Women And The Priesthood

[Cobalt-70]

I understand the question about comparing priesthood to motherhood. But I think the description is different. Priesthood refines men like motherhood refines women. Priesthood is what gets men serving others. Motherhood is the essence of serving others.

Motherhood should be compared to fatherhood, not priesthood.

[TAO]

Mmmm... as President Hinckley said, only revelation has the capability to change these things. And revelation comes from God, not from man. And so, I am not particularly worried... as God is at the helm. He will do things as he wishes to, when he wishes to, be that tomorrow, years from now, or never. And that is good enough.

[Cobalt-70]

A man has to submit to a woman's authority before righteously entering her temple as well. So your point about subordination cuts both ways.

Allowing a woman to prevent a man from having free access to her body does not superordinate her to men. Prohibitions against rape do not give women power over men. Such prohibitions merely prevent the man from gaining one particular form of male domination that he otherwise might have.

If women are placed upon a pedestal it is more likely because they personally pay the price and put their lives on the line to pass the Lord's children from one world into another. Men merely do so symbolically with the saving ordinances, and they do so upon the coattails of a Messiah that already paid the price.

In truth, you cannot ban a woman from her God-given power. It just is.

Okay, so childbirth is risky. How does that entitle men to ordination, and women to subordination.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Imo, if the body is a temple, then the womb is likely a veil. For some it's heresy for me to say that because no prophet ever said so, but I don't care. As big of a jump that the Celestial Kingdom is from the Terrestrial is probably the best symbolic indicator of how far we drop when leaving the Lord's presence to come into this world. So when I read Hebrews 10:20, where it states that Christ's body is the veil, I really don't see the bodies of women any differently. I think women are one with their veil just as Christ is one with his, and that their jurisdiction over that veil is just as sex-specific as the male authority over the ordinances of the Priesthood.

Who enters or exits a woman's temple body? Only those whom she gives permission. THAT is the same authority that bishops and stake presidents hold over the temple building.

What is the primary function of a temple? It is veil work. So when Christ and Paul assert that the body is a temple, veil work is ultimately what they are getting at. A man's body does not have a veil, so the Lord directs prophets to built temples so that they can be brought up to speed with regards to performing holy veil work. And when I say "up to speed" I mean up to speed with women because women are the ones who are familiar with the cost of passing individuals between worlds. One purpose of temple buildings is to make men one with the same veil that Christ is. So when Christ prays to the father that we may be "one with him" as he is "one with the Father", I think in one sense he is praying for the Father to allow us to have the saving ordinances. All of those ordinances require veils.

And what is the cost of veil work? It is always blood. Even if the perineum never tears, often times the hymen already has. And a woman will still pay that blood price via her menses throughout her life. The womb never allows a woman to forget her stewardship.

The symbolism plays out upon the bodies of each individual woman in ways that are meaningful to her. And to your second question, if a woman who wants children is not able to have children, then she will often experience a Gethsemane-like bout of suffering that affects the rest of her adult life. Does adoption or eventual pregnancy by medical means heal that suffering? To an extent. But that is after the fact of much suffering and soul-rending. Imo, the suffering of women, whether they bear children or live alone for most of their lives, is best viewed in reflection of the sufferings of Christ. And specifically because his sacrifice and worthiness is precisely what makes his ordinances effective.

A lot of questions about why men receive the priesthood often center their rationale on the question of worthiness, but I don't think it matters much to anyone (other than the individual Priesthood holder and the Lord) if he is worthy to perform an ordinance. Sure, if the man is a known sinner he will be prevented from participating. But I think that is more for his protection than for anyone else. The essential truth about working veils is that the workers do not own the veils in question, they just work there. What really matters with regard to ordinances is if Jesus' Atonement was worthy to give these ordinances their meaning, and that is a matter of faith.

The veils are immutable. You do not harm God by eating/drinking the sacrament unworthily, you simply harm yourself. The womb works the same way. You do not harm God when you enter the womb sexually prior to marriage (or extra-maritally), you simply damn yourself. But if you are married then the womb isn't only a place of birth; it is also a veil of belonging between husband and wife. So even a childless wife exercises that authority when she is with her husband.

Veils only create belonging. The womb's power to do so is first inferred in Exodus 13:2. This is just as true for the veil of the Priesthood. Once you pass through that veil, you belong to God in a way that is more powerful. Baptism passes you into discipleship. The Endowment passes you into further covenant and gives you necessary tools for passing through yet another veil. The New and Everlasting Covenant passes you into a joint belonging that has the potential to lead you to exaltation. This is why marriage is directly related to the Atonement, and is the primary metaphor used by the Savior. The Atonement is the very bond that unifies the sexes (and their specific powers) in that ordinance.

Just as a man's submission to a woman's final say on whether he is allowed to enter her temple body yields a certain endowment of power (the power of creation), so too a woman's submission to the male's final say in the temple building endows her veil further. For after she is passed through the veil into the N&EC of marriage, she becomes a sealer. Meaning that all who exit her womb are sealed to her & her spouse without consecutive temple ordinances being necessary. She is the sacred veil of that ordinance, and it doesn't matter where she performs it because her body is the temple of it. So even if the temple is ultimately about submitting to male Priesthood authority, the result is a population that has far more female sealers than male.

I think you are mixing metaphors a bit. Either the veil is the uterus or the hymen. It can't really be both within the same metaphor. The act of a man "passing through the veil" if the veil is a hymen is quite a different metaphor than a baby "passing through the veil" if the veil is the uterus.

A problem I have with both of these metaphors is that they fall into the same old partriarchal pattern of objectifying women. Women are not the subjects--they are the edifices in which the subjective operations of man may occur. They are the "other." They are alien cyborgs--half person, half edifice.

We want a G rated board. Future explicit posts will be removed.

[Cobalt-70]

In Gospel Principles yesterday, the teacher asked for suggestions from the class why women didn't have the Priesthood. Some of the popular head-nodding ones (given by women!) were:

a) Women have Babies, Men have the Priesthood

b) The bible teaches women to be subject to their husbands, which would be hard if they had Church leadership position over them

c) Women didn't want it in the pre-existence.

Here are my answers to the above theories:

a) "Women have Babies, Men have the Priesthood": So why is the fact that women go through painful pregnancy and labor considered to be a privilege? According to Genesis, it is a curse. So why should women get the double-whammy of painful labor and being banned from priesthood office? Speaking of which, why does the temple ceremony still say that women have to be subservient to their husbands as a result of Eve being the first to eat the forbidden fruit? I know the language of this section used to be worse, prior to 1990, but how is that man will not be punished for Adam's transgression, yet women will be punished for Eve's?

b) "The bible teaches women to be subject to their husbands, which would be hard if they had Church leadership position over them": Already now, there are male Primary leaders that are supervised by female Primary presidents, and some of them are married. I haven't heard of any problems. Besides, the Bible teaches a lot of things that have become obsolete in modern society. If it was prudent for women to be submissive to their husbands within Roman society, that doesn't mean that a different prophet could not give different advice in the context of 21st century Western culture, where women are no longer effectively the property of their husbands or fathers, and equality is a given.

c) "Women didn't want it in the pre-existence": This explanation reminds me of the old racist theory that blacks prior to 1978 couldn't get the priesthood because they were "fence sitters" in the preexistence. As bad as that sounds to us today, I think the "women didn't want it in the pre-existence" theory will sound equally bad to Mormons 50 years from now.

[Cobalt-70]

Your first statement is a jump to a conclusion that is common, and I understand why many believe that. I happen to disagree. The problem with assuming that being robed is the same thing as an ordination is that the men are therefore robed needlessly and redundantly, as they all were ordained to both Priesthoods prior to their entering the temple. I think the real endowment of power is the signs, tokens, and covenants... all associated with their respective Priesthoods... that are necessary to pass through the Lord's veil which is a veil of male Priesthood. To me, the robes are more directly tied to the giving of those elements, and the "officiating" actually happens in the next world. Because it is in the next world where we will be Kings and Queens that are sovereigns over that power instead of the mere stewards that we are here. But the patrons in a typical endowment do not actually officiate in the ceremony in any capacity. Men officiate in Priesthood ordinances and offices that they were ordained and set apart to outside of the temple. The endowment is really about the veil.

To then go from that jump to assuming that the W&A for women is then where women get to do their "officiating" is missing the mark, imo. Women are set apart as temple workers by Priesthood holders, but they are never ordained. They will officiate as queens in the CK as per the good and faithful servants of the parable of the talents, where servants are made rulers "over many things".

There is a difference between priesthood power and priesthood office. The only thing that ordination gives you is the office. But you may be endowed with priesthood power, and thus the priesthood itself, without holding an office. (Likewise, you may be ordained to an office, but lack any priesthood power.) Office is authority, and banning women from office also denies them authority, and subordinates them to men, even though their "power in the [Melchizedek] priesthood" may be as strong as, or stronger than, that of any particular Elder or High Priest.

Conferral of priesthood power by the laying on of hands is one way it happens. The Endowment is another. In both cases, ordination is something entirely different, and relates only to the particular keys of authority that person is given. They already have the power--this is just the keys to use that power. Endowed women are sitting on the power of a high performance Maserati called the Melchizedek priesthood, but nobody wants to give them the keys, because only men can drive.

[Acris Venator]

Allowing a woman to prevent a man from having free access to her body does not superordinate her to men.

Women have the final say on who enters their temple bodies. I hope that is clear, and I'm not sure how to make it more so. If a woman doesn't want to allow access, then it is against her will. If someone has the final say, then they are the authority.

Many men just happen to want access to women's bodies. They can get permission from God, the church, and a woman's family, but none of those is ultimately good enough. She has the final "yes" or "no". What else could possibly be required to superordinate her to the men who happen to want to be with her?

Okay, so childbirth is risky. How does that entitle men to ordination, and women to subordination.

Being "entitled" has nothing to do with it. God empowers whom he will. God is always directing men to his ordinances. Most of the time when he addresses women in scripture it is with regards to something happening in the womb.

[Acris Venator]

There is a difference between priesthood power and priesthood office.

I understand. I just disagree with you that the power endowed in that particular ordinance has anything to do with church service outside of the temple. To me it is a specific set of tools and symbols relating to the veil of Christ and how to pass the angels who stand as sentinels as one engages with the Second Comforter and/or enters the kingdom of God.

Endowed women are sitting on the power of a high performance Maserati called the Melchizedek priesthood, but nobody wants to give them the keys, because only men can drive.

Imo, women already have their own veil, their own priesthood, and that veil passes ALL from the previous world into this one by the miraculous power of God. The purpose of the veil of the Priesthood is to pass ALL from this world into the next.

Suggesting that women somehow need both is a device born of 2nd wave feminism, which attacks patriarchy as a standard operating procedure. For an LDS feminism to be truly Christlike, the sexes must be ennobled simultaneously. Not one torn down to build the other up, as is the history of modern feminism.

Motherhood & Priesthood are the true complements. Fatherhood by itself is not commensurate to motherhood, and I defy anyone to explain to me how fatherhood can measure up to motherhood and its miracles without the power of God.

[Cobalt-70]

Suggesting that women somehow need both is a device born of 2nd wave feminism, which attacks patriarchy as a standard operating procedure. For an LDS feminism to be truly Christlike, the sexes must be ennobled simultaneously. Not one torn down to build the other up, as is the history of modern feminism.

Bringing up second-wave feminism is a straw-woman. Feminism has long moved past the issues of equality that characterized the second wave. We certainly attack the patriarchy, but not to achieve equality. The patriarchy is worth attacking because its foundations are as follows: (1) women are objectified, which is very well illustrated by your theory which makes women into edifices and veils to be penetrated, (2) thusly objectified women are then confined--that is, they are defined by a "place" and "role," and (3) the objectified and confined women are then made "other" as the "central" discourse focuses around masculine concerns, and feminine concerns take the periphery (or the "auxiliary," in the case of the LDS Church).

Motherhood & Priesthood are the true complements. Fatherhood by itself is not commensurate to motherhood, and I defy anyone to explain to me how fatherhood can measure up to motherhood and its miracles without the power of God.

Commensurate in what way? Because we put mothers on a pedestal? Putting women on a pedestal, like a trophy or art display, is another example of objectifying women. Yes, we don't objectify men for their fatherhood, but we certainly praise the virtues of fatherhood. The Founding Fathers? Father Abraham? It is the Father, not the Mother, that we pray to--because we think that the Mother is impotent to help us on her own. We translate our earthly patriarchy into the heavens, and imagine that the Mother is as impotent and subordinate as earthly women.

[KevinG]

The Priesthood gives men a more nurturing role to play in the lives of their family. It is in stark contrast to the worldly role of "DNA donor" or even being relegated to the role of provider and administrator.

Look at what most common priesthood duties and ordinances are or should be:

Blessings for sick

Dedicating homes

Blessings of guidance or comfort

Calling upon the ministering of Angels

Teaching

The administration of the church (clerks, secretaries, auxiliary leadership) are minor concerns compared to the role of priesthood holder as father.

Just look at the hash the world has made of fatherhood and tell me that the LDS priesthood is about subjugation and status. Nonsense.

Edited August 14, 2012 by KevinG

[Acris Venator]

Bringing up second-wave feminism is a straw-woman.

Hardly. You admit yourself that attacking patriarchy is part of the program. Christ is not the author of such a tactic. His constructs are ordinances and temples of birth and rebirth that ennoble both sexes simultaneously. Hence second wave feminism is an inadequate lens with which to a) comprehend the patriarchy of God and b) heal the divide between the sexes.

Where second wave feminism often does get it right is where it identifies language and processes that objectify and subjugate women. But you're doing a bad job of it by characterizing my assertion that the body is a temple as some sort of objectification. JESUS is the one who made the original claim. My points have been merely to call attention to the sacredness of the womb, not to do as you disingenuously suggest.

Feminism has long moved past the issues of equality that characterized the second wave.

Yes, the third wave is far more post-modern and punk rock, but to re-think the female body and essence the way post-structuralists like Donna Haraway do is far more destructive to the relationship between women and God than the second wave could ever hope to be. Her famous statement from her essay The Cyborg Manifesto... "I'd rather be a cyborg than a goddess."... is the antithesis to the mission of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father who most certainly want the daughters of Eve to be goddesses and have calculated their ordinances to accomplish just that. The third wave would settle for an immortality saturated in third-rate personas living out their fantasies in Second Life or similar.

We certainly attack the patriarchy, but not to achieve equality.

Yep. The ecological playing field is more even now, and the abuses of the former power brokers have come back to bite them. But it is senseless to treat the Church like any other hierarchy in the world. Especially if the body is indeed a temple of holy veil work. Because if it is, then the veils have been distributed evenly to both sexes, and you are really just quibbling over the semi-annual centerfold in the Ensign.

Even if there have been abuses and mistakes (which it must be admitted there have been) the organization still belongs to God. So also does vengeance. So your efforts to attack the patriarchy of the church are simply an expression of your own unbelief in Jesus very words.

Commensurate in what way?

Commensurate in miracles that pass individuals between worlds.

[Acris Venator]

The Priesthood gives men a more nurturing role to play in the lives of their family. It is in stark contrast to the worldly role of "DNA donor" or even being relegated to the role of provider and administrator.

Look at what most common priesthood duties and ordinances are or should be:

Blessings for sick

Dedicating homes

Blessings of guidance or comfort

Calling upon the ministering of Angels

Teaching

The administration of the church (clerks, secretaries, auxiliary leadership) are minor concerns compared to the role of priesthood holder as father.

Just look at the hash the world has made of fatherhood and tell me that the LDS priesthood is about subjugation and status. Nonsense.

The Priesthood gives men a more nurturing role to play in the lives of their family. It is in stark contrast to the worldly role of "DNA donor" or even being relegated to the role of provider and administrator.

Look at what most common priesthood duties and ordinances are or should be:

Blessings for sick

Dedicating homes

Blessings of guidance or comfort

Calling upon the ministering of Angels

Teaching

The administration of the church (clerks, secretaries, auxiliary leadership) are minor concerns compared to the role of priesthood holder as father.

Just look at the hash the world has made of fatherhood and tell me that the LDS priesthood is about subjugation and status. Nonsense.

Well put.

[Cobalt-70]

Just look at the hash the world has made of fatherhood and tell me that the LDS priesthood is about subjugation and status. Nonsense.

Not subjugation. Subordination. Women are subordinated to men in the home. Under the present LDS formulation, the women is subordinate to the man in all matters including her "assigned place" of being the nurturer. According to the Family Proclamation, she is "equal" in the sense of value, but in terms of power, she is subordinate to the home's presiding officer to the extent that he "hearkens unto the Father." Men are counseled not to have "unrighteous" dominion over their home, but this presumes that righteous dominion (a word that means sovereignty or kingship) is okay. This does encourage Mormon male involvement in the home,and Mormon men possibly do tend to have more domestic involvement. But the problem is that their expected involvement is as a righteous king or president over their wives. It doesn't have to be that way.

[TAO]

Not subjugation. Subordination. Women are subordinated to men in the home.

Subordinated in what manner?

I don't know about you, but the LDS men I know will do almost anything for their wives.

Subordination is nice... but it looks like in this case, it is submissiveness, not subordination.

Under the present LDS formulation, the women is subordinate to the man in all matters including her "assigned place" of being the nurturer.

CFR for both women is subordinate to men, and to subordinate to man in the place of being the nurterer.

According to the Family Proclamation, she is "equal" in the sense of value, but in terms of power, she is subordinate to the home's presiding officer to the extent that he "hearkens unto the Father."

And he is subordinate to her power to say no. The women I live around are pretty good at saying no too. =p

Men are counseled not to have "unrighteous" dominion over their home, but this presumes that righteous dominion (a word that means sovereignty or kingship) is okay.

What is righteously dominion?

It's being like Christ is to the Church. Totally dedicated. Totally sacrificing. Totally loving. Sure, the word 'dominion' is in there, but under those circumstances, would it really matter? It wouldn't be much of a 'dominion' in the sense it is thought of today.

This does encourage Mormon male involvement in the home

Because sometimes we men aren't really good at this. We tend to be... non-interventionistic, of sorts, I guess you could say?

But the problem is that their expected involvement is as a righteous king or president over their wives.

Like Christ is expected to be a righteous king over the Church. What will Christ do for the church? He will nurture it and care for it, and build it up, and give all he can unto it. This is not just a 'king' or a 'president'. This is Christ we are talking about. The king of kings, and lord of lords. And we are expected to be like him. Is not Christ a king? But is he not everything we'd want from a king and more? At that point, again, does it really matter that he is 'over' us anymore?

I remember in the Book of Mormon, how King Benjamin worked so his people would not have to pay for his welfare, and dedicated his life to teaching his people of Christ, and of righteousness. If this is how an earthly, righteous King acts, how can we expect our heavenly King to act? And even more so, how should we act? What should we do?

I don't mean to be so... strongly opinionated about this... but a dominion isn't always a bad thing. It's a bad thing when it consists of bad things, yes, but it's a good thing, when it consists of good things. And, I think Christ expects for it to be full of good things. Including LOTS of listening to your wife. Especially to when she says no (or yes, or anything else practically) =).

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[Cobalt-70]

Subordinated in what manner?

In the sense of having lower rank within the "order" of the household.

I don't know about you, but the LDS men I know will do almost anything for their wives.

As will a righteous king for his kingdom. That doesn't change the fact that he retains his dominion and power over them.

Subordination is nice... but it looks like in this case, it is submissiveness, not subordination.

Submissiveness is not what I'm talking about. Super/subordination relates to status and power, whereas submissiveness /domination relates to behavior and the exercise of power.

CFR for both women is subordinate to men, and to subordinate to man in the place of being the nurterer.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World.: "fathers are to preside over their families....Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

And he is subordinate to her power to say no. The women I live around are pretty good at saying no too. =p

But the women, if she is endowed, has made a solemn covenant to "hearken to [her husband's] counsel as [he] hearke unto Father." So she can't say no without breaking her temple covenants.

What is righteously dominion?

"Righteous" dominion is the benign presidency of a man over his "domain," which, as a result of the Family Proclamation, includes his wife. Maybe this is a generational thing, but the idea that the man is sovereign over his wife sounds offensive me, and probably most people born after about 1960.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[TAO]

In the sense of having lower rank within the "order" of the household.

What does "rank" matter? For pride? For prudence? If he treats you like the Goddess you can become, what does "rank" matter?

As will a righteous king for his kingdom. That doesn't change the fact that he retains his dominion and power over them.

Who cares about dominion and power when you have everything you want?

Submissiveness is not what I'm talking about. Super/subordination relates to status and power, whereas submissiveness /domination relates to behavior and the exercise of power.

Well, who cares about power if it's never abused? You know why fathers are set to preside over their families on Earth. It's to prepare them for their job after they die.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World.: "fathers are to preside over their families....Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

I'll take that for the first one, although, I don't really consider it subordination tbh.

That doesn't answer the second CFR in any case; that men are in a higher place concerning nurturing.

But the women, if she is endowed, has made a solemn covenant to "hearken to [her husband's] counsel as [he] hearke unto Father." So she can't say no without breaking her temple covenants.

That's a rather poor interpretation of the wording of the covenant.

"Righteous" dominion is the benign presidency of a man over his "domain," which, as a result of the Family Proclamation, includes his wife.

In the gospel, in order to be 'over' somebody, you also have to be under them to. So is the case with Christ. Yeah he's our King, but in order to be so, he has to descend below all things, and also serve every single one of us.

Maybe this is a generational thing, but the idea that the man is sovereign over his wife sounds offensive me, and probably most people born after about 1960.

I'm pretty sure that's because they don't understand the context. I doubt many of them would consider how Christ expects men to treat their wives as 'bad' in terms of subordination. They might even consider it a fairy tail - good, but doubting it's existence. I don't think many care about subordination when they have the things that really matter to them.

About the 1960 thing... I'm a rather young member of the board... born many years later... so yeah.

[Cobalt-70]

What does "rank" matter? For pride? For prudence? If he treats you like the Goddess you can become, what does "rank" matter?

It probably only matters to people who grew up after the 1960s, and a few younger people who are extremely conservative. If someone is happy with the traditional patriarchal structures where men rule over women and the world centers on men, then they'd have no reason to complain. But the people who are comfortable within such a patriarchal framework are slowly dying off. This is a church for people with modern sensibilities, too, which which includes young people and most new converts. A women who is used to being of equal rank to her husband is going to have a hard time joining the LDS church if she takes at face value the non-canonized patriarchal directives of church leadership, whom I love, but whom I recognize are old men from a different era. I thank God the Mother that she at least made them change the temple ceremony from what it was prior to 1990.

That doesn't answer the second CFR in any case; that men are in a higher place concerning nurturing.

Just because the woman is supposed to be "primarily" assigned the role of nurturing does not in any way diminish the man's supposed role of being the "president" of the home. The Mormon man is the CEO of the home, and the Mormon woman is assigned to be the "vice president of nurturing."

Edited August 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

Giving women the priesthood, to me, has misogynistic overtones.

[BlueDreams]

Cobalt,

The way you describe the family in LDS households sounds more like a business or military operation, not an actual family. It sounds so foreign to what I actually see in most LDS families as to be rendered useless. When what you say doesn't fit what is seen in reality, I'm willing to bet that the terms used in your opinion are incorrectly defined. IF the majority of LDS households worked in the sense that the woman was actually subordinate to the man as you've described. I'd agree, that's wrong. But the vast majority don't. And they won't. I have a profound disagreement with your depiction of the LDS Family and the terms as you've defined them.

With luv,

BD

[Grundelwalken]

I can't speak for other households, but there is not subordination/subjugation/sub****** in the house where I live. Like any other partnership, it has taken us years to work out all the details but it seems pretty much an equal thing between us. I'm wrong just as often as she is and we can discuss and make decisions that affect our family without one of us having to "be in charge". There are some things I get better than she does and some she understands better. We WORK TOGETHER and figure it out. And I can't remember a time in the last twenty years (we've been married longer than that and I'm sure I tried in the earlier years) where one or the other has tried to use "dominion" to get their way. Priesthood holder or "holder of the priesthood" (you know, with her arms), we have a home where decisions are made in concert and with careful consideration of each others wants and needs. MW

[KevinG]

Not subjugation. Subordination. Women are subordinated to men in the home. Under the present LDS formulation, the women is subordinate to the man in all matters including her "assigned place" of being the nurturer. According to the Family Proclamation, she is "equal" in the sense of value, but in terms of power, she is subordinate to the home's presiding officer to the extent that he "hearkens unto the Father." Men are counseled not to have "unrighteous" dominion over their home, but this presumes that righteous dominion (a word that means sovereignty or kingship) is okay. This does encourage Mormon male involvement in the home,and Mormon men possibly do tend to have more domestic involvement. But the problem is that their expected involvement is as a righteous king or president over their wives. It doesn't have to be that way.

If you think nurturing is subordinate to providing that is your problem. I happen to think it is the most critical role for mothers and fathers- and the science backs me up.

[KevinG]

I can't speak for other households, but there is not subordination/subjugation/sub****** in the house where I live. Like any other partnership, it has taken us years to work out all the details but it seems pretty much an equal thing between us. I'm wrong just as often as she is and we can discuss and make decisions that affect our family without one of us having to "be in charge". There are some things I get better than she does and some she understands better. We WORK TOGETHER and figure it out. And I can't remember a time in the last twenty years (we've been married longer than that and I'm sure I tried in the earlier years) where one or the other has tried to use "dominion" to get their way. Priesthood holder or "holder of the priesthood" (you know, with her arms), we have a home where decisions are made in concert and with careful consideration of each others wants and needs. MW

When I hear complaints about unequally yolked couples I start suspecting dysfunctions in families that keep them from seeing how families should be organized. Its easier to blame the system than to take a hard look at how we are honoring our covenants (or not).

[Cobalt-70]

The way you describe the family in LDS households sounds more like a business or military operation, not an actual family. It sounds so foreign to what I actually see in most LDS families as to be rendered useless. When what you say doesn't fit what is seen in reality, I'm willing to bet that the terms used in your opinion are incorrectly defined. IF the majority of LDS households worked in the sense that the woman was actually subordinate to the man as you've described. I'd agree, that's wrong. But the vast majority don't. And they won't. I have a profound disagreement with your depiction of the LDS Family and the terms as you've defined them.

That's because, by and large, Mormon families pretty much ignore the Family Proclamation in this regard. It's a pronouncement of 1950's-style patriarchal roles that has already fallen out of step with the times. I have heard of a very few families of my generation and younger where the man is the "president," but these are extremely rare in my experience. This is the way it worked in my parent's generation, but not now. It is also getting much more common to see Mormon fathers who see the importance of their role in nurturing the children as exactly the same as that of their wives.

[Cobalt-70]

Giving women the priesthood, to me, has misogynistic overtones.

That's a good media clip, but the premise is simply wrong. It's wrong to presume that leadership is a "manly" thing, and that when women lead, they are "like a man." Or maybe you're being ironic, in which case, good joke.

[DBMormon]

There are promises in the temple upon both brethren and sisters and it seems in eternal matters they are on even ground in authroity... I believe Priesthood to males only is an earthly issue as men need more incentive to think first of others and to serve. Listen to Elder Holland

"I especially make an appeal for husbands and fathers, priesthood bearers or prospective priesthood bearers, to, as Lehi said, “Awake! and arise from the dust … and be men.”⁵ Not always but often it is the men who choose not to answer the call to “come join the ranks.”⁶ Women and children frequently seem more willing. Brethren, step up. Do it for your sake. Do it for the sake of those who love you and are praying that you will respond. Do it for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, who paid an unfathomable price for the future He wants you to have."

Edited August 17, 2012 by DBMormon