Paul Elie, a senior editor at FSG, in his book The Life You Save May Be Your Own, wrote about four great writers who all happened to be Catholic: Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton (a monk), Flannery O’Conner, and Walker Percy. These writers, according Elie, and this is a gross oversimplification of a truly sublime book, succeeded in making relevant to the world at large the important spiritual difference between a tourist and a pilgrim. A tourist makes a journey in order to see the same thing others before him have seen, and to also see it in exactly the same way those others saw it; the pilgrim, on the other hand, charts his own path in order to experience for himself, from his own perspective, what others before him have themselves experienced. In other words, Moroni 10:3-5.

Elie also argues that the aforementioned writers, in making their uniquely Catholic perspectives relevant to the secular world, also best articulated for Catholics what it meant to be a faithful Catholic in a secular world.

I’d be interested, then, it hearing you opine on what constitutes a relevant (to the world at large) and unique Mormon perspective, literarily.

Best Regards,

Matt Evans
(I am not the Times and Seasons Matt Evans, although I too was raised in Sandy and am the oldest of seven children. It’s a small, weird world.)

It sounds like you want a Tony Hillerman.

“I find the weathered, faithful, simple saints the most fascinating, but also the most difficult to capture”

Very difficult to capture. I think a novel about folks like my Bishop, to be successful, would have to be written almost entirely from an external viewpoint. Because I dont’ know that their internal life is much different from their external one.

I am not the most descriptive person but I like to do exercies where I sketch what I see in my mind. I find that I lack so much vocubulary to convey what I see around me in a meaningful way. Yet, I find it a worthwhile and enjoyable endeavor that causes me to take note of things that I am half blind to around me.

I think you are on to something. I reacted to your post much the same way the others who have responded did. I just have a couple of thoughts.

First, we need to keep in mind that we almost have our own language. Consider the following statements: “First we went visiting teaching. The lesson was on the three degrees. Then, we went to the stake center for PFE.” Those words are almost universally understood among members, but a woman outside our church would be left scratching her head if she were invited to the stake center for PFE. She wouldn’t know if she had been complimented or insulted. Senior companion, age of accountability, sustain, endowment, testimony, temple work, three Nephites, initiatory. Those words all carry a loaded meaning. It is almost like outsiders have to hack into our code to understand.

Do you think maybe part of what facilitates good writing among adult LDS folk is that we have such a richness of shared experience? That is how I explain my reaction to your brief post. I have experienced something much like what you described, your words evoked the memory, and I experienced “the sweetness of life as a Mormon”.

You are right. The words just have to be adequate and not get in the way.

Seriously, I just realized what my mother needs to understand is some great work of fiction that shows that simple sweetness. Looking back on it, I think Orson Scott Card’s _Folk of the Fringe_ had a big part in my conversion. Mom doesn’t read science fiction, though. It has to be mainstream fiction. Wilfried and William, please get on that right away. Mom’s waiting. :-)

Agreed with William. There is a lot (and often well-meant pulp) for and about the young. I find the weathered, faithful, simple saints the most fascinating, but also the most difficult to capture. I admire those who can catch their spirit. One of the challenges for Mormon writers is to combine some kind of worthwhile affabulation with the faith-promotive — but without stereotype heroism.