Revisiting the Impossible Question- Part I

By April 6, 2012

Last post, I offered some musings about the supposedly ?impossible question? I posed to Kathleen Flake at the Methodist-Mormon conference back in February, regarding the definition of femininity and masculinity. At the time, neither the question nor the answer seemed to satisfy either of us, so Dr. Flake kindly offered to follow up with me later to continue the conversation. It was a thought-provoking conversation, and after giving it more thought, I?ve come back to the drawing board with more questions and ideas.

By way of quick summary, I had asked Kathleen Flake to define masculinity and femininity in a way that

a) did not reduce them to mere sexual characteristics or biological difference (which, on its own, seems void of real significance, and furthermore, seems difficult to untangle from temporal causes like evolutionary strategies, which don?t seem to be necessary in a pre or post mortal existence)

b) did not reduce them to character attributes (which seem to boil down to characteristics that should ultimately be universally shunned [coarseness, aggression, emotional neediness, etc.], or universally cultivated [compassion, gentleness, creativity, reason])

c) explains the necessary synthesis of a male and female counterpart for the state of exaltation (as prescribed by doctrines regarding the necessity of temple marriage sealings as we now understand them: monogamous, male-female spousal units)

Her response, in essence, was that it?s an impossible question. In the follow-up, she explained why?with some interesting tangents and side notes:
(with some of my parentheticals scattered throughout; needless to say, I am paraphrasing, and run the risk of having misunderstood or misquoted her; I did my best to get the gist of what she was saying):

According to Flake per our follow-up conversation, gender is a cultural product that is historically situated and negotiated over time. Gender refers to socially designated roles and characteristics that have traditionally originated in anatomical sexual differences. The Church, lacking a nuanced vocabulary, conflates gender and sex in its efforts to rationalize the roles they have assigned to men and women based solely on their sexual characteristics. Gender is essentially just a discourse of power. Sex, on the other hand, is more complicated?or at least, enigmatic; Mormons don?t believe in a Cartesian split, but rather, believe that the body and spirit united together constitute a fully glorified being, and only through that body can we be saved (I assume she meant through the physical ordinances required?even of our dead). What sex will mean in the eternities, however, is a mystery.

She also stressed that one hang up Mormons have in dealing with gender is the erroneous definition of priesthood as a possession?and one inherently linked to males. Priesthood is not a thing; it is access to the powers of heaven in the name of service, done in love and meekness. There are different callings associated with the priesthood, but all are patterned after the Son of God (the name of the fullest priesthood being originally ?the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God?) and therefore men and women share the same authority. The offices are simply an arrangement of callings adapted to the particular needs of each generation. But both women and men call upon the priesthood, that access to heaven?s power, to serve and bless. Women currently do this only privately in the temple, in their homes, and with other women via visiting teaching; men currently do this through administrative duties and public offices. But it is not about possessing power or authority; it is about being given callings to perform. This departure from the power discourse is critical to a proper understanding of priesthood, and therefore, of men and women?s relationship to priesthood. An additional idea she raised, though did not expound on, was how the characterization of God in terms of his generativity, not his power, could influence the gender debate for the better.

In conclusion, she believes answers will not come from the prophet?nor should one expected them to. Nor can answers come from the mutually reinforcing blend of science and religion, or in other words, academia and religion. Science and religion are essentially incompatible?academic tools will not produce religious answers, and religious paradigms will not explain scientific phenomenon. The only thing we can do is maximize both by benefitting from the questions they raise and patch together what works for us. Prophets act as witnesses, bearing testimony of their knowledge of Christ; academics, meanwhile, try to figure out the answers and explanations behind the fragmented understandings bequeathed by scripture, science, psychology, and the whole lot.

Well, what do I make of all this?

This is already lengthy, so I?ll comment briefly on her insights.

To her understanding of the priesthood, I give a hearty ?AMEN!??and add that these arrangements might be more about compensating for social and biological handicaps than differentiated according to worthiness. (To be specific: society has not generally granted a space for men to be nurturing or sacrificing, as it has for women, and the arrangement of priesthood callings, in which men have the heavier, more public share, may simply be compensating for what society denies them: the opportunity to serve and sacrifice. As social norms shift and men are given greater opportunities to develop nurturing and sacrificial attitudes,( as seems to be the trend judging from the cultural emphasis on hands-on fatherhood, as one example) the priesthood arrangement may very well change again, perhaps to a former order as shown in the Old and New Testaments (with female judges, prophetesses, apostles [see Dale Martin?s Yale course on the New Testament, or Romans 16:7]) or the early church (female healers, etc.), or to a new one altogether.

As for her other insights, I must disagree in many respects. To read my objections, see part 2.

Article filed under Cultural History Gender Intellectual History Reflective Posts Theology


Comments

  1. “. (To be specific: society has not generally granted a space for men to be nurturing or sacrificing, as it has for women, and the arrangement of priesthood callings, in which men have the heavier, more public share, may simply be compensating for what society denies them: the opportunity to serve and sacrifice.”

    If this were true, men would always staff nursery and Primary 🙂

    Comment by Kristine — April 7, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

  2. Thanks for the provocative series, Rachael.

    For my part, I think Flake unsurprisingly nails it.

    Comment by Jared T. — April 8, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

  3. Kristine– touche! Not a bad idea. Maybe we’ll see that trend in the future.

    Jared T., I’d be interested to know which part you agree with on Flake- or all?

    Comment by Rachael — April 9, 2012 @ 8:26 am

  4. not reduce them to character attributes (which seem to boil down to characteristics that should ultimately be universally shunned [coarseness, aggression, emotional neediness, etc.], or universally cultivated [compassion, gentleness, creativity, reason])

    I would be very hesitant about this line of reasoning. Almost any negative characteristic is a positive characteristic from another point of view, at least in mortality, which is all that we really know much about. People’s compensating virtues usually turn out to be pretty much the same thing as their flaws.

    In other words, different virtues tend to stand in an antagonistic relationship to each other. We’d like to think that its as simple as striking a balance between them, but we should keep in mind that the atonement was the necessary resolution of the tension between justice and mercy.

    Comment by Adam G. — April 20, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

  5. Looking forward to reading more. Great post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

    Comment by Elsie Nair — April 24, 2012 @ 7:24 am


Series

Recent Comments

Edje Jeter on What to Expect When: “Great comments, y'all.”


Jeff T on What to Expect When: “Thanks, Edje! In case anyone else is as unorganized as me: the conference hotel doesn't have any more rooms at the MHA rate ($122 per night),…”


Ardis on What to Expect When: “I see the First Timers’ Breakfast is on the schedule this year, which is another place to break the ice, have questions answered, and recognize…”


Curtis C on What to Expect When: “Thanks for the great writeup! I've always wanted to attend MHA, but never seemed to have the time to do it. Now that it's in…”


acw on What to Expect When: “Thanks for this thorough and inspiring intro! I hope to make it one of these years.”


matt b on Review: Bergera, ed., CONFESSIONS: “Thanks folks - and especially to Gary for chiming in! As to the Hunter caption, I agree that it's factually accurate; of course, though, the facts…”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org