This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[juliann]

Canard, I'm talking off the top of my head, but I think it was whenever the latest edition of the CHI came out. Calm may remember. 

We argue a lot here about polygamy being doctrine. Obviously, I disagree strongly. I don't look for a "we revoke polygamy!" essay. We have the Manifestoes to begin with. Most of all we have the Proc. I just don't know how much more clear it can get short of a we revoke polygamy announcement. Church doctrine is one man and one woman, to the point that you will be exed for anything else. For me, the Pres. Hinckley statement was the defining moment, he said it wasn't doctrine in an interview. I have watched the pretzel twisting ever since, one of the most bizarre things ever, doing exactly what our critics do. He goofed, you see. Or he didn't say what he most certainly did say. Or it didn't count because it was an interview. The  problem with this is that interview got a ton of publicity....and he never once corrected himself. Yet he did revisit another talked about interview where he said we didn't talk much about becoming God. 

I think the burden is on those who say polygamy is still in force. I have asked for years (could it be going on a decade now?) for one statement from a modern prophet saying any such thing. Not once has one been supplied. Not once! They will come up with things like Elder Oaks talking about his second wife....but leave out his latest PBS interview where he backed it down to a "hope." Nor did he limit such a hope to men only. Most telling, he preceded this by stating he could not say anything about future polygamy when the prophet had chosen not to.

Several of us have watched the flow of the conversations. As said earlier, certain positions force other positions. In short, there is simply no reason whatsoever that collecting women has anything to do with exaltation, as in, what is the point once women were considered agents rather than progeny producers for men?

The first fall back response to the demand for polygyny was a realization that if there was polygyny there would be polyandry. One cannot be defended over the other anymore now that women have equal rights in theory. So to defend polygyny, one pretty much has to accept polyandry now or be completely dismissed as medieval. (It takes awhile to get past our cultural aversions to polyandry...hey, maybe like it took the women to get past their cultural aversion to polygyny...but I digress.) There are a bizillion threads with pages of this where you can see how quickly the customary assumptions break down.  

Now I am seeing more questioning of our assumptions about eternal families to begin with. The only reason for polygamy boils down to sexual reproduction, i.e.,  pregnancy. Not a winning strategy in any discussion of the afterlife. 

[Calm]

What business language are you seeing?

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

What business language are you seeing?

Me? 

We use business terminology a lot. Secretary, president, clerk, quorum, counselor, etc.  

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I wish I was gay and then people would quit telling me how I can relate to my wife.

They have it all figured out bro, we've been doing it wrong all these years, Just do as you're told.

Edited January 4, 2017 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Me? 

We use business terminology a lot. Secretary, president, clerk, quorum, counselor, etc.  

I guess I don't see counselor or quorum as inherently business terms (the latter might be a legal term to me, but counselor just means advisor and can be used in any area of life) and secretary and clerks are purely administrative in my experience (my husband has been both extensively in our married life so they don't really signify Priesthood for me.  Plus we never use secretary and clerk as anything but calling descriptions.  Same with counselor.  I feel like there are more use of religious terms, such as deacon, priest, elder or neutral ones such as brother or teacher, but maybe it is because I rarely hear my husband using those terms in his work, which involves a lot of high up business people nor ever hear my father speak that way about who he worked with among the very ego driven executives in the airlines business.

It is interesting listening to Asian shows where they do almost always include the business titles (such as President Cho rather than Mister Cho, Director, Vice Director on down) and it sounds almost religious to me, lol.

[Abulafia]

On 02/01/2017 at 9:58 PM, Meadowchik said:

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?

All I can tell you is that in the world and outside of strictly patriarchal religions, marriages can exist in a state of equality and partnership with no one person ultimately presiding.  Women can be managers, pilots, soldiers, leaders, presidents, prime ministers, executives, bishops, priests and apostles (see C of C) and this is just a normal accepted part of life.  It sends a wonderful message to both young girls and boys and is healthy.  I hope one day the church will get there.

[why me]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

All I can tell you is that in the world and outside of strictly patriarchal religions, marriages can exist in a state of equality and partnership with no one person ultimately presiding.  Women can be managers, pilots, soldiers, leaders, presidents, prime ministers, executives, bishops, priests and apostles (see C of C) and this is just a normal accepted part of life.  It sends a wonderful message to both young girls and boys and is healthy.  I hope one day the church will get there.

I  really don't recognize the lds church in your post. If one wishes to point to a strictly patriarchal religion one would need to point to islam. And to put mormonism with islam would be a huge injustice. It is true that the in the lds church, men have the priesthood. And all of these men are imperfect. But likewise for the women. From my own experiences, I see couples in the lds church in rather equal relationships as human beings. I see no demands on the wife in terms of dress such as a headscrarf etc. I see nothing in the book of mormon and in the bible that would put women under the thumb of men. I think that you need to rethink your understanding of putting mormonism in the strictly patriarchal religious category. What about catholicism? or the orthodox church?

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I  really don't recognize the lds church in your post. If one wishes to point to a strictly patriarchal religion one would need to point to islam. And to put mormonism with islam would be a huge injustice. It is true that the in the lds church, men have the priesthood. And all of these men are imperfect. But likewise for the women. From my own experiences, I see couples in the lds church in rather equal relationships as human beings. I see no demands on the wife in terms of dress such as a headscrarf etc. I see nothing in the book of mormon and in the bible that would put women under the thumb of men. I think that you need to rethink your understanding of putting mormonism in the strictly patriarchal religious category. What about catholicism? or the orthodox church?

I think you need to read up the dictionary definition of patriarchal! 😉

[why me]

29 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I think you need to read up the dictionary definition of patriarchal! 😉

I am just going by what you wrote. a strictly patriarchal religion. I think that you need to clarify just what this is and are there comparisons that can be made. Can islam be compared to catholicism, mormonism, or the orthodox church. All do not allow the priesthood for women. I don't see mormonism as a strictly patriarchal religion mainly because of the majority of women that are mormons: rather independent and educated and not exactly under the thumb of men..

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[Rain]

16 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They have it all figured out bro, we've been doing it wrong all these years, Just do as you're told.

This is so ironic and hurtful to me. If my husband said this to me it would take awhile for me to trust him again as to wanting to be in a partnership and solving things together.   

It is the kind of thing my dad tells me and my mom. I would love to break down the walls and love him as he longs to be loved by me by getting to know him better and letting him know me, but everytime I try on any serious matters he says things like this. 

I will never be like Juliann. We are different people and have had very different life experiences. I'm much more conservative as to matters in the church.  I don't agree with all the men/women communication problems to the extent she does,  enough of those problems exist that we should at least be aware of them.  

I don't know what your intent was in saying that,  but it makes us feel like you want to shut us down.  Could you explain your actual intent please?

[Buckeye]

4 hours ago, why me said:

I  really don't recognize the lds church in your post. If one wishes to point to a strictly patriarchal religion one would need to point to islam. And to put mormonism with islam would be a huge injustice. It is true that the in the lds church, men have the priesthood. And all of these men are imperfect. But likewise for the women. From my own experiences, I see couples in the lds church in rather equal relationships as human beings. I see no demands on the wife in terms of dress such as a headscrarf etc. I see nothing in the book of mormon and in the bible that would put women under the thumb of men. I think that you need to rethink your understanding of putting mormonism in the strictly patriarchal religious category. What about catholicism? or the orthodox church?

The LDS church does proscribe and, where possible, enforce dressing restrictions. Just look at the For Strength of Youth standards, Missionary dress guidelines, or church school dress guidelines. If a YW shows up to a church dance without covered shoulders, she is not allowed to participate. If a young man insists on wearing jeans everyday as a missionary he will be sent home. If a BYU student sports a beard he is not allowed to take class exams. So, yes, as far as its possible, the LDS church very much does enforce its own dress guidelines. The only difference from islam is the specifics the guidelines and the power to enforce.

As for women "under the thumb of men" - check out the law of Sarah in D/C 132 and Paul's instructions in the NT that men are the "heads" and women submit. And, of course, look at the structure set up in the LDS temple ordinances where women covenant to obey their husband's law. To the degree that LDS membership avoids a strong patriarchy, it is because the LDS members ignore - or at least rationalize away - these scriptures and ordinances. That's how it works with my marriage.

 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The LDS church does proscribe and, where possible, enforce dressing restrictions. Just look at the For Strength of Youth standards, Missionary dress guidelines, or church school dress guidelines. If a YW shows up to a church dance without covered shoulders, she is not allowed to participate. If a young man insists on wearing jeans everyday as a missionary he will be sent home. If a BYU student sports a beard he is not allowed to take class exams. So, yes, as far as its possible, the LDS church very much does enforce its own dress guidelines. The only difference from islam is the specifics the guidelines and the power to enforce.

As for women "under the thumb of men" - check out the law of Sarah in D/C 132 and Paul's instructions in the NT that men are the "heads" and women submit. And, of course, look at the structure set up in the LDS temple ordinances where women covenant to obey their husband's law. To the degree that LDS membership avoids a strong patriarchy, it is because the LDS members ignore - or at least rationalize away - these scriptures and ordinances. That's how it works with my marriage.

 

 

I think you are partly right.  The LDS church enforces dress guidelines under specific circumstances.  For other things, it definitely doesn't enforce those guidelines, such as attending church, or being able to be a member in good standing.

So there is a greater difference between Islam and the LDS church than you have outlined.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I am just going by what you wrote. a strictly patriarchal religion. I think that you need to clarify just what this is and are there comparisons that can be made. Can islam be compared to catholicism, mormonism, or the orthodox church. All do not allow the priesthood for women. I don't see mormonism as a strictly patriarchal religion mainly because of the majority of women that are mormons: rather independent and educated and not exactly under the thumb of men..

Didn't you bring up Islam? It seems to me that you're using Islam as a foil to try to make LDS patriarchy look better.  For the record, when starting this topic, I did not use "patriarchy" as a derogatory term.  It simply is.  Our Church leadership is a literally a patriarchal system, based on doctrine.  Of course with all the systems in the earth that can be considered patriarchal, there can be vast differences.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Didn't you bring up Islam? It seems to me that you're using Islam as a foil to try to make LDS patriarchy look better.  For the record, when starting this topic, I did not use "patriarchy" as a derogatory term.  It simply is.  Our Church leadership is a literally a patriarchal system, based on doctrine.  Of course with all the systems in the earth that can be considered patriarchal, there can be vast differences.

Given that the patriarchal order is a distinct doctrine in the LDS church, i don't know how anyone can successfully argue that the church isn't a patriarchy.  

[why me]

37 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The LDS church does proscribe and, where possible, enforce dressing restrictions. Just look at the For Strength of Youth standards, Missionary dress guidelines, or church school dress guidelines. If a YW shows up to a church dance without covered shoulders, she is not allowed to participate. If a young man insists on wearing jeans everyday as a missionary he will be sent home. If a BYU student sports a beard he is not allowed to take class exams. So, yes, as far as its possible, the LDS church very much does enforce its own dress guidelines. The only difference from islam is the specifics the guidelines and the power to enforce.

As for women "under the thumb of men" - check out the law of Sarah in D/C 132 and Paul's instructions in the NT that men are the "heads" and women submit. And, of course, look at the structure set up in the LDS temple ordinances where women covenant to obey their husband's law. To the degree that LDS membership avoids a strong patriarchy, it is because the LDS members ignore - or at least rationalize away - these scriptures and ordinances. That's how it works with my marriage.

 

 

Good points.  And your last part is so true. And this is important to recognize. However, here are two great books written by muslim feminists when it comes to islam and women.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18490563-headscarves-and-hymens

http://www.saqibooks.co.uk/book/battle-british-islam/

There is a major difference in dress codes for muslims and mormons and the reasons why. You can listen to the authors of these two books on youtube. They discuss their books and their muslim feminist ideas.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Abulafia said:

All I can tell you is that in the world and outside of strictly patriarchal religions, marriages can exist in a state of equality and partnership with no one person ultimately presiding.  Women can be managers, pilots, soldiers, leaders, presidents, prime ministers, executives, bishops, priests and apostles (see C of C) and this is just a normal accepted part of life.  It sends a wonderful message to both young girls and boys and is healthy.  I hope one day the church will get there.

I get that, and while holding that paradigm up as similar to a potential goal in God's plan, I would say that goals need to be accessible. Little by little, humankind changes and since the Church is meant to go forth to the whole world, one can argue that its current model is meant to be an accessible goal, a step up, for the average person.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

This is so ironic and hurtful to me. If my husband said this to me it would take awhile for me to trust him again as to wanting to be in a partnership and solving things together.   

It is the kind of thing my dad tells me and my mom. I would love to break down the walls and love him as he longs to be loved by me by getting to know him better and letting him know me, but everytime I try on any serious matters he says things like this. 

I will never be like Juliann. We are different people and have had very different life experiences. I'm much more conservative as to matters in the church.  I don't agree with all the men/women communication problems to the extent she does,  enough of those problems exist that we should at least be aware of them.  

I don't know what your intent was in saying that,  but it makes us feel like you want to shut us down.  Could you explain your actual intent please?

It was said in jest.

[Abulafia]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I get that, and while holding that paradigm up as similar to a potential goal in God's plan, I would say that goals need to be accessible. Little by little, humankind changes and since the Church is meant to go forth to the whole world, one can argue that its current model is meant to be an accessible goal, a step up, for the average person.

I think so many people are turned off organised religion in general because organisations aren't quick enough to adapt.  Not just concerning gender but also developments in science, historical access etc.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I think so many people are turned off organised religion in general because organisations aren't quick enough to adapt.  Not just concerning gender but also developments in science, historical access etc.

Perhaps the Church is structured to be able to tend to those in the most need, in effect, to tend to those already in patriarchal societies and help them find more joy and progression through a more righteous patriarchy.

Do you see what I mean?

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Perhaps the Church is structured to be able to tend to those in the most need, in effect, to tend to those already in patriarchal societies and help them find more joy and progression through a more righteous patriarchy.

Do you see what I mean?

I do.  I just cannot accept that a loving God would favour one sex over the other for any role.  I go with Paul and the pre Pauline baptismal creed that suggests there will be no longer male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free...in God's kingdom.  To me, that is healthiest for all.

 

But then I also balk at the idea that a woman can only access the divine through a man.  I even balked at that when I was active.

 

Jesus and Paul portray singleness as much more of a positive (under an apocalyptic worldview) than is allowed for in Mormon theology.

 

 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I do.  I just cannot accept that a loving God would favour one sex over the other for any role.  I go with Paul and the pre Pauline baptismal creed that suggests there will be no longer male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free...in God's kingdom.  To me, that is healthiest for all.

 

But then I also balk at the idea that a woman can only access the divine through a man.  I even balked at that when I was active.

 

Jesus and Paul portray singleness as much more of a positive (under an apocalyptic worldview) than is allowed for in Mormon theology.

 

 

I think it is ironic that over in porn thread I was told by Blue Dreams that I was off my rocker for suggesting LDS women would serve no man, except for Jesus Christ. Carry on.

[Calm]

"Accessing the divine" is not the same thing as "serving".

Otoh, Abu, it almost sounds like you think women can't even encounter God through prayer in LDS belief.  You might want to be more specific about what you mean to avoid confusion.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

On 1/4/2017 at 9:54 AM, Rain said:

 

   I don't agree with all the men/women communication problems to the extent she does,  enough of those problems exist that we should at least be aware of them.  

 

It isn't a "belief." It is a very large body of research. Labeling it as "liberal" doesn't even make sense. It just is, it is not a value judgment.

[Abulafia]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

"Accessing the divine" is not the same thing as "serving".

Otoh, Abu, it almost sounds like you think women can't even encounter God through prayer in LDS belief.  You might want to be more specific about what you mean to avoid confusion.

Yeah.  Apologies.  That isn't what I meant.  I meant in the context of patriarchy and priesthood.

[Abulafia]

I was thinking of a comment by MFB ( I think!)'that women access priesthood through a partner, which is also very much there in Temple symbolism.