314 replies to this topic

[Log]

mercyngrace, on 13 April 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

If that is the wording to which you are referring, would you mind explaining exactly what you believe it indicates? Sincerely interested...

There is a portion of the ordinances on the day of the sealing which involves the husband doing something first and acquiring a piece of information about his wife that his wife does not have about him and has no legitimate way to gain in this life.  I hope that vague description meets the requirements of the board rules.

Make of that what you will, but the ordinances, and texts, consistently portray marriage in a hierarchical manner, with the husband as ... well, leader, at least insofar as he is indeed following the Father.

Edited by Log, 13 April 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[mercyngrace]

Log, on 13 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

There is a portion of the ordinances on the day of the sealing which involves the husband doing something first and acquiring a piece of information about his wife that his wife does not have about him and has no legitimate way to gain in this life.  I hope that vague description meets the requirements of the board rules.

Make of that what you will, but the ordinances, and texts, consistently portray marriage in a hierarchical manner, with the husband as ... well, leader, at least insofar as he is indeed following the Father.

Ahhhh. Thanks for clearing that up, log.

[Senator]

Log, on 13 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Make of that what you will, but the ordinances, and texts, consistently portray marriage in a hierarchical manner, with the husband as ... well, leader, at least insofar as he is indeed following the Father.

They actually appear to portray a liaison or intermediary more than a leader.

[MorningStar]

TruthSeeker24, on 10 April 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

I was wondering what people think about the relationship between a man and a woman in the gospel. I always felt that men needed to be more masculine and be the bread winners, while the wives became more feminine and became the house wife. Men should lead in ALL things pertaining to finances and the wife should be fully subjected to him in all manners. I do believe the woman's opinion should be considered always, but the choice should always lie with the man. I hear a lot of LDS guys say that their wife runs the house and that they learned to just do what the woman says. It makes me sad. Masculinity has become rare. Anyone else feel the same way? Any disagree?

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  Husband and wife are partners and I don't find it masculine for a man to "be in charge" of everything.  My husband was thrilled to have me do the finances because even as a bachelor, he had a hard time staying on top of it.  He is very mechanically gifted, so I stay out of the way when it comes to that stuff, but if I were good at repairs, I would do it and he wouldn't care.  And no, the choice should not always lie with the man.

[BlueDreams]

Senator, on 12 April 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

BD,
First let me say again that I am sympathetic to, and indeed do share the view you have expressed. What I am attempting to do is demonstrate my own wrestle with what I'm perceiving as a grinding of the gears -if you will- between a shift in an old perspective to a new one.  The perspective that you've illustrated (and that I share) would be utterly foreign to cultures of the past, and perhaps even our own culture up to the advent of the gender movements. Simply stated, what you describe in you post is blantantly at odds with traditional scriptual depictions of gender relationships. And I believe that traditional view is demonstrated in the temple as well.

The best answer I can think of it by giving a contingent example within the scriptures. A couple of years ago, reading Ephesians made me cringe about submission. I also cringed a little at a talk by Julie B Beck, the family proclamation, among other things. The problem, though, wasn’t the scripture, it was how I was reading them. I had two very worldly lenses on: the first was the traditional role of women the second was my reactionary disgust I’m-just-as-good-as-any-boy and (I can do anything I want) fiercely independent lens. So in my mind those various things that describe male and female/spousal role were being interpreted by the expected traditional lens and then being reacted to by my punkish self. Being 2x4’d by humility and repentance and the temple changed that big time.  I don’t think, in general, that these are necessarily traditional depictions, rather that traditionalism has hijacked their true meanings. I’m looking more and more nowadays less for what is expected on a worldly consensus but what God truly means and interpreting them from his view. Which is more difficult, because it means I need to see as He does....a life long pursuit. But the more I have, the more I understand, the better it gets. So I’m not apt to change things to fit how I see them. When there’s something I don’t understand about the temple, scripture, etc I assume I don’t fully understand yet and that in time He’ll help me see. It’s exciting because I feel like I’m reclaiming what has been and continues to be lost to many, many women for so many years: our worth and our (equal) role to God on earth. And it has come from removing anything that does not fit God’s foundational teachings, what He’s personally taught me about myself as a woman, and how these must fit in the social order of Zion.

The veil….I thin BB did a good job of explaining thing. I don’t understand it yet, but to me I think it is connected to the other one. To me, the interpretation you’ve given is based on a worldly lens.

Have to go, busy day….
With luv,
BD

[wenglund]

Log, on 13 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Log has left the building.

Speaking of "equality," has bluebell left the building as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 13 April 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[wenglund]

BlueDreams, on 13 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

The best answer I can think of it by giving a contingent example within the scriptures. A couple of years ago, reading Ephesians made me cringe about submission. I also cringed a little at a talk by Julie B Beck, the family proclamation, among other things. The problem, though, wasn’t the scripture, it was how I was reading them. I had two very worldly lenses on: the first was the traditional role of women the second was my reactionary disgust I’m-just-as-good-as-any-boy and (I can do anything I want) fiercely independent lens. So in my mind those various things that describe male and female/spousal role were being interpreted by the expected traditional lens and then being reacted to by my punkish self. Being 2x4’d by humility and repentance and the temple changed that big time.  I don’t think, in general, that these are necessarily traditional depictions, rather that traditionalism has hijacked their true meanings. I’m looking more and more nowadays less for what is expected on a worldly consensus but what God truly means and interpreting them from his view. Which is more difficult, because it means I need to see as He does....a life long pursuit. But the more I have, the more I understand, the better it gets. So I’m not apt to change things to fit how I see them. When there’s something I don’t understand about the temple, scripture, etc I assume I don’t fully understand yet and that in time He’ll help me see. It’s exciting because I feel like I’m reclaiming what has been and continues to be lost to many, many women for so many years: our worth and our (equal) role to God on earth. And it has come from removing anything that does not fit God’s foundational teachings, what He’s personally taught me about myself as a woman, and how these must fit in the social order of Zion.

The veil….I thin BB did a good job of explaining thing. I don’t understand it yet, but to me I think it is connected to the other one. To me, the interpretation you’ve given is based on a worldly lens.

Have to go, busy day….
With luv,
BD

Nicely said. We would all do well to emulate it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

wenglund, on 13 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Speaking of "equality," has bluebell left the building as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apples and sour grapes.  

[wenglund]

Senator, on 13 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Apples and sour grapes.  

I see it as more like crab apples and sour grapes. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 13 April 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[wenglund]

I am wondering if the perceived aversion to hierarchies, including those potentially in families and marriages, may be from mistakenly viewing hierarchies as indicative of personal worth and/or as a means of control and power, rather than, as I believe was intended, as a means of effective administration, accountability, and order, and as a mechanism for clearly establishing familial ties and apportioning due inheritances.

I don't think it coincidental or untoward that the scriptures speak of the patriarchal order--which, as I understand things, is an eternal order and the order of heaven. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

wenglund, on 13 April 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I see it as more like crab apples and sour grapes. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How can anyone named BlueBell be a sour grape or crab apple?

Log however....now that's a different story

Edited by Senator, 13 April 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[rodheadlee]

I'm just wondering how many of you guys on this thread promoting the man as " soley in charge" are actually married?

[Senator]

wenglund, on 13 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I am wondering if the perceived aversion to hierarchies, including those potentially in families and marriages, may be from mistakenly viewing hierarchies as indicative of personal worth and/or as a means of control and power, rather than, as I believe was intended, as a means of effective administration, accountability, and order, and as a mechanism for clearly establishing familial ties and apportioning due inheritances.

Except I do not see how a hierarchal arrangement in marriage is necessary to accomplishing the five items you list.

Quote

I don't think it coincidental or untoward that the scriptures speak of the patriarchal order--which, as I understand things, is an eternal order and the order of heaven. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think you would need to first scripturally demonstrate that God has a wife (acceptable as church doctrine), let alone the arrangement.

Edited by Senator, 13 April 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As far as I've been able to see from a quick search, there is no such thing as the "patriarchal order" as a scriptural commandment -- the phrase itself simply does not occur in the canonized standard works, though it can be inferred if one wishes to.

Hyrum Smith is referenced as a "Patriarch" thrice in the D&C (sections 124 & 135), but this is in subordination to the Priesthood conferred upon him (in the fourth reference to patriarchy in D&C 124). Specifically, Priesthood and Patriarchy are explicitly not interchangeable; they're linked with the word "and", meaning that there is a larger Priesthood necessary to issue Patriarchal Blessings in a separate office, as, for instance, in the various Aaronic and Levitical subsections of the Priesthood found in the scriptures.

The larger, everlasting Priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, who, according to the Book of Mormon, "took upon him the high priesthood forever," "this high priesthood being after the order of [the Father and Mother's] Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity."

According to the Joseph Smith translation of Hebrews 7:3, "Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually." It was in the Divine Council before the foundation of the earth that we elected the Son of God and the Plan of Salvation by common consent, having judged for ourselves that God, being a great Intelligence, had concocted the best Plan to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of the entire human family.

This certainly does not provide support to the idea that "patriarchy" as such is the One True Way of Heaven's system, or necessary for effective administration, accountability, and order. The Priesthood, it seems to me, is part of the eternal law which we all must follow according to the works of Justice in order to proceed along the pathway towards theosis - nothing to do with gender, it is cosmological. Just as the elements are eternal, according to D&C 93, so too is the light of the individual Intelligence of every man and woman, who are therefore equal because neither came before the other, regardless of which is born into a tabernacle first. We have different attributes according to our genders and which Gifts of the Holy Spirit of Wisdom we have received, to be sure, but we are all fundamentally free and equal.  

There are four descriptive references in the New Testament designating Abraham, the Twelve heads of the tribes, and David as being "patriarchs," but this system was instituted in much the same way as that of Egypt's, which, according to the Pearl of Great Price, was "after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal." [Emphasis added.]

This was not divinely ordained, it was a governmental policy of men - a man whose son had been cursed, even. As Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, and Elinor Gadon, among many others, have shown, patriarchal waves of invasion disrupted earlier, more egalitarian societies (though to be sure, those others were hardly Utopias either!). It hardly matters when they are justified by an appeal to rhetoric emphasizing a claimed holiness - the similar sacralization of racially-motivated prejudice was seen, for instance, in the American South during the fight over slavery. When the works of Justice are destroyed, Gods cease to be Gods worth worshipping; they elect to become part of the family of the father of lies, and amen to whatever authority they supposed their mere priesthood could confer upon them.

Yet, "Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of [W]isdom [the Egyptian Goddess Ma'at], but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood." [Emphasis added]  

Here, Priesthood is decoupled from the organizational social-strategy of the order of Patriarchy, ie, "pater, "father" + archein, "to rule." It's the "archein" which is the problem, because without common consent it places one gender as "ruler", and not even based on their virtue or wisdom, but rather the type of tabernacle their Uncreated Intelligence has been placed within. Priesthood and Patriarchy are quite explicitly not interchangeable; it is said that while Pharaoh righteously imitates the Patriarchal order, as yet he does not have the Priesthood. It was the "fathers" who "instituted [this order] in the days of Adam" and caused it to come "down by lineage" (D&C 107:41); "the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son." (D&C 107:40)

Yet the Celestial Order, before the Fall, was one of marriage in which Man and Woman were equally naked before the Gods.

The records of the Fathers, according to the Book of Abraham, contained "a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars," but Abraham wrote for "his posterity," not just for men. As the Book of Mormon teaches, God "imparteth his word by angels [angelos = messengers] unto men, yea, not only men but women also."

As the Book of Abraham teaches, "thou [Abraham] shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations; and I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal."

Nowhere is this limited to a "patriarchal order." It is the nations and the families -- men and women both -- which will eventually be blessed with this cosmological Priesthood in order to bless others, descending from the eternities to guide us all on the pathway to theosis according to our works of Justice and equity and by the common consent of all.

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 13 April 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 12 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Sorry, Cal, the priest did not preside, he merely taught.

But the priest by the very nature of his calling presides over those he serves.

A priest, father, bishop, mother, RS pres., whomever presides because of the stewardship they are given over others.

Teaching is often part of a stewardship, rarely is it the only behaviour required by a stewardship.

For example:

Quote

A father is the presiding authority in his family. On this earth your initial experience of being a father of a family gives you opportunities to learn to govern with love and patience, and with your wife to teach each of your children correct principles; to prepare them to become proper fathers and mothers. When you do this according to the pattern given us by the Lord, and you endure to the end, your family will be added upon eternally. A righteous family is an eternal unit. On this earth, priesthood quorums and all other organizations of the Church aid you, the father, and your wife and family in achieving these eternal goals.

http://www.mormondia...y/page__st__240

From the same manual:

http://institute.lds...-e-equality.asp

Quote

“The status of women is one of the questions of the day. Socially and politically it forces itself upon the attention of the world. Some . . . refuse to concede that woman is entitled to the enjoyment of any rights other than those which the whims, fancies or justice, as the case may be, of men may choose to grant her. The reasons which they cannot meet with argument they decry and ridicule; an old refuge for those opposed to correct principles which they are unable to controvert. Others, again, not only recognize that woman’s status should be improved, but are so radical in their extreme theories that they would set her in antagonism to man, assume for her a separate and opposing existence; and to show how entirely independent she should be would make her adopt the more reprehensible phases of character which men present, and which should be shunned or improved by them instead of being copied by women. These are two extremes, and between them is the ‘golden mean.’” (“Woman’s Status,” Woman’s Exponent, 15 July 1872, 29).

Quote

“When the Prophet Joseph Smith turned the key for the emancipation of womankind, it was turned for all the world, and from generation to generation the number of women who can enjoy the blessings of religious liberty and civil liberty has been increasing” (“Address to the Members of the Relief Society,” Relief Society Magazine, Dec. 1945, 717)

Quote

“We live in a day when there are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender and homogenize the differences between men and women. Our eternal perspective sets us against changes that alter those separate duties and privileges of men and women that are essential to accomplish the great plan of happiness. We do not oppose all changes in the treatment of men and women, since some changes in laws or customs simply correct old wrongs that were never grounded in eternal principles” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 99; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73–74 ).

Quote

“We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full  partner” (“Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters,” Ensign, Nov. 1978, 106)

Quote

“A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. . . . The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man ( meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 68; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 50–51 )

Quote

“In the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us."

“In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together. While the husband, the father, has responsibility to provide worthy and inspired leadership, his wife is neither behind him nor ahead of him but at his side” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1998, 96; or Ensign,May 1998, 73)

Quote

“Where spiritual things are concerned, as pertaining to all of the gifts of the Spirit, with reference to the receipt of revelation, the gaining of testimonies, and the seeing of visions, in all matters that pertain to godliness and holiness and which are brought to pass as a result of personal righteousness—in all these things men and women stand in a position of absolute equality before the Lord” ( “Our Sisters from the Beginning,” Ensign, Jan. 1979, 61)

Quote

“Your wife is your partner in the leadership of the family and should have full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating to your home” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1994, 26; or Ensign, May 1994, 21)

Quote

“How should those who bear the priesthood treat their wives and the other women in their family? Our wives need to be cherished. They need to hear their husbands call them blessed, and the children need to hear their fathers generously praise their mothers. The Lord values his daughters just as much as he does his sons. In marriage, neither is superior; each has a different primary and divine responsibility. Chief among these different responsibilities for wives is the calling of motherhood. I firmly believe that our dear faithful sisters enjoy a special spiritual enrichment which is inherent in their natures” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 54; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 38–39).

Edited by calmoriah, 13 April 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[calmoriah]

BlueDreams, on 13 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

I don’t think, in general, that these are necessarily traditional depictions, rather that traditionalism has hijacked their true meanings.

Truth.

[BlueDreams]

wenglund, on 13 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I am wondering if the perceived aversion to hierarchies, including those potentially in families and marriages, may be from mistakenly viewing hierarchies as indicative of personal worth and/or as a means of control and power, rather than, as I believe was intended, as a means of effective administration, accountability, and order, and as a mechanism for clearly establishing familial ties and apportioning due inheritances.

I don't think it coincidental or untoward that the scriptures speak of the patriarchal order--which, as I understand things, is an eternal order and the order of heaven. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My reasoning for insisting that there isn't a hierarchy between husband and wife is best summed up by this quote by elder oaks:
"Partnership. A most important difference in the functioning of priesthood authority in the family and in the Church results from the fact that the government of the family is patriarchal, whereas the government of the Church is hierarchical. The concept of partnership functions differently in the family than in the Church."
He then defined patriarchal as full partnership, equal, and used this great quote by kimball: "“When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.” Simply put, marriage is not hierarchical. Not if it is in accordance with God.

Hierarchy insists on a chain of command, leader-follower, rank orientation, that doesn't belong in families. At best it's incorrect and minimizes a woman's call/role, at worst it's the basis to some of the worse abuses between the sexes.

With luv,
BD

[bluebell]

BlueDreams, on 13 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

My reasoning for insisting that there isn't a hierarchy between husband and wife is best summed up by this quote by elder oaks:
"Partnership. A most important difference in the functioning of priesthood authority in the family and in the Church results from the fact that the government of the family is patriarchal, whereas the government of the Church is hierarchical. The concept of partnership functions differently in the family than in the Church."
He then defined patriarchal as full partnership, equal, and used this great quote by kimball: "“When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.” Simply put, marriage is not hierarchical. Not if it is in accordance with God.

Hierarchy insists on a chain of command, leader-follower, rank orientation, that doesn't belong in families. At best it's incorrect and minimizes a woman's call/role, at worst it's the basis to some of the worse abuses between the sexes.

With luv,
BD

[Senator]

BlueDreams, on 13 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

My reasoning for insisting that there isn't a hierarchy between husband and wife is best summed up by this quote by elder oaks:
"Partnership. A most important difference in the functioning of priesthood authority in the family and in the Church results from the fact that the government of the family is patriarchal, whereas the government of the Church is hierarchical. The concept of partnership functions differently in the family than in the Church."
He then defined patriarchal as full partnership, equal, and used this great quote by kimball: "“When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.” Simply put, marriage is not hierarchical. Not if it is in accordance with God.

Hierarchy insists on a chain of command, leader-follower, rank orientation, that doesn't belong in families. At best it's incorrect and minimizes a woman's call/role, at worst it's the basis to some of the worse abuses between the sexes.

With luv,
BD

BD,

I hear what your saying, and am nodding my head in agreement. I agree with Elder Oak's words too.........then I turn around and attend the temple and voila! there's the depiction of a hierarchal order. Now I'm fully accepting of the possibility that I'm just not seeing it or lacking understanding. I guess one could see the depiction as a partnership. After all there are 51/49 % share deals struck all the time.

Another thought is that this marital coventant in the temple drama is the very first (or could we say "primitive")  order entered into.

Could it be that the first(primitive) state/order of things is not meant to be the last(advanced) state/order of things?

After all, this order is put into place due to the fall, with Eve's "place" being ordered "inasmuch as she was the first to partake".  

This then speaks to the question of the eternality of this (patriarchal) order; it being eventually susceptible to the redeeming power of the atomenment as being part of this mortal condition.??

Edited by Senator, 14 April 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[BlueDreams]

Senator, if I were you I'd maybe go to the temple and think about what the women do (not what they don't do, but what they do) in accordance to what has been said. If there was a major problem, the prophets probably would've caught on to it a while back. Many statement that I've found about equality came well before the last set of major changes in the temple. It's not them, it's you. I mean that in the nicest way possible. But I've performed and witnessed in all of the women's parts. I'm right now a temple worker in part because I'm fascinated and want to learn more about the ordinances involved. I've gone regularly for about a year because I not only love it there, but because it has been one of the fundamental tools the Lord has helped me better understand the role of women. I have become partially obsessed with the role of women and our nature and how we are seen by ourselves and within the world for over a year now. It's become apart of my end career goal. I don't see the hierarchy. I can see how you could, but it only occurs when I de-link quotes like Oaks and some of the other things I've learned, and re-link it to a traditionalist perspective. It's not like they (the Apostles/prophets) continue to live in a split dichotomy of the world where outside the temple and scriptures there's a belief of equality in the home and world and then when they open up the books or go to the temple they believe in a world of men as somehow more equal, holding a more important role, or being hierarchical in some fashion. No, IMHO, they derive their opinion from the Spirit and from the word of the Lord. The sense of equal and intertwined roles is in the eternal scheme of things is what they find through God's media.

An aside: i am convinced that part of the reason we see a sense of hierarchy in the temple/scripture/etc is two fold: the false link between patriarchy/hierarchy and the misunderstanding/lack of knowledge of the role/nature of women.


With luv,
BD

Edited by BlueDreams, 14 April 2012 - 07:17 AM.