Kevin Christensen Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 If all things in the church are to done by common consent, and if priesthood power only works by perusasion, gentleness, meekness, love, and pure knowledge, and if we are to be one as Jesus and his Father are one, what are the implications for the question of anyone being fully subjected to another?FWIW,Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA
wenglund Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 oh Wade, you amuse me. I take that as a sign of uncommonly high intelligence and an evolved sense of humor. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Damien the Leper Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 I take that as a sign of uncommonly high intelligence and an evolved sense of humor. Thanks, -Wade Englund-You need to stop...
Buckeye Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Does the body have two heads?Thanks, -Wade Englund-Mrs. Buckeye and I follow the Proclamation on the Family which teaches that husbands are to preside in love and righteousness. We also follow the Buckeye family doctrine that Mrs. Buckeye presides alongside Mr. Buckeye in love and righteousness. Our two heads do butt from time to time, but I couldn't see it any other way. I relate with Nephi, the sons of Mosiah and others in the BOM who were hostile to the idea that they should stand as a King over their fellow man. While such a relationship can work for a time, particularly if the king is righteous, in the end the people need to grow up and become joint heirs in their own regard, responsible for their own stewarship and sins.
Deborah Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Mrs. Buckeye and I follow the Proclamation on the Family which teaches that husbands are to preside in love and righteousness.That's what I was trying to think of and my mind went blank. I think TruthSeeker is confusing presiding with subjugation. Someone has to preside at a meeting but they may not be the main contributor to the meeting, just making sure that everything works out.
Buckeye Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 That's what I was trying to think of and my mind went blank. I think TruthSeeker is confusing presiding with subjugation. Someone has to preside at a meeting but they may not be the main contributor to the meeting, just making sure that everything works out.The way we see it is that both of us preside over the children, but neither presides over the other. So for family prayer, sometimes Mrs. Buckeye "presides" and calls on someone to offer the prayer. Other times I do. Same with FHE and family councils. In our personal husband-wife councils, no one presides.
Log Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 If all things in the church are to done by common consent, and if priesthood power only works by perusasion, gentleness, meekness, love, and pure knowledge, and if we are to be one as Jesus and his Father are one, what are the implications for the question of anyone being fully subjected to another?That is the ideal that we all desire to attain. However, let us suppose that a husband and wife are not perfectly united - one in each other as Christ is one with the Father - which of the two should direct? For surely there shall be movement, and if there is not unity on the direction, then one will shall prevail.
Buckeye Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 That is the ideal that we all desire to attain. However, let us suppose that a husband and wife are not perfectly united - one in each other as Christ is one with the Father - which of the two should direct? For surely there shall be movement, and if there is not unity on the direction, then one will shall prevail.Elder Maxwell made a dichotomy between matters of principle vs. matters of preference. For matters of principle, the spirit directs. Neither of us acts until we come to a unity in the spirit. For matters of preference, there are no set rules. Things tend to work themselves out depending on who actually cares the most. So long as we are acting in love and righteousness, differences as to preferences don't matter because preferences relate only to temporal things and those things are soon forgotten. 1
wenglund Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Mrs. Buckeye and I follow the Proclamation on the Family which teaches that husbands are to preside in love and righteousness. We also follow the Buckeye family doctrine that Mrs. Buckeye presides alongside Mr. Buckeye in love and righteousness. Our two heads do butt from time to time, but I couldn't see it any other way.I relate with Nephi, the sons of Mosiah and others in the BOM who were hostile to the idea that they should stand as a King over their fellow man. While such a relationship can work for a time, particularly if the king is righteous, in the end the people need to grow up and become joint heirs in their own regard, responsible for their own stewarship and sins.I am not sure how this answers my fairly simple, straight-forward, question?Are any of us hesitant to proclaim that Christ, the "groom," is the head of his Church, the "bride"?Is this not a worthy type and exemplary for our families?Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited April 10, 2012 by wenglund
Buckeye Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 I am not sure how this answers my fairly simple, straight-forward, question?Are any of us hesitant to proclaim that Christ, the "groom," is the head of his Church, the "bride"?Is this not a worthy type and exemplary for our families?Thanks, -Wade Englund-Sorry, I thought the answer was clear. You asked if a body can have two heads. I gave the example of one body - the Buckeye family - that has two heads and works just fine. The bride-groom analogy of Christ and the church also works, but in my opinion it is a temporal arrangement that will be removed once we attain the "whole measure of the fullnes of Christ". The analogy is just that, an analogy. It has its limits. I don't believe Christ meant to teach that women cannot preside alongside their husbands. Such an idea was inconceivable for the culture at the time. [Remember, this was the same culture in which Paul taught against women speaking the church]. The real message of the Christ's analogy is that men should love their wives as Christ loved the church. That teaching remains, regardless of whether the husband presides over his wife or not.
mercyngrace Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) I think the key in presiding is leading like Christ led - by example. Christ was exalted specifically because He was willing to be abased to lift others up. He lost His life in the service of others. He forgave the undeserving and reserved His sharpest rebukes for those who considered themselves deserving of a higher seat in the house.He taught, He loved, He entreated, He practiced what He preached. He embodied charity.In other words, if you want to lead - be someone worth following. Edited April 10, 2012 by mercyngrace 3
bluebell Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Where is masculine defined as ruling over your wife? I'm not getting where that idea is coming from, especially since the proclamation on the family says that husbands and wives are supposed to be co-equal. Edited April 10, 2012 by bluebell 1
The Nehor Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Masculinity is defined primarily by getting others to do whatever you want them to do. You heard it here first folks. 1
divinenature Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Where is masculine defined as ruling over your wife? I'm not getting where that idea is coming from, especially since the proclamation on the family says that husbands and wives are supposed to be co-equal.This. Where is the definition of "masculine" coming from that somehow means ruler and president? Where is it written that "feminine" means to be in subjugation to males?
Senator Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) This. Where is the definition of "masculine" coming from that somehow means ruler and president? Where is it written that "feminine" means to be in subjugation to males?Eh..hem...In the temple..... Edited April 11, 2012 by Senator
Log Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Where is it written that "feminine" means to be in subjugation to males?Ephesians 5:24, actually, speaking of wives and husbands. Thanks for asking! Edited April 11, 2012 by Log
divinenature Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Ephesians 5:24, actually, speaking of wives and husbands. Thanks for asking!Are the words "masculine" and "feminine" used? No. Hmmm. Senator, I don't believe that the temple uses the word "feminine" and "masculine" either...not that we can talk about that here.
Pahoran Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 You need to tear 1 Timothy out of your scripturesNo. You do not.and take a year to seriously study out Romans and Galatians.What's wrong with Ephesians?Regards,Pahoran
LDS_RM Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I was wondering what people think about the relationship between a man and a woman in the gospel. I always felt that men needed to be more masculine and be the bread winners, while the wives became more feminine and became the house wife. Men should lead in ALL things pertaining to finances and the wife should be fully subjected to him in all manners. I do believe the woman's opinion should be considered always, but the choice should always lie with the man. I hear a lot of LDS guys say that their wife runs the house and that they learned to just do what the woman says. It makes me sad. Masculinity has become rare. Anyone else feel the same way? Any disagree?I disagree. And it is my opinion that the teachings of the Church also disagree with your position. "Neither the man without the woman nor the woman without the man" is a start.As someone already suggested, what happens when the man is terrible at fianances? As for LDS guys and how they speak of the goings on in their house, I think that is a cultural issue. Only once as I recall has it ever been mentioned in General Conference that woman can be less than pleasant, but since Prophet was not speaking to the women at the moment that is all he said on the matter. Additionally, there is a terrible myth in among members of the Church that woman do not have the Priesthood because they are more spiritual, perpetuation of this myth among members leads many males to think it is true, thus causing these male of the Church to question their own promptings and inspiration.From your avatar I suppose you are married, hopefully, your husband provides ample oppurtunity for you to feel "fully subjected to him"; I do not say this out of disagreement with your position, rather I hope your husbands lets you know you are "fully subjected to him" so that you can feel like you married a "man" rather than you have animus towards him for not subjecting you in all things. And hopefully, this post of your was not a lament that you married a male who is not masculine becacuse he does not fully subject you in all things, but rather respects you as his equal, and respects your input in all matters of your lives together.
divinenature Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Men should lead in ALL things pertaining to finances and the wife should be fully subjected to him in all manners.Did you mean "all manners" or perhaps all matters? So, we're talking finances, education, child-rearing, hobbies, jobs, friends, vacations, sex, clothing, entertainment, politics, religion, home decor, etc, etc, etc?Why would Jesus want that? Why would Heavenly Father want that?Not having control over one's life is about the worst feeling you can imagine. It is only through charting one's own course that true fulfillment and growth is realized. It is interesting to me that the scriptures also say:"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."Wouldn't it be marvelous if that was truly realized?!
LDS_RM Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Eh..hem...In the temple..... such a terrible misrepresentation of the Temple, and no reason to hide behind small font, just say it loud and proud that you think the LDS Temple is where men and woman are taught that women must be subjegated to men.
Saints Alive Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 such a terrible misrepresentation of the Temple, and no reason to hide behind small font, just say it loud and proud that you think the LDS Temple is where men and woman are taught that women must be subjegated to men.I suppose there is a difference between listing to your husbands council and being subjugated by him.
divinenature Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Good thing husbands don't need to listen to their wive's counsel. PHEW! Off the hook with that.
Doctrine 612 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I have always viewed my marriage as a co-equal partnership. I preside in a sense that my name is the family name and that in formal situations I am the point of contact for all outside communication. Within the family we make all major decisions in council with each other, disagreement (which is unusual thankfully) is generally a stalemate until one or the other gives in. I don't know that it is a perfect situation but it works for us and ultimately that is what each couple must do; find what works for them.I agree my wife and i agree upon everthing before we make an agrement
Recommended Posts