Originally posted at Mormon Matters
I am going to put this as simply as possible, and let’s start with a definition. Patriarchy is a social system in which the father or eldest male is head of the household, having authority over women and children. Patriarchy also refers to a system of government by males, and to the dominance of men in social or cultural systems. I know that this is a true definition, having found it on Wikipedia. However, if you disagree, scroll down and I will include definitions from as many dictionaries as I can google. Patriarchy by its very definition is not compatible with equality.
Equality is the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status. I realize that it has become politically correct to describe our LDS families as simultaneously patriarchal and equality-based. But this is linguistically impossible. (Whew. I’m having uncontrollable urges to type in all caps.) The Proclamation on the Family attempts to describe a family situation where fathers are responsible to preside and provide but at the same time both partners are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
In order to do this, Mormons attempt to change the definition of patriarchy to something that has little or no meaning. The patriarch in a family, they insist, does not hold the power or authority over his wife to the extent that it would negate her equality. Instead, he merely calls the family together for spiritual activities and invites a family member to say the prayer. As one blogger so succinctly stated it, “The patriarch is the presiderer, not the deciderer.” He further explains:
“Men and women are consider to be of equal status in the LDS church…Because childbirth and child-rearing tends to be spiritually sanctifying endevers for women, the priestood assigns men spiritual duties that they would not normally take on themselves… How does this presiding business affect decision-making? Not much. When my wife and I make a decision, we make it together. I would never just tell my wife, ‘I am the deciderer.’ In conclusion, God has given that men preside because of our lack of spiritual fitness. We need the exercize.”
Unfortunately, this blogger not only needs work on spelling words which begin with “e,” he also needs to look up the definition of the word “preside.” This word, far from softening the meaning of patriarchy, only serves to reinforce:
Preside — To occupy or hold a position of authority, as over a meeting. To possess or exercise power or control.
If the LDS Church is to move to a stance of equal partnership within the family, they really have no choice but to lose the words “patriarchal” and “preside” with respect to the position a husband holds in the home.
“But BiV,” you say. “We’ve been over this ground many times before. Why bring it up again?”
I bring it up because I fear that with the attempt to soften the rhetoric of patriarchy/presiding in the home and make it compatible with equality, our members are losing the sense that patriarchy is a social construct (see our definitions below). There is no necessity to consider patriarchy an eternal condition. I prefer to look at patriarchy as a negative effect of the Fall (thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee) which will be ameliorated in the eternal realm. President Spencer W. Kimball wrote a foreward to the Brigham Young University publication of Hugh W. Nibley’s discourse on the ideal of marriage in God’s Eden and stated:
“There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other … and [are] just as dependent on each other.”
We do not know exactly what Priesthood and Priestesshood will look like in a post-mortal condition. But we have been taught that equality will be restored. Elder James E. Talmage wrote:
“It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred endowments…woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood.” Talmage then hints at a greater sharing of priesthood in the next life: “When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom.” (“The Eternity of Sex,” YW Journal 25 (October 1914): 602-603)
The shift to an equality-based home in recent times is commendable. I feel it more accurately represents the balance of power and oneness which will prevail in the eternal realms. A majority of two-parent LDS homes today are organized around an ideal expressed by Gordon B. Hinckley as follows:
“In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals… Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity. Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” ( Ensign, Nov. 1996, 49.)
If this egalitarian goal is to be accomplished, the competing words “patriarch” and “preside” must be eliminated from the description of family dynamics. They are not useful in encouraging the father to play a more active role in the spiritual life of his family. Instead, the rhetoric should change to more concisely describe the desired result. Why not urge fathers to become more involved in spiritual instruction, or to more enthusiastically model religious behaviors, if that is what we mean by “presiding?”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Patriarchy:
- A form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe (Random House Dictionary)
- A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
- A family or society in which authority is vested in males, through whom descent and inheritance are traced. (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)
- Social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
- Social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
- a society, system, or organization in which men have all or most of the power and influence (Macmillan Dictionary)
Posts
Cue Godfather Music. Excuse me, God the Father Music.
< post-classical Latin patriarcha (also patriarches) chief or head of a family or tribe (Vetus Latina, late 2nd or early 3rd cent. in Tertullian), title of the bishop of any of the chief sees of the ancient world (4th cent.) < Hellenistic Greek chief or head of a family or tribe (Septuagint: see note at sense 2a), in Byzantine Greek also title of the bishop of any of the chief sees of the ancient world (5th cent.) In Hellenistic Greek also father.]
b. In extended use: a male head or ancestor of any people, tribe, or family.
Since the Church has found it so successful to change the meaning of the word “preside” to be complementary to “equality,” perhaps we could fix the meaning of the word “pornography” as well. I never liked that word. Let’s make it synonymous with “cooking.”
Rico, this can only be done IF the meaning of “preside” as the one who holds the power of final decision-making is ignored. Often, it is, and that is why equality works in those homes. But if that is what is happening, why insist on using the word preside? As long as there is a nominal presider, the other party is just not equal. I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.
I will not speak for everymormonwoman, but I will speak for myself.
I would very much welcome a condition of having power, choice, and control.
I don’t see anything wrong with having choice in my reproductive choices, my employment needs, my body and sexual decisions (just to mention the ones you did.)
I would feel that the MAN who didn’t desire some sort of control or power over these things was very strange indeed. Why wouldn’t a woman want power in these areas?
When two people contract a marriage, they do it with the realization that in living together there are compromises to be made, things to be learned about the needs of others, sharing to be done. As Rico mentioned, often the one with a stronger personality may dominate, and this should be discussed and addressed frequently.
However, I do not agree that someone needs official religious sanction to preside over these things.
You always have such interesting posts. I find with patriarchy that everyone is included a man, his wife, his sons, and daughters. Everyone is included, imperfect as patriarchy may be. When you have matriarchy, they only want women to be included and no one else. You see this in feminism as well, all women’s gyms, all women’s clubs. When women are left to their own devices you see them start to practice witchcraft and goddess worship.
Reading your post, the first thing that jumps to mind is Humpty Dumpty: “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
bound by the law to her husband as
long as her husband liveth, but if
her husband be dead, she is loose
from the law of her husband.”
(Romans 7:2)
* The Priesthood
* The Prophets, starting with Joseph Smith who taught the Patriarchal Order
* The organization of the Church as outlined in Ephesians 2:20
* The reliability of the four Standard works.
* The reality of God Himself
Most people don’t understand that my blogging does not come from my personal beliefs–I’m so uncertain what they really are–my blogging comes from a desperate attempt to figure these things out with that perfect knowledge of his will that we insist is possible.
For a member of Church that claims so much revelation, I feel like I somehow got left out in the wilderness.
* The Temple. Yet many of the sexist components / interpretations have changed dramatically, just in my lifetime, and the very core nature of the temple is (as BiV’s post points out) an eternal view that is equal. I don’t get as much patriarchy from the temple as outside of it.
* The Priesthood. Again, going back to the temple, it’s made quite clear that women are equal in priesthood when viewed from an eternal perspective. Not seeing the threat to this doctrine.
* The Prophets, starting with Joseph Smith who taught the Patriarchal Order. They also taught the Ham doctrine starting with BY. They lived in extremely sexist and oppressive times, and may have been progressive for their day in some ways.
* The organization of the Church as outlined in Ephesians 2:20. Actually, what I think is often misunderstood in the church is that the early Christian church was mostly run by women. Women led congregations that met in their homes. They were far more influential than is emphasized. This is confirmed by criticisms of the church that were contemporary to those early congregations (that it was a church led by women and the poor – the losers of society).
* The reliability of the four Standard works. Well, that’s clearly up for grabs, even according to our own Articles of Faith. In any case, it goes to the nature of revelation. Humans can misunderstand and feel confident in their assertions.
* The reality of God Himself. Again, not seeing the link to patriarchy here since we likewise believe in eternal parenthood, not just a male God ruling in solitude. We believe in a Heavenly Mother. There is not inherent inequality in that notion.
* The Priesthood – “let’s face facts here, the men lead and preside”
* The Prophets, starting with Joseph Smith who taught the Patriarchal Order – They support the patriarchal order as explained in the scriptures and by revelation
* The organization of the Church as outlined in Ephesians 2:20 – All men
* The reliability of the four Standard works. Clearly the scriptures teach a patriarchal centric structure
* The reality of God Himself – male, in charge, all knowing, all powerful.
. . . or to kill your own son, or allow innocent women and children to be killed before your eyes, when you had the power to stop it . . . or to step into a new land and annihilate an entire people . . . or to (essentially) prostitute yourself to a person who does not share your beliefs in God . . . or to leave the church and start up your own in a far land . . . or to kill a man for personal gain . . . or to practice polygamy after translating Jacob’s words against multiple wives . . .
Mid-range boutique law firm, not the multinational monstrosities.
And twenty years ago, so admittedly behind the times in my metaphor use.
http://www.now.org/nnt/winter-99/courtwt.html
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/understanding-the-batterer-in-visitation-and-custody-disputes.pdf
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/info/custody-abuse
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/info/custody-abuse/statistics/rates-at-which-batterers-receive-custody
http://members.shaw.ca/pdg/wife_abuse_child_custody_visitation.html
http://public.findlaw.com/bookshelf-mdf/mdf-13-2.html
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
I completely disagree with this. What he says may be inspired, but I must get personal revelation for what I must do. We are judged individually and I take my free agency and accountability seriously. I will not disrespect my bishop, but what he says for me or the ward certainly is not MY reality, it is his. He’s just a man, a man with keys, but a man. I will repeat, the bishop, or SP, or apostle, or prophet can never control me. I do not give them that power. I have had many instances where my SP told me to attend a meeting, and my wife said, “Absolutley not, you are needed at home.” Do you think I will tell my wife she doesn’t preside, so I will listen to the SP? Nope. Wife trumps SP every time. But most of the time my wife respects my callings and supports me as I support her and keep my family needs first.
I understand, however, there is no place for me to aspire to be bishop based on qualifications either. That is what is different from church positions and the professional work place. It is not a position or title of accomplishment or power to control people. There are also positions as a man that I cannot have, regardless of characteristics either.
I have had many instances where my SP told me to attend a meeting, and my wife said, “Absolutley not, you are needed at home.” Do you think I will tell my wife she doesn’t preside, so I will listen to the SP? Nope. Wife trumps SP every time.
and also:
My wife has equal authority to receive revelation on whether she should marry me, or if we should have kids, or if I should take a job … equally as I do. My revelation doesn’t trump hers. Her and I reach a united decision, or we don’t.