"Patriarchy" - On its definition, meaning, on its "smashing," etc.

[smac97]

I have noticed that society in general, including members of this board, use the term "patriarchy" a lot.  Some examples on this board:

Bluebell in 2010:

Quote

I think many people would claim that there is no equality where one group has all the power, hence a patriarchy cannot treat men and women equally because men have all the power in the relationship.

However, if we are talking about patriarchy as is espoused in the idea of the 'kingdom of God' then one could argue that because all power rests with God, who is the head, that both men and women are equal before Him. Therefore, His patriarchy does treat both equally.

Bob Crocket in 2012:

Quote

That the Dead Sea Scrolls may describe Josiah's priest as the Wicked Priest is not persuasive. The rather modern adoration of Asherah is, indeed, founded in absurdly overt secular feminist scholasticism. Have you read "Does God Have a Wife?" or any of Dever's prior academic papers on the subject? Whereas I don't have a fundamental problem with feminist scholars, I can read for myself how they denigrate on an assumed basis the patriarchy in Israel as being evil (in a secular sort of way.) I am frankly astounded that so many good Latter-day Saint scholars buy this stuff, and I very concerned especially with Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on the subject.

Bill Reel in 2013:

Quote

Today we sit down with Caroline Kline one of the Editors of the book "Mormon Women Have Their Say"

We discuss Feminism, Priesthood, Patriarchy and Unrighteous Dominion.

CA Steve in 2014:

Quote

It is interesting that you should mention how important the idea of the Patriarchy is to Mormonism, in view of the recent passing of  Eldred G. Smith, our 8th presiding patriarch and the fact the the office of the Church Presiding Patriarch no longer seem necessary to fill even though at one time it was considered equal with or even above (by some) to that of the prophet.

Ahab in 2014:

Quote

Okay, so let's get into what we mean by Patriarchy, to see if we have the same idea about what that means.

Patriarchy = the idea that the Father in each family has ultimate authority in his own family, which consists of his wife (or wives if he has more than one) and the children he has begotten through his said wife (or wives).

Is that accurate so far? What about the authority that his wife (or wives) has/have? Does the wife have as much authority as her husband, as an equal partner with him, or is she subject to her husband and authoritatively inferior to him?

And what about men who have the same priesthood, like our Father and our Lord. Who gets to tell the other one what they should do with the authority to boss the other around?

I know what I think, but what do you think?

Why Me in 2014:

Quote

God seems to be an unjust god according to some unless of course, the lds church is a church that is only led by human beings who just happen to be men who are extremely immersed in patriarchy. One must make a choice.

Russ McGregor in 2015 (referencing Gina Colvin) :

Quote

Quote

Mormonism is patriarchal to its roots.

She says that like it's a bad thing.

Actually I'm sure she thinks it is a bad thing; to her brand of feminism, "patriarchy" is not just the root, but the very trunk, branch, leaf and flower of all evil. Never mind that the Gospel has a value for the original "rule of the fathers;" never mind that more enlightened -- and Gospel-centred -- thinkers find that patriarchy has something to offer the increasingly splintered families of our time. Every time the Gospel collides with Dr Colvin's key ideologies -- hard-line feminism, socialism and Maori entitlement -- it is always the Gospel that gives way.

Always.

Hope for Things in 2016:

Quote

Women don't have the priesthood because.....

• Patriarchy
• Sexism
• Historical inequality

Gray in 2017:

Quote

You know that the point of patriarchy is that it holds women as subordinate to men, right?
...
Patriarchy is sin.  God is no respecter of persons.

Darren in 2017 (responding to Gray's two usages of it) :

Quote

The world has declared patriarchy as subordinating women and thus equivalent to dominating over women. The former is true only I  the sense that men are leaders in God's Kingdom. The latter is completely false.  

Gray in 2017 again (responding to Darren) :

Quote

This is literally what the word means:

"In sociology, patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children."

That makes women subordinate to men - a wicked system.

Robert F. Smith in 2018:

Quote

Jordan Peterson argues for hierarchies of competence and cooperation among humans.  The other kind don't end well.  For all their human-like characteristics, chimps, on the other hand, seem to be engaged in a constant jihad.  For them the Patriarchy myth is true.

You will note that most of these comments assume, rather than articulate, the meaning of "patriarchy."  That is usually not a big deal since all words have assumed meanings.  But "patriarchy" seems to be in use in a very particularized and emphatic way, so I'd like to better understand its meaning and popular use, particularly in a Latter-day Saint context.

The etymology:

Quote

patriarchy (n.)

1560s, "ecclesiastical province under a patriarch; church government by patriarchs," from Latinized form of Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhēs "male chief or head of a family" (see patriarch). Meaning "system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community" is recorded from 1630s.

Entries linking to patriarchy

patriarch (n.)

 

late 12c., patriarke, "one of the Old Testament fathers," progenitors of the Israelites, from Old French patriarche (11c.) and directly from Late Latin patriarcha (Tertullian), from Greek patriarkhēs "chief or head of a family," from patria "family, clan," from pater "father" (see father (n.)) + arkhein "to rule" (see archon). Also used as an honorific title of certain bishops of the highest rank in the early Church, notably those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. The meaning "the father and ruler of a family" is by 1817.

That helps, of course.  But it's not enough to get us to the popular usage these days (such usage being almost always negative and disparaging).

The dictionary definition{s}:

Quote

1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
3. a social system in which power is held by men, through cultural norms and customs that favor men and withhold opportunity from women:The corporate glass ceiling is one consequence of patriarchy in education and business.
4. Often the Patriarchy. the men in power in a society: The Patriarchy is vested in maintenance of the status quo.

Definitions #1-2 somewhat apply to the Church, in that only men are specifically ordained to the Priesthood, and many offices in the Church can only be held by a priesthood holder.  Ipso facto, a man.  But most (though not all) of the leadership/authority in the "community" in question (the Church) is not based on fatherhood or "the male line,", but rather on holding the priesthood.

Definition #3 somewhat applies, since again, many offices in the Church can only be held by a priesthood holder (a male).  But the quorums in the Church seem to ameliorate this quite a bit.

Definition #4 is obviously the popular usage, but it doesn't really explain or illuminate much.

Wikipedia:

Quote

Patriarchy is an institutionalized social system in which men dominate over others, but can also refer to dominance over women specifically; it can also extend to a variety of manifestations in which men have social privileges over others to cause exploitation or oppression, such as through male dominance of moral authority and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

This seems to have limited application to the Church, as "men" as a category do not "dominate over ... women."  I am currently a Primary Teacher, and so exercise no dominance or authority over any women in the Church by virtue of me being male and them being female.  I was previously a member of my ward's bishopric, and in that capacity had very limited authority over everyone in the ward, regardless of gender, and certainly no authority amounting to "control."  

This article theorizes on the (chronological) "Origins of the Patriarchy":

Quote

Below I crudely condense this entire literature into 7 chronologically ordered hypotheses.

1. BIOLOGY. Evolutionary psychology argues men evolved to control female sexuality as a means of maximising parental certainty, while women evolved to seek dominant providers (Buss 2016; Smuts 1995). Testosterone explains men’s heightened competitiveness and aggression (Hooven 2021). Child-bearing made women dependent on men (Firestone 2015). Child-care also limits women’s skill-acquisition, workplace commitment and career stability. This all encourages statistical discrimination.
2. PLOUGH-CULTIVATION conferred an advantage on men. Since men were physically stronger, they ploughed the fields, while women processed cereals. This heightened female domesticity. In non-industrial societies where women contribute a larger share of calories (through foraging), women maintain economic power. Girls are seen more favourably and pre-marital sex is permitted. Women’s childcare and food preparation was vital, but they became economically dependent on marriage. Families taught their daughters to be submissive, to get a good husband.
3. PATRILINEAL CLANS formed to defend valuable land from attacks, where intensive agriculture raised population density and created land scarcity. Wealthy landowners bequeathed land and herds to sons. Men gained value as strong warriors.
4. PRIVATE PROPERTY facilitated men's exploitation of female labour. As men accumulated wealth, they monopolised the surplus and institutionalised patrilineal inheritance. Men had always controlled the means of production, but amassed even greater advantage through private property.
5. BRIDES COMPETED for wealthy grooms by signalling chastity and relocating to the groom's clan. Cattle-based agricultural societies became patrilocal because women preferred this to destitution. Women increasingly cloistered, lacked independent social networks and became economically dependent on men. Men entrenched their authority through moral codes.
6. STATE-DEVELOPMENT undermined kinship systems. Women lost authority as sisters and became dependent wives. Powerful states also restricted women to the domestic sphere in order to maximise social reproduction
7. COLONIALISM strengthened male advantage, the nuclear family, and female domesticity. Colonial officials favoured men in agricultural training and wage labour, while Christian missions promoted female domesticity. Women became more dependent on male breadwinners and lost roles as religious leaders.

This is very interesting.

The "popular" (and online) usage of "patriarchy" and "smashing" it seems to be somewhat novel and amorphous.  I am not alone in this assessment:

Quote

This article discusses the resurgence of the term ‘patriarchy’ in digital culture and reflects on the everyday online meanings of the term in distinction to academic theorisations. In the 1960s–1980s, feminists theorised patriarchy as the systematic oppression of women, with differing approaches to how it worked. Criticisms that the concept was unable to account for intersectional experiences of oppression, alongside the ‘turn to culture’, resulted in a fall from academic grace. However, ‘patriarchy’ has found new life through Internet memes (humorous, mutational images that circulate widely on social media). This article aims to investigate the resurgence of the term ‘patriarchy’ in digital culture. Based on an analysis of memes with the phrase ‘patriarchy’ and ‘smash the patriarchy’, we identify how patriarchy memes are used by two different online communities (feminists and anti-feminists) and consider what this means for the ongoing usefulness of the concept of patriarchy. We argue that, whilst performing important community-forming work, using the term is a risky strategy for feminists for two reasons: first, because memes are by their nature brief, there is little opportunity to address intersections of oppression; secondly, the underlying logic of feminism is omitted in favour of brevity, leaving it exposed to being undermined by the more mainstream logic of masculinism.
...
‘Smash the patriarchy’ utilises the concept of ‘patriarchy’ in a distinctive way, subtly different from older theorisations of patriarchy, in which the concept was used grammatically without a definite article, e.g. article titles such as Beechey’s ‘On Patriarchy’ (1979) and Walby’s ‘Theorising Patriarchy’ (1989). In its online life, ‘patriarchy’ has gained a definite article: ‘smash the patriarchy’. This produces a vision of something that can be done in one go - like knocking down a garden wall - and implies a recognisable ‘thing’, a target for feminist anger and action. ‘The patriarchy’ is universal, a singular entity. We suggest this visualisation of patriarchy as a ‘thing’ rather than a system of diffuse power working through individuals and institutions is a powerful feminist collectivising technology. When ‘patriarchy’ becomes ‘the patriarchy’ it becomes a monolithic thing, and the meme works as a call to action. Yet it is not without its contradictions or limitations, not least the lack of a sense of what ‘patriarchy’ actually is.
...
For feminist memes ‘patriarchy’ provides a point around which to organise, where patriarchy is unequivocally the enemy. What ‘patriarchy’ is doing online now, then, is the same as what Beechey argued it was doing for the women’s movement in 1979: ‘patriarchy’ is useful as a way to theorise and explain ‘feelings of oppression’ (1979: 66). Its resurgence online may be because it provides a way for feminists to register the presence of injustices, to render these unacceptable, and to challenge them.

Strangely, this seemingly academic article never seems to get around to defining what the authors mean by invoking "patriarchy."  Nevertheless, it intertwines "patriarchy" with racism, sexism, and a litany of political issues.

Anyway, let's go to Carrie Gress:

Quote

Carrie Gress has a doctorate in philosophy from the Catholic University of America and was the Rome bureau chief of Zenit's English edition. She is the co-author with George Weigel of City of Saints: A Pilgrimage to John Paul II s Krakow and the author of Nudging Conversions, published by Beacon Publishing in 2015. A mother of four, she and her family live in Virginia.

Today Carrie Gress has published an article: Second-Wave Feminists Pushed The Sexual Revolution To End America, And It’s Working

She makes some interesting points:

Quote

The hottest flashpoint in the culture today is the trans movement, with the mob coming after anyone, like J.K. Rowling, who dares to oppose the idea that men can become women and women men. Few are aware that the seeds for this effort were planted decades ago by a small group of women who gathered regularly to promote the creed of Marxism. We live under their triumphant umbrella daily.

The Supreme Court confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson is just the latest feather in their cap, as a justice who claims she can’t define a what a is woman because she lacks a biology degree. (Ironically, the new “women” she is trying to include aren’t biologically women, so a biology degree wouldn’t actually help her.)

This group of women was led by Kate Millett (1934-2017), one of the early grandmothers of feminism’s second wave. She was the author of the “Sexual Politics,” the academic justification for feminism that became the backbone of women’s studies programs nationally and was featured on Time Magazine’s cover twice.

Mallory Millett, Kate’s sister, has been telling the story of the 12 women Kate brought together in New York City in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. These are the women who laid the groundwork for second-wave feminism, which gave way to the world of woke.

“It was 1969 and she took me to a meeting at her friend, Lila Karp’s place in Greenwich Village,” Mallory explained to me for my book, “The Anti-Mary Exposed.” “At a consciousness-raising [an idea imported from Mao’s China] twelve women gathered at a large table. They opened with a type of Litany from the Catholic Church …but, this time it was Marxism, the church of the Left.”

The “litany” went like this:

“Why are we here today?” the chairwoman asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American patriarch?” she probed.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality!” they resounded. (Gress, 73-74)

...

Millet, her minions, and the other grandmothers of second-wave feminism set the diabolical narrative that has affected nearly every woman on the planet. These broken women are responsible for the 50-year-old narrative that says female empowerment can only be achieved through promiscuity, abortion, and the destruction of the family.

The matriarchy made up of elite men and women dictates to the rest of us what we are to believe through their control of the press, Hollywood, academia, daytime TV, book publishing, public policy, magazines, the fashion industry, public schools, and now even Disney. While the world stopped under the threat of Covid and the 3.5 million deaths, the 43 million abortions procured by women worldwide in the year 2021 can be laid at their feet.

The biggest question is, why haven’t men and women of goodwill and reason been able to stop this movement? Much of the answer resides in the fact that the matriarchy has been able to create a closed system that ignores, maligns, or suppresses any competing data, bullying or railroading any opposition. Power and control are the emphasis, not debate, real science, and reason.

The other key to their success goes back to Kate Millett’s litany. The greatest tool that has silenced opposition is the continued rail against the patriarchy, a vague word—much like racism today—that has silenced much of the population like kryptonite, particularly men. Few slogans have had more staying power than “smash the patriarchy”; it shows up at every woman’s march and in every feminist diatribe.

At its heart, it is the belief that all women are victims (even if they haven’t been victimized), while all men are the oppressors (even if they have never oppressed anyone), but again, it is about exercising control. Few could define patriarchy, no one wants to be guilty of engaging in it, so apologies and denunciations abound anytime it is asserted. So men and women continue to bow to every feminist demand for “women’s equality,” while real women are trounced and triumphed over by men in heels and swimming suits.

The trans movement is the biggest fulfillment yet of the second-wave ideal of erasing gender, and is perhaps the final battle before Kate Millett’s vision is complete. That pseudo-litany chanted by the 12 women in the upper room has been heard, felt, and suffered by all the world as the family has been destroyed, replaced by a population of noble narcissists.

Most of us feel weak and powerless to stop the ideological juggernaut, especially as we watch institution after institution cave to the narrative. The true antidote to the problem of trans and all Marxist ideologies is also in the litany: to restore the family.

A few questions to get the ball rolling:

1. What do you as an individual think of (or mean) when you read about (or use) the word "patriarchy" in a negative context?

2. Do you think "patriarchy" is an inherently bad thing?  

3. Do you think "patriarchy" is aptly applied to matters of governance in the Church today?  To matters of families in the Church today?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. What do you as an individual think of (or mean) when you read about (or use) the word "patriarchy" in a negative context?

2. Do you think "patriarchy" is an inherently bad thing?  

3. Do you think "patriarchy" is aptly applied to matters of governance in the Church today?  To matters of families in the Church today?

1. To my mind it's an agency issue.  Negative connotation of the word patriarchy bring images of ruling elders imposing their will on all those who are female or young.  Patriarchy vs Patriarchs.

2. I think patriarchal leadership is a key gospel principle.  But it is rarely applied or practiced well.  And when is takes agency from those governed it is unrighteous dominion.

3. I think every man should strive to be a wise and loving patriarch to his family.  And every woman a wise and loving matriarch.

[HappyJackWagon]

When I hear "patriarchy" I think of male dominated culture.

Biblical teachings focus on patriarchal authority as God's way but I have to wonder how much of it is truly the result of cultural bias.

Yes- I believe Patriarchy is a reasonable explanation of the church's current power base, and priesthood authority. Things have been patriarchal for thousands of years so it's easy for some to think that it is truly God's way and can't be changed. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Meadowchik]

1. The exclusion of women from a given leadership position or governing body.

2. Yes, as it is defined above it is inherently bad.

3. Yes, it is a fair description of church heirarchy. Yes, it is a fair description of the historical church-guided family structure.

It's relatively straightforward that excluding women from power over organisations of which they are participants is not a good way of serving them well organisationally. It takes much more words and long-winded explanations to defend or justify patriarchy.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Meadowchik

[MustardSeed]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

1. The exclusion of women from a given leadership position or governing body.

2. Yes, as it is defined above it is inherently bad.

3. Yes, it is a fair description of church heirarchy. Yes, it is a fair description of the historical church-guided family structure.

It's relatively straightforward that excluding women from power over organisations of which they are participants is not a good way of serving them well organisationally. It takes much more words and long-winded explanations to defend or justify patriarchy.

Agreed.  I also think patriarchy hurts men. I agree with Dr. Jennifer Finlayson Fife on this topic. 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have noticed that society in general, including members of this board, use the term "patriarchy" a lot.  Some examples on this board:

Bluebell in 2010:

Bob Crocket in 2012:

Bill Reel in 2013:

CA Steve in 2014:

Ahab in 2014:

Why Me in 2014:

Russ McGregor in 2015 (referencing Gina Colvin) :

Hope for Things in 2016:

Gray in 2017:

Darren in 2017 (responding to Gray's two usages of it) :

Gray in 2017 again (responding to Darren) :

Robert F. Smith in 2018:

You will note that most of these comments assume, rather than articulate, the meaning of "patriarchy."  That is usually not a big deal since all words have assumed meanings.  But "patriarchy" seems to be in use in a very particularized and emphatic way, so I'd like to better understand its meaning and popular use, particularly in a Latter-day Saint context.

The etymology:

That helps, of course.  But it's not enough to get us to the popular usage these days (such usage being almost always negative and disparaging).

The dictionary definition{s}:

Definitions #1-2 somewhat apply to the Church, in that only men are specifically ordained to the Priesthood, and many offices in the Church can only be held by a priesthood holder.  Ipso facto, a man.  But most (though not all) of the leadership/authority in the "community" in question (the Church) is not based on fatherhood or "the male line,", but rather on holding the priesthood.

Definition #3 somewhat applies, since again, many offices in the Church can only be held by a priesthood holder (a male).  But the quorums in the Church seem to ameliorate this quite a bit.

Definition #4 is obviously the popular usage, but it doesn't really explain or illuminate much.

Wikipedia:

This seems to have limited application to the Church, as "men" as a category do not "dominate over ... women."  I am currently a Primary Teacher, and so exercise no dominance or authority over any women in the Church by virtue of me being male and them being female.  I was previously a member of my ward's bishopric, and in that capacity had very limited authority over everyone in the ward, regardless of gender, and certainly no authority amounting to "control."  

This article theorizes on the (chronological) "Origins of the Patriarchy":

This is very interesting.

The "popular" (and online) usage of "patriarchy" and "smashing" it seems to be somewhat novel and amorphous.  I am not alone in this assessment:

Strangely, this seemingly academic article never seems to get around to defining what the authors mean by invoking "patriarchy."  Nevertheless, it intertwines "patriarchy" with racism, sexism, and a litany of political issues.

Anyway, let's go to Carrie Gress:

Today Carrie Gress has published an article: Second-Wave Feminists Pushed The Sexual Revolution To End America, And It’s Working

She makes some interesting points:

A few questions to get the ball rolling:

1. What do you as an individual think of (or mean) when you read about (or use) the word "patriarchy" in a negative context?

2. Do you think "patriarchy" is an inherently bad thing?  

3. Do you think "patriarchy" is aptly applied to matters of governance in the Church today?  To matters of families in the Church today?

Thanks,

-Smac

1. When I use "patriarchal" as an ecclesiastical adjective, it is usually in the context of the family, or the priesthood order reflecting the values in the Family Proclamation. I rarely use the word "patriarchy" in this or any other context, and I reserve judgement on whether the aspect under discussion is socially beneficial or not until I hear it out.

2. No (see above).

3. No (see above). The Church is fundamentally a kingdom of delegated keys (to men), not a society headed by men. Honorific patriarchal titles (e.g., father) are not used in naming the priesthood offices of our Church. The kingdom supports the family, which in turn forms the basis of society. The Family Proclamation does not support the types of society described in your definitions above, but rather supports a patriarchal order where power is shared between husband and wife.

[The Nehor]

On 4/19/2022 at 12:46 PM, smac97 said:

Wikipedia:

This seems to have limited application to the Church, as "men" as a category do not "dominate over ... women."  I am currently a Primary Teacher, and so exercise no dominance or authority over any women in the Church by virtue of me being male and them being female.  I was previously a member of my ward's bishopric, and in that capacity had very limited authority over everyone in the ward, regardless of gender, and certainly no authority amounting to "control."  

Some people like to claim Roman society was patriarchal because the oldest male in the house had the power of life and death over everyone in the house including his wife.

BUT……..did you know we have a record here that there were Roman women who owned male slaves. Therefore Roman society was completely gender blind, men did not dominate women generally, and there was no inequality. I rest my case.

[Jaydes]

1. Male domination over, bias in favor of, discrimination against, or power structures that are disadvantageous towards women on the basis of sex alone. 

 

2. Yes.

 

3. Yes. 

[pogi]

When done in righteousness, I think patriarchy works well.  When done in righteousness, I think matriarchy works well also.  When done in perfect righteousness, I have a hard time of thinking of anything that doesn't work well.  We don't live in a perfect or even righteous world though, and it seems like such structures need checks and balances of power/authority.   

I think there certainly is some confusion in conflicting teachings about this principle in the church: 

Quote

In the Lord’s system of government, every organizational unit must have a presiding officer. He has decreed that in the family organization the father assumes this role. He bears the priesthood ordination. He is accountable before the Lord for this leadership.

Quote

The particulars may vary in each marriage unit by agreement of the husband and wife, but the ultimate responsibility for leadership cannot be successfully delegated.

Quote

The patriarchal principle in marriage provides for order and a basis for government in the kingdom of God. It places parents, With the father in the leadership role, in a position of accountability for their own direct family kingdom. It is a system of great simplicity and perfect effectiveness. It requires willing compliance with every principle of righteousness.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/09/marriage-and-the-patriarchal-order?lang=eng

Quote

“Fatherhood is leadership, the most important kind of leadership. It has always been so; it always will be so...you preside in the home. It is not a matter of whether you are most worthy or best qualified, but it is a matter of [divine] appointment.”7

Quote

“… There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher priesthood, than that of the father. … The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is then a particular reason why men, women, and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of His children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount.”15

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng

Contrast those quotes with these more recent quotes and approach, which seem to be walking back off the idea of presiding men and patriarchy quite a bit

Quote

Gordon B. Hinckley has taught: “In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals.”

And from L. Tom Perry:

Quote

Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.11 Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng

We see this change in tone in the temple ritual too.  That is significant.  Things be a changin'!

Any help on reconciling these teachings?  Are we supposed to try and reconcile them, or are we supposed to accept the more modern teachings in place of the later teachings?

How are husband and wife "coequals" if the presiding authority of which there is "no other authority paramount" coequal?  How is it coequal when the "ultimate responsibility of leadership" falls on the husband and "cannot be delegated", and is not even a matter of who is best qualified or worthy, but "is a matter of divine appointment". 

How is there "no president or vice president in a family", when the man "presides" as the "head" of the family, with no paramount authority, and of which authority "cannot be delegated"?  

Quote

If, ultimately, a husband must propose a course of action in the absence of complete agreement, he must sense the great responsibility in taking this role

The husband has ultimate decision making authority in every matter where unanimity is not obtained.  In what way is he not the "president" as the head with ultimate decision making authority?  How is that "coequal" and of "equal footing"?  When the man or the woman is at the head, there is no equality or equal footing 

Edited April 28, 2022 by pogi

[rongo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Any help on reconciling these teachings?  Are we supposed to try and reconcile them, or are we supposed to accept the more modern teachings in place of the later teachings?

I don't think they really can be reconciled. I would add another option, which would be that the earlier teachings are "truer" than the recent iteration. I know there seems to be an emphasis of late that only the current teachings matter, but carried to the logical conclusion, that would just lead to "at war with Eastasia, always been at war with Eastasia, never been at war with Eurasia." And subject to change on a whim back to Eurasia when future leaders are "unleashed" and "free to follow through with things [they're] . . . . concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president, he can do those things."

https://www.fox13now.com/2018/11/02/hes-been-unleashed-says-wendy-nelson-wife-of-russell-m-nelson-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/ 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

How are husband and wife "coequals" if the presiding authority of which there is "no other authority paramount" coequal?  How is it coequal when the "ultimate responsibility of leadership" falls on the husband and "cannot be delegated", and is not even a matter of who is best qualified or worthy, but "is a matter of divine appointment". 

How is there "no president or vice president in a family", when the man "presides" as the "head" of the family, with no paramount authority, and of which authority "cannot be delegated"?  

The husband has ultimate decision making authority in every matter where unanimity is not obtained.  In what way is he not the "president" as the head with ultimate decision making authority?  How is that "coequal" and of "equal footing"?  When the man or the woman is at the head, there is no equality or equal footing 

You are correct about each of these questions not really being reconcilable with the new shift. While they are coequal in all ways that matter, there is a "rubber hits the road" point where the husband presides by virtue of his priesthood authority. That's baked into the teachings, former and modern, and despite the shift in tone and emphasis. 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think they really can be reconciled. I would add another option, which would be that the earlier teachings are "truer" than the recent iteration. I know there seems to be an emphasis of late that only the current teachings matter, but carried to the logical conclusion, that would just lead to "at war with Eastasia, always been at war with Eastasia, never been at war with Eurasia." And subject to change on a whim back to Eurasia when future leaders are "unleashed" and "free to follow through with things [they're] . . . . concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president, he can do those things."

https://www.fox13now.com/2018/11/02/hes-been-unleashed-says-wendy-nelson-wife-of-russell-m-nelson-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/ 

You are correct about each of these questions not really being reconcilable with the new shift. While they are coequal in all ways that matter, there is a "rubber hits the road" point where the husband presides by virtue of his priesthood authority. That's baked into the teachings, former and modern, and despite the shift in tone and emphasis. 

Good point.  There is the more fundamentalist option too, where old prophets are "truer" than recent ones. 

I wonder how much hard fundamentalism seen played out in unrighteous dominion has influenced the more recent iterations.  I wonder if the real world consequences of such statements have caused them to walk them back after prayerful consideration, even to the point of changing temple covenants.  Do you think the temple change was uninspired? 

Of the old way, it was said:

Quote

It is a system of great simplicity and perfect effectiveness. It requires willing compliance with every principle of righteousness.

For it to be effective, it requires compliance with every principle of righteousness.   Am I to conclude then that in the real world, it is not simple or effective.

Another question I have is this, from my perspective, most families in the church that I associate with, the wife generally ends up with the final say on most issues.  Is repentance in order?  Are they sinning?  Are they unworthy members if the mother is for all practical purposes the head of the home? 

 

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good point.  There is the more fundamentalist option too, where old prophets are "truer" than recent ones. 

To me, it depends on what is true. It doesn't default to "modern" simply because it is most recent. 

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I wonder how much hard fundamentalism seen played out in unrighteous dominion has influenced the more recent iterations.  I wonder if the real world consequences of such statements have caused them to walk them back after prayerful consideration, even to the point of changing temple covenants.  Do you think the temple change was uninspired? 

I don't personally believe the changes are inspired, no. And, I find the disclaimer statement at the beginning (these changes are not a change in doctrine) to be telling --- it seems to me that they are very aware that this will be a question or concern for many, hence the perceived need to preface it with "there's nothing to see here." And, I don't find the default argument "just changes in presentation, but not doctrine" to be convincing. Some things are and can be simply changes in presentation, but many changes are actual changes in what is taught (which is what doctrine is). 

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Another question I have is this, from my perspective, most families in the church that I associate with, the wife generally ends up with the final say on most issues.  Is repentance in order?  Are they sinning?  Are they unworthy members if the mother is for all practical purposes the head of the home? 

I disagree that "in most families in the Church . . . the wife generally ends up with the final say on most issues." This is certainly true of some families, and I do think that where the husbands are shirking their duty to preside in righteousness, leaving the wives to carry the burden for church activity, family worship, etc. --- where this is the case, it is a spiritual malady that drags the families, children, and local church down (and also the meta-church, if this is enough of an issue globally). Families and the Church are "most likely" to run on all cylinders when fathers preside in righteousness, in my view.

Years ago, after several sisters had expressed frustration for having to shoulder all of the burden for church and family worship, I taught a 5th Sunday lesson I called "The Men and Women of Rapa Iti" that showed slides from Thor Heyerdahl's excavation at Rapa Iti. It was an extreme example: in that culture, the women did everything, and the men lazed around and maybe fished if they were bored, and ate the poi their wives made them while they worked the fields. There were anthropological reasons for this (the island was settled by pregnant women fleeing the "short ear" genocide of the "long ears" at Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and they coddled men and boys as their most valuable possession. The Heyerdahl expedition sought to hire the men to help excavate the largest pyramid in Polynesia, and the women desperately wanted the cash that would be invaluable in trade with Tahiti. After one day of work, the men went on strike for outrageous wages, and Heyerdahl wouldn't give in. The outraged women (outraged at their husbands) left their fields and offered to work for the original offer. When it became clear to the men that there would be no poi,  no work done, no sex, etc., they sued for peace and offered to work for the original offer. 

We discussed that it is spiritually damaging, with a ripple effect through generations, when children see only their mother leading out in prayer, study, church service and worship, living gospel principles, etc. (in some cases, encountering resistance or reluctance on the father's part). It was definitely a "repent and do better, if this applies to you" message. I am completely unconvinced that things like "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" are outdated mistakes that need to be disavowed in light of current shifts. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

To me, it depends on what is true. It doesn't default to "modern" simply because it is most recent. 

I don't personally believe the changes are inspired, no. And, I find the disclaimer statement at the beginning (these changes are not a change in doctrine) to be telling --- it seems to me that they are very aware that this will be a question or concern for many, hence the perceived need to preface it with "there's nothing to see here." And, I don't find the default argument "just changes in presentation, but not doctrine" to be convincing. Some things are and can be simply changes in presentation, but many changes are actual changes in what is taught (which is what doctrine is). 

I disagree that "in most families in the Church . . . the wife generally ends up with the final say on most issues." This is certainly true of some families, and I do think that where the husbands are shirking their duty to preside in righteousness, leaving the wives to carry the burden for church activity, family worship, etc. --- where this is the case, it is a spiritual malady that drags the families, children, and local church down (and also the meta-church, if this is enough of an issue globally). Families and the Church are "most likely" to run on all cylinders when fathers preside in righteousness, in my view.

Years ago, after several sisters had expressed frustration for having to shoulder all of the burden for church and family worship, I taught a 5th Sunday lesson I called "The Men and Women of Rapa Iti" that showed slides from Thor Heyerdahl's excavation at Rapa Iti. It was an extreme example: in that culture, the women did everything, and the men lazed around and maybe fished if they were bored, and ate the poi their wives made them while they worked the fields. There were anthropological reasons for this (the island was settled by pregnant women fleeing the "short ear" genocide of the "long ears" at Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and they coddled men and boys as their most valuable possession. The Heyerdahl expedition sought to hire the men to help excavate the largest pyramid in Polynesia, and the women desperately wanted the cash that would be invaluable in trade with Tahiti. After one day of work, the men went on strike for outrageous wages, and Heyerdahl wouldn't give in. The outraged women (outraged at their husbands) left their fields and offered to work for the original offer. When it became clear to the men that there would be no poi,  no work done, no sex, etc., they sued for peace and offered to work for the original offer. 

We discussed that it is spiritually damaging, with a ripple effect through generations, when children see only their mother leading out in prayer, study, church service and worship, living gospel principles, etc. (in some cases, encountering resistance or reluctance on the father's part). It was definitely a "repent and do better, if this applies to you" message. I am completely unconvinced that things like "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" are outdated mistakes that need to be disavowed in light of current shifts. 

 

 

You are coming at this from the angle that the dad is a spiritual dead beat and that the wife is the head by default.  That is not the only option in a matriarchy.  That isn't the only option in an equal share of decision making authority, either.  What are the downsides of equal leadership that runs like a priesthood quorum described in D&C 107, requiring unanimity on all decisions, where both are spiritually involved and invested.

Quote

“And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other

Quote

I disagree that "in most families in the Church . . . the wife generally ends up with the final say on most issues." 

There is nothing to disagree with really, I said it was from my perspective of "the families I associate with".  

In my own home, we have a pretty good balance I think.  I bend for my wife, and she bends for me in the decision making. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

You are coming at this from the angle that the dad is a spiritual dead beat.  That is not the only option in a matriarchy.  That isn't the only option in an equal share of decision making authority, either.  What are the downsides of equal leadership that runs like a priesthood quorum described in D&C 107, requiring unanimity on all decisions, where both are spiritually involved and invested.

There is nothing to disagree with really, I said it was from my perspective of "the families I associate with".  

In my own home, we have a pretty good balance I think.  I bend for my wife, and she bends for me in the decision making. 

Agree, and when I am the one who bends, I do it as a gift of love for her, and she does the same

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are coming at this from the angle that the dad is a spiritual dead beat and that the wife is the head by default.  That is not the only option in a matriarchy. 

Even if it's a conscious decision to use a matriarchy model rather than a patriarchy one (and not due to spiritual dead beat-ism) in the family, it still runs counter to the dominant teaching, past and even present, that "by divine design" husbands and fathers are to preside in the home. Even where the tone is shifting, that is still the default setting from the Church's standpoint. In other words, whatever the reason for consciously choosing a matriarchal family, this decision runs counter to "divine design." 

I found a recent article about declining religiosity in Gen Z and Millennials fascinating. It tied this trend to fathers --- even when there are religious and active mothers. 

https://www.deseret.com/2022/4/23/23013578/perspective-young-adults-are-losing-their-religion-are-their-parents-to-blame-gen-z-generation-x

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even if it's a conscious decision to use a matriarchy model rather than a patriarchy one (and not due to spiritual dead beat-ism) in the family, it still runs counter to the dominant teaching, past and even present, that "by divine design" husbands and fathers are to preside in the home. Even where the tone is shifting, that is still the default setting from the Church's standpoint. In other words, whatever the reason for consciously choosing a matriarchal family, this decision runs counter to "divine design." 

I found a recent article about declining religiosity in Gen Z and Millennials fascinating. It tied this trend to fathers --- even when there are religious and active mothers. 

https://www.deseret.com/2022/4/23/23013578/perspective-young-adults-are-losing-their-religion-are-their-parents-to-blame-gen-z-generation-x

Is it a sin to do otherwise? 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it a sin to do otherwise? 

I think so, and I also think declining Church culture and vitality are at least partially due to conscious efforts to erode the patriarchy from within. This goes against "divine design." 

There are different degrees of sins. I don't think that, say, this, or having both parents work while they have little kids because of lifestyle choices and not necessity are as serious as obviously serious sins. 

There are consequences, though. We as a Church and a people are hemorrhaging teenagers, youth, and young adults. No matter what people cite as the reason(s) for this, why our our LDS families not better able to equip and bolster our children? Why is religiosity declining among the rising generations in the Church? I think part of the answer is these conscious shifts we are making within the Church. 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

I found a recent article about declining religiosity in Gen Z and Millennials fascinating. It tied this trend to fathers --- even when there are religious and active mothers. 

https://www.deseret.com/2022/4/23/23013578/perspective-young-adults-are-losing-their-religion-are-their-parents-to-blame-gen-z-generation-x

I'm not coming to the same conclusion after reading it. 

Where is the study that shows the results of the opposite - active fathers and inactive mothers?  Surely that is also tied to declining religiosity too.  Can you show me any data for that?

Quote

“Because regular church attendance is less common for fathers than mothers, in some ways his religiosity is more important because it’s more unusual. So kids who see both mothers and fathers regularly attending church are more likely to take their faith seriously compared to kids who see just their mother attend church.”

This doesn't say what you are saying.

The closest thing was this (but it also is not saying what you are saying):

Quote

And research by Vern Bengtson has found that when it comes to the continuity of religious faith, the closeness of the father and child matters even more than the closeness of the child and the mother.

This says nothing about the efficacy of patriarchy vs matriarchy vs equality in parent leadership in relation to continuity of religiosity across generations.  All it says it that "closeness" (not patriarchy) with the father matters perhaps even more than closeness with mothers in terms of religious influence.  It doesn't say that a matriarchy is less effective, in fact it seems to say the opposite.  It seems to suggest that if the roles were reversed, with the father as the primary childcare giver and homemaker, fostering closer and deeper relationships, than it would have a greater impact on the religiosity of the children. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why is religiosity declining among the rising generations in the Church? I think part of the answer is these conscious shifts we are making within the Church. 

Totally disagree.  These changes are probably slowing the hemorrhage from being even worse.  They are inspired.  

The decline in religiosity are not unique to our church and have little to nothing to do with these changes.  

Edited April 28, 2022 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:46 AM, smac97 said:

I

A few questions to get the ball rolling:

1. What do you as an individual think of (or mean) when you read about (or use) the word "patriarchy" in a negative context?

2. Do you think "patriarchy" is an inherently bad thing?  

3. Do you think "patriarchy" is aptly applied to matters of governance in the Church today?  To matters of families in the Church today?

Thanks,

-Smac

1.) first word that comes to mind (super broadly) is unrighteous dominion. Generally, it’s a lens of interpreting and interacting with the world that places male experience as the norm, female ones as second-thoughts or special interests or a “woman’s issue” even though women make half/slightly over half of the population. It’s worst manifestations view women and their voices as unneeded, less than, and even threatening. It can include cultural over valuing of “masculine” traits and mannerism. It’s more common manifestations are cultural practices and patterns of relating that can lead to women’s voices and power being excluded or underutilized. I think for many it is just how it is and becomes culturally normative. It’s ingrained into so much of our heritages that it’s hard to completely shake it. It’s inherently hierarchical in that it tiers both gender and quite often glorifies people “on top” and cultural ideals. 
 

2.) yeah. I can’t see how any of the above is of God. I think It’s a bastardization of what was supposed to be. i don’t think the damage is universally felt the same though. Because it’s culturally baked into value systems and interactions, one can have a relatively healthy life in social/structural patriarchy, giving the facade that this is okay. 
 

3.) yes. Unless we’ve become fully zion, we still struggle with the cultural heritage of a fallen world. Which includes a lot of assumptions, biases, accepted power structures, etc that are not actually how God works, but have been derived from varying degrees of social corruption over millennia. We are not the cool that we can just shake it off just by joining ourselves to a faith. I think this is reducing and being replaced, but it’s a process. One we’ll likely be on for a while. On family…it varies. There’s not one single way of running family in the church. People take the basic principles around family in very very different ways. I’ve seen ones that are very stringent in interpreting it as very traditional roles and others not so much….tough equally religious. Structure will differ, cultural assumptions with differ, roles will differ from household to household. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[BlueDreams]

On 4/28/2022 at 11:35 AM, pogi said:

When done in righteousness, I think patriarchy works well.  When done in righteousness, I think matriarchy works well also.  When done in perfect righteousness, I have a hard time of thinking of anything that doesn't work well.  We don't live in a perfect or even righteous world though, and it seems like such structures need checks and balances of power/authority. 
 

i would say patriarchy and matriarchy can function. But I think the function is still often with some costs for both men and women in each society. Neither is how i picture god fully, so both to me fall short of “perfect righteousness.” 

On 4/28/2022 at 11:35 AM, pogi said:

 

 

I think there certainly is some confusion in conflicting teachings about this principle in the church: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/09/marriage-and-the-patriarchal-order?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng

Contrast those quotes with these more recent quotes and approach, which seem to be walking back off the idea of presiding men and patriarchy quite a bit

And from L. Tom Perry:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng

We see this change in tone in the temple ritual too.  That is significant.  Things be a changin'!

Any help on reconciling these teachings?  Are we supposed to try and reconcile them, or are we supposed to accept the more modern teachings in place of the later teachings?

I probably lean more to the “more modern teachings in place of the later” category. But I find it interesting that this article starts off with: “the comments on the patriarchal order in marriage represent my personal views.” I also read about half the talk. The funny thing is much of it I agree with or see some value in. And I see it as a little bit of a Time Capsule for where we’ve come from and how that continued to be refined in our current day. The biggest difference I had is in the view of how he described the husband/wife relationship. Where he describes the husband as the leader and the wife as the counselor in the family. I think the biggest flaw church wise was to presume the church hierarchical terminology/relationship into family dynamics. In that orientation there is a leader and that leader listens to/divides the work amongst  counselors but ultimately has the directive role in the relationship/keys. This isn’t what happens in families. Once upon a time I think oaks gave a talk differentiating between family priesthood responsibilities and order and hierarchical church oriented priesthood order.  This would be an indirect pushback on viewing the role of the father in “presiding” as equivalent to say a bishop presiding. And I think it’s lines like the one quoted from Paul that fueled this line of reasoning…where the parallels in fatherly/partner role were one inevitably unequal. Yes changing the parameters around the traditional picture of “leader” to one less dictatorial to service and love oriented with United decision making helps and is a big step up from authoritarian lord-type husbands. But it’s still not THE model given us in the temple of Adam and Eve where both were half of the pie in creating a family and both had primary responsibilities to this and shared in said responsibilities. Where they became effectively one. There isn’t a leadership calling in the organizational church with that exact dynamic. 
 

the temple rituals changed, yes. But they changed in large part by adding words and contexts reflected in the book of Moses especially when describing the relationship of Adam and Eve. This section is probably one of my favorites and before the change was already my guidepost to interpreting both marriage and temple rites. The description is equitable. They are given different names and slightly different responsibilities in them. They both help each other in these responsibilities. They both receive revelation for their family. They work in sync to share these truths with their children to guide them. Adam’s role is one that’s just been fleshed out and focused on in later examples of priesthood over and over and over again. Eve’s, if it had been at one point, got seriously lost along the way. Even this elder recognizes that the picture of women is limited in scripture. But it is there and it can be expanded in understanding. These can direct and I hope one day increase our understanding oF priestesshood and the divine feminine in the future. 

 

On 4/28/2022 at 11:35 AM, pogi said:

How are husband and wife "coequals" if the presiding authority of which there is "no other authority paramount" coequal?  How is it coequal when the "ultimate responsibility of leadership" falls on the husband and "cannot be delegated", and is not even a matter of who is best qualified or worthy, but "is a matter of divine appointment". 

How is there "no president or vice president in a family", when the man "presides" as the "head" of the family, with no paramount authority, and of which authority "cannot be delegated"?  

The husband has ultimate decision making authority in every matter where unanimity is not obtained.  In what way is he not the "president" as the head with ultimate decision making authority?  How is that "coequal" and of "equal footing"?  When the man or the woman is at the head, there is no equality or equal footing 

Those are big ifs. Ones I don’t subscribe to and ones that build on our cultural inferences of power, authority, roles, etc. Again all of these are super understandable and ones I’ve had questions on too because of the cultural derivative. 

I have a funny story about this. Once we had the missionaries. My favorite seat is what’s often considered “the head” of the table. In said seat I quipped “as head of the household would xyz say the prayer.” One of the elders looked perturbed. I got a good chuckle out of it (on the inside). I’d broken cultural assumptions. Ones I’d seen enacted over and over again but that didn’t really have much of a meaning beyond cultural expectation that dad will say who will say the prayer. It’s not written down anywhere, it’s just assumed that that should happen. Probably because of this church—>family correlation in people’s heads. I can’t give clear answers to these questions. It still comes back to Adam and Eve for me and then to me and my husband’s actually relationship as it is. One where we are united, knit together, and both contribute spiritually to the home. Me in the ways I’m strong in, him in the ways he’s good in. I don’t know how to juxtapose that with some of the language 40 years ago, 100, or 2000 years in the past. It ain’t my job to. For me, this is the ideal relationship. One of equals in strength/capacity, sharing and working in the different responsibilities/calls they have in it. Neither above or better than the other because of said calls. That’s currently good enough for me. 
 

with luv 

bd

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Neither is how i picture god fully, so both to me fall short of “perfect righteousness.” 

They seem unlikely to be necessary in a society of perfect righteousness.  Why bother to practice something that can be good if done in righteousness when you could be practicing something different that is best?

[The Nehor]

I was taught that ‘presiding’ is not a tiebreaker for a deadlocked decision in a marriage.

[telnetd]

On 4/29/2022 at 10:50 PM, Calm said:

They seem unlikely to be necessary in a society of perfect righteousness. 

From how these devotionals explain the scripture, I would say patriarchy was not designed of God:

https://livingtruth.ca/blogs/devotionals/helper
https://livingtruth.ca/blogs/devotionals/the-fall-and-brokenness

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Heh.  I'm going to crosspost this in the Banner of Heaven thread too.  Episode 3 has things getting patriarchical!  (At least, as seen through the eyes of Krakauer and company.)

1- As the trouble-makin' upstart woman one of the Lafferty boys married starts arguing with her husband, all the brothers gang up on her to instruct her on minding her place, and calling her out on arguing with her priesthood holder after he'd made his mind up.  The other women in the room flee upstairs (good acting - they both flee, and are bored at the same time to convey this happens a lot).

2- As our hero, the youthful faithful cop, continues his dark slide into learning the horrible suppressed secrets of our faith's past, he is so troubled that he decides to postpone his twin daughters' baptism.  Wife freaks out more and more until our hero pulls rank: Saying he holds the priesthood so it's his decision, and he needs her support.  That ends it, she kicks off marital intimacy by reminding him that the priesthood may be his, but it's up to her to decide when it gets held. 

3- After the girls' baptism interview, our hero stays after for counsel from his Bishop and priesthood leader.  Bishop tells him how to take care of his mother and her growing dementia, basically prescribing her antipsychotics and whatnot.   And bishop strongly commands him to stop looking into the church's past.  This is setting up a conflict between our hero's faith and his job as detective!

4- And all of the preceding 3 scenes have similar dark bassy horror-music soundtrack stuff happening in the background.  #3 is so faint it's almost undetectable.  If anyone missed it, go back and turn the volume up way loud.  It's right there - almost sounds like the sound of trucks in traffic.

I guess it can't be good patriarchy without ominous music to help manipulate the viewer's emotions.  Imma get some deep bass speakers to make my family PPIs more effective.  Or something.