tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post1932385280969180699..comments2024-02-11T21:38:42.656-08:00Comments on mulling and musing: The Patriarchal Order as a Good Thingm_and_mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-40531941569825463772010-03-10T09:44:22.212-08:002010-03-10T09:44:22.212-08:00p.s. I'm closing comments on this thread now.p.s. I'm closing comments on this thread now.m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-77240018307993531142010-03-10T09:43:00.832-08:002010-03-10T09:43:00.832-08:00Kristine,
So now you are saying the prophets prac...Kristine,<br /><br />So now you are saying the prophets practice cafeteria Mormonism and intellectual dishonesty, too. <br /><br />And now in your book I have to somehow apologize for being too happy AND for following the prophets' lead on this one.<br /><br />Fine by me. Accuse me of being like the prophets then. I think that is a bit lofty, but hey, you are entitled to your opinion.<br /><m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-43889611526757177262010-03-10T07:34:46.511-08:002010-03-10T07:34:46.511-08:00Also, my point was that "contemporary teachin...Also, my point was that "contemporary teachings" can only be understood in light of the history. I don't know what you mean by "contemporary reading," but what I meant was that the current official stance, which includes soft-pedaling or re-interpreting or not giving "contemporary clarity" about distasteful elements of the foundational teachings on the Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-74500472520549259652010-03-10T06:19:36.697-08:002010-03-10T06:19:36.697-08:00I wasn't rejecting Section 132; I was just poi...I wasn't rejecting Section 132; I was just pointing out that it doesn't entirely support your cheerful view of Mormon patriarchy, that, in particular, it explicitly contradicts the assertion you made that LDS patriarchy is better than those that presume women are owned by men. My point was that LDS feminists may, in fact, be troubled by *specifically* LDS patriarchy, not be confused by Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-37510736158138952622010-03-09T16:27:07.800-08:002010-03-09T16:27:07.800-08:00Sorry you feel it was a "bother" Kristin...Sorry you feel it was a "bother" Kristine.<br /><br />Again, in my mind if we are going to do a "contemporary reading," we have to do it in light of contemporary teachings, which are pretty clear about women not being property. Which means we have to let those verses go since no one with authority has given us any contemporary clarity about them.<br /><br />I have acknowledgedm_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-58162524734362707762010-03-09T15:31:18.844-08:002010-03-09T15:31:18.844-08:00It's not just that you said the patriarchal or...It's not just that you said the patriarchal order is good, m&m, it's that you specifically used the Mormon patriarchy as a counterexample to "bad" patriarchies IN WHICH MEN THINK THEY OWN WOMEN. I pointed to a Mormon text that directly contradicts your point, and you shifted the conversation away from that specific point to talk about the big picture that's so wonderfulKristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-90666561930657344112010-03-09T14:44:22.825-08:002010-03-09T14:44:22.825-08:00m&m, your approach requires that we ignore the...<i>m&m, your approach requires that we ignore the text of the scriptures, however.</i><br /><br />There is a difference between ignoring and shelving verses or concepts in my view. I've explained that already, though. <br /><br /><i>I think that in order to make an argument that "patriarchy is good" in this context, you have to address the contradictory evidence and explain whym_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-4343438309684124682010-03-09T14:17:08.699-08:002010-03-09T14:17:08.699-08:00No, you are interpreting those verses to mean that...<i>No, you are interpreting those verses to mean that.</i><br /><br />No, I'm actually not. There is a difference between "paraphrase" and "interpretation." When you paraphrase something, you are merely restating the original passage in your own words but you are keeping the essential meaning of the passage the same. I was paraphrasing the passage, substituting the word &Seraphinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-57176698000386194852010-03-09T07:17:13.637-08:002010-03-09T07:17:13.637-08:00m&m, your approach requires that we ignore the...m&m, your approach requires that we ignore the text of the scriptures, however. Can you tell me the "foundational truths" about eternal marriage you find in this?:<br /><br />"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified"ECShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07805628992637470006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-34687509820143866662010-03-08T23:24:38.221-08:002010-03-08T23:24:38.221-08:00Seraphine,
Thanks for stopping by.
m&m, the ...Seraphine,<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by.<br /><br /><i>m&m, the problem is not lack of understanding. I (and Kristine and others) *do* understand those verses--God and/or Joseph Smith are talking about women as commodities. </i><br /><br />No, you are interpreting those verses to mean that. I can understand that reading, of course, but at some point, I think we have to go to the core of m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-30834026264358510452010-03-08T18:00:10.409-08:002010-03-08T18:00:10.409-08:00m&m, the problem is not lack of understanding....m&m, the problem is not lack of understanding. I (and Kristine and others) *do* understand those verses--God and/or Joseph Smith are talking about women as commodities. We're not reading some kind of hidden agenda into those verses--we're merely paraphrasing the words that are *actually there*. So I don't buy any assertion about our lack of understanding of those verses.<br /><br Seraphinehttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-80341920685597431622010-03-08T14:10:31.690-08:002010-03-08T14:10:31.690-08:00One other thought -- I think it should be understo...One other thought -- I think it should be understood why I wrote this post -- it's for the very fact that I see people missing the JOY of the plan because of verses such as those Kristine pointed out. I think we too easily let things we don't understand get in the way of the good things we already know and can know and have a conviction of.m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-704232742658476242010-03-08T13:31:32.859-08:002010-03-08T13:31:32.859-08:00I think there's a huge difference, though, bet...<i>I think there's a huge difference, though, between "letting them go" and writing a post defending the patriarchal order as "a good thing."</i><br /><br />Well, then, there we disagree, too. <br /><br /><i>I'm being quite specific, and it might help the discussion if you didn't broaden my comments. </i><br /><br />Since you brought up polygamy in your first m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-23959702077608908542010-03-08T06:02:36.739-08:002010-03-08T06:02:36.739-08:00Also, for the record, I did not say anything gener...Also, for the record, I did not say anything generally about polygamy--I said that these particular verses, in which virgins are described as rewards given to men for righteousness, are horrifying. I'm being quite specific, and it might help the discussion if you didn't broaden my comments. <br /><br />I'm not talking about "current cultural comfort zones," either, I'mKristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-11536492774261306842010-03-08T05:55:10.781-08:002010-03-08T05:55:10.781-08:00Obviously, in practice I do let these things go, o...Obviously, in practice I do let these things go, or I wouldn't be a committed, practicing Mormon. I think there's a huge difference, though, between "letting them go" and writing a post defending the patriarchal order as "a good thing."Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-30559280048374590932010-03-07T23:42:29.329-08:002010-03-07T23:42:29.329-08:00One more thought:
Kristine says:
"Nonethele...One more thought:<br /><br />Kristine says:<br /><br />"Nonetheless, there are inescapably horrifying passages in this section--there just isn't any way to parse "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified" in a way that is not deeply and disturbingly m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-72858530962830915762010-03-07T23:26:00.505-08:002010-03-07T23:26:00.505-08:00Actually, I think I have disagreed about some thin...Actually, I think I have disagreed about some things: with the notion that this is all an either/or thing, on what the patriarchal order means (and whether it's a positive or a negative) -- particularly for women.<br /><br />I think we also disagree on what to do with verses like these. You ask me what I do with words like these.<br /><br />I let them go. You probably think that is naive. If m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-55412324931953505432010-03-07T18:31:46.700-08:002010-03-07T18:31:46.700-08:00It's not my analysis or my negativity--I simpl...It's not my analysis or my negativity--I simply quoted the scripture. What do you do with those words? Do you really think that is a message that is benign towards women and supportive of egalitarian marriage? I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but you haven't even disagreed yet.Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-42295414369039005372010-03-07T16:42:51.425-08:002010-03-07T16:42:51.425-08:00Kristine,
I can understand questions and concerns...Kristine,<br /><br />I can understand questions and concerns about some of the passages in the section, but I think a lot depends on what we do with those questions. I don't agree with the intense negativity and the either/or thinking I feel from you on this topic. If it seems naive and simplistic to you, I can't do much to change your point of view about me or these things. But your m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-91977635462257392512010-03-07T13:51:20.128-08:002010-03-07T13:51:20.128-08:00I didn't say that it's _exclusively_ about...I didn't say that it's _exclusively_ about polygamy, but that it is _explicitly_ about polygamy. It's certainly true that the church leadership has tried hard to rehabilitate Section 132 for contemporary use. I don't doubt that there could be principles in it that have application to monogamously-married couples. Nonetheless, there are inescapably horrifying passages in this Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-36252383929468383662010-03-06T15:50:15.583-08:002010-03-06T15:50:15.583-08:00JNS, thanks for your comment. Our comments crossed...JNS, thanks for your comment. Our comments crossed and I've been out and about all day.<br /><br />The verses that I find particularly striking in D&C 132 actually speak about the blessings on the couple, using plural pronouns.<br /><br />I am particularly moved by verse 19 (emphasis added):<br /><br />"...and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-63008360179892022382010-03-06T13:57:14.455-08:002010-03-06T13:57:14.455-08:00Kristine,
I disagree with your assertion that D&a...Kristine,<br /><br />I disagree with your assertion that D&C 132 is only about polygamy -- prophets have talked about that section often in terms of the covenants we make today in terms of monogamous marriage as well.<br /><br />Those promises in my mind are tied to temple ordinances; I have no problem reflecting on those scriptures in terms of the blessings of eternal marriage, and I think m_and_mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552368137212513094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-16320610226836376522010-03-06T12:59:14.544-08:002010-03-06T12:59:14.544-08:00m&m, this is as clear and straightforward a st...m&m, this is as clear and straightforward a statement of your often-articulated position as I've seen. Thanks for the very clarifying post.<br /><br />It strikes me that the scriptures you discuss do leave a little bit lacking in terms of women's roles in the gospel, though, don't you think? For example, note that the section you quote is phrased in terms of what a <i>man</i> AthieVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356796270830610231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-39615950959455572892010-03-06T08:13:49.487-08:002010-03-06T08:13:49.487-08:00um, the patriarchal order described in Section 132...um, the patriarchal order described in Section 132 is explicitly tied to polygamy, with virgins being awarded to men for righteousness and taken away for unrighteousness. You sure you want to go _there_ for your definition of patriarchy as beneficent and empowering?<br /><br />There's a reason the word evokes strong reactions among Mormon women, and it has very little to do with secular Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801975801367100964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29724538.post-17192900175654174592010-02-20T14:30:52.675-08:002010-02-20T14:30:52.675-08:00I haven't heard such a good and succinct descr...I haven't heard such a good and succinct description before. Thanks!jendoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01010044127553834584noreply@blogger.com