Equality is the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status.  I realize that it has become politically correct to describe our LDS families as simultaneously patriarchal and equality-based.  But this is linguistically impossible. (Whew. I’m having uncontrollable urges to type in all caps.)   The Proclamation on the Family attempts to describe a family situation where fathers are responsible to preside and provide but at the same time both partners are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

In order to do this, Mormons attempt to change the definition of patriarchy to something that has little or no meaning. The patriarch in a family, they insist, does not hold the power or authority over his wife to the extent that it would negate her equality.  Instead, he merely calls the family together for spiritual activities and invites a family member to say the prayer.  As one blogger so succinctly stated it, “The patriarch is the presiderer, not the deciderer.” He further explains:

“Men and women are consider to be of equal status in the LDS church…Because childbirth and child-rearing tends to be spiritually sanctifying endevers for women, the priestood assigns men spiritual duties that they would not normally take on themselves… How does this presiding business affect decision-making? Not much. When my wife and I make a decision, we make it together. I would never just tell my wife, ‘I am the deciderer.’ In conclusion, God has given that men preside because of our lack of spiritual fitness. We need the exercize.”

Unfortunately, this blogger not only needs work on spelling words which begin with “e,” he also needs to look up the definition of the word “preside.” This word, far from softening the meaning of patriarchy, only serves to reinforce:

Preside — To occupy or hold a position of authority, as over a meeting. To possess or exercise power or control.

If the LDS Church is to move to a stance of equal partnership within the family, they really have no choice but to lose the words “patriarchal” and “preside” with respect to the position a husband holds in the home.

“But BiV,” you say.  “We’ve been over this ground many times before.  Why bring it up again?”

I bring it up because I fear that with the attempt to soften the rhetoric of patriarchy/presiding in the home and make it compatible with equality, our members are losing the sense that patriarchy is a social construct (see our definitions below).  There is no necessity to consider patriarchy an eternal condition.  I prefer to look at patriarchy as a negative effect of the Fall (thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee) which will be ameliorated in the eternal realm.  President Spencer W. Kimball wrote a foreward to the Brigham Young University publication of Hugh W. Nibley’s discourse on the ideal of marriage in God’s Eden and stated:

“There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other … and [are] just as dependent on each other.”

We do not know exactly what Priesthood and Priestesshood will look like in a post-mortal condition.  But we have been taught that equality will be restored.  Elder James E. Talmage wrote:

“It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred endowments…woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood.” Talmage then hints at a greater sharing of priesthood in the next life: “When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom.” (“The Eternity of Sex,” YW Journal 25 (October 1914): 602-603)

The shift to an equality-based home in recent times is commendable.  I feel it more accurately represents the balance of power and oneness which will prevail in the eternal realms.  A majority of two-parent LDS homes today are organized around an ideal expressed by Gordon B. Hinckley as follows:

“In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals…  Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.  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.” ( Ensign, Nov. 1996, 49.)

If this egalitarian goal is to be accomplished, the competing words “patriarch” and “preside” must be eliminated from the description of family dynamics. They are not useful in encouraging the father to play a more active role in the spiritual life of his family. Instead, the rhetoric should change to more concisely describe the desired result.  Why not urge fathers to become more involved in spiritual instruction, or to more enthusiastically model religious behaviors, if that is what we mean by “presiding?”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Patriarchy:

• A form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe (Random House Dictionary)
• A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
• A family or society in which authority is vested in males, through whom descent and inheritance are traced. (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)
• Social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
• Social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
• a society, system, or organization in which men have all or most of the power and influence (Macmillan Dictionary)

The word gender is constantly in flux in the English language.  Here are some examples of the different meanings associated with the word “gender,” and how they might fit with the Proclamation on the Family:

• Gender is popularly used to denote biology (e.g. male or female sex).  This could be what is meant, that we were male & female blobs of intelligence who became male & female spirit children who became male & female citizens of planet Earth.  That we always were and will be male & female.
• Gender can refer to sexual identity:  ”an individual’s self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex.”  This could be what is meant by the PoF, especially noteworthy since it specifically mentions the role of gender in identity.
  • Following this interpretation, there are related issues for the multi- (hermaphrodite) or trans-gendered because the church’s stance is generally against gender reassignment (transgendered individuals can be baptized, but not receive the priesthood, and individuals should not be baptized if their transgender operation is planned.  This stance does not specifically address hermaphroditic gender determination).
  • Additionally, some cultures embrace a third gender identity:  individuals who run counter to gender stereotypes (e.g. the Two-Spirit people of Native American tribes), a non-sexual gender (e.g. eunuchs or hijiras), or individuals who are “beyond gay and straight” (e.g. the Muxe of Oaxaca, MX).
• “Gender…is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons…of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder” – Henry Watson Fowler.  Hey, I had to throw it out there, but that’s one of the earliest meanings of the word, and it does still mean that.  It’s just irrelevant to the PoF.  Or is it?  Grammatical gender assignment in languages is often different from language to language and doesn’t follow social gender constructs in all cases.  It is frequently arbitrary.  Kind of like social norms.
• “Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation.”  – David Haig in 2004, The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex.  Was the word “gender” used merely because the word “sex” might be misconstrued to refer to copulation?  Maybe so. Imagine the mischief of anti-Mormons talking about “eternal copulation.”  Oh, wait, they already do.
• Gender refers to sexual stereotypes that are socially constructed.  This is the interpretation of the PoF that seems most commonly held, although it’s problematic in light of the cultural origin of most gender roles.  Some sexual stereotypes seem conflated with biology (women’s bodies literally “nurture” babies in utero and potentially through nursing), while others vary greatly from culture to culture (e.g. men in kilts, Rosie the Riveter, female warrior societies, SAHDs).  If the characteristics are cultural constructions how can they reflect eternal purpose?  Coincidentally?
  • The term gender role was coined in 1955 by sexologist John Money, (prompting the question “What the heck is a sexologist?”). He said: “The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.”
  • Elements of such a role include clothing (except as I recall I was born nekkid), speech patterns (swearing like a sailor?), movement (walking swishily?), occupations (what about SAHDs and female soldiers?), and other factors not limited to biological sex.  Clearly, nothing on this list is eternal.
  • Possible gender characteristics referred to in the PoF include:  By divine design, fathers are to preside (in some wards, this means ”fall asleep on the stand between talks“) over their families in love and righteousness (so, not like Pinochet) and are responsible to provide the necessities of life (like clean diapers and formula?) and protection for their families (clearly, this means killing spiders). Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children (nutritious take-out and microwave meals, for example). In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation (lots of caveats here, including the wide open “other circumstances”).
• From dictionary.com, we find a “Usage Note”:  Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories.  According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.   So, I suppose the answer is:  “Your guess is as good as mine.”  Speaking of which . . .

So, what do you think is meant by the Proclamation on the Family?

[poll id="47"]

Over Christmas, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend an Evensong service at Westminster Abbey.  It was very cool to be in a worship service surrounded by 3000 of England’s most famous dead people.  The choir was far superior to anything I’ve heard in any of the wards I’ve been in, although the songs had that quality of being made up as they went along (but in Latin).  Part of the service was the recitation of the Anglican Creed.  I could have in honesty recited 80% of it without batting an eye, but there were some statements in it that I could not in good conscience recite (but then I’m not an Anglican, am I?). 

First of all, what is objectionable about creeds?  Here are some thoughts:

1. Content.  These specific creeds are usually rejected by Mormonism because they conflict with our view of God as being an exalted man with a body.  But these are just current drafts of millenia old discussions, the efforts of people to describe the holy.  Whenever people are doing that, their efforts will be tainted by:
   • Consensus.  Too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say.  Groups of people haggling over the nature of God is likely to lead to debates full of compromises and competition, not actually nailing down the nature of God.
   • Limits of Language.  Regardless of how precisely we try to communicate, words have mutliple meanings and are subject to individual interpretation.
   • Context of Culture & Time.  Over time and in different cultural contexts, the meaning of words changes.
2. Lack of Authority.    They are deemed to have been created by well-intentioned men but without authority and therefore, they allowed error to be included.  This seems to be a problem frequently discussed in the b’nacle within Mormonism:
   • Conflicting Opinions.  Q:  When two authorities disagree, which is right?  A: The one who agrees with you.
   • Prophetic Fallibility.  Q:  When is a prophet not speaking for God?  A:  When he’s proven wrong over time (or see the first answer).
3. In Writing.  One could say that creeds are bad in that they are written down at a point in time based on one’s understanding, but they could be incorrect or need revision at a later date.  Being written down causes people to stop seeking revelation and to continue to reinterpret the same dead words on a page.  Creeds in general are rejected because they hem the church in rather than allowing it the freedom to reinterpret itself through greater light and knowledge.

I suggest that there are two main creeds that have crept into Mormonism:  the Articles of Faith and the Proclamation on the Family.  I considered and reject that the Official Declarations are creeds (they are more like one-time memos).  I also reject the scripts in the temple as “creeds” of a sort because they change considerably and frequently.

The Articles of Faith were written by JS in 1841 (in a letter written to John Wentworth published in 1842 in Times & Seasons) to explain what Mormons believe.  The Proclamation on the Family was published (to the world at large) to explain what Mormons believe about families and responsibilities.  Are they creeds?  And if they are creeds, do they have any of the 3 problems listed above?  So, if we dismiss the idea that authority is a problem (for those who are Mormons at least), is there a problem with either content or with the fact that they are in writing?

First of all, let’s consider the ubiquitous Articles of Faith.  What Primary child hasn’t memorized these basic, irrefutable tenets of Mormonism?  Surely, their content must be above reproach.  Or is it?  Here’s a counter-point on the Articles of Faith, excerpted from here.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie boasted as follows concerning the Articles of Faith:

    “For brevity, clearness, and forthrightness of doctrinal presentation, they are unexcelled. When compared with the muddled creeds formulated by the supposedly greatest religious thinkers of Christendom—creeds born amid the strife, bitterness, and debates of councils that struggled at length over every word and comma—the Articles of Faith, coming forth as the spontaneous and inspired writing of one man, are a marked evidence of the spirit of revelation that rested upon the Prophet.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 53)

    Actually, the truth of the matter is that the Articles of Faith are remarkable for what they fail to say concerning the teachings of the Mormon Church. Although Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy at the time he authored them, he made no reference to the doctrine of plural marriage. He made no mention of his teaching that there are many Gods, that God was once a man or that men can become Gods. The Articles of Faith are completely silent concerning the Doctrine and Covenants which contains many of Smith’s revelations and distinctive doctrines. Even Apostle McConkie had to admit that these “articles, of course, do not attempt to summarize all of the basic doctrines of the gospel…. the Articles of Faith are silent on such things as celestial marriage, salvation for the dead, temple work in all its phases, the resurrection, and degrees of glory in the eternal worlds.” (Ibid.) The Articles of Faith seem to be an attempt to hide almost all of the LDS teachings which separate the Mormon Church from historic Christianity.

So, it would seem that the Articles of Faith might be said to suffer the same basic problems of all creeds:  content, authority, and being written at a fixed point in time.  Perhaps these are issues that all scripture face as well.  But are they an abomination?  More or less of an abomination than the Creeds of Chrstendom?

Do you agree that these are creeds of Mormonism?  Do they lead to the same sorts of problems that other creeds do or are our creeds OK, but others’ are not?  Discuss.

NYT recently published a short article called Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage.  The article studies how people in committed relationships care for each other, and how they share responsibility, power and authority.  Some observations:

• Household tasks
  • Heterosexual couples:  far more housework done by women while more men take the burden of handling finances  Another article in the NYT (When Mom and Dad Share It All) details role equity experiments among couples.  According to a survey done by University of Wisconsin, women do approximately twice as much housework as men (including all household tasks, yardwork, car care, etc. – 31 hrs for women, 15 for men).  For SAHMs, the figures skew slightly higher 38 hrs for the woman, 14 for the man.  Where both spouses work, the figures are only slightly more equitable than the average:  28 hrs for women, 16 for men.  Childcare related tasks skew even more toward women:  a 5 to 1 ratio.  These ratios (hours vary due to technology advancements) hold true across all economic strata for the last 90 years; oddly, the ratio also holds true for contemporary SAHDs.  The article points out that women’s standards for housework are significantly higher than men’s.  Therefore, women will work harder to meet those standards while men will desist when their own threshold for cleanliness is reached.  Psychologically women may feel superior or prideful of their own household competence or they may be more attuned to and influenced by societal expectations than men (e.g. do the kids’ clothes match, is hair brushed, are there dirty socks in areas of the house visible from the front door?).
  • Same Sex couples: much more egalitarian in how the household burdens are shared.
• Initiative
  • Heterosexual couples:  men are more likely to initiate sex, while women may refuse sex.  Women are more likely to begin conversations about problems in the relationship.
  • Same Sex couples:  burdens for initiating both sex and difficult conversations are more equally shared.
• Relationship satisfaction
  • Heterosexual couples:  women feel more resentment over the burden of housework and caring for the relationship, whereas men may feel resentment due to differences in sex drive.  According to another study, 58% of women feel resentment in marriage due to perceived inequities (distribution of labor is unfair to “me”) while 11% of men do.
  • Same Sex couples:  as gauged by the study, same sex couples have a higher level of satisfaction and more equality of satisfaction between partners.
• Arguments
  • Heterosexual couples:  fighting is often unfair and escalates due to behaviors such as domineering and belligerence as well as verbal attacks.  Physical agitation stays longer with the feuding spouses.  The 3 main things couples fight about are children, money or division of labor.  Since these are more unequal in heterosexual relationships, hetero couples are more prone to highly charged emotional conflicts.  On the topic of money, the article about Moms & Dad points out that women often consider their jobs to be more flexible than men, despite the actual role they hold; societal norms also continue to influence career decisions for women.
  • Same Sex couples:  there were better behaviors exhibited in fighting, such as infusing humor and affection, stepping back to conversation rather than emotional escalation.  There was more equity in perceptions and more open discussion about job flexibility with less defensiveness.

Another mythical stereotype about hetero couples was that in conflict the woman makes demands while the man withdraws from the conflict, but this was found to be true in the same-sex relationships also, and not a byproduct of gender.

The study concludes that it’s easier to understand the other person’s perspective in a same sex relationship.  But it did hold out the ray of hope that hetero couples who defuse anger and work to relate to their partner’s concerns have the strongest marriages.  (What’s next?  Ice is cold?  Water is wet?)

So, based on this study, life would be a lot easier if we could just become gay.  Maybe we could create some sort of reprogramming seminar.  Just a thought.

Are gender roles really eternal (did I really sign up to do laundry in the pre-existence)?  And does that mean that gender roles are good, or should we work to overcome them if we want happier marriages as this study suggests?  Discuss.