Old School Patriarchy

[Senator]

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.

CFR please.

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 here.

CFR please.

The patriarchal order, by definition, orders men, women and children in a godly order.

Which is...........?

CFR please.

I'm not meaning to be combative, but you have made several assertions here that are at odds with recognized definitions. I'm curious as where you are getting your ideas from.

What is that godly order? Obviously we all hold varying understandings of that.

I'm afraid you've left me a bit mystified. You've offered what the patriarchal order is not; and accomplished that by suggesting definitions that cause me to scratch my head. Then you offer what the patriarchal order is, which is...... well......not definable, then again compare it to something which it is not.

You'll have to help me out a little more.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Senator

[Senator]

I also find it interesting that one of the central aspects of the supposed patriarchal order or priesthood, is that it is patrilineal. That it was to be handed down from father to (firstborn)son. (a "maleness" thingy)

This is not recognized in our modern western society.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Senator

[bluebell]

I also find it interesting that one of the central aspects of the supposed patriarchal order or priesthood, is that it is patrilineal. That it was to be handed down from father to (firstborn)son. (a "maleness" thingy)

This is not recognized in our modern western society.

It should be noted that the the patriarchal order exists as a family unit and as such, it is different than the priesthood. A man who is not married, or not married in the temple, but hold's the priesthood is not a part of the patriarchal order.

"“Although each father is the head of his family, in the strict sense of the word the Latter-day Saint family cannot be called patriarchal unless the husband holds the Melchizedek Priesthood and the wife was married to or sealed to the husband in the temple, and the children were born in the covenant or sealed to their parents” (A Light unto the World [Melchizedek Priesthood course of study, 1967–68], p. 55; italics added)."

"The term patriarchal order refers to the line of people from Adam on down through all generations who are linked together by eternal temple ordinances. These people will maintain their family relationships forever. When a couple is married in the temple, the husband and wife become eligible to become part of this great eternal family."

[wenglund]

I'd really like to know why it must then be considered hierarchical in your mind. Thanks, With luv, BD

For the reasons I mentioned earlier: "...as a means of effective administration, accountability, and order, and as a mechanism for clearly establishing familial ties and apportioning due inheritances."

This may not be made all that apparent within today's monogamous marriages, but I think it is made clear when considering polygamous marriages. Think in terms of family trees and the names we take upon us.

It may also help to understand that, as previously intimated, the patriarchal order is a priesthood order, and the priesthood is by nature hierarchal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Duncan]

I don't know if this has been noted before by Robert Millet (of whom I love his writings!) wrote an article about the Patriarchal order

http://www.byub.org/talks/Talk.aspx?id=2597

[wenglund]

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.) "

This helps draw a distinction between "priesthood" and "order"--i.e. the "priesthood" is power and authority to act in God's name, and the "order" is the manner in which the "priesthood" is organized and administered. While the Melchezidek priesthood is without father or mother (or in other words, it is eternal), the "order" in which and by which the priesthood has been organized has changed over time.

In ancient time the priesthood was organized as a patriarchy--i.e. from father to son (particular the eldest son or the son who has the birthright).

Whereas, since the meridian of time, the priesthood has been organized and administered according to an ecclesiastical order--i.,e. from presidents to general members, from general authorities, to regions, to stakes, to wards, to quorums and auxiliaries.

However, even within the ecclesiastical order there are still visages of the patriarchal order, where fathers ordain sons. I believe this is because at some point in the future, whether in this life or the next, the ecclesiastical order will give way to a return of the patriarchal order. The current Church structure will be understood as preparatory to an extended family structure. Prophets, priests, and kings will then be called Fathers and Gods. Relief Society presidencies, prophetesses, priestesses, and queens will then be called Mothers and Goddesses.

But, what do I know?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Sine Saw Square]

Men should lead in ALL things pertaining to finances and the wife should be fully subjected to him in all manners.

How do you see this playing out in practical terms? If you are at work and your wife needs to go shopping do you expect her to call first and get permission or seek approval for what is in the shopping cart? If she needs a new dress must you approval her selection first? Do you believe all monetary transactions should go through the husband? Seems like a painful and clunky lifestyle.

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by 'being subject to'. I know the definition has been talked about on this thread already but I haven't seen a clear example of how it plays out in day to day life.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[thesometimesaint]

A leader without the ability/willingness to delegate isn't much of a leader.

[TruthSeeker24]

How do you see this playing out in practical terms? If you are at work and your wife needs to go shopping do you expect her to call first and get permission or seek approval for what is in the shopping cart? If she needs a new dress must you approval her selection first? Do you believe all monetary transactions should go through the husband? Seems like a painful and clunky lifestyle.

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by 'being subject to'. I know the definition has been talked about on this thread already but I haven't seen a clear example of how it plays out in day to day life.

Yes, if the wife had to call the husband for everything, that would be completely in sane. That much I do agree with. In regards to finances, I feel it best to give the wife a budget. For example, 10% of your earnings can go into food, 5% could go into clothing, and so on and so on for whatever the husband feels best. That way, the wife expects the money to come in. I also feel that its very important to give the wife money to use on her own terms for whatever she wants. The wife should also be allowed freedom to meet with friends and have a very good social life as well.

[Senator]

Yes, if the wife had to call the husband for everything, that would be completely in sane. That much I do agree with. In regards to finances, I feel it best to give the wife a budget. For example, 10% of your earnings can go into food, 5% could go into clothing, and so on and so on for whatever the husband feels best. That way, the wife expects the money to come in. I also feel that its very important to give the wife money to use on her own terms for whatever she wants. The wife should also be allowed freedom to meet with friends and have a very good social life as well.

Dude, are you for real?!!

[TruthSeeker24]

Dude, are you for real?!!

Well, that's simply my view on the matter and what I have found to work best. Naturally, there are different ways of going about this type of philosophy.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, if the wife had to call the husband for everything, that would be completely in sane. That much I do agree with. In regards to finances, I feel it best to give the wife a budget. For example, 10% of your earnings can go into food, 5% could go into clothing, and so on and so on for whatever the husband feels best. That way, the wife expects the money to come in. I also feel that its very important to give the wife money to use on her own terms for whatever she wants. The wife should also be allowed freedom to meet with friends and have a very good social life as well.

I'm curious as to whether or not you're actually married.

You seem to describe a wife's life as it is moderated by the bread winning husband. Yuck!

Edited April 16, 2012 by Valentinus

[wenglund]

Yes, if the wife had to call the husband for everything, that would be completely in sane. That much I do agree with. In regards to finances, I feel it best to give the wife a budget. For example, 10% of your earnings can go into food, 5% could go into clothing, and so on and so on for whatever the husband feels best. That way, the wife expects the money to come in. I also feel that its very important to give the wife money to use on her own terms for whatever she wants. The wife should also be allowed freedom to meet with friends and have a very good social life as well.

It may be wise to not confuse how one treats one's wife with how one treats one's children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker24]

It may be wise to not confuse how one treats one's wife with how one treats one's children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well spoken. I agree whole heartedly.

[wenglund]

Well, that's simply my view on the matter and what I have found to work best. Naturally, there are different ways of going about this type of philosophy.

Yes, and some types of "philosophies" are born of ignorance, insecurity, distrust, and lack of respect, and tend to be less functional, if not dysfunctional, as compared with those born of knowledge, a healthy sense of self, trust, and respect. Some people think that slavery works best (usually the slave owners).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Well, that's simply my view on the matter and what I have found to work best. Naturally, there are different ways of going about this type of philosophy.

Ok!

Far be it any of my business to instruct you on the "harmony" of your marriage.

I am conscerned if any of your marital views have been informed by LDS teachings. You have yet to demonstrate that they are.

[wenglund]

Well spoken. I agree whole heartedly.

That's good. However, gathering from what you have said, I am not sure you understand whole mindedly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2012 by wenglund

[TruthSeeker24]

Everyone, all I'm doing is expressing some views. I'm not saying you have to follow them. I was simply making a post with an idea that I was wondering what people thought of. Yes, I do understand that my philosophy of marriage is out-dated and not in alignment with modern day LDS teachings. However, I do feel that it is enlightment with early LDS teachings. And yes, I am happily married.

[Sine Saw Square]

It's the use of phrases like 'give the wife a budget' and 'the wife should also be allowed freedom' that seem troubling and out of step with LDS teachings. The implication is that the husband has the ability and right to revoke. Is there a scenario where it's right to revoke such allocations?

As a thought exercise, imagine the shoe on the other foot- you in a relationship where your wife was allowing you freedom to do this or granting you room to do that. Would you feel comfortable living in that situation. i wouldn't. So, it doesn't pass the "Golden Rule" test for me.

[TruthSeeker24]

It's the use of phrases like 'give the wife a budget' and 'the wife should also be allowed freedom' that seem troubling and out of step with LDS teachings. The implication is that the husband has the ability and right to revoke. Is there a scenario where it's right to revoke such allocations?

As a thought exercise, imagine the shoe on the other foot- you in a relationship where your wife was allowing you freedom to do this or granting you room to do that. Would you feel comfortable living in that situation. i wouldn't. So, it doesn't pass the "Golden Rule" test for me.

Thank you for your respectful response. I say "give the wife budget" simply because I believe its the man's duty to be a provider. I feel that if women would put themselves back in the home and raise their kids, we would not be having the troubles we have today. Women were meant to be house-wives not because its "lower" in status. To the contrary, being a house-wife ensures a strong generation of men and women. Plainly put, I believe one of the main reasons society has become corrupt is because for some reason, women feel that being a house-wife is detrimental to their ego. Men were meant to provide, protect, and lead, just like in the old days. That's my opinion at least.

[wenglund]

Thank you for your respectful response. I say "give the wife budget" simply because I believe its the man's duty to be a provider. I feel that if women would put themselves back in the home and raise their kids, we would not be having the troubles we have today. Women were meant to be house-wives not because its "lower" in status. To the contrary, being a house-wife ensures a strong generation of men and women. Plainly put, I believe one of the main reasons society has become corrupt is because for some reason, women feel that being a house-wife is detrimental to their ego. Men were meant to provide, protect, and lead, just like in the old days. That's my opinion at least.

The problem I see with this kind of thinking, is that it assumes that the money you make is "yours," rather than, in relation to your wife, "ours."

To me, this kind of thinking not fails to consider the wife's contribution to the husband's ability to provide, but it would be like were your wife to consider the kids to be hers (since she provides the kids--i.e. she carried them through pregnancy and bore than and nurtured them), rather than yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker24]

The problem I see with this kind of thinking, is that it assumes that the money you make is "yours," rather than, in relation to your wife, "ours."

To me, this kind of thinking not fails to consider the wife's contribution to the husband's ability to provide, but it would be like were your wife to consider the kids to be hers (since she provides the kids--i.e. she carried them through pregnancy and bore than and nurtured them), rather than yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suppose we are simply having a difference of perspective on the matter. It appears to me that your thinking in terms of ownership, whereas I'm thinking in terms of duties and responsibilities. Technically speaking, under my philosophy, the entire family has ownership of all the finances, and both the parents have ownership of the children. The difference lies in who delegates. So no, the money is not "mine," its everyones. I'm simply responsible for distributing it. And yes, it does fail to consider the wifes contribution to the husband's ability to provide, because that would be the man's job. A man who does not lead his wife, and allows her to take on the responsibilities of providing and protecting, is taking away her femininity and freedom of being a woman. I truly believe that.

Edited April 16, 2012 by TruthSeeker24

[Calm]

I also feel that its very important to give the wife money to use on her own terms for whatever she wants. The wife should also be allowed freedom to meet with friends and have a very good social life as well.

So she gets an allowance?

[Calm]

It may be wise to not confuse how one treats one's wife with how one treats one's children.

So I'm not the only one who got that impression....

[Calm]

And yes, it does fail to consider the wifes contribution to the husband's ability to provide, because that would be the man's job.

Are you saying here the wife does not contribute to the husband's ability to provide?