Cnn Article About Joanna Brooks

[cdowis]

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.

[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]

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

[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

[Calm]

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?

[Calm]

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":

"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.

[kolipoki09]

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.

[Calm]

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".

[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]

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?

[Calm]

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.

[Analytics]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Calm]

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

Specifically she describes herself as:

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"

[DH]

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.

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.

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.