why me Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 An interesting interview with Joanna Brooks:http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/imus/index.html#/v/1779319235001/a-look-inside-mormonism/?playlist_id=87057http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/imus/index.html#/v/1779252596001/how-does-the-world-view-mormons/?playlist_id=87057I found this interview to be interesting. She comes across as being a nice person and one that is proud to be mormon.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 An interesting interview with Joanna Brooks:http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/imus/index.html#/v/1779319235001/a-look-inside-mormonism/?playlist_id=87057http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/imus/index.html#/v/1779252596001/how-does-the-world-view-mormons/?playlist_id=87057I found this interview to be interesting. She comes across as being a nice person and one that is proud to be mormon.I watched and think she just might be the poster woman for the church. Did you hear the cheers from the audience before the interview started?She will do wonders for the church and for Romney's campaign. Obama wouldn't dare go the religion route now. Also, there are those people that think we're a cult like the FLDS. Say anything you want about Joanna but she just washed that picture of cult right off their minds!
why me Posted August 10, 2012 Author Posted August 10, 2012 I watched and think she just might be the poster woman for the church. Did you hear the cheers from the audience before the interview started?She will do wonders for the church and for Romney's campaign. Obama wouldn't dare go the religion route now. Also, there are those people that think we're a cult like the FLDS. Say anything you want about Joanna but she just washed that picture of cult right off their minds!This is also a reason we need to take what the critics say with a grain of salt. She was right: mormons come in all shades of colors and beliefs. She certainly didn't sound like she was a member of a cult. Rather, one gets the impression that she was raised to be a good human being with a loving father. However, she will also need to understand that if the lds church is led by christ, then she must take her general issues to heavenly father in prayer. This is something that liberal mormons seem not to understand.
bcuzbcuz Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The interview on The Daily Show was better.http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-9-2012-joanna-brooks
DH Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) However, she will also need to understand that if the lds church is led by christ, then she must take her general issues to heavenly father in prayer. This is something that liberal mormons seem not to understand.We "liberal" Mormons understand that quite well, especially considering that many of us, myself included, used to be "conservative" (or whatever the opposite of "liberal" is) Mormons. What conservative Mormons don't seem to understand is that while Christ may be the head of the Church, he does allow us members of the Church, including the leaders, to govern ourselves and make mistakes to a large extent. In fact, one could argue that this is a vital part of the process of learning to become more like God. In other words, it's not all "top-down" governance by Jesus. He not only allows us, but expects us, to be part of the process.An example, in my opinion, is when Spencer W. Kimball prayed about blacks and the priesthood. I do not think God ever meant to exclude blacks from the priesthood in the latter-days. The policy was instituted not by Joseph Smith, who did ordain blacks to the priesthood, but by Brigham Young. I think it took until 1978 to restore the priesthood to blacks because so many people were unwilling to question whether or not the policy was from God, or to appear to criticize the leaders. And sure enough, when SWK prayed about it, he received a revelation to go ahead and give the priesthood to blacks. If you want answers, you have to question! Edited August 10, 2012 by DH 3
why me Posted August 10, 2012 Author Posted August 10, 2012 We "liberal" Mormons understand that quite well, especially considering that many of us, myself included, used to be "conservative" (or whatever the opposite of "liberal" is) Mormons.We I read from the lds same sex marriage advocates, I sense that they believe that if they put enough pressure on the lds leadership, the policy will change. I see this in other issues as well. When I listen to them, I sense that they have forgotten just who leads the church. That was my point.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) This is also a reason we need to take what the critics say with a grain of salt. She was right: mormons come in all shades of colors and beliefs. She certainly didn't sound like she was a member of a cult. Rather, one gets the impression that she was raised to be a good human being with a loving father. However, she will also need to understand that if the lds church is led by christ, then she must take her general issues to heavenly father in prayer. This is something that liberal mormons seem not to understand.I'm a ding bat. I was referring to the interview on the "The Daily Show " that bcuzbcuz posted. I'll watch the one on foxbusiness now. Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) We "liberal" Mormons understand that quite well, especially considering that many of us, myself included, used to be "conservative" (or whatever the opposite of "liberal" is) Mormons. What conservative Mormons don't seem to understand is that while Christ may be the head of the Church, he does allow us members of the Church, including the leaders, to govern ourselves and make mistakes to a large extent. In fact, one could argue that this is a vital part of the process of learning to become more like God. In other words, it's not all "top-down" governance by Jesus. He not only allows us, but expects us, to be part of the process.An example, in my opinion, is when Spencer W. Kimball prayed about blacks and the priesthood. I do not think God ever meant to exclude blacks from the priesthood in the latter-days. The policy was instituted not by Joseph Smith, who did ordain blacks to the priesthood, but by Brigham Young. I think it took until 1978 to restore the priesthood to blacks because so many people were unwilling to question whether or not the policy was from God, or to appear to criticize the leaders. And sure enough, when SWK prayed about it, he received a revelation to go ahead and give the priesthood to blacks. If you want answers, you have to question!I'd agree and would venture to say that Joseph Smith could have been a Liberal. Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda
Cobalt-70 Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 I'd agree and would venture to say that Joseph Smith could have been a Liberal.It's not always clear-cut, but for the most part, he tended toward political liberalism, particularly later in his life. He had liberal positions on slavery, democracy, prison reform, a federal bank, and federal power. You couldn't really say he was naturally a feminist, but thanks to Emma, he was easily swayed when she asserted her feminism.Theologically, he was very liberal, in the sense that he was a radical Arminian, a religious communist, and increasingly a universalist. He also had an openness toward other traditions, such as Freemasonry and esotericism. 4
Calm Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 We "liberal" Mormons understand that quite well, especially considering that many of us, myself included, used to be "conservative" (or whatever the opposite of "liberal" is) Mormons. What conservative Mormons don't seem to understand is that while Christ may be the head of the Church, he does allow us members of the Church, including the leaders, to govern ourselves and make mistakes to a large extent. In fact, one could argue that this is a vital part of the process of learning to become more like God. In other words, it's not all "top-down" governance by Jesus. He not only allows us, but expects us, to be part of the process.An example, in my opinion, is when Spencer W. Kimball prayed about blacks and the priesthood. I do not think God ever meant to exclude blacks from the priesthood in the latter-days. The policy was instituted not by Joseph Smith, who did ordain blacks to the priesthood, but by Brigham Young. I think it took until 1978 to restore the priesthood to blacks because so many people were unwilling to question whether or not the policy was from God, or to appear to criticize the leaders. And sure enough, when SWK prayed about it, he received a revelation to go ahead and give the priesthood to blacks. If you want answers, you have to question!....totally off topic so ignore if you want or start a new thread or if you answer in this one I will be satisfied to leave it at that....If you believe the essential thing for changing the priesthood situation was for Pres. Kimball to ask, why then when Pres. McKay asked, did he receive an answer of "Not yet"?
Robert F. Smith Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 This is also a reason we need to take what the critics say with a grain of salt. She was right: mormons come in all shades of colors and beliefs. She certainly didn't sound like she was a member of a cult. Rather, one gets the impression that she was raised to be a good human being with a loving father. However, she will also need to understand that if the lds church is led by christ, then she must take her general issues to heavenly father in prayer. This is something that liberal mormons seem not to understand.First chance I've had to see and listen to her. I don't understand why Loran Blood hates her. He needs to get off his right-wing high horse and to treat fellow Mormons with respect and kindness.Do you know whether she is related to Juanita Brooks?Don't use banned posters names in vain please. 3
Calm Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Just did a search, found two opposite claims, one that she was a niece, another that she was no relation, both with no sources so not bothering to link.Don't know how common the name is in the Church, but do know several LDS Brooks. Edited August 11, 2012 by calmoriah
cwald Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 First chance I've had to see and listen to her. I don't understand why Loran Blood hates her. He needs to get off his right-wing high horse and to treat fellow Mormons with respect and kindness.Do you know whether she is related to Juanita Brooks?Agreed.
why me Posted August 11, 2012 Author Posted August 11, 2012 First chance I've had to see and listen to her. I don't understand why Loran Blood hates her. He needs to get off his right-wing high horse and to treat fellow Mormons with respect and kindness.Do you know whether she is related to Juanita Brooks?Loran doesn't realize that the church is world wide. Many mormons in europe are socialists, greens, christian democrats, social democrats, conservatives etc. They are politically across the spectrum. Loran lives in a very american centered church.Joanna is very articulate in her opinions. And she is a plus for the church. But, as a liberal, she will need to understand that the church does not operate on member pressure but on revelation. This also holds true for lds conservatives. I am only referring to the American church. In other parts of the world, it is fairly understood. 1
Rivers Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 The interview on The Daily Show was better.http://www.thedailys...2-joanna-brooksWow. What a fantastic interview! She seems like and amazing woman. She's so personable and good-natured. I don't mind having her has the face of mormoninsm. I thought it was great that Jon Sterwart had her on the show and advertised her book. I agree with Sister Brooks that it is important for mormons to tell their stories to the world. I'd like to see more members of the church follow in her footsteps so people can really get to know the mormons.
Libs Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Wow. What a fantastic interview! She seems like and amazing woman. She's so personable and good-natured. I don't mind having her has the face of mormoninsm.I thought it was great that Jon Sterwart had her on the show and advertised her book. I agree with Sister Brooks that it is important for mormons to tell their stories to the world. I'd like to see more members of the church follow in her footsteps so people can really get to know the mormons.Totally agree about Mormons telling their stories. I thought Dr. Peterson's "Mormon Scholar's Testify" was a great idea, and so is the "I Am a Mormon" campaign...but, there are really so many more stories to be told...so many diverse stories, from a great diversity of people, within Mormonism.. That is where John Dehlin's "Mormon Stories Podcasts" fits a nitch, IMO, and one of the reasons it has been so popular, both with Mormons and non-Mormons.
Rivers Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 .An example, in my opinion, is when Spencer W. Kimball prayed about blacks and the priesthood. I do not think God ever meant to exclude blacks from the priesthood in the latter-days. The policy was instituted not by Joseph Smith, who did ordain blacks to the priesthood, but by Brigham Young. I think it took until 1978 to restore the priesthood to blacks because so many people were unwilling to question whether or not the policy was from God, or to appear to criticize the leaders. And sure enough, when SWK prayed about it, he received a revelation to go ahead and give the priesthood to blacks. If you want answers, you have to question!In the case of blacks and the priesthood, there was a general awareness among society, including members of the church, that racism was just plaing wrong. That is why Pres. Kimball was spending so much time in heartfelt supplication to the Lord on the matter.This is not the case of same-sex marriage right now, but some more liberal members of the church believe that it may eventually come to this point. But I don't believe the issue of gay marriage exaclty parallels the civil rights movement in the manner that some people think.
Cobalt-70 Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Joanna is very articulate in her opinions. And she is a plus for the church. But, as a liberal, she will need to understand that the church does not operate on member pressure but on revelation. This also holds true for lds conservatives. I am only referring to the American church. In other parts of the world, it is fairly understood.But what we call revelations don't just come out of nowhere from on high. It usually happens like this: (1) a problem presents itself (including embarrassment, cultural changes, and even member pressure), (2) the church hierarchy frets about the problem and starts praying, or sometimes forms a committee to study the issue, (3) eventually, the church hierarchy humbles itself enough that it becomes receptive to the right answer via inspiration. That's how it worked with with Spencer Kimball and the church's racial discrimination issue. Sometimes, there is also "trickle-up" revelation, such as the Primary program and MIA, where the inspiration comes first to women or other lowly members, and then trickles up the chain of hierarchy.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) In the case of blacks and the priesthood, there was a general awareness among society, including members of the church, that racism was just plaing wrong. That is why Pres. Kimball was spending so much time in heartfelt supplication to the Lord on the matter.This is not the case of same-sex marriage right now, but some more liberal members of the church believe that it may eventually come to this point.If that's what they're expecting, they are destined for disappointment.And if prognostication is in order, I will make the opposite prediction: that "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," which champions the traditional concept of the family, which defines God-sanctioned marriage as being between a man and a woman, which warns against violation of covenants of chastity, and which already carries the imprimatur of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, will sooner or later be canonized as scripture, probably as Official Declaration 3 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Edited August 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) But what we call revelations don't just come out of nowhere from on high. It usually happens like this: (1) a problem presents itself (including embarrassment, cultural changes, and even member pressure), (2) the church hierarchy frets about the problem and starts praying, or sometimes forms a committee to study the issue, (3) eventually, the church hierarchy humbles itself enough that it becomes receptive to the right answer via inspiration. That's how it worked with with Spencer Kimball and the church's racial discrimination issue. Sometimes, there is also "trickle-up" revelation, such as the Primary program and MIA, where the inspiration comes first to women or other lowly members, and then trickles up the chain of hierarchy.That's about as blatant a rationalization for a populist-driven, as opposed to a divinely directed, church as I have ever encountered. Edited August 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 2
DH Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 But what we call revelations don't just come out of nowhere from on high. It usually happens like this: (1) a problem presents itself (including embarrassment, cultural changes, and even member pressure), (2) the church hierarchy frets about the problem and starts praying, or sometimes forms a committee to study the issue, (3) eventually, the church hierarchy humbles itself enough that it becomes receptive to the right answer via inspiration. That's how it worked with with Spencer Kimball and the church's racial discrimination issue. Sometimes, there is also "trickle-up" revelation, such as the Primary program and MIA, where the inspiration comes first to women or other lowly members, and then trickles up the chain of hierarchy.One example of "trickle up" revelation: The Word of Wisdom, triggered by Emma's complaints.
Calm Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 It usually happens like this: (1) a problem presents itself (including embarrassment, cultural changes, and even member pressure)......(3) eventually, the church hierarchy humbles itself enough that it becomes receptive to the right answer via inspiration. There seems to be an assumption there that society or whomever is providing the pressure is right.women or other lowly members 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 There seems to be an assumption there that society or whomever is providing the pressure is right.If we put some thought into it, we could probably come up with counter examples where would-be "trickle-up revelation" went awry because it was contrary to the mind of God.Modern-day schismatic off-shoots from the Church of Jesus Christ come readily to mind.
Calm Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 If we put some thought into it, we could probably come up with counter examples where would-be "trickle-up revelation" went awry because it was contrary to the mind of God.Modern-day schismatic off-shoots from the Church of Jesus Christ come readily to mind.Martin Harris' certainty that taking the translation to convince his wife.... 3
Recommended Posts