Old School Patriarchy

[wenglund]

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.

I am glad you clarified the difference within your mind between ownership and responsibility. If I understand you correctly, what you are really speaking to is an idealized division of labor, rather than despotism.

However, I don't think you understand what I meant by the wife contributing the husband's ability to provide. To see what I mean, think of how well you might be able to provide for your family if you were also had the responsibility for doing all that your wife has done and continues to do for you and your family. Think of it as analogous to the ability of a carpenter to perform his craft. He is somewhat dependent upon his venders supplying him with lumber and tools, the government to provide him with roads and bridges to travel to a from his jobs, the banking system to provide him with the medium of exchange, etc. etc. The same, in a way, is true of a husband and wife. Do you understand?

Besides, if you wish to hark back to the good o'l days, then please realize that societies back then tended to be agrarian, where the husband and the wife and the kids worked the fields and tended the flocks. For the most part, it was not feasible for the husband to be the sole provider in the home. Only in more modern times have we been afforded this luxury.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

Besides, if you wish to hark back to the good o'l days, then please realize that societies back then tended to be agrarian, where the husband and the wife and the kids worked the fields and tended the flocks. For the most part, it was not feasible for the husband to be the sole provider in the home. Only in more modern times have we been afforded this luxury.

Cottage industries where the wife and children could add to the family's income by products made in the home were quite common. Reading on the early life of JS, for example, everyone in the family contributed to income, especially Lucy.

[Traela]

"In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

[mercyngrace]

"In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Exactly.

He says "Jump."

She says "How high?"

They both get a say.

Equal.

(I know, I know, , I was just kidding...)

Edited April 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Sine Saw Square]

Thanks for explaining your view on family finances TruthSeeker. I still don't know how you would expect a wife demonstrates subservience to a husband in a practical, daily-life situation. I guess it's the notion of being lead in all things/being allowed freedom to do X. I don't understand how that works out in the real world.

[MorningStar]

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.

Or sometimes a woman feels like she is called to a profession. I'm very grateful for my female doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. I stay home most of the day, but I am also changing lives by teaching kids how to play the piano and sing.

[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.

CFR please.

CFR please.

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.

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.

Thanks, Senator, for giving me a chance to examine and think on this some more. I hope I can clarify a bit, but I will tell you that as soon as I started delving into this, I am afraid I was getting ready to write a book for you. So hopefully I don't quite do that.

As perhaps we all know, the phrase "patriarchal order" is nowhere in the 4 standard works. The closest we come to is in Abraham. I was going to confine myself to Chapter 1, but a perusal of all 5 chapters sheds interesting light on Priesthood, and, indeed, men and women. A book can be just on the revelation that is possible on Priesthood, men and women in the Book of Abraham. But perhaps just a couple of points. Patriarchal is applied to "government" and "reign". Just in this application, there can be nothing said about the family, only a way of kingdom. Any inference on the family or in any other direction (church, society) IS an inference, taken at a deeper reading and the book as a whole. The full principles and parameters are not laid out like a manual, nor on the surface, but there is a lot there.

For example, it says "even the right of the firstborn, or the first man". If you read that and the surrounding material, this is not saying that firstborn sons, for example, can inherit a dynasty (or something similar). It is temple material, and for example, can be better understood in connection with D & C 76--the assembly of the firstborn. In referencing Adam, Abraham is not merely recounting a dynastic lineage, he is discussing the mission and rights of Adam (which would mean Adam and Eve, in light of the rest of the Book of Abraham; or at the very least, leaves room for that).

Ok, let's leave the Book of Abraham, even though I realize those are only teasers. But the take away is that the Priesthood and the Patriarchal order as presented in the Book of Abraham makes no claim about the relationship of men and women in Priesthood on the surface (talking about "reign" instead); and at a deeper reading gives mysteries about the relationship of men and women in Priesthood that cannot be concluded to mean hierarchy nor truncation of agency nor a decision-making that lies upon one partner nor maleness, but rather the "male and female" nature of ADAM. Yes, male-ness is involved. Of course. Male-ness is involved in patriarchy. Female-ness is involved in patriarchy.

= = = =

The place where we find ourselves hearing the phrase is in the temple. I will leave that for the each of us to learn on our own. Suffice it to say, that the fulfillment of such a thing requires male-ness and female-ness. Patriarchy here has to do with posterity and parentage, which assumes both mother and father; sons and daughters. There is no emphasis in male-ness here on any axis (as far as I can see), at least not without a complementary emphasis on femaleness.

= = = =

The next place we can find mention of this phrase is in General Conferences.

1972, we get a wonderful reference about the right and joy of being a father. As well, Joseph F. Smith is quoted and he plainly uses words like authority. "How can I help the fathers under my care magnify their priesthood by fully accepting their responsibilities as patriarchs of their families? We might put much effort into working with individuals in a family and eventually reach a child, but our real challenge is to work with the father in strengthening him that he might lead the entire family to celestial glory. President Joseph F. Smith said, regarding the right of the father: “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 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 household 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.” (The Juvenile Instructor, March 1902, p. 146.)" ***** What I love about this is when men seek! to be leading their family to celestial glory. When a man has this desire, then the whole world, families, marriages, are able to be exalted. Joseph F. Smith does speak plainly about authority here. However, the talk was about the Church's role in supporting families, not superseding them; and a bishop does not, for example, have more authority in the family than does the father. This is not necessarily a comment on the husband-wife relationship (but also could be).

1974. The patriarchal order is spoken of as a sealing order, without comment on husband-wife roles. "With this fulfillment of prophecy, all former priesthood powers were restored again to earth. Temples have been erected in which a fullness of these priesthood ordinances is made available for those who qualify themselves to receive them through faith and righteous living. Before the Savior comes again, power has been given us to proceed with a great priesthood work. We are to bind together the families of men in true patriarchal order, so that through worthiness we may have the privilege to live in the celestial kingdom as children of God, with resurrected bodies of flesh and bone, to dwell eternally in the very presence of God the Eternal Father."

1975. This gem: "One thing we often fail to realize is that our priesthood comes to us through the lineage of our fathers and mothers. The Lord explained it in these words: “Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers. …” “Oh,” I can hear some of you say, “there must be something wrong with that statement, for I am the only member of my family who has joined the Church. How could I have received the priesthood from my parents?”

In this scripture the Lord was not talking about your priesthood line of authority. He was talking about your inherited right to receive and use priesthood power."

1981. A reference to different but complementary inheritances. "Women in the Church are familiar with the terms patriarch and patriarchal order. We associate them with things eternal and the work of the priesthood in our homes and in the Church.

We do not speak much of matriarchs; we call them instead, mothers. The mother is the counterpart to the patriarch of a home. Mothering is also an eternal, fundamental work. It has to do with bringing life and love, and it is largely learned."

1982. An interesting reference to a patriarchal order in the eternities that we have yet to be admitted to and of which the earthly patriarchal order may be practice? hm? "Those who receive the Melchizedek Priesthood covenant and promise, before God and angels, to magnify their callings, to “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God” (D & C 84:44) to marry for time and all eternity in the patriarchal order, and to live and serve as the Lord Jesus did in his life and ministry. In return the Lord covenants and promises to give them all that his Father hath, meaning eternal life, which is exaltation and godhood in that eternal realm where alone the family unit continues in eternity. In return the Lord admits them to his eternal patriarchal order, an order that prevails in the highest heaven of the celestial world, an order that assures its members of eternal increase, or in other words of spirit children in the resurrection." AND LATER "It is that we can enter an order of the priesthood named the new and everlasting covenant of marriage . . . , named also the patriarchal order, because of which order we can create for ourselves eternal units of our own, patterned after the family of God our Heavenly Father." ****nothing here about patriarchy being maleness, rather = marriage and family.

1994: "I also found in this church that the priesthood has a patriarchal order and that God is a God of order. He is at the head, and following this pattern, the priesthood is conferred upon worthy men so they can preside in their homes and families. The husband and father, a patriarch, is to preside in righteousness and exercise the power of his priesthood to bless his wife and family. The husband and wife serve as partners in governing their family, and both act in joint leadership and depend on each other. They are united in the vision of their eternal salvation, one holding the priesthood, the other honoring and enjoying the blessings of it. One is not superior or inferior to the other. Each one carries his or her respective responsibilities and acts in his or her respective role." * *** While it discusses complementary roles, it also states that men and women govern as partners. In this quote, the patriarch is emphasized as male, or more accurately, a father. The fatherhood part of the 'male-ness' is not negligible, i.e. males do not preside, fathers do (this is my riff, not what the quote is saying necessarily, or is it?).

1997: "Yours is the grand tradition of Eve, the mother of all the human family the one who understood that she and Adam had to fall in order that “men [and women] might be” and that there would be joy. Yours is the grand tradition of Sarah and Rebekah and Rachel, without whom there could not have been those magnificent patriarchal promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which bless us all. "

1999: "Parents have the primary responsibility for the welfare of their children.The Church does not replace that parental responsibility. Ideally, the Latter-day Saint family is presided over by a worthy man who holds the priesthood. This patriarchal authority has been honored among the people of God in all dispensations. It is of divine origin, and that union, if sealed by proper authority, will continue throughout eternity. He who is the Father of us all and the source of this authority demands that governance in the home be in love and righteousness.You fathers can help with the dishes, care for a crying baby, and change a diaper. And perhaps some Sunday you could get the children ready for Church, and your wife could sit in the car and honk . . . Ours is the responsibility to ensure that we have family prayer, scripture study, and family home evening. Ours is the responsibility to prepare our children to receive the ordinances of salvation and exaltation and the blessings promised to tithe payers. Ours is the privilege to bestow priesthood blessings of healing, comfort, and direction. The home is the great laboratory of love." ****Oddly enough, in order to be a patriarch, one does 'women's work'. By now, as I am reading these things, I am able to say that the patriarchal order is both parents, but a patriarch is of course the father (=maleness). But that would be only half of the order. So to define the phrase and the principle, you have to understand the other half (matriarch or mother). In other words . . . I, as a woman (wife, mother) don't enter the patriarchal order ONLY so that the man can be who is meant to be, but so that I can be who I am meant to be, also . . . both of us together and with our children. I enter the patriarchal order to obtain MY authority as a mother as well as men obtaining their authority as patriarchs.

2004: "The patriarchal order runs from Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob. Through the line of the priesthood it continues in our own day and time. Through the ages, blessings and promises were given from the fathers to their faithful sons." Those blessings are . . . a wife, a children, a family, an eternity.

2004: Oddly enough, ha ha, a requote of Joseph F. Smith's words (see 1972).

= = = = =

I haven't yet answered the CFR on the patriarchy, but what I had in mind was how the Romans (and maybe the Greeks) ordered their households and treated their women. And how we still have the legacy of that today.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Maidservant

[TruthSeeker24]

Thanks for explaining your view on family finances TruthSeeker. I still don't know how you would expect a wife demonstrates subservience to a husband in a practical, daily-life situation. I guess it's the notion of being lead in all things/being allowed freedom to do X. I don't understand how that works out in the real world.

I can understand your concern on how this method of life would be able to be performed in today's society. However, if both the husband and the wife hold the same view, its rather quite simple really, as in my case. I married a woman with the same view on the matter so the issues are quite easy to deal with.

[Sine Saw Square]

Glad you and your wife are in harmony. Not much in life is more miserable when you aren't.

[wenglund]

However, if both the husband and the wife hold the same view, its rather quite simple really, as in my case. I married a woman with the same view on the matter so the issues are quite easy to deal with.

Like Sine, I am glad you and your wife are in harmony at this time. And, as long as you each allow for growth, and protect against the increased vulnerabilities of unhealthy dependency and co-dependency, and fill your home with love and peace and together have an eye single to God, you will be just fine, and I pray for that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker24]

Like Sine, I am glad you and your wife are in harmony at this time. And, as long as you each allow for growth, and protect against the increased vulnerabilities of unhealthy dependency and co-dependency, and fill your home with love and peace and together have an eye single to God, you will be just fine, and I pray for that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you very much. I agree.

[Deborah]

I married a woman with the same view on the matter so the issues are quite easy to deal with.

That may be so at present but I almost can guarantee you it will not always be so. It's surprising how much experience changes such simple views.

[TruthSeeker24]

That may be so at present but I almost can guarantee you it will not always be so. It's surprising how much experience changes such simple views.

Very true. Things always evolve and change after experiences. We've been married for going on 2 years now and we've had to alter a lot of our views.

[Uther]

I think this topic is loaded more with culture than with religion..

[TruthSeeker24]

I think this topic is loaded more with culture than with religion..

I agree. I was raised in a different culture than the average american citizen.