Comments on: The Trouble with Chicken Patriarchy

By: Mark Brown

Mark Brown — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:51:55 +0000

But Jack, don’t you see? That approach solves nothing. If the kids are going to grow up with Led Zeppelin, all it means is that they are gonna get a whole lotta love, which is what the new presiding means, right?

By: Ms. Jack Meyers

Ms. Jack Meyers — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:13:45 +0000

Like I said over at 9M, if we're going to redefine "preside" so that it means things that LDS leaders never intended it to mean, I'm going with BrianJ's definition of "preside": “In my house, I take ‘preside’ to mean ‘make sure your daughters grow up with Led Zeppelin.’ Now, you can argue whether that’s really what ‘preside’ means, but seeing that I preside in my house, I get to choose the definitions.”

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:19:50 +0000

In other words, it makes no difference who presides–since presiding doesn’t entail any power anyway–as long as it’s men. But it would be sacrilegious to try to understand this nonsensical situation.

By: Rich Alger

Rich Alger — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:54:54 +0000

I read most of this post after being directed here by the sideblog of Jack Meyers, "Oh, hello again, chicken patriarchy. Nice to know you still care." She was commenting on Make Me A Sandwich, Woman! I Mean Please. This post makes much more sense to me. What importance is there who presides as long as they preside in the way the Lord wants them to. I do not pretend to understand why it is the way it is. The post of Rusty just makes more sense to me logically and through nearly 15 years of marriage practice. When we are both striving to live according to the Spirit, that is when we have unity. We yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit not to the ego of a human.

By: Wrestling Before God: Confessions of an Occasionally Dissident Disciple | Mormon Bloggers

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:18:52 +0000

[...] order, “hearkening” to her husband, the “presiding” role of priesthood, and how that all squares with the church’s insistence that husband and wife are to counsel together “as equal [...]

By: Zelophehad’s Daughters | Chicken Patriarchy Dissected

Zelophehad’s Daughters | Chicken Patriarchy Dissected — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:50:55 +0000

[...] infrequently statements from Church leaders contain instances of full-fledged Chicken Patriarchy in all its muddled, labyrinthine, self-contradictory splendor. But in other cases, both patriarchy [...]

By: Zelophehad’s Daughters | The Legend of Patriarch Hollow

Zelophehad’s Daughters | The Legend of Patriarch Hollow — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:37:05 +0000

[...] moonlit nights, particularly in the vicinity of the old churchyard, one might encounter the Headless Chicken Patriarch still, betaking himself about the village in a wraithlike and ghoulish manner, apparently [...]

By: love and marriage (and spouses who change) « The Exponent

love and marriage (and spouses who change) « The Exponent — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:42:10 +0000

[...] up questions of power, control, and respect. Is the marriage egalitarian or does someone “preside“? The patriarch of old declared “as for me and my house we will serve the Lord” [...]

By: Eleap

Eleap — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:56:51 +0000

The problem is with our language, which is inherently hierarchical and sexist. And because our language continues to inform our values, and vice versa, the word ‘preside’ should not be used in the context of a marriage relationship. Agreed. Hm…I don’t know what it could be replaced with though.
I also highly doubt the current structure of the church is God’s ideal. Maybe we have very little conception of how God meant his church, I mean the FINAL product, to be organized. As far as I can tell, God’s conception of true organization is the inverse of how we really think about and live it, isn’t it? It’s supposed to be upside down, right? In which case ‘preside’ means something completely different to God – we somehow lose that in translation…?

Okay so what I’m saying is I have the solution: what we need is a total coup; modern languages have to be wiped out, government as we know it erased from collective memory, gender roles (as we know them) forgotten, throw in a few earthquakes- throw in a liturgy written in the Adamic ( or simply transmitted through thoughts – thoughts articulated in completely egalitarian language)

By: Beatrice

Beatrice — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:51:40 +0000

As Kiskilili pointed out in the original post, I think that things are shifting in the church. When I was younger it seems like the husband was seen as having a similar position in a family as a bishop has in a ward. The husband councils with his wife just as a bishop councils with his councilors. Because of the husband’s unique position as the presiding authority he is entitled to revelation for the entire family and therefore should make the final decisions and the wife should respect those decisions. The Bishop and the husband don’t receive this revelation and make final decisions because they are better then the people they preside over. Rather, they receive these things because of the position that they hold. Sounds o.k., right?

Many members of the church support these views and there are certainly examples of church doctrine and practice that uphold these views. However, it seems that in recent years there has been much more talk about equality in the decision making process. Some believe that ideas of equality are not contradictory to the views I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Maybe not. But I see two key differences between the views that I mentioned in this post and the views I mentioned in #195. First of all, is the husband as the presiding authority in the home entitled to revelation about the family that the wife doesn’t receive? Secondly, is the husband entitled to make the final decision about things? If the answer to both of these questions is “yes” then I see the purpose of the wife following the husband’s direction. If the answer to both of these questions is “no” I don’t see the purpose of one person following the other.