The final structure of a dissertation is usually the result of a lot of discussion and reshuffling. The original option was to organize the chapters according to the five constructs (I-2.2) and the corresponding generic research questions (I-2.4). For each construct I would then have presented four steps: the research literature, the situation in Mormonism, my respondents’ views on that topic, followed by results and discussion.
However, it soon became apparent that this approach was leading to massive disparities.
First, most of the research literature does not correlate with the constructs and would be fragmented over the chapters with constant repetitions. Second, selecting information from Mormonism according to the five constructs and spreading it over the dissertation would make a coherent presentation of the religion impossible as to women’s role in its history and as to its doctrine and practice of agency and gender. Now these form separate, comprehensive chapters. Third, topical chapters according to the five constructs would
16
constantly be overlapping since structured ambivalence often pits one construct against another. Respondents’ answers would have to be repeated over and over in the various topical chapters.
Another option was to take “types of agency,” such as submission, resistance, empowerment, and valorization, for the order of the chapters, but that turned out to be a labyrinth and quite unsuitable for the complexities of my respondents’ contributions who spoke from fluctuating combinations of types of agency.
The present order of the chapters, as outlined below, assured therefore the most orderliness and clarity, starting from the main question of how Mormon women in Flanders identify or negotiate their place in a church of American origin, perceived as religiously patriarchal and socially androcentric, and in their own Flemish cultural environment (I-2.4). To ascertain the relationship between the various chapters and chapter 7 with results and discussion, I mention in numerous separate subsections in chapters 2 to 5 the “relevance for my research,” often already referring to the related interview items. Next, I start each item in chapter 7 with a “background” recall and clickable cross-references to the specific, relevant passages in previous chapters. Each of these background recalls functions as a kind of node to clarify the relations over the chapters.
Chapter 1 introduces Mormonism briefly from an ethnographic perspective, starting from a contemporary setting, as factual as possible, followed by a short sketch of its history, organization, and doctrines. To give a taste of the overall atmosphere of contemporary Mormonism I also draw attention to its worldwide, uniform digital outreach.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on agency and gender in religion in its relevance for my research. After a brief introduction on terminology, the chapter considers the topic through four phases of assessment, from the study of religion as oppressive towards women, to the analysis of forms of resistance and emancipation; next I examine the research on inside valorization of female religious identity, and finally the step to outside valorization. In each of these phases, the parallel development in studies dealing with Mormon women is examined.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 conduct a more comprehensive exploration of women’s positions in Mormonism, with multiple indications of relevance for my research.
Chapter 3 turns to history. Gender in contemporary Mormonism cannot be understood without its preceding history over now almost two hundred years. Mormon female voices, from conservative to liberal, draw their arguments from a past rich in gendered developments. Without even being asked, my respondents refer to Mormon historical women and events as markers for their own identity. The chapter concludes with a brief history of the Mormon church in Flanders.
17 Chapter 4 studies how agency is considered from within Mormonism, first as a theological concept. Next it explains how agency can function in a male-dominated system on account of overarching spiritual regulators of religiousness which women have a their disposal. The social dimension of agency is examined in the congregational context and in the “Mormonization” of converts.
Chapter 5 is a core chapter as its charts Mormon gender essentialism in its various manifestations. Theological and eschatological principles shape the religious background, tied to different concepts of patriarchy. The chapter details how gender is socially constructed in Mormonism through gendered expectations and gender role socialization.
Chapter 6 deals with methodology. It explains why a descriptive approach is chosen, how it is implemented for this specific research, and how the research questions are converted into the interview guide with an eye to assessing structured ambivalence.
Ethical and privacy concerns are addressed. The criteria for selection of respondents are detailed, the resulting grid, and the procedural experience.
Chapter 7 discusses the results in order to come to conclusions in Chapter 8.
I-4. Conventions
I adopt a first-person approach.
The formatting and subdivisions conform to the template for dissertations of the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy of the University of Ghent.
The text is written in American-English spelling and follows the text and punctuation rules of the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition.
The references also use the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition.
- In-text and bibliography: references to scholarly publications and to substantial articles in magazines, newspapers, and blogs are given by the last name of the author and year of publication. These works are included in the bibliography.
- Quotations and citations from Mormon scriptures, conference talks, church
magazines, newspapers, and website blogs and comments are referenced in footnotes.
They are not included in the bibliography.
Unless the context requires clarification, “church” always refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over the years some church leaders have advised members to avoid “Mormon” and “LDS” and to use only the official name of the church. In academic and journalistic writings this is hardly tenable since the official naming lacks an adjective to identify the church, as other churches or religions offer—Catholic, protestant,
18
Lutheran, or Muslim. This research will therefore use “Mormon” and “Mormonism” as part of a long-standing convention. “Mormonism” is understood as the totality of the religion.
“Church” is only capitalized when it refers to the authoritative ecclesiastical entity. It is not capitalized when used as a noun to indicate the totality of members, as in “in the church, many members ...,” or when referring to a church building; nor when used with an adjectival value, such as in “church leaders,” “the church president,” or “a church initiative.” It may differ in direct quotations that use different norms.
The term “respondent” refers to the person being interviewed.
19