Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Some Continued Thoughts on Modesty

2011-12-15T02:13:00.003Z

Thinking back to prior posts about modesty (like this one), I thought this blog post and article on modesty (both by the same author) would add to the discussion, particularly with regard to how teaching modesty through the eyes of men objectifies women. Enjoy. Here is a teaser:

"[Modesty] also defined my relationship with men as one of predator and prey. It was my job to hide from men so that their sex drive would lie dormant, like a sleeping wolf. But if that wolf ever awakened, it was not because it had been sleeping for a long time and its circadian rhythm kicked in, or it was just naturally hungry. It was my fault because I had done something to “bait” the wolf. Just by being visibly female, or by moving in “unladylike” ways. You cannot consider women full human beings unless you recognize that their lives do not revolve around the male sex drive."

to everything there is a season

2009-09-14T04:24:00.001Z

Hi friends,

I had an enlightening conversation today with a friend who is currently juggling work, school, motherhood and several big life decisions. This talk by Elder Faust came up in our conversation. You are already great women in my eyes, but seeing as some of you also juggle children, careers, etc., I thought I'd share this link in hopes it might bring you good cheer!

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3e23ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

"...you cannot do everything well at the same time. You cannot be a 100 percent wife, a 100 percent mother, a 100 percent church worker, a 100 percent career person, and a 100 percent public-service person at the same time. How can all of these roles be coordinated? Says Sarah Davidson: “The only answer I come up with is that you can have it sequentially. At one stage you may emphasize career, and at another marriage and nurturing young children, and at any point you will be aware of what is missing. If you are lucky, you will be able to fit everything in. Doing things sequentially—filling roles one at a time at different times—is not always possible, as we know, but it gives a woman the opportunity to do each thing well in its time and to fill a variety of roles in her life. The Book of Ecclesiastes says: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

Kat

How Does Birth Control Affect Our Relationship with our Bodies and our Family Values?

2009-05-28T02:25:00.002Z

Bonjour from Lindsay Hickok

2009-03-11T04:17:00.002Z

A week or so ago, my sister, Courtney, invited me to join this blog - and oh! the joy! the enlightenment that has been found herein! :)

I haven't had time to read all the previous posts, but I assure you I will. I perused and I have to admit - I'm thoroughly excited. (and trying not to be thoroughly intimidated by you amazing, mighty, thoughtful women)

That being said, here is my introduction:
I am a woman, wife and mother of 2. I graduated from BYU with a degree in Nursing, though it was far from my passion. I was exceptionally interested in anthropology, psychology and biochemistry - but for a host of reasons I chose nursing. I worked in labor and delivery for five months but quit when I became pregnant with my daughter.
Being a mother is a humongous part of who I am, as is my being LDS. I served a mission in the Nevada Las Vegas West Mission, and I wish I could give the gospel the undivided attention I gave it for that year and a half.

Like I said, I love this blog already. I have a keen interest in the female human experience, so the topics you have covered thus far have been fun to explore!
I am excited to get to know everyone better - and to contribute meaningfully.

Exercise Charity and Nurture Those in Need

2009-03-05T05:02:00.002Z

The third objective of the Relief Society is to "exercise charity and nurture those in need."

Firstly, I have to tell you about synchronicity. My life has been positively full of it lately. It began a couple weeks ago when I had some interesting and lovely connections with a longtime but far-away friend. I mentioned it to some people and was led to reading Consider the Butterfly by Carol Lynn Pearson. I have been noticing these meaningful coincidences all over the place, and now here I have another. Often I think synchronicity is God's way of speaking to us, and those meaningful coincidences can give us a boost-- they are the tender mercies (to use a cliched term) God grants us. And this is where the Relief Society objectives come in. My Relief Society lesson on Sunday was on Elder Holland's talk "The Ministry of Angels" from General Conference, and there was much discussion about how we, as sisters, can act as angels on errand from God to help others. I have been thinking so much about our lesson and how I need to be more in tune with God to be that messenger of charity and love. And, now, I finally get around to writing this post and I see that the next objective is to "exercise charity and nurture those in need." Synchronicity in deed!

The well-known scripture in Matthew tells us what will save us in the end: charity. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these . . . ye have done it unto me." The ultimate judgment comes down to how we have treated one another, how we have cared for one another. As sisters in Relief Society, we have the responsibility to care for one another as women. I think I have mentioned visiting teaching in my other posts, but it is the easiest place to start. Looking around the room at church can be particularly daunting to know where to start with nurturing those in need, but in our visiting teaching assignments, we have (usually) two women we can start with. Whether or not a woman's needs are visible or dramatic, every woman needs to be nurtured. Every woman can benefit from another friend, from another caring person.

Charity can be a very vague term. "The pure love of Christ" is a wonderful defining term, but it doesn't do much for practical application. Whenever I think of serving those around me and being truly charitable, all I can think to do for people is to bake them something. This is a start. But I'm well aware it's nowhere near enough. I think this is where being truly in tune with God comes into play. Also, we need to be willing to completely throw our inhibitions out the window. When we see an opportunity to reach out to someone, it is so easy to reason our way out of it, but we must get in the habit of acting quickly when it comes to service. (99 times out of 100 I give in to my inhibitions instead of acting charitably. I must remedy this!)

Ultimately what I want to stress in this post is the importance of this objective. One line in Elder Holland's talk is "God never leaves us alone, never leaves us unaided in the challenges that we face." I truly think it is our responsibility to be God's emissaries, to be charitable and to nurture our fellow sisters so that they feel God's love through us. (Go read Elder Holland's talk again. Seriously.)

But the question I have for you is how to apply this practically. What do you think are the most important ways to show charity? How have others been meaningfully charitable to you? In what other ways is "exercising charity and nurturing those in need" important? Please tell me all your other thoughts about exercising charity and nurturing those in need.

More Introductions

2009-01-29T02:39:00.004Z

Hello my friends, we have several lovely women who have just joined our blog:

Gwen Allen, Heather Aagard, Laura Judd, Lisa Anderson, Missy Riley and Rebecca Lippincott.

I'm so pleased you've joined!

Although I know how wonderful you are, why don't you each post an introduction so all the other women can also revel in your fabulousity. Welcome!

Emphasize Divine Worth

2009-01-28T04:56:00.003Z

The second official objective of the Relief Society is to "emphasize the divine worth of each sister." The first thing that comes to mind is visiting teaching. While I may not be the model of a perfect visiting teacher, I think it is a divinely-inspired program. It makes the statement that every woman is worth visiting. Every woman is worth being looked after. Every woman is worth the time, the effort, the thought. I have had both fabulous and awful visiting teaching experiences. I have been both fabulous and awful as a visiting teacher. But when it functions properly, visiting teaching helps emphasize the divine worth of each sister. (Are we not all motivated to do our visiting teaching this month?)
For some reason, emphasizing the divine worth of each sister is necessary in that an often correct stereotype of women is to feel decidedly un-divine. But I do think the Relief Society is trying to combat this. I recall a few Women's Conferences ago the talks focusing on our divine worth (does anyone have a link to any specific talks? I can't seem to find one). And I also feel the Young Women's program did a great job at preparing me for womanhood (and Relief Society) by drilling my divine worth -- among other values -- into my head.
How do you think Relief Society performs at emphasizing the divine worth of each sister? In what ways could the Relief Society, as an organization, do better? In what ways could you do better at helping your fellow sisters appreciated and realize their divine worth?

I have a penchant for transparent blouses...

2009-01-15T05:14:00.002Z

...which is strange because after living in Jerusalem last year, your friend who has been known by a sobriquet synonymous with "nude" came to better understand principles of modesty that had previously eluded her (I told my mother I wanted to wear hijab - I like this and this). I have been fascinated by how my perception of modesty has changed (and will still be changing, cf. post title).

My flat in the Old City of Jerusalem was situated next to a neighborhood where many religious Jewish families lived, so I was often walking around women who exemplified a type of modesty that led me to view the BYU dress code as a standard for modesty as one par with the level at which movie ratings offer a standard of appropriate content. Part of my revelation about modesty was understanding how clothing is only one expression of modesty. I have often operated under the mistaken impression that if certain body parts are covered, then I'm being modest. I have failed to realize, however, that if the covering is primarily over-stretched lycra, I haven't actually concealed anything but my natural coloring, right? So for these women, modesty wasn't faux modesty (my xs Shade shirts are sighing in the closet), but by covering their feet to their wrists to their collarbones, these women presented their bodies as something private, something holy. And they were so beautiful! I was amazed by how their modesty set them apart from other women, really a tangible difference in their demeanor and how they carried themselves, as women who understood themselves as women - perhaps who understood the power and beauty and sacredness of their female bodies and reflected their understanding through the respectful discretion with which they presented themselves through clothing. Perhaps also as respect for God?

Dressing is more of an adventure for me now, more of a thoughtful process. I love thinking of it in terms of keeping my body mysterious to everyone but my husband. I also really love how, by thinking of my body as something more holy (also holiness= apart, separate) and sacred, it has become to feel more holy and sacred to me; like, the virtues I endow it with, it more fully engenders. And I love how it changes how I interact with people, I am much more comfortable, much less self-conscious, I can focus more on experiencing the ideas and content of human interaction than on the style or presentation or material aspects of our interaction. And I'm enjoying how modesty is influencing other areas of my thought, like ideas about purity (like, physical cleanliness).

I know many of you have understood modesty far earlier than I, so- what does modesty mean to you (and I'm talking about this as a personal, subjective principle (ie, not as a cultural force or how one's modesty is related to another person's righteousness (you know the conversation I am averting))? On a material level, how has it influenced your sartorial choices? And how has it influenced your theories about other aspects of life? Have their been events, changes in your life that have affected how you think about modesty? Do you know where I can find any modest skirts?

"You Didn't Teach Me to Forget You"

2009-01-15T04:35:00.002Z

You didn't teach me to forget you

Translation by Allison:

I haven't seen you

it's been so long

that the desire I feel

is to look in your eyes

and win your embraces

it's true, I don't lie

In this despair that I see myself

I've already arrived at that point

that I've switched places with you so many times [in my mind]

only to see if I meet [find] you

You really could forgive me

and just one more time accept me

I promise you that now I'll make myself go to where [i.e., become someone that will]

I'll never lose you again

Now that I live life without you

You didn't teach me how to forget you

you only taught me to want you

and wanting you I go about trying to find you

I go about losing myself

seeking in others' embraces your arms

lost in the emptiness of other paths

of the abyss in which you threw me

and shot me and left me here alone

Now that I live life without you

You didn't teach me how to forget you

you only taught me to want you

and wanting you I go about trying to find you

I go about losing myself

seeking in others' embraces your arms

lost in the emptiness of other paths

of the abyss in which you threw me

and shot me and left me here alone

In this despair that I see myself

I've already arrived at the point

that I've switched places with you [in his mind]

so many times only to see if I could find you

You really could forgive me

and just one more time accept me

I promise you that now I'll make myself go to where [i.e., become someone that will]

I'll never lose you again

Now that I live life without you

You didn't teach me how to forget you

you only taught me to want you

and wanting you I go about trying to find you

I go about losing myself

seeking in others' embraces your arms

lost in the emptiness of other paths

of the abyss in which you threw me

and shot me and left me here alone

Now that I live life without you

You didn't teach me how to forget you

you only taught me to want you

and wanting you I go about trying to find you

I go about losing myself

seeking in others' embraces your arms

lost in the emptiness of other paths

of the abyss in which you threw me

and shot me and left me here alone

Now that I live life without you

You didn't teach me how to forget you

you only taught me to want you

and wanting you I go about trying to find myself

Build Faith and Teach Doctrine

2008-12-20T05:06:00.002Z

So I have decided that this blog will work, dangit! (I think at least a few of you are on board.) So here I go. I am going to do a series of posts hoping it will help generate some discussion here.

One of my visiting teachers is a Laurel adviser in our ward, and she commented on how odd it is to be repeating the Young Women's theme each week. We all agreed that it must be difficult to remember after all this time. It makes me wonder why we don't repeat or at least focus on the Relief Society objectives more often. The first of the official objectives of Relief Society is to "Build faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and teach the doctrines of the kingdom of God."

The year before I was married, I had a great Stake President (read one of his talks here). He said that if (in church) the Atonement wasn't mentioned in a talk or lesson, that talk or lesson wasn't worth giving. Two weeks ago we had our Christmas lesson in Relief Society. I haven't gotten a lot out of church lately, since I am still figuring out how to best handle my daughter at church, and we often leave early or come late to accommodate her naps. So, I was looking forward to the lesson. I was disappointed when the lesson consisted of the teacher listing all the things she loved about Christmas: Christmas music, Christmas lights, Christmas movies, Christmas candy, Christmas sweaters, Christmas shopping, etc. Then we watched a movie of the Christmas special the church did of Walter Cronkite telling the story of when soldiers stopped fighting on Christmas Day during WWI-- a great story, but not exactly what I had in mind for the Relief Society Christmas lesson. I left feeling rather disappointed that not once during the meeting had anyone even mentioned Christ. However, when I looked around the room as I left, the majority of the women were in tears. Clearly, this meeting had touched many hearts.

One thing I find difficult is to engage in Relief Society lessons. I recently moved into a family ward after having been in a BYU married student ward for three years. The dynamic is different, to say the least, but I think my current ward situation is much more realistic. How can we, as teachers and as listeners, help reach every sister to "build faith in Jesus Christ" and learn "the doctrines of the kingdom of God"? What have you done in Relief Society lessons to find Christ and strengthen your testimony when the lesson doesn't seem a ready vehicle to help you do so?

Multiply and Replenish

2008-11-22T04:32:00.002Z

My husband and I used to discuss the command to "multiply and replenish." We both agreed that, to us, it meant to replenish by having two children and to multiply by having at least three. Early in our marriage, we thought four sounded like a nice number.

Then we had a baby.

Granted we have only had about seven months to settle into parenthood, but I have definitely been rehashing some of my thoughts about what multiply and replenish means. I am in california right now babysitting my sister's three oldest children. Add my daughter to the mix and I am now playing single mother of four. I have come to realize, since having my daughter, that I really and truly may not be able to emotionally handle as many children as I originally thought-- and that's ok with me. Lately I have been thinking if I could be happy with just two children, and if I think that could fall in line with the "multiply" command. Honestly, I don't think it's important to parse out exact numbers from the command; I know God doesn't require three or more children. But it is an interesting thought. Mormon families tend to be on the big side. Why, exactly? Are we under the impression that to multiply means we must multiply our two by some certain magic, enormous number? How big is your family? How has that influenced how big you want your (current or future) family to be? What does multiply and replenish mean to you?

Teaching the Ideal

2008-08-04T16:38:00.010Z

My sister recently pointed me in the direction of a question and answer session at the BYU law school with Sister Julie Beck on March 7, 2008. As a fair warning, the video is pretty long (maybe 40min to an hour), and apparently you can't pause it, so I would make sure you actually have time to sit and watch it. Also, the sound is pretty bad, but if you keep with it until Sister Beck starts talking, you can get used to it; besides, her comments really are worth hearing.

In this session, Julie Beck addresses women in the law school at BYU. So, it should come as no surprise that many of the questions they posed to her had to do with working outside the home, careers, the conflict in some Relief Societies between mothers who have chosen to stay at home and mothers who are working or furthering their education, and the conflict some women feel as they strive to follow personal revelation and come up against judgment and criticism in and out of the home and workplace, whether they choose to stay at home or not.

There was also, perhaps not surprisingly, mention of the talk Sister Beck gave at General Conference in October of 2007, "Mothers Who Know", to which a number of Latter-Day Saint women (and men) reacted defensively. Despite any grumblings some might have initially experienced from that talk, I know in my heart that those words came from the Lord and that any problem I might have with some of those principles is in trying to reconcile the imperfect state of my life with an ideal model. Of course, the problem with this is that no one is perfect, everyone has different circumstances in their lives, and everyone can receive their own personal revelation about these matters from the Lord. Julie Beck knows this - she is not presenting a cookie cutter model as my sister points out, along with several other valid points, in her blog post on the subject. Sister Beck addressed this with the law students as well. In the church, we teach the ideal as something to strive for, to remind us of the things in our lives that are most important and then we let the exceptions follow, because there are many exceptions. Life happens. I have a dear friend who strives continually to be at home with her young son, but the current situations of her life prevent her from doing so. In fact, this is the case pretty much anywhere else in the world. Outside of the US, women work. That is part of life. That doesn't mean that those women no longer have the same responsibility to nurture and raise children in Christ. One of the points about this that Sister Beck brings up and is absolutely true is that no one can fulfill the role to have, raise and nurture our own children except for us. We cannot delegate it to someone else.

Sister Beck has mentioned this before in an address to young single adults:

"Some of you women are deciding now whether you should marry and have a family or choose a career. You are bright and qualified, and you have opportunities your grandmothers never dreamed of. The possibilities for earning credentials and making a mark for yourselves on the world stage have never been greater. But I hope you are making your decisions with the blessings of Abraham in mind. Latter-day Saint women should understand that no matter how many other people they enlist to help them with their home and children, they cannot delegate their role as the primary nurturer and teacher of their families. Righteous motherhood will always stretch every reserve they have to meet the needs of their families. As a daughter of God who has made covenants with Him, each of you carries the vital and indispensable female half of the responsibility for fulfilling the Lord’s plan. Each of you has the agency to prayerfully and humbly choose how to approach your career opportunities. Every choice has a consequence. You cannot have everything and do everything. You must choose with eternal priorities in mind. I would hope that you will understand that there are no glamorous careers. Every form of employment has its own innate challenges. Many choices available in the world today compete with eternal goals and responsibilities. Many choices could persuade you to delay or limit the number of children you invite into your family. Many choices could rob you of critical time and energy necessary to adequately care for your spouse, your children, and your responsibilities in the Lord’s kingdom. These decisions are between you and the Lord. He knows the desires of your heart and your unique situation."

So, we teach the ideal. This is very apparent if you think about the other principles we are taught in the church. Take for example, reading your scriptures daily. Now, in a perfect world we would all study intently every day from our scriptures without interruptions in a nice, quiet area of the house where we could pray and ponder on the deep doctrines therein. We would have family scripture study where all the little children sit and listen and participate in heartfelt, spiritual discussion (no matter their age) and everyone feels the spirit and testifies to each other about how wonderful the scriptures are. Well, this is just not reality most of the time! Most children will not thank their parents for continuing to persevere with scripture study until they are much older - when they are young, they just don't generally express those kinds of feelings. "Ah, mom, do we have to? Can't we skip it just for today?" might be closer to a typical response. I have a 17 month old son and the only way I get my scripture study in every day is to do it in the morning (because if I wait I get busy and then I get tired and then I fall asleep in the middle of the second verse I read). Well, my husband leaves for work early and so my scripture study usually consists of reading over breakfast while my little one throws his food on the floor, whines for my attention, or crawls all over me. I would have to say, that I absolutely love when he tries to imitate me by marking my scriptures for me. What a doll! If you have any fantasies about family scripture study, I would invite you to watch this video (this entire collection of documentaries from Fit for the Kingdom is wonderful because it brings the reality of everyday life as a member of the church to the fore while building testimony - none of us are alone in our struggles, even if we feel like we are). So does the reality of scripture study mean we shouldn't strive for the ideal, or the better part? Of course not! We consistently strive for the Spirit to be there in our scripture study because we are taught the ideal and we know of its importance, but that does not negate or belittle the actual experiences we have while studying the scriptures on a regular basis while we have kids running and screaming through the house, or are constantly interrupted.

Okay, so perhaps that seems a little off topic, but the truth of the matter is that we teach the ideal to strengthen us in remembering the things in this life that are of the most worth, that are truly important in the eternal scheme of things. I know that I am doing what the Lord wants me to do by pursuing my PhD. Do I completely understand why? Not really. Do I sometime feel guilty for enjoying myself at school? Sometimes, perhaps, but that is my own weakness, and I get to have faith that the Lord will make a way for me to go to school and to fulfill my responsibilities as a wife and mother. I often realize that it is okay to enjoy myself in my scholarly endeavors. In fact, it makes me better at them! At the same time, I know without a doubt that the absolutely most important thing in my life is my family and I am constantly on guard against the things in my life that pull me away from my husband, child and home. Is my house always clean and optimally inviting to the Spirit of the Lord? Hmm... no, no it is not. But does that mean that I should worry about justifying why my house is not "perfect", cease to consistently strive to make my home a place where the Spirit can dwell, and cease to do the best I can to create a spiritual haven for my family? Of course not. Why is it that we women consistently put down the work that we do in our homes that brings the Spirit, feeds and clothes our children, and makes our homes a place where we can truly and lovingly teach the gospel of Jesus Christ by example to those who are most dear to us?

So we get to the heart of the matter. Whether or not we work outside of our homes, the most important things we do are within those walls (take, for example, the little angel above). Sister Beck is absolutely right when she says that no matter what your choices, there is never enough woman to go around. And she has been there! She is an educated, professional woman too! She has stayed at home and she has worked outside of it. As have many of the women on the General Relief Society Board. Where did I, or anyone else for that matter (perhaps it is just me), ever get the idea that women in the General Presidencies are the perfect homemakers who never work, keep their homes tidy at all times, serve in every possible capacity, are always immediately there for their children, husbands, parents, neighbors, friends, strangers? Where did I get the idea that they are perfect? Hello! None of us are. There is the ideal in the principles we are taught, and then there is how we live our lives to the best of our ability in the face of the experiences that naturally are a part of this mortal existence. As Sister Beck mentioned at the law school, we should take each opportunity into account as it comes along into our lives, prayerfully consider our choices, and choose day to day with our eternal perspective in mind.

Okay, so there is so much more I could say, but I am going to stop there.

**As a side note, I have recently discovered that humming the theme song to Indiana Jones really does make cleaning the bathroom way more fun - don't believe me? You try it and see how long you can go without feeling incredibly adventurous or laughing hysterically! Never underestimate the power of music. :) "Dun da dun dunnnn, dun da dunnnnnn, dun da dun dunnnnnnnnn, dun da dun dun dun! Dun da dun dunnnnnn, dun da dunnnnnnnn, dun da daaaa da da daaaaa da da daaaa da da daaaaaaa dun da dunnnnn."

My Excuse

2008-07-16T01:10:00.004Z

What is yours?

I feel bad I never responded to your post, Monica. But now that I am swimming the new waters of being a stay-at-home mom, I've got some time on my hands. Let's blog!

"Educating people out of their creativity"

2008-02-22T18:04:00.003Z

I was recently sent this link to a video of a talk by Sir Ken Robinson in 2006 on creativity and education. I found it very thought provoking. For my longer spiel on it, see my other blog (my first post, I'm so excited!). Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Revitalization

2008-02-11T15:47:00.000Z

I have to say, we have let our blog become rather uncomfortably quiet over the past few months. In an effort to revitalize our efforts, I offer the following:

BYU-Hawaii Convocation, December 2007

This is the transcript of a talk given by Elder M. Russel Ballard at the graduation ceremony in December at BYU-Hawaii. In it, he encourages members of the church to use New Media, such as blogs and social networking sites to participate in the ongoing worldwide conversation about the Church. Whether or not we participate, this conversation is going to take place. And, while he focuses more on answering the questions of non-members and sharing the gospel, I find it appropriate to point out how even our own questions and answers (as we have seen in our particular conversations, for instance) are a part of the larger conversation that goes on about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I, for one, feel that encouraging understanding and faith is a noble goal of our little project. It would be a shame to see it silent. So, with that, bring it on!

NYT article: The Feminine Critique

2007-11-03T07:05:00.001Z

I'd love to hear your thoughts about this story in the New York Times. What has been your experience with competition in the workplace? Would you attribute your ability/inability to inspire, delegate, compete, and negotiate to gender, or to personality/experience, etc? Finally, what female leaders have been role models for you?

(As a side note, Lisa Belkin, has written books and scores of articles about her "Opt-Out" theory, which argues that women aren't professional equals of men because they simply don't want to be.)

Define preside . . .

2007-08-04T02:32:00.000Z

Since it has been almost two months since anyone has posted, I thought I would post something that has been percolating in my mind for a while: the definition of the word preside.

Yesterday at work I realized that I have only ever talked about my feminist leanings with people who are also sympathetic to the feminist cause. Well, the topic of feminism arose and I found myself having to describe, define, and defend some of my opinions. I tend to be an emotionally charged person, so it was rather difficult to attempt eloquence and to not get flustered. I felt like things went fairly well, and it was an enlightening conversation. Luckily, I was accompanied by a fellow feminist friend named Katherine.

While discussing the Proclamation to the World, Katherine and I were discussing problematic vocabulary. I feel particularly sensitive to the word preside. So, my co-workers and I tried to come up with a more concrete definition. Do we (as a church) really know what is meant by the charge given to men to "provide and preside"? I find preside to be a somewhat empty word-- one that is tossed around without any type of consensus on the implications. Here are some possible implications we discussed:

1. Much as President Hinckley presides over the First Presidency and the apostles, the husband/father presides over the family.
a. President Hinckley holds the Priesthood keys and the authority to use them. A father holds the Priesthood keys giving him the responsibility to give blessings-- both of comfort and of healing-- to his wife and children.
b. When a decision is made among the apostles and First Presidency, a unanimous vote is the only way in which something is made final. President Hinckley cannot use his position as presider to overrule decisions or to be "the final say." This is further discussed in number 2.

2. A woman and man are to make decisions together. I have heard it said that if a couple is in an argument, and no consensus can be reached, then someone needs to have the definitive decision, and this is what it means to preside. To me, this is not equality.

3. I have also heard it said that, "well, someone needs to be in charge, or everything would be chaos!" I find this statement fallacious. While there does need to be a head of a family, there is no logical reason for the head not to consist of both the husband and the wife.

4. A stake and a family are similar, but not the same. As a stake president presides over his stake, a father presides over his family much in the way I already discussed with President Hinckley. A stake, however, does need a firm and single head. Counselors work in the absence and alongside the stake president, but this is the way in which a husband and wife are different from a stake presidency. A woman should not function as a counselor, but rather as a co-president with her husband.

5. Another work friend said she asked her husband what he thought preside meant, and he said he thought it meant to protect. I am much more comfortable with this word. I find the word protect to connote more of a nurturing aspect. As women are to nurture the family, this seems much more balanced-- both mother and father can and should nurture.

So there are my five definitional statements about preside. What have I left out? On what items have I committed an oversight or an irrational comparison? (Honestly, I want to know what you think on my five statements.)

One very problematic issue I wonder about it is, where is the disconnect between doctrine and culture? As one of my male co-workers pointed out, men are constantly instructed to not exercise unrighteous dominion. They are chastised for not recognizing the women in their lives as equals. If the doctrine encourages equality between men and women, how does the culture so often misinterpret words like preside to mean dominate, abuse, manipulate, etc. While I know this is not a universal problem, I know it is a common problem. So, where is the disconnect between the culture and the doctrine? I wonder if the church clings too tightly to the old-fashioned, traditional views from before 1960 because we are too afraid of being tainted by modernism. I really don't know the answer, and I don't know the solution. I often hope for a change of discourse in how we describe gender roles. I would much prefer a substitute word for preside-- I do find it slightly overused and therefore nearly empty in meaning. I am afraid using such a word is more damaging than helpful, and maybe a new shock of words would bring some more life in to old-news principles. But change is very slow coming in the church. What do you think are some possible solutions to this problem? Or do you think I am off-base and over-sensitive (this is entirely possible)? What does preside mean to you?

Less superficial than the last one, I promise!

2007-06-05T17:44:00.001Z

So, to make up for a fluffy post about clothes, and in light of our recent discussion about modesty, I thought I would bring up another appearance-related topic. My RS lesson last Sunday was about a BYU devotional given last fall by Douglas L. Callister of the 70, entitled Our Refined Heavenly Home. I thought it was pretty interesting. Elder Callister describes his remarks as an attempt to

[P]eek behind the veil that temporarily separates us from our heavenly home and paint a word picture of the virtuous, lovely, and refined circumstances that exist there. I will speak of the language, literature, music, and art of heaven, as well as the immaculate appearance of heavenly beings, for I believe that in heaven we will find each of these in pure and perfected form.

The entire devotional was pretty interesting, and I definitely took some "action items" away from it. However, I was intrigued/puzzled by the section on appearance, which begins with this anecdote:

Many years ago an associate of mine decided he would please his wife by sharing with her a very specific compliment each night as he arrived home. One night he praised her cooking. A second night he thanked her for excellence in housekeeping. A third night he acknowledged her fine influence on the children. The fourth night, before he could speak, she said, “I know what you are doing. I thank you for it. But don’t say any of those things. Just tell me you think I am beautiful.”

She expressed an important need that she had. Women ought to be praised for all the gifts they possess that so unselfishly add to the richness of our lives, including their attentiveness to their personal appearance. We must not “let ourselves go” and become so casual—even sloppy—in our appearance that we distance ourselves from the beauty heaven has given us. Every man has the right to be married to a woman who makes herself as beautiful as she can be. Every woman has the right to be married to a man who keeps himself clean, physically as well as morally, and takes pride in his appearance.

Obviously, Elder Callister feels strongly that appearances matter. I don't disagree with him, but he never says why. Also, his story doesn't sit quite right with me, either. Again, it's not that I disagree with the premise that a couple telling each other that they are beautiful is appropriate and good... but why should complimenting your spouse on their superficial appearance be more important than their actual accomplishments? Also, I was struck by the dichotomy that women should "make themselves beautiful" while men should be "clean".

Maybe I'm just reading it too hostilely :) And really, I did enjoy this talk a lot. And if there's discussion on it (which I hope there is!) I don't mean for it to be about only this aspect. Any thoughts?

Another excuse to "need" more clothes

2007-05-29T19:34:00.000Z

I just heard about a new fashion magazine that will feature only modest clothing... looks pretty sweet to me! (Although it does nothing to stem my growing clothes addiction, fed by the fact that I still live at home and hence treat all my income as disposable.) Anyway: www.elizamagazine.com

Expanding our universes

2007-05-22T14:29:00.000Z

"So, I am sure we are all experiencing new and wonderful things in our lives that are changing how we think about the world - including new books, travels, conversations, food, films, jobs, scents -- anything.

I think it's time we share some of these things with each other."

Kudos to Alexandra!

____________________________________________________________________

- My beautiful little boy!!

- A River Runs Through It - both the book and the movie.
Some of my favorite quotes:
"You can love completely without complete understanding."
"How can a question be answered that asks a lifetime of questions?"
"It is those we live with and love and should know who elude us."
The author, Norman Maclean, was a professor at the University of Chicago - how fitting. Besides, it's a true story, and it beautifully describes the masterful art of fly fishing.

- Lamb Shawerma with vegetables, Middle Eastern rice and pita bread.

Remix: Abraham and Isaac

2007-05-18T16:25:00.000Z

I talked about this briefly with Alexandra the other day, and decided to post on it. I am taking a Bible as Lit class, and on our first day of class, we discussed Abraham and Isaac. Of course, I always prescribed to the amazing story of faith. When we discussed it in class, it kind of rocked me a little. Here's a rough paper on some of my thoughts. They are by no means complete thoughts, just a little something to hopefully get some conversation churning (I hope). And, um. I don't know what's going on with the font. Sorry.

The ultimate story of faith: Abraham, unquestioningly diligent in following the word of God, trudges up the Mount of the Lord to sacrifice his beloved son. The Hebrew term for this long-disputed story is the Akedah, or, the Binding of Isaac. Early rabbinic interpretations quote God, " 'I never considered telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac' (using the Hebrew root letters for "slaughter", not 'sacrifice'.)" (McInerny). Rather than a test of loyalty, in seeing if Abraham would kill his beloved son, Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach claimed the commanded sacrifice was meant to be symbolic.

God puts Abraham in quite the moral dilemma: Obey God, commit murder. Save Isaac, disobey God. Even the LDS cover answer for divinely appointed murder cannot fit: there is no risk of an entire nation dwindling in disbelief based on Isaac's living. In fact, God has already covenanted with Abraham in Genesis 21:12 that Abraham's seed will be preserved through Isaac. Theology professors Caspi and Kramer argue that "[Isaac] went together with his father (perhaps having dialogue with his father about the meaning of the sacrifice). In this way, Isaac actively participated in the non-tragic drama of the Akedah" ("Response"). As Sherryll Mleynek rebuts, "There is no textual basis that Abraham knows this is a test. [Caspi and Kramer's] attribution of a second 'dialogue' appears to be based on the wish for such in the context of faith, rather than on any exegetical justification" ("Rejoinder"). The end result that this is a just a test of Abraham's faith is irrelevant to Abraham. Because the text does not support Abraham's understanding, it cannot be assumed. To Abraham, the question truly is, would God have me kill my son? If God had covenanted with Abraham that Abraham's seed would come through Isaac, could it come from God to kill Isaac?

The authoritative Christian reading is that Isaac is a precursor to Jesus. Just as God, the Father, must sacrifice his own son, Abraham must sacrifice his son, like a lamb to the slaughter. Even if this is meant to be a type of Christ, it is incomplete, because Abraham's hand was stayed. How is this taste of sacrifice meant to shed light on the Atonement or the Crucifixion? As a type of Christ, Isaac's sacrifice would have had to accomplish something. Isaac's sacrifice would need to act as a catalyst for something greater, as Jesus' death was the catalyst for the salvation and resurrection for humanity.

While a Christian, type-of-Christ application is irrelevant to the Jewish reader, a Hasidic reading of the text interprets Abraham's inner battle as the pertinent issue. The test was not of Abraham's faith, but of his emotions. "For our Hasidism, had he felt love or pity for Isaac at the akedah, Abraham would have failed the test, even had he sacrificed Isaac!" (Gellam). Abraham had to prove his total devotion to and love for God by eradicating his feelings toward his son.

The Genesis account does not state this is a test of Abraham's faith: "God did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22:1). Early rabbinic interpretations of the Akedah also refute the notion of a test of faith: "Abraham's imagination led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son" (McInerny). Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi asked "how could God command such a revolting thing?" (McInerny). The divine intervention which prevents the actual sacrifice is curious. God commands/tests/tempts Abraham to sacrifice his son. Surely such a grave command would need to come directly from God in order to be believed, yet when Abraham's hand is stayed, it is on the errand of an angel. If God gave the commandment, would God not need to be the one to revoke it? God shows his mercy and love repeatedly. In his destruction of Sodom, God tells Abraham he would refrain from destroying the city if there were but fifty, then forty-five, then forty, then thirty, then twenty, then ten righteous people. God seems to want to give the benefit of the doubt to his people. The evidence suggests a fair, rational, loving God. Commanding a father to sacrifice his son just as a test of faith is not only unjust, it is cruel and sadistic. The only way to rectify this seemingly cruel joke, is to use the evidence: "God did tempt Abraham." Consistent with God's character, battling temptations are the way to test and prove faith. If God did tempt Abraham, as Genesis states, Abraham was not meant to carry out the sacrifice; Abraham was not meant to attempt the sacrifice. When Abraham yields to temptation, an angel of the Lord stays his hand.

The Akedah may be similar to that of David and Saul: a cautionary tale. God is consistent; man rarely is. When Abraham felt tempted to sacrifice his son, he was tempted with the current trend. Human sacrifice was a common thing in Abraham's day: as evidenced by Abraham's father's actions. Rarely does God command his child to follow the current trend. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required" (McInerny). God is constant and sure. While a story of unwaivering faith is the most common as the interpretation of Abraham and Isaac, a story of temptation is the only one to make sense.

Shakin things up...

2007-05-12T15:58:00.000Z

This afternoon Al and I were talking about how to stimulate more discussion on the blog. It's kind of a crazy time for a lot of us--between babies and graduations and theses and new jobs etc--and so I think FQI is less active than some of us (me?) might want.

One idea we had was to open the blog up to comments from non-bloggers. I think two big pros of this would be to (1) revitalize discussions and (2) bring in some other perspectives to issues that we discuss.

What do you think? Since it's kind of a big change, we'd like to get as many opinions as possible. Also, if we do end up opening up the blog, we want to give everyone the chance to remove whatever personal information they'd like to.

Thoughts?

Intro Post

2007-05-07T21:31:00.000Z

Hi guys!

I'm Jenn, a first year law student at the University of Chicago, and I know Allison through the law school. I'm new to both blogging and religion, which makes this blog an apt one for me to learn about both. I've never been particularly religious, but with the conversion of a close college friend to the LDS faith and other LDS influences in my life, I've come to treasure and appreciate how faith and the gospel have enriched my life. However, with that faith have come ideological struggles with balancing faith, advanced degrees (especially with loans), the prospect of motherhood (however distant that may be), and all of the other tricky things that seem to come with being a woman of faith. I'm eager to hear how others who have been in this position for far longer than I wrestle with some of these tricky ideas.

Looking forward to getting to know all of you!

Expanding our universes

2007-05-07T18:30:00.000Z

So, I am sure we are all experiencing new and wonderful things in our lives that are changing how we think about the world - including new books, travels, conversations, food, films, jobs, scents -- anything.

I think it's time we share some of these things with each other.

---
-Arab baths: wading from pool to pool, a tepid pool, a hot pool, a freezing pool, a salt pool, a jetted pool, an aromatherapy room, a sauna room; see here. I don't understand why spas across the world haven't embraced this ingenious practice - I have never been more relaxed and my skin has never been softer.

-The scent of orange trees. Inexplicably fresh and delicious.

-Lectures on Faith. What does "faith unto life and salvation" mean?

-The Mezquita Catedral. Iconic images:

-Brie, tomato and basil sandwiches on a fresh baguette. Or, brie, tomato and avocado.

-"Ti regalero una rosa" by Simone Cristicchi, winner of the San Remo Song Festival. Lyrics here - those who cannot handle Sylvia Plath, beware.

-Chocolate-covered matzo (thanks Kathryn).

Silver clouds

2007-05-07T16:34:00.000Z

You know those Chevy Chase movies where everything sort-of falls apart, like one thing after another? Well, my family vacations were actually like that (think extensive "scenic detours" and imploding motorhomes) and as amusing-slash-disastrous as that was growing up, I had always planned on my own vacations being a little more peaceful and vacation-like.

Nope.

My trip to Spain with Emma and Ade turned out to be similarly amusing-slash-disastrous (think disastrous in the sense that no one died, no long-term damage was done etc, just materially unfortunate). To quickly sum up the dramatic highlights: I lost my wallet (in Cambridge) including my passport, bankcards and allll my cash, missed my flight to Barcelona, had to wait four days to sort anything out since everything was closed for Easter weekend, had to travel to the us embassy and buy an emergency passport, buy a new flight, finally made it to Spain where my bankcard didn't work (sorry Emma), got food poisoning in Toledo, was sick in the Madrid metro (sorry Madrillenos), then after barely making it back to Cambridge, my bike and I had a serious altercation with the pavement of Mill Road where I left behind patches of clothing and skin. Basically I'm not going to travel or eat gazpacho for a really long time - BUT that's not the point: even though with each new thing I was increasingly uncomfortable, I increasingly appreciated - on a really personal, immediate level - the power of human kindness.

For example, when I finished crawling around the bus floor in search of my wallet, the bus driver asked me if I had enough money to make a phone call and pressed a two pound coin into my hand.

When I realized I would be staying in Cambridge for the weekend and didn't really have any food in my flat, a friend in my ward invited me to a picnic with her and her children - her daughter drew me a card, my friend brought me lunch and she also brought the children's book "Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day" for us to read, haha.

When I was ill on the metro, Emma not only held my hair back but gave me her coat to be sick into!

When I crashed my bicycle, a man on the side of the street yelled, "aaugh!" and ran to collect me and my belongings from the pavement and guided me to the sidewalk.

Even though losing my wallet, wrecking my bike etc were all just superficial unpleasant experiences, the sweetness of human kindness was like some wonderful nectar, some really profound force that sustained me in the moment and has made this past month one of my most treasured times in Cambridge. I'm really not being sappy here, right? I just want to share how I have been blessed by dear dear people who, whether they knew me or not, loved me and helped me when I was having a rough moment - and, in doing so, allowed me to glimpse the world as a place where charity and goodness do rule -- how beautiful!

On the road..

2007-04-27T20:46:00.000Z

To partially excuse lack of posting - some pictures from when Alexandra, Ade and I were in Spain two weeks ago!

Plea for Forgiveness: I'll Never Post on Postmodernism Again.

2007-03-29T21:10:00.000Z

I'm sorry Baudrillard made you all hide in your blogging shells. Here's to opening things back up for discussion!

Have any of you read Reading Lolita in Tehran? I am reading it right now for my Brit Lit class. (We, the students, can't figure out why it is Brit Lit. She wrote it in America and she is from Iran. Oh well. I am happy to read it.) A topic in the forefront is, obviously, women's rights. So, I had to write a response paper for my class today. After I read the paper to my class, discussion ensued about modesty, Dallin Oaks's famous "walking pornography" line, etc.

Here is part of my paper:

Part of this question revolves around the dress required in Iran and some other Islamic countries. These requirements are based on the Hijab, the Islamic dress code. Though interpreted very differently by different groups of people and countries, the Hijab is religious in nature. The chador is relatively liberal, when compared to the burqa, but every interpretation of the Hijab, be it a headscarf or the burqa is meant to be religious. I would imagine there are many women who follow the Hijab to varying to degrees who feel their interpretation of the Hijab is very personal, and a manifestation of their commitment to Islam. So, if this is a religious manifestation, why do I feel angry when reading about it in Reading Lolita? In my reading I found that it was the Iranian dialogue which made me angry: “Veiling is a Woman’s Protection” and “My Sister, Guard Your Veil. My Brother, Guard Your Eyes” (27). Maybe this makes me angry because it sounds all too familiar. [These were signs on Iranian streets.]

As Mormons we understand the significance of religious dress. At BYU, we understand the meaning of a dress code. Though I don’t intend to literally compare Mormon standards of modesty to wearing a burqa, I find a comparison of attitudes appropriate (i.e., I am referring to how the dress code is represented in Nafisi’s novel compared to Mormon culture). From a religious standpoint, what is the point of modesty? Mormon modesty for women is often stressed because young women should not make young men think dirty thoughts. While this is a perk of dressing modestly, (encouraging clean thoughts) it is not the doctrinal reason for doing so. How does this faulty reason for modesty undermine agency? How is modesty undermined if it is enforced based on grounds of responsibility for others’ thoughts? Should modesty be considered a social issue, rather than a personal one? Would the chador, or other interpretations of the Hijab, infringe on women’s rights if it were not enforced based on the effect of women’s sexuality on men?

Also, these women, obviously, rebel and question the laws. They take little liberties here and there to show their fight for freedom-- showing a little more hair, wearing colorful fabrics for their chador, etc. Is this kind of questioning acceptable-- in general, and for Mormons? Why or why not?

Now . . . discuss!

P.S. The picture says, "a woman modestly dressed is a pearl in its shell."

Pet Peeve: "Auxiliary"

2007-03-01T16:02:00.000Z

So, I really don't care for the term "Auxiliary" as it is used in the Church to describe Relief Society, YM, YW, and Primary. Alexandra's already heard my thoughts (rant?) on this, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks. In the grand scheme of things, sure, it's pretty low on a scale of 1 to things that will impact our salvation. However, I still think that it comes across as somewhat misleading in terms of the role of the priesthood and women in the church; and at a time when confusion about gender roles, etc. is pretty rampant in and outside the Church, I think it's worthwhile to be as clear as possible. Also, I really believe that language and its usage are extremely powerful, and that thinking about terms like this isn't necessarily a pointless semantic exercise.

As I see it, there are two concepts that people use the word "priesthood" to refer to, and they've become conflated. The first is the Priesthood (capital p) organization, which includes the Aaronic and Melchizedik, teachers, deacons, priests, etc. etc. The term priesthood (lowercase p) is also used to refer to the power to act in God's place on earth. While the Priesthood does represent the priesthood power, in terms of very necessary ordinances, it is definitely not the only way in which humanity has the power to act as an instrument of the Lord.

Without diminishing the Priesthood's critical importance, I think it would be safe to say that the lack of any other godly power would make the Priesthood somewhat empty. As much as everyone needs priesthood power in order to achieve salvation, they also need other powers which are not necessarily confined in the Priesthood role - the role of mothering and the role of nurturing families, service, spiritual gifts, teaching, missionary work, etc. etc. In terms of the Priesthood as a counterpart to women's role in the church and eternal life, General Authorities usually make it pretty clear that these two powers are coequal, and both are necessary to attain salvation, hence the stress on the eternal nature of gender and the importance of eternal marriage.

"Auxiliary" is defined as something which aids, increases, and augments. Obviously, the role of the Relief Society and all of the Auxiliaries is to aid, increase, and augment the Priesthood. However, I would argue that it is just as important for the Priesthood to do the same for everyone else in Zion. I don't think it diminishes the cruciality (ok, not a word) of the Priesthood to acknowledge that other means of utilizing the Lord's power exist, and indeed MUST exist in tandem with Priesthood power and ordinances. To refer to the rest of the church as "auxiliary" to the Priesthood, without any real sense of congruency, somewhat distorts that relationship, I think. The Relief Society is auxiliary to the Priesthood, sure, but the Priesthood is also auxiliary to the Relief Society.

Plus, and maybe this is just my "liberal education" making me think that I'm wise, but something about calling men by a name which connotes power and referring to women and children (together) as "assisting" that power rubs me the wrong way. Not that I'm feeling particularly oppressed by the patriarchy or anything, but it just seems like a bad PR move. Obviously, that that kind of thinking doesn't determine the way the Church functions, and the Lord doesn't about PC-ness, and his ways are higher than our ways, but I feel like a little cosmetic change could make a lot of difference. (You know, the power of language thing.)

So, my questions are:
1. Does this bug anyone else too, or do I just have too much time on my hands?
2. Is this something that could/should be changed?
3. Does anyone know why RS/YW/YM/Primary got lumped into an Auxiliary category in the first place?

Greetings from the Windy City

2007-02-28T15:54:00.000Z

Okay, so it has taken me awhile to actually post anything, but since I have now been told by my midwife to stay home from school until my little boy is born, I find I have some extra time to kill, so I thought I would introduce myself and maybe jump in on some discussions.

I have been married for 4 1/2 years to my best friend and the most wonderful man in the world, and I am currently 5 days overdue with my first child, a little boy who insists upon trying to bruise my ribs about every twenty minutes or so. Makes me wonder what he'll be like when he's actually here! Of course, I have never felt more blessed or excited for the future.

The rest of my life consists of attending the University of Chicago where I am pursuing a PhD in Assyriology (the study of Akkadian, the first written Semitic language). I am currently smack dab in the middle of my first year of courses (to many it seems crazy that I am having a baby in my first year of my PhD studies, but I figured if I waited too long, I might not be able to have as many children as I'd like and that would be a much greater regret in the long run than starting early and dealing with the challenges as they come - to everything there is a season).

That's pretty much my current life in a nutshell.

I met Alexandra last year in a one year Master's program in the Humanities here in Chicago, hence my affiliation with this blog, which I am extremely excited about, I must say. I am looking forward to getting to know all of you better!

Introduction to Me

2007-02-21T13:03:00.000Z

Hello, readers. My name is Tania. Forgive my blog name; I have a personal blog and I use a pseudonym there, so when I post, it will be as "Jeje" which is my mission nickname. I thought I would take a moment to introduce myself to all of you before I jump into your discussions. I am a good friend of Allison's from college and am currently a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School working on a Masters in Theological Studies. I'll graduate in June and am currently trying to decide what I want to do with the rest of my life (more school, a real job, etc). Anyway, those are the basics. I'm sure you'll learn more about me as I contribute to conversations.

I do want to throw a discussion topic into the mix, which fits in with the previous post. This weekend I attended a conference at Yale which was for LDS graduate students studying religion. There were probably 50 people there discussing the issues of the field that are unique to LDS students, as well as some of the research that individuals are working on. At one point, the group ended up discussing, in a round-about way, how to react when things you study do not necessarily fit into the doctrine of the Church, or the assumed doctrine of the Church. For example: scholars generally agree that the Book of Isaiah was not all written by Isaiah, but they identify some later chapters written by someone else that they call "Deutero-Isaiah" and they give D-I later dates than Isaiah. Some of these D-I chapters are quoted in the Book of Mormon and there is some question as to whether or not it would have been possible for Lehi to have had access to these writings based on the dates. One scholar at the conference was discussing various theories he has to explain their inclusion in the Book of Mormon. It got me thinking. I realized that I have no problem seeking truth through research and study, and no problem when I can' t always reconcile, logically, the things that I believe. There are many ways of knowing things, all of which are given to us by God. I know the Church is true and that my loyalty is to the Church and the brethren who understand best what we need as a worldwide Church at this period in time. That being said, I am not afraid to ask questions or to have more questions arise in my mind. I know that I can spend an eternity finding answers, and that at some point it will all reconcile. Until then, it is fun to explore so long as I remember where my loyalty ultimately lies and that God is the source of ALL truth.

I look forward to getting to know all of you.

Intellectual Honesty; Religion and Profession

2007-02-12T18:20:00.000Z

I read this NYT article today: "Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules" and had a surprisingly strong reaction to both the article and the readers' responses. Quick summary (though I recommend reading the article), a man who takes a literalist reading of the Bible's Creation account (which for him includes a belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old) submitted a PhD thesis in paleontology working within the "conventional scientific framework" - i.e. according to evidence that the earth is at least tens of millions of years old. In response, the NYT asks this question: "Can a scientist produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held religious beliefs?"

Ok, so, I think formulating the question this way is a little melodramatic because it so quickly concludes that variance in ideas suggests intellectual dishonesty. I think it is more to the point to examine the premises the question itself is built on: the dichotomy between religious and scientific truth. I realize I just threw us back three hundred years to a time when religion could still make truth claims, but I think that we can work through questions about the relationship between science and religion, philosophy and religion, etc only once we've rehabilitated religion as a possible source of truth. Ok, so all of us posting to this blog accept that religion can indeed make truth claims. By accepting that religion can claim something to be true, then it would be rational to assume that someone wouldn't operate according to religious principles if they didn't believe they were true. Similarly, it would be rational to assume that someone wouldn't operate according to scientific principlies if they didn't believe they were true. Enter two medieval philosophers trying to reconcile Platonism and Aristotelianism with Islam and Judaism, and you hear Ibn Rushd and Maimonides arguing that truth can't contradict truth and we see that somehow, religious truth and scientific truth are actually part of a greater whole. And this - this "somehow" - is where the NYT question fails, because it doesn't allow for the process that enables a response exploring how different truths could possibly be related. Of course, this response has to be done according to correct methodological principles rather than reading into science a religious belief - clearly. But to say we have to suspend our beliefs because they seem to flatly contradict what we study is reductive and irresponsible and unrealistic, no one would be able to contribute to scholarship until they had woven how everything fits together! Like, only God could publish anything. Or Kant, right before he died.

Now, pointing this toward trends within our church, people often speak of a bifurcation between spiritual and secular knowledge. That's rubbish. If something is true, it is true regardless of the source - whether it be the study of physics, philosophy, literature, music, scripture, endocrinology, whatever.

Lol, I know these issues have a million points of contention, I do realize I've argued according to lots of premises I haven't defended, but I figure this is a good starting point.

So, tangibles: What do you think of the NYT question? What are points of seeming contradiction between your religious beliefs and your academic/professional training? How do you traverse this tension?

(ps - it would be great if we don't get into a discussion of evolution)

Breaking Up Responsibilities and other thoughts sparked by my brit lit class . . .

2007-01-30T23:28:00.000Z

I am taking a contemporary British Lit class this semester-- it is fabulous. Not only is my teacher the definition of Marathon Woman, I really enjoy our class discussions, and the literature is rather enlightening.
Last week I got up on my feminist soap box when we read Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, and how we might think we have moved so far from Woolf's time to think women have it great because we can get our bachelor's degrees, but really we have so much more progress to make, especially in church culture, where it is possible to get higher degree or have a career, but it is generally very difficult for it to be accepted. My teacher then pointed out that women typically want to have it all, and all at once. From her experience, she can say that it is quite possible to have it all-- just not all at once. You have to spread it out. She also noted that women who do try to attain educational or career goals will experience a lot of criticism, but, interestingly enough, it is usually from other women-- not men. (Obviously this is in general, not absolute.) She said she was highly criticized, usually until the criticizers got to know her children-- once they could see she was raising truly incredible kids, they dropped the criticism. She got married when she was 19 and had three children by the time she was 21. She continued in school and got her master's degree and her Ph.D. along the way. She also worked as an editor of sorts earning over $300,000 a year (and that was in the '80s). She was widowed when she was about 48, and then she was offered a job at BYU. So, now she teaches here. Seriously, she's amazing.

Okay, believe it or not, that was a side note. So, today, when I got to class, in the pre-class discussion this guy just asked if it was okay for him to be a stay-at-home dad if he knew his wife could earn more than he could and she was okay with it. Everyone generally agreed that this was fine-- as long as it really was okay for both parties. Then he said something about how the only downside was that he would have to do all the laundry, clean, cook, shop, etc. And so I said, "wouldn't you split the responsibilities?" And it basically went quiet. I thought that was odd. I mean, isn't it generally accepted that husband and wife should split household responsibilities? I said how I expected my husband to share in the chore duties-- and he does. He always cleans the bathroom (among other things). And he didn't mind.

I'm not sure what my question is for the point of this post. Basically, if you like, you can just respond to anything I have typed, or you can answer one of these two specific questions:

(1) The Proclamation to the World states that a woman belongs in the home, raising her familiy. Does this mean that the Church discourages stay-at-home dads? Do you think it is more important for the woman specifically to be in the home? Or do you think the key factor is a parent in the home and they just say it should be the woman because that is most typical? (Granted, I know some circumstances don't allow a parent to be in the home-- let's just pretend this hypothetical family does not need to worry about finances-- though do consider this option: the wife can make more at her job than her husband-- should the wife still stay home? We're talking wife is a business executive and the husband is a public school teacher.)

(2) Was I on some other planet when I responded that they could split the responsibilities? Should women be in charge of keeping a house clean, doing the laundry, etc.? Or is it fair to have the man share in the responsibilities?

Beautiful Books, Films, Music

2007-01-22T19:30:00.000Z

Hello! Has anyone discovered a particularly beautiful book or film or piece of music recently? Or painting or poem? Or idea or word?

Shameless blog abuse

2007-01-22T17:17:00.000Z

Well, I have to give a talk in Sacrament Meeting this Sunday. I am supposed to speak on... anything. (Man, I HATE it when they don't give you a topic.) The bishop's only suggestion was that I use a conference talk - from any conference, ever - as my basis, and work from there.

So my questions for you ladies are: What's your favorite conference talk? Are there any General Authorities/topics/etc. etc. that you find particularly inspiring? Have you given a good Sacrament Meeting talk lately that you would like to send to me so that I can repeat it verbatim?

Greetings from Chicago!

2007-01-20T06:41:00.000Z

Hello! My name is Kathryn. I'm a freelance writer in the Second City attempting to write a book about prominent women of faith. I grew up in Oregon, studied journalism at BYU and Northwestern University, and am currently pitching projects to the Center for Women’s Business Research and The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Alexandra and I attended the same singles branch in Chicago. Her wit and wisdom continues to inspire me--especially when it comes to buying a pair of black heels!

This blog is such a great idea, I hope to visit it more often. Elder Neal A. Maxwell said this of women: "We know so little, brothers and sisters, about the reasons for the division of duties between womanhood and manhood as well as between motherhood and priesthood. These were divinely determined in another time and another place. We are accustomed to focusing on the men of God because theirs is the priesthood and leadership line. But paralleling that authority line is a stream of righteous influence reflecting the remarkable women of God who have existed in all ages and dispensations, including our own. Greatness is not measured by coverage in column inches, either in newspapers or in the scriptures. The story of the women of God, therefore, is, for now, an untold drama within a drama."

Here's to unfolding the drama together!

Trying to remember my name

2007-01-15T17:48:00.000Z

Hello all. The title of this entry probably leads you to wonder what I'm doing here with you geniuses, but I'll just provide the lay person's point of view from here on out since my brain seems to have taken a leave of absence.

My name is Audrey, and I'm living in Sandy, Utah. Like you, Nancy, I swore I wouldn't live in Utah for longer than it took to graduate from BYU (where I lived with Alexandra and Courtney). But as life would have it, I'm here and probably for the long haul. I'm originally from San Francisco area, and I miss it all the time. But I am learning to love Utah.

I majored in Psychology, which I loved, and am now working at the oh-so-glamorous "Datamark" which to me sounds like the most generic business name on earth - where Dilbert would work or something. It's a good job though, so I shouldn't complain. We do marketing for various schools - mostly vocational, but some traditional universities as well.

I am four months pregnant, which apparently means unforeseen levels of exhaustion and, as I mentioned before, near complete lack of brain function. It's an adventure though, and I love it. I've been married to Patrick for a year and a half. He started a multimedia company - Propel Pictures - with a friend, and their dream is to make movies.

To wrap this up - my interests are history, but particularly American History and Current Events, reading, Thai and Indian Food, being with family, chocolate, etc. I think Carol Lynn Pearson is a genius and I secretly like Oprah. I recently decided to look into getting a Masters (topic undecided), and I'm trying to coexist with my ridiculous hair.

I'm excited for this!!

Breaking the FQI Ice

2007-01-12T01:32:00.000Z

I decided to jump up to the plate with a post. (Hope you don't mind.)

In regards to Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, I just read an interesting post on the Segullah Blog which mentions the book. I really did like the part of the book she mentions in her post. It's an interesting post anyway, and a nice blog, if you haven't already come across it.

On that note, it may become obvious that one of the things I think about at length is the Fall. (Particularly the way it is presented in the temple.) One thing I have wondered, but have never been able to answer, is, why were two contradictoy commandments given? (Audrey-- I like your take on this, but I'll let you interject if you so desire.) There are so many questions surrounding the fall, but I think they ultimately lead to this. (One question I keep thinking right now: how was Satan allowed in the Garden?) Ultimately, was Eve's choice not a case of wickedness being happiness? What are your takes on the Fall?

On more general terms, thinking of Eve, Adam and Eden, how has the knowledge of the Fall changed your life, personality, relationships, testimony, etc.?

Pregnancy, Ph. D and other P words...

2007-01-11T18:56:00.000Z

Hello All,

My name is Nancy and I've just moved to Utah after living in the UK for more than eight years. I grew up in Maine, went to a boarding school in New Hampshire, did my undergraduate degree in art history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and have just finished my Ph.D, also in art history, at the University of Cambridge in England, where I met Alexandra.

I've been married to Russ for two and a half years. He just submitted his Ph.D in computer science and is now teaching at Dixie State College. I'm seven months pregnant with my first child and am currently unemployed, but trying to find things to do here in St. George. My doctoral research focuses on medieval illuminated manuscripts, particularly illustrated books of the Book of Revelation in England in the 13th and 14th centuries. I like to watch movies, read, walk and am missing my primary calling back in England.

I got to know Alexandra a bit when she insisted that she help me clean my flat, in preparation for the move, a few weeks ago. I thought that I was just going to get some practical help, but several great conversations ensued and nowI am posting to this blog! I loved living in England and had several LDS-doctoral student-mommy friends that I now miss very much. I'm hoping that the transition to living in Utah, where I swore I would never live, will go pretty smoothly.

Also, I love chocolate cake

2007-01-10T14:10:00.000Z

My name is Emma, and I'm from Washington DC. I graduated from Duke in May, in art history and classical studies... not exactly the most employable fields, which is why I'm now a trade analyst.

After undergrad I decided to take two years off before grad school, which kind of seemed like a good idea at the time for the purposes of repaying student loans, travelling, and taking some languages to help me get into a good program. However, I've since discovered that not going to school makes me feel a little dead inside, especially when I have to wear real clothes/shoes 5 days a week. For that reason, I am pumped about my German class that starts tonight... woohoo, intellectual pursuits! Once I get to grad school, I want to study Roman art.

For now, I live at home. I tutor my 9th grade sister in math and science, which is kind of a travesty and I hope she doesn't fail. I also tutor some kids from the inner city wards in my stake for the ACTs and SATs. I loooove reading, especially short stories and poetry. I hate Ethiopian food. I get incredibly nerdy at museums. I've bought a lot of new shoes since I started my job this summer. And my favorite memory of Alexandra was the time we went to a stake dance (??) and she started crying when they played the YMCA.

Apart from Al, the only other person I know on this blog is Ade, so I can't wait to meet the rest of you!

Today's Special: Courtney a la mode

2007-01-10T05:16:00.000Z

Since I really should be reading BYU Magazine for one of my editing classes, I thought I would write my introduction. For what better way to introduce you to me then by doing it while procrastinating? (And because, tomorrow, Alexandra will wonder why I didn't do it when we talked about it extensively this evening.)

I am Courtney. I go to BYU and will graduate this August. Yes, this is just my undergrad, and my major is English, minor editing. Though I am considerably younger than Alexandra academically, I am, in fact, exactly one month older (and 10 inches shorter).

I have been married to Sam for one year and four months. He is studying film and recently shaved his head.

I am passionate about literature. American contemporary to be exact. My passion for grammar occasionally surpasses my passion for literature. I find the structure of the English language fascinating.

My other random interests include biking, first-generation American culture, culinary arts and the food network.

So those are some basics. Audrey might tell you I'm awkward and not very organized. Alexandra will tell you . . . I don't know Al, what would you tell them?
Now I really must go read BYU Magazine.

Introductions

2007-01-10T00:39:00.000Z

How about we each post short introductions about ourselves: what we're currently doing, interests, other relevant information?

Welcome!

2007-01-09T12:58:00.000Z

Hello dear friends!

A note about the title: though it is slightly unwieldy, "fides quaerens intellectum" - faith seeking understanding - offers a general introduction to each of us as women seeking to increase our faith through our commitment to the gospel and our commitments to education, professions etc. "Fides quaerens intellectum" also serves as a general introduction to the content of this forum: rather than establishing ourselves as a subculture within the church, I think we all look forward to exploring the joys, the challenges, the complications and beauties of learning how we understand our various roles as women, wives, mothers, students, professors, lawyers, writers, businesswomen - and the tensions these diverse roles inhere.

More than anything, I look forward to the growth of a bond between women from all over the world with a wide range of experiences and interests but united in our commitment to fides quaerens intellectum, however we express that commitment in our particular lives.

--

I imagine it will take a bit of time for everyone to post their profiles and start being active, but whoever wants to begin discussion, please do!