Cnn Article About Joanna Brooks

[DH]

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.

[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.

[LDSToronto]

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".

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Calm]

"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]

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".

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.

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.

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]

Different and "uninformed".

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

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).

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[LDSToronto]

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.

Interesting take. Does that make every poster on MDD (or other LDS themed message boards) spokespeople for the Church (unofficially)?

[KevinG]

Interesting take. Does that make every poster on MDD (or other LDS themed message boards) spokespeople for the Church (unofficially)?

Yes - and we should all take care not to presume authority over wards, stakes, regions or the world church. We can share opinions but we shouldtake care not to pretend to be a representative of anything other than ourselves.

It may be a subtle difference but when someone says "I think it would be good if the church could..." it is a far cry from "The brethren are in error when they..."

Scholarship should be presented as scholarship. Critique should be presented as critique. Opinion should be presented as opinion.

The problem with national and world press outlets or members who achieve a little notariety because of their opinions is the press will not make that distinction clearly from actual Mormon authorities. In fact if they can they will muddy the waters and present critics as "insiders" using terms like 8th generation Mormon or Pioneer descendent.

For someone unfamiliar with the church and how it is organized they may believe that lengthy geneologies carry as much weight and authority as being called of God by the Spirit of Prophecy.

[KevinG]

PS I have ignored or turned down inquiries and auditions to represent the church in writing or as a guest on a reality show. When I was quoted in an authoratative way on a Mormonism web site I asked the owner to remove my quotes even though they were a representation of a "faithful perspective" according to him.

This board is a variety of opinions and voices and I don't claim or imply authority in the Church hierarchy here other than to say I'm a Scout Leader.

[LDSToronto]

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?

I don't think she's an apostate, much less a self-admitted apostate (I searched the word "apostate" in the article and only found one occurrence where she addresses hanging out with apostates).

Here's what she says about being Mormon:

“I just refuse to be ashamed of being Mormon,” she says. “Don’t talk about us like we’re not in the room.”

And the article even says Joanna is, "

an accidental, unofficial and admittedly unauthorized source for all things Mormon."

I didn't say I thought she was a good authority on Mormonism. Reading her writings and hearing her speak a few times, I think she is better informed on the historical LDS church than most, but I feel she pines for, and describes, a Mormonism that does not exist today. In fact, I feel Joanna Brooks defends Mormonism by stating that the Church is something that it is not and she does this by mixing early historical liberal teachings of Joseph Smith and substituting in her own fantasies of liberal equality and presenting this phantasm to the public as a representation of the Church.

Hence, I like her ideas because they give us something to think about, but I don't agree that she represents the Church correctly.

H.

[KevinG]

Were probably on a similar page then. I don't blame her completely for being used to represent Mormonism. But we as individual members faithful or not should be very cautious any time a press representative or blogger asks us to represent the church.

Which brings up another distinction Mormonism vs. the LDS Church. The press has botched that royally in recent years too.

I cannot believe the confusion is not intentional in order to generate exciting stories.

[Jeff K.]

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.

She is what I might call a cafeteria Mormon, that somewhat vague group that embraces the social aspects but chooses to avoid the idea of doctrine. Doctrine is what this church is all about! It isn't about the different ways to prepare potatoes or the many jello recipes shared, it isn't about mutual, or social gatherings. It is about doctrine, and that doctrine is distinctive in many ways. There is a gulf between stating we hold some social aspects to be important and that of holding doctrine in its most imporatant context. Should we be grateful somehow that she is active or considers herself active? I don't see why? Such choices are hers. But with her limited understanding of the church, I do not see her as a national voice for Mormons. Indeed I see her as a stumbling block for understanding of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. She is someone who does not understand the nuance of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. She does not know the importance of the temple, she is therefore sadly lacking in what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. Like the boy at BYU who puts tape under his pants in order to "look like" a returned missionary in order to meet other people, she does the equivalent to non LDS society. To someone who does not know much of the church I am sure she is impressive in her depth and knowledge. Most of us though see her as shallow.

[LDSToronto]

She is what I might call a cafeteria Mormon, that somewhat vague group that embraces the social aspects but chooses to avoid the idea of doctrine. Doctrine is what this church is all about! It isn't about the different ways to prepare potatoes or the many jello recipes shared, it isn't about mutual, or social gatherings. It is about doctrine, and that doctrine is distinctive in many ways. There is a gulf between stating we hold some social aspects to be important and that of holding doctrine in its most imporatant context. Should we be grateful somehow that she is active or considers herself active? I don't see why? Such choices are hers. But with her limited understanding of the church, I do not see her as a national voice for Mormons. Indeed I see her as a stumbling block for understanding of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. She is someone who does not understand the nuance of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. She does not know the importance of the temple, she is therefore sadly lacking in what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. Like the boy at BYU who puts tape under his pants in order to "look like" a returned missionary in order to meet other people, she does the equivalent to non LDS society. To someone who does not know much of the church I am sure she is impressive in her depth and knowledge. Most of us though see her as shallow.

A cafeteria Mormon is someone who picks and choses what they will embrace and what they will reject. Perhaps reject is too strong a word, but let's stick with it for now.

I posit most Mormons, even the ones we'd all label as active, are cafeteria Mormons.

H.

[KevinG]

A cafeteria Mormon is someone who picks and choses what they will embrace and what they will reject. Perhaps reject is too strong a word, but let's stick with it for now.

I posit most Mormons, even the ones we'd all label as active, are cafeteria Mormons.

H.

A key distinction between active and critic is if they are striving to bring themselves into alignment with the LDS/Gospel teachings or are they sitting on the sidelines and criticizing the points they don't understand?

[LDSToronto]

A key distinction between active and critic is if they are striving to bring themselves into alignment with the LDS/Gospel teachings or are they sitting on the sidelines and criticizing the points they don't understand?

There is a third option - those who are active, picking and choosing, not criticizing, and not really doing much beyond lip service to improve. By improvement, I mean picking the stuff they aren't picking up now.

I think this third option is most likely.

H.

[KevinG]

There is a third option - those who are active, picking and choosing, not criticizing, and not really doing much beyond lip service to improve. By improvement, I mean picking the stuff they aren't picking up now.

I think this third option is most likely.

H.

Ah...

TBMs

Cafeteria Mormons. and

Picky Eater Mormons

[Jeff K.]

The last aren't really Mormons, to them a sacrifice is making it all the way through sacrament.

[LDSToronto]

The last aren't really Mormons, to them a sacrifice is making it all the way through sacrament.

Of course they are Mormons! Here, let me give you an example or two:

1. Active family, hold callings, pay tithes, has heard all the stories at GC about no sports on Sunday; kids play hockey in Sunday league.

2. Bishop allows all three of his kids to take lifeguarding certification lessons on Sundays - for 4 months.

3. Most wards only have around 35% hometeaching in a particular stake - yet have an active priesthood base

4. Active PEC continuously ignores counsel to visit less actives in ward

5. A ward with over 100 temple recommend holders can't get more than 5-10 people to attend the temple on temple night.

And the list goes on. Many, many good, active Mormons behave this way all the time. These are cafeteria Mormons - picking and choosing what makes most sense to them in their life.

H.

[Jeff K.]

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.

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.

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.

[Jeff K.]

Of course they are Mormons! Here, let me give you an example or two:

1. Active family, hold callings, pay tithes, has heard all the stories at GC about no sports on Sunday; kids play hockey in Sunday league.

2. Bishop allows all three of his kids to take lifeguarding certification lessons on Sundays - for 4 months.

3. Most wards only have around 35% hometeaching in a particular stake - yet have an active priesthood base

4. Active PEC continuously ignores counsel to visit less actives in ward

5. A ward with over 100 temple recommend holders can't get more than 5-10 people to attend the temple on temple night.

And the list goes on. Many, many good, active Mormons behave this way all the time. These are cafeteria Mormons - picking and choosing what makes most sense to them in their life.

H.

Some people will take a dishonest stance or act without honor, Toronto I think you know that very well. Simply going through the motions does not mean belief and without belief one cannot honestly claim to be a Latter-day Saint. I think you can dredge more than a few experiences that will reflect such a view.

[Senator]

Wow, Jeff!

How much more offensive and judgemental can you get in one thread?