Old School Patriarchy

[bluebell]

The common refrain has been that, in all things, men and women are equal in marriage.

That means either men are less than women, or the priesthood is nothing. Take your pick.

I'm not following you.

In a deacon quorum's presidency, for example, all three boys have the priesthood yet two are subordinante to one. The priesthood doesn't seem to impact-at all-the the equality of the people involved.

[Log]

Priesthood necessarily incorporates a hierarchy of leadership and subordination, as you rightly point out in respect to the deacon's quorum presidency. Follow that implication, if you will - for the leader is, in at least one aspect, not equal to the others.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

Are you drawing a parallel to the marital relationship?

I left it open for people to draw their own parallels if or as they see fit.

If so, are you saying that the role of wife is an inferior hierarchal role, and that women should be fine with it?

It is not my place to define the roles or tell women what they should or shouldn't be fine with.

All I am saying is that I have no qualms with, and even honor and highly respect, the inferior hierarchal roles I have been in and will yet be in--including if or when I ever get married (I view my roll as husband and father to be inferior, in relation to my family, to that of the Father and Son).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

Priesthood necessarily incorporates a hierarchy of leadership and subordination, as you rightly point out in respect to the deacon's quorum presidency. Follow that implication, if you will - for the leader is, in at least one aspect, not equal to the others.

Yes, but it's not the holding the priesthood that creates the hierarchy, it's the nature of the position. The calling has been designed to be heirarchical.

Yet I don't believe the scriptures support the notion that marriage has been designed by God to be heirarchical.

It seems like you have attempted to suggest that it's the priesthood which makes a man superior to a woman in a marriage. I'm saying that the evidence doesn't seem to support your thesis.

[zielkee]

The common refrain has been that, in all things, men and women are equal in marriage.

That means either men are less than women, or the priesthood is nothing. Take your pick.

Without women, there could be no priesthood. However, I think the difference between men and women is demonstrated in the philosophical ideas of being and becoming. In this life, men are assigned the role of being: Christ provides a perfect (being) example of the path back to Heavenly Father's presence, and men are tapped to be additional exemplars. Women are assigned the becoming role. We exemplify the nurturing, growing, changing side of creation. We all do end up becoming something (being); but both sides are critical in our mortal process. Probably in eternal processes, too. Interestingly, our natures correlate strongly with the two states. (imho)

[Log]

I don't believe the scriptures support the notion that marriage has been designed by God to be heirarchical.

And yet, the scriptures say exactly that. Where, therefore, did you insert a not into the texts?

[zielkee]

"If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." Mark 9:35 That would bless all marriages. I like that idea.

[Log]

Agreed.

[bluebell]

And yet, the scriptures say exactly that. Where, therefore, did you insert a not into the texts?

Well, provide the scriptures that say that a husband is superior to a wife, and that they are not equal before the Lord, and we can talk about it and discover where each of us is coming from.

[Log]

Well, provide the scriptures that say that a husband is superior to a wife...

I'm sorry; where did I say that?

I will agree marriage is hierarchical. And the scriptures, combined with the endowments, abundantly illustrate that principle.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log

[bluebell]

I'm sorry; where did I say that?

You said that they were unequal. Can two things be unequal without one being 'more' or 'better' than the other?

[Log]

You said that they were unequal.

Yes, I did, and they demonstrably are.

Can two things be unequal without one being 'more' or 'better' than the other?

Apples and oranges. Which is more? Which is better?

[mercyngrace]

The common refrain has been that, in all things, men and women are equal in marriage.

That means either men are less than women, or the priesthood is nothing. Take your pick.

I thought typical LDS thought was

male + priesthood = female + uterus

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “God planted within women something divine.”That something is the gift and the gifts of motherhood. Elder Matthew Cowley taught that “men have to have something given to them [in mortality] to make them saviors of men, but not mothers, not women. [They] are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls … and the regenerating force in the lives of God’s children.”

Edited April 12, 2012 by mercyngrace

[bluebell]

Yes, I did, and they demonstrably are.

You keep saying that, but i don't believe you've actually demonstrated it yet.

Apples and oranges. Which is more? Which is better?

They are both equal in importance and the role that they play in the world. They are different, but equal.

Edited April 12, 2012 by bluebell

[Maidservant]

That is an interesting perspective coming from someone with the screen name of "maidservant."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

:) Well, Wade, thanks for helping me think on that.

I actually like what BD said in a post about submission (not subjection). I actually do hold to a theory of submission in marriage, but it has nothing to do with hierarchy and everything to do with the level of trust and openness that two people (coming from a point of complete freedom) submit to each other in order to be knit together and become one. It's almost a paradox and hard to explain. You let the other person own you. But first it has to be understood that the other person doesn't own you. I haven't got the right words for it. But it's not subjection or hierarchy and doesn't have to do with decision making.

As far as me and God and my screen name . . . that's a personal item between me and God and relates to something as well from when I was a child about 8 years old. It would have more to do with what I described above on submission and nothing to do with subjection or hierarchy. It does mean I am bound to him and have the opportunity in this life to do his work. It also relates to priesthood ideas, but I shall leave that unexplained also.

And as I mentioned before . . . I don't think on the concept of 'equality' either way . . . my conceptual axis simply does not hinge on this. I am who I am . . . with husband, bishop, God, POTUS, anyone. I am who I am and I am free, and struggling to become more free to the degree that I am not. And this struggle is what my Father in heaven has taught me I must do, so I don't think he is interested in my subjection to him.

Does male = female?

Does male + priesthood = female?

If male + priesthood = female, then male < female.

Why are you doing this? Why did you create this frame?

I think this is one of the main issues in regards to the degradation of our modern society, the woman has left the house, and I think its having a negative impact on future generations since the mother was born to nourish and love in ways that men can't provide. I never understood why women felt that being a stay at home mom is suffocating. Being a stay at home mom is the most noble thing a woman can be in my opinion. I guess in a nutshell, masculine could be defined as the ability to lead and protect, and feminity could be defined as the ability to nourish.

But to me, the 'house' was invented by society, not by God. My house is like this: my bedroom is in China, my living room is in Colombia, my kitchen is in Russia. Who said I had to nourish my children inside four walls and order my day to a clock invented by western society, yada yada yada yada. I think we agree that the raising of human beings is THE most wonderful labor of life and is the labor that both men and women will be accountable for and have the privileg of. I don't want a job (even though I'm thankful I have one and don't have much choice right now; would rather have a business and/or be independently wealthy, ha ha ha; and 'jobs' were invented by society too) and would respect any man beyond measure who was willing to financially provide for me so that I could concentrate on my children (but NOT the sweeping, sorry, did I mention maid?) and on serving other people; and my jaw would drop if he was willing to do this based on the premium value he placed on me as a woman, wife and mother who should be free from the vagaries of working for the man and be free to do only God's work in creating a home. BUT . . . I'm not holding my breath AND I still don't know what this has to do with making decisions for another adult human being.

As far as masculine and feminine . . . for me, I simply don't have the need to define these adjectives at all. I leave them undefined and have thrown them out with the other conceptual obsolete things my mind doesn't need.

There are men. There are women. Do we need more adjectives laden with social paradigms? I say, no.

Why wasn't Adam instructed to hearkin to his wifes councel as she hearkins to his? Why couldn't Eve receive councel directly from the Lord instead through a middle Adam/man? Why is she instructed to veil her face when the direct presense/spirit of the Lord is sought through the true order of prayer? This new order things is hard to spin away no matter how uncomfortable it rests upon our modern sensibilities.

I love your questions, and have them too. But some of what I am getting from the answers (or 'insights') is interesting too.

First of all, regarding the woman's veil. Where is the other veil in the temple? What would happen if you equate them? . . . . also on another line of thinking . . . even if your conclusion or tendency regarding the true order of prayer is more or less correct, there is still the final process at the veil, and from my understanding, women take care of this directly as the men do.

Second of all, I heard somewhere else, did not make this up or get from direct revelation--what if you call Adam THE BODY and Eve THE SPIRIT and then go through all the endowment with that in mind [also, switch them and call Eve THE BODY and Adam THE SPIRIT and then go through and see what that does]? So I heard this somewhere, I think on this board in fact, (although I've probably modified the idea to Maidservant's mind), and while I'm not fully sure this is the point, I'm thinking through it, and it has been helpful, if only to try to realize there is ALOT in the temple that is available with the right keys. Also my question on this would be, if Adam is the body and Eve the spirit, then why do we have to play that out in real life marriage? Anyway, so I'm not sure. But maybe there is just more in the endowment, more patterns there, than simply a one-to-one correspondence to gender and marital relations.

The common refrain has been that, in all things, men and women are equal in marriage.

That means either men are less than women, or the priesthood is nothing. Take your pick.

There are sooooo many ways to think of the union of men and women besides this frame. You have a lot of choices available to you even within the current Restored gospel and the scriptures. Less, more, equal? We don't HAVE to use these words and ideas. They just were helpful for several decades. I think we're ready to move on. A human being is a human being and each of us is unique and utterably sacred. We do not have to assign less, more or, even, equal. Just sacred. And free. "Men and women are [free] in marriage." (My preferred insertion ).

Priesthood in marriage is not confined to men, by the way.

Priesthood necessarily incorporates a hierarchy of leadership and subordination

No, it doesn't. The priesthood format that has been organized for the functioning of the Church (which is a gathering tool for functioning in a telestial condition) is not to be translated at all, in any way to other priesthood formats. It's a specialized case, in other words. Priesthood can be formatted for any purpose God would like. However, the priesthood (format) for marriage is an eternal fundamental and hasn't changed for eaons I would guess (yes, a guess).

Priesthood (without necessarily being formatted into offices as needed) is to represent God and to enjoy all that God has (heirs) (or be on the way to receiving that inheritance).

Also, when I think on my relationship to my bishop, I don't think I could say I am subjected to him. Perhaps submitted. But my agency is intact. He doesn't micromanage my life and my choices. I'm still thinking through this, but I have been thinking on this a long time, but the way I am bound together into a ward family with the bishop as the father is of great interest to me. I'm not sure non-scriptural terms like hierarchy and such are helpful (in my opinion anyway).

And yet, the scriptures say exactly that. Where, therefore, did you insert a not into the texts?

The scriptures, like the temple, say a lot of things. I think the examples of actual marriages are far more potent than the sermon-ish items. For example, what about Rebekah and the other Old Testament ladies who were directly in conversation with God? And who could not be said to be in subjection to their husbands in any Pauline or Victorian sense?

Patriarchy as a system is a Greek invention. The Greeks invented a lot of things. Sometimes I want to strangle them for all the things they invented, because we are still dealing with the mess and the bondage of their paradigms. My opinion only .

Edited April 13, 2012 by Maidservant

[CV75]

Priesthood necessarily incorporates a hierarchy of leadership and subordination, as you rightly point out in respect to the deacon's quorum presidency. Follow that implication, if you will - for the leader is, in at least one aspect, not equal to the others.

I would say the leader is equal, but his role is not identical to the others'. Where we all have the same covenant, the heirarchy is designed to lead both presiding and sustaining members to Christ.

Edited April 13, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

I will agree marriage is hierarchical. And the scriptures, combined with the endowments, abundantly illustrate that principle.

A very unique heirarchy in that it has checks and balances so that proper roles for each partner can be properly carried out.

[Maidservant]

Ha ha. I just read something on my little brother's facebook that made me think of this thread and thought it was a least a bit relevant .

His status:

"I'm pregnant."

I love the way he is thinking. He and his wife are expecting their first child and I love how he seems to realize that this is a direct experience for him and not a secondary or assistive one. Of course, Mrs. little brother is still physically carrying the child and etc, but I just love the attitude.

[zielkee]

I thought typical LDS thought was

male + priesthood = female + uterus

But that's not really fair, is it? Men have bodies, too. I think the power of God is given to men and women through the gift of the Holy Ghost. Priesthood is the administrative responsibility of the power, related to "being." Women's spiritual responsibilities are tied nurturing or "becoming."

[bluebell]

But that's not really fair, is it? Men have bodies, too. I think the power of God is given to men and women through the gift of the Holy Ghost. Priesthood is the administrative responsibility of the power, related to "being." Women's spiritual responsibilities are tied nurturing or "becoming."

MnG might have been relaying the typical LDS answer that giving birth is the female equivelant to having the priesthood.

[Log]

You keep saying that, but i don't believe you've actually demonstrated it yet.

Well, I suppose that it's now time to have "the talk." You see, boys and girls and birds and bees....

Men and women are not identical. That is obvious to even the most casual of observers. Therefore, why, one wonders, do you feel a need to object to this most unobjectionable of observations?

They are both equal in importance and the role that they play in the world. They are different, but equal.

No, they are different. Full stop.

[bluebell]

Well, I suppose that it's now time to have "the talk." You see, boys and girls and birds and bees....

Men and women are not identical. That is obvious to even the most casual of observers. Therefore, why, one wonders, do you feel a need to object to this most unobjectionable of observations?

That goes without saying, so it should have been obvious to you from the very beginning that whether or not men and women are the same has nothing to do with this conversation from my point of view.

Since you've been so kind as to give me a lesson on the differences of the sexes, i'll return the favor and give you a lesson on the english language.

The word equal has two different definitions (I know, it's amazing, right?!).

One is that two things are physically the same, the other is that two things are the same in status and quality. I assumed you would understand that the differences between the sexes were so glaringly obvious that there was no way anyone could be using the first definition in this discussion when they were trying to argue that men and women were equal.

Apparently, i misjudged you however.

Moving forward though, know that when i (or anyone else) say men and women are equal in a marriage, I (and everyone person on here) mean they are equal in status or quality.

There. Now we're on the same page.

[Log]

Well, since we have gotten the obvious out of the way, I can fully agree that both 3 and 2 are equally important in creating 6 via multiplication. I mean, the 2 without the 3 cannot make 6 by multiplication, and neither can the 3 reach 6 without the 2. Is this perhaps analogous to marriage?

I already know, despite scripture, despite the endowments, that a hierarchy in marriage is anathema to you. Well, your husband must be a very wise priesthood holder.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

On equality in the Lord's eyes:

Matt 20: 8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

There was a great conference talk using this parable.

[MorningStar]

My husband leads by doing whatever I tell him to.