Joanna Brooks article on CNN.com

[Indy Coug]

Holy hell, leave SU alone!

[ERCougar]

Ha...that's the first time I've read that BKP quote. Some meme.

So what does he mean by "leave it alone"? Leave the church and move on? Or forget about the offense and stay in the church? What does he mean by "it?

[SeattleUte]

I wonder why JoBro hasn't written this. It's about time someone who cares about Mormonism and with a national profile did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/op...?smid=pl-share

[CardiacCoug]

I wonder why JoBro hasn't written this. It's about time someone who cares about Mormonism and with a national profile did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/op...?smid=pl-share

That writer has a biography of Brigham Young being published soon that I definitely will read. It looks great.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wonder why JoBro hasn't written this. It's about time someone who cares about Mormonism and with a national profile did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/op...?smid=pl-share

She has written on the topic several times and is always frank and honest about it during interviews.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...k_controversy/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...acist_remarks/

http://askmormongirl.wordpress.com/2...an-impact-you/

That third link is especially good.

But either way, bravo for highlighting that great NY Times essay written by a progmo.

[SeattleUte]

She has written on the topic several times and is always frank and honest about it during interviews.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...k_controversy/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...acist_remarks/

http://askmormongirl.wordpress.com/2...an-impact-you/

That third link is especially good.

But either way, bravo for highlighting that great NY Times essay written by a progmo.

Thanks for answering my question. I was wondering if he is any kind of mo. If you google him he writes more extensively than Brooks on contemporary Mormon issues across a broad spectrum, and his BY biography from Harvard press establishes him as a true heavyweight progmo (what exqiusite timing too).

Interesting his priesthood ban NY Times essay follows the Cuf progressive Mormon company line on the history of the priesthood ban, effectively exonerating Joseph Smith and laying all the blame on BY.

Have you guys thought of changing BYU's name? And while you're at it, the name of your law school for similar reasons.

[SeattleUte]

She has written on the topic several times and is always frank and honest about it during interviews.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...k_controversy/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...acist_remarks/

http://askmormongirl.wordpress.com/2...an-impact-you/

That third link is especially good.

But either way, bravo for highlighting that great NY Times essay written by a progmo.

Lewbowsi, none of these articles chides the LDS GAs for not apologizing or calls on them to do it or elucidates the injury caused to members by not doing so as Turner's article does. In fact, the second looks like apologetics to me, and a shading of truth, giving LDS leaders credit for a "reputdiation" of the priesthood ban they in fact have never undertaken.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting his priesthood ban NY Times essay follows the Cuf progressive Mormon company line on the history of the priesthood ban, effectively exonerating Joseph Smith and laying all the blame on BY.

That's where the evidence goes. Besides, there are plenty of other things to associate with JS. Polygamy, for starters.

Have you guys thought of changing BYU's name? And while you're at it, the name of your law school for similar reasons.

We thought about it, but it is a rather slippery slope. Pretty soon you have to rename everything associated with slaveholders like Jefferson, Washington, etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lewbowsi, none of these articles chides the LDS GAs for not apologizing or calls on them to do it or elucidates the injury caused to members by not doing so as Turner's article does. In fact, the second looks like apologetics to me, and a shading of truth, giving LDS leaders credit for a "reputdiation" of the priesthood ban they in fact have never undertaken.

You are right. It is not exactly the same as his article. I could probably find some closer matches, but I am too lazy to do all your research.

[SeattleUte]

You are right. It is not exactly the same as his article. I could probably find some closer matches, but I am too lazy to do all your research.

They would not be hard to find.

Her articles are totally different from his. The difference is her schtick is to put the best face on Mormonism's flaws, to make progmos feel good (even as she makes LAUte and Indy types squirm). I won't say she hasn't the gumption to do what Turner has done; let's just say she has her shtick.

Also, while Mormon studies is Turner's academic specialty, it's not hers. It's her avocation. I'm sure she's a fine scholar and intellectual in her field.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It just tickles me that this essay gets posted in the NY Times and the first thing SU thinks of is how he can use it against Joanna Brooks. Hi-larious.

[SeattleUte]

It just tickles me that this essay gets posted in the NY Times and the first thing SU thinks of is how he can use it against Joanna Brooks. Hi-larious.

It's the only thing about the essay that's interesting. Otherwise, it's old news to me at least. The only thing that's interesting about this subject is who's got the gumption to say the LDS church is still racist.

[ERCougar]

Solon and I (and wives, DDD) went to see JoBro speak at SUU yesterday. She did a really nice job. To begin, she apologized to non-Mormons in the audience (there were quite a few--I think about half of the questions afterward were from obviously non-LDS people), acknowledging that Mormons get "a lot of the airtime around here, but that's what happens when you settle a place"--which was a funny line, but you sort of had to be there. She then went on a whirlwind tour of Mormon history (with only one gaffe that ticked off Solon), pointing out that there are some good reasons from our history why we Mormons tend to be 1) very paranoid about putting forth a perfect face and 2) insular and guarded about certain aspects of our faith (she had a slide that that showed the early Church's creed as "Mind your own business"--I'm totally using that). The result, however, is a world that is very skeptical about our genuineness, and you can see this in Mitt's presidential run. She argues that more people need to get out there and tell their honest stories and that we shouldn't leave it in the hands of Jon Krakauer (whose depiction of "Mormons", to use the term loosely, she called "tone deaf") and Matt Stone/Trey Parker.

She also made some nice points along the way about community that have spurred some personal introspection. When you belong to a community, you inherit all of that community's history, stories, ideas, etc. The good and the bad--the grand visions of the heavens and human potential, along with racism, homophobia, and satisfaction with easy answers. But still within that community of inherited ideas, there is plenty of room for difference. A while ago, I heard her in an interview contrast the Jewish approach to community with the Mormon one. In Jewish communities, you are a member of the community (Jewish) first and foremost, then you worry about practices, and then beliefs. In the Mormon community, we tend to reverse this--we worry about what you believe, then what you do, and THEN you're a Mormon. She argues that we'd be better off to reverse this.

So now to the introspection part. I've spent a lot of time wondering why I keep going to a church where I feel so different in my worldview from everyone else. First, as I ran into several people in the audience that I knew from my former ward in the audience, I realized (again) that may not be as true as it seems, but more importantly, I'm not sure it really matters. There are studies that indicate that religious people live longer and healthier and are generally happier than non-religious ones, but most accept that these benefits have much more to do with belonging to a community than with what religious beliefs you may have. It seems to help to have people to care for and serve and who care about you. I asked her afterwards how vocal she is at church when she disagrees with what's being said and she essentially said, "not very", that Sunday School "is not a blog", and that there are fora for people with that kind of interest. I asked her how she reconciles that with this idea of "genuineness" with the outside world and she retreated a little and said that it's good to "ruffle feathers a little" but to make sure that you're doing all of the other stuff so it's not quite as scary to others. Be there to clean the building--she even used this example, which made me laugh a little. In other words, be a part of the community. As I think about it, that's what people really care about. We all know people with the crazy ideas whom we still love because they're just great people.

[ERCougar]

Weird...browser cut me off.

Anyway, I suspect that the "orthomos" see me as the guy with some crazy ideas, but I have to give them credit in that I've never felt shunned in any way. Probably because I'm a great guy.

In the end, most people really just care about the community.

[YOhio]

Weird...browser cut me off.

Anyway, I suspect that the "orthomos" see me as the guy with some crazy ideas, but I have to give them credit in that I've never felt shunned in any way. Probably because I'm a great guy.

I will offer an alternative thought and suggest that a significant majority of "orthomos" in your ward haven't given a second thought to your ideas or beliefs. Probably all of them.