Old School Patriarchy

[Calm]

Alma 1:26

26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.

======

The priest "presides" and yet is viewed as equal to those he presided over in the above verse.

=======

2 Ne 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Edited April 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Bluebell actually gave the farm away when she noted her main concern was status.

Sorry, Cal, the priest did not preside, he merely taught.

It sounds like MorningStar also has a very wise priesthood holder for a husband.

As an aside, if it were permitted, I would point out certain features of the ceremonies when you sisters were sealed to your husbands. The hierarchical nature of marriage within the gospel is consistently portrayed.

I do believe God makes us all mates which fulfill our needs. If you need to be in charge, you'll have a mate that will let you believe that you are. Or the opposite, or neither, if needed.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[mercyngrace]

But that's not really fair, is it? Men have bodies, too. I think the power of God is given to men and women through the gift of the Holy Ghost. Priesthood is the administrative responsibility of the power, related to "being." Women's spiritual responsibilities are tied nurturing or "becoming."

MnG might have been relaying the typical LDS answer that giving birth is the female equivelant to having the priesthood.

Thanks BB, that's exactly what I was doing - relaying the typical LDS answer.

As to whether it's fair, well, that's kind of in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It's so heartwarming to see all the Real Men in this thread defending the church from that sissy feminism nonsense about "equality" between genders!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XqZkOCEG8

[zielkee]

Thanks BB, that's exactly what I was doing - relaying the typical LDS answer.

As to whether it's fair, well, that's kind of in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

I knew what you were doing. I just meant the characterization isn't fair in general. I was arguing against the generality, and I'm glad you brought it up.

[zielkee]

I suppose if the Lord asked someone to hold his coat, that person might think he was wonderful. But the Savior can simply take his coat back.

[bluebell]

Bluebell actually gave the farm away when she noted her main concern was status.

I see cheap shots are alive and well. Bravo. Way to be 'manly'!

[bluebell]

I already know, despite scripture, despite the endowments, that a hierarchy in marriage is anathema to you. Well, your husband must be a very wise priesthood holder.

Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? Shame me? Put me in my place?

You are right though. My husband is a wonderful and very wise priesthood holder. He's not at all intimidated by women and would never passively/aggressively insult one in his quest to prove his superiority as a priesthood holder. I'm actually going to go give him a big hug right now (and then let him read our conversation, as he'll get a laugh out of it for sure)

[mercyngrace]

As an aside, if it were permitted, I would point out certain features of the ceremonies when you sisters were sealed to your husbands. The hierarchical nature of marriage within the gospel is consistently portrayed.

The same give/take phrasing has been used throughout time in and out of the church (see Emily D!ckenson's Given in Marriage Unto Thee, as a non-LDS example). It is also used throughout the Bible regardless of whether polygamy was practiced despite the claim in some LDS circles that this wording is designed to allow a husband to "take" several wives but does not allow a wife the same opportunity (Joseph's polyandry providing clear evidence to the contrary).

Of course, I'm not positive that's what you meant.

If that is the wording to which you are referring, would you mind explaining exactly what you believe it indicates? Sincerely interested...

edit: Of for Pete's sake... crazy censors...

Edited April 13, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Messenger]

Its a partnership in my opinion. When things get out of whack is when one partner tries to run things when the other doesn't want that. I think what people forget is that the spouse comes first in the relationship. I think if both keep that in mind, then things will be worked out. However, this advice I am giving is based on observation, not personal experience! When one spouse thinks the marriage is theirs (or thinks its success is only theirs), that's when the trouble begins! You cant have a successful marriage with only one person pulling the load. You may find that one person is better at a particular item, and got it worked out to that person gets 90% of that item, but the other spouse will always have some input. However, critical things like finances, should be shared or split down the middle. JMHO

Edited April 13, 2012 by Messenger

[Log]

If that is the wording to which you are referring, would you mind explaining exactly what you believe it indicates? Sincerely interested...

No, it's not the wording. Board rules do not permit descriptions.

I see cheap shots are alive and well. Bravo. Way to be 'manly'!

It's not a cheap shot. It's literally true. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. OTOH, the "manly" crack is a cheap shot.

Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? Shame me? Put me in my place?

Neither one of the three. Thanks for accusing me again, though. It does the heart good to see such an example of charity.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[Deborah]

I am reminded of Valerie Hudson's The Two Trees: http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

As she says in this discussion: "Another thing that I am taught is that men and women are equals before the Lord and before each other. Now, don’t use the fallen world’s sense of the term “equal”—”equal” does not mean identical. Let’s face it, there are no two men who are identical, and yet they stand as equals before each other and before the Lord. Can we imagine an understanding of equality that means that a man and woman can be equals before the Lord and before each other? That is the vision of equality that the Restored Gospel teaches me."

[bluebell]

No, it's not the wording. Board rules do not permit descriptions.

It's not a cheap shot. It's literally true. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. OTOH, the "manly" crack is a cheap shot.

Neither one of the three. Thanks for accusing me again, though. It does the heart good to see such an example of charity.

You are really going down in flames. I think we're done.

[Messenger]

I see Borg assimilation ....

A two word sermon comes to mind .....

Edited April 13, 2012 by Messenger

[Log]

You are really going down in flames. I think we're done.

Yes, with both cheap shots and uncharitable accusations from you, I think "we" are done as well. Peace be unto ye.

Log has left the building.

[Log]

If that is the wording to which you are referring, would you mind explaining exactly what you believe it indicates? Sincerely interested...

There is a portion of the ordinances on the day of the sealing which involves the husband doing something first and acquiring a piece of information about his wife that his wife does not have about him and has no legitimate way to gain in this life. I hope that vague description meets the requirements of the board rules.

Make of that what you will, but the ordinances, and texts, consistently portray marriage in a hierarchical manner, with the husband as ... well, leader, at least insofar as he is indeed following the Father.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[mercyngrace]

There is a portion of the ordinances on the day of the sealing which involves the husband doing something first and acquiring a piece of information about his wife that his wife does not have about him and has no legitimate way to gain in this life. I hope that vague description meets the requirements of the board rules.

Make of that what you will, but the ordinances, and texts, consistently portray marriage in a hierarchical manner, with the husband as ... well, leader, at least insofar as he is indeed following the Father.

Ahhhh. Thanks for clearing that up, log.

[Senator]

Make of that what you will, but the ordinances, and texts, consistently portray marriage in a hierarchical manner, with the husband as ... well, leader, at least insofar as he is indeed following the Father.

They actually appear to portray a liaison or intermediary more than a leader.

[MorningStar]

I was wondering what people think about the relationship between a man and a woman in the gospel. I always felt that men needed to be more masculine and be the bread winners, while the wives became more feminine and became the house wife. Men should lead in ALL things pertaining to finances and the wife should be fully subjected to him in all manners. I do believe the woman's opinion should be considered always, but the choice should always lie with the man. I hear a lot of LDS guys say that their wife runs the house and that they learned to just do what the woman says. It makes me sad. Masculinity has become rare. Anyone else feel the same way? Any disagree?

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Husband and wife are partners and I don't find it masculine for a man to "be in charge" of everything. My husband was thrilled to have me do the finances because even as a bachelor, he had a hard time staying on top of it. He is very mechanically gifted, so I stay out of the way when it comes to that stuff, but if I were good at repairs, I would do it and he wouldn't care. And no, the choice should not always lie with the man.

[BlueDreams]

BD,

First let me say again that I am sympathetic to, and indeed do share the view you have expressed. What I am attempting to do is demonstrate my own wrestle with what I'm perceiving as a grinding of the gears -if you will- between a shift in an old perspective to a new one. The perspective that you've illustrated (and that I share) would be utterly foreign to cultures of the past, and perhaps even our own culture up to the advent of the gender movements. Simply stated, what you describe in you post is blantantly at odds with traditional scriptual depictions of gender relationships. And I believe that traditional view is demonstrated in the temple as well.

The best answer I can think of it by giving a contingent example within the scriptures. A couple of years ago, reading Ephesians made me cringe about submission. I also cringed a little at a talk by Julie B Beck, the family proclamation, among other things. The problem, though, wasn’t the scripture, it was how I was reading them. I had two very worldly lenses on: the first was the traditional role of women the second was my reactionary disgust I’m-just-as-good-as-any-boy and (I can do anything I want) fiercely independent lens. So in my mind those various things that describe male and female/spousal role were being interpreted by the expected traditional lens and then being reacted to by my punkish self. Being 2x4’d by humility and repentance and the temple changed that big time. I don’t think, in general, that these are necessarily traditional depictions, rather that traditionalism has hijacked their true meanings. I’m looking more and more nowadays less for what is expected on a worldly consensus but what God truly means and interpreting them from his view. Which is more difficult, because it means I need to see as He does....a life long pursuit. But the more I have, the more I understand, the better it gets. So I’m not apt to change things to fit how I see them. When there’s something I don’t understand about the temple, scripture, etc I assume I don’t fully understand yet and that in time He’ll help me see. It’s exciting because I feel like I’m reclaiming what has been and continues to be lost to many, many women for so many years: our worth and our (equal) role to God on earth. And it has come from removing anything that does not fit God’s foundational teachings, what He’s personally taught me about myself as a woman, and how these must fit in the social order of Zion.

The veil….I thin BB did a good job of explaining thing. I don’t understand it yet, but to me I think it is connected to the other one. To me, the interpretation you’ve given is based on a worldly lens.

Have to go, busy day….

With luv,

BD

[wenglund]

Log has left the building.

Speaking of "equality," has bluebell left the building as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The best answer I can think of it by giving a contingent example within the scriptures. A couple of years ago, reading Ephesians made me cringe about submission. I also cringed a little at a talk by Julie B Beck, the family proclamation, among other things. The problem, though, wasn’t the scripture, it was how I was reading them. I had two very worldly lenses on: the first was the traditional role of women the second was my reactionary disgust I’m-just-as-good-as-any-boy and (I can do anything I want) fiercely independent lens. So in my mind those various things that describe male and female/spousal role were being interpreted by the expected traditional lens and then being reacted to by my punkish self. Being 2x4’d by humility and repentance and the temple changed that big time. I don’t think, in general, that these are necessarily traditional depictions, rather that traditionalism has hijacked their true meanings. I’m looking more and more nowadays less for what is expected on a worldly consensus but what God truly means and interpreting them from his view. Which is more difficult, because it means I need to see as He does....a life long pursuit. But the more I have, the more I understand, the better it gets. So I’m not apt to change things to fit how I see them. When there’s something I don’t understand about the temple, scripture, etc I assume I don’t fully understand yet and that in time He’ll help me see. It’s exciting because I feel like I’m reclaiming what has been and continues to be lost to many, many women for so many years: our worth and our (equal) role to God on earth. And it has come from removing anything that does not fit God’s foundational teachings, what He’s personally taught me about myself as a woman, and how these must fit in the social order of Zion.

The veil….I thin BB did a good job of explaining thing. I don’t understand it yet, but to me I think it is connected to the other one. To me, the interpretation you’ve given is based on a worldly lens.

Have to go, busy day….

With luv,

BD

Nicely said. We would all do well to emulate it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Speaking of "equality," has bluebell left the building as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apples and sour grapes.

[wenglund]

Apples and sour grapes.

I see it as more like crab apples and sour grapes. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I am wondering if the perceived aversion to hierarchies, including those potentially in families and marriages, may be from mistakenly viewing hierarchies as indicative of personal worth and/or as a means of control and power, rather than, as I believe was intended, as a means of effective administration, accountability, and order, and as a mechanism for clearly establishing familial ties and apportioning due inheritances.

I don't think it coincidental or untoward that the scriptures speak of the patriarchal order--which, as I understand things, is an eternal order and the order of heaven. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-