I wanted to let you know that I do see your point with the O’Connor quotation. I think it has merit, I just don’t know that I would take it as far.

Thank you for your thoughtful response–I can’t reply today, but will definitely write something by tomorrow!

I think what I want to say is that the characteristic you identified as a weakness in Mormon literature is, I believe, one of the great strengths of Mormonism. Underdeveloped and misunderstood, perhaps, but a strength nonetheless. Elder Cause’s GC talk last weekend demonstrates this strength as it should be, I think. I’d link to it, but the links aren’t up yet. It is because our doctrine embraces all truth that we can draw such great value from literature that challenges us to think in new ways. That’s one way we discover the truth “in the depths where it glittering lies” as the hymn says.

I also want to say that searching after new ways of thinking without truth in mind is something that I feel the scriptures warn us against. I’m thinking of the Pauline denunciation of those who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” (2 Tim 3:7) as well as Jacob’s reminder of the singular circumstances under which “to be learned is good” (2 Nephi 9:29). Other verses come to mind as well, but since this isn’t Gospel Doctrine…

Just because I know how crazy things can get when we start quoting scriptures, I want to state again that I am only explaining myself and not attempting to assert the superiority of my ideas or imply that the powers of heaven are on my side. On the contrary, I’ve really liked the multiple sides of the argument in this discussion.

I’ll end by saying that you have to understand that I’m not just talking about Gospel truth. I’m talking about everything in any field that can be defined as truth. Anything that aids our righteous pursuits that we are exposed to through literature, including better understandings of ideas that are wrong, as discussed in this quote from Brigham Young, the one I alluded to earlier:

“Shall I sit down and read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants all the time?” says one. Yes, if you please, and when you have done, you may be nothing but a sectarian after all. It is your duty to study to know everything upon the face of the earth, in addition to reading those books. We should not only study good, and its effects upon our race, but also evil, and its consequences… If I do not learn what is in the world, from first to last, somebody will be wiser than I am. I intend to know the whole of it, both good and bad. Shall I practice evil? No; neither have I told you to practice it, but to learn by the light of truth every principle there is in existence in the world… And inasmuch as the Lord Almighty has designed us to know all that is in the earth, both the good and the evil, and to learn not only what is in heaven, but what is in hell, you need not expect ever to get through learning. Though I mean to learn all that is in heaven, earth, and hell. Do I need to commit iniquity to do it? No. If I were to go into the bowels of hell to find out what is there, that does not make it necessary that I should commit one evil, or blaspheme in any way the name of my Maker.”

Brigham Young JD 2:93-94 (1853)

Your comments are challenging to me, but I don’t think we’re as far apart as it seems. Thank you for the clarification, by the way. I feel better now. And you’re right, it was a little of both. ;)

What I think I mean is that I’m not very willing to separate my literary experiences/strivings from my overall quest in life. I know that begs explanation. I see the pursuit of truth as one of the greatest callings in life – one of it’s highest purposes. This is because to pursue truth is to pursue Godhood, which is where we started in this conversation. I may be wrong, but I don’t sense that we’re in disagreement here. Literature serves me in this quest.

Does that mean that I think all literature should be didactic? Absolutely not. Just as I can learn truth from my professional experiences (which are not in the least “preachy”), I can learn truth from literature that does not state it openly. While I think it’s immature to dismiss the morality tale out of hand (of which I’m not accusing you), I agree that it’s not the end-all and be-all of literature. The thing that I’m not willing to do is engage a piece of literature for purposes that lie outside my life’s purpose. Please note that I have not defined by life’s purpose in this comment, only mentioned the pursuit of truth as ONE aspect of it.

Also, this statement troubles me:

“Mormon literature should have nothing to do with truth.”

You probably expected that, but you may not have anticipated my reasons. Then again, you may.

If you mean that Mormon literature shouldn’t try to dictate truth, I can get behind that. If you mean that it shouldn’t testify of or explore experiences in search of truth, I disagree wholeheartedly. If you mean that it should ask questions more than provide answers, I also think that’s generally the case, though perhaps not exclusively.

Before I get in too deep, I’m going to stop and consider my next comment carefully. I have more to say, but I lack the time at present to say it properly.

Thanks.

I don’t see why beauty and deliciousness can’t be seen as a subcategory of the Truth. Truth is Beauty, etc etc.

AMV — the radical middle

How about saying art:truth::cooking:nutrition? You can make a vittle without nutrition, but what good does it do you, even if it’s delicious?

It’s hollow and pointless and empty. It’s not “food.”

Well, yes, I didn’t think about it enough. I need a better metaphor. I stand behind my intention, however.

And re:Asher Lev’s mentor, I think deceiving ourselves is deceiving what of God is inside us. However, that can be used as an excuse for sin, also. I guess it comes down to what we believe of our native souls, and here, again, I’m with Emerson.

You write:

“This statement assumes, and reductively so I think, that great Mormon writing has to take a stance that’s directly opposed to Church doctrine and that warrants excommunication.”

You’re right to call me on this. I should have qualified my statement to say “SOME great Mormon writers will be excommunicated . . ..” I still believe in my basic point which is that there should be space in Mormon literature for the extremes. I respect what England has done for Mormon literary studies, but I disagree with his notion of “immature divisiveness”–does it happen? Sure. But his statement reductively assumes that all extremes are divisive. Simply not true.

Also, the past history of excommunications is not a tidy list of how this or that writer has violated some church principle or broken some covenant. Many of them suffer from being on the fringes of mainstream Mormon thinking. The situation seems analogous to the banned books list. What lands a book on this list? Why this book and not another? (usually one person starts complaining and so it goes.) Why excommunicate this writer? (BYU student writes a letter of complaint, for example.) Why does that writer get a pass? And who is making these decisions anyway? That’s O’Connor’s point in her essay. The decision-makers are usually not trained in literary studies.

In your response to Th you write:

“What the artist needs to worry about, then, is honestly wielding their vocational tools in order to maintain, as it were, a proper rhetorical balance, in order to do justice to human experience by sharing it honestly and well.”

This is where we’ll have to agree to disagree: I don’t believe there is such thing as a rhetorical balance in art. I don’t believe a good artist can even consider this notion unless it comes at the level of self-censorship. Jacob Kahn, Asher Lev’s mentor, in MY NAME IS ASHER LEV tells Lev that an artist who deceives himself is a whore. An artist has to stay true to his/her voice first, to completely honest with the self, in order to produce his/her best art. The idea of maintaining rhetorical balance to me suggests that an artist is deceiving him/herself–in other words the artist is making sure his/her work coincides with truth.

I may sound prickly here, but believe me I am enjoying this discussion with a smile. I wish we could do this in person.