Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[bluebell]

Tell me more...

Well, i would submit that much of what you quoted can be explained by the weakness of men (and their misled interpretation of scripture) rather than revelation from God on the subject.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If the hierarchy was what was most important in these situations, and not the supremacy of the male, you would have more instances of matriarchy (which is also set up as a hierarchical system).

Female monarchy is anathema alike to the Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and Chinese traditions of statecraft. Austronesian societies, however, which include Polynesia and Madagascar as well as Indonesia and the Philippines, have been more inclined than any other major population group to place highborn women on the throne (Reid, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680: Volume One: The Lands Below the Winds. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. 169-170).

Relations between the sexes represented one aspect of the social system in which a distinctive Southeast Asian pattern was especially evident. Even the gradual strengthening of the influence of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Confucianism in their respective spheres over the last four centuries has by no means eliminated a common pattern of relatively high female autonomy and economic importance (Ibid, 146).

In sharp contrast to the Chinese pattern, the married couple more frequently resided in the wife's than in the husband's village. In Thailand, Burma, and Malaya that was the rule.... Southeast Asian legal codes differed markedly from their supposed Indian or Chinese (in Vietnam) models in their common insistence that propery be held jointly by the married couple and administered together... (Ibid, 147).

I'm still working on understanding it.

I understand that feeling! It's only been the past few years that I've felt like I'm starting to get it--aided by repeated alienation from my own cultural assumptions. I like the BY quote included by Kamenraider above.

[kamenraider]

Well, i would submit that much of what you quoted can be explained by the weakness of men (and their misled interpretation of scripture) rather than revelation from God on the subject.

Alright, go ahead and explain it then. I'm interested in what your take on it is.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Well, i would submit that much of what you quoted can be explained by the weakness of men (and their misled interpretation of scripture) rather than revelation from God on the subject.

That's why I prefer this declaration: 'By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.'

[bluebell]

Alright, go ahead and explain it then. I'm interested in what your take on it is.

Take paul's teachings on the subject for example-he taught that women must have long hair and must not speak in church. Does the LDS church agree with his interpretation of God's will on the subject?

Why can we ignore what Paul says about women in some instances? Could it be because his ideas about women were not always of God?

Paul was an imperfect man who grew up in the Jewish/roman tradition where men were superior to women and sadly, his weaknesses in this regard carried over into his Christian life, where they got made into scripture thanks to the decisions of men centuries later. There is a reason the church does not follow Paul's teachings on the subject of women at church.

Paul is easy to ignore when it comes to this subject because the church has already set the precedent.

Edit to add-the list you provided reads a lot like the reasons that Christian men used to have for why slavery was alright or those by LDS men on why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood.

They are quotes by men doing their best to explain why they preside and women don't, but their explanations most often display their own weaknesses and arrogance, rather than the reasons of God.

[bluebell]

That's why I prefer this declaration: 'By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.'

I agree.

[bluebell]

double post deleted.

[Nathair/|\]

There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other. Adam is given no arbitary power; Eve is to heed him only insofar as he obeys their Father

[mercyngrace]

I haven't read all the comments so I'm sorry if this is repetitive.

A patriarchal society established by God does not compare with a patriarchal society created by man because the call to rule, preside, or lead in God's kingdom is the call to submission and humility. Let he who is greatest among you be your servant. Do some people in the church see the priesthood's patriarchal nature as an opportunity to rule over others? Yes, but they do so to their own detriment since D&C 121 says the minute they exercise such dominion "amen to the priesthood of that man".

Men are to be lord over their wives as Christ was Lord over His bride, through self-sacrifice and with an eye single her glory and salvation. This is the abasement that leads paradoxically to exaltation.

The selflessness nigh unto death that biology imposes on motherhood can accomplish the same purpose for righteous women.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I agree.

The only thing I'm reasonably certain about is that the essence of 'presiding' truly is to follow the example of the Lord.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Jinx.

[Jason]

Because of the difference in motivation behind the decision.

So if the earthly king had a better motivation then he could practice equality, despite only giving his leadership positions to men?

[Jason]

Take paul's teachings on the subject for example-he taught that women must have long hair and must not speak in church. Does the LDS church agree with his interpretation of God's will on the subject?

The Joseph Smith Translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 reads "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

"Rule" replaces "speak" in the KJV.

[bluebell]

The Joseph Smith Translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 reads "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

"Rule" replaces "speak" in the KJV.

You'll notice though that the JST didn't change the part which commanded women to keep silent in the churches. And of course we know that LDS women are NOT silent in the churches, so, according to Paul's words here, the LDS church would be in need of censure, if Paul's thoughts on the subject were in fact revelation from God.

Also, men, in the church are also not permitted to rule. They preside but they do not rule. They are also commanded to be under obedience the same as women, so the JST doesn't appear to really save this verse (as it reads) in any shape or form.

[ELF1024]

Elf1024 I hope you did not take my earlier response as directed at you. I actually think in a secular marriage or one where the husband does not hold the priesthood both parties are equally important, which is why I think there are gender inequalities in other areas.

I didn't take it as directed at me, but I am an example of that particular situation. I didn't take it personal, if that was your concern.

My wife and I try to split things up based on our strenghts. She is far better with money than I am, so she pays the bills. I tend to be a better with calendaring, so I keep up the calendar, for all the kids, and other things going on in the house. I work, so she can pay the bills. She works within the home, so I can go to work. We are a team, we are both required to keep the family running.

ELF1024:

Stop it. You are of great worth just being you a child of the Most High God. That you working to come back is a noble goal, says much more about you to me, than anything that is in your past.

(see below)

Hi ELF1024,

Please excuse my non-LDS intrusion to your post (I respect and realize that is was posted with the intention to share among your LDS brethren). I will keep my words very short.

If I may:

Your post almost brought me to tears.

I would suggest that your "value" has NOTHING to do with the status or badge that any church cements to your chest (This certainly includes the LDS church).

Again, I am sorry to intrude and I hope this came across as I intended it to.

Peace,

Ceeboo

I would agree that there is more to value than just that which involves the church. Really, my self-worth is fine.

My wife frequently tells me that I am a wonderful husband because of all that I do which her previous two husbands did not do. However, based on how her previous two husbands abused her, I have to say that I'm not sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, it's wonderful to hear, but at the same time... I wish she had been treated better. There is always more we can do for our spouses, and kids, no matter how much we do.

So while I may be doing a good job temporally, I recognize that I am behind spiritually.

[bluebell]

So if the earthly king had a better motivation then he could practice equality, despite only giving his leadership positions to men?

No. He could certainly be sincere and a good man, but there is no reason for a mortal man to only give leadership positions to men without the motivation being that he believed men were superior to women in some regard. A kingdom is a bureaucratic affair, after all.

(read Mercyngrace's post on the subject as she captured my thoughts on it perfectly.)

[Jason]

No. He could certainly be sincere and a good man, but there is no reason for a mortal man to only give leadership positions to men without the motivation being that he believed men were superior to women in some regard.

But there is a reason for God to give all his leadership positions to men without believing that men are superior to women?

[bluebell]

But there is a reason for God to give all his leadership positions to men without believing that men are superior to women?

Of course.

God is concerned with making us like Him-making us like Christ. He orders our world in the best way for that to occure.

He qualifies the called, rather than calling the qualified because His end is the spiritual growth of His children.

[ELF1024]

But there is a reason for God to give all his leadership positions to men without believing that men are superior to women?

Depends on your definition of Leadership Positions.

The General Relief Society President, is a woman. The General Primary President could go to either gender. The General Young Women's President is a woman.

We may not have a Prophetess... but there are some very high ranking positions that can be or are held by women.

[Jason]

Of course.

God is concerned with making us like Him-making us like Christ. He orders our world in the best way for that to occure.

He qualifies the called, rather than calling the qualified because His end is the spiritual growth of His children.

So - why can't an earthly king do the same? Be concerned with making people more like God and desiring the spiritual growth of his subjects?

If you haven't noticed, I'm playing devil's advocate. I happen to believe that a patriarchal order can practice equality of the sexes. I am merely trying to sharpen some of the thinking on the subject and discard unworkable arguments.

[bluebell]

So - why can't an earthly king do the same? Be concerned with making people more like God and desiring the spiritual growth of his subjects?

Because a king's motivations would never be God's motivations.

Kings are primarily concerned with the kingdom, God, with the subjects. God has said that His whole purpose and glory is the development of His children. No earthly king has ever claimed such and i feel perfectly safe in declaring that none ever will.

[LeSellers]

Because a king's motivations would never be God's motivations.

I disagree.

I give you king Benjamin (among others in the Book of Mormon) and Melchizedek in Salem and his predecessor Enoch in his city.

A king can be motivated by any (or several) of a variety of sources. Most do, as you point out, focus on the worldly; but let us not forget that the Kingdom of God, with Jesus as its king, will be an earthly kingdom as well as a spiritual one. All kings, including King Immanuel, must address keeping the streets safe and assuring that people get along.

Lehi

[TAO]

But there is a reason for God to give all his leadership positions to men without believing that men are superior to women?

Yes - because he has given another equally important position to women - called being a mother. And being a mother is perhaps the most important calling one can have on Earth.

[CA Steve]

Yes - because he has given another equally important position to women - called being a mother. And being a mother is perhaps the most important calling one can have on Earth.

So Tao if what you say is correct and the priesthood 'balances' out for motherhood then wouldn't all marriages where there is no priesthood be unequal? I tend to think that a father and mother are equally important even where there is no priesthood.

[Maidservant]

Patriarchy and the Patriarchal Order are not the same thing. Patriarchy is non-scriptural, non-gospel, and not only the ideas that make it up and the social structures it is trying to describe, but the very category itself has been paradigmatically contructed. Patriarchy is binary and in opposition to (often) matriarchy. The Patriarchal Order by definition involves both genders, and the "patriarchal"ness means "parent"ness . . . in the same sense that in the Spanish language we say padres for parents. Padres isn't male, it's plural. Patriarchal Order is plural also, and, again, there can not be this order without man and woman and the family they establish.

How then do you understand repeated prophetic teaching that men are to preside in their homes/families?

Presiding is not a device of hierarchy, it is an antidote to it.

Genesis 3:16

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

A description of telestial conditions of which we will need to transcend in order to become celestial. To be more plain, the position of women as it is symbolized in the Garden of Eden will need to be restored (and is being restored) in order for us to enjoy a celestial condition.

1 Corinthians 11:3-15

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Romans inc. Paul were deep into patriarchy and hierachy. Indeed, I might argue that they introduced the falsehood of patriarchy into the world, at least a most oppressive form devoid of the feminine, which paradigm is still reverberating in our world today with disastrous consequences.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Peter mis-reads history (?) as even a straight and shallow reading of Genesis does not give this picture of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah

After his fall, another name was given to Adam, and being full of integrity, and not disposed to follow the woman nor listen to her was permitted to receive the tokens of the priesthood.

...

The order and ordinances passed through here prove the principles taught in the Bible. First men should love their God supremely. Woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back, if the man had followed the woman he would have followed her down until this time.

--Heber C. Kimball Journal, December 28, 1845; see also George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, pg. 239.

He's wrong.

Dominicus Carter Preached to the people in the Afternoon a Discourse upon the subject of the potter with his Clay & vessels of honor & dishonor. He spoke well.

He was followed by J. C. Wright. He bore testimony that the Lord has been with this people from the beginning up to this day the gifts & graces were manifest. He spoke of many of the sick being healed. Even the dead had been raised to life. He spoke of the Law of God. A woman was under the Law of her husband & no other. If she obeyed his Law she was under no transgression because her husband was her head & evry man & woman had a head. The Presidency [p.383] of the church is the head of the Church on Earth & if we obey them we shall be saved.

--Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Jan 6, 1856, Vol. 4, pgs. 382-383.

This is half of the picture and only seen through a glass darkly. There are other gospel gender dynamics.

The thing to notice is that Adam is not let off lightly as a privileged character; he is as bound to Mother Earth as she [Eve] is to the law of her husband. And why not? If he was willing to follow her, he was also willing to suffer with her, for this affliction was imposed on Adam expressly "because thou hast hearkened unto thy wife and hast partaken of the fruit."

--Hugh Nibley, "Patriarchy and Matriarchy," in Mouritsen, Blueprints for Living, pg. 45.

Nothing has been imposed on anyone. We all chose freely to come to earth, knowing what it would be like (as much as one can know without actually taking the ride).

It was from him [Joseph Smith] that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband, and to reign for ever and ever as the queen mother of her numerous and still increasing offspring.

--Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 1st edition, 1938, pgs. 329-330.

When you are "something TO something" that is grammatically neutral as far as the possibility of saying who is hierarchically above or below. There is a person who is a boss TO me. There is a person who is an employee TO me. The word TO does not imply a hierarchy. To be more plain, to say that someone is a priestess TO another does not necessitate where that person is in the heirarchy (if there needs to be a hierarchy at all). The hierachy is supplied by our paradigm. In my opinion it's a paradigm that needs to be examined for what God really intends. I don't think we have it yet, otherwise we'd be sporting halos and have condos in the City of Enoch.

There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher Priesthood, than that of the father. The authority is time honored, and among the people of God in all dispensations it has been highly respected and often emphasized by the teachings of the prophets who were inspired of God. The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount.

--Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, pgs. 286-287.

Authority is only one element of the dynamic. And, not to mention, the father's authority may be considered to have been dispensed to him by his wife, when she authorized him to be her husband. In other words, he is a man who will fulfill her will . . .since she wants to follow God's will . . . thus she has chosen a husband who will also.

I fear some husbands have interpreted erroneously the statement that the husband is to be the head of the house and that his wife is to obey the law of her husband. Brigham Young