Critique of Pure Joanna: Coming to Terms With neo-Orthodoxy

[Guest]

You claim #3 and then approvingly cite a quote that is all #1 & #2.

Why don't you exercise your creative genius and make up a new term. The one you are using is already taken. And by minds much better than yours, namely, the Niebhur's.

PS At least you responded which is more than I can say for bcspace.

I can see at this point that having a serious critical discussion with you may turn out to be a consternating exercise in futility (as is so often the case around here), but I'll just reiterate what I tried to point out above just in case I'm mistaken on that score.

My own definition of Neo-Orthodoxy was:

...a varied yet consistent syncretic blending of contemporary secular concepts, ideas, attitudes, and cultural fashions with the Church with the intention of a gradual displacement of key traditional gospel concepts/standards by contemporary (primarily post-sixties) cultural, social, ideological and political doctrines regarding the same questions of the human condition the gospel grapples with within its own doctrinal and philosophical framework.

Its a syncretic intermingling and integration of the surrounding secular culture with the Church (under the rubric of "tolerance," and "inclusiveness" etc.) while attempting to retain certain aspects of LDS culture and broad values (hence the term cultural Mormon) within the generally secularized superstructure (for example, retaining the LDS idea of the importance of the family, while redefining the concept of "family" to fit contemporary secular liberal ideological doctrines of moral/social neutrality in matters of human sexuality and gender role).

I italicized Midgelys basic analysis of White's core thesis regarding modernity and the Church to point out the similarities between Midgley's understanding of Neo-Orthodoxy and mine:

He also assumes that believers ought to reach an accommodation with modernity by adopting its assumptions and reflecting its values.

You asked for a definition, and I gave you an extensive one.

[_Droopy]

Why don't you exercise your creative genius and make up a new term. The one you are using is already taken. And by minds much better than yours, namely, the Niebhur's.

Secondly, please take the gratuitous, condescending insults to another room, where that is the coin of the realm. I started this thread here for a reason. If you do not wish to engage me on the issue, then don't, but drive-by posturing is not going to be particularly interesting (well, to most here it will be, but, that's just the Trailerpark for you).

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy,

You wrote:

First the essay. and in the next post, the critique will get underway.

And in your next post, you wrote:

"Put your right foot in...put your right foot out...

"Do the hokey-pokey..."

"That's what its all about..."

Is that all that your "critique" amounts to? I'm having a difficult time understanding why you apparently have such a disdain for Joanna Brooks---it's as if you would like to see her excommunicated--like you are calling for a kind of "ethnic cleansing," whereby you get to boot out anyone who is threatening to you. And it's unclear why you would take issue with anything she said in the article you quoted.

[_lulu]

You asked for a definition, and I gave you an extensive one.

If this were just a drive-by, I wouldn't be asking you follow up questions.

How do you justify your use of a term that already has 2 prior definitions different from your own?

Why don't you pick another term for clarity's sake? In the intertest of "serious critical discussion" and all.

PS I'm neither from nor in a Trailer Park (not that there's anything wrong with it)

[_Samantabhadra]

lulu, the "trailer park" is what this board gets called at MAD/MDD.

[_lulu]

lulu, the "trailer park" is what this board gets called at MAD/MDD.

lol. Thanks Samantabhadra. So Saintly of them. What do we call MAD/MDD? Or is MAD/MDD bad enough?

[_bcuzbcuz]

I will also approach such critique from the perspective of my own personal testimony (given of the Holy Spirit) that the Church and gospel are true.

Based upon what I have read of Professor Brooks writings thus far, this article, and her testimony as presented at Mormon Scholars Testify, I am also moving into such critique under the distinct impression, based upon the above consideration, that Joanna Brooks is in some sense uncertain, unclear, or ambiguous in her own conception of the concept of "testimony," as understood within the Church, and is operating fundamentally on an intellectual, psychological, and emotional level regarding her clearly deep connection to LDS culture.

You may find yourself sitting with your testimony, at a testimony meeting, on a row of seats strangely devoid of fellow testifiers. Your somewhat smug attitude will do little to comfort those who find question with church doctrine and history.

I read her comments from an entirely different perspective, a former TBM, who would have appreciated sincerity and straightforwardness from a church that claims the ultimate truth. After all, if Mormonism is the only true church AND the Holy host will testify to that, what would the church have to lose by being truthful?

[_Droopy]

Droopy,

You wrote:

First the essay. and in the next post, the critique will get underway.

And in your next post, you wrote:

"Put your right foot in...put your right foot out...

"Do the hokey-pokey..."

"That's what its all about..."

Is that all that your "critique" amounts to? I'm having a difficult time understanding why you apparently have such a disdain for Joanna Brooks---it's as if you would like to see her excommunicated--like you are calling for a kind of "ethnic cleansing," whereby you get to boot out anyone who is threatening to you. And it's unclear why you would take issue with anything she said in the article you quoted.

I won't be discoursing with you at all in this thread, Scratch, so have your fun by yourself.

[_Droopy]

How do you justify your use of a term that already has 2 prior definitions different from your own?

Why don't you pick another term for clarity's sake? In the intertest of "serious critical discussion" and all.

What "term?" I'll try this one more time, and then just move on to an interlocutor who wishes to engage the subject (my criticisms of Brooks and "Reformed" Mormonism) in a philosophically substantive manner.

My definition of "Neo-Orthodox" or "Reform" Mormonism is, tentatively:

...a varied yet consistent syncretic blending of contemporary secular concepts, ideas, attitudes, and cultural fashions with the Church with the intention of a gradual displacement of key traditional gospel concepts/standards by contemporary (primarily post-sixties) cultural, social, ideological and political doctrines regarding the same questions of the human condition the gospel grapples with within its own doctrinal and philosophical framework.

Its a syncretic intermingling and integration of the surrounding secular culture with the Church (under the rubric of "tolerance," and "inclusiveness" etc.) while attempting to retain certain aspects of LDS culture and broad values (hence the term cultural Mormon) within the generally secularized superstructure (for example, retaining the LDS idea of the importance of the family, while redefining the concept of "family" to fit contemporary secular liberal ideological doctrines of moral/social neutrality in matters of human sexuality and gender role).

PS I'm neither from nor in a Trailer Park (not that there's anything wrong with it)[/quote]

[_Droopy]

How do you justify your use of a term that already has 2 prior definitions different from your own?

Why don't you pick another term for clarity's sake? In the intertest of "serious critical discussion" and all.

What "term?" I'll try this one more time, and then just move on to an interlocutor who wishes to engage the subject (my criticisms of Brooks and "Reformed" Mormonism) in a philosophically substantive manner.

My definition of "Neo-Orthodox" or "Reform" Mormonism is, tentatively:

...a varied yet consistent syncretic blending of contemporary secular concepts, ideas, attitudes, and cultural fashions with the Church with the intention of a gradual displacement of key traditional gospel concepts/standards by contemporary (primarily post-sixties) cultural, social, ideological and political doctrines regarding the same questions of the human condition the gospel grapples with within its own doctrinal and philosophical framework.

Its a syncretic intermingling and integration of the surrounding secular culture with the Church (under the rubric of "tolerance," and "inclusiveness" etc.) while attempting to retain certain aspects of LDS culture and broad values (hence the term cultural Mormon) within the generally secularized superstructure (for example, retaining the LDS idea of the importance of the family, while redefining the concept of "family" to fit contemporary secular liberal ideological doctrines of moral/social neutrality in matters of human sexuality and gender role).

Midgley's was not different from my own, albeit a very short and broad general statement.

PS I'm neither from nor in a Trailer Park (not that there's anything wrong with it)

Oh, I"m sorry, its the Great and Spacious Trailerpark. The other place is a trailerpark, but not so great and spacious.