Old School Patriarchy

[wenglund]

Sorry, I thought the answer was clear. You asked if a body can have two heads. I gave the example of one body - the Buckeye family - that has two heads and works just fine.

I appreciate you clearing that up. I am just wondering why God created our physical bodies with just one head if two heads work better or are fine?

The bride-groom analogy of Christ and the church also works, but in my opinion it is a temporal arrangement that will be removed once we attain the "whole measure of the fullnes of Christ". The analogy is just that, an analogy. It has its limits. I don't believe Christ meant to teach that women cannot preside alongside their husbands. Such an idea was inconceivable for the culture at the time. [Remember, this was the same culture in which Paul taught against women speaking the church]. The real message of the Christ's analogy is that men should love their wives as Christ loved the church. That teaching remains, regardless of whether the husband presides over his wife or not.

I respectfully disagree with your assumption about temporality and the limits you placed on the analogy. As I see it, Christ has reached his fullness, and yet he is subordinate to his Father. I see no problem with that notion of subordination, nor do I have a problem with wives being similarly subordinate to husbands, or counselors subordinate to bishops and stake presidents, or members subordinate to the prophet, etc. The patriarchal order seems to me to be perfectly consistent with the principle of fullness of love and oneness.

I can respect, though, if others may see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

such a terrible misrepresentation of the Temple, and no reason to hide behind small font, just say it loud and proud that you think the LDS Temple is where men and woman are taught that women must be subjegated to men.

You're right in that "subjegated" is the wrong word. Subordination is more fitting.

At least the temple wording is not as audacious as the KJV rendering.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Senator

[mercyngrace]

Since Ephesians keeps getting mentioned, maybe we should look at these verses in context. There are 13 verses in the section of chapter five that address the marital relationship. The first, verse 21, commands mutual submission in righteousness.

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

The second verse reiterates the wife's responsibility to submit to her husband as she would unto the Lord

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

And ten of the next eleven verses outline the husband's role.

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.

He is to save his wife as Christ saves the church.

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

Wives are subject to their husbands as he obeys the Lord.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

He is to love and give himself for her. Imagine the devotion this level of self-sacrifice would engender in a wife.

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

He is to labor to save, and sanctify his wife as Christ did for all of us.

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

He is to raise his wife up - cherish her, such that she is exalted before God, just as Christ does with His church.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

He is to love her as he loves himself - his love for her revealing how he feels about himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

His desire is to preserve his wife, nourish her love and spirituality, cherish her.

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

If a man loves his wife in this way, he's going to be living the principles in D&C 121 and the promise there is that compulsory means won't be necessary to bind his loved ones to him.

So not only is mutual submission the start of this sermonette, the bulk of the exhortations are directed at husbands. I don't think this is any kind of justification for dominion. Rather it is an invitation to unity through the principles of the priesthood.

Edited April 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[divinenature]

You're right in that "subjegated" is the wrong word. Subordination is more fitting.

At least the temple wording is not as audacious of the KJV rendering.

sub·or·di·nate

adjective

1.placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

2.of less importance; secondary.

3.subject to or under the authority of a superior.

4.subservient or inferior.

5.subject; dependent.

Edited April 11, 2012 by divinenature

[Evangeline]

sub·or·di·nate

adjective

1.placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

2.of less importance; secondary.

3.subject to or under the authority of a superior.

4.subservient or inferior.

5.subject; dependent.

Ouch.

[Pahoran]

Ouch.

Jesus doesn't seem to have minded being subordinate to the Father. If it's good enough for Him, I hope we can stand it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Wives are subject to their husbands as he obeys the Lord.

This fits definition #3 (noun) above for the word "subordinate." Is that a problem for anyone?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[divinenature]

Jesus doesn't seem to have minded being subordinate to the Father. If it's good enough for Him, I hope we can stand it.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm sure it isn't too difficult for a man to stand. I am equally sure that being subordinate to the god of the universe is not the same as being subordinate to your life partner.

[divinenature]

This fits definition #3 (noun) above for the word "subordinate." Is that a problem for anyone?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

*raises hand*

[Pahoran]

I'm sure it isn't too difficult for a man to stand.

Being subordinate? Of course it isn't.

That's because we're just getting on with the job, instead of obsessing about whether we're getting our way all of the time.

I am equally sure that being subordinate to the god of the universe is not the same as being subordinate to your life partner.

It seems to me that being subordinate is being subordinate. And all of us are going to be subordinate to someone.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

No. You do not.

What's wrong with Ephesians?

Regards,

Pahoran

I have issues with pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal writings...especially when they don't reflect the authentic writings of a specific author. For six out of the 13 Pauline epistles, I apply heavy textual and redaction criticism.

[mercyngrace]

This fits definition #3 (noun) above for the word "subordinate." Is that a problem for anyone?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, definition #3 says "subject to or under the authority of a superior."

The last three words provide a fairly comprehensive loophole, Wade.

[Pahoran]

I have issues with pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal writings...especially when they don't reflect the authentic writings of a specific author. For six out of the 13 Pauline epistles, I apply heavy textual and redaction criticism.

What's your criteria for detecting "pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal writings?" Those that teach other than you would wish?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

What's your criteria for detecting "pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal writings?" Those that teach other than you would wish?

Regards,

Pahoran

If the inauthentic writings fail to consistently (amongst themselves) carry the style, tone and theology of the 7 consistent letters then we have issues. I don't fault anyone who finds the writings inspirational but they just don't seem to fit right. A good reference for this is Raymond E. Brown's book "An Introduction to the New Testament". The same methods I use plus that of dating the documents are of the same disciplines formerly taught by Brown and Metzger and currently taught by Ehrman.

And try to avoid snarky questions intended to bait me. If you want to ask a serious question great but please don't take shots. It reminds me of an Acts 29 guy who has a discussion group with like-minded believers whom likes to set up the discussion so that their arguments win and also snidely take shots at those who disagree with them. It's poor apologetics.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Valentinus

[Pahoran]

If the inauthentic writings fail to consistently (amongst themselves) carry the style, tone and theology of the 7 consistent letters then we have issues. I don't fault anyone who finds the writings inspirational but they just don't seem to fit right. A good reference for this is Raymond E. Brown's book "An Introduction to the New Testament". The same methods I use plus that of dating the documents are of the same disciplines formerly taught by Brown and Metzger and currently taught by Ehrman.

And try to avoid snarky questions intended to bait me. If you want to ask a serious question great but please don't take shots. It reminds me of an Acts 29 guy who has a discussion group with like-minded believers whom likes to set up the discussion so that their arguments win and also snidely take shots at those who disagree with them. It's poor apologetics.

What is an "Acts 29 guy?" There are 28 chapters in Acts.

And I'm sorry if you feel "baited," but it seems odd that your methodology conveniently excludes texts that contain moral teachings you might find incompatible with your present views.

And that you are demanding scholarly rigour while failing entirely to address the plain fact that every single time homosexual behaviour is mentioned in the Scriptures, it is unequivocally condemned.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

What is an "Acts 29 guy?" There are 28 chapters in Acts.

And I'm sorry if you feel "baited," but it seems odd that your methodology conveniently excludes texts that contain moral teachings you might find incompatible with your present views.

And that you are demanding scholarly rigour while failing entirely to address the plain fact that every single time homosexual behaviour is mentioned in the Scriptures, it is unequivocally condemned.

Regards,

Pahoran

You're not in the US right? I don't know if Acts 29 is popular in your area. Acts 29 is a Calvinistic Reformed movement dedicated to a rigid and somewhat unfounded theological basis centered in ultra-conservative protestant orthodoxy.

Your assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is unfounded. See my previous post on Hebrew and Greek terminology and my explanation of historical context and culture.

[Saints Alive]

How did a question about patriarchy turn into a debate about homosexuality in the bible? It appears to me that those with an agenda are hijacking threads to advocate their unorthodox opinions.

[Buckeye]

I appreciate you clearing that up. I am just wondering why God created our physical bodies with just one head if two heads work better or are fine?

Maybe becasue we evolved that way.

In seriousness, though, I think you're overreading the analogy. Christ also compared the church to a "body". If we take that literally, it should be impossible to release someone from one church calling and put them into another calling. You can't cut off your finger and use it as a liver. Such reasoning if flawed, of course, because the Christ's comparison of the church to a body is just an analogy and all analogies have limits.

I respectfully disagree with your assumption about temporality and the limits you placed on the analogy. As I see it, Christ has reached his fullness, and yet he is subordinate to his Father. I see no problem with that notion of subordination, nor do I have a problem with wives being similarly subordinate to husbands, or counselors subordinate to bishops and stake presidents, or members subordinate to the prophet, etc. The patriarchal order seems to me to be perfectly consistent with the principle of fullness of love and oneness.

I can respect, though, if others may see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm glad we can respectfully disagree. In my view, it makes sense for someone to preside over another is that person is, for lack of a better phrase, "further down the path." So Lehi can preside over his family and lead them to the tree of life because he's farther along than them. That's currently true of our relationship with God. I expect it will remain so in the eternities, but I'm not certain.

However, in the husband-wife relationship, I do not consider myself further progressed than my wife. She is leading me to heaven to the same degree that I am leading her (often more). So neither of us presides over the other.

That said, I'm not counseling others as to how to run their marriages. Just pointing out what works for the Buckeyes.

[wenglund]

Actually, definition #3 says "subject to or under the authority of a superior."

The last three words provide a fairly comprehensive loophole, Wade.

To me, it is the first two words of the definition #3, along with the conditional "or", that make the word "subordinate" perfectly compatible with your quote from Ephesians. However, I may be seeing it that way because humility inclines me to not look for loopholes. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 11, 2012 by wenglund

[LDS_RM]

not sure about the squabbling over these bible verse. The original post made no mention of rivhteousness, rather the original post simply stated being subjected to a husband in all things.

Those argueing in favor of subordinate or subjection, do you beloved such is conditional upon the others righteousness? Senator and Saints alive you both still have portrayed Temple sealings correctly.

[LDS_RM]

HAVE NOT portrayed the Temple correctly

what's up with not being allowed to edited posts

[TruthSeeker24]

Thank you LDS_RM for putting this post back on track lol. I am in favor of the wife being subject to the husband, but I'm not quite sure what your trying to say about that belief. Would you mind re-wording it for me so I can understand better? Thank you

[Senator]

However, I may be seeing it that way because humility inclines me to not look loopholes. LOL

[wenglund]

Those arguing in favor of subordinate or subjection, do you beloved such is conditional upon the others righteousness?

I believe that one is not subordinate to unrighteousness, but righteousness subordinates us to righteousness.

Perhaps a more acceptable term than "subordinate" or "subject to" may be humility and meekness and charity.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 11, 2012 by wenglund

[Senator]

not sure about the squabbling over these bible verse. The original post made no mention of rivhteousness, rather the original post simply stated being subjected to a husband in all things.

Senator and Saints alive you both still have portrayed Temple sealings correctly.

Frankly, I wasn't speaking to the sealing cerimony, although it too has wording indicating a certain subordination. The endowment however is more clearly stated.

How have I not portrayed these correctly?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Senator