The Problem is the Patriarchy

[_cwald]

Excommunication is among the consequences I alluded to. I would not even think to mention it because it is so obvious.

In that case, those who believe it's the true church fear excommunication and won't heed your call to arms, while those who believe it's NOT the true church don't care enough about it to heed your call to arms.

Tough position to be in.

What we need is enough people who believe, but will stand up and have the guts to be excommunicated because it's the right thing to do. All devout believers and faithful Mormons should reject things like the 14 Fs and the blatant sexism, and oligarchy of the church, even if their membership is in jeopardy.

What is it that the church taught us in primary? Do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

It's time for the members to live it.

[_honorentheos]

Who cares that God could raise up children to Abraham of the stones of Goblin Valley.

That Mormonism more closely resembles the portrayal of the Jewish sects in the Gospels than it does the churches in the epistles is amusing. Or the basis for a revolution if one is into that sort of thing I guess.

[_Meadowchik]

More Mormons are leaving and speaking out, and exposing fatal flaws. Sam Young's petition is an example. I posted a blog link yesterday with an example, a woman challenging worthiness of a priesthood holder, valuing fact over feeling.

It would seem that section 132 would have to go before any woman would consider even a schysim. The whole of the temple, and doctrine seems patriarchy based. To remove every aspect of it would leave a totally different religion.

There are so many fatal flaws.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Interesting, Doc. I would love to hear more about this.

Well. I think you first need to probably admit that a majority humans favor decent autocrats. The benevolent King, the Lord Jesus Christ, the charismatic cult leader, the Executive in Chief, the Belichickian coach, the 50's Head of Household, so on and so forth. If you lop off the crappy examples of terrible autocrats most people will assume a role under a Dear Leader. Even if we have a terrible autocrat as long as our needs are being met we generally will fall in line. It's human nature.

And that's the Patriarchy. It's a system designed to effectively manage its resources that, yes, benefits the top dogs more than it benefits the subordinates who assume a role within in the system because they also benefit from it somehow. Everyone within the patriarchal systems gets a degree of power and a degree of success within the paradigm. It's all a tacit agreement that the top will give the bottom some stuff if the bottom gives the top some stuff.

The problem with proposed matriocracies is they don't effectively communicate to men how they can benefit within the new paradigm. They bitch and moan a lot about the current system, and do a good job of stating that men are victims of it too, but that's pretty much where it ends. They really suck at conceptualizing for the lower classes why it would benefit them to hand over their labor to them so they can then manage them more effectively than what the patriarchal system is doing.

So. You're left with really two options. Destroy the patriarchy from within by using the system against itself with the tools it created, or opting out and creating your own system.

Obviously with Mormonism you're in a pinch because ain't no women creating a mirror version of Mormonism that will win over many adherents, and the LDS system really does a good job of creating a quid pro quo dynamic between husband and wife where not many faithful men or women really feel the need to change the status quo. So, all these NOM or feminist Mormon housewives or whatever the “F” they call themselvs are pretty transparent in their efforts.

They're marketing themselves to carve out a sort of Dehlian niche among a certain sub-set of Mormons and exMo's. I think it's pretty crass, but you know, showmen and showwymmin gon' do what they gon' do.

- Doc

[_Stem]

Writes Gina Colvin. Let’s say she is right. We know there are many problems, but it is fair to say that this is one of the fundamental problems. What to do? Gina advocates being more vociferous, more of an activist in opposition to Mormonism’s patriarchy. Only when Mormon women stand up and make themselves heard will much needed change occur.

I don’t mean to be a wet blanket, but I’m not buying it. Mormon women who agree to the fundamentals of Mormonism will not rise up en masse against the patriarchy. Why? Well, first of all, Mormonism IS patriarchy. Patriarchy is so fundamental to Mormonism that it is nearly impossible to disentangle them.

Mormonism is about the Father whose command is obediently followed by the Son, who gives all glory back to the Father. Sure, Mormonism vaguely gestures toward the existence of the Mother, or, more accurately, the mothers, being the polygamous wives of Elohim, but these mothers are unheralded, unexplicated, and generally subjugated to Father.

Mormonism is not only the worship of Father, the name by which He is addressed, it is also the worship of Father by fathers. Fathers are the priests who intercede with Father for all. The great heroes of Mormonism are fathers. Father Moses. Father Abraham. Father Lehi. Or sons. Nephi the dutiful son. Joseph Smith the virtuous and dutiful son.

The only way around this is a fundamental change to Mormonism. It will not do to point to Emma the Elect Lady or O, My Father lyrics. New revelation and new scripture are necessary. They will not come from today’s patriolatric priesthood bearers.

Mormonism needs schism more than it needs activists. The problem with Mormonism is actually progressive Mormons who think that the answer lies in reforming the LDS Church. Mormonism IS patriarchy. New revelation is required to change that. Such revelation is not coming from the patriarchs. It must come from schismatic matriarchs. Take courage, step out, and receive revelation.

The problem is the progressives.

I don't know. In 60 years we might see a handful of people in the Church ready to say "see! I told you so. It did change and we're no longer a patriarchy." You rightly point out nothing will change now because as you say revelation on the matter "will not come from today’s patriolatric priesthood bearers".

It could be that if the progressives didn't stick it out hoping for change from within the whole would be lost if they just shrugged and left. That might be just exactly what is ideal to many, but not to them, apparently. Truth is they stick around because they still benefit more than they lose. You seem to simply disagree that they really gain as much as they think they do.

[_Meadowchik]

Interesting, Doc. I would love to hear more about this.

Well. I think you first need to probably admit that a majority humans favor decent autocrats. The benevolent King, the Lord Jesus Christ, the charismatic cult leader, the Executive in Chief, the Belichickian coach, the 50's Head of Household, so on and so forth. If you lop off the crappy examples of terrible autocrats most people will assume a role under a Dear Leader. Even if we have a terrible autocrat as long as our needs are being met we generally will fall in line. It's human nature.

And that's the Patriarchy. It's a system designed to effectively manage its resources that, yes, benefits the top dogs more than it benefits the subordinates who assume a role within in the system because they also benefit from it somehow. Everyone within the patriarchal systems gets a degree of power and a degree of success within the paradigm. It's all a tacit agreement that the top will give the bottom some stuff if the bottom gives the top some stuff.

The problem with proposed matriocracies is they don't effectively communicate to men how they can benefit within the new paradigm. They bitch and moan a lot about the current system, and do a good job of stating that men are victims of it too, but that's pretty much where it ends. They really suck at conceptualizing for the lower classes why it would benefit them to hand over their labor to them so they can then manage them more effectively than what the patriarchal system is doing.

So. You're left with really two options. Destroy the patriarchy from within by using the system against itself with the tools it created, or opting out and creating your own system.

Obviously with Mormonism you're in a pinch because ain't no women creating a mirror version of Mormonism that will win over many adherents, and the LDS system really does a good job of creating a quid pro quo dynamic between husband and wife where not many faithful men or women really feel the need to change the status quo. So, all these NOM or feminist Mormon housewives or whatever the ____ they call themselvs are pretty transparent in their efforts.

They're marketing themselves to carve out a sort of Dehlian niche among a certain sub-set of Mormons and exMo's. I think it's pretty crass, but you know, showmen and showwymmin gon' do what they gon' do.

- Doc

What a bout a third option? Households that are split-belief but make it work? It's a socially cohesive group that is connected to the church. Enough of these wholes tangentially becoming part of the LDS church experience might force internal changes, no? (I think this is a relatively new thing, more and more households being openly mixed-faith, where family members take deliberate steps to comprimise in order to respect different beliefs in the home.)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What a bout a third option? Households that are split-belief but make it work? It's a socially cohesive group that is connected to the church. Enough of these wholes tangentially becoming part of the LDS church experience might force internal changes, no? (I think this is a relatively new thing, more and more households being openly mixed-faith, where family members take deliberate steps to comprimise in order to respect different beliefs in the home.)

Well. At the end of the day any organization that exists is a money making scheme to one degree or another (again, excluding any whatabout outliers). If you're going to have an organization staffed by professionals who provide a professional product it's going to require money. Those that are willing to hand over money for this product need to get something out of it that makes them feel like they're getting a sum total return on investment, be it social cohesion that leads to a career, a family, whatever.

If you're talking about split-faith families you're really cutting out a huge portion of cash flow to the organization. These organizations can't exist by being overly charitable because charity cases will bleed them dry, and people who run an organization are going to want to feed and house themselves.

So, when you say that split-faith household are socially cohesive I think you're kind of reaching a bit. Most split-faith households have the problem of where they're going to direct their monetary and time commitments. With the Mormon church they need that sweet, sweet tithing coming in and so you're facing a huge uphill battle with a split-faith family donating its time and money. I don't think it's sustainable.

- Doc

[_Dr. Shades]

What is it that the church taught us in primary? Do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

Hmm, I thought it was "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way."

It's time for the members to live it.

I think they are, sir. :-)

[_Dr Exiled]

What is it that the church taught us in primary? Do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

Hmm, I thought it was "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way."

It's time for the members to live it.

I think they are, sir. :-)

That follow the prophet song was what finally led me out. I just could not subject my son to the religious hypnosis.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't know. In 60 years we might see a handful of people in the Church ready to say "see! I told you so. It did change and we're no longer a patriarchy."

I could totally see that happening.

It could be that if the progressives didn't stick it out hoping for change from within the whole would be lost if they just shrugged and left. That might be just exactly what is ideal to many, but not to them, apparently. Truth is they stick around because they still benefit more than they lose. You seem to simply disagree that they really gain as much as they think they do.

No, I don't think so. I can't really say, can I? Who am I to tell them what they gain or lose? My OP is an opinion, and that is about as much as I am willing to say about it. I am not going to 'man 'splain' people into acting contrary to their own calculus and feelings.