DiscussMormonism.com

I have to say, I am utterly godsmacked over what I've just read.

Holy smokes.... In all honesty, I don't know how this escaped the stalwart attention of either myself or my faithful "informants," but it appears that our old pal juliann has fired up a MAD blog!!! As you can no doubt expect, this format, with its similarity to the old-fashioned diary, is a massive liability for someone as unstable as Ms. Juliann R. Indeed, the one and only posting so far is a real doozy. You can read it in its entirety over at the aptly named MADboard, but for the sake of this post, I'm going to deal with a few especially juicy remarks:

juliann wrote:I sit in a house wanting for housework but housework has a churchy quality about it. It is always there and there is never a time when I can say it’s perfect. A recent event occurred with Sis. Beck’s talk entitled “Women Who Know” http://LDS.org/conference/talk/display/ ... 27,00.html. A firestorm of protest erupted from women who were left out of her picture that seemed to put too much emphasis on housework. http://whatwomenknow.org/whatwomenknow/ I think a few of Sis. Beck’s sentences could have been better thought out but as a woman who knows how difficult it is squeeze the thoughts in my head past the tongue in my mouth, I know that with time and experience Sis. Beck will parse her few allotted words more precisely. So the issue for me is not about the first brief talk of a new Relief Society President, it is in how we as members react to statements from leaders that leave us wanting.

(bold emphases added)

Please allow me a moment or two to pick my jaw up off the floor. Can anyone else believe what they are reading here? Is this not some form of rank heresy? Let's go through these sentences one by one:
---First, juliann refers to housework as being "churchy", and that "there is never a time when [...] it's perfect." Wha...? I had always understood the doctrine to be, "The Church is perfect, even though the members aren't." Could it be that Ms. Reynolds is allowing some personal arrogance to affect her judgment?
---Next, juliann really rips into current Relief Society President Julie Beck, saying that Beck needs to "parse...her...words more precisely." juliann goes on to say that this is a Relief Soc. Pres. who "leave[s] us wanting"!!! Can you imagine somebody saying this about Pres. Monson? Unbelievable.

Next, dig this solid gold bit of commentary:

juliann wrote:We have to always deal with LDS culture that demands conformity by disallowing contention. It can be seen as restrictive, oppressive and dysfunctional. Or it can be seen as creating an environment that is welcoming and safe for everyone regardless of predisposition or circumstance. Mormon Manners function as any set of standardized manners function in any society. Everyone knows what fork to pick up, when to lift it and what to say while doing it so no one stands in awkward isolation outside of the group. I know that I will be safe and welcome in our Mormon world within a world if I extend the same manners to others regardless of our idiosyncrasies or ill conceived words.

(emphases added)

Uh, gee, and people wonder where the term "Morgbot" comes from? I am truly flabbergasted at juliann's complete and utter foolishness in posting this material. Honestly, what was she thinking? (Well, actually, I think we are seeing, rather nakedly, just what she really does think.) I don't think I have ever seen so many sig. line-worthy remarks in a single paragraph. juliann really ought to be browning herself in terror that her SP or someone at the SCMC might see this. I hereby predict that this posting will either be apologized for or withdrawn in the very near future.

Wait, though, there's more:

juliann wrote:The topic has re-emerged because of a presentation regarding this petition given at Sunstone West on Saturday. I identified myself as a critic of the petition in the Q&A and two of the presenters were kind enough to approach me after the session. They were delightful women and I hope to get to know them better. I was not comfortable during the presentation, particularly when their own critics were ridiculed by reading emails (and those emails were certainly silly) in a mocking voice. When I spoke to the women in person, however, something quite different happened. But it happened because we all immediately and unconsciously slipped back into Mormon Manners and met in the familiar place where we say and do the things that make one another feel comfortable and welcome. That is when the magic happens and we can see one another as individuals with important things to say. That is when we open our eyes and ears.

What??? I know that juliann is not the best/clearest writer in the world, but, unless I'm missing something, she seems to be saying that this zombie-fied state of "Mormon Manners" is a kind of "ideal state" where the most honest "magic happens." Is she really nuts, or what?

Another intriguing and rather conspiratorial-sounding bit is this mention of these "critics' emails" which were (apparently) read by a pair of "mocking" LDS ladies... Not very nice! I wonder if anyone knows the full details of this?

Anyhow, juliann's bombshell of a blog entry concludes thusly:

juliann wrote:I have only had one petition and that was to request a sealing cancellation. I resented that I had to do this for many years --until I received a response. Only then did I see that we may be in a church of rules but we were all treated as exceptions. Can we come together as women with this realization and turn our efforts to making sure that each exception is attended to by us rather than expecting it to come in every random twenty minute talk? I think we can and I think we will be better for it.

Wow... Yet another bit of heresy. She really seems like she wants to totally overhaul the Church to her own design. I truly cannot believe my eyes here. This is one of the most staggering posts I have ever seen, from any TBM. Ever. This tops even Calmoriah's admission that she wants a "women's only" Sacrament Meeting. juliann, methinks, will have a lot of explaining to do.

I think you're totally misreading her on this one. I'm too tired to go into any detail tonight, but I have to confess that I actually developed a bit of admiration for Juliann as a result of her entry.

skippy the dead wrote:I think you're totally misreading her on this one. I'm too tired to go into any detail tonight, but I have to confess that I actually developed a bit of admiration for Juliann as a result of her entry.

I get what you're saying, Skippy, but juliann's position in this posting is just too riddled with hypocrisy for me to feel anything resembling "admiration," I'm afraid. juliann routinely doles out comments utterly devoid of sympathy to women who express exactly the same things. (Think for a moment how juliann has treated Harmony in the past.) I'm sorry, Skippy, but I'm just not buying it: juliann screwed up massively on this one. I'm still completely bewildered that she was dumb enough to post something this riddled with the "apostate" spirit.

Hmm. Very, very interesting. Juliann herself is allowing a little humanity to shine through. . . I don't know what to say.

Here's the major juxtaposition that had me scratching (no pun intended) my head:

We have to always deal with LDS culture that demands conformity by disallowing contention. It can be seen as restrictive, oppressive and dysfunctional.

That's a major concession coming from her, methinks. I never would've thought she'd recognize it, let alone admit it in public. But anyway, contrast that with:

Or it can be seen as creating an environment that is welcoming and safe for everyone regardless of predisposition or circumstance.

Notice that she never once says which way is "right" and which way is "wrong." I didn't notice her casting judgment on either point of view. So, what's her position on what the best course of action/state of mind is?

But let's focus on the former observation she made: Does that not remind you of harmony (the person, not the condition)? It almost seems as though Juliann is actually legitimizing what harmony has been expressing lo these many years. (Harmony, if I'm up in the night, please let us know so I don't create any false impressions.)

This reminds me of a silent observation I made this afternoon: When you get a TBM to express how he or she REALLY feels, it's almost uncannily similar to what harmony has been saying all this time. This afternoon I was catching my breath over all the doublethink that Will Schryver was engaging in, and it hit me: Isn't he merely repeating everything that harmony has been saying from the very beginning, viz. all the stuff that's part of church culture really isn't, and never was, of God?

Yet it amazes me how and why harmony gets such a bad rap when she merely says what so many other TBMs inwardly feel and think in the deepest recesses of their hearts and minds.

Dr. Shades wrote:Yet it amazes me how and why harmony gets such a bad rap when she merely says what so many other TBMs inwardly feel and think in the deepest recesses of their hearts and minds.

Perhaps because it doesn't "conform" (to quote juliann) to this notion of "Mormon Manners", which seems to Trump all else?

Mister Scratch wrote:Perhaps because it doesn't "conform" (to quote juliann) to this notion of "Mormon Manners", which seems to Trump all else?

Maybe, but as I observed, Juliann never comes out and states which way is right and which way is wrong.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Perhaps because it doesn't "conform" (to quote juliann) to this notion of "Mormon Manners", which seems to Trump all else?

Maybe, but as I observed, Juliann never comes out and states which way is right and which way is wrong.

Well, that may be so, but juliann does imply a certain "order of things" (to paraphrase Elder Packer; and by the way, this whole "exceptionalism" that she's referring to is based on a classic, misogynist BKP talk):

juliann wrote:Everyone knows what fork to pick up, when to lift it and what to say while doing it so no one stands in awkward isolation outside of the group. I know that I will be safe and welcome in our Mormon world within a world if I extend the same manners to others regardless of our idiosyncrasies or ill conceived words.

I think the trouble may be that know one really seems to know what the "rules" are. juliann claims that "everyone knows what fork to pick up," etc., but clearly juliann knows virtually nothing about how to "extend the same manners to others" with good results.

And, really, this is just one facet of what was an extraordinarily rich posting from her. I am still wondering if anyone else knows anything about this supposed "mocking" reading of critics' emails..... (Emails which juliann rather predictably thought were 'silly'.)

Dr. Shades wrote:Hmm. Very, very interesting. Juliann herself is allowing a little humanity to shine through. . . I don't know what to say.

Here's the major juxtaposition that had me scratching (no pun intended) my head:

We have to always deal with LDS culture that demands conformity by disallowing contention. It can be seen as restrictive, oppressive and dysfunctional.

That's a major concession coming from her, methinks. I never would've thought she'd recognize it, let alone admit it in public. But anyway, contrast that with:

Or it can be seen as creating an environment that is welcoming and safe for everyone regardless of predisposition or circumstance.

Notice that she never once says which way is "right" and which way is "wrong." I didn't notice her casting judgment on either point of view. So, what's her position on what the best course of action/state of mind is?

But let's focus on the former observation she made: Does that not remind you of harmony (the person, not the condition)? It almost seems as though Juliann is actually legitimizing what harmony has been expressing lo these many years. (Harmony, if I'm up in the night, please let us know so I don't create any false impressions.)

This reminds me of a silent observation I made this afternoon: When you get a TBM to express how he or she REALLY feels, it's almost uncannily similar to what harmony has been saying all this time. This afternoon I was catching my breath over all the doublethink that Will Schryver was engaging in, and it hit me: Isn't he merely repeating everything that harmony has been saying from the very beginning, viz. all the stuff that's part of church culture really isn't, and never was, of God?

Yet it amazes me how and why harmony gets such a bad rap when she merely says what so many other TBMs inwardly feel and think in the deepest recesses of their hearts and minds.

I expect to be notified that I am being hauled before a church court momentarily. You know if I've actually got my finger on the pulse of LDS thought that I'm about to excommunicated forthwith. I simply cannot be allowed to actually know and worse yet say what many people are actually thinking... that our leaders are not leading us where God wants us to go, but rather where they want us to go.

Man, I need to get caller ID, so I know what to expect when next I get a call from my bishop.

Newsflash:

I've just been alerted by one of my "agents" that juliann also posted this very same material at FAIR:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/03/17/what ... /#comments

This is interesting, as it includes some comments, such as this one from "Doe Daughtrey":

Doe Daughtrey wrote:You are an extraordinary woman, and I am so grateful that you spoke up and that I got to meet you and look into your eyes. As someone else who once had to request that cancellation of sealing, we have even more in common than I thought. I want you to know that my interactions with you were not informed by Mormon Manners but by my intense desire for you to know that I had, indeed, heard your concerns and that your opinion, ideas, and experience are all of great value to me. Thank you, thank you, for being so gracious. I look forward to getting to know you.

How interesting that Doe (or maybe D'oh! would be better?) totally jettisons juliann's argument about how Mormon Manners are a good thing. These two women might be reading the same book, but they are on totally different pages.

Here is another comment from someone who was apparently too afraid to put a name to the comment:

anonymous wrote:Thank you for your blog post. You really put into words what I was thinking.

Here is juliann's wack response:

juliann wrote:Thanks for responding so generously, Doe. What I was thinking of was the “A Diaologue on Womanist Theology” selection from the recently published Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies.

”First, in the analysis of Keely Brown Douglas, womanist theology is accountable to ordinary women–poor and working-class black women. This means that womanists must teach beyond the seminaries and divinity schoools and in churches and community-based organizations. Put differently, “it will be church and community-based women who will teach womanist theologians how to make theology more accessible.” (p. 307)

I think this is applicable to LDS and puts words to my discomfort with elitist rhetoric that passes right by (or alienates) the community-based women who are the majority.

I don’t put “Mormon Manners” at odds with sincerity. I think we have a method of getting to negatives but we sort of back into it and walk around it. I think most of what was said could have been done by simply extracting from other talks (without implying that the community of women were supporting killing by including an anti-war statement that slammed all of us who use the Stripling story). I think Bushman’s democratic theology would have a better chance if the community was brought in by using sources that speak to them.

The doublespeak is extremely hard to parse out here. On the one hand, juliann argues in favor of "Mormon Manners"; on the other, she says that [LDS women] "have a method of getting to negatives but we sort of back into it and walk around it." ????? Then, she claims to want "sources that speak to [women]", which seems to imply sources which are sensitive to the positions, thoughts, and desires of women.... So, I'm wondering, is this all a veiled assault against LDS male priesthood authority?

We have to always deal with LDS culture that demands conformity by disallowing contention. It can be seen as restrictive, oppressive and dysfunctional. Or it can be seen as creating an environment that is welcoming and safe for everyone regardless of predisposition or circumstance. Mormon Manners function as any set of standardized manners function in any society. Everyone knows what fork to pick up, when to lift it and what to say while doing it so no one stands in awkward isolation outside of the group. I know that I will be safe and welcome in our Mormon world within a world if I extend the same manners to others regardless of our idiosyncrasies or ill conceived words.
(emphases added)

Uh, gee, and people wonder where the term "Morgbot" comes from? I am truly flabbergasted at juliann's complete and utter foolishness in posting this material. Honestly, what was she thinking?

The "Or" in the third sentence seems to contradict your conclusion here.