The Shape of Mormonism to Come
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:07 am
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/people/q ... 03286.html
Let's analyze this at some depth, and see what we have here in comparison and contrast to the teachings and principles of the Church (which will be my standard of comparison and contrast). Sister Brooks claims, of course, to be a "believing" Latter day Saint. No doubt she would bristle (as so many of this type often do) at the raised eyebrows she would encounter when faithful members of the Church confront her actual beliefs and philosophy.
The author sets up the piece by pointing out that Brooks is - let's make up a new PC term as we go along here, and say, nontraditional Mormon; she is liberal (well outside the overwhelming mainstream of political thought among Mormons generally), accepts the practice and lifestyle of homosexuality as legitimate, is a feminist (and if by this it is meant anything past "first wave" feminism, is far outside LDS doctrine and teaching), and married outside the Church. So far, we must be asking ourselves, at just this initial juncture, if Joanna Brooks is a "believing Mormon," just what is Mormonism and what does it mean to "believe" in it?
As with all philosophies of the Left, this is precisely the effect taking a "subversive" position on LDS teaching is intended to convey. In a postmodern sense, we would be asking whether the Church's "truth" claims have any meaning at all apart from their social construction within the culture within which the Church is embedded.
Does she? Does she? In what sense?
One might wish to ask her, as Abinidi asked the corrupt priests of his day, if she deeply values her faith, why then does she not clearly teach it, articulate it, and accept its values and principles? Why does she resist conforming her own philosophical perspective to the standards and concepts at the core of the restored gospel?
Notice: not church and modern revelation grounded answers, but "unorthodox" (i.e., secular leftist) answers from within her own intellectual and psychological prism. The interview portion of the article is interesting, to say the least.
Brooks here appears to be aware of at least the following:
1. The tradition she grew up in is primary to her faith and personal philosophy - not the restored gospel as a system of doctrine, teaching, and world view.
2. Her leftism, feminism, pro-homosexual views, etc. are inharmonious with the restored gospel as it exists and at its core. The author of the piece is aware of this as well.
Notice that this seems to imply that her faith "fueled" her politics, not by providing her politics with the their intellectual and philosophical ground, but through a body of attitudes and values - hard work, sacrifice for a cause larger than the self etc. The actual church and its core truth claims are in the background here, and represent "fuel;" a catalyst and motive agent, but not the core conceptual basis for that which she believes and accepts as true as an advocate for various standpoints.
Note: no doctrine. No principles of eternal truth. No worldview. No eternal verities or permanent things. A body of psychological and emotional impressions that, on their own, could be claimed by countless LDS with similar LDS heritage. What's interesting here, yet again, is the way in which Brooks circumvents, as she always seems able to do, the underlying truth claims of the Church and their philosophical, social and political implications, and replaces this with a kind of feel-good psychological stew of positive attitudes and general orientation to the world.
Now, to the meat:
Leaving aside the "ultra" before "conservative" here (as she leaves it undefined), here we begin to see the outline of what "reform" or "New Order" Mormonism really is as an intellectual template. "Mormonism" she says, "is capable of sustaining a diversity of approaches to life, politics and all that."
This is the key to the entire "Neo-Orthodox" movement within the Church, and to "cultural Mormonism" as a sociocultural phenomena. Stripped of its nebulousness and given concrete form and substance, what this is essentially saying is that the gospel is not a "straight and narrow" way, but the very broad gate Christ warned us it was not and could not support. Yet again, the church as "big tent" rises up and cries out for acceptance as a part of Zion.
I fear perhaps, an equivocation in her use of the term "radical" here, but no matter for the moment. The only period of LDS history in which Mormon society could in any sense be called "communal" was the early building of the Salt Lake Valley from a forsaken desert to a productive agricultural area. That was an exercise in survival and required a much more regimented social model for the time being. Beyond this, numerous GAs have been crystal clear that no aspect of the United Order or LoC should be thought of in any way as "communitarian." Brooks is, of course, innocent of all this.
Nonsense. This would require a long essay to disentangle, but suffice it to say that the reason the substantial majority of Mormons have traditionally leaned to conservative views in political matters, and to the Republican party as a very imperfect reflection of those principles, is because modern conservatism is the best reflection and repository of "light and truth" within the political realm, drawn from a long patrimony of Western philosophy, ethics, tradition, and religious teaching, to which LDS can look for a place to set down political roots and within which they can, if not always, feel generally comfortable.
The specific political problems and philosophcal nucleus of the 20th century - the rise of socialism in Russia, the rise of "progressiveism" in the United States at the turn of the century (and maturing in the 1930s), and later, the New Left and social radicalism beginning in the late sixties, left faithful LDS nowhere to go save to modern classical liberalism - conservatism.
The Left, by contrast, is associated with hostility, in one degree or another, to virtually every principle of the gospel of any salience to the human condition, the viability of civil society, and our salvation and exaltation. It has always, no matter what form it has taken, been a threat to both the living of the gospel and to a society that provides support and defense of the values and attitudes that encourage such living. Hence, the small number of LDS who find themselves on the Left, and usually, on the margins of the Church, doctrinally and philosophically speaking.
This evasion leaves little to comment upon, save for the clear departure, again, from core doctrine by this "believing" member.
And now, the idolatry of ideology takes the helm. The statement that the kind of anti-Mormon prejudice she encountered from the evangelical counter-cult is trivial to the oceans of prejudice that American blacks must wade through in their lives (nothing in particular having much changed since Selma) is too intellectually and empirically vacuous to bear much in the way of serious response. This kind of claim actually places Brooks far to the Left of the political spectrum, out in the politically correct Elysian Fields of multuculturalist racialism in which no racial grievance, no matter how imaginary, goes either unpunished or unpublished.
Male homosexuals, of course, are among the most successful and prosperous Americans in modern times. The disproportionate social pathology among them is clearly an inherent feature of the lifestyle itself, not a side effect of "bigotry," which in any salient or broad based form, is nonexistent in modern America.
A few other quotes for consideration:
Clearly, Brooks does not accept the Eschaton, or its near immanence. Even more fascinating is the implication here that the Church, given sufficient time, will become so interpenetrated with the surrounding culture, whatever that is, that we will have long since ceased to be a "peculiar people." The Church, in other words, given time, will eventually case to exist as "a witness and a warning" to "the world" and its people.
Either that, or Brooks thinks, at some point, through other means, the world will have become so righteous that it will simply have absorbed the Church, the Church having become irrelevant.
One more point:
Of course, the doctrine of the church is that, if one chooses in this life to not avail oneself of the covenants of the Temple, and dies without having attended to these ordinances, there will be no second offering of them in the next world. She will have, no matter what else has transpired, given up her exaltation.
I hope it works out too.
Let's analyze this at some depth, and see what we have here in comparison and contrast to the teachings and principles of the Church (which will be my standard of comparison and contrast). Sister Brooks claims, of course, to be a "believing" Latter day Saint. No doubt she would bristle (as so many of this type often do) at the raised eyebrows she would encounter when faithful members of the Church confront her actual beliefs and philosophy.
You probably haven't met a Mormon like Joanna Brooks.
She's liberal, accepting of gays and feminist. She's married to a Jewish man. She's not a fan of Republicans, and she won't vote for Mitt Romney, a Mormon running for president.
The author sets up the piece by pointing out that Brooks is - let's make up a new PC term as we go along here, and say, nontraditional Mormon; she is liberal (well outside the overwhelming mainstream of political thought among Mormons generally), accepts the practice and lifestyle of homosexuality as legitimate, is a feminist (and if by this it is meant anything past "first wave" feminism, is far outside LDS doctrine and teaching), and married outside the Church. So far, we must be asking ourselves, at just this initial juncture, if Joanna Brooks is a "believing Mormon," just what is Mormonism and what does it mean to "believe" in it?
As with all philosophies of the Left, this is precisely the effect taking a "subversive" position on LDS teaching is intended to convey. In a postmodern sense, we would be asking whether the Church's "truth" claims have any meaning at all apart from their social construction within the culture within which the Church is embedded.
Yet this church-going Brigham Young University grad and San Diego State literature professor deeply values her faith. She also pushes for greater understanding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Does she? Does she? In what sense?
One might wish to ask her, as Abinidi asked the corrupt priests of his day, if she deeply values her faith, why then does she not clearly teach it, articulate it, and accept its values and principles? Why does she resist conforming her own philosophical perspective to the standards and concepts at the core of the restored gospel?
She also responds to questions about Mormonism on her blog, Ask Mormon Girl, which offers "unorthodox answers from an imperfect source." Recent questions include: "I'm sexually attracted to my fiance! Should I feel guilty?" and "No one at work knows that I'm Mormon. Is it time to come out of the closet?"
Notice: not church and modern revelation grounded answers, but "unorthodox" (i.e., secular leftist) answers from within her own intellectual and psychological prism. The interview portion of the article is interesting, to say the least.
What's a liberal, feminist, gay-friendly, Democratic girl like you doing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
I was born this way, to borrow a phrase.
Why'd you stay that way?
I love the tradition I grew up in, and it feels like home.
Brooks here appears to be aware of at least the following:
1. The tradition she grew up in is primary to her faith and personal philosophy - not the restored gospel as a system of doctrine, teaching, and world view.
2. Her leftism, feminism, pro-homosexual views, etc. are inharmonious with the restored gospel as it exists and at its core. The author of the piece is aware of this as well.
A lot of what my faith gives me has fueled my politics. I learned to be compassionate, to work hard, to sacrifice myself for causes I believe in, to not think of myself as part of the mainstream but as a minority with a specific history and responsibilities.
Notice that this seems to imply that her faith "fueled" her politics, not by providing her politics with the their intellectual and philosophical ground, but through a body of attitudes and values - hard work, sacrifice for a cause larger than the self etc. The actual church and its core truth claims are in the background here, and represent "fuel;" a catalyst and motive agent, but not the core conceptual basis for that which she believes and accepts as true as an advocate for various standpoints.
What do you love about the church?
Mormons are very dedicated people with really good hearts, and there's just something beautiful to me about growing up with a sense of belonging. A lot of people in American contemporary life don't have a specific identity and heritage they feel responsible to. I count it as a privilege to belong to a community that has a really big place in American history.
I have a deep Mormon heritage: my grandmother's grandmother crossed the plains to Utah when she was a small child. I've always identified with that strong history and felt a bond with those who sacrifice for their faith.
Note: no doctrine. No principles of eternal truth. No worldview. No eternal verities or permanent things. A body of psychological and emotional impressions that, on their own, could be claimed by countless LDS with similar LDS heritage. What's interesting here, yet again, is the way in which Brooks circumvents, as she always seems able to do, the underlying truth claims of the Church and their philosophical, social and political implications, and replaces this with a kind of feel-good psychological stew of positive attitudes and general orientation to the world.
Now, to the meat:
You could have been a quiet Mormon. What's made you decide to be so public?
I've always been a writer, and as a Mormon especially, I was raised to share my beliefs and be proud of them. It's something of a missionary zeal, you might call it.
As I got older, I realized there were a lot of people like me who felt extremely isolated and alone. And I also wanted the world to know that a tradition I value is more than the caricature. Mormonism is more than it's often caricatured to be as ultra-conservative. It's capable of sustaining a diversity of approaches to life, politics and all that.
Leaving aside the "ultra" before "conservative" here (as she leaves it undefined), here we begin to see the outline of what "reform" or "New Order" Mormonism really is as an intellectual template. "Mormonism" she says, "is capable of sustaining a diversity of approaches to life, politics and all that."
This is the key to the entire "Neo-Orthodox" movement within the Church, and to "cultural Mormonism" as a sociocultural phenomena. Stripped of its nebulousness and given concrete form and substance, what this is essentially saying is that the gospel is not a "straight and narrow" way, but the very broad gate Christ warned us it was not and could not support. Yet again, the church as "big tent" rises up and cries out for acceptance as a part of Zion.
Do you think the church's founders wanted it to be as conservative as it's become?
In its time, Mormonism was a radical social movement. Early Mormons to some extent practiced a mild of communalism, sharing resources and sacrificing for shared causes. They flouted Victorian sexual norms with polygamy. They were visionary, they were spiritual seekers.
I fear perhaps, an equivocation in her use of the term "radical" here, but no matter for the moment. The only period of LDS history in which Mormon society could in any sense be called "communal" was the early building of the Salt Lake Valley from a forsaken desert to a productive agricultural area. That was an exercise in survival and required a much more regimented social model for the time being. Beyond this, numerous GAs have been crystal clear that no aspect of the United Order or LoC should be thought of in any way as "communitarian." Brooks is, of course, innocent of all this.
It's only in the middle 20th century, as Mormons became assimilated into broader American society, that we've become more aligned with conservative politics and the Republican Party.
Nonsense. This would require a long essay to disentangle, but suffice it to say that the reason the substantial majority of Mormons have traditionally leaned to conservative views in political matters, and to the Republican party as a very imperfect reflection of those principles, is because modern conservatism is the best reflection and repository of "light and truth" within the political realm, drawn from a long patrimony of Western philosophy, ethics, tradition, and religious teaching, to which LDS can look for a place to set down political roots and within which they can, if not always, feel generally comfortable.
The specific political problems and philosophcal nucleus of the 20th century - the rise of socialism in Russia, the rise of "progressiveism" in the United States at the turn of the century (and maturing in the 1930s), and later, the New Left and social radicalism beginning in the late sixties, left faithful LDS nowhere to go save to modern classical liberalism - conservatism.
The Left, by contrast, is associated with hostility, in one degree or another, to virtually every principle of the gospel of any salience to the human condition, the viability of civil society, and our salvation and exaltation. It has always, no matter what form it has taken, been a threat to both the living of the gospel and to a society that provides support and defense of the values and attitudes that encourage such living. Hence, the small number of LDS who find themselves on the Left, and usually, on the margins of the Church, doctrinally and philosophically speaking.
How do you reconcile your feminism with Mormon beliefs about women? (The church doesn't allow women to be priests.)
I was always raised as a Mormon girl to value myself and my mind and to believe that I could study and pray and find my own answers to life's questions. Sometimes that came in contradiction with conservative gender politics in the church, like its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and its emphasis on stay-at-home motherhood. But in my life I've seen a lot of evolution in the church on culture and gender. The fundamental lessons about learning to value myself have always remained.
This evasion leaves little to comment upon, save for the clear departure, again, from core doctrine by this "believing" member.
What sort of prejudice have you encountered as a Mormon?
When I grew up in Orange County, there was a pretty active anti-Mormon movement. Anti-Mormon films were shown to my friends when they went to church on Sunday, and people would call Mormonism a cult. People would put notes in my locker and write in my yearbook about how it was a cult. I was around 13, and I was mortified.
But that's nothing compared to what most gay people or African-American people go through. Being a Mormon is never going to get you disqualified from a mortgage loan. It's going to help you.
And now, the idolatry of ideology takes the helm. The statement that the kind of anti-Mormon prejudice she encountered from the evangelical counter-cult is trivial to the oceans of prejudice that American blacks must wade through in their lives (nothing in particular having much changed since Selma) is too intellectually and empirically vacuous to bear much in the way of serious response. This kind of claim actually places Brooks far to the Left of the political spectrum, out in the politically correct Elysian Fields of multuculturalist racialism in which no racial grievance, no matter how imaginary, goes either unpunished or unpublished.
Male homosexuals, of course, are among the most successful and prosperous Americans in modern times. The disproportionate social pathology among them is clearly an inherent feature of the lifestyle itself, not a side effect of "bigotry," which in any salient or broad based form, is nonexistent in modern America.
A few other quotes for consideration:
All religions are irrational or odd in some dimension. Mormonism is oftentimes pegged as odd or weird because it's newer. Give us 1,000 years and we'll seem as normal as Catholics.
Clearly, Brooks does not accept the Eschaton, or its near immanence. Even more fascinating is the implication here that the Church, given sufficient time, will become so interpenetrated with the surrounding culture, whatever that is, that we will have long since ceased to be a "peculiar people." The Church, in other words, given time, will eventually case to exist as "a witness and a warning" to "the world" and its people.
Either that, or Brooks thinks, at some point, through other means, the world will have become so righteous that it will simply have absorbed the Church, the Church having become irrelevant.
One more point:
Mormons believe in an afterlife, one in which spouses of the same faith play a major role. You have a Jewish husband. How do you deal with this?
Everything is going to work out.
In many faiths, there are people who come down more on the side of the rules and those who come down on the side of compassion and mercy. I think good things will win out.
Of course, the doctrine of the church is that, if one chooses in this life to not avail oneself of the covenants of the Temple, and dies without having attended to these ordinances, there will be no second offering of them in the next world. She will have, no matter what else has transpired, given up her exaltation.
I hope it works out too.