Does The Mormon Church Encourage Lds People To Lie? -- Joanna Brooks

[why me]

Joanna Brooks makes me vomit some times. I remember when an NPR caller asked her if blacks were allowed to be Mormons. Instead of answering the question first, she went our history, showed how smart she was, then by the time no one cared anymore, she said "Yes."

I think that she has a hard times with simple answers because simple answers do not tell the complete story. I do believe that she feels obligated to tell the whole history to a questioner to cover her own reputation as an academic or blogger. What she doesn't understand is the general intelligence of the listeners. They may not be very familiar with lds history nor process it correctly. Most people these days seem to deal in soundbites and not depth.

[why me]

How is it that those sincere people that see something wonderful in Mormonism not able to understand that if they make the changes they are advocating it is then changed and is no longer that something remarkable?

I think that people forget who is exactly heading the lds church. If men and women are directing the lds church they can make the changes they want when pressured by outsiders or members. But if the church is headed by christ and if the lds church depends on revelation to direct the church, well, the line of authority is out of human being hands.

This is the problem with the same sex marriage advocates in the church. They have forgotten who is directing the church. It is not men or women but Christ and heavenly father. They need to seek changes through prayer.

[KevinG]

I think that she has a hard times with simple answers because simple answers do not tell the complete story. I do believe that she feels obligated to tell the whole history to a questioner to cover her own reputation as an academic or blogger. What she doesn't understand is the general intelligence of the listeners. They may not be very familiar with lds history nor process it correctly. Most people these days seem to deal in soundbites and not depth.

You lost me. Can you say it in a short sentence?

[why me]

You lost me. Can you say it in a short sentence?

She has her reputation to consider because she is a public blogger. She also has her own group of followers who expect her to be complete in her responses. She is not just responding to a listeners question but to her own readers.

Also, most of the public has no idea who mormons are and what they believe. But these listeners may have preconceived notions of mormonism. When she answers their questions or speaks on a public radio station, she may not realize that these people can get lost in her interpretation of lds history or cultural norms. But again, she is also playing to her devout readers.

Edited August 10, 2012 by why me

[CV75]

She has her reputation to consider because she is a public blogger. She also has her own group of followers who expect her to be complete in her responses. She is not just responding to a listeners question but to her own readers.

Also, most of the public has no idea who mormons are and what they believe. But these listeners may have preconceived notions of mormonism. When she answers their questions or speaks on a public radio station, she may not realize that these people can get lost in her interpretation of lds history or cultural norms. But again, she is also playing to her devout readers.

I agree--if she's going to expand her media reach, she'll need a coach (but would that be honest?????)

[Tacenda]

The tone of Daymon Smith's book is one of dark humor. I think it's reminiscent of the original BBC production, "The Office." It is simultaneously very funny and deeply discouraging. Daymon Smith is a linguistic anthropologist who spent some time at the Church Office Building, where he became soundly disillusioned. His view is that we have been left with images of things and little substance; that we are members of little more than a trademark--sending our sacred funds to the HQ where they are often shockingly misused and wasted. Daymon sees richness and power in the early church, I think; but impoverished and self-serving corporatism in the modern franchise church that has been standardized and correlated by the efforts of shallow and misguided businessmen. Daymon does not seem to view this corruption as intentional, but as a side effect of the prevalence of money within the organization. It's as if the Mormon virtue of thrift and industry went terribly awry once it came in contact with the mature money economy. Can we really serve God by serving mammon?

That's my take on it.

I read the reviews on Amazon and I like yours best. Most gave 4 to 5 stars but commented on the difficulty of reading it in parts of it.

I think if he'd written it any differently it probably would have appeared anti and it could have spelled trouble for him.

[Scott Lloyd]

She's a writer and words and their meaning are her life.

I'm not all that well acquainted with Brooks's writing, but conciseness and economy of expression -- not wordiness -- are characteristics of good writing.

Failure to get to the point early on is one of the quickest ways I can think of to turn off a reader.

[why me]

I agree--if she's going to expand her media reach, she'll need a coach (but would that be honest?????)

I think that in mormon circles she will continue to be read. But once the presidential race is over and if Obama wins, she will fade away from the general public. But if Romney wins she will continue in her popularity with the media. However, she has more or less become the spokewoman for mormon women and lds controversial issues. If Romney wins, she will need a media coach.

[Mark Beesley]

Joanna said this in her article:

All the time Mormon men and women ask, "What kind of God would expect me to live in an eternal marriage that I would hate?" Not the God I believe in.

A person who has lived a mortal life worthy of the blessings of eternal life will probably have managed at some point to shed all feelings of hate, understanding of course that eternal life is a term of art meaning exaltation. If a person retains any feelings of hate about any relationship, they are probably not on the path to eternal life. The God that allows people to entertain feelings of hate while living with Him does not exist.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Tacenda]

Joanna said this in her article:

A person who has lived a mortal life worthy of the blessings of eternal life will probably have managed at some point to shed all feelings of hate, understanding of course that eternal life is a term of art meaning exaltation. If a person retains any feelings of hate about any relationship, they are probably not on the path to eternal life. The God that allows people to entertain feelings of hate while living with Him does not exist.

I'm guessing these women are talking about polygamy here right? You are coming from a different mindset apparently. Who wouldn't hate the idea of living eternally watching other women belong to your one and only?

Give us a break here. We don't have our celestial eyes yet. Plus, playing a harp or bieng a servant might just appeal to me better.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[pmccombs1]

How is it that those sincere people that see something wonderful in Mormonism not able to understand that if they make the changes they are advocating it is then changed and is no longer that something remarkable?

I guess your argument is a good one if one accepts that "Mormonism" is a one-dimenstional, all-encompassing, immutable fact. I think Daymon Smith sees a difference between Mormonism and The Church. He views the Church as a placeholder for things-once-real that have been displaced by abstractions, symbols, and trademarks. He isn't advocating change in the Church so much as he is writing critically about what he sees in the modern Church.

[ERayR]

I have always found it amazing how critics constantly bring up president hinckley and his interviews with the media. We need to remember that he was rather old at that time. It was quite up there in years. I don't think that we can hold him responsible for not thinking too quick when responding to such interviewers. But for the critics, he is either lying or deflecting. If I live to be 90 years old, I can only hope that I will be able to speak.

I think that you should read his book Standing for Something. It was published in 2000. President Hinckley speaks from his heart about virtue. There is a also a forward by Mike Wallace. It is obvious that the interviewers after the interview gave him a break and understood that for a man for his age, he did quite well.

I don't think it was age I think he was very aware of how deceitful and culpable of distortion the news media is and how sacred some of those doctrines are so he deflected the question as best he could on short notice. It may even be that some media people violated agreements as to areas of questioning, it wouldn't be the first time.

[ERayR]

I guess your argument is a good one if one accepts that "Mormonism" is a one-dimenstional, all-encompassing, immutable fact. I think Daymon Smith sees a difference between Mormonism and The Church. He views the Church as a placeholder for things-once-real that have been displaced by abstractions, symbols, and trademarks. He isn't advocating change in the Church so much as he is writing critically about what he sees in the modern Church.

I totally reject your portrayal of Mormonism as one dimensional. To say that shows a serious lack of understanding of Mormonism.

No he is writing about his vision of what and where the church should be and quite frankly his vision is not very good. I think he needs glasses.

[Mark Beesley]

Who wouldn't hate the idea of living eternally watching other women belong to your one and only?

Someone who has become perfect in love.

You are right, we don't have our celestial eyes yet, so it might be a good idea to avoid trying to imagine what marital relationships look like in the eternities and simply trust God.

[Tacenda]

I totally reject your portrayal of Mormonism as one dimensional. To say that shows a serious lack of understanding of Mormonism.

No he is writing about his vision of what and where the church should be and quite frankly his vision is not very good. I think he needs glasses.

Sorry to barge in here, but doesn't Daymon see differently than perhaps you do Ray? (can I call you Ray?) Since he actually worked at the COB?

[Deborah]

Woe unto the liar for he shall be thrust down into hell. Notice not gently placed, but thrust.

I suppose it depends on what definition is used:

1 John 2: 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

[ERayR]

Joanna said this in her article:

Quote

All the time Mormon men and women ask, "What kind of God would expect me to live in an eternal marriage that I would hate?" Not the God I believe in.

She knows enough to know this question does not reflect Mormon thinking or doctrine. It plays good in the media however.

[ERayR]

Sorry to barge in here, but doesn't Daymon see differently than perhaps you do Ray? (can I call you Ray?) Since he actually worked at the COB?

He can see what he wants to see but to see the church as one dimensional reveals, to me, a dose of myopia. One can see many flaws in the church and its leaders but being one dimensional is not one of them.

[pmccombs1]

I read the reviews on Amazon and I like yours best. Most gave 4 to 5 stars but commented on the difficulty of reading it in parts of it.

I think if he'd written it any differently it probably would have appeared anti and it could have spelled trouble for him.

Yes, I think he tried to avoid trouble by presenting the story as a fiction. There are difficult parts in the book; brother Smith has a PhD in linguistic anthropology and there are times when he slips into complex narratives that occasionally become doctrinal. He also provides "low-hanging-fruit" for those that are predisposed to be unaccepting of the thesis presented in the book. By this I mean to say, for those who already know the book is so much nonsense will be rewarded early on with all they need in order to put the book down and walk away from it.

I onced mentioned to Daymon that I thought he attracted a lot of antis, and I asked him what he tells those people. He told me that he doesn't really break society up like that, and that while there are some of his writings that appeal to so-called "antis" there are other things that don't (for instance, his Abridging Works).

I attended one of Smith's lectures, which he presented as one in a series that I think may be related to a new book he is working on. It was a lecture on Church history, looking at the writings of B.H. Roberts and James Talmage and so forth. The upshot of it was that the Book of Mormon is something quite remarkable and ought to be taken very seriously (and that we don't need to look at it as co-dependent on the Bible). Among the attendees was a gentleman who had, I gathered, lost his faith in the Church. I think he may have initially sought out Daymon Smith as a person who might confirm and support his ideas of leaving the Church. My impression was that this doubter had begun to see new value in the gospel in spite of any hard feelings he had harbored about the Church, and perhaps was less disposed to write it off as an easy thing to leave behind.

So, who knows. Maybe Daymon Smith has an important work in terms of showing people who have come to a certain crisis that there is something of value in what they think they are losing, and a context in which we might still believe and participate. Leaving isn't the only answer. But, to be sure, Daymon Smith is a man betrayed by his own Church (in his eyes), and desires, were it possible, a non-church Mormonism. I am sympathetic to his ideas, so you can take that as a disclaimer if you like.

[pmccombs1]

I totally reject your portrayal of Mormonism as one dimensional. To say that shows a serious lack of understanding of Mormonism.

No he is writing about his vision of what and where the church should be and quite frankly his vision is not very good. I think he needs glasses.

I didn't mean to portray Mormonism as one-dimesional; if you read it again, you will see that I was stating that is the only way I see in which your previous argument could be valid (which I don't accept).

And I, on the other hand, think Daymon Smith has a refreshing clarity of vision. But you and I have different experiences and ways of seeing, do we not?

[ERayR]

I didn't mean to portray Mormonism as one-dimesional; if you read it again, you will see that I was stating that is the only way I see in which your previous argument could be valid (which I don't accept).

And I, on the other hand, think Daymon Smith has a refreshing clarity of vision. But you and I have different experiences and ways of seeing, do we not?

That we do.

[ERayR]

And I, on the other hand, think Daymon Smith has a refreshing clarity of vision. But you and I have different experiences and ways of seeing, do we not?

Maybe he does have clarity of vision from his point of view but that does not mean it is a valid direction for the church. I think I got started on this with the comment that Smith sees something great and wonderful in the church but just wants to change it a little. The gist of what I was trying to say is that like all the rest of the ark steadiers he will find that were he to get his changes the great and wonderful would be gone. It is very much like those who buy homes in the country because it is so wonderful to get out of the city but when they get out there they want to limit or eliminate the things that make it country and soon it becomes just like the city they left.

Edited August 10, 2012 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

Maybe he does have clarity of vision from his point of view but that does not mean it is a valid direction for the church. I think I got started on this with the comment that Smith sees something great and wonderful in the church but just wants to change it a little. The gist of what I was trying to say is that like all the rest of the ark steadiers he will find that were he to get his changes the great and wonderful would be gone. It is very much like those who buy homes in the country because it is so wonderful to get out of the city but when they get out there they want to limit or eliminate the things that make it country and soon it becomes just like the city they left.

Barging away again, I think that maybe what Daymon wants is the church to become less a corporation and more a church, IMHO.

[ERayR]

Barging away again, I think that maybe what Daymon wants is the church to become less a corporation and more a church, IMHO.

That is certainly a very naive view. How do run a world wide 14 million plus member organization without the corporate structure. Just USofA tax laws alone require it. It is not prudent to manage it like you would an ice cream truck. If you did it would soon crumble to nothing. I don't think that's what God had in mind when he restored it.

[pmccombs1]

Maybe he does have clarity of vision from his point of view but that does not mean it is a valid direction for the church. I think I got started on this with the comment that Smith sees something great and wonderful in the church but just wants to change it a little. The gist of what I was trying to say is that like all the rest of the ark steadiers he will find that were he to get his changes the great and wonderful would be gone. It is very much like those who buy homes in the country because it is so wonderful to get out of the city but when they get out there they want to limit or eliminate the things that make it country and soon it becomes just like the city they left.

At one point I asked Daymon what the pupose of his work was, whether or not he sees it as corrective. He said, "I don’t know about purpose of critique, other than trying to tell what I think is the truth, for reasons that could be considered corrective and ultimately constructive. The corrective is not for me to point out, however, so much as to make possible by critique/deconstruction/reconstruction."

If anything, though, I think tacenda hit more or less close to home when he said that Daymon would like to see the Church become less a corporation and more like... what it used to be. I almost think it would have to become more congregationalist in nature, or decentralized in some regard, with greater power in the hands of local wards. In some regards, I see Daymon as a conservative Mormon.

Anyway, I suppose we're way off topic.