I see the contradiction you’re pointing to, Pratt, and see that I should have qualified my “theological boat” as folk theology or one in which popular Mormon theology prevails–in which Mormon theology goes untested (either personally or culturally) or is accepted merely as a matter of habit or in terms of any number of popular or folklorish interpretations. This unproved or untested acceptance goes against Mormonism’s true theological standard, a dynamic system that pushes us against our psychological, spiritual, intellectual, even our physical boundaries; that pushes us against the boundaries of the universe and our understanding of the universe as God deems to make us as he is–an exalted being that will progress and learn, pressing at the boundaries of an ever-increasing knowledge for the eternities.

As with any intellectual/artistic venture (within or without the aegis of Mormonism), this pressing of boundaries is the expectation we extend to ourselves–our writers, scholars, and artists. And while I see where you’re coming from that one thing that binds Mormon arts and letters up is the insistence on measuring everything against the standards of Mormon culture/theology, against the letter of God’s laws–something that becomes especially taxing or de-nobling, even unnerving for the writer/artist when it comes to depictions of sin and evil–I believe that this expansive view of Mormonism and its eternal implications is one thing we might fruitfully measure our artistic endeavors against, especially since art can provide such a profound and redemptive conduit to self-understanding, self-expression, self-expansion, and personal/communal healing. Such a view, IMO, is faithful to the very foundations of Mormonism and the Prophet’s life and work and “expansive enough to include all kinds of Mormons and their art”, Jack and Peter included.

You write that good Mormon literature “should maintain as high a literary as Mormonism’s true theological standard.” Then in the same paragraph you suggest that good Mormon literature should “[rock] the theological boat—for the expanding self is the risky self, the one prone to push, prod, shift, and overturn the status quo or, to be more scriptural, the one likely to “shake” “the kingdom of the devil” in their efforts to stir those who “belong to it” (including themselves and some of God’s saints) out of “carnal”, theological, and ethical complacency.”

I guess I don’t understand how one can both maintain the Mormon theological standard and rock the boat. I should qualify this: I do understand the idea, but I guess I don’t understand precisely how you mean it. Or how you envision it happening.

It seems to me that the one hump Mormon literature needs to get over (and critics can do it) is measuring Mo-lit (and more broadly, to all Mo-art) against (or through) the Mormon theological standard. I think the literary arts should be beyond this idea, expansive enough to include all kinds of Mormons and their art. One thing I see is that when an artist rocks the boat the other Mormons throw him overboard and then act like he was never on the boat in the first place. The irony is that outsiders lump anything Mormon together no matter what insiders think. To many outsiders, for example, all polygamists are Mormons, and if we’re honest about it, the notion makes sense even though the rest of us cringe. Similarly, Brian Evenson is regarded as a Mormon writer even though he himself wishes this were not true (I know I am an Evenson apologist, but I believe he is one of our great writers–mark my words that someday our culture will reclaim him).

Perhaps I’ve misconstrued your ideas here (that wouldn’t be a first), and I don’t see you as the ticket taker for the boat ride. The reason I’m bringing it up now is because you seem like exactly the right person to answer my question.

However I completely agree that I’d like to see more creative work that is strongly rooted in (and even expands upon) “Mormonism’s theological complexity.”