All Are Alike...

[jaxenro]

Are men ever told specifically to hearken to the counsel of their wives? No. Do they covenant to do so? No.

But they'd be pretty stupid not to. If I remember God created Eve as a help mate not a door mat?

didn't God also say that those who would be leaders among you let them be servants to the others? So if men are leaders in the home aren't they really servants in the home?

I believe in gender related roles in the home but God gave both men and woman brains to use

[K-2]

As far as the original post goes, I agree with you, CV75, that it applies to the blessings of the priesthood and not to ordination, and thus the use of it by people like Bruce R. McConkie in reference to ordination was or is ill advised. My "rant" was in support of the assertion that the Church is organized patriarchally, and marriages in the Church are, which I am totally alright with. I think it is silly to try to make things seem equal in some way that they are not. Why not embrace the inequality rather than be discontented?

Edited March 18, 2014 by K-2

[CV75]

As far as the original post goes, I agree with you, CV75, that it applies to the blessings of the priesthood and not to ordination, and thus the use if it by people like Bruce R. McConkie in reference to ordination was or is ill advised. My "rant" was in support of the assertion that the Church is organized patriarchally, and marriages in the Church are, which I am totally alright with. I think it is silly to try to make things seem equal in some way that they are not. Why not embrace the inequality rather than be discontented?

There is no inequality where the patriarchal order is lived right. For example, see D&C 76:94-95:

“They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace; And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.”

The God-given differences between husbands and wives living in this order do not qualify as an inequality, either in this life or the next. They are equal in their oneness, which far outweighs whatever they might accomplish with their differences “separately and singly.” You seem to have mischaracterized the patriarchal order as an unjust system with men having the advantage over women, but such an idea is in opposition to 2 Nephi 26:13.

You come across as very discontented with those ideas that suggest an equality before the Lord in areas of revelation and priesthood power which both spouses need to possess to allow the patriarchal order to work right in relation to presiding authority and the providing, protecting and nurturing roles. In the example I gave, my wife's revelation was spot-on for my providing and protecting role, and our greater service in the kingdom!

[K-2]

CV75, I say why not embrace the inequality rather than be discontented and that comes across as "very discontented"? You seem to me to be in denial.

[JLHPROF]

But they'd be pretty stupid not to. If I remember God created Eve as a help mate not a door mat?

didn't God also say that those who would be leaders among you let them be servants to the others? So if men are leaders in the home aren't they really servants in the home?

I believe in gender related roles in the home but God gave both men and woman brains to use

 

I like to view the relationship as the President of the Church and his First Counselor - You cannot have two presidents, but it's a foolish president who doesn't listen to his counselor.  It's just that the final decision belongs to the head, and the counselor should sustain that position.

[K-2]

I agree, JLHPROF. Sadly, so many men have abused their position as husband that often when the idea of men presiding is brought up, there seems to be an assumption that the only reason for so advocating would be male chauvinism. I think that men who don't listen to their wives are missing out. In fact, that might be one advantage of polygamy - making good men better through good female advice. For example, it's easy for a man with one wife to ignore her when she tries to get him to consistently put the toilet seat down, but if three women were working on him to do it he would be sure to get the message.

[Calm]

They are not equal in priesthood authority.

 

Not a claim anyone made.  Don't know what you are responding to with that.

[K-2]

Calmoriah, I meant in the home they aren't.

[Calm]

Not a claim anyone has made.

Doesn't mean they aren't equal partners as stated over and over again by general authorities as pointed out and as pointed out priesthood authority isn't giving any sort of dominance or 'higher' power in the relationship.

Since you appear to have ignored the first time around, here is part of it again:

"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.”"

"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."

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[K-2]

^This is a good example of someone assuming that anyone advocating for male authority in the home is motivated by male chauvinism. I definitely don't believe that equal consent is not necessary, but rather that it should be the rule. However I also believe that time constraints may necessitate rare exceptions to that rule. Another exception to it would be opposition to the Lord's revealed will. This is illustrated by a remark that Brigham Young made on November 30, 1847 at Winter Quarters, Nebraska when he proposed the organization of a First Presidency and some of the Twelve voiced their concerns or opposition. He said: "if the Quorum decide a point, I will stand up and contend against them if I know them to be wrong. I shall throw the eleven men and the Lord will help me up." In other words, if they were opposing the Lord's will, their consent was not necessary, or the Lord + the President = a majority. This, of course, is also true in the case of a President, or a husband, going against the Lord's will, and the other(s) refusing to follow.

As far as Valerie Hudson goes, my opinion is that there are some assertions expressed in her writings relevant to doctrine that are both warped and erroneous. An example from above: "Priesthood stewardship does not superimpose a hierarchical relationship over the God-ordained equality between husband and wife in their roles as parents." It seems obvious to me that their roles ARE hierarchical by their very nature. I think I can see why you would think otherwise, and why you understand these views to have Church sanction due to being published in the Ensign. I simply disagree. I think it's best that we agree to disagree on this. I can provide references to support my view, and you can provide more recent one to support yours. I see both as evidence of a retrogressive drift from correct views to incorrect ones, and you no doubt see the reverse - a progressive movement abandoning outdated mistakes of the past. Like I wrote before, I think that we should acknowledge and embrace the inequality I pointed out and not be discontented about it. The alternative seems necessarily inconsistent and disingenuous to me.

[Calm]

^This is a good example of someone assuming that anyone advocating for male authority in the home is motivated by male chauvinism. I definitely don't believe that equal consent is not necessary, but rather that it should be the rule. However I also believe that time constraints may necessitate rare exceptions to that rule. Another exception to it would be opposition to the Lord's revealed will. This is illustrated by a remark that Brigham Young made on November 30, 1847 at Winter Quarters, Nebraska when he proposed the organization of a First Presidency and some of the Twelve voiced their concerns or opposition. He said: "if the Quorum decide a point, I will stand up and contend against them if I know them to be wrong. I shall throw the eleven men and the Lord will help me up." In other words, if they were opposing the Lord's will, their consent was not necessary, or the Lord + the President = a majority. This, of course, is also true in the case of a President, or a husband, going against the Lord's will, and the other(s) refusing to follow.

As far as Valerie Hudson goes, my opinion is that there are some assertions expressed in her writings relevant to doctrine that are both warped and erroneous. An example from above: "Priesthood stewardship does not superimpose a hierarchical relationship over the God-ordained equality between husband and wife in their roles as parents." It seems obvious to me that their roles ARE hierarchical by their very nature. I think I can see why you would think otherwise, and why you understand these views to have Church sanction due to being published in the Ensign. I simply disagree. I think it's best that we agree to disagree on this. I can provide references to support my view, and you can provide more recent one to support yours. I see both as evidence of a retrogressive drift from correct views to incorrect ones, and you no doubt see the reverse - a progressive movement abandoning outdated mistakes of the past. Like I wrote before, I think that we should acknowledge and embrace the inequality I pointed out and not be discontented about it. The alternative seems necessarily inconsistent and disingenuous to me.

I have said nothing about any male chauvism. Please do not attempt to read my mind...you won't be successful.

Actually my confidence has a lot more to do with the many quotes from GAs about equal partnership throughout the past ten years at least as well as listed in several church manuals such as true to the faith, the celestial marriage one, etc. And being place on the go to site for information that is also overseen by GAs and is meant to be used for new converts and investigator. It is not just one published article in one Ensign. It is even enshrined in the Family Proclamation: "equal partners".

Which should I do? Listen to your and your opinion or the GA's? Tough call, that one. Believe that the current church leadership is receiving further light and knowledge as promised from God or for some reason is choosing to ignore light already given and turn their backs on God's teachings and misleading a generation or two by doing so.

Just to avoid confusion because I will give points for well crafted arguments even if I don't agree with them, but I wont for arguments that ignore fundamental issues in their own logic...that rep point I gave you was supposed to be clicking on the quote function.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

CV75, I say why not embrace the inequality rather than be discontented and that comes across as "very discontented"? You seem to me to be in denial.

Those wouldn't be the first of your impressions that haven't been a bit "off"!

 

There is no inequality to embrace. A compound in one cannot be unequal within itself. The complimentary differences and roles for men and women do not make them unequal any more than justice and mecy, heart and mind, spirit and element are "unequal".

 

Of course you may be denial about all that!

[CV75]

Calmoriah, I meant in the home they aren't.

Priesthood authority is priesthood authority whether in the home or not. It can come and go (D&C 121:37), and women are held to the same standard of righteousness within their sphere of moral authority (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women?lang=eng) which often informs the priesthood holder.

[K-2]

Those wouldn't be the first of your impressions that haven't been a bit "off"!

Double negative, therefore I agree.

 

There is no inequality to embrace. A compound in one cannot be unequal within itself. The complimentary differences and roles for men and women do not make them unequal any more than justice and mecy, [sic] heart and mind, spirit and element are "unequal".

 

If you're content to overlook present, concrete examples of male/female relationships in the Church that would be considered by most people to be unequal, in favor of theoretical and rather abstract future situations that would not be, I'm totally okay with that. Knock yourself out - if you're satisfied then I am too. Whatever.

Edited March 18, 2014 by K-2

[K-2]

Which should I do? Listen to your and your opinion or the GA's?

 

Valerie Hudson isn't exactly a GA, although if the present trend continues, she might one day be!  LOL!

Edited March 18, 2014 by K-2

[K-2]

The Proclamation says: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

What does the equality refer to then? Helping one another. Totally true.

[Calm]

Valerie Hudson isn't exactly a GA, although if the present trend continues, she might one day be!  LOL!

So ignoring all the GA quotes in the article that I posted and instead focusing on what isn't all that relevant....not surprising, seems to be a pattern.

[K-2]

Calmoriah, the GA quotes are vague enough that I'm not sure if I would disagree. For example Elder Faust's quote: “Every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals in their distinctive parental roles." I hesitate to interpret that to mean that a husband/father does not preside over a wife/mother any more than she does over him. If it does mean that, then it is wrong. If a GA teaches something that directly contradicts what is taught in the scriptures, then he's wrong. I'm not sure if quotes like this are wrong or not. I prefer to give Elder Faust the benefit of the doubt. I realize that you probably understand or interpret them differently than I do. That's why we're wasting our time here. We will probably continue to see things differently no matter how much time we spend discussing it. Do you not see that?

Edited March 18, 2014 by K-2

[CV75]

Double negative, therefore I agree.

 

 

If you're content to overlook present, concrete examples of male/female relationships in the Church that would be considered by most people to be unequal, in favor of theoretical and rather abstract future situations that would not be, I'm totally okay with that. Knock yourself out - if you're satisfied then I am too. Whatever.

LOL on the double negative--at least you know what I really mean!

 

My observation is that the "present, concrete examples" you refer to are not considered by most people to be examples of unequal relationships once they really think about how relationships work best and consider the explanations and relational mappings I gave, which are consistent with past and present counsel including the Ensign articles you and cal quoted which you insist are in complete disagreement (they actually are not!). I also gave a "present, concrete example" from my own experience supporting what you consider to be theoretical and abstract, so if satying "Whatever" is the only way you can cope with it, knock yourself out!

 

I am definitiely satisfied!

[CV75]

I hesitate to interpret that to mean that a husband/father does not preside over a wife/mother any more than she does over him.

 I don't interpret that either, but in the covenant, the presiding role is equal in power, might and dominion to the role of being presided over. They cannot do either singly and separately or with unequal or unshared complimenting power, might and dominion.

[K-2]

How is the presiding aspect husbandhood different from the non-presiding role of wifehood beyond just the designation itself? I mean what does the very essence of presiding consist of? Anything that non-presiding does not? If so, what?

[K-2]

I already pointed out that husbands can preside over multiple marriages and the children from each, whereas the wives can only preside over their own. Is this not evidence of non-equalness?

[why me]

I already pointed out that husbands can preside over multiple marriages and the children from each, whereas the wives can only preside over their own. Is this not evidence of non-equalness?

I think that the problem is one of supernatural versus secular. If one believes that the church is true, then such perceived inequalities come from god. If one believes that the church is man-made then such inequalities are the result of men. If the church is true, one can take their case to god. If the church is false, one can take their case to the media and to the men in the church.

 

Thus, we have the problem that you are bringing up since the church claims to be god's true church. Not much leeway for change without revelation.

[K-2]

I believe that the Church is God's true church and wouldn't want change. What I find disturbing is that there are Church members who do, and also some who take it upon themselves to soften, deemphasize and redefine doctrine instead of just accepting it for what it is and honestly admitting it.

[CV75]

How is the presiding aspect husbandhood different from the non-presiding role of wifehood beyond just the designation itself? I mean what does the very essence of presiding consist of? Anything that non-presiding does not? If so, what?

Note that it isn’t really an arrangement of presiding and non-presiding, but of presiding and being presided. There has to be two active consenting parties involved (recall the original covenant, which if the two parts were entered into, then the Redeemer would provide redemption and its terms). Non-presiding is the same as doing nothing, but being presided takes quite a bit of investment and work—just as much investment and work as presiding.

 

The essence of the presiding role consists of complementing the role that consents to being presided. Otherwise the arrangement is superficial, or a mirage. Whether we’re talking about greater or lesser kingdoms, or marriages, both the presiding and the presided are consenting to the arrangement under the law of that kingdom, and not to any other kingdom. We see many marriages superficially arranged or defined by the celestial covenant, but are actually operating under the laws of a much lower kingdom.

 

They are equal roles because one without the other doesn’t allow for the complimenting role to exist (per the law of opposition), in which case I guess they would be equal in their nothingness as well.

 

 

I already pointed out that husbands can preside over multiple marriages and the children from each, whereas the wives can only preside over their own. Is this not evidence of non-equalness?

They are different, but not unequal (“all are alike” unto God). Now to the fallen perspective, where enmity reigns, hardly anything is estimated to be alike in worth and contribution to the whole.