Goodbye To Harvard

I'm Pretty sure I'm the first Tongan to stand at a lectern at the Harvard Divinity School

First, just a thanks to my good friend Blair. Were it not for him I would not have been able to go. Big Up to Seth Payne and Taylor Petrey who also contributed to my being at this conference.


The formal sessions of the conference were great. But the discussions in between was where I enjoyed myself the most.

Ron Walker- After the Turley/Walker presentation I spoke with Ron for quite some time. He was part of the "Camelot Days" of Church History. Everything he said was off the record. However, I can say that our conversation confirmed what I had always assumed. He was a very cordial and accomodating man. I thoroughly enjoyed our talk.

Richard Turley- I spoke with him quite a bit. I can't remember each conversation we had. Some of it was off the record. Some of it was just a discussion of Church History, the Joseph Smith Papers, and how he was enjoying the hummus. :-) I felt comfortable with him. I actually just started calling him Rick. He was very balanced and perfectly fine with letting others do the talking. I enjoyed his company immensely.

Jan Shipps- I had several short conversations with her throughout the conference. Then on the last night she walked in with Brother and Sister Bushman (I called her Sister Shipps too. I don't think she minded). I asked her if I could ask a couple of questions. She said "of course" and sat down. We talked about sharing a cab in the morning and made the arrangements. Then I started with the questions. About 15-20 minutes later Blair walked in and started recording this on video I believe. We talked about Bushman, Davis, Allen, Walker, Hoffman and such. We talked about D. Michael Quinn at length. We talked about the Prince bio of David O. McKay. She said that it was an "Important" book for Mormonism. She told the story of how we first got access to the Council of 50 documents; it was hilarious. She also talked about her respect for the Temple and her commitment to not cross that line. We talked for well over an hour. I wish somehow we could transcribe that whole conversation. That conversation was an important one for Mormonism. Those who were present were lucky. In the morning we shared a cab. We checked in together. She was absolutely lovelly to be around. I would love to have lunch with her when she comes to do research in the summer.

Kathleen Flake- Like I've said before, she was difficult for me to read. She did say that hanging out with me and Blair was like being in a Saturday Night Live Skit. LOL. I took that as a compliment. Rick Turley was with us when we had our Bodega Dinner. He seemed to be enjoying the levity. It was then that we Learned of Larry H. Millers death. Anyway I find that I am drawn to her in a certain way I can't describe. She's infectious and distant. I'd like to spend some more time with her so as to understand her personal Mormon hermeneutic. But more importantly I'd like to understand her spiritual beliefs. I'd love to hear her share her testimony; now that would be great!

Richard Bushman- He was polite but aloof. I'm not sure if he was distracted or if that is his nature. He signed my copy of RSR with a very nice note. He spoke to me when I spoke to him and he answered with brevity.

Claudia Bushman- She was much more talkitive. I sat near her through the whole conference. I talked to her about feminism, the Church, and the raising of my daughters. She was a delight to be around. She said she would give me a copy of the "Pink" issue of dialogue, but I never followed up with her.

To all the participants and presenters that sat with me, ate with me, and talked with me I just want to say thank you. You made the conference special for me. Being with like minded individuals who think and read and ponder and pray was something I've longed to experience. Whether we agreed or disagreed, the discussion sparked thought. It often times stretched me and my beliefs. I thank you for that. If there is any way you can e-mail me or leave a comment I would appreciate it. I'd love to stay in touch as you progress in school and in careers.

Well, Goodby to Harvard. It was everything I hoped it would be.

Sione/ The Lamanite

P.S. For pictures of our trip go to HARVARD PICS . Beware though, it's mostly of our trip to the Natural History Museum. And don't mind my picture descriptions, I wrote them while on Ambien. lol

Harvard Recap- Pictures and Casual Conversation coming soon!

The following is a very brief glimpse of my notes. Some speakers I didn't take notes on while others received the opposite.

The real treat will be tomorrows post where I will discuss what happened after the sessions!

Faith and Knowledge

Latter-day Saints in Religious Studies
Harvard Divinity School
February 20-21, 2009

Friday, February 20,2009

Round Table Discussion

Richard Turley and Rondald Walker discussion on Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

One of the most exciting parts of the discussion was that Rick just signed a deal with Oxford to publish the second volume of Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Personally I had a very emotional journey through this event---again. However, the cover-up is what brings my blood to a boil, and I think that is one of the focuses of the second volume.

A guy named Max Muller (sp?) asked several question that IMO accused the two Historians of trying to justify the event by saying two things. 1. These were good people doing bad things. 2. That by discussing the quickly fomenting situation in Utah they were in some way trying to justify, or at the very least minimalize, the responsibility of the Mormons and Indians involved.

To that, I say nonsense. I had to comment to the panel and especially to Max at this point. My first point was that as Historians it was their job to provide context to the event discussed in the book. The evidence is what they followed, not some biased Mormon agenda. Context does not equal an attempt to Justify. Secondly the idea that a good person can do a bad thing, or that a bad person does a bad thing, is an issue left up to philosophers. The philosophical implications of the latter are enormous and it would take an entire day for me and another philosopher to agree on what question we should be asking and how it should be phrased. I think Max was off base.

Nevertheless. it was a wonderful session. Afterwords I got to spend some time talking to Ron Walker. I asked him everything I wanted to know about the "Camelot Days" of Church History, and he answered off the record. (Sorry) But it was an honor that he would be so forthright and honest.

I spent quite a bit of time with Rick (I never thought I would call Richard Turley, "Rick") over the weekend. He was open and honest and always sincere. He is a very genuine guy without an ounce of guile. I asked him about the New Church History Library and I am soooo excited. When asked when it would open, he answered off the record, but it will be soon.


Keynote Speaker : Kathleen Flake, Associate Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbil University, "To Disabuse the Public Mind"

• My dear Kathleen. I really like her. I don't think the feeling is reciprocated though. I think she tolerates me, but I still smile when she looks at me disapprovingly. :-)Basically she talked about the tension/conflict between faith and reason. This has long been of interest to me, simply because my goal is to get my soul and my mind in harmony with God. When that happens, I have created an environment for development and revelation.When I wrestle with difficult questions, I wait for those condition to develop. I will study, ponder, and pray. But if no instruction is given, I simply place the issue on my mental shelf of unanswered questions, and then I wait. You see, God has this somewhat irritating habit of doing things according to his time, will, and pleasure. But I'm growing more accustomed to that.Sometimes things come off the shelf, while new issues are placed upon it. Nevertheless, this "conflict" has become familiar. I think Kathleen used a similar sentiment. And so we who question, think, analyze, and deconstruct--waiting and praying for God to send us further light and knowledge, which has been promised; while at the same time being patient and faithful.

Big UP! and Mad Respect!

Sione Pauni

P.S. You owe me a discussion on symbolism, rites, and liturgy. :-)


Saturday, February21, 2009

Scripture

• Jared Anderson, "Preparing the Path for LDS Biblical Studies" (PhD Candidate, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill------He shared Orson F. Whitney's vision of the Savior. He went on to argue that God will cater and conform to our cultural associations in order to reveal himself and his will in a way that is familiar. Call me old fashioned but the God of the Universe, who also happens to be my creator need not change to meet the cultural norms of my day; Otherwise he would appear to me today as a "Girl Gone Wild". No I think God, through the Spirit, can communicate despite our culture ,race, or gender.

• Scott Davis, "He that Increaseth in Knowledge Increaseth in Sorrow: Vexation and Catharsis in Critical Readings of Later-day Saint Scripture" (MAR Candidate, Yale Divinity School)---no notes
  

• Justin White, "Ruim and Thummim or a Love Affair: Two Possibilities for LDS Scriptural Hermeneutics: (MA Candidate, Brigham Young University)-- Justin discusses two possible Hermeneutics. Namely, critical and devotional. I can't remember correctly but I think he places these two approaches to scripture at odds with each other. But I distinctly remember thinking the simply wonderful exhortation to seek learning by study and faith. These principles are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complimentary. Justin does make a very useful recommendation. He first makes the observation that many people bring their existing beliefs to the scriptures and look for them to be validated. On the other hand Justin suggest coming to the scriptures with an open heart and mind and allow ourselves to be taught something new. This I think is like having a clean heart; possessing a slate upon which God can write the indelible language of Heaven upon.
  

• Mark Wright, "Hierophanies and the Omnilingual God: A sociohistorical Critical Approach to LDS Canon (PhD Candidate, University of California, Riverside)-----I like Mark a lot. Last time he spoke I completely misunderstood his message and accused him of presentism. He really knows what he's talking about. The idea of Heirophanies is interesting. I'd like to study more about the differences between Heirophanies and Theophanies.
  

I should say that there is much that I disagreed with during this session. I created a list of question that I could ask during the Q&A, but they don't seem as important now as they did then so lets just let them alone.

The Place of Religious Scholarship in the Church

• Matt Bowman, "A Theology of Dissent" (PhD Candidate, Georgetown University)---Dissent within Mormonism goes back to its beginnings. But what is its place in today's Church? Matt poses a great many questions but according to my recollection does not offer solutions or remedies. Indeed there is dissent; one need only look at the recent goings on with Proposition 8. I happen to be one of the dissenters in this issue. I have no venue with which to voice my opposition, at least not without the potential for disciplinary action. So what to do? I say keep my mouth shut, and discuss your dissent quietly amongst like minded individuals. Not the best solution, but at least I provided one. lol

• Richard T. Livingston, "Ontotheology and the Boundary Conditions of Inness" (PhD Student, Claremont Graduate University)------I didn't take many notes on Richards talk. However, outside of the conference we spent a lot of time together discussing a great many things. It was nice to say to him "Richard, do you think an Omniscient God negates free will", and have someone actually understand me, and also have a well thought out response. Richard is disarming in spite of an enormous intellect. I like people like that. He was willing to explain when I lagged behind. A true gentleman with whom I enjoyed plumbing the depths of theology and philosophy.

• Guinevere Woolstenhulme, "serving Up 'Forbidden Fruits': Bringing Our Scholarship Home" (MA 2005, University of California, San Diego/JD Candidate, New England Law)------Guinevere was one of my favorites. Her presentation had real life implications. It was not couched in the abstract. She said something to the effect that the dissonance between faith and scholarship often involves "others". She has question, as have I, about how much I should share with the "others"? I wonder that all the time. My Mom recently was asking me about the Masonic Ritual. Without giving it any though I break out Duncans Ritual. Within this book are certain things that will be familiar to any endowed member of the Church. She was visibly shaken. I could have kicked myself. That was irresponsible. But there is also a time when our families and friends must be invited into our studies and knowledge. I think the only possible answer is to allow the Spirit to lead, guide, and direct us, as we strive forward with an eye single to he glory of God.

• Elizabeth Pinborough, "Christ Doesn't Wear Blue Jeans': Becoming Reconciled to God through Other Critical Perspective (MAR Candidate, Yale Divinity School)-----No Notes.
  

Feminism and Theology

• Sheila Taylor, "Feminist Theology in a LDS Context" (PhD Candidate, Graduate Theological Union)------I actually enjoyed her presentation the most. She was not so rigid that she wouldn't concede when necessary and still maintain a strong feminist position. She spoke of Heavenly Mother. In my estimation our Heavenly Mother exists without doubt or equivocation. Anything beyond that I must answer "I don't know". And I don't think the first Presidency or the twelve are praying for women to hold the Priesthood, or to further define our Heavenly Mother; so I believe we are on "pause" for awhile.
  

• Deidre Green, "Selflessness as Sin: Feminis Theology for Latter-day Saint Women" (PhD Student, Claremont Graduate Univesity)-----Pretty much disagreed with everything she said. But she's extremely nice. I had a chance to talk briefly with her after her presentation. I think if we had a one on one dialogue it would help us understand each other better.

• Kate Holbrook, "Mormonist Feminism: An Apologia" (PhD Canidate, Boston University)---- Not present for this talk but I heard it was awsome. Perhaps Life on Gold Plates will have some notes.
  

Gender, Sexuality and Theology

• Gwedolyn Reynolds, "On Being a Mormon Man: The Performance of Mormon Maculinity" (MTS Candidate, Harvard Divinity School)----This girl had a lot of spunk. She talked so fast that sometimes I missed the weight of what she said. I asked for her notes but she said no, they weren't finished. Oh well. One of the things that she said is that men must possess feminine qualities (mercy, love, caring, empathy, nurturing) while exercising the Priesthood. I had two questions I never got answered. 1. What are the implications of these feminie qualities being made made manifest while officiating in the Priesthood. And also, I disagree that these are feminine qualities; I think they are Christ like qualities. Overall I really like her presentation. She's very cute but to tell her so would drive the feminist in her crazy. At one point we were both standing and I offered to get her a chair. She said that was sexist. I thought her reaction was extreme. Anyway she seems very nice, despite her inability to accept a kind gesture.
  

• Ty Mansfield, "postmodernism in the Service of Orthodoxy? How Queer Theology, Systems Theory, and Social Constructionism Can Inform Latter-day Saint Thought on Gender and Sexuality" (M. MFT Student, Abilene Christian University)-----No notes

• Carl Cranney, "The LDS Agument Against Hoosexual Marriage: Not a House of Cards, But Not Built on a Rock Either" (PhD Student, Catholic University of America)------ Carl does a good job at building a case. It was a bit abstract and required more than a few mental gymnastics to get to where we were going, but it was a decent attempt. I think I have a better solution which is more succinct, direct, and honest. It has nothing to do with the basic unit of the family, or anthing of that nature. My answer is that it is wrong. That's it. I think it's wrong because my interpretation of Holy scripture teaches me that God thinks it wrong. And so I follow the counsel of God and his Prophets and Apostles. I'm sick of this erosion of the moral fabric....blah blah blah argument. So in the end I think Homosexuals who practice homosexuality are committing a sin. However, I don't thing that should prevent them from getting married.

Pluralism

• Michael Ing, "Pluralistic Perspectives on Ritual Practice" (PhD Candidate, Harvard University)----- The one thing I rember about Michael, well there's actually two, First is that He's Hawaiian, the second is his talk about "open inclusiveness" This is something I'm very interested in. A good portion of my being is pluralistic or universalist. And so I usually include and accept everyone. What are the theological implications of this type of pluralism. I say confidently that the the greatest outcome will be positive realtions and growth. There is only one caveat in my own life, and that is that I don't concede any of the basic tenets of the Gospel. The Gospel message of the restoration is what separates us from mainstream Christianity and should be protected. So I say let us work towards an ecumenical brotherhood; but never at the expense of our own theology.

• David Golding, "missiology, Pluralism, and the Expansion of Mormonism" (MA Candidate, Claremont Grduate University)-----No notes

• Chuck Schofield, "Defining Mormon Pluralism" (PhD Student, Claremont Graduate University)----No Notes. However, I got to sit next to him durin dinner and he's good people. He doesn't say much, but when he does speak, it's both poignant and/or funny. I like the Chuck.
• 
  

Concluding Remarks: Richard L. Bushman- 20 min. Talk. Nothing earth shattering, but it was good. He signed my RSR book. "To Sione, a great student of the Prophet Joseph Smith" I thought that was pretty cool.

After Bushman finished we hung out in the hall and talked. Then we all went to eat Chinese food together. I sat by Kathleen Flake, Richard Livingston, Chuck (The Blair Doppelganger) Schofield, and Ty Mansfield. Great Conversation!


Big UP!

The Lamanite (Sione)

First Day at Harvard

Fancy Pants Harvard

First of all let me say something about my blog. I never edit for spelling, grammar, or fluidity of thought. What you see is what came straight out of my cluttered brain. Just tonight I realized that my Terryl Givens post title makes no sense, and that the post itself contains some serious grammatical errors that affect meaning. I don't care enough to fix them. Plus I like the raw unedumacated flavor I'm kickin.


First day at Harvard

Blair and I go to the Peabody Museum of Natural History and Art. We had a good time. Pictures are forth coming.

Then we had a round table with Ron Walker and Richard Turley. Ron Walker is a very quiet but direct man. His words are measured and precise. Richard has a wonderful smile and is eager to answer questions. It was a pleasure to hear both of them go over the MMM narrative. They spoke on several different aspects of the incident, it was both fascinating and heartbreaking.

The Q&A portion of the meeting was interesting. Their is a distinct difference in the way Non-Mormons view and interpret this event which are too numerous to mention.

In the end my assessment is that these men provided a rich contextual structure for the Massacre and allowed the reader to draw whatever conclusion they wished.


Break


Key note speaker- Kathleen Flake-

Kathleen requires a post of her own. She is not soft spoken, but she speaks softly. It's an interesting Saruman type trick. It's very soothing; which almost makes you almost miss the incredible things she is saying. She uses words in a way that are different than what I'm used to. She also thinks about Religion, Ritual, and Mormonism just a bit differently than I do; which was great because it forced some introspection. However, I feel like she is hesitant to allow others completely into her personal spiritual space.

Later that evening we had a quasi-dinner hat was bought at the local bodega. We went back to the Inn and talked for awhile. Richard Turley, Blair Hodges, Kathleen Flake, Mark Wright, and David Larsen were all there. We had a nice time. I think me and Blair are a bit too much for Kathleen. She said it was like being in a Saturday Night skit.

Oh, I did Chat briefly with Claudia and Richard Bushman, and Jan Shipps. I had nice conversations with all three. I'd share details but they weren't earth shattering and dealt mostly with my family.

Anyway it was a day well spent. I look forward to tomorrow.


Big UP!


Lamanite


P.S. For more detailed info and a few transcribed quotes got to LIFE ON GOLD PLATES

Harvard Divinity Scool- Faith and Knowledge

I am pleased to announce that I will be attending the "Faith and Knowledge" conference at the Harvard Divinity School in February. I will not be presenting. I'll be going with a friend of mine who participates with me at Mormonapologetics and at F.A.I.R.

Reconciliations and Reformulations
A Conference for LDS Graduate Students in Religious Studies
Harvard University, February 20-21, 2009

Many Latter-day Saints experience their scholarship and their religion as clashing cultures, each with its competing values and contradictory conclusions. Religious studies students especially struggle to reconcile their faith and the knowledge they acquire in graduate school. The forms this reconciliation take–including the failure to achieve reconciliation–become crucial episodes in a student’s life history. The purpose of the Faith and Knowledge Conference for 2009 is to provide a forum for exploring these attempts at reconciliation.

Kathleen Flake (Vanderbilt) will deliver a keynote address the evening of Februrary 20.

We invite paper proposals from graduate students in religious studies and other related fields in the following four categories:

I. Gender and Sexuality
The academic discipline of religion is interacting more and more with methodologies and theories borrowed from gender and sexuality studies. As LDS scholars, to what extent do we engage in or disregard these methodologies? Can we take more expansive views of homosexuality, feminism, and other related issues than Mormon theology traditionally does without compromising our faith? Can feminist theology, queer theory, and similar approaches be useful to LDS scholars or must they be rejected altogether? How do more traditional viewpoints inform our academic scholarship, and how may the more expansive contemporary views of such issues inform both our academic scholarship and our understanding of the Gospel? Is reconciliation possible (or even needed) between these academic paradigms and the faith of the LDS scholar?

II. Scripture
LDS scholars commonly perceive a tension between “academic” and “devotional” approaches to scripture. Can scholarly methodologies (the historical-critical method, literary criticism, etc.) be usefully incorporated into the study or interpretation of LDS scripture, both ancient and modern, or must they be abandoned or subordinated to faith-based understandings? What investments do LDS scholars of scripture bring to the academic table and in what ways do they manifest themselves in productive or unproductive ways in LDS scholarship? Can academic approaches to the Bible be helpful in the study of revealed scripture, and if so, do they require some kinds of reconciliations or transformations? Is there and/or should there be a unique LDS scriptural hermeneutic, and what would it look like?

III. Pluralism
The approaches of religions to their own truth-claims may be divided into three categories: exclusivist religions, which assert that theirs is the sole bearer of truth and salvation; inclusivist religions, which recognize that other traditions possess enough truth to qualify them for salvation; and finally, pluralist religions, which hold that all traditions are equal paths to God. In a time of globalization, Latter-day Saint interactions with other religions, both Christian and non-Christian, raise questions about our view of ourselves. As we learn to appreciate the depth of other religious traditions, we wonder if our exclusivist view on truth is sustainable and defensible. How do we react to the theological and political dilemmas that exclusive claims to salvation through Jesus Christ or through Mormon rituals entail? Can a Mormon pluralism exist, or must we take on the burden of exclusivism?

IV. The Place of Religious Scholarship in the Church
Religious scholars and scholarship occupy an ambiguous role in the Church. Religious scholarship is cited when it supports Church teachings but rejected when it suggests that Church positions may be problematic. Moreover, the scholar who raises questions of this find falls under suspicion. Given current Church culture, what can an LDS scholar of religion bring to the table? Can a scholar utilize his/her tools and scholarship in a pastoral role? Can LDS religious scholars work to remove the stigma in the Church associated with the academic study of religion – and especially the academic study of Mormonism? Specifically, in what ways can areas of religious scholarship contribute positively to the spiritual and cultural life of the Church?