On Patriarchy and Patriarchs
I admit it. I have patriarchy issues. Big issues. Contemplating patriarchy makes my stomach hurt and my head ache. Accepting patriarchy . . . Bah!
But in the grand contradiction that is me, I love patriarchs.
I have lived a life brimming with kind, loving, patient, well-meaning patriarchs. Fathers, Bishops, Prophets, who I Know Love Me, want the best for me, and expect my obedience.
I think this is something that someone outside of my culture just couldn’t understand. I’m not sure I understand. Except that I believe patriarchy to be totally unfair, feel so often insulted ignored and marginalized by the system, at the same time that I’ve been nurtured and loved by the men who are “the system” and I’ve felt the power of God in their hands upon my head.
It is what it is.
neh?
Accepting that the men in the church have power from God is not the same thing as accepting patriarchy. I have felt great power from men in the church through blessings and prayers. I have also felt the power of God when reading spiritual literature and learning from spiritual teachers, both men and women, outside of the church. This power does not come from the church. This power is within each of us. Another name for this power is unconditional love or, as Jesus described it, oneness.
Wildhorses
Comment by Wildhorses — April 11, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Lisa - I’ve been lurking on this board and a few others, and haven’t posted any comments - this post I guess has finally inspired me to write something, because I completely understand where you are coming from.
I have had several difficult struggles over the last few years, and it has been men in my ward, stake and family (the priesthood and patriarchy) that have been the ones weaving the support net, so that when I’ve fallen, something has been there to catch me. The women have pretty much been in their own busy, gossipy little worlds - too busy to minister to a fellow sister, but the irony is that the men I know understand how to minsiter rather than ad-minister - And I thought that women were the nurturers.
I haven’t been able to come to terms with this paradox in my life. I love the people, but so much about the system and the doctrine makes me want to scream. As many times as people say that men and women are co-equals, the reality is that ’separate but equal’ can never be equal. I don’t have any answers on how to resolve this conflict…it’s frustrating…
Comment by Angie in Utah — April 11, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
I fail to see any contradiction here. I grew up loved and nurtured almost exclusively by white people. I don’t see how that would in any way justify a return to Jim Crow laws and segregation. As a more extreme example, I get an immense amount of support from my family. Should I advocate that they become a ruling dynasty?
Comment by ujlapana — April 11, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Patriarch is one of those words (like feminist) that can draw up a lot of specific images, usually inaccurate one in my opinion. For a lot of people patriarchy = male supremacy. I don’t define it that way (though I did when I was younger). Patriarchy to me cannot be separated from Godliness. Like #1 “accepting that men in the church have power from God is not the same thing as accepting patriarchy” as most people would define it. If a man holding the priesthood is not behaving in a way that the Savior would, he is not using his power righteously and thus it ceases to be of any value.
Before I was sealed in the temple I was alarmed about the talk of “obidience” to my husband. It was all for nothing. As women we hearken (give attention to) unto our husband only as he does so to the Lord in righteousness. Given that I have the ability to seek for myself if he is falling into that definition, it’s in my power to choose. Patriarchy isn’t the enemy per se, but the misuse of perceived power is.
I once had a sister whose husband gave her grief about going to church that she decided to stay home to appease him. She explained that because he was the priesthood holder in their house, she had to ‘hearken’ (in the obey sense) unto his council. Nonsense. His demands were not righteous and not in the end, for her good, but for his selfishness.
Words can mean very different things to different people I guess.
Comment by Annastasia — April 11, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
I agree with #3– I don’t see a contradiction.
Do you think their love for you is contingent on your acceptance of the patriarchy? What would happen if you stopped obeying their patriarchal dictates?
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
in my case, i think i’ve been blessed with a sense of peace over the whole patriarchy thing–in kind of a “big picture” way. i feel like you do about the men who nurture and support, even though it’s the system that kind of failed me when the very men who were supposed to nurture and support were the ones causing me pain. it’s a tender mercy that i’m able to separate out the two, and value them both for their good parts, and forgive them for the parts that go wrong.
but i feel your pain too. i hope you find satisfactory answers!
♥
Comment by Blue — April 11, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
I think good experiences with patriarchy are closely correlated with luck, affluence, education, and economic power held by women. So I hope nobody’s sense of peace or forgiveness about the patriarchy leads them to discount the negative experiences that less lucky or wealthy women are (I conjecture) more likely to experience, and less likely to be able to protect themselves from.
I guess what I’m saying is that personal experience among the bloggy class is not the measure of the experience of patriarchy worldwide. Let’s not endorse, or even tolerate, a system based solely on the way it treats the most privileged women, shall we? I just don’t think positive personal experience is a valid reason to tolerate this system, as a matter of principle and because of its effects on other women.
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
perhaps someone should define patriarchy, and “the system”, so we’re all on the same page here.
Comment by Blue — April 11, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
I once had a sister whose husband gave her grief about going to church that she decided to stay home to appease him. She explained that because he was the priesthood holder in their house, she had to ‘hearken’ (in the obey sense) unto his council.
The temple is pretty clear that this is not the intended approach.
Comment by queuno — April 11, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Regarding #2: I love a passage in Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle: “Like and equal are not the same.” You don’t have to be just like someone to be equal. You can have different roles and callings and still be equally valued — and equals in every sense. And, quite honestly, the last few times I was in the temple I really noticed something about the priesthood that made really think about the blessings and powers I actually already have.
Comment by Miranda — April 11, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
So what makes you think the status quo is equality, Miranda? That’s the burden for priesthood apologists, and it’s a heavy one, I think. How are we to assess equality in this context?
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Who ever said anything about life or your station in it having to be equal? Let alone fair.
Comment by Business Woman — April 11, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
z,
I in no way meant to justify “the system” of “patriarchy”.
(I’m not up to defining them myself, but someone else is welcome to try)
I never meant to imply that my experience was normative, but it is still my real experience. I am very much a privileged person, and I do know that. Luck and education probably being more the factors in my life than affluence or economic power, neither of which I’ve experience much. (coal miner’s daughter from a rural utah mining town)
I would agree in general with everything you say, I don’t want to justify a harmful system because it worked well for me. But I have had a very nice life greatly influence by a patriarchal system.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 11, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Thanks. (When I was talking about affluence and economic power, though, I meant worldwide, e.g., you live in a country where women are allowed to work and own property, spousal abuse is illegal, you can read and write, etc..)
What are the things specific to patriarchy that made your life nice? Are there things you think you wouldn’t have had in a church that was in other ways similar, but not patriarchal? It seems that you’re saying patriarchy is a causal factor here, but I’m not sure in what way.
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Business woman,
I can’t speak for Z, but while I understand that life isn’t, nor can it be really fair, I think one of the things we should strive for is for making it as fair, and equatable as we can.
As some will point out, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all people will receive the exact same treatment (for instance I’m very much in favor of Affirmative Action), and that what is fair or correct or equatable won’t necessarily translate into what is exactly the same . . . but I do believe that z is right to point out that the burden for priesthood apologists is a heavy one.
I’m afraid “hearkening to him as he does to him” doesn’t comfort me the way it does some women. I’m afraid, I don’t see anything even remotely equal about the separates in our current church system.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 11, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
No z, I didn’t mean to imply a causal relationship either. Simply that it is what it is.
I’m sure there are many women who have lived lovely lives even under the worst of patriarchal systems, say in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Largely as a matter of luck and privilege. But their experiences are real too. And any time we try to paint any type of system with too broad a brush, and ignore the underlying emotional realities of those involved, then we lose some of the depth and truth of the human experience.
If women didn’t feel loved and protected and cherished and even “empowered” (in the soft sense) under these systems, then women would not be some of the most ardent defenders of these systems. (as has been already demonstrated many times in these comments).
I’m just explaining, I guess, the tug I feel when I look at those old men who look like my dad in the solemn assembly and can feel both heartbreakingly tender towards them and heartbroken by them.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 11, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Yeah, I get it, I love plenty of non-feminist men myself. I just thought you had some causality there, but my mistake. That soft power post is one of my all-time faves, I have to say.
BusinessWoman, have you recently read this? It says “equal partners.” So there’s an example, to answer your question.
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
What about them would cause you to be heartbroken?
They are effectively just doing what they are told.
Don’t take out your frustrations with God on the Church leaders.
Comment by Business Woman — April 11, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
I’ve given up being mad at men. Women can be just as judgmental, overbearing and self righteous and downright mean as any man. So I am not sorry they are exempt from being in charge.
But, I just have to share something that is slightly off topic in order to say it could be worse and it used to be. This is from a short story called Nevsky Avenue by Nicolai V. Golgol “We feel bound, however, to state the Schiller’s wife, for all her good looks, was rather a stupid woman. Not that stupidity in a pretty woman is t be despised; on the contrary it greatly enhances her charms.” It goes on to say some men like stupid wives because it is proof of child-like innocence. When a woman loses her looks she has to be 20 times as clever as a man to get respect, let alone love.
Comment by Claudia — April 11, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
How are we to assess equality in this context?
-Equally important to and in the plan of God in an eternal sense, and equally as important to the functioning of a family in the mortal sense. Indeed, equal does not mean the same, but of equal weight, equal value, equal importance to God.
-Equally able to receive the eternal blessings of God through the Atonement of the Savior and through the reception of priesthood ordinances.
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
That’s what I’m talking about! A real set of reasons. It brings me joy (and maybe even understanding)! So if, m&m, we reverted to a system in which women were the property of men, i.e. slaves, would that meet your criteria for equality? If not, why not? They would still be equally important to God, and equally able to receive blessings, right? Are there any limits on how poorly women may be treated while still remaining “equal”?
(If I don’t get back to you quick, it’s because I have to go somewhere, sorry about that.)
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Annastasia–your comment was so basic and simple yet I had not had that lightbulb go off for me yet. A woman has the power to judge what is righteous in her husband’s actions. She isn’t weakly following.
Just a curious twister for me–does this limit which righteous actions we, as women, can take? Are there other righteous paths that we COULD take if our husbands were on them or are we limited to the righteous path he has chosen? Maybe we are following them on the very most basic commandments that apply to everyone, every time?
Comment by Thinker — April 11, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
arrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Comment by BiV — April 11, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
That was to you, m&m
Comment by BiV — April 11, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
I’ve heard the Annastasia answer (that has a ring to it) countless times, and I find it highly problematic at best. You should read the link to soft/hard power that I linked to above.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 11, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
My favorite definition of patriarchy is from Twisty’s FAQ:
…patriarchy is a violently tyrannical but nearly invisible social order based on an oppressive paradigm of class and status fetishizing dominance and submission. Patriarchy’s benefits are accrued according to a rigid hierarchy at the top of which are rich honky adult males and at the bottom of which are poor female children of color.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I have never seen the LDS patriarchy as benign ever since I’ve read that definition. The only GOOD thing about the LDS patriarchy is that at least its comparatively benign and overt to what we’re dealing with in Real Life.
Comment by Ann — April 11, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
So if, m&m, we reverted to a system in which women were the property of men, i.e. slaves, would that meet your criteria for equality? If not, why not?
Fair question.
Would women being slaves to men mean they are not equal to God? No, because no matter what humans do, I believe men and women are equal in God’s eyes.
But would I believe that such a system was from God? No.
As for patriarchy, it is a tricky subject because the world (and sometimes individuals in the Church) have morphed patriarchy into something that is so charged and so misused and abused. But before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, though, I think we need to separate out what the patriarchal order is supposed to be (what it means to God - yes, I’m operating under the assumption that patriarchy has a pure form and it has a purpose), and what the world has done with patriarchy. They are, I believe, vastly different things.
Just because abuse of a system or institution etc. happens doesn’t mean that the system or institution itself is bad. We believe marriage and parenthood are institutions and roles given to us from God. Abuse happens in the institution of marriage, and with parenting. There are differences between the sexes in those roles as well. We don’t insist that marriage and parenthood are inherently bad or wrong because abuse happens, though. I could think of other examples, too. The key to me is to figure out why the patriarchal order exists, what that means, and seek to live it the best that I (we) can.
Again, as a patriarchy apologist (slight grin) I operate under the assumption that prophets are inspired in this regard, so I feel no need to change the system fundamentally. I look at this first as a Mormon, and then with any other hat I might don (woman, feminist, intellectual, etc.) Do I support and teach the doctrine that women are valued, equal, important, essential in the plan of God? You bet. Do I insist that women can’t be equal in a patriarchal system. No way. Why? Because the system is not the Church, it’s the whole Plan, and that encompasses so much more than who does what on Sunday, or even in the home. It’s about what the Savior’s grace and mercy makes available to all who are willing to accept Him, male or female, bond or free, black or white, etc. etc. etc.
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
I probably shouldn’t say this….
but I feel like m&m just patted me on the head and told me to run along ….
good thing feelings aren’t facts.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 11, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Interesting comments, m&m, but I think you’re just changing the definition of equality and waving away the question. Let me try to rephrase my question for you.
How can we tell if women are being treated, in a patriarchy, as well as they ought to be treated? You have admitted that abuses exist, but how are we to tell abuses from “legitimate” exercises of patriarchal power?
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
a frequent occurrence in the ‘nacle. get used to it.
Comment by mfranti — April 11, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
i’m having trouble with this- probably because the system wouldn’t exist without the reorganization of the church so my brain says that the system is the church.
y’wanna explain?
Comment by mfranti — April 11, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
z,
I think you’re just changing the definition of equality and waving away the question.
I guess part of my point is that I think it’s important to figure out what equality means to God, not simply impose what the dictionary or feminism or any other constructs define as equality. So I don’t think it’s fair to say I’m just trying to redefine it. I’m trying to understand what it really is supposed to mean in the plan of God and how to apply that in our world. I think trying to impose mortal understanding of equality on the gospel is approaching it backwards.
As to your follow-up question, I think it’s like any other struggle in life. How do we know when you aren’t abusing parental authority (we all do it, you know)? How do we know when your life, your marriage, etc. is really in balance? Do we ever fully stay perfectly pitched on a point of perfect exercise of power, agency, etc.? Of course we don’t, because we are mortal. But we know we are on the right path when we have the Spirit and when love can flourish.
IMO, these kinds of things are a journey, not a destination. I think a patriarchal system that is working as it should is guided by the Spirit, where all can feel it. A man abusing the system can offend the Spirit, and a woman expecting too much from the system can also do the same. (These roles can be reversed, as women are sometimes the ones in authority.) There is a balance that is struck when it works, and all I can say is that when it works, the Spirit is there, and there is power for all — the power of unity, the power of the Atonement — power that comes from beyond us.
It is legitimate when everyone realizes that anyone in authority in the Church (male or female) should be seeking God’s will — when all involved realize that it’s not in any way, shape or form about personal power or authority at all. It works with true humility and obedience from all involved. Again, it’s about who’s got what position but about God’s work and glory.
The system works when we let it — and we all have to let it! Any one of us can hinder that, regardless of gender or position. And when abuses occur, most of the time (I say most), it’s like any other time someone in our life goofs. We seek to forgive. We do our best within our sphere. In my mind, “the system” is about helping us grow personally, not about having things running perfectly. It’s about perfecting us. And when you see kind, loving, humble, faith-filled leaders who want nothing more than the best for us and want only God’s work and glory to come to pass, and when you feel that power when they bless or teach, and when you hear people bearing testimony of the kindness, humility, power, and influence of their leaders, and when you hear leaders talking of the faith and diligence of the members around them, and when you see groups where their hearts are becoming knit together in faith, love, unity, and the power of God, then perhaps that is one way to know that it’s working. Perfectly? Nope, because we are human. But there is power in the system. I have seen its fruits, I have felt that power, both in the Church and in my family.
In the end, it’s not something that is easily articulated in words. When Elder Christofferson talked, he spoke of being taught things spirit to spirit, that cannot be explained in words. This is what patriarchy, priesthood, presiding, etc. are for me. I can’t fully put it all into words, but I have felt that they are true and real principles, and that there is power for all when we accept and try to live them. The more I try to accept and live according to their principles, the more of that power and peace I feel.
Not a very academic, precise answer, I know, but it’s like most things in the gospel…it’s not something that can simply be explained by logical argument, by words alone. But that doesn’t mean it is not true and real and good. Even as I have seen less-than-ideal situations in the system, by and large, I have felt the power that comes when it is followed. I don’t believe that is simply a unique thing. I think that is the way it’s supposed to be.
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Sigh. Here we go again about feelings and the inadequacy of words. I give up, I don’t know why I even try. It’s impossible to discuss anything with you because you never will answer anything directly.
Comment by z — April 11, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
I agree with this, m&m. Which is why I believe that a system that privileges men over women inevitably forces women to bear the brunt of the “goofs”, as you say.
Enforcing patriarchal norms where women are always subordinate to men, regardless of personal character flaws or individual talent, provides too many opportunities for men to “goof” and for their “goofs” to adversely affect women. Under a patriarchal system, women disproportionally bear the cost of the mistakes men make, regardless of whether these mistakes are made intentionally or in good faith. Is this what God wants women to do?
Comment by ECS — April 11, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
a frequent occurrence in the ‘nacle. get used to it.
Ouch. It’s not my intent to make people feel ‘patted on the head.’ Can you cut me some slack here?
i’m having trouble with this- probably because the system wouldn’t exist without the reorganization of the church so my brain says that the system is the church.
OK. My point is this: Why does the Church exist? It exists as a vehicle to get us back Home, to help us become more like God…just as everything else in life does. It’s not an end in and of itself (our goal is not to someday be an eternally important church person or to hold some eternal church position), so when we talk about equality in an eternal sense, we shouldn’t limit it to just what happens in the Church. Does that help explain my thoughts?
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
You know that scripture, “By their fruits ye shall know them?” Well, it doesn’t take much effort to examine the fruits of patriarchy. Look at the OT. Horrible, rotten, stinking fruits. Look at what’s happening in Texas with the recent polygamy raid. Certainly no fruits I’d want to eat. Patriarchy is rotten to the core.
Patriarchs, well, they’re something else entirely. No problem at all with patriarchs. It’s just the system of government that is flawed.
Comment by Quimby — April 11, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
z, this is how I approach this, so I don’t really know what else to say, except sorry you are frustrated. This is what it is for me. It’s just like trying to explain my testimony. At some point, it boils down to feelings.
Which is why I believe that a system that privileges men over women inevitably forces women to bear the brunt of the “goofs”, as you say.
I don’t disagree with you there.
But rather than answer your question, let me extend your reasoning back and ask you a question in return: Under the God-created plan that includes innocent children being raised by imperfect parents, helpless children bear the brunt of their parents mistakes, some of them incredibly awful, painful, even evil. Do you think God wants children to bear the brunt of their parents’ mistakes?
And now here is my thought: Some things we can and should seek to change. Other things are part of the journey, part of what provide us opportunities for exercising agency (and where there is agency, there will always be goofs…that is why there is an Atonement). The trick is figuring out where that line is, and I think it’s that line that some of us disagree on.
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
m&m, I understand the thought behind the analogy to children being harmed by abusive parents, but it’s inapposite (if not downright insulting!) to use this analogy to justify the idea that God requires men to rule over adult women.
I agree that “some things” are part of life’s journey and that we learn and grow from our mistakes and others. I don’t understand, however, why we need to manufacture additional trials and struggles for women by supporting a system that is founded upon the fraudulent assertion that men are better qualified than women to serve as leaders and decision makers.
As you note, men are flawed, selfish creatures. Therefore, patriarchy more often serves the interests of men, not women. I’m puzzled as to why otherwise independent, modern women would continue to support a system where women lack the power and authority to control important aspects of their lives (or at least be free from the suffering caused by “goofs” made by their male protectors/presiders).
Comment by ECS — April 11, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
I don’t understand, however, why we need to manufacture additional trials and struggles for women by supporting a system that is founded upon the fraudulent assertion that men are better qualified than women to serve as leaders and decision makers.
ECS, perhaps part of why we see this differently is that we are operating under very different assumptions about why things are the way they are. I don’t think this is something artificially manufactured; I think it is inspired. (I know, I must sound crazy to you.) Secondly, leaders have been abundantly clear that this system is NOT built on an assumption that men are better qualified to serve as leaders and decision makers. It has nothing to do with who has more ability.
And I believe humans (not just men!) are flawed, selfish creatures — when they act of their own will and don’t tune into the Spirit and tap into the Atonement. It’s a different ballgame when we do, though, and that to me is a key part of the purpose of the system. Without the Spirit and faith, it can be bad. But with it, it can be wonderful. I also believe it is the atonement that makes women free from the suffering that is caused when people goof, just as it can make any of us free from any pain caused by anyone’s goofs. (Elder Scott hit on these principles really hard in his amazing talk.)
BTW, my point with parenthood was to point out that you can’t judge a system by its potential abuses alone. I’m not sure I understand why you think that is insulting to use as an example, but sorry for (unintentionally) insulting you all the same.
At some point, I suspect no reasoning will be sufficient to explain why I think things are the way they are, beyond what I have already said. It’s as much something I have ‘gained a testimony’ of as anything else, really. I understand the concerns with it all. I understand why some may be puzzled from a logical point of view. I do. But this is what I believe, and it goes beyond just logic, just like other elements of our faith do. I don’t know what more I can really say.
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
btw, that comment was not meant to shut down discussion, but simply to say that I really don’t know what more I can say.
Comment by m&m — April 11, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
For what it is worth, I think you have eloquently stated your point of view. I agree with you.
Comment by christine — April 11, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
sorry, I meant to address that to m&m!
Comment by christine — April 11, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Hi, m&m - I get where you’re coming from, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I guess where I get tripped up is why God provides justification for imperfect/flawed systems in the first place. Take slavery and racism, for example.
As humans progressed through the ages, we awakened to the evils of slavery. Some people decided that slavery is unacceptable, even though God permits it. Shouldn’t we approach patriarchy this way? God may permit patriarchy, but we humans can choose to implement an egalitarian social structure that protects both the interests of women and men instead of privileging one group over another.
Comment by ECS — April 12, 2008 @ 5:53 am
I gotta admit, the whole idea of patriarchy bothers me a bit as well–even though I’m a member of that patriarchy. Many aspects of it gall me. Yet I don’t buck the system. Is it because my testimony of the core doctrines are strong enough for me to put aside my doubts on this issue, or because I don’t have enough courage in my convictions to question a system which seems to privilege me?
On a related note, I’ve not infrequently heard the explanation that our Father in his eternal wisdom established a patriarchy for his Church because men are more suited to leadership. Even more than the patriarchy itself, I’ve found this sort of chauvanism ridiculous. If anything, I think it is the exact opposite, as I mentioned in a post about Mothers day last year on my own blog.
Comment by Derek — April 12, 2008 @ 9:33 am
it’s good, lisa, that you’ve had good experiences. I am a woman who feels marginalized not because of any inherent sense of the existing inequalities in the way men or women are treated, but because of a few hairy experiences of my own with patriarchy in the church. And yet I still love most of my preisthood leaders with all my heart. I just can’t find it in my heart to trust them. Not yet.
it’s a journey, and one that I think the church itself is taking as it discovers things that need to be improved….
Comment by sare — April 12, 2008 @ 9:53 am
My earliest personality shaping experiences at home and in the church were with men who did not even comprehend how unrighteous their dominion was. Because my mother had promised in the temple to “obey” she refrained from even criticizing my father. My eyes were opened by D&C 121 taught by a seminary teacher. I went home and shared what I thought would be life changing insight with my parents, who were underwhelmed. I went to my bishop, who was also my high school counselor, who moved quickly, to extract me, at 15, from my parents’ home. He got me into BYU and into therapy which has kept me from making many of the mistakes of my family. I credit my male LDS feminist counselor directly with keeping me from any of several poor marriages. So yeah, I am damaged by LDS patriarchy and rescued by it as well.
Like m&m I believe it is the atonement that will eventually make women free from the suffering that is caused when patriarchs goof. Unlike her I also know that while I receive great comfort through the atonement in this life, not all the damage done to me or to my loved ones can be undone in mortality. My brothers are divorced, in jail, substance abusing, and/or dead largely because of the way they were raised. The lives of their children are very sad. I have faith in the Lord’s eternal judgments, but I have no illusions that Christ will ever force anyone to quit abusing anyone else.
God has permitted patriarchy. My erstwhile bishop, that BYU professor, and my husband are shining examples of the righteous possibilities there, but any system that privileges one group over another, as ECS phrased it, will lead to abuses, many of which cannot be completely overcome in this life.
My insights at the temple are that families are eternal. Couples are the foundation of exaltation. Subjugation of women in any way is not part of God’s plan; it is a perversion of the plan. I find consolation that God understands the complete backgrounds, thoughts, desires, words and deeds of all of us and that HE loves all of us anyway, and will judge us all in perfect justice.
Comment by karen — April 12, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Unlike her I also know that while I receive great comfort through the atonement in this life, not all the damage done to me or to my loved ones can be undone in mortality.
Actually, I acknowledge and realize this. I am sorry for the pain you and your family have experienced. (And I’m sorry if you thought that my comments suggested that I think that everything will be fixed in this life. That is far from what I think, actually.)
I guess where I get tripped up is why God provides justification for imperfect/flawed systems in the first place.
I totally understand. I guess where I am coming from, again, is that I am not convinced that the system itself (in the ideal, and in the eternal scheme of things) is flawed (people are to be sure, and that is problematic, to be sure) and/or that we are supposed to be judging the system (church, roles, etc.) alone, but rather in context of the eternal plan as a whole. THAT is what causes me to take a step back and not simply look at this like I would a pay scale in the workforce or something more concrete and definitely limited by mortality and mortal measures. The big picture is so much more than ‘this system’ alone. And so, imo, if we are to judge the system, we need to take ALL of the plan into consideration to determine if women really are ’subjugated’ or ‘discriminated against.’ When I look at the whole plan, from what I know and believe (even though we don’t have all the specifics of what eternity will look like), I don’t believe women are discriminated against, because we, too, are offered ALL that God has…a life like His (whatever that will be like…faith tells me it will be beyond anything we can imagine). The clincher for me is that a man cannot receive that without a woman (and vice-versa), so that seems pretty fair as well.
Ultimately, what God has for us is about us coming together, not simply being independently the same. It’s that interconnectedness and eternally-based plan that I look at and consider when I see how men and women are asked to work together both in the family and in the Church. If we only look at the church system (which is only a part of the plan, and likely a temporary one at that), I think we could easily miss something essential to really understanding how things are. Even if it’s ‘unfair’ by mortal standards, God doesn’t judge fairness as we do, so I think we should not stop our analysis of it at mortal standards, because we are dealing with something that definitely spans far beyond mortality and includes much more than just roles and responsibilities at church.
I don’t pretend to understand it all, but this is how I approach the analysis of it. FWIW.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
So do you actually think it is ‘unfair’ by mortal standards? I feel like all your talk of eternity functions as a convenient way to avoid addressing this question.
Comment by z — April 12, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
I don’t have anything profound to add to the discussion, just to say that it is aggravating and sad to me, the patriarchy. I recently had to go before a couple of old men to basically ask their permission for something needed in dealing with the children in the church. I was shaking and red-faced and nervous with the fear that they would turn me down. I was mad at myself for feeling that way, for feeling afraid. Yet I knew that the system was the way it was, and that in order to get what I wanted I had to ask and risk being turned down. I felt that lack of control keenly, and it is very unsettling. I know I’ll never be one of those old men with the power, and I am finding that harder and harder to deal with.
That’s why I’m here at this site and trying to get wisdom from you all. I try not to be angry about it and see the good in all and understand the big picture. I do try. It’s hard sometimes.
Comment by Catherine — April 12, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
z, of course I see that. (Do you really think I’m that thick-headed?) But I just see little value in addressing all of this in a ‘worldly standards’ way (except to say that I understand some people’s frustration, but I have said that repeatedly already). I just don’t think we are supposed to approach or critique the gospel with worldly standards as the foundation or measuring stick. The fruits of such an approach for me are bitter; the fruits of faith are sweet. I’m not simplistic in how I engage these issues in my mind and heart (even though it appears that you think that I am too simplistic or somehow avoid issues — I don’t; I face these questions head-on in my life) — but in the end, there is no other way for me to approach them and feel the Spirit.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
I didn’t mean to suggest that you’re thick-headed, but I’m still not clear: do you think it is unfair, or not unfair? I’m not asking whether you think it’s valuable to ask, or whether we’re supposed to think about it in that way, but rather whether you think patriarchy in the mortal world is fair or unfair, by “worldly” standards.
I don’t know why it’s such a struggle for you to address this question, and I do think that you are avoiding it. If you aren’t avoiding it, what’s your answer? Fair or unfair?
Comment by z — April 12, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Catherine, I’m wondering what in your experience has led you to the point that you feel shaking, red-faced, and fearful when you need to ask for something in this kind of context.
I would want you to feel confident, sure, and righteous in your approach to the situation. You have a right to ask and be heard over anything, I wonder what has taught you that you don’t. And I hope that their consideration of your request didn’t just confirm those feelings for you.
I think some of this can be due to the socialization of women in the church (often by other women, not necessarily by men even) and it infuriates me when wise, competent, insightful women will not speak up in mixed contexts in church (such as SS or even over the pulpit) although they will sometimes speak up in RS.
Comment by marianne — April 12, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Fair or unfair?
By mortal standards of discrimination, of course some elements of the system is unfair. (I thought I said that already.) But, again (I’m feeling a bit like a broken record), to me, what is ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ in Church organization according to feminist standards usually matters little (again, except in the mode of wanting to listen to someone who is struggling or when something within the current system is egregiously out of line). I want to know what is right and true. And the Spirit is the guide for that, not some mortal scale of ‘fair’ or ‘unfair.’ Frankly, I don’t understand why some will insist on using mortal measures to analyze something that has been determined by prophets of God to be right. This is not just another system to be analyzed intellectually. It’s so much more than that.
catherine, I agree with marianne. We as women have the right to speak up and to share our thoughts and ideas, particularly when it comes to our specific stewardships.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
some elements ARE, I mean. ..
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Thanks for the clarification, m&m. I really appreciate it (although I think “some elements” is a way of avoiding assessing the system as a whole). Can I ask a little more? Earlier you said that a system in which women were slaves would not be “of God.” Where is the line, for you, where the treatment of women is so bad that you can’t believe in the system? How badly would women have to be treated before you would consider the system not to be divinely determined? For example, if women lost the right to own property, would that system still receive your support? And without thinking about worldly notions of fair and unfair, how can anyone know if that line has been crossed?
To answer your (rhetorical) question, I think people want to analyze it because they don’t share your view that it has already been determined by prophets of God to be right, or to be the only system that is right (I can’t speak for everyone, of course, but that’s my sense). One reason for thinking that is that it’s seems, to many, very unfair by worldly standards.
Comment by z — April 12, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Where is the line, for you, where the treatment of women is so bad that you can’t believe in the system?
Of course, it is hard to answer this question definitively, but if women were expected to be silent, never participating in anything, told they were useless, never involved, not given any responsibility, not having the opportunity to serve and speak and think…if men were told they could make decisions alone, that there was no need to involve women in any way…you get the picture…then I would have a hard time believing in the system.
And without thinking about worldly notions of fair and unfair, how can anyone know if that line has been crossed?
Of course, some of these notions invariably affect how we look at things, but in the end, with this system, I look to the Spirit to help me figure it out. While I do know that sometimes individual leaders make mistakes (and I am not afraid to speak up if I see something serious, and I have even raised concerns about more minor things before), I think the system itself allows for much participation from women, and I feel we are expected to be partners in the process. Add to that the broader picture (the eternal potential, etc.), and I’m satisfied.
Thanks also for answering my question. I guess my next question is what you expect you can do about it. This isn’t a system that is up for vote or an organizational consultant…ya know?
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Another reason I would find to reject a system is if the purpose of the structure/system was specifically to control women. This isn’t the case in this system. D&C 121 makes that very, very clear. This is a whole different ballgame, so I think it deserves a whole different way of looking at it.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
I have enjoyed the exchange between M&M and Z very much. Also ECS comments were thoughtful. What can we do about it if we don’t like it? Actually a whole lot - I guarantee you that if every woman walked out of church and boycotted it until they got the priesthood - they would get the priesthood within a year or less. However, that is quite unlikely to happen, because we can’t all agree that that is something we really want. However, although we hold no power in the church as yet, we do have the power of a good example, and we do have the power to shape the minds and hearts to some degree of the rising generation. Change is slow - but it does happen. There is sometimes a price to be paid for change - we have seen some women who tried to rectify some things they thought were unfair punished for it. Still their ideas and example percolate around and eventually some things do change. Women pray in sacrament meeting, they give GC talks, Elder Ballard validated some of their concerns in his last talk. I think forums like FMH and Mormon Stories have a lot of influence in making slow, gradual change.
Comment by susan — April 12, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
susan
I agree with you last comment. I really feel that the time is coming when women will be treated fairly in our church. It is a process. The church is always a few steps behind society. I keep toying with the idea of leaving (becoming more inactive that I already am) in my own private boycott of the patriarchy. But I realize I can do more in the church than out of it.
Lisa, I like your comment on feeling the power of God through men’s hands. I too have had that experience and am not doubting the power that was there. In my feminist mind, however, I believe I would have felt the same power if the hands had been a woman’s. I truly don’t believe the patriarchy is part of God’s plan. I believe he allows it, but its up to us to work through it or change it.
Comment by Melissa — April 12, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
if every woman walked out of church and boycotted it until they got the priesthood - they would get the priesthood within a year or less.
I disagree with this.
although we hold no power in the church as yet
And this (!!!). Whoa. That makes me sad to hear a woman say that she thinks she has no power. Whoa. If I felt that way, I would maybe be frustrated, too. Whoa.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
yeah, I mean, what others have said basically sums up what can be done about it. Talk about it, attempt to persuade others that patriarchy is not divine or is too damaging, try to raise children who will be feminists, withhold participation or financial support, or leave altogether, maybe form some splinter religious community. And a lot of people do leave, or investigate and then don’t join, or don’t even want to talk to missionaries because they already know how sexist it all is. Exit, voice, and loyalty (if I may be a nerd for a moment) pretty much sum it up.
In light of your last two comments, m&m, it seems that our views are not so far apart after all. So I don’t really understand your consistent objection to talking about fairness. We’re both concerned about treating women well enough in the here-and-now, and the only way to make sure that happens is to talk about fairness in the present. I don’t know why this so often seems to bother you, when in your last two comments it seems that we’re on the same page. I guess you just think women should settle for/submit to worse treatment than I do?
Comment by z — April 12, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
as I can only speak for myself and could never speak for anyone else or tell their story….
as a women in the church… responsibilities - I have plenty, but AUTHORITY .. i have none. zippo. nada.
sure, you can say.. “well Sister Mary Magdalene… you have authority over your children while they are young.”
I disagree… I have stewardship, but not authority. I have no priesthood, which by default means I have no authority.
it’s as though women in the church slog through the messes we have to clean up (literal and/or figurative) - and while that work is “appreciated” (a pet peeve word since joining the church) - i am still not recognized for the accomplishment.
this wraps into nicely another instance where I experience a desire as hot as the burning of seven suns to gouge my eyeballs out… the patriarchial pomposity (correct sp) to “watch over” RS. like…. the sisters need a babysitter? puhleez - this type of activity feeds the notion that the women of the church really aren’t capable of taking care of themselves, anyone else, and require supervision.
gonna go look for my 52oz from-the-fountain-for-extra-fizz Diet Coke.
make it a good one sisters and brothers
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 12, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I would like to relate a sermon/speech MLK gave, in it he was talking about how he was troubled in his mind about the civil rights protest. After all, he had little children and a wife, but he prayed to God asking “I belive I am right, I think I am right. I think you want me to do this Lord” Dr. King spent his entire live being told he was not an equal. But he listened to that small voice that is God inside him and he knew he was doing the right thing.
Comment by lauren — April 12, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
I don’t know why this so often seems to bother you, when in your last two comments it seems that we’re on the same page. I guess you just think women should settle for/submit to worse treatment than I do?
I think you might be misreading me again. I don’t use ‘fairness’ as the ultimate judge of things, especially within the Church.
Incidentally, my professional background is in organizational change. Give me an organization whose authority is vested in a CEO or a board or other people, with none other authority but that provided by a business license, and I will have at it, big time. The Church is an organization whose authority is divine. I am not coming near that, because I know that I don’t know what is best, and mortal standards and training do not apply. The church is “true and living” and I seek to embrace it with all of my heart and live, because of the blessings I find here.
So, seeing as I completely, totally, wholeheartedly disagree with the approach of trying to change the church in the ways that have been mentioned here, I would say that you and I see things very differently, actually. Put us in a different sphere, and we might not be so different. But, as Lisa said patriarchy makes her head and stomach hurt…well, reading your first paragraph had the same effect on me. Sorry.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
And, Mary, you are actually wrong about authority.
Boyd K. Packer: “[W]hen sisters are set apart to offices, including the office of president in an auxiliary, they receive authority, responsibility, and blessings connected with the office….”
We don’t receive priesthood keys (few men have these at one time anyway), but we can receive authority to perform our callings and minister in our stewardships. !!
We all have access to power through the gift of the Holy Ghost as well. I think sometimes we underestimate the power that IS available to all of us by virtue of the ordinances of the gospel and righteous living.
Comment by m&m — April 12, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
I often wonder why I have it so easy. I’m a woman with rights. That may sound basic–and so it is–but I’m all too aware of how many others did not or do not have the basic privileges I celebrate. My life’s challenges are downright laughable relative to those of the poor and the oppressed.
I chose which religion to join (arguably within the constructs of my culture and upbringing), which God to worship, whether to believe at all, etc. I chose an education in my desired field, a career and, eventually, I chose marriage and motherhood, too. So when I say I often wonder, what I should say is, I constantly wonder, why me?
No answers do it for me. I get downright angry when it’s suggested that my blessings are a result of something I did in a pre-earth existence, or that I’ve been singled out for extra goodies because God loves me that much. Who wouldn’t balk at a Divinity that blesses some and then, for example, lets children be abused, used up and discarded? It hurts to live in a world where that happens. In light of such dichotomies (e.g., my happy life vs. Jane Doe’s miserable one), I have to believe that the mystery doesn’t get solved here. We try to work out our salvation and we try to make a difference in others’ lives, but we’re essentially alone to make it through.
All this is leading up to a statement that may make no sense at all. It’s just where I am right now, relative to the mystery:
Why, when there is so much yet to understand of what it means to be human, man and woman, should we assume that God’s allowance (even dictate) of an earthly patriarchy is the end of the story?
Yes, I know about what is sealed on earth/in heaven, etc., and I know what we promise in the temple. We are taught to expect to carry our current feelings forward after this life. And yet. I don’t get too bothered by overbearing or self-entitled men. For me, a sincere belief in the goodness of God and his real love for me, makes it very possible to believe that I am equal, by any definition, to a man. It makes it basically impossible for me NOT to believe that.
It also makes it much easier to tolerate the dishonors I am occasionally subjected to by, let’s call them “the uninformed,” even when they are in positions of power over me in the Church.
I honor the good guys, the fine patriarchs, the feminists, etc. and to the others I say, we’ll see. We’ll see.
Comment by zacious — April 13, 2008 @ 12:36 am
Zacious has pricked me to write again and share an insight. It’s personal again, and long. I’m sorry about that. My not so wonderful father came late to the vineyard. After one of my brothers committed suicide (coincidentally right when the “obey” words were changed in the temple) my mother began to remonstrate with him about his unrighteous donimion. She rebelled like the teenager she had never been and vowed her younger children would not be treated as her older children had been. Ten hellish years ensued. After 50+ years abusing authority he began to be humbled during the problems of one of my brothers. He began to repent and to become more Christlike. He became actively active in the church, whereas before he only complained he never got any “good” callings. After a few years he was called as a bishop and I wept for the women of his ward and stomped my foot and shook my fist at heaven. But as I visited Utah I saw huge changes in him and heard firsthand from women in his ward how he had championed them in public and in private I wondered who is this man? I submit that though he repented too late make a difference in raising own children he will get his penny in the end. My brothers are still divorced, still in jail, still substance abusing, and/or dead largely because of the way they were raised. It’s a horrible cross he has to bear, knowing things should have been different. After being bishop he and my mother served 3 humanitarian missions and they were able to make quite a difference in the lives of third world women in and out of the church. And I, who resented his return to activity at first, now rejoice in the tender mercies of the Lord.
My husband, who converted as an adult, has never seen “patriarchy” as being the boss. He has always seen it as being the servant of all. Only when all patriarchs know that the authority to act for Christ is really the charge to act like Christ will patriarchy work as it should-I’m guessing that institutionally that won’t be in this mortal sphere, but individually many righteous patriarchs are becoming close to what they should.
Comment by karen — April 13, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Michelle, by definition a divine organization should not privilege one set of humans over another. Until 1978 white men were uniquely privileged, and now, men are uniquely privileged. That the institution church so closely models the world (not the other way around) in terms of power distribution is a strike against it, not in its favor.
You see the patriarchal order as a divine model that has been corrupted by humans. I believe there is ample evidence that it is a human model that has been adopted by organizations, including the institutional church. Which means that it’s not divine in origin, that God has no stake in the matter, and its continuation is no more God’s will than slavery or the priesthood ban was.
Armand Mauss has theorized that the end on the priesthood ban came about as a result of pressures internal to the church, specifically the building of the temple in Brazil. God didn’t wave his magic wand and suddenly, the Ban was Lifted. People at all levels in the church were pursuing a lifting of the ban for well over twenty years before it happened, and all along, there were well meaning status-quo’ers stating that God Had Revealed Through His Prophets that Blacks would NEVER hold the priesthood. It’s like that with patriarchy.
And there is no virtue in holding on to human societal structures and proclaiming them divine, any more than there was any virtue in proclaiming that God Did Not Want Blacks to Have The Priesthood Ever - even though many prophets and apostles had said exactly that.
It’s going to take longer for patriarchy to go away - I think I’ll be dead first - because it is still the way society is structured. The church has no incentive to change; they MIMIC the world where women are concerned.
Comment by Ann — April 13, 2008 @ 7:55 am
I just don’t think that’s true, m&m. Didn’t you just give examples of conditions under which you would consider the church, or parts of it, not divine? From that I infer that you do think a certain level of fairness is essential. I think we’re just drawing the line in different places.
Comment by z — April 13, 2008 @ 8:06 am
My husband, who converted as an adult, has never seen “patriarchy” as being the boss. He has always seen it as being the servant of all. Only when all patriarchs know that the authority to act for Christ is really the charge to act like Christ will patriarchy work as it should-I’m guessing that institutionally that won’t be in this mortal sphere, but individually many righteous patriarchs are becoming close to what they should.
Well said.
z, perhaps then I shouldn’t have said those things. I don’t dismiss fairness altogether, but I simply don’t use it as the most important measure of whether something in the Church is right. It feels to me that you do. Besides, in a sense, my hypotheticals are irrelevant, because those things don’t apply to the Church. Women are valued, involved, given opportunities to serve. Men are encouraged to listen to, serve, involve and respect women. Add to the fact that women and men are offered all that God has….. Even in the Church, a limited part of the eternal scheme of things, the system doesn’t exist with the purpose to control women or to make them somehow second-class.
And I don’t use ‘fairness’ as the ultimate judge of these things. Even if somehow the system were to suddenly change and become drastically different, I would weigh it out with the Spirit first and foremost. I don’t expect life or our roles to be ‘fair’ in mortal measures.
Michelle, by definition a divine organization should not privilege one set of humans over another.
Hm. Where is that definition written?
But just to engage that for a moment, by definition, the plan of God doesn’t privilege one set of humans over another (all have access to the Atonement and all can receive eternal life if they accept the Savior and the ordinances of the gospel). IMO, THAT (the eternal plan) is the “system” (not really a good word to describe it, but for the sake of our discussion) we should be analyzing for ‘fairness’ and privileges available, not the Church as an organization. The Church is not the plan. There is much, much more to God’s fairness than that. Just think, if we used that measuring stick, then mortality as a ’system’ “wouldn’t be divine,” because it is about as unfair as unfair gets! But mortality is a divine PART of an eternally ‘fair’ (perfectly just and perfectly merciful) plan. The Church is also PART of that plan. We cannot analyze these parts in isolation, because they are not designed to be in isolation in God’s perfect plan of mercy and justice. We cannot judge God’s love by looking at these parts, either. His love is eternal, and imo so should our analysis of things be.
I’m now sort of going in circles, back to what I originally started to say. So that’s probably enough.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
z,
I want to clarify once more that in my comments above, I should have made it more clear, I think. I believe the Church is divine, led by inspiration, and that things have a purpose, even if they don’t make sense to our mortal brains or mortal measures. I look first to the prophets and to the Spirit (who has made it clear to me repeatedly that I am to follow the prophets in my life.) If they believe something to be true and right, then I will follow their united voices. I will not first look to my (very limited) understanding of things, but will trust in them. I do this because of the fruit that brings into my life. I believe they are led by God. So, to read my comments to say that I would reject the Church if ___________ (fill in the blank) isn’t really accurate. I have chosen to accept the Church and the prophets; the decision has been made. I will follow the Church and its leaders wherever it goes/they go, however that unfolds, whatever that may mean, because I believe it to be true and living. And I will teach my children to do the same. My perception of fairness is ultimately irrelevant. What matters to me is my commitment to be a committed member of the Church for all of my days, no matter how unpopular the Church’s approach or teachings or structure or anything else may be to mortal measures and ways of thinking.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Really, really really, no matter what, you would accept it and follow? I just have a hard time believing that’s true. Would you, for example, make human sacrifices of your own children, if the leaders insisted that God wanted you to? Allow yourself to be a man’s property and have no legal rights? Whatever other worst-case scenario? Isn’t there some point at which you would conclude that the church had diverged from God’s path?
Comment by z — April 13, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
z, the church is true, and playing those kinds of mental games to me is pointless. It’s just true and I’m here to stay.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
While we’re talking about fair or unfair, I wonder if we only focus on the things “unfair” to women because the church is organized as a patriarchy. One thing that comes to mind is how I didn’t have to be given any sort of priesthood to receive my endowments but men have to hold the melchezidek priesthood to receive theirs. Is that really “fair” or is it because somehow, just by being a women, I already have some sort of priesthood?
Maybe I’m just lucky, but, I’ve never felt that the system was unfair. I view it as I have very specific responsibilities as does my husband and it doesn’t mean that one is greater than the other. There are many times that our roles overlap. For instance, there has been more than one occasion where I was the once to receive inspiration on the direction our family needed to go. Just because my husband is the one who holds the priesthood doesn’t mean that he is solely the one who receives inspiration.
Anyway, just throwing that out there.
Comment by S — April 13, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Sigh. It’s not a mental game, m&m, it’s a method of argument designed to help elucidate your position. I’m not trying to convince you to leave, I’m just trying to figure out what your view actually is. So are you saying you’d be willing to tolerate things like the ones I just listed, sacrificing your own children and such, even if you personally thought it wasn’t a divine mandate, as long as the leaders thought it was? Or would you be unwilling, and instead conclude that the leaders had made a mistake?
S, I think you make a great point about attention to men’s issues. My question to you is: how can we distinguish “different and fair” from “different and unfair”?
Comment by z — April 13, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
z-
I honestly don’t know. I think the problem is that one organization (the church) will never be able to to make it “fair” for each individual. There are too many different situations and, being a worldwide church, there are too many different cultural beliefs. That’s why I have to put my faith in an omnipotent God who can make it fair and just for each individual because it’s just not going to happen in mortality.
I’ve never felt like I was a victim of unrighteous dominion but that doesn’t mean I’m not aware that it exists and is a big problem. In my life I feel like it’s been “different and fair” but that’s not the case for everyone. Have you ever noticed how often men get chastised in general conference? I think our leaders try their best to make it fair and good for everyone but they cannot control other people’s actions.
Comment by S — April 13, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Yeah, I don’t have a well-thought-out answer either, so I really appreciate your willingness to say you don’t know. It bothers me so much when people say that different can still be fair, but don’t think they should have to provide reasons why the particular difference they are supporting is fair. They’re really just attacking a strawfeminist, because almost nobody is arguing for no different treatment of men and women whatsoever.
Comment by z — April 13, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
umm… i think when the preisthood is chastised… it’s often done in the Saturday night priesthood meeting of general conference behind closed doors and not in a general session of conference as part of the worldwide meeting of all members.
this of course leaves the sisters out of the loop.
we’ll have to agree to disagree m&m.
make it a great week sisters and brothers.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 13, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
I always read the talks from the priesthood session when the conference Ensign comes out. I also have to read the RS talks because I’ve never been able to remember that it’s the Saturday before.
Comment by S — April 13, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
z,
I understand where you are headed, but I simply cannot answer questions in the hypothetical such as you pose because a) I doubt they would ever happen and b) I can’t receive revelation for a hypothetical. I believe I have answered your question repeatedly by saying that I seek the Spirit’s guidance in my life. And that, for me, is always tied to following the prophets. The Spirit has confirmed to me time and time again that this is the path I should follow, and that I can trust them even when others think they can’t. If God has already made that clear, I don’t feel I need to revisit that question every time the prophets teach something. I understand you likely have a different approach. That is what agency is all about, no?
I want to make clear, though, that that is not to say that I don’t think, ponder, study, and continually seek the Spirit’s specific guidance in my life. What you hear from me here is after years and years of pondering, studying, and seeking to live according to the patterns, the ’system’ we are taught. I feel that as I have done all of these things, I have come to understand and accept it all even more. But this isn’t just me regurgitating what the prophets teach. What I share is what I truly believe and has come with much effort and seeking personal revelation on the issues.
It bothers me so much when people say that different can still be fair, but don’t think they should have to provide reasons why the particular difference they are supporting is fair.
If you are speaking about me, I have tried repeatedly to explain why I think different is fair in this regard. God is just and merciful and that comes in eternal ways, not in mortal ways. In my mind, it’s that simple. I understand you don’t like that explanation, but you can’t say I don’t give an explanation.
I think the problem is that one organization (the church) will never be able to to make it “fair” for each individual.
For fun, I looked up ‘fair’ in the scriptures today. Guess what? This concept of fair that has been used here doesn’t show up in scripture (minus one time in the BoM when talking about meeting upon ‘fair grounds’ in war). Call me hasty, but that just strengthens my feeling that ‘fair’ is a mortal construct, not a godly one. God is just and merciful and acts with equity, but His thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways. I believe this is an example of that principle.
we’ll have to agree to disagree m&m.
Yup.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
m&m,
relax. it’s sunday and this is such a heavy topic. save it for the week.
come and share you housekeeping tips with us.
Comment by mfranti — April 13, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
“For fun, I looked up ‘fair’ in the scriptures today. Guess what? This concept of fair that has been used here doesn’t show up in scripture.”
Fair means to be just. How often do the scriptures mention justice. I don’t know I haven’t looked it up.
Difference doesn’t mean inferiority. Different simply means different. The idea that equal means identical is a false notion. That would bring about even more injustice than at present. A short student sitting in class where a discussion of equality and justice was taking place pointed out that because of her shorty statute requiring her to sit at a desk designed for the average student did not afford her an equal opportunity to learn. If all the desks are one size fits all she would be uncomfortable because her feet wouldn’t reach the floor.
Just for the record m&m I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything you have said. But I think the organization of the church is concerned with justice for each individual, it just might not be possible for it to be reached in this life. Sometimes when things come up that we don’t understand, the best response is, “Let the Lord judge between me and thee.” Then we have to move on. Ruminating on the injustices we are aware of or that we perceive to have been heaped upon our heads does not bring about justice it only brings about misery.
Life is a test. It is a test for every single person living on this earth and because it is a test we don’t see everything or understand everything so we have to exercise a little faith that in Gods time we will understand.
In the meantime all we can do is work with the system that we have and do our best. We do not know enough from our vantage point to have enough facts to judge the wisdom or justice of much of anything.
Comment by Claudia — April 13, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I actually wasn’t referring to you at all– I know you are making an effort and I appreciate it. It’s just a habit I observe here and there. Would that all “patriarchy apologists” made as much of a good-faith effort as you do.
However, I think you did answer my question, by implication. When you say you can’t answer a hypothetical because you can’t get a revelation to answer it, does that mean you’d disobey the prophets if you received a revelation to do so? If you would always obey them, regardless of any revelation, then you wouldn’t need a revelation to answer the question, I think. So that leads me to conclude that you wouldn’t necessarily do something you thought was terrible just because the prophets said to; instead you would do as the Spirit directed. Do I have it right?
But hey, you know, it is a day of rest, so no pressure to respond at all. Have a nice night.
Comment by z — April 13, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
This whole argument really illuminates one of my biggest problems with the whole idea of feminism. Why is the “ideal” still to have what men have or are; instead of celebrating what women are or have. It sometimes seems to me that by demanding “fairness” rather than true respect (not some blathering sentimentality about women on a pedestal) we feed into the whole idea that the male is the ultimate ideal rather than than the symbiotic relationship between the male and the female. I just don’t believe that there is any problem with the doctrine at all. Yes, there are cases when men use unrighteous dominion but I’ve had the same experience with
women. Neither gender has the corner on that. I am far more interested in raising children that appreciate men and women for their differences as well as their similarites and teaching them that only together is either one complete. Two sides of the same coin but imprinted differently.
Am I being blasphemous?
Comment by christine — April 13, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
84
*Stands up and applauds* **Loudly.**
Wish I could be so succinct. I’m sure you all do, too.
That, my friends, sums it up beautifully.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Karen,
I just want to thank you for your comment and shared experience. I’ve thought about it througout the day and marveled at the changes I too have witnessed in people close to me, ironically when I haven’t held out much hope that change was possible. Your example is one of many, I suspect, where love and commitment led to real progress beyond expectations.
It’s sometimes disheartening to take on these giant subjects and hope to get any closer to a personal peace, much less a solution, and it makes a difference to hear what is possible, even when the changes seem slow and hard-won.
Comment by zacious — April 13, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
fmhLisa -
Thank you for voicing the dilemma that I have felt since my earliest days and could never sort out. I wasn’t raised LDS and am not one today. Friends of mine steered me to this blog and I couldn’t figure out why the words of all the women who post have so touched me.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church and would look around me from my earliest days at all the leaders and only saw men’s faces - only men could be pastors or deacons. Only men could lay hands on us for healing or the gift of the Holy Spirit. True, women held the church and the community we were together with prayers, casseroles, hugs, baby showers and visitations. They staffed the nursery, taught Sunday School and played and sang the music. But they could never be recognized by God or the church as spiritual leaders, only spiritual followers.
And as much as I felt oppressed by the doctrines, I loved each of these people as individuals and a community.
I couldn’t believe, though, and so I walked away when I got to the age to be able to do so. And what I learned in the ensuing years, is that humans are not designed to exist alone - we are not complete unless we are a part of the Body of Christ (at least that’s how we said it in my little home town church).
I’m now a part of a small faith community again - a Quaker community - and feel contented with where I am.
But maybe it would have been the better part of valor to stay and struggle and love within the community of my childhood and to accept that tension exists no matter where we are. Hard to say.
Thank you for reminding me that tensions exist in all paths and that the process of wrestling with them (as Jacob did with the angel) is the stuff of life, no matter where we’re living it.
I hope I don’t offend by sharing my non-LDS experience, but your post illustrated for me the commonalities in the experience of women - at least yours and mine - and inspired me to share.
Comment by Jane in MO — April 13, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
#84 - At some point, that can be a major cop-out.
How can you respect someone who has less authority than you? How can I expect a male priesthood holder to respect me in any true, meaningful way, when I am answerable and accountable to him? He can “respect” my boundaries; he can “respect” my limited authority in the role I am given; but in a larger sense he will not respect me because he will always have greater authority than me.
I was reminded of the problem of patriarchy in the church today when I read this:
Just as Orthodox Jewish women have to worship seperately - and not participate in many aspects of their worship, which are preserved solely for men - so, too, do LDS women. We, too, have to look for that “compensatory ethos of liberation in confinement.” But confinement is never liberation.
It is the mental, academic equivalent of the Muslim idea of “purdah”, where women are physically kept separate, hidden away behind veils and high walls, in the name of purity (their own, their menfolks, society’s). When women in purdah complain, they are told they are unrighteous, and should feel priveleged to be spared the more worldly tasks. When women in LDS circles complained, we are told something eerily similar. But it is never unrighteous to want to serve more deeply and more fully. How can it be?
Comment by Quimby — April 13, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
#88…
by “less” authority do you mean less specifically-assigned authority? If you do, I would have to agree. Men have far more assigned authority in the church than women do. In a way, I am glad because I see my husband going to meetings all morning and it sucks.
As far as authority, period, is concerned, I feel the burden is shared equally. Women’s authority just is not assigned… it’s implied. I don’t know whether I want women to have more assigned authority, or men to have less assigned authority and more implied authority. Probably the second one if I had to choose… I already despise things like visiting teaching.
Presiding to me has always been Just Another Role, like the president, vice president, secretary and treasurer of any club. These are not assigned based on who deserves more authority, but on the basis of individuals’ talents and traits. So I don’t think of “presiding” (in the sense talked about in the proclamation, or in the sense of preisthood leaders presiding in a home) as “more authority,” just “different authority.” Of course one could make the argument that “separate is not equal,” and I would agree… in an imperfect society separate is never equal. Whichever group is more powerless (in this case, women) will be overridden and abused. But I’m not sure this means that women and men should be given the same roles… I know there are those out there who say women and men are the same except for the way they are socialized, but I believe men and women are inherrently, spiritually, biologically different.
Sorry so long. I’m sort of thinking as I’m writing here. I guess what I’m trying to say is, the idea of the separate roles of men and women in the church isn’t flawed, it’s the way that men and women assume these roles, and the way that some roles are treated as less important than others, that is flawed. For instance, I’m very angry that there is no place for moms to nurse their babies in the conference center. I’m mad that Bishops sometimes do not listen to Relief Society presidents when they go about planning welfare and intervention in the ward. I’m sad that women no longer bless and heal the sick as they once did, and that a man gets off more lightly than a women in church discipline.
To quote elder oaks, “nobody should lose their faith in the power of electricity because of their experience with a faulty kitchen appliance.”
People aren’t perfect. As long as they aren’t, someone’s going to be treated unfairly, and it’s usually the less powerful someone.
Comment by sare — April 13, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
But by automatically eliminating at least half of the population based on nothing more substantial than gender, what is the guarantee that you’re getting the most qualified person for the job? Because surely you don’t think that a man is automatically more qualified for leadership, simply because he’s a he?
Comment by Quimby — April 13, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Quimby,
Please don’t call what I feel and think a copout. It’s real and true and good to me.
How can you respect someone who has less authority than you?
When you understand that God expects you to love as He does. Men who have the priesthood also are supposed to realize that their authority is not theirs at all.
Besides, God has more authority than us all, and yet…. How can you love your enemies? How can you be perfect? How can you not practice unrighteous dominion (priesthood holder or no)? How can you love your neighbor as yourself? How….(the list of impossible things we are asked to do by God could go on)?? –All with God’s help and grace. That’s what priesthood, service, patriarchy, charity, parenthood, presiding, sacrifice…that’s what God’s system is all about — tapping into and reflecting God’s power, and accessing the power of the Atonement to change our natures and help us become more like the Savior. And we all have access to that power and grace. You don’t need priesthood to serve, to become, to love, to sacrifice. We as women have access to all the ordinances of salvation, the ordinances that tap us into God’s power, that can enable us to become like the Savior. What more do we really need if we have all that we need to become like Him?
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
Marianne and m&m — I think when I have to go before those older men and plead a case or ask for something, I feel like I am back in front of my authoritarian father. Maybe that’s where a lot of the fear comes from. I am waiting to be told “no” and feel that impotent anger and disappointment. I know you are correct, that women have the right to be heard. I guess I’m enough of a “control freak” in the rest of my life that it bothers me that I haven’t got control enough in this area. Enough control to make a difference, to make decisions, in things I really care about concerning the church.
Comment by Catherine — April 13, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Catherine, my heart hurts to hear what brings you fear. I hope you find your experience with leaders in your sphere to be positive, and perhaps help you find some healing. I think Elder Scott’s talk could apply, too, maybe?
It also helps me to remember in the end that God is really in control, of it all. His justice and mercy is sufficient.
Hugs to you.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Link to Elder Scott, in case someone reading doesn’t know how/where to find it…an amazing talk on finding healing from abuse (he focused on sexual abuse, but said that it could apply to any form).
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
z, I never answered your question. Elder Scott’s words sum it up for me.:
“I bear solemn witness of how deeply I love our new prophet, seer, and revelator, President Thomas S. Monson—how deeply I trust him, and how I am willing to do whatever he asks me to do. ”
I don’t believe they will ever ask me to do something terrible (so your hypothetical is basically an impossibility in my mind), and I believe they will never lead us astray as a church, so I just trust and follow them…and ponder and study and seek to live what they teach (the trust I have comes from doing that for nearly three decades and the wonderful fruits that approach brings).
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Incidentally, I think Elder Scott’s talk gets to how we can deal with abuses of authority, and I think that can apply to concerns that are expressed here.
Sorry for the string of comments…just rereading the talk, so it spurred thoughts here.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
m&m, I said it *can* be a cop-out, not that it is all the time. I know that you sincerely believe it is true. But the same thing you believe is true, can be used as a beating rod for those of us who struggle to believe it.
Comment by Quimby — April 13, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
But the same thing you believe is true, can be used as a beating rod for those of us who struggle to believe it.
It is not intended to be such, and I am sensitive to this reality (believe it or not). I hope that knowing that it’s not my intent to cause pain can mean something in the midst of discussions like this. Hugs to you.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
There is a tremendous difference between the LDS doctrine of patriarchy and repressive societies! I have a college education, a business, 5 kids, plenty of church obligations and enough opinions to challenge almost any of the bloggers here. No one can tell me I’m being repressed!
I had a personal epiphany a few years ago while contemplating some of these questions. Nothing is universal but for me it opened my eyes and heart.
I love my husband, he is good and kind and gets distracted very easily. He would find it far easier to work 70 hours a week and let someone else help me at home and let someone else take the deacons on winter-campouts. There are a whole lot of things he’d rather do than get up at 7 am for a priesthood leadership meeting or sit in front of a bishop ( a high priest, while he is “only” an elder) to confess any serious sin. Yet he does, has, will. Why? because he believes in the priesthood and patriarchy. His role as a priesthood holder is not to rule but to serve. He doesn’t seek “high” callings. Do you believe that a bishop doesn’t respect the men in his congregation simply because they have “less authority?”
Me? I’m good and kind and easily distracted. However, it occurs to me that my distraction is in taking care of myself. -Warning- generalization coming up. In general, men have a harder time serving others. In general, women have a harder time asking for help or not subsuming themselves in the needs of others (often at the expense of themselves or their own families) Therefore, the Lord has provided a way for both to be strengthened. AND has made it perfectly clear that neither is enough by themselves.
Also- to #92. There is no doubt it is hard to get away from our “Father Images.” I have found over and over again that our relationship with Father in Heaven is colored (for good or evil) by our relationships with our own dads. All the more reason to study and pray about patriarchy in the Lord’s church- not residual childhood angst (as real as it is!) It isn’t easy. But… if it is true it is true. Something each of us has to work out within ourselves.
Comment by christine — April 13, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
p.s. I wanted to add that I am struggling to figure out how, when, where, how much, and even if to comment on threads like this. FWIW, on this particular thread, I persisted in part because z and I have a sort of history with discussing this topic, and we have usually reached a point where z gets frustrated and loses any hope of being able to communicate with me. I hoped to be able to communicate enough to get past that (z, I hope you feel we made some progress here).
And also, I have been sick, hardly slept last nite as a result (fell asleep after the sun came up…yes, I’m feeling the need for pity). On days when I don’t feel good, I tend to mull, study, and comment more. So if you ever find yourself with m&m fatigue, a charitable way to get me out of your way is to pray that I will feel better.
Anyway, seriously, I really don’t want to be as vocal as I have been here. At some point, I realize that it gets old, and I’m sorry if my comments have gotten to that point. As christine said, it’s something we each have to work out, and I don’t ever want to hinder that process for someone else by saying too much and just being another force that fuels frustration.
Comment by m&m — April 13, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
Can’t. Resist.
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Comment by fMhLisa — April 14, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Brilliant, Lisa! Oh, such fond memories….
One of my profs showed that very clip in a literary theory class several years ago when we were discussing Marxism. In my highly irreverent opinion Monty Python is definitely a better way to imbibe Marxist theory than, say, from the brain-searing, logically tortured writings of actual Marxist literary critics.
My congenitally sacreligious mind is itching to invent farcical aquatic ceremonies to undergird Mormon patriarchy…but nope, not even going there. Not on a Sunday anyway.
Comment by Eve — April 14, 2008 @ 12:53 am
m&m, I do feel that we’ve made some progress, but you still haven’t answered my question about doing whatever terrible things. You just say you think it won’t come to that, but what if it did? Not that it’s even particularly relevant to the post, but I’m just trying to get you to see that you too, at some level, apply your own notions of fairness or acceptable behavior, so we’re not really different after all.
If you really would obey them no matter what, why not say so? I don’t see what’s so complicated about this.
Comment by z — April 14, 2008 @ 7:58 am
But “authority” in the church is not the same as power in the worldly sense. Priesthood authority is merely a conduit through which divine power can flow. It is a tool for serving others, not a means of gaining power for oneself.
When my husband was called as bishop, the stake president made it clear that my husband only served at my discretion. If the calling was interfering with family time or his ability to provide, I was to speak up. To reinforce that and provide an opportunity, my temple recommend interviews had to be with the stake president himself, not a counselor, which is his policy for all bishop’s and high councilor’s wives.
So I always felt like I had power over my husband, even though he had authority over the ward.
Comment by Naismith — April 14, 2008 @ 8:02 am
Quimby,
I think it’s more the idea of eternal roles. And I don’t think that, without exception, men should always preside. I think sometimes women should preside. I just think that, generally speaking, men aren’t so good at the running of things, they’re better at the presiding of things, and vice versa. I know this is an egregious generalization, but I know no other way to describe what I’m trying to say. I don’t think it’s true 100 percent of the time, but I do think It’s true a lot. My own limited observation is what guides me, of course.
Comment by sare — April 14, 2008 @ 8:07 am
oh… and how I internalize the seeming contradiction between my two posts (men and women shouldn’t necessarily trade roles, but women should sometimes preside)
I think women’s presiding in some situations is an implied authority, like I was talking about before. Ward welfare meeting, for instance… the bishop is the patriarch of that meeting, but I think it should be implied that the RS has the largest body of knowledge and their ideas should be given the most time and credence. Therefore they have the “implied authority…” they actually implement most of the relief-based programs anyway. In some wards it is, in some wards it isn’t She has more knowledge than any other person in the room (usually) as to the needs of families. Unfortunately some bishops just go off on their own and do what they think is best without listening to anyone or allowing anyone else the assignments they ought to be getting. I’m thinking of a couple of specific situations as I write this and I am starting to feel mad again.
Comment by sare — April 14, 2008 @ 8:13 am
The priesthood represents power to not power over. That is the power to serve, not the power to order people around and decide what they can or cannot do. But, there has to be some order. There has to be someone who has a broader view and can see the needs of the group.
If you think a Bishop is exercising unrighteous dominions don’t sustain him. Raise your hand in opposition. You have every right to do that. If you know that he is guilty of serious sin you are obligated to. That is what common consent means.
If you don’t want to do that then I suspect a person could come up with some other way to deal with a situation that might be better for all parties. While the Bishop’s or any priesthood holder’s authority comes from above his leadership only comes from below, meaning that the good will and cooperation of the congregation give him the authority that makes the Ward pull together and function harmoniously. We are not powerless.
#101 Thanks Lisa. I needed that.
Comment by Claudia — April 14, 2008 @ 9:26 am
I haven’t read all the comments because there are just too many and I really should go shower. If this ahs been covered, sorry.
I just taught a YW lesson on “The Blessings of the Priesthood” and along with the lesson manual, Elder Oaks talk from 2005 was recommended. It is about the differences between patriarchal priesthood and heirarchal priesthood. It helped me understand the differences and needs for both and also how they worked together. I, of course, taught the lesson a little differently from the manual, so we discussed Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-42, which lists the virtues those who hold the priesthood should exemplify (actually that everyone should exemplify). These virtues *should* be exemplified by both the church organization, or heirachal priesthood, and the patriarchal order, or priesthood *and* partnership of the family. We also discussed the oath and covenant of the priesthood in section 84 and emphasized vs 35-38 where it reads ALL they who receive this priesthood receives the Lord. I believe this means everyone, male or female who receives or accepts the priesthood, accepts the Lord and the way he organizes, and then follows more blessings.
Now, I realize this is probably a simplistic view and for the YW that I am resposible for, is probably appropriate. As I have grown and wondered about the way the Lord has organzied the church and the family, there seem to be inequalities. Yet, at this time in my life, as I think about separating heirarchal and patriarchal organizations, I can also separate the unjustness (word?) that I may feel regarding the priesthood. Add that to the knowledge that priesthood holders are imperfect people, just like me, who are trying to grapple with questions, answers and power and I feel like I should be a little more forgiving. They are trying to magnify their callings the best they know how (I like to give the benefit of the doubt, I know there are specific cases of abuse of power). It is much too judgemental of me to magnify the things that they don’t do or the mistakes they may make for one reason or another.
Comment by Nutty — April 14, 2008 @ 10:03 am
re:88
Quimby, I’m with you. I’m always a bit cautious about those sorts of arguments. Many people sincerely believe that line of thinking. But I can’t help think of how often those arguments are abused to justify repression (for me, fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christian–and LDS–offshoots comes to mind).
Comment by Derek — April 14, 2008 @ 10:10 am
…spamalot!!!
Comment by mfranti — April 14, 2008 @ 10:20 am
#101
Glad.You.Didn’t.
Bwahahahahah! I haven’t watched that movie since college!
Comment by christine — April 14, 2008 @ 10:53 am
# 89 - sare
Just curious, how is church discipline different for men and women. I’m not questioning the truthfullness of your statement, just wondering what makes you say this. –Is it really so?
Comment by nb — April 14, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Linda Fielding Anderson:
“An important area that needs more study is the patterns of vulnerability in the Church. Are Mormon women more vulnerable to ecclesiastical and spiritual abuse because they are women or because they are not leaders? Are men in the Church perceived more frequently as domineering and insensitive because they are men or because they usually hold leadership positions and ultimately always hold higher leadership positions than women? Is ecclesiastical abuse primarily a gender issue, a power issue, or both?
“The official Church response to complaints from women about their status is usually two-pronged: General Authorities speak in the women’s general meetings and in general conference to assure women that they are respected and admired and to remind leaders to consult them on ward decisions. Both prongs still leave women without a voice in solving the underlying problem. First, women have no channel by which to respond to the “we admire you” messages. They have no way of saying whether these messages in fact make them feel admired or whether these messages even address what women themselves perceive as the problem. Second, telling male leaders to consult women more often still leaves the male leaders in charge of setting the boundaries and controlling the time, the place, and the degree of the consultation, not to mention whether the women participants feel that their input is valued, respected, and followed. It also provides no channel for women who have suggestions, complaints, or insights but who are not members of the ward council.
“And obviously, the solution to this problem cannot simply be to train leaders to be more benign and sensitive, desirable though this goal is. Even if leaders were “perfect,” the appropriate role for women in such a system would still be passivity. (This description also applies to children and to men without leadership callings, of course.) The current system is terribly out of balance: leaders have too much power; women have too little. Abuses are inevitable. If sensitivity and inclusivity training are in order for leaders in the Church, assertiveness training is in order for members. “
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
z,
I think I answered your question sufficiently in 95. And given what I have seen in your comments, I don’t think we approach things in the same way at all.
And I wonder how you think Nephi or Abraham or Brigham Young (re: polygamy) would have answered your question before they were faced with the difficult choices they had to make — to either do something they thought was ‘terrible’ or to do what they used to think was right — or what was right in basically any other situation.
I don’t think your question is as straightforward as you want it to be.
Comment by m&m — April 14, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
No, m&m, you didn’t answer in #95. You just said it would never happen. I’m asking you, what if it did?
I realize it’s not such a simple concept, and I don’t think anyone can conclusively say what one would do if confronted with such a troubling spiritual experience. But I’m just trying to get you to see that we’re all trying to do what we think is right. Obviously you’re not presently experiencing this type of deep spiritual conflict regarding these issues, but I think that’s where many women are with priesthood/patriarchy, being asked to be complicit in something they think is deeply wrong and personally painful, so much so that its rightfulness is called into question. So I posed the hypothetical to help you envision yourself in that situation, and I suggest that you, too, would do what you thought was right even if it meant not following the prophets. If that’s true, we’re not so different: we both would do what we as individuals thought was right if something sufficiently important were at stake.
If that’s not true, if you really would, or at least would feel that you ought to, sacrifice your own child or whatever even if you thought it wasn’t divinely mandated, because the prophets told you to, why not just say so? Are there really no circumstances under which you would conclude that they had made a mistake?
Comment by z — April 14, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
m&m, thank you for the link and for your kind words.
christine — I think you are bang, right on it. Thanks.
Comment by Catherine — April 14, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
So I posed the hypothetical to help you envision yourself in that situation, and I suggest that you, too, would do what you thought was right even if it meant not following the prophets.
I appreciate the perspective you are trying to bring to this issue, and realize that there is real pain here for some people. And I don’t want to minimize that at all.
However, the extremes you have presented are a bit unfair to me and compare struggling with a philosophical belief to killing my child. That isn’t really fair.
So tone it down a bit so that I’m not killing one of my children, and I will answer that yes, I will follow them, no matter what, even if it hurts, even if it means giving up something that means a lot to me, particularly a view of things or my understanding.
I just didn’t want to answer your hypothetical because such an extreme could be used against me and I don’t really need that. I have been accused already of blind following, and that simply shows a lack of understanding of what it means to follow in faith. But at some point, I can’t explain it well enough to explain what following in faith means and how I have such confidence in the prophets.
In short, because I know — I know — they will not ask something that isn’t right, I can say that I will always follow them. That’s part of what faith and following the Savior means to me — THEY define in large measure what following Him means for me. And trusting in them means knowing that they will always lead me aright.
My view of right and wrong is informed by what the prophets teach. I believe Elder Eyring who says that whenever we choose not to follow them, the ground upon which we stand becomes more dangerous. I know it’s not always easy, and I know it won’t always be easy. But I don’t expect it to be easy. If doing what was right was always what came naturally, imo, we wouldn’t need prophets, imo. They are called watchmen on the tower for a reason — they know and understand things that we don’t. I believe following them is part of the test of faith in the gospel. I will sacrifice my view, my natural inclinations, my limited understanding (because we are mortal, our understanding is limited by definition) of what is right and wrong to follow them. In the end, you can’t separate out my belief of what is right and wrong from what the prophets teach. They are intertwined.
Comment by m&m — April 14, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
#114 & #115, oh I’m so glad you both made it this far.
I know it is rude to interrupt, but I’d like to chime in on the whole “what would you do if?” question. If we take Nephi, Abraham, or Brigham Young as our guides, we have to accept a kind of spiritual relativism that I think most of us find abhorrent. These men are the champions of situational ethics. Ends justify means and *poof* its ok to whore you wife to Pharaoh and murder is no longer off the table. But that is a really dangerous road to go down, especially when the only burden of proof is the guidance of the spirit (or a patriarch), and too many of us will go to our graves still incapable of hearing the spirit perfectly (patriarchs included). There are times when our ability to be led by the spirit and guided fails so miserably, so disastrously with consequences so permanent that we would do well to weigh those feelings against reason and ethics.
There is too much room for error, both on my part and on any person’s part, for me to completely trust my own spiritual receptivity or that of any other person. There have been failures enough in modern and ancient times.
Anyway, I have enjoyed (!) reading the comments on this thread because:
1. I am one of those who thinks patriarchy = a wicked tradition of our fathers.
2. I know this sets me at odds with the church.
3. I think I’m right anyway. Which means I think the church is wrong. About this. Period.
Comment by mary ann — April 14, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Well, of course I understand that your views are influenced by your religious life. And everything you say here makes perfect sense. Nobody is arguing that this is easy, in fact, not having a source of moral authority is also very difficult for many people.
It didn’t have to be an example about killing one of your children, but I did need to choose something rather extreme to make my point, because I feel that you want to say you’d always obey, but don’t want to follow through the implications of that commitment. If you need the example to be “toned down,” then I do think it is true that you, like so many other women, do bring in some external ideas about right and wrong, and wouldn’t always obey, in any conceivable circumstance. I understand that you can say you’d always obey because you trust them, but the question is, what if they asked for something you had trusted them not to ask?
I also intentionally chose an example that involved harming one’s children, because many women believe that patriarchy is harmful to their children, and yet are asked to expose their children to it and instill in them a duty of obedience to it or perpetration of it, repeating the generational cycle. For some women, the patriarchy isn’t just about personal pain, it’s about being told to be complicit in something that feels like harming another person, especially one’s daughter.
Are there any examples of harms to others that you would be willing to inflict, against your personal moral judgments, if the prophets directed? I realize this isn’t pleasant to contemplate or publicly admit, but if you’re saying you would always obey, it begs the question, does it not?
Comment by z — April 14, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
#112,
it’s not church policy, and not even officially true, just in my experience, women tend to get more harshly punished for adultery/fornication type infractions than men are. And husbands tend to get more sympathy from bishops than wives, in counseling sessions and the like. (This from my direct personal experience… and under particularly egregious circumstances, ie it clearly was NOT in any way my fault what happened.)
To all the others who have replied to the assigned authority vs implied authority thing. I respect your opinion and can see how it makes sense to think that way.
Comment by sare — April 14, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
This really goes back to the cradle of religion. Abraham is the father of nations, at least 3 major world religions. He WAS asked to sacrifice his son. According to Christianity, The Father Himself was asked to sacrifice His Son. I don’t think that begging the question of hurting your own children is helpful to the discussion. The core of our religion is allowing a Son to be hurt for the greater good. It seems that the problem with patriarchy is a problem with God Himself or with his character as has been revealed or with Christianity- not simply the LDS faith. That is a much deeper struggle than simply a difference of opinion.
Just to turn the picture around, can any of us imagine the men in our lives complaining about all the jobs they have to do that they don’t get any credit for? It sure would be easy to complain about all this patriarchy crap- “I have to preside over the family instead of watching football, I have to go to Priesthood on Saturday Night and listen to another lecture on (whiny voice) “how to serve my family.and be a better home-teacher” I don’t think it is a walk in the park for them either- yet God has commanded it. Does anyone want a man who won’t cowboy up for the good of his family, his children and his community? Actually, a lot of us have settled for it and we have a HUGE problem in this country with fatherlessness and its attendant ills. Would that some of the deadbeat dads had an internal compass and covenant that they were honorbound to keep no matter what temptations got in the way.
Of course, some men fail. Some women fail and yet the Atonement is still there. That son-hurting father who calls upon his sons and daughters to obey him so that He can give them everthing He has. Call it a cop-out as much as you want but I believe that I have a literal Father in Heaven who loves me and knows what is best for me and the world-even if I don’t understand it.
Patriarchy in the Lord’s church (In my opinion, testimony, whatever The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is not the same, corrupted, evil system that kills souls and exalts men over women. It is the system the Lord has given us to learn from now. I’m not trying to beat anyone with a stick but I think it comes down to faith in a loving Heavenly Father. This can be hard (as we’ve already discussed) if we don’t have a great example in our earthly fathers or father figures but we are strong.capable.women. who can do hard things and flourish.
Comment by christine — April 14, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
Thanks sare,
That has been my experience too. When I was a youth I got disfellowed for 5 months for kissing/light petting, on top of that the Bishop told me I wouldn’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I died right then. A few years later, a young man in our ward got caught having sex with his girlfriend in the high school gym, and was back passing the sacrament 3 months later. Granted, this was under different bishops.
Comment by nb — April 15, 2008 @ 12:32 am
z,
I have told you how I feel. We all have to exercise our agency as we see fit. I choose to follow the prophets. And if people feel I’m harming my children in doing so, or whatever, they are free to have their opinion. Obviously, what is right and wrong ends up being something we each have to determine, and we will each take different things as our foundations to do that. That’s a key part of life.
I do need to add one thing, though, just for anyone else who is reading, because I want this to be clear. When I talk of following the prophets, I’m not talking about one isolated comment here or there. I’m talking united, repeated counsel. FWIW. I spend much time reading and pondering and watching for patterns, and that is what influences me the most. I’m not going to go sacrifice a child for one person’s isolated thought or opinion.
But that is a really dangerous road to go down, especially when the only burden of proof is the guidance of the spirit (or a patriarch), and too many of us will go to our graves still incapable of hearing the spirit perfectly (patriarchs included).
This is a good point, and part of the challenge of the approach I take, I realize. But then, of course, there is risk in your approach as well. You bear the weight of the burden of proof for your reasoning and position as well. Relying on one’s internal sense of right and wrong (or on feminist philosophy or whatever else you may base your position on) is no less prone to error than seeking to rely on the Spirit (and, imo, is a lot more error prone than following several authorized servants called to be watchmen coming together on the same conclusion — which is why I choose the prophetic route - the law of authorized witnesses in my mind is a huge protection from error - and why I talk of watching for repeated counsel in my approach). For me, following prophets is like spiritual life insurance.
In the end, we all take risks by exercising agency and that is what we are here to do — to learn by our own experience what is right and wrong, and then to leave the consequences to God’s perfect justice and mercy. And hope we chose…wisely (channeling Indiana Jones there to lighten things up a bit)….
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 12:38 am
That has been my experience too.
And yet there are experiences in the other direction. I know a young woman who was unable to take the sacrament for three years for breaking the law of chastity.
Anecdotes don’t prove a thing, folks, except that there IS variation in how things are handled.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 1:50 am
Christine (#121) said:
Actually, a lot of us have settled for it and we have a HUGE problem in this country with fatherlessness and its attendant ills.
Hi, Christine - my name’s Christine too
- I don’t disagree with the last part of this statement, but don’t you think this is blaming the victim? I think it’s easy to look at a woman in some situation we would find intolerable and say, “I’d never put up with that,” when really, we don’t know what in the hell we would do, because we’ve never been forced to choose.
My dh for a long time wouldn’t get a “regular” job, opting for sporadic handyman work (he was diagnosed with clinical depression and we were dealing with that) and I went to work as a secretary to pay the electric bill and everything else. My RS president told me I shouldn’t get a job. I don’t know, I like electricity, ya know? I wasn’t happy about working, but it’s not terrible, either: my kids are all in school, it gives me money so I can justify going to college. I do wonder what would have happened if I hadn’t, but now, three years later, we’re both working “regular” jobs and he’s working on the side, too. That RS president never has worked outside the home and I felt was just too quick to judge.
Comment by TAG — April 15, 2008 @ 6:02 am
m&m in your 123 you said (I’ve paraphrased):
Relying on one’s internal sense of right and wrong . . . is a lot more error prone than following several authorized servants called to be watchmen coming together on the same conclusion
Your statement was prefaced by the assertion that repetition of counsel was a key to establishing truth. This is sort of like establishing the truth of a principle by popular vote, and if you find enough “authorized watchmen” all saying the same thing then it must be true. But I can not trust this the way you do. Repetition doesn’t establish truth or God’s will, it only establishes a pattern, a tradition, and traditions can be wicked as the Book of Mormon reminds us continually. In the worst possible cases, choosing to take refuge in repetition means repeating the same mistakes that have been made for centuries.
It is for this reason that I don’t think that choosing to side with patriarchs, “authorized witnesses” provides you any greater safety net against error. That they have quoted each other backward through time can’t establish truth. The patriarchs are themselves human, corruptible, imperfect, and all this even though they have been called. Trusting them because of their position/authority means that you will be that much more unlikely or unwilling to examine these men for error, and I think that is one of the worst contemporary problems with patriarchy in the church.
Comment by mary ann — April 15, 2008 @ 10:51 am
christine’s 121 is also interesting. She said
It seems that the problem with patriarchy is a problem with God Himself
yes, it’s a tangled mess. But I’ve thought a whole lot about this and here’s the best I’ve got.
Either
1. God instituted patriarchy as it is recorded in the bible/JST (and therefore instituted the subordination/alienation of women).
2. God didn’t mind/see fit to contradict patriarchy as it is recorded in the bible/JST, but it was created by humans.
3. The bible/JST doesn’t give an accurate understanding of God’s mind or will in this area.
I’m inclined toward number three. Our contemporary understanding of God is inconsistent with number 1 and the notion of an involved God is inconsistent with number 2.
Comment by mary ann — April 15, 2008 @ 11:05 am
I second mary ann’s #3
Comment by G — April 15, 2008 @ 11:14 am
(okay… now back to doing homework…)
Comment by G — April 15, 2008 @ 11:18 am
We are all born as spiritual beings, while religion was created by humans, men to be exact. I think plenty of women have just gotten used to being ruled by a patriarch society.
Women are not second class citizens and this must be acknowledged now!!! Women themselves must stand up and command respect. WE ARE THE GIVERS OF LIFE!!!
The church is one of the culprits causing this problem, as women are seen as second class citizens here as well. The type of religion is irrelevant, as mostly ALL of them have adopted this principle.
WHY SHOULD A MAN HAVE DOMINANCE OVER A WOMAN, WHEN HE CAME FROM ONE??? CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION…
AS FOR THE ISSUE OF GOD: God is neither man or woman. God is universal energy that has created us all.
Comment by bcuzuknow — April 15, 2008 @ 11:26 am
z,
Regarding your repeated question to m&m. If you were told by a the Prophet that patriarchy was the way God wanted things and that you needed to fully embrace it what would you do?
Now image that you prayed about it and were inspired to know that God did in fact want you to hear that true message - now what would you do?
I am not saying that this is the case in any way. I am just trying to provide z with the same kind of question she keeps asking m&m to answer.
Comment by BusinessWoman — April 15, 2008 @ 11:34 am
I’m late to the discussion, but way way back in #50 M&M said this:
I think that gets at the heart of the disagreement right there. It is really possible that we are critiquing a divinely organized power structure through a worldly lens of ‘fairness.’ I think it is also possible that the church is operating with a worldly power structure (adopted by way of tradition) that doesn’t sit right with us because of our divinely granted sense of justice.
I don’t think that the power structure, or hierarchy is part of the gospel, I’m willing to concede that it might be a necessary evil for the times we live in, but I cannot believe that it is the eternal ideal.
Comment by Starfoxy — April 15, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Repetition doesn’t establish truth or God’s will,
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree there. Prophets and scriptures wholeheartedly disagree with you. For example:
The Apostle Paul wrote that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention and fill our hearts with gratitude to live in such a blessed time.
The difference between a popular vote and the law of witnesses is that a popular vote is just people with no special divine authority voting. The law of witnesses as described here is about special witnesses, divinely-called mouthpieces for the Lord, coming together with a unified voice and repeated teachings about different principles and doctrines.
Starfoxy, FWIW, I think that none of us can know what the eternal ideal is and how it will all unfold. My feelings about how things are isn’t supposed to suggest that I know how things will be. But I do think that there is a gross misunderstanding of what patriarchy really is and is supposed to be about. And I think we might be surprised at what the eternal scheme of things will be like. I am sure we probably all will be.
And to all, FWIW, I can understand why people don’t like the idea of patriarchy because there is so much in the world and sometimes in the church that makes patriarchy abusive. I don’t agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I can understand why some struggle with it.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 11:59 am
That quote was from that Elder Eyring talk, btw.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Anecdotes don’t prove a thing, folks, except that there IS variation in how things are handled.
I never said that I was proving anything. Just what my own person experience was. Other’s are welcome to post their experiences if they so wish.
Experiences however, are the only thing we have to draw upon in a matter of the question of whether women have the tendency to be treated harsher with regards to church discipline. –I’m no sociologist, nor am I attempting to be, but that’s what they do, look for sociological trends based on people’s experiences and thus draw patterns from such observation.
I feel bad for the woman disfellowshipped for 3 years. That’s rather courageous to keep going for all that time!
I don’t think that the power structure, or hierarchy is part of the gospel, I’m willing to concede that it might be a necessary evil for the times we live in, but I cannot believe that it is the eternal ideal.
Starfoxy-well said.
Comment by nb — April 15, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Experiences however, are the only thing we have to draw upon in a matter of the question of whether women have the tendency to be treated harsher with regards to church discipline.
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s not ours to worry about.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
#133, I’m fine with agreeing to disagree.
But I do feel like noting that it is unsurprising that the men who are part of a system that establishes truth by repetition will assert that truth is established by repetition. (And as if that wasn’t enough, the assertion itself is a repetition!)
Special witnesses, divinely-called mouthpieces for the Lord, even when united and repeating what has been said before can and have messed up. If the nature of their call was such that they were beyond error, then great. We could all sit back and rely on them to always lead as God would have it. But the call doesn’t undo a man’s humanity, culture, or imperfection and therefore the burden remains on the individual to ignore the special witness’s status in the hierarchy and weigh their words against a yardstick with greater reliability.
Again, I think that the general belief that the patriarchal leadership of the church (by virtue of their callings/authority/ordination) will never lead the church astray is one of contemporary patriarchy’s largest faults.
Comment by mary ann — April 15, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Mary Ann, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this, too. Like I said, we all take risks with our choices, and relying on one’s personal sense of “justice” or “rightness” is, in my mind, far more prone to error than relying on prophets of God. I think there is too much in scripture to support this notion as well. But to each her/his own.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
m&m, what about personal revelation?
Comment by nauticalgirl — April 15, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Hello from a man!
I’m amazed by this blog. (I never blog, so I probably won’t be back again. No offense to anyone.)
I come from a family of extremely strong, brilliant, and spiritual women. My mom, all of my six sisters, my wife, and my mother-in-law.
Most of them are active Latter-day Saints.
The most powerful person I know is my mom. Sometimes she has wielded unrighteous dominion–very demanding and sometimes not a good listener. But the power she has had to influence and change lives has come from her truly remarkable gift to love only for the sake of loving. Mountains move for her. She cares nothing for position. And much of what I know of her impact on others has come from them, not from her talking about it. She wields a power that I have never seen in any “priesthood holder.”
I had never really heard arguments about the injustice of the “patriarchal” system until… I got married.
My extremely talented and beautiful wife has straightened me out from “Jack Mormon” ways, but she has also shared many of her frustrations with me. The idea of her own authority needing a man’s blessing, that feeling of a “pat on the head,” the inequality of not having the priesthood in her spiritual toolbox, etc. She has shed many tears and my doctrinal and philosophical answers haven’t been too much help.
I have been lauded as a great hometeacher by a sister in our ward. It’s a priesthood calling, but other than the fact that it is a calling, my affect on her family has had to do most with remembering to make a few phone calls. At the same time, I have enjoyed overpowering outpourings of the Spirit during during specific priesthood ordinances. (And as I think about it, revelation was given to women in almost all of those situations.)
In the debate about who gets and doesn’t get the priesthood, the honest truth is I don’t think there are too many people on this planet who have ever “gotten” the priesthood. I exercise it, I try to honor it, I see the efficiency and organization it engenders, I have tasted its beauty, but I don’t really “get it.” In fact my wife gets it more than I do. I think we only know enough about it to keep the Church running until the Savior comes again. Like so many gospel concepts, I think to really understand it means that we have lived a Christ-like life. When we really understand it, I think we will know joy.
To my wife, I have said: “There needs to be order in the Kingdom!” and I really mean it. “It’s about service, not power,” I say, and I really do believe that. “It helps men repent! Men are more wicked than women!” and I sure believe that.
But I have only been able to approach a useful answer very recently. It has to do with my own deep spiritual struggles, which for me have been as deep as the issues discussed in this blog. They all end with a desperate plea to the Almighty. For me, it has all boiled down to these two questions: God, who are you? God, what am I to you?
The answers have been coming for me, and for my wife.
Much love and take care,
Tom
Comment by Tom — April 15, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
#89 & #112, I been through two disciplinary counsels and both times, and IMO, I’ve been treated harsher than my male counterpart. During both events, leadership changed and with the change in Bishop, so did the attitude, process and road back to full fellowship. In one process, I was stripped completely of any and all “benefits” of membership, I was requested to leave the Church university. On the other hand, my male counterpart, was permitted to stay in school, and was actively participating in the Priesthood. In the second, I was stripped of my membership benefits for over a year. My male counterpart was not disfellowship and was brought back into full activity within 3-4 months. I have experienced first hand the emotional & intellectual frustration associated with Patriarchy, and have also found great comfort, peace, support and love from men in leadership positions - specifically my father and husband.
I can’t speak for all women, but, from what I’ve experienced, discipline was handled very differently based upon my gender. I’ve often wondered how it would be, if my Bishop were a female.
Comment by Abby — April 15, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
what about personal revelation?
Of course, we are entitled to personal revelation for our own lives. But we are not entitled to personal revelation for the Church and its doctrine. Revelation is limited to our stewardships. If one feels personally inspired to go against church leaders within one’s stewardships, that is certainly one’s choice, but in my mind, it’s a risky one. It is possible to be deceived, and I find it interesting that people will trust their own revelation over the prophets’. Sure, they are human, but at least the law of witnesses in my mind provides some level of protection. What protection do we have by relying on our own sense of justice or rightness alone? To me, that seems more prone to error.
But again, to each her/his own. Agency is key to life and the plan of God. We are here to do our best to figure out what is true and right, and obviously, there is variation in the answers we feel we have received, within the church, and of course, throughout the world. What an interesting plan it is.
I’ve often wondered how it would be, if my Bishop were a female.
Given how cruel we as women can sometimes be to each other, I can’t help but wonder if it would be worse.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Sure, they are human, but at least the law of witnesses in my mind provides some level of protection.
I don’t think it is protection. I think it is continuity, and that in and of itself is neither virtue nor truth.
What protection do we have by relying on our own sense of justice or rightness alone?
What does following someone else’s directives protect me from? Myself? Do I need to be protected from my own judgment? If I should not trust myself, my conscience, my own mind, why oh why should I trust someone else’s?
Comment by mary ann — April 15, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
If I should not trust myself, my conscience, my own mind, why oh why should I trust someone else’s?
Interesting point of view. My response, of course, would be that this is what I think God has asked us to do…to trust in the prophets AND in personal revelation…each for different reasons.
I loved what Elder Oaks said about this in the most recent Conference.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
What does following someone else’s directives protect me from? Myself?
And yes, I believe following the prophets protects us sometimes from ourselves and sometimes from the philosophies of the world. The scriptures are replete with examples and counsel regarding not relying on our own thoughts alone, and warn us that even the very elect can be deceived. If we really could just rely on ourselves, I’m curious to know (if you feel like answering) why you think we have prophets and scriptures in the first place?
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
m&m, oddly enough, your Elder Oaks quote seems to support my claim that my personal sense of right an wrong should be the ultimate guide of my actions. He stated that of the two channels to God, the one governed by prophets and other leaders related to doctrine but that the one within the domain of the individual (which is direct to god and unmediated by any other person) covers many topics that are certainly doctrine caliber issues: God’s existence, our relationship to God, and the truth of the gospel. (I would like to know how he parcels that out) He has placed tremendous weight and power on the belief/personal sense of right and wrong of the individual. I am arguing that this personal sense is a precursor to and more fundamental than following the guidance of church leaders.
Yes, the scriptures say that we should not rely on our own thoughts alone, but I have not argued that we should “just rely on ourselves”. Instead I have said that a personal conviction of right and wrong is an important counterbalance to the spirit or directions others claim to be divinely inspired. The scriptures also say “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart.” There is room for as I said in my 118, reason and ethics to inform our spiritual decisions.
In your 117 you said I will sacrifice my view, my natural inclinations, my limited understanding (because we are mortal, our understanding is limited by definition) of what is right and wrong to follow them.
You seem to have concluded that patriarchy requires you and me and each of us to disavow our own sense of right and wrong if it is contradicted by a patriarchal authority. But this does not make sense, especially when you consider that one’s personal sense of right and wrong would have made a testimony possible in the first place. I don’t believe authority trumps personal convictions, nor can I accept that a person who ignores their own sense and follows a misguided or incorrect precept because they were taught by one with authority will be right before God.
As for your question in 145, why do we have prophets in the first place? I don’t know that you would have asked this question if you had not pushed my comment about the necessity of ethics and reason to an extreme position of precluding inspired direction. But in any case, I’ll answer your question with a question. Can you think of no use for prophets or scriptures OTHER than dictating that individuals compromise their conscience? Of course they have usefulness unrelated to that very unhappy thought.
Comment by mary ann — April 15, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
I remember a story I read on the internet, so it must be true. Missionaries were teaching a fellow, an intelligent and interested person. He took several discussion and attended meetings. On the occasion of a discussion, he asked one of the missionaries, “What would you say if your prophet commanded you to kill someone?”
The missionary replied, “The prophet wouldn’t do something like that.”
The man thought for a minute, and then asked, “Why didn’t you just say, ‘I’d tell him no’?”
Comment by Ann — April 15, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
146
I read a scripture to my kids tonite that I think expresses well what I think about this. King Benjamin tells his sons that anyone, without prophets, will fall away, that we need scriptures/prophets to know what to do, how to live. (Mosiah 1:5-7) That suggests to me that we can’t figure out right and wrong on our own and stay on the path. We ultimately can’t figure out doctrine and commandments and ordinances and the atonement without prophets. Pieces? Yes. The whole picture? No. We need both.
You seem to have concluded that patriarchy requires you and me and each of us to disavow our own sense of right and wrong if it is contradicted by a patriarchal authority.
My perspective is actually more nuanced than you seem to have understood it to be, but I’m not sure how else to really explain myself. I do believe strongly in following our leaders, because I believe that, by virtue of their callings (and I’m particularly talking about prophets here), they see things that we don’t and know things that we don’t. (Hence the label “watchmen on the tower.”) (I have seen this at the local level as well, but on a smaller, more limited scale.) But I don’t by any means mean that their leadership and stewardship precludes us from making personal choice in our lives and seeking personal revelation. The question is where the line is between the two sources of truth/connection to God, and the purpose and stewardship of each source of revelation. That is where we seem to differ.
In answer to your question, of course the main purpose of prophets is to testify of Christ and help us come to Him, and to hold the keys to saving ordinances for the world (and beyond). But given how you label my point of view about their other roles as “an extreme position of precluding inspired direction” and think that the role I’m discussing is nothing but “an unhappy thought” either you are really misunderstanding me, or perhaps we really see things that differently.
To me, following the prophets is an exciting part of gospel living. Following them produces great joy and sweet fruit of perspective, peace and power in my life. I feel grounded, settled, clear when I follow them. They help me cut through myriad voices that swirl around, help me keep my focus on things that matter most in life for me. They help me know how to come to and be obedient to the Savior. Personal revelation is also an amazing element in my life, and for me, it ties closely with, and often reinforces and builds upon prophetic teaching. It also helps me figure out the specifics, how to apply the principles, counsel and doctrine in my life. It all combines for me into a wonderful upward spiral.
As Elder Oaks said, obeying the prophets opens up revelation for me, and revelation increases my feeling of connection with and faith in prophetic words as being from the Lord. I don’t find their counsel limiting, I find it expands and enhances my life tremendously. I think Joseph Smith’s “I teach them correct principles and then they govern themselves” thing sums it up. I see prophets there to teach us correct principles, and then personal revelation is there to help us figure out how to ‘govern’ ourselves. But both are essential for our growth and spiritual progress in my mind.
Don’t know if that helps clarify anything at all, or just makes me all the more annoying to you. I hope it’s the former.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
This discussion reminds me of the statement “every learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth,” except that nobody is learning anything. Everyone is just stating an opinion as if thinking makes it so.
Brigham Young is credited with saying a woman should follow her husband, but she shouldn’t follow him to hell.
Any man who thinks (or woman who says because I say, for that matter) they are entitled to dictate to others because they have the priesthood is exercising unrighteous dominion. He therefore doesn’t have any priesthood.
It is totally inappropriate to speculate about the reasons why one person or another may have been denied the sacrament for whatever reason or for how long. These are matters that are worked out in private and no one except those involved knows the details. To stand in irate judgement when you don’t know all the facts is unwise at best.
The scriptures and the prophets King Benjamin were talking about were the teachings from Lehi, Nephi and Jacob and whatever might have been of value on the brass plates. Nephi clearly teaches that learning from the spirit or personal revelation is the object of looking into the scriptures or listening to prophets.
Women are entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost and all the spiritual gifts just the same as a man. I have never heard anything that encourages husbands to be dictators. As far as going to PEC I can do without that.
Comment by Claudia — April 16, 2008 @ 10:20 am
m&m, I’m not annoyed by you. I’m always very interested in these threads because they pick apart issues that don’t tend to be in other settings. It is the picking apart that I find rewarding and useful.
About half way through your post you have a paragraph where it is clear that something was miscommunicated.
But given how you label my point of view about their other roles as “an extreme position of precluding inspired direction” and think that the role I’m discussing is nothing but “an unhappy thought” either you are really misunderstanding me, or perhaps we really see things that differently.
I was not labeling your point of view, but reciting how I feel you have labeled MY point of view. I think you pushed my perspective of needing non-spiritual guidance to a point that precluded any role for inspired direction. The “unhappy thought” was that there would always and in every case be a tug-of-war between my personal relationship with God and the prophets/scriptures. I’m not saying this is the way it will be, and thankfully, there seem to be only a few (glaring though they are) cases where I believe this has happened.
I think you are right that we disagree about where the line should be drawn between the stewardship of the individual and the stwardship of the prophets/other leaders. In cases where there might be uncertainty about what is right or wrong, I understand that you are more comfortable than I am with the risks associated with following leaders, and I think you also understand that I am more comfortable with the risks associated with not following them.
Comment by mary ann — April 16, 2008 @ 11:30 am
mary ann, thanks for the response. And for the discussion. I enjoy discussions like these because I think they help me understand others and myself a bit more. And I enjoy mulling over these topics. I do think we draw that line differently, and I think that probably is a good summary of the difference I have seen with others in this regard.
Claudia, I hope you don’t think anyone here thinks that priesthood or patriarchy include dictating or control. I’m actually not quite sure why you said what you said, actually, because I don’t see anyone here suggesting anything you tried to refute in this vein.
The scriptures and the prophets King Benjamin were talking about were the teachings from Lehi, Nephi and Jacob and whatever might have been of value on the brass plates. Nephi clearly teaches that learning from the spirit or personal revelation is the object of looking into the scriptures or listening to prophets.
Elder Hales said the following, after recounting many civilizations from scripture who fell away without scripture: “The fate of these civilizations, as recorded in scripture, is a testimony to all the world: if we don’t have the word of God or don’t cling to and heed the word of God, we will wander off in strange paths and be lost as individuals, as families, and as nations.”
I don’t disagree at all with your second sentence about looking to the scriptures for personal revelation as well, but they also exist so we know the word of God in the first place (commandments, doctrine) as a foundation for revelation. But without the scriptures/words of the prophets, we would not be able to stay on course or get sufficient personal revelation on our own to keep us firmly on the path. Like I said, we need both.
It is totally inappropriate to speculate about the reasons why one person or another may have been denied the sacrament for whatever reason or for how long. These are matters that are worked out in private and no one except those involved knows the details.
I agree with you, and I probably crossed a line by my comment about someone I knew. I was trying, though, to point out that generalizations about which gender gets what kind of treatment in church discipline are pretty pointless and likely inaccurate at best. And your point explains all the more why they are — because we never know the details behind the decisions. I think this is important to note, so thanks for bringing that up.
Comment by m&m — April 16, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Catching up….
#136 m&m
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s not ours to worry about.
Oh but it is. Whenever a person is being treated unfairly by anyone it is a moral responsibility to speak up about it. As far as the specific situation on if women are being treated fairly with regards to church discipline, it is the responsibility of all to make sure that our leaders are being true and “righteous judges in Israel”, and treating women more severely with regards to church discipline is DANGEROUS. (If I recal correctly, Christ told the woman taken in adultery to “go and sin no more”,…but I digress….) And don’t give me the bull honkey that ‘women are more spiritual, and more in control of their drives, and thus are able to think more clearly in the heat of passion’ etc. etc. therefore, they’re more at fault when it comes to sexual sin. That is EXACTLY the attitude that has allowed injustice towards women to flourish. Why is date rape sometimes still placed on the fault of the woman? (by those with that attitude). Why in some parts of the world rape in general is looked upon as the woman’s fault?
Now, in cases of church discipline, I would HOPE that the victim of such as travesty would NEVER have someone claim fault on them. But what I’m saying is that an attitude of such sort (which no one in this thread has claimed yet) breeds those sorts of actions.
but if everyone did that, we’d have a better world. And if we don’t, saying it’s none of our business, we allow injustice to thrive…
AND the actions of women being treated more severely than men in church discipline is an ACTION of that attitude.
As children of God I believe that it IS our business. (not the individual discipline of individual people) but of the trend as a whole, because any injustice, any place in the world, needs to be brought to light and fixed. -HUGE undertaking…
141- Abby
I can’t speak for all women, but, from what I’ve experienced, discipline was handled very differently based upon my gender. I’ve often wondered how it would be, if my Bishop were a female.
I’ve often wondered that myself. (I’m sure there would be advantages and disadvantages to such a scenario.)
— Thanks for sharing your story!
142 - m&m (sorry, don’t mean to pick on you so much! hope you enjoy a good debate! - i think you do.
Given how cruel we as women can sometimes be to each other, I can’t help but wonder if it would be worse.
I think that’s an unfair stereotype of women. Men can be just as mean as women. (And just as nice!
Though I have heard that exact argument before… I wonder if the fact that women sometimes get a bad wrap for being snappy and mean has to do which what Psychologists call “projecting”. It’s where person “A” snaps irrationally or severely at the behavior of person “B”. When the reason actually is that person “A” either consciously or subconsciously sees the same traits in themselves that they harped on person “B” about, and it’s usually something that they don’t like in themselves.
A perfect example is say a woman is in a big family that doesn’t agree with divorce, however she’s in an abusive marriage and decides to go through with one. Her family members treat her meanly because of it, citing that it isn’t in their belief system to do that, when really they’re being judgemental on her because they themselves are in not-so-good-marriages.
I wonder if women (in the church and out) don’t sometimes project against others due to their own unhappiness. In cases of church goers, maybe it has to do with feelings of repression and unfair treatment…? Just a hypothesis.
Comment by nb — April 16, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Whenever a person is being treated unfairly by anyone it is a moral responsibility to speak up about it.
All I’m going to say is that we all have different definitions of fair, and so it’s not so clear-cut. And in this particular situation (church discipline), as Claudia said, we never know the full story in a church discipline situation, I don’t think we are in a position to judge what is really ‘fair.’
So I don’t really agree with your statement that
it is the responsibility of all to make sure that our leaders are being true and “righteous judges in Israel”
particularly when it comes to church discipline. Without being privy to interviews, councils, and the revelation/inspiration that leaders are receiving, there simply isn’t enough information that any of us has to determine what is ‘fair.’
And I realize my comment about women was a stereotype, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t partly true.
Comment by m&m — April 16, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
and nb, I don’t feel picked on. I do enjoy a decent discussion, and I think all in all this has been a decent one.
Comment by m&m — April 16, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Unless you were the one it happened to.
Comment by sare — April 16, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
NB: I’ve been lurking around for several weeks. I like the discussions and exchange of ideas/information/perspectives. It’s been helpful as I try to sort things out.
Comment by Abby — April 16, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Unless you were the one it happened to.
I meant to add that disclaimer, but still, you can’t compare with anyone else’s experience, so there is no way to know if one case is ‘more fair’ or less so than the other.
Comment by m&m — April 17, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Jane in MO (#87), I enjoyed reading your comments. It’s interesting that the conflicts experienced by women are similar enough across churches that you can identify with fMhLisa’s post. Isn’t FMH great?
Comment by Ziff — April 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
m&m “I hope you don’t think anyone here thinks that priesthood or patriarchy include dictating or control. I’m actually not quite sure why you said what you said, actually, because I don’t see anyone here suggesting anything you tried to refute in this vein.”
Well, I haven’t really seen an actual definition of patriarchy spelled out here. The theme seems to be it is some kind of unfair system run by men. In my experience though and in conversations with women a definition about decision making and the expectation that one will do whatever a man with authority says is not incompatible with that the word dictator. A rose by any other name. . . . But, I may have misread.
I am not disputing the need for scripture or prophets. But, of the two, which came first? What scriptures did Adam study? I would never argue with Elder Hales.
I also perceive that while we agree on many things we are not in total agreement. I think that is a good indication of why it is things seem “unfair”. We all see the world through our own prism. We are not objective.
Suppose all the information on disciplinary councils were available and one could compare decisions across the board then it might be realistic to say that justice is not being served and some church members are discriminated against. One might say for instance that women being called to account before their bishop rather than the Stake High Council is discriminatory,
I’m not sure it is because I have seen men held accountable to a bishop rather than the High Council as well. I have even seen one case where a man was treated in a way that was terribly damaging to him and his family. And, the problem was that the whole thing was made public in such a way that the man’s reputation was ruined and his life changed in the most stigmatizing of ways.
There is a good deal of fairness built into the system with the need for witnesses and true information being a part of the process. Making decisions on the basis of evidence rather than inspiration or some other kind of intuition is also a part of the process. But different people make different kinds of decisions and there are no really clear cut guidelines (mandatory sentencing guidelines for want of a better way to say it) so what you would probably find is a lot a variation in the way things are handled. My personal view is taking individual differences into account is the most just possible way to handle things.
Comment by Claudia — April 18, 2008 @ 7:30 am
I haven’t really seen an actual definition of patriarchy spelled out here. The theme seems to be it is some kind of unfair system run by men.
Ah, yes, I see now where you are coming from. And I think the problem is that patriarchy as defined by feminism is something negative, where patriarchy as defined in God’s system is something different.
And FWIW, this is why I commented here, because I believe feminism’s analysis of patriarchy in the Church presents is a gross distortion of what patriarchy is in God’s eyes. I am not one who believes patriarchy as machismo, as it exists in many cultures, is good. But that is not what patriarchy in the gospel is at all. The Church makes it very, very clear that patriarchy is not about power or control, or heaven forbid, anything close to dictatorship. I think if we want a good definition of patriarchy, read D&C 121. Patriarchy as God has defined it existed long before cultural forces morphed it into something disagreeable. The key in my mind is to figure out what it is supposed to be, rather than judge what is supposed to be by how the world has distorted and misapplied its principles.
But, of the two, which came first? What scriptures did Adam study?
The gospel is eternal, not simply an earthy creation. Angels, sent from God, taught Adam the gospel. And with him, the pattern of earthly (on our earth at least) prophetic — even patriarchal — leadership began.
Comment by m&m — April 19, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Though I have heard that exact argument before… I wonder if the fact that women sometimes get a bad wrap for being snappy and mean has to do which what Psychologists call “projecting”. It’s where person “A” snaps irrationally or severely at the behavior of person “B”. When the reason actually is that person “A” either consciously or subconsciously sees the same traits in themselves that they harped on person “B” about, and it’s usually something that they don’t like in themselves.
A perfect example is say a woman is in a big family that doesn’t agree with divorce, however she’s in an abusive marriage and decides to go through with one. Her family members treat her meanly because of it, citing that it isn’t in their belief system to do that, when really they’re being judgemental on her because they themselves are in not-so-good-marriages.
I wonder if women (in the church and out) don’t sometimes project against others due to their own unhappiness. In cases of church goers, maybe it has to do with feelings of repression and unfair treatment…? Just a hypothesis.
I agree so much with the above comment. In my profession (medicine) it is interesting that the female residents are treated much more poorly by the female nurses than are the male residents. They are frequently rude, insubordinate, and sometimes disrespectful to the female residents - this has been noted by both male and female residents. It is almost as though they are angry they didn’t become doctors instead of nurses and they are taking their resentment of their relatively less powerful position out on those females who did escape the stereotypicity of becoming nurses.
I totally agree this same thing goes on in the church. Meg Wheatley has stuff to say about this in her excellent article in “Women and Authority.”
Comment by susan — April 19, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
m&m, susan, And thus we see we are in total agreement after all.
Comment by Claudia — April 20, 2008 @ 9:00 am
[…] comment on fMhLisa’s post On Patriarchy and Patriarchs at […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | My Nacle Notebook 2008: Interesting Comments — September 8, 2009 @ 6:49 pm