Joanna Brooks article on CNN.com

[creekster]

The following the career with interest line is something Sidious (Emperor Palpetine) said about Anakin in one of the movies. The "not from a Jedi line" is from a conversation where Sidious is telling Anakin about a powerful dark lord who could stop death and when Anakin says "can you learn to do that?" Sidious says "not from a Jedi."

Basically, we are trading dumb Star Wars references.

I see. impressive your memory skills are.

[Pheidippides]

I can offer my own supposition: Mormonism is anachronistic in many ways. most believers realize this. Its draw, in fact, is that it does not change; it is steady and unwavering. It is a throwback (and I hope this doesn't draw SU out ). Because of its demands, it is very hard to leave. You, I think, know this. The old line is you can leave but not leave it alone. So if someone leaves in their mind, they may still stay loyal to the community or to the idea or to their nostalgic past. They realize that allowing something like what Brooks apparently supports would be a death knell for Mormonism as they know it and, most likely, for all time. They would rather see folks such as her just leave rather than stay and try to change it but in fact really just be killing it.

Thats my guess. I know virtually nothing about Brooks and I do NOT mean to say that this describes her or anyone else here. I am merely offering up my speculation for a phenomenon I have seen.

I'm not sure I agree with everything in here (I'll allow the unchanging bit if you are describing perception and not reality) but I completely agree that her very existence is a massive threat to the coldly orthodox. And the bigger threat is that she has a following of like-minded progressives that some would like to deny even exist.

But the real problem is that we do, in fact, exist, and in ever increasing numbers. If my bishop is to believed there are dozens in my congregation alone.

[creekster]

I'm not sure I agree with everything in here (I'll allow the unchanging bit if you are describing perception and not reality) but I completely agree that her very existence is a massive threat to the coldly orthodox. And the bigger threat is that she has a following of like-minded progressives that some would like to deny even exist.

But the real problem is that we do, in fact, exist, and in ever increasing numbers. If my bishop is to believed there are dozens in my congregation alone.

I am not tlaking about how she is percevied by the orthodox, but why someone like her (as I udnerstand her; again, I have no real knowlefge fo what she says becasue I ahve not read it) might be critcized by a former believer or a 'borderlander.' My post was really more a speculative comment on them than it was on Brooks.

[UtahDan]

I'm not sure I agree with everything in here (I'll allow the unchanging bit if you are describing perception and not reality) but I completely agree that her very existence is a massive threat to the coldly orthodox. And the bigger threat is that she has a following of like-minded progressives that some would like to deny even exist.

But the real problem is that we do, in fact, exist, and in ever increasing numbers. If my bishop is to believed there are dozens in my congregation alone.

I have heard a huge number of stories (not just on this site) about people who were extended callings or are in recommend interviews and very directly say "I don't really have a testimony" and were told "that's okay." Now there are lots of other stories out there about people who do that and their leaders get very aggressive with them, take recommends away, release them, etc. This just to say that it doesn't sound anecdotaly to me like there is a church wide approach to this yet, but that there are a lot of pockets where individuals leaders are very tolerant of unorthodox belief and even non-belief.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Can you please explain what in the sam hill you two are talking about? I kown the star wars characters but what does it mean? It might help if you put it in terms of Gilligan's Island or perhaps the Munsters to allow me to grasp it in my own childhood cultural influence milieu.

Monkey I never knew we had so much in common!

[Moliere]

I think this is interesting. Obviously what a lot of this is about is people trying to redefine what is to be LDS. I can understand why that makes Hancock uneasy and as strong as the in group/out group line in the LDS world has been for so long, what I think of as "border keeping" is very much to be expected. But my perception (maybe wrong) is that some former believers are the more vocal border keepers. I wonder why that might matter to non-believers. Wouldn't the world that Joanna Brooks envisions be easier for them to inhabit? General question.

I'd be interested to know why this is your perception, because mine is just the opposite. I see the orthodox as the ones that want to rigidly define the borders and keep out the unorthodox. I could also be wrong, but I find your perception at least interesting and want to know why you have it.

[Pheidippides]

I have heard a huge number of stories (not just on this site) about people who were extended callings or are in recommend interviews and very directly say "I don't really have a testimony" and were told "that's okay." Now there are lots of other stories out there about people who do that and their leaders get very aggressive with them, take recommends away, release them, etc. This just to say that it doesn't sound anecdotaly to me like there is a church wide approach to this yet, but that there are a lot of pockets where individuals leaders are very tolerant of unorthodox belief and even non-belief.

The approach is very different. My bishop is accommodating with my heterodoxy, but he has said to me in as many words that the SP is not (speaking of others and not me). Which I totally get, after watching the SP for some time.

It does make me wonder who the other heterodox in the ward are. Last time I gave a talk in church I pretty much laid it on the table, for those who listened carefully anyway.

[UtahDan]

The approach is very different. My bishop is accommodating with my heterodoxy, but he has said to me in as many words that the SP is not (speaking of others and not me). Which I totally get, after watching the SP for some time.

It does make me wonder who the other heterodox in the ward are. Last time I gave a talk in church I pretty much laid it on the table, for those who listened carefully anyway.

Hmm. So eliminate the sleepy, people on their phones, people wrestling with their children and we are talking, what three or four retired couples? How many of them we think picked up on your carefully chosen nuancey language? I think your secret is still safe.

[Indy Coug]

How much give is there in Mormonism before it just morphs into nondescript Protestantism?

[creekster]

How much give is there in Mormonism before it just morphs into nondescript Protestantism?

ask the community of christ.

The border is mormonism.

[Pheidippides]

Hmm. So eliminate the sleepy, people on their phones, people wrestling with their children and we are talking, what three or four retired couples? How many of them we think picked up on your carefully chosen nuancey language? I think your secret is still safe.

Actually, I got two emails from younger people. So there's that.

[RobinFinderson]

How much give is there in Mormonism before it just morphs into nondescript Protestantism?

That is a question I would like to ask of Prez-Mo-T.

[NorthwestUteFan]

How much give is there in Mormonism before it just morphs into nondescript Protestantism?

There is a broad spectrum of Mormonism. It runs from Community of Christ on one end all the way through Restoration branches to the Fundies (FLDS). We Brighamites are somewhere in the middle, but we all share similar core beliefs.

[Sullyute]

That is a question I would like to ask of Prez-Mo-T.

Still pushing your gangsta-Monson tag...?

[UtahDan]

How much give is there in Mormonism before it just morphs into nondescript Protestantism?

Here is the conundrum I have in my mind as I try to answer this question. There is a ton that is unique about the church both in what it believes and in what it requires. But the modern church doesn't make the claim that it is the sole path to heaven, and in fact seems to contemplate that the vast majority of people who live now or who have ever lived will not even be exposed to its teachings and will get where they are trying to go by simply leading good lives. So you have this paradox where all these unique things that are crucial for members during their lives turn out to be completely unnecessary for everyone else, and that includes almost everybody. I don't mean that as flip, I just mean if God's plan includes an insignificant number of people experiencing all those unique things, how important can they be?

So if logically that is true, can a believer wonder legitimately how attached God is to any particular doctrine or practice beyond the real basic love one another stuff? I know that "nondescript Protestantism" is probably meant as pejorative, but it seems to me that Mormonism already has all the important stuff in common with it.