Reciprocity in a Patriarchal, but Equal Partner, Marriage
I’m troubled by the concept of “presiding but equal partners” that we hear frequently from our Church leaders when they talk to us about the proper structure of a marriage relationship. In the August 2007 Ensign, Elder Bruce Hafen and Sister Marie Hafen have written an article entitled “Crossing Thresholds and Becoming Equal Partners”. This article sheds some light on what presiding in a partnership of equals may look like.
First, there’s also some excellent information in the article about how the Restoration clarifies Eve’s role in the Fall (Mormons think Eve is awesome), and some potentially problematic definitional stuff about the man being a “ruler” over/with women (not sure I understand this part). But then the authors turn to one of my major concerns with the presiding/equal partnership paradigm – reciprocity in patriarchal marriage relationship. If the man presides in the marriage (as long as he is righteous), when does the man have an obligation to listen to and, if appropriate, defer to his wife?
Here’s what the Hafens have to say about that:
Spouses need not perform the same functions to be equal. The woman’s innate spiritual instincts are like a moral magnet, pointing toward spiritual north – except when that magnet’s particles are scrambled out of order. The man’s presiding gift is the priesthood – except when he’s not living the principles of righteousness.
Here’s the good part:
If the husband and wife are wise, their counseling will be reciprocal: he will listen to the promptings of her inner spiritual compass just as she will listen to his righteous counsel.
Nice! I’m going to show this article to my husband so he’ll stop pretending he can’t read my inner spiritual compass. Anyway, according to this quote from the article, women have “innate spiritual instincts” that act as a “moral magnet”, while men are bestowed with the “presiding gift” of the priesthood. This article reflects LDS Church teachings about the superior spiritual instincts women possess naturally (e.g., nurturing). In fact, the article quotes Boyd K. Packer saying “the virtues and attributes upon which perfection and exhaltation depend come [more] naturally to a woman.” This leads me to my question of what (if any) innate spiritual instincts do men have? Does the “presiding gift” of the priesthood bestow spiritual gifts onto men akin to the woman’s naturally occurring spiritual gift of being a “moral magnet”?
I’m wondering if the spiritual gifts men and women possess, either naturally or through the gift of the priesthood, differ. And, of course, what happens when the naturally occurring woman’s moral magnet points in a direction that contradicts the man’s presiding gift of the priesthood? The authors don’t say.
In the next paragraph, however, the authors discuss a true equal marriage partnership:
And in an equal-partner marriage both also bring a spiritual maturity to their partnership, without regard to gender. Both have a conscience and the Holy Ghost to guide them. Both see family life as their most important work. Each also strives to become a fully-rounded disciple of Jesus Christ – a complete spiritual being.
Good stuff. So after reading this article, I’m still left with questions about the concept of presiding. I don’t understand why it’s necessary, or even possible, to have someone presiding in a partnership of equals (particularly if their access to (and their substance of) spiritual gifts is identical). But I love the language in the last quote: Both men and women have the Holy Ghost and their individual consciences to guide them in loving and serving their family. That’s the message that resonates with me, and so that’s the one I’m going with for now.
Please can someone explain to me why women are innately more spiritual? Or more … [fill in the blank here] … Is that really anyone’s experience? Because I’ve known men who seem more spiritual than a woman and women who’ve been more spiritual than some men, and some women who are more honest and have greater character than some men, and the opposite, etc. These blanket statements on gender don’t at all ring true for me. It depends on the person. Sorry, not buying it.
Comment by Lulubelle — July 19, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Lulubelle–statistical averages don’t discount aberrations. So IF women are statistically more innately spiritual than men that wouldn’t discount the existence of non-spiritual women or highly spiritual men.
Here’s my problem, oft discussed around the ‘nacle: how do we know when spirituality is innate v. socially constructed (”nurtured” might be a better word that “constructed” in this case, or perhaps “promoted”)? Certainly our culture is set up in such a way to encourage women’s spirituality while more heavily stressing men’s other gifts–organizational, whatever. So I see no way of objectively verifying what is innate and what is not. I want to believe that we all have innate spiritual gifts, but there’s no way i can really verify that, either.
I also have to ask why, if men are inherently less spiritual than women, does their supposed “crutch” of the preisthood require them to lead? If priesthood just levels the spiritual playing field, then why must it priviledge men in the organizational playing field? There may be a reason, but i haven’t heard a good one yet.
I do love the Hollands, so I’m looking forward to reading the article. I like how they tend to coauthor things. I like that Elder Holland once told the faculty at BYU, “feminist problems are Christian problems” as a way of getting faculty to stop acting like feminism was the great Satan. Thanks for the heads-up, ECS.
Comment by Janet — July 19, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Once again, we get LDS leaders pretending that a pair of ovaries is equivalent to the Urim & Thummim. Of course it’s not just a phenomenon of LDS leaders. It’s the same modern cultural impetus that leads companies to portray men as inept, bumbling fools in advertising, etc.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 19, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
I haven’t read the article, but I too am uncomfortable with these types of statements. For example, right now I am physically stronger than my husband. Should that change the dynamics of our marriage? Should I now be recast as the protector of our home? Is the equality of the marriage based on the spirituality/priesthood dichotomy? If so, what happens if the male feels he is more spiritual than the female? What if the woman is married to a non-priesthood holder? Will this affect the equality of the marriage?
The model of a marriage with a presiding partner and the model of a partnership of equals are mutually exclusive. I think either can work fine as long as there is a great deal of respect between the partners.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — July 19, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
A marriage is like a rally car team. It would be near impossible to do it alone, and the navigator’s directions are essential (Imagine going 100+ mph on a gravel road in a dark forest, navigating turns by the accuracy of the odometer), but yet there is only one steering wheel.
Comment by Ola Senor — July 19, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Excellent question! The most common answer I’ve heard to this question is that women allow their husbands to be the leaders - because their husbands need the practice to develop their spiritual gifts. Sort of like letting your boyfriend win in tennis - even though you’re the better player, maybe?
P.S. The article is by the Hafens, not the Hollands. I’d love to hear from the Hollands on this subject, too.
Comment by ECS — July 19, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
ECS:
First off, I love this post. Thanks for it! Secondly, I just don’t understand why we women are asked to stand back and let our husbands lead. I’m not saying this is a bad option but clearly, it should be based on the dynamics of each individual marriage. When I was married to my now ex-husband, he was a non member (converted later). I remember when the missionaries would come over for dinner and I would be the one to assign who would bless the food and I would often say “I am the spiritual leader in our home.” My then-husband didn’t have a problem with it. It was true. He was mostly non-religious and had no problem letting me lead in all spiritual matters– prayers, church attendance, how our home should be run with scripture study, etc. The missionaries would without exception look at me started, and then often with some level of pitty or disbelief. I didn’t feel pittiful or uncomfortable in that role at all. Now that I’m in a somewhat of a spiritual crisis (or I’m in a point of spiritual flux) in my life, I feel that I need a whole lot of spiritual development (though my fiance is Catholic, and not a super strict one at that either!). If I’m the better tennis player, let me tell you that (being the very competitive girl that I am), I am not going to just let him win! No way. So I believe that marriages shold not be based on “I’m the guy, I’m the president” and “you’re the girl and the vice president” and I need to hold the priesthood because I need practive to lead or to feel on par with you because you get to bare children and I can’t, just doesn’t sit well with me.
Comment by Lulubelle — July 19, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
I think what confuses me when I read this is that I have always wanted to marry someone who was my equal intellectually, emotionally, etc. And this includes spirituality. It seems weird to me that I would “naturally” be the one who was more spiritual.
Also, I’ve always wanted to be in a marriage where sometimes I’m the one guiding the decisions and sometimes my husband is the one with the spiritual promptings.
Which is probably why I have the same kind of reaction that you do. The first set of quotes confuse me (or make me think it’s not really what I’m looking for in my marriage), and the last quote sounds great to me.
Comment by Seraphine — July 19, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Thanks, Lulubelle. I agree with this statement, which is why I struggle with the concept of the man automatically presiding over his family because he’s the man (as long as he’s righteous). I myself don’t have an answer to Janet’s question about why men should be allowed to lead (or why the priesthood requires them to do so) - I was just repeating the answers I’ve heard from others.
BiV - I think you’re right. And I think a lot of the success of a marriage depends on the temperament and talents of the individual spouses. (which is again why I don’t understand the need for a categorical rule of men presiding).
Comment by ECS — July 19, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
One of my very favorite doctrines in the Gospel is that of helpmeets. I love thinking about Christ being my helpmeet or shouldering a yoke with me. My husband and I often discuss what it means to be each other’s helpmeet. Sometimes I am spiritually stronger than my husband, while he is lagging a little and at other times I am in a mode of spiritual confusion and he exerts a little more energy to compensate for that. There is certainly a very fine balance and lots of hiccups as we try to communicate, smooth things out, uplift, understand and love. I see this as sort of a teeter-totter with, love and forgiveness being the fulcrum. Sometimes we are in perfect balance, which feels heavenly.
I also think that personal/couple revelation for your relationship should transcend the titles given by the church. Just because my husband has the priesthood shouldn’t mean that I should shut my mouth whenever he begins to speak. Just because I may have more of a moral magnet, doesn’t mean he should follow in my shadow.
Regarding spirituality being innate v. constructed. Does it matter? We are told to pray for every good gift, which means that we start out with what we are given then pray for more. We have our innate, then it is up to us to construct the rest. Hopefully constructing is done is a humble, faithful way, rather than an annoyingly fake way. Which I think means that every good gift is available to both men and women who are willing to seek for them.
Unfortuately this doesn’t help answer the question of why priesthood holders need to do the organizational stuff. But here is my wishy-washy, generalized suggestion which I may be verbally blog-beaten for: in my experience males tend to be black and white (I have these tendancies too, but it seems many of the males I’ve known, don’t know what gray is). So perhaps they need the physicality of performing ordinaces for verification of being obedient/doing good. I’m not saying that women don’t need that too, but perhaps less of a need?
Comment by Nutty — July 19, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Hafen, Holland…oops. For those who know much about the two couples the differences are quite astounding. My bad. This is why I should nap when I get a chance rather than blogging…..
(Total side-note: i once saywBruce Hafen turn the most contentious bigoted, classist disaster of a moment during a stake leadership meeting into one of the most spiritually edifying meetings of my life. It really took my snark down a peg, since some of his commentary on feminism had made me rather nervous about him.)
Comment by Janet — July 19, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
But there is still inequity in the system. A woman’s gift is her spirituality while a man’s presiding gift is the priesthood. But a man can develop his own spirituality and gifts through righteousness to be equal or greater to that of his wife. A woman cannot attain the presiding priesthood gift, no matter how righteous she is. I understand and support differing roles, complementing each other, but women are shut out of some gifts where men are not. How wonderful it would be if we were all able to work towards obtaining all these gifts.
Comment by Sally — July 19, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Sally: I agree with you wholeheartedly (hence, my spiritual crisis or questioning of many of the beliefs I’ve always held). It doesn’t make sense. All I can say is that, for me, getting ready to marry a Catholic in a couple weeks, it doesn’t even matter in our home. We will both observe Christ, celebrate Christ’s teaching in our lives, try to be like Christ in our behaviors, and not worry about the rest. Even when I lived in my parents’ home (traditional LDS) and when I was married to my now ex-husband (was a member for part of our marriage, non member for the rest), I never got hung up on the priesthood. I went to church and lived my life. I felt equal to my ex husband and I feel equal to my soon to be new husband. We compliment each other. I won’t defer to his decisions unless it’s in an area where he naturally knows more/has more experience than I and vice versa. I honestly don’t even know how I feel about the priesthood. I’ve never felt like God listens less to my prayers because I’m a female. I’ve always felt like I’ve had equal access to God’s ears and His counsel as a priesthood holder. For me, it’s always been just a title and, as for ordinances, not until recently have I really let that sink in and bother me about the inequity of it all. So I’ll continue trying to focus on The Really Big Picture (maybe this makes me more Christian than traditional LDS in my thinking) and not worry about something I don’t think is all that fair to me.
(PS: I often re-read my posts and find all kinds of typos so sorry! I’m typing fast at work while also trying to multi-taks and be a productive employee!)
Comment by Lulubelle — July 19, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Is it possible that this “feminine spirituality” is more of a calling than a talent when we’re talking about the whole universe of women? That is, to some people it comes naturally, and for other people it has to be developed?
Same thing for men - some seem to take naturally to priesthood responsibilities, and for others, it’s more of a challenge.
Is it also possible that we’re talking about two different names for, or two different approaches to, the same thing — the power of godliness?
Nick, I am cracking up about the ovaries comment. But I think it is testicles that are generally referred to as stones, rocks or jewels!
Comment by Ana — July 19, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Sigh. When will this ever end?
Comment by Kim Siever — July 19, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
You can have the husband (or the wife) preside or you can have an equal partnership, but you can’t have both at the same time, no matter how much church leaders trip all over themselves trying to harmonize the historical language of presiding with the contemporary ideal of an equal partnership. Presiding has to do with authority, and if one partner has the authority, even if it is just authority to break a deadlock, then it’s not an equal partnership.
I used to think that maybe one spouse had to have deadlock authority, thinking of a marriage like a business organization. But I’ve changed my mind, because in actual practice we always reach unified decisions based on discussion and negotiation. I don’t think of myself as “presiding” over my wife. It’s worked for over two decades now, so I don’t really foresee a situation where it won’t work in the future.
I guess it’s kind of like the principle of unity among the Twelve. They debate and discuss until they come to a unified position, and then that is the position of all of them. And if they can’t come to a unified position, then there simply is no decision.
Comment by Kevin Barney — July 19, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
doesn’t sound equal to me…
Comment by mfranti — July 19, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
mfranti–yup, plus it makes the wife sort of a patronizing irritant at the same time it infantalizes her. Which is weird.
Still, I find the confusion over the apparently contradictory terminology far, far more promising than crystal clear “man dominant, wife submissive” rhetoric of days past. Confusion points towards struggle to progress, hopefully. Didn’t T&S do an excellent about that in the past few years? Possibly by Rosalynde?
Kaimi, you read *everything*–if you’re here and it sounds familiar please tell me I’m not crazy :).
Comment by Janet — July 19, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
and we’re back to square one.
Comment by mfranti — July 19, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
is this like the secretary soliciting advise to the owner, who in turns, takes the advise, makes a million bucks and get all the credit for running a great business?
(i’m being silly, please be kind)
Comment by mfranti — July 19, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
But a man can develop his own spirituality and gifts through righteousness to be equal or greater to that of his wife. A woman cannot attain the presiding priesthood gift, no matter how righteous she is.
But it’s not a contest. A man cannot obtain all the spiritual blessings of the plan of salvation alone, without his wife, nor she without him. Ultimately, this is what the purpose of marriage is, right?
I don’t fully understand why men have the priesthood and why they are the presiders, but I do firmly believe that true patriarchy and priesthood and presiding are about partnership and stewardship, not power and being ahead in some way.
Isn’t it possible that some of the hangup is in the terminology, not in the ideal practice and what really is supposed to be?
Comment by m&m — July 19, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
“Isn’t it possible that some of the hangup is in the terminology, not in the ideal practice and what really is supposed to be?”
No, it isn’t, m&m. The “terminology” here isn’t vague or confusing in the least. Everyone knows what “equal” means, and everyone knows what “presiding” means. Those aren’t magic words with hidden meanings. I can appreciate your desire to make all the Church’s messages make sense on this point, but it is absolutely incontrovertible that there is an incongruence, and it’s one with immediate, real-world implications for marriages throughout the Church. People aren’t just bandying fancy words with varying interpretations.
Comment by anon — July 19, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
ECS - Your husband can kick your butt in tennis.
Comment by Presiding Tennis Player — July 19, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Kevin (#16) yes.
There are many ways that marriages are negotiated. Ola Senor says:
A marriage is like a rally car team. It would be near impossible to do it alone, and the navigator’s directions are essential (Imagine going 100+ mph on a gravel road in a dark forest, navigating turns by the accuracy of the odometer), but yet there is only one steering wheel.
But this is only one model for a marriage. Other marriages work more like Kevin Barney describes, In fact, I would violently object to contracting a marriage in which there is only one steering wheel. I think couples need to know that there are many models for making a marriage/family work, and that they are free to try them out and discover what works well for them.
I’m feeling that there is a lot of confusion with the synonymous use of “equal” and “presiding” terminology. What I’m seeing is couples who are using the “equal” model while giving lip service to the “priesthood” model. Then they can say how well the “priesthood” model works in their home, when in reality the wife has an equal share in all decisions and the husband would only hypothetically make a “last word” decision, never in practice.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — July 19, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Janet,
You called?
There have been lots of discussions of this over the last while. I’m not sure which one(s) you’re recalling. A few that come to mind are at:
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3400 (Rosalynde on women, power, authority, and presiding)
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3304 (Rosalynde on the meaning of preside)
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2654 (Julie and Rosalynde discussing motherhood, priesthood, and roles)
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2922 (Rosalynde on women, authority, and spiritual gifts)
You may also be remembering one of the (many!) excellent recent discussions over at ZDs.
And keep your eyes open - I’m sure more posts will follow.
Comment by Kaimi — July 19, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Ana (#14) Is it possible that this “feminine spirituality” is more of a calling than a talent when we’re talking about the whole universe of women? That is, to some people it comes naturally, and for other people it has to be developed?
Same thing for men - some seem to take naturally to priesthood responsibilities, and for others, it’s more of a challenge.
I really find that idea fascinating. I’ve never thought of things in that manner, but it kind of makes a lot of sense.
Comment by KB — July 19, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
I like that model for marriage. But even in that example, someone presides over the Twelve, right? Pres. Hinckley, or the most senior apostle in the meeting? With a mandate for unity, presiding authority comes down to little more than an honorarium, I guess, but it’s technically still there.
Comment by RCH — July 19, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Sometimes there has to be a decision made without delay and someone needs to make it. Personally, I like being able to say to my husband “this is how I really feel and what I strongly think we should do” but then “you decide, and you’re ultimately responsible”. It takes a lot of pressure off of me. I like my role in our partnership and I feel no less equal. Then again, if my opinion was never respected or considered, I’d not feel so equal.
Comment by Carissa — July 19, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Just out of curiosity, what kind of decision did you have in mind? I guess every marriage–and every life–is filled with urgent but unimportant decisions: what to eat for dinner, whether to accept a given social invitation, which route to take to the hardware store. But in my experience, most important decisions (when to have a child, which house to buy, where to move) aren’t particularly urgent, and partners can deliberate together until they come to something mutually agreeable.
Personally, I wouldn’t want my husband to have the final say in important matters and then be ultimately responsible for those decisions. I very much want to be an active participant in my own marriage and my own life–I wouldn’t want my husband to be like my father, making final decisions for my own good. Learning to make decisions and learning from the consequences seems to be a huge part of what life is about. I don’t want patriarchy to shield me from the inevitable risks–and the accompanying joys– of adulthood.
Comment by Eve — July 19, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Clarissa: “Personally, I like being able to say to my husband “this is how I really feel and what I strongly think we should do” but then “you decide, and you’re ultimately responsible”.”
Good. You have no choice about the situation.
Comment by anon — July 19, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
I agree with BIV that there are myriad models for successful marriages and that discovering what works best for you and your spouse is part of the “fun” of being married. The older I get, the more that I am impressed with the various ways that all my friends make their marriages work. I don’t think there is necessarily one superior way as I’ve seen too many vastly different successful approaches.
I lived in a home (for nine years) where my mother deferred to my step-father on too many occasions, citing his role as presiding priesthood holder. My step-father is not a bad man, but it still left a sour taste in my mouth every time. Part of it was cultural and part generational, but it never felt true or good.
Now that I am in my own marriage, I can’t imagine living with a spouse who would, essentially, pull rank in that way. I just can’t see how it would work being anything but equal partners. I don’t feel that means I need to hold the priesthood to experience equality in my marriage but that may not be true for others. My husband holds the priesthood but has never acted superior because of it. I have, however, seen many men who appear to bask in the idea of leading the family and these often (not always) marry women who appear to enjoy that model also.
Guess I’m trying to say that I haven’t really seen many successful marriages where one spouse insists on leading and the other spouse follows dutifully. They may be out there but I’m not seeing them.
Comment by Lupita — July 19, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Eve #27–Well said.
Comment by Lupita — July 19, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
I’d actually disagree with this. Even a quick perusal of the ‘nacle reveals that these terms mean radically different things to different people.
Consider the term “equal” and its ability to function ambiguously. Equal in import? Equal in power? Equal in God’s love? Equal in our love for each other? In power? If so, what sort of power–moral, spiritual, economic, yadda yadda? Equal when you add up all the inequities in little columns and do the math? NOT equal in administrative pull, it would appear, but then you have to go and define “administrative” in terms of covert and overt management. It can get messy.
Words are almost never transparent. This can frustrate us to no ends, but it also makes things flexible so that couples can to some degree adapt to a workable situation for them (albeit this would be a heck of a lot easier if we just said husband and wife are “equal” without throwing in the hugely problematic “presiding” stuff, which certainly does seem to imply that at least in *some* areas women and men are not equal. Doesn’t have to apply to the entire equation though–if you go for checks and balances and actually believe a woman has more moral oomph than a man you might argue that his presiding acts exist simply to balance out her superior moral strength. I personally find that a weird argument, but one can nontheless make it).
Comment by Janet — July 19, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
One wise feminist once told me that the LDS Church is a “chicken” patriarchy - meaning that the Church has all the trappings of a patriarchy (all male leadership, men presiding in the home, etc.), but its leaders are uncomfortable with just coming out and saying that men are in charge (as if there were a question!). instead, we hear all this confusing talk about “equal partners” and repeated reassurances that women are beautiful, wonderful human beings and entitled to respect, etc.
In fact, in this very Ensign article, Bro. Hafen says something like “our Church is not like other churches where women are told to submit graciously to their husbands”. But then what is presiding without submission to the presider?
Maybe Janet is right - that the current dissonance in presiding/equal partners is a good sign of a progression toward a real egalitarian model for the marriage relationship.
In the meantime, I wish our leaders would stop being so timid and give it to us straight. If the Lord wants patriarchy and presiding, well, then it’s disingenuous to reassure LDS women that they are in an equal partnership with their husbands.
Comment by Anonymous — July 19, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Is the term “presiding” dated in this context? Generally, at the time of the restoration, men did preside over women in marriage whether LDS or not, yes? Was is just for organizational purposes at the time? Maybe we’re having a hard time parting with the word, or the agnst accompanying the word, because it’s the only word that has meant anything until women have been recognized with equal rights. It’s the only word in most of the literature until recently. I am with Janet and hoping for progression and grasping equal partnership, happily realing presiding in the marriage context.
Comment by Nutty — July 19, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Didn’t have any particular one in mind for the quorum of the twelve, but I’m sure they are not immune from them once in a while, just like any leadership organization. Within marriage, it could be anything from a medical emergency or a family crisis to a child just needing an answer about something. Some things can be put off for a while, but what happens when you never end up seeing it exactly the same way? Either nothing happens (which is not very productive) or someone (or both) has got to give in a little. As you put it, they “deliberate together until they come to something mutually agreeable”. Most often there’s a compromise of some sort. There’s nearly always room for that.
As long as your opinion is valued and respected and you give it, you are an active participant. Others may have different experiences, but within our marriage relationship I am certainly active.
My goodness, you certainly see it differently than I do. For the vast majority of the time, I am making my own decisions. When we have the need to come together on a decision (and we usually agree), but on the rare occasion when we don’t, and I let him decide anyway– we end up learning together. It’s really not a bad system, so long as both parties are doing their part and are mutually respectful and considerate. If not, well, that’s where the problems arise.
Comment by Carissa — July 19, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
This is my feeling and experience as well. Perhaps that is why I don’t have any grudges with Patriarchy.
Comment by Carissa — July 19, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Some things can be put off for a while, but what happens when you never end up seeing it exactly the same way? Either nothing happens (which is not very productive) or someone (or both) has got to give in a little.
Oh, I completely agree with all of the above. The only thing I don’t agree with is the idea that the someone who gives a little need necessarily be the someone who has two X chromosomes. Marriage is all about compromise and working together and making distinctions between the few things that are vital and the enormous number of things that are trivial. I just wouldn’t want to hog all of that glorious learning to compromise for myself and deny the joys thereof to my husband, any more than I’d want to forfeit the privilege of making decisions for and being an actor in my own life.
Yeah, I guess I do–in this respect:
No, I don’t think so. “Valued” and “respected” are two words I hear over and over about the church’s attitudinal stance to women, but being valued and respected, wonderful progress though that is over being undervalued and disrespected, isn’t enough. I think it’s vital that we not confuse cherishing, kind attitudes on the part of those in power with power itself. Let’s not sell the birthright of self-determination and integrity for the mess of pottage of being listened to attentively by someone who exercises power over us.
Heh heh. I’ve long contemplated writing a post entitled “Chicken Cordon Patriarchy”–when I have the emotional energy to deal with the firestorm that will undoubtedly ensue….
Comment by Eve — July 19, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
I was under the impression that even in homes where the husband is not a member of the church, he is still the leader–still the presider. If that is the case, then presiding and priesthood are distinct. Men preside because they are men, not because of their spiritual fit-ness. Is this true?
I’ve struggled with the whole ‘leader without a follower’ thing that the patriarchy-nevertheless-equality thing seems to demand. The more I try to figure it out the more it seems to be something like this:
patriarchy is there in the scriptures so it must be good and inspired and right, but certain aspects of it have become distasteful to us (the enslavement of women, for one), and although these certain things have become distasteful it still is ordained of God so we will hold onto what is left of it after we remove those distasteful elements
Anyway, I’ve really enjoyed your posts, ECS. Please keep them coming.
Comment by Mary Ann — July 19, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Re 37 -
Generally speaking, if the wife is a member and a husband is the non-member, the Church’s software considers the wife to be the head of household.
And since the Church’s software is the modern great big book of everything, with everything inside, that’s got to count for something, right?
Comment by Gavin Guillaume — July 19, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Gavin, how about if one’s husband is on the church records as a member but is an avowed, contented, completely inactive agnostic? (I certainly don’t insist on being the head myself, but perhaps his membered unbelief could be the basis of a negotiated…gasp!…equality between us in that great big book of everything?)
Comment by Eve — July 19, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Perhaps I’m a little slow, but I have now read and re-read this passage a dozen times, and cannot even begin to fathom what it might mean. It seems to me to be completely content-free balderdash.
Maybe the Hafens’ particles were scrambled when they wrote it.
Comment by obi-wan — July 19, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Interesting. When I use the words “valued and respected”, do you see them as being only surface-deep compliments? When I say my opinion is valued and respected, there is an actual power in that (the power to influence or persuade). It can’t just be a “kind attitude” the presider must have, but a sincere desire to listen and heavily consider the other person’s feelings. You can deny the power of influence, but it is certainly there and it is a power, especially if the presider cares deeply about the other person. You may still think the presider has more power, but I guess it just depends how you look at it.
Yes.
My belief is that the “distasteful elements” of patriarchy only exist because of unrighteous dominion and human weakness. Patriarchy was never meant to “enslave” anyone but to bless everyone. I think we should focus on fixing the unrighteous dominion part rather than decrying the whole structure. But obviously there are many who think the structure is the problem. I just don’t agree.
Comment by Carissa — July 19, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
obi-wan, I think of the problem of patriarchal rhetoric (that is, rhetoric drawing near unto equality with its lips but with its heart far from it) as the “Solve for X” problem. As in:
(1) Men [are equal to] Women
(2) Men have the priesthood; Women have X.
In this version the Hafens propose women’s “innate spiritual instincts” as X, but in a book of theirs I read years ago, the X was women’s sexual power over men. They attempted to maintain the alleged equality of power between the genders by proposing an analogy between men’s abuse of priesthood authority and women’s abuse of their sexual attractions. I wasn’t persuaded.
I wish we’d just be honest that X is a black hat out of which we’re desperately pulling rabbit after two-headed rabbit in an effort to hang onto proposition (1)–because to confess that men and women might actually be unequal is a PR move the church simply cannot afford make. Given that reality, I look forward to many more two-headed rabbits in the coming years.
Comment by Eve — July 19, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
“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. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”
The Hafen’s article is clearly intended to expand upon the first and last sentence in this excerpt from “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”
Link is here:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
Comment by Random Guy — July 19, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
I don’t think the issue is the depth of sincerity of the compliment–I have no doubt that in many cases, perhaps in most, such compliments are utterly sincere. I’m simply saying that compliments, even consideration of one’s point of view and the influence you describe, aren’t the same as power to make the final decision.
I certainly wouldn’t deny the power of influence. Again, all I’m saying is that influence with the decision-maker is not the same as power to make the final decision.
I don’t think this one is a matter of perspective; it’s empirically verifiable. When you say that your husband makes the final decision–after carefully considering your input–you are essentially saying that your husband has more power than you do.
Comment by Eve — July 19, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Random Guy, are you under the impression that we didn’t know that? Because I’m guessing 80% of the commenters here can recite the paragraph you cite. Not that it’s bad to be reminded, I guess…
Comment by Kristine — July 19, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
I think we should focus on fixing the unrighteous dominion part rather than decrying the whole structure.
This is a compelling idea. It kind of begs the question, “What is righteous dominion?”
Well, I guess a perfect patriarchy would be righteous dominion, wouldn’t it? Righteous or unrighteous, its still dominion, and I have a hard time making that jive with equal, full partnership, unity, etc.
Comment by Mary Ann — July 19, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Does the husband or the wife have more real, functional decision-making power in a typical marriage?
“A study, which was just released, finds that wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19713567/wid/11915773
Here’s a critique and assessment of the research:
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/07/stereotypes-in-news.html
This seems to pertain to some of the threads running here, and hopefully helps to fit the post into its broader cultural context.
Some might be tempted to argue that the Hafen’s position, and the position of Proclamation on the Family, is intended to take men from an inferior position to an equal position. But I’m not going to argue that. Noooo waaaaay.
Comment by Random Guy — July 19, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
I just don’t see it as a power struggle. It has never felt like one. I don’t have to be part of the partnership, I don’t have to go along with what he decides, I always have my agency. He never compels me or threatens me to go along with his decision. I see what you are saying, though. I just don’t feel any less powerful, I don’t know why. Even if he has more “power”, as you call it, it doesn’t lessen my worth or make him worth any more.
Comment by Carissa — July 19, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Eve (39) - I haven’t across your case, but I think you can set the head-of-household to be either parent in the home (just like MLS can make an unmarried college student living with her parents her own HoH).
I’ll try it tomorrow and let you know. Certainly, if the husband doesn’t *live* with the family, the wife is the HoH.
If it doesn’t work, then you can selectively to dismiss the Church’s head-of-household as purely symbolic (while still taking comfort in the fact that the member wife of an active spouse is the HoH). Cherry-picked symbolism.
(I thought I’d hate my calling as membership clerk, but it’s actually kind of interesting…)
Comment by Gavin Guillaume — July 19, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Ok, I’ve answered my own question (#37) about presiding and priesthood having nothing to do with each other. Here’s Elder Oaks in his talk ‘Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church’ 10/05:
the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. This family authority includes directing the activities of the family, family meetings like family home evenings, family prayer, teaching the gospel, and counseling and disciplining family members. It also includes ordained fathers giving priesthood blessings.
The distinction between fathers and ordained fathers is noteworthy. Fathers–ordained or not–are the default presiders, a situation that only death or other absence can modify.
The Hafens don’t seem to agree:
The man’s presiding gift is the priesthood – except when he’s not living the principles of righteousness.
It seems that to combine Elder Oaks and the Hafens, we’d end up with something like “The man’s gift is to preside, because he is the man”, wouldn’t we?
Comment by Mary Ann — July 19, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Carissa, hmmm. I think that we may be talking past each other here. I’m not claiming that a patriarchal relationship is a power struggle, or that you don’t have your agency in one, or that you feel compelled or threatened–patriarchy, particularly the patriarchy the church preaches, doesn’t necessitate any of those things. Nor does a power imbalance necessarily have anything to do with a sense of personal value. But it’s worth pointing out that I’m not that one calling it “power” or assigning it to the man in greater proportions. The church calls it power–specifically, it calls it the power of the priesthood, the greatest power there is in heaven or on earth. I don’t think we can claim men have the power to act in the name of God, on the one hand, and then denigrate it as some mere “power” I’m arbitrarily assigning to men in order to prove my thesis that patriarchy is oppressive, on the other.
Gavin, my brother (online handle Ziff) has your calling, and he’s said some interesting things about it. I can see there could be some strangely gratifying moments in such labors.
Comment by Eve — July 19, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
ECS, the Aug Ensign is neither online nor in my mailbox. You got special connections? You’ve probably already finished HP 7.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 19, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Re: 41 and Carissa generally
“Men preside because they are men, not because of their spiritual fit-ness. Is this true?
Yes.”
Whether you agree with Carissa or not, you’ve got to admire her nerve! She’s doing a great job of representing a very common conservative LDS viewpoint on a widely read feminist forum.
(No, I don’t know Carissa personally.)
Comment by Random Guy — July 19, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Yeah, I don’t agree with Carissa at all, but I’m glad she’s here saying what probably 80-90% of active LDS women would say.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 19, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
“Patriarchy was never meant to “enslave” anyone but to bless everyone.”
Would you care to clarify this a bit please? In any historical context would be specifically helpful, either secular or spiritual.
I’m just wondering how this slipped by
Comment by Lupita — July 19, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Because woment are innately more spiritual, the priestood assigns men spiritual duties that they would not normally take on themselves.
So, by priesthood assignment, the father is supposed to “lead out” in getting the family together to read scriptures, have family prayer, and family home evening. They are also supposed to call family councils and conduct family priesthood interviews and give father’s blessings. These are all spiritually-minded tasks that help fathers be more spiritually minded to off-set their primarily temporal role as breadwinner outside the home.
How does this presiding business affect decision-making? Not much. When my wife and I make a decision, we make it together. I would never just tell my wife, “I am the deciderer.” The patriach is the presider, not the deciderer. We pray about decisions together and do not act until we both feel like we know that the Lord is accepting of our joint decision. Church council should operate the same way.
Then when things get tough, we dont look at each other and say , “good going, this is all your fault, I never thought this was a good idea in the first place.” Instead, we say, “hey, we both felt good about this, that the Lord was okay with it. So, lets be patient and faithful and things will work out in the end.”
Comment by BRoz — July 19, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
Men preside because of our lack of spiritual fitness. We need the excersize.
Comment by BRoz — July 19, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Men are the presiderers not the deciderers
Comment by BRoz — July 19, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
What, BRoz, do you think an intentional mangling of words makes them somehow more palatable?
Comment by Bored in Vernal — July 19, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Righteous or unrighteous, its still dominion,
When we say we have dominion over the earth, does that mean power/domination, or does it mean responsibility/stewardship/accountability? I think we’d all agree it’s the latter. So I wonder, is priesthood dominion any different?
If the Lord wants patriarchy and presiding, well, then it’s disingenuous to reassure LDS women that they are in an equal partnership with their husbands.
Either that, or we need to shed our typical understandings and interpretations and figure out how these principles jibe together.
For example, maybe the equation isn’t like this:
(1) Men [are equal to] Women
(2) Men have the priesthood; Women have X.
But rather something like this:
A) Men have the opportunity to inherit eternal life.
B) Women have the opportunity to inherity eternal life.
C) Men are given all that they need through the gospel plan (if followed) to inherit eternal life.
D) Women are given all that they need through the gospel plan (if followed) to inherit eternal life.
Therefore, men and women are equal. A + C = B + D
In other words, we should consider as a possibility that the specifics of what we do in mortality (roles, responsibilities, etc.) aren’t part of the equation in trying to prove that men and women are (or are not) equal because the fruition of what equality is is fulfilled eternally, not mortally.
What makes the equation even more interesting is that neither men nor women can achieve eternal life without the other, which makes the playing field that much more equal in my calculation.
— regardless of what roles or “power” or position or whatever was held in life. (It’s too late for me to be clever and try to come up with a way to represent this all mathematically.) 
This last point also demonstrates that what we are dealing with is not your typical equation.
Said President Harold B. Lee: “Pure womanhood plus priesthood means exaltation. But womanhood without priesthood, or priesthood without pure womanhood doesn’t spell exaltation.” Both are equally important, equally necessary. Is this how to think of equality, rather than a checklist of similar roles/responsibilities/positions, etc.?
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 1:38 am
O.K. The problem is, though, your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises. All we get from your premises is that both men and women can inherit eternal life. Well and good–although one wonders what eternal life we women inherit; is it some middle stratum between men’s lordship and dominion and the eternal life of servanthood Jane Manning James was sealed up unto? (Not all eternal lives are created equal, and that there’s considerable indication that women’s promises are of eternal subordination.) But the simple fact that certain declarative statements are true of both men and women doesn’t make them equal. For example:
(A) Amoebas are living things.
(B) Women are living things.
(C) Amoebas propel themselves about and reproduce.
(D) Women propel themselves about and reproduce.
Therefore, because A+C = B+D, amoebas and women are equal?
One problem with President Lee’s statement is that no one has any idea what “pure womanhood” is. I think we’re clearly back to solving for X; we want to maintain the idea of equality, so we have to invent something for women to have that’s equal to the priesthood. Sometimes it’s motherhood or a uterus or a special innate spiritual superiority or capacity or sexual attractiveness to men. Here it’s something called “pure womanhood.” Which is…what, exactly?
Comment by Eve — July 20, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Julie, I got my copy of the Ensign yesterday–maybe they send them to Boston first, thinking we’re more in need of timely calls to repentance
Comment by Kristine — July 20, 2007 @ 5:18 am
Just because an ad hominem attack is clever and entertaining does not make it less of at attack.
And like all personal attacks, it does not show respect for other’s views nor move the discussion along.
Comment by Naismith — July 20, 2007 @ 5:36 am
I guess my life is not as interesting or stressful as some; like Kevin Barney, we’ve never had a decision when we couldn’t reach consensus.
Of course there are times when one of us isn’t available and the other decides, like when my husband was on another continent and the furnace broke.
And there have been a few times when my husband disagreed but trusted my track record on investments and thus assented to go along.
Comment by Naismith — July 20, 2007 @ 6:11 am
From what I understand of the scriptures and the gospel, patriarchy was started (on this earth) with Adam. It was a way for there to be order and structure in life and in the gospel. It is acknowledged inside and outside the gospel. What I mean is, we recognize men (members or not, priesthood holders or not) as heads of households. If a man has the priesthood in addition, he then has additional responsibilities within and outside of his own family. If God wanted women to also hold the priesthood in the same way men do, why did he start the earth out with patriarchs? There would have been no cultural objection or complications at that time.
Was Eve kept from making her own decisions (and facing the consequences) by not being the priesthood holder in her marriage relationship? Was she enslaved or blessed by it?
The reason I look to Adam and Eve is because it seems to be suggested that maybe it’s just our society that needs to learn to overcome prejudices about gender in order for women to have the priesthood. If that is what God has wanted all along, why didn’t he start the earth with the correct model for society to follow?
I don’t see the issue of women holding the priesthood in the same light as blacks holding the priesthood. Black men are still men, and therefore in the proper channel to receive it. Women are not. If God wants to change things that is up to Him. It is His gospel and His earth and His church. Women do not automatically have to feel inferior because of it. I sympathize with those who do and I acknowledge their feelings, but I have to be honest with myself and what I believe.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 7:12 am
I think Carissa (#67) has done a great job articulating some difficult areas of doctrine, history, gender. But I remain uncomfortable with so much of it. I’m really not trying to be antagonistic, and I’m not trying to be difficult. I AM trying to figure this out and to (for the first time in my life) really allow my misgivings to have a voice.
If God wanted women to also hold the priesthood in the same way men do, why did he start the earth out with patriarchs?
As I understand judeo-christian history, the assumption was that God made men rulers because Eve messed the whole thing up. And they didn’t pull that one out of the thin air either. Our current perspective on the garden, the fall, the casting-out can make it easy for us to rewrite the history of women, but patriarchy was seen as a god-given-right-to-rule for basically ever.
Was Eve kept from making her own decisions (and facing the consequences) by not being the priesthood holder in her marriage relationship? Was she enslaved or blessed by it?
This is an even harder question. We are told to trust the scriptures, but in the case of Eve they seem particularly suspect. Because she was held up as the reason women could not have power (look what she did in the garden!) her story had to convince every generation that followed that women were a problem to be kept at bay. And if we look at history, by and large, it worked. I think with the old testament especially, it is good to keep in mind that men wrote them and men read them. Period. Back in those days women really didn’t participate in spiritual life in any way.
maybe it’s just our society that needs to learn to overcome prejudices about gender
Yes, I think we do. But it is hard for me to feel like patriarchy probably caused these prejudices. I’m not trying to argumentative here, but it doesn’t make sense to me. Patriarchy really seems like a great way to reinforce rather than contradict the mistreatment of women.
I agree that (contemporary) women don’t automatically have to feel inferior, but I think it takes a lot of rationalization and smudging of the facts to say that patriarchy has not made women inferior in the past.
Comment by Mary Ann — July 20, 2007 @ 7:33 am
I would not use the POTF as a guideline to how relations in a marriage work. It is one thing only: a political manifesto drafted in response to the advocacy of same-sex marriage. That it has become quasi-scripture (I expect it to be canonized as the next section of the D&C sometime in the near future) speaks volumes about current leaderhship.
Comment by Phouchg — July 20, 2007 @ 7:39 am
I don’t see the issue of women holding the priesthood in the same light as blacks holding the priesthood. Black men are still men, and therefore in the proper channel to receive it. Women are not.
I don’t know about this point . . . I think that discrimination is discrimination, no matter the target. And I understand that a lot of women here do not feel discriminated against, and I respect those feelings. But as an outsider, it feels like discrimination to me. I just wonder why it’s okay to allow black men into the priesthood, but not women? Why is it okay to allow one group but not others?
Because in the literal sense of “discrimination,” that’s what this issue is about. The word “discrimination” does NOT have to have negative connotations. “To discriminate” is merely a way of being selective. Yes, you can “discriminate” on race or gender, but the word didn’t always have those connotations. By not allowing women into the priesthood “discrimination” is involved by LDS officials, or God, or whomever (as an outsider that’s all a little confusing to me). Some of you see this discrimination as positive, others negative, others as neutral. But I think it’s still there. And I think that the thing to think about is “what kind of discrimination is this?” Based on your posts, I can tell that most of you have pretty set feelings. Just wanted to point out the linguistic aspect to all this . . . .
Comment by Allyson — July 20, 2007 @ 8:05 am
but practice the former.
Comment by mfranti — July 20, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Mary Ann and Carissa - the traditional justification for Eve’s submission to Adam is out the window in LDS theology. As the Hafens say in their article, the Restoration clarifies Eve’s choice to partake of the fruit in the Garden of Eden as
Therefore, we must look elsewhere than the Garden for justification of the patriarchal structure of the family and the Church. If there was no patriarchy/presiding in Adam and Eve’s relationship (i.e., Adam and Eve were true equal partners), then we can’t accept patriarchy as the true order of things patterned after their relationship.
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 8:20 am
I don’t think God was sitting there watching, thinking “whichever one of them eats the fruit first will not hold the priesthood”. I think it was already established that men would have that role. Think of how the earth was created and how the councils in heaven were run — with males presiding. Eve was wise in her decision. There would have been no mankind to rule, had she not partaken of the fruit. She understood the consequences and decided on the greater good. And by the way, a righteous king or ruler, is truly in a job of service (remember King Benjamin). We tend to view it as a power position, which it still is, but I think it is meant to be a service position and the power is there to allow for greater service.
Our world has seen so much abuse of patriarchy by those in power. I really do sympathize with the notion that the system allows this to happen. It does, but that doesn’t mean God intends it to be that way or that He approves of it. It just tells me that He must have very good reasons for wanting the structure. It’s the abuses of the system that leads to the inferiority of women (both actual and perceived). Imagine if all the men in positions of power over the ages had the attributes of Christ. Would women have any need to feel inferior? Think of how Christ treated all of the women in his life.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Could you explain what God’s reasons are? I, for one, don’t think we know enough about God to know that He intended to set up any sort of structure - patriarchal or otherwise.
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 8:28 am
Unfortunately yes. And thus many of the problems we experience with patriarchy arise from mortal flaws or false interpretation or abuse of some kind or another, not so much from the structure itself.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 8:28 am
I certainly could not.
Huh? I’m a little baffled by that, seeing as we know quite a bit about how He established and how He runs his church. The temple tells us quite a bit about Adam and Eve and their roles within patriarchy. We have the scriptures which are very clear that Christ called men to be his disciples while he was on the earth. And we have the example of the restoration where the same structure was set up and all the words of the prophets since. His house is certainly a house of order.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 8:35 am
Bringing souls to Christ and returning to our Heavenly Parents after we die is not dependent upon a patriarchal superstructure.
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 8:41 am
I think it allows the process to be done more efficiently and orderly (while also allowing for mistakes and abuses, of course).
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 8:44 am
carissa
I am not going to suppose anything about God but I will suppose that when the restoration came about, the practice was at the time and for thousands of years before that, that women were a man’s property and she subject to him.
so times have changed but the verbiage has not.
Comment by mfranti — July 20, 2007 @ 8:50 am
ECS, if the answer to the patriarchy/equality tangle could be reached without reference to history, so much the better. But un/fortunately (?) we have these scriptural precedents that guide our thinking no matter how they have been recently revised. As I put in #68, our (mormon) differing interpretation of the fall doesn’t undo all that happened between then and now. When we go about likening scriptures to our lives, there’s a huge weight of evidence on the side of a patriarchy that many today would find totally revolting.
Comment by Mary Ann — July 20, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Mary Ann -
Yes, there is a huge presumption in favor of patriarchy, which makes it extremely difficult to move forward in a more egalitarian direction without ditching a lot of our sacred texts and traditional ways of doing things.
That said, many religious institutions are moving away from using sacred texts to reinforce and justify patriarchy and instead using them to justify a more egalitarian structure. We’re even seeing the very small beginnings of this in the LDS Church with its struggle to incorporate our modern notions of equality into the traditional patriarchal structure of the family.
I see a lot of hope for the future, but - if history of the LDS Church is any guide - we’ll be lagging behind other religions in this endeavor for awhile to come yet.
Nice blog, by the way!
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 9:09 am
I guess the slow-change model (which the church seems to be on) is better than nothing, but it makes me nervous. What if it changes directions and returns to a stricter patriarchy? But I guess that’s what hope is for. I really hope you are right.
Comment by Mary Ann — July 20, 2007 @ 9:29 am
This is a quote from Dean L. Larsen (Ensign 1982) maybe you or others here have already read it. Take it for what it is worth to you but it has helped me separate the historical “practices” from the actual “doctrine” of patriarchy.
We often associate the patriarchal order with the times of Abraham and the Old Testament patriarchs. Perhaps it is inevitable, therefore, that we think of some of the conditions of the patriarchal order as being similar to those that are described in the Old Testament record, particularly as these things relate to relationships between men and women—husbands and wives. One cannot read this record without receiving the impression that women of that time generally played a very submissive and secondary role. They are infrequently mentioned as individuals and personalities and are often not even included in the census of the people. A superficial reading of the Old Testament account can easily leave one with the feeling that women were the property of men, consigned simply to do the bidding of their husbands and masters. There was much about the culture and the customs of ancient Israel that contributed to this general impression, and occasionally we encounter men of our own time who have allowed their knowledge of those ancient customs to influence their view of the patriarchal order.
He then tells a story of how a young bride-to-be is concerned and worried about her husband’s attitude that he would be the unquestioned authority in the marriage and she would have to be submissive to him. Brother Larsen then says:
It was interesting to me that this young man, who had won the hand and the heart of his sweetheart through a loving and gentle courtship, now was constrained to impose a strict dominion upon her. In so doing he was appealing to his misunderstanding of the patriarchal order, for there could hardly have been a greater distortion or misrepresentation of the actual conditions that must prevail within that order.
You can choose to agree with him or not, but there are so many scriptures and words from our leaders that back up what he says. I think it is a great mistake to equate the order, itself, with the mishandlings of it. We don’t have to pretend these mishandlings didn’t (or don’t) happen; we should speak up about these things to correct them and learn from mistakes of the past.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 9:41 am
(#80)
Mary Ann (#80), IMO, although it is interesting to see how doctrines and practices were understood and practiced throughout the ages, isn’t modern, ongoing revelation the blessing which can help us find our way through the maze of conflicting interpretations and abuses of the ideal order of things?
This whole issue is one where we are probably seeing through a glass darkly, and perhaps will only fully understand in the future.
I haven’t had time to read all the comments very carefully, but I wanted to chime in with my support for everything m&m has said far more articulately than I ever could.
And although I am generally wary of publicly stating reasons why God has ordained things in a particular way if He hasn’t clearly stated those reasons (it’s so easy to be wrong), I like a lot Carissa’s reasoning, as well as her positive attitude towards patriarchy.
Re the original issue of reciprocity in marriage, I really think that only one person can preside, or confusion results,(especially if children who are good at manipulating), but that (as many have already commented) the husband should listen respectfully to his wife’s opinions, and they should act only when unanimity is reached.
I feel very fortunate that in over forty years of marriage, I have never felt that my husband did not follow this pattern. He is also a great delegator, and his “presiding” was an organizational plus that never stood in the way of my directing particular aspects of our family life that I was more capable of, or more interested in directing.
Comment by RoAnn — July 20, 2007 @ 9:50 am
That’s just plain offencive. As offencive as nearly a page of the Hafens’ article. I do not understand how anyone could read D&C 46:10–26 and still come away with the idea that spiritual gifts are given to women and men have to work for them.
I mean is it any wonder we have so many men in the church who do not take responsibility of spirituality in their family when we have such Ensign-sanctioned statements as “he will listen to the promptings of her inner spiritual compass just as she will listen to his righteous counsel.” I mean, c’mon. Statements like that will do nothing to encourage men to take charge of their own spirituality or lead their families in spiritual matters.
Give us some credit.
Comment by Kim Siever — July 20, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Carissa, I appreciate your thoughts for reasons JMS articulated. However, most of them seem based on pure speculation and personal interpretation. Because our knowledge of Mother in Heaven is so limited, I would hesitate to claim certain knowledge of how councils in heaven are conducted or why God does things a certain way.
Adam and Eve were cast out and lived in a fallen state. IMO, it logically follows that the patriarchal system (and it is a system) is a condition of living in a fallen world.
Comment by Lupita — July 20, 2007 @ 9:55 am
I’m not claiming any certain knowledge of these things other than what God has revealed to us about them. I, myself, tend to think our Mother in Heaven is involved in many ways we just don’t hear about (ditto for all those women not mentioned in the scriptures).
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 10:03 am
RoAnn: Ouch! Maybe it’s generational. I can’t imagine living in a home that was run like my corporation– me answering to my president and giving input when asked but having, really, only authority as given to me by the president of my company (this is accurate for me, as I report directly to the president of the company I work for). At home, I am not about to give the role of president over to my husband simply because he’s my husband. Because you know what? In many instances and in many areas of life, I am more knowledgeable, educated and experienced. And, of course, he is in other areas of life, too. So when it comes to finances, travel, organization, etc, I take the lead. When it comes to repairs, recreation, etc, he takes the lead. It depends. I’m headstrong for sure, but no way am I handing over the reigns in my life simply because I am female.
Comment by Lulubelle — July 20, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Janet (and others),
For a follow-up on some of the (possibly contradictory) logic used to turn women’s “natural” tendencies into social roles, check out this recent, short T&S post: “Chains”.
Comment by Kaimi — July 20, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Lululbelle (# 87), I obviously didn’t express myself well. Our home is certainly not run like the corporation you must be involved with.
Like you, in many areas of life I am “more knowledgeable, educated and experienced” than my husband. And vice-versa.
When I said my husband was a great delegator, I meant that we had mutually decided that I would be in charge of certain areas of our family life. But we came to that decision by consulting with each other, not either because he “assigned” me, or because I “demanded” to “take the lead” in those areas. And over the years, we have discussed things, and sometimes traded responsibilities, because our circumstances had changed.
I never meant that I was ” handing over the reigns,” as you put it, because I am female! Maybe in your company, your president only wants your input when he asks for it; but in a good marriage the husband makes it clear that he always wants his wife’s input. And he understands that his “presiding” is a very limited role in his joint stewardship with his wife.
Comment by RoAnn — July 20, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Your statement reminds me of another comment by Elder Larsen in the same talk I mentioned earlier:
As indicated earlier, by mutual acceptance of the husband and wife, specific areas of responsibility may be agreed upon and managed. Within these areas, each may be required to make many incidental daily decisions without pursuing the processes described above.
There’s nothing within patriarchy that prohibits what you are talking about, so long as it is mutually agreed upon. For instance, at our home I do the finances (among many other things) without my husband necessarily overseeing or approving every aspect of it. We talk about general financial goals together, but he trusts me and I trust him on the specifics of getting there. Of course, if he or I think we should make a major financial purchase, we deliberate together before doing it.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 10:32 am
But the difference is that the authority you’ve been given was delegated by your husband, which sounds like he had the power to give you that power (much like the president of my company has delegated some powers to me and does very much respect my input — and often takes me advice — in the area of my expertise). In my (equal) partnership at home, my soon-to-husband is not giving me power, rather in innately have that power just because I simply do. And when a tie-breaker is needed, my husband won’t automatically get that vote simply because he’s president. If I feel strongly that he’s wrong, I can’t simply acquiesce (sp?) because I’m female.
Comment by Lulubelle — July 20, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Bored in Vernal,
Obviously the metaphor is stretched. I think you must have missed the point. in a rally car, the guiding force, the decider is the navigator. The driver is the impelling force, that translates the navigators directions from thought to mechanical force. The point, which I admit I inartfully described, is that the untrained eye perceives the driver to be the decider, when really it can be the alternative. The actual balance is arrived at as the team practices and works together.
But there cannot be two steering wheels. However, in piloting a plane there are …
Ultimately metaphors are limited, but to my simplistic mind, they illustrate the point I was trying to make.
Equality is not a simple declared thing. But to me, the most important measure of equality remains the extent that we can overcome death, both spiritual and physical. And I think every man, woman and child has the same potential in this regard (speaking universally, and not to the individual circumstances of each person).
Comment by Ola Senor — July 20, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Therefore, we must look elsewhere than the Garden for justification of the patriarchal structure of the family and the Church. If there was no patriarchy/presiding in Adam and Eve’s relationship (i.e., Adam and Eve were true equal partners), then we can’t accept patriarchy as the true order of things patterned after their relationship.
I dont’ necessarily agree with this. If patriarchy and equal partnership is preached now, given what we know about the Garden, I would say that patriarchy did exist, and it was never MEANT to be misused, but the natural man ins an enemy to God and all of that. Changing structures isn’t alwasy th answer to changing abuse. Changing PEOPLE is what I think this might all be about.
Incidentally, parenthood also has the potential for abuse of power, but God still lets us be parents. Why? To learn to be more Christlike, to see how we will handle the stewardship He gave us.
Equality is not a simple declared thing. But to me, the most important measure of equality remains the extent that we can overcome death, both spiritual and physical. And I think every man, woman and child has the same potential in this regard (speaking universally, and not to the individual circumstances of each person).
Yup. This is what I was trying to get at more or less earlier.
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Hmmm. I tend to think this kind of gesture away from earthly inequalities to the longed-for equalities of eternity is one both vital and fraught with problems. It’s vital to orient ourselves toward and draw strength from a vision of divine justice. But that strength is wasted if we take refuge in the equalities of the next life in order to avoid facing up to–and fighting–the inequalities of this one. To gloss over the evident structural inequalities of our church to assure us that everything will be fair in eternity is ultimately to denigrate the immense gift of this life. (It’s uncomfortably close to the argument against environmentalism that it doesn’t matter if we trash the planet because God will clean up all of our messes for us at the Second Coming.)
Eternity isn’t some other time or place. It begins now. And it’s up to us to cultivate the relationships and build the social structures of justice and mercy here, in this existence. The promises of resurrection and eternal life are glorious, and we rightly center our hearts on them, but as a means of consecrating our lives to their fulfillment, not as a means of avoiding our responsibility to address the savage inequalities and injustices that exist among human beings. Moroni doesn’t tell us rich people that we needn’t worry about the poor because, well, even if they starve to death we’ll all have an equal shot at the resurrection. Quite the contrary.
Comment by Eve — July 20, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
It is interesting to me to look at the church, where women can’t have the priesthood, or be in any leadership position with authority over men, or even teach a group of boys once they hit the age of 12, and women seem to have little or no problem with this.
But then they act surprised or argue with the idea that it is any differant in marriage or the home? If god supposedly doesn’t want women in charge of thier own womens organization in teh church, why would he want them to have presiding authority at home? And if women are really equal in marriage, then why can’t they be in church?
Seperate but equal never works out in the end. The whole, men should listen to their wives, and wives should obey your husbands thing just doesn’t pan out. If my husbands only job is to hear me out, but then he can decide what he wants, I’m nothing better than a lobbyist, while he gets to be the government and make the rules. Not at all equal.
Comment by Heather — July 20, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
But that strength is wasted if we take refuge in the equalities of the next life in order to avoid facing up to–and fighting–the inequalities of this one.
I see what you are saying, but I think this viewpoint has its own problems. For example, in order to “fight against” something, there needs to be agreement that something needs to be changed. The biggest challenge with all of this in my mind is that some want to fight to change these things while some don’t. That rift is where my pain with all of this comes in. I’m NOT a sit-back-and-not-worry-about-anything-until-the-next-life kind of person. Not by a long shot. But I think there are limits to what we can — or should — do. To assume that our view of what is just and merciful will be God’s view seems presumptuous, particularly when none of us has the authority to speak for the Lord and/or the Church.
I also feel pain with the insinuation that because someone (e.g., me) doesn’t think there is a problem with the way things are, that they aren’t “facing up” to problems and thus are somehow perpetuating them. There needs to be recognition and respect for views that differ. This point of view again makes the assumption that the prophets, other leaders, and likely the majority of the Church are wrong and that everyone else needs to fall in line with this “other” point of view. Seems pretty bold, doesn’t it? If we are trying to be consistent with gospel princilpes, this doesn’t seem to jibe with the order of things in my mind.
What is also very hard is that we not only have to agree to disagree, but end up essentially countering each other’s efforts and taking each other’s perspectives head-on. We can talk about equality as something important, but it’s not the be-all-end-all principle of the gospel. There are others such as unity that are essential, and this discussion demonstrates how there is a lack there on this issue. We can’t be the Lord’s if we are divided. I think as we consider these tender issues, that other principles such as unity deserve some attention and effort to change as well. (We can’t pursue one value while excluding or hindering another. It’s one of the challenges of trying to isolate one “problem” because it will often be at the expense of another.)
And it’s up to us to cultivate the relationships and build the social structures of justice and mercy here, in this existence.
I agree with cultivating Christlike relationships (which by definition will include more than just justice and mercy); I am not sure I agree with the whole social structures thing. Justice and mercy are not mortal characteristics at the core, they are eternal. We strive to be as just and merciful as we can in our spheres (particularly in our relationships), and we can try tio influence mortal entities like businesses and communities, but when it comes to asserting that it’s “up to us” to build the Church structure (general-level speaking, not talking about cultural or local issues that our feedback can help with), I simply disagree. Again, I especially disagree that the minority view in the Church should be what drives change in the Church.
Let me reiterate that it’s NOT that I don’t appreciate the personal struggles people have with these tensions (I really do, and I appreciate the need and desire to talk through them and work through them). I think there is value in having discussions with various points of view to gain understanding of each other. These issues are real for many and I appreciate that. But I have to say that when it rises to the level of suggesting that we MUST change the Church in order to be in the right (and thus suggest the prophets’ teachings and practices are wrong), that just doesn’t work for me.
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
p.s. Let me add that I realize unity is a process, and shouldn’t require us to leave our brains at the door, so please don’t think I’m saying that. But I do see this fundamental problem that we can’t all be right. Tough tension indeed.
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
I agree with you completely m&m, well said.
Comment by Carissa — July 20, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I also agree with you, m&m.
Comment by RoAnn — July 20, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
m&m, um…I think you’re attributing a lot of views to me that–as far as I can interpret myself correctly, always a problem, I cheerfully admit–I’ve never expressed, and I don’t hold. I solemnly promise that I’m not calling for a revolution in the church. I’m pretty conservative by temperament, and I’m not at all interested in overthrowing the majority. I’d be pretty darned happy if I could just persuade the majority to let me exist without trying to make me over into some other, “better” kind of Mormon. And I’m not insinuating anything about you in particular, or saying that you need to face up to anything you don’t personally believe is a problem–although I will continue to try to persuade you that patriarchy is a problem, and I count on you to continue to try to persuade me that it’s not (our Sacred Duty to keep the Bloggernacle in good running order and all that).
Really, ALL I mean to say is that I object to a particular rhetorical move in attempting to justify patriarchy on far more general grounds because I think it’s inconsistent with the gospel to avert our eyes from injustice–ANY injustice, based on gender or race or religion or educational opportunity or economic oppression or whatever–by reassuring ourselves that it will all be better in the next life. OK, we disagree about a particular form of patriarchy practiced by a little outlandish cult to which far more than 99% of the earth’s population doesn’t belong. But in the broader scheme of things, I trust there are far, far more global and local injustices we can agree ARE injustices than those we believe aren’t. I trust we both oppose domestic and sexual violence and limited educational opportunities for girls and female infanticide and parents who will support their sons through college but not their daughters.
All I’m saying is that in my understanding of the gospel, we look at our individual lives and resources and relationships and systems of government and do what we can to remedy injustice and extend mercy to others. That’s the heart of the gospel to me–starting heaven and eternity now. I just don’t feel comfortable with the consolations I sometimes hear that we all have equal opportunity to be saved. That’s great–but like every other gospel principle, it’s the basis of action here and now. We’re the cult from the Beehive state, after all, that not so long ago believed in salvation by works. We don’t sit around dreaming of mansions–or of justice, or mercy, or unity, or integrity, or compassion, or any other good thing–above!
Comment by Eve — July 20, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Eve darling sister, I adore you and every word that falls from your fingertips.
Comment by fMhLisa — July 20, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
I have become aware that some women in the church feel that it is discriminatory for men to exclusively hold the priesthood. I am also aware that some of these women feel as though the priesthood is used to gain some sort of unfair advantage over women; to subordinate women to men. I am empathetic to those women who are hurt by the perceived injustice. Especially because the gospel of Jesus Christ is supposed to be one of equality, love, charity, forgiveness, kindness, goodness, etc, and the perpetuation of family in the life to come.
He uses prophets and has set up a patriarchal system to teach and guide his people. He has designated certain men to aid Him in bringing his loved children back to him. So men who accept the priesthood accept the responsibility of helping to bring to pass this great work.
The fact that some women feel that men holding the priesthood gives men an unfair advantage is unfortunate. I believe that any hurt or ill feelings would disappear if the individual who felt this way understood the priesthood a little bit better. Any person, either man or woman, who thinks that the priesthood or church office is an office of power should consider the facts followed by honest, searching prayer.
First off, consider God’s main goal, namely “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”, (.Moses 1: 39). Because God’s house “is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion” (D&C 132:
Please consider this question. Is the priesthood or any office associated with it one of dominance over others by some means of compulsion, or is it an office of servitude which requires persuasion and long suffering to accomplish its designs? I sincerely hope the answer is obvious. The priesthood and any of its appointments are Gods ways of managing his great work here on the earth.
Any person who holds the priesthood contracts with the Lord that he will perform the Lords work to the best of their abilities. In a sense, the Lord acts like an employer, and his priesthood acts as the employees. As employer the Lord has instructed his priesthood how he wants his business run. If the priesthood does not follow the prescribed methods then they are in essence relieved of duty. Evidence for this statement is found in D&C 121: 36-37,
“36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
Clearly anyone who holds a priesthood position is not given a blank check of power. In fact, they are given very precise and in depth guidance concerning what is appropriate for the work in which the Lord has called them. The instruction continues in verses 41 through 46,
“ 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
There can be little doubt that the priesthood holder by his very nature is required to commit himself to a life of serving, persuading, in kindness, and gentleness for Gods own purposes. This is further reinforced by the Lord Jesus Christ’s own words “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant”, (Matt. 23: 11).
Clearly holding the priesthood is not a position of power, but a solemn obligation. The person who holds some priesthood position must never use his position other than the way that God has prescribed, but must emulate the Saviors sublime example and serve for the betterment of others. I realize that some men do abuse these positions and use them to manipulate others. Under a pious guise these individuals have made a mockery of Gods designs, have brought great shame and disappointment to those they should have been serving. The Lord has talked of these in great length. The penalty is severe for such priesthood holders.
Finally, I would ask anyone struggling with the perceived inequality to consider current views of leadership as defined by the world. The world would have one believe that when a leaders makes decisions that others must follow, insisting that when he barks an order, then those under his command must comply docilely. This type of leadership is what I define as management and in my opinion management is not real leadership but a cheap imitation of it.
I believe a true leader helps others around him become better people. I believe a true leader does it with long-suffering, persuasion, by gentleness and love unfeigned. People follow this type of leader because they want to, not because he is in charge. They sense that he will not lead them astray and really wants what is best for them. This is the type of leadership the Lord has asked of his chosen priesthood leaders. The world’s definition of power or dominion is not the same as the churches definition of power or dominion.
I feel this summarizes the qualities of church office and the priesthood and hope the best for anyone struggling with injustice.
Comment by Ty — July 20, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
I’d be pretty darned happy if I could just persuade the majority to let me exist without trying to make me over into some other, “better” kind of Mormon.
If all you want is your space to feel and think as you do, then my comment is obviously not relevant. Having run into women who hold many of the views expressed here, who also want to change the church on this front, then my comment in a general sense still might be relevant at some level. (Forgive me for any conclusions I jumped to.)
FWIW, I’d rather this not be about me vs. you. Fair enough?
But in the broader scheme of things, I trust there are far, far more global and local injustices we can agree ARE injustices than those we believe aren’t. I trust we both oppose domestic and sexual violence and limited educational opportunities for girls and female infanticide and parents who will support their sons through college but not their daughters.
I’m there with you. But since we were talking about patriarchy, it was hard for me to sift out what injustices you (or others) were talking about. But like I said, in general, I’m actually a pretty passionate advocate for women in principle. Sinful injustice, particularly toward women and children, really gets to me. But like I said before, my views are tempered in a limited way in the Church context by a longer view of things that believes that different roles, patriarchy (NOT as practiced in the world, but as preached in the Church, which, IMO, leads to partnership, not domination) and so on are not injustices but part of the Lord’s loving plan. (Again, I separate out the principles from what I realize is sometimes faulty implementation in practice. But even that in my view is part of hte process — we are all here to learn to work with imperfect people. My perspective is that such imperfections don’t mean that the system itself isn’t right. And now I’m probably just repeating myself….
I hope you can also see in my previous coment that I’m all for seeking to be Christlike NOW, and doing all we can to make the world a better place. I hope it’s obvious that I’m not about simply dreaming eternal life or Zion-like existence into existence. Indeed, there is much of work to be done in the world at large and in the Church to make these worlds better. So there’s lots we could say we share in our journey, no?
I hope that is indeed the case. Sometimes we just don’t get a chance to explore those things much in this limited sphere….
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
sorry for the typos..slow technology in this blog’s comment reader…
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
m&m–there’s a big difference, I think, between wanting the church will change, and “want[ing] to change the church.” One is a patient and hopeful stance, which assumes revelation will come. I think that’s an entirely appropriate stance for a believing, faithful member of a church which proclaims, “We believe that…[God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” I’m not sure I know any feminists who want to, or think they can, change the church (in significant structural ways) by their personal agitation. Changing the subject of that clause is more than a grammatical error. Don’t mistake hope for rebellion.
Comment by Kristine — July 20, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Kristine,
I have run into positions that appear to me to go beyond just hopeful waiting and instead make suggestions that sound an awful lot like wanting to change the church and taking on that responsibility somehow. Perhaps I’m misreading them (and frankly I hope I am). My intent is not to “take on” anyone personally, so if that’s not your approach, that’s great. But it’s something that I sense that some women are aiming for — more than just a passive waiting or hoping. Of course we believe God will reveal many great and important things, but I think it’s presumptuous of any of us to suppose we know what those great and important things might or should be.
But I should be more careful to say that this concern is my perception and of course that can be wrong.
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Waiting and hoping are not passive–they should involve imagining, envisioning, and striving, as well. I think that’s what Moses was after when he wished that all God’s people could be prophets. Of course we don’t get to decide or dictate the changes, but there’s nothing wrong about thinking carefully and articulating one’s hopes informed by reason and faith.
I think it’s fair (and hopefully not too snotty) to say that I’m better acquainted with Mormon feminism and feminists than you are, and based on that acquaintance, I think your concerns are unfounded in all but a few extreme instances.
Comment by Kristine — July 20, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Perhaps we also have different levels of comfort with some of these things, too.
I think it’s fair to leave room for that possibility.
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
FWIW, I’d rather this not be about me vs. you. Fair enough?
m&m, I didn’t think it was, but if you feel differently, maybe you could drop me an email?
Comment by Eve — July 21, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Eve, if you are ok, I’m OK.
Comment by m&m — July 21, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Comment by MLK, Jr. — July 21, 2007 @ 5:53 am
m&m, then I think we’re OK.
Comment by Eve — July 21, 2007 @ 5:57 am
The Hafen’s article, like so many other articles, is based in the Eden story. And many of the comments are based in the story as well.
I’m not sure why any LDS member would accept the Garden of Eden story as accurate given the 8th Article of Faith regarding the potential inaccuracy of the entire Bible. Some would cite the Book of Moses as corroboration of Genesis, but it is after all, simply further details (and really good details – I’m not undermining the importance of the book) of the experiences and beliefs of the same witness – a witness that lived somewhere between about 1500 to tens of thousands of years after the events, depending on what timeline you want to use. Regardless, our only “witness” to the Eden story was very far removed from the events. God establishes His word out of the mouth of two or three witnesses. It would have been nice if God would have given us Abraham’s take on the Eden story after the Fall, but mysteriously, the Book of Abraham breaks off abruptly at that oh-so-critical point.
Why no better information in this day of modern revelation? Is it that what we have is sufficient for our needs, or is it that we’re not yet open-minded enough for the reality of the Eden story? I don’t think that we can be sure of anything that happened in Eden until the books/journals of Eve and Adam are revealed. It’s their story, after all.
Until such a time, what is the harm in considering the possibility that the family system described in Genesis is a distorted version of what God truly intended for families? What would happen if we considered something different? Would abandoning patriarchy really plunge families, the church, or the world into disorder and chaos?
I suppose some would say that when God wants it changed, He will reveal said changes to His prophets. There seems to be a strong commitment in LDS culture to the attitude that God says do X and we jump to do X. That’s seems to be a very Protestant idea, however. As I understand LDS doctrine, God is committed to agency and wants us to figure out our own problems, i.e., study it out in our minds and then ask Him if it is right. If patriarchy isn’t working for some/many people, why not do what the Brother of Jared did and approach God with a solution – an alternate family system that works better for their family? Do family systems have to be a one-size-fits-all, i.e. does everyone have to live by the system described in the POTF?
In my family, neither my husband nor myself accepts the “preside” clause. And best as I can tell, God is not upset with us.
Good quote in #112 – thanks.
Comment by Tam — July 21, 2007 @ 10:15 am
WHOA–FMH must be doing something right to get MLK, Jr. commenting from beyond
Comment by Lupita — July 21, 2007 @ 11:54 am
ECS:
If you believe this, you are truly a heretic. Don’t make me bear my testimony of patriarchy at you.
Comment by Ziff — July 21, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
It is obvious that most of you here are open-minded enough to accept the possibility of future revelation allowing women to hold the priesthood in exactly the same capacity as men. I am curious to know if you are equally open-minded enough to accept the other possibility (and be at peace with it), that it may never happen and each gender will forever continue to have different roles?
Comment by carissa — July 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
OK, Carissa, let’s make a deal. We’ll be open-minded enough to accept the second possibility, if you’ll be open-minded enough to accept the first. Given the unknowability of the future, I’m it behooves us all to realize that whatever actually does happen in 50 or 100 years, it will no doubt be well beyond what our cultural limitations allow any of us even to imagine now.
But this part about being at peace with the possibility–that’s a tall order and not entirely fair order, I think. If you’re at peace with the status quo, good for you. But no one’s at peace about everything in her life, and some issues take years, decades, and lifetimes to come to some kind of acceptance or resolution. Personally, I’ve been struggling over feminist issues since I was nine or so, with no end in sight. We’ve all got long and different paths to peace. So let’s not make the peace that is ultimately the gift of God, given in His time and not ours, a criterion for “open-mindedness.”
Comment by Eve — July 21, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Bringing souls to Christ and returning to our Heavenly Parents after we die is not dependent upon a patriarchal superstructure.
Hm. Ziff joked about it, but I actually want to ask how you know this is absolutely the case. I tend to think you may not be right, given the fact that the “patriarchal order” is something that shows up in our teachings and is presented as God’s eternal plan of government. Again, I don’t see this as patriarchy as the world defines it (!!!), but still…. I guess my thought is that just because you don’t want it to be a necessary element of getting us to our eternal goals doesn’t mean that it might not be.
Comment by m&m — July 21, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
done.
very true.
One thing that I have discovered through some of my trials with similar things, though, is that God was ready and willing to give me peace all along but I was the one who consciously had to choose when to accept it — He couldn’t just force it on me. Accepting His peace meant letting go of some things I thought I could not let go of. Peace doesn’t have to be a criterion for open-mindedness, but it sure makes life happier, I can attest to that.
Comment by carissa — July 21, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Carissa–I’ve accepted the possibility of what you suggest, and the only way I find peace in it is with my trust for God. Like I said earlier, I can’t fathom a way for patriarchy to ever offer equal development (say, eternal progression) to either gender. But if that’s what we’re going to be stuck with, surely God has something stuck up His sleeve.
which goes with my comment to M&M….
M&M–you reject the world’s construction of patriarchy in your last comment. I’m wondering if you might share how you envision a celestial patriarchy, seeing as how I can’t come up with a version that doesn’t sound humiliating for all involved (and yep, I include men in that). I’m an imaginative gal, but I admit that I tend to imagine heaven as heirarchical only to the degree that we will all remain subject to God and Christ. Even then, if Mormonism is right about deification, we eventaully become equals. I think…
Comment by Janet — July 21, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Janet,
Trust in God, like you said, and personally feeling his love for me is the way I have peace. Peace doesn’t mean understanding how everything works or even what it means. We don’t have to wait for those things in order to have peace.
Comment by carissa — July 21, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Carissa, I completely agree that peace makes life much easier (that I imagine all of us here can attest to), and it’s great that you’ve found peace by letting go of certain things (again, I’m sure all of us have had that experience as well). but after all we can do to cultivate it, we still do have to wait for God to grant us peace–when and as He chooses to. We can’t just insist that other people be at peace about issues because we ourselves are, or assume that because we’ve come to peace about issues in particular ways that other people will–or should–as well.
Comment by Eve — July 21, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
True, Carissa–but I also agree with Eve’s assertions that God doesn’t always grant us peace, even when we trust God. I’m thinking of another thread currently under discussion and have to confess that while I completely trust God, I feel NO peace about the church and gay issues. I think that sometimes a feeling of unsettled angst can be useful, not only in our personal progression but in that of our communities as well.
After all, a lack of peace is what makes people ask God questions. It’s what leads to true “seekers” as opposed to the sort of people Karl Marx so cynically described with his “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Sometimes God gives us a needed opiate, and I’m grateful for those time; sometimes, though, he lets the pain take us useful places. And the times differ per person.
Comment by Janet — July 21, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
We can’t just insist that other people be at peace about issues because we ourselves are, or assume that because we’ve come to peace about issues in particular ways that other people will–or should–as well.
Eve, is this some of what you were getting to before? That sometimes you feel that others want you to come to peace in some prescribed way, and you want to instead have the feeling that it’s OK to go through what it takes you to get there? (Again, wanting to understand better.)
Janet, I don’t have a ton of time now, but suffice it to say that I also believe that we become equals. I don’t believe that patriarchy and equality are mutually exclusive, but I’m not sure if I can explain why. Like I said, some of what I feel and believe comes in ways that I can’t really explain well in words here. I’m sure that the challenge is in part due to the limitations of languaged combined with the mortal perception and charegedness tied with a word like patriarchy. But crazy as it may sound, I don’t believe we have to reject equality if we embrace patriarchy in God’s system. Please don’t laugh or mock, in spite of the fact that I know to some that may sound ludicrous. It requires a different way of thinking about both comcepts, and my sorting through it all is still a work in progress, but that is where I am right now. Prolly doesn’t help much, but for now, that’s all I have time to say.
Comment by m&m — July 21, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I hope you’re not assuming I’m insisting you do anything.. it was just a question for you to ponder (not so much give me an answer to)… as many of you leave things for everyone else to ponder here on this blog. Many things which lead to confusion, frustration, anger, and unhappiness for those who read them. You are the only one who can decide if you are doing what it takes to bring peace to your own soul.
Peace is a blessing that comes to those who trust in God. It is established through individual righteousness. True personal peace comes about through eternal vigilance and constant righteous efforts. No man can be at peace who is untrue to his better self. No man can have lasting peace who is living a lie. Peace can never come to the transgressor of the law. Commitment to God’s laws is the basis for peace. Peace is something we earn. It is not a gift. Rather, it is a possession earned by those who love God and work to achieve the blessings of peace. It is not a written document. It is something that must come from within.Marvin J. Ashton, “Peace—A Triumph of Principles,” Ensign, Nov 1985
I truly do hope and pray the pain you feel in discussing these subjects will eventually “take [you] to useful places”.
Comment by carissa — July 21, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
m&m, thanks for a thoughtful question. Yes, that is much of what bothers me about the way feminist (and many other) issues are often discussed. People find their own answers; God speaks to us all in our own languages, and no doubt all of our understandings are partial in the extreme. Maybe a more clear-cut example of this problem is the way people often talk to me about my infertility. There are some people who desperately want to make the world make sense to themselves, and they feel compelled to explain to me why God hasn’t given me children. Although the reasons they offer may be extremely valid for other infertile couples, I tend to think that if God has some deep meaning in this experience for me, He’ll reveal it to me.
Carissa, oh dear….Although I trust it’s offered with the best of intentions, this is what I’m often uncomfortable with about appeals to peace in such discussions: the assumption that those of us who are not at peace with the institution are spiritually deficient and need to “decide if [they] are doing what it takes to bring peace to [their] souls.” Can you see how telling a stranger to evaluate the state of her soul simply because she disagrees with you might come across as preachy and condescending–even if that’s the last thing you mean, even if your heart’s entirely in the right place? Undoubtedly I do need to evaluate the state of my soul, as we all do, but I really don’t think my feminist convictions constitute some sort of sin. I’ve got more than enough real sins to worry about.
I’m genuinely sorry to hear that you find much of what’s posted on this blog a source of confusion, frustration, and unhappiness. Since you clearly have an interest in the subject and keep reading even though it is painful, I do hope that those emotions will eventually “take [you] to useful places” as well.
Comment by Eve — July 21, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
So around here, it is better to keep thoughts (which have brought comfort to myself and therefore are valued enough to share as with a good friend) to myself at the risk of coming across as preachy and condescending.
Fair enough. Point taken.
God bless.
Comment by carissa — July 22, 2007 @ 7:28 am
this is what it means in our family….we strive to have an equal partnership (especially me) but my husband as the patriarch and head priesthood guy (I have sons with the priesthood) calls on people to bless the food….and we pray to our Heavenly Father only because some other Priesthood guy said that’s the way it is supposed to be.
I call preside the p-word…..I don’t like it.
Comment by Jeannine — July 22, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Carissa, whoops, looks like I didn’t explain myself very well. But I’ve already dragged this out far too long. So, indeed, God bless us, every one. Even the irascible feminist Scrooges among us.
Comment by Eve — July 22, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Eve, I think you explained yourself very well. I’m sure Carissa is sincere and finds her thoughts on the subject comforting, but that doesn’t really change the fact that she implied that our faith and personal righteousness was not up to her standards. Which I think qualifies it as “preachy and condescending”, hard as that may be for one who is sincerely trying to help others to admit about oneself. I’ve been guilty of such condescension (all with the best intentions, of course) a time or two myself, and I’ve been defensive about it too.
Comment by fMhLisa — July 22, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Carissa,
FWIW, I have appreciated what you have had to say, and I also appreciate the frustration you are experiencing with commenting. Part of the reason I have asked the questions as I have is because I have gotten many of the same responses along the way as you have here. What I’m trying to appreciate is that we are all at different places with different struggles and sometimes our solutions won’t be the same for others, and I think that is basically what Eve is saying.
Lisa, can I add, though, that I think someone’s heart should matter a lot. If you want people to give you the benefit of the doubt with where you are and with your faith, it ought to go both ways, no? If you don’t want to be “called to repentance,” as it were, it seems a bit hypocritical to then turn around and do it to someone else. You interpreted the comment as preachy and condescnding, but if her heart wasn’t really there, that doesn’t seem fair. Or productive.
I feel like I’m understanding better where y’all are coming from, but that doesn’t change the fact that it hurts to have your best efforts and heartfelt concerns and desires criticized so. And I have this sense that if people like Carissa feel like you care about them too, and aren’t judging them unfairly, they might be more able to do the same back.
I’m anxious that there can be more dialogue that seeks toward understanding each other more, with less labeling and criticism (and fewer assumptions about what is really being said, which I realize I still need to work a lot on). And patience. It has take me a long time to go from just sharing what I “thought would help” to trying to understand more — because I honestly didn’t get why it was offensive.
It doesn’t help to just have someone defensively label you “preachy and condescending.” It’s been people who are patiently willing along the way to kindly point out (as I think Eve tried to do here) how it might come across, or have patiently explained where they are coming from, who have helped me understand better. What people like Carissa have to say could help someone who is reading, and some gentle feedback might help her and me and others learn how to interact better in less hurtful ways (because again, it’s not always obvious that (or why) the usual Church-like answers are sometimes hurtful). We ALL have to do our part to improve communication and understanding, no?
Comment by m&m — July 22, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
I’m too late to jump into the discussion, but I want to add some further commentary from Dallin H. Oaks. Oaks says that President Joseph F. Smith explained: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood… that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. Authority and Priesthood are two diiferent things.” I know that the Lord gives me authority to receive revelation through prayer and to guide and direct my family in important decisions. My husband respects and appreciates this authority and does not feel like his Priesthood is threatened by it. The Holy Ghost has confirmed to me time and again my importance and worth as an equal marriage partner. On the other hand, I have not always experienced this same type of egalitarian relationship with other Priesthood holders in my ward. Sometimes I think that it is the culture of our church that holds women back. Does anyone recall how Bruce R. McConkie had to retract his statements about how blacks would never receive the Priesthood in this mortal life because they were not worthy enough in the premortal existence. Well, he was wrong. And for the most part, our culture is wrong about the true divine roles of women. All I know is that the Lord loves and respects women and he trusts us with authority.
Comment by Beth — July 23, 2007 @ 1:48 am
I’m also late, but that rarely stops me. Carissa, m&m, I think one problem with saying “I’m at peace, you can be, too,” is the nearly inevitable implication that being at peace would mean not having this discussion. And even if you don’t mean to, suggesting that people can be at peace as you are carries the unspoken (and probably unintended) suggestion that no one should talk the way we are talking, and, indeed, that they wouldn’t if they were as much in tune and capable of receiving the Lord’s peace as you are.
I feel sure that neither of you meant to do that in this discussion, but you have to recognize that the kinds of things you are saying are often used to shut down discussion or mark it as illegitimate and unfaithful.
Comment by Kristine — July 23, 2007 @ 9:44 am
And one last late comment- I think every woman needs to take responsibility in her own marriage. A woman remains complicit in her own oppression when she allows herself to be influenced by questionable statements and practices in the church. There is not a mold for marriages. Sometimes I think that we take what others say and think we should do in the church too seriously. We have the agency to define ourselves and decide what we want out of our relationships. I have no desire to read the Hafens’ article because it reminds me of why I don’t need to hear about how I should interact in my marriage. I already know what I want and I don’t need the Hafens’ well meaning advice about how to interpret the whole presiding/nurturing debate that was started from that section of the Proclamation. The truth is that the marriage partnership is the only aspect of the church that could potentially empower women. Until the twelve decide that presiding doesn’t mean deciding within their own roles as leaders, marriage is all women have to negotiate within the church.
Comment by Beth — July 23, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
And even if you don’t mean to, suggesting that people can be at peace as you are carries the unspoken (and probably unintended) suggestion that no one should talk the way we are talking,
Since I explicitly said otherwise, I beat you to the punch.
Please don’t assign motives when they don’t exist.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Or maybe motives wasn’t the right word, but at some point, those who make the interpretations need to take some responsibility too. To be honest, it gets a little tiresome to be expected to anticipate every possible misinterpretation or misrepresentation of thoughts and feelings (esp. when other points of view are submitted to no such restriction or expectation). We all do our best, right? At some point such (usually one-sided) meta-analysis really does nothing for discussion but potentially hurt others (and drive them away) and/or slow discussion to a near halt. I want neither. But I think respect for points of view needs to be consistent all around.
So, onto discussion again.
The truth is that the marriage partnership is the only aspect of the church that could potentially empower women.
I’m sorry you feel this way. I strongly disagree with this notion. I feel empowered in many other ways. Women also need to recognize how much we are empowered as partners in the Church as well as in our marriages and families.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
I like the analogy given by Heather of women as lobbyists and men as the governers. m&m, can you identify specific expereinces and situations where you feel women are more than grass roots lobbyists in the church, hoping to get the attention of the governors who make the laws. Where and when do women govern in the church? And don’t give me any weak examples of the Relief Society suggesting ideas in council meetings. It’s a male Bishop or a body of all male apostles who make the final decision about policy and doctrine in our church. My husband is the only male in the church who I feel like will truly let me lead and make final decisions and I allow him to do this as well. I have been in commitee meetings where the Relief Society leaders are so willing to cater to every single whim of the Bishop, it makes me sick. And these Priesthood leaders abuse this because they know that women are afraid of challenging their Priesthood Authority.
Comment by Beth — July 23, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Beth,
When I was YW president, I made decisions all of the time for the girls and our organization. I don’t recall ever having to get approval for anything we did, although it might have happened. There is plenty of opportunity for women to make a direct and significant difference. Within our stewardship, be they as visiting teachers or asuxiliary presidents, there is MUCH MUCH service we can do without needing any approval at all, esp. when it comes to ministering… which is the heart of the gospel anyway,
I also feel in my RS calling to have lots of influence and impact, directly, to what happens in that organization, and I’m “only” on the compassionate service committee, not in a leadership calling at all. I have on my own volition started things that my RS leaders liked and so we continued, and the bishop had nothing to do with some of them. And so what if he approved one of them? He by no means has his finger in all the pies of the ward. He can’t. He needn’t. He doesn’t.
I think the idea that women have to sit around waiting for the men to make decisions is simply wrong. And having to get approval when that does happen doesn’t change the fact that we often still get to do what we feel is a good thing to do. It makes sens that things that affet the ward pas through a clearinghouse head, just to help keep order in the ward.
Also, I don’t think participation in council meetings or even as simple members of a ward should be considered weak examples. Women can turn the tide of decisions, or suggest completely new ideas, just as much as men can, if the council system works as it should (and if women believe they are important contributors and men treat them as such). So often (if not most of the time), decisions are made by council, not by single people. When the Spirit is allowed to work, many decisions can be revealed to council members, not reserved just for the closed door of a bishop’s office with only the bishop acting alone.
I know of many times when the women have direct impact in decisions that are made for the ward’s sake, and for individual’s sake as well. To act as though the bishop is the only one with influence is just wrong. In fact, often, the bishop would not have a clue about what to do without input from many, many people in the ward (esp. women!). There is simply too much within a ward for one person to keep track of. And too many stewardships that require others to minister directly.
We don’t have to have a council-position-filling calling to contribute, either. For example, I recently sent an email to my bishop making several suggestions regarding use of the internet in our ward (another calling of mine). Without batting an eyelash, he agreed with all of them, and implementation began immediately.
I walked up to him yesterday and made another suggestion, which he agreed would be good to implement.
Yet another suggestion I made is one he plans to implement as well. Does it matter that I’m not the one doing the implementing? Should it? It seems to me if our interest is really for the betterment of the work, we shouldn’t care whether or not we are in the limelight. What matters is that we try to help and serve.
This is more than powerless lobbying. I feel as a person, as a member of the ward, as a holder of callings, I have the privilege to be involved and make a difference, in many ways, seen and known and in secret as well. It’s frustrating to me that some think that simply because we don’t have a calling like bishop in our potential list of callings that somehow we are less important, less able, or less valuable. We don’t need a visible leadership calling to make a difference. And it seems to me that if we really care about the work and not some external measure of our “worth,” that should be enough. This is the Lord’s work, not ours, and it shouldn’t matter where or how we serve, just that we can.
I have been in commitee meetings where the Relief Society leaders are so willing to cater to every single whim of the Bishop, it makes me sick. And these Priesthood leaders abuse this because they know that women are afraid of challenging their Priesthood Authority.
The point is that is it not supposed to work this way at all. And the men most certainly aren’t the only ones to blame. We are all supposed to contribute and learn to do that together. If it isn’t working, one or the other of the genders is not getting it. Women sitting back and saying nothing aren’t getting it; men abusing power or position aren’t either. We are supposed to work together, and most of the time, decisions should take place with input from lots of people (men and women alike), not simply like a dictatorship where the men rule the roost.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
You’ve missed the point, m&m. All the decisions and influences of women you cite were tacitly permitted by men who could have vetoed them. The challenge is to name one power or influence held by women that no man has the power to veto. Men have veto power and women don’t.
Comment by z — July 23, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
z., not true. I gave examples of things the bishop has no finger in at all.
And I’ve been vetoed by women leaders as well, with no involvement from the bishop.
Besides, since when does “veto power” mean worth, value, or potential for good or service? If it’s full-on “power” we are after, as the world defines it, the Church is not the place to seek for it, because the only power that is power is about Christlike service and love anyway (a la D&C 121 and Christ’s example, etc.), which all of us are able to be involved in and tap into. Applying worldly standards of what power means and wanting positional power are missing the point of what the Church and kingdom are about.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
But the bishop could have a finger in them if he wanted to, right? Having your suggestions implemented is not the same thing as having power. And the ‘powers’ you listed are nowhere near the magnitude of power belonging to men.
The question isn’t what kinds of power are important. This is about identifying the ways in which men have power that women don’t, and no matter how much you try to downplay it, the fact remains that institutional power belongs almost exclusively to men. Call it important or call it unimportant, but either way it belongs to men and not to women. Men sometimes delegate scraps of that power to women, but women have almost no claim to institutional power in their own right. I just don’t see how you can try to dismiss that massive inequity as insignificant.
Comment by z — July 23, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Women are more spiritual than men. Prudence is more spiritual than women or men. Denying this reality makes it no less real.
Comment by Prudence McPrude — July 23, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
I just don’t see how you can try to dismiss that massive inequity as insignificant.
The last line of my comment is why it does not matter to me. It doesn’t matter who does what. What matters is that we serve each other and try to become more like Christ and bring people to Him. Whether we are given two talents or ten, a large stewardship or a small one, doesn’t matter. What matters is if we serve as best we can in the stewardship we have been given, and if we do it humbly and gratefully. To strive for equal mortal power is a worldly standard, not an eternal one, and it misses the point and purpose of life. I’m not blind to the differences, I just think that emphasis on them is a distraction that takes the focus away from what life and the gospel and eternal progress (individually and with the kingdom of God) are about.
What I don’t understand is why you insist that insitutional power is so important. I see no connection to this concept to what the Lord teaches about worth, potential, service, etc. He taught us that we lose our lives to find them. That it doesn’t matter how much we have been given but rather what we do with what we have. That service for praise, power, recognition and competition is service for the wrong reasons. We don’t have to have institutional power to glorify Him, and that is supposed to be our focus, no?
Through Paul, He taught us that every part of the body if Christ is important. We don’t all need to be heads to matter to the work. We can be eyes and ears and hands and hearts. Where does He teach that we measure our worth and life’s meaning by position or institutional power? This line of thinking baffles me and seems to run counter to what the Savior has taught. I can think of nothing He taught that suggested that equality or His justice or His love should be measured by what callings we have or don’t have.
I can understand that this issue becomes a personal struggle because of how things may appear. But please, someone tell me what doctrinal basis there is for using these criteria to determine women’s worth?
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
m&m, Thanks for your responses. I was just wondering, if it doesn’t matter who does what and that we just try to serve each other and try to be like Christ, then why does it matter that a man should be the leader of the ward or the church. And I was also wondering if in your Compassionate Service calling, if you ever ask men who have the talent to cook to prepare the meals for funerals and families. Would this be okay or would it be violating gender boundaries that supposedly lead to equality. Christ fed the hungry and he was male. How much of this do you think is sexist tradition that could be changed or official church policy that can not be changed?
Comment by Beth — July 23, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
m&m (136)–I quite explicitly did not assign motives to you (I said “feel sure that neither of you meant to do that in this discussion,”). I was pointing out that the argument you make and the language you use have both history and inevitable implications. You are not responsible for deliberate or uncharitable misreadings of your words, but you are responsible for that which follows from them by simple process of logic.
Comment by Kristine — July 23, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
I was just wondering, if it doesn’t matter who does what and that we just try to serve each other and try to be like Christ, then why does it matter that a man should be the leader of the ward or the church.
I don’t know, but I believe things are the way they should be. (Probably not what you wanted to hear.) I don’t believe that the Church structure is a mistake (is that what you are asking?) I believe it provides order and clarity and growth and opportunity for all.
I’m also intrigued by this notion that Christ wants us not simply to fulfill our stewardship but to be as one body, unifed, acting together, not seprated by our functions or valued alone. We are valued and meaningful to Him if we act together. That’s how I read it, anyway. If we all want to be the head, that makes for a lopsided and pretty dysfunctional body, no?
As for food, I have not asked men to cook, and I probably won’t. My calling is to work with the women and to rally them together, so I make assignments to them. Again, I see nothing wrong with this. I don’t feel the need to impose “equality” on the limited scope of my calling. (I put that in quotes because I think this view of equality misses what it’s about in gospel terms). Again, I understand why some people want to see women asked to move tables and men asked to cook, but I personally don’t think it matters much. (Sorry.) I actually like the gender roles we have (sorry again), because it makes sure that things are covered and get done (again, gets all the body parts in there).
I personally think that sometimes sexism is used as the end-all ultimate measure of all good and I don’t agree with that approach. I’m not silent when I do see things that I think really reflect injustices and mistreatment, but these kinds of things don’t fall into that category for me. (Again, not what you want to hear, I’m sure.)
And back to your question, funerals are such a small part of what I do that it’s not something really on my radar screen much.
Finally, I simply know more women than men who have the talent to cook.
BUT, FWIW, when we have our fave ward activity, a salmon bbq dinner, the men are the ones doing a lot of the cooking. And serving the food.(In fact, I don’t remember women doing any of the serving.)
Christ fed the hungry and he was male.
One other thought. There are many ways to feed the hungry. The bishop, a male, serves in this way through distributing fast offerings (and young men gather them) and writing storehouse orders. So, hey, does it matter if they don’t cook for a funeral?
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Prudence, then of course you already realize that by our current reasoning about gender, a being of your immense spiritual capacity can barely be entrusted to feed herself and steer her tricycle around her own front yard.
And I’m sure it’s highly unlikely you’ve been cleared to blog.
Comment by Eve — July 23, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
I quite explicitly did not assign motives to you
Please note that I immediately noted that I misspoke in suggesting that you were assigning motives. I realized it was a goof right away.
And perhaps you didn’t see where I tried to anticipate this possible misunderstanding by saying things like:
“Let me reiterate that it’s NOT that I don’t appreciate the personal struggles people have with these tensions (I really do, and I appreciate the need and desire to talk through them and work through them). I think there is value in having discussions with various points of view to gain understanding of each other.” (#97)
Additionally, in another thread, I acknowledged that the struggle through tough issues can be part of our journey. Yet another effort to try to say, I”m nto here to shut down discussion.”
I have also asked questions along the way to try to understand others, not simply share my own thoughts. If I didn’t care about discussion or respect it, I wouldn’t be asking questions and trying to understand along the way.
It’s hard not to feel that you are just making me an offender for a word, even to shut me down. I’m really am trying and I hope that can matter.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
[…] wrote about this article over at FMH [1]; I’d like to take a different perspective on it–I want to tell you what I liked […]
Pingback by Times & Seasons » The Hafens on Equality — July 24, 2007 @ 8:05 am
[…] this follow-on episode, we discuss equal partnering and “presiding” in LDS marriages and raising gay LDS […]
Pingback by Episode 7 Part 2: Equal Partnering and "Presiding" in LDS Marriages and Raising Gay LDS Children — July 24, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
My idea of God is that he loves all of us and has no preference for one gender over another. However, pretending that there are no differences between genders is simply foolishness.
Looking at “natural man” we see strong tendencies toward aggressive, philandering behavior in males and nurturing, loyal behavior in females. Given this, in a natural state where women are legally, socially and practically able to take care of themselves and even bear children without much assistance from men, if men still fill their “natural role”, of what good are they to the family? Wouldn’t women be better off without men in most cases, especially in a utopia that was free from physical and financial threats?
Therefore, it seems to me that the priesthood and the ‘presiding’ role of men is one that allows/forces men into a significant role in the family, even in a perfectly progressive utopian society. Without it men become less and less relevant.
Comment by Adam — July 25, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I admit that some of the quotes from this article seem like pure gibberish. If he listens to her moral compass, but she follows his righteous counsel, where does his righteous counsel come from? Either she is the one really running things (i.e. she makes the decision, he just stamps his approval on it) or this is a totally empty set.
Comment by AHLDuke — July 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
[…] 8th, 2007 The recent Ensign article by the Hafens has already seen discussion at T&S and FMH. I’d like to add a comment, but first point out that I appreciate the tone and direction it […]
Pingback by Playing Fast and Loose? « Faith Promoting Rumor — August 8, 2007 @ 11:54 am
[…] been reading this thread over on FMH. It had me thinking about presiding in my own marriage, and since I didn’t want […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | How Presiding Works in My Marriage — June 4, 2010 @ 5:08 pm