On the road..

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.

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"

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

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

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

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 . . .

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?