All Are Alike...

[K-2]

What differentiates the presiding role as far as power, privileges or authority? Nothing?

[CV75]

What differentiates the presiding role as far as power, privileges or authority? Nothing?

I think it goes without saying that the power, privilege and authority to preside is interdependent with the power, privilege and authority to sustain (be presided). You can't have one without the other, and you can't have either without righteousness.

 

Even in our relationship with God, if we don't sustain Him, He delegates presiding power, privilege and authority to those we will sustain to preside (for example, see D&C 76:77, 86 and 94; this is related to the principle in D&C 88:22-24). Even if you look at all the ways the word "preside" is used in scripture (run a search on lds.org scriptures), the same holds.

[K-2]

So presiding and sustaining are interrelated. Are you going to get around to answering the question?

[K-2]

1 Peter 3: 1-7 mentions husbands and wives being heirs together, but clarifies that wives should be in subjection to their husbands as Sara obeyed Abraham and called him lord, yet receiving honor as the weaker vessels:

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Any thoughts about this? What does the word "subjection" mean here? What does the Greek word hupotasso mean? How would this apply to the husband/wife relationship? What did Sara mean by calling Abraham lord, or kurios? What does the word mean?

Edited March 21, 2014 by K-2

[Tacenda]

1 Peter 3: 1-7 mentions husbands and wives being heirs together, but clarifies that wives should be in subjection to their husbands as Sara obeyed Abraham and called him lord, yet receiving honor as the weaker vessels:

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Any thoughts about this? What does the word "subjection" mean here? What does the Greek word hupotasso mean? How would this apply to the husband/wife relationship? What did Sara mean by calling Abraham lord, or kurios? What does the word mean?

Again, man speaking not God.

 

Hupotasso:

1. to arrange under, to subordinate
2. to subject, put in subjection
3. to subject one's self, obey
4. to submit to one's control
5. to yield to one's admonition or advice
6. to obey, be subject

A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

 

Last sentence, is interesting....

Edited March 21, 2014 by Tacenda

[CV75]

So presiding and sustaining are interrelated. Are you going to get around to answering the question?

Your question was: "What differentiates the presiding role as far as power, privileges or authority?" It's a badly constructed question, and I answered the best I could given that differentiating something from nothing and in a vacuum is impossible.

 

Did you do the search I suggested? Which of the scriptural ways in which "preside" is used do you wish to discuss? Or is there some otehr way you wish to discuss it?

[K-2]

Again, man speaking not God.

 

Hupotasso:

1. to arrange under, to subordinate
2. to subject, put in subjection
3. to subject one's self, obey
4. to submit to one's control
5. to yield to one's admonition or advice
6. to obey, be subject

A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

 

Last sentence, is interesting....

Is it uninspired?

[CV75]

1 Peter 3: 1-7 mentions husbands and wives being heirs together, but clarifies that wives should be in subjection to their husbands as Sara obeyed Abraham and called him lord, yet receiving honor as the weaker vessels:

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Any thoughts about this? What does the word "subjection" mean here? What does the Greek word hupotasso mean? How would this apply to the husband/wife relationship? What did Sara mean by calling Abraham lord, or kurios? What does the word mean?

This scripture is about how converted wives can win over their unbelieving husbands into the faith by following the examples of those women who had husbands in the faith.

 

I think for mariage in the covenant, "subjection" means to respect the priesthood he holds, and to respect and receive the doctrines, covenants and ordinances as he is inspired to impart them, and to participate in councils he calls for, and serves as ameans to help and encourage him to grow into his responsibilities where he is lacking. I also think the ancient scriptures and their translations convey a bit of local custom in them that is not actually part of the doctrine, and we need to be watchful of this. That is why we have modern scripture and counsel.

 

I think "weaker vessel" refers to not having priesthood office or responsibility (see 3 Nephi 20:41).

 

Which has more "power, privileges or authority" -- subjection to someone else, or honoring someone else? LOL

[K-2]

Your question was: "What differentiates the presiding role as far as power, privileges or authority?" It's a badly constructed question, and I answered the best I could given that differentiating something from nothing and in a vacuum is impossible.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, let me rephrase the question. As pertaining to family government, how is the position of husband different than that of wife, particularly pertaining to executive functions? Is there a difference?

[CV75]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, let me rephrase the question. As pertaining to family government, how is the position of husband different than that of wife, particularly pertaining to executive functions? Is there a difference?

According to "The Family: A Proclamation," nothing is said about executive functions. But I know that the presiding, providing, protecting, and to nurturing functions described therein each have the power to put plans, actions, or laws into effect, so they are all executive functions. The same with fulfilling obligations and helping one another. So family government is a melding of executive functions perfomed by husband and wife.

 

Righteous goverments (including family governments and the scriptural patriarchal order where it is observed) follow the pattern I already described in #227, and presiding and consent to preside each involve executive functions.

[K-2]

No difference then? Does the presiding role mean nothing more than being the one to call on someone to pray at Family Home Evening or other family meetings, or can a wife do that too?

[CV75]

No difference then? Does the presiding role mean nothing more than being the one to call on someone to pray at Family Home Evening or other family meetings, or can a wife do that too?

I think the kind of presiding you’re trying to understand has to do with exercising righteous priesthood leadership in the home. It is "different" in that the husband has the priesthood conferred upon him and the wife does not.

I think this article is good for understanding both righteous priesthood leadership in the home and how to exercise it: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/02/presiding-righteously-in-the-home?lang=eng

A couple of others:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1973/10/the-role-of-fathers?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/to-the-fathers-in-israel?lang=eng

You will see that the answer is consistent across the decades.

[why me]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, let me rephrase the question. As pertaining to family government, how is the position of husband different than that of wife, particularly pertaining to executive functions? Is there a difference?

In the families that I know, I see no difference when it comes to the priesthood. Usually it is the woman who is controlling home affairs. It seems the priesthood is in name only. The men take a back seat when it comes to home governance. Such is my observation.

 

If any man would use the priesthood for governance to get his way, he would most likely get the john the baptist experience. :acute:I think that this is the actual reality of everyday experience.

Edited March 21, 2014 by why me

[K-2]

I think the kind of presiding you’re trying to understand has to do with exercising righteous priesthood leadership in the home. It is "different" in that the husband has the priesthood conferred upon him and the wife does not.

So the roles of husband and wife in family government and decision making are different as far as "priesthood holder" or "non priesthood holder" designations go, but in practice are virtually identical? References to the husband being the head or the lord or presiding or ruling or not being the weaker vessel mean only that he holds the priesthood, but nothing beyond that, that might be applied to better understanding the patriarchal/matriarchal dynamic in a family?

[CV75]

So the roles of husband and wife in family government and decision making are different as far as "priesthood holder" or "non priesthood holder" designations go, but in practice are virtually identical? References to the husband being the head or the lord or presiding or ruling or not being the weaker vessel mean only that he holds the priesthood, but nothing beyond that, that might be applied to better understanding the patriarchal/matriarchal dynamic in a family?

I think much of what you have to say has to with how you interpret and act on your understanding of such words as “preside, rule, lord,” etc., which from the sounds of it seems to be a function of style, culture (ancient or modern), translation, etc. According to the scripture verses from Paul that you quoted above, unbelieving men without the priesthood at the time were in charge of their believing wives.

 

Simply put, since we seem to both agree with the teachings in the articles we posted, our differences must merely be in attitude, style or even “developmental”. We are taught correct principles and we govern ourselves accordingly.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by “priesthood holder” being a “designation”—when a couple is married one is not designated the priesthood holder and one the non-priesthood holder; these attributes were inherent long before the marriage. The marriage brings them together as one. Earlier you referred to husband as wife as “positions,” which I don’t fully understand either – the family or patriarchal order is not a military or employment construct.

 

Men hold the priesthood by conferral and office and women do not. Both men and women hold the priesthood covenants (most of these covenants are identical; only a couple are different—and where different are only effectual when the parties are acting as one), they hold them together in the highest order of marriage, and both hold priesthood power. Family decisions involve all these ways and means of holding priesthood, but yes, men possess the conferral and office to carry out their responsibilities as the articles indicate.

 

I think the articles show how a husband is to lead with regards to his priesthood role. If I were to sum it up, it would be to provide the priesthood ordinances to his family and to use his priesthood to otherwise provide for and protect them temporally and spiritually.

 

In light of your arguments, instructions that the priesthood holder be the one to make decisions for the wife or family are noticeably absent from any article that has been referenced--there is a reason for that!

 

Even Barlow’s article only addresses the father’s decision-making role in terms of a change or shift in American culture and the impact of that shift on the father’s effectiveness as a priesthood holder. That is the nature of cultural shifts—they create instability in family dynamics and elsewhere. Some men could have used that shift to help them become better priesthood holders, but the article addresses the majority of cases where it is assumed that most did not. The traditions of men haven’t always been stable or in the best interests of building Zion. I think it is a misread of the article to assert that men by divine order and priesthood authority are to be the insular, sole and ultimate decision-making authorities for all things "family."

 

As far as decision making goes, there has to be a basic understanding within the marriage as to how the couple will govern themselves and their family in righteousness. Cultural and personal styles and attitudes will come into play, and these sometimes change over time, but as long as the father and mother are abiding in the covenant according to the teachings in these and other Church articles, I think that family is on the right track. I think the patriarchal order means that decision-making is united; the couple governs the family as one in the patriarchal order according to the covenants, gifts and talents the Lord has given them as husband/wife and father/mother.

[K-2]

In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 87, he says this:

"it is the duty of Elders, when they enter into any house, to let their labors and warning voice be unto the master of that house; and if he receive the Gospel, then he may extend his influence to his wife also, with consent, that peradventure she may receive the Gospel: but if a man receive not the Gospel, but gives his consent that his wife may receive it, and she believes, then let her receive it. But if a man forbid his wife, or his children, before they are of age, to receive the Gospel, then it should be the duty of the Elder to go his way, and use no influence against him, and let the responsibility be upon his head; shake off the dust of thy feet as a testimony against him, and thy skirts shall then be clear of their souls."

 

On the next page he goes on to say,

"if the master of that house give consent, the Elder may preach to his family, his wife, his children and his servants, his man-servants, or his maid-servants, or his slaves; then it should be the duty of the Elder to stand up boldly for the cause of Christ, and warn that people with one accord to repent and be baptized..."

He goes on to quote the following from Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 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.

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

And this from Colossians 3:

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

So, according to what Joseph Smith says there, a wife has no ability to accept the gospel against the wishes of her husband any more than his children or servants or slaves do.

I've got another question for you CV75. Are men who hold the Melchizedek priesthood considered to be saviors to their families? Are women ever so considered?

Edited March 25, 2014 by K-2

[CV75]

So, according to what Joseph Smith says there, a wife has no ability to accept the gospel against the wishes of her husband any more than his children or servants or slaves do.

I think missionaries still follow Joseph Smith’s instructions in modern times where appropriate and applicable (just as Paul’s), where such consideration was the norm with regard to wives, children, servants or slaves. 

 

I've got another question for you CV75. Are men who hold the Melchizedek priesthood considered to be saviors to their families? Are women ever so considered?

If you are tying these questions to Ephesians 5:22-24, then the comparison is a simile. They compare an aspect of priesthood relationships and functions. It says that wives receive priesthood service from their husbands, "even as" the Church (or church, as member saints collectively) receives it from Christ. Thus the “body” (family, church, or Church) is saved and the husband serves as a “savior” to the family.

Obviously these verses do not speak of women having the priesthood conferred upon them, so they are not “saviors” in the same way.

[K-2]

What sort of service does the family receive that "saves" them?

Can women be saviors on mount Zion? Will they judge the mount of Esau along with the men, as it says in Obadiah?

 

I happened to be reading in Romans chapter seven yesterday, and read in verse two that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." I think it is disagreeable to many people these days that a wife should even be subject to be bound to follow a husband's counsel, let alone be bound to his law.

A quote from Brigham Young:
 

They are few who know well the office of a woman from that of a man. Imbecility is marked upon the people of the present age. All who have their eyes open to see and their minds enlightened to understand things as they are, will subscribe readily to this declaration. When the servants of God in any age have consented to follow a woman for a leader, either in a public or a family capacity, they have sunk beneath the standard their organization has fitted them for; when a people of God submit to that, their Priesthood is taken from them, and they become as any other people. I shall humor the wife as far as I can consistently; and if you have any crying to do, wife, you can do that along with the children, for I have none of that kind of business to do. Let our wives be the weaker vessels, and the men be men, and show the women by their superior ability that God gives husbands wisdom and ability to lead their wives into his presence. (Brigham Young, JD 9:308)

 

[JLHPROF]

What sort of service does the family receive that "saves" them?

Can women be saviors on mount Zion? Will they judge the mount of Esau along with the men, as it says in Obadiah?

 

I happened to be reading in Romans chapter seven yesterday, and read in verse two that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." I think it is disagreeable to many people these days that a wife should even be subject to be bound to follow a husband's counsel, let alone be bound to his law.

A quote from Brigham Young:

 

 

While I generally agree with your perspective on the issues in this thread I do have a quote I like to remember when I'm getting to "male-centric".

Eliza R.Snow (who I like to think understood the place of women bettter than most) wrote in "O My Father"

 

" When I leave this frail existence,

When I lay this mortal by,

Father, Mother, may I meet you

In your royal courts on high?

Then, at length, when I've completed

All you sent me forth to do,

With your mutual approbation

Let me come and dwell with you."

 

I like to think this means our Heavenly Mother may have a part in our judgement (and especially judge her sons on how they treated her daughters).

[CV75]

What sort of service does the family receive that "saves" them?

Can women be saviors on mount Zion? Will they judge the mount of Esau along with the men, as it says in Obadiah?

 

I happened to be reading in Romans chapter seven yesterday, and read in verse two that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." I think it is disagreeable to many people these days that a wife should even be subject to be bound to follow a husband's counsel, let alone be bound to his law.

A quote from Brigham Young:

Service:

“The Family: A Proclamation” talks about the husband/wife roles that save the family.

Of course you know that the husband provides the saving ordinances (and provides and protects to save from temporal and spiritual danger). The wife nurtures to save from neglect, deprivation, starvation, ignorance, etc. (temporally and spiritually).

Saviors:

Yes, women can be saviors on Mount Zion (refer to family history and temple work): https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-41?lang=eng

Romans 7:

The verses in Romans 7 use the marital laws and customs of that day and age as a metaphor that the Law of Moses is fulfilled or dead and the saints are no longer obliged to follow it.

Brigham Young Quote:

Brigham Young’s counsel has to do with the differences between what men and women can do (in righteousness) with regards to priesthood conferral and office. Men have it; women don’t; men exercise their priesthood duties; women exercise thier priesthood sustaining duties.

[K-2]

Joseph Smith said "There will be 144,000 saviors on Mount Zion" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 366), so the title certainly cannot refer to anyone who does temple work, as is understood today, but must refer to men who have received certain priesthood ordinances.

[JLHPROF]

Joseph Smith said "There will be 144,000 saviors on Mount Zion" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 366), so the title certainly cannot refer to anyone who does temple work, as is understood today, but must refer to men who have received certain priesthood ordinances.

 

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily put a number limit.  Anymore than D&C 107:89 limits us to 96 Elders.

I have heard the theory that 144,000 is the membership of a specific quorumn.  But if we exceed that number a second quorumn can be formed.  (One theory has that it is the number of a quorumn of Kings & Priests - as you say, men who have received certain priesthood ordinances/ordinations).

[CV75]

Joseph Smith said "There will be 144,000 saviors on Mount Zion" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 366), so the title certainly cannot refer to anyone who does temple work, as is understood today, but must refer to men who have received certain priesthood ordinances.

That too. And if you read the whole paragraph/section, it is about temple work and those who perform the ordinances are indeed Saviors on Mount Zion. And I suspect the "innumerable host that no man can number" that is with them are also Saviors on Mount Zion, and includes women.

 

ETA Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=q4zqk3Mslx8C&pg=PA366&lpg=PA366&dq=teachings+of+the+prophet+joseph+smith+There+will+be+144,000+saviors+on+Mount+Zion&source=bl&ots=RG1FsRkano&sig=fMOdJOwmigDBMgQNgttQOrRVW8c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GjZIU7SLGqmqsASNt4DAAw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=teachings%20of%20the%20prophet%20joseph%20smith%20There%20will%20be%20144%2C000%20saviors%20on%20Mount%20Zion&f=false

Edited April 11, 2014 by CV75

[Daniel2]

It's a very confusing scripture because it doesn't specify "gay and straight"..

It doesn't say brown, yellow, red, or people born with ambiguous genitalia, either. I wonder if they're included in "all are alike unto God...." Confusing!.......?