The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[mfbukowski]

Women may (or may not as it is hard to measure how many false positives one gets without being a mind reader) be oversensitive to visual and verbal cues, but it is a survival skill based on the basic biological fact that men are physically stronger (in the sense of being able to force themselves upon another or to physically harm). And enough women have had personal experience so that biological/cultural bred awareness goes into overtime. (1out of 5 women have been attacked/abused/raped...and even if you think that number is high, let us drop it significantly to one in 20...how many women have you met in your lifetime so far...if only 5% instead of 20% have been abused, that easily puts it in tens of thousands of women you have looked at as youve walked by who have been put by the actions of a man into a life where they ask themselves when they see a man "is he going to try hurt me too?" and that is if you don't move around a lot and see a lot of repeats.

Unless you are physically weak and got beat up or were in some sort of physical altercation or conflict where you werent able to respond in an equivalent way to the attack, I don't see how a man can begin to understand how that changes one's perception. I've never been actually hurt, but a guy did physically restrain me to force me to talk to him. I had gone out on two dates with him (nothing major in cost) and being clueless and knowing he knew I was LDS and what that meant, I thought he understood that I approached him as a good friend who I had fun with, but then he put his arms completely around me in an empty office (he had taken me to his lab..lit was very cool) with almost all the lifhts out. My discomfort level shot way off and i awkwardly laughed, tried to relax and casually asked him about how something worked or whatever. I declined further dates. I have never ever even considered dressing immodestly or even attractively...I dressed somewhat nicely to be polite...because that would draw attention to me and I was extremely shy in those days. I had been so happy there was someone who just enjoyed talking to me about interesting things (we met in science classes, he was brilliant, worked at a research lab, knew things about Physics I wanted to learn) that I was willing to push my discomfort level to go out with him. After I turned down any more dates, he showed up where I worked. I was the last one to leave in the evening and it was dark and the large parking lot had a few other cars but no other people. He met me by the door after i locked it behind me (no key so no retreat though it didn't occur to me then I needed one)and I told him as he walked me that while I had really enjoyed his company, that I saw him as a friend and didn't feel it was right to date him where he is paying for stuff and I am not. He starts trying to persuade me otherwise, but eventually I say I'm sorry and get in the car. Insert the key, turn the ignition and nothing happens. I am freaking about a busted car and how ticked off Dad will be to have to pay for a tow truck, he wants us to always ride our bikes but Mom says not when we come home in the dark. I try to pump the gas nothing happens...I turn to my friend to appeal and he just keeps insisting on talking about why we should be going out till he figures out I can't even pay attention. Then he pulls out a handfull of wires and sheepishly says I really needed to talk to you. I am shocked. I emphasize this is not the way to make me more comfortable around him. He keeps pushing for me to give him another chance, eventually I say I will think about it and after about 20 minutes or so, he fixes my car and I go home. And my parents inform me I will never, ever allow myself to be alone with him and I start shaking.

And this guy was always the perfect gentleman.

I have heard similar stories from other women where the guy feels he has the right to tell us we have to talk, be or have sex with him based solely on the reason he wants it. It is not something I have ever heard a guy describe the same way...a woman may stalk him, looking for chances to talk, but I've never heard a guy describe feeling like he was ever forced to talk out of fear. Yeah, a girl could have done the same thing to a car and likely has, but a girl couldn't suddenly decide she had enough with talk, cover the man's mouth and force him into the back seat and rape him...at least not without planning ahead and bringing a gun or knife and that would make her bad, not just a poor guy who got carried away in the heat of the moment and did something he regretted as soon as he stopped...not that such would make a difference to the girl he just raped, it isn't something you can take back.

When I came to BYU we had lectures about never being alone with a guy we didn't know in the library or walking home alone, especially south of the campus because there was a rapist hiding in the bushes and attacking women and the cops hadn't caught him yet. The men organised an escort service for after dark in my branch and two would show up to walk us home at a certain time in front of the library. Didn't stop the rapes. Can't remember if they caught him or he just disappeared. Another showed up the next year or so.

So if women read in a poem about a guy staring at a woman because he thinks she is seductive, we might have good reason to think he just isn't thinking about what kind of flowers she might like or if she is a good cook or likes to watch football. And while we are well aware that not all men are thinking "I am going to have that woman no matter what", we are generally also very, very aware there are enough men out there that are that our mothers, our sisters and friends have been attacked at least one out of twenty and more likely closer to one in ten or five.

I totally agree with you.  Great post and is the flip side of what I am saying and proves my point.

 

The facts of reproduction are the facts of reproduction.  It is biology.  Women must never be fearful of that in a civilized society- it has absolutely no place whatsoever, and that includes harassment of any kind.

 

To be what I call a "patriarch" those tendencies need to disappear completely, and only kindness and equality must reign totally.

 

But it is what we men must BECOME.  Ignoring that fact ignores the most basic moral principle that we are to "put away the natural man" and overcome.  Those who overcome can sit with the Lord in his kingdom.

 

But we men cannot overcome without that as an IDEAL to aspire after. 

[JLHPROF]

After we have reversed a few thousand years of cultural "development" and actually changed our biology, which is inseparable now from human cultural development, you may have a point.

 

This stuff is as old as opposable thumbs and flaking flint tools. The men take care of the tribe. They can be nice or nasty.  That's not going away soon no matter what we want to be.

 

I don't believe there's any biology involved, as some tribal societies are matriarchies, and as we've seen with other aspects of culture, things can and do change rather rapidly. We are not eternally bound by cultural vestiges of ancient tribal life, and I have faith that humanity can and will move beyond it. I guess I am not as fatalistic as you are.

 

I don't think tribal history plays into it.  Patriarchal society goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Basically, the question comes down to whether men only preside over women because of the fall (something that will be removed when we are no longer in a fallen state), or whehter men preside because it is the eternal order of things.

And frankly, there's doctrinal backing for both ideas.  But blaming it on mortal cultures and societies doesn't fit with what we know of gospel history.  There has never been a recorded time among the children of our Heavenly Father where the gospel was available where women presided over men.  Culturally the movement in that direction is really less that 100 years old.

So, is it a result of temporal fall or is it eternal order?  Either way, I think society is just reflecting this pattern, not creating it.

[USU78]

[mfbukowski]

I'll shoot your a PM with into on where to find the paper.

 

You make some interesting points but I think the strongest case OW can make is one from LDS Church history where Joseph spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization.  Also, the common practice of women performing ordinances etc....

 

So in that sense, I'm not sure we have to deconstruct Mormonism to find a place for female priesthood, and perhaps even ordination.  I think a sensible case can be made without the need to throw out or minimize some of the teachings you mention.  

Thanks for the PM.  I will get back to you after I have a chance to look at it.

 

So essentially I think we are in complete agreement as far as I see it right now.  Completely agree that we should "restore" the Restoration in these regards.

 

It seems everyone thinks OW carried it too far.  As I see it, they had no theological basis for their arguments and still don't.

 

Calmoriah seems to think that a new priesthood for women could be developed, and I agree totally.  I am convinced Mother holds the priesthood- we are promised that women will be "Priestesses", so that is not even something new

 

I have not yet seen one good argument for them having any theology behind the movement that doesn't make Mormonism a different religion.  And I suppose that is why virtually everyone here agrees that they went too far.

 

I suppose that was my original point, and surprisingly, no one actually seems to disagree with it in the long run.  Surprising.  Nuances, yes, but the basic point- no real comments yet.

Edited June 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

I suppose that was my original point, and surprisingly, no one actually seems to disagree with it in the long run.  Surprising.  Nuances, yes, but the basic point- no real comments yet.

 

I have a problem with the use of the term patriarchy, as it has been wholly co-opted, as I've mentioned before in this thread.  Your thesis I agree with.  I just wish we could come up with a better, non-in-your-face-use-of-a-charged term.

[jkwilliams]

I don't think tribal history plays into it.  Patriarchal society goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.

And even before.

Basically, the question comes down to whether men only preside over women because of the fall (something that will be removed when we are no longer in a fallen state), or whehter men preside because it is the eternal order of things.

Or it could be that the specifics of Fall mythology arise from existing social beliefs about gender.

And frankly, there's doctrinal backing for both ideas.  But blaming it on mortal cultures and societies doesn't fit with what we know of gospel history.  There has never been a recorded time among the children of our Heavenly Father where the gospel was available where women presided over men.  Culturally the movement in that direction is really less that 100 years old.

I think it fits quite nicely. Either way, just because it hasn't happened yet, it doesn't mean it can't in the future.

So, is it a result of temporal fall or is it eternal order?  Either way, I think society is just reflecting this pattern, not creating it.

To me, that's a chicken-or-egg question. It doesn't matter how it arose, only what we do with that attitude going forward.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization without actually ordaining women, and the common practice of women performing ordinances is likewise done without ordaining women. Marriage, the family and the patriarchal order are also priesthood organizations without ordaining every member. So if qualifying as belonging to a priesthood organization or performing ordinances as delegated are considered a strong case for ordaining women, I think the supporters of such need to go back to the drawing board.

Well actually they are "set apart" for that instead of "ordained" but the point is that hands are laid on their heads and they are given authority.  That is pragmatically the same as "ordination" to me.  I have had the privilege of standing in with a temple president on two separate occasions and I practically memorized the words, which were the same both times.

 

I should also point out that men are "set apart" for callings within the priesthood and have authority delegated to them as well.  I see no difference in practicality.

[jkwilliams]

I have a problem with the use of the term patriarchy, as it has been wholly co-opted, as I've mentioned before in this thread.  Your thesis I agree with.  I just wish we could come up with a better, non-in-your-face-use-of-a-charged term.

Perhaps we just need to accept that sometimes when someone uses a word, they aren't using it in the sense we think they are. On the flip side, it is always best to use words that aren't emotionally or politically loaded.

[mfbukowski]

How many times does this Joseph Smith statement need to be explained?  He was not referring to ordaining women to the lay priesthood.  He was not referring to making them of the same order as Deacons and Elders. 

He was referring to a millennial temple society, wherein the ONLY priesthood office a woman can be ordained to is Queen and Priestess.

And since this still exists there is nothing to "find a place for".

 

Using that statement of Joseph to justify ordaining women in the Church is simply not accurate.

I am convinced that women are ordained queens and priestesses when their calling and election is made sure, which I believe happens in paradise- when we all have that ordinance except for the very few who have it here.

[mfbukowski]

Well, to be honest, it strikes me as blasphemy.

 

You're telling me that God, a perfected being, a being that cannot view sin with any degree of latitude... got it on with a mortal...

 

Just strikes me as the whole "Angles and Women had sex and begat Giants" stuff that I heard from a Baptist pator. (Genesis something, sons of God, Daughter of men... more details in the Book of Enoch) It just rubs me wrong.

 

If you’re a being of "Phenomenal Cosmic Power", who created the freakin' human body to start with, seems you would be more than capable of doing whatever you want with it... without crossing that line.

Holy cow.  Now you are even pushing the limits for me.  I understand your points but a bit more reverence please.  Gotta knock off some of those rough edges.

[mfbukowski]

Isn't the official Mormon line that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father, but we don't know the mechanics?  Shouldn't the right answer be, "I don't know" regarding this question rather than idle speculation?

Yes.  What it says in the bible works for me.

 

I think this is half the reason we don't know about Heavenly Mother, because of this kind of talk.  I suppose that will get the feminists riled for some reason, but I don't care.

[Ahab]

I totally agree with you. Great post and is the flip side of what I am saying and proves my point.

The facts of reproduction are the facts of reproduction. It is biology. Women must never be fearful of that in a civilized society- it has absolutely no place whatsoever, and that includes harassment of any kind.

To be what I call a "patriarch" those tendencies need to disappear completely, and only kindness and equality must reign totally.

But it is what we men must BECOME. Ignoring that fact ignores the most basic moral principle that we are to "put away the natural man" and overcome. Those who overcome can sit with the Lord in his kingdom.

But we men cannot overcome without that as an IDEAL to aspire after.

I think the point you're getting at is that we need to have the attitude and perspective of a loving father to be as good as we can be. Father sounds better to me than patriarch and I think most people can relate to the concept of fatherhood rather than patriarchhood or patriarchy or however else you want to phrase it.

There's still a lot of good to be said about motherhood or matriarchhood/matriarchy too, though, and since I personally had a much better relationship with my Mom than my Dad there is more of my Mom incorporated into how I father my children as well as how I interact with my brothers and sisters, which is everybody on this planet.

Our Father is heaven is a perfect father, though, and I imagine that he interacts with us just as our Mother in heaven would if she interacted with us both personally and through our Father as they work through things together.

[mfbukowski]

I don't believe there's any biology involved, as some tribal societies are matriarchies, and as we've seen with other aspects of culture, things can and do change rather rapidly. We are not eternally bound by cultural vestiges of ancient tribal life, and I have faith that humanity can and will move beyond it. I guess I am not as fatalistic as you are.

But as Ahab would say, I am much prettier, so na na nee na na

[mfbukowski]

The best part about this, is that someone made it.  Hilarious.

 

That 800 pound gorilla ain't going nowhere.  It is who we are.

[mfbukowski]

 

I have a problem with the use of the term patriarchy, as it has been wholly co-opted, as I've mentioned before in this thread.  Your thesis I agree with.  I just wish we could come up with a better, non-in-your-face-use-of-a-charged term.

Sounds good to me.

 

Any candidates?  Oh wait- should we ask a sister to come up with it? 

[jkwilliams]

But as Ahab would say, I am much prettier, so na na nee na na

I've seen your picture, and I beg to differ.

[mfbukowski]

I think the point you're getting at is that we need to have the attitude and perspective of a loving father to be as good as we can be. Father sounds better to me than patriarch and I think most people can relate to the concept of fatherhood rather than patriarchhood or patriarchy or however else you want to phrase it.

There's still a lot of good to be said about motherhood or matriarchhood/matriarchy too, though, and since I personally had a much better relationship with my Mom than my Dad there is more of my Mom incorporated into how I father my children as well as how I interact with my brothers and sisters, which is everybody on this planet.

Our Father is heaven is a perfect father, though, and I imagine that he interacts with us just as our Mother in heaven would if she interacted with us both personally and through our Father as they work through things together.

"Father" works for me, but I don't think it is up to us to define the vocabulary.

 

The oppressed class must define it for themselves.   That is self-determination.  So far we don't even know that is a possible solution from their point of view.

[mfbukowski]

I've seen your picture, and I beg to differ.

You cad!

[jkwilliams]

You cad!

 

My wife says I'm handsome, so that's all that counts.

[CV75]

Well actually they are "set apart" for that instead of "ordained" but the point is that hands are laid on their heads and they are given authority.  That is pragmatically the same as "ordination" to me.  I have had the privilege of standing in with a temple president on two separate occasions and I practically memorized the words, which were the same both times.

 

I should also point out that men are "set apart" for callings within the priesthood and have authority delegated to them as well.  I see no difference in practicality.

Me neither. I resort to distinguishing between being "set apart" and "ordained" when the tenor of the conversation rolls around to conferral of priesthood and ordination to office, which is seems to be what "OW" emphasizes while, as you pointed out, minimizing the other ways God's authority is legitimately given and used. I've argued that "ordain" means "to set apart," and even "to assign," depending on how i feel I need to use the semantics. And I usually check the dictionary to make sure I'm using it right!

[Ahab]

"Father" works for me, but I don't think it is up to us to define the vocabulary.

The oppressed class must define it for themselves. That is self-determination. So far we don't even know that is a possible solution from their point of view.

He's always going to be the Father of all of us, regardless of how estranged some of us are from him. That's why he's called our Eternal Father.

Getting adopted by our Elder brother, Jesus Christ, so that he also becomes our Father is a whole other issue, so we can get into that some more some other time.

[Calm]

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

I should clarify that it is not because men would be giving me the Priesthood that I wouldn't want it, it is the logic for me if I actually wanted more empowerment in the first place. Iow I don't feel the need for empowerment as a woman at this point and if I did it would feel like I was getting it through receiving it through men.

[Calm]

How come women read romance novels with Fabio on the cover, who comes and sweeps them off their feet, and carries them away to the Princess Castle if women don't like that?

Why are women attracted to money and power if you don't want a rich, powerful husband? Or is that all just a lie, and women really don't like that.

)

Not all women read them. Some can't stand them...I am in this group. Not all women want rich and or powerful husbands.

And there are some women who have rape fantasies even....but that doesn't mean that is what they actually want.

Perhaps it would be helpful for everyone to stop using generalisations and work at specifying they are talking about a subsection of a gender.

Add-on: in 2009 there were over 158 million women in the US. That is a significant percentage of them reading romance, but not all romance is sexual (Jane Austen) and that is still the majority of women not reading.

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

So if women read in a poem about a guy staring at a woman because he thinks she is seductive, we might have good reason to think he just isn't thinking about what kind of flowers she might like or if she is a good cook or likes to watch football. And while we are well aware that not all men are thinking "I am going to have that woman no matter what", we are generally also very, very aware there are enough men out there that are that our mothers, our sisters and friends have been attacked at least one out of twenty and more likely closer to one in ten or five.

 

Cal,

 

Please go back and read the poem again.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63766-the-theology-of-patriarchy-cannot-be-changed/page-11#entry1209395121

 

No where in that poem is the dirty mind of the Cowboy ever exposed. The narrator is the one who is describing her being dressed seductively. Yes the cowboy does watch her walk up, but not because HE thinks she's seductive. He just might have taken notice of the way the woman carried herself so confidently. She commanded respect and he gave it to her. Lets at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Perhaps you Ladies have been reading too many Louis L'Amour Romance Novels (Or maybe its the Clint-Eastwood movies?) and are projecting what you read their into the mind of an Innocent bystander, just because hes a Cowboy and dared show who he thought was a Lady a little respect?  

Edited June 27, 2014 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Addition: Oh and I think you're defintion of "Perfect Gentleman" and mine, differ by light years, but I may have missed the sarcasm.

I am talking about before that episode.