From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #123 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, August 15 2003 Volume 02 : Number 123 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:15:23 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing the Words This reminds me of directing _The Fantasticks_in Dallas, Texas. I wrote Music Theatre International for permission to change the Rape song to Abduction. They didn't hesitate to allow the change. It broke my heart because I felt that it was the funniest song in the show. However, I knew that using the original song would not fly for our audience, because the word rape (although the context in the play means abduction) almost always causes an emotional response. As it turned out I was able to rewrite the rape song using abduction quite painlessly and it was still funny, because lots of people knew what it was supposed to be. They said it couldn't be done. It worked for us. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:57:49 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: [AML] re: Changing the Words To add to my post regarding permission to change dialogue in a play. = Don't hesitate to ask, but ask early on before you pay the big bucks. = The Pleasant Grove people waited until a week before they were set to = open. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:55:02 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Val Kilmer and Joseph Smith At 02:05 PM 8/13/03 -0500, you wrote: >So far I haven't anyone suggesting an actor to play >Joseph who more approximated his physical type: 6 >feet, 200 pounds, (considered porty by some accounts) >with a slightly receeding chin. My suggestion would >be John Lovitz. Bite your tongue! Jon Lovitz looks like my ex-husband. This time, Thom, you've gone too far! barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:41:09 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] ispwestemail1.aceweb.net (Vircom SMTPRS 2.1.258) with SMTP id for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:39:05 -0700 Message-ID: <003f01c351f9$27bb51c0$90ac1f43@jack> From: "Eugene Woodbury" To: Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret Morning News: KRAKAUER, JON, _Under The Banner of Heaven_ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:35:03 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list [MOD: This is a message that wound up getting caught up in the cracks. Apologies for the delay, but I think the discussion has not really moved on significantly from this point.] This matter of perspective is an important one, but not just for the = reasons that Lee Benson draws attention to. The Achilles heel of Mormon = art (to make these comments relevant to the list right off the bat) is = our inability to see ourselves the way that others see us, and then to = insist dogmatically (and impossibly) that we be perceived only as we see = ourselves in the best possible light. Perspective is a window, not a = two-way mirror. "Perspective" can't be dictated. (Someday, somebody's going to make the Colorado City movie--perhaps = along the lines of Picket Fences or Northern Exposure--and we're all = going to grumble at the "unfairness" of it all, and then belatedly ask = the question: Why didn't we make this movie?) Consider, purely as a hypothetical, the reaction of the average Utahn to = the following: A nation/state of a few million people occupying a large = and largely arid environment. The state is dominated by a single, = conservative religion, drawing in over 50 percent of the population. = Followers of that religion occupy all political offices (to the casual = onlooker it almost seems a prerequisite), and all but a handful claim = further allegiance to a single faction of one political party. Outside the capital the majority religion extends to 90 percent of the = population, giving it de facto control over all secular institutions. = And although there is much lip service given to separating church and = state functions, the casual onlooker notes again notes that the church = has built religious seminaries in immediate proximity to every public = secondary school in the state--despite the fact that no other religion = in the region could begin to compete with it in terms of cultural = influence. The state's own history reveals bloody conflicts with those apart from = the majority faith. The modern church disavows any responsibility in the = slightest for these acts of terrorism, despite its deep involvement in = all aspects of secular and religious governance at the time. In fact, = one of the "terrorists" is now revered as much a martyr as a criminal, = and has long since been officially "rehabilitated" by the church. The state loudly proclaims its allegiance to secular, constitutional = principles. In keeping with this, it has made explicitly illegal several = religious practices that once constituted the core of majority church's = theology. And yet those who continue to follow these "fundamentalist" = religious teachings--perhaps five percent of the population--do so = openly. The law is so rarely enforced as to be practically irrelevant. Now, if this were a bunch of Sikhs setting up camp in Spanish Fork we'd = be calling out the National Guard with panicked talk about our = threatened "American Way of Life." With a little tweaking it could be = Saudi Arabia, and I recall after 9/11 how "the man in the street" in = Riyadh couldn't believe that his countrymen were in any way involved: it = was all slander and propaganda. Does the man on the street in Provo = react much differently? Or is a large part of the equation also our inability to see what = everybody else sees--not necessarily agree with it, but at least = acknowledge the point (if only to admit that, yeah, that cloud does look = kinda like a bunny rabbit). Is our instinct instead to thrust out a = travel brochure and say, Don't look at that! This is who we are! Fish discover water last. And travel brochures do not make for great = art. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:42:20 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Religious Fundamentalists as Murderers (was: Krakauer, _Banner_) Like many, I've not read Krakauer's book. I did listen to Terry Gross's interview, though, and I thought it was very interesting. I've been dyin= g to saying this to someone other than my husband. All of this talk about fundamentalism being connected with violence, etc., is just ridiculous to me. A religious fundamentalist who kills is a murderer, plain and simple. Though I cannot cite any at the moment, haven't there been so many studie= s and writings on how godlessness can lead to violence? As rock music can? TV? Films? The written word? Food? Estrogen? Testosterone? Shall I = go on? A murderer is a murderer because he or she wants to kill. As a wise old wizard once said, "It is our choices...that show what we truly are..." A= s bored and lonely as I can get here in my little apartment, I cannot fatho= m what type of energy and time one must have to focus on killing to become = a murderer. I mean, when we get upset at someone and say, "I could just ki= ll them...", that's naughty, but it's totally different from getting to the point that you pray about whether or not to murder someone. I know that = the book says that Ron Lafferty basically received a revelation and that it j= ust came from God or something. They prayed about it, afterward, though, jus= t to make sure it was truly from God. Throw me a bone! "Hi, I'm an evil selfish man who elevates myself by degrading others, namely my wife and daughters, and this woman came in and messed up my plans. I want her dea= d. I've used religion as an excuse to oppress my family, it will just follow suit that it'll be my excuse for conspiring to kill." I know these thing= s are all "duh" statements, but seriously. In a world full of hundreds of religions and millions of very religious people, some with some pretty outlandish beliefs, some murderers decide to kill some innocent people in the name of religion, and that's evidence that fundamentalism lends itsel= f to violence. The truth is, when someone craves blood, they'll kill and they'll use whatever excuse sounds good to them. I know it's farce, but just think of the song, "He had it coming" from Chicago. What is fundamentalism anyway? The Merriam Webster dictionary describes = it as follows: 1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasiz= ing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs 2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a se= t of basic principles Hmmm... sounds like most groups of religious people I've ever met, read about, or heard about. So, the difference between a fundamentalist and a "normal" religious person is that one of them blends into "regular" socie= ty better? The first group is incapable of reason or rationalization? Or, = is it just a term that gently chides the said religious group as "going a little overboard with their beliefs?" Anyway, this is really just a tirade, but after listening to Terry Gross'= s interview with Krakauer, I imagined Dan Lafferty as a young man, before a= ll of the tragic mistakes he made in his life, feeling very small, like we a= ll do sometimes. He tried to fill his obviously vast emotional gaps with staunch faithfulness to his religion, and the craving just grew and grew = and grew. The exhilaration of certain polygamist practices (from the male po= int of view) of course must have been great. To be able to strip another hum= an being of power like that must be thrilling in some way. Ron made a scien= ce of it, and to imagine that someone who ought to be one of the oppressed would actually work to free others and defy such authority is astounding. She was not a threat to the Lord's work, but a threat to the work of oppression, so she had to die. No, I don't care if you decide to move into a tent for the rest of your l= ife because Lehi lived in tent for awhile. Make up whatever interesting beli= efs you want to about God, or subscribe to whomever you like. Or pretend tha= t God, TV, the written word, food, testosterone, etc., don=92t even exist. = If you want to kill, oppress, or rape, you will find a way, with or without religion. By the way, I hope I got the Lafferty brothers' names right. You know, I= 'd like to see someone write a book about murderers (minus perfect detail) o= f all flavors. Let's find evidence that being a murderer has very little t= o do with where you grew up, what type of music you listened to, what relig= ion you were or were not, or whether or not you ate your vegetables as a chil= d? Let's prove that murder is a choice, not an outcome. Yet, the book would= be a huge downer and wouldn't be any better than one of the Scream films (an= d it would certainly be less funny). So, scratch that idea. Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:08:20 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] re: ROWLING, J.K., _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ (Review) Eric said: >I absolutely love Harry V. I think it's the greatest book in the series. I've been reading it aloud to my children, and >it's been a ball; I get to come up with new character voices for Tonks (sort of Toni Colletteish), for Bellatrix (definitely >Margaret Hamilton: the Wicked Witch of the West), Kingsley Shacklebolt (James Earl Jones) and best of all for Delores >Umbridge (Carol Channing). But what I love about the new Harry Potter IS in fact the LDSness of it. I figure you're probably thinking voices for characters, Eric, but here's my cast of some book 5 characters (by look and voice, not necessarily acting talent): Tonks - Toni Collette or Emma Chambers (if you go younger - she played Hugh Grant's sister in Notting Hill) Mad Eye Moody - Christopher Lloyd Bellatrix Lestrange - Polly Walker (can't you just imagine her being blissfully beautiful and ruthless?) Kingsley Shacklebolt - D.B. Woodside (played principal Wood in last "Buffy" season) Umbridge - Zelda Rubinstein (played the clairvoyant in Poltergeist I and II) Love, Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:41:26 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] What Is Gender? This is one of those issues that can't fit into a neat little box and be easily explained. For those of us who do believe the doctrines of the Church there are still many unanswered questions surrounding mind-boggling things like this. In believing gender is a part of a premortal identity does that include the existence as an intelligence before being organized into a spirit entity? My husband once posited the idea to me that we might have had a choice in picking gender before existing as spirits. If that were the case, could it be that some did not choose wisely for themselves and that causes complications on earth? I'm NOT saying this is the case, or that I agree with my husband-just putting it forth. It would make for something interesting in our literature. A few years ago, one of the news magazine programs did a piece on children who had been gender-reassigned at birth because of either deformity or surgical blunder. Most of the time, these were males reassigned as females. The families and doctors found that although every attempt was made to raise these children as female, both culturally and medically, the children always displayed the habits of boys. Rough play, risk taking, spatial development, etc. They had little interest in dolls and other "girl stuff" They were "tomboys". And these were kids raised in times like the 1960s when for the most part, traditional roles were still ingrained, especially in middle class families. As adolescents and adults these people went through emotional hell. Finally, as medical technology permitted, most of them were reassigned back to their original gender. Some that gave interviews in shadow were furious with the doctors for doing what they considered to be playing God. Now, when doctors are faced with this dilemma, they do wait and carefully watch the child and see what traits they seem to display and how the body develops, despite the genital anomalies. At least one child they showed is a girl, despite having what seems to be some male genitalia, (they tried to be descritively vague, family viewing, I suppose). She is athletic, but still seems to favor female behavior for the most part. They also have to keep certain chemicals and enzymes balanced for some of these individuals. But, at least by waiting, the child seemed to be a more stable individual. For an LDS family, this stuff would be mind blowing-not something you leaned about in Sunday School, Priesthood or Relief Society. It would be a real test of faith and a riveting story of how one would cope with it. Certainly news stories don't tell all aspects of something like this, and depending on the show and the reporter, it can be slanted a certain way. But, I don't remember any conclusion other than how hard it is on families, and how the parents and doctors need to work together for the benefit of the child's best interests. It brought up some interesting thoughts for me. It seemed to indicate that our brains are hardwired in some ways, including gender identity, despite the efforts to change that with surgery or homones. That could bolster the assertion many gay people have put forth about same-sex attraction being hardwired in their brains. But it would also contradict the claims of some of the more radical feminists that men and women are exactly the same, they are no different other than genitalia, it's only society and culture that insists on them being different. I always thought the last idea was absurd in many ways. Although we certainly experience directions to certain roles as males and females, especially in LDS culture, I always knew a basic truth: Men and Women are different. And I always wanted to add: Thank Heaven! I like being a woman. The only thing I ever objected to was the notion some in society and the Church assumed that somehow men were superior. I never thought that or believed it, even when I was a small child. All of this would make for elements of a thought-provoking work. I wonder if the average member of the Church would even want to approach such ideas whatever form of media they might take. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:31:29 -0400 From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Ken Starr Hello, Church of Christ is the modern heir of the Campbellites, who, far from being a Mormon splinter group, are in fact the source of the first anti-Mormon book, published shortly after the founding of the church, and written by Alexander Campbell, one of the more important American theologians of the 19th century. Starr belongs to that group. We had the name first, while they were the Disciples or the Campbellites, but we quickly gave up the name, they took it, and we mostly forgot about each other (though they continue to be avid Bible readers and know well how heretical Mormonism is vis-a-vis traditional Protestantism). Interestingly, Sidney Rigdon, and "The Family" (the Kirtland core of Mormonism and the basis for the first attempts at Mormon communal living, ie the Law of Consecration) were a Campbellite congregation before their defection to the "Mormonite" movement. Starr as a "Mormon" is a tad less of a stretch than Steve Martin (or Eddie Murphy), but not that much less. - -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:22:31 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan, replying from the Web" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing the Words Another alternative would have been to NOT ask for permission. It's not like anyone in the Valley would complain to Neil Simon about the lack of the f-words. Thom Duncan - --- Original Message --- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" To: Subject: [AML] re: Changing the Words >To add to my post regarding permission to change dialogue in a play. = >Don't hesitate to ask, but ask early on before you pay the big bucks. = >The Pleasant Grove people waited until a week before they were set to = >open. > >Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:58:20 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] Val Kilmer and Joseph Smith Jongiorgi Enos asks: >How does Hugh Jackman strike you guys? >Or what about Viggo Mortinson? Or what about an actual Smith descendent? I've met two -- of the Hyrum variety -- and in both instances, without knowing their ascendents, I remarked on their astonishing physical resemblance to Joseph Smith. Which is how I discovered they were descendents of Hyrum Smith. G'head and reject the idea out of hand. But mebbe, just mebbe, I'm onto something. - --lmg - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:24:48 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan, replying from the Web" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher on KRAKAUER, _Under the Banner of Heaven_ >Lisa Tait adds: > >I had in my files a copy of a letter from none other than Bruce R. McKonkie >refuting the doctrine of blood atonement. Ironically, the belief that Blood Atonement is a modern Mormon doctrine can be laid at the feet of BRM. Before the publication of Mormon Doctrine, I suspect few Saints had ever heard of it. So here we have the surrealistic case of an apostle refuting a belief that he otherwise seems to promote in his own writing. I have an acquaintance who received a letter from Boy K. Packer stating that a belief in Evolution is entirely an individual matter. The letter was sparked by Elder Packer giving a talk about Evolution in which he very clearly gave the exact opposite impression about Evolution. I've also got a copy of the infamous letter that Bruce R. McConkie wrote to Eugene England wherein the Apostle stated that Brigham Young was flat out wrong in his teachings about Adam-God. I wish these little private refutations could be made public and receive as much press as the other POV's do. It would make Gospel Doctrine class less painful for some of us, when somebody brings up the Church's "teachings" on Evolution or mouths the phrase, "The Prophet said..." and then supplies some information that neither he nor any of his predecessors ever said. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:38:54 -0700 From: "Bill Gardner" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing the Words >Jongiorgi Enos writes: He quips to Lawrence: "So-and-so should buy >this car. Well, not THIS car, cuz I'm gonna *bleep* it up, but one JUST >like >it!" Delivery, of course, had a lot to do with the comedy. But "I'm gonna >mess this up" in the context, would be a weaker line (in a comedy sense). Well said. I very much agree. I thought of one obvious thing to add. Will Smith can get away with a line like that while some actors cannot. I don't act, but if I did, that line would come out so stiff that it might be funny for a whole different set of reasons-- or more likely it would flop. (As a cop I sometimes just consider language like that "technical police jargon") No? My wife doesn't buy that either. bill gardner wbgardner.com _________________________________________________________________ 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, 15 Aug 2003 10:26:11 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Monster in the Closet >Paul Walker - In 1986, he played Professor Bennet in the movie, "Monster in the Closet" (1986). Wanna have a great party with friends? I highly recommend this blissfully bad movie. It's right up there with The Initiation of Sarah and Congo (though I think this one is actually supposed to be funny). Anyway, as one of my favorite cartoon characters would say, "It's so bad, it's brilliant!" Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:30:32 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan, replying from the Web" Subject: RE: [AML] Box Office Report 8 Aug. 03 - --- Original Message --- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" >Films have NOT been listed on this page >based on any determination of church activity, Nor should they ever be, imo. If a person self- identifies as Mormon, that should be enough for the rest of us. Because, even if all these folks were active Mormon, wouldn't there still be distinctions to be drawn (assuming was, for instance, loyal only to active Mormon artists)? One could go nuts trying to draw distinctions on the supposed "rigtheousness" of a Mormon actor. It's just better left between that person and their Bishop. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:24:57 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan, replying from the Web" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher on KRAKUER, _Under the Banner of Heaven_ - --- Original Message --- From: "Kathy Tyner" >The First Vision is as essential to Mormonism as the Burning Bush was >to Moses leading the Children of Israel to the Promised Land. It is now but not at first. For the first generation of Mormon converts, the First Vision was unknown. The Book of Mormon was THE vision that started it all. In that fact at least, Krukauer is accurate. The First Vision was virtually unknown to most church member until somewhere around the late 30's, if I recall correctly. >Quite a stretch of time essential in the formation of the adult personality. >Nothing I've read has Krakauer addressing this, and the emergence of >this undercurrent of violence he is concerned with surely would have >at least some underpinnings in this time period. I don't see that he's required to. He's not writing a history of the CHURCH per se. He seems to find evidence for his thesis in Joseph's and Brigham's later teachings so the details about Joseph's youth would seem to be non essential. >Most of the Mormons I know tend to shun conflict of almost any >sort, being almost cream puffs when they are afraid to be >perceived as "inappropriate" or causing contention of any sort. So you are unaware apparently of the high incidence of spouse abuse among the Saints? What is spouse abuse if not men with simmering anger waiting to boil over? >He would treat them as >an an abberation as Einhorn and the Laffertys are in my opinion. You did mention this as your opinion, which is good, because you really don't know how K would treat the other story you mention. I guess we'll just have to wait to see, in the event that K writes another book on that subject to see if he really has this hidden agenda to bash religion. >But my study of history has found these to be more the exception >rather than the rule. And in recent history, the communists and nazis >were definitely anti-religion, yet committed numerous atrocities. They were anti religion but had all the earmarks of religious fanatics. Communism instead of Christianity, that is to say. They had a different religion which they abused, just like the Lafferty's abused Mormonism. Unfettered ideology is the real problem, not religion per se. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] Box Office Report 8 Aug. 03 [MOD: An interesting broader question here (among other comments) about how being LDS may, or may not, impact an acting career, and vice versa.] Lisa Tait wrote: >question would certainly apply to Eliza Dushku.) I know >it's hard to find a line and draw it consistently, but >if we're trying to promote Mormon film it doesn't seem >particularly useful to just lump anyone who's ever had >any affiliation with the church into the same category >with those who are trying to produce work that is >specifically by, for, about, or starring Mormons. I don't think the purpose of AML-List is promotion so much as analysis and discussion. I'm interested in how Mormonism impacts art and literature regardless of whether the artists, or characters, currently consider themselves practicing, orthodox Mormons. For example, Ryan Gosling said in at least one interview that his Mormon upbringing helped him understand some of the themes in _The Believer_, about a Jewish neo-Nazi youth: http://www.jordanbeswick.com/000142.html Raised Mormon in Cornwall, Ontario, Gosling=20 (who now calls himself "religious but=20 nondenominational") says his background made=20 it easier for him to grasp one of The=20 Believer's main themes=97the inconsistencies at=20 the heart of religious faith. "My parents=20 were more Mormon than I was, but it did help=20 me understand. I see how happy it makes my=20 mother and sister, and I think it's=20 beautiful. Maybe I'm too selfish, or I'm=20 jealous of their humility=97that somebody can=20 say, yeah, it doesn't make sense but I'm=20 going to believe it anyway." It's at least of interest when formerly Mormon artists discuss their Mormon background -- but I'm interested even when they don't. It will always be an influence to some degree. And this could be an interesting question to discuss: What is it about success in Hollywood that drives actors to distance themselves from the church? It doesn't always happen, but we have ready examples in Ryan Gosling, Paul Walker, Eliza Dushku, Matthew Modine, Aaron Eckhart (?), Jewel Kilcher, etc. Is there a level of secular artistic success that makes church membership particularly perilous? Did the entertainment industry even have anything to do with their departure from activity, or would it likely have happened in another profession as well? >PS Has anyone seen SWAT? My kids tell me there's a=20 >Mormon character, one of the cops, and some kind of=20 >running commentary by Colin Farrel about whether he's=20 >living his religion or not, mostly as pertains to the=20 >word of wisdom. Colin Farrell's character works for awhile with a guy who says he converted to Morminism when he married. He doesn't want Colin to tell his wife that he's been drinking Dr Pepper, because as a Mormon he's not allowed to ingest any mind-altering substances. Later, Colin points out to him that he's cheating on his wife with fast food. Chastened, the guy tosses away his burger, fries and cola... I know it's a common perception for non-Mormons to think we can't drink caffeinated soda-pop, but is it really that common within the church? I wouldn't drink Coke when I was a little kid, and I knew a couple of students at BYU who wouldn't drink it, but as far as I'm concerned it's a myth that's been decidedly demolished. Eric - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:11:29 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] What Is Gender? OK, I've been keeping quiet on this discussion, but I can't let this pass. >There are some 3,000,000 people now living who are not "male and female". >Assuming they are also created in the image of God and a beloved spirit >child of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and >destiny, what is their eternal gender identity and purpose? Next week I'm going to be sitting by the hospital bedside of my best friend since childhood. She is afflicted with a syndrome called MRKH (See for gruesome details), placing her firmly in the "I" category of GLBTI. She finds the grouping together offensive and dehumanizing. Unlike GLBT people, she was born with a physical deformity, a deformity that means she faces medical issues -- including her related surgery next week -- that GLBT people have no experience with. The issue that has traumatized her since the age of 15, when her vaginal agenesis was discovered, is that she is unable to have children. This is the issue that has defined her life. A first husband who refused to adopt, and a second husband who was uninterested in adopting have left her childless. She's compensated by becoming incredibly successful in her professional life. But a misread ultrasound several months back -- where a technician and a doctor misinformed her that she actually DOES have female reproductive organs -- left her devasted about her entire existence. "I've always told myself I didn't want children anyway," she told me in tears, "until they said maybe I COULD have had children. Now I don't know what anything in my life has ever meant." That 3 million number you quote is peopled mostly by folks like my friend - -- people who have a gender but not genitalia. Rarely, they have genitalia that doesn't match their chromosomes -- which used to involve medical soothsaying, but which is no longer a mystery given the state of modern genetic science. People like my friend face physiological difficulties (agenesis generally comes with other organ malformations, apart from the difficulties or impossibilities of intimate relations). But the challenges "I" people face aren't comparable -- or even similar -- to those faced by GLBT people. She doesn't wonder what she is. She wonders -- like most infertile people -- who she could have been if she'd been able to parent. Grouping people with physical malformations together with those whose sexual attractions are nonnormative is political, not scientific. It's also a form of bigotry, and is obnoxious to those who don't wish to be so grouped. So be careful in your writing about too easily accepting the political designations of the strident. Sometimes -- possibly even most times -- the nonpolitical will consider you a bigot. - --lmg, forcing, but finding, a literary connection. - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:14:38 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Val Kilmer and Joseph Smith I'm voting for Gary Oldman. If that doesn't work, nos. 2 and 3 would be Stallone or else Vincet Price (oh, wait, he already did that, adn he's dead - well, there's always CGI) not *entirely* serious. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:11:11 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] What Is Gender? [MOD: I'm allowing Bill to clarify his original point here. However, I feel the need to emphasize again that the purpose of this discussion is to share various ways of looking at this issue from an LDS context--including (hopefully) ways it could be included in literature--not to debate doctrine.] - ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Michael Martindale" > Bill Willson wrote: > > > From the family proclamation: > > All human beings--male and female--are created in the image of God. Each > > is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, > > each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential > > characteristic of individual pre mortal, mortal, and eternal identity > > and purpose. > > > > That seems scriptural enough for me. As far as what that means? -- Well it > > seems that Heavenly father saw the need for different roles and functions in > > mortality and for that matter for life eternal to perpetuate itself. So he > > made us two separately different entities, each with a definite role in the > > process of procreation. A man and a woman are two separate parts of a whole, > > and as such they fit together and serve God's holy >>purposes. > > Your comments don't answer the original question at all. We already know > God made us male and female in mortality. The question is, does gender > have meaning in the preexistence? Is it an inherent trait in the entire > eternal arc of our existence, or does it first spring into existence in > mortality? God actually didn't create us--we are "co-eternal" with God, > as Joseph Smith said. **** What he said was: "The fundamental elements of life within man are coveal with God." [That is to say they are as old as God in duration and can neither be created or destroyed as they are eternal.] In the premortal existence he created our eternal souls from these fundamental elements, and each of us received a portion of his eternal spirit, and we were endowed with unique spiritual gifts from him. At that time our gender and the full measure of our creation were established. **** > > But the family proclamation says "gender is an essential characteristic > of individual PREMORTAL, mortal, and eternal indentity." If we are to > accept the proclamation as a valid statement of doctrine, then we must > conclude that gender is an inherent trait in the eternal scheme of > things. > > Which makes the question very hard to answer: how do intersex types (now > are these what we used to call hermaphrodites?) fit into this? It also > leaves open the possibility that homosexuality may in fact be a spirit > of one sex which somehow ended up n the body of the other sex--I know of > at least one bishop who has concluded that this happens in his> interaction with homosexual members as their bishop. If that's true. > that opens up a huge can of worms. > > -- > D. Michael Martindale > I respectfully beg to differ. My comments do answer the question, it seems to me that D, failed to finish reading my comments and misread the portion of my post he did comment on. ____ Heavenly father saw the need for different roles and functions in mortality and for that matter **for life eternal to perpetuate itself.** ____ Assuming that the scriptures pertaining to the nature of eternal life and the necessity for *seed forever* (D&C 132:19) is concerned. The rest is a matter of birth defects and each individual needs to figure out how to compensate and fit in as best they can, in order to fulfill the full measure of their creation. This world is not a perfect creation, and neither are we. God left the job of perfecting ourselves and the world he gave us, up to us. This is our job, and part of the full measure of our creation. God loves us, and I'm sure he wouldn't try to confuse and make the meaning of life even more complicated than it is, by throwing in more than two genders. When physical traits and characteristics seem blurred and slightly out of focus, it just means we have a little more to do as far as adapting to the individual situation goes. All that is needed is more understanding and a lot more thoughtfulness. As far as a spirit of a pre mortal female ending up in the physical body of a mortal male, I think that is a pretty far fetched can of worms indeed, and it may be the subject matter for a science fiction novel, but in reality I think it's a bad joke, of rather dubious origin. Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #123 ******************************