Ginger -
I appreciated your bold words on your post of Feminism and Mormonism. I, too, have been thinking much on this topic, and thought I'd share some of the relevant thoughts on this topic from various (mainly Church centered) sources.
In one of Neal A. Maxwell's talks, "Spiritual Ecology", he says the following:
"The doctrines of Jesus Christ are so powerful that any one of these doctrines, having been broken away from the rest, goes wild and mad, as G. K. Chesterton observed. The principle of love without the principles of justice and discipline goes wild. Any doctrine, unless it is woven into the fabric of orthodoxy, goes wild. The doctrines of the kingdom need each other just as the people of the kingdom need each other."
This was a new concept to me. I dug deeper, and found more of what Elder Maxwell had to say about the safety in orthodoxy.
From "The Inexhaustible Gospel":
"Ultimate orthodoxy—and orthodoxy isn’t a popular word nowadays—is expressed in the Christlike life, which involves both mind and behavior. Christ’s manner of life is truly “the way, the truth, and the life,” and He has directed us to pursue His example.""... Yet orthodoxy is required to keep all these truths in essential balance. In real orthodoxy lies real safety and real felicity. Flowing from orthodoxy is not only correctness, but happiness. Orthodoxy is especially vital in a time of raging relativism and belching sensualism. The world’s morality is constantly being improvised. Some views are politically correct one day, but not another."
"Secularism often seizes upon a single, true principle and elevates it above its peer principles. This act of isolation does not make the principle seized any less true, but it strips that principle of its supporting principles. One can be incarcerated within the prison of one principle."For instance, “peacemakers” are precious commodities, but peace-making must be tied to other principles or it can easily become peace-making at any price. Candor is an important attribute, but it must not be separated from genuine concern for those who will feel the consequences of candor. Paul’s counsel is to be sure that we are “speaking the truth in love.” (Eph. 4:15.) Love and truth need each other."Charles Frankel observed of those who would currently subordinate everything else to “equality”:“The fallacies of the new egalitarianism come largely from having ripped the notion of equality loose from its context. The result is to turn it into a principle vagrant and homeless, and identifiable in fact only if a quasi-theological context is unconsciously imported.” (“The New Egalitarianism and the Old,” Commentary, Sept. 1973, p. 61.)"Elevating any correct principle to the plane of religion is poor policy. Just as one person makes a poor church, one principle makes a poor religion!"In a sense, principles can become “prodigal” as well as people can! Principles can have the equivalent of estrangement and of a “journey into a far country” and be “spent,” with little to show. These “prodigals,” too, must return to and be reunited with the “family” of principles."The doctrines of Christ need each other, just as the disciples of Christ need each other. It is the orthodox orchestration in applying the gospel of Jesus Christ that keeps us happy and helps us to avoid falling off the straight and narrow path, for on the one side there is harsh legalism and on the other syrupy sensualism. Little wonder that man needs careful and precise help, the guidance of the Spirit, in order to navigate under such stressful circumstances."
I wanted to learn more, so I looked up the reference Elder Maxwell had to G.K. Chesterton's work. I looked into his writings, and that he had written a book in 1908 titled, (yep - you guessed it...), "Orthodoxy". I'm still in the process of reading the whole book, but I think Elder Maxwell was talking about Chapter 3 - "The Suicide of Thought". (I've enjoyed the first two chapters, especially chapter 2 on "Madness", which I'd suggest reading as a bit of a primer to chapter 3,but we'll get to that later). I guess the book has been around long enough to be considered public domain and easily found on Guetenberg, but here's a quick and easy link to Chapter 3: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch3.html .
Elder Oaks gave a devotional in 1992 that I think stresses some of the ways our strongest virtues can harms us if left unchecked: "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall".
How does any of this have to do with radical feminism? I think it all comes down to balance.
My kids were studying American government, and talking about the 3 branches of federal government, and how the checks-and-balances system put in place to (attempt to) keep any branch from gaining too much power over the others. As I was telling them how the system was divinely inspired to allow a place where the Gospel could be restored, Elder Maxwell's words came to mind. What would the US government be if we left out one of the branches? I had also been reading about the human brain, and how the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is incorrect, and how they have shown that about 70% of our brain is there to limit, throttle, and moderate the other 30%. There are a host of mental disorders that are caused by the 70% not being able to hold back that 30% and unable to keep proper balance between the different systems.
This is where I think radical feminism, (and also the "Peter Pan" syndrome that many irresponsible young men exhibit) is so dangerous. Men and women are children of a Heavenly Father, and through their divine lineage have inherited many of the virtues that our heavenly parents have. However, as Elder Maxwell and Mr. Chesterton have pointed out, individual virtues, isolated and not engaged in a checks-and-balances relationship with the complete set of virtues, is a dangerous game.
Sister Patricia Holland (Elder Holland's wife) have a wonderful devotional back in 1987 where she highlights what happens when things get out of balance (especially for the women of the church):
"I believe that as women we are becoming so concerned about having perfect figures, or straight A’s, or professional status, or even absolute motherly success, that we are being torn from our true selves. We often worry so much about pleasing and performing for others that we lose our own uniqueness, that full and relaxed acceptance of ourselves as a person of worth and individuality. Too many women watch helplessly as their lives unravel from the core that centers and sustains them. Too many are like a ship at sea without sail or rudder, tossed to and fro (as the Apostle Paul said) until more and more of us are genuinely, rail-grabbingly seasick.
"Where is the sureness that allows us to sail our ship—whatever winds may blow—with the master seaman’s triumphant cry, “Steady as she goes”? Where is the inner stillness we so cherish and for which our sex traditionally has been known? In the shadow of the twenty-first century can we find what Charles Morgan once described as “the stilling of the soul within the activities of the mind and body [as] still as [the center] of a revolving wheel is still”? (cited by Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Gift from the Sea [New York: Pantheon, 1955], pp. 50–51).
"I believe we can find it—the steady footing and the stilling of the soul—by turning away from the fragmentation of physical preoccupations (whether it be thin or fat) of superwoman careers or endless popularity contests and returning instead to the wholeness of our soul.
"One woman not of our faith but whose writings I love is Anne Morrow Lindbergh. In commenting on the female despair and general torment of our times she writes:
"The Feminists did not look . . . far [enough] ahead; they laid down no rules of conduct. For them it was enough to demand the privileges. . . . And [so] woman today is still searching. We are aware of our hunger and needs, but still ignorant of what will satisfy them. With our garnered free time, we are more apt to drain our creative springs than to refill them. With our pitchers [in hand], we attempt . . . to water a field, [instead of] a garden. We throw ourselves indiscriminately into committees and causes. Not knowing how to feed the spirit, we try to muffle its demands in distractions. Instead of stilling the center, the axis of the wheel, we add more centrifugal activities to our lives—which tend to throw us [yet more] off balance.
"Mechanically we have gained, in the last generation, but spiritually we have . . . lost. [Gift from the Sea, p. 52]
"[For women] the problem is [still] how to feed the soul. [p. 51] "
Luckily, we have been given some advice on how to maintain proper balance for the innate virtues that our individual genders are known for.
(I'm sure you've probably got this memorized by now, but...) The Family Proclamation states:
"Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
I know that this has (and still does) ruffle a few feathers, but I think it's a formula for attaining a balance of virtues and keep them from ripping us apart.
Men are told that they need to get married, have families, and are given the duty to preside, provide, and protect. Why? Could it be that, as you mentioned in your post, that men need these responsibilities for their own growth? Could it be that these are the missing virtues and principles that men need in order to temper their own virtues? Look around at those men who have either not made marriage or fatherhood a priority, and you can probably pretty easily see both an imbalance and a lack of spiritual maturity. Without those roles and responsibilities, balance and peace is hard to come by.
And women are also instructed to get married, have families, and a charge to be the primary nurturer in the family. Many women have a great capacity to be emotional and social nurtures, but the role or nurturer also has more aspects. Sister Julie B. Beck helped to further define the role of nurturer in her infamous talk, "Mothers Who Know", where she explained:
"Another word for nurturing is homemaking. Homemaking includes cooking, washing clothes and dishes, and keeping an orderly home. Home is where women have the most power and influence; therefore, Latter-day Saint women should be the best homemakers in the world."
Those three little sentences sent a very polarizing shock wave through much of the progressives in the Church. But, could it be that it is an essential component of the balance that women and mothers need to temper their nurturing instinct? Could it be that one of the biggest bullet points that radical feminist fight for is to free women from the very things that will help to center them and keep their instincts in check?
Not only that, but members of the family, the husband, wife, and children are also there to help balance out each other. We are told that the woman isn't complete without the man, and the man isn't complete without the woman, and neither are complete without their children. Once again, checks-and-balances.
So, there you have it. My take on radical feminism, as well as other forms of sexism, "Peter-Pan Syndrome", and anything where people are unwilling to be moderated and trying to get the "biggest bang for your buck" without allowing ones self to be limited by the Lord. (And we all saw how well that worked out for Cain...).
What I see going on now is people (both men and women) putting themselves in a state of self-inflicted imbalance because they refuse to allow themselves to be limited, and finding some way to blame someone else for their own condition. Ignorance is expensive, and we will not be "compelled" to know all things, including how although our suffering may be caused my our mortal experience, our "misery is of our own making" (Elder Gene Cook).
No comments:
Post a Comment