With the recent news about Planned Parenthhood's flagrant disregard for human life, my husband turned my thoughts to Isaiah's prophetic observation that the dissolution of society was and will be accompanied by the fact that "women rule over them." (Isaiah 3:16). This prompted a little research, on my part, into that phrase: "women rule over them." Was it talking about things such as Hillary Clinton running for president or the Ordain Women movement? I just didn't know for sure. What I found was that 45 years ago in General Conference, Ezra Taft Benson connected this passage of Isaiah to abortion and other serious symptoms of the disease attacking the family. One of his main concerns was that Satan was "anxiously working to displace the father as the head of the home." (Oct 1970)
Head of the home. I could hear modern womanity cringe...even a large portion of modern LDS womanity. Can you believe that the Church actually still teaches that "Heavenly Father has designated the husband or father as the head of the household?" Of course they still do because it is an eternal principle. We believe that "each familly in the Church is a kingdom or government within itself" and that "the father is the head of that government; his is the highest authority in the home and presides over all family functions." (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed.)
What worries me most about Isaiah's words is that he is talking specifically about the Lord's people and not just the world. Two breaths away from stating that "women rule over them" he claims that "the daughters of Zion [it's not Babylon he's talking about] are haughty."
Haughty = "arrogantly superior and disdainful"
So...the problem isn't "out there" in the world. The problem seems to have been brought even into the homes of the Lord's people. [Although it should be noted that Zion, in some instances, can refer to the Americas] Do we have a problem with the idea that the father/husband is the head of the family? That he is the highest authority in matters related to the family organization? I wonder.
The current obsession with recognition and visibility among women seems to be a case of the heart (an extremely vital organ nestled inconspicuously inside the chest) grasping to be the head (highly visible and whose job is to direct the whole body). As a woman, this is extremely embarrassing to me.
President Monson, way back in 1971, addressed some of these concerns in a piece called "The Women's Movement: Liberation or Deception?" He lamented that women, in fighting for "liberation" were susceptible to losing their true identity. "Equality of rights does not imply identity of functions," he clarified.
Patriarchy is not pro-male or pro-female; it's not chauvanism or feminism; it's life-ism; it's people-ism; it's heaven-ism. It's pro-everyone. And it sounds like one of the qualifications for life with God and a life like His is to understand and learn to live according to the patriarchal order of the family.
What say ye?