This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[Calm]

"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."

I think I disagree.  If the highest form of councils outside the family council, the First Presidency and the 12 operate on the principle of unanimity, I think the family council should do so as well.  Decisions are only made when in agreement.  Only in cases of immediate necessity should one be deciding in disagreement with the other and those kinds of decisions should be left to the one most familiar with the problem as decided beforehand in family discussion.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

"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."

I think I disagree.  If the highest form of councils outside the family council, the First Presidency and the 12 operate on the principle of unanimity, I think the family council should do so as well.  Decisions are only made when in agreement.  Only in cases of immediate necessity should one be deciding in disagreement with the other and those kinds of decisions should be left to the one most familiar with the problem as decided beforehand in family discussion.

I think it's possible to amend it to that...I especially like how one may have more weighted authority given their familiarity with an issue. And the Proclamation seems to make room for that, in allowances for role changes given the abilities of the spouses.

The worst defect here is perhaps it's strength, too: there is always the default decider. So a decision can be made, but in the dynamics of a relationship, it may be very difficult for a wife to assert her authority if the husband is proud or opinionated or does not want to admit he is unable to preside in a matter. 

In my opinion, I see signs of that going on with the other family in our problem: the husband is unstable and the wife is struggling to manage his behaviour sometimes, to better protect the family. All it requires is for the husband to say, okay, I am unable to do this: I leave it to you and will to what I can to advise and support. But when he doesn't admit and agree to this...

In our family, due to my husband's commute time, we agreed that I'd take charge of some things he otherwise would have and I believe I even received revelation to do it and it involved protecting our family.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Rain]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

"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."

I think I disagree.  If the highest form of councils outside the family council, the First Presidency and the 12 operate on the principle of unanimity, I think the family council should do so as well.  Decisions are only made when in agreement.  Only in cases of immediate necessity should one be deciding in disagreement with the other and those kinds of decisions should be left to the one most familiar with the problem as decided beforehand in family discussion.

I agree. I think about my body and pregnancies with this.  As a type 1 diabetic for nearly 40 years and having had pre-eclampsia with HLP with each of my pregnancies you can bet that the choice to become pregnant is no light decision.  

My husband and I both needed to be unanimous withthe Lord on the choice to become pregnant each time because it effects us both strongly more than just bringing a child into the family.  In the end though we both felt I had the final say on it because it effects me more. I know my body more. 

If it came down to it that we both honestly prayed and sought direction and he felt I should have another child and I didn't, I can't imagine it ever being right for him to be the deciding partner and getting pregnant because he decides I should.

I feel the same way about the jobs and careers he has had, but in reverse.

We've been blessed though to never have to have a deciding partner on anything of importance. We've always come to agreement, though not always without prayer and lots of discussion. This is one of the reasons I have struggled with family councils - 4 out of 5 of us would often come to the same conclusion.  It always caused problems.  I can't imagine how hard it would be for those where this happens in a marriage. It would be even harder if it happened often and I had to be the one who always deferred.  

[juliann]

What an amazing thread! It gives me such hope for the future of the Church. 

I think the underlying social problems must be tackled first. The greatest help to me was this book http://scholar.princeton.edu/talim/pages/silent-sex-gender-deliberation-and-institutions, The Silent Sex. One of the authors is a BYU prof. Our communication styles are so entrenched I don't think there is any way men and women can understand why women don't speak up without attending to it. For me, an awareness was key. I am very tuned into interruptions and negative feedback now. I can see it as an unfortunate communication style rather than a personal indictment when it happens, especially in Church settings. Women have to be aware, if not trained, to tell men to let them finish their thoughts, that they already came up with that idea, etc. The stats are appalling in the amount of positive feedback men give to each other compared to what they give women in deliberative groups....added to the additional negative criticism they do give them. 

Women need male allies who also are aware and can step in front of men who are doing these things. Women need to be getting credit for their ideas. Our group think doesn't work in women's favor. When men take credit it reinforces the idea that men are the natural leaders in the Church. This is not an indictment of men, it is simply a way of interaction that has become normalized. 

BTW, church councils mimic the best configurations for women in deliberative decision making bodies. That the Church is emphasizing councils now is a very positive sign.

Also, looking at the communication styles on the board is instructive. Those who are eliciting positive responses are doing so in narrative form. For me, the online equivalent of interruptions and excessive negative feedback are those who break a woman's post into pieces as they chew up each line. The effect is to silence not to listen.

Edited January 2, 2017 by juliann

[canard78]

On 22/12/2016 at 6:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

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.

Culture, of course you can have time for get there  

The greater issue is that the sexism is embedded in the core doctrines.

How soon before any of the following changes:

- A female prophet & apostles 

- Women blessing and passing the sacrament

- A female mission president (with a "mission dad" supporting her)

- A female bishop, presiding over a ward 

- One living woman being sealed to multiple (living or dead) husbands in the eternities

The list could go on...

Mormon doctrine is inherently sexist and huge shifts would be needed to move away from that. Can you imagine that happening?

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 4:30 AM, 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's a difference between aspiring for prestige and simply aspiring to be "one" with Zion.

 

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Five Solas said:

Always enjoy your posts, Meadowchick.  There was an interesting article on BBC News shortly after the election explaining why large numbers of women in the United States voted for Donald Trump--over half of white women, jumping to over 60% for white women without a college degree.  And rightly or wrongly, the author gave the same answer you did above--the candidate in support of traditional roles/values is perceived to benefit many of them, especially where the male is the primary household earner (e.g., - the preferential tax implications of married filing jointly when one spouse doesn't work vocationally).     

There's more to it than just economics, of course.  But the point stands that women vote their interests and support the institutions they perceive support them (although clearly not all women have the same perspective or priority, women who are part of ethnic minorities voted *very* differently).  And to a point you also make, sometimes the benefits fail to meet expectations--and then things must change.  It sounds like that's becoming the case for you. 

--Erik

Imo the chief concern the Church should have is when and if it's structure or culture hinders God's work. If the Church finds it is hindering spiritual growth of an individual or that it can do better, I think the intent is there to improve. So that is why we should be concerned about "benefit." That core benefit-- coming closer to God-- is a goal of the Church for its members, indeed for its work for all humankind.

[juliann]

On 12/21/2016 at 3:17 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

The bottom line is what can I do locally to help the situation, if that is relevant, because I agree with your central premise, but at this point cannot put my finger on the problem precisely

Start with the Primary. Make sure that if priesthood is mentioned, the girls also get mentioned somehow. (I don't know if they still have the boys stand up for the girls to watch when they teach about the priesthood, but ugh.) The modesty culture is seeping into Primary.  Put a stop to any mention of very young girls having what they wear or look like connected to their self-worth. Give the YW some visible standing, even if it is only as ushers and program passers. Rather than each boys to "respect women" teach them how to communicate appropriately (see above.) Basically, anything that starts with "respect women" has problems before it begins. Anything that talks about women as an "us vs them" needs to go. Which leads to my pet peeve, men who think they can speak for women or tell women how to be daughters of God kind of stuff. 

Perhaps the biggest thing for now? Make sure our historical women are mentioned in lessons, especially as the D&C starts. There are sites online now that give historical tidbits the church has neglected.   

And...............STOP making the RS give lessons on Priesthood talks given to the men and start making the men have to do lessons based on women speakers. 

Get Neylan's Women at Church book for ideas of what can be implemented without stepping on doctrine. I have an extra one I'd be happy to mail to you. Much of what can be done is language based. Language has to come first. Compare the YW and YM lessons. Notice how passive the YW lessons remain, even after the changes. Boys are being taught to do while girls still are being taught to "be." That should give you the best idea of what we are up against in elevating women. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by juliann

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Abulafia said:

Meadowchik, I hope you work it out.  My personal belief is that how the church operates today is very much based on a hazy and misplaced view of history and tradition.  It is beset with problems that do not benefit women and it is not God's way.

Thanks so much for the encouragement. I've always believed that the Church offered better alternatives to the world.  (Though I know that there are individual cases where people don't fit well or members/leaders of the Church fails people.) What would you say is the power position of the average woman on this planet, compared to her male counterparts? Would it be radically off-base to say that the Church model is a step-up from that average?

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:46 PM, mnn727 said:

May I ask in what way? How is the Church not protecting you and your family?

Leadership involvement in a civil matter with another member who is dangerous, which (their involvement) imo was mismanaged.

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 6:26 PM, 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?

I'm sorry (to you and everyone else) for the delayed responses.

I hope the most recent page or so can clarify some. 

If we are to ensure the Church patriarchy is beneficial to women (and everyone else) we have to be aware of its holes. Men can be hurt by it too, btw. Others have already offered great insights, imo.

I think the most very basic thing is to remember that every person is an individual of value, the meaning of the value part is obvious, the "individual" part a little less so: we cannot take who a person is inside for granted, respecting as sacred their autonomy, personal convictions, and experiences unique to them is where I believe the gospel leads.

So if you're not sure what a person wants or needs, you can ask, just like you are now:)

Edited January 2, 2017 by Meadowchik

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Leadership involvement in a civil matter with another member who is dangerous, which (their involvement) imo was mismanaged.

My condolences. There is no happy ending to an untrained Church leader getting involved in what should only be handled by lawyers. I know from personal experience. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

My condolences. There is no happy ending to an untrained Church leader getting involved in what should only be handled by lawyers. I know from personal experience. 

Thank you very much and for your excellent comments. My condolences also for what must have been painful experiences for you.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

Culture, of course you can have time for get there  

The greater issue is that the sexism is embedded in the core doctrines.

How soon before any of the following changes:

- A female prophet & apostles 

- Women blessing and passing the sacrament

- A female mission president (with a "mission dad" supporting her)

- A female bishop, presiding over a ward 

- One living woman being sealed to multiple (living or dead) husbands in the eternities

The list could go on...

Mormon doctrine is inherently sexist and huge shifts would be needed to move away from that. Can you imagine that happening?

I don't see the last as prevented by core doctrine if we can have a dead woman sealed to multiple husbands for whatever reason.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

Start with the Primary. Make sure that if priesthood is mentioned, the girls also get mentioned somehow. (I don't know if they still have the boys stand up for the girls to watch when they teach about the priesthood, but ugh.) The modesty culture is seeping into Primary.  Put a stop to any mention of very young girls having what they wear or look like connected to their self-worth. Give the YW some visible standing, even if it is only as ushers and program passers. Rather than each boys to "respect women" teach them how to communicate appropriately (see above.) Basically, anything that starts with "respect women" has problems before it begins. Anything that talks about women as an "us vs them" needs to go. Which leads to my pet peeve, men who think they can speak for women or tell women how to be daughters of God kind of stuff. 

Perhaps the biggest thing for now? Make sure our historical women are mentioned in lessons, especially as the D&C starts. There are sites online now that give historical tidbits the church has neglected.   

And...............STOP making the RS give lessons on Priesthood talks given to the men and start making the men have to do lessons based on women speakers. 

Get Nylan's Women at Church book for ideas of what can be implemented without stepping on doctrine. I have an extra one I'd be happy to mail to you. Much of what can be done is language based. Language has to come first. Compare the YW and YM lessons. Notice how passive the YW lessons remain, even after the changes. Boys are being taught to do while girls still are being taught to "be." That should give you the best idea of what we are up against in elevating women. 

Looks like a must-read- I will just pick it up and read it on kindle- thanks for the tip!!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

Culture, of course you can have time for get there  

The greater issue is that the sexism is embedded in the core doctrines.

How soon before any of the following changes:

- A female prophet & apostles 

- Women blessing and passing the sacrament

- A female mission president (with a "mission dad" supporting her)

- A female bishop, presiding over a ward 

- One living woman being sealed to multiple (living or dead) husbands in the eternities

The list could go on...

Mormon doctrine is inherently sexist and huge shifts would be needed to move away from that. Can you imagine that happening?

I do not advocate women being ordained and I also advocate that men and women are complimentary and I advocate traditional sex roles in the family if the couple chooses to take that step.  I agree that men and women are different but equally and naturally have different roles, which of course can be changed IF desired by individuals in the exercise of their agency.  The roles have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and were essential to the emergence of the family which was clearly an absolute necessity for the survival of the species as we know it.

I believe that benevolent patriarchy as I have discussed above, is part of the complimentary roles which should prevail between men and women unless they decide for themselves to do otherwise.

These are not "policies" to be changed over night, they are part of the essential and deep doctrine of the church as shown in the Proclamation.

No, I cannot imagine Mormonism being Mormonism without acknowledging sex differences because I think such differences are scientifically obvious. 

On the other hand, each should choose their own way and most certainly men and women should be treated socially equal in every way to enable them to make their own choices for themselves.   Under no circumstances should women be intimidated, dominated, or objectified by men, but always treated as equals who have different natural roles.

If that is "sexism" then so be it.

I honestly believe that women have their own priesthood the details of which have not yet been revealed, but hinted at, in different talks and events throughout Mormon history.

Whether that will entail women becoming bishops is unknown at this time, but I certainly think they would make very good ward leaders, if called "bishop" or not-  if it goes that way.

I suppose it is sexist to say that I think women have a special talent at being compassionate and tend to seek consensus in their leadership, which are definitely extremely important in ward leadership and counseling, which are both requirements for a good bishop.  Again, if our culture calls that "sexist", or politically incorrect, I will not apologize for it.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

Perhaps the biggest thing for now? Make sure our historical women are mentioned in lessons, especially as the D&C starts. There are sites online now that give historical tidbits the church has neglected.   

 

Any specific ones you would recommend?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't see the last as prevented by core doctrine if we can have a dead woman sealed to multiple husbands for whatever reason.

Sounds good to me.  I honestly think that all that will get sorted out later and whatever we do here is more for us than how it will all work out eventually.

We may have outgrown the Mosaic law no longer need animal sacrifice, but we still do need rituals as a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ.

Section 137

Quote

 

 4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

 6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

 7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

 

Think about that.

If that is true, why do we need genealogy and work for the dead?   Why does God say "Is man found on the earth?"   What?  He didn't know?

He said that to teach his disciples that the creation of man was not the same as the creation of beasts.  He teaches us the importance of knowing our ancestors for us, not for them.   It doesn't matter what we do- those folks will show up if needed and fix it all if they need to.  The whole premise of the gospel is that the millennium is to clean up all the errors anyway.  "

Quote

 

7....All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.

 

 

 

We're not going to get it all right- we can't possibly!

But don't tell anybody, ok?   We still have to do our homework to learn how it works.   You don't teach kids in chemistry class how to work with real rocket fuel.  

But we really do gotta get some revelations on women.

Now we know that, they will come.   You have to have the questions formulated before God can answer them.   Pretty much he just gives yeses and noes, afterall

Edited January 3, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

"Under no circumstances should women be intimidated, dominated, or objectified by men, but always treated as equals who have different natural roles."

Do you realize by saying that women in the end need to allow their husbands to have the final say because they preside, equality cannot exist as women will end up having to set aside their own conclusions and accept their husband's as their own at least some of the time, losing their voice in the relationship in that moment...not by reason or inspiration, but decree (and if disagreement occurs ever....which it will, then it means the wife can only be 'less than' in the relationship overall because if they agree the decision is his version even if it hers as well, so he is always dominant and she is only sometimes 'equal'....there is no inherent balance)?  It is more of an employer/employee relationship than an equal partnership.

If disagreement occurs, there needs to be a different way of resolving it than an automatic default to the husband making the decision.  Otherwise the only value a wife's opinion has is the value the husband gives it, her "way" will only occur if it is also "his way " while his is always the family position in the end no matter how much more relevant the wife's might be in certain situations.  It is all well and good to say in a wise husband will accept his wife's position when appropriate and make it his own, but we are talking about situations where disagreement occurs and his "wisdom" is saying she is wrong.  If the default position is that he gets to pull rank and his decision is the final say, where is there any motivation for him to work at understanding and compromise?  He can reason to himself he is doing what is best and his wife will come around when she sees the result.

Evolution has also given humans awareness and ability to judge who is more capable as well as our current social structures.  Taught us to be adaptive as well.  A couple can adapt to the awareness women are now taught to have of relationship dynamics and imbalances.  Men can take the time to learn of them as well, though it can be hard for both to 'get' the other' situation if they haven't been in similar roles.

If the couple approaches discussion on that basis, that they have different strengths and weaknesses and can learn from each other, including by trading roles so they can learn to see what the other experiences---the pressures and necessities as well as the benefits---and they decide ahead of time to weight a wife's opinion heavier in certain circumstances just as they weight the husband's in other, then the husband has the motivation of proving he can be trusted to continue to work at understanding when it is important to him for his choice to become her choice (just as a wife would expected to do so every time if the husband was the final authority, but the husband would not) as does the wife in the cases she might have natural dominance for some reason (better paying job usually, more assertive personality).  

Having both equally working to be understood and for their ideas to be accepted by the other will result in better communication than if it is only inherently required for one of the party (the wife) to be persuasive, so that during stressful times...often the crucial times when agreement is key to not driving wedges between the couple...the husband doesn't decide that it is okay to take short cuts, because once he does likely he will begin to rationalize them at other times until it often becomes SOP as they age and become more set in their ways and it is harder to keep their mind open.

l saw this happen with my parents.  The understanding was traditional roles, with Dad presiding in the sense of final say (and Mom made it clear we would all be toast if he was too stressed and died...her father died in his sixties, Mom looked on it as more of a choice to leave than a weak heart).  When I was younger though, they discussed everything together and made joint decisions with Mom's desires equal if not greater than Dad's because Dad was very happy with the outcome; but as they got older, Dad got more tired and less patient and didn't want to take the time to explain things to Mom and started tuning Mom's input out when he felt it wasn't needed until he was making pretty much all decisions on his own, including two major moves and where to move to without input from Mom...she was just expected to sign stuff where he told her.  He was thinking of her needs as he knew them, to him that was enough.  Actually finding out what she wanted took too much time.  She could only have an impact by refusing to accept a decision after it had been put into place and she became aware of it....which just made him more certain she shouldn't be involved, only allowed to initiate in very limited roles that he determined...like furniture shopping).  By the time he died, he had trained her into a state of negative helplessness in a huge part of her life (she would either refuse to decide at all or put it off or just refuse period) so that the shock of being without him shut down the rest of her positive decision making skills and I and my brother have had to takeover that part of her life.  Thankfully she is starting to take more interest in choosing things for herself (thank goodness for the Internet and catalogs) and I am not having to guess at what clothes she might like or the kind of quilt she needs, only to end up having to take them back or more often take them to DI as she has altered stuff trying to make do as she was required by Dad in later years.  Dad's attitude towards decision making did not help Mom feel he respected her, but rather made her in the end feel he was using her like a familiar coat and she meant as much to him as having a dog around.  I had to constantly remind her to hold on to what they used to have and trust that bond.  And now she is questioning whether she wants eternal marriage to him even though 'she really liked him when they were young'.  So now I push the idea the drugs and medical issues were the problem, though it was more his selfcenteredness and emotional laziness that became too much of a habit that was a problem.  Her disappointment and frustration to not being listened to in so many things made her overreact and believe he listened to her in nothing.  And in defense she stopped listening to him.  Which made him close off more.  It was heartbreaking and shocking to watch; though their love was strong, they weren't liking each other very much towards the end because they both felt the other was being unfair and just couldn't see how they were often behaving the same way.  When they moved into a senior center, Mom sent back the couch and chairs because of a small flaw and they were living without anything to sit on to talk together or just be with each other and instead each was in their own rooms, laying on their beds with TV, laptop,or books...except at meals when they would talk with others in the dining area.

Grateful I believe this will all be healed and their marriage doesn't have to end on a low note, when it was so wonderful and dynamic for so long.  And that I believe these bad habits can be avoided if they are never given a reason to begin by suggesting that one partner has more authority or decision making 'weight' in the relationship than the other....though my problem is more getting my husband to be involved in more decisions than just the ones he is interested in and forcing myself to do the same.  That might have the same result in the end if we are not careful.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

We're not going to get it all right- we can't possibly!

But don't tell anybody, ok?   We still have to do our homework to learn how it works.   You don't teach kids in chemistry class how to work with real rocket fuel.  

But we really do gotta get some revelations on women.

Now we know that, they will come.   You have to have the questions formulated before God can answer them.   Pretty much he just gives yeses and noes, afterall

Yep.  And since we can't currently observe our Parents in this part of our growing up stage and are learning how to be adults with a bit of input now and again from Parents and older siblings, but mainly from trial and error, others' (such as our earthly parents) as well as our own, there are no short cuts or cheat sheets.  I believe this is necessary so we learn what we really want...both by seeing what we end up putting energy and attention into no matter what we think our desires are as well as having so many varied examples we will be presented with when in the next life we get together and start debriefing each other on our adventures.  If we are going to be making choices about out eternal state, it is understandable if our Parents think we need some time out of their shadow to figure it out...this is much more serious than choosing a career that we can always walk away from if we get bored.  More like signing up for an eternal hitch in the army...though we get to choose to be privates or generals or something in between.  What a shame it would be if lack of experience caused us to question ourselves and our Parents' opinions about us and we settled for less than we really wanted.

[canard78]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't see the last as prevented by core doctrine if we can have a dead woman sealed to multiple husbands for whatever reason.

I smiled, thinking of you, while writing the last point. I remember you'd said that genealogically there are dead women sealed to multiple husbands as a way of covering the bases for the eternities. The assumption though is that we're doing that so one of those relationships can continue.  There currently IS doctrinal support for a man to become like god and to be sealed to multiple women in eternity. There currently isn't a doctrinal basis for the opposite. It could change, but that's my point... we'd need a doctrinal change not just a cultural one. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Under no circumstances should women be intimidated, dominated, or objectified by men, but always treated as equals who have different natural roles."

Do you realize by saying that women in the end need to allow their husbands to have the final say because they preside, equality cannot exist as women will end up having to set aside their own conclusions and accept their husband's as their own at least some of the time, losing their voice in the relationship in that moment...not by reason or inspiration, but decree (and if disagreement occurs ever....which it will, then it means the wife can only be 'less than' in the relationship overall because if they agree the decision is his version even if it hers as well, so he is always dominant and she is only sometimes 'equal'....there is no inherent balance)?  It is more of an employer/employee relationship than an equal partnership.

If disagreement occurs, there needs to be a different way of resolving it than an automatic default to the husband making the decision.  Otherwise the only value a wife's opinion has is the value the husband gives it, her "way" will only occur if it is also "his way " while his is always the family position in the end no matter how much more relevant the wife's might be in certain situations.  It is all well and good to say in a wise husband will accept his wife's position when appropriate and make it his own, but we are talking about situations where disagreement occurs and his "wisdom" is saying she is wrong.  If the default position is that he gets to pull rank and his decision is the final say, where is there any motivation for him to work at understanding and compromise?  He can reason to himself he is doing what is best and his wife will come around when she sees the result.

Evolution has also given humans awareness and ability to judge who is more capable as well as our current social structures.  Taught us to be adaptive as well.  A couple can adapt to the awareness women are now taught to have of relationship dynamics and imbalances.  Men can take the time to learn of them as well, though it can be hard for both to 'get' the other' situation if they haven't been in similar roles.

If the couple approaches discussion on that basis, that they have different strengths and weaknesses and can learn from each other, including by trading roles so they can learn to see what the other experiences---the pressures and necessities as well as the benefits---and they decide ahead of time to weight a wife's opinion heavier in certain circumstances just as they weight the husband's in other, then the husband has the motivation of proving he can be trusted to continue to work at understanding when it is important to him for his choice to become her choice (just as a wife would expected to do so every time if the husband was the final authority, but the husband would not) as does the wife in the cases she might have natural dominance for some reason (better paying job usually, more assertive personality).  

Having both equally working to be understood and for their ideas to be accepted by the other will result in better communication than if it is only inherently required for one of the party (the wife) to be persuasive, so that during stressful times...often the crucial times when agreement is key to not driving wedges between the couple...the husband doesn't decide that it is okay to take short cuts, because once he does likely he will begin to rationalize them at other times until it often becomes SOP as they age and become more set in their ways and it is harder to keep their mind open.

l saw this happen with my parents.  The understanding was traditional roles, with Dad presiding in the sense of final say (and Mom made it clear we would all be toast if he was too stressed and died...her father died in his sixties, Mom looked on it as more of a choice to leave than a weak heart).  When I was younger though, they discussed everything together and made joint decisions with Mom's desires equal if not greater than Dad's because Dad was very happy with the outcome; but as they got older, Dad got more tired and less patient and didn't want to take the time to explain things to Mom and started tuning Mom's input out when he felt it wasn't needed until he was making pretty much all decisions on his own, including two major moves and where to move to without input from Mom...she was just expected to sign stuff where he told her.  He was thinking of her needs as he knew them, to him that was enough.  Actually finding out what she wanted took too much time.  She could only have an impact by refusing to accept a decision after it had been put into place and she became aware of it....which just made him more certain she shouldn't be involved, only allowed to initiate in very limited roles that he determined...like furniture shopping).  By the time he died, he had trained her into a state of negative helplessness in a huge part of her life (she would either refuse to decide at all or put it off or just refuse period) so that the shock of being without him shut down the rest of her positive decision making skills and I and my brother have had to takeover that part of her life.  Thankfully she is starting to take more interest in choosing things for herself (thank goodness for the Internet and catalogs) and I am not having to guess at what clothes she might like or the kind of quilt she needs, only to end up having to take them back or more often take them to DI as she has altered stuff trying to make do as she was required by Dad in later years.  Dad's attitude towards decision making did not help Mom feel he respected her, but rather made her in the end feel he was using her like a familiar coat and she meant as much to him as having a dog around.  I had to constantly remind her to hold on to what they used to have and trust that bond.  And now she is questioning whether she wants eternal marriage to him even though 'she really liked him when they were young'.  So now I push the idea the drugs and medical issues were the problem, though it was more his selfcenteredness and emotional laziness that became too much of a habit that was a problem.  Her disappointment and frustration to not being listened to in so many things made her overreact and believe he listened to her in nothing.  And in defense she stopped listening to him.  Which made him close off more.  It was heartbreaking and shocking to watch; though their love was strong, they weren't liking each other very much towards the end because they both felt the other was being unfair and just couldn't see how they were often behaving the same way.  When they moved into a senior center, Mom sent back the couch and chairs because of a small flaw and they were living without anything to sit on to talk together or just be with each other and instead each was in their own rooms, laying on their beds with TV, laptop,or books...except at meals when they would talk with others in the dining area.

Grateful I believe this will all be healed and their marriage doesn't have to end on a low note, when it was so wonderful and dynamic for so long.  And that I believe these bad habits can be avoided if they are never given a reason to begin by suggesting that one partner has more authority or decision making 'weight' in the relationship than the other....though my problem is more getting my husband to be involved in more decisions than just the ones he is interested in and forcing myself to do the same.  That might have the same result in the end if we are not careful.

Misunderstanding.

You win.

You can tell I really AM married. Whatever works.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I smiled, thinking of you, while writing the last point. I remember you'd said that genealogically there are dead women sealed to multiple husbands as a way of covering the bases for the eternities. 

No, actually, I don't say it is as a way of covering the bases for the eternities, though I know many approach it that way.

I think sealings have meaning, all sealings, until covenants are broken and that doesn't occur any more because a woman marries more than one man than a man marries more than one woman.  I am certain based on the current revelation that polyandry exists eternally if polygyny exists.  It is only logical.

The Handbook used to say the sealings took place when they started to allow multiple proxy sealings, but the woman would be choosing which one was the eternal one.  That has been removed.  No current doctrinal or policy statement saying a choice will be made exists (save for old articles being posted) in my understanding.

I think that is very significant.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Misunderstanding.

You win.

You can tell I really AM married. Whatever works.

 

Good.   We win.

It is important enough I would have stayed awake all night attempting to persuade you to weight my argument more than my own.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Good.   We win.

It is important enough I would have stayed awake all night attempting to persuade you to weight my argument more than my own.

I know.