All Are Alike...

[K-2]

Oh my... my certainty has nothing to do with my interpretations; they have to stand by themselves. After all, my remarks are almost always prefixed with "I think..." I think countering them is one way of considering them, but real interest is reflected in asking questions.

Speaking of which, you seem to have overlooked my question to you in post #135.

[CV75]

But who else uses the phrase covenant of redemption?

Mosiah 18:13 shows describes the covenant of baptism: we serve Almighty God until we are dead, and He grants us eternal life through the redemption of Christ.

1 Nephi 15:14 explains that the covenant people know their Redeemer.

But D&C 84:99 is more explicit: “The Lord hath brought again Zion; The Lord hath redeemed his people, Israel, according to the election of grace, which was brought to pass by the faith and covenant of their fathers.”

[CV75]

Speaking of which, you seem to have overlooked my question to you in post #135.

Sorry about that! My oversight!

I understand the question to be about the order in which God relates to His children as members of a family. Where ">" means "relates to":

I think God first and foremost relates to each member of the family individually. In mortality, we experience this first by the Light of Christ and then, when we receive it, by the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost. So I think it is: God > family member. I think this is how personal revelation works also.

If the question is about the order in which God His covenants to family members, it is by bringing the priesthood ordinances to them as follows: God > prophets > designees (which may be any worthy male including the husband) > wife and children.

If the question is about the order in which God builds His Kingdom within a family, it is in several ways or stages: First, the temple marriage covenant is arranged by God > prophets > designees > husband and wife together. Then as applicable, sacrament, baptism and confirmation, ordinations and so forth are provided in this order: God > prophets > designees > husband/father > wife or children since the father in these matters operates under priesthood channels and according to his office. Priesthood blessings: God > prophets > husband/father > wife or children.

For everything else, I look to the Proclamation on the Family: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

So to put forth an order for everything else, I see it as: Presiding couple or family councils: God > husband > wife > children. Revelation for stewardship (including the need to counsel): God > husband and/or wife > children, though in some cases “out of the mouths of babes…”

Edited March 14, 2014 by CV75

[K-2]

CV75, was Eliza R. Snow equal to Emma Smith or to any other of the 30 or so wives in the family of Joseph Smith in her role as a wife? Were each of the wives precisely equal in their role to that of the husband, Joseph Smith? I ask the question because you seem to think that the role of husbands and wives is equal in family government. I don't see how each of the wives could be considered equal to the husband, because instead of a 50/50 partnership, each wife has a diminishing fraction of the partnership as new wives join the family, but the husband does not.

[JLHPROF]

CV75, was Eliza R. Snow equal to Emma Smith or to any other of the 30 or so wives in the family of Joseph Smith in her role as a wife? Were each of the wives precisely equal in their role to that of the husband, Joseph Smith? I ask the question because you seem to think that the role of husbands and wives is equal in family government. I don't see how each of the wives could be considered equal to the husband, because instead of a 50/50 partnership, each wife has a diminishing fraction of the partnership as new wives join the family, but the husband does not.

 

Well, I'm not CV75, but I would answer that:

1. The wives were equal since they were all joined to Joseph by the exact same ordinance and covenant as Emma.

2. The wives were not equal since they did not all enjoy the same opportunities in their relationship with Joseph.

3. The wives were not identical in role to that of the husband (equal in this case doesn't apply to me - apples & oranges)

4. Equality (defined as identical role & identical authority) doesn't seem to apply to eternal marriage - polygamy just makes that more obvious than monogamy.

[CV75]

CV75, was Eliza R. Snow equal to Emma Smith or to any other of the 30 or so wives in the family of Joseph Smith in her role as a wife? Were each of the wives precisely equal in their role to that of the husband, Joseph Smith? I ask the question because you seem to think that the role of husbands and wives is equal in family government. I don't see how each of the wives could be considered equal to the husband, because instead of a 50/50 partnership, each wife has a diminishing fraction of the partnership as new wives join the family, but the husband does not.

Of course they had the same covenantal role... The actual particulars of how they kept their covenants or carried out their roles is not something I'm privy to. But I'd say from an eternal persepctive, they all had/have the same opportunity to carry our the various types of relationships I described in #153.

[K-2]

Clearly though their influence is only equal when it comes to their portion of the family, not the family as a whole, including other marriages and the resulting children, which the husband still has full influence over.

[CV75]

Clearly though their influence is only equal when it comes to their portion of the family, not the family as a whole, including other marriages and the resulting children, which the husband still has full influence over.

As I indicated in #153, I don't recognize in any of the Gospel family constructs I listed that the husband ever has full influence over other family members. I also said I didn't know their personal circumstances. But I think it reasonable that these wives could help each other and influence each others' children as much as not -- I think that would be up to their talents, capacity and how well they got along with each other. I'm sure some may have seen to only "their portion" and others were more ammenble to others' welfare (D&C 82:19).

[K-2]

Well it's either unequal because the wives only have influence in their own marriages and over their own children, or because other wives are intruding upon their partnership with their husband. No matter how you slice it the husband has more influence and power than any of the wives.

[JLHPROF]

Well it's either unequal because the wives only have influence in their own marriages and over their own children, or because other wives are intruding upon their partnership with their husband. No matter how you slice it the husband has more influence and power than any of the wives.

 

Equality as discussed in this thread is based on how God views us ("all are alike" "no respecter of persons" etc).  But there is a second gospel principle to be remembered:

 

Abraham 3:18 

Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

AND

D&C 46:11

For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

 

The other side of the coin is that while God may be equitable with all men (and genders and races or whatever the topic at hand is), we simple AREN'T equal.  No two men are equal.  No man and woman are equal.  God may love us all equally, but we aren't equal.  In many cases those who think they are higher are actually lower.

 

And we all so desparately want to have the non-existent equality (this makes me think of the Ordain Women group)  in everything but the scriptures remind us:

I Corinthians 12

¹⁴ For the body is not one member, but many.

¹⁵ If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

¹⁶ And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

¹⁸ But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

¹⁹ And if they were all one member, where were the body?

²⁰ But now are they many members, yet but one body.

²¹ And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

²² Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

²³ And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

²⁴ For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

²⁵ That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

²⁶ And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

²⁷ Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

²⁸ And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

²⁹ Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

³⁰ Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

³¹ But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

[K-2]

That's all quite true, JLHPROF, but the problem comes in when some members of the Church, in a disingenuously vague sort of way, usually with an apologetic purpose, say that men and women are equal, without any elaboration or specificity as to how or in what way. That's when the well meaning but misguided egalitarian crusaders start expecting equality as to executive position and leadership in the Church rather than just value, importance or influence. Is the policy barring men from serving in Primary presidencies sexist in nature, or just in keeping with divinely ordained roles of men and women?

[Calm]

. Is the policy barring men from serving in Primary presidencies sexist in nature, or just in keeping with divinely ordained roles of men and women?

Or a policy based in a large part on preventing too much opportunity for temptation between unmarried individuals?

[K-2]

Unmarried? Do singles wards have Primary organizations? Do married people experience such temptation? Why have men and women meet together regularly for things such as ward choir or Cub Scouts then?

[Calm]

As in not married to each other...

If you have never heard counsel such as opposite sex leaders shouldn't be meeting with each other alone except in limited and as much as possible infrequent ways, our experience has been very different.

[K-2]

There would be at least four people meeting together as a presidency. That's not exactly alone.

[Calm]

Primary presidencies in my experience (including being in one) don't always meet in complete numbers. In my personal experience, I probably interacted one on one with the Pres more than in committee.

[Bikeemikey]

Primary presidencies in my experience (including being in one) don't always meet in complete numbers. In my personal experience, I probably interacted one on one with the Pres more than in committee.

That's just bad calling performance!

[Calm]

[CV75]

Well it's either unequal because the wives only have influence in their own marriages and over their own children, or because other wives are intruding upon their partnership with their husband. No matter how you slice it the husband has more influence and power than any of the wives.

I think that kind of "inequality" between wives and even between the husband and wives (individually and collectively as friendships among wives were formed) was more a function of personality than the structure of the marriage covenant. As far as personal power and influence goes, individuals are all over the map and just about any permutation of family dynamic can work within the bounds the Lord has set as long as they are all acting in good faith and striving to keep the Spirit with them. Sometimes the wife (and in your example of polygamy, wives) are more influential in the relationships than the husband is. Yet they all can enjoy the covenant structures I described in #153.

[Bikeemikey]

I think that kind of "inequality" between wives and even between the husband and wives (individually and collectively as friendships among wives were formed) was more a function of personality than the structure of the marriage covenant. As far as personal power and influence goes, individuals are all over the map and just about any permutation of family dynamic can work within the bounds the Lord has set as long as they are all acting in good faith and striving to keep the Spirit with them. Sometimes the wife (and in your example of polygamy, wives) are more influential in the relationships than the husband is. Yet they all can enjoy the covenant structures I described in #153.

I agree with this sentiment.

Relationships are made of people, not generalizations. There are as many different relationships as their are people.

[K-2]

Thought this was relevant to our discussion, because I believe that due to being in the position of presiding over a family, the husband has a power that the wife does not - the power of final decision:

 

One of the important principles governing leadership councils in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the principle of unanimity. Generally speaking, issues considered by presiding councils should be discussed and evaluated until a course of action is unanimously approved. In the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, for example, decisions that lack unanimity are always held over for further thought, prayer, and discussion. Even though we have a President whom we respect and revere, and we are organized with a clear line of successive authority, we seek consensus in all that we do. As a result, there have been times when an issue has remained under consideration for a period of time while our decision was deliberated and fine-tuned. Eventually, consensus is achieved, and the result of our deliberation is a better and more complete decision.

Of course, it isn't always possible to take that kind of time with the decisions that face presidencies and bishoprics. Some issues require a quick response; and sometimes, even after an open discussion during which all ideas and perspectives are given a thorough airing, divergent and disparate views exist. At such times, it is the responsibility of the president or bishop to make a final decision based on the feelings and impressions that come through priesthood keys or the mantle of leadership. And it is the responsibility of all members of the presiding council to support and sustain the decision of the council leader as if it were a unanimous council decision.

President James E. Faust, speaking several years ago in the priesthood session of a general conference, emphasized the vital importance of this principle:

There is a constant need for unity within the priesthood. We must be loyal to the leadership who have been called to preside over us and hold the keys of the priesthood. The words of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., still ring loudly in our ears: "Brethren, let us be united." He explained:

"An essential part of unity is loyalty. . . . Loyalty is a pretty difficult quality to possess. It requires the ability to put away selfishness, greed, ambition and all of the baser qualities of the human mind. You cannot be loyal unless you are willing to surrender. . . . [A person's] own preferences and desires must be put away, and he must see only the great purpose which lies out ahead" (Immortality and Eternal Life, Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study, 1968-69, p. 163). . . .

In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the "loyal opposition." I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: "Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision "must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions" (D&C 107:27). This means that after frank and open discussion, decisions are reached in council under the direction of the presiding officer, who has the ultimate authority to decide. That decision is then sustained, because our unity comes from full agreement with righteous principles and general response to the operation of the Spirit of God. ("Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood," 36-38)

Soon after I was called to be a bishop, all of the bishops in our stake met with the stake presidency in what was then called a stake bishops' council. Back in those days, the bishops of the stake were asked to help create the stake's annual welfare budget, and we had been involved in that process for several meetings, giving our input and recommendations. Finally, the presidency presented to us a final budget proposal for our sustaining vote, and I was a little surprised when two of the bishops voted negatively due to some budgeted items with which they did not agree.

"Why don't you brethren give the matter some thought and prayer," our stake president suggested gently. "We'll take another vote in our next meeting."

At the next stake bishops' council meeting, another vote was taken to sustain the stake welfare budget. Once again, the two bishops voted in the negative. This time our stake president wasn't quite so gentle.

"Brethren, this is the welfare budget that we as your stake presidency feel comfortable with," he said firmly but gently. "We have listened to your recommendations and have done the best we could to implement your suggestions. And now we've reached a decision, one that we feel has been validated by the Spirit.

"The way I see it," the president continued, "either God is working through us or we are fallen leaders. That means that your choice here is simple: sustain us and this budget, or write a letter to the First Presidency and ask that we be released. Now, all in favor of sustaining the proposed stake welfare budget, please show it by the usual sign."

This time, every bishop in the council raised his hand in approval. Within a few months every bishop in that council could see the wisdom and inspiration behind the stake presidency's recommended budget.

(M. Russell Ballard, Counseling with Our Councils: Learning to Minister Together in the Church and in the Family Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997, pg. 77.)

 

Edited March 15, 2014 by K-2

[changed]

How many of you are familiar with Tuckman's stages in group formation?

Forming (Hello, nice to meet you...my name is George, I'm from California...)
Storming (Mike didn't show up for the meeting, and Kathy completely ignored our decision to go with option A instead of B...)

Norming (All are alike...one goal, one plan, united in all things because everyone agrees -  thy will,not mine, be done...)

Performing (interdependence, competence within roles, little need for supervision... a performing team can revert back to storming if someone challenges the norms or leadership)

Adjourning (task completed, everyone says goodbye... )

 

I think the church is in the "performing" stage for the most part.  Those who agree with the rules set during the norming process, who are willing to do their job, have little need for supervision, and so do not feel oppressed by any rulers... This is what I tell my kids "If you don't want someone ruling over you, then rule yourself.  I won't nag you to do your HW/clean/chores etc. if you do it without being asked...

It's those who have not gone through the norming stage who are fighting for different leadership, and stuck in the "storming" mindset.  It comes down to "not my will,but thine be done"... "not my will" is the only gateway to being united, and then performing.  

[CV75]

Thought this was relevant to our discussion, because I believe that due to being in the position of presiding over a family, the husband has a power that the wife does not - the power of final decision:

 

But this article is about church governance relative to decision-making in councils, not family governance. “In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” So presiding over a family really requires husband and wife to help each other so they can “nurture” their union and any children in “love and righteousness.” They sustain each other in their respective and shared responsibilites.

 

As far as decision-making goes, married couples operate differently than presiding officers, or at least they should, even as one presides and the other primarily nurtures in their roles.

 

I think the varied "final say" circumstances we find ourselves in allow either the husband or wife to have it, and it is usually granted to one spouse by the other spouse, not just assumed without the other spouse's consent--otherwise I doubt very much it would be "final" (or "final" in a very different sense than intended!). Of course some relationships have a dominant person in them, and they get their way or assume control most of the time, but the only very limited instance I can think of where the priesthood holder formally has the "final say" is in whether he will perform a priesthood blessing or ordinance or not.

[K-2]

CV75, let's say you had a daughter who is ten years old. Her non-member friend invites her to a slumber party. You know that the other members of her friend's family use foul language, play violent video games, watch rated-R movies, and that the parents drink alcohol on occasion. She asks you and your wife if she can go, and you look at your wife and she knows you have doubts but says "Oh honey, let her go. Don't be so overprotective," in a low tone. You feel an assurance that "No" is the right answer, but do you give in to your wife, or put your foot down and tell your daughter no?

You seem to think it impossible to make a leadership decision contradicting the counsel of a wife, which doesn't seem like leadership at all to me. How could Lehi have thus continued to lead his family into the wilderness if his wife Sariah was opposed to it, saying he was a "visionary man" leading them away from their home to perish in the wilderness?

[Bikeemikey]

CV75, let's say you had a daughter who is ten years old. Her non-member friend invites her to a slumber party. You know that the other members of her friend's family use foul language, play violent video games, watch rated-R movies, and that the parents drink alcohol on occasion. She asks you and your wife if she can go, and you look at your wife and she knows you have doubts but says "Oh honey, let her go. Don't be so overprotective," in a low tone. You feel an assurance that "No" is the right answer, but do you give in to your wife, or put your foot down and tell your daughter no?

You seem to think it impossible to make a leadership decision contradicting the counsel of a wife, which doesn't seem like leadership at all to me. How could Lehi have thus continued to lead his family into the wilderness if his wife Sariah was opposed to it, saying he was a "visionary man" leading them away from their home to perish in the wilderness?

This is all very strange.