Spinoff from this thread: "Who has a current temple recommend?"
AIC said:"One of my friends couldn't even get money to buy pads and tampons. Why is this a priesthood function?"
I would like to know how common using the priesthood as an excuse to control women is, please post examples.
My husband believes more than I do at this point, but he's still NOM, doesn't buy it all. He's had nothing but respect for me even when we were both TBM. I can not stand abusive controlling men who use the priesthood as their excuse. (My dh says the priesthood is not about control, but is more to bring Christ into your life through blessings. Blessings give you peace, and is not for men to tell you what to do.)
My dh makes all the money right now and I realize that is a control factor in relationships too, but it's not in ours. I pay all the bills and know exactly where the money goes. Not that I control him either, finances are open to us both and are a non-issue for us. I can't imagine not being able to buy personal items I need.
Clear back to school days I knew girls commanded to only wear dresses, they would sneak pants and change while at school, then change to go home.
I see "fundamentalists" about three times a week, only in dresses and all in solid pastels, they follow Warren Jeffs commandments, even though he is in prison, and deserves to be. That sounds familiar, right?
A law breaking profit with sheep for, well, his "flock".
It's one thing when a guy literally has authority, like if you're stuck on a cliff, and he is an expert climber. It's another thing when the authority is pretend, and terrible things happen when people follow these deluded "priesthood" posers.
Those are good examples but not quite what I'm looking for. In any group--school, recreation, work, there is a leader and people will follow that leader. Power can be gained through many ways, including expertise and charisma. Leaders don't necessarily have to have actual legitimate power to have followers as long as the followers believe they have power, they do. People who disagree with the leader will find another person to follow within the group--this leader has power too and is sometimes more powerful than the actual person in charge. To me it is a moot point on whether the priesthood actually gives any real power because it is the followers that give the person who holds it power.
What I'm asking is, how common in relationships between husband and wife is the "priesthood" excuse used to control the other person?
Spousal relationships are complex and there are two major ways one person can control another--money and sex. And yes, women can control men too, in the same ways. I want to know how the priesthood is used as a control. AIC's comment refers to money, was the priesthood actually used as a control too? I mean, did the guy say, you must submit to me because I hold the priesthood? Or did he just withhold money?
Your commanded to wear a dress example is more what I'm looking for--but who commanded it? The prophet? (He's the leader, not what I'm looking for) A parent? (Now we're getting closer..) A spouse? Bingo, that's what I want to know, is the man in the relationship using the priesthood to control his wife?
Southern Utah. I haven't come out all the way yet, for certain reasons. Sorry for scaring you, but my real, actual true propeller beanie priesthood revealed facts about you unto me
in my own life. It may very well be the reason I didn't get married until age 27. I never worshipped mormon men. My dad wasn't TBM. I could never undrestand why men had power to give blessings. Why couldn't I just pray? Why would a man be closer to God than I am?
So--I married who I did because he respected who I was--my gay "husband." Whenever I'd start slipping into thinking I had to be like the other mormon women, he'd remind me that I didn't like being like that. He didn't ever try to control me--but there were those times like when he was the ex. sec. and they'd have bishopric temple sessions and he had to go alone . . . as I REFUSED to go. He is still angry about this and I haven't been to the temple since before 1990. He hated being the "single" at the bishopric temple sessions, although he was unworthy to be there . . . all about appearances. He was really quite good compared to many mormon men, but there were still issues considering I was taught to be submissive. I had a really hard time with that and have raised a daughter to think like I do.
I am in a relationship, but I refuse to remarry. I like being my own person--having autonomy. I really did hate being married (though I still am--just separated forever).
WHOOPS! I thought of a good example (I actually have many examples of leaders abusing their priesthood power, but this one stands out). I hadn't seen my mother's sister and her husband in at least 19 years when one day they showed up on my doorstep. I didn't even know they had moved back to Utah. I got talking with my aunt through e-mail and she found out I no longer believe. Next time they were in town, they invited me to dinner . . . after dinner, her husband (a man I've always despised) cornered me (and her bishop son) and ORDERED ME back to church. I basically let my aunt have it with both barrels in an e-mail and blocked her e-mails. Believe it or not, I'm now her favorite niece . . . and we get along great.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2011 08:36AM by cl2.
I wonder that as well because women were giving blessings in the beginning and women do currently hold the priesthood to work in the temple. One of the things that bothered me about the temple after hearing all my life that women don't hold the priesthood. Not that I wanted a man touching me, but it was just contradictory to what I'd been taught. My husband believes it is real, and since he respects my non-belief, I won't tell him what he can or can't believe either. We have prayed together when our daughter was very ill though, so I can't say I've always been excluded. To him the priesthood is just a way to help people feel better, something about a blessing is calming and peaceful and that's what he likes about giving them. Not to be controlling or tell people what to do, but to tell them God cares about them and knows they are worried, that they aren't alone and it's going to be ok.
Your example is exactly what I am looking for--isn't it strange complete strangers or distant relatives think they can order you to come to church just because they have some imaginary power?
I anticipate some authority being directed my way as I have recently come out as an unbeliever to my family. My mother continues to PA suggest how things in my past could have gone differently in ways that would have me in the church today, but my resignation is complete, I have my letter.
I think my dad actually respects me enough to let things stand as they are, but I'm almost hoping my bil puts on a display of unrighteous authority, because my husband doesn't believe my tales of male domination. He came from a family where the men bowed to the women instead.
You're taught you can't be saved from damnation without the priesthood (actually worse than that...you're taught that your family will be ripped apart without it). A woman depends on a man for it. Even IF he's a conscientious guy who's nice in every way, it's still an abuse. It's the you-can't-leave-me-or-else axe hanging over your head. The church still drills the priesthood-in-the-home, a-home's-not-a-home-without it propaganda, making women feel dependant.
I had an aquantance years ago who was an uber Christian and believed 100% a woman was to be obedient to her husband or males in general. Her husband wouldn't let her run the air conditioner during the day in order to save on the electric bill. Her and the kids lived in the heat. When he got home from work and on weekends, he cranked the air down (in addition to having a/c all day at work). He gave her a very thin budget to work with and had to approve purchases. He gave her enough gas money daily to do what she needed to do. He didn't dictated dresses only, but her attire must meet his approval. Never did she feel this was abusive. He was the man of the household, the leader, and that's just the way it was.
If men control the women, they control a whole generation and it goes on and on and on.
This kind of male control is replete through out history. Today, some religions are a little more relaxed and given women more equality, but only a few, and it's rare.
People who have a need to control others find religion a good way to do it. Both men an women can be very controlling, isolating a spouse, limiting contact, dictating how they dress, what they do, where they go. The examples I have seen of this kind of disturbed behavior (usually on TV in interviews, and in articles I've read) it has nothing to do with religion.
jessica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SusieQ#1 is saying it's a cultural thing but can > be perpetuated by religion. Religion isn't the > cause.
What I am saying is that in the US where we live, it's a problem with the individual male, (usually male, but could be female),not necessarily cultural or religious although it can be. The cause, is most likely, in my observation, some kind of psychological problem.
Cultural norms are in part the cause because you learn to parent from your parents and unless you go out and actively learn another way or disagree with the way your parents raised you, it continues..so we see norms from 100 years ago continuing. Same cycle as with abuse in families.
I do agree it is a psychological problem. I don't understand the need to control another person. It makes no sense to me.
I agree. It's a ridiculous doctrine that for a woman to get into heaven, her husband must take her through the veil. Or that every church activity must have a priesthood leader present, even if it's a young womens activity or relief society. The priesthood governs everything. Even when a woman acts in her calling or in the home, it's the man who presides. To me, that's disgusting - and I'm a man.
in years past in the LDS Church. Today, I think that generally, questioning about sexual activity is much less invasive. There used to be a form for excommunication that asked all kinds of inappropriate questions but I don't know if that is still around or used.
There are still renegade bishops etc. that think their so-called inspiration entitles them to act like a disgusting pervert while claiming they are a representative of the Lord.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is so little oversight. Stake Presidents back up the Bishops for instance even when they are completely out of control and in appropriate.
Change in questioning youth and adults about sexual matters is probably going to come from outside the church. They will be hit with enough law suits they will capitulate and act more like decent human beings. Fear of loss of $$ usually gets through to the LDS Church. Just my observation....
I never perceived my mother to be on equal footing with my father. I never heard him pull the priesthood card to back up his authority. But I always sensed that he was the undisputed leader in the relationship. My mother was easily dominated or cowed if they disagreed (and resentful/depressed much of the time).
I don't know if this dynamic grew out of the priesthood thing, or societal norms in the era they grew up in. Or both. In fact, I believe the role of men and women in the church IS a reflection of societal norms . . . of 50+ years ago. (For those who haven't read "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan, you'll see what what women's movement was fighting for, and she paints the picture of women in the 50's/60's who are just shells of what they COULD be, who were facing issues of depression and boredom like LDS women).
I do know that mother took her temple oaths back in the time when women promised to obey their husbands. When I took mine, I promised to heed the counsel of my husband as [meaning IF] he hearkened to his Heavenly Father.
These types of temple oaths set men up as the boss and as an intermediary to God. They set the perfect stage for controlling husbands. But I think women were primed for that control by society, and what they saw in their own traditional homes.
In response to first post about the man controlling small purchases. That's an extreme case of something I've seen plenty of times, where the husband takes control of the money and power in the relationship. My mother didn't feel free to go out and buy clothing (beyond necessities) for herself without approval from my dad.
I sensed that she had to justify purchases to him. She often took things back if he felt like she had been "too extravagant" or unnecessary. (Like maybe she bought 3-5 items of clothing, once in a great while. She rarely bought stuff for herself). Getting her to take it back usually involved some kind of shaming or guilt, BTW.
We had some lean times growing up, moneywise, but when this happened, we were past that and my parents were comfortable financially.
My parents were similar, my family was large and my dad worked 3 jobs so my mom could stay at home. Money was really tight, and she was limited to a set budget. I always hated asking my dad for money but it was worse on my mom, she had to give up so much for us. I remember it being a big deal for her to get anything new and seeing her pad the budget she presented to him so she could buy a few things for herself. I don't think he did this to be cruel though, he was just as poor and did not receive anything better than she did.
/The problem, as I see it, is that there is so little oversight. Stake Presidents back up the Bishops for instance even when they are completely out of control and in appropriate./
Very true, and it goes beyond just a lack of oversight. If a member goes to his SP to complain about the behavior of a bishop, not only is it not investigated, the SP simply doesn't believe you. He instead supports the bishop. And then he turns the tables on you and finds fault with you not sustaining your bishop.
JF Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > /The problem, as I see it, is that there is so > little oversight. Stake Presidents back up the > Bishops for instance even when they are completely > out of control and in appropriate./ > > Very true, and it goes beyond just a lack of > oversight. If a member goes to his SP to complain > about the behavior of a bishop, not only is it not > investigated, the SP simply doesn't believe you. > He instead supports the bishop. And then he turns > the tables on you and finds fault with you not > sustaining your bishop.
You nailed it! Unbelievable how so many LDS leaders are only concerned about supporting a bishop, for instance, and making it the woman's fault for any and all problems.
I was told some of the most bizarre things during my time as a Mormon by LDS men in leadership. I don't know what happens to many of them.
I had decent leaders, for the most part, but I sure had some hum-dingers! One with an anger management problem, one that was depressed.
It follows some former Mormon men also - that need to correct, and put down women as their behavior and attitudes and opinions have to be highlighted as being wrong. They have to be told they are: wrong, wrong wrong. I see it on the board. Certain posters do it far too often. Very, disturbing.
By nature, men are more inclined to seek power than women - we've all seen the results that the majority of women in the church don't want the priesthood.
And I've also heard that if men weren't given the priesthood, many would not stay active, whereas women are more inclined to stay active without that power. And there may be some truth to that.
But I say that's a horrible excuse to give men the power. If anything, that should be a reason to give women the power instead. All the church is doing is fueling the natural instinct of men to gain power over women.
We never experenced the "priesthood" problem in our family. My father and mother got along great and worked as a team. Both were fairly active in the mormons. However we had some neighbors that was the whole trip. They always was yammering on about how great it was because to be the head of the household and to hold the priesthood. Mosty their family was miserable and depressed.
I see that in a family we know here--the wife does everything at home, everything with the kids, it is sickening that she puts up with it. He's in the Bishopric and constantly brags about how wonderful his family is.
Some women Want hub to be the leader, and are comfortable with that... AS long as no 'unrighteous dominion'... Aren't we OK with that? a 'Perfect' 50/50 balance is pretty close to Impossible, IMHO.
That is true, in my Sociology class we talked about how women even after giving all the equal rights to work as men were, still were in charge of a large majority of the work at home.
taken on a catch-all category. It's become PC to say one is abused in some manner, with no real explanation of what that is.
What really is abuse? Personally, I don't think asking inappropriate questions is abuse. It's inappropriate, for sure. Is it emotional abuse? Could be, but not necessarily.
And, what kinds of abuse are actionable in a court? Physical abuse, if it results in evidence is actionable, can result in charges and jail sentences, but emotional abuse is much more difficult to prove.
I don't consider my time as an LDS woman and mother abusive, or the religion as dangerous, for instance. That was not my personal experience. I've seen extreme cases, but the majority of what many call abuse, in my opinion, is what I categorize as experienced as life: part of -- The Good, The Bad, the Ugly.
Frankly, I have no idea what people mean by the word: abuse most of the time.
The way I am using abuse in this sense is taking control and advantage of another person for your own benefit rather than the benefit of the family. Abusing the priesthood for your own benefit.
I also did not find my time in the church abusive--more constrained, or held back, limited to traditional gender roles.
My 12yo daughter said that some of the boys at school (in Utah) claimed that they had the right to make decisions, like what game to play during recess, because they had the priesthood. (I guess getting the priesthood at that age was going to their heads.)
By giving only the boys priesthood, the Mormon church is telling them that they are more important than their female peers. The church may deny it all they want, but the message to the children is loud and clear. It is no wonder that when the boys marry 10 years later, they think they have the right to boss their wives around. After all, they have the priesthood.
This doesn't surprise me, sadly. How did your daughter react?
We've told our daughter, no boy/man had the right to tell you how to live your life. And we've told our son, the priesthood is not to boss people around and does not make you any better than your sister. It's good for blessings, that's it. YW's is by far my worst nightmare right now, I do not want my daughter learning what her "role" is by people who have a narrow view of the world. They drastically need to revamp YW's.