Old School Patriarchy

[Senator]

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 April 13, 2012 by Senator

[rodheadlee]

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

[Senator]

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.

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 April 13, 2012 by Senator

[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 April 13, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

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:

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

“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).

“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)

“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 ).

“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)

“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 )

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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

Truth.

[BlueDreams]

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]

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]

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 April 14, 2012 by Senator

[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 April 14, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Messenger]

I think there is a misunderstanding of the patriarchal role. A man can suggest, and even gain revelation about the direction the family should take. This is very much similar to our Gospel Doctrine teachers being inspired to give a certain lesson to the class, or the prophet giving is a new challenge. But, it's never forced. So, in other words, if the Priesthood Holder of the family, yes, the father, receives inspiration that the family should move to Missouri, its up to the wife to confirm that. Then, and only then, should they move.

Really, this is no different than that. How many years have the brethren told us in conference talks that buying a house was a good investment. But its up to us to pray and confirm the right time to buy FOR US. 6 years or so ago I was just about ready to make the investment. Based on all the data at hand, I took it to the Lord and the answer was no, DO NOT BUY A HOUSE. So I didn't, 6 months later the housing market dropped, and I was laid off from my job.

The father is responsible for presenting his inspiration to the best of his ability. That's his duty as a priesthood holder, it is also the duty of those that give talks in conference, in our churches, and those that prepare lessons. And when the Mom receives inspiration, it is her duty to present that as well.

[Deborah]

D&C 121:39 comes to mind: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

I have seen this so often in marriages where the man thinks because he has the Priesthood he should be making all the choices and have the final word. V 36 elaborates on the principle of righteousness "That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." and V 37 continues "...but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

I think husbands should be very careful in how they treat their wives and children and realize that they should be using persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned in any exercise of leadership.

[Messenger]

D&C 121:39 comes to mind: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

I have seen this so often in marriages where the man thinks because he has the Priesthood he should be making all the choices and have the final word. V 36 elaborates on the principle of righteousness "That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." and V 37 continues "...but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

I think husbands should be very careful in how they treat their wives and children and realize that they should be using persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned in any exercise of leadership.

That is true, but I would like to also say, that its HUMAN NATURE to exercise unrighteous dominion, it isn't limited to a particular sex. A man or a woman are just a prone to this failing. However, any, ANY leadership role, mom, dad, teacher, home teacher, visiting teacher, etc, etc, etc, needs to remember, as you pointed out, the leader (those that have a stewardship or leadership role) must earn trust of those around them. They do indeed follow the council that you have quoted: using persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned. The sharpness of the law knows no gender boundaries. No one is above the law.

There are plenty of examples of men and women who abuse this stewardship. I think we need to be careful when pointing this out that simply because they are a priesthood holder, that they are only ones (men) who have this potential failing. They are not.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Messenger

[Calm]

There are plenty of examples of men and women who abuse this stewardship. I think we need to be careful when pointing this out that simply because they are a priesthood holder, that they are only ones (men) who have this potential failing. They are not.

Most definitely. I would say I've even seen a very few women use the Priesthood as a way to exercise unrighteous dominion themselves by insisting that any priesthood holder must behave in a certain way or he is not upholding his calling....ways that she determines, not ways that are actually present in the scriptures or instructions from leaders or agreed upon in family counsel.

[Messenger]

Most definitely. I would say I've even seen a very few women use the Priesthood as a way to exercise unrighteous dominion themselves by insisting that any priesthood holder must behave in a certain way or he is not upholding his calling....ways that she determines, not ways that are actually present in the scriptures or instructions from leaders or agreed upon in family counsel.

Agreed

[wenglund]

Except I do not see how a hierarchal arrangement in marriage is necessary to accomplishing the five items you list. I think you would need to first scripturally demonstrate that God has a wife (acceptable as church doctrine), let alone the arrangement.

Please see my comment and link below.

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.

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.

The key word for me here is "family." Given that the priesthood is eternal, and and that the family is eternal, do you not see the connection? Do you not see that the notion of patriarchy as that connection?

If you need some help, here are the search results for "patriarchal order" at lds.org.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As I noted, a "Patriarchal Order" can be inferred, but does not actually appear by name as such anywhere in the canon of scriptures we have sustained as authoritative by common consent. From the link, 49 of the 82 results are from magazines; only 4 of the 11 occurrences in General conference have appeared since 1982; 16 are from manuals and 7 are from other resources, all of which are subject to change based on further learning. The mere 8 listed as supposedly found in the "scriptures" are all, in fact, from the Bible Dictionary, the Guide to the Scriptures, the Index, and two non-authoritative chapter headings from the PoGP and the D&C. While it has certainly been natural in LDS culture (and the wider American culture in general, until rather recently) to view Priesthood as intrinsically Patriarchal, I did my best to show in my earlier post why I believe this is a misunderstanding; I don't think the link does anything to counter (or even particularly address) my points.

Edited April 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Senator]

The key word for me here is "family." Given that the priesthood is eternal, and and that the family is eternal, do you not see the connection? Do you not see that the notion of patriarchy as that connection?

Frankly, no.

What do you see as the "notion of patriarchy"?

[wenglund]

As I noted, a "Patriarchal Order" can be inferred, but does not actually appear by name as such anywhere in the canon of scriptures we have sustained as authoritative by common consent. From the link, 49 of the 82 results are from magazines; only 4 of the 11 occurrences in General conference have appeared since 1982; 16 are from manuals and 7 are from other resources, all of which are subject to change based on further learning. The mere 8 listed as supposedly found in the "scriptures" are all, in fact, from the Bible Dictionary, the Guide to the Scriptures, the Index, and two non-authoritative chapter headings from the PoGP and the D&C. While it has certainly been natural in LDS culture (and the wider American culture in general, until rather recently) to view Priesthood as intrinsically Patriarchal, I did my best to show in my earlier post why I believe this is a misunderstanding; I don't think the link does anything to counter (or even particularly address) my points.

I am amazed at the ease at which you brushed aside all those references. I suppose that is what it takes to hold so confidently to your current position. Good luck with that.

Any way, I suspect that part of the reason there is very little, even indirectly, mention of the "patriarchal order" in the scriptures is because, as Joseph once mentioned, in relation to the Melchezedek (1st) and Aaronic (3rd) priesthoods: "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.28, p.555)

Since Joseph directed the saints to the temple to receive knowledge concerning this priesthood or order, I will do so as well (particularly since any other references I might post may just as easily be swept aside as those I have already given).

By the way, it may be of interest to note that eternal marriage has been referred to within the Church as "the patriarchal order of marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Frankly, no.

What do you see as the "notion of patriarchy"?

As just mentioned, I see it as the same as the patriarchal order, including the patriarchal order of marriage. Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

These posts don't seem to be engaging my actual arguments. I have repeatedly agreed that there exists a traditional view that Priesthood is interchangeable with Patriarchy, so there are of course many statements about a "Patriarchal Order" in our religious culture. The point is that these statements, while latent in the culture, are not based on scriptures we have accepted as authoritative, nor are they based on claimed revelations. This is why I "brushed aside" the linked references by detailing why I do not accept them as being substantive or binding; there is not "very little" scriptural mention, even by implication -- there is no mention, fullstop.

On the other hand, if (as I detailed in my earlier post) we have explicit references in our canonized scriptures which state point-blank that the eternal Priesthood (of which Christ takes part in as the Anointed One) is without father or mother, why are we attempting to graft in a gender-based "Patriarchal Order" into it? Could it be that it is the "philosophies of men" (cf. the "false traditions of the fathers") which have been absorbed into church culture, such that many people (such as the opening poster here) think there is something ennobling about exclusivist "father-rule", which was based on an ancient governmental practice of men which is nowhere claimed to be divine?

Edited April 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[BlueDreams]

As just mentioned, I see it as the same as the patriarchal order, including the patriarchal order of marriage. Does that help?

I'd really like to know why it must then be considered hierarchical in your mind.

Thanks

With luv,

BD

[Maidservant]

The use of the term "patriarchal" in "patriarchal order" does not refer to male-ness. It refers to marriage and parentage. Similar as in the Spanish language where "padres" means "parents" not "father". When the scriptures say "the fathers" (as in Abraham), I don't see that as exclusively male either.

Patriarchy and the patriarchal order aren't close in meaning at all, not as the development of language and ideas that the two refer to. Patriarchy is a term to describe a godless social and family order that all of us (men, women and children) have been subject to in past decades and sewn through several cultures and from which we are slowly freeing ourselves, in part due to the patriarchal order.

The patriarchal order, by definition, orders men, women and children in a godly order. What is that godly order? Obviously we all hold varying understandings of that. I do maintain that any example found in the organization of the Church is a mistake to follow in detail anyway (except that all things in the Church, in the family, in any thing God does is by love, agency, etc), since the Church is the gathering of Israel, and is therefore God's outreach into the telestial world.

The patriarchal order is something else again--ancient.

[bluebell]

We just had a lesson in YW's on the Patriarchial order today. I missed the beginning but the teacher passed out a handout, from the manual, which taught that the Patriarchial Order is a family unit where a husband and wife are sealed together for eternity, and children are either born in the covenant or sealed after birth.

It also taught that the father presides in the home (whether he holds the priesthood or not), and that husband and wives are equal. Given this the discussion this week on this thread, it was actually a pretty interesting lesson.

[Senator]

Any way, I suspect that part of the reason there is very little, even indirectly, mention of the "patriarchal order" in the scriptures is because, as Joseph once mentioned, in relation to the Melchezedek (1st) and Aaronic (3rd) priesthoods: "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.28, p.555)

In speaking of the Patriarchal priesthood as a "2nd priesthood", I thought this statement from Boyd K. Packer to be interesting. From your list of references:

"There are references to a patriarchal priesthood. The patriarchal order is not a third, separate priesthood. (See D&C 84:6–17; D&C 107:40–57.) Whatever relates to the patriarchal order is embraced in the Melchizedek Priesthood. “All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to [the Melchizedek] priesthood.” (D&C 107:5.) "