Mother In Heaven Essay

[CA Steve]

Presiding means to give direction, to lead. My wife and I collectively preside over our children. Neither of us presides over the other. 

 

Unfortunately, because so many members can't draw the line correctly, these days we hear very little about the importance of presiding (at least in my ward). Most teachers just avoid the subject rather than enter a minefield. I try to fix that with every chance I have (I have sons and serve in the YM). I teach my YM what presiding is and that presiding is absolutely their responsibility. They need to lead and direct their families, not sit around like bums (which can happen). But I also teach them that their wives can preside alongside them and give them my example of how a good marriage does just that (noting also that marriages in the past where men presided over their wives could also be very good).

So can you show me where it says that the husband does not preside over his wife in the home? By the way I think the term "collectively preside" is just a tad bit contradictory, especially in the church setting. I cannot remember anywhere I heard that multiple people were presiding over anything in a church setting.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The root of the word 'preside' (from prae+sedere) is sed, meaning 'to sit'. To 'preside' is literally 'to sit in front of' in the sense of guarding or watching. This is the same root as sedentary, cognate with hedra, from which we get cata+hedra = Cathedral = Church of the Bishop's [Bisceop = Epi-Skopos = Over-Seer] Seat, or See, the sedem, the throne, as well as the sanhedrim = syn+hedra, which means 'sitting together'. 

Now, it occurs to me that it is extremely within the realm of possibility for men and women to sit together as equals, sharing the same throne (or pew in the Chapel, or couch at home), neither one before nor behind each other, as real companions, to guard and watch over their families.   

 

(We should learn from Tantric Yab-Yum, honestly.   ) 

[Buckeye]

So can you show me where it says that the husband does not preside over his wife in the home? By the way I think the term "collectively preside" is just a tad bit contradictory, especially in the church setting. I cannot remember anywhere I heard that multiple people were presiding over anything in a church setting.

 

The Testimony of Buckeye, Chapter 1, verse 1. 

 

If you want a higher source, I recommend the late Elder Perry:

 

 

 

"Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader of your family, your wife is your companion. . . . There is not a president and vice president in a family. We have co-presidents working together eternally for the good of their family.

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/45381/Sunday-morning-session-Fathers-role-in-anchoring-families.html

 

To be clear, I'm talking about families more than the church. It's rare to see co-presidents in church callings, but it does happen. The best companionship I had on my mission was formally a co-presiding companionship. All of my other good companionships were informally co-presiding (i.e., technically there was a senior and junior but was made all significant decisions in unison). Only once did I have to preside over my companion and that was when I trained a new missionary who simply didn't want to be there and cause all kinds of problems.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Buckeye

[CA Steve]

The Testimony of Buckeye, Chapter 1, verse 1. 

 

If you want a higher source, I recommend the late Elder Perry:

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/45381/Sunday-morning-session-Fathers-role-in-anchoring-families.html

 

To be clear, I'm talking about families more than the church. It's rare to see co-presidents in church callings, but it does happen. The best companionship I had on my mission was formally a co-presiding companionship. All of my other good companionships were informally co-presiding (i.e., technically there was a senior and junior but was made all significant decisions in unison). Only once did I have to preside over my companion and that was when I trained a new missionary who simply didn't want to be there and cause all kinds of problems.

I have no problem with people who want to ignore the clear meaning of preside when it makes for better relationships.

That said, it is still a fact that the man presides in the family. How people want to actually act is a different question. Can you show me where it says a women presides over a man, anywhere?

[mfbukowski]

Why choose 1 to preside. Why not do it as an equal team. That's how my household functions and it functions very well.

 

"Everyone" knows these rules. Really? What about converts who are already married and now the husband is in charge. I guess they could have decided not to get baptized.

 

People are only deciding insofar as they are deciding to let the church decide for them.

This ignores the question.

 

The question was not WHY choose one to preside- that answer is functional.  It helps any organization to have one who consults with others and yet only one makes the final decision.

 

That is how corporations are run, how countries are run etc etc etc ad infinitum.  It is a system which has functionally evolved

 

To not believe that it is functional to have one preside is to deny that present systems as they exist have evolved because of their utility.  I happen to like the idea that our president does not need a plebiscite to decide war strategy.

 

The question was why interfere with those who decide to live this way??

 

Your convert argument is ridiculous.  Would you join a church in which the husband was required to do something domineering without regard for his wife's will?  Maybe nightly rape or some other atrocity?   Of course not!!

You don't like a church's beliefs, you don't join it

 

You don't like a church's beliefs, you leave.    You vote with your feet.

 

The belief system survives or it doesn't.  WE ARE TO BE EQUAL PARTNERS with one deciding, one presiding, and the belief is that should be the husband.

 

There are millions of women who have no problem with this in the church.  Why is it any of your business?

[mfbukowski]

The root of the word 'preside' (from prae+sedere) is sed, meaning 'to sit'. To 'preside' is literally 'to sit in front of' in the sense of guarding or watching. This is the same root as sedentary, cognate with hedra, from which we get cata+hedra = Cathedral = Church of the Bishop's [Bisceop = Epi-Skopos = Over-Seer] Seat, or See, the sedem, the throne, as well as the sanhedrim = syn+hedra, which means 'sitting together'. 

Now, it occurs to me that it is extremely within the realm of possibility for men and women to sit together as equals, sharing the same throne (or pew in the Chapel, or couch at home), neither one before nor behind each other, as real companions, to guard and watch over their families.   

 

(We should learn from Tantric Yab-Yum, honestly.   ) 

Of course and no one is debating this.

 

You have an emergency and someone has to dash into the burning house to grab the kids.  Do you debate on the lawn which of the equal partners should do that?

 

In that situation I am through that door without a word.  

 

The doorbell starts ringing incessantly at midnight.  Who answers it?  There is someone creeping around downstairs- who investigates?

 

Who takes primary responsibility for anything when it is required?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

That is how corporations are run, how countries are run etc etc etc ad infinitum. 

 

This is part of the problem, of course. 

 

Just because something is functional doesn't mean it's good. I think "all things shall be done by common consent" and "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned". Which basically precludes using any sort of Priesthood or Authority or Presidency as any kind of tie-breaker or Final-Decision-Maker. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

The Testimony of Buckeye, Chapter 1, verse 1. 

 

If you want a higher source, I recommend the late Elder Perry:

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/45381/Sunday-morning-session-Fathers-role-in-anchoring-families.html

 

To be clear, I'm talking about families more than the church. It's rare to see co-presidents in church callings, but it does happen. The best companionship I had on my mission was formally a co-presiding companionship. All of my other good companionships were informally co-presiding (i.e., technically there was a senior and junior but was made all significant decisions in unison). Only once did I have to preside over my companion and that was when I trained a new missionary who simply didn't want to be there and cause all kinds of problems.

I don't get this at all

 

So you are saying Elder Perry disagreed with the Proclamation on the Family that the husband should preside?

 

Honestly what does equal partners have to do with the husband presiding?

 

THE CHURCH TEACHES BOTH!!

[mfbukowski]

This is part of the problem, of course. 

 

Just because something is functional doesn't mean it's good. I think "all things shall be done by common consent" and "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned". Which basically precludes using any sort of Priesthood or Authority or Presidency as any kind of tie-breaker or Final-Decision-Maker. 

Disagree

I think your notion might be nicey nice but is hopelessly impractical.

 

Decisions have to be made, NOW.  Who makes them?  There must be a default leader, and it must be known to everyone who is the servant of all the others.

 

That is what a leader is- the servant of all.

 

"Jesus talked a lot about sheep, but he did not act like one."- Brother Otterson

 

It was clear the savior presided.

[CV75]

"“If we could only see a resurgence in this land of a man looking to his wife as his equal, his comfort, and his dearest friend, and a woman walking beside her husband, neither before nor behind him, as a companion, and looking to him as the light and strength of her life, we would begin to strengthen families." - GBH

Note that “light and strength” refers to priesthood: D&C 86:8-11; 113:8; Psalms 27:1. And "life" refers to the purpose of priesthood (the power of God): Abraham 2:11. For this purpose our "life and the priesthood have remained" according to the order God established.

[Meadowchik]

YOU MUST READ THIS

honestly- you are gonna love it

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

You're right, I do love it!

She articulates so well my feelings about the world being so much more expansive for me, as a woman, because of the Church and gospel.

[Calm]

 

 

The doorbell starts ringing incessantly at midnight.  Who answers it?  There is someone creeping around downstairs- who investigates?\

Probably me since my husband takes forever to wake up and I do instantly...at least before 6 in the morning.  And I am not going to wait because my daughter lives in the basement. 

 

I used to have a heavy metal bar by the door of my bedroom for just that, especially since my husband was gone out of town lots.  Now I have the dog, she will scare anyone off or just lick them to death.

 

I am also the one who tends to make the immediate medical decisions because I know more than he does about treatments.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Calm

[Nofear]

Can't say I endorse the sentiments of the article fully but it does have a reasonable historical collection of quotes on preside.

http://www.the-exponent.com/the-evolving-mormon-definition-of-preside/

It doesn't have my favorite quote which explicitly differentiates between the kind of preside in marriage and the preside in church callings. For my own part I view decision making as equal responsibilities but I have responsibility for calling on family prayer and maintaining order in family meetings and counsels and such. This kind of preside is mostly a social convenience but one that adds extra investment in men in the home (women seem naturally to be more invested owing in part to biology) and gives order.

[mfbukowski]

Never mind

Edited October 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Zakuska]

What everyone is describing is a Garden state. Men and women ARE equals in the garden state. However, We are living in a lone and dreary world not a Garden state. Yes we are taught to make our home a heaven on earth and we are being taught how to live in a garden state. But that does not come until Eve comes out from under her veil and back into the Garden beholding God with open face and her standing before the Lord is restored. Eve covenants to hearken to her husband as he does to the Lord. But before the fall Eve spoke face to face with the Lord without a go between or a veil. We have a saying in our family... "the man is the head of the household but the woman is the neck that moves the head." Ultimately in this life if a family fails in its divinely planned mission the blame/responsibility is squarely on the shoulders of the Adam/presiding preisthood holder in the family. (Notice: the mans the presiding priesthood holder but his Eve is the junior companion priesthood holder, the help-meat) He will be doing the explaining to the Lord for why his family didnt make it. He will be accountable for his derilection of duty and so on. That is unless hes done everything in his power, taught his kids the Gospel, baptized them when their 8 etc. And then they choose on their own to reject it.

[filovirus]

Can I offer up a different take on how men preside? They preside in the priesthood. Things relating to the actual carrying out of priesthood ordinances fall to the husband. The Priesthood allows these ordinances to be sealed in heaven.

Take baptism for example. Because a worthy male holds the priesthood he will be the one presiding over that ordinance in the family. Same with the sacrament when allowed to preform it in the home. Fathers blessings sealed by the priesthood are also presided by the father.

Just because he presides over the priesthood does not take away anything from the wife/mother. Both husbands and wives will still make decisions together. The two ideas are not incompatible.

[HappyJackWagon]

This ignores the question.

 

The question was not WHY choose one to preside- that answer is functional.  It helps any organization to have one who consults with others and yet only one makes the final decision.

 

That is how corporations are run, how countries are run etc etc etc ad infinitum.  It is a system which has functionally evolved

 

To not believe that it is functional to have one preside is to deny that present systems as they exist have evolved because of their utility.  I happen to like the idea that our president does not need a plebiscite to decide war strategy.

 

The question was why interfere with those who decide to live this way??

 

Your convert argument is ridiculous.  Would you join a church in which the husband was required to do something domineering without regard for his wife's will?  Maybe nightly rape or some other atrocity?   Of course not!!

You don't like a church's beliefs, you don't join it

 

You don't like a church's beliefs, you leave.    You vote with your feet.

 

The belief system survives or it doesn't.  WE ARE TO BE EQUAL PARTNERS with one deciding, one presiding, and the belief is that should be the husband.

 

There are millions of women who have no problem with this in the church.  Why is it any of your business?

That's your argument? Other people are doing it so why shouldn't you. Others can be wrong. Millions can be wrong. The masses do not have authority by virtue that they are masses.

 

Why is it my business? Because I have a family. This isn't only a women's issue though I'd also disagree with you if you are claiming that I can't have an opinion or a belief because I'm not a woman. This is everyone's business.

 

I'm really not interested in perpetuating social traditions from past centuries.

Edited October 27, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[mfbukowski]

That's your argument? Other people are doing it so why shouldn't you. Others can be wrong. Millions can be wrong. The masses do not have authority by virtue that they are masses.

Why is it my business? Because I have a family. This isn't only a women's issue though I'd also disagree with you if you are claiming that I can't have an opinion or a belief because I'm not a woman. This is everyone's business.

Suppose this was about gay marriage and I used your exact words.Substitute gay for woman Edited October 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

Suppose this was about gay marriage and I used your exact words.Substitute gay for woman

If this were about gay marriage I wouldn't make the argument the way you are trying to make this. Why? Because it's a bad argument.

We don't do things just because others are doing them. The masses are not our authority.

[CV75]

This is everyone's business.

How about the Father’s business?

 

I'm really not interested in perpetuating social traditions from past centuries.

No, just those from this one: LOL.

[mfbukowski]

This is becoming about the right to believe in Patriarchy for a just and sympathetic priesthood holder.

I do so believe and that is a cornerstone of my testimony and I sustain the church strongly on this point

The masses are not my authority, my testimony in the church is

Edited October 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

This is becoming about the right to believe in Patriarchy for a just and sympathetic priesthood holder.

 

I was at a fireside one time when President Packer taught us.  "If we [men] honored the priesthood like we should there would not be a woman on earth, much less the church, who would question why we had it."

[HappyJackWagon]

This is becoming about the right to believe in Patriarchy for a just and sympathetic priesthood holder.

I do so believe and that is a cornerstone of my testimony and I sustain the church strongly on this point

The masses are not my authority, my testimony in the church is

This is another way in which we're different.

 

Patriarchy is not the cornerstone of my testimony, nor do I see it as a valuable or necessary element of eternal socialization. I just don't see the need to put one person in charge when there should be a partnership, especially when that "one person" is always a male, regardless of their skill or qualification.

[KevinG]

If someone sees the priesthood as a question of "who is in power" rather than "who is in service" than I can see why they will have issues with the concept.

[HappyJackWagon]

If someone sees the priesthood as a question of "who is in power" rather than "who is in service" than I can see why they will have issues with the concept.

There is an issue because that's how it functionally works.