1 Corinthians 11:3

[Buckeye]

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.

Actually, that statement was from CV75, but I'll give you my thoughts anyway. Counselors (and other members, particularly auxiliarly heads) often receive inspiration that the Bishop has not. That is not revelation for the ward until the bishop prayerfully considers and accepts it, but it happens all the time. As one example, the primary president (and her counselors) present names to the bishopric for callings in their organization. The names they select often come through inspiration, though the bishopric has yet to even consider them. The bishop has final approval, but the initial inspiration comes from others. This is not "setting in order", but it is "setting the ball rolling".

In the family (at least mine), this process works the same way with one major exception. There is not a bishop, but instead a Patriarch and a Matriarch, co-equal in authority and responsibility. Sometimes the children have inspired ideas that they present to the family, but those inspirations are not revelation until approved by the Patriarch and Matriarch.

[TruthSeeker24]

Actually, that statement was from CV75, but I'll give you my thoughts anyway. Counselors (and other members, particularly auxiliarly heads) often receive inspiration that the Bishop has not. That is not revelation for the ward until the bishop prayerfully considers and accepts it, but it happens all the time. As one example, the primary president (and her counselors) present names to the bishopric for callings in their organization. The names they select often come through inspiration, though the bishopric has yet to even consider them. The bishop has final approval, but the initial inspiration comes from others. This is not "setting in order", but it is "setting the ball rolling".

In the family (at least mine), this process works the same way with one major exception. There is not a bishop, but instead a Patriarch and a Matriarch, co-equal in authority and responsibility. Sometimes the children have inspired ideas that they present to the family, but those inspirations are not revelation until approved by the Patriarch and Matriarch.

My apologies on getting the two of you mixed up. I agree in regards to the wife obtaining inspiration for the family, but if that inspiration in any way involves setting the husband in order, I believe that that is out of line. I do not believe the wife has the right to set her husband in order. And in regards to revelation, I maintain that only the husband can receive revelation for his wife, and not visa-versa.

Genesis 3:16

"and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

[CV75]

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?

No one but the Lord’s anointed ever really receives revelation for someone else. In this case, the Lord’s protocol is very strict: go through His servants to teach the saints His doctrine, extend callings and exercise the keys. How this occurs in the priesthood council model has already been discussed. Even then the Church leaders must be sustained by those under covenant and for whom the revelation is binding and intended to benefit. Without this, the revelations are invitations, warnings or counsel. But in any case, individual agency is always respected.

The more intimate the relationship, the more spiritually inclined and qualified either spouse is to receive revelation that will bless the other. They are united in righteousness, as reflected in their full presence, participation and unanimity in family life. In context of temple endowment and marriage, two equal children of God, one of each sex, now form a presidency with the husband designated as the priesthood head and the wife designated as the helpmeet.

The kind of revelation a priesthood holder receives “for” his wife and family is typically about what he needs to do to priesthood-wise to righteously lead and serve them temporally and spiritually. His attitude for successfully doing this involves D&C121:39-46 and his knowing and understanding his family members’ needs, as much through open communication as by discernment. His aim is not to control what they do or think but to invite them to Christ. It is his duty to preside in such a way that his wife and children can receive revelation and participate in the council process according to their capacity. As they participate, they learn to preside and can accept shared and delegated responsibility on many fronts.

With this foundation, the kind of revelation a wife receives “for” her husband and family follows this same pattern and would constitute what she needs to do to sustain her husband priesthood-wise in righteousness.

Do you have a specific example?

[CV75]

I do not believe the wife has the right to set her husband in order.

What if he is doing something wrong, who better to call / invite / entice him to repentance than a loving equal who has been given the inspiration / revelation to do so?

Edited June 5, 2012 by CV75

[SamIam]

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

It's later...

In the imperfect state we run into the paradigm challenging situations where the husband wants a particular decision to be made in a particular way and the wife wants to make a different choice than the husband. First it is for sure that the Lord will ensure that ample opportunities are provided for both sides to validate their ability to keep covenants and every such state should be worked out by the man and the women both equally committed to keeping their covenantal obligation. There are many examples in scripture where elements can be observed that depict this very situation. Lehi and Sarah is an excellent one. In 1 Nephi 5 where Sarah is complaining bitterly about Lehi having sent the boys off to be killed she accuses Lehi of being a visionary man. In an appropriate manner without a sense of domination he actually reminds her in a way of the covenant of a husband and a wife when he states he is a visionary man and he is being obedient to God. This reminder doesn’t seem to quell her sorrows and fears for the moment; however, Lehi is fulfilling his covenantal obligation of doing the Lord’s will.

This was Lehi’s test. When the youngsters return Sarah is appropriately cognizant of the difficulty her response to the situation has caused and in part the problem of the failure to sustain him as he sustained the Lord. She then repeats her previous accusation except in the affirmative, “now I know of a surety” that you are keeping your part of the covenant. Therefore I am going to do a better job at keeping mine is the essence of her response. The point is that Lehi has a relationship with the Lord that he has developed by trusting him and then seeing results to validate that trust. Sarah is in the same process only with her husband. She is moving in her relationship as well by observing Lehi’s observance of the Lord and with this event she validates his right to “rule over her” and she freely gives him something he was unwilling to exact from her when she was complaining.

The point is that when a righteous husband validates the principles of obedience to the Lord the Lord will ensure that adequate opportunity is granted that the righteous wife can validate the principles of obedience to her husband upon the principles of appropriate confidence. Thus the point is not whether or not the wife will immediately acquiesce to the husband’s efforts to lead, but simply will the husband allow her the agency to choose not to do so. If he does so all the while following the Lord, the Lord will validate the husband’s right to rule and she will then have cause to be converted to the proper fulfillment of her covenant as well. So in this scenario at no time, on no occasion is the husband ever duty bound to demand agreement from his wife. He is duty bound to continue to seek out the Lord who will then sustain the husband in such a manner as to require the wife to address her half of the covenant. She may choose to do so but then he is not in breach of presiding as she is in failing to sustain.

[SamIam]

It's later...again

Now to the day to day expectations that are part of the pre-Sarah “I know of a surety” commitment phase… There are a multitude of situations that require something be done when both are not in agreement. As in Sarah and Lehi, I’m sure that from the outset Lehi was in opposition to Sarah’s wishes to send the boys back to Jerusalem in some degree. She may not even have said anything but most husbands can tell when they are not acting according to the wishes of their wives. Still he is obligated to consider her wishes be supportive but do as the Lord has commanded. Otherwise the Lord cannot provide the situations that will validate Lehi’s role as the presiding individual. Lehi must exercise faith in the Lord…not demand obedience from his wife.

At times in my married life the funds have been very tight. For a while we had car issues that I could afford the 25.00 dollars for a used tire every other month better than I could afford the larger outlay to repair the issues with the struts which needed to be replaced which caused the tires to wear out so fast. My wife literally was fearful to drive the car in a state of constant worry that a tire would blow, but all I could do was patiently remind her we’ve made it for 6 months always switching the tire out in time that that has not occurred. Usually each month about a week or 10 days before the paycheck would come that I could get the 25.00 out of to change the tire out it would be down to the steel layer starting to show. This went on for over a year. However, never did we have any issues and always changed out in time. In a small way this validated my desire to pay tithing and be obedient in trusting the Lord who sustained me in that effort by never placing me in a situation that my wife would doubt that I was doing all that I could with righteous intent. I always listened, calmed and then continued according to what I had to do to make all of the pieces work. Eventually, through many, many such events my wife has continued to move towards the Sarah epiphany. I think she is still moving closer to it but all in all, it seems that she has perhaps arrived there for the most part.

[saemo]

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. "

I don't think priesthood would have anything to do with "unrighteous dominance" by one spouse or the other. All Christians are called to serve others, not dominate them.

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?

You make a distinction where there is none. Jesus Christ is the only High Priest. The baptized share in His Priesthood. All power and authority is His. I hold no belief that Jesus' withholds from us what He has given to us. God is God, and is not dependent on us.

Edited June 5, 2012 by saemo

[Buckeye]

My apologies on getting the two of you mixed up. I agree in regards to the wife obtaining inspiration for the family, but if that inspiration in any way involves setting the husband in order, I believe that that is out of line. I do not believe the wife has the right to set her husband in order. And in regards to revelation, I maintain that only the husband can receive revelation for his wife, and not visa-versa.

Genesis 3:16

"and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

No apologies needed. I'm happy to be confused with CV75. Now if it were some other posters ...

In seriousness, though, you may find this 2007 article by Elder Hafen to be instructive: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/08/crossing-thresholds-and-becoming-equal-partners Note his discussion of Genesis 3:16 and explanation that it means to "rule with" not "rule over"

Genesis 3:16

states that Adam is to “rule over” Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. A ruler can be a measuring tool that sets standards. Then Adam would live so that others may measure the rightness of their conduct by watching his. Being a ruler is not so much a privilege of power as an obligation to practice what a man preaches. Also, over in “rule over” uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over. If a man does exercise “dominion … in any degree of unrighteousness” (

D&C 121:37

; emphasis added), God terminates that man’s authority.

[SamIam]

I don't think priesthood would have anything to do with "unrighteous dominance" by one spouse or the other. All Christians are called to serve others, not dominate them.

You make a distinction where there is none. Jesus Christ is the only High Priest. The baptized share in His Priesthood. All power and authority is His. I hold no belief that Jesus' withholds from us what He has given to us. God is God, and is not dependent on us.

Saemo, I suspect the greatest challenge here is that it appears you might be of a different faith than many of the posters. A majority are LDS. Nonetheless, we all agree that the Bible is the word of God and, at least for myself, it would be advantages to understand your perspective more readily if we used our common text from the scriptures. This can lead to scripture bashing and such and surely some will take advantage of one interpretation over another. I genuinely enjoy understanding how people develop their convictions. So often it seems as if they simply carry a torch someone else passed to them but they are not scripturally informed themselves. That process is interesting to me. My own method is to take every scripture I can find on a subject and examine all of the nuances that each lends to the subject so that I might come to a more well rounded conclusion that has as few assumptions as possible.

If you are willing then show how you come to your conclusions and then we can exchange back and forth from a more concrete perspective.

From the LDS perspective the dominance and priesthood issue stems from a set of verses found in the Doctrine and Covenants. The essence is that some men holding the priesthood might try to use that as one more tool to intimidate a spouse and play upon the desire she might have to sustain God by equating himself as like God by virtue of holding God’s priesthood. It is like a politician or someone else in a position of power who uses their supposed rank to intimidate and exact demands of others. It is a situation that does occur and it is heavily frowned upon to the point that if counseled and the counsel was refused the leadership in the church could/would step in, in some cases, and withdraw privileges.

[CV75]

One last thought (at least for me!):

Adam obeys God because he recognizes that God exercises His priesthood in perfect righteousness, giving Him a) power to rule or preside over His family and b) power to continue to live His Eternal life in spite of His enemies. Eve obeys Adam because she recognizes that he exercises his priesthood in perfect righteousness, giving him a) power to rule or preside over His family and b) power to provide for and protect his family in spite of his enemies. Righteous obedience follows priesthood power, and by extension, the individual exercising it righteously. The ideal we are trying to achieve is that there is no divided loyalty between following one’s husband, leading one’s wife and children and following God.

[Lightbearer]

Another scripture which I think expands on the husband and wife relationship and likens it to Christ's revealtionship to the Church:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

(New Testament | Ephesians 5:22 - 25)

If we think how Christ governs the Church, He does not do it through force, it is done by common consent. That does not mean the Church is a democracy but the agency of all the members are held in the highest regard. Would Christ demand us to do anything that is against our own will? Or are we suppose to seek His will in faith and love? The Priesthood is "after the order of the Son of God" and therefore we are expected to exercise it in righteousness. In fact the reason we are given the Priesthood is not for us to "rule" but to serve. We our stewards of the Lord's authority and power, it does not belong to us, but is delegated to us and we are held accountable on how we use it. In the words of Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility" and so we are among our family as one who serves. All of our ministrations with this authority is to bless the lives of others. Our wives are our helpmeet, not our servant, we should treat her with the utmost respect and love, as a precious daughter of God whom we are responsible for their temporal and spiritual welfare. Father Abraham was told what the Priesthood was for:

"My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations; And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal." (Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 2:8 - 11)

That is the true meaning of the Patriachal order. We are here to bless them with the blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

I usually agree with you on most things that you write. If I for one minute, afford your comment some serious thought, I would have to say that you are totally wrong.

You cannot have a democracy if no democracy actually exists. In my opinion, it is not the final voting that makes a democracy, although that is what most people formally point at, as democracy's defining factor. For me, democracy occurs in the free and open discussion that comes before the vote. People (and especially teenage kids) only participate in a free and open discussion if they know that their opinion truly counts. If no one is listening the message is crystal clear; My vote does not count! Therefore, no democracy.

This message is not lost on the wife, either. If my vote doesn't count, why bother with a discussion.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

How long have you been married? I don't think "righteousness" has anything to do with the matter, any more than who is right. I can be "righteous" from the top of my head right down to be my toenails, and still be wrong.

You're just saying, in other words, that the wife can have her say but the final decision resides with the man. Nice idea, in theory. Let me put it this way; How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot? Try this for a month. You can state your opinion but your wife makes all the final decisions....regardless of issue or cost. Now view this as the condition for an ETERNITY. How quick are you to sign on the dotted line?

[bcuzbcuz]

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'm the man, I'm right because God says I'm right. ........Nah! I don't buy it.

There is such a thing as "winning the game but loosing the match". You're just asking your wife to put up with an eternity of "NAaaaAaaaah! You lose! But thank you for playing!

Does that work for you?

[CV75]

How long have you been married? I don't think "righteousness" has anything to do with the matter, any more than who is right. I can be "righteous" from the top of my head right down to be my toenails, and still be wrong.

You're just saying, in other words, that the wife can have her say but the final decision resides with the man. Nice idea, in theory. Let me put it this way; How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot? Try this for a month. You can state your opinion but your wife makes all the final decisions....regardless of issue or cost. Now view this as the condition for an ETERNITY. How quick are you to sign on the dotted line?

Presiding and obeying are not decision-making, and my post wasn't about decision-making, so I'm not sure why your panties are all in a twist about that.

In addition to the links I provided in this thread already, this one also describes the decision-making process in a marriage and family: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/06/obtaining-the-spirit-through-counseling-together?lang=eng

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm not sure why your panties are all in a twist about that.

My, my. "panties are all in a twist"??? I can honestly say I've never used such an expression or anything that comes even close to it. I don't wear such garments. Why do you feel that such a response was called for?

Presiding and obeying are not decision-making, and my post wasn't about decision-making.

But you did say, "Husbands preside and wives obey". I would appreciate some clarification as to how that has nothing to do with decision making. Principle 5 from the article you cited had everything to do with decision making.

[Yep]

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?

Genesis 2:24

24 Therefore shall a ^aman‍ leave his ^bfather‍ and his mother, and shall ^ccleave‍ unto his ^dwife: and they shall be ^eone‍ flesh.

Ephesians 5:31-32

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be ^aone‍ flesh.

32 This is a great ^amystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

As far as some things (e.g. Revelation, Priesthood Authority, etc.), Husband and Wife are to be one in the same manner as Christ and the Church are one.

Christ receives direction for the Church from His Father.

Men are to receive direction from God as to hisfamily.

Ephesians 5:22-33

22 ^aWives, ^bsubmit‍ yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the ^ahusband‍ is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the ^bhead‍ of the ^cchurch: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let‍ the wives be‍ to their own husbands in every thing.

25 ^aHusbands, ^blove‍ your ^cwives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might ^asanctify‍ and ^bcleanse‍ it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his ^awife‍ loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet ^ahated‍ his own ^bflesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are ^amembers‍ of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be ^aone‍ flesh.

32 This is a great ^amystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the ^awife see‍ that she ^breverence her‍ husband.

Husband and Wife are One. I think that if you truly read the scriptures and what it means to be "one" this topic would not be in question. My Wife is my equal in all things, and I would sacrifice everything for Her, I love Her as myself.

[Nominee]

Husband and wife are equal, but not the same.

[CV75]

My, my. "panties are all in a twist"??? I can honestly say I've never used such an expression or anything that comes even close to it. I don't wear such garments. Why do you feel that such a response was called for?

Just having some fun.

But you did say, "Husbands preside and wives obey". I would appreciate some clarification as to how that has nothing to do with decision making. Principle 5 from the article you cited had everything to do with decision making.

Councils and counseling have everything to do with proper priesthood-presided decision-making processes, not with the "presider" making the decision in a vacuum. Any exception would be very rare and is touched upon in these artiles or Lesson 23 in this year's Priesthood/Releif Society study guide (George Albert Smith).

To get into the whole meaning of preside/obey and how, I'll refer you to my previous posts.

[Maidservant]

I totally agree! However, I don't agree that this verse excludes the scenerio of the husband making a decision contrary to those under him in authority. My interpretation of this verse is that its saying we should always make our decisions out of love, and that we should be patient at all times. Not that we should wait until everyone agrees, because at times, that simply may not happen.

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?

Our scriptural support for the form marriages should take should come from living revelation if there is any difference to be had between past revelation and living revelation.

If you hope to follow the example of our Father in heaven's leadership (the part where God is the HEAD of the man?), then the first thing you must do is "provide" your wife with her agency, since that is Father's first provision for you. I say this for your sake, and the way you are understanding things. Obviously it's impossible for your to provide her agency, since she already has it from her Father in heaven. But if you wish to follow the example of God in the way that you are imagining it, then start here.

My Father in heaven who is my God doesn't make decisions for me, and he IS God. So why would I permit another human being, and why would my Father in heaven agree to another human being, making decisions for me, when He himself doesn't do that?

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

Worldly political terms, either way, have no or extremely limited ability to describe the spiritual and priesthood union of a man and a woman.

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.

My calling in the church is the Cub Scout chair person, and I advise the bishop and his counselors quite a bit in relation to my calling. They rely on me to do this, as I AM the one with the revelation about the details of these things. I even was called in to get a different calling in the program (long story), and I felt horrible, so I just told them honestly, "I don't think this is right." The bishop wasn't there, just his two counsellors. So we talked at length why I didn't think this was right, and they ended up agreeing with me and the program was organized according to what I had in mind.

No one is talking about "setting in order". This is not about marriage at all. Also don't think too much on the organization of the church and equate it to marriage. In some sense, it's apples and oranges.

This is anecdotal, and may even be way off doctrinally, but it did happen, I was there, and I marvelled at least that he felt comfortable saying the following, and it was meant as a piece of humor with truth in it. When my brother was married over ten years ago, in the Salt Lake temple, the sealer spoke his counsel previous to the ceremony. And he said, "Both of you are entitled to receive revelation for this marriage. And, [my brother's name], you know that your wife is going to receive most of it!"

Genesis 3:16

"and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

This is a description of the FALL, not the celestial kingdom. So if you want to create something heavenly, you might want to consider returning to the condition that existed in the garden, if you want to use that template at all, and it's not a terrible one, could be useful to ponder.

Going along with what CV75 said better, you will not be receiving revelation on what your wife needs to do as a wife. She can have that revelation. I mean, maybe you could have a revelation onBut--does she need your direction peeling the potatos? So why does she need your direction for, hm, say, what books she should be reading? Or what church callings she should be accepting? or how finances should be spent? If you are going to "preside", shouldn't you be there while she's peeling potatos in case she gets that wrong?

Of course, in a marriage, both should be involved in major decision making: purchases, callings, etc. You are presiding over the family, but you are NOT the presider of your wife as an individual person. You each are individuals with a perfect ability to seek to the Lord. But in terms of the family, you both are needed to lead the family and have responsibility in the family. And if you ARE seeking to the Lord as YOUR head, and if she is also seeking--then, really, how could there be a (spiritual) disagreement, since you are BOTH listening to the LORD?

[Yep]

When revelation is given for the Family (i.e. a Family is simply Husband and Wife when there are no children) it is the husband that will receive it as long as he is worthy to do so. There may be times when the Husband's revelation for the family will supercede the Wife's views. This recently occurred with my Wife and I. She felt that we should do one thing and I had an opposing feeling. We both felt that we were being inspired by the Holy Ghost. Her feeling was an idea that was a "good" action, but I was given the impression that it was wrong at that time. We went with my feeling because we did disagree and could not reconcile. Later we found that my feeling was the better choice for that time and had we followed her feeling we would have compromised some blessings that came about because we waited. There is a line of communication between God and the Family that is set up to avoid confusion.

[Aliwe]

Husband and wife are equal, but not the same.

Good thing too, because same is boring.

When God gives husband charge over his wife he is not saying you rule over her, he is saying that she is your responsibility.

For many wives it is not a powerful decision to stay married, because her only alternative is to be destitute. How much more vital is the love of two free human beings who are utterly free to stay or part, yet who still choose to stay together!