The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[mfbukowski]

As used by you and a couple of other posters, however, the "patriarchies," including and perhaps especially the alleged "Western patriarchy" is the functional equivalent of white slavery, and marital relations the functional equivalent of rape.

 

If I am mistaken, please to enlighten.

 

I reject such labeling, especially for the likes of me and thee, each of us trying our level best to be good dads and husbands under often very trying circumstances.

Amen to that, and kudos for putting it that way!  We are just trying to muddle through all this.  Suddenly all these women are angry and we haven't a clue why, when our wives and daughters are perfectly happy with us, and the way we handle our relationships with them.  It's all rather confusing.

[mfbukowski]

Because it's not a "patriarchy" when partners are equal.  All that is left is presiding which no one seems to be able to define.  The family is considered to be the eternal unit not the church as we presently know it.  Does the church champion patriarchy or priesthood? Is the word patriarchy even in any doctrinal statements?  If you haven't seen the distancing from the two, you haven't been listening to recent conference talks.  Men are not the priesthood, even if referred to as patriarchs.

Well thanks for the clarification, and I think we sorta agree but I am not sure about what constitutes "doctrinal statements".  Certainly we have the term in the temple.  Certainly we have the term in the scriptures, and clearly those are "doctrinal" but obviously that is not what you meant here.

 

But if you are making "patriarchy" equivalent to the one who "presides" I have no problem with that- except to me clearly the etymology of the word "patriarch" comes from the Latin "pater" meaning father.  So I am confused.

 

If a woman is presiding- I have no problem with that at all.  As far as I am concerned a woman could "preside" anytime, if that means "the final decision maker".  My wife is often the final decision maker in my household, because there are so many things I really could not care less about.  Those things we discuss, we discuss, like big purchases, etc and we decide together, and unanimity is required or nothing happens. 

 

So in my mind, though I theoretically "preside" in the home, as a matter of fact, it really doesn't amount to much of any actual "authority".  I don't do much of anything including going out to lunch without saying "Hey- you wanna go out to lunch?" which she decides yes or no.

 

In my mind we hold the priesthood together.  Without her there is no celestial kingdom anyway- so what good is the priesthood without a happy husband and wife?

 

But only fathers can be "patriarchs" by definition as far as I know.  THAT is what the word means etymologically and therefore culturally.

 

Maybe this is all about trying to save the identity of what it means to be a righteous husband.  Maybe we are getting somewhere.

[mfbukowski]

Because it's not a "patriarchy" when partners are equal.  All that is left is presiding which no one seems to be able to define.  The family is considered to be the eternal unit not the church as we presently know it.  Does the church champion patriarchy or priesthood? Is the word patriarchy even in any doctrinal statements?  If you haven't seen the distancing from the two, you haven't been listening to recent conference talks.  Men are not the priesthood, even if referred to as patriarchs.

Scriptural search on "patriarchal order"

https://www.lds.org/search?q=patriarchal+order〈=eng&domains=scriptures

 

I am not debating the point- I am trying to understand what you mean, and how we go forward trying to define this.  Definitions and vocabularies are all we have.

Edited June 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

I have no idea what you are talking about, perhaps some previous interaction?  So when you are offended, your natural reaction is to laugh about a woman's face being smashed by a door? I mean, every woman deserves that if they don't act like a "lady," right?  Do you not see a problem here?

The poem came off as more of a bump in the face. You know kinda like when you bump into something. It was not describing a woman getting a bloody nose, black eye, nor bloody lip.

[mfbukowski]

I found it rather interesting that Kelly's own stated approach to elders she disagreed with was "I'm not listening…"

 

There is this weird vibe at times in the Church that women do everything better.  When the two get together (a man who acts superior to women but verbally elevates them or a women that talks about how men are the ones we need to respect or weight heavier their opinions due to their authority or whatever and yet just goes ahead and does her own thing or gives precedence in action to other women), it is so very, very frustrating.  Ultimate brick wall imo.

THIS is the crux of the issue and it relates directly to "keeping mama happy".  I am finding it so VERY difficult to understand why this elevating of women constitutes a "brick wall".  It is totally incomprehensible to me.  It has been said it is "patronizing".   Why is that wall so invisible to me, and others like me?

[JLHPROF]

We Catholics pray to her asking that she pray for us. It is proper English to do this as in "We pray thee Queen Elizabeth that thou wouldst hear our petition." Catholics do not worship Mary. I cannot imagine it would be wrong to ask a Heavenly Mother to intercede for us with Heavenly Father. I wouldn't suggest that a Latter-day Saint should advocate it -- keep it to yourself. And I am quite sure that in Legrand Richard's book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" he hinted that Mary was a wife of Heavenly Father. Someone told him he could not accept God having a wife and Richards responded, "He had a Son didn't He? You can go from there, but if I were still LDS it would be easy for me to find a private theology that held Mary was Heavenly Mother. But I would not teach that.

 

Well, of course Mary was a wife of Heavenly Father.  Mechanics aside, it would be highly inappropriate for her to give birth to his child if she wasn't.  But she couldn't be the Heavenly Mother of our spirits since she herself was born to this earth.  But as the Mother of our Lord and the presumed wife of our Heavenly Father how could she not be ONE of our Heavenly Mothers.

[mfbukowski]

And I find it offensive and dismissive of the very important males in both the co-creation of the next generation and its training.

 

D@mned few advocate for nuclear families these days, and to dismiss those men that bother to engage in meaningful fatherhood and husbandry as evil, brutal, dictatorial patriarchs [the inevitable meaning nearly everybody attaches to patriarchy these days] is slightly more than wrongheaded.

Will you marry me? 

[Bart Burk]

Well, of course Mary was a wife of Heavenly Father.  Mechanics aside, it would be highly inappropriate for her to give birth to his child if she wasn't.  But she couldn't be the Heavenly Mother of our spirits since she herself was born to this earth.  But as the Mother of our Lord and the presumed wife of our Heavenly Father how could she not be ONE of our Heavenly Mothers.

Christ was God before he was born to this earth.  Since you really don't know how spirits were created, is it hard to believe that Mary might have been our spiritual mother before she came to this earth?

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bart Burk

[mfbukowski]

Actually I have heard several feminists point this out and the irony of it.  It is one of the reason they don't want ordination.

 

It is one of the reasons I don't want it.  I could have sworn that Juliann at least had mentioned it here.  I know she and I have tossed that one back and forth quite a bit.

OK well I guess I missed those.  My time is limited so I tend to only read direct replies

[JLHPROF]

Christ was God before he was born to this earth.  Since you really don't know how spirits were created, is it hard to believe that Mary might have been our spiritual mother before she came to this earth?

 

In Mormonism when we say Christ was God before he came here that means something very different as you know.

And while we may not understand the exact mechanics (although Brigham Young said it was the same there as here) we know that both Christ and Mary were the spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  That is why she could not have been the Mother of our spirits.  Because she had to come to earth and receive a body, just as we do and just as Christ did.  To be our Heavenly Mother she would have to be a resurrected being like our Heavenly Father.

At least in Mormon theology...

[BlueDreams]

Do you guys really have no idea how bad you all sound right now?

 

I mean really.....I know the guy a while back who said "check your privilege" was being sarcastic. But I'm not. I've never said that before, but frankly the shoe is really fitting right now. Juliann's reaction may have been heavy, but I promise it wasn't by much. Here's something I don't brag about much: I'm pretty. I don't mean that "haughtily" I mean that as an irrelevant fact to who I am...like saying I have brown eyes or ten fingers. I'm aware of it, because people tell me it all the time....male, female, young, old....doesn't matter. And here's another fact: It doesn't matter what I wear, a perfectly acceptable outfit on one girl, suddenly seems "immodest" or a "means to unintentionally seduce." If I dress up and pay a little more attention to my make-up, I'll be looked at. If I'm hiking in a tank and shorts, I'll be looked at.  

 

So I see myself in the woman (minus the height, I'm 5'5") in that song, not the poor, poor disrespected man. And the first few stanzas what I see is some fool, who can't stop eyeing me up and down because I've chosen to wear some heals and a skirt today. I've watched him sit while I'm filling up the gas (because women are usually aware when I dudes checking her out, ya guys aren't known for your subtlety). And he hasn't lifted a finger for the dad with 3 kids and the old lady who've come in and out of the door. Probably because he's distracted from oggling my tall limbs and "catwalk" (codename: my butt and, you know, moving with female hips) from afar. And there he is still watching every step I take as I walk to him, making a fool of himself all the more. Now, albeit, I wouldn't have done what she did....but knowing that a dude may not leave me alone for the while if I even smile at him (because obviously a smile means, come hither), I would probably act extremely cold to him. After all this guy has been watching me for a while, has given me the one over, and is currently still watching my figure as he's tipping his hat (right now, it's less like a gentleman and more like a perv, because he's still looking at my body like he's eyeing a meat auction). So when I'm the least assertive and call him out on his gentlemanly crappy, suddenly I go from lady to witch in 10 seconds flat and it's ok it allow a door to hit me in the face. Ya know, because I deserve it.    

 

Do women seduce? Of course they do. To be honest, when you know you can turn heads, sometimes it's fun to do just that. Sometimes it's useful (like getting through airport security fast and with less hassling). And there's others who do it far more regularly for some dumb reason or another. But most women, the vast majority that I know. Aren't. Because those turned heads and how we already look can easily lead to harassment, unwanted attention, men touching you inappropriately, rape, etc. We do not want random strangers on the street eyeing us for 15 minutes. But this isn't "her asking for it" this isn't because "she's obviously trying" the majority of the time, being on the receiving end and having pretty friends who've also had this happen far more than they'd ever want. It's not a modesty issue at all, unless somehow having a nice outcome in the roll of the gene pool counts as being immodest. This is a male issue. This is an issue littered with sexism, benevolent and otherwise, and a sense of deserving our attention because he smiles with extra "respect" and now suddenly we owe them our attention or kindness or demure approach. And the answer is that I need to be extra cautious or modest and wear my hair in a tight bun and never touch make-up and not wear clothes that fit me or set off my skintone (cuz that's what it would take to stop some men from staring....it wouldn't work, p.s. it would just change who's staring).

 

    

As a woman, on this note I think I can speak pretty authoritatively on this. This poem is not about a dude being disrespected and misbegotten chivalry. From this end, it's about a woman being disrespected because she didn't act how the man desired. 

 

And while I'm at it, CV75, modesty in dress and virtue in thought may both have spiritual implications, but I assure you they're not equal. When I have a bad thought no one feels the need to correct me and it's trusted that I will learn to self regulate. When I dress "immodestly" a number do seem to have a right to reinforce their standard of modesty on me. Physical modesty (of women usually) is one of the only virtues that seems to have more check by the society than the individual. And here, it has seemed to be most influenced by whether a man now lusts than anything else.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 27, 2014 by BlueDreams

[CA Steve]

There are women in burkas that men describe as seductive, women beaten and bleeding and tortured is considered seduction by some men, a pregnant woman giving birth is consider seduction.

The only thing that is truly seduction is when the woman describesit as seduction or makes it clear in her movements that is what she means...given her extreme negativereaction, to the hint of him being attracted to her how can you claim she intended to seduce him and he just didn't assume that because he liked what he was looking at and that would give him the right to move in on her.

My DIL was stationed in the Egypt for a brief period. Due to being in the military and where she was, she was not supposed to wear her military uniform, instead she wore her civilian clothes and the most conservative (by our standards) outfits she had. Basically about the only thing exposed when she ventured out was her head and ankles. Often, when she went out in public, she encountered men who viewed her dress and exposure of her hair as sexually inviting. She endured being followed and frequent catcalls during the entire time she was there.

[Bart Burk]

In Mormonism when we say Christ was God before he came here that means something very different as you know.

And while we may not understand the exact mechanics (although Brigham Young said it was the same there as here) we know that both Christ and Mary were the spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  That is why she could not have been the Mother of our spirits.  Because she had to come to earth and receive a body, just as we do and just as Christ did.  To be our Heavenly Mother she would have to be a resurrected being like our Heavenly Father.

At least in Mormon theology...

If Christ could create the earth before receiving a spiritual body, why couldn't Mary have been an instrument in creating our spirits before receiving her spiritual body?  Do you really know enough through canonized scripture to say anything definitive about who was our Heavenly Mother?  It seems to me that while Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother they know next to nothing about her.  Everything is inferred. Of course if I were a Mormon I would be with Blake Ostler and completely reject the notion that God the Father had a Father.  Even the King Follett sermon doesn't assert that God had a Father -- that came from the so-called Temple Grove sermon which wasn't published until well after Joseph Smith's death. The Temple Grove sermon uses some horrible reasoning if it is a true account of Joseph's sermon.  For example the Temple Grove sermon totally misrepresents Revelation 1:6 especially in light of Joseph Smith's rendering of that verse in the Inspired Version. If you come to the conclusion that God did not have a Father it means it is possible that God would have had to have created Heavenly Mother spiritually from her intelligence to become His wife. 

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bart Burk

[Tacenda]

Do you guys really have no idea how bad you all sound right now?

 

I mean really.....I know the guy a while back who said "check your privilege" was being sarcastic. But I'm not. I've never said that before, but frankly the shoe is really fitting right now. Juliann's reaction may have been heavy, but I promise it wasn't by much. Here's something I don't brag about much: I'm pretty. I don't mean that "haughtily" I mean that as an irrelevant fact to who I am...like saying I have brown eyes or ten fingers. I'm aware of it, because people tell me it all the time....male, female, young, old....doesn't matter. And here's another fact: It doesn't matter what I wear, a perfectly acceptable outfit on one girl, suddenly seems "immodest" or a "means to unintentionally seduce." If I dress up and pay a little more attention to my make-up, I'll be looked at. If I'm hiking in a tank and shorts, I'll be looked at.  

 

So I see myself in the woman (minus the height, I'm 5'5") in that song, not the poor, poor disrespected man. And the first few stanzas what I see is some fool, who can't stop eyeing me up and down because I've chosen to wear some heals and a skirt today. I've watched him sit while I'm filling up the gas (because women are usually aware when I dudes checking her out, ya guys aren't known for your subtlety). And he hasn't lifted a finger for the dad with 3 kids and the old lady who've come in and out of the door. Probably because he's distracted from oggling my tall limbs and "catwalk" (codename: my butt and, you know, moving with female hips) from afar. And there he is still watching every step I take as I walk to him, making a fool of himself all the more. Now, albeit, I wouldn't have done what she did....but knowing that a dude may not leave me alone for the while if I even smile at him (because obviously a smile means, come hither), I would probably act extremely cold to him. After all this guy has been watching me for a while, has given me the one over, and is currently still watching my figure as he's tipping his hat (right now, it's less like a gentleman and more like a perv, because he's still looking at my body like he's eyeing a meat auction). So when I'm the least assertive and call him out on his gentlemanly crappy, suddenly I go from lady to witch in 10 seconds flat and it's ok it allow a door to hit me in the face. Ya know, because I deserve it.    

 

Do women seduce? Of course they do. To be honest, when you know you can turn heads, sometimes it's fun to do just that. Sometimes it's useful (like getting through airport security fast and with less hassling). And there's others who do it far more regularly for some dumb reason or another. But most women, the vast majority that I know. Aren't. Because those turned heads and how we already look can easily lead to harassment, unwanted attention, men touching you inappropriately, rape, etc. We do not want random strangers on the street eyeing us for 15 minutes. But this isn't "her asking for it" this isn't because "she's obviously trying" the majority of the time, being on the receiving end and having pretty friends who've also had this happen far more than they'd ever want. It's not a modesty issue at all, unless somehow having a nice outcome in the roll of the gene pool counts as being immodest. This is a male issue. This is an issue littered with sexism, benevolent and otherwise, and a sense of deserving our attention because he smiles with extra "respect" and now suddenly we owe them our attention or kindness or demure approach. And the answer is that I need to be extra cautious or modest and wear my hair in a tight bun and never touch make-up and not wear clothes that fit me or set off my skintone (cuz that's what it would take to stop some men from staring....it wouldn't work, p.s. it would just change who's staring).

 

    

As a woman, on this note I think I can speak pretty authoritatively on this. This poem is not about a dude being disrespected and misbegotten chivalry. From this end, it's about a woman being disrespected because she didn't act how the man desired. 

 

And while I'm at it, CV75, modesty in dress and virtue in thought may both have spiritual implications, but I assure you they're not equal. When I have a bad thought no one feels the need to correct me and it's trusted that I will learn to self regulate. When I dress "immodestly" a number do seem to have a right to reinforce their standard of modesty on me. Physical modesty (of women usually) is one of the only virtues that seems to have more check by the society than the individual. And here, it has seemed to be most influenced by whether a man now lusts than anything else.

 

With luv,

BD

BD, how did you get so smart, luv ya!  ETA:  I think women dress for other women.  They want to fit in.  At least that's my case sometimes.  And I've heard others say so also.  If we're married we usually aren't dressing for any man, maybe for our husbands but usually I feel he'll love me no matter what.  So I think it's a matter of fitting in sometimes, not that we dress immodestly, but trying to stay within the current style.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

Do you guys really have no idea how bad you all sound right now?

 

I mean really.....I know the guy a while back who said "check your privilege" was being sarcastic. But I'm not. I've never said that before, but frankly the shoe is really fitting right now. Juliann's reaction may have been heavy, but I promise it wasn't by much. Here's something I don't brag about much: I'm pretty. I don't mean that "haughtily" I mean that as an irrelevant fact to who I am...like saying I have brown eyes or ten fingers. I'm aware of it, because people tell me it all the time....male, female, young, old....doesn't matter. And here's another fact: It doesn't matter what I wear, a perfectly acceptable outfit on one girl, suddenly seems "immodest" or a "means to unintentionally seduce." If I dress up and pay a little more attention to my make-up, I'll be looked at. If I'm hiking in a tank and shorts, I'll be looked at.  

 

So I see myself in the woman (minus the height, I'm 5'5") in that song, not the poor, poor disrespected man. And the first few stanzas what I see is some fool, who can't stop eyeing me up and down because I've chosen to wear some heals and a skirt today. I've watched him sit while I'm filling up the gas (because women are usually aware when I dudes checking her out, ya guys aren't known for your subtlety). And he hasn't lifted a finger for the dad with 3 kids and the old lady who've come in and out of the door. Probably because he's distracted from oggling my tall limbs and "catwalk" (codename: my butt and, you know, moving with female hips) from afar. And there he is still watching every step I take as I walk to him, making a fool of himself all the more. Now, albeit, I wouldn't have done what she did....but knowing that a dude may not leave me alone for the while if I even smile at him (because obviously a smile means, come hither), I would probably act extremely cold to him. After all this guy has been watching me for a while, has given me the one over, and is currently still watching my figure as he's tipping his hat (right now, it's less like a gentleman and more like a perv, because he's still looking at my body like he's eyeing a meat auction). So when I'm the least assertive and call him out on his gentlemanly crappy, suddenly I go from lady to witch in 10 seconds flat and it's ok it allow a door to hit me in the face. Ya know, because I deserve it.    

 

Do women seduce? Of course they do. To be honest, when you know you can turn heads, sometimes it's fun to do just that. Sometimes it's useful (like getting through airport security fast and with less hassling). And there's others who do it far more regularly for some dumb reason or another. But most women, the vast majority that I know. Aren't. Because those turned heads and how we already look can easily lead to harassment, unwanted attention, men touching you inappropriately, rape, etc. We do not want random strangers on the street eyeing us for 15 minutes. But this isn't "her asking for it" this isn't because "she's obviously trying" the majority of the time, being on the receiving end and having pretty friends who've also had this happen far more than they'd ever want. It's not a modesty issue at all, unless somehow having a nice outcome in the roll of the gene pool counts as being immodest. This is a male issue. This is an issue littered with sexism, benevolent and otherwise, and a sense of deserving our attention because he smiles with extra "respect" and now suddenly we owe them our attention or kindness or demure approach. And the answer is that I need to be extra cautious or modest and wear my hair in a tight bun and never touch make-up and not wear clothes that fit me or set off my skintone (cuz that's what it would take to stop some men from staring....it wouldn't work, p.s. it would just change who's staring).

 

    

As a woman, on this note I think I can speak pretty authoritatively on this. This poem is not about a dude being disrespected and misbegotten chivalry. From this end, it's about a woman being disrespected because she didn't act how the man desired. 

 

And while I'm at it, CV75, modesty in dress and virtue in thought may both have spiritual implications, but I assure you they're not equal. When I have a bad thought no one feels the need to correct me and it's trusted that I will learn to self regulate. When I dress "immodestly" a number do seem to have a right to reinforce their standard of modesty on me. Physical modesty (of women usually) is one of the only virtues that seems to have more check by the society than the individual. And here, it has seemed to be most influenced by whether a man now lusts than anything else.

 

With luv,

BD

You describe an interesting problem, though. Perhaps some women seem unaware of. A man's smile or kindness is often interpreted to be "watching every step I take as I walk to him, making a fool of himself all the more". And most often the guy does hold the door for the old lady and the kids, while smiling at them too. Suddenly this nice enough guy is being told by this "pretty lady" that he's rude for holding the door and extending a greeting.

In other words, in my experience it goes both ways far more than women, even self-proclaimed pretty women, ever are seemingly able to acknowledge.

And men have to walk around feeling guilty in case some pretty woman interprets his kindness as the same as the last guy who said something inappropriate.

In my mind, the problem remains when men are the problem, or women are the problem. This is a some problems among some people in society is somehow defining problems for a whole or a majority gender in some people's minds.

[mfbukowski]

Do you guys really have no idea how bad you all sound right now?

 

Nope.

We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

[K-2]

"If I'm hiking in a tank and shorts, I'll be looked at."

BlueDreams, you don't consider that immodest? For the Strength of Youth says to avoid short shorts and clothing that does not cover the shoulders. Do you disagree with that?

[JLHPROF]

If Christ could create the earth before receiving a spiritual body, why couldn't Mary have been an instrument in creating our spirits before receiving her spiritual body?  Do you really know enough through canonized scripture to say anything definitive about who was our Heavenly Mother?  It seems to me that while Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother they know next to nothing about her.  Everything is inferred. Of course if I were a Mormon I would be with Blake Ostler and completely reject the notion that God the Father had a Father.  Even the King Follett sermon doesn't assert that God had a Father -- that came from the so-called Temple Grove sermon which wasn't published until well after Joseph Smith's death. The Temple Grove sermon uses some horrible reasoning if it is a true account of Joseph's sermon.  For example the Temple Grove sermon totally misrepresents Revelation 1:6 especially in light of Joseph Smith's rendering of that verse in the Inspired Version. If you come to the conclusion that God did not have a Father it means it is possible that God would have had to have created Heavenly Mother spiritually from her intelligence to become His wife. 

 

Thank you for explaining your reasoning in a clear and sensible manner.  Your ideas make sense but I cannot agree with them, but then my own beliefs lean more towards the beliefs of the late 1800's.  And I 100% accept the KFS and the Temple Grove sermon.  I also think there is more to the Brigham Young doctrines than we realise.  I personally find the doctrine of the lineage of the Gods to be a beautiful one and the idea that we are part of that eternal family far more comforting and inspiring than the notion of an always existing, never changing powerful deity that created us for some purpose.

 

So I will take the notion of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s) procreating spirits in the old fashioned proceational method.  I will place Christ and Mary in that generation of spirit children, wherein Christ was the most advanced and the birthright heir.  And as a result of His perfection Christ achieved Godhood before coming to earth.  And I will place Mary as a plural wife of Heavenly Father who was translated (taken away in the spirit), sealed to Him and bore His child in the flesh.

 

It may not be official Church doctrine, but it was taught by the prophet at one time and makes more sense to me personally than the speculative  or "we don't know" clubs.  And until there is an official doctrine otherwise I see no issue holding my own beliefs to myself.

Edited June 27, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

I hold the door for people all the time -- male or female. That is appropriate. Deference to a female for the simple fact that she is female is pretty symptomatic of benevelent sexism* and is a cultural remnant that, no matter how much it pervades society, including the Brethren historically, is one that I believe has zero place in celestial society. That is not to say there aren't different roles emphasized/delegated there -- but those come out of mutual respect and cooperation, being of one heart and one mind; and not out of a sense of generous dispensation by one gender.

 

 

* And for the record, I strongly disagree with mfkbukowski that benevolent sexism = patriarchy = divine order of things. I think the lessons/classes/orientations we'll have post-mortality to help us acclimate will be a real shocker to him (and several other interlocutors in this thread).

Not as much as the mind reading lessons for you will be, since you seem to think you already know how to read minds.

 

YOUR article said that most men believe that "benevolent sexism" is perfectly fine.

 

Indisputably LDS believe that God is our Father and therefore a man

 

IN OUR CULTURE then, being a man and a father means you are a "benevolent sexist"

 

In case you hadn't noticed, there are some sisters who are upset by that exact point.

 

My assertion is a fact.  In our culture, the LDS conception of a Father God is benevolent sexism.  That is what the fuss is about.

 

The only reality we have in social interaction is words. Cultural reality IS reality in the realm of definitions and words

 

You can take on a self-righteous attitude if you like but the whole point of the thread is that THIS ATTITUDE CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT CHANGING THE FOUNDING CONCEPTS OF THE CHURCH.

 

If we need to somehow re-define "patriarchy" good luck.  Then the church will not be the same.

 

It's practically a tautology I think.  It has nothing to do with what I believe should or should not be the case- it is the cultural reality.   As a man raised in the culture, yes it is also my cultural reality and yours as much as it is mine.

 

And I don't see how it can be changed- do you??  You haven't offered one suggestion.

[CV75]

And while I'm at it, CV75, modesty in dress and virtue in thought may both have spiritual implications, but I assure you they're not equal. When I have a bad thought no one feels the need to correct me and it's trusted that I will learn to self regulate. When I dress "immodestly" a number do seem to have a right to reinforce their standard of modesty on me. Physical modesty (of women usually) is one of the only virtues that seems to have more check by the society than the individual. And here, it has seemed to be most influenced by whether a man now lusts than anything else.

Disregard of a true principle is a disregard of a true principle—they are equal.

 

Since you focused on virtue in thought, I’d like to point out that lust is more than an unvirtuous thought because (as has been pointed out) everyone can tell when you’re doing it. It translates just as well into the physical world as immodesty translates into how someone dresses.

 

We are taught to control our worldly thoughts, in part by remembering what we are taught. When we fail to recall the true principle, our conscience hopefully corrects us before we dress badly or lust. When we don’t, hopefully some charitable soul will care enough to comment on or correct our untoward appearance, behavior and/or speech.

 

So yes, sometimes things get to the point where virtuous dress and behavior need to be checked by society since the individual has failed to self-regulate. Saints of course are held to a higher standard, so immodest dress and lustful behavior are consequences of choices that run contrary to what we have been taught, whether premeditatedly or through forgetfulness.

 

Since the thread moved in this direction, I thought it relevant to say that the way these subjects play out on the theology of patriarchy is that everyone practices what they have been taught and helps each other out accordingly.

[mfbukowski]

Agreed. I think part of the reason the sexism comes about is because, in our fallen realm, it is pretty much true for every culture that the male gender has the predominant position of protecting the family/tribe/group. Our gender's physical advantage appropriately lends itself to that role. Yet, somehow society has let that role devolve into and/or continue as a sort condescension dressed up as gentlemanliness. Kindness for kindness sake = true gentmanliness. Kindness stemming from pointless acts of "protection" = demeaning sexism.

Gosh you mean in our culture Patriarchy is benevolent sexism?

 

What a concept!!  Why didn't I think of that???

[ELF1024]

This would be a good example of why I find most people to be a complete and total waste of my time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the problem is me... after all, I'm a male, and we are the bain of all that is good in the world. But honestly, is there anything a guy can do that isn't completely misconstrued as wrong? Sure, I think I'm being a nice guy by holding the door, but for whatever reason... I'm the rotten nasty man because of something, anything, perhaps even a misunderstanding by the person on the other end of the gesture.

 

I hold the door, I'm wrong; I don't hold the door, I'm wrong. To Hades with all ya'll.

 

Frankly, I don't have time, or brain power to worry about how you might misunderstand my intentions. You think I'm smiling at you because I'm lustful... the truth being that I'm smiling about a Simpsons episode I saw four years ago, and just remembered. I'm glad you ladies think that it's all about you... congrats on that... 

 

So yeah, I'll "check my privilege" because after all, I have no idea what it's like to be a woman and so my opinion is completely dismissed as unimportant and without merit, because after all... I have a hang-down instead of chest-icles. You women whine about having your opinions completely dismissed, but are more than happy to do the same thing to men... the hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

Thank God, I'm married... because I would rather have my toenails ripped out slowly with rusty pliers than deal with that kind of nonsense on regular basis. If I was still dating I'd just slit my wrists and be done with it.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Stone holm]

I agree with JLH, I tend to go with the notion that it takes Exalted Beings to create Spirit Children and that it is done in the good old fashioned way, in other words Celestial sex.  As to whether we all had the same Heavenly Mother or whether there are several, have never encountered any Mormon teaching on the subject.  I remember, however, a Bishop getting very upset with me for teaching that Mary was married to Heavenly Father -- for the life of me, to this day I don't see how he possibly could have gotten around that reasoning given otherwise it would have been either adultery or fornication.

[BlueDreams]

Stemelbow, 

 

I'm aware that people can get the wrong impression. But think of it this way. Lets say each day someone leave a nicely wrapped blue package at your door as a gift. Sounds nice right? Often these gifts just have small things like cakes or chocolate of a gift certificate to the movies. It would seem pretty silly to throw away these gifts, right? Now what if you were told that every time you received a blue package that there was a high chance you'd find poison ivy in it or one of those gag buzzers...annoying but nothing more. Let's say every once and a while, behind the package you'd find some inert gift like a chocolate. And in a few of these gifts there was a small bomb that could horribly maim you and some of those gifts that even looked innate, were filled with laxatives or minor poisons that could make you sick. In one or two of the hundred+ gifts that come daily to your house, there would be something that could kill you. Would you hesitate in opening them? Would you question and beware of certain gifts if they were a little to big or packaged a little differently or just seemed a little off? That's what it's like when you're watching someone eye you a little too long before opening a door for you as a woman...it's not a complement, it's a concern.  

 

And if you think this is hyperbolic it's really really not. We live in a place where rape culture is rampant and where many still ask or assume a woman wasn't being careful enough when she "opened the wrong gift" by dressing wrong or taking a jog alone or walking to her car at night. Where 1 in 5 or 6 women will have experienced rape or attempted rape by most stats. Rape...not just sexual assault....not sexual harassment or intimidation. And not other forms of very damaging physical/emotional abuse. And certainly not simply excessive, unwanted attention.

 

Your statement assumes a level of equity in circumstance between the two. It's not. There is a fundamental difference in experience for men and women in most societies (and definitely the U.S.) that have to do with a level of empowerment and capacity. If it were equal and all men everywhere were just giving a quick appreciative glance or being kind in opening a door then fine I'll give you that. I still let men open doors for me when I'm walking into a store and I do the same. But it's not just that.

 

And this poem is definitely not leaning toward it when the first thing the man describes isn't how much of a lady she is, but how much of a seductive piece of meat she is while walking toward him.

 

Also, this is the problem of the term and use of patriarchy. In most uses, it's a means that men hold leadership, governing power, and overall decision making. So women are, by default, less powerful than men and dependent on male decisions. Can there be healthy form of patriarchy? I don't know, to be honest. I think the way it is mean in the church is solely that of spiritual order, where men are called to perform certain ordinances. If it were just that, I think I'd be ok with it. But it usually isn't. So patriarchy may be fundamental, but in its current form and heavy intermingling with common societal ideals about gender, we've got a problem with it's implications and practice that does leave women unequal in voice and capacity.

 

With luv,

BD

[sethpayne]

 

 

You can take on a self-righteous attitude if you like but the whole point of the thread is that THIS ATTITUDE CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT CHANGING THE FOUNDING CONCEPTS OF THE CHURCH.

 

 

 

Bishop,

 

Joseph Smith's knowledge of the nature of God was not complete until the Nauvoo period.

 

Mormonism did just fine until more was revealed.  So I'm not sure we can consider this a "founding concept" given that the concept did not exist until Joseph revealed it 10 years AFTER the founding of the Church.

 

Seth