Joanna Brooks Plays Fast and Loose With Church Statement

[_Kishkumen]

I think that's probably a pretty good metaphor for what would happen to Droopy if he actually tried to engage Joanna Brooks.

He's probably just afraid.

[_MsJack]

Why do you ask

I ask because, if you haven't conducted a serious examination of any of her scholarly works, then the following statements on your part:

I'm not at all sure I see "brilliant" as an apt designation for her thinking.

I suspect that what Brooks has spent most of her intellectual life pursuing is not necessarily black and Amerindian literature worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study, but deeply concentrated intellectual study of black and Amerindian literature grounded in the idea that its worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study simply because its black or American Indian literature, and because the particular kind of literature she's studying provides a politically correct and purifying foil to the "white male eurocentric" literature such academic departments were created and usually exist to resist and oppose on ideological grounds.

Are uninformed and highly irresponsible.

Whether or not you have time in your schedule to consider her work or whether you find such topics interesting is quite beside the point. I don't have any interest in John Carter or A Princess of Mars nor do I have time in my schedule to view the film or read the book, but I'm not hanging out on a message board criticizing Edgar Rice Burroughs, either.

[_Droopy]

I think that's probably a pretty good metaphor for what would happen to Droopy if he actually tried to engage Joanna Brooks.

He's probably just afraid.

Yeah. Brooks just scares me senseless.

[Guest]

This seems reasonable enough to me:

Why do you ask

I ask because, if you haven't conducted a serious examination of any of her scholarly works, then the following statements on your part:

I'm not at all sure I see "brilliant" as an apt designation for her thinking.

I suspect that what Brooks has spent most of her intellectual life pursuing is not necessarily black and Amerindian literature worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study, but deeply concentrated intellectual study of black and Amerindian literature grounded in the idea that its worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study simply because its black or American Indian literature, and because the particular kind of literature she's studying provides a politically correct and purifying foil to the "white male eurocentric" literature such academic departments were created and usually exist to resist and oppose on ideological grounds.

Are uninformed and highly irresponsible.

Whether or not you have time in your schedule to consider her work or whether you find such topics interesting is quite beside the point. I don't have any interest in John Carter or A Princess of Mars nor do I have time in my schedule to view the film or read the book, but I'm not hanging out on a message board criticizing Edgar Rice Burroughs, either.

I suppose I must be a leftist feminist or something.

But then don't LDS commonly reply to negative statements about their religion by posing the quite reasonable question "Have you read the Book of Mormon"?

Sauce, goose, gander and so on.

[_Droopy]

I ask because, if you haven't conducted a serious examination of any of her scholarly works, then the following statements on your part: Are uninformed and highly irresponsible.

1. As I've said already (several times), I've been over here online essays, and I'm well aware of her general views on key contemporary social issues. I'm also quite conversant with the "Refomed" or "New Order" Mormonism of which she is looked to for intellectual leadership.

2. Woman's studies is not a serious scholarly discipline but a political ideology within academia. Her literary interests look to be of the classic "cultural studies" variety, of which I am also well aware as to content and general trajectory. That may be wrong, but its an educated guess based upon her other general leanings theologically and politically.

[_Darth J]

Yeah. Brooks just scares me senseless.

You admit you have not read her works, but you are opining on them nonetheless.

You are imputing broad political ideologies to her based on a quote you attribute to William F. Buckley that amounts to absolutist binary thinking about politics.

You are incessantly asserting that the Church is not racist because it discriminated against a specific ethnic group not based on ethnicity per se, but on a supposed spiritual quality that existed only within that ethnic group (pre-1978 statements from the First Presidency refer to "Negroes").

You think that arbitrary racism ("we don't know why Negroes couldn't have the priesthood") is somehow excusable.

Perhaps you would like to tell the board some specific reason why readers should infer that Brooks would not tear you to shreds if you actually tried to engage her.

[_Chap]

I ask because, if you haven't conducted a serious examination of any of her scholarly works, then the following statements on your part: Are uninformed and highly irresponsible.

1. As I've said already (several times), I've been over here online essays, and I'm well aware of her general views on key contemporary social issues. I'm also quite conversant with the "Refomed" or "New Order" Mormonism of which she is looked to for intellectual leadership.

2. Woman's studies is not a serious scholarly discipline but a political ideology within academia. Her literary interests look to be of the classic "cultural studies" variety, of which I am also well aware as to content and general trajectory. That may be wrong, but its an educated guess based upon her other general leanings theologically and politically.

Which, being interpreted, meaneth:

"I don't have to read her published scholarly works before criticizing her intellectual achievement, because my powers of priestly discernment are sufficient to enable me to make a judgment on their contents."

or in short

"Joanna Brooks? Crimethink."

[_Darth J]

1. As I've said already (several times), I've been over here online essays, and I'm well aware of her general views on key contemporary social issues. I'm also quite conversant with the "Refomed" or "New Order" Mormonism of which she is looked to for intellectual leadership.

2. Woman's studies is not a serious scholarly discipline but a political ideology within academia. Her literary interests look to be of the classic "cultural studies" variety, of which I am also well aware as to content and general trajectory. That may be wrong, but its an educated guess based upon her other general leanings theologically and politically.

Do people need to actually demonstrate a working knowledge of what the LDS Church teaches before they can make an informed commentary on Mormonism, Droopy? Or is it acceptable to you if they judge the Church and Mormons based on how things "look to be" and "educated guesses"?

[_Droopy]

You admit you have not read her works, but you are opining on them nonetheless.

I admit that I have not read here published scholarly works. I have also admitted to reading a number of her online essays and blog postings.

You are imputing broad political ideologies to her based on a quote you attribute to William F. Buckley that amounts to absolutist binary thinking about politics.

A brief bout of logical thought would probably help you to see, if you will re-read that post, that I did no such thing. I am imputing broad political/ideological leanings to her based upon her writing at her website and at Religion Dispatch. The Buckley quote is only to show that she is not a neutral intellectual observer or participant in LDS culture, but exudes a bias, and that bias is clearly to the left of the philosophical spectrum.

Perhaps you would like to tell the board some specific reason why readers should infer that Brooks would not tear you to shreds if you actually tried to engage her.

Because I see no reason to think, based on what I've seen of her thinking thus far, that she is any smarter, intellectually acute, or more educated in a general or specific sense in key subjects in which I have spent a lifetime of study than I am. As far as Amerindian literature or "African American" literature, I wouldn't dream of debating her on it per se, as I know little about what it is she is actually studying there (although I do read books by black Americans all the time. I just started another one by Thomas Sowell last night).

However, if she wanted to debate me on homosexual marriage, woman and the priesthood, the priesthood ban, or any other theological, philosophical, or social issue subject, I would have no problem whatever meeting her in the arena of ideas as an equal and peer outside of her specialties. Nor, as a philosopher, would I have any problem critiquing her arguments for their strength or weaknesses based upon thier content and form, irregardless of my lack of specialized knowledge in her own key areas. And, to the degree that her specialized academic knowledge is extended to critique of aspects of culture or religion in areas in which I do have substantial knowledge and experience, I would not recoil from discussion with her either.

[_Darth J]

You admit you have not read her works, but you are opining on them nonetheless.

I admit that I have not read here published scholarly works. I have also admitted to reading a number of her online essays and blog postings.

I see. Kind of like how you have no demonstrable understanding of the legal system in the United States, but you impute these unspecified "courtroom tactics" to things I post on a message board.

You are nonetheless making sweeping assertions about all of her works, including that which you have not read.

You are imputing broad political ideologies to her based on a quote you attribute to William F. Buckley that amounts to absolutist binary thinking about politics.

A brief bout of logical thought would probably help you to see, if you will re-read that post, that I did no such thing. I am imputing broad political/ideological leanings to her based upon her writing at her website and at Religion Dispatch. The Buckley quote is only to show that she is not a neutral intellectual observer or participant in LDS culture, but exudes a bias, and that bias is clearly to the left of the philosophical spectrum.

No. You are using Buckley's name as a basis from imputing to her---and to everyone on Earth---an absolutist binary thinking about politics.

Nobody is a purely neutral intellectual observer, so simply making this banal observation says nothing about whether her observations are accurate.

Perhaps you would like to tell the board some specific reason why readers should infer that Brooks would not tear you to shreds if you actually tried to engage her.

Because I see no reason to think, based on what I've seen of her thinking thus far, that she is any smarter, intellectually acute, or more educated in a general or specific sense in key subjects in which I have spent a lifetime of study than I am. As far as Amerindian literature or "African American" literature, I wouldn't dream of debating her on it per se, as I know little about what it is she is actually studying there (although I do read books by black Americans all the time. I just started another one by Thomas Sowell last night).

However, if she wanted to debate me on homosexual marriage, woman and the priesthood, the priesthood ban, or any other theological, philosophical, or social issue subject, I would have no problem whatever meeting her in the arena of ideas as an equal and peer outside of her specialties. Nor, as a philosopher, would I have any problem critiquing her arguments for their strength or weaknesses based upon thier content and form, irregardless of my lack of specialized knowledge in her own key areas. And, to the degree that her specialized academic knowledge is extended to critique of aspects of culture or religion in areas in which I do have substantial knowledge and experience, I would not recoil from discussion with her either.

In other words, mistaking your zealotry for philosophy, you would be interested in spouting off your religious dogma and partisan talking points, which, being impervious to evidence, you feel cannot be gainsaid.