76 replies to this topic

[Analytics]

Pahoran, on 13 March 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

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.

I wonder how you think you could possibly know me well enough to know what I do and don't conform to.  Giving you the benefit, I'll assume you are being sincere in your judgments, and simply misunderstand me.

Which reminds me of what Emerson said:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

[Jeff K.]

Some things and people are obvious.

[Pahoran]

Analytics, on 14 March 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

I wonder how you think you could possibly know me well enough to know what I do and don't conform to.  Giving you the benefit, I'll assume you are being sincere in your judgments, and simply misunderstand me.

Really the pattern of your posts over the years has been quite consistent; but It became obvious when, for two posts in a row, instead of contributing your own original thoughts on any subject, you merely quoted Emerson.

Analytics, on 14 March 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Which reminds me of what Emerson said:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

And that makes three.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Analytics]

Pahoran, on 15 March 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Really the pattern of your posts over the years has been quite consistent; but It became obvious when, for two posts in a row, instead of contributing your own original thoughts on any subject, you merely quoted Emerson.


And that makes three.

Regards,
Pahoran

So, you can tell that I am merely "surrendering to the prevailing winds of the world" because I quote Emerson.  All I can say is that I'm glad Emerson is making a comeback.

[Jeff K.]

Consistently taking things out of context too.

[DH]

What is your problem, Jeff K.? Why do you have it in for Joanna Brooks? I don't think she claims to be "The Voice" of the LDS Church, but she is LDS and has just as much a right to call herself Mormon as you or I. I like that she's different than the stereotypical Mormon, partly because I'm different, too. Though her experiences and point of view are not necessarily the same as mine, there is something validating about hearing the personal stories of other Latter-day Saints whose life scripts do not sound as though they were written by a committee in the Correlation Department. More than just being validating, I think Brooks brings up legitimate questions about our LDS faith and culture. If you think all Mormons have to think exactly the same way you do in order to be "real" Mormons, I think you need to reevaluate what it means to be a Mormon.

[Jeff K.]

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.

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 have no problem, you however seem to think just about anyone with any level of belief can be a voice for Latter-day Saints.  Maybe if she titled herself "inactive" Mormon Girl?  Then at least she would come closer to defining the niche she seems to so desperately want to fill.

[kolipoki09]

Jeff K., on 15 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I have no problem, you however seem to think just about anyone with any level of belief can be a voice for Latter-day Saints.  Maybe if she titled herself "inactive" Mormon Girl?  Then at least she would come closer to defining the niche she seems to so desperately want to fill.

Just as a clarification, Joanna is active. Her activity in the Church was enough that she even warranted an entry on Mormon Scholars Testify as one of its first pieces. Joanna doesn't shy away from the fact that she's part of a small but growing progressive/liberal wing of Mormonism that is, at times, at odds with the Brethren - mostly on matters of policy, less on matters of doctrine.

Joanna went through over a decade of inactivity following her graduation from BYU and her work through graduate school. She married a fellow academic, a reformed Jew, and raised a family. Yet after years out of the fold, Joanna came back. She has no problem admitting that she pulled her hair out over the Church's involvement in Prop 8, but after a while she started attending church again.

She doesn't attempt to define her faith as a status quo run-of-the-mill member. Those who follow her work know her as a progressive, and Joanna doesn't pretend to be anything otherwise. Whether Joanna chooses to go to the temple is entirely between her, the Lord, and her ecclesiastical leaders. Having read most of her work (with the exception of her most recent book), Joanna shows a remarkably well-understood approach to the LDS concept of salvation and exaltation, even if she hasn't received her endowment. I am not saying that one doesn't need to attend the temple to gain the clearest understanding of what its covenants entail. Receiving my endowment was one of the pivotal experiences of my life. I hope Joanna is able to do it herself one day. What I am saying is that someone doesn't necessarily have to attend the temple to accurately depict certain concepts in LDS tradition, culture, and doctrine to a largely uninitiated audience in the first place.

Joanna has provided a voice for many cultural/progressive Latter-day Saints who might otherwise disassociate with the Saints all together. Until Joanna demands that the Church start praying to Heavenly Mother and claims that Mary the mother of Jesus is the fourth member of the Godhead, I don't see her membership in the Church to be in any sort of jeopardy. I can see where some people might think Joanna is a little too far out in left field. I think I've felt that way a time or two myself. But what matters is that she's in the field - a field that is ripe and ready to hear about Mormonism's coming of age.

Wherever one stands with regard to the partisan strands of Mormonism, it is a conversation worth having. Even on topics with which I've disagreed with Joanna, I'm glad she's out there. She isn't requiring anyone to adhere to her belief system (or rather, her conception of that belief system). She's offering her perspective, one of a myriad of perspectives that can and should be shared with the world at large. We could debate back and forth as to whether this or that point is valid or not. The point is, Mormonism has never received more attention than it has now. I'd rather have someone like Joanna speaking up on important topics than to have people draw their own assumptions void of a rational response from a self-described believer.

[calmoriah]

DH, on 15 March 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

I don't think she claims to be "The Voice" of the LDS Church

Specifically she describes herself as:

Quote

Joanna Brooks is a national voice on Mormon life and politics and an award-winning scholar of religion and American culture.

http://joannabrooks.org/bio/

added this to my previous post to render it more accurate:

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".  Or if shortness is required, use koli's word and say "a perspective on Mormonism, published nationwide"

Edited by calmoriah, 16 March 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[DH]

Jeff K., on 15 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, 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.

Quote

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.

Quote

I have no problem, you however seem to think just about anyone with any level of belief can be a voice for Latter-day Saints.  Maybe if she titled herself "inactive" Mormon Girl?  Then at least she would come closer to defining the niche she seems to so desperately want to fill.

Yes, of course I think any Mormon, with any level of belief, can be a voice for Latter-day Saints--by virtue of being Mormon themselves. Brooks is not the voice of all Latter-day Saints, and she does not claim to be. But she is a Latter-day Saint, and she has a right to give voice to her experiences just as much as anybody else. I wouldn't want to be part of a church that only allows official spokespeople to voice their opinions and share their life experiences, and fortunately, I don't, because that's not how the LDS Church is.

[DH]

calmoriah, on 16 March 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

Specifically she describes herself as:
http://joannabrooks.org/bio/

added this to my previous post to render it more accurate:

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".  Or if shortness is required, use koli's word and say "a perspective on Mormonism, published nationwide"

"A national voice" is perfectly accurate. "A" means "one," and that's what she is, one Mormon among many. She is nationally known, so, you know... People understand that she's not an official Church spokesperson. She represents herself as who she is, a Mormon who writes blogs.

I've read from her blog and listened to her on a number of podcasts, and it's always clear that she doesn't represent the Church, or all Mormons, or anything like that. She's giving her opinions, her insights, and her experience, nothing else. She openly acknowledges she is not "orthodox," which by definition says that she doesn't represent the Church's official position.

Frankly, I think the public likes hearing from Brooks partly because of her pleasant personality, and partly because she comes across as a very "genuine" person. Not because she officially represents the Church's stand, or respresents "the" point of view of "real" Mormons, but because she shares her own experiences honestly and openly. The public wants to know what it's "really like" to be a Mormon, not what the Church PR Department says it's supposed to be like, and while no one person can say what it's like for every single Mormon, they can say what their own experience as a Mormon as been like, and that's what Brooks does.

Edited by DH, 16 March 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[KevinG]

I don't believe I've seen anything by Ms. Brooks so I don't have an axe to grind with her writings...  having said that:

The problems come when the press start elevating a minority voice of the mormons to the point of becoming a representative voice of the Mormons.  Only an Apostle or Prophet is a witness to the world.  Only a General Authority is a witness to their region.  Only a local authority is a witness to his or her presidency.

Individual members certainly have their opinions and freedom to express them but at the moment they are picked up as a novel or celebrity representative of the church they should take great care to remember notariety is not authority to speak for the body of Christ.

If they don't remember this they are just another busybody who assumes greater authority than God has given them.  It is annoying on the ward level.  It is potentially devistating on the world stage.

Edited by KevinG, 16 March 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[LDSToronto]

Jeff K., on 15 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

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?

Someone who has not gone to the temple has a different perspective and different insight into the temple and the temple's place in Mormon worship. "Different" is different from "wrong".

Quote

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?

I suspect being a Latter-day Saint means many things to many people and no viewpoint is entirely correct or entirely incorrect. Perhaps if you could produce an authoritative definition of 'being LDS' that features the temple prominently, you'd have a start. Such a statement is likely non-existent.

Quote

  Would someone so ignorant of such an important aspect of who we are really have insight?

I think it's possible to be un-endowed and be informed concerning the temple. There is little doubt that one can be un-endowed and be informed concerning what it means to be LDS.

Quote

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.

Has Joanna Brooks said that she is uninterested in covenants with god?

Quote

  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?

By your analogy, one could only ever go to a member of the Quorum of Twelve to get correct information about what it's like to be LDS.

Quote

I have no problem, you however seem to think just about anyone with any level of belief can be a voice for Latter-day Saints.  Maybe if she titled herself "inactive" Mormon Girl?  Then at least she would come closer to defining the niche she seems to so desperately want to fill.

Isn't that the wonderful thing about democracy and freedom? Anyone can say what they want and anyone can choose to listen. Jeff, you have just as much power to refute Joanna Brooks in the news. You have just as much power to rise to her level of celebrity and be an alternative voice. You have just as much power to create a column on the internet and use convincing language.

The fact is, Americans are listening to Joanna Brooks. Like it or not.

H.

[calmoriah]

DH, on 16 March 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

"A national voice" is perfectly accurate.

I know it is accurate, but simply because a statement is accurate does not mean it isn't prone to being misinterpreted.  It has been misinterpreted by some of her critics.

I have no problem with her speaking out and people listening.  I simply would prefer a more nuanced description, as much for her own benefit as others.

[KevinG]

LDSToronto, on 16 March 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Someone who has not gone to the temple has a different perspective and different insight into the temple and the temple's place in Mormon worship. "Different" is different from "wrong".

Different and "uninformed".

Quote

Perhaps if you could produce an authoritative definition of 'being LDS' that features the temple prominently...

Endowed or prepared for entry into the Celestial Kingdom would be a couple of ahthoritative definitions right off the top of my head.

Quote

I think it's possible to be un-endowed and be informed concerning the temple. There is little doubt that one can be un-endowed and be informed concerning what it means to be LDS.

A good reading of Boyd K Packers "The Holy Temple" would be informative.  But it still doesn't include the actual teachings shared in the Temple.  Having a good idea of something and knowing something are two different experiences.

In fact you could read the Temple ceremony cobbled together on line by apostates and still not "get" the Temple experience, the context, the Spiritual experience and knowledge that comes from the Endowment or Baptismal ceremonies.

I've watched Olympic Gymnastics and have a pretty good idea of how they score atheletes.  I am not capable of doing the splits.

Quote

Has Joanna Brooks said that she is uninterested in covenants with god?



By your analogy, one could only ever go to a member of the Quorum of Twelve to get correct information about what it's like to be LDS.



Isn't that the wonderful thing about democracy and freedom? Anyone can say what they want and anyone can choose to listen. Jeff, you have just as much power to refute Joanna Brooks in the news. You have just as much power to rise to her level of celebrity and be an alternative voice. You have just as much power to create a column on the internet and use convincing language.

The fact is, Americans are listening to Joanna Brooks. Like it or not.

H.

I have not heard Joanna Brooks and don't care.  See my previous remarks as to why a private celebrity is not a spokesperson for the LDS church.  A less active or knowledgable spokesperson just compounds the error.

[LDSToronto]

Is there any evidence that Joanna Brooks claims to represent the LDS Church in any official capacity? Does a claim exist, by any media outlet, that Joanna Brooks is an official spokesperson for the LDS Church?

H.

[LDSToronto]

KevinG, on 16 March 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Different and "uninformed".

Is Joanna Brooks "uninformed" with respect to "being LDS" or is she "uninformed" with respect to the temple?

Quote

Endowed or prepared for entry into the Celestial Kingdom would be a couple of ahthoritative definitions right off the top of my head.

An authoritative definition of "being LDS" includes, "an LDS person is someone who is endowed or is un-endowed but prepated for entry into the Celestial kingdom"?

That seems awfully restrictive, doesn't it? Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying (or where you are getting this authoritative statement from).

Quote

A good reading of Boyd K Packers "The Holy Temple" would be informative.  But it still doesn't include the actual teachings shared in the Temple.  Having a good idea of something and knowing something are two different experiences.

In fact you could read the Temple ceremony cobbled together on line by apostates and still not "get" the Temple experience, the context, the Spiritual experience and knowledge that comes from the Endowment or Baptismal ceremonies.

I've watched Olympic Gymnastics and have a pretty good idea of how they score atheletes.  I am not capable of doing the splits.

Of course. I never said that Joanna was experienced in the endowment, as you and I are. I said that she may have a valid perspective and that she may be informed.

Quote

I have not heard Joanna Brooks and don't care.  See my previous remarks as to why a private celebrity is not a spokesperson for the LDS church.  A less active or knowledgable spokesperson just compounds the error.

If you haven't read or heard Joanna Brooks, I'm uncertain how it's possible to comment on what she has said, what she knows, or what she claims to be.

H.

[KevinG]

LDSToronto, on 16 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Is there any evidence that Joanna Brooks claims to represent the LDS Church in any official capacity? Does a claim exist, by any media outlet, that Joanna Brooks is an official spokesperson for the LDS Church?

H.

Simply being on a media outlet positions someone as a spokesperson for the group they represent or discuss.  Dan Peterson is a spokesperson for Mormons when he does a podcast.  Bishop whatshisname is a spokesperson for the Mormons when he speaks at a Gay and Lesbian affairs conference.

There is a reason private and public organizations have official communications offices and policy on who can speak to the press and in what capacity.  In this day and age of instant 15 minute fame that is even more critical.

The press knows exactly what they are doing when the ask Ann Coulter to be a guest to discuss Republican policy or whow pictures of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgance in a gay pride parade.

[KevinG]

LDSToronto, on 16 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Is Joanna Brooks "uninformed" with respect to "being LDS" or is she "uninformed" with respect to the temple?

I assumed Temple from the discussion above.

Quote

An authoritative definition of "being LDS" includes, "an LDS person is someone who is endowed or is un-endowed but prepated for entry into the Celestial kingdom"?

That seems awfully restrictive, doesn't it? Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying (or where you are getting this authoritative statement from).

You asked for a definition that included Temple attendance.  Pardon my misinderstanding.

However a Temple going Mormon is certainly more informed not less than a non-Temple going mormon.  Just as an Apostle is more informed about the worldwide church than a Primary President.

Quote

Of course. I never said that Joanna was experienced in the endowment, as you and I are. I said that she may have a valid perspective and that she may be informed.



If you haven't read or heard Joanna Brooks, I'm uncertain how it's possible to comment on what she has said, what she knows, or what she claims to be.

H.

I did not comment on Joanna Brooks at all.  I was commenting on your defense of an individual member of the church as being a spokesperson.  Unofficially that is very common as my last post shows.  However it is not a good practice if a press outlet wants to show people a true representative or athoratative sample of Mormon practices and beliefs.

In short holding up a fringe voice without expressly presenting it as fringe or and opposing voice is deceptive.   Any Latter-day Saint who allows themself to be used as a representative of the religion without having the authority to represent the religion is in danger of presenting a misleading impression to the public.

Edited by KevinG, 16 March 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[KevinG]

OK to be fair I just read the article.  She is a self-admitted apostate who feels the church left her.

Tell me again why she is a good authority on Mormonism?