Comments on: Women in the Academy: Sheila Taylor

By: hkobeal

hkobeal — Sun, 23 May 2010 22:13:11 +0000

Is this a series? I love it! I’m a new professor of education (and Mormon) and I always feel like a fish out of water. Hope to see more of these.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:31:52 +0000

Because that’s not the point; the point of theology, as I understand it, isn’t to definitively answer all the questions, but to find new ways of articulating what’s in the tradition.

I like the way you summed that up. Fun post, thanks!

By: Leanna

Leanna — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:39:50 +0000

Professor;

Thanks for the input. I appreciate your willingness to approach this difficult subject with integrity and commitment. I also appreciate the fact that your Mormonism is not held against you in your academic work.

Continue the good work and I hope to read more of your work.

Blessings my friend

By: Barney

Barney — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:30:20 +0000

Funny how you keep bringing up that these “old men” were white. Is it that you just can’t keep away from race, even though you don’t explicitly mention race as an important factor? Or is it that you just really don’t like the white guys, old, dead, or otherwise?

By: Th.

Th. — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:19:33 +0000

I had no idea of the imbalance. How could I? The only three GTA people I know are women. I have been deceived.

By: Jacob B.

Jacob B. — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:58:09 +0000

Sheila,

Thanks for your well-reasoned responses to my questions. Much to think about.

By: Sterling Fluharty

Sterling Fluharty — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:39:45 +0000

In the era of the Bloggernacle, the voices of the Saints and the Seers exist side by side. The discussion of doctrine no longer needs to be constrained by authority. We acknowledge and respect what the Brethren have said by placing their words in historical context. At the same time we are sensitive to what ordinary members have taught one another in classes and through their “best books.” We find streams of revelation at all times and places and try not to pigeonhole them into something that is internally consistent. It seems to me that disciplined theology, from a Mormon perspective, could survey what has been said and written about our gospel and emphasize its significance and diversity. But perhaps the most beautiful thing about such an endeavor would be its explanation of what Mormon theology means for those of us who are sojourners in the twenty-first century. I sincerely believe disciplined theology can be written for Mormons, both within and without the academy, that transcends the genres of apologetics and devotional literature. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if this kind of work spoke more or less equally to Mormons of every gender, culture, and nation?

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:45:34 +0000

Sheila, what I would find really useful would be a Mormon “systematic” theology in the sense of the same kind of taxonomically detailed considerations of theology as in those massive Christian systematic theologies. But instead of proscriptively saying what the doctrine is for each of those topics, giving rather the various divergent views and their historical development. Or schools of thought, if you will. So B.H. Roberts championed the tripartite theory of individuated intelligence, spirit birth and physical birth; the JFS/BRM axis saw intelligence as an unindividuated primordial soup; read in context, Joseph seemed to simply equate intelligence with spirit with no conception of spirit birth at all, etc. The point wouldn’t be to declare a winner (as in that horrible new show The Marriage Ref), but simply to survey the ground.

I would find such a work very helpful, and I sort of have a fantasy of doing it, but I’m not much of a theologian so it’s really just a fantasy.

By: Sheila

Sheila — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:47:52 +0000

Oops–the link above will work if you take out the ) at the end.

Admin: fixed

By: Sheila

Sheila — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:39:16 +0000

I’d apologize for the length of my comments, but it’s totally Jacob’s fault.

mmiles. I think the GTU was a good fit for me, in that it’s not too structured and you can pretty much go in the direction you want. Also because of the wide diversity of students. Coming out of Notre Dame, I was thinking I wanted to do a PhD at a Catholic university, but in retrospect I’m glad that didn’t work out; it’s been good for me to engage with more traditions, I think. (My committee includes a Jesuit, a Lutheran, and a psychologist who’s interested in Buddhism.)

The real downer, though, has been the lack of funding. I’m more in debt than I might have been at another program. That’s the one thing that might give me second thoughts, were I to do this again.

I also think that so much of your experience in a program has to do with the other grad students. And I’ve made some really good friends here, met some amazing people—and I’m very glad to have that, especially since they’ll be my future colleagues in the field. When I think about that, I’m glad I ended up here.

(I did a little thing about the GTU at FPR a while ago:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/08/tips-on-applying-spotlight-on-gtu/ )

Hi, WVS! Fun to see you here. Tell Gailan hi back.