I can imagine some simple explanations for those possibly unfamiliar with the different “branches” of “Mormonism” — what they share in terms of doctrine, where in history (and why) the different groups diverge. I think a brief historical outline/background intro could be helpful so as not to further the confusion about what *most* people mean when they talk about “the Mormons.” People are already confused about “Mormonism” and Mormon womanhood (as in, “Can Mormon women wear pants?” kinds of questions).

To me, it seems a little contradictory to say that “we” (“Mormon women”) should be telling “our” stories when I think in most LDS people’s minds, those of non-mainstream branches of Mormonism are still “non-Mormons.”

Again, I think there is value in shared dialogue and shared stages and shared stories, but I think value is lost if you aren’t clear about the fact that being “Mormon” can mean different things to different people. Otherwise, in telling too-broadly defined “Mormon” stories to a national audience, I think this can risk perpetuating the confusion the Church has been pretty deliberate to try to dispel regarding what the mainstream Church is all about.

I first encountered Joanna Brooks during freshman orientation week at BYU in 1989–she was sitting on a table in the checkerboard quad recruiting for the Student Review, swinging her feet and looking like a pixie with her freckles and short, dark hair.

I knew her from the Student Review too!

Remember this post I linked to from Norbert’s recent BYU post? Well, Professor Brooks is in the second picture, standing behind me on the other side of the bar. (I hope there’s no problem posting this link, but) here‘s an even better picture of her from the same party.

One question I have about potential challenges of the approach of ‘diversity, not orthodoxy’ is this: Isn’t it possible that this effort could contribute to continued confusion ‘out there’ about what it means to be Mormon, and, more specifically, a Mormon woman? I do understand the interest in bridging gaps between mainstream, active LDS and others who share common Mormon roots, and think there is value in that (it’s sort of the age-old tension discussed with Sunstone, etc. and I don’t mean to rehash that here). But I also am interested to know if there will be any deliberate effort to also help people understand some of the differences, too, between the faiths that have common roots in early Mormonism. I think there is value in both recognizing the commonalities, but also recognizing and discussing in clear ways where the different religious beliefs diverge.

Thoughts?