quote:Originally posted by Pete at Home:http://www.sacred-texts.com/mor/pgp/moses5.htm Verse 1: Eve labors with Adam to till the earth and keep flocks. Verses 10-12: Adam and Eve both prophesy independently and teach their children. Verse 16: Adam and Eve continue to call on God together.
My reading is that in verse 10-12, Adam prophesies and rejoices, and Eve rejoices. In other words, there's a thing that Adam gets to do that Eve doesn't, and it relates closely to a priesthood key that is only given to men in the modern LDS church.
quote:Dude, Abraham was from Ur. Not a terribly patriarchal place, if you know your history.
And from the story, neither Sarah nor Rebeccah show any signs at all of having the expectations of what-you-misguidedly-call-patriarchy. (femspeak patriarchy)
I wasn't aware there was much to know about Abraham's birthplace. Are you referring to the moon-worship thing?
From what I understand, God's covenant was with Abraham, not with Sarah. Why wasn't the covenant with Sarah? The descendants were hers too.
quote:In other words, the original two Biblical Patriarchs, as we still call them, were do not fit the fem-speak mold of "Patriarchy."
I was talking specifically about the exclusively male priesthood and hierarchical authority structure within the LDS church. Since Abraham was the one who spoke and covenanted with God, and it wasn't Sarah, I'm not sure how she serves as a counter-example to the type of patriarchy that I was talking about.
I do recognize that women in the biblical history and in the modern LDS church can have some power and influence, but this does not change the fact that ONLY males are allowed to hold the priesthood and ONLY males have authority over both genders in the church (and the authority that women can have over other women is very limited and is overseen by male authorties).
Is it really fair to say that this exclusively-male-power-structure (really, the other word is easier, if you can deal with the slightest bit of contextual nuance) doesn't preclude an equivalent matriarchal power structure? Just to be blunt, no matter how strong and influential women get in other ways, there's still never a situation where a man has to appeal to a woman for the credential that allows him to enter the temple to receive a saving ordinance.
When certain powers and privileges are reserved to one gender or the other, it creates an imbalance that can't be fully corrected.
I also think this creates arbitrary limits on what people can accomplish. Aside from the rule that she just isn't allowed to do it, I can't imagine why sometimes the person most suited for the duties of a bishop wouldn't sometimes be a woman. If her talents are indeed more suited to that role than any available man, something is lost via the rule.
Perhaps just as importantly, faithful members are taught to believe that their gender is more important than their more complex individual characteristics in determining how they should act in this life AND the next.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Is it really fair to say that this exclusively-male-power-structure"
"doesn't preclude an equivalent matriarchal power structure?"
Now you're talking about the LDS church, which is indeed andrarchical and I agree it's a problem.
But the term patriarchy in the LDS church does not refer to the male-exclusive-leadership power. It refers to what the word patriarchy literally means, i.e. father power, and THAT (as adam and eve, Abraham and Sarah, etc. show, does not preclude an equal Matriarchy.)
The best argument against LDS andrarchy is that the church has not lived up to its own scriptural ideas. The misuse of the word patriarchy declares war on the ideas as well as the current unequal system.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |