March 7th, 2012
Joanna Brooks’ memoir, The Book of Mormon Girl: Stories from an American Faith, relates a lifelong relationship with the LDS Church. Brooks conveys this relationship through a variety of childhood and adult experiences that influenced her self-identification as an “unorthodox Mormon woman” (168). This unorthodoxy, unrecognized as a variation of the mainstream church, is something she perceives as more inclusive, more politically correct. She relates these experiences as an insider to Mormon culture, yearning for a clearer relationship between the traditions she grew up with and the feminist politics to which she seems to adhere. Her experiences often reflect a natural tension between an internal Mormon cultural experience and the mainstream of an external experience with modern liberalism. Brooks’ illumination of this tension, in addition to her questioning of the Mormon role within a liberal democracy, provides significant opportunities for reflection on how my own Southern California Mormon cultural experiences translate into adult conceptions relating Mormonism to its external context.
Brooks’ description of her adolescent experience is one in which parents are thrilled with the idea of an impending apocalypse (36, 38, 45, 49, 87), female gender roles are reduced to blind obedience to dominant men (99, 100, 105, 106, 106, 137), and, conversely, a lack of intellectual theological ability from the Mormon women with whom she interacted (41, 97, 106). Her pivotal assumption here, one that did not resonate with my experience in Los Angeles, is that her experiences provide a normal or average representation of the “Mormon” culture (or even the Southern California Mormon culture). Perhaps her reflections are remnants of a cultural moment that occurred before my time in Southern California. Yet it seems in her vivid recounting of the Joseph Smith narrative (19), her favorite movie in Sunday School (22), or even in the lessons that were taught (21-22) that there are striking similarities to my experience, although seemingly with one major difference — she is passive in the learning process.
The stories as she relates them are assertively told to her in a way that omits a fundamental principle of the adolescent Mormon cultural experience: the questioning and the seeking of personal religious understanding. For me, one of the most progressive Mormon ideas of the modern dispensation is the emphasis on personal revelation. Despite differences (not inequality) in gender roles, personal revelation allows each individual equal opportunity to question, consider, and synthesize doctrines until a patchwork of principles come to provide a larger testimony. Brooks presents her experience as if it would have been outlandishly foreign for anyone to have suggested that she personally or privately gather information on a particular topic, thoughtfully consider it, counsel with others about it, and/or pray about it piece by piece. Perhaps the questioning associated with the Joseph Smith story was omitted for her. Or the wrestle that he describes with considering the variety of religious denominations was downplayed. However, this theological piece of the puzzle informed my cultural experience as early as I can remember, and seems to be an integral facet of Mormon doctrine that not only informed my adolescent experience, but also continues to inform my adult synthesis of childhood teachings within a liberal democratic context. My cultural experience was one in which questioning was encouraged, learning and synthesis integral, and where gender roles (although different) were equal.
Admittedly, I grew up about 15 years later and 30 miles up the road, but it seems as if her experience might just as easily have been a million miles away. Perhaps the disparities are due to differences in age, although it doesn’t seem in any way probable that a doctrine this integral would have been outside her realm of experience. My high school career was not one of yearning for the homogeneity of BYU, where everyone would ‘understand’ me without explanation. Rather, it was one that was filled with questioning by my non-member peers, and it was within that questioning that my study was furthered. It required me to consider the truths I took for granted and rationally consider the various advantages and disadvantages of each precept as it was solidified into a patchwork of truths that became (and continues to become) my testimony. It was expected both by ecclesiastical leaders and my parents that I would carefully consider each piece of the puzzle and receive an answer on my own.
Like Brooks, very few Mormons surrounded me in my childhood; in fact there was only one other Mormon girl my age at my high school and usually around a half dozen of us total. We knew that we were different, that there would be curiosity about our lifestyle; but this was not grounds for shrinking away from questions, but rather a constant reminder that fueled a fire that had been questioning (and receiving answers) for a long time. Some questions (my peers and my own) have been complex, things that I have revisited and will continue to revisit until I feel I have an adequate grasp of the principle. Others were easier, comedic even. Rational consideration as a methodology for explaining principles to curious peers was integral to the process of responding to their wanting to understand a cultural experience outside of their own. Isolation because of my religion was something I never experienced; any kind of mockery was always light-hearted, and as minimal as it can be for teenagers.
The second piece of her primary argument reflects the integral nature of the questioning and seeking of truth that seemed to be lacking in her childhood experience. Brooks describes her long-anticipated BYU experience with a sentiment of enlightenment in which fearless inquiry (132), intellectual understanding (132), and gender equality was something entirely new (131, 134) and known only to a select few individuals (133, 139-140). Again, it seems that her pivotal assumption here requires a Mormon ontology consumed with asserting its beliefs upon its members to a degree that genuine questioning is subverted into anti-intellectual, blind obedience. My experience at BYU, like Brooks’, entailed a new level of inquiry into Mormon history and doctrine, but inquiry itself was not foreign. It was something I learned in Primary, Young Women, from my parents, and various ecclesiastical leaders. My questions were encouraged as a fluid process for understanding, and building upon, various precepts. It was not a method for understanding religious principles that was in any way foreign to my peers or known only to several enlightened individuals. Perhaps the disappearance of the otherness associated with California and Mormonism created a yearning to distinguish herself among the more homogenous BYU crowd? Maybe she enjoyed being the Root Beer among Cokes in California and when she found herself a Root Beer among Root Beers the only option was—caffeinated Root Beer? This moment in her academic career, her transcending the boundaries of the supposed Mormon intellectual subversion, is something I was hoping she would have delved into more thoroughly so that I might see more clearly what I missed during my academic career at BYU. Or, perhaps, the lack of inquiry from her childhood allowed Brooks to find a stronger authoritative figure with which to align (outside of religion), and not to question?
I think Brooks would say, and I would agree, that the homogeneity of BYU can be overwhelming. My own Westchester High in Los Angeles, with an African American population of around 60%, a Hispanic population of around 30%, and a Caucasian population of around (but usually less than) 10%, hardly meets the white-washed demographics of BYU, let alone its homogenous value system. However, I was surprised to find BYU students at all different levels trying to synthesize their experiences within larger frame of an external world view. This consistent yearning for new questions and more complete understandings of principles was reminiscent of my cultural foundation. Not only did it compound my yearning for Mormon doctrinal knowledge, but it gave me an overwhelming number of opportunities to test out ideas with my peers and for them to test out ideas with me. These ideas were developed and shaped into my patchwork testimony, in and out of the classroom, and it seemed to be that way for the vast majority of my colleagues. This genuine interest in inquiry, even if it pushed some limits, was not something to be locked away in some basement classroom or something to be held secret for a select enlightened few. The emphasis on a relationship between faith and reason was a dominant theme of my BYU experience, one that if I were writing about distinguishing aspects of Mormon culture could not be downplayed or omitted. What I mean to say is that despite the seeming homogeneity of BYU, the differences between students provided a refreshing glimpse into understanding how to rationally consider complex principles and their relationship to the external world. And although each student was at a different level in this progression, it did not discount the authenticity of his or her inquiry.
The combination of both her childhood and BYU experiences seem to provide Brooks a clear causal connection to her ‘exile’ (168), a No on 8 stance (181), and a Mormon tradition bent on excluding a variety of groups (196-197). This causal connection seems vague and ambiguous — almost as if the anger she clearly expresses with the excommunication of her professors caused a need to reflect and justify their beliefs through her own experience. The reality of her experience is not something I am willing to debase; I merely want to assert that it is not familiar to me as an individual, nor to the vast majority of the peer group with whom I’ve associated.
However, it’s not just her experience being different than my own that is most disconcerting; it’s that leaving out the Mormon emphasis on personal inquiry cheapens the richness of the Mormon cultural experience. It’s within these causal factors that Brooks seems to claim authenticity most poignantly for her views on Proposition 8, but also on the excommunication of her feminist professors. It is here that the tensions between internal Mormon culture and the externalities of modern liberalism are most illuminated, as it seems that Brooks wants to reconcile a liberal agenda under the guise of unorthodox Mormonism. This, for me, would require a relationship between faith and liberalism that would alleviate tensions between Mormon culture and democratic liberalism by requiring Mormonism to sacrifice its traditional values as a price for assimilation into liberal culture. Unorthodox Mormonism, whatever that may mean (perhaps Mormonism by birth or tradition?), is not familiar to me nor is it a price that I am willing to pay. In fact, not only is it unfamiliar to me, it is a version of Mormonism that I have never encountered — not even in the tall tales that often run rampant on BYU’s campus. This unorthodox Mormonism does not seem to be a claim to Mormonism as a religion so much as it is a claim to liberalism as a religion.
I would be interested to understand if the distinctions between Brooks’ cultural experience and my own are merely differences in age, or if they are something else. Although I’m not willing to say that it is necessarily something else, the searching for answers and expecting responses was so integral to my experience that I can only imagine that the omission of this central principle is being used here for the purposes of forwarding an external political agenda. In any case, it is at least misleading to suggest that her experience was in any way typical of Mormon culture. I would imagine that if she believed it was typical she would be pleased to hear of the openness that seems to be reflected in both my childhood experience, as well as my BYU experience — although that does not seem to have translated into the liberal agenda that she seems to be courting. Maybe, one day, she will offer an addendum to the book that clears up some of these seeming ambiguities, and I will be able to read it over a nice, cold Dr. Pepper.
Kristen Robinson Doe was born and raised in Los Angeles, California. She received a BA in Political Science from Brigham Young University and is pursuing a MA in Political Theory and American Politics at the University of Utah. She is currently the Chief of Staff of the Conservative Caucus for the Utah House of Representatives.
19 Responses to “the book of mormon girl: Coke from a Root Beer Bottle”
Leave a Reply
- Big (Silly) Idea: The MOOA June 17, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Directing "Affirmative Action" to Those Who Most Need and Deserve It June 11, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Marriage and Reading as Elite Customs June 6, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Intellectual Self-Help for Humanists June 3, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Memorial Day May 27, 2013 Peter Lawler
- George Savage : POTUS in Berlin June 18, 2013Business travel brings your correspondent to Berlin this week, just in time for Barack Obama's speech tomorrow at the Brandenburg Gate. Security is everywhere in evidence as finishing touches are being made to a massive grandstand in Pariser Platz on the eastern side of the gate, just opposite the ubiquitous Starbucks coffee shop. Thankfully, this is […]
- Judith Levy, Ed. : Iran in Africa June 18, 2013In view of the election of the moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidency -- and the general eagerness to believe that Iran has turned a page in its relations with the rest of the world -- it might be advisable to take a look at Iran's ongoing campaign to export terror.On June 20, 2012 (almost exactly a year ago), two Iranian nationals -- […]
- Nicegrizzly : Update: Stay-at-Home Mom Wisdom Needed June 18, 2013A little over four months ago, I shared my fears regarding impending motherhood. I had been constantly hearing comments about how hard it was going to be and what a difficult transition I had ahead. I was also concerned that my need for structure and social interaction would not be met, because getting dressed, prettied up, and out of the house would be so d […]
- Dave Carter : Reflections on Overload June 18, 2013Barstow, California: The photo I shot of a gorgeous sunrise this morning, on the Arizona / New Mexico state line, belies the pace of a life on overload. One of the interesting things about this job is the sheer amount of activity that is crammed into a short span of time. It was only four days ago that I was 1,700 miles away from here, at home in Lake Char […]
- Western Chauvinist : What's the Point of Citizenship? June 18, 2013The Supreme Court is playing for the home team again. First it was John Roberts making the fed's case for the Obamacare penalty being a constitutionally justifiable tax. Now the Court has ruled that federal Motor Voter registration supersedes and nullifies Arizona's Voter ID law. Just whose rights do the Supremes think they're protecting anywa […]
- Blue Yeti : Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: Rand Paul -- Building A Coalition That Can Win June 17, 2013Sen. Rand Paul (R., KY) sits down with Peter Robinson to discuss the origin of his political philosophy, the debate over immigration reform, the roll out of Affordable Care Act, his stance on abortion, and the future of the Republican party. "Uncommon Knowledge" is produced by the Hoover Institution. […]
- Adam Freedman : SCOTUS Strikes Down Arizona Voter Registration Law June 17, 2013Today, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona voter registration law that required would-be voters to provide -- the horrors! -- proof of citizenship. Despite the depressing result, there are actually glimmers of hope in the seven-to-two decision written by Justice Scalia (the case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona). What gave Arizona the craz […]
- Steven Ross : Obama’s Fiscal Policy: The Ke$ha Doctrine June 17, 2013Before the Obama presidency turned into a series of scandals worthy of a Lifetime miniseries starring Meredith Baxter, the ballooning of the national debt was a top ten critique. The GOP accused the Democrats of spending money we donât have and ignoring the consequences for future generations. Some have suggested that this is the inherent failure of Keynes […]
- Ricochet Editor's Desk : Jim Pethokoukis and John Taylor Debate Quantitative Easing June 17, 2013On Friday, our own Jim Pethokoukis was on CNBC's The Kudlow Report debating the Hoover Institution's John Taylor over the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policy. Here's how it played out:Â Who do you think got the better of the argument? […]
- Troy Senik, Ed. : Scott Walker, the GOP's Secret Weapon? June 17, 2013From Beth Reinhard at National Journal: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker polls near the bottom of would-be presidential contenders. Unlike potential rivals, you won't find him on the cover of Time magazine or slow-jamming the news with comedian Jimmy Fallon.But he's a conservative Republican who won election in a blue state, survived a brutal recall cam […]
- Bruce Carroll : Whom Does Lindsey Graham Think He Works For? June 17, 2013As many of you know, I seriously considered and eventually declined to run in 2014 against Lindsey Graham. That doesn't stop me from continuing to encourage someone else to run and scream at the top of my lungs about how terrible Graham is as an elected senator from the state in which I live.In fact, a day doesn't go by lately where I don't sc […]
- Christopher Riley : A Future for Small Towns? June 17, 2013A few weeks ago, I journeyed to the medium-sized, Midwestern county seat my grandparents call home. As is the case in most communities its size, the local economy is quite sluggish. I'm not usually bothered by the town's mild poverty, but this visit, however, was oddly depressing. Much of the populace (undoubtedly brought out by the warm weather) […]
- Mollie Hemingway, Ed. : Give Me Your Criminals, Your Convicts Yearning To Be Free June 17, 2013While most reporters are giving the Senate Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration bill all the scrutiny one gives a birthday card from one's grandmother, the Washington Examiner's Byron York is taking a closer look.He points out that the bill's supporters claim a thorough background check will be required before winning legal status. âThey […]
- Paul A. Rahe : California, Here We Come! June 17, 2013I am on sabbatical this coming year, and I will be at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University as a visiting fellow, working, if all goes as planned, on the second volume of a three-volume series entitled The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta (the first volume, which I am revising right now, will be subtitled The Persian Challenge; the second volume, T […]
- Judith Levy, Ed. : On-Screen Sex: Pro or Con? June 17, 2013Let it never be said we don't tackle the tough subjects here at Ricochet.Inspired by the brouhaha over the long and apparently quite technically accurate lesbian sex scenes in this year's Palme d'Or-winner "Blue Is the Warmest Color," The New York Times put together a debate billed on the homepage as "The Best and Worst Sex Scen […]
- Rob Long : All You Need to Know About the "New" CNN June 17, 2013In one photograph: You're doing a heck of a job, Jeff Zucker! […]
- James Lileks : About That Man in Northeast Minneapolis June 17, 2013Avaricious consumers of news that you are, youâve heard that the Associated Press unearthed a "Nazi SS Commander" in Minneapolis. If you read the story instead of the headlines or innumerable spin-offs that cascaded through the internet over the weekend, you may, or may not, have found the allegations conclusive. The graphics used to illustrate t […]
- Genghis Ken : What Makes a Great Father? June 17, 2013As an author, I've written extensively on fathers and sons over the years, thinking long and hard about not only the importance of fathers but about what makes a good one.In my opinion, a good father does one thing consistently: he's a good example. He's not perfect, he may not be successful in the worldly sense, or even be around that much ( […]
- Mollie Hemingway, Ed. : The Ricochet Job Bank Is Open! June 16, 2013My friend Matt Kaufman shared this job posting on USAJOBS, the federal government's jobs site: Join the IRS as a "diversity and inclusion specialist" and make $123,758.00 to $155,500.00 a year. I put it on Twitter and someone responded, "I'm more of a diversity and inclusion generalist, but I would settle for $85k if they let me […]
- Jon Gabriel : Tony Katz Reinventing the Late-Night Talk Show June 16, 2013Late night talk shows stink. Stale monologues, unfunny patter with the house band, predictable guests pitching their latest product. It wasn't always this way. When I was a kid, Carson was must-see TV, but he went off the air two decades ago. Nearly all today's hosts mimic his moves, but without that whole "being entertaining" thing.If I […]
- Ralphism Redivivus May 11, 2013Naturally I appreciate the kind and intelligent attention to my ideas from Peter Lawler, Richard Reinsch, and Carl Scott. (I would not be dismayed in the unlikely event that the term “Ralphism” caught on, though I might have suggested a term more along the lines of “the Hancockian wisdom.” But be that as it may…) […]Ralph Hancock
- “Gay Marriage” and the End of Lockean Conservatism (Part 3, Conclusion) January 31, 2013Finally, as an example of such vision of substantive goods (as evoked by Roger Scruton, above), let me share a tidbit from an important essay against same-sex marriage (made world famous by the Pope’s high praise) authored by France’s chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim. I have just finished translating this essay, very soon to appear in […]Ralph Hancock
- “Gay Marriage” and the End of Conservative Lockeanism (Part 2 of 3) January 30, 2013(This is a continuation of a post from yesterday; it will make most sense in that context.) When Maggie Gallagher answers John Corvino’s individualist argument for “gay marriage” (in Debating Same-Sex Marriage), she relies mainly on a good and important argument for man-woman marriage based upon universal human and social necessities: “Marriage is a word [.. […]Ralph Hancock
- “Gay” Marriage and the End of Conservative Lockeanism (Part 1 of 3) January 29, 2013Tom West – who, I want to make clear at the outset, can easily run circles around me in his knowledge of Locke’s writings – does well to remind us of the (now) conservative, pro-family conclusions that Locke draws from his very modern philosophical premises. And these conclusions are (or should be) still relevant to […]Ralph Hancock
- Politics and Christianity: The Rule and The Exception (Continued) December 11, 2012(Please read my previous post first, if you haven’t.) Try to follow me here: Christianity, I was arguing, necessarily implies an ambivalence towards any moral-political culture. On the one hand, it reinforces much conventional moral content by declaring it to be the object of a divine command: Thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, etc. At […]Ralph Hancock
- Politics & Christianity: the Rule and the Exception December 10, 2012The essence of Christianity is to love one another, to have compassion, not to judge, but to forgive, to accept – no? Applied to politics, the implication seems obvious: unlimited tolerance, equality of lifestyles, etc: in a word, extreme liberalism. What’s wrong with this picture? Everything, conservatives will say, and they will have a point, […]Ralph Hancock
- Come Let Us Reason Together January 13, 2011The outrage in Arizona has sparked another cycle of mutual recriminations between liberals and conservatives that points up what seems to be a growing chasm running through our political culture. Each side sees itself as faithful to good old American principles, and sees the other side as tending (at least) towards a dangerous extremism. It […]Ralph Hancock
- Propadeutic to a Thumotic and Erotic Ontology December 11, 2010[The following is the preface to my forthcoming The Responsibility of Reason: Theory and Practice in a Liberal-Democratic Age (Rowman & Littlefield)] Propadeutic to a Thumotic and Erotic Ontology. This is the fanciful and facetious subtitle I used to try out on friends when asked about the book I was writing. It was a serious […]Ralph Hancock
- THE CONSTITUTION AT RISK? Founding Principles and Today’s Politics November 13, 201017-20 November 2010 A Conference Hosted by the Tocqueville Project of Brigham Young University, with Funding from The John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs and The Sutherland Institute. Is the Constitution as understood by the Founders at risk? If so, then how so, and what caused this? And would […]Ralph Hancock
- Overheard at Yale: Pomocon Ontology II November 9, 2010[Conclusion of the astute synopsis by Mr. Entel, followed by his even more astute questions:] Plato, Hancock contends, enacts this yoke between being and knowing by seemingly affirming the simple superiority of theory to practice, thus suppressing the question of the relation between the good of thinking and the common good by appearing to answer […]Ralph Hancock
Great article! I really appreciate your point of view which seems like the most applicable and comparable to the authors perspective. I am curious in general about the idea of Unorthodox Mormonism. I don’t think there has been such a thing previously, but I do feel like I am seeing some of these same characteristics in come of my friends that have more or less “fallen away.” Characteristics like wanting to still call themselves Mormon and want to identify as Mormon, but have problems working out Mormon doctrine with modern liberalism and popular beliefs. I wonder if in the future unorthodox Mormonism will be a thing; and if so what will it look like (born in the faith, but not practicing or something more dubious like another sect of Mormonism). I wish I had more time to give my in depth analysis but alas school calls. All in all I enjoyed your analysis and comparison. I think it provides a richer point of view on some of these issues. Thanks.
This is really interesting, I appreciate your ideas. They are certainly much more reflective of what I have experienced than what Brooks claims she went through at BYU. Although you do get the so-called Mormon stereotypes, I rather enjoyed my BYU experience- particularly in the political science department. Being a more ‘liberal’ student, at least by Utah standards, I enjoyed having professors, classmates, and friends who helped share a wide range of opinions and experiences. Something I did not expect upon entering BYU as a freshman. I definitely had to learn to think for myself, and that’s the great thing about BYU is not blind obedience but getting to truly learn the doctrine and yourself. I’m glad you pointed out the need for personal revelation, which it appears Brooks seemed to have missed to some extent. You raise some really good insights, maybe I’ll have to check this book out sometime for myself.
Well written response, Kristen. I have not read Joanna’s book, but I did read a few summaries. As a Mormon, I have nothing but positive things to say about BYU, my equality with men in the church, and the member’s love for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
There is a very real, irrefutable, difference between philosophy and testimony. A testimony combines enlightenment to the mind, with a feeling of peace or joy to the heart and soul. Philosophy is simply logic and reasoning limited by the human mind. I believe that we need to rely on a higher power for truth. As much as I like to think of myself as intelligent, I know that in the grand scheme of things, I know nothing. There is much room for error when we attempt to fit societal beliefs into a testimony, instead of the other way around. It certainly does appear that the principal of personal revelation was overlooked in this book, and wrongfully so.
If she does write an addendum, count me in on reading it over a dr. pepper! :)
I really liked your review, I’ve read a few reviews (and reviews slamming the reviewers) of this book, and it definitely seems interesting, especially having lived in California as well. I haven’t read the book yet, but I did identify with a few things you mentioned. You talked a lot about how she omitted the idea of questioning and seeking answers for yourself, and while that is a very important and fundamental doctrine within the LDS church, I don’t think it’s always emphasized within Mormon culture. I grew up in northern California within a less active family and we were almost never encouraged to seek personal revelation about the church. My family’s standing within the church may be one explanation for this, but we attended all the Sunday services for as long as I can remember and I went through all four years in seminary. Don’t get me wrong, we were told the instructions in Moroni to pray and learn for yourself if the gospel was true, but one of the troubles I’ve had for years is that, at least within the Mormon culture I grew up with, if the gospel were true then all the cultural, non doctrine, things were true as well. In the time since I first came to BYU though, that’s changed. Sure, there do seem to be some at BYU people who blindly follow just as much as those at home, but I’ve met and talked to a lot of people who have helped me to realize that everything can be questioned, as long as you do it with good intentions and with a desire to understand rather than attack. It’s helped me understand that, although it sounds like I share many of the same political leanings as Brooks (I voted no on 8 and am, at least in Utah, considered very liberal), I can reconcile those to my beliefs by going back and looking at what the doctrine actually says as opposed to how it is interpreted by lay members and by seeking personal revelation.
While I can identify with some of Brooks’s experiences, I don’t agree with her conclusion, at least as it seems, that “unorthodox Mormonism” is the only answer to her disjoint and disagreement with Mormon culture. Thanks for the review, you made me want to read this book even more than I did before. :)
Excellent article. I was born in Southern California, and moved to Reno, NV when I was 8 years old. My Mormon cultural experience in both states as well as at BYU was very much the experience you described in your article here. I have to admit I have not read her book, but I have listened to the interview of her on bloggingheads and have encountered her a few other places on the web as well. The way she talks about her Professors at BYU shunning her from asking certain questions was puzzling to me, because as you have said here – ours is a religion which is about asking questions, and wrestling with them in study and prayer and pondering, until you find that answer! My experience at BYU was vastly different from hers! My degree was in a more liberal part of campus as well (the German department to be more specific.) My overall experience was that my peers were very thoughtful in both their secular and spiritual inquiries. A couple of my professors even openly and proudly admitted to being communist – no, none of my challenging questions (or those of my peers) were dismissed! BYU was a dynamic and interesting place where reason and faith, that constant seeking of truth were beautifully intertwined.
Her contrary stance on the gay marriage issue to me speaks volumes to me about what she is missing – in a faith where gender, and marriage, and family are so essential. That issue – among countless others are ones I have personally studied and thought out and prayed to understand.
Also, I’m quite certain from what I have studied and understand, that ours is a faith without an unorthodox sector. The fact that she classifies herself as such, when no one else has really even heard of that, tells me that her experience was not the norm. . .
No, Joanna Brooks has a fondness for parts of the Mormon culture, but her greater respect for liberalism indeed appears to overshadow what you have rightly called, the “richness of the Mormon cultural experience” – that being the idea that we ask God to direct us toward truth. She misses so much. Sad really. I’d really like to know her opinion of what you’ve written here!
Good work! Now I’m just trying to decide which beverage I want to be. . . chocolate milk perhaps? Never been too much of a soda lover myself. Haha. ;)
I have not (yet) read Prof. Brooks’ book, but have read much of her other writing. She and I have different backgrounds, but what she says often really resonates with me and reflects my experience. I hope you will take me at my word when I say that my comments are not intended as dismissive or condescending. I only say that while the John Adams Society (with which I am not really familiar) appears to offer an excellent outlet for philosophical exploration and thought, I am not surprised that many of the people drawn to it do not relate to Joanna Brooks. In your own words, “[t]he reality of [your] experience is not something I am willing to debase; I merely want to assert that it is not familiar to me as an individual, nor to [many of] of the peer group with whom I’ve associated.”
I, too, grew up in the LDS Church and am an active participant today. I love the Church and its teachings. I also grew up as a liberal-ish Democrat, and still am. For me, the two fit together relatively comfortably, if not perfectly. I believe the same is true for my Socialist mission companion from Europe and my Republican ward members; all feel a comfortable but imperfect fit. For me, it makes sense that the values I love in the gospel – - justice, fairness, compassion, agency and stewardship – - should be reflected in our government and its policies. I have heard opposing views from my politically conservative LDS friends many times (trust me!). It just doesn’t resonate with me. To borrow again from your language, it would require a sacrifice of my most dearly-held LDS values as the price of assimilation into a conservative political and economic philosophy not wholly in step with the gospel.
Getting back to Joanna Brooks. My guess is if your quest for truth and pursuit of revelation led you to BYU, the Republican Party and the John Adams Society, you probably encountered very little difficulty fitting into LDS culture. If your philosophy, in the end, happens to conform to the conservative bent of many in the Church in United States, then that part of your pursuit has been simple and you likely got a lot of positive reinforcement of your questioning and its results. This is not to diminish your hard work, intellectual effort or sincerity, all of which are evidenced in your post. But some of us took the things we learned and read and prayed about at Church and in our homes, and came to different conclusions about what that meant in how government and society should work. We face a different and (seemingly) more complicated struggle by being in a political or ideological minority in a Church we love. That struggle arises in many ways, not the least of which is the presumption by many that we have not pursued truth or revelation, or have unwisely accepted some external source of truth, because our answers sometimes differ from theirs. Sometimes, it does feel like our inquiry is not encouraged, if it is not heading in the commonly accepted direction. I am confident that Prof. Brooks highly values the tradition of intellectual and spiritual exploration LDS history and culture. Sometimes valuing that tradition makes it all the more difficult when you feel your own exploration is discouraged or dismissed.
This is all a long (apologies!) way of saying there are many, many members of the Church who relate to people like Joanna Brooks. There are many believing members of the Church whose faith in the gospel is strengthened by learning other have traveled a similar spiritual road. I am not sure how important it is, when reading a memoir, to know whether the author’s experience is similar to others’. I am pretty sure there is not some numeric threshold that makes a memoir “accurate” or relevant. But I look forward to reading Prof. Brooks’ book, in part because I am confident it will speak to my own experience and that of many Mormons I know.
Well written analysis! After reading Brooks’ book I was infuriated at how she immediately assumed the worst out of everything and everyone around her. It’s easy to see that Brooks had turned into the very person she hated so much growing up. I’m happy to see that someone finally has the common sense to look around them and take the time to really understand what’s going on. Its interesting to see how your attitude on life and the church kept you on track, while Brooks’ attitude on the same issues caused her derailment.
Very well done. Though I have not read the book you are referring to, I can only imagine the many self-fulling prophecies contained therein, as she exploits stereotypes most have of the church. Growing up in the same city as yourself (L.A.), the disparities I have found at BYU and resulting culture clash have been nothing more than what it should be: experiences with people who haven’t grown up around minority groups (myself being Hispanic, but since I have black skin I just leave it at black to make it easier on everyone; also understanding that racial concerns are different than gender concerns, however similarities can be found within the two). We all find what we are looking for in the end, and thus it makes it rather difficult to find ontological truth rather than merely finding our own personal ontic truths. However, as you take in several aspects of Mormonism into account, especially that of personal revelation, I feel you have adequately defined the difference between one having true knowledge, rather than one merely going through the motions based off of weak convictions.
Thanks for the piece, and I’ll be expecting that DP!
This blog has a weird obsession with Joanna Brooks.
Living in socialist/atheist France presents daily stimuli for questioning beliefs and seeking a greater understanding of “Why I choose to live the way I do.” Like you so aptly described, the process of seeking personal revelation is not only enriching but a requirement to obtaining greater knowledge. Brooks’ reasoning sounds familiar to me as I’ve seen many friends and family subscribe to her pattern of thought, but I similarly feel that it misses the mark.
The political milieu in Europe acts on the principle of solidarity or working for the greater, common good. While I support and hold that Mormon doctrine encourages a high interdependence akin to solidarity, the divergences between political practice here and doctrine quickly appear once personal requirements are outlined. All too often I meet those who abhor work or find injustice in rendering service to others; they profit intensely from the rich benefits of society without contributing in return.
Rather, autonomous living is a base requirement to successful participation in any society. “Unorthodox Mormonism” as presented by Brooks and subscribed to by a number of my friends is just that—unorthodox and missing the mark. It is a diluted substitute for something that must be obtained through a theological autonomy and a continual search for truth in all aspects of life.
While the church’s culture and members are just as perfect as anybody else, the principles and faith brought through diligent seeking and application of revelation are requirements for progression. A man may label himself as a skilled hiker and embark on a risky summit approach missing the necessary tools and equipment, calling it adventurous or unorthodox. He may depart with his well equipped friends who can spot him and share gear, and the company will probably make significant progress towards the peak. However, at some point the hiker will be obligated to use his own skills and tools to safely navigate a treacherous portion. Friends may encourage or guide, but it is through ones own decision making that the goal is attained. The odds of success when poorly equipped on a highly technical approach are reduced and in most cases impossible without significant bodily harm.
Similarly, Brooks suggests that most Mormons are inculcated with their beliefs, but in reality those who choose or refuse to pose questions while still participating are those who opt to follow through blind obedience. The likelihood of successfully navigating life while clinging to the idea of unorthodox belief does not offer promising outcomes.
While I may be stark, I appreciate the rich diversity of my surroundings. Those who stagger along, whether member of the church or not, are not only invited but strongly encouraged to question beliefs and ways of life to acquire greater truth and help one another in life.
Excellent article. This is my favorite passage, and sums up a lot of the pressures and discussions on the mormon agenda, especially in reference to politics:
“…that Brooks wants to reconcile a liberal agenda under the guise of unorthodox Mormonism. This, for me, would require a relationship between faith and liberalism that would alleviate tensions between Mormon culture and democratic liberalism by requiring Mormonism to sacrifice its traditional values as a price for assimilation into liberal culture….”
Perhaps one of the greatest doctrines in the church is agency or the ability to choose. This idea is what gives us the option to choose what we would like to think and what we decide to follow. In my personal belief is that a misunderstanding of this basic doctrine is what leads to becoming a “blind follower”. The church isn’t structured for blind followers by any means. If there’s any source that is 100% credible for Mormon doctrine 100% of the time is the scriptures themselves. Whether it is be the Bible or the Book of Mormon we believe in both. In the book of Moses which is accepted by all LDS it says “Thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee” (Moses 3:17). That is probably a straight forward as we can get. The church promotes the idea of choosing whether or not to follow the precepts of the religion. That’s about as anti-blind follower you can get. I served a two years mission for the LDS church in Louisiana and there wasn’t one person that joined the church that didn’t choose to, especially because every one of those people were coming from other churches. In fact if they weren’t sure we were instructed to leave it between them and God which is exactly what we did which gave them the ability to decide what was right for them without any pressure. This idea of agency is what I was taught in Los Angeles. To be able to reason, pray, and decide is why I stay in the church. The doctrine teaches this, the leaders teach this, the Lord teaches this. Those who don’t understand “do err not knowing the scriptures.”
I concur with DLewis.
Bravo Kristen! Looking forward to your memoir :)
D Lewis is right about this blog’s obsession with Joanna Brooks. The obsession becomes not only more curious, but creepy, when you see that the 13 individuals listed on the John Adam’s site as leaders of the blog are all male. Takes on the character of the recent all male GOP committee on women’s birth control. What are you guys so afraid of?
I read her book too, but I had a different reaction. I really needed her story. I, like you, grew up with the belief that seeking personal revelation about religious principles and doctrines was the key to testimony and faith. That worked well for me most of my life, because I always believed my answers would coincide with what the church taught. But recently I have found there are a couple of issues that, despite hours and hours of study and fervent prayer, I simply could not conclude to be truth. In fact my convictions – despite real effort to contain them – grew the other way. Though I feel like God’s loving guidance has been unfailing, the cognitive dissonance I experience at church is still devastating and confusing. Seeing someone like Joanna, who has been able to continue to make a home for herself within the faith that she loves, despite areas where her personal convictions diverge from some of the traditions of the church, gave me a sense of hope that I sorely needed. I appreciate her courage to share so personal a story, and open her life up to criticism, because she helped me in the process.
First, @MormonDemGuy that was the best comment I have seen in response to people reviewing JB book. Thoughtful, fair-handed, positive and insightful. Everyone should read it. I completely identify with what he said.
I just wanted to add I think we have to consider the possibility that just as trying to fit “Mormon doctrine into a liberal political agenda” might require “sacrificing its traditional values to fit into the mainstream” so it might be that the efforts by Mormons to align our culture, values and beliefs with a conservative political agenda could equally require “sacrificing Mormon values and doctrine”. It is a tension we all face not just us liberals. I would humbly submit if this is a tension you have “never felt” or “can not understand” that it might be because your political convictions just happen to be the cultural mainstream. The church has always benefited from its members’ diversity in its political and social matters. I admit to being one that sees the need for greater cultural gender equality in the church and believes that many our practices and limited doctrinal understanding regarding the role of women is due in part to our cultural blinders. Some may push in ways that are grating or distasteful. That is a hard balance to strike, but it doesn’t mean they are always wrong.
Brooks is an ethnic studies professor and would like to convert the LDS faith into an ethnicity or something that resembles branches of Judaism where having a Jewish mother makes you part of the team. Unfortunately for her, almost no one inside or outside the church will be interested in accepting this new definition of “Mormonism”. People inside and outside the church think of Mormons as people who believe specific, distinctive, things. It is fairly arrogant to suggest that millions of people need to radically change what it means to be a member of their own faith community.
Perhaps that is why she had to self publish this book.
One of the things that bother me most, is the critcism that Mormons are taught not to think for themselves. That we somehow are taught to blindly follow our leaders and the churches’ doctrine. I would submit that those who often end up falling away from the church or lose their testimonies are those who blindly follow and don’t continue to evolve and question their beliefs. In order to have a strong testimony of the Gospel, you must be consistently active in your pursuit of new knowledge, which by nature, often leads to questioning and examining your beliefs. Church leaders have always encouraged this type of spiritual growth through personal revelation and study. Here’s a quote from Brigham Young that perfectly illustrates this point:
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”(Brigham Young, 9:150)