Thom Harrison and "Visions of Glory"

[Mayan_Elephant]

I also find it fascinating how conversations can veer off in unexpected directions that take them miles from the original topic. I also confess to being one of the worst perpetrators of said veering.

Eh ... I'm one of the biggest offenders at that. I know it really bugs some people, so I try not to do it so much (often unsuccessfully) on threads started by other people, but I'm happy enough to follow where the conversation flows.

I hope I don’t scare off Jeffret. I am only willing to get into this kind of discussion with someone I trust and respect how he thinks. But most people don’t take my arguing with them as the complement it really is. I don’t discuss things with stupid people—-boring. And I don’t discuss things with mean people—-dangerous. And I don’t discuss with people who are not curious about the world.

Nah, it's just that I've about run out of things to say on this topic. As I said, we're at the edge of my expertise and knowledge. One of my daughters has a lot more studies and expertise in these areas and it's fun to get her going on topics like this.

So, it really is kind of a chicken and egg thing, but more complicated. Only the egg has to be a chicken egg that has been fertilized, so it is more that one leads to the other, which leads to more of the first.

That was one of my points -- the chicken and egg problem is presented as a simple dichotomy, when the reality is much more complex and the consideration has to be much more finessed.

And we've reached the point where we're essentially in agreement on the primary ideas. And I don't have any more tangents handy to veer off on.

I can ask one more question on this topic. I have kind of been thinking about this, and got fascinated by this likely interaction. But not being male, I don’t have the perspective to answer.

So, What parts of this vicious cycle are chicken and which are egg, or which ones are nurture and which ones are inherent. More specifically, what does patriarchy teach men?

So, let’s say some men are born with high need to dominate and others are at the opposite end of the spectrum, like all bell curves. And there is a lot of overlap on the bell curve for women, but women on average are lower. I think that is kind of what studies show. Now, given this basic nature, of desire to dominate in his chosen field (fields being money, knowledge, politics, brawn, social popularity, skill, and so on) men strive for success.

I can tell you what patriarchy teaches women, but I lack the experience of what it teaches men. Which is probably why I was leaning so heavily toward nature.

My mother calls men who are very heavy in this need to dominate and have power as suffering from testosterone poisoning. And too much testosterone does increase aggressiveness. So, see why testosterone poisoning. This effect of testosterone is the nature. And it has been studied. But I have never seen any studies about what patriarchy teaches men. And feminist speculation is going to be inaccurate. So, I have always distrusted the discussions among women and never heard of seen any discussion from men.

So, guys, what did patriarchy teach you. Good lessons like protect women and children, and bad ones.

Probably should be a new thread, but the mods can split it if they want.

These questions are loaded with presupposition. I think that the answers to less loaded questions may clarify some things if you are truly interested in the answers.

People are conditioned in their homes, schools, communities. People are born different. People are rewarded differently. People adapt. Even basic things like one's place in a line of siblings can have an impact on how people behave.

People have priorities. Some prioritize themselves first, others prioritize others first. Some people are conscientious about their choices, consequences and impact - others not so much.

If you look at these priorities, I think you will see they apply to all people.

[Hagoth]

So, guys, what did patriarchy teach you. Good lessons like protect women and children, and bad ones.

Probably should be a new thread, but the mods can split it if they want.

From the time I turned 12 I was taught that I possessed the greatest power in the universe ("more power in your little finger than the Pope has in his entire empire"), and that it is not only necessary to make me worthy of having a wife and family, but is the essential glue for holding a family together. I was taught, as were the girls my age, that priesthood always presides and decides. As I got older I heard phrases like "wearing the pants" and "putting your foot down" associated with priesthood power. I even remember an Elders Quorum lesson where they talked about ways of punishing your wife for not respecting your authority.

I was taught that "unworthiness," whatever that is, would basically castrate me as far as being a suitable husband, father, and Elder in Israel. After I became inactive my wife was hit with a barrage of people from the ward grieving for her, as if she had been widowed, because she no longer had a worthy priesthood holder to make her safe and give meaning to her life.

In a way, priesthood is the Mormon ideological analog of testosterone, and in sufficient quantities it poisons not only the brains and behaviors of men, but of women too. It's another invisible force that controls our lives, like Satan, evil spirits, Peeping Tom dead grandpas, and those nosy angels that are always silent notes taking.

And it it provides a foothold for what we might call priesthood cuckolding.

For example, the stake president told my wife, who has decided that she will only attend church via Zoom, that he wants to send worthy priesthood holders into our home to bless the sacrament for her. You know, 16-year-olds who, unlike her husband, honor their priesthood. Even though he has never met me, he believes his priesthood/testosterone level gives him license to exert dominance over me in my own home. That is what we are taught, after all. I said "he'll have to pry the sacrament tray from my cold, dead fingers."

Mrs. Hagoth observed that he used to be a very pleasant, thoughtful and likeable man, but five years as a Stake President has hardened him and magnified his ego. He did not ask her if she wanted teenagers bringing magical croutons into her home, he informed her that it will happen. She did not want it, and I squelched it with the magic spell that is more powerful that any Priesthood: the word "no."

[alas]

So, guys, what did patriarchy teach you. Good lessons like protect women and children, and bad ones.

Probably should be a new thread, but the mods can split it if they want.

From the time I turned 12 I was taught that I possessed the greatest power in the universe ("more power in your little finger than the Pope has in his entire empire"), and that it is not only necessary to make me worthy of having a wife and family, but is the essential glue for holding a family together. I was taught, as were the girls my age, that priesthood always presides and decides. As I got older I heard phrases like "wearing the pants" and "putting your foot down" associated with priesthood power. I even remember an Elders Quorum lesson where they talked about ways of punishing your wife for not respecting your authority.

I was taught that "unworthiness," whatever that is, would basically castrate me as far as being a suitable husband, father, and Elder in Israel. After I became inactive my wife was hit with a barrage of people from the ward grieving for her, as if she had been widowed, because she no longer had a worthy priesthood holder to make her safe and give meaning to her life.

In a way, priesthood is the Mormon ideological analog of testosterone, and in sufficient quantities it poisons not only the brains and behaviors of men, but of women too. It's another invisible force that controls our lives, like Satan, evil spirits, Peeping Tom dead grandpas, and those nosy angels that are always silent notes taking.

And it it provides a foothold for what we might call priesthood cuckolding.

For example, the stake president told my wife, who has decided that she will only attend church via Zoom, that he wants to send worthy priesthood holders into our home to bless the sacrament for her. You know, 16-year-olds who, unlike her husband, honor their priesthood. Even though he has never met me, he believes his priesthood/testosterone level gives him license to exert dominance over me in my own home. That is what we are taught, after all. I said "he'll have to pry the sacrament tray from my cold, dead fingers."

Mrs. Hagoth observed that he used to be a very pleasant, thoughtful and likeable man, but five years as a Stake President has hardened him and magnified his ego. He did not ask her if she wanted teenagers bringing magical croutons into her home, he informed her that it will happen. She did not want it, and I squelched it with the magic spell that is more powerful that any Priesthood: the word "no."

This is the kind of thing I am looking for. The specific lessons in “manhood” “priesthood” that you all got growing up. The specific lessons in how to be a “righteous” man include things like “putting your foot down” and “wearing the pants” and WOW, “punishing your wife” as if you are her father and she is 5.

Believe me, we never got lessons in how to stand up to your husband when he is unrighteous, or how to defend yourself when he treats you like a child. It was all about “honoring priesthood” with absolutely zero hints that the man is not “the priesthood” and that he would lose his right to boss you around if he doesn’t follow that scripture about love unfeigned. So, if he bosses you around he loses his right to boss you around..??

But teaching men that they have some kind of right to “punish” their wife if she doesn’t honor *him* as if *he* is God rather than holds “the power to act in God’s name” if and only if he does it without out compelling, but by persuasion…. That gives permission to use force or even emotional abuse to force your way on her.

That goes so far from the way women excuse the words in the temple of obeying her husband and how they only have to obey him if he is righteous. And of course, there is never any real definition of just when he stops being righteous, so you either have to obey or commit the sin of judging his righteousness.

That is no where near the equality that the church pretends is taught. These are lessons a man could use as justification for abuse.

Boy would I have loved to be a fly on the wall and hear the suggestions about how a man “righteously” punishes his wife. Because in my book any time a spouse punishes their spouse, it is abuse.

And meanwhile women are taught “never withhold sex, even if you are angry” with no consideration that allowing sex when the woman is angry is not “making love” it is submitting when it feels like rape.

When I worked with domestic violence, (in Utah) so many of the women blamed the church for teaching them to be good victims, and I could see exactly how the church teaches the women to be good victims. But things like punishing your wife and putting your foot down would also teach the men they have a right and a righteous obligation to “rule over” their wife even if it takes abuse.

The very idea that a man has all that magical power and inspiration about every little thing is going to make the man feel he is always right, and his wife is unrighteous to disagree, and obviously wrong because “God” told him.

And isn’t it interesting that even with the stake president feeling like “Hagoth has lost his priesthood” your wife expressing that she did not want boys bringing around the sacrament, the stake president still says it’s going to happen, with no respect for a woman saying no. But he still respected the “no” coming from a man. It isn’t really priesthood after all, it is maleness. But the other men are going to look down on you as lesser because you refuse to compete in their priesthood hierarchy competition.

So, priesthood gives Mormon men one additional form of “power” that connects them directly into the power structure of the church and status in that world. Non Mormon men have to compete for physical strength, money, etcetera, but Mormon men have this additional thingy they can compete for. Status in the church.

[Jeffret]

I'm going to re-order alas's comments a little to comment what I want to first.

My mother calls men who are very heavy in this need to dominate and have power as suffering from testosterone poisoning. And too much testosterone does increase aggressiveness. So, see why testosterone poisoning.

In a discussion once, my daughter stated, "Testosterone has to be one hell of a drug. It makes men totally unsuited to be a leader or a ruler." I couldn't entirely refute her.

So, What parts of this vicious cycle are chicken and which are egg, or which ones are nurture and which ones are inherent. More specifically, what does patriarchy teach men?

It's difficult to say entirely. There are a lot of individual elements. Some of the others have commented about some of them and there are lots of other discussions about it all over the place. From time to time I've noticed little oddments in my own perceptions that have been heavily driven by patriarchy. Only sometimes when I manage to see clearly enough can I pick out some of the more Insidious ones.

One of my favorite stories of something like this I read probably a decade ago now, so I've lost track of the woman who related it about herself. There was a woman, a professor of gender studies, well-regarded in the field who had studied aspects of patriarchy for years. While she was attending a professional conference, she noticed that she was checking her watch much more frequently, a lot more, when a woman was talking than when a man was. She realized that she had been subtly conditioned by the patriarchal world to listen more attentively to men and feel more anxious about when a woman would stop speaking. She made a dedicated effort in herself to undo that conditioning. A small thing, perhaps, but it demonstrates how much the patriarchy permeates everything.

On a similar vein, though on a slightly different topic, I clearly remember something I read from a gay writer back when Prop 8 was all the hubub. He related how one day his mother accusingly asked him, "Why do you have to parade your sexuality all around? Your father and I would never do anything like that." He related how much he was struck by the incongruity of this simple comment. I've always been struck by it also, ever since I first read it. What is a better example of his parents' sexuality, in a public, long-lasting way, than the fact that he is their child. We know exactly what they were doing on about a pretty specific date. Everywhere they took him throughout their life or every time they talked about their son, they were broadcasting their sexuality for all to see. This story is different, because it's about sexuality rather than women, but it's really all the same thing. Patriarchy has an essential need for a separation of the sexes and has been the primary driver against anything outside the sex / gender binary.

Another fundamental example of the extent of patriarchy is the norming of medical interventions to the male body. Published guidance on how to recognize a heart attack, ignored the differences that women frequently experience. Studies, trials, and all of their results, including dosage recommendations are based on male response. There are still underpinnings in medical science about how women need to pay for their sins, or for Eve's, in childbirth or other aspects of life. There are still far too many medical professionals who are still far too clueless about female anatomy. Gabriele Falloppio, an Italian anatomist born in 1523, claimed to have been the first person to discover the clitoris. We can easily assume that many, many people had discovered it aeons before that, but they had some very notable differences from him. (If you want to learn a tremendous amount of fascinating details about the history and structure of gynae, follow the Vagina Museum on Mastadon.)

The metaphor underlying "The Matrix" movie is another powerful presentation of the concept. It's not about the patriarchy, because it's really all about being transgender, but it's totally about the patriarchy because as I mentioned previously, the patriarchy is committed to eliminating and denying any existence of transgender individuals because of the threat their existence proves to it.

The "Sinfest" comic has done a number of re-representations of "The Matrix" concept, relating directly to the patriarchy. This is one example.

(One of my favorite threads from the Vagina Museum isn't about gynae, but is instead How Thursday Is a Social Construct.)

[Jeffret]

Gabriele Falloppio, an Italian anatomist born in 1523, claimed to have been the first person to discover the clitoris. We can easily assume that many, many people had discovered it aeons before that, but they had some very notable differences from him.

This is certainly related to the concept that women don't masturbate, which is certainly fostered by the patriarchy, or if they do, it's because of profound medical, mental, or moral disorders.

In contrast we can learn from the personal stories of women that this isn't true. Or, we can pay attention to more modern studies, which inform us that women do in fact masturbate, though perhaps at a lesser rate than men. Perhaps.

Because of the stigma, which still exists, it's hard to get any reliable numbers. A Kinsey study found that 72% of women have ever masturbated, but in contrast a Gossard Big M Survey found that 9 of 10 (92%) of women aged 18-30 do it, with 2/3 doing it 3 times a week. This is a big jump from previous versions of the study (74% in 1979 and 62% in 1953). Sweden is considered one of the countries in the world where the patriarchy is less dominant and there a study a few years back showed that college aged students had reached gender parity, "when it came to how often men and women masturbated, there appeared to be more similarities than differences between the genders."

Similarly, it is well accepted in society that men are different from women, in that men are interested in porn and women are not, but we're seeing more data that this isn't actually the case, "recent statistics have revealed it is time to cast aside the view that porn is the domain of man. The truth is women are just as likely (if not more) to spend a rainy afternoon scrolling erotic sites like Redtube." But actually, "Women watch more porn than men, and other steamy stats from a new Pornhub survey", which finds that women spend more time on the site in a session than men. But it's not just the amount of time. Some recent stats provided by Pornhub show that "52% of Pornhub’s visitors from the Philippines are women." All of this exists in a domain where the great majority of content is still produced from a male perspective.

Very interestingly, from that last article, "76% of women surveyed by Marie Claire say that porn has not negatively impacted their lives."

These are a lot of comments about steamy topics, but they intrigue me because I'm fascinated by numbers and how they run so counter to what "everybody knows". Clearly what everyone knows about female sexuality and the differences in behavior between men and women isn't necessarily true.

Much of the stigma and the purported differences are driven by patriarchy. These incorrect understandings are stronger in heavily sex-repressive and patriarchal societies, such as Mormonism.

[Jeffret]

On a personal level, one of the things that the Mormon patriarchy taught me growing up in Utah was that a woman or girl controls a man or a boy's sexual response or behavior. A girl who dresses a certain way will necessarily induce sexual desire in a boy and he has no control in how he responds. This is a very pernicious doctrine. It's bad for the girls, who then have to be forced to behave so as not to cause problems for the boys. It's also harmful to boys in that they are taught they have no control to how they respond. Their responsibility is taken from them, which has some advantages, which is why patriarchy promulgates the idea, but it is also very emotionally limiting and stunting to the men.

This isn't just a Mormon thing. There are many schools and other institutions that enforce very disparate dress codes, shifting responsibility onto girls and women. In my local city, a group of women organized and won a court battle to overturn an ordinance requiring different body covering for women than men. There are many reports of schools with ridiculous requirements and expectations for girls. It is, though, definitely a patriarchal thing.

[Jeffret]

One of the things the Mormon patriarchy taught me is that a man's worth is determined by how high up the hierarchy he climbs. His spirituality and his position before god are determined by the height of his calling. This idea is generally held in any kyriarchy or hierarchy, but it conveys the additional weight of your worth before god in Mormonism, because of the deep nature of its hierarchy. This concept was especially potent in the mission, which can be a overwhelming microcosm of all of the problems of Mormonism. The mission president I served under seemed to call every (male) missionary to be senior companion, trainer, district leader, and zone leader, but there was still a great deal of worthiness conveyed by how far along in the mission one was called. And if one was truly righteous, then an Elder was called into the office or as an assistant.

As a man who hasn't had much interest in climbing the patriarchal ladder, this was never really something I wanted to participate in. I was called to be Elders Quorum President, as a relatively young man, because there literally was no one else to fill it, but I declined the position, because I didn't want to engage in the hierarchy.

My last calling was as nursery leader. The bishopric kept consoling us with how long my wife and I had served together there and how they weren't going to leave us there forever. We kept assuring them we were just fine where we were. We enjoyed it pretty well. They had one Sunday where they wanted to have all of "the priesthood" meet together, so they got substitutes to cover all of the men in Primary and other calling. I kept telling them they didn't need to bother finding a substitute for me. They didn't listen. I just stayed in nursery with the kids and didn't go to their oh so very important meeting.

Of course, the corollary is that a woman's worthiness is primarily determined by how high of a leadership calling her husband rises to. My wife was Relief Society President for a time, a fairly short time, but that didn't convey upon her nearly the cachet as if I had been called as bishop.

[Jeffret]

I'm not sure this other thing really fits into the question, but it is a thing that definitely annoyed me for many years. The Mormon patriarchy teaches that an ordained man has some particular ability as a healer, through priesthood blessings. I always found that such a farce. Most women, because of their societally induced role as primary caregivers, develop a lot more capability as healers. If you want a healing power, get the mother into the priesthood circle. The last time I participated in a priesthood blessing was with my extended family where the men stood around as if they had some important ability while all of the women watched. I wanted to scream out how much of a charade it all was. I knew it was the last time I could bring myself to participate. If you want a healer, get my wife, who is really good at it, and not me, because some men once upon a time laid their hands upon my head and said some magic words. We recently supported my mom while she was in the hospital for heart trouble. My mom wished I could do a priesthood blessing for her, but found someone else to do it while we slipped out. But, the far more effective healing came from my wife's actions.

These practices attempt to artificially create in men some healing capability, by privileging them in important community rituals, and placing them above every woman, even the best healer or caregiver.

[Jeffret]

The specific lessons in how to be a “righteous” man include things like “putting your foot down” and “wearing the pants” and WOW, “punishing your wife” as if you are her father and she is 5.

This, in all of its many facets, was definitely woven all throughout the patriarchal experience. It's constantly there, more so in the older generations than the younger, but it's a standard pattern of patriarchy. But, in my case, it definitely didn't stick. It was never something I was going to do.

In a related sense, there is an idea in Mormonism about how some people are lesser. Certainly women are lesser, as they treated differently. Those who sin are lesser, in a very strong sense in "Visions of Glory" (to tie this back to the original idea). Nevermind that all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of god. And one that is very popular today, though not quite so clearly forefront back when I grew up is that LGBTQ+ people are lesser, even being one of the greatest enemies of the church. (There's that patriarchal dominance again, ensuing everyone fits into designated boxes.) On the other hand, there have always been ideas within Mormonism that everyone is equal before god and everyone should be loved and treated in a Christian manner. I learned the latter concepts oh too well for my continued participation in the church and the former ideas never really stuck. I wasn't aware of any race issues until after the Church was officially non-racist (though not really) and I had learned to accept LGBTQ+ people before the Church made that one of its primary missions.

And I guess that's why I have a hard time giving specifics about the patriarchal things I was taught in the Church. So many of the more specific and blatant things were countered by other statements about treating everyone equally and the latter stuck with me and the former I discarded. Many of those things I've forgotten or no longer seem terribly relevant.

The things that I find more fascinating these days are all of the tiny little things that are so woven into our society that we don't even notice them. The differences in dress code. Looking at the watch when a women speaks. Though I try to be egalitarian, I find myself at odd times recognizing that I've spoken over women, or given their comments and experiences less deference, or disregarded their experiences. I've tried to train myself not to do these things, or at least to try to recognize when I do, but they are so woven through the fabric of perception that they're very difficult to see.

[Jeffret]

Another one came to mind. At first I discounted it. Because I couldn't think of anything that specifically taught it. But then I recalled that's how some of the most insidious ones are taught. Quietly, without ever actually stating them out loud. Sociologists explain that it's the unspoken taboos that face the most approbation when broken, because everyone should know them. And it's the things that are the most infused that are hardest to be aware of and to break.

I'll illustrate this one.

My cousin has lived across the street from my Mom in Utah or 20 years with his wife and family. Of us three brothers, I am the closest in distance to Mom, living in Colorado. Mom has been having to deal with a sudden spate of medical issues these past few months, which require immediate assistance. My cousin's family has been helping her out a lot -- they've practically reciprocally adopted each other. But it's been my cousin's wife that's done most of the effort. At one point she asked my cousin, "She's your aunt -- don't you wan to help out more?" He was a bit flustered and didn't know what to do or say. It's not that he doesn't want to help -- he'll happily take care of things around the house for her -- but he just doesn't know how to do more caregiving.

Like most of these things, this is a double-edged sword -- it cuts both on the blade and on the handle. The women are required to do all of the "heavy lifting" of the emotional work, the caregiving, but the men's development is stunted. Men are also harmed by it. They are pushed away from learning useful skills and patterns. Their emotional growth is stunted and their ability to form meaningful emotional bonds is degraded. Sometimes when they find themselves in need of these skills, they are ill-prepared.

(It's a similar situation with the disparate dress codes, which I mentioned previously. The differences are about keeping women in their place, placing a heavy burden of blame and shame upon them, but patriarchy also harms men. I've worked to rid myself of the expectation that women control my response and how a woman dresses determines my behavior or thoughts.)

I was going to ignore this teaching, not relate it here, but then I remembered I had recently looked up how patriarchy harms men and this one was related to one that I had seen listed.

[Cnsl1]

I'll weigh in to the divergent thread.

I became active at about 13 years old, so may have missed some of the early programming. I've never encountered any church lesson, in EQ or anywhere else, that suggested to me in any way to punish my wife. All of the lessons regarding wife were along the lines of: they're so much better and more spiritual than us; we need to help and cherish them more. I also grew up feeling like the priesthood was for men but that women probably didn't need it. They were already good enough to do things without having that service club initiated upon them. I did recognize the dichotomy that they had less say in important church decisions and were never going to lead in church in important ways.

It bothered me that my MIL would defer to her sons or sons in law to lead in things in her home after my father in law died. It didn't feel right. This was her home and I felt she should be the boss and decide who should say a blessing or lead. But she was thoroughly steeped into the religion and culture. She obviously wasn't comfortable taking that lead.

It bothered me that girls in the church were taught that they were responsible to control a man's thoughts and behaviors with what they wore, which placed way too much onus on them and worked to make males seem incapable of controlling themselves. This helped to create tough intimacy problems in marriages with the wife becoming the gatekeeper for sexual relations, with the added difficulty of shutting down or repressing their own sexuality. For a church that values family relationships and eternal marriages, we do a shitty job of preparing young people for it, but a great job of giving them a lot of undue guilt and repression.

I'm bothered by polygamy and the heavy patriarchy that exists in the church and I'm also a bit bothered that it doesn't bother my wife more. She just doesn't care.

[Hagoth]

I just stayed in nursery with the kids and didn't go to their oh so very important meeting.

It was about porn. For a few years every special meeting, particularly the priesthood-only ones were about porn. They just couldn't get enough of it.

[Hagoth]

The Mormon patriarchy teaches that an ordained man has some particular ability as a healer, through priesthood blessings.

The expectation that I had magical power to heal and to give revelatory insight to fix peoples' lives was enormously traumatizing to me. My wife and her unmarried or mixed-faith friends (adrift in the world without priesthood in the home) looked to me when they were sick, depressed, distraught, to lay my hands on their heads and become a conduit for God. I wouldn't have minded, except that they had such high expectations. My wife would sit with pen and paper to write down the words that God put in my mouth. I knew from many priesthood lessons and priesthood session talks that my ability to perform this magic was a direct consequence of my "worthiness," which really piled on the heat. I wish I could say I just called bullsh*t on it, but I didn't because I believed it too. I was incredibly self-accusatory and so never really felt "worthy." I was constantly tucking away little phrases and spiritual fluff deep in my brain that I could pull out of my brain when I needed to say something inspirational.

One day during my faith crisis Mrs. Hagoth asked me to give a blessing to one of her friends and I said, "I think maybe you should do it. You really have as much authority and access to God as I do, and you know her better." That particular genie went back in the bottle and never came out again.

[Jeffret]

All of the lessons regarding wife were along the lines of: they're so much better and more spiritual than us; we need to help and cherish them more. I also grew up feeling like the priesthood was for men but that women probably didn't need it. They were already good enough to do things without having that service club initiated upon them. I did recognize the dichotomy that they had less say in important church decisions and were never going to lead in church in important ways.

This is all part of the double-bind and is a post hoc justification for patriarchy. It's very dismissive of men's capabilities, insinuating they're capable of very little. It implies that women are really better at important things, but they can't be trusted with them. It's totally nonsensical. If you were a good leader (or a competent god), would you put those who are least capable in charge of doing the most important activities?

[Jeffret]

I just stayed in nursery with the kids and didn't go to their oh so very important meeting.

It was about porn. For a few years every special meeting, particularly the priesthood-only ones were about porn. They just couldn't get enough of it.

I wouldn't be surprised. There are some people who are really addicted to that stuff. (I mean addicted to the anti-porn, anti-sexuality crusades.)

[alas]

The over focus on porn is also part of patriarchy. You can tell because, gee, it was a men only lesson. Patriarchy pretends that women are too pure to have sexual thoughts or feelings. Women are just an empty vessel to incubate children. They have no sexual drive, they are not turned on themselves, so it is their job to control the male’s sexual drive. They never get turned on and out of control, and they always have to power to stop a man when he gets aggressive sexually. Which is why there is no such thing as date rape because the woman can stop him if she wants, and most certainly can stop herself. The woman somehow is totally in control of an out of control man. That is rape culture, and is why many men reject their female partner after rape. The more patriarchal the culture the more this is true. Moslem are notorious for rejecting a raped wife.

Both men and women seem to be taught this.

The idea that women are so spiritual they don’t need priesthood is something that insults men, without consoling women. Women see it as just patting us on the head and sending us back to the kitchen to cook for the more important men. And what kind of God puts the least spiritual people in charge of the spirituality of the more spiritual people?

[Red Ryder]

And what kind of God puts the least spiritual people in charge of the spirituality of the more spiritual people?

The same God that puts a 99 year old prophet in place to lead a church that is hemorrhaging young adults 18 - 30 years old.

[Just This Guy]

I just stayed in nursery with the kids and didn't go to their oh so very important meeting.

It was about porn. For a few years every special meeting, particularly the priesthood-only ones were about porn. They just couldn't get enough of it.

One thing I have found in life is that typically,the louder someone protests something "The Homosexual Agenda", porn, or other various talking point that they like to demonize, the larger the skeletons in the closets. And this is not just Mormonism. You see it all the time in Christianity as a whole.

How many of the loudest anti-gay activists have gotten caught in their own scandals (sex, abuse, financial, etc.)? Maybe when you ignore the idea of "love your neighbor as they self", you tend to make a habit of abusing others as well.

[Cnsl1]

I started watching the podcast on this.

I'm really really grateful this book didn't come out when I was in my early 20s. I might have bought a bit of that kool-aid. Why? Because I was special, by God. My patriarchal blessing confirmed it. I might even be a big player during the resurrection process. I'll have a lot of money. The church will look to me to do things that perhaps only I can do. Oh man. I can hear the revelations coming to me.. coming round the bend. The rocks and trees are telling me their stories. Look out, world.

Now I'm worried about some of the friends I had way back then. I hope they don't read this book or have wised up a bit. God, I hope so.

[moksha]

How does Utah's criminal Attorney General Sean Reyes figure into this Visions of Glory stuff? See this link:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... ntimidate/

https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/DhnJbf