Jeff K., on 16 March 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:
Kind of typical response that every experience is valid no matter how wrong or incorrect it is. I reject such a premise since it reflects the abnormally flawed reasoning that anyone can say anything with equal validity and authority. Yours is a false premise.
There is no such thing as an "incorrect" experience. Either you have an experience or you don't. Joanna Brooks is telling about her life, and their is nothing valid or invalid, correct or incorrect about it, unless she is lying about her life experiences, which I'm pretty sure she's not.
No, not really. Is there validation in the witness who is a drunkard and without a true knowledge as to what is occuring around them. Joanna Brooks may be telling me about her life, that doesn't make her story a valid one for people to know in order to understand the life of Latter-day Saints. Hers is a shallow type of life that doesn't reflect the commitment that God seeks from members. Does she speak with depth and understanding necessary to evoke what it means to be a Latter-day Saint? If you think the Temple and its ceremony is unimportant, then you really don't understand what it is like to be a Saint beyond the most vapid and trivial. What she is actually sharing is her life as a left leaning individual, which tosses in a bit of LDS culture now and then. I do not find that to be a "voice" for Mormons anymore than the original Bugs Bunny represents the culture of Flatbush New York. She is a cariacature, and she is seen as one by much of the media.
Does someone who has never been to the temple and has no desire to go, have the same insight as those who have gone and understand their importance to the church? Are you saying then, by implication you believe knowledge of the temple and it's promises is not necessary to understanding what it means to be a Latter-day Saint? Would someone so ignorant of such an important aspect of who we are really have insight? I am of a distinct political bent, but I would trust Harry Reid's speaking for and about the saints much more than someone who show no interest in covenants with God. And you think such a person is a worthy and knowledgeable spokesperson. Would you go to a community college biology major for heart surgery rather than a doctor?
I don't know if she's been to the temple or not. And I don't care. That's not what defines being a Mormon. If you've been baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are a Mormon. That's how the Church decides who's Mormon and who's not.
If Brooks was trying to represent what it's like to be a temple-going Mormong, then your point would be valid. But she's not, so it's not. Give it a rest. Whether or not she's been to the temple, Brooks is a Mormon and is free to share her experiences as she likes.
Consider yourself informed on the issue. And if you don't care, then you don't understand the importance of the Temple either. She is attempting to speak for what it is to be a Mormon. To be a Mormon entails commitment and understanding, a commitment and understanding that is supplied by the Temple by and large. And yet, you don't seem to think that such a thing holds importance. I would counter and tell you what seperates us from all other churches, from all other doctrines, is the Temple and the recognition of that authority. Joanna Brooks says she worships God with the language of Mormons, I would say that a ventriliquist can do the same through a dummy. There is the imagery of light, and we laugh at the words of the dummy but does the dummy understand, even as it speaks in "our" language? Of course not, it is a parody of life. She is a parody of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. I think that until you fully understand and feel the commitment of the highest covenants, you do not really understand what it is to be a Mormon.
She does not reflect what it is to be a Latter-day Saint. If we only dealt with "mormals", " Mormon Helping Hands", parties during Christmas and handing out "stuff" on Mother's day, I am sure she would be a most excellent example in explaining those things. But she lacks the depth to understand beyond that point. She certainly doesn't know enough to speak as a "voice" for Mormons. The media will continue to turn to her though, the token Mormon that will dance their dance, rather than point out a distinct religious point of view and experience. They are the puppeteers, and she says the right things for them. When they tire of her, they will cut her strings, she will have served her purpose.
I would rather deal with a hundred ravenous wolves than sully myself with one dishonest man. The wolves are honest, straightforward and you know what it is they want. The battle is hard fought but open and free. The dishonest man though, he is a thing, like Cain, that should be shunned, exiled.
"You will rise or fall to the kingdom within which you feel the greatest comfort."
"There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define the family out of existence."
President Spencer W. Kimball 1980