1 Corinthians 11:3

[SamIam]

From my perspective, we are using terms like "power over" , " rule" and such as reference to a supposed male position of authority or right to mandate. We discuss this from strictly the obligations of the male side of the equation as if that is the perspective of superiority. The question becomes what is it to rule in God's Kingdom vs what is it to rule in the kingdoms of men.

Men tend to see rule in terms of dominance or final say. God’s Kingdom is his “without compulsory means”

So in the perfect state men don’t mandate, they don’t force, they don’t demand. However, this only works in the case of a husband and wife if both understand the covenants they make in the temple. He covenants to obey God while the wife covenants to obey her husband as he is obedient to God. His responsibility then is to discover how God requires him to rule, which is with patience, long-suffering, meekness and love unfeigned. Her responsibility is to let him willingly rule or preside over her in accordance with these principles which require the utmost care and observance of her counsel and support. If he unwisely dominates, if she unwisely fails to let him preside both are potentially equally in breach of their covenants. However, where much is given much is expected and as the man is given greater physical strength and potential for dominance, speaking to the gender, I believe though each may be equally wrong he may be held more responsible for abusing the rules of dominion to which he is born.

There is more but I'll save the rest for later....

[Kenngo1969]

... How is the husband the head then? Whats the point of the husband being the head of his family when the wife and husband must agree on everything? What was the point of Christ teaching that man is the head of the woman?

There's an old saying that if two people are of exactly the same mind on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary. If I ever get married (read, "don't hold your breath!" ) I certainly won't think my wife is unnecessary!

[Avatar4321]

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?

I think Paul is telling us to be one with our Spouse.

[Avatar4321]

I would also remind that those who interpret the scripture that we need to interpet them according to God's intepretation.

When the scriptures are saying that men are to "rule" over women (so to speak), it's not saying what the culture interprets it to be. It's talking about what Christ taught.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10:42-44)

God is telling men that we need to serve our wives. He is telling us to love them so much that we give up our own desires to make them happy. That's what God is teaching us.

[Nominee]

I would also remind that those who interpret the scripture that we need to interpet them according to God's intepretation.

When the scriptures are saying that men are to "rule" over women (so to speak), it's not saying what the culture interprets it to be. It's talking about what Christ taught.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10:42-44)

God is telling men that we need to serve our wives. He is telling us to love them so much that we give up our own desires to make them happy. That's what God is teaching us.

I agree exactly! Thank you for posting this scripture reference. God is telling men to love them so much that they put aside their selfish desires to meet the needs of and care for their wives. I also firmly believe that a wife who has a husband that is doing as God teaches him in this way will be happy, trusting and supportive of her husband for this same reason.

"whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" reminds me also of King Mosiah and his words to his people about how he serves them as their king. You don't use those you preside over to gain power for yourself, you serve and give of yourself to bring greatness and prosperity to those you preside over.

[blackstrap]

Consider Abraham. Sarah could not give him a child so SHE decided to give Abraham her maid -servant.He did not seem happy at the prospect but apparently eventually agreed. Some time later Isaac was born and later Abraham was told to take him and sacrifice him.I wonder if that action was decided by both spouses or if Abraham ,because of his patriarchal position,just got on with it without so much as a by-your-leave from Sarah.

As a personal note: I can make my wife comfortable,warm,secure, and other things we won't talk about,BUT ,I cannot 'make' her happy,at least not for any length of time. I think happiness is a personal decision and can exist under all types of circumstances,good and bad.

[Buckeye]

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.

That's the only place it is still taught. The fact that current church leaders have stopped teaching it, and in some instances taught that husbands and wives are "co-presidents", leads me to conclude that this part of the ceremony is dying and will some day disappear, just as other parts have previously disappeared as they became unnecessary. Others see it differently, which is expected when the brethren are silent. All I can say is the joint presiding works best for my marriage.

[Buckeye]

There's an old saying that if two people are of exactly the same mind on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary. If I ever get married (read, "don't hold your breath!" ) I certainly won't think my wife is unnecessary!

This seems doctrinally unsound. It would mean that either (i) the Godhead is not of the same mind on everything or (ii) two of the members of the Godhead are unnecessary.

Maybe you mean that not everyone has to be of the same mind on matters of preference (reference Elder Maxwell's dichotomy on preference vs. principle). But even then, if I found two people with the exact same preferences on everything, I would not consider either of them to be "unnecessary".

[CV75]

That's the only place it is still taught. The fact that current church leaders have stopped teaching it, and in some instances taught that husbands and wives are "co-presidents", leads me to conclude that this part of the ceremony is dying and will some day disappear, just as other parts have previously disappeared as they became unnecessary. Others see it differently, which is expected when the brethren are silent. All I can say is the joint presiding works best for my marriage.

It would be interesting to see how the temple covenants change in the future, but for the time being they are the best we have (and the highest aspiration we can attain).

I think “co-presidency” makes sense when one presides by virtue of his priesthood and the other presides by virtue of her status as helpmeet in the covenant (which by definition is an equal partner). I think too often men relinquish their responsibility as priesthood bearers (and come to think of it, women relinquish their responsibility as helpmeets). I hear a lot of talks and lessons on these subjects, so I can't say that my experieince is that the brethren are silent.

The other consideration is how two people in a loving relationship actually function synergetically apart from their joint priesthood covenants, which are important but do not define every nuance of their individual and united personality.

[Buckeye]

I think “co-presidency” makes sense when one presides by virtue of his priesthood and the other presides by virtue of her status as helpmeet in the covenant (which by definition is an equal partner). I think too often men relinquish their responsibility as priesthood bearers (and come to think of it, women relinquish their responsibility as helpmeets). I hear a lot of talks and lessons on these subjects, so I can't say that my experieince is that the brethren are silent.

Agreed. My experience is that men relinquish their responsibilities much more often than women. In my opinion, that is why the Proclamation focuses on men's responsibility to preside. And I also have heard much counsel from church leaders concerning men stepping up and presiding, including statements quoted by others in this thread regarding how presiding should happen ("love and righteousness", etc.). The only instruction I have stopped hearing is that men are to preside over their wives and that wives are to obey their husbands. That is not specifically taught anymore in church publications or conference, though it remains in the temple ceremony.

[Storm Rider]

Agreed. My experience is that men relinquish their responsibilities much more often than women. In my opinion, that is why the Proclamation focuses on men's responsibility to preside. And I also have heard much counsel from church leaders concerning men stepping up and presiding, including statements quoted by others in this thread regarding how presiding should happen ("love and righteousness", etc.). The only instruction I have stopped hearing is that men are to preside over their wives and that wives are to obey their husbands. That is not specifically taught anymore in church publications or conference, though it remains in the temple ceremony.

At one time it was important for men to only think they were in charge. Now, we still want them to do things, but we are not too concerned whether they think they are in control are not. It has become more of a thankless position. The important thing to remember is that women are still in charge and now everyone knows it. Men have become relatively neutered fixtures that we have to deal with.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Storm Rider

[CV75]

The only instruction I have stopped hearing is that men are to preside over their wives and that wives are to obey their husbands. That is not specifically taught anymore in church publications or conference, though it remains in the temple ceremony.

I think that is a function of what the word "obey" has come to mean (without the Spirit), and the negative connotations it has come to carry on many levels. We now speak of "sustaining," "respecting," "supporting" etc., and in a mutual context, which is what presiding and obeying in righteousness always meant all along anyway. I mean, even God obeys. So women doing the same thing in the same way is really no insult after all. But meanings of words change. Another example is that originally, it would seem that all marriages were meant to be "gay."

[Buckeye]

At one time it was important for men to only think they were in charge. Now, we still want them to do things, but we are not too concerned whether they think they are in control are not. It has become more of a thankless position. The important thing to remember is that women are still in charge and now everyone knows it. Men have become relatively neutered fixtures that we have to deal with.

I'm not sure if this is tongue-in-cheek. I struggle with message boards that way.

Assuming its not, my position is not that men are unimportant. In my marriage, my wife co-presides. That does not mean I do not preside. I do. I lead, provide direction, etc. And the children are (usually) thankful. It is quite possible for women to lead alongside men without men falling away.

[Buckeye]

I think that is a function of what the word "obey" has come to mean (without the Spirit), and the negative connotations it has come to carry on many levels. We now speak of "sustaining," "respecting," "supporting" etc., and in a mutual context, which is what presiding and obeying in righteousness always meant all along anyway. I mean, even God obeys. So women doing the same thing in the same way is really no insult after all. But meanings of words change. Another example is that originally, it would seem that all marriages were meant to be "gay."

I agree again. Obedience is a fundamental principle and is often ridiculed by society. It is not an insult for women to obey. My wife often does so when I am the source of a spiritual impression. She will listen, counsel, discuss, pray and then we decide together and obey. Likewise, it is not an insult for men to obey. I do so when my wife is the source of a spiritual impression. I will listen, counsel, discuss, pray, and then we decide together and obey. In this way we are both obedient and we both preside over the family. At least that is the goal.

[TruthSeeker24]

How do the 2 articles I refrred you to equate the patriarchal order with democracy?

It doesn't "state" that God's order is a Democracy, but the description (IMHO) is an exact description of a Democratic Family. The mere fact that the husband needs to withhold from moving forward on a decision until the wife agrees is a Democratic system. Yea, the article states that the husband presides, but to what extent? It says that the husband presides, but it appears (according to the article) that the term "preside" in this context simply means to hold the title and have no action in said title. At least that's how I'm reading it, please correct me if I'm wrong.

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.

Amen! That's what I'm trying to say.

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/e...der-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.

Well, I still disagree in principle in regards to equality of rights (authoritative rights) between the husband and wife, but I definitely can't argue with you in regards to the way in which you run your family. That's none of my business Thank you so much for sharing!

I would also remind that those who interpret the scripture that we need to interpet them according to God's intepretation.

When the scriptures are saying that men are to "rule" over women (so to speak), it's not saying what the culture interprets it to be. It's talking about what Christ taught.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10:42-44)

God is telling men that we need to serve our wives. He is telling us to love them so much that we give up our own desires to make them happy. That's what God is teaching us.

I feel like my opinions on this matter are being interpreted by some that I feel its the mans duty to rule with an iron fist and that he doesn't need to consider the wants and needs of his wife. That is not the case. I whole-heartedly agree with this scripture and feel that a good husband will serve his wife with all due diligence. I believe he should go out of his way and even in some cases, choose the wife's decision over his own in an effort to show love. I simply feel that it is the husbands choice to do so or not. So, taking this scripture into account, and using it to support my main point, the husband (the chiefest person and yet the greatest servant) has the right and duty to make all final decisions (just as Christ does). However, just as Christ does, the husband should also be a servant to his wife. By servant, I mean an individual who is willing to go out his way, not a servant in the sense that that individual must do what the wife says (as Christ never does what we say unless it is a righteous desire, and we wouldn't tell Christ to give us something as a servant, we would ask Him).

Anyways, those are some of my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for reading.

[thesometimesaint]

Here's how that democracy works. My kids had one vote each, my wife has 100 votes, and I have 1000 votes, but I seldom vote.

[Buckeye]

Here's how that democracy works. My kids had one vote each, my wife has 100 votes, and I have 1000 votes, but I seldom vote.

So you lose effective control over the family as soon as you have either (i) 10 wives, (ii) a wife and 900 children, or (iii) any other combination of wives and children totaling 1000 votes ?

[Buckeye]

Well, I still disagree in principle in regards to equality of rights (authoritative rights) between the husband and wife, but I definitely can't argue with you in regards to the way in which you run your family. That's none of my business Thank you so much for sharing!

I extend the same respect to you. As I said in my post, I have seen families successfully function under a patriarchal system. I hope yours is one too.

[CV75]

It doesn't "state" that God's order is a Democracy, but the description (IMHO) is an exact description of a Democratic Family. The mere fact that the husband needs to withhold from moving forward on a decision until the wife agrees is a Democratic system. Yea, the article states that the husband presides, but to what extent? It says that the husband presides, but it appears (according to the article) that the term "preside" in this context simply means to hold the title and have no action in said title. At least that's how I'm reading it, please correct me if I'm wrong.

How about I point you to a few facts and then you can correct yourself!

From the “Counseling Together in Marriage” article, the following threee principles from the "model of priesthood councils" (within which the patriarchal order operates) are hardly democratic or necessary for a democratic process: Principle 1: Unanimous Decision Making; Principle 2: Full Participation; Principle 3: Presiding Righteously

“The husband’s patriarchal duty as one who presides in the home is not to rule over others but to ensure that the marriage and the family prosper.” In another article in the same magazine, Elder Packer states, ““Now, fathers, I would remind you of the sacred nature of your calling. You have the power of the priesthood directly from the Lord to protect your home.”

From the second, older article, “Strengthening the Patriarchal Order in the Home” is definitely not pro-democracy, either: “The recent transition in the United States from a patriarchal to a democratic or even a matriarchal type of family organization has had its [negative] consequences.” The article then incorporates the same general principles listed above. “Paul stated there was a “great mystery” associated with the patriarchal order. (See Eph. 5:32.) The mystery may not be so much in the manner in which a wife submits herself to her husband as, in fact, the way a husband will preside over and interact with his wife and family.”

[TruthSeeker24]

How about I point you to a few facts and then you can correct yourself!

From the “Counseling Together in Marriage” article, the following threee principles from the "model of priesthood councils" (within which the patriarchal order operates) are hardly democratic or necessary for a democratic process: Principle 1: Unanimous Decision Making; Principle 2: Full Participation; Principle 3: Presiding Righteously

“The husband’s patriarchal duty as one who presides in the home is not to rule over others but to ensure that the marriage and the family prosper.” In another article in the same magazine, Elder Packer states, ““Now, fathers, I would remind you of the sacred nature of your calling. You have the power of the priesthood directly from the Lord to protect your home.”

From the second, older article, “Strengthening the Patriarchal Order in the Home” is definitely not pro-democracy, either: “The recent transition in the United States from a patriarchal to a democratic or even a matriarchal type of family organization has had its [negative] consequences.” The article then incorporates the same general principles listed above. “Paul stated there was a “great mystery” associated with the patriarchal order. (See Eph. 5:32.) The mystery may not be so much in the manner in which a wife submits herself to her husband as, in fact, the way a husband will preside over and interact with his wife and family.”

I apologize if I sound argumentative, but this still sounds exactly like a Democratic family organization, at least it does to me.

[CV75]

I apologize if I sound argumentative, but this still sounds exactly like a Democratic family organization, at least it does to me.

All it takes is understanding the difference between a vote and a revelation and their respective processes; also how a priesthood council system works, which the patriarchal order follows.

[thesometimesaint]

Buckeye:

At least in this life one wife, three children, and 5 Grandkids(hopefully more will come) are about all I can handle.

[TruthSeeker24]

All it takes is understanding the difference between a vote and a revelation and their respective processes; also how a priesthood council system works, which the patriarchal order follows.

Alright, so let's try and look at it from a different angle. Is it proper for a wife to receive revelation for her husband?

[Buckeye]

Alright, so let's try and look at it from a different angle. Is it proper for a wife to receive revelation for her husband?

Mine does. At least, she often gets spiritual impressions that I have not received. She then discusses those with me, we counsel and pray, and receive revelation together. The same process also happens with me receiving the spiritual impression first. In both situations, one of hearkens unto the counsel of the other as we both hearken unto the Lord.

[TruthSeeker24]

Mine does. At least, she often gets spiritual impressions that I have not received. She then discusses those with me, we counsel and pray, and receive revelation together. The same process also happens with me receiving the spiritual impression first. In both situations, one of hearkens unto the counsel of the other as we both hearken unto the Lord.

So then by your previous explanation, "also how a priesthood council system works, which the patriarchal order follows," a Bishop's counselor can set the Bishop in order by revelation. Or an Apostle can set the Prophet in order by revelation. That doesn't seem doctrinally sound to me.

Edited June 5, 2012 by TruthSeeker24