76 replies to this topic

[Analytics]

LeSellers, on 20 February 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

"May you live in interesting times" is not a wish for nice things, it's a curse.

I conform (or try hard to do so) in every aspect of my thoughts and life to the Church. It's neither because I have come to all of the same conclusions (I haven't given a great deal of thought to a lot of the things involved). Nor have I simply conformed. It's because, whether you can agree or not, whether you want it to be so or not, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true....

Emerson replied to this line of thinking best:

On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.  A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.

[kolipoki09]

When I first encountered Joanna's work, I was initially skeptical. I thought her approach seemed to disparage the institutional church while at the same time having great value for the traditional/cultural aspects of Mormonism. The more I read, the more I came to realize that while Joanna does have some reservations about a number of church policies and procedures, she is unapologetically proud of her affiliation with the church and isn't afraid to share that with others.

She is certainly one of the leading spokespersons for the so-called "Middle-Way Mormon" movement. I see advantages and disadvantages to it. I think her impact is positive in the sense that she provides a voice for many Mormons who might otherwise have one. With people like her in the public light, it is possible that such outlets as Sunstone and Dialogue may go through a Renaissance of sorts that both encourages intellectual inquiry and faithfulness, something that (in my opinion) has been lacking for nearly two decades.

[cdowis]

DH, on 08 February 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

my point is Brooks doesn't try dodging the difficult issues

As you understand the concept "dodging the difficult issues", does this include a dialog, a rigorous discussion about your point of view.  Does the drive-thru poster "deal with the difficult issues" as they run away from any feedback?


Please give us an open forum where she participates and is willing to defend her views, otherwise that is what I call "dodging the iisues".  Hank Hannegraff does not "dodge the issues" of Mormonism -- at lease he has a call-in radio program.  She may be "brave" and "courageous", but I guess I missed it.

[Pahoran]

Analytics, on 20 February 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Emerson replied to this line of thinking best:

On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.  A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.

Okay.  So in order to be a splendidly independent thinker, you'll conform to the thoughts of Emerson.  Individualism has become a rigid school of thought.

How illuminating.

I once saw a cartoon.  It showed two identically scruffy-looking hippies, both wearing T-shirts that said "Ban Conformity."

Regards,
Pahoran

[mtomm]

cdowis, on 12 March 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

As you understand the concept "dodging the difficult issues", does this include a dialog, a rigorous discussion about your point of view.  Does the drive-thru poster "deal with the difficult issues" as they run away from any feedback?


Please give us an open forum where she participates and is willing to defend her views, otherwise that is what I call "dodging the iisues".  Hank Hannegraff does not "dodge the issues" of Mormonism -- at lease he has a call-in radio program.  She may be "brave" and "courageous", but I guess I missed it.

Here you go: Ask Mormon Girl

You can also reach her on Twitter

You can also comment on her articles here:  Religion Dispatches

Or if you'd like you can request her friendship on Facebook, she has some 2,000 of them, or maybe just subscribe: Joanna Brooks

If there is one thing about Joanna, she is accessible and very willing to defend her views as well as allow you to defend your own.  

In no way is she dodging the issues.

Edited by mtomm, 13 March 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[cdowis]

mtomm, on 13 March 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Here you go: Ask Mormon Girl

You can also reach her on Twitter

You can also comment on her articles here:  Religion Dispatches

Or if you'd like you can request her friendship on Facebook, she has some 2,000 of them, or maybe just subscribe: Joanna Brooks

If there is one thing about Joanna, she is accessible and very willing to defend her views as well as allow you to defend your own.  

In no way is she dodging the issues.

Allowing a comment on a published article is not the same as toe-to-toe response in a forum.  I ask a question, you respond, I then comment on your response.  Do you understand "defending her views" and giving a direct dialog?  Twitter is not content rich like a forum.  It is specifically designed for low content, just short sound bites without the opportunity to develop a reasoned argument.  If you are skilled at sound bites, you can make the other person look like an idiot.

I realize that you are really impressed with her "openness", but I have been in this business for several decades and, similar to a radio host who has control over the format of the discussion -- the examples are not an equal playing field.  You can select what questions you will answer, how much the other person is allowed to respond, etc.

Only an open forum allows equality among the participants, and gives enough "room" to make your point rather than sound bites.

If you control the format, you are dodging the issues.  Don't be fooled.  May I suggest talking to Hank Hanegraaf on his radio show, or a political commentator (e.g. Rush) and you will see what I mean.

Any antimormon will "defend their views" in a published book, on their web site allowing comments and email.  They can avoid and dodge the issues with skill and practice.  That happens even on a forum such as this one, and requires an audience sophisticated to see the tricks...... even on an open forum.

I have invited several antis from their safe havens to participate on this forum.  With the exception of Rob Bowman, all have declined.  Why not invite her to the forum and let's see how she responds.  Send her a twitter invitation.  Let's see what she's got.

Edited by cdowis, 13 March 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[Jeff K.]

Ask Mormon Girl is not unique in any sense of the word.  It is rather shallow for the most part, and with a political bent.  It is doubtful she has the content knowledge to really understand nuanced issues.  Its more a "look at me I'm a rebel" type of presentation which of course enamours her to the various media outlets who are looking for something other than bland content.

[Pahoran]

Jeff K., on 13 March 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Ask Mormon Girl is not unique in any sense of the word.  It is rather shallow for the most part, and with a political bent.  It is doubtful she has the content knowledge to really understand nuanced issues.  Its more a "look at me I'm a rebel" type of presentation which of course enamours her to the various media outlets who are looking for something other than bland content.

It seems to me that the "I'm a rebel" trope has become something of a cliche in journalistic circles.  Like the movie heroine who looks like a runway model but can out-fight a platoon of trained soldiers while bench-pressing a small car, everyone is doing it.  Like Analytics, they're all conforming to a completely standard non-conformist stereotype.

And the "rebellion" is really nothing of the sort; it's simply a surrender to the prevailing winds of the world.

Regards,
Pahoran

Edited by Pahoran, 13 March 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[kolipoki09]

In the event that any of you are interested in this sort of thing, BYU Political Science Professor Ralph Hancock has offered the following synopsis of Brooks' recent work through Meridian Magazine, published earlier today.



Confessions of Joanna or Towards a Mormonism Lite

[calmoriah]

cdowis, on 13 March 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Any antimormon will "defend their views" in a published book, on their web site allowing comments and email.  They can avoid and dodge the issues with skill and practice.  That happens even on a forum such as this one, and requires an audience sophisticated to see the tricks...... even on an open forum.

I have invited several antis from their safe havens to participate on this forum.  With the exception of Rob Bowman, all have declined.  Why not invite her to the forum and let's see how she responds.  Send her a twitter invitation.  Let's see what she's got.

You are not saying Joanna Brooks is an anti-mormon, are you?

[calmoriah]

kolipoki09, on 13 March 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

In the event that any of you are interested in this sort of thing, BYU Political Science Professor Ralph Hancock has offered the following synopsis of Brooks' recent work through Meridian Magazine, published earlier today.



Confessions of Joanna or Towards a Mormonism Lite

Have you read her book?  I am curious for your impressions about his review, the comments of those who have read her book seem to be rather negative about the review....but that might be due to the self selecting nature of those who would be interested in her book in the first place.

[Jeff K.]

Joanna Brooks has never been to the temple, yet she claims to understand and speak and understand what "Mormonism" is.  Perhaps.  Perhaps she knows what "Mormonism" is, I am not sure what it is, but I do know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, and I know what it does for people and its implications in our lives.  But then I have been to the temple, and while the temple isn't a guarrantor of intimate knowledge of the gospel (like the university degree in rocket science is not a guarrantor that one can be familiar with rocket engineering), it does provide a strong basis of understanding.  Would I go to a community college graduate to talk about in depth sciences that often need a four and eight year degrees?  Most would not.

The media love talking to Joanna Brooks because she titillates in the sense she is "rebellious", unfortunately she doesn't have depth.  I would not go to Hollywood to learn of what America is, nor would I consider someone whose shallowness rivals Joanna Brooks to be someone who should speak or project what it is to be a "Mormon Girl".

[cdowis]

I wrote the "Mormon Girl"the following response to her article on "another BYU Honor Code scandal":

Quote

"Another week, another Brigham Young University Honor Code scandal, another incidentof young Mormon women being gender-profiled and publicly disciplined by total strangers for their alleged immodesty in dress.  This time, it wasn’t skinny jeans.  It was a dress over leggings.  And a blistering note:  “What you’re wearing has a negative effect on men (and women) around you . . .”

1. How was BYU involved?  This is a "BYU student embarrasses himself" scandal, his interpretation of the code.

2. Are you certain that this was a stranger? (note: the article said it was a single man, not the plural as in your blog.)  It is important for your blog "gender-profiled and publicly disciplined by total strangers".  This is pure fantasy -- a single stranger, but that does not meet your agenda.

3. Please tell us your mysterious knowledge that this had anything to do with her dress over pants.  They showed the note on the video, and it was carefully written, taking several minutes and not hastily scrawled.  Is it not possible that he is indeed familiar with her, that they take a class together or he has seen her several times at the library, and he was referring to a previous incident.

In the video she was wearing a very shot dress, and "happened"to be wearing leggings.  We are not able to get his side of the story.  For example, that his note refers to a previous day, and he was referring to a different outfit.  For example, thigh length dress without the leggings.

The possible scenario:  the note writer was very familiar with her, having seen her on several occasions.  She often wears the short dress alone, with no pants.  He wrote the note the previous evening based on her (previous) immodest attire, and gave it to her the next day.

Finally, is it not possible that she put on the pants AFTER the note.  She made no mention that the pants are a normal part of her attire, or even that she was wearing them when she got the note.

But, of course, you know the answer to all these questions, and made it a part of your blog to embarrass the church and BYU, even though, at worst case, it was the opinion of a single student.

How pathetic.

The article was where a BYU student got a note from "somebody"on her immodest attire.  She took a picture of herself wearing a short, thigh length dress with long pants underneath.  She did not say whether those were the clothes she was wearing at the time.

Edited by cdowis, 14 March 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[kolipoki09]

calmoriah, on 13 March 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Have you read her book?  I am curious for your impressions about his review, the comments of those who have read her book seem to be rather negative about the review....but that might be due to the self selecting nature of those who would be interested in her book in the first place.

Calmoriah-

I haven't read her book, but I will in the next few months. Many of the negative comments about the review have come directly from Joanna's friends, some of whom have read the book, while others haven't. One person whom I've interacted with directly about the book believed the review was unfairly selective and unbalanced. Rather than passing judgment now, I'll read the book and get back to you on it.

[calmoriah]

kolipoki09, on 14 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Calmoriah-

I haven't read her book, but I will in the next few months. Many of the negative comments about the review have come directly from Joanna's friends, some of whom have read the book, while others haven't. One person whom I've interacted with directly about the book believed the review was unfairly selective and unbalanced. Rather than passing judgment now, I'll read the book and get back to you on it.

That would be great.

I do agree with the general comment about her being the "national voice of Mormonism", I don't think any 'lay' member should take on that role, especially if she sees herself as part of a reform movement rather than "orthodox".

But the rest I am wondering about.

add-on:  she describes herself or allows herself to be described on her two websites as "a national voice" not "the national voice".  I still take issue with anyone saying they are a "voice of Mormonism" as it lends itself to misunderstanding as that the individual should be considered as a spokesperson.  I think a better term would be better, even the change from "of" to "on" would be helpful.  I would prefer something like "nationally known, she is one of the many voices who speak on their experience within Mormonism".

Edited by calmoriah, 16 March 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[Jeff K.]

Can one understand what it means to be a Latter-day Saint and never enter the temple, or believe the temple to be so unimportant that it remains negligable?  She embraces the position she has claimed for herself, but it seems she lacks the ability to undestand what it really means to be a member.

[Sky]

Jeff K., on 14 March 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Can one understand what it means to be a Latter-day Saint and never enter the temple, or believe the temple to be so unimportant that it remains negligable?  She embraces the position she has claimed for herself, but it seems she lacks the ability to undestand what it really means to be a member.

How do you know that she hasn't been through the temple?

[calmoriah]

Sky, on 14 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

How do you know that she hasn't been through the temple?

Apparently she has stated this.  IIRC she says she has no intention to, but I may be wrong.

[Sky]

I like Joanna Brooks as a person and her ability to empathize and have compassion for other people.  But her approach to Mormonism is just too much "out in left field" for me.  What bothers me is the fact that I often can’t tell if she is with us or against us.  She is neither hot nor cold.  She professes to love certain aspects of Mormonism, but then turns around and writes scathing critiques in her Religion Dispatches columns.

In a sense I admire her for trying to create a place for herself and others like her in the Church, as opposed to simply leaving.  But on the other hand, I don’t understand her drive to stay when she is at odds with so much of what the Church does.  

It will indeed be interesting to see what happens with her when it comes to her status with the Church.  How far can she push the limits of orthodoxy before something snaps?  Will she be called into a disciplinary counsel?  Or will the Church just sit quietly by and let her do her thing?  One thing I know for sure is that if she was ever disfellowshiped or excommunicated, it would cause more bad PR for the Church, which is the last thing the Church needs right now.

[Jeff K.]

If her thing were "I am not necessarily an active Mormon" or "I am a Mormon who doesn't think the temple is important" or something along those lines, then she is accurately portraying herself.  The issue is of course that she is allowing the media to see her as the silent majority in the church, especially when she expouses one view that is not held by the church.  It is a disengenuous shot at her own little 15 minutes, and that is what bothers me.  Her honesty should be built around perhaps "Inactive Mormon Girl", but then that type of bland would be ignored, as she well knows.