When a member of the church is ex-communicated there is a distinct ripping away feeling that occures when you lose the gift of the holy ghost. Also when Mr. Lucy met Jerry it was at night it was at the time when the fallen one has the most power. Surly a seminary teacher would have noticed that. If the prophet had sent a letter than why would he subsiquently ex-communicate him if he was aware of the fact that such a letter was written and an expected response would be recieved. Why did Jerry blackout for the rest of the night, when every other time that someone is attacked by the forces of evil they recall the whole event with precise clarity and it is often followed by a multitude of blessings (ie. Joseph Smith, Moses). Why would any pornaholic go and print off a bunch of porn and than plaster it over his seminary classroom walls and than rip it off to hide it. Why didn’t the police, if Jerry really is innocent check the dates on the computer to see if there were past instances of looking up pornography.Why did the man have a cigarette at the end and what was in the envelope.

What I got from this story is really quite sick. That the church is really run by the devil and we are all decived. Good story but I believe that a clearer ending would have helped in understanding.

The only way I can possibly make this story believable is that Jerry actually made a pact with Lucifer. Though it flies against his obvious good past, it is more believable that a good person can become evil than either the hallucination or the test/trial theory. The tumor and the health of the daughter may be considered motivations in Jerry and Camille making these pacts. It seems clear, even from before Jerry signs, that he is moving into an uncomfortable realm, and senses that something is wrong. He felt hesitant about proceeding, but did anyway, much like any path to sin.

I would say that the title of the piece has more to do with Jerry’s calling and election to eternal damnation rather than to celestial glory, except for the evident chance to overcome that’s written into the ending.

This is the kind of story Gene liked and which he inspired others to write—beautifully crafted, skillful in its use of imagery and symbolism, freighted with irony, and completely Mormon. While the ultimate meaning of the story is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous, I read it as a tale of ultimate commitment to Christ, and the price such commitment exacts. Sangood [Stephen Carter suggests this is a play on the French "sans"--i.e. without good--which may be a reference to "there is none good but God"] is given an opportunity to achieve sanctification, to purify his life by being willing to sacrifice everything on the altar, to have, in Mormon terms, his calling and election made sure. Being a faithful Mormon and a good man, he makes this choice without regard what the cost will be—although he is warned that it could be high. Needless to say, he isn’t prepared for how high, since the bargain (it couldn’t be called “Faustian” since he seeks no personal knowledge or gain, but it might as well be since the price he must pay for his pure desire for ultimate holiness) is everything he and his Mormon culture value. Thus, he is falsely accused of heinous transgressions and even crimes, is disgraced in front of his students and colleagues, is excommunicated and loses all of the symbols of societal and religious status, including the approval of friends and Church authorities, and is reduced to cleaning the chapel, picking up welfare orders serving potatoes in the cafeteria of the temple “and feeling the spirit of God” [It is important that these are the last words of the story] Mr. Lucy (Lucifer?) is right, our goodness is our enemy if we think of ourselves as good, if we are too focused on being or becoming good, i.e. on works instead of grace.

The great irony of the story is that it is about a man who loses his life (in society and in the Church) but who finds it in humble service. Isn’t that what Christ was trying to teach us?

Oh, exciting.

And, me, I love stories that can be read from different parts of the room.

Rick, this statement is very insightful: “Someone who is righteous in all things has very little cause to be unfairly judged by the world. In order to separate our selfish minds from or true spiritual selves, we all—equally damaged in Gods eyes—desperately need our small, insignificant temporal self-value to be exploded.” According to my reading of the story, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

And Chris, I think your reading is very interesting. But I still prefer to take the story literally, however fantastical. As a matter of fact, considering some of the experiences you’ve shared on the AML-list and in the excerpt of you memoir that I’ve read, I wouldn’t think you’d have much difficulty reading this as a Mormon experience that’s within the realm of possibility. Or perhaps it is the structure of the story itself (or its resonance w/ Evenson’s _Open Curtain_, which I haven’t read) that’s influencing your reading.

Eric, I think one of the best things about this story is that it can support both readings.

Stay tuned–Jack’s interview will be posted on Wednesday!

Is there anything wrong with a story capable of playing both ways?