The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[katherine the great]

Please explain how that refutes a patriarchy.  Even in an equal partnership there is a managing partner.  The partners reach agreement and the managing partner administer the agreed upon procedures.

That works for me.  Hubby and I agree and he does all the work.

[JLHPROF]

I remember sitting at a Ward Conference once during a Priesthood Session and a Brother went off on the whole husband presiding thing, the member of the Stake Presidency who was leading the session looked somewhat incredulous and then said you don't really believe you preside over your wife do you? Trying to picture me explaining to my wife that I preside over her. Hm...nope I don't think I want to commit suicide tonight so will take a pass on that. Get real brothers, the Victorian Era ended awhile back and it certainly does not define Mormonism.

 

The Patriarchal order of the family is not a Victorian concept.  It is in fact seen in all recorded history of God's people, from Adam and Eve down to the restoration.  It is only in the last 40 years that modern society has sought to tear it down in favor of the current way of thinking, which is anything but eternal in nature.

[JLHPROF]

Why would we assume that our flawed, human view accurately reflects how God (father and mother) operates?

 

We don't assume.  We base it on scripture, the temple, and what God has revealed to us about family order.  And then we assume a bit.

[mfbukowski]

Your claim is that something is not possible. I'm saying that it very much is.

I missed something.  When did I say that, about what?

[mfbukowski]

Why would we assume that our flawed, human view accurately reflects how God (father and mother) operates?

Oh just because its all we have.  What would you suggest?  Drop the discussion because we can't know what truth is?

 

There's that old truth problem again John.

[Ahab]

The weaker sex is actually the stronger sex because of the weakness of the stronger sex for the weaker sex.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, especially when I am the one with only my needs, and even though my wife and I are both one we have many who usually have many needs instead of only just one need to take care of. And I say usually because sometimes the needs of the many are only one need even though that need isn't always the same one.

[toujours]

Brigham Jung! Haha, that's brilliant. 

 

We are all Adam and we are all God. How different life would be if we took that seriously.

[Tsuzuki]

I missed something.  When did I say that, about what?

 

The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

 

This is a very simple point.

 

Some are against the idea of Patriarchy.

 

That view is essential to Mormonism.  THAT VIEW IS MORMONISM.

 

There really isn't anything more to it.  God is our Father, we have a Mother and we make up their children, literally, as spirit children. As their children, our objective is to "grow up" to be like them.  All of our doctrine is based on that principle.

 

We don't know much about Heavenly Mother, and the Father presides over his family.

 

THAT my friends IS Mormonism

 

How can we possibly do away with that and remain "Mormons"?  Do we want to become Creedal Christians and accept the Trinity?  What is the alternative?

 

I am starting this thread for those who want to explain how it can change and have us keep our essential core beliefs.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Tsuzuki

[Abulafia]

Interesting approach. You don't say Paul was wrong or uninspired, but you do seem to say the epistle doesn't even belong in the Bible in the first place. Good insight. What would the Church do without its intellectuals? I'll be sure to mention this to the Gospel Doctrine teacher when we study Ephesians next year. We can just skip over that particular lesson. Why bother?

What you say about Paul's epistle to the Ephesians may be widely believed by the learned, and by the so-called "experts," but that doesn't make it so. The LDS Church believes the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; and as far as I know, the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't touch the verses in question.

For some reason, your post reminds me of the following words of exhortation Paul gave to the Ephesian saints:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4)

I'm saying that the attitude to, and development of the Christian canon has a history.

Knowledge of it's history is insightful and fascinating.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

LDS theology allows for the fact that the bible is correct only insofar as it is transmitted correctly?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Abulafia

[teddyaware]

LDS theology allows for the fact that the bible is correct only insofar as it is transmitted correctly?

It looks like Ephesians was translated and transmitted fairly accurately. In his role as prophet, when Joseph Smith had the assignment from the Lord to correct any errors of translation and transmission he could find in the Bible, he changed only 15 verses in the epistle to Ephesians, and several of the changes made were minor. The fact that the Prophet worked on correcting the text of Ephesians and did not just cast it out of hand as an inauthentic pseudepigraphal forgery, as you would have us believe, speaks to it's divine authenticity.

Edited June 27, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Brigham Jung! Haha, that's brilliant. 

 

We are all Adam and we are all God. How different life would be if we took that seriously.

I have been thinking that way for about 40 years.  Let me tell you it is an interesting way to live. 

 

I think they call it "Mormonism". 

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

LDS theology allows for the fact that the bible is correct only insofar as it is transmitted correctly?

That is really the brilliance of it all.  All is subject to continuing revelation.  As you know "translation" is a very ambiguous word.

 

It is what we create from matter unorganized

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Your claim is that something is not possible. I'm saying that it very much is. One of the fundamental claims of Mormonism is that even if it's right, it still doesn't have the whole story.

 

"...and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

Ah ok now I know what you are saying.

 

Of course it can be changed but my point is then it is not "Mormonism".  If we worship a certain Archetype and then change the Archetype, it all changes.

 

If you say that the human family is now Adam and Steve, you now do not have male and female as has been defined by humanity for, literally forever.  Male and female drives and definitions have evolved since the dawn of time.  Throughout the animal kingdom you have "sexism".

 

No we should not act like animals- THAT is what religion is for- to give us something to reach for the stars, to become more than we are, and to set an ideal standard we can never attain here.  We are HUMAN animals and have literally re-defined what it means to be a living being on this planet. We now evolve ourselves by creating our own environment- we organize our worlds from matter unorganized.

 

We are to rise above the "natural man", which means the sexist man.

 

But we can't change what the history of life has given us as a legacy.  It is what we are. We adapt the world to us, the world does not adapt us any more.  That is what has become the problem of "ecology" - the natural world is now ours to save or destroy. 

 

But we still are what we are.

 

Our standard is to become like Heavenly Father and Mother.  THAT is the Archetype we worship.  We do not worship some other archetype.  That is the point.  Yes of course it can change- but then you are changing what is unique and what DEFINES Mormonism.

 

I mean heck if we ordain women we will be Episcopalians.  Seriously.  We are already close to the Catholics- and that would bring us totally into a virtual offshoot of Episcopalians.

 

i have nothing against Episcopalians, but they do not worship the Heavenly Family as an Archetype.  THAT is what I mean.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Senator]

 

Gender is the essential point of the church- and the essential characteristic of the leader of a family in this system is Patriarchy.

 

We don't even have revelations (yet) about Mother- just very scanty hints.  That hopefully will change, but the fact that she is our Mother cannot change and keep the essence of Mormonism.

 

 

So, because we only (currently) know about and hear from The Father >  therefore we know that the system is patriarchal?

 

Is this what you are saying?  Maybe, I'm still not understanding you.

[mfbukowski]

too politically incorrect..

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So, because we only (currently) know about and hear from The Father >  therefore we know that the system is patriarchal?

 

Is this what you are saying?  Maybe, I'm still not understanding you.

All we know about The System is patriarchy.  It is all we have.  We do not have scriptures that are not sexist.  We can change it all we want but the reality is that changing pronouns only changes pronouns and makes some sisters feel better about themselves I guess.

 

It doesn't change what we are and what we have and have taken as "revealed".  It doesn't change the archetype of worshiping the family as it has been forever including gender roles

[jkwilliams]

Oh just because its all we have.  What would you suggest?  Drop the discussion because we can't know what truth is?

 

There's that old truth problem again John.

 

The premise of your OP is that our human understanding of who God is and how He/They operate is a patriarchal theology that cannot be changed. I'm unconvinced that this has anything to do with truth but rather reflects our human tendency to limit God based on our limited understanding. Regardless of the existence of "truth," however you define it, our understanding can and will change, and it seems odd to insist that it can't, as you have here.

[mfbukowski]

The premise of your OP is that our human understanding of who God is and how He/They operate is a patriarchal theology that cannot be changed. I'm unconvinced that this has anything to do with truth but rather reflects our human tendency to limit God based on our limited understanding. Regardless of the existence of "truth," however you define it, our understanding can and will change, and it seems odd to insist that it can't, as you have here.

The truth is not out there John. it is what WE create.

 

And WE will always be WE.  That is the point.

 

We can pretend to change gender roles all we want, but we are talking about millions of years of evolution being overthrown by someones politics.

 

It aint gonna happen

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes of course women are equal to men.  Of course they should be paid as men are.  Of course they should have any job they want and can do- just as men do.

 

Yes of course we are equal partners in the family and all that.  But we think differently we act differently and have different roles

 

That will never change- it is who we are

 

And who we are is what we worship as Archetypes.  Patriarchy cannot change not because it is patriarchy, but because WE cannot change our DNA.

 

THAT is the point

 

Mormonism is worship of our DNA as an archetype, in essence.  THAT is what patriarchy is, if correctly translated. 

 

And to me, that is also the essence of the Proclamation on the Family.  It says our DNA is like that because we were like that before we came here.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[watermelongirl]

I kind of got this impression that this was an offshoot of our discussion in the other thread about what a different system would look like. At first I was super unclear by exactly what you meant by patriarchy, since it has several possible meanings. This helped clear things up for me:

Patriarchs don't boss anybody- they serve everybody in love.

 

He who is greatest is the servant of all.  He earns leadership through love and earns respect because of that love.

 

Maybe that is the answer.

 

Maybe we stupid men need to BECOME true patriarchs.

 

We are in trouble with some of the sisters because some of us are not doing that.

^^ Most definitely on that last line. Not to say the sisters are perfect either, but when men are in charge and they abuse their office, it's a really big stinkin' problem.

 

All we know about The System is patriarchy.  It is all we have.  We do not have scriptures that are not sexist.  We can change it all we want but the reality is that changing pronouns only changes pronouns and makes some sisters feel better about themselves I guess.

 

It doesn't change what we are and what we have and have taken as "revealed".  It doesn't change the archetype of worshiping the family as it has been forever including gender roles

I think that several of the other posters here have demonstrated that they don't distinguish between the patriarchy amongst the priesthood offices and the patriarchy in a family. We know that when there are disagreements between husband and wife, they need to figure it out and not use unrighteous dominion to assert their case. I think that Paul's "submit" thing is totally cultural holdover in the scriptures and it's a shame.

 

As you said mentioned in other places, I sincerely pray for the day when Mother's role is made known to us and we can pattern ourselves more fully after what we know of her. I think there is a great deal we have yet to learn. When it is, it will bring the archetype of family into even greater clarity.

 

In short, I really don't think you and I disagree about this at all. That doesn't mean there isn't sexism in the church.

[mfbukowski]

I kind of got this impression that this was an offshoot of our discussion in the other thread about what a different system would look like. At first I was super unclear by exactly what you meant by patriarchy, since it has several possible meanings. This helped clear things up for me:

^^ Most definitely on that last line. Not to say the sisters are perfect either, but when men are in charge and they abuse their office, it's a really big stinkin' problem.

 

I think that several of the other posters here have demonstrated that they don't distinguish between the patriarchy amongst the priesthood offices and the patriarchy in a family. We know that when there are disagreements between husband and wife, they need to figure it out and not use unrighteous dominion to assert their case. I think that Paul's "submit" thing is totally cultural holdover in the scriptures and it's a shame.

 

As you said mentioned in other places, I sincerely pray for the day when Mother's role is made known to us and we can pattern ourselves more fully after what we know of her. I think there is a great deal we have yet to learn. When it is, it will bring the archetype of family into even greater clarity.

 

In short, I really don't think you and I disagree about this at all. That doesn't mean there isn't sexism in the church.

Totally agree with every word and thanks for the post!  You are one of the few brave women to post here for reasons unclear to me,

 

Yes we men have to learn how to be real Patriarchs, as we imagine what the Patriarchs of old might have been.  Never overbearing, always loving, protecting and caring for our children in love and compassion, getting on our knees and shedding a tear as need be to have tender hearts.

 

THAT is patriarchy.  That is "presiding" as Heavenly Father presides.

 

And yes we need to know Mother's role.

 

Honestly I think that has been saved for the last days- and here we are.

 

Maybe that says it all in fact.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Senator]

Yes of course women are equal to men.  Of course they should be paid as men are.  Of course they should have any job they want and can do- just as men do.

 

Yes of course we are equal partners in the family and all that.  But we think differently we act differently and have different roles

 

That will never change- it is who we are

 

And who we are is what we worship as Archetypes.  Patriarchy cannot change not because it is patriarchy, but because WE cannot change our DNA.

 

THAT is the point

 

Mormonism is worship of our DNA as an archetype, in essence.  THAT is what patriarchy is, if correctly translated. 

 

And to me, that is also the essence of the Proclamation on the Family.  It says our DNA is like that because we were like that before we came here.

 

Mmmm

 

But is not the DNA of man an enemy to God?

[mfbukowski]

Mmmm

 

But is not the DNA of man an enemy to God?

Uh not in my book.  He invented it, and will use it to make us into what we can become, using religious parlance.

 

In scientific terms, it is the basis of what we are and will continue evolving to be.  Pick your terminology.  I prefer the first.

 

Don't mix your metaphors- it gets too confusing

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Tsuzuki]

I mean heck if we ordain women we will be Episcopalians.

No, we would be Mormons who ordain women. Episcopalians are their own thing.

 

I'm not talking about changing the archetype of the sacred union of male and female, but there are ways of rendering that archetype that don't involve patriarchy, and we know next to nothing about Heavenly Mother. For all we know, She could be the one who "presides" over Heavenly Father. We literally know next to nothing.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Tsuzuki