Old School Patriarchy

[TruthSeeker24]

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-

I understand where your coming from I think. I guess I just kind of feel like people place a negative value on words such as "subject" or "subordinate," when I personally don't see why they should. There's nothing wrong with being subordinate in the least. I'm subordinate to my Dad, and I would still be so even if he wasn't that good of a man. But that's just my personal opinion I guess. I don't want to offend anyone, but I believe a wife should be subject to her husband even in the case of unrighteous dominion. Now thats not to say that she should just "suck it up" and deal with it. I think she should talk with him about it, pray to God to change the husbands ways, and if those don't work, then take it to proper priesthood authority for further handling. But through it all, I still think she should remain subject to the husband.

[BlueDreams]

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 loopholes. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or you're reading it wrong. I (and I assume DN) am reading it like this:

"subject to" or "under the authority of" a superior

You are apparently reading it like this:

"Subject to" or "under the autority of a superior"

"Subject to" begs the question of what/who (there's a noun missing, where it is specific to the other half of the definition of whose authority one is under). The first though allows either to be a complete idea. "Subject to a superior" works as a complete thought. And "under the authority of a superior" also works as a complete thought.

As for whether women are subordinate to men (especially in marriage). I'm going to be extremely blunt: I think that's stupid. "subordinate"/"subjugate" and "women" are never found in the same sentence within scripture. Modern prophets/ga's have called such ideas false or nonsense. And talks I found that mentioned the idea usually worked to rectify that falsehood.

As for it being apart of the temple, that's far more moronic. The temple ceremony, IMHO is one of the most beautiful and empowering place for both genders. Describing it as so, shows a deep lack of understanding of the temple.

Anyone can diverge from that opinion and state that wives are subordinate/subjugated to their husbands. It's a free country. But I won't lie: I won't respect it as equally valid, especially as something as supposedly propped up by the lds faith. It's not.

With luv,

BD

Edited April 11, 2012 by BlueDreams

[TruthSeeker24]

BlueDreams: I value your view. What about what earlier propets and leaders taught?

[BlueDreams]

BlueDreams: I value your view. What about what earlier propets and leaders taught?

Doesn't matter. Period. People aren't perfect. People have held false beliefs and done things that weren't right. We concede to greater understanding and light and follow after that. Good things, past or present, we treasure. Wrong things, past or present, we let go of.

With luv,

BD

Edited April 11, 2012 by BlueDreams

[TruthSeeker24]

Ok I do agree with that much

[Senator]

As for it being apart of the temple, that's far more moronic. The temple ceremony, IMHO is one of the most beautiful and empowering place for both genders. Describing it as so, shows a deep lack of understanding of the temple.

Hold on there BD. First of all I happen to share you feelings on the matter. However, I am trying to demonstrate that the temple ritual does contain the idea of subordination. I don't think its moronic to see such . Do I lack a deep understanding of the temple? ....that's entirely possible

[wenglund]

I understand where your coming from I think. I guess I just kind of feel like people place a negative value on words such as "subject" or "subordinate," when I personally don't see why they should.

I can understand the discomfort with the words--a possible by-product of unrighteous dominion throughout the past and/or modern-day pride.

The good news to me is, the words aren't what is important, but rather living Christ-like lives (see MnG's earlier post).

There's nothing wrong with being subordinate in the least.

Agreed.

...but I believe a wife should be subject to her husband even in the case of unrighteous dominion. Now thats not to say that she should just "suck it up" and deal with it. I think she should talk with him about it, pray to God to change the husbands ways, and if those don't work, then take it to proper priesthood authority for further handling. But through it all, I still think she should remain subject to the husband.

That is certainly something to consider, though I think it places too much importance on the precept of "subordination" and not enough importance on significant matters like Christ-like living and doing what is best and what works. I like what Buckeye had to say earlier in this regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker24]

I like your thoughts Wenglund

[Senator]

I believe a wife should be subject to her husband even in the case of unrighteous dominion.

I disagree. As soon as there is any unrighteous dominion, the priesthood of the husband becomes as ash, and the wife is no longer obligated to "hearken to the council" of her husband.

[TruthSeeker24]

I disagree. As soon as there is any unrighteous dominion, the priesthood of the husband becomes as ash, and the wife is no longer obligated to "hearken to the council" of her husband.

Hmmm, I guess I would agree if everything was black and white. But as most issues are pretty grey, I think there would be way to much conflict and strife in trying to determine what is exactly "unrighteous dominion" or "righteous dominion." A lot of it depends on each man's personal back ground, opinions, views, and methods of having been raised.

[divinenature]

I believe a wife should be subject to her husband even in the case of unrighteous dominion.

Do you believe that there is no such thing as spousal rape, then?

Why would a woman desire to make love to her master owner?

Edited April 11, 2012 by divinenature

[TruthSeeker24]

There's also more to consider than just "righteous" or "unrighteous" dominion. There's also things just having to do with choices. For example, lets say the husband wants FHE to be on Tuesdays because he knows he can get work off that day, but happens to work Sundays. But the wife doesn't like the idea of doing FHE on a day other than Sunday. If the husband, after considering her view and weighing the options, still finds that Tuesday is the better option, then thats the way it should be, no questions asked. At least thats how I feel.

[TruthSeeker24]

Do you believe that there is no such thing as spousal rape, then?

Why would a woman desire to make love to her master owner?

That's why I stated I believe that a woman should go through priesthood channels and get out of the relationship if its like that. And in cases of actual physical abuse, especially with kids, then I think she has the right to simply leave the guy, and I hope she would.

[Senator]

. But as most issues are pretty grey, I think there would be way to much conflict and strife in trying to determine what is exactly "unrighteous dominion" or "righteous dominion."

Not at all. Go by this:

"but when we undertake to ^acover our ^bsins, or to gratify our ^cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ^ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ^ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

A lot of it depends on each man's personal back ground, opinions, views, and methods of having been raised.

Totally irrelevant.

[Senator]

If the husband, after considering her view and weighing the options, still finds that Tuesday is the better option, then thats the way it should be, no questions asked. At least thats how I feel.

Do you sport a ring that your wife kneels to kiss?

(assuming your a man)

[TruthSeeker24]

Do you sport a ring that your wife kneels to kiss?

(assuming your a man)

Rude! lol Actually I don't have a ring lol.

[TruthSeeker24]

Not at all. Go by this:

"but when we undertake to ^acover our ^bsins, or to gratify our ^cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ^ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ^ewithdraw 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 the problem with that is in that that verse is something that mostly applies as an inner perspective. I'm not sure if I'm wording it right. Basically what I'm trying to say is that people can't really judge another person if their trying to cover their sins to gratify their pride. Life tends to be a lot more complicated than just looking at a scripture verse and saying "That's the answer."

[Senator]

Basically what I'm trying to say is that people can't really judge another person if their trying to cover their sins to gratify their pride.

Women/wives are quite keen to it.

That's been my experience.

[mercyngrace]

Life tends to be a lot more complicated than just looking at a scripture verse and saying "That's the answer."

Okay, take this sentiment and apply it to all the verses being discussed in this thread...

[TruthSeeker24]

Hahaha, you got me there Senator

[TruthSeeker24]

Okay, take this sentiment and apply it to all the verses being discussed in this thread...

Amen!

[mercyngrace]

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-

There's something innately funny about a person touting his own humility. Seriously Wade, you are cracking me up this week.

[TruthSeeker24]

Well thank you to everyone for your thoughts and opinions on this subject. It was appreciated

[mercyngrace]

Hold on there BD. First of all I happen to share you feelings on the matter. However, I am trying to demonstrate that the temple ritual does contain the idea of subordination. I don't think its moronic to see such . Do I lack a deep understanding of the temple? ....that's entirely possible

I agree that the idea of submission is in the temple ceremony however both male and female covenant to be subject to someone and the female's covenant contains the word "as" which introduces a release clause to her covenant. The male's covenant has no such out.

Edited April 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[TruthSeeker24]

I agree that the idea of submission is in the temple ceremony however both male and female covenant to be subject to someone and the female's covenant contains the word "as" which introduces a release clause to her covenant. The male's covenant has no such out.

That's interesting mercyngrace, because I've always believed that a woman had the right to leave her husband, but that the husband couldn't leave the woman. Its just a feeling I have, so don't ask me to back it up lol.