TruthSeeker24 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Look at it online at lds.org. or it is probably in the Liahona as well.Thank you I read it.
CV75 Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Of course not. Again, please understand that I DO agree with striving to do all things in harmony and to exhaust all efforts at making the wife happy and content. I simply think that in times when the two parties cannot come to an agreement, it is the husbands duty to make the final call, and it is the wife's duty to obey that call.I'd say that is only the case if that is the mutually agreeable game plan they decided on before (or very early in) the marriage!
TruthSeeker24 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 I'd say that is only the case if that is the mutually agreeable game plan they decided on before (or very early in) the marriage!Then God's order of family is NOT patriarchal?
TruthSeeker24 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 If you are not one you are not mine.Correct me if I'm wrong, but being one does not mean that two or more parties will always agree.
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Then God's order of family is NOT patriarchal?I'm sorry it took me awhile to respond. My home teachers just stopped by.I am afraid you are applying a worldly definition, and God's purpose is not the same. pa·tri·arch·yA system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.This definition (above) is not the Lord's way. Patriarchal order does not give you power over your wife or above and beyond your wife but FOR YOU WIFE. Edited June 4, 2012 by Nominee
CV75 Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Then God's order of family is NOT patriarchal?That doesn’t necessarily follow…
TruthSeeker24 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Alright, well thank you everyone for your views on it. I was very curious about it
CV75 Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Here's one more good article: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home[by understanding the patriarchal order of marriage, a young Latter-day Saint man will be selective in choosing a wife who understands the manner in which he is to preside during their marriage. Conversely, a young Latter-day Saint woman will be more selective in choosing a husband who will preside without “unrighteous dominion.” For a Latter-day Saint marriage or family to function in any other way than the patriarchal order would be, as previously stated, “out of harmony with the spirit of God’s laws as they are ordained for recognition in the home.”]
TruthSeeker24 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 hmmmm, my personal observation is that the Patriarchal Order generally viewed (at least according to these comments), is no different than Democracy, which is NOT Patriarchy. That's my take on it. As far as I can tell, the Church does not believe in a Patriarchal Family Government.
CV75 Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 hmmmm, my personal observation is that the Patriarchal Order generally viewed (at least according to these comments), is no different than Democracy, which is NOT Patriarchy. That's my take on it. As far as I can tell, the Church does not believe in a Patriarchal Family Government.How do the 2 articles I refrred you to equate the patriarchal order with democracy?
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 hmmmm, my personal observation is that the Patriarchal Order generally viewed (at least according to these comments), is no different than Democracy, which is NOT Patriarchy. That's my take on it. As far as I can tell, the Church does not believe in a Patriarchal Family Government.1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."I have emboldened the more helpful aspects of this scripture. God doesn't run a democracy.
Buckeye Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Hi TS,I remember having a discussion along these lines sometime in the past few months. I've given it more thought since then. Here is where I stand. Various prophets and apostles have taught differing things over the years as to whether husbands preside/rule over their wives. In times past, many taught that husbands do preside over wives. You point to Paul. You could also point to Joseph F. Smith or to Brent A. Barlow in this 1973 Ensign article (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home).Recently, however, prophets and apostles have been mostly silent on the issue. The Proclamation on the Family says that husbands "preside over their family" but does not expressly say whether they preside over their wife. Likewise, church publications and conference addresses repeatedly emphasize that men are to be righteous when then preside, but no one affirmatively says that husbands are to preside over wives. What do we do with the silence? I think we use our best judgement. I know of many families (mostly older) in which the husband presides over the wife and they seem to function very well. (Parenthetically, I think you offer your marriage as one such). I know of other families (mostly younger) in which the husband and wife jointly preside and they also seem to function very well. For most families, though, I have no idea how they've arranged things, but they seem to follow general principles of equity and kindness and both partners work together.In my family, we have tried both approaches. We find that joint presiding works best. Joint presiding allows both myself and Mrs. Buckeye to exercise authority and responsbility and thereby mature in the gospel. This approach does take constant communication to understand who has what responsibility, and often we change responsbilities, but we discuss in love and kindness and the spirit has blessed our marriage. What does joint presiding mean practically? It means Mrs. Buckeye calls on prayers in the AM and I do so in the PM. It means Mrs. Buckeye leads our couple scripture study in the AM and I lead the family scripture study in the PM. It means that we alternate who is presiding vs. who conducts FHE each week. It means I have a growing hope that sometime Mrs. Buckeye can join me in blessing the children. Mostly, it means that the children see that both of us are authority figures they can trust to point them towards their parents in heaven.
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 preside/ruleFor me, I believe the gospel teaches that the husband presides over his family ~WIFE INCLUDED.But the huge however is a complete disagreement with the synonymous nature preside and rule have here. Preside means to be in charge of, yes. Charge means duty, responsibility, or obligation.When God gives husband charge over his wife he is not saying you rule over her, he is saying that she is your responsibility.If you do not see the difference, that is IMHO a matter of the heart.
altersteve Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 I agree with Nominee. "Preside" and "rule" are two completely different things.
Buckeye Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Fair point as to "preside vs. rule." I was not trying to suggest they are the same term. If you're in agreement that husbands do not rule over their wives, then simply consider my post as applying to presiding.I do think that presiding still requires authority and therefore obedience by the person being presided over. It cannot work for some to be given a responsibility without also being given the necessary authority to carry out that responsibility. So if we are to have a system in which husbands preside over wives, that system must include instructions that the wives obey their husband. That is a large reason why I think the notion of husbands presiding over wives is dying. There just is no longer any counsel from any current church authorities saying that wives are to obey their husbands.
saemo Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) As another perspective, Paul was using the sociosexual relations prevalent in the ancient culture of his time and place, to clarify the hierarchal structure of the church.It isn't a treatise on marital relationships. Edited June 4, 2012 by saemo
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 It isn't a treatise on marital relationships.But the instruction given to us since the restoration of the church of Jesus Christ by God's prophets who live today to lead us on the path of righteousness to our eternal, celestial salvation ~ is. The holy and sacred power and authority of God is given to men through His holy priesthood so they may preside over and care for all. This priesthood power and authority becomes null and void if it is not used properly. Or in other words, it cannot be abused. This means that if that power is not understood correctly it is not merely the holder that loses but all who are in his care. The Holy Priesthood is an enormous duty and proper performance is vital.
saemo Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) But the instruction given to us since the restoration of the church of Jesus Christ by God's prophets who live today to lead us on the path of righteousness to our eternal, celestial salvation ~ is. The holy and sacred power and authority of God is given to men through His holy priesthood so they may preside over and care for all. This priesthood power and authority becomes null and void if it is not used properly. Or in other words, it cannot be abused. This means that if that power is not understood correctly it is not merely the holder that loses but all who are in his care. The Holy Priesthood is an enormous duty and proper performance is vital.I know that is what you believe. Still doesn't make Paul's letter a treatise on marriage. He testifies of Jesus Christ.Jesus Christ is my Prophet, High Priest and King. By my baptism I am joined to His Priesthood. So my belief is, I am not reliant on a husband-centered priesthood. I am reliant on a Jesus-centered priesthood. Edited June 4, 2012 by saemo
volgadon Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 I think that's from the movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Very funny lol, though I strongly disagree lol. Unless the man is a push-over, heaven forbid that ever be the case lol.It has been a saying in many parts of the world long before the movie came out. 1
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I know that is what you believe. Still doesn't make Paul's letter a treatise on marriage. He testifies of Jesus Christ.Jesus Christ is my Prophet, High Priest and King. By my baptism I am joined to His Priesthood. So my belief is, I am not reliant on a husband-centered priesthood. I am reliant on a Jesus-centered priesthood.Sounds great! As a LDS, Jesus Christ is also my prophet, high priest and king. It is by my baptism I am joined to His priesthood. I, too, am not reliant on a husband-centered priesthood. I, too, am reliant on a Jesus-centered priesthood. I am single as well as have no priesthood holders in my family and still I benefit from the priesthood in my life. How great is our God!edit: I feel I failed to clarify that although I am not reliant on a "husband-centered priesthood" in the LDS faith because the Holy Priesthood is NOT "husband-centered" but most certainly "Jesus-centered" ~ we are discussing in this thread a husband's authority due to the "Jesus-centered priesthood" that they hold, that is given them by Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. Edited June 4, 2012 by Nominee
saemo Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Sounds great! As a LDS, Jesus Christ is also my prophet, high priest and king. It is by my baptism I am joined to His priesthood. I, too, am not reliant on a husband-centered priesthood. I, too, am reliant on a Jesus-centered priesthood. I am single as well as have no priesthood holders in my family and still I benefit from the priesthood in my life. How great is our God!Christ's Priesthood can never become null and void.
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Christ's Priesthood can never become null and void.The power and authority of Christ delivered through that priesthood can be made so by Christ as to keep it from being misused. The title gives no authority or power, Christ does that. And he can choose to withhold as well."We cannot use the priesthood to assert power and influence. Therefore, we can’t use unrighteous means to establish dominance in marriage. "What I had said previously was this:This priesthood power and authority becomes null and void if it is not used properly.I am not comfortable with the way you translated that into "Christ's Priesthood can never become null and void."The difference is huge and misleading. I am talking about priesthood power, you are talking about the Priesthood. One is lower-case and one is Capital. See that? Edited June 4, 2012 by Nominee
CV75 Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 I think the notion of husbands presiding over wives is dying. There just is no longer any counsel from any current church authorities saying that wives are to obey their husbands.I think it is clearly stated in temple worship when understood by the Spirit, but the doctrine is less for the world’s consumption as I don’t think it is easy to accept and digest these days. So it may not be stated in the same terms, except in the temple.Husbands preside and wives obey, but only on the condition that the husband presides, and the wife obeys, in righteousness. That is the basic temple covenant and an excellent system of checks and balances in the patriarchal order. There is power both in the authority to preside and in sustaining by obedience, but only when presiding and obeying are each done in righteousness. There is also equal power in discerning righteous dominion and obedience from their unrighteous counterfeits, for both husband and wife.
Ron Beron Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to that magazine.1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."What's your view on this? Our modern day family government has become Democratic, as opposed to Patriarchal. Do you agree? Is that good or bad? What do you think?It seems almost a contradiction since God is no respecter of persons unless that person is a woman.Edit...check the churches internet site. You can read the Ensign and other magazines free. Edited June 5, 2012 by Ron Beron
Recommended Posts