Joanna Brooks article on CNN.com

[Green Monstah]

I just finished the book. I thought the prop 8 chapter made the entire book a must read for any mormon boy or girl.

it was good. light; easy; finished it in about 35 minutes of straight reading

(reading fast is one of my superpowers. I calculated that I read at least 500 pages a day, between company reports, news, etc.)

No wonder the World Book Encyclopedia was no match for the Vike.

[Green Monstah]

Geez, that guy's worse than DEP.

Is that possible?

[Shaka]

Is that possible?

I thought it was until I read the article.

[jay santos]

I thought it was until I read the article.

Who's DEP? Do you mean DCP, Daniel Peterson?

[NorthwestUteFan]

The comments are interesting. A greater portion of the comments are supportive of Brooks, but some of the anti-Brooks comments are quite vitriolic, reactionary, and defensive. I have to wonder if any of those people have ever read her books or articles, or heard her in an interview.

Could the pro/con breakdown be representative of the beliefs of the general church membership? I sincerely hope to see church members having a more open and Christ-like acceptance of others than pharasaical pseudo-church spokesmen such as Randy Bott and Ralph Hancock.

[Shaka]

Who's DEP? Do you mean DCP, Daniel Peterson?

Yes. Sorry about the typo.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Who's DEP? Do you mean DCP, Daniel Peterson?

[Levin]

Quite apart from the content, I couldn't get over Hancock's atrocious writing. The syntax was so jumbled. Each sentence went four different directions before you reached the period. And that guy grades students' writing?

[Levin]

Quite apart from the content, I couldn't get over Hancock's atrocious writing. The syntax was so jumbled. Each sentence went four different directions before you reached the period. And that guy grades students' writing?

[Green Monstah]

Quite apart from the content, I couldn't get over Hancock's atrocious writing. The syntax was so jumbled. Each sentence went four different directions before you reached the period. And that guy grades students' writing?

Quite apart from the content, I couldn't get over Hancock's atrocious writing. The syntax was so jumbled. Each sentence went four different directions before you reached the period. And that guy grades students' writing?

The content aside, how did you feel about the syntax in Hancock's review?

Anxiously awaiting,

GM

[UtahDan]

I think it is interesting to see Meridian colliding with Joanna. Two ends of the Mormon spectrum. I like Joanna Brooks. She is reform minded, which is interesting to me because I have a lot of internal dialog lately about whether I think someone like her has a real shot at reform or whether I think she is actually empowering the status quo through her association with the church. In any event, I have seen enough of her to know that she doesn't care what I, any of you, this Hankcock guy or anyone thinks. It isn't arrogance, it is just a very, very firm internal morality that has few if any external reference points. And she can articulate and apply it pretty flawlessly. A person like that can be dangerous to an institution, Hancock apparently feels that way and is probably right to.

I continue to follow her career with interest.

[DrumNFeather]

I think it is interesting to see Meridian colliding with Joanna. Two ends of the Mormon spectrum. I like Joanna Brooks. She is reform minded, which is interesting to me because I have a lot of internal dialog lately about whether I think someone like her has a real shot at reform or whether I think she is actually empowering the status quo through her association with the church. In any event, I have seen enough of her to know that she doesn't care what I, any of you, this Hankcock guy or anyone thinks. It isn't arrogance, it is just a very, very firm internal morality that has few if any external reference points. And she can articulate and apply it pretty flawlessly. A person like that can be dangerous to an institution, Hancock apparently feels that way and is probably right to.

I continue to follow her career with interest.

I agree that it is an interesting battle if that is what we want to call it. Based on a recent meeting I attended, I would be willing to bet that we will get one or more talks in GC regarding "joining the discussion" online. I think that there is only so much angst that leadership can feel over someone like Brooks given that they are indeed encouraging us to join the discussion.

Now, *I* think that Hancock is cynically challenging whether or not Brooks is really interested in reform or if she's interested in selling a book and attaching the Mormon name to it. This is where I think he is "offended" if that is what you want to call it. She is challenging the status quo and making money while doing so. Perhaps he doesn't think its genuine. Regardless, It is a silly thing for him or anyone else to get terribly worked up about and frankly he and both the pro and anti-Brooks folks in the comments section should be ashamed for making any of it personal, which it appears to me is what is being done.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think it is interesting to see Meridian colliding with Joanna. Two ends of the Mormon spectrum. I like Joanna Brooks. She is reform minded, which is interesting to me because I have a lot of internal dialog lately about whether I think someone like her has a real shot at reform or whether I think she is actually empowering the status quo through her association with the church. In any event, I have seen enough of her to know that she doesn't care what I, any of you, this Hankcock guy or anyone thinks. It isn't arrogance, it is just a very, very firm internal morality that has few if any external reference points. And she can articulate and apply it pretty flawlessly. A person like that can be dangerous to an institution, Hancock apparently feels that way and is probably right to.

I continue to follow her career with interest.

Couldn't disagree more on the bolded part.

Everything else is right on the money.

[Pelado]

Quite apart from the content, I couldn't get over Hancock's atrocious writing. The syntax was so jumbled. Each sentence went four different directions before you reached the period. And that guy grades students' writing?

Got to agree. Seemed like he was trying to compensate for something.

[Pheidippides]

Couldn't disagree more on the bolded part.

Everything else is right on the money.

+1. I think she's a major challenge to the status quo, althemoreso because of her continued presence in the church.

I think UD is right on the money about what she thinks about everybody else. It's not arrogance, but it's powerful self-assurance. She answers to herself and God (or G-d, as her husband may prefer) only. It's a quality that may rub the Hancocks of the world the wrong way but I find inspiring.

I haven't seen her so much as acknowledge his comments, btw. I hope she does not.