A tale of two philosophies


Recommended Posts

Which of these do you feel is more in line with LDS teachings?

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims the doctrine of equal partnership between men and women, here and in the eternities. ... Latter-day Saint theology teaches that gender difference does not superimpose a hierarchy between men and women: one gender does not have greater eternal possibilities than the other.

The recent trend in family government [toward equality] is also a departure from biblical teachings. The apostle Paul admonished, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands. …” (Eph. 5:22; see also Col. 3:18.) He also taught that “the husband is the head of the wife. …” (Eph. 5:23.) In addition, the Lord instructed Eve in the Garden of Eden that “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first. You left out the second part of Paul's admonition, which says that husbands should also submit to their wives and love their wives as Christ loves His church. Further, the covenants I made were to submit to my husband as he submits to the Lord, which implies that I am only following the counsel he receives from the Lord for our family, not that I'm doing everything he tells me to because he's the boss of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the first is completely inline with LDS teachings, with no caveat. The second I would say gives a somewhat accurate, but incomplete and out of context view of LDS doctrine, seeing as it focuses solely on the wife's responsibility to her husband, while leaving out the husband's responsibility to the wife (that he is to love her has Christ loved the Church, etc.) which can lead to an imbalanced view of what spouses' responsibilities to each other are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say this correctly identifies the 'correct' LDS position

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading the articles these come from in great detail (though i did google them: the first is from the hot-off-the-presses Apr 2013 issue of the Ensign, and the second is from the Feb 1973 issue of the Ensign), it looks as if these two articles are using different definitions of the term "equal/equality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equality is one of those trend-words that has more to to with political correctness than truth, and doesn't really play into eternity accurately without qualification. Talking about these things in terms of equality muddies the waters of reality.

Equal how? That needs to be addressed. And it must also be asked, wherein is 100% total equality desirable and valuable. Equality is popular, and a real push-button for some. But why?

The fact of the matter is that the church does not, nor will ever, teach equality. So approaching the whole p.o.v. from an understanding that it does is destined to fail. What the church does teach is equality in certain regards. Qualified equality--specifically in things where equality actually matters.

How this understanding plays into the reading of Paul is another discussion, perhaps a bit more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equality is one of those trend-words that has more to to with political correctness than truth, and doesn't really play into eternity accurately without qualification. Talking about these things in terms of equality muddies the waters of reality.

Equal how? That needs to be addressed. And it must also be asked, wherein is 100% total equality desirable and valuable. Equality is popular, and a real push-button for some. But why?

The fact of the matter is that the church does not, nor will ever, teach equality. So approaching the whole p.o.v. from an understanding that it does is destined to fail. What the church does teach is equality in certain regards. Qualified equality--specifically in things where equality actually matters.

How this understanding plays into the reading of Paul is another discussion, perhaps a bit more complicated.

I would say that the Gospel *does* teach equality, in that we are all, each of us, of equal value in the eyes of our Savior and our Father in Heaven. No one's role here is more prestigious than the other. No one person's sin is more unforgivable than another. No matter how sin-filled our lives may be, He still died for each of us, without exception. Now, how we value OURSELVES, and what we choose to do with that sacrifice on our behalf (accept it or reject it) is our own choice, but He didn't wait to find out what our individual answers would be before he volunteered to play that part in the Father's plan, and someone of low self-worth, or someone rejected and reviled by those around them, is no less precious to Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the Gospel *does* teach equality, in that we are all, each of us, of equal value in the eyes of our Savior and our Father in Heaven. No one's role here is more prestigious than the other. No one person's sin is more unforgivable than another. No matter how sin-filled our lives may be, He still died for each of us, without exception. Now, how we value OURSELVES, and what we choose to do with that sacrifice on our behalf (accept it or reject it) is our own choice, but He didn't wait to find out what our individual answers would be before he volunteered to play that part in the Father's plan, and someone of low self-worth, or someone rejected and reviled by those around them, is no less precious to Him.

Yes, agreed. But all that you just said is what I mean by qualifying the word. Where things get muddy is when we introduce the idea of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order of families. Then trying to talk about in terms of strict equality falters. Men and women are equal, as I said, in what matters. But they are not equal in all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody has it all wrong - in eternity women are the greater. But they had to fall farther in the fall to make it appear the men and women are equal. Thus their challenge in life is to take a role of greater service and receive more direction in order to balance everything out in eternity. But some women are not doing very well with their assignment - as also some men --- not to worry - it will all get fixed in the resurrection and everybody will know and assume their proper place. :D

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, agreed. But all that you just said is what I mean by qualifying the word. Where things get muddy is when we introduce the idea of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order of families. Then trying to talk about in terms of strict equality falters. Men and women are equal, as I said, in what matters. But they are not equal in all things.

we just have different roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, agreed. But all that you just said is what I mean by qualifying the word. Where things get muddy is when we introduce the idea of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order of families. Then trying to talk about in terms of strict equality falters. Men and women are equal, as I said, in what matters. But they are not equal in all things.

If I might suggest a phrasing: "While men and women are equal they are not identical."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will use a mathematical term - because they are much more expressive and accurate.

MEN and WOMEN are not EQUIL!!! --- Lets all quit pretending - they are different and therefore cannot be equal but they can be COMPLEMENTARY! Both are less when separated than what they are when they are dedicated to each other and their differences. And any woman or any man that does not want to be in a complementary relationship? No one will force it upon you.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody has it all wrong - in eternity women are the greater. But they had to fall farther in the fall to make it appear the men and women are equal. Thus their challenge in life is to take a role of greater service and receive more direction in order to balance everything out in eternity. But some women are not doing very well with their assignment - as also some men --- not to worry - it will all get fixed in the resurrection and everybody will know and assume their proper place. :D

The Traveler

The claim that women are required to be subordinate to men because they are so much better than men is a lousy excuse made up by people trying to justify sexism. It reeks of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I'm being asked to pick which is more important: food or water.

What's the take-home message, MoE?

I don't know. I am delaying forming an opinion until I see more cultural reaction to the juxtaposition.

Ah, someone other than me is a BCC fan. ;)

As if my own blog's title wasn't an indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

OT but...every time I see this thread in the "new posts", I do a double take because a think it says Tale of Two Pedophiles....is that a Freudian slip or what? Perhaps I should as my therapist, LOL! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I might suggest a phrasing: "While men and women are equal they are not identical."

Yes. But I would suggest, that theologically, men and women are not equal. Not in the terms the world would like to impose, which is to say, exactly as capable as one another in all regards.

The question is, wherein is that a problem? Wherein is equality a desirable attribute.

Example: I don't necessarily buy into the "women are superior and that's why they don't need the priesthood" theory. But we can use it as an example of my point. Accepting this as temporarily factual: If this is true, then it is true. Facts are facts. If women do not need the priesthood because they are spiritually superior then that's the way it is. What good will it do me to claim equality in that regard.

If we use equality to infers identical value, however, then I would suggest that across the board, men and women are identically valuable, and in that regard we can accept equality as a proper attribute. But this is generally not what is meant when people cry for equality. The call is for an acceptance of shared capabilities across the board. (Though this is an extremely one-sided levy.)

Within various characteristics, abilities, roles, etc., etc., there is definite inequality. Why is that bad? Equality in and of itself is not an important plane to share. Theologically, men have their value that is of greater worth than women in specific arenas and women have value that is of greater worth than men in certain arenas.

I know it's complicated and becomes significantly more difficult socially speaking. Nor can universal compendium justly be applied to the individual (example: the idea that women are universally more nurturing does not mean that all women are more nurturing) and so how this sort of thing plays out in equality in mortality becomes considerably more convoluted than my ideas here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But I would suggest, that theologically, men and women are not equal. Not in the terms the world would like to impose, which is to say, exactly as capable as one another in all regards.

I don't think this is true. Equality, as far as political movements, is usually geared toward ensuring that people have the same opportunity to do things regardless of gender, race, etc.

For example, obtaining authorization for women to join combat forces was an equality issue. No one ever claimed that all women were as capable as all men for these positions. The goal was for women to have the same opportunity. Now that they have that opportunity, I don't hear any credible people complaining that women have to meet the same physical standards as men in order to be in combat units.

So, in the end, equality is about allowing the opportunity for those women who are equally capable as those men to participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is true. Equality, as far as political movements, is usually geared toward ensuring that people have the same opportunity to do things regardless of gender, race, etc.

For example, obtaining authorization for women to join combat forces was an equality issue. No one ever claimed that all women were as capable as all men for these positions. The goal was for women to have the same opportunity. Now that they have that opportunity, I don't hear any credible people complaining that women have to meet the same physical standards as men in order to be in combat units.

So, in the end, equality is about allowing the opportunity for those women who are equally capable as those men to participate.

Your clarification is in order, certainly. I overreached a bit perhaps. But your thought does tie in. Specifically, in the opportunities (particularly here in mortality) that men and women have in the church...not equal. Easiest example is in the priesthood. Women do not have the opportunity. The political equality you speak of would infer that they should, if they are indeed allotted true equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But I would suggest, that theologically, men and women are not equal. Not in the terms the world would like to impose, which is to say, exactly as capable as one another in all regards.

No, but in that context men aren't equal. If we're talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ I don't feel bound to the terms of the World. The context of this thread, at least as I took it, is the gospel. I do understand you point though, what we mean by equal is a non-trivial aspect of discussing equality.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your clarification is in order, certainly. I overreached a bit perhaps. But your thought does tie in. Specifically, in the opportunities (particularly here in mortality) that men and women have in the church...not equal. Easiest example is in the priesthood. Women do not have the opportunity. The political equality you speak of would infer that they should, if they are indeed allotted true equality.

I think that's where the debate starts to grow. I don't know anyone (at least not anyone worth listening to) that believes that men should have the opportunity to bear children in the name of equality. The equality movement recognizes biological differences. So with respect to things like priesthood, family leadership, etc, the question that remains at the heart of the matter is if priesthood and family leadership are opportunities that are tied to biological sex, or are they social constructs?

Given that the claims in either direction require subjective evaluation, it's hard to reconcile definitively and across belief systems. The feelings and conclusions are going to be as varied as human beings are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but in that context men aren't equal. If we're talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ I don't feel bound to the terms of the World. The context of this thread, at least as I took it, is the gospel. I do understand you point though, what we mean by equal is a non-trivial aspect of discussing equality.

I suppose it would make sense for me to tie my thought into the original post, now that you mention it.

Paul is laying out a hierarchal difference between the sexes. The church’s doctrine of “equality” between men and women is specifically referred to (in the original post) as to our partnership in a marriage. The one does not preclude the other. The patriarchal hierarchy (an inequality) does not mean that we cannot be equal in our marriage partnership. The two thoughts do not conflict. Moreover, the patriarchal order of marriage does not play into our value or our eternal potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share