Ruminations

So last night Arthur I had a tangled web of a conversation...teeming with ideas, tangents, tidbits, and outliers. Sorting it out would not only burden the reader with seemingly mindless meanderings of a couple o' wannabe ivory towerniks, it would also be assuming that the words of a couple good ole' boys are actually fit to print! Presumptuous indeed!

That said, here was a major theme that directed the ebb and flow of our conversation. What is a construct? Generally, it is considered a set of ideas or practices that exists within particularized circumstances in history or contemporary society: femininity, dancing, sports. All of these practices carry with them certain values, norms, boundaries that must not be crossed if one wants to engage in that society. Most often, the assumption behind discussing such things is that constructs must be "deconstructed"--we point out cases where images of femininity have changed, where "church ball" (typically seen as a time where men can exercise their masculinity in good brotherly associations) becomes a barroom brawl (sans alcohol). We look at how dancing amongst the early Saints and dancing among modern Saints are radically different from each other(my ancestors would drop their mouths in horro at seeing a BYU dance competition). So if such things are constructs where not all parts of it are directly expressions of a gospel principle (which they obviously are, otherwise, there would have been no change), then what are we to make of it when the Prophet asks us to do things that have no obvious relationship to gospel principles: women wearing one pair of earrings, men (at least when Harold B. Lee was prophet--though the "statue of limitations" on revelation, as Arthur noted, is still fuzzy) being clean-shaven, etc. Is it possible to accept the "realities" (I use "reality" because most postmodern theorists would cry foul that I even dare admit to pure truth) of social, gender, and national constructions while stay holding true to the teachings of the prophets concerning family and society?

In other words, is there such a thing as a heaven-sent construct? When we hear that women are naturally more nurturing, must we sweat over defending ourselves against social theorists who insist that such ideas are simply invented so society (feminists read: "men") can prevent women from infiltrating the positions of power? Given that the "natural" argument is the generalized one and ultimately unprovable, we thus find ourselves at a disadvantage with the feminists...all they have to do is point out the exception. Could we not entertain the notion that the question of "natural" nurturing is an ex post facto explanation along the lines of those propagated about why blacks did not receive the priesthood?

Believe it or not, discourse and consensus might be possible between secular academicians and Latter Day Saints. What think y'all?