All Are Alike...

[K-2]

What is?

[CV75]

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?

How would that be any different than my wife putting her foot down and saying “Yes!”? If they are not working together, someone will win and someone will lose. That is the competitive nature of enmity.

 

Some couples and parents disagree and fight and set ultimatums all the time. Of course that isn’t right, but mistakes are a part of the learning process. It is quite possible for one or the other to make a decision contradicting the counsel of the other and “win” the decision. Doing so in righteousness is another matter.

 

Of course a husband and father can use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, love unfeigned and pure knowledge (or not), and use hypocrisy and guile in his stewardship. So can the wife/mother.

 

Lehi and Sariah obviously had their differences, and these may have delayed progress they would have otherwise enjoyed. They may have even fueled Laman and Lemuels’ negative attitudes. Fortunately they made enough room for the Lord to lead them through the wilderness. Lehi may have used other sources of power and influence to move his family along, but what I take from the Book of Mormon is that it was his prophetic message and enough willing hearts (or hearts willing enough) to receive it that won the day, his personal effectiveness as a husband and father notwithstanding.

[K-2]

How would that be any different than your wife putting her foot down and saying “Yes!”?

"Imagine, for example, the confusion that would result if two bishops were appointed over your particular ward and the first one got up in sacrament meeting and announced that the following Sunday the sacrament meeting would be held one hour earlier. While he was making his announcement, suppose the second bishop stood up and expressed his desire that the sacrament meeting be held at the original time. With two people presiding, would democratic principles work? Suppose you had two stake presidents, two elders quorum presidents, two Sunday School presidents, two Primary and Relief Society presidents presiding over each of the priesthood quorums, groups, and auxiliaries. How would the Church function? Would “law and order” prevail? Similarly, should two people preside over each other in a marriage, particularly when one holds the priesthood and has been divinely designated to preside?"

From this article:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng

Edited March 16, 2014 by K-2

[Calm]

Article is dated 1973, was not written by a GA, but someone acting in his capacity as a social scientist and is not listed in the articles given under the topic of "what the Church teaches about marriage"
 
https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng
 
OTOH, the current topic says this:
 

"Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals, with neither person exercising dominion over the other, but with each encouraging, comforting, and helping the other.

Because marriage is such an important relationship in life, it needs and deserves time over less-important commitments. Couples can strengthen their marriage as they take time to talk together and to listen to one another, to be thoughtful and respectful, and to express tender feelings and affection often."

This article dated 2013 was also not written by a GA and cites research done by social scientist so I see no reason why I shouldn't give it more precedence as current and more accurate scholarship as well as being the current teaching of the Church as demonstrated by the above:
 
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=eng
 

Social science research supports the prophetic instruction that couples who have an equal partnership have happier relationships, more effective parenting practices, and better-functioning children. Scholars have consistently found that equal partners are more satisfied and have better overall marital quality than couples where one spouse dominates.Equal-partner relationships have less negative interaction and more positive interaction. Moreover, there is evidence that equal partners are more satisfied with the quality of the physical intimacy in their relationship.
Parents with high relationship equality are more likely to work together as a team in parenting their children. These benefits of partnership to marital relationships and parenting practices create a healthier environment for children, making them less susceptible to depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and delinquency.

In specific regards to priesthood stewardship, it states:
 

Priesthood stewardship does not superimpose a hierarchical relationship over the God-ordained equality between husband and wife in their roles as parents.

And presiding:

 

Moreover, contrary to scripture and the teachings of latter-day prophets, some men and women have interpreted presiding to mean that after equal counsel, equal consent is not necessary because the presider (or husband) has the right of final say. But President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained: “In the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together.”

 

 

The article cites GAs including this one:
 

Priesthood stewardship does not superimpose a hierarchical relationship over the God-ordained equality between husband and wife in their roles as parents. President James E. Faust (1920–2007) taught, “Every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals in their distinctive parental roles.

 
And this one:
 

President Packer has said, “There is no task, however menial, connected with the care of babies, the nurturing of children, or with the maintenance of the home that is not [the husband’s] equal obligation

 
And this one:
 

In considering the equal partnership, Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles eloquently said: “There is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. … They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.”

 

 
If you want to live your marriage relationship based on counsel from a psychotherapist dated over 40 years ago, go ahead.  I prefer to follow the current teachings of General Authorities and what the Church puts out as the standard teaching in its manuals like True to the Faith myself.

Edited March 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

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.

I don't think that there can be equality between the sexes. By their very nature there is inequality. Even the societies where it is claimed are the most equal between the sexes, there is still what can be called inequality. The Nordic countries are an example of this. And in these countries that are claimed to be the most equal there is huge violence between the sexes with high rates of violence against women. And an increasing violence against men in the home.

 

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_is_eus_second_most_violent_country_for_women/7120601

 

Maybe the whole notion of equality has become too divisive pitting the sexes against each other, emotionally, physically, and mentally and this has led to much unhappiness in marriages etc. Maybe we should think of a different term. Perhaps the word 'respect' would be better.

 

What is equality? What does it mean? And as people answer these questions, much will be answered in platitudes.

Edited March 16, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

I do find it strange that equality has lost its meaning in a search for a recognition of the value of each individual. I can easily accept the acknowledgement that all, each human, is created equal.  However, after that creation there is little equality for a whole range of reasons.  Those reasons that are directly related to personal action should have merit.  Those reasons tied directly to right of birth should be discouraged and rejected.

 

For me the main objective is that every member of society has the ability to be acknowledged for work well done.  On the other hand, I believe there is value when society as a whole places a high value on the family unit i.e. the community recognizes that being great mothers and fathers has value for all.  I do not think a father is equal to the mother nor do I think the reverse is true.  They each have a role to play in the raising of children.  

 

This position also is carried out to a degree in the work place.  Natural leaders and those individuals who have honed their leadership skills should be used in what they are best at. This plays for those who are good with their hands versus those who are better with other qualities.

 

I also think that society should promote family providers - male and female.  Obviously it is easier form a historical perspective when the head of household is a man, but I can understand today is different and heads of household are both male and female. Whether we do it directly through pay or through tax law then is irrelevant to me.  

[jaxenro]

I won't give you platitudes. Equality means both are equally important. There is no seniority in a marriage the covenants date to the same moment for both. Neither male or female is better than the other both have strengths and weaknesses, individual and gender related, but both are equally important in the eyes of God.

I have what most would term a traditional household. I work and provide my wife tends the house. Does this mean I don't do dishes, vacuum, or whatever is required? No, but usually under her direction, so to speak, because it is her area of responsibility. So essentially in some areas I defer to her, in some she defers to me, and on many we reach decisions after discussion and mutual agreement.

We are also traditional in roles in that we both consider the man as the head of the house and this predates both of us ever hearing of this church. But that head of household was never a dictatorial position. If we can't agree and we need to come to a decision I decide, but often my decision is to defer to her opinion. I have enormous respect for my wife and have often found her right when my opinion was wrong. I have also found the reverse to be true.

[why me]

I won't give you platitudes. Equality means both are equally important. There is no seniority in a marriage the covenants date to the same moment for both. Neither male or female is better than the other both have strengths and weaknesses, individual and gender related, but both are equally important in the eyes of God.

I have what most would term a traditional household. I work and provide my wife tends the house. Does this mean I don't do dishes, vacuum, or whatever is required? No, but usually under her direction, so to speak, because it is her area of responsibility. So essentially in some areas I defer to her, in some she defers to me, and on many we reach decisions after discussion and mutual agreement.

We are also traditional in roles in that we both consider the man as the head of the house and this predates both of us ever hearing of this church. But that head of household was never a dictatorial position. If we can't agree and we need to come to a decision I decide, but often my decision is to defer to her opinion. I have enormous respect for my wife and have often found her right when my opinion was wrong. I have also found the reverse to be true.

My point was that there can never be equality and if equality is overstressed it leads to problems. This is what has happened in the Nordic countries where equality is stressed by law. And yet, there are still inequalities in those societies and a lot of violence directed at women and also at men. And there are still inequalities in pay etc. In the home, when equality becomes important, I can see problems coming to that marriage. It becomes a constant balance of who did what and when.

 

In the church, I see the sexes having differing roles to play and yet, all are important in the sight of god. Is there inequality? Perhaps. But this inequality is also in the male members. They seem to be the most likely to be exed as they go up the ladder in callings and commit serious sins. However, women seem to get more leniency.

[Calm]

. In the home, when equality becomes important, I can see problems coming to that marriage. It becomes a constant balance of who did what and when.

That depends on why equality is important to the couple.

I could say "when love becomes important, problems come into that marriage as it becomes a constant dialogue of having to prove love", etc.

Anything used as a point of conflict is a problem for a marriage.

Otoh, when love and respect are the prime motivators for a couple, equality becomes important as a way to help our loved ones feel valued and important and loved as individuals and not just for what they can do for us.

Edited March 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

How would that be any different than your wife putting her foot down and saying “Yes!”?

"Imagine, for example, the confusion that would result if two bishops were appointed over your particular ward and the first one got up in sacrament meeting and announced that the following Sunday the sacrament meeting would be held one hour earlier. While he was making his announcement, suppose the second bishop stood up and expressed his desire that the sacrament meeting be held at the original time. With two people presiding, would democratic principles work? Suppose you had two stake presidents, two elders quorum presidents, two Sunday School presidents, two Primary and Relief Society presidents presiding over each of the priesthood quorums, groups, and auxiliaries. How would the Church function? Would “law and order” prevail? Similarly, should two people preside over each other in a marriage, particularly when one holds the priesthood and has been divinely designated to preside?"

From this article:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng

I think cal addressed this question quite well, but I'll add my 2 cents:

 

I would say the article is about strengthening the patriarchal order in the home where it is weak, and the author uses the ward organization (which is not a patriarchal order!) only to illustrate the confusion that results from two people operating in a competing and contradicting presiding role and the futility of two people presiding over each other and of undermining the divine order with man-made principles.

 

I think “The Family: A Proclamation…” holds up the ideal that the author is seeking to achieve: that “fathers and mothers …help one another as equal partners” in their sacred responsibilities (the father to preside, provide and protect, and the mother to primarily nurture). Unlike the example used in the article, the husband and wife are not competing, but are working together.

 

The article suggests that the key to establishing and strengthening the patriarchal order is that everyone act in righteousness and sustain the Lord’s pattern for how families function. When you consider that this order is initiated with the sealing of a couple as one flesh, each partner really does have to act as one to make it work.

Edited March 16, 2014 by CV75

[K-2]

The ward organization isn't patriarchal? Why does the Relief Society have to have a priesthood holder present in the building when they meet?

[Calm]

Why does the Relief Society have to have a priesthood holder present in the building when they meet?

CFR

[Bikeemikey]

CFR

My sister in law was relief society president and the bishop refused to allow them to schedule presidency meetings at the church unless a priesthood holder was there.

Seems a common practice, no idea if it is a handbook policy however.

[Calm]

Common practice yes, but for what reason?

Safety? Yes, there are sickos out there who will be attracted to meetings of women at churches who will be scared off by the presence of one man. Sad, but true. There are also many women who feel safer with a man around, even if there are lots of women. Plus if the last person to leave and lock up is known to be a man, rather than a woman less likely for a predator to hang around and even if there attack.

Availability for help? Think priesthood blessings if accidents happen.

I have been at plenty of meetings at church where there was no priesthood holder in the building let alone in the room with them as in Achievement Days, Cub Scouts, RS meetings, Primary Presidencies meetings (why would RS presidencies need a man presiding but not Primary or YW ?) After all, if the man isn't even present, but is off somewhere else in the building how is there any sense of presiding or authority?

So CFR still stands the RS must have a priesthood holder there and it is not just a local policy....and if there is demonstrated that there is a requirement, that he is there somehow presiding or in authority of some kind and isn't there solely to aid (iow under the women's direction).

[CV75]

The ward organization isn't patriarchal? Why does the Relief Society have to have a priesthood holder present in the building when they meet?

Like I said, the ward organization is not the patriarchal order of the priesthood. i'll also CFR for the Church-wide policy so we can discuss in context -- I always thought it was a local decision. I've obliged the RS presidency to be present because the current Bishop didn't think it was needed, and I was surprised at how many sisters expressed their appreciation.

[K-2]

CFR

 

That's the practice in my ward. I've volunteered to be the priesthood holder on occasion. The Relief Society usually mentions that they will save us a plate of food when asking.   I know the Church Handbook says something about how priesthood leaders are to inform members that women and youth are not to use the meetinghouse by themselves. I don't have the reference. I've also seen a building scheduling form (locally made) that says that priesthood holders are to be at each activity and are to lock up afterward. These things may be as much for safety as any other reason, but Relief Society activities truly are overseen by priesthood leaders. This is from the Joseph F. Smith manual:

 

I want to say … to the Relief Society … and all the rest of the organizations in the Church, that not one of them is independent of the Priesthood of the Son of God, not any of them can exist a moment in the acceptance of the Lord when they withdraw from the voice and from the counsel of those who hold the Priesthood and preside over them. They are subject to the powers and authority of the Church, and they are not independent of them; nor can they exercise any rights in their organizations independently of the Priesthood and of the Church.

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, (2011), pg. 190)

 

[K-2]

Like I said, the ward organization is not the patriarchal order of the priesthood. i'll also CFR for the Church-wide policy so we can discuss in context -- I always thought it was a local decision. I've obliged the RS presidency to be present because the current Bishop didn't think it was needed, and I was surprised at how many sisters expressed their appreciation.

 

The ward organization is definitely an extension of the patriarchal order of the priesthood, and is also, not surprisingly, patriarchal in nature.

[why me]

That's the practice in my ward. I've volunteered to be the priesthood holder on occasion. The Relief Society usually mentions that they will save us a plate of food when asking.   I know the Church Handbook says something about how priesthood leaders are to inform members that women and youth are not to use the meetinghouse by themselves. I don't have the reference. I've also seen a building scheduling form (locally made) that says that priesthood holders are to be at each activity and are to lock up afterward. These things may be as much for safety as any other reason, but Relief Society activities truly are overseen by priesthood leaders. This is from the Joseph F. Smith manual:

 

I think that this may be a ward policy. In my ward, the relief society meets alone as do the young women's organization. I don't think that the men would have time to attend such meetings. Also, the lds church is a worldwide church. I think that it would be difficult to have a priesthood holder present with every weekly relief society meeting or young women's meeting. What do the men do while the women are meeting?

[why me]

The ward organization is definitely an extension of the patriarchal order of the priesthood, and is also, not surprisingly, patriarchal in nature.

Not really. I don't think that many people think of it this way. Of course, if one wishes to think about it in this way, I suppose that one can. But when one does do this it is usually to stress the inequality of power relations. But even here I don't think that this is the case with how many people see it.

Edited March 17, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Not really. I don't think that many people think of it this way. Of course, if one wishes to think about it in this way, I suppose that one can. But when does do this it is usually to stress the inequality of power relations. But even here I don't think that this is the case with how many people see it.

 

You seem to be assuming that a patriarchal order is inherently unequal and/or bad.  I see the family, the ward, the stake, and the Church to follow a patriarchal order, but I don't see it is a relationship based upon inequality.  I see followers and leaders with interchangeable roles depending upon what is happening and when.  

[Calm]

That's the practice in my ward. I've volunteered to be the priesthood holder on occasion. The Relief Society usually mentions that they will save us a plate of food when asking.   I know the Church Handbook says something about how priesthood leaders are to inform members that women and youth are not to use the meetinghouse by themselves. I don't have the reference. I've also seen a building scheduling form (locally made) that says that priesthood holders are to be at each activity and are to lock up afterward. These things may be as much for safety as any other reason, but Relief Society activities truly are overseen by priesthood leaders. This is from the Joseph F. Smith manual:

So no real response on men and women as equal partners in a marriage as demonstrated by the difference between your 1973 article and the one I posted, just this minor sidetrack issue that had nothing really to do with presiding after all? Edited March 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[K-2]

Men and women are equal partners in helping one another. They are not equal in priesthood authority.

In other words, a man had better not say, "I preside in this home - I don't DO dishes."

Edited March 17, 2014 by K-2

[CV75]

That's the practice in my ward. I've volunteered to be the priesthood holder on occasion. The Relief Society usually mentions that they will save us a plate of food when asking.   I know the Church Handbook says something about how priesthood leaders are to inform members that women and youth are not to use the meetinghouse by themselves. I don't have the reference. I've also seen a building scheduling form (locally made) that says that priesthood holders are to be at each activity and are to lock up afterward. These things may be as much for safety as any other reason, but Relief Society activities truly are overseen by priesthood leaders. This is from the Joseph F. Smith manual:

 

That's an inadequate respone to a CFR.

 

The ward organization is definitely an extension of the patriarchal order of the priesthood, and is also, not surprisingly, patriarchal in nature.

 

CFR-- (and I think you have it backwards -- both ward organization and the patriarchal order are part of the Melchizedek priesthood).

 

 

Men and women are equal partners in helping one another. They are not equal in priesthood authority.

In other words, a man had better not say, "I preside in this home - I don't DO dishes."

 

As has been said a few times, men and women are not equal in priesthood conferral, office or the relevant authority. And very few couples are 100% equal in priesthood power (righteousness) 100% of the time. But husband and wife are equal in the covenant and promises of marriage in the patriarchal order, which is part of the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

If you look at what makes the patriarchal order work in a celestial marriage and family, the spouses are united--one flesh, one mind, one heart, etc.

[K-2]

That's an inadequate respone [sic] to a CFR.

 

As far as it being the practice in my ward, I don't know how to give you a reference to prove that. Do you want me to get my Bishop to swear an affidavit? How do I do this without revealing too much IRL info? As far as the Church Handbook, I don't have access to it right now at work.

 

CFR-- (and I think you have it backwards -- both ward organization and the patriarchal order are part of the Melchizedek priesthood).

 

 

What I mean by ward organization being patriarchal is not that it is organized along family lines. It is obviously not a patriarchal organization in that sense. What I mean is that it is patriarchal in the sense of men being in charge. That is obvious. Look at the stand during sacrament meeting. No women except chorister, choir members, organist, and possibly a speaker or two. None there presiding.

 

As has been said a few times, men and women are not equal in priesthood conferral, office or the relevant authority. And very few couples are 100% equal in priesthood power (righteousness) 100% of the time. But husband and wife are equal in the covenant and promises of marriage in the patriarchal order, which is part of the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

If you look at what makes the patriarchal order work in a celestial marriage and family, the spouses are united--one flesh, one mind, one heart, etc.

 

I would not agree that women are "equal in the covenant and promises of marriage in the patriarchal order." Women are sealed to men. Are men sealed to women? No. Women give themselves to men to be their wives. Do men likewise give themselves to women to be their husbands? No. Eve is made from a part of a man, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11, "he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Woman was created from man and for man. Sound equal to you? Are men ever told specifically to hearken to the counsel of their wives? No. Do they covenant to do so? No. Women are to be queens and priestesses. To God, like the men? No, to their husbands. Is motherhood equal to priesthood in the patriarchal order? Not sure, but it is introduced as a curse in Genesis 3: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In 1 Timothy 2:12-14 Paul writes that "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Sound equal? In 1 Corinthians 11 it is also said that women need to pray with their heads covered. Are men ever required to veil their faces when they pray? No. Does all this sound equal to you? Maybe it does on Planet Ostrich.

Edited March 17, 2014 by K-2

[CV75]

As far as it being the practice in my ward, I don't know how to give you a reference to prove that. Do you want me to get my Bishop to swear an affidavit? How do I do this without revealing too much IRL info? As far as the Church Handbook, I don't have access to it right now at work.

You’ve made some statements that appear to represent Church policy, so the calls were made for you to provide those references. You can’t provide them and obviously your perceptions are in question.

What I mean by ward organization being patriarchal is not that it is organized along family lines. It is obviously not a patriarchal organization in that sense. What I mean is that it is patriarchal in the sense of men being in charge. That is obvious. Look at the stand during sacrament meeting. No women except chorister, choir members, organist, and possibly a speaker or two. None there presiding.

But that has nothing to do with 2 Nephi 26:13. There is no iniquity in the ward structure, and no one is denied the goodness of God because of that structure or the patriarchal order. Using the priesthood as an example of unjust status, rights, and opportunities between men and women before the Lord is really missing the point.

Planet Ostrich.

Now you’re just ranting—all this has been covered. 2 Nephi 26:13 really says it all, and the goodness of God culminates in “the covenant and promises of marriage in the patriarchal order,” which the couple shares in equally both in this life and the next if they act as one.