The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[mtomm]

 

 

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.

 

 

Here, I think, is the problem. 

We are asking the sisters of the Church to "grow up" to be what exactly?  We have no knowledge of our Heavenly Mother only that it just makes sense that she exists.  What is her role?  How can I aspire to a role that I know nothing about?  How can we pattern a life after something for which we have no pattern?  

How can we answer these questions?  Does anyone even care if they are answered?  Who can answer them with any authority?  How do women pattern themselves after the Father when we are told our role is different than that of of our brethren who are to pattern the Father?  Would you tell the brothers to pattern their lives after a woman?  

The dismissive answers are frustrating.  And if you question the non-answers then you are just accused of not having a testimony, not having enough faith, not relying on the Lord, etc. But that is what always happens.  We criticize those who ask the questions.  

The global church could start having a conversation about our Heavenly Mother.  That can only happen from the top down.  The idea of a Heavenly Mother is a beautiful thing.  But that's all she is, an idea. 

Edited June 26, 2014 by mtomm

[stemelbow]

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.

Seems simple to me. It could change if we are wrong in that Father presides. Perhaps Mother presides and one of the Father's assignments is to work with us, including the gazillion petty complaints that come from us.

[CV75]

Please don't put words into my mouth.

Considering the OP, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of your remark.

 

How disturbing.

Now that's a funny drive-by!

 

I think it's more 1x1=1.

Neither is complete ("1") without the other -- 1 Corinthians 11:11.

 

What I meant is that making yourself responsible for the other's mental or emotional state ("happiness") is a recipe for failure.

That can be done well or done poorly, just like the math. The Lord's order of things (especially the order of priesthood, patriarchy and marriage) is fundamentally about our spiritual state, and we certainly are responsible for each others' welfare.

[jkwilliams]

Ah yes.  Western patriarchy.

 

All over the world women are free and equal and not oppressed in any way, and here we are with nasty Western patriarchy putting them down and keeping them under domination.

 

All over the world, free women are not raped or sold.  All over the world the natural course for mankind historically has been women in authority and living in freedom, except in this system of evil Western Patriarchy.

 

Bye John.

Actually, "Western patriarchy" is the best label for what you're describing here. There are different forms of patriarchy, obviously, but Mormonism arises in a Western context, so Western patriarchy fits. Compared with other, more abusive patriarchal systems, Western patriarchy is comparatively less oppressive, but it's still patriarchy.

I'm not sure how your response is related to the idea that Mormonism's current patriarchal system, which is rather Western in its origins and history, can and perhaps should change. Oh, well.

[mfbukowski]

Here, I think, is the problem. 

We are asking the sisters of the Church to "grow up" to be what exactly?  We have no knowledge of our Heavenly Mother only that it just makes sense that she exists.  What is her role?  How can I aspire to a role that I know nothing about?  How can we pattern a life after something for which we have no pattern?  

How can we answer these questions?  Does anyone even care if they are answered?  Who can answer them with any authority?  How do women pattern themselves after the Father when we are told our role is different than that of of our brethren who are to pattern the Father?  Would you tell the brothers to pattern their lives after a woman?  

The dismissive answers are frustrating.  And if you question the non-answers then you are just accused of not having a testimony, not having enough faith, not relying on the Lord, etc. But that is what always happens.  We criticize those who ask the questions.  

The global church could start having a conversation about our Heavenly Mother.  That can only happen from the top down.  The idea of a Heavenly Mother is a beautiful thing.  But that's all she is, an idea.

The irony is that only the Patriarchy can answer them. Even KK was acknowledging that by her demands TO the Patriarchy.

No one sees the irony. I am running away from home but daddy has to drive me.

[mfbukowski]

Seems simple to me. It could change if we are wrong in that Father presides. Perhaps Mother presides and one of the Father's assignments is to work with us, including the gazillion petty complaints that come from us.

That would work.

That's the first reasonable answer.

[mtomm]

The irony is that only the Patriarchy can answer them. Even KK was acknowledging that by her demands TO the Patriarchy.

No one sees the irony. I am running away from home but daddy has to drive me.

 

I do think people see the irony.  Is there another way?

[jkwilliams]

I am married, to a woman, and I believe it is impossible to overthink anything, even though not everyone will put as much thought into some things as I do.

Then I suppose we disagree.

I'm more into developing unity between myself and my wife with the goal of eventually being in agreement with each other about everything. Including the best way to put towels away.

If that works for you, then good on you. I can't imagine either my wife or I having that kind of goal.

Why would you ever put towels away in some way that is not the best way to put towels away? Are you imagining some kind of emergency which would prevent you from putting towels away the best way, maybe because you wouldn't have enough time at that moment? You could still come back later to put the towels away in the best way possible, couldn't you? What's the big deal about putting towels away in the best way possible?

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. I'm not even sure there is a best way to put away towels, let alone ever going to my wife and saying, "You know, sweetheart, the way you fold towels isn't the best way. Perhaps you should consider folding them the way I do." Nope, can't even imagine doing that. The worst that can happen in my current system (supposing that we had different ways of folding towels) is that the towels in the linen closet might be folded two different ways.

For me and my wife, working together and resolving differences creates unity in thought and action so that we both do and think the same things, rather than having or continuing to have disagreements or conflicting ways of doing things.

For us, it's important to come to agreement on important things, but even then we understand that we don't always handle things the same way. Recently one of our children came to us separately for some advice about dating. We're generally on the same page so far as these things go, but the advice we each gave our child was different and really covered different aspects of dating. My wife was surprised at what I told my child, but we agreed that we had both given good advice and that, taken together, it was pretty solid and covered everything our child asked.

She shares her thoughts with me, and I with her, and then together we work out the best solution or agree on the same idea. And I like our way better than what you are talking about.

We do the same thing, though we don't always agree, and that's OK. If agreement about religion were a primary goal in our marriage, we'd probably not be married anymore. We had to accept a long time ago that we disagree and are likely never going to agree about religion. We spent about 2 years doing what you suggested, talking endlessly about our religious differences and how to resolve them, and it almost ended our marriage. We had to let go and realize that our disagreement in this matter wasn't important enough to destroy our marriage and break up our family. Life got much better after that.

Ours is more like 1 x 1 = 1, I think. We want to do only what makes both of us happy, together.

That's how I see my marriage, too. I think we just have different ways of getting there.

[Calm]

So if your husband wants something a certain way, if you do it for him, that is "patronizing"???

 

Why?

Isn't that the point though, that men and women do this for each other and it just isn't men sitting around "making mama happy".

 

My mom used to say "your father comes first, because where would we be if something happened to him?" (not just because he was provider).  She regrets it now because Dad never developed the habit of accommodating to others and now he isn't quite so sharp, his self preservation instincts aren't working to protect him from his selfcenterness anymore.

 

A good portion of RS activities and just women getting together is spent in talking about how to help husband be happy and describing the lack of fun when he isn't.

 

In our family, when my husband is upset, the gloom in the house is palatable and everyone else is struggling to come up with ways to pull him out of his funk.  When my daughter has anxiety attacks, we all scramble to look for ways to distract her and help her relax, when depressed things to cheer her up.  When my son expresses frustration in business dealings, we are all there telling him the guy is a jerk and offering to take him to movies and stuff to get his mind off of it.

 

In any relationship, it is wise and kind and respectful to want to help the other be happy.  It is not wise and kind and respectful to simply give in to avoid conflict or because it is easier and nicer for us to have others around us happy so it doesn't bring us down.

 

Knowing you and conversations in the past, I suspect that is how it works out in your family and life, others who love you want you to be happy and when it doesn't bother them, they go along without protest.  I would assume that if something is important to you, say like you disagreed with your wife about something with the kids' choices, you would let her know your reservations and the two of you would discuss it.  Why would a woman marry someone who spent so much time thinking about thinking and other things and not actually talk to you about what you thought was important and take that into account.  It boggles my mind and so I think it highly unlikely and instead you have a mutual appreciation pact and she does things just so when it matters to you just as you do things just so when it matters to her and the other isn't invested.

 

I assume this is what I will read as I go further along.

 

The problem with just stating "if mama is happy, everyone is happy" and talking about men giving in to women and not mentioning the other reciprocal responses occurring at the same time is because there are too many out there who present the one sided approach as the reality and use that to promote disrespect (whether of women or men or both).  So I would suggest that in the future you include that women in essence say the same things about men and it is just part of the normal give and take in a relationship rather than leaving off half of the equation…which always leads to imbalance.  

 

If you are going to say it eventually, you might as well say it first and avoid all the confusion.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

The problem with just stating "if mama is happy, everyone is happy" and talking about men giving in to women and not mentioning the other reciprocal responses occurring at the same time is because there are too many out there who present the one sided approach as the reality and use that to promote disrespect (whether of women or men or both).  So I would suggest that in the future you include that women in essence say the same things about men and it is just part of the normal give and take in a relationship rather than leaving off half of the equation…which always leads to imbalance.  

 

If you are going to say it eventually, you might as well say it first and avoid all the confusion.

That is perhaps the best thing I've read today. Every relationship, not just a marriage, is give and take, and we all do things for each other. It's when we say that we defer to a particular person that we get into trouble, and I think your charitable reading of mfb's post is probably the right one.

[Calm]

 

 

This isn't a relationship on equal footing, neither is one where the husband is "trying to make the wife happy".

 

It is bound to failure because you can't make another person happy in the first place.

[jkwilliams]

It is bound to failure because you can't make another person happy in the first place.

Yep. It's not just semantics but an important lesson for every married couple to learn.

[USU78]

I reject completely the notion that Western patriarchy is at all "natural" and that it cannot be changed. That has been my point all along.

 

I reject completely the notion that there is such a thing as "Western patriarchy" in the first place, at least not in the sense you assert for it.

[Calm]

No, she's just quiet like the rest of her female children.

 

Why is it that I feel the need to speak less about the more intelligent things around men at family gatherings because if I do, I might sound manly or macho?  Why do I feel the need to be soft spoken and quiet and sweet around them?  Speaking of my very TBM bro in laws and father in law of course.  I know it's all in my head but this has been part of my being for so long.  Do any women here feel the same, or am I an anomaly?  What is that all about?  Who or what made me feel this way?    

It is culture…both society and family, most likely outside of the Church being brought in given the external society has been around a lot longer and is a lot larger than the Church.

 

I am actually less likely to talk around women because I feel more out of place among them due to my lack of interest in my youth to stuff being taught in the YW and RS when I was young as well as women's stuff at school (who wants home ec, I learned how to cook and sew from Mom, I want wood shop because it never occurred to my dad I might be interested no matter how much time I spent hanging around or taking stuff apart on my own…finally when I was about to go off to college to major in Physics he started paying attention and showing me a few things, unfortunately I let him talk me into going into Engineering because that was more practical for a job but I didn't like that so I switched to Psychology…which is what I talked to my mom about so that worked out alright).

[Calm]

So she can tell Heavenly Father what to do?  Or overrule Him?  Assuming there is such a person, my guess is that Heavenly Mother would only have the power and authority Heavenly Father allows Her to have.

Neither would want to overrule the other.  Would Christ overrule the Father?  Would the Father refuse to consider what the Son thought was important?

 

If they are all one in heart and mind, then the idea of overruling or telling the other what to do has no meaning.

[jkwilliams]

I reject completely the notion that there is such a thing as "Western patriarchy" in the first place, at least not in the sense you assert for it.

Then I guess our conversation is over. I think it's pretty obvious that patriarchy exists and there are forms of patriarchy in Western culture that differ significantly from other cultures.

[jkwilliams]

Neither would want to overrule the other.  Would Christ overrule the Father?  Would the Father refuse to consider what the Son thought was important?

 

If they are all one in heart and mind, then the idea of overruling or telling the other what to do has no meaning.

I realize you probably don't think very highly of me, but I appreciate your thoughtful responses both generally and in this discussion. You have a way of saying what I would like to say without causing conflict or hurt feelings. I am trying to do better and am learning from you, so thank you.

Edited June 26, 2014 by jkwilliams

[USU78]

Then I guess our conversation is over. I think it's pretty obvious that patriarchy exists and there are forms of patriarchy in Western culture that differ significantly from other cultures.

 

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.

[Calm]

One of the comments on the Radio West show.....

 

"There is an ABSOLUTE subtle disregard for women by the men. I do not think they are aware of it. I became aware of it when I got to know non-mormon men and how much respect they gave me. My opinion and thoughts made them stop and listen, and I was astonished. This experience opened my eyes. I do not experience that around mormon men. Their disregard is subtle, but it is there."

My experience was the reverse.  I have always been more respected in my dealings with men inside the Church than outside.

 

It may be luck of the draw.  I know the women my husband worked with came up and told me they never had another boss or colleague male or female that treated them so respectfully.

 

I do know men who disregard women in the Church, but all of them that I know disregard men as well so I am not a good source for specifics on major disrepects.  There is at this time a bias where there are some men who 'just don't get it' when it comes to women but I see that in women as well for men (and it may be biological to some extent and not just cultural given the evidence of brains working differently generally speaking), so the only problem I see is that the written word at this point allows for the first to be more easily sustained than the second due to the lesser presence of women in scripture and history discussions and at the pulpit (we have been less visually 'present').  This is changing and in time I suspect we will come to the point where disrespect that is still present will be pretty much equally balanced in open, obvious expression for both sexes (and hopefully this will be very, very minor).

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Then why all the complaining that women are getting shortchanged?  Clearly that is not the case in the end if they end up 100% equal and always agree with their husbands.

"in the end" isn't now.

[jkwilliams]

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.

CFR on me ever saying anything remotely like that. Holy crap.

 

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.

I find it a useful label for societies in which men hold power and authority in ways that women do not, that's all. It doesn't have to be a pejorative.

[juliann]

Of course.

 

The church has said that should be the way forever.  Ever read the Family Proclamation?

 

What does that have to do with Patriarchy?

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.

[Calm]

 

 

I'm the incurable romantic in the family. She is the far more practical of us. IE; She gets to set the price point and I get to set the style. A while ago we needed a new bed. She set the price point and I chose a beautiful Queen Ann style four poster Rice bed. We are both happy.

The outside of the house matters to my husband while the inside matters to me (so does the outside but with my health I had to limit my involvement and if I don't contribute, I don't rate my input as high as someone who does…though my husband works hard at giving me equal say…doesn't always succeed because sometimes he forgets what I've said I've wanted, but I make it clear if it is important to me and if not, no big deal).  Now that my health has gotten worse, I started to let the house go more his route inside until recently I just reached the point where I realized it wasn't helping anyone if I was staying in my room because I was uncomfortable in the rest of it, so he is finishing up the deck and patio area in the back and he is starting to do the heavy lifting of stuff in the house, like buying and assembling cupboards to put stuff away in since he loves to buy gadgets and I hate clutter.

 

I imagine that in some way this same dynamic works in every relationship.  If someone isn't comfortable with something, they will avoid it and if you want them to get involved, you need to see what will help them be comfortable and work towards that.  If you are okay with them not being involved…hopefully it is in not too many areas because it can reach a point where the relationship starts to disappear and it becomes just two individuals who happen to occupy the same living space.

[Calm]

I had an LDS commenter on my blog say that "the little lady" (referring to Kate Kelly) obviously had problems being around "strong male figures." That's certainly less subtle than what you describe, but I have definitely seen the subtle disregard for women. In my mission there was a definite attitude of superiority toward sister missionaries, which I never understood, as they worked at least as hard as we did and were often more effective. I have had to adjust my own attitudes because without even noticing it, I saw some of the same stuff in my own life. It's probably still there.

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.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[USU78]

CFR on me ever saying anything remotely like that. Holy crap.

 

I find it a useful label for societies in which men hold power and authority in ways that women do not, that's all. It doesn't have to be a pejorative.

 

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.