Recommended Posts

I have been looking at the rapid change in today's world's views and see that modern-day feminism is changing the way we all look at the proverbial family unit.

I ask myself, if the Patriarchal Order is now dead. It seems as though, feminism is not in agreement of the way God has ordered the hierarchy of His kingdom.

I find that some brothers whom have been endowed in the House of the Lord mistakenly have understood that the Patriarchal Order to be one of a dictatorship. This is far from the truth. However, feminism is not the antidote to chauvinistic male assertions of power.

So, is the Patriarchal Oder Dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The patriarchal order is the order of the heavens. It is eternal. It can no more be dead than God can be dead. But if we reject the patriarchal order, then we are dead.

Feminism is a virulent cancer, and will inevitably kill those who do not root it out of their minds, hearts, and souls.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Xavier said:

Im 43 yrs old and recently divorced from a 15 yr temple marriage. I come from a strong Mormon family that goes back to the pioneer saints in Utah. I read that article and I can tell you that my parents relationship lacked a lot of the elements in that article, they divorced (8yrs ago) after 40 yrs of their temple marriage. The issues and behaviors that affected their marriage manifested itself in my own marriage.

In my experience the patriarchal order is in trouble because of a lack on the mans part. We need to educate and teach this more to our young men.

Edited by priesthoodpower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Xavier said:

I have been looking at the rapid change in today's world's views and see that modern-day feminism is changing the way we all look at the proverbial family unit.

I ask myself, if the Patriarchal Order is now dead. It seems as though, feminism is not in agreement of the way God has ordered the hierarchy of His kingdom.

I find that some brothers whom have been endowed in the House of the Lord mistakenly have understood that the Patriarchal Order to be one of a dictatorship. This is far from the truth. However, feminism is not the antidote to chauvinistic male assertions of power.

So, is the Patriarchal Oder Dead?

 

11 hours ago, Xavier said:

What part of the Patriarchal Order do you think is dead?  

For what its worth, feminism helped teach me the skill of viewing my marriage as a partnership in which decision were made by discussion and consensus--which is exactly what the article you link to describes. It was through the lens of feminism that I began to understand the principles that were taught by Elder Larsen; it was through feminism that I learned to better implement the Patriarchal Order, as described by Elder Larsen, into my life.

So help me out here.  If you want to investigate this question further, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that the meaning of "feminism killed the Patriarchal Order" is self explanatory.  Because it isn't (unless you're intending to preach to your own little choir).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The patriarchal order is far, far more than gender roles.  It’s thrones and kingdoms and inheritances and legacies passed from parent to child, from now to infinity both backwards and forwards through time and eternity. 

I happen to think that traditional gender roles, righteously applied, tend to strengthen the patriarchal order.  But men in LDS families not enjoying quite as many prerogatives as perhaps they once did, does not constitute the “death” of the patriarchal order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

So help me out here.  If you want to investigate this question further, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that the meaning of "feminism killed the Patriarchal Order" is self explanatory.  Because it isn't (unless you're intending to preach to your own little choir).

The modern feminist movement can be likened unto a person falling asleep at the wheel. When they wake up and find themselves drifting off the highway instead of simply making a measured correction to put themselves back on course they pull hard to the left and go careening off the highway altogether. While some have taken a more measured approach (such as yourself) Satan has largely co-opted the movement to serve his purposes as he seeks to destroy the family unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, laronius said:

The modern feminist movement can be likened unto a person falling asleep at the wheel. When they wake up and find themselves drifting off the highway instead of simply making a measured correction to put themselves back on course they pull hard to the left and go careening off the highway altogether. While some have taken a more measured approach (such as yourself) Satan has largely co-opted the movement to serve his purposes as he seeks to destroy the family unit.

Forgive me for being picky (well, I'm not actually feeling apologetic about that), but this editorial doesn't actually answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I begin, I must first say that the greatest resource for me understanding the patriarchal order has been my wife.  And yet I still struggle to understand our relationship - I am of the notion that she is wiser about relationships than I.  I do believe that there is a great deal of misdirections in marriage - both in regards in what it means to be a husband or wife as well as what is meant to be a parent.  May I begin by comparing a marriage to a contract to purchase something of great value.  This should not be too difficult - Jesus compared the covenant to own a membership in heaven to purchasing a pearl of great price.  In college I knew men that owned and adored their car.  They spent hours maintaining and caring for their car.  I recall one friend that would say, "I do not loan my car or my girl to anyone - in that order!"

I personally do not think that it is a bad thing for a man to think of his wife as his possession - if, she is his most prized and precious possession for which he would sacrifice everything else.  In fact I believe that most ladies would not mind being such a possession and yearn to be the very center of their man's attention - knowing that he would sacrifice all else he has (including his life) for her every benefit.  What happens when that most prised possession is damaged in any way - even the most insignificant scratch?  Why all resources possible are immediately brought to bear to repair whatever damage there is.  Sometimes others wonder if the most prized possession is owned or if it is exercising the ownership.  In every case that I have known where a woman is discouraged from being a possession it has always been because she feels strongly that something else is more meaningful and important to him.  

The other issue seems to be leadership - Leadership is not giving direction (laying down the law) to everybody else.  The first principle of leadership is love and the second is responsibility the third is sacrifice.  Because of our history of kings (and politicians) there seems to be an idea that leaders are served - but the reality is the other way around - leaders serve their followers.   I grew up in a very strict home.  My parents laid down the law and there was zero tolerance for bucking the system - I know because I was a born system bucker.  But their method of laying down the law was different that what I have seen anywhere else.  My parents said to me that I was free to do anything I saw them doing - in short if they ever broke a rule or law - I was free to do so as well.  If I ever wanted to do something that they did not do - then the rule was that I must seek permission based on a reason to do so.  When I was about 11 I wanted to go to Disneyland.  I was able to earn my way in a contest working for the Deseret News.  I believe leadership is the act of doing and being the example of abiding by the laws and rules you make.  Any exception immediately becomes the new law or rule.  The greatest sign of corrupt leadership are those that make exceptions and excuses for themselves.

I am of the notion that if leadership is a problem in a patriarchal marriage - it is because the leadership is corrupt.

There will always be resistance to righteousness - but it is my belief that the #1 most common failure the divine patriarchal order among the Saints - is in the failure and incompetence of the patriarch.  I am forever grateful for wife the supports me - even when I fall short of my responsibilities.  Our 46 years of success is mostly because of her - I owe her.  She is more important to me than I am to myself - more than money, more than our home and investments - more than all other things over which I have any stewardship.  I would rather lose even an argument in which I knew without any doubt that I was right than to lose her.  And I know I would lose her if I was weak in my resolve to honor my priesthood and my role as a husband and father.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be a Patriarch means to lead by example; filled with patience and love. I think of God and Father Lehi as two obvious examples. I have always struggled with patience, especially with my kids. I have been working on it for the last few years and I am improving. It is basically learning how to look at my children as Heavenly Father sees them. I was inspired by this talk:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/walk-with-me?lang=eng

"On another occasion a phone call came when I was a bishop—this time from the police. I was told that a drunk driver had crashed his car through the glass into the lobby of a bank. When the bewildered driver saw the security guard with his weapon brandished, he cried, “Don’t shoot! I’m a Mormon!”

The inebriated driver was discovered to be a member of my ward, baptized only recently. As I waited to speak to him in the bishop’s office, I planned what I would say to make him feel remorseful for the way he had broken his covenants and embarrassed the Church. But as I sat looking at him, I heard a voice in my mind say, just as clearly as if someone were speaking to me, “I’m going to let you see him as I see him.” And then, for a brief moment, his whole appearance changed to me. I saw not a dazed young man but a bright, noble son of God. I suddenly felt the Lord’s love for him. That vision changed our conversation. It also changed me.

I learned important lessons from these experiences walking with the Lord in doing His work. I would like to share with you three of them. The first is that God notices and will support even the newest and youngest deacon. You need never feel that you are too small or too insignificant for Him to take notice of you and the service you are giving in His name."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Xavier said:

I have been looking at the rapid change in today's world's views and see that modern-day feminism is changing the way we all look at the proverbial family unit.

I ask myself, if the Patriarchal Order is now dead. It seems as though, feminism is not in agreement of the way God has ordered the hierarchy of His kingdom.

I find that some brothers whom have been endowed in the House of the Lord mistakenly have understood that the Patriarchal Order to be one of a dictatorship. This is far from the truth. However, feminism is not the antidote to chauvinistic male assertions of power.

So, is the Patriarchal Oder Dead?

There are two main aspects that have caused disobedience to the Patriarchal order: Feminism and Chauvinism. The article you provided highlights misunderstandings of the Patriarchal order from the male perspective and culture when he talked about the young woman and what her fiance said. That was/is a common misunderstanding of the Patriarchal order.

Our modern day feminists desire to equal (same as) their male counter-parts as they ridicule "gender roles." I agree with others in the sentiment that modern day feminism is a cancer, combined with male chauvinism, has resulted in far too many infants to loose their lives while in the womb. Modern day feminism is definitely not in agreement with the order of hierarchy of God's kingdom. I would also say modern day chauvinism that misrepresents the Patriarchal order is also not in agreement with God's hierarchy and how the Patriarchal order is to be practiced and applied.

I find it very telling how a perfect, glorified Mother in heaven, chooses to be "unsung" in our lives. Yet, earthly daughters (feminists) are seeking to deny, not partake in, and even to demean other women who choose to honor the Patriarchal order. Our modern day feminists are not like our Heavenly mother. They desire power, fame, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, and much more. Modern day feminism and chauvinism is the reason why according to a website since 1980 the number of abortions have been over 1 billion, and that the US alone has had over 60 million. I would be curious to know if these are accurate statistics. Man and women who are unwilling to protect the newborn is evidence of a nation, people, who are denying the Patriarchal order.

No, feminism is not the antidote to overcoming chauvinism. Truth is the antidote to conquering error. Sadly, even members who have the Spirit given them choose to deny principles of truth for power, glory, fame, lovers of themselves, etc...

In saying that though, Chauvinism is just as much a part of denying the Patriarchal order as is modern day Feminism.

No, the Patriarchal order is not dead.

 

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Xavier said:

I have been looking at the rapid change in today's world's views and see that modern-day feminism is changing the way we all look at the proverbial family unit.

I ask myself, if the Patriarchal Order is now dead. It seems as though, feminism is not in agreement of the way God has ordered the hierarchy of His kingdom.

I find that some brothers whom have been endowed in the House of the Lord mistakenly have understood that the Patriarchal Order to be one of a dictatorship. This is far from the truth. However, feminism is not the antidote to chauvinistic male assertions of power.

So, is the Patriarchal Oder Dead?

Short answer...

No, it is not dead

Longer answer...

...though PART of it still being on earth could be debatable.

It depends on WHICH part you are considering.

One portion would be in consideration to the Line of Joseph and the Patriarch of the Church.  It appears that for now, this idea of the Patriarch of the Church has been taken from the Earth for now.  We are left with the lower Patriarchs, each with a similar authority of the Church Patriarch, but not as encompassing as the responsibility that he used to have.

In addition, it would appear that in some arenas the doctrine taught by the Lord and his apostles in the New Testament has been forgotten, forgone, or taken away.  We see this reflected in some individuals conversations in regards to the Temple Ordinances to a degree.  I'm not really going to touch upon such things here other than to admit that these types of conversations take place regarding some changes in thought and approach within the Church.  Why this occurred, I do not know.  It could be that some favors or ideas in relation to us have also been taken away.

Why, I'm not sure.

Sometimes things are taken away due to wickedness, but as I stated, I am unsure of the exact reasons for what has occurred above.

However, as many have stated, the things of heaven are Eternal and unchanging principles, not things that die on the whim of men.

The Patriarchal order itself in the practice of the family is still the proper order instituted by the Lord regardless of what happens in the world.  It is still found in the Scriptures and can still be practiced in the Home.  In this, it is not that the father commands nor demands obedience, but that he leads the home with love.  It is more akin to how Captain America and the Avengers team up (Comic Books), or Frodo and Sam (Lord of the Rings), or Joseph and Hyrum Smith.  One is typically the Leader, but the tasks they take on are normally more of a co-equal job in which they tackle things together and cooperate and converse with each other on how they will do things.  Sometimes it is not the leader that is the one that makes decisions, and sometimes it is the leader who needs support rather than taking charge.  In almost all instances, it is a companionship that strengthens each other through cooperation rather than a dictatorship of authority.

In this, as the Father is there to lead the home, but NOT be a dictator over it.  Leadership is not dictatorship and normally those who are dictators are not really very good leaders.  Good Leaders listen to those they lead and try to inspire them to follow them.  It is a matter of inspiration and encouragement rather than one of dictatorship and force.

Something else to consider, that may be dying, but not dead yet, or in better words, slowly fading from the Church but not taken away from it yet, is that of the Patriarchal Order in the Priesthood.  There are some here that would disagree with what I am about to discuss.

This Order is the highest one in the Priesthood.  To obtain this Priesthood authority, it CANNOT be held solely by a Man.  It is ENTERED JOINTLY by him and his spouse.  In this way, his wife ALSO holds the Priesthood.  Through this order of the Priesthood in the past, women have been able to call down the powers of their husbands priesthood in blessings and other things as seen in Church History.  They are JOINT holders of this Priesthood authority.  The natural order of this leads to the Man being the Priesthood Holder in the Home.  He is the one who leads in the Priesthood.  The ONLY instances (that I know of) when I wife called down upon the priesthood of her husband was when he was absolutely unavailable and normally other priesthood holders would be unable to help her in that instance.  It does NOT mean she leads or becomes the priesthood holder in the home, but if church history is an example, that she can bless her children and home in his stead if he is absent.  Though this is no longer really something we practice, it can be seen as having been done in church history.  It indicates that this is a JOINT power, but also emphasizes the proper order and leadership of it in the home.  Without one, the other cannot possess it.  A MAN CAN ONLY have this Priesthood authority and enter into this order if they are Sealed together in an eternal union.  Without a spouse, the husband loses this authority. 

To be clear, it is NOT a separate Priesthood, but a Priesthood authority, or natural order from the Priesthood.  It is still the Melchizedek Priesthood, but a higher manifestation of it.  It is the more complete manifestation of it rather than a separate grouping.

This particular order of the Priesthood is the Highest there is, encompassing all others within it.  It is under this authority that men act as a representative of the Lord in their homes, and in their absence the mother also has equal hold.  This helps them to lead their children in righteousness, and guides them to bind their children to them both spiritually and eternally.

This has not been taken from the earth or the church (that I know of) yet.  It may be in the future with the way things are going (I don't know the future), but currently, it is STILL here.

Thus, in this way the Patriarchal order is still among us for our present time, in my understanding.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Missed a vital word which changed a meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 4:56 AM, MarginOfError said:

What part of the Patriarchal Order do you think is dead?  

Well, where to begin: mostly the changes in the temple endowment and the predominance of the Ordain Women movement, which may have had a role in these changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Xavier said:

Well, where to begin: mostly the changes in the temple endowment and the predominance of the Ordain Women movement, which may have had a role in these changes.

I'm not sure how changes in the wording in the endowment constitute the death of the Patriarchal Order.  Especially when, on its face, the changes seem to align better with what is being taught by current and past leadership. I mean, the actual wording in the temple before was pretty hard to square up with "equal partners." 

Will I concede that societal pressures may have been the premise on which an inquiry about changing the language changed?  Absolutely! But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Societies morph and change, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. The temple ceremonies have been adjusted to reflect some of those changes several times already. Yet I don't hear a lot of complaints that privacy concerns altering how we do initiatories is a sign of apostasy. 

Another way of looking at it is that these are implementations of principles.  Implementations can change without altering the principles.  Saying the Patriarchal Order is dead because we changed a few words in the endowment is kind of like saying the Law of Consecration is dead because we did away with the United Order.

 

With respect to Ordain Women, it's hard to make a case that Ordain Women is killing the Patriarchal Order when most of the leaders of that movement have been excommunicated, disciplined, or driven underground. Sure seems to me like the Patriarchal Order survived that ordeal.

Regardless, according to the talk you linked to, "the patriarchal order will have no enduring relevance for those who do not qualify for an eternal marriage relationship." It's hard to kill something that exists only under certain covenants.  To stamp it out dead, you'd have to kill the authority to make those covenants. 

The greater threat is individuals either refusing to make those covenants, or failing to live up to them. But now we're not really talking about killing the Patriarchal Order. Now we're talking about getting people to live it.  I'd argue that is fundamentally a different concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This something that we need clear defining of terms on to discuss

The Patriarchal Order is God's order and it is not dead because God is not dead.

We can't kill God's order... but we can very much cut ourselves off from it.  It is a very sad day when we have been so thoroughly cut off that we mistakenly think it is dead rather then we are dead.

Now in many ways the Priesthood and the Patriarchal order are the same thing.  Realizing this then we can also realize that the Patriarchal Order must be handled as outlined for the Priesthood in Doctrine and Covenants Section 121.  This means we can be cut off from it very easily.

That is one way to define the Patriarchal Order.  Another (and much more commonly used one) is by those that claim to live by it.  In this group you have those that are living it right...(few) those that are trying to it right but failing to some degree (many), and those in full on Unrighteous Dominion while calling it the Patriarchal Order (more then there really should be).

Under this second definition there are many that need to be called to repentance, and rightfully so.  This is not a problem with the Order itself but a more general problem of the Human Fallen State.

Now there are some that like to define Feminism as a call to repentance for the misuse and abuse of this authority, and as far and as long as it is simply rebranded repentance it is as acceptable as repentance itself.

However no one should be surprised that God's order and God's ways are under attack...  That instead of calling upon men to step up to their covenants and obligations. They are being told to stand aside, to stand down, to stop trying, that they never can do it, so they should never try.  This is also a definition of Feminism and it is utterly toxic while hiding behind Girl Power catch phrases.

You call tell what definition they are using both sets of terms by its impact on men.  If it is a call for Men to step up and be more Christ-like it is acceptable whatever the branding... If it is a call for Men to avoid their obligations (either through unrighteous Dominion or abandonment of responsibility) it is toxic no matter the branding.

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Xavier said:

Well, where to begin: mostly the changes in the temple endowment and the predominance of the Ordain Women movement, which may have had a role in these changes.

This comment makes me wonder what you think the Patriarchal Order is.  We should establish that before we can answer your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

This comment makes me wonder what you think the Patriarchal Order is.  We should establish that before we can answer your question.

Agreed.  The patriarchal order doesn’t exist to exalt fatherhood; it exists to exalt parenthood.  

It would be perhaps more accurate (though certainly more cumbersome) to use the term “patriarchal and matriarchal order”, rather than simply “patriarchal order”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2019 at 9:48 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Agreed.  The patriarchal order doesn’t exist to exalt fatherhood; it exists to exalt parenthood.  

It would be perhaps more accurate (though certainly more cumbersome) to use the term “patriarchal and matriarchal order”, rather than simply “patriarchal order”.

A rare disagreement with JAG. The patriachal order may not exist to exalt fatherhood, but it most certainly is an overriding aspect of fatherhood—"overriding" in that all other imposed demands of fatherhood, especially including social constructs, must defer to the patriarchal order. The patriarchal order defines eternal fatherhood.

I disagree that it would be more accurate to say "patriarchal and matriarchal order". If that were more accurate, that's what the prophets would have taught us. The Family Proclamation makes it clear that men and women have differing defined duties. The man is called to preside—literally, to sit in front of his family (pre- "before" + sedere "to sit"). The husband and father metaphorically sits in front of his family to (1) provide instruction and (2) closely monitor family members with love and care.

So what does this mean and what doesn't it mean?

It doesn't mean that everyone tiptoes around Dad to make sure they don't set him off; that is rather the opposite of a father's duty. It doesn't mean that Dad bosses everyone around; that may happen occasionally in certain urgent situations, but it is not the normal order of things. It also doesn't mean that Dad has the final say in everything, despite Tevye's earnest insistence.

It does mean that the father accepts the responsibility for the home and takes the attitude, "The buck stops here." It means that if there's something amiss, the father addresses it. It means the father always works for his family's benefit and always treats his family members with love, even when sometimes that expression of love is uncomfortable and people might react badly to it.

This is the patriarchal order.

Now, the patriarchal order puts the onus of protection and responsibility on the father's shoulders, but it also makes requirements of others. Specifically, others are required to sustain the father, to help him, to understand that he is just a man, after all, and his every word will not likely be as if fallen from the lips of Jesus himself. It is (or should be) understood that others in the home try to love and support the father just he tries to love and support them. The wife and mother, especially, as the divine help to the husband and father and as his only true equal in authority in the home (and, btw, in responsibility, for God will surely require of her hand many of the same things he requires of her husband), must sustain and help him, and never seek to undermine his righteous authority or influence.

If we truly understood and strived to live according to the divine patriarchal order, we would take many very large steps away from Babylon and toward our heavenly home. In such a state, we might have a real opportunity to bring again Zion, which we will never bring about on any other principle.

The world misunderstands the patriarchal order, through ignorance or willful rebellion. The world is hell and always will be. We will never bring again Zion while living by the world's ideals. Sadly, too many even in the Church misunderstand the patriarchal order, with many accepting the benighted and horrific views of feminist theory, while at least some others see it as a self-serving glorification that is their due. The sublime truth rejects both of these wicked ideas.

I wish I had more than a tenuous grasp on the subject, but I know enough to recognize and reject the base perversions of the patriarchal order that both extremes cling to. In the society I live in and at this particular moment in time, the feminist viewpoint seems to dominate the scene, and so it is the one I object to much more strongly. I expect there are other places in the world where the feminist hatred of patriarchy is unknown or at least uncommon, and the other extreme holds sway. In such a situation, I assume I would object more strongly to that other extreme, where patriarchal authority and duty are perverted into an excuse for self-glorification.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vort said:

A rare disagreement with JAG. The patriachal order may not exist to exalt fatherhood, but it most certainly is an overriding aspect of fatherhood—"overriding" in that all other imposed demands of fatherhood, especially including social constructs, must defer to the patriarchal order. The patriarchal order defines eternal fatherhood.

I disagree that it would be more accurate to say "patriarchal and matriarchal order". If that were more accurate, that's what the prophets would have taught us. The Family Proclamation makes it clear that men and women have differing defined duties. The man is called to preside—literally, to sit in front of his family (pre- "before" + sedere "to sit"). The husband and father metaphorically sits in front of his family to (1) provide instruction and (2) closely monitor family members with love and care.

So what does this mean and what doesn't it mean?

It doesn't mean that everyone tiptoes around Dad to make sure they don't set him off; that is rather the opposite of a father's duty. It doesn't mean that Dad bosses everyone around; that may happen occasionally in certain urgent situations, but it is not the normal order of things. It also doesn't mean that Dad has the final say in everything, despite Tevye's earnest insistence.

It does mean that the father accepts the responsibility for the home and takes the attitude, "The buck stops here." It means that if there's something amiss, the father addresses it. It means the father always works for his family's benefit and always treats his family members with love, even when sometimes that expression of love is uncomfortable and people might react badly to it.

This is the patriarchal order.

Now, the patriarchal order puts the onus of protection and responsibility on the father's shoulders, but it also makes requirements of others. Specifically, others are required to sustain the father, to help him, to understand that he is just a man, after all, and his every word will not likely be as if fallen from the lips of Jesus himself. It is (or should be) understood that others in the home try to love and support the father just he tries to love and support them. The wife and mother, especially, as the divine help to the husband and father and as his only true equal in authority in the home (and, btw, in responsibility, for God will surely require of her hand many of the same things she requires of her husband), must sustain and help him, and never seek to undermine his righteous authority or influence.

If we truly understood and strived to live according to the divine patriarchal order, we would take many very large steps away from Babylon and toward our heavenly home. In such a state, we might have a real opportunity to bring again Zion, which we will never bring about on any other principle.

The world misunderstands the patriarchal order, through ignorance or willful rebellion. The world is hell, and always will be. We will never bring again Zion while living by the world's ideals. Sadly, too many even in the Church misunderstand the patriarchal order, with many accepting the benighted and horrific views of feminist theory, while at least some others see it as a self-serving glorification that is their due. The sublime truth rejects both of these wicked ideas.

I wish I had more than a tenuous grasp on the subject, but I know enough to recognize and reject the base perversions of the patriarchal order that both extremes cling to. In the society I live in and at this particular moment in time, the feminist viewpoint seems to dominate the scene, and so it is the one I object to much more strongly. I expect there are other places in the world where the feminist hatred of patriarchy are unknown or at least uncommon, and the other extreme holds sway. In such a situation, I assume I would object to that extreme.

Hmm.  We do disagree somewhat; as I think the “patriarchal order” primarily revolves around the way various generations are linked to one another and the way blessings and legacies and kingdoms and glories pass forwards and backwards between generations—the fitting of an individual family unit into a much greater whole.  In that paradigm, I see the gender roles you describe as being to the patriarchal order, similar to what the “united order” is to the Law of Consecration:  a temporal (and, I hasten to add, wholly righteous and appropriate and even necessary) application of an eternal principle; but one that may apply very differently in the eternities.  (What, exactly, is Heavenly Father protecting Heavenly Mother—and us—against at this stage of Their existence; and why don’t we see Heavenly Mother helping Heavenly Father in a more visible way?)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(What, exactly, is Heavenly Father protecting Heavenly Mother—and us—against at this stage of Their existence; and why don’t we see Heavenly Mother helping Heavenly Father in a more visible way?)

Of course, I can't answer such speculative questions (and I know you don't expect me to). Do glorified celestial beings even require each other to provide "protection"? How can such a question possibly even be considered without knowing far more about the order of heaven and the hereafter than we do? From our perspective, God the Father, and doubtless the Mother, are beings of absolute power, might, and dominion. They are not, indeed cannot be, vulnerable to physical insult or physical/mental/emotional/spiritual threat as we are. But that does not mean threats do not exist, though they would likely be threats that we don't understand at this stage of our eternal lives.

As for why the Mother does not more visibly help the Father, of course that's speculative, too, and any answer would be nonsense. But my nonsense answer goes something like this:

In the early stages of a baby's mortal life, the mother is the central being of his existence. The mother literally gives life and provides life; Eve (Chava) is well-named. The mother is the baby's first and most primal love and attachment. In the earliest stages, it is the mother and not the father who has the power to give and sustain life.

As the child grows, the father becomes increasingly important. By the time the child is taking his or her first tentative steps into adulthood, the father should have become as important as the mother, and perhaps more important in many ways. This is especially true for boys, but also is true for girls. Both parents model aspects and roles of adult behavior, but traditionally, it has been the father's role to interact socially. The father and the mother form the Janus of society, with the mother facing inward toward the home and the father facing outward toward the larger community. Eve indeed gives and nourishes life, and without her existence is impossible. But Adam leads us to a civilized life infinitely more rewarding than mere existence (and, by the way, without him existence is also impossible). Both roles are glorious and necessary.

I entertain the thought that, in the premortal realms, we viewed our Parents much as little children among us view their own mortal parents. I imagine that we knew our Mother perhaps better than anyone else. We glorified her and worshiped at her feet. She gave us life and she sustained us in our earliest times, and she was our all. Our Father was, perhaps, a more remote-seeming figure, exciting and powerful and maybe a bit mysterious. But as we grew and developed through whatever processes we had in our premortal life, we of necessity approached our Father and learned at his hand. When the time came for the life we are living now, we were to devote ourselves to finding the Father. That is his role. We do not learn much about or speak much of the Mother, because this is no the time for that. Our mind, our heart, our whole soul must be devoted to the Father, to finding him out and following him. We have not "lost" Mother; she will be there eternally, at the Father's side, a divine Consort meet for a perfect and all-powerful Being. But we do not pray to her; that would be wholly inappropriate, unless perhaps, as with her Son, she were standing before us. She knows well her own duties and those of the Father, and she holds to her own place and duty, as does the Father.

So quit worrying about the heavenly Mother. When the time is right, we will become reacquainted with her. For now, quit being distracted and instead do as we have been taught: To seek the Father with full purpose of heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hmm.  We do disagree somewhat; as I think the “patriarchal order” primarily revolves around the way various generations are linked to one another and the way blessings and legacies and kingdoms and glories pass forwards and backwards between generations—the fitting of an individual family unit into a much greater whole.  In that paradigm, I see the gender roles you describe as being to the patriarchal order, similar to what the “united order” is to the Law of Consecration:  a temporal (and, I hasten to add, wholly righteous and appropriate and even necessary) application of an eternal principle; but one that may apply very differently in the eternities.  (What, exactly, is Heavenly Father protecting Heavenly Mother—and us—against at this stage of Their existence; and why don’t we see Heavenly Mother helping Heavenly Father in a more visible way?)

Although @Vort gave an excellent answer that I believe is likely sufficient - I will add a little bit of speculation for which may be as wrong or more so than right.  I will begin by saying that G-d is a G-d of truth and will not lie - but he may wait until we are ready to understand greater truths based on your understanding of truths we have and understand.  Thus as Isaiah witnessed - that we learn line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  And so we understand that marriage is ordained (ordinance supported by law and covenant) of G-d.   So, as the song, "Oh My Father" logically assumes - we have a mother in heaven.  But what if it was possible that we have different mothers?  Might Satan exploit such and deceive many to think one mother is greater than another and thus some "children" were greater or less than someone else or that we are not the "brothers" and "sisters" we thought?  

History would seem to indicate that for whatever foolish reason one person would think themself better than another.  It is already difficult enough to love others as we do ourselves.

Whatever the reason - I speculate it is because we are not able to bear it - yet.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 6:21 PM, Xavier said:

I have been looking at the rapid change in today's world's views and see that modern-day feminism is changing the way we all look at the proverbial family unit.

I ask myself, if the Patriarchal Order is now dead. It seems as though, feminism is not in agreement of the way God has ordered the hierarchy of His kingdom.

I find that some brothers whom have been endowed in the House of the Lord mistakenly have understood that the Patriarchal Order to be one of a dictatorship. This is far from the truth. However, feminism is not the antidote to chauvinistic male assertions of power.

So, is the Patriarchal Oder Dead?

No, it is alive and well in those who keep the temple covenants and follow the Beatitudes, changing social customs and "-isms" notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the response of Winston Churchill to a feminists that declared that by the year 2000 the world would be ruled by women.  He looked back and uttered just one word - "Still?"

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this