This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[Abulafia]

Mfb, This is what you wrote..

 

"A basic reality here.

 Men have been taking care of women and children for hundreds of thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years Humanity could not have survived without it. You cannot go to war or kill the buffalo while suckling a child, and with a few more tagging along. It was essential that culture evolve this way.

Now things are different.

 Give us some time to re-evolve culture."

 

I don't know why you are digging your heels in here.  "My point still stands" means...my point still stands... I am not trying to score points here.

 

Mormonism hasn't been around for hundreds and thousands of years. 

 

I am genuinely puzzled by your response to me.

[Abulafia]

But happy to leave it at that. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Mfb, This is what you wrote..

 

"A basic reality here.

 Men have been taking care of women and children for hundreds of thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years Humanity could not have survived without it. You cannot go to war or kill the buffalo while suckling a child, and with a few more tagging along. It was essential that culture evolve this way.

Now things are different.

 Give us some time to re-evolve culture."

 

I don't know why you are digging your heels in here.  "My point still stands" means...my point still stands... I am not trying to score points here.

 

Mormonism hasn't been around for hundreds and thousands of years. 

 

I am genuinely puzzled by your response to me.

I am not responding to you personally- it is your position.  I think you are clearly remarkably well informed about early Christianity and would not dream of arguing any of your points which involve historical scholarship in those areas.   I have a great respect for your knowledge and intellect and mean no offense whatsoever

I believe in evolution and I believe there is a reason males have evolved to be stronger and larger and women are smaller and are equipped for feeding babies.

Yes we no longer need these functions obviously and of course women and men are and should be equal in all respects.   Yet I would question why you refuse to acknowledge this interpretation of why we have evolved this way.

What is your interpretation of evolution then?  That women are equally equipped to throw spears, chase down game, engage in warfare while men nurse the babies?

To me it is obvious how patriarchy evolved.   I am not praising that it evolved that way- to me it is a "fact" of life.  Yes, society needs to change- unquestionably

But to deny the obvious biology seems extremely unreasonable.   Yes there have been matriarchal cultures, but where are they today?   How well have those cultures survived by the simple measure of which cultures are most dominant in the world today?

It stands to reason that in terms of genealogy to measure descent through women.  It is clear and obvious to an entire village who is the mother of what baby and can be very unclear who is the father.   So yes it makes sense to use matriarchy in cultures where lines of descent are important.

But even in those cultures- who does the hunting and fighting?   What is the dominant way culture has evolved?

I am just dumbfounded that this is even debatable, and coming from someone as intelligent as you- it is kind of bewildering, frankly.

[mfbukowski]

Abulafia

In fact, I would be interested in your opinions on the roots of Christianity being found in the Cult of Mitras

 

[Rain]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 8:30 PM, The Nehor said:

Of course since aspiring in the Church gets you damned (whether you are male or female) I do not see the appeal.

There is a difference in aspiring and desiring to fulfill the role God gave you to do.  And I don't mean what you think He gave you to do,  but are too proud and think other things would be beneath you.

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 10:26 AM, stemelbow said:

In some ways I feel like I'm so inherently benevolent in my sexism I wouldn't know how to even recognize it.  I, for instance, can relate to Mitt Romney's words without even batting an eyelash without seeing sexism.   I wouldn't even know how else to say it.  He's talking to men is the problem.  Trying to reach men's hearts by saying their wives and daughters are being demeaned here.  I dont' think it doesn't mean all women aren't demeaned.  Trump tried to pass it off as men talking to men.  Well let's talk to men and say that sucks. 

I get frustrated because on the one hand every reference to women being more spiritual than men, or how much of support they are to men, I'm disappointed.  Every time I speak up for feminism or for my desire to protect women from what I perceive as sexism, I feel like the benevolent sort. 

I relate well to the comment above from our friend Mfbukowski, what can I do to help?  Am I the benevolent sort for asking?

Perhaps instead of speaking up for feminism you could just ask for our thoughts or opinions. If it is a group of all men you could suggest females to come in and speak for ourselves. The best way to speak up for feminism is to ask is to speak and then listen.  

 

[Rain]

Oh,  and like mentioned above, if you decide not to go with our opinion please share why.  I can even be ok with "just a feeling I have" if it isn't used every other time and our suggestions are sometimes used.  Letting us know why usually tells us you really did consider what we had to say.  

[Abulafia]

MFB,  Okay, let me explain my position, it is true I am not an anthropologist,  but over the years I have tried to keep up with general historical issues, and the development of patriarchal, patrilineal, matriarchal, matrilineal, egalitarian, societies has always interested me.  We all developed from tribes, small tribes, and those tribes had  religious and cultural ways of living that were diverse. That's all I am saying.  Women could be gods, leaders, warriors, hunters, gatherers, shepherds, soothe sayers and so on. Marriage practices took varied forms.  I downloaded a (scholarly) overview yesterday from jstor.  I'll try find the time to quote some salient points.  

 

On Mithras, I would have to ask which bit of christianity, but personally I think that Judaism was diverse enough that most aspects of earliest christian belief could be found within it.  What came later as christianity spread and evolved is perhaps a different matter. My genuine and deep interest has always been the first 200 to 300 years.

[rongo]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Abulafia

In fact, I would be interested in your opinions on the roots of Christianity being found in the Cult of Mitras

I have a very interesting book called "The Secret Society of Moses," by a retired admiral in the Italian Navy named Barbiero (can't remember his first name). It is well-written and footnoted, and is a really interesting read. His thesis, which he emphasizes over and over throughout, and which I find less-interesting, is that the descendants of Moses have been purposely removed from the Bible record in favor of the descendants of Aaron. He doesn't understand anything about the Aaronic vs. Melchizedek priesthood, and makes a big deal of this where I don't think it matters much, but he considers this to be a conspiracy spanning millennia. 

Much more interesting to me is his treatment of the fall of Jerusalem under the Romans. According to him, Josephus negotiated the surrender and safe passage to Rome of Jewish nobility, where they infiltrated the Roman military and through that, over centuries, formed the ruling noble families of Europe and Christianity. His theory is that the cult of Sol Invictus Mithras, which was supposedly a sun-worshipping religion among the Roman military, was actually a way of transmitting the secret of who they really were from generation to generation. Roman soldiers were allowed access to the lower levels of the Mithras society, but not the upper, where the real secrets were shared. According to him, the transmission survives in our day in the different degrees of freemasonry. If he's correct about this (and I don't have firsthand knowledge, but did have a friend who is a Mason read his detailed breakdown of what is taught at the different degrees and he had no comment, which is interesting), what is actually taught and transmitted in the progressive degrees of freemasonry is information about the temple in Jerusalem through the ages, including a pact to return and rebuild it. His theory is that the Crusades, which make no sense on a lot of levels, were the result of these Jewish priestly noble families, which had by then gained enough power, to try to return and re-take the Holy Land and rebuild the temple.

The truth doesn't hinge on him and his ideas, but I found his theory to be very interesting to think about. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I have a very interesting book called "The Secret Society of Moses," by a retired admiral in the Italian Navy named Barbiero (can't remember his first name). It is well-written and footnoted, and is a really interesting read. His thesis, which he emphasizes over and over throughout, and which I find less-interesting, is that the descendants of Moses have been purposely removed from the Bible record in favor of the descendants of Aaron. He doesn't understand anything about the Aaronic vs. Melchizedek priesthood, and makes a big deal of this where I don't think it matters much, but he considers this to be a conspiracy spanning millennia. 

Much more interesting to me is his treatment of the fall of Jerusalem under the Romans. According to him, Josephus negotiated the surrender and safe passage to Rome of Jewish nobility, where they infiltrated the Roman military and through that, over centuries, formed the ruling noble families of Europe and Christianity. His theory is that the cult of Sol Invictus Mithras, which was supposedly a sun-worshipping religion among the Roman military, was actually a way of transmitting the secret of who they really were from generation to generation. Roman soldiers were allowed access to the lower levels of the Mithras society, but not the upper, where the real secrets were shared. According to him, the transmission survives in our day in the different degrees of freemasonry. If he's correct about this (and I don't have firsthand knowledge, but did have a friend who is a Mason read his detailed breakdown of what is taught at the different degrees and he had no comment, which is interesting), what is actually taught and transmitted in the progressive degrees of freemasonry is information about the temple in Jerusalem through the ages, including a pact to return and rebuild it. His theory is that the Crusades, which make no sense on a lot of levels, were the result of these Jewish priestly noble families, which had by then gained enough power, to try to return and re-take the Holy Land and rebuild the temple.

The truth doesn't hinge on him and his ideas, but I found his theory to be very interesting to think about. 

Thanks for this- that is very interesting for me because that sort of hypothesis ties together several lose strings including how certain masonic elements which seem to be truly ancient ended up in 17th century Freemasonry.  The story is that Freemasonry supposedly (in Masonic lore) comes from the temple of Solomon but yet it appears that it actually did not exist in the middle ages, but seems to appear cut from whole cloth in the 17th century, yet clearly containing some ancient elements.  How those elements got from the ancient world to the 17th century is kind of a mystery to casual researchers like me, but a story like this possibly provides a clue to a connecting hypothesis.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

Mithras was worshiped by shepherds at his birth, and there were many other parallels with the stories about the savior.  Persian magi sought the birth of the savior as prophesied in Zoroastrianism, and  Zoroastrianism in general, as well as various other religions coming out of Persia, parallel closely many of the stories attributed to the savior and Judaism. 

In fact the phrase "The SUN of righteousness with healing in his wings" found in Malchai seems to be an allusion to Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian god of the Sun who is the father of the expected savior the magi were seeking.

Perhaps we could see Zoroastrianism as as dispensation of the gospel among the ancient Persians which became apostate, leaving shards of truth and parallels with the gospels.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I have a very interesting book called "The Secret Society of Moses," by a retired admiral in the Italian Navy named Barbiero (can't remember his first name). It is well-written and footnoted, and is a really interesting read. His thesis, which he emphasizes over and over throughout, and which I find less-interesting, is that the descendants of Moses have been purposely removed from the Bible record in favor of the descendants of Aaron. He doesn't understand anything about the Aaronic vs. Melchizedek priesthood, and makes a big deal of this where I don't think it matters much, but he considers this to be a conspiracy spanning millennia. 

Much more interesting to me is his treatment of the fall of Jerusalem under the Romans. According to him, Josephus negotiated the surrender and safe passage to Rome of Jewish nobility, where they infiltrated the Roman military and through that, over centuries, formed the ruling noble families of Europe and Christianity. His theory is that the cult of Sol Invictus Mithras, which was supposedly a sun-worshipping religion among the Roman military, was actually a way of transmitting the secret of who they really were from generation to generation. Roman soldiers were allowed access to the lower levels of the Mithras society, but not the upper, where the real secrets were shared. According to him, the transmission survives in our day in the different degrees of freemasonry. If he's correct about this (and I don't have firsthand knowledge, but did have a friend who is a Mason read his detailed breakdown of what is taught at the different degrees and he had no comment, which is interesting), what is actually taught and transmitted in the progressive degrees of freemasonry is information about the temple in Jerusalem through the ages, including a pact to return and rebuild it. His theory is that the Crusades, which make no sense on a lot of levels, were the result of these Jewish priestly noble families, which had by then gained enough power, to try to return and re-take the Holy Land and rebuild the temple.

The truth doesn't hinge on him and his ideas, but I found his theory to be very interesting to think about. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004C05H2K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

Oh,  and like mentioned above, if you decide not to go with our opinion please share why.  I can even be ok with "just a feeling I have" if it isn't used every other time and our suggestions are sometimes used.  Letting us know why usually tells us you really did consider what we had to say.  

I have no clue to whom this is addressed.  If you are asking me, it will be a long reply you will actually have to read if you want an answer.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Abulafia said:

MFB,  Okay, let me explain my position, it is true I am not an anthropologist,  but over the years I have tried to keep up with general historical issues, and the development of patriarchal, patrilineal, matriarchal, matrilineal, egalitarian, societies has always interested me.  We all developed from tribes, small tribes, and those tribes had  religious and cultural ways of living that were diverse. That's all I am saying.  Women could be gods, leaders, warriors, hunters, gatherers, shepherds, soothe sayers and so on. Marriage practices took varied forms.  I downloaded a (scholarly) overview yesterday from jstor.  I'll try find the time to quote some salient points.  

 

On Mithras, I would have to ask which bit of christianity, but personally I think that Judaism was diverse enough that most aspects of earliest christian belief could be found within it.  What came later as christianity spread and evolved is perhaps a different matter. My genuine and deep interest has always been the first 200 to 300 years.

"Found in Judaism" is one thing but especially after the captivity, WHY it is found in Judaism and where it came from is a whole different pail of pescado. 

[CMZ]

As with many things this comes down to each individual perceiving things correctly and acting correctly in the matter. When people truly understand the gospel correctly then for them there is no sexism, not even benevolent sexism. There are other such issues where the gospel itself does or does not say something on a particular matter but a sizeable subset of membership within the Church believes that something has or has not been said on a certain matter. An example is a sizeable subset of membership within the Church believing that Coca-Cola is specifically against the Word of Wisdom. I just had a co-worker the other day say, "Mormons can't drink soda, right?" So, a rampant, entrenched misunderstanding is taken as though it is concrete, eternal doctrine, when it is no such thing.

On the other side of the coin you can have things that someone else perceives as sexism that may not be sexism. Except now I'm wondering if people are going to perceive me as sexist for opening the car door for my wife (which I do). I suppose someone will say I'm demeaning women for doing that.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no clue to whom this is addressed.  If you are asking me, it will be a long reply you will actually have to read if you want an answer.

I'm sorry.  It is not addressed to you.  It was supposed to be edited on to my reply above, but I could not get my reply to load after waiting quite awhile so I finally made a new reply and now it looks like it decided to a post a second time several hours later. 

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Mfb, This is what you wrote..

Mormonism hasn't been around for hundreds and thousands of years. 

I am genuinely puzzled by your response to me.

The basic foundations that Mormonism is based on has been around for billions of years.  Even before the Universe was made.  It is also the most widespread belief system in the Universe.  The basic building blocks of Mormonism are taught on billions of worlds right now throughout the universe.  It is the universal faith.  

Edited December 26, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Abulafia]

15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The basic foundations that Mormonism is based on has been around for billions of years.  Even before the Universe was made.  It is also the most widespread belief system in the Universe.  The basic building blocks of Mormonism are taught on billions of worlds right now throughout the universe.  It is the universal faith.  

I guess that would include patriarchy (as a basic building block) for you, then.  My point was that tribes and cultures developed along diverse lines on this planet.  

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 9:52 PM, Rain said:

 

Perhaps instead of speaking up for feminism you could just ask for our thoughts or opinions. If it is a group of all men you could suggest females to come in and speak for ourselves. The best way to speak up for feminism is to ask is to speak and then listen.  

 

My struggle continues.  This is not either/or.  I have a voice just as any woman.  A woman has a voice just as any man.  We should all be heard and listened to.  Most of my life I ask thoughts and opinions of women and I listen.  But that does not mean I can't share myself. 

[Calm]

 "I don't have firsthand knowledge, but did have a friend who is a Mason read his detailed breakdown of what is taught at the different degrees and he had no comment, which is interesting"

In many cases a Mormon reading an antiMormon expose of the temple that had inaccurate information in it would have no comment as well in my experience, so I wouldn't assume this meant there was much, if any accurate info there.  He may simply be respecting his commitment to not speak of certain things.

The premise sounds rather antisemitic to me.  Jews using Romans and then Europeans as cannon fodder to get back to Jerusalem or otherwise control the world in an eons long conspiracy.  Not much new there.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Calm

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

...

The premise sounds rather antisemitic to me.  Jews using Romans and then Europeans as cannon fodder to get back to Jerusalem or otherwise control the world in an eons long conspiracy.  Not much new there.

Yet there are receptive minds in every generation, people inclined to believe & propagate this sort of thing.  And sometimes with actions, far beyond mere words.  Not a very encouraging metric for our human race, taken as a whole...

--Erik

[rongo]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

In many cases a Mormon reading an anti-Mormon expose of the temple that had inaccurate information in it would have no comment as well in my experience, so I wouldn't assume this meant there was much, if any accurate info there.  He may simply be respecting his commitment to not speak of certain things.

In most cases, Mormons in this boat would at least say, "This is completely inaccurate and wrong" when it is way off-base. They wouldn't just say "No comment." I think we've all been in this situation.

In this case, my friend is actually LDS, and he gave me a wry smile and said, "No comment" when I asked him about the following section:

The rituals from the first to the twelfth degree all take place in Jerusalem at the time of King Solomon and relate to events that revolve around the building of the first temple – not from a historical perspective, as told in the Bible, but from the point of view of the priestly family.

 

The rituals of the thirteenth degree, the Royal Arch, takes place in the audience hall of King Solomon, and is centered on the existence of a secret crypt where there are hidden the treasures of the priestly family, including the Ark of the Covenant. The ritual of the fourteenth degree recalls episodes that took place four centuries later with the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the deportation of the priests to Babylon, and the definitive loss of the crypt.

 

The ritual of the fifteenth degree takes us seventy years further in time. Its performance is divided into three phases: it begins in the palace of King Cyrus in Babylon, with the scene of the Persian monarch granting Zerubbabel permission to return to Jerusalem and giving him back the treasures of the temple sacked by Nebuchadnezzar. This is followed by the scene of the crossing of the Jordan, where the priests coming back from exile are attacked and have to fight in order to get across. The third scene takes place among the ruins of the temple in Jerusalem, when the priests decide to rebuild it. The story continues in the ritual of the sixteenth degree, Prince of Jerusalem, which regards the construction of the second temple.

 

The rituals of the seventeenth and eighteenth degrees return to the theme of the loss of the secret of the crypt. The ritual of the nineteenth degree again involves a step forward of more than four hundred years: it is connected with the destruction by the Romans of the temple in Jerusalem, the one build by Herod the Great. The ritual of the twentieth degree is the one mentioned in the previous chapter that narrates the decision of the surviving priests to never again build a physical temple, but instead to construct a spiritual one.

 

The rituals of the twenty-first and twenty-second degrees concern the Tower of Babel and Noah’s Ark. Numbers twenty-three through twenty-five reenact important episodes from the life of Moses, and are clearly taken from the Pentateuch. The twenty-sixth degree continues the story of the priestly family, moving to the time of Domitian: it takes place in an underground room and shows how the priestly family succeeds in surviving during the persecution unleashed by the emperor. In this ritual, the participants are Christians and are responsible for the destiny of the Church of Rome.

 

The rituals of the following degrees take us a thousand years forward to the history of the Templars, who are thus fitted into the environment of the history of the priestly family. They deal with the specific subject of this book, and not only show that they are directly connected to the priestly family of Jerusalem; they also show that this connection passes through the group of surviving priests who gathered around Josephus Flavius in Rome. (pp. 141-143)

If this is an accurate summary of the 33 degrees of Scottish Rite Masonry, I find that very interesting. It would appear from that that the purpose is to transmit information about identity and purpose.

The premise sounds rather antisemitic to me.  Jews using Romans and then Europeans as cannon fodder to get back to Jerusalem or otherwise control the world in an eons long conspiracy.  Not much new there.

Oh, brother. To some people, all things are "anti-Semitic" if they involve Jews in any way. Even if they're positive. Barbiero's book is positive in every way regarding Jews, and nothing like your caricature above. 

Nice knee-jerk reaction, Cal.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 

From what you said, he is not involving Jews in any way, he is involving Jews in every way.  Infiltrating in secret the Roman leadership, the European royalty, Jews pretending to be Christians so they can be their top rulers, setting off the crusades...

If someone created a similar story about Mormons infiltrating the government's highest levels, including the military, pretending not to be Mormons, but something acceptable to the populace so they could control them, etc, setting off a civil war in order to get back Nauvoo and Kirtland...doesn't that sound rather antiMormon conspiracy to you?

If that is not how you described what was happening, please point out the differences of my misreading.  Lying about who they are to control others...how is that a positive description?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

On 22/12/2016 at 1:02 AM, smac97 said:

I am curious in what ways you have been "defending patriarchy."

From my earliest memories as a child who believed in God and who was born into an active LDS family with my father at its head, I defended and protected the patriarchal nature of my Church and home intellectually and naturally lived my life with my choices flowing out of my thoughts.

Quote

Also, what do you mean by "patriarchy" as it pertains to the LDS Church?

Patriarchy is the system of leadership and presiding by men.

Quote

 

"Benevolent sexism" sounds an awful lot like a loaded term, of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety.

Is there some sort of widely-accepted, coherent, and sociopolitically objective definition of this term?  If so, who crafted it?  When?  Where?

Or is it, as I suspect, a provocative neologism, packed to the gills with questionable assumptions, the definition of which we are nevertheless expected to accept uncritically?

"The Church patriarchy?"  What is that?

 

In the article I quoted, "benevolent sexism" is contrasted against "hostile sexism." They are both pretty self-explanatory, the former with a benevolent view towards women and the latter a hostile, purely objectifying view.

Quote

And are you accusing "the Church patriarchy" of "benevolent sexism"?

Is the Church patriarchal in nature?  Yes. Thus, it is sexist in that it treats members differently based on gender.  This is just the reality.  So is this sexism benevolent or hostile?  I would say that in my experience both micro and macro, the Church's sexism is benevolent. 

Quote

Also, in what ways is the Church failing to protect you and your family?

Our local leadership intervened in a civil matter, an active court case, between our family and another member of the Church.  The member is an unstable individual who has since threatened harm on and then assaulted my husband. (My husband walked away unharmed except for soreness but the close proximity of the individual is still an enormous concern to us.) We voiced our concerns about the dangerous nature of this person even before any threats of violence were made, and we cooperated with the Church leaders' mediating choices with the explicit understanding from them that they would take specific actions with that individual. Those actions were not taken, and our compliance elimininated a major legal recourse we had against him.

Quote

Also, you appear to be saying that you are fine with "benevolent sexism" (whatever that means) as long as it benefits you, but that otherwise you take exception with it.  Is that correct?

Benevolent sexism is.  It's not a menu choice, but the simple reality of the way the Church functions. But to answer your question, though I wouldn't put it exactly that way, yes.  I would assert that this is can be a valid and doctrinal reaction, too, to damaging behaviors or experiences.  What is His work and His glory?

Quote

What, in your view, is the relationship between "benevolent sexism" and "the patriarchal structure of the Church"?

The way I've characterised both terms, I think it's clear. 

Quote

Also, in what ways is that "structure" failing to "protect women?"

In our case, the patriarchal structure seems to have marginalised female opinions and perspectives, even if unintentionally.

Quote

Also, is "benevolent sexism" inherently bad?  It seems not, since you are open to it as long as it benefits you.  And yet it seems like an inherently negative, hostile term.

As I've defended the benovelently sexist patriarchal structure of the Church, I do not think it is inherently bad. Much like mbukowski, I see it as a natural, possibly more righteous outgrowth of the way human civilisations have developed. Family and fidelity is better than ownership of wives and children. Being "equal partners" is certainly a step up from past ways.  However, as society continues to adopt more egalitarian roles as the norm in couples, some may not perceive the Church's structure as an improvement upon their own, and may even see it as a hindrance to their family's well-being.

Why do you think benevolent sexism is inherently negative? 

Quote

In my experience, the Church does a lot of good for, and is beneficial to, women.  The Relief Society is one of the best women's organization on the face of the earth.  Women are given all sorts of opportunities to serve and be served by others in the Church.  Women can and do receive assistance in terms of rent, utilities, commodities, food, counseling, etc.  And I have never heard of such things being withheld from a woman because of her gender.

I agree, with the obvious exception of leadership positions being withheld from women because of their gender.

Quote

So what do you mean by "the patriarchal structure of the Church ... distinguish{ing} itself as being beneficial to women"?  I do not understand what you mean here.  It is too vague and oblique.

See my bolded comment above.  Does it help?

Quote

I am sorry that you are undergoing difficulties.  I hope your situation improves.

Thank you very much   We have experienced a few glimmers of hope in the last few days.

Quote

What "intellectual arguments against patriarchy" are you referencing here?

I suppose the key one is "Why is it necessary," the implication being that, when treating people differently based on gender, there must be a reason justifying it.  I've always been a proponent of complementarity of the sexes.  In some ways, I'm feeling more and more that the reason bishops are usually supposed to be married when called is because they are expected to draw from their combined perspective as married, of being one as male and female, to serve all in the Church from that vantage point.  Thus, if there is too much emphasis on male power and influence and less about simply presiding as an equal partner, then the leadership loses the wealth of wisdom and experiences and revelation available from their female counterparts.

Quote

Also, are these "arguments" against "patriarchy" as a generalized sociological/athropological/political/economic/ concept?  Or are you referring specifically to "patriarchy" as it exists in the LDS Church?

They could apply to both. Like any system, even if it is perfect it can be corrupted by unrighteousness.

Quote

 

I think you are using terms that are too broadly defined.  For example, let's take a look at Wikipedia's treatment:

The LDS Church has very little (nothing?) to say about "patriarchy" in terms of "political leadership" or "moral authority" or "social privilege" or "control of property."  

Instead, so-called "LDS patriarchy" would seem to consist principally of A) limiting the priesthood, and hence priesthood offices, to men, and B) prescribing and encouraging gender-based familial roles.  Would you agree?  

Per The Proclamation: 

Those last two sentences sound rather "patriarchal", and yet...

These provisions seem to substantially mitigate the "patriarchal" thing.

Back to Wikipedia:

Not applicable to the LDS Church.

This is objectively true, don't you think?

And this as well?

It seems that the LDS Church hews far more closely to the "historic" reference, although clearly the "autocratic" descriptor does not apply.  

I think this is how you are using the term "patriarchy", is that correct?  And by "power," you would be referring to "priesthood offices"?

 

The terms in the context in which I am using them seem appropriate to me.  I hope my replies have helped you better guage my mindset here.
 

Quote

 

What are your thoughts here?  Do you think the structure of the LDS Church, particularly its priesthood hierarchy, is a form of "patriotism" designed to "allow men to exploit women"?  

If so, in what ways do you feel are women "exploited" in the LDS Church?

 

I've never thought of patriarchy in terms of patriotism, at least not in a direct relationship.  I guess that blindly following leadership of the state can be correllated to blindly following established local and cultural leadership paradigms, but I've never been wont to blindly follow either...at least, not intentionally, although to be honest I've certainly been biased to the Church and to the right-wing and to theism, which may carry with it some inherent blindness.  But I have always been attracted to reasonable arguments and I believe that Truth can usually be defended with reason.  I think that tendency has broadened my perspectives.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

On 22/12/2016 at 1:55 AM, Jeanne said:

I think women are acknowledging that they have huge potentials.  In the world around them, they can be anything...strive for goals and share their talents to help them grow and be a better part of community, family and their "selves".  Achieving your potential in the church just means be better at what you're supposed to do.  (IMO)

And consider, there are plenty of females with above-average and even genius intelligence.  Imagine being one of those women who is trying to explain the nuances of a problem to a leader who cannot intellectually grasp what she is saying, but who still has faith that he/she will be guided by the Spirit to act according to the Lord's will.  Of course, smart men experience this, too. But isn't it possible that when men do fall short in seeking revelation in their priesthood leadership that the wholeness of the Lord's perspective may be lost, and that a natural default will tend toward acting based on their own male perspective?  BTW I'm speaking in terms of averages, not absolutes.

[Meadowchik]

On 22/12/2016 at 4:14 AM, mfbukowski said:

I don't know for sure, but I think you got it backwards.  I think her point was that she is in favor of patriarchy and sees it as beneficial to women, but is concerned about the erosion of patriarchy in the church due to not-yet-disclosed issues.  She is objecting to the idea of "benevolent sexism" nevertheless would like benevolent patriarchy, but is concerned that it is disappearing due to events or policies or doctrines she has recently observed, or experiences she has had.   That's my take anyway.

I know many women, including my wife and most of the active sisters in our pretty traditional ward, who feel that they are in a privileged position by being a traditional woman who is protected and allowed to stay at home being a mother and having full-time input in working with their children, and have no desire for priesthood responsibilities and find their role as wife and mother fulfilling.

Even if they have had careers or have been trained in careers as a "back-up" position, they find enough fulfillment in their roles as wives and mothers which is often a 24 hour a day "job" that they are grateful to be able to remain at home and take on those sometimes crushing responsibilities in raising a righteous family, and as full partners with their husbands, gladly accept the role in the division of labor which they have chosen.

Such sisters "defend patriarchy" by affirming to those who might demean those traditional roles that they would not have it any other way, and find joy and fulfillment in their lives.

I imagined that is what she meant.  I guess we will have to wait for confirmation about her more specific concerns.

I hope my clarification of terms in response to smac has helped if you've read them.  IMO, sexism is a given, while the Church's is an example of benevolent as opposed to hostile sexism.  I believe that complementarity is part of divine design, although it's not perfectly binary and there is a spectrum of gender-connected expressions, even though stereotypes may be based on factual averages.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I hope my clarification of terms in response to smac has helped if you've read them.  IMO, sexism is a given, while the Church's is an example of benevolent as opposed to hostile sexism.  I believe that complementarity is part of divine design, although it's not perfectly binary and there is a spectrum of gender-connected expressions, even though stereotypes may be based on factual averages.

Yes, well this is what I understood you to be saying from the beginning, and yes, we agree on all points.

Complementarity and equality as a Divine Pair is definitely as it should be.  One is needed to preside in cases of disagreement but must always be with love unfeigned and tenderness and never with a trace of unrighteous dominion, as full equals, but as in any human relationship disagreements in situations do happen.  In cases where this happens it is simply practical to have pre-determined who makes the final decision after a full discussion by equals who have covenanted to stay together forever.  Each going their own way is not a possibility in those circumstances, so one must decide for both if no other decision can be reached.  

These can be life-or death decisions about family safety, child rearing, means of making a living, the best place to live, or other important issues.

If this is "benevolent patriarchy", then let it be so!   I frankly see no other practical solution to the fact that equals may disagree even after having covenanted to always remain as "one flesh" when one feels strongly about a decision and the other feels the opposite course is correct.

But again, this can never include any shred of unrighteous dominion.  The cultural tradition is that it is the man who presides in these cases, and I believe that the Priesthood simply follows this cultural tradition.  That decision of who should "preside" becomes a culturally pre-defined fact of life.   No squabbles are possible in certain situations where decisions must be made immediately about who presides and the definition must be generally culturally known.

I imagine situations where perhaps the family is traveling and a decision has to be made right NOW about some important issue, perhaps before some authority or when someone must "do the talking".  

The family in Ellis Island approaches the immigration official, and he asks "Where are you from?  What's your name?"  Who answers in that situation?  No time for confusion, looking around, or decision making.   Dad speaks up.  The official looks at the father and expects him to preside. It is culturally pre-decided who is in charge in these situations.

And so it is just a practicality as much as anything.   "Benevolent Patriarchy"?   Of course it has been abused, but abuse of that God-given difference between men and women is inexcusable 

The objectification of another human being is the worst thing we can do- and is exemplified most clearly in murder where a human being is made into nothing more than an animal to be used for one's own purposes.  And then we have sexual sin which is also objectification- and this is why, I think that it is second to murder in seriousness.  Other abuses include assaults etc- but to show any kind of dominion over the one with whom we have covenanted to be "one flesh" has to be hugely evil- to take that sacred relationship and turn it against itself- to make one's own flesh an object to be abused?  Horrifying and contradictory to all reason and a sin against love itself.

I hope the rest of the problem is getting better.