Witch Burning in Progress at Meridian Magazine

[_consiglieri]

http://www.ldsmag.com/component/zine/article/9497?ac=1

[_Droopy]

OK, so she's a typical politically correct leftist New Order/neo-orthodox Mormon with an ax to grind and an ark to steady. And?

Meridian Magazine, I should remind you, is a online magazine dedicated to supporting faithful LDS in their being faithful to established LDS doctrines, teachings, and standards. Brooks apparently, by her own admission, falls outside the category of "faithful" LDS. As anything past first wave feminism falls utterly outside the boundaries of Church doctrine and philosophy, Brooks is the one who has explaining to do, not Meridian.

[_Droopy]

In other words, Joanna Brooks has, for all intents and purposes, apostatized from the Church.

No?

[_Droopy]

Check out Brook's website. Its just a religiously themed, Mormon tinted version of the Huffington Post or MoveOn.org. Brooks, despite her rather disingenuous (or self delusional) claim to be a "believer," has gone far outside the boundaries of either LDS teachings or culture.

Yet again, someone is attempting to synthesize Zion and Babylon and eat the cake they think they have. Light, however, still has no association with darkness, and wickedness never was happiness.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/

[_NorthboundZax]

In other words, Joanna Brooks has, for all intents and purposes, apostatized from the Church.

No?

Mormon Scholars testify has her testimony posted. Maybe you should notify them to take it down.
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/702/joanna-brooks

The Meridian review seemed mostly to consist of complaining that this unorthodox Mormon didn't stick with orthodox ways to explain her faith.

[_Yahoo Bot]

http://www.ldsmag.com/component/zine/article/9497?ac=1

Not in the least; have you read the review? Still angry with being released as gospel doctrine teacher?

Hancock just disagrees with her views and rather mildly so.

I don't like Brooks' writings all that much; seems to fall in the same boring genre I see from others. But just because I think she's boring does make me a witch burner.

[_Jason Bourne]

Joanna Brooks is a rather interesting person. She is very public and outspoken. She is becoming rather well known. Clearly her views are not orthodox LDS in many aspects. Yet she seems to love being a Mormon and is also committed to the Church. Of course the question really is can one be liberal in their views and even critical of some things LDS and still be an active participating member. There are some on this board who would clearly say nope.

Personally I like Brooks but then I am just an evil, mind darkened blighted 75% apostate hypocrite. But there was a time I would have not liked her and likely have taken as dim a view to her vocalizing things that she is not fond of in the Church. My guess is the people like Brooks, John Dehlin and others would have had some form of Church discipline heaped upon them 20 years ago. But things have changed. The Church really is at a major cross roads I think. With the information age, social media, access to information that previously was not available and so it it very difficult for the Church to silence or deal with such individuals in a way that might separate them from the Church.

So the question I have is this. Can the Church accept and even embrace such open diversity? If yes what will it make the Church look like 20 years from now? If no, what will that mean? Will the Church retrench even more? If yes will is bleed more members out the door? Can it accommodate? Which would be the preferred course for the Church? Accommodate and perhaps lose more of its distinctiveness than it already has (due to correlation and an effort to appear more main stream)? Or retrench and perhaps become a more conservative and fundamental than it already is but be a much smaller slower growing organization?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Personally I like Brooks but then I am just an evil, mind darkened blighted 75% apostate hypocrite.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You've certainly become faithless and being an anonymous poster doesn't help your character much (please don't give me your hackneyed refrain: "you're not my bishop"), but there's always help for the lost.

My guess is the people like Brooks, John Dehlin and others would have had some form of Church discipline heaped upon them 20 years ago.

I do not like Dehlin in the least. Don't include him with Brooks. She's intelligent, a rock star but to me a boring rock star. He is not an academic, not a thinker. He is unqualified to be doing what he is doing with his Mormon Stories but since he is filling a niche he will have to do.

So the question I have is this. Can the Church accept and even embrace such open diversity? If yes what will it make the Church look like 20 years from now?

Of course it does; it has before.

Come ye out of your personal cesspool and rejoin the Saints.

[_Jason Bourne]

Check out Brook's website. Its just a religiously themed, Mormon tinted version of the Huffington Post or MoveOn.org. Brooks, despite her rather disingenuous (or self delusional) claim to be a "believer," has gone far outside the boundaries of either LDS teachings or culture.

Yet again, someone is attempting to synthesize Zion and Babylon and eat the cake they think they have. Light, however, still has no association with darkness, and wickedness never was happiness.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/

So Droopy's response to my questions will an obvious no. No room for liberal non down the line thinkers. So Droopy I am interested in what you think the Church will look like 20 years from now if it takes your hard line view and purges the Brooks, Dehlins out of the Church.

[_Buffalo]

Brooks is one of the FEW LDS public figures who doesn't bring a constant stream of shame and humiliation to the church. Believing Mormons should be on their hands and knees thanking her profusely.