"Educating people out of their creativity"

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

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

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 . . .

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!

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

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

"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.