Old School Patriarchy

[Damien the Leper]

Ah yes. I missed your post to Valentinus. It's interesting that only Clement wrote that Paul had a wife but other ECF (Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, and Jerome, for example) state expressly that he did not. IIRC, Clement's argument was based solely on exegetical grounds using the same verse in Philippians. Seems Paul's marital status has been a matter of debate for quite some time.

Bad word choice - I'm filling out reports for work and coming here to relieve my stress in between painful piles of paperwork. Sorry.

Clement's speculation on the matter reminds me of John Shelby Spong's speculation that Paul was a self-loathing homosexual (see The Sin of Scripture). I disagree with both premises because of lack of evidence to support such an idea.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Even so, mature Saints will apply the principle of sufficient reason to declare this or that work fraudulent - and "OH NOES, people will think I'm a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot if I agree with scriptures or prophets!" is not a sufficient reason.

On the other hand, being a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot in the name of God and justified by the false traditions of the fathers is certainly no better.

Edited April 12, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Damien the Leper]

Even so, mature Saints will apply the principle of sufficient reason before declaring this or that work false - and "OH NOES, people will think I'm a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot if I agree with scriptures or prophets!" is not a sufficient reason to mature Saints.

Good thing that even though I don't agree with the scriptural interpretation and the LDS GAs position on the matter, I don't hold such an opinion that you describe here.

[Damien the Leper]

On the other hand, being a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot in the name of God and justified by the false traditions of the fathers is certainly no better.

Slam dunk!

[zielkee]

There are some funny changes of font mid-sentence. As if you had cut and pasted your claim from another site, or something.

I know of no-one who actually accepts Section 132 as Scripture and who interprets it as you do. The normal interpretation of verse 41 is that the clause "and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing" simply restates and re-emphasises the fact that the man in question is not the woman's husband.

And I find expressions like "power dynamics" to be indicative of a particular ideological bias.

Regards,

Pahoran

I pasted in the scripture. It seems plain to me that the entire chapter is about how if the Lord says do it, you do it. So, if a woman is with another man, and the Lord *has* appointed unto her by the holy annointing, then it would *not* be adultery. I recently read Valerie Hudson Cassler's book Women in Eternity Women of Zion, in which she claims that section 132 is about the Lord providing a way out of polygamy. In verse 50, the Lord says, " I have seen your ^bsacrifices in obedience to that which I havetold you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I^caccepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac." It is important to recall the entire section is about the need to obey when the Lord commands. So, the next couple of phrases are really important. Verse 51 reads, "Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at yourhand, by covenant and sacrifice. So, the escape the Lord provides is revoking a commandment directed specifically toward Joseph's wife, Emma. The escape Cassler notices does not appear to be an escape out of polygamy. It is specific to releasing Emma from something the Lord commanded her to do. There is precedence in a woman being commanded by the Lord to marry a second husband; Heber Kimball was told by Joseph that his wife, Vilate, was to become Joseph's wife. It's a great story. That ended up being a test for that couple prior to them being sealed to each other.

(pasting in scripture is changing the font.)

[Maidservant]

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?

Hi . I love your ability to communicate mildly and kindly, and I appreciate how you are maintaining that through the discussion. However, I disagree with all of your viewpoints .

Having a uterus does not make me really good at doing dishes and and sweeping the floor (if that is what you mean by housewife). And if you haven't hired a maid to do the housework, I hope you never hire a car mechanic or a plumber to do those jobs (and maybe you don't if you're pretty handy).

Also I HATE STAYING HOME!!! I have to GO somewhere, sometime . . . work or shop or hiking or something . . . staying inside four walls . . . why? I will TAKE my kids anywhere with me and enjoy family time and teaching as we go, but I can't STAY HOME. Ha ha.

There are some really big assumptions here from my point of view. Some of which others have already touched on, such as that there is not just one set of definitions of masculine and feminine. Also the idea of "breadwinner" is tied up with the social and economic theory of capitalism, so what if that isn't the celestial idea of life or even the only alternative to social format on earth? Then what happens? Is it possible for you to be a man/masculine in the eternities, in the celestial kingdom, when you don't have a job to go to anymore and will be taking care of the kids 24/7 (kind of like Heavenly Father is doing now with us? )?

What are the limits to your decision making for your wife? I'm assuming that you are not standing over her while she peels potatos to make decisions on that, but if it's the checkbook, then you step in. Where do you find these lines about where you are supposed to decide for her and where you are not?

I never check to see if I am a woman or a man before I do things. I just do things based on who I am. I'm not married at the moment, but my 17 year old son cooks breakfast every morning, and I've even asked him not too (too many muffins!! he leaves the dishes for me! agh!) but he just doesn't listen and keeps baking. It would be really sad if I tied his obvious talent and enjoyment to some commentary on his manhood, which I would have thought I needed to do, say, if it was 20 years ago.

In Moses 5:1 it states that Adam and Eve labored together.

Does the body have two heads?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not feeling you here about using this image as the pattern for on-the-ground reality for marriage, but if you must, I think you will notice that a head has two eyes, two ears, two lips, two sides to the brain, etc. You really can't go missing on some of this stuff, or your head isn't functioning properly.

co-partnership

Oddly enough I don't really care about saying "equal", "partner", stuff like that, although this is all nice. Again, I am who I am. I will be with a man who will be who he is. And we will be who we are, together. Based upon charity.

Jesus taught leadership by the washing of feet. So we must wash each others' feet. The servant leader.

I will disclose that I am completing confused by the term presiding, so I don't know what to do with it in my life. But I'm not confused about two human beings who bind themselves in a love and sexual and family relationship ought to be able to handle with each other.

That is the ideal that we all desire to attain. However, let us suppose that a husband and wife are not perfectly united - one in each other as Christ is one with the Father - which of the two should direct? For surely there shall be movement, and if there is not unity on the direction, then one will shall prevail.

If two people---just two people! that's not very many!--can't agree on all essential issues, then they have no business being married. Having one of them make decisions over the top of the other is not a fix. If two people are already married and find that they can't agree, then they need to head to counseling or therapy--not cede their agency to the other.

Christ grants all agency to his children. He makes no decisions for them. The Father grants all agency to his children. He makes no decisions for them. So this IS the type, after all . If those in our stewardships--husbands, wives, children--have had their agency truncated by us, then we have fallen that much short of following the example of the Father.

If I permit myself to enter marriage with the understand that it is a condition of slavery for me (golden, silken threads), then I have denied the most sacred gifts my father gave me. And I will not participate in such a system.

Eh..hem...

In the temple.....

There are a lot of things in the temple.

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.

And the funny thing is, the determiner of the worthiness of her husband of whether he is following the Father . . . is? That's a lot of authority! And if one is thinking along these lines, not one to be done lightly, of course. But I don't think I need to be marrying a man of whom I should be worrying on this, nor checking up on him, nor putting that pressure on him, etc etc. I think we can be friends, lovers, and the nourishers of our children.

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.

I hope your wife agrees. If she does, there's no problem.

I agree.

One other thought along the lines of SaintsAlive's statement that he acts as the first point of contact in formal outside communications. In pondering over the endowment drama, one notices that once Eve is placed under covenant to hearken to her husband, she no longer speaks throughout the rest of the presentation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Interesting....

Which also coincides with their entry into the telestial kingdom. I noticed this a looooong time ago, and I have been thinking on this for a looooooooooooong time, arriving at some insights perhaps, but I know I haven't figured it all out. If you use chiasmus (the last shall be first, and the first shall be last), then it's possible to see that in order for us to return to the celestial condition, the woman's "mouth" (and all that represents) must again become unloosed. As I understand it.

If Eve making the decision she made is seen as a mistake or a bad decision (which I don't), then her talking is or can be seen as a mistake. If her decision is seen as wise, and part of salvation, etc, etc, then her talking is or can be seen as something we would want to recover in order for there to be continued progression. So much in that. Another thread perhaps.

Protect, Provide, and Lead basically.

Awesome, none of which involve subjugation.

Of course I let my wife pump gas. She often wants to because its a lot quieter outside than it is sitting in the van with the kids. I also let my 5 year old daugher hold the door for me and her brothers. She thinks its fun and outruns them for the chance to hold the door.

Um . . . . do you have a single brother?

Very interesting. I don't think she speaks again but I don't know that such can be directly attributed to the covenant.

It's unutterably important in my view and temple learning. Ha ha, of course you might notice in at least one of the film versions, she also gives eye contact to Adam even during her silence, it's rather hilarious to me.

As I said earlier, there is a lot in the temple. The temple is presented in stages and there are progressions, and it might be worth understanding what should happen when; and what should be left behind when (if anything). Not saying I know it all, of course, but that is kind of what I am trying to figure out. And what happens in the celestial room and the condition of men and women there, and right before that?

Anyway . . . I don't consider myself to be in subjection to God either, by the way. I don't think he asks me for that. I absolutely will not subject myself to anything or anyone, including my own faults, trying to become free from such things.

Also try D&C 132:20 and 76:60. D&C 121:6 "without compulsory means"

There is so much to say. It's an endless subject. Certainly I would love a husband who I can follow naturally due to my unending admiration of him. But that would be partially because I trust him and he trusts me . . . not about who is making decisions. Also how about bits like . . . what does "rule" as used in English in the Genesis really mean? What does the original language say and how does that change our paradigm regarding men and women. I think you are a loving, sincere man@ the OP . . . so maybe you and your wife would enjoy a thorough search of all scriptures, prophets, temple learning, praying to God for revelation . . . really make a deep study and see what happens .

[Pahoran]

Personally, I think the beautiful poetry shared between lovers in the Song of Solomon is far more inspired and emblematic of the purposes of God than, say, the details of Joshua's campaigns to murder infants, the dismembering of the woman into twelve pieces in Judges 19, or Elisha's cursing of the kids teasing his baldness to be eaten by ravenous she-bears. To name just a few of the horrors found in our "good" book.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

I also rather prefer Joseph Smith's view of the scriptures as very fallible and open to questioning despite being extremely valuable. As he said, "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Indeed, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

There is plenty of space for the possibility of pseudepigrapha, less-than-trustworthy sources, and even outright fabrications included in the canon, within the "default position" of faithful and "believing Latter-Day Saints."

Sure there is; if and only if we receive specific revelation (through the Lord's appointed servants) to that effect.

In the meantime, just because a couple of Germans who didn't believe any part of the Bible to contain actual revealed truth have decided that Paul didn't write three of his letters, doesn't mean that we get to just conveniently toss the accepted, authoritative moral teachings they contain. Sorry.

On the other hand, being a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot in the name of God and justified by the false traditions of the fathers is certainly no better.

Likewise, being a homophiliac, race-baiting, presentist bigot in the name of political correctness is not only no better either, it's more cowardly with it.

Not that I've actually met a homophiliac, race-baiting, presentist bigot in the name of political correctness; just like you haven't met a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot in the name of God and justified by the false traditions of the fathers either, have you?

What you have met are Latter-day Saints who uphold the revealed moral teaching of the Church.

Which teaching is not in doubt.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

In the meantime, just because a couple of Germans who didn't believe any part of the Bible to contain actual revealed truth have decided that Paul didn't write three of his letters, doesn't mean that we get to just conveniently toss the accepted, authoritative moral teachings they contain. Sorry.

Wow! What a nice way to condescendingly attempt to diminish the value of an argument. Do you actually have a real argument?

[Pahoran]

Wow! What a nice way to condescendingly attempt to diminish the value of an argument. Do you actually have a real argument?

Valentinus,

If someone who accepts that revealed truth has priority over his sexual preferences wants to start a thread to discuss this question in good faith, I'll consider participating.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Zielkee, just for future reference, you can eliminate the font changes by clicking that little button to the left of the eraser on the top line of the blue box in which you reply/post a comment.

(Sadly, I have no names for all these message board features, discovering them all by chance through trial and error and knowing very little of the associated jargon. I'm afraid I just posted the equivalent of "click that thingy". Hopefully, you can figure out what I mean or someone else can explain it better...)

Edited April 12, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Calm]

Zielkee, just for future reference, you can eliminate the font changes by clicking that little button to the left of the eraser on the top line of the blue box in which you reply/post a comment.

Bless you for saying this, importing of code has been driving me mad lately. Seems to be much more automatic than it used to be and I hate to go back and edit a perfectly good post except for the excess of code...

Its name is, I suppose, what it labels itself which is "remove format".

Edited April 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[zielkee]

Zielkee, just for future reference, you can eliminate the font changes by clicking that little button to the left of the eraser on the top line of the blue box in which you reply/post a comment.

(Sadly, I have no names for all these message board features, discovering them all by chance through trial and error and knowing very little of the associated jargon. I'm afraid I just posted the equivalent of "click that thingy". Hopefully, you can figure out what I mean or someone else can explain it better...)

Thanks for the instruction!

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

You're roughly two generations, perhaps three, behind the times in your attitude.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

If someone who accepts that revealed truth has priority over his sexual preferences wants to start a thread to discuss this question in good faith, I'll consider participating.

Regards,

Pahoran

When did I make this thread on patriarchy about sexual preferences? It is apparent what your agenda is.

[BlueDreams]

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

Sorry, this is now quite old and I haven't had the chance to read much of it. But I thought I'd answer this quickly. I think there is a confusion between the use of submit and subordination. Subordination assumes a hierarchy, which can't work considering the emphasis about equality in marriage. Power in a marriage relationships shouldn't be verticle but horizontal. Men and women have equal power that both are called to submit to (as pointed out in ephesians)....ie interdependence. It has also been pointed out about wording of hearkening. The question that comes to my mind, is how is it decided that the husband's listening to God? I don't think it's just a loophole, I think it's a responsibilty that leads to mutually looking out for each other in order to strengthen the relationship between the couple and God. Thus "submit" to me equivelates to a relationship of earnest listening and communication between spouces to assure that they are maintaining their covenants to each other and God. It does not insist on who has the authority or the power, but using equally empowered individuals the bring power to their families, relationships, communities, and their relationship with God.

If either person bows out of their responsibility...if the husband fails to listen to God, if he dominates his wife; if the wife refuses to speak up when her husband is in the wrong, or if she refuses to ever take her husband seriously when he is earnestly seeking the Lord... then the marriage has lost its power. They are not truly one.

So no, there is not subordination. Subordination assume a higher or more powerful partner between the two. There isn't one between husband and wife. The only possible link to subordination in the temple, is us as fallen men/women to God.

With luv,

BD

[LDS_RM]

You're roughly two generations, perhaps three, behind the times in your attitude.

good call there. truthseeker, as the person demanding that your potential wife be subjected to you in all things, what is your Doctrinal basis? Can you support your demand with the teachings of the Church?

[wenglund]

Anyway . . . I don't consider myself to be in subjection to God either, by the way. I don't think he asks me for that. I absolutely will not subject myself to anything or anyone, including my own faults, trying to become free from such things.

That is an interesting perspective coming from someone with the screen name of "maidservant."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BlueDreams]

I don't know that those specific words are found in the scriptures at all.

Subordinate is. I love LDS.org. It makes finding words in the scripture so easy. That's how I did it in the first place.

Yet, the words "subject to," "subjection," "submit," "servant," "obey," and other words that intimate lines of authority and/or lines of ordinations (including sub-ordinations), are found in the scriptures, including in relation to women. Do you consider these to be "stupid" as well?

Servant is not used (again, according to lds.org's word search) in correlation with describing relationships between wives and husband. I think it's important to note that. The reason I find the idea of subordination, stupid is because it is a common false belief in my mind that has led to a lot of pain and troubles in the world. There has been an unneccesary tie of power to a form of hierarchy in relationships that we see in national governments, business, the church, etc. There's a chain of command to sort of speak. And sure, good governing bodies will often take heed of those they have power over, but the relationships still is affected by the power structure, how one communicates, etc. This is, of course the best case scenerio. The worse entail various forms of abuse and inequity between genders/spouces in decision making.

Again, what is important here aren't the specific words, but the meaning being conveyed.

Even more important to me is, my setting aside pride and concern about station and authority, and humbly following the Master and becoming the servant of all, and loosing myself in the service of others--including in my current and possible future roles as son, brother, friend, neighbor, husband, and father.

Same reasoning for me.....different conclusions

With luv,

BD

[Log]

Does male = female?

Does male + priesthood = female?

If male + priesthood = female, then male < female.

[TruthSeeker24]

Hi . I love your ability to communicate mildly and kindly, and I appreciate how you are maintaining that through the discussion. However, I disagree with all of your viewpoints .

Having a uterus does not make me really good at doing dishes and and sweeping the floor (if that is what you mean by housewife). And if you haven't hired a maid to do the housework, I hope you never hire a car mechanic or a plumber to do those jobs (and maybe you don't if you're pretty handy).

Also I HATE STAYING HOME!!! I have to GO somewhere, sometime . . . work or shop or hiking or something . . . staying inside four walls . . . why? I will TAKE my kids anywhere with me and enjoy family time and teaching as we go, but I can't STAY HOME. Ha ha.

There are some really big assumptions here from my point of view. Some of which others have already touched on, such as that there is not just one set of definitions of masculine and feminine. Also the idea of "breadwinner" is tied up with the social and economic theory of capitalism, so what if that isn't the celestial idea of life or even the only alternative to social format on earth? Then what happens? Is it possible for you to be a man/masculine in the eternities, in the celestial kingdom, when you don't have a job to go to anymore and will be taking care of the kids 24/7 (kind of like Heavenly Father is doing now with us? )?

What are the limits to your decision making for your wife? I'm assuming that you are not standing over her while she peels potatos to make decisions on that, but if it's the checkbook, then you step in. Where do you find these lines about where you are supposed to decide for her and where you are not?

I never check to see if I am a woman or a man before I do things. I just do things based on who I am. I'm not married at the moment, but my 17 year old son cooks breakfast every morning, and I've even asked him not too (too many muffins!! he leaves the dishes for me! agh!) but he just doesn't listen and keeps baking. It would be really sad if I tied his obvious talent and enjoyment to some commentary on his manhood, which I would have thought I needed to do, say, if it was 20 years ago.

Thank you maidservant I havn't taken the time to look through all the comments since I was last on, but I just wanted to say thank you for your input and for being so respectable I do agree that the term bread winner isn't really a Celestial Kingdom type description. Maybe another way to put it would be to say that I believe ANYTHING having to do with the protection, providing, and leadership of a family should first lie upon the husband. Especially in regards to protection. I'm not trying to be rude, but if the wife is more fit to physically protect the family, then the guy needs to step it up and fix that. I believe that's paramount. Unless of course the husband is handicapped and unable to do so. Anything involving earning of money should be done by the husband as well, in an ideal world. I do understand that the economy is bad, and in most cases the wife is literally forced to work in order to pay all the bills. My own wife works at this very moment for the same reason. But when things are right, I believe the man should work for money, and the wife should stay at home. Now thats not to say that she can't ever leave. I also believe the wife needs time with friends and time to get out, which the husband should provide for her. I think this is one of the main issues in regards to the degradation of our modern society, the woman has left the house, and I think its having a negative impact on future generations since the mother was born to nourish and love in ways that men can't provide. I never understood why women felt that being a stay at home mom is suffocating. Being a stay at home mom is the most noble thing a woman can be in my opinion. I guess in a nutshell, masculine could be defined as the ability to lead and protect, and feminity could be defined as the ability to nourish.

[Senator]

Sorry, this is now quite old and I haven't had the chance to read much of it. But I thought I'd answer this quickly. I think there is a confusion between the use of submit and subordination. Subordination assumes a hierarchy, which can't work considering the emphasis about equality in marriage. Power in a marriage relationships shouldn't be verticle but horizontal. Men and women have equal power that both are called to submit to (as pointed out in ephesians)....ie interdependence. It has also been pointed out about wording of hearkening. The question that comes to my mind, is how is it decided that the husband's listening to God? I don't think it's just a loophole, I think it's a responsibilty that leads to mutually looking out for each other in order to strengthen the relationship between the couple and God. Thus "submit" to me equivelates to a relationship of earnest listening and communication between spouces to assure that they are maintaining their covenants to each other and God. It does not insist on who has the authority or the power, but using equally empowered individuals the bring power to their families, relationships, communities, and their relationship with God.

If either person bows out of their responsibility...if the husband fails to listen to God, if he dominates his wife; if the wife refuses to speak up when her husband is in the wrong, or if she refuses to ever take her husband seriously when he is earnestly seeking the Lord... then the marriage has lost its power. They are not truly one.

So no, there is not subordination. Subordination assume a higher or more powerful partner between the two. There isn't one between husband and wife. The only possible link to subordination in the temple, is us as fallen men/women to God.

With luv,

BD

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.

For example, as I read your words, the thought came to me that what you were describing was the relationship between Adam and Eve before they fell. They were both in the presence of the Lord and had equal access to it. They counceled and deliberated between themselves. It was after that, that things drastically changed. We see the institution of a hierarchical order, whether vertical or horizontal, that places Adam between the Lord and Eve. The hierarchy, with its inherent submission/subordination - however we may want to try to soften the situation with words- still exists. Why wasn't Adam instructed to hearkin to his wifes councel as she hearkins to his? Why couldn't Eve receive councel directly from the Lord instead through a middle Adam/man? Why is she instructed to veil her face when the direct presense/spirit of the Lord is sought through the true order of prayer? This new order things is hard to spin away no matter how uncomfortable it rests upon our modern sensibilities.

This leads to whole host of questions and ponderings in my mind. Is it acceptable to question the infallability of the temple drama? Like scripture, can we see that perhaps cultural notions could find their expressions in the temple instrucion as well. Wasn't it BY that stated that the endowment was a close as he could get at the time (or something to that effect)? Should we expect further change to the temple rituals as we progress down the road precept by precept?

Just my thoughts of course.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Senator

[fatherofone]

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?

I know in our house my wife takes care of the budget, kids, and all the important stuff, as my mother in law says I just bring home the bacon. Do I feel less masculine because she does? Not in the least, she takes excellent care of all of us

[wenglund]

Having spent many decades in the priesthood, at times serving as counselors in various quorum presidencies, I am quite used to and entirely at peace with being a subordinate and subject to or subjugated to higher authorities. Indeed, I rather prefer those inferior hierarchal role. But, maybe that is just me, or a guy-thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Having spent many decades in the priesthood, at times serving as counselors in various quorum presidencies, I am quite used to and entirely at peace with being a subordinate and subject to or subjugated to higher authorities. Indeed, I rather prefer those inferior hierarchal role. But, maybe that is just me, or a guy-thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you drawing a parallel to the marital relationship?

If so, are you saying that the role of wife is an inferior hierarchal role, and that women should be fine with ti?

[Log]

The common refrain has been that, in all things, men and women are equal in marriage.

That means either men are less than women, or the priesthood is nothing. Take your pick.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log