The Problem w LDSMen

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The concept of the idiot/childish husband and the long-suffering wife who has to put up with him is a common trope in our popular TV shows and movies.

Oh, I have certainly heard in church and in church circles the concept of “the reason women don’t have the priesthood it is because they don’t need it because they are so righteous already“ and other such patronizing variations. I have never heard it presented as doctrine. But culturally, yes. I agree that it is a reflection of larger society that has worked since the 90s to belittle men. I don’t like that. I think the first place I got wind of that attitude was on TV with shows like The Simpsons, and Married with Children. Sassy kids, exasperated wives, bumbling buffoon husbands setting the stage for the dumbing down of men for the next few decades.  I don’t think that was healthy for anyone. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Rain said:

Well, I for one (and there are many others) put that idea down when I hear it.

Same here.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Oh, I have certainly heard in church and in church circles the concept of “the reason women don’t have the priesthood it is because they don’t need it because they are so righteous already“ and other such patronizing variations. I have never heard it presented as doctrine. But culturally, yes. I agree that it is a reflection of larger society that has worked since the 90s to belittle men. I don’t like that. I think the first place I got wind of that attitude was on TV with shows like The Simpsons, and Married with Children. Sassy kids, exasperated wives, bumbling buffoon husbands setting the stage for the dumbing down of men for the next few decades.  I don’t think that was healthy for anyone. 

It is unfortunate that that the mismatched spouses sitcoms switched from airhead or dumb blonde wives to bumbling husbands rather than just disappear altogether.  The sitcoms that have intelligent people using wit with each other are so much more funny, imo.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

see a lot of female's that seems they like the video

Here on the board or elsewhere? 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is unfortunate that that the mismatched spouses sitcoms switched from airhead or dumb blonde wives to bumbling husbands rather than just disappear altogether.  The sitcoms that have intelligent people using wit with each other are so much more funny, imo.

Dario, can you please explain why you downvoted my post?  You are completely losing me with who you are downvoting.  I don’t know what you are trying to say.

Do you think people should be making jokes about their wives being dumb blondes or their husbands not being able to do anything right?

Edited March 23, 2023 by Calm

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Please find them. 
 

I find it highly problematic to label one sex as inherently more righteous than the other, so I am interested in how problematic it is. Is it more a grass roots thing or from head to toe.  If you can find it in conference or in materials, it is even more concerning imo. 

You don't need a conference talk. Just look at Pew data on religiosity between the two sexes.

[Calm]

Just now, Hamilton Porter said:

You don't need a conference talk. Just look at Pew data on religiosity between the two sexes.

Meaning what?  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some of his concerns are cultural and not tied to the church.

The concept of the idiot/childish husband and the long-suffering wife who has to put up with him is a common trope in our popular TV shows and movies.

Yes this originated outside the church, but it is regularly manifested in church as well. How many women (and men) in the church believe that there is truth to this demeaning characterization of men? I don’t think there’s any way to know, but I suspect the number is high. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Some of his concerns are cultural and not tied to the church.

The concept of the idiot/childish husband and the long-suffering wife who has to put up with him is a common trope in our popular TV shows and movies.

This. It is an ongoing cultural joke. I don’t get it.

In some extreme cases (thankfully rare in the church) it is just “I hate my spouse” bits that pretend to be jokes.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Meaning what?  

The idea is that church cultures are feminized which is why men are less religious.

Some argue this goes all the way back to the Middle Ages.

[Durangout]

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

How many times have we heard statements like:

"Men have the priesthood and women don't because women are more righteous and spiritual than men and therefore men need the priesthood so they can learn to be as righteous and spiritual as the women?" 

"Women are naturality more Christlike, spiritual, and righteous than men."

"The only way men will make it to the Celestial Kingdom is due to their wives (who are so much more righteous and spiritual than they are) dragging or pushing them to get there."

And then we see the recent changes to the temple, which not only got rid of the covenant for wives to hearken to the council of their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, it also got rid of the curse upon Eve, while leaving the curse upon Adam for partaking of the forbidden fruit. And other language is changed from how it reads in the scriptures. Eve is no longer given to Adam and Eve is no longer Adam's helpmeet. The language in the sealing ceremony was also changed and the husbands role of leader and patriarch of the family was eliminated. 

Then there's the announcement that the Priesthood and Women's sessions of General Conference were being permanently retired and replaced with another general session. But then the very next conference the women's session was brought back. But now when it should be the Priesthood session, it's back to a General Session again. So apparently it's okay for women to have their own meeting, just not the men.  

The God given patriarchal order and placement of the husband as the head of his family and provider is being rapidly dismantled. In fact I would say that it's essentially gone now. Is it any wonder that this has effected many LDS men and caused them to become more apathetic and to take a back seat to their wives in their marriages and families?

 

100% correct GTN
 

Immediately before I was ordained to be a HP and set apart as a bishopric councillor, I was told TWICE (by the bishop and SP) that the reason I am in this position was because of my wife.  Really?!?!   I had nothing to do w it?  It was all I could do not to say “Well, why don’t you ordain her then?”  

Regarding your comments on the feminists’ changes in the temple. ( I can only assume Wendy Nelson is the author of those changes. ). The Patriarcal priesthood is a higher order of the priesthood than the Melchezdec—and that has essentially been removed among other things.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

But i didn't even complain about that. But it would be also nice if we all go.....you know....keep it a little ontopic. But i'm not a mod. So a moderator may decide about that offcourse. 

I realize you didn't complain and I didn't mean to imply that you did.  I was mostly referring to how you often respond with "I can have my own opinion" when someone wants to discuss something you've posted or asks questions to understand what you've posted better.

The reason that people are asking questions or replying to your posts with their own opinions (which may be different than yours) is not to suggest that you can't believe however you want.  They are doing that because they are trying to discuss your reaction to what they've said or their reaction to what you've said.

Because discussing these things is why we are here.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Oh, I have certainly heard in church and in church circles the concept of “the reason women don’t have the priesthood it is because they don’t need it because they are so righteous already“ and other such patronizing variations. I have never heard it presented as doctrine. But culturally, yes. I agree that it is a reflection of larger society that has worked since the 90s to belittle men. I don’t like that. I think the first place I got wind of that attitude was on TV with shows like The Simpsons, and Married with Children. Sassy kids, exasperated wives, bumbling buffoon husbands setting the stage for the dumbing down of men for the next few decades.  I don’t think that was healthy for anyone. 

Agreed.  I hate the "women are so spiritual" stuff.  I have three sons and a husband and it doesn't serve me to encourage that kind of thinking.  I think it came about because of a combination of our post-1950's culture mixed with members trying to provide reasons for why women aren't ordained that God has never provided.  It's pendulum swing that resulted from changing attitudes about men and women.  We started out on one side with the whole "men are the boss in the home, women are subservient to them...crap" and then went too far to the other side.

I think we are starting to land somewhere in the middle and that is good in my opinion.

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning what?  

Women are more religious, on average.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes this originated outside the church, but it is regularly manifested in church as well. How many women (and men) in the church believe that there is truth to this demeaning characterization of men? I don’t think there’s any way to know, but I suspect the number is high. 

I think most women in the church view it as a palliative attempt to assuage the concerns of genuine inequity between the sexes in the church, and it rings incredibly hollow.  "You may not be able to hold leadership rolls, bless your own children, pass the sacrament, and everything you do is under the authority of men - but you are way more spiritual then us."  You only hear men say that...why is that?  The church both pedestalizes women and pushes them to the side at the same time, while the men go to work running the church. 

While it is a step up from the portrayal of women in the Bible and other Christian churches as the lower, more seductive and sinful sex responsible for our fallen state, and therefore must be under the authority and control of men as a consequence, and must remain silent at church.  And if they are to learn anything spiritual, "ask your husbands".   While it is a step up from that, it is damaging for women (and some men apparently) in other ways.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

100% correct GTN
 

Immediately before I was ordained to be a HP and set apart as a bishopric councillor, I was told TWICE (by the bishop and SP) that the reason I am in this position was because of my wife.  Really?!?!   I had nothing to do w it?  It was all I could do not to say “Well, why don’t you ordain her then?”  

Regarding your comments on the feminists’ changes in the temple. ( I can only assume Wendy Nelson is the author of those changes. ). The Patriarcal priesthood is a higher order of the priesthood than the Melchezdec—and that has essentially been removed among other things.

Amen.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

Really?!?!   I had nothing to do w it?  It was all I could do not to say “Well, why don’t you ordain her then?”  

I wish you had.  

Im sure Wendy has a strong voice in her marriage. Is that bad? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Women are more religious, on average.

Religious behaviour is not equivalent to spirituality or righteousness. Women may be more religious in Western nations (this statistic is not true in every culture, in some places men rate higher) because historically it gave them a sphere of influence they otherwise would it have or it may be the social aspects of religion that appeals to them, or it may be motivated not something that is selfish in nature. 
 

So such data does not prove quality of spirituality nor snything about righteousness. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think we are starting to land somewhere in the middle and that is good in my opinion.

I see zero evidence that things are starting to land in the middle. From what I see the pendulum is still 100% swinging in the direction of men are beneath women, masculinity is toxic, and the traditional patriarchal system where the husband is the leader of the family is oppressive and evil. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

Not sure about that.

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

How many times have we heard statements like:

"Men have the priesthood and women don't because women are more righteous and spiritual than men and therefore men need the priesthood so they can learn to be as righteous and spiritual as the women?" 

"Women are naturality more Christlike, spiritual, and righteous than men."

"The only way men will make it to the Celestial Kingdom is due to their wives (who are so much more righteous and spiritual than they are) dragging or pushing them to get there."

From the Brethren?  From the Church's materials?  Not that I can recall.

From women in the Church?  Not that I can recall.

From men in the Church, speaking formally and preparedly?  Not that I can recall.

Now, have I heard it from men as

• an attempt at self-deprecating humor, or
• a likely-well-intended-but-nevertheless-ultimately-patronizing comment, or
• an off-the-cuff comment, devoid of any citation to scripture or prophetic pronouncement?

Yes.  A few times. 

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And then we see the recent changes to the temple, which not only got rid of the covenant for wives to hearken to the council of their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, it also got rid of the curse upon Eve, while leaving the curse upon Adam for partaking of the forbidden fruit. And other language is changed from how it reads in the scriptures. Eve is no longer given to Adam and Eve is no longer Adam's helpmeet. The language in the sealing ceremony was also changed and the husbands role of leader and patriarch of the family was eliminated. 

"Help meet" is an interesting thing.  I'm reminded of various instances of the word "niggardly" being deemed controversial because of it kinda sort sounds like a racial epithet for black people, even though it is utterly unrelated to that epithet in terms of etymology.  But because the misunderstanding is so reflexive and intense, we have accommodated it.  

I wonder if something similar has happened with Eve being a "help meet," that it is one of those things that is commonly and substantially misconstrued, to such an extent that the Church is accommodating that misunderstanding (even though it is a misunderstanding).  

As for the actual meaning of "help meet," see this 2020 Ensign article by Angela Ashurst-McGee:

Quote

Help Meet

Because the gospel has been a source of power and encouragement in my life as a woman, I have been confused by this scripture verse: “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18).

To me, a “help meet” sounded like a sidekick, like someone filling a lower, supporting role. In fact, throughout history this phrase has often been used to justify the claim that women were created to serve in a subservient position. For example, one of the interpretations for “help meet” proposed by 18-century biblical scholar John Gill was that a woman’s purpose as a “help meet” was to make man “comfortable … to dress his food … be pleasing to his sight, and … be in all respects … entirely answerable to his … wants and wishes.”

This interpretation did not match my knowledge of God’s views of women! I knew that God doesn’t see me as an assistant or sidekick with a role to merely please others and fill their wishes. But even though I knew this in my heart, seeing that verse in my scriptures felt uncomfortable.

Ezer Kenegdo

Things changed one day when I learned more about the Hebrew words translated as “help meet” in the King James Version of the Bible. This knowledge gave me a whole new perspective and greater understanding of my divine work as a woman.

The phrase translated as “help meet” comes from two Hebrew words, ezer and kenegdo.

Ezer means “help,” but in a distinct way. In English, a “helper” is sometimes thought of as someone in a low position, but ezer describes strength. It suggests that the individual has power to rescue others. Ezer is used 21 times in the Old Testament, always describing a person with the capacity allowing one to help, protect, or aid. In most of these cases, ezer describes the way God offers help to rescue humankind. For example:

• “For the God of my father, said he, was mine help [ezer], and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh” (Exodus 18:4).

• “Happy art thou, O Israel … saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help [ezer]” (Deuteronomy 33:29).

• “But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help [ezer] and my deliverer” (Psalm 70:5).

• “O Israel, trust thou in the Lord: he is their help [ezer] and their shield” (Psalm 115:9).

• “My help [ezer] cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth” (Psalm 121:2).

• “In me [the Lord] is thine help [ezer]” (Hosea 13:9).

Though its meaning is less definitive, scholars agree that kenegdo means “corresponding to” and “opposite to.” It describes two things that are next to each other and complementary to each other, but different from each other—like facing opposites.

Putting these two terms together, we see that ezer kenegdo suggests that God created Eve in counterpart to Adam, with the power to rescue and serve. “Help meet” is not a label of inferiority but an acknowledgment of strength!

YMMV.

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Then there's the announcement that the Priesthood and Women's sessions of General Conference were being permanently retired and replaced with another general session. But then the very next conference the women's session was brought back. But now when it should be the Priesthood session, it's back to a General Session again. So apparently it's okay for women to have their own meeting, just not the men.  

I think I'm missing something.  From the Church on 6/7/2021:

Quote

The Saturday evening session of general conference for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be discontinued, the First Presidency announced Monday, June 7.

Church leaders also announced a return to the Conference Center auditorium for the October 2021 general conference.

The announcement — made Monday, June 7, on Newsroom — also stated that the Conference Center will be closed to the public for the Oct. 2 and 3 sessions, which will again be virtual events to be streamed worldwide.

From the Church on July 27, 2021:

Quote

In June 2021, we announced changes to the next general conference wherein the Saturday evening session would no longer be held. This decision was based on changes in technology that make it possible for all members and friends to view each session of general conference, including the women’s session and the priesthood session.

We recognize the increasing challenges facing members of the Church worldwide in our day. An important way to fortify against these challenges comes through hearing the word of God (see Alma 31:5). Therefore, after additional study and prayer, we have felt impressed to continue to hold the Saturday evening session of general conference, albeit in a different format than in the past.

Beginning with the October 2021 semiannual general conference, the Saturday evening session will be continued. All members and friends of the Church are invited to view this session. It will not have a specific theme, nor will it be intended for any particular demographic or leadership group. Holding this session will allow for more gospel topics to be taught and permit more general leaders to address the conference.

From the Church on February 11, 2022:

Quote

The 192nd Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will include a Saturday night women’s session, the First Presidency announced in a letter sent to local leaders Friday, Feb. 11.

A limited number of tickets to each session will also be distributed for the conference, which will include talks from the First Presidency, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and general authorities and general officers of the Church, wrote President Russell M. Nelson and his counselors, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring.

The conference sessions, originating from the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City on Saturday and Sunday, April 2 and 3, will include four general sessions, in addition to the Saturday evening women’s session. All women and young women, including those who turn 12 in 2022, are invited.

From the Deseret News on September 2, 2022:

Quote

The October general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will include a general Saturday evening session for all church members, according to a First Presidency letter issued Friday.
...
Recent Saturday evening sessions have rotated between a general session, a priesthood session for men and boys or a women’s session including girls 11 and older. The Saturday evening session at the previous general conference in April was a women’s and girls’ session.
...

President Oaks provided insight into the rotating Saturday evening sessions during the April conference.

“Our Saturday sessions have a history of different purposes and different audiences,” he said at the start of the women’s session. “This evening we add to that history as we embark upon a new purpose and procedure for the foreseeable future. The gospel of Jesus Christ does not change. Gospel doctrine does not change. Our personal covenants do not change. But over the years, the meetings we hold to communicate our messages do change and very likely will continue to change over the years.”

He also noted that all Saturday evening sessions are officially part of general conference regardless of how they are designated or who is invited, not separate organizational meetings.

“For now, this Saturday evening meeting is a session of general conference, not a session of any organization,” he said. “Like all sessions of general conference, the planning, speakers and music are designated by the First Presidency.”

From a current announcement on the Church's website:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes all to join with millions of people worldwide to hear inspiring messages of hope and renewal from living prophets and apostles during the upcoming general conference on Saturday and Sunday, April 1–2, 2023.
...

The global broadcast originates from the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, and consists of five unique, two-hour general sessions for all audiences over two days:

Saturday, April 1

10 a.m.* Saturday morning session
2 p.m. Saturday afternoon session
6 p.m. Saturday evening session

Sunday, April 2

10 a.m. Sunday morning session
2 p.m. Sunday afternoon session

So it sounds like the Saturday Evening Session is something of a wildcard.  

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The God given patriarchal order and placement of the husband as the head of his family and provider is being rapidly dismantled.

I don't think so.  I think the concepts are being refined and improved, not "dismantled."  See, e.g., here (from the June 2001 Ensign) :

Quote

Some have misunderstood or misinterpreted the instruction to Eve when Deity declared, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16; emphasis added; see also Moses 4:22). Commenting on this scripture, President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) said: “I have a question about the word rule. It gives the wrong impression. I would prefer to use the word preside because that’s what he does. A righteous husband presides over his wife and family” (“The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 72).

The scriptures and declarations of prophets have consistently taught that a husband has the divinely delegated responsibility to preside, or provide Christlike leadership, in the home. For example, the recent proclamation on the family states, “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” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).

It is significant to note the wording “preside … in love and righteousness.” The Apostle Paul taught this same concept, although in different words, to the husbands and fathers of his day. “For the husband is the head of the wife,” he wrote, “even as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph. 5:23). Then this servant of the Lord admonished, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25).

Husbands are to give themselves totally to the welfare of the family. The presiding position does not entail the right to dictate or to “exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39).

A bishop was startled during an interview with a husband and wife seeking counsel when the man said: “I want you to tell my wife that she is to do whatever I say because I preside in the home!” To the husband’s amazement, it was he who then received instruction from the bishop in principles of true priesthood leadership.

On another occasion a stake president was interviewing a woman and asked about her relationship with her husband. Tears of gratitude began to well up in her eyes as she told of her love for him. Not only was he a kind and loving husband to her, but he was a wonderful father to her children from a previous marriage. He provided them with love and an example of Christlike conduct.

The qualities essential to presiding in righteousness are enumerated in modern scripture:

“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;

“By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41–42).

The husband who exhibits these godly traits honors his priesthood and his position as the presiding authority in the home. He will speak and act out of love and with a desire to bless his family, not to dominate or dictate. Such a husband follows the example of Christ.

A righteous husband sees his wife as described by President Howard W. Hunter (1907–95): “a companion equal and necessary in full partnership” (“Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, 51). I believe that a wife who feels loved, is treated with respect, is listened to as she counsels with her husband, and knows her voice is a valued part of family decisions will recognize the marriage as a full partnership in which she is an equal contributor. Such a partnership is based on trust in one another and trust in a loving Father who presides over His eternal family.

From the February 2004 Ensign:

Quote

A New Perspective

I gained a new perspective on what it means to preside righteously in the home after I joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and found that this Church helped me have a happy family. I came to understand that there are some basic doctrines of the restored gospel that guide husbands and fathers in fulfilling their roles.

One of the great experiences I had before I got married was to live with several member families in the United States while I attended a university there. These parents held family home evening every week, studied the scriptures together, and had family prayer on a daily basis. Of course, they at times had challenges. But the way they solved the problems was consistent with gospel teachings.

In watching their examples and actually participating as a member of their families, I decided that someday I, too, would like to have a family similar to theirs. I observed that their families were blessed as these fathers followed the counsel now given in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”: “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.”

Presiding Righteously

The family is the basic unit of the Church, so righteous behavior within the home is vital. Indeed it is central to our personal progress and the spiritual progress of our families. There are several things a husband and father can do to teach and support this righteous behavior, as well as to exemplify it.

Know the doctrines and principles. In order to preside righteously in the home, a husband and father must first come to know the doctrines and principles of the restored gospel. Without the gospel, some men refuse to accept the responsibility of being a husband or of becoming a father. They are more interested in other pursuits, selfishly focusing only on themselves, or they just do not have the courage and commitment necessary to fulfill these divine roles.

Studying hard and gaining a good education are necessary and worthy pursuits, but we should remember that these are means and not ends. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) said, “The most important knowledge in the world is gospel knowledge.” Along with having individual study time, a husband and father can have a profoundly rewarding experience reading the scriptures with his family—for the benefit of all.

Work on improving himself first. The Lord taught, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39). A husband and father must first learn to love and govern himself before he can do so with others. Once he learns to love Heavenly Father and himself, he tends to become more confident in loving others, especially his spouse and children.

He must learn why it is important to govern wisely. He must learn to control his emotions and appetites and never abuse anyone. Violence, cruel behavior, and sharp words wound others. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25).

Acknowledge each other’s roles and work together. Men and women are equal in the sight of God. “In marriage neither the man nor the woman is more important than the other. They are equal partners and should work together to provide for the spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and physical needs of the family. … The father is the patriarch of the family and has important responsibilities that are his alone. He is the priesthood holder and has the duties of priesthood leadership.”

A worthy man is given the priesthood so he can preside in the home and bless his family. It is the father’s responsibility to gather the family together for family home evening and for family councils. When we join together, we develop greater love for each other as we share our testimonies and experiences. Fathers should also have prayerful, periodic interviews with each of their children. As the father listens with love, both father and child will be richly rewarded.

Exercise the priesthood righteously. The Lord explained how fathers should exercise the priesthood:

“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;

“By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

“Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy” (D&C 121:41–43).

If a husband and father truly learns how to love according to the example of the Savior, he becomes confident, has stronger faith, and is inspired. The influence of the Holy Ghost can help him make righteous decisions on how to treat others.

Teach children the important things. A father should teach his children from the scriptures and from his own example. He should teach that personal and family prayers are the most powerful communication tools for receiving revelation and for increasing spirituality. Through prayer, we can resolve many concerns and personal problems (see Philip. 4:6–7).

I remember some years ago, our family seemed to be limited to three children as my wife was not able to become pregnant again. She questioned why and started to blame herself. She prayed day after day. Our children noticed her sadness, and they felt sad too.

Finally I called our children together. In council, we decided to have a special prayer. I prayed; then each child prayed in turn. We had a wonderful feeling, and the Spirit of the Lord was there. Our children believed that their mother would have another baby. Approximately 10 months later, our fourth child was born. What joy we felt and what a testimony that was to my wife and me and our children.

I think the Church's use of "preside" varies in some substantial ways from the "worldly" application of that term.

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

In fact I would say that it's essentially gone now. Is it any wonder that this has effected many LDS men and caused them to become more apathetic and to take a back seat to their wives in their marriages and families?

I think Latter-day Saint men are becoming more attuned to fostering a healthy relationship with their spouses in the ways the Lord intends.  Fixating on "presiding" seems to be less and less a problem, as more and more Latter-day Saint couples work together.  From the Church News in 2010:

Quote

Pay attention next time you see a family depicted on a contemporary television sitcom or commercial. How is the father portrayed? Most likely, the show's family patriarch doubles as the family dimwit.

Over the decades, the "dad as buffoon" character has become a comedy cliché in advertising and television. Viewers know the formula well: Mom and the kids do the best they can to make the family work despite the bumblings, ramblings and clueless actions (or inactions) of husband and father.

Amid myriad sensitivities and taboos of the day, fathers remain a safe target for ridicule and laughs — an easy punch line. Once, television dads were portrayed idealistically as reliable and wise — a household anchor. Today, they are typically marginalized, merely tolerated or entirely ignored. "Father Knows Best" has been pre-empted by "Father Knows Nothing."

Even as popular media seem to be typecasting dads as second-class parents, Church leaders describe a far different role for "the man of the house" in Latter-day Saint households. Fathers, they declare, remain relevant and essential. They are irreplaceable bearers of the priesthood who can, and should, bless their families through inspired counsel, loving support and their own faithful examples.
...
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World" emphasizes a father's vital role: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over the 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."

Elder Perry identified what the Lord expects of today's fathers.

1. The father is the head in his family.

In his talk, he enlisted a quote from a pamphlet penned by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1973 titled "Father Consider Your Ways":

"Fatherhood is leadership, the most important kind of leadership. It has always been so; it always will be so. Father, with the assistance and counsel and encouragement of your eternal companion, you preside in the home. It is not a matter of whether you are most worthy or best qualified, but it is a matter of [divine] appointment."

Elder Perry reminded fathers that in their role as family leaders, their wives serve as their companions. "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 united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing."

I don't see this going away.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I see zero evidence that things are starting to land in the middle. From what I see the pendulum is still 100% swinging in the direction of men are beneath women, masculinity is toxic, and the traditional patriarchal system where the husband is the leader of the family is oppressive and evil. 

It seems like some of your concern is because you don’t think the pendulum needed to swing at all and you were happier when women were subservient to men?

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems like some of your concern is because you don’t think the pendulum needed to swing at all and you were happier when women were subservient to men?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So such data does not prove quality of spirituality nor snything about righteousness. 

What indicator of righteousness do men do better on?

[Durangout]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I wish you had.  

Im sure Wendy has a strong voice in her marriage. Is that bad? 

Would love to have their faces if I had.

She is 25 yrs younger than RMN so probably controls the marriage.  That is not necessarily a bad thing BUT An unordained / set apart lay member with no authority / training making policy for The Church.  Yeah, I kinda think that’s a problem.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What indicator of righteousness do men do better on?

Not sure there are decent measures of actual righteousness for righteousness’ sake out there, haven’t kept up on the science, but when I was in college, my professors made sure to discuss how difficult it was to measure certain internal characteristics and how often we were actually measuring something else…like with IQ tests. 

For example, men rate higher in criminal behaviour than women, especially violence, but these measures are narrowing, possibly because it has become more acceptable for women to engage in risky behavior.  Are men inherently less honest than women or have women been just more fearful of being caught?

But one possibility….this study below, it appears in our culture women may be more likely to be judgmental of others.

https://www.inc.com/wanda-thibodeaux/study-women-feel-judged-and-its-not-men-who-are-judging.html

It reminds me of conversations with a number of teachers (I volunteered every year and got to know a lot of teachers) who said girls are much more a problem socially than boys due to cliches and ostracizing other girls, holding grudges, being friends one day and never speaking to each other the next while they find boys are more relaxed and less critical of each other. I have no way of knowing if this is bias or not and don’t feel like looking up research on this more than the above.