Cobalt-70 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 For those who haven't seen it, CNN did an article and photo essay about Mormon scholar Joanna Brooks: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/05/crossing-the-plains-and-kicking-up-dirt-a-new-mormon-pioneer/?hpt=hp_c1
Matthew J. Tandy Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Long article, just read it.Likes: The way she is raising her mixed-faith family. Her willingness to be herselfDislikes: The very shallow and inaccurate portrayal of events such as the September 6, which makes it appear the church was merely after thinkers and women rights supporters. Never mind that most weren't simply going against the grain on social issues, they were challenging leaders on doctrinal items such as to whether or not praying to a Heavenly Mother is ok. That it does not mention whether she has a belief in the Restoration, the Book of Mormon as the Word of God, Priesthood Authority, etc. I understand it's not the scope of the article though. The problem is that as a member of the church, it helps me to interpret her newer writings as to whether she is simply a cultural Mormon who wants to participate while also changing the Church from the inside, or whether she is a "believing" LDS member with a different perspective. I respect cultural Mormons and feel there should be more outreach to them, but their commentary should be taken in that context.Oh, and I would not consider her a historian, scholar, or expert on Mormonism. Except for perhaps on the liberal culture within the church. And for that, I much prefer Blair (ie, LifeonAPlate here). At least during her time out of the church, several of her interviews and such clearly showed that she had a distorted sense of the history of the Church and even cluelessness in others. I don't begrudge her that she is growing though in knowledge.
Libs Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I just purchased her new book for my Kindle a few days ago. I like her a lot. She is an individualist and very brave, IMO. She is not afraid to live her own life, and religion, as she sees fit.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Posted February 7, 2012 ...Oh, and I would not consider her a historian, scholar, or expert on Mormonism. Except for perhaps on the liberal culture within the church. And for that, I much prefer Blair (ie, LifeonAPlate here). At least during her time out of the church, several of her interviews and such clearly showed that she had a distorted sense of the history of the Church and even cluelessness in others. I don't begrudge her that she is growing though in knowledge.Most of her scholarly works are not about Mormonism. But she is a literature and women's studies professor, was born LDS and went to BYU. So I would easily consider her an authoritative source on women's studies within Mormonism, as well as Mormon literature. I think her visibility is good for Mormonism. Anything that helps break the Mormon stereotype is a good thing, and brings greater respect for us all. After all, isn't that what the LDS church is trying to do with the "I'm a Mormon" campaign?
thesometimesaint Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Cobalt-70:There are ways to change the cultural image of the Church without trying to the doctrinal positions of the Church.
DH Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Whatever else Joanna Brooks may be, she is "real," which is refreshing.
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Whatever else Joanna Brooks may be, she is "real," which is refreshing.As opposed to the army of plastic and metal cybermen created in a lab deep under Ensign peak that are now generating statements for the I'm a Mormon campaign in order to fool the world that we have more members than we really do...
DH Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 As opposed to the army of plastic and metal cybermen created in a lab deep under Ensign peak that are now generating statements for the I'm a Mormon campaign in order to fool the world that we have more members than we really do... Cute, but my point is Brooks doesn't try dodging the difficult issues or appearing to be anything other than what she is, a normal, regular, flawed human being who is trying to live the best she can. The Church PR and Missionary departments could learn a thing or two from her. The image they put forth is too "slick" for my taste, and they try their utmost to avoid difficult questions, and come across to many people as being not entirely sincere. If you ask me, if an average non-member were to meet Joanna Brooks instead of the missionaries, they'd probably come away with a better impression of Mormons.
selek1 Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 If you ask me, if an average non-member were to meet Joanna Brooks instead of the missionaries, they'd probably come away with a better impression of Mormons.Isn't it interesting how often someone's authenticity is determined solely by how well they reinforce our prejudices?
DH Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Isn't it interesting how often someone's authenticity is determined solely by how well they reinforce our prejudices?I'm not clear on how Brooks reinforces people's prejudices. If anything, quite the opposite.
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Cute, but my point is Brooks doesn't try dodging the difficult issues or appearing to be anything other than what she is, a normal, regular, flawed human being who is trying to live the best she can. The Church PR and Missionary departments could learn a thing or two from her. The image they put forth is too "slick" for my taste, and they try their utmost to avoid difficult questions, and come across to many people as being not entirely sincere. If you ask me, if an average non-member were to meet Joanna Brooks instead of the missionaries, they'd probably come away with a better impression of Mormons.I have a solution for you if you think the LDS church teaching their own doctrines and their members telling their own stories is too slick for your taste. Avoid Mormons.
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I'm not clear on how Brooks reinforces people's prejudices. If anything, quite the opposite.Heh. Right over your head.
Avatar4321 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Cute, but my point is Brooks doesn't try dodging the difficult issues or appearing to be anything other than what she is, a normal, regular, flawed human being who is trying to live the best she can. The Church PR and Missionary departments could learn a thing or two from her. The image they put forth is too "slick" for my taste, and they try their utmost to avoid difficult questions, and come across to many people as being not entirely sincere. If you ask me, if an average non-member were to meet Joanna Brooks instead of the missionaries, they'd probably come away with a better impression of Mormons.There's difficult issues? I havent seen them and ive been studying well over a decade.
Sky Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 My impression of Joanna is that she is a caring and passionate person, but many of her positions are at odds with the official Church. As to whether or not this is a good thing - it depends on who you ask. She seems to have a sort of love-hate relationship with the Church. At least she openly acknowledges that her opinions are her own and that she is imperfect. I don't think she intends to directly influence Church policy or doctrine. I'm glad to have her around, though. I hope she stays.It would be interesting to sit down with her and have a glass of lemonade and a good conversation.And I liked the "Keep Mormonism Weird" magnet on her fridge!
DH Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I have a solution for you if you think the LDS church teaching their own doctrines and their members telling their own stories is too slick for your taste.Avoid Mormons.If two family members find each other irritating and always argue with each other, is your advice to them to just avoid each other? Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Family is family, and Mormonism is my "tribe." I'm not going to avoid Mormons just so people like you don't have to deal with people like me.
DH Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 And I liked the "Keep Mormonism Weird" magnet on her fridge!Me too! Too often I think Mormons try so hard to smooth over the differences we have with other religions that we're in danger of losing the some of the unique goodness of our own religion. If we did that, what would we have to offer?
Jeff K. Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 And I liked the "Keep Mormonism Weird" magnet on her fridge!Even as she desires Mormonism to enter maintream liberalism. As a literature professor she probably is well aware of the world "irony".
Jeff K. Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Me too! Too often I think Mormons try so hard to smooth over the differences we have with other religions that we're in danger of losing the some of the unique goodness of our own religion. If we did that, what would we have to offer?As a general rule members of the church attempt to build bridges of mutual agreement and understanding. Some might even be tempted to call it "smoothing over". The only thing unique about us is the authority and revelation, all other things being easily manifested elsewhere. How would we lose what is unique? By not accepting the prophets and apostles and losing our authority. How do we hold on to that uniqueness? Simply by being conservative and tossing only those things that revelation tells us to toss. Which would make us very conservative as a religion.Just another conservative Mormon "keepin it weird".
Analytics Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 As opposed to the army of plastic and metal cybermen created in a lab deep under Ensign peak that are now generating statements for the I'm a Mormon campaign in order to fool the world that we have more members than we really do... It reminds me of Emerson's Self-Reliance: "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist....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."If somebody conforms every aspect of their thoughts and lives to the church and completely agrees with it about everything, maybe it's a sign of somebody who has come to all of the same conclusions, or maybe its the sign of somebody who has simply conformed. Maybe conformity is authentic and maybe it's not. But in either case it isn't very interesting.
LeSellers Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 If somebody conforms every aspect of their thoughts and lives to the church and completely agrees with it about everything, maybe it's a sign of somebody who has come to all of the same conclusions, or maybe its the sign of somebody who has simply conformed. "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.There is nothing to be gained by defying her, nothing to be won by opposing her. It is possible that there are things about which her stances are not 100% in agreement with the way God would do it were He running her operations day-to-day, but I'll take her 87.2% over the rest of the world's 19.3% and come out a winner every time.I've found that substituting my own "wisdom" for that of God's servants hasn't worked out very well for me. I've seen too many people who have tried to do it, as well, and it hasn't worked for them, either. So, when it comes to [insert favorite critic hobby horse here], I'll just follow the counsel of God's chosen and leave the sorting out to Him.None of this means I don't reflect on and ask about policy changes, doctrine, or scriptural interpretation. Quite the contrary. However, it does mean I do not start from a position of "Well, that's weird. I wonder how badly the Brethren have messed it up this time", which is where a lot of people make their initial stand and do not have the integrity to change it when events show the Brethren to have been correct.Lehi
Analytics Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 "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 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 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 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 my point is Brooks doesn't try dodging the difficult issuesAs 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 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 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 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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 GirlYou can also reach her on TwitterYou can also comment on her articles here: Religion DispatchesOr if you'd like you can request her friendship on Facebook, she has some 2,000 of them, or maybe just subscribe: Joanna BrooksIf 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.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.