Why Feminism is Bad

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You say that as if anyone here disagrees with it.  I doubt that even rob or Johnson do.

*shrug*. It's just a matter of semantics. Technically speaking president and preside are of the same meaning, and so semantically one could say that the one who presides is the "president". But it would be a pointless argument to make. Conversely, of course, which I think perhaps some might be inferring, one could claim that the statement that there is not a president means that no one presides. This would be problematic as the idea of the father presiding in the home is well established doctrine. And I do not believe Brother Perry meant that, but meant to clarify that what it means to preside does not mean dictatorial tyranny.

Of course the righteous man would not dictate anything in tyranny, but lead by the principles we find in D&C 121 and all other righteous principles.

But he still presides.

What that means in practice is, I believe, a matter that is best left to the couple and their discussions and feelings along with spiritual guidance.

Edited June 29, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I try not to skate around the issues too much. The husbands primary role is to preside and provide spiritual things, blessings, etc, and also in temporal things to his family.

Quote

 

Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. As President Gordon B. Hinckley has taught:

“In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals.”¹⁰ Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.¹¹ Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family.The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward. (Elder Tom L. Perry)

 

Preside per dictionary.com means to occupy the place of authority or control.

@Rob Osborn, how does it work in your home. Do you have the place of authority and control for your family or do you lead, guide and direct your family equally with your wife?

M.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

Do you have the place of authority and control for your family or do you lead, guide and direct your family equally with your wife?

These are not mutually exclusive.

[The Folk Prophet]

In the gospel meaning of preside, the father's authority in the home does not extend from the father down. It comes from the family's respect toward him as he leads in righteousness. If he is trying to create authority as if from his "superior" position down then amen to his priesthood.

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Preside per dictionary.com means to occupy the place of authority or control.

That's one meaning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preside

Another is:

to exercise guidance, direction, or control

[Guest]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In the gospel meaning of preside, the father's authority in the home does not extend from the father down. It comes from the family's respect toward him as he leads in righteousness. If he is trying to create authority as if from his "superior" position down then amen to his priesthood.

Exactly.

I guess some people aren't as familiar with Section 121 (as you mentioned) as one might hope.

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Please define "preside".  Especially what it means when your opinion or view conflicts with your spouse.  Also how do you preside over someone else's agency - again - specifically your spouse's.

 

The Traveler

To preside means to be the governing authority. As a husband and father its my job to watch over, protect, bless my home and family members. Im the one that answers for my household, the one responsible that family prayers are said, that children and others get along and receive blessings as desired or needed. Im the one responsible to know and understand the gospel and ensure my home abides by those laws and principles. Not only in spiritual things but temporal also. As head of the household Im also the law enforcer, the final say or authoritive voice in enforcing and making the rules stick. This is analogous to who all of us answer to which is God the Father as it is he who presides over us on this earth.

That said, I counsel with my wife in all things and serve her as my queen. Certain tasks automatically fall on my call such as assigning someone to say prayer or to counsel with my family on a perceived danger, etc. As parents we counsel together and agree together on what decisions we make. Me and my wife have never raised our voices against each other, never had an argument and treat each other as a servent treats their master. My relationship with my wife is the hardest thing I personally work on outside of my daily job making money. Not only do I spend a lot of time in service to my wife- doing dishes, cooking, doing laundry, picking up, its also my duty to make sure the house is in fine working condition, is properly secured from danger and spiritually set apart from the world. My duty of the patriarch is not something I take lightly, I myself am personally responsible for the spiritual and temporal upkeep of my household.

My wife and children are thus under my protection and guidance in all things spiritual and temporal, I am their defense in all things.

That being said, its not mere coincidence that generally speaking the man has a large physical presence that commands authority. Its not just symbolic that men have large physical muscles, are taller on average, and have deep commanding voices. These traits compliment and enhance the fathers role as provider, protector, law enforcer and guide. Some may think Im sexist for saying such things, I dont really care. I dont answer to the world, I have to answer to God and give him an accounting of my stewardship over my home. I dont take that task lightly.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Maureen said:

Preside per dictionary.com means to occupy the place of authority or control.

@Rob Osborn, how does it work in your home. Do you have the place of authority and control for your family or do you lead, guide and direct your family equally with your wife?

M.

I preside in my home. I am not sure that the quotes really truly capture what it really means to preside. Let me just ask- what does it mean that the Bishop "presides" over his ward? Is he not the authoritive head? What does it mean that it is God the Father that presides over his creations? Is he not the authoritive head? In relation to the family, so too is the father the authoritive head of his family and houshold.

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I preside in my home. I am not sure that the quotes really truly capture what it really means to preside. Let me just ask- what does it mean that the Bishop "presides" over his ward? Is he not the authoritive head? What does it mean that it is God the Father that presides over his creations? Is he not the authoritive head? In relation to the family, so too is the father the authoritive head of his family and houshold.

Keep in mind that Maureen is not a member of the LDS faith and may not be fully familiar with your references...

As to what it means that any one presides in any position in this church, it means that they offer guidance and direction in harmony with gospel teachings and then those they have a stewardship for (preside over, if you prefer) choose to either follow the guidance or reject it. It is a moral government only, not one of force. Correct principles are taught and people govern themselves. Presiding in the home is more of a sacred responsibility to teach correct principles and attempt to to right the ship as needed, but not a position of privilege to be lorded over faithful subjects who must toe the line, or else...

Presiding in the home the righteous father has no more "power" (in the forceful sense) to make family members live the gospel, than the Bishop has to make members of the ward do so, or the Stake President has over his stake, right on up to the President of the Church. However, an observant and involved father in zion should have more "power" (in the sense of influence) within his home because he is more intimately involved in the lives of his family then various ecclesiastical leaders. He has a stronger relationship of trust, his actions are known to come from a place of love, even when they are stern (not domineering). 

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Presiding in the home the righteous father has no more "power" (in the forceful sense) to make family members live the gospel, than the Bishop has to make members of the ward do so, or the Stake President has over his stake, right on up to the President of the Church.

This isn't technically true when it comes to children, especially younger ones. A reasonable parent doesn't let their 5 year old determine on their own if they're going to go to church every week or not. You get them up, get them dressed and take them to church, and if they throw a fit they go on time out or what-have-you.

Of course that isn't any different outside LDS homes in regards to anything. Young children are "forced" to do a great many things and it is not only acceptable but any parent who didn't force them on some of these things, is the definition of a bad parent. (Go to school. Clean their room. Eat their veggies. Take your medicine. Go to bed. Etc.) That being said, within the realm of the LDS world, that aspect of parenting does fall into the purview of the priesthood leadership in the home (including the father and the mother) to be dealt with in righteousness and with love even though there is more "force" then there might be at 10 or 14. Even at those ages (and even older) there might reasonably always be a, "my house, my rules" sort of "toe the line" approach to good parenting.

The point I'm making is that a bishop never really has this sort of "force" ability. ("Get out of bed and get dressed for church. Now. I'm not going to tell you again.")

[Snigmorder]

I think men and women in the church would do well to toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism. And instead build for themselves a new ethic based on submission to truth, untainted by world influence.  One of the first things you can do to accomplish this is not complain that you can't hold the priesthood. Such an attitude demonstrates an inherent lack of faith. It's not a "church thing" that you can just change to match your Leftism. It is the law of the Eternal God.

 In fact, I would argue that it is the pinnacle of sexism to say that women are not equal to men unless they do what men do. By doing so you are twofold asserting that there is no femininity (which is anti-women per se) and you are literally asserting that the duties of women are inferior to the duties of men, which is offensively anti-women.

[a mustard seed]

18 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I think men and women in the church would do well to toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism. And instead build for themselves a new ethic based on submission to truth, untainted by world influence.  One of the first things you can do to accomplish this is not complain that you can't hold the priesthood. Such an attitude demonstrates an inherent lack of faith. It's not a "church thing" that you can just change to match your Leftism. It is the law of the Eternal God.

 In fact, I would argue that it is the pinnacle of sexism to say that women are not equal to men unless they do what men do. By doing so you are twofold asserting that there is no femininity (which is anti-women per se) and you are literally asserting that the duties of women are inferior to the duties of men, which is offensively anti-women.

Beautifully well put. I agree with all of this.

To be fair, I've heard comparisons of motherhood being the female gift of power from God while the priesthood was the male. But then someone brought up something that I found interesting as well; there's a whole chunk of the plates that wasn't translated. There's a lot of revelation we haven't received yet because we're not ready and have not yet mastered or even accepted what we've already been given. So, we actually don't know if women could hold the priesthood someday(during the Millennium, maybe? After?) but we won't ever know or be up to the task if we don't accept and put into practice the things we've already had revealed to us.

[eddified]

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

And instead build for themselves a new ethic based on submission to truth, untainted by world influence.

This is so true. It's not just true in the context of this thread, it's also true in more general terms.  There are a great many subjects in which we would do well to abide by this principle. Joseph Smith decried tradition, saying that if we could get over our traditions, we could learn a great many things about eternal truths. (paraphrasing). I'm thinking that we should substitute "influences of men and the world" when Joseph Smith decried "tradition". (I'm not correcting Joseph Smith, I'm just offering an additional perspective of his teachings regarding traditions.)

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I think men and women in the church would do well to toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism.

Here are some principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities I've heard feminists of various ages associate with their particular brand of feminism:

- truth, untainted by world influence
- Women should be able to vote
- Women should be able to own property
- Women should be able to compete in the workplace and be hired and compensated according to their abilities and dedication and any other quality associated with men.
- Women should be able to have equal access to courts, law enforcement, etc.
- Women should not be considered a man's property.

You sure you want us to toss out all those?  Even the one I copied and pasted from your post?

Edited July 7, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here are some principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities I've heard feminists of various ages associate with their particular brand of feminism:

- truth, untainted by world influence
- Women should be able to vote
- Women should be able to own property
- Women should be able to compete in the workplace and be hired and compensated according to their abilities and dedication and any other quality associated with men.
- Women should be able to have equal access to courts, law enforcement, etc.
- Women should not be considered a man's property.

You sure you want us to toss out all those?  Even the one I copied and pasted from your post?

I think some men find the idea of feminism intimidating to them, so they ignore the good things feminism has done. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by MormonGator

[Snigmorder]

13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here are some principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities I've heard feminists of various ages associate with their particular brand of feminism:

- truth, untainted by world influence
- Women should be able to vote
- Women should be able to own property
- Women should be able to compete in the workplace and be hired and compensated according to their abilities and dedication and any other quality associated with men.
- Women should be able to have equal access to courts, law enforcement, etc.
- Women should not be considered a man's property.

You sure you want us to toss out all those?  Even the one I copied and pasted from your post?

We don't need the theories of feminism to arrive at those truths. In fact women could vote in Utah by 1888 (or somewhere near that time.) 

[Snigmorder]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think some men find the idea of feminism intimidating to them, so they ignore the good things feminism has done. 

Adolf Hitler opposed smoking and animal abuse.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Snigmorder said:

Adolf Hitler opposed smoking and animal abuse.

+1 for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law. Which in fairness, we don't see here much. 

[Snigmorder]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

+1 for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law. Which in fairness, we don't see here much. 

I understand Godwins law but I reject it. It's merely a squasher. 

Feisty man eaters saying something which is true does not mean that we needed the feisty man eaters in order to arrive there.

The same way we don't need Adolf Hitler to know that smoking and animal abuse is bad.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Snigmorder

[NeuroTypical]

11 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

We don't need the theories of feminism to arrive at those truths. In fact women could vote in Utah by 1888 (or somewhere near that time.) 

Very true.  But that wasn't what you said.  You said we should " toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism".  You didn't say just the stuff you disagree with, or the stuff we didn't arrive at independently from them.  You said "any and all", which by definition, includes, well, any and all. 

Would you like to reword what it is you're suggesting?

Edited July 7, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Very true.  But that wasn't what you said.  You said we should " toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism".  You didn't say just the stuff you disagree with, you said "any and all", which by definition, includes, well, any and all. 

Would you like to reword what it is you're suggesting?

I don't necessarily disagree. But would you say the same to someone who claimed, "We should toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of Satan worship"? Because many overt Satan worshipers are vocal about their opposition to minority oppression, child abuse, legal oppressions, sectarian theocracies, and other such evils, and equally vocal about their dedication to democracy, justice for all, equality before the law, apple pie, and Chevrolet. Should we then jump on such a person for not acknowledging the good and righteous beliefs of some Satanists? If not, then I think Snigmorder's statement is reasonable as it stands.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Vort

[Snigmorder]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Very true.  But that wasn't what you said.  You said we should " toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism".  You didn't say just the stuff you disagree with, you said "any and all", which by definition, includes, well, any and all. 

Would you like to reword what it is you're suggesting?

I shall reword it. Men and women in the church should submit themselves to the eternal truths which have been revealed, and lay hold upon all truth from all sources (because all truth in the earth originates from God.) And thereby walk the sunlite uplands of Eternity, untainted and undeceived by the philosophies of men.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Snigmorder

[NeuroTypical]

I can hang with that one.  Fist bump!

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

But would you say the same to someone who claimed, "We should toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of Satan worship"? 

From my experience, "satanists" are 90% rebellious teenagers, 8% too extreme or mentally ill for atheism, and 2% followers of some sort of actual systemic belief system.  That 2% seems to boil down to an amoral concept of "make sure you get paid".  I've heard one or two quote from the King James Bible when trying to explain this or that facet of their belief.   No, I'm not going to toss out what I read in the Bible, just because some satanist believes it too.

Edited July 7, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Maureen]

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I think men and women in the church would do well to toss out any and all principles, ideas, attitudes, concepts, and moralities associated with any age of feminism. And instead build for themselves a new ethic based on submission to truth, untainted by world influence.  One of the first things you can do to accomplish this is not complain that you can't hold the priesthood....

I'm going to assume that the you in your above statement is referring to female members of the LDS church. What do you suppose that the male members shouldn't complain about so that they can also build for themselves a new ethic based on submission to truth, untainted by world influence?

M.