." Or this: "His doctrine is wrong, you see."=A0 If I misunderstood you, surely you can see how I might have arrived at my=20 conclusions. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 05:41:36 +0000 From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] Re: Elizabeth Smart >For what it's worth, there is in the minds of many this idea that rape >victims are somehow soiled goods. I had a friend who was raped, and >when >she told her fiance that she had been raped several years >previously, he >broke off the engagement because she was damaged >goods. He felt that he >deserved someone "pure" because he hadn't >ever engaged in the >act--willingly or unwillingly. >Karen Tippets That's really appalling, although I can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure it's not the opinion of the majority, but there are certainly aspects of LDS culture that encourage such Victorian (literally, think "Tess of the Durbervilles") ideas. Taking it a step further, isn't it almost as bad to consider a young woman who isn't a virgin to be "tainted" in any circumstances? I recall being taught that someone who had transgressed the law of chastity, gone to the bishop, and repented was forgiven in the eyes of God. Why not the eyes of men? I mean, it seems to me that if repentance works, there shouldn't BE such thing as "soiled goods." Does anybody consider that Mormon boys who sow "wild oats" before going on their missions (and we've all known our share) are equally tainted? Is it even an issue in the minds of most potential brides? incidentally, though it's certainly not Mormon lit by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly "R-rated" in terms of content, the novel "Mystic River" by Dennis Lehane addresses a lot of the issues that I see raised by the Smart case. In that novel, the abducted-and-returned character is male, carrie _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:55:30 -0800 From: "John Williams" Subject: RE: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons I wanted to thank Gae Lyn and Amelia for their heartfelt responses. Obviously, there are dangers in majoritarian forms of culture (or religion) that demand assimilation rather than accommodating for diversification, and their responses are apt dramatizations of those dangers. Still, I did want to point out that while I often feel like I am one of a very small group of "liberal" thinking Mormons, I nonetheless feel love and solidarity among my more "conservative" sisters and brothers. In fact, I think it is precisely that difficult, often painful interaction between people that we would not have otherwise chosen to associate with that makes our church "true" (by which I mean capable of inducing the kind of spiritual growth we all need to become more like God). As Mormons, we are quite often placed in situations (and with people) that we would not have otherwise welcomed; and we are encouraged to approach the situation with an open heart and mind. It often produces conflict, and it often requires efforts of reconciliation. In short, you learn to love people that you would not otherwise love. That's why Mormon "community" is so valuable, and painful. It helps to remember sometimes that the purpose of the church is to BOTH comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Some of us, as it happens, are just a lot more talented at the latter (and literary folk always are, hee hee). - -John Williams UC Irvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 02:29:39 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives In a message dated 4/4/2003 9:59:20 PM Mountain Standard Time, alan@trilobyte.net writes: > I worry about offending people with what I write. Evidence: I worry > that I offended Dutcher by my memoir in Irreantum. He told me that I hadn't > offended me, but he didn't say that he liked the piece, or even read it. So > how do I know that there isn't latent OFFENCE just waiting to happen if he > or his wife or his biship reads it and is offended? Alan, I did read the memoir in Irreantum and I did like it. In fact, I smiled through the entire piece and even laughed out loud a couple of times. So, honestly, I took no offense. My wife also enjoyed it and took no offense. I can't speak for my bishop, though. Now that you mention it, he has been a little stern lately. It's probably your fault. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 23:02:33 -0700 From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart I am not at all shocked by Robert Slaven's statements. I have had too much experience with Mormons who have the attitude described below. For a real-life experience, read this article at http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon40.html. I am aware that Rick Ross is a man hell-bent on exposing the LDS church as a cult; however, he quotes from a Salt Lake City paper, The City Weekly, which although not exactly unbiased, I think this particular article is truthful. - --Jennifer Breinholt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:36:37 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Jacob@Proffitt.com writes: "Oh, I didn't say any of that...I didn't say he had done nothing wrong, only that he probably didn't believe he had (and what artist that breaks withtheir community believes they have done so wrongly?)...What I *did* say is that exploring Gitai's experience isn't one that will be useful to faithful LDS artists due to our belief that we belong to the one True church. Further, I said that we actually *are* right..." Jacob, For a second there I thought I had misunderstood you, which was actually comforting to me because I almost always agree with your posts. But then, as you continued to explain, you expressed yourself in such a way that I still find the "true" attitude you espouse (not you personally) as arrogant and unteachable. I believe Gitai's experience is extremely relevant to the LDS artist, if the artist is interested in expressing his/her honest thoughts and feelings and not in just becoming a propaganda machine. Our art may require that we criticize or reveal unpopular aspects of our culture, which is what Gitai did in his culture. This kind of criticism has a tendency to brand the author as an outsider or apostate, even if he/she still desires to be actively involved in the community. Again, I don't know Gitai's history. We are assuming that he voluntarily left his community. Perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he was trying to point out elements of apostacy within his own religion and, as a result, was labeled an apostate himself. Maybe he was a committed Jew who was excommunicated for raising a warning voice. Such things have happened to LDS writers. I don't have a problem with LDS artists believing we are "right." But I do have a problem in our believing that other religious artists are wrong and that their philosophies are inferior. Despite your protestations, I still interpret your argument in this way. Seriously, how can we remain teachable while harboring such attitudes? Perhaps this attitude has contributed to some of our (and the mainstream Christian community's) crappy art. We are so sure we are right and chosen that we really aren't open to what this whole wide world of ours has to teach us. Surely Judaism and almost every other religion on this earth has some truth to share with us, truth that we haven't recognized or understood yet. And surely some untruths have wriggled their way into Mormonism. I can easily see how a committed LDS artist, with a very Mormon passion for truth, could suddenly find himself no longer Mormon. An unwilling "apostate." Personally, I find "Kadosh" and it's director's (unconfirmed) plight frighteningly relevant. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #10 *****************************