Joanna Brooks article on CNN.com

[jay santos]

As far as I know she has completely avoided talking about history. The truth claim stuff anyway. It's one of the things that gives her credibility with the faithful IMO.

Yeah, but I can spot these types anywhere. I'm looking at you, SIEQ.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, but I can spot these types anywhere. I'm looking at you, SIEQ.

Jay, I think posts like this are way out of line. Speculating and making judgments about what people believe or not believe is not cool.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You don't have to convince me that Mormonism can work for some people that don't believe Joseph saw God or don't believe the BOM is an ancient document or that Jesus is the Son of God. I'm just not sure that person should be "ask a Mormon girl" or have their testimony published on LDS Scholars testify.

In the end, the temple questions are Y/N, there's no option for "it doesn't matter, I find power in the myth".

Welcome to the internet age. She has just as much right as anyone to self-identify as Mormon. If you don't like it, don't read her columns. It is a marketplace of ideas and her stock is soaring.

[jay santos]

Jay, I think posts like this are way out of line. Speculating and making judgments about what people believe or not believe is not cool.

Yah thought about how it came across and it was poor choice of words.

[Pelado]

You don't have to convince me that Mormonism can work for some people that don't believe Joseph saw God or don't believe the BOM is an ancient document or that Jesus is the Son of God. I'm just not sure that person should be "ask a Mormon girl" or have their testimony published on LDS Scholars testify.

In the end, the temple questions are Y/N, there's no option for "it doesn't matter, I find power in the myth".

Here's how she describes her blog:

Ask Mormon Girl is the blog of author Joanna Brooks.

Unorthodox answers from an imperfect source.

http://askmormongirl.com/

How better would you have her clarify that she might say "maybe" instead of "yes" or "no" when she talks to her bishop? Or do you think she shouldn't be writing at all?

Let's encourage more dialogue from all self-described Mormons rather than attempting to discourage those that don't say exactly what we think they should. I'm sure I don't agree with everything Ms. Brooks says, but I still value her life experiences and the way she expresses how those experiences have affected and influenced her.

Hancock, on the other hand, seems to want to prevent her from sharing her views, or wants to discount her life experiences as being inauthentic and unworthy of Mormonism in some way. He comes off as condescending and presumptive.

[Portland Ute]

Along the lines of this discussion and to the point that jay santos made about the temple questions...

Why do members care if other members have a 100% TBM view/testimony/faith in regards to temple going?

Isn't this a personal thing?

Doesn't everyone's faith waiver, whether or not they'd admit it? What degree of wavering is okay for temple attendance and which is not?

If the temple is so fantastic for spiritual growth within the LDS church, what better place for the wavering/doubting LDS soul?

I suppose I see the concern if a LDS is aware of a fellow member's infidelity or cocaine habit, but we aren't talking about gross disregard for the temple standards of the church here.

jay's point about the recommend questions highlights what appears to be an attitude of an even higher expectation to attend the temple: Perfection in the present.

I'm certain that at least a couple of bishops within the church would have no problem with a baptized, endowed member getting a temple recommend and attending the temple if they have uncertainty or are not "orthodox" in their beliefs. In fact, I'm guessing they'd be active in trying to get that person to the temple more frequently.

It's early and I apologize if I sound irritated but it's one of those things about the LDS culture that makes me crazy. So many people want to draw so many lines about what is and what is not only acceptable behavior but also thought and belief and would like to exclude those that don't believe 100% the way they do.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I continue to follow her career with interest.

You can't dangle Darth Sidious lines in front of the LA Utes of the world!

[jay santos]

Here's how she describes her blog:


http://askmormongirl.com/

How better would you have her clarify that she might say "maybe" instead of "yes" or "no" when she talks to her bishop? Or do you think she shouldn't be writing at all?

Let's encourage more dialogue from all self-described Mormons rather than attempting to discourage those that don't say exactly what we think they should. I'm sure I don't agree with everything Ms. Brooks says, but I still value her life experiences and the way she expresses how those experiences have affected and influenced her.

Hancock, on the other hand, seems to want to prevent her from sharing her views, or wants to discount her life experiences as being inauthentic and unworthy of Mormonism in some way. He comes off as condescending and presumptive.

My first comment on her was

I like Joanna Brooks for all the same reasons everyone else does. Bright, articulate, has a progressive view but also a loyalty to LDS.

I'm uneasy about non-believers passing themselves off as LDS in public debate. That's about the extent of what I'm trying to say.

[jay santos]

Along the lines of this discussion and to the point that jay santos made about the temple questions...

Why do members care if other members have a 100% TBM view/testimony/faith in regards to temple going?

Isn't this a personal thing?

Doesn't everyone's faith waiver, whether or not they'd admit it? What degree of wavering is okay for temple attendance and which is not?

If the temple is so fantastic for spiritual growth within the LDS church, what better place for the wavering/doubting LDS soul?

I suppose I see the concern if a LDS is aware of a fellow member's infidelity or cocaine habit, but we aren't talking about gross disregard for the temple standards of the church here.

jay's point about the recommend questions highlights what appears to be an attitude of an even higher expectation to attend the temple: Perfection in the present.

I'm certain that at least a couple of bishops within the church would have no problem with a baptized, endowed member getting a temple recommend and attending the temple if they have uncertainty or are not "orthodox" in their beliefs. In fact, I'm guessing they'd be active in trying to get that person to the temple more frequently.

It's early and I apologize if I sound irritated but it's one of those things about the LDS culture that makes me crazy. So many people want to draw so many lines about what is and what is not only acceptable behavior but also thought and belief and would like to exclude those that don't believe 100% the way they do.

You misread me. I have absolutely no qualms with someone answering the temple questions however they interpret them, or even if they are completely lying. Temple recommend status comes with a lot of ramifications.

My reference to the temple recommend questions was to make a point that there are absolutes in this world and especially Mormonism, ie Y/N answer is required not "doesn't matter".

[UtahDan]

You can't dangle Darth Sidious lines in front of the LA Utes of the world!

As you know, SIEQ, there are many useful and powerful secrets one can learn about the force....but not from a Jedi.

[creekster]

As you know, SIEQ, there are many useful and powerful secrets one can learn about the force....but not from a Jedi.

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.

[NorthwestUteFan]

As you know, SIEQ, there are many useful and powerful secrets one can learn about the force....but not from a Jedi.

From whom, then? A Freemason?

[UtahDan]

I'm uneasy about non-believers passing themselves off as LDS in public debate. That's about the extent of what I'm trying to say.

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.

[UtahDan]

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.

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.

[creekster]

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 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.