@@kgreene9935 The funny/ironic thing is that it's often as cheap or cheaper. The costs of the second parent going to work is often offset by the costs of actually going to work - transportation, wardrobe, child care, etc. Even when I was a poor airman making very little, my wife and I explored that and it was always cheaper for her to stay at home. Of course, she wasn't in a position to get a high paying job. Of course, neither was I at the time. What double incomes have really done is mangle the economy. Regardless of what we think or want, the family is the basic economic unit. THe more double incomes, the more it becomes the standard and the markey adapts to it. All the young folks complaining how they can't get by on two salaries much less one, and their predecessors who insisted on dual incomes to blame. The economy has shifted to expect that.
I wish God made more like you and the church nurtured more women to be like you. I have watched all my sisters and sister in laws and my nieces fall for the trappings of Babylon and corporate servitude instead of traditional family values. I love feminine traditional women.....very hard to find a Gen X or Millennial one to marry . They all want dogs, careers and travel it seems
I think Greg Matsens Cwic video "The Priesthood is Not What You Think" is a great answer to what is being addressed here. I encourage all to go listen to it.
This resonates. I've been called "a man's man" all my life..... something I've gotten annoyed with over time, but as "that type" of guy I can say I've felt lost at church for the past several years. It's clear the church does not want to encourage warrior minded men to step up. Rather the messaging is the opposite, that we need to fade away and be less. On top of that, in my own home I am left wondering how to lead when i have a partner who resents any such idea strongly. I am successfully married for nearly fifteen years and we've managed OK, but I was shocked to find, upon marrying my sweetheart, that she simply refused to be lead at all.... period. I have been left to debate with her ALL decisions regarding the family and am locked out of many of them and in order to keep enough peace to live with I've had to capitulate. In short, the roles are reversed. How does one lead when the thought offends one's partner? Ironically the partner who is offended insists on the executive role herself on most matters.
I'm in the same boat. I wish I had had a conversation with my wife shortly before getting engaged. In it we would decide and commit to our roles in the relationship. I'm sure arguments would still come up but if we had spoken of these things beforehand it would have been easier to maintain my boundaries. When young men ask me for advice before they get married I tell them to have two conversations. This is one of them. Sometimes the man or woman can't see eye to eye and they end up breaking things off. In the situations where they make such commitments it has laid a firm foundation for their marriage.
I had that situation, and unfortunately I'm now divorced. It seems a lot of women have been raised thinking they can pick and choose what they want from a man. They like the idea of a man leading, but they don't want to follow. They want the benefits without the responsibilities. But don't give up. To righteously preside means that you have to lead, but as the leader in God's kingdom, you have to represent the interests of all those that you lead. So you have to make sure that your wife feels heard and that when you make a decision, you have valued her opinion equally as your own. Try to cultivate an environment where your wife feels you honestly listen to her and value her opinion, and always take her advice seriously, which makes it much more likely that she will respect your decision when you make it. And if you have a history of making good decisions where you weren't being selfish, then at those times that you have to do hard things she will respect you and still follow.
the church has leaned into a gynocentric feminist frame and it is destroying fathers, family formation , marriage. I WANT to be married but I will not sign up to be in constant battle with a wife. If she doesnt trust me to lead ....then she married the wrong guy . Im a multi millionaire who works with loads of people respectfully in order to get projects completed. If we were all equal and those I presided over, were constantly challenging my direction, nothing would get done....and I would stop working with them and get another to work with. I treat all my employees and subs respectfully and am kind to all of them and "treat them as equals" but I do preside and am the Alpha with the project...and they all understand that and it works out great. Men are stepped on in Christian circles today....loaded with beta males and feminists.
I feel for you my man. I have several friends in this position and at least one person in my RUclips subs who has confided in me that they struggle with this and its driven them to the edge of divorce It is really hard to watch the church foster the egos and ambitions of the women in the church while ignoring what is happening to the men. Our girls camp theme was "you are enough" and my wife wears the branded sweatshirt around the house to annoy me because it 1) It's the opposite message of the plan of salvation and 2) They would NEVER put that on anything they expected a boy to wear. The prophets in scripture are Alphas, as was Jesus. (I like your term warrior-minded) The priesthood is a tool to turn men loose on their potential. It's a head-scratcher why they treat women as if they are fragile while telling them they are strong.
One of the reasons I miss my husband so much. He passed 2 years ago. So now he isn’t here at what will probably be the most challenging time of our lives. I know his mission has changed and I have grown sons with the priesthood but sometimes I feel overwhelmed. I do have to point out , not bc you have a problem with it Conner, but we are to follow & sustain our husbands as long as they preside righteously. I feel like our Church leaders are pointing that out also. Enjoy your Sunday musings.
*"...as long as they preside righteously."* Yes! The wife is to follow her husband *only inasmuch as he is following the Lord.* If he starts to follow his own path, and authoritatively demands that his wife obey his wicked demands, she is instantly under no obligation to obey him; i.e. "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." When men preside righteously, whether here or after this life, they progress, and they clear the way for those in their stewardship to progress, as well. If women presided, they could be very capable, but most men would not progress, and the plan of salvation would be forever frustrated. So the old statements about the husband presiding are correct, but must include the caveat that his right to preside is entirely dependent on his righteousness. But if he doesn't, then his wife may -- and *should* -- take over the presiding role in the family.
I think following husbands as long as they preside righteously is a tare that has grown up with the wheat. That requirement was removed from the endowment. My take is that it should have never been there, not that it should be there, but we are appeasing current cultural norms. The original D&C 101, that stated marriage promises, did not say that women were to follow and hearken to their husbands.
Then the problem may arise concerning what constitutes "Presiding righteously"? My exwife would tell me she did not have to listen to anything I say because i wasn't presiding righteously, citing spending too much time at work, not heading family prayer consistently, & not reading my scriptures everyday.
Ever since the church stopped having a priesthood session every conference, I have had to look more outside the modern leadership for masculine examples to emulate. That's why so many people have flocked to Jordan Peterson and others. For those who don't believe we currently live in a Matriarchal society (with useful male idiots), you should read Hugh Nibley's article "Patriarchy and Matriarchy."
This may sound silly, but I first started noticing this in the Bernstein Bears I read to my children when they were little. Then in sitcoms. And Disney has been pushing this idea for years imo.
Presiding, means making the hard calls when stakes are high and consequences are intense. You'll need your team (family) to buy in, so you cant alienate them. This means being skilled at mediating and negotiating as well as directing and correcting.
I feel like this topic just reeks of political correctness. And 100% a Worldly point of view. Always needing to sew division and contempt. As a woman I don’t feel the need to hold the priesthood. I don’t feel like my Life is less fulfilled because of it. I think a lot of women get upset by this topic because they’re listening too much to the whisperings in their ear from the world, instead of thinking for themselves. And in part I don’t think it’s 100% their fault; because those whisperings have been happening at least to some of us our entire lives.
Have you ever listened to Valerie Hudson’s “Two Tree’s” lecture? It is on RUclips I would start about 3 min in. It would be interesting to hear your feelings about Sister Hudson’s observations and understanding.
Women not having the priesthood is not something that has been explained. Prophets have said that we don't know why women don't have the priesthood. Any answers people give are theories. If even prophets don't know why, then it seems a little self-righteous to say that anyone who wonders about this is NOT thinking for themselves. This isn't a problem for you, but that doesn't mean you are more righteous than people who wonder, without answers.
@@charisecarlsonyour comment is a bit confusing as I don’t recall a prophet responding to this question as they don’t know. The priesthood is an administrative role given to men to aide them in their calling to wash themselves clean of the blood and sins of their generation. Sisters are washed and clean as they fulfill their priesthood calling to give life. The life they give is turned over to the husband to see that saving ordinances are conferred upon that child which both the father and the mother have fullness of patriarchal priesthood responsibility for the child’s soul (body and spirit) again I refer your to the excellent address concerning your question posted above. See also elder oaks, christopherson and Eyring each have addressed this topic in recent conferences.
@@brianbacon3106 Okay, so we agree that we don’t have a definitive answer as to why women don’t have the priesthood. Also, I don’t agree that women have to give birth to fulfill priesthood duties. You really think God created a path for people that only Mormon men with the priesthood and only Mormon women who give birth can fulfill their duties? That doesn’t make sense.
I didn’t understand, but now I am grateful my Dad was an atheist, but I knew he was the head of our home, as I have watched the men in the church they have no backbone, but he honored and loved my Mom and treated her with total respect and love and they were married at 16, he was more of a Priesthood holder than the men I have watched the way they treat their wives! I am so grateful my Dad was the head of our home!
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, *as they suppose,* they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39) Sounds like your dad didn't suppose that he had a little authority, and so never got drunk on power. Member or nonmember, believer or atheist, the order of the family with the father at the head is entirely dependent on the father's righteousness. And it sounds like he fulfilled his role well. 😌
@@romdos11 I always read it as men encompassing humanity, therefore women are included in the word men. I don’t need ‘woman’ stated for me to think it applies to my life; it’s sad that so many in this world want it spelled out for them.
@@amynazza I understand it that way too which is why it bothers me when they do that in Gen Conf. I feel it is pandering to the wokesters and trying to get the praise of the world. I wonder if we will eventually see a schism in the leaders. Joseph Smith once gave us a "key that will never rust" which is go with the majority of the 12 and the church records, whatever that means. That worries me that he felt he had to say that.
If the father presides in the home, what's he doing taking direction from the church and worrying about what the church thinks? The father is entitled to personal revelation concerning his stewardship. Do you believe this, or is it just a Mormon euphemism? Who is in charge of your life? The church? The feminists? God? I preside in my family, not over my family. As such, and as one who is entitled to revelation concerning my stewardship, and as one who has the faith to ask God for wisdom, and actually receive an answer, the revelation I received on this matter was for both of us to seek the Spirit and with that same spirit, become on ONE HEART and ONE MIND. My will is my spouse's will and my spouse's will is my will, and both of our wills are the Lord's will. There is no fighting or contention within our walls, for over 37 years. This is the reason why it is so imperative for church members, after their water baptism to seek to be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. If this isn't happening in you home and family, you are so far out of line with God, and how it will be in Zion, and how it is in heaven, that nothing else you do matters
Great video. My take. Filtering this issue through the scriptures, I would side with the earlier church leaders. I see no scriptural basis for equally yoked.
@@watcherpalmerlds I would agree with that completely. I don't often see that usage anywhere. Normally I see at as level of belief or intelligence - as in member/non-member marriages - which I suggest present many problems, or different capacities, which I see no concerns with per se.
I feel scared of the consequences of men being emasculated. It’s difficult because as a women, as society falls apart the increased responsibility that I will be responsible for worries me. I believe following the leaders and the way we grew up with men in the presiding role is beneficial to me and my family. But if anything happens death or divorce, you are now thrust into a world where it will take you being a girl boss to make it financially and have no one to rely on but yourself. If have to be the man and the women. It’s like we are on two different tracks in the world and it’s increasingly difficult to see how this is gonna work out for future generations.
In the RS broadcast this weekend there was a major emphasis on women having the priesthood, or specifically, covenant keeping women have just as much priesthood power and authority as covenant keeping men. This really got me thinking, what does it mean then to be ordained and set apart to an office in the priesthood? What is even the point to ordaining men if all you have to do is keep covenants to have priesthood power and authority? (To be clear, Church leaders usually refer to women having priesthood “power” and “authority” but rarely/never will say that women “hold” or “bear” the priesthood)
I encourage you to go to the temple repeatedly until you get your answers. Specifically, do initiatories. Then go do some sealings and speak to the sealer about what ordinances are different between men and women and why that is. If you have done enough initiatories before you have that conversation, you’ll be able to have the words come to mind that matter, and everything will make sense. Ask and ye shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. All the answers are in the temple! ❤❤❤
Enjoyed the discussion here in light of today's "protest". I think as we enter harder times strong men will be needed and these luxury beliefs of easy times will start to fade.
@@barb7014The ATC (activism towards the church) groups of females (Julie Hanks, Michelle Stone, Jana Reiss and a slew of others who foment division between the sexes in the church and many others in our local wards and stakes) planned a women walk out today during church. I’m not saying those I named planned it, but their ideologies that they push have given way to activism and action now. Nobody in our ward walked out, in fact, we had our highest women attendance in a while today. Feminism is cancer.
@@dcarts5616 As a convert in Texas, I’ve never experienced these radical views. I’m delighted your ward was filled with women choosing the right. Thanks for the info.
I agree they'll be needed, but I fear the church (and society in general) will reap what we've sown from decades of bending to gynocentric culture, which I believe is Marxist & communist cultural subversion by design, as Yuri Bezmonov warned us about. Pres Benson, j Reuben Clark, and other long since passed church leaders warned us of the same :( But things started really changing in the church around Pres Hinckley's time.
Minute 9:00. To Preside = To Chair A Congessional Committee which means that the Chair gives time for Everybody to weigh in, to comment, to persuade, to speak, to argue, to question. To Preside: verb; to excercise guidance or direction; to act as a chairperson or moderator.
I am LDS and my husband is not. A son also not. I love my husband dearly and it's a great guy but I sure wish he would have been the leader. I have had to do all the leading and it makes me very sad he has abdicated that responsibility. We don't even really discuss much. I have to do it all. I am absolutely NOT a feminist but he is. As we are aging he is going to suffer the consequences of his abdication.
Once upon a time in Christendom the pendulum swung too far in favor of men. Women were told to obey and submit to their husbands even if they are abusive. Not submitting to an abusive husband is as biblical as submitting to a husband that strives to be Christlike. Now it has swung too far in the other direction. I was told that to preside meant that I get to choose who says the prayers. However my wife doesn't respect that "authority" when she doesn't want to. I think that Nephi set a perfect example of what submission looks like broke his bow and made a new one. Even though his father has murmured he knew that his father was a good man who had simply made a mistake. Nephi decided to extend his father grace because he knew that his father typically had his best interest at heart. Nephi submitted to his father, and Lehi, being the good man he was repented and was able to empower his son to find animals to hunt. We all have to submit to others in this life. Husbands have to submit to bosses and priesthood leaders. Christlike leaders will empower us when we submit. We need to destigmatize that word. If we submit to the right people it's not a form of slavery. It's a path to empowerment.
In country swing, the man leads, the woman follows. As she follows, the man lifts and elevates her above himself to heights she can not attain on her own. As he becomes her strength, she comes to respect, adore and rely on him. As they work to be in sync with one another they become one in purpose and achieve together what they can not achieve alone.
That gave me goosebumps. So beautifully illustrated! Seeing a couple dance or ice skate together brings a magical kind of joy, and men (and women :) are that they might have joy.
Preside is not authority, (this is an earthly perspective). Preside means to make sure the job gets done. Whatever the obstacle.... Get it done! That is why the direction to "preside with/in love and righteousness".
This is the correct answer!!!!!! Also when they do this in love and righteousness means to sacrifice and do for their families what Christ does for us. It is actually a servant role.
I always think of King Mosiah. He was a king with presumably absolute power but he ruled righteously. I think that's an ideal to strive for as we preside.
I am so grateful for a wife who expects me to lead. She helps me to be a better man. I do my best to listen to her counsel and make decisions together, and once we reason together I make sure the plan is put into practice.
I would propose you consider that there is still a need in the afterlife for the man to provide and protect. We just don't know what that looks like. Just like a resurrected body still has a heart or a digestive tract, those organs have and will have purpose. The roles of provide and protect will still exist in the next life.
@@l7846 , that's a good question. Even they don't have a family of their own, they are still a part of HF's family, as his children. I haven't thought about it but what purpose do terrestrial and telestial bodies serve? I can't help but believe that these people will have some purpose to fulfill, I think they will at least have to provide (something). The question of whither they will have to protect is still in doubt.
Agree with the above point. And disagree with Connor’s final point that we “know how to provide and protect.” I think we need constant consistent clarity and prophetic prioritization in all three.
Minute 20:00. My dad "presided" by gently nudging us to behave better. Also, he acted as a sounding board (for me and for my two brothers and two sisters) for whatever Issue Of The Day happened to arise. He "presided" consistenty from 1955 (when he first became a father) until 2022 when he died at age 91. I once asked my dad, "Aren't you exhausted by being a father (to five adult children) for so long?" He answered with a slight grin.
A lot of what came from early Utah church leaders was heavily influenced by the “doctrine” of polygamy. Having two parents equally yoked in following Christ is a protection that one won’t lead in the wrong direction. Anytime there is one insisting that they have the final say and are in charge, this is unrighteous dominion. Instead parents should be making decisions together on what is best for their family. My husband and I decided it was best for us that I stay home and school our children, while he worked. Later we felt led by God for him to leave his business and for us to move our family to a farm in the country. We made these decisions together as we both sought to know the will of God and to become more like our Savior. The church was originally set up to be run with this same protection- common consent. The idea that one person was in charge is what led the church off track into abominations and the “following a leader at all costs” mentality.
@@danjohnson8556it is interesting, the word “preside” is not used in the Bible at all (disregarding chapter headings which were added later by the lds church) and only one time in the BOM. I wonder how important this concept really is, or what it means?
@@danjohnson8556when a husband and father says something should be a certain way no matter what anyone else in the family think or feel, with the excuse that he presides and is in charge, that is definitely unrighteous dominion. First of all, we are all agents unto ourselves, so one person cannot have such authority over another. When the church leaders use that word "preside" I'm most certain they're meaning in the context of the priesthood as an order. You preside, or lead, by example, by encouragement, by SERVICE. Some of these older quotes Connor shared seemed very heretical to me and not consistent with scripture. They're the result of the polygamy era false teachings. The clip that Connor shared of Boyd K. Packer is SPOT ON, and that whole talk is spot on, go find it.
Easy during conference define it followed by thus sayeth the Lord, I’m a convert and it’s a confusing message coming out about transgenderism and apparently some Bishops giving callings to active Gays having callings, even saw recently a transgender attending the Temple, it’s causing confusion, I’ve nothing against gays but where does it put the Family a Proclamation to the World, it’s simple and true and beautiful, I personally through revelation believe our prophet is the prophet but I believe church media are completely off the rails and are really trying to be part of the world same as the neutering of men. As a member I’m also deeply concerned with the churches involvement with the UN and representation with the European Union, all who are involved with strategies not in line with freedom, I’ll always look to the Lord, since Russell M Nelson has been profit he has. Emphasised the importance of being worthy to receive our own revelation and secular is trusting in the arm of flesh, right now the Catholic’s are having problems with the Pope whose coming out with things like blessing gay unions, taking part in a pagan worship service l, even saying that pedophelia isn’t that wrong and they have a special place in Heaven, he is setting up. New world religion called Chrislam, I agree we need clarity and the Lords church is simple and clear that’s the beauty of it.
I'm just old enough to remember when teenage boys were told that they were the presiding priesthood authority in the home when their fathers were away. I don't know that anyone actually put the kid in charge over his mother, but that was the implication. I can't tell you when that faded away but I remember hearing it.
That was not just in LDS circles either. Watch some old western movies or war movies and they show the father telling the teenage son that he’s in charge while the father is away.
I see marriage as a ballroom dance. The vast majority of women will walk off the dance floor if the man can not lead her. Nor does she want to lead him. But it takes 2 to tango. She has to agree with every decision made in the dance. And he must listen to her wants and desires. If not, she will say, "See ya."
Preside might mean that men have the responsibility of being in strong connection with God to receive revelation for the family to guide in the weightier decisions. Like I choose what the family eats every day but my husband chooses where we are moving to. I am glad I have him to make these bigger decisions for our family, it’s his responsibility.
I respect my husband's priesthood authority. However, I disagree that something as obvious as what pertains to good health habits is the same as where to LIVE. That should be a shared decision. In fact, the mother's feelings about that should hold more weight since a support network in raising the children how you both want to raise them is so vital. I mean, however your marriage works well, works. That's great. But I have to weigh in that this is not how God thinks, in general, a family should be managed: being that the man has assign deicisons and then the women has assigned decisions. They should be made with considering both side's intuition and stewardship, through the authority of a priethood holder who takes it all to God.
@@AngelPuff1012You’re right. If it was a place I didn’t like I’d say no, let’s trust God and wait for a better option. But if it was where the job took him, well, I guess we’d have to go. But thank goodness he has great judgment, so I don’t need to worry much, it makes it easy for me. It’s not the same in every family though. In some families it’s the woman who has better vision thus taking the lead, and the husband is more of a follower rather than a leader, I know some. I’m more of a follower myself.
Go to God and let Him teach you what He wants you to do instead of waiting for an organization or a man to tell you what you should do. God is waiting for us individually to come to Him for our answers.
Does one member of the Godhood preside and if so does that mean they aren’t equal and unified? You don’t hear God the Father and Jesus Christ speaking simultaneously in unison. One speaks at a time but they are perfectly unified.
I don't think that presiding in the home is any different from presiding in other church affairs. We can look at how the prophet presides in meetings with his counselors and apostles. The presiding authority makes the final decision, but it's not his own will that he's seeking. He takes into account The interests of all those over whom he presides, and then makes a decision for the body. His right to preside will be respected as long as everyone feels heard and valued equally. A leader who is self-serving, or playing favorites, will not continue to be respected. I would propose that the power of a presiding authority is directly proportional to fairness or righteousness of that authority. So if we want more authority to preside in our homes, maybe we need to do a better job at earning it, which we do by demonstrating our selflessness and by listening and valuing the counsel of our wife. The wife has to do her part as well, but we can only persuade her to respect our authority, not coerce. So let's be more persuasive.
Except that's not what the brethren say. I recall a talk by Elder Oaks at the time specifically saying that this equal partners way of presiding in the home is NOT the way it works in Church hierarchy. In Church hierarchy, the presider makes the final decision. But not in the home. So if you think this presiding thing in the home is not any different from presiding in other church affairs, then you are not listening to what they are saying.
This is perfectly said, well done! At the real heart of it, I truly believe no women can properly respect a man that won't lead, whether they realize it or not. Also, if a man is leading in righteousness, guarantee you a righteous woman would happily submit everytime because she knows he is competent, considering the best path forward for her and the kids partially by counseling with them to understand their needs. Women don't respect their husbands these days. And in the church the main reason my husband and I have seen for this is that the man is either not leading, or not leading righteously.
@@g71816 I actually think that you can be both equal partners, and have one preside. You're equal in the sense that both of your opinions and preferences matter equally. But anytime you are making a decision for a group, someone has to make the decision, And the voice of each of the individuals in the group has to be taken into account. Of course the ideal that we are striving for is that both the man and the woman will become so unified that they want the exact same thing, in which case it matters in less and less who is actually making the decision or being the voice for the group. The more unity there is, The less individual differences matter. I think the real issue is that we take concepts of power from the world and apply them to leadership in God's kingdom (whether we are talking about the church or the home). In the world, power is sought for personal gain, but in God's kingdom, power is a duty that we accept, not seek, And it is only used for blessing others.
I have read that one every decision the Brethren are united/unanimous in their decisions. They talk about an issue and if even one person is unsettled, they table the issue and revisit until all are unanimous. Ever since I read that it gave me guidance on how to handle decisions in the family - meaning unanimity between my wife and myself - not the children! lol
Husbands and wives being equally yoked and the husband presiding are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has experience with training a team of oxen or draft horses knows that there is always one who is the leader/pace setter and the other matches the pace. Picking a good team has so much to do with the temperament of the animals and how they work together. To me presiding as a husband is not about being entitled to your wife's respect, loyalty, obedience, etc. But rather that you as a man are called and given the responsibility to earn your wife's and childrens' trust, loyalty, etc. through selflessness, righteous judgment, fairness and consistency, serving, loving, open communication and actually listening to and valuing the opinions and input from your wife and children and so on. Presiding is to love your wife and children as Jesus loved his Apostles. He was their minister. When you've shown your wife and kids that you have their best interest at heart then your family will be able to move in the direction the Lord who is actually at the reigns wants you to go. It is not us vs. them. It is us vs. The adversary and the Lord showed us the pattern to follow if we want to beat the adversary. Don't try to take the reigns from the Lord. That is not presiding.
Based on the comments here, its apparent, sadly, members are confused as to the role fathers/husbands have. The variety of opinions clearly shows that. This is the reflection of the conflicting and contradicting messages our prophets/apostles & current culture have taught over the years. Do they even know? There must be a clear cut definition. Why has "eternal" doctrines changed? God is not an author of confusion so who's confusing the definition? I think Connor hit the nail on the head. This culture is seriously confused and struggling to live the intended doctrines, practices and roles of men and women instead of both submitting to their God given roles as originally taught. This isn't an evolving progression of revelation. This is a result of wordly inspired indoctrination mingling with scripture paraded by as latter day revelation.
I think it can help to realize that Joseph Smith taught marriage differently than Brigham Young. You can read the original D&C 101. And Brigham Young's teachings have been the guiding force in the church since he was President. We've slowly been getting rid of his teachings, like polygamy, black priesthood ban, that Adam was God, that some people should be killed for certain sins - no due process (including women caught in adultery, but not men), and that women should obey their husbands. Brigham Young and Willard Richards wrote the endowment in the 1870s, before the St. George temple was dedicated. BY preached vehemently against women. If you look at our church's teachings through the lens of BY's teachings, and how we are pulling away from those, it makes more sense. At least to me.
I've been thinking about that word "preside" in the proclamation of the family for a long time. The way the roles of husband and wife are taught today makes the word preside absolutely meaningless. It can be just as well applied to the wife as it is to the husband. I don't think this was intended by the original document. The word preside has meaning. "Equal partners" is much more ambiguous of a term... equally necessary, equally important, etc. I've done what you said and asked fellow members what they think it means for the man to preside. And I get the same thing that you do. Just confusion for the most part. Someone tried to argue that it means the husband has the responsibility to make sure his family is exalted, but that he does not have the right to make decisions. That sounds like such an unjust structure to me. Responsibility without any authority. It is obvious to me that the eternal nature of the family is absolutely patriarchal. God the Father is the presiding authority of his great family. Everything in the scriptures points to this truth. It blows my mind that we are throwing all that away because of cultural changes in the last 50 years. When Zion is redeemed, very few will remain that accept the principles that it is built on.
Thank you, Connor, for another thoughtful discussion that made me think. It’s hard to give a short answer. To me presiding means that I strive to demonstrate to my children and others that my wife is consulted on atmosphere and policy matters pertaining to family finances, parenting, chores, job changes, etc ;and to come to agreement in ways that evoke loving kindness in the process and acceptance of her good ideas too. Hopefully, a bad day in life can be a good day in our marriage if Jesus Christ and his ways are included in the discussion process.
My uncle, who is a bishop, brought up this exact question at a family gathering. Everyone there was very orthodox, yet still there was a lot of hesitation to attach basically any meaning to the word preside. But going back to the older quotes on father's presiding: what did that word mean in the past? What would have presiding looked like to a Latter-day Saints in the 1970s? What would it look like specifically? I'm guessing some specific examples of presiding as it used to be understood might be: the father has the final say on where the family lives, what he does in his career, What the rules of the house are, how budgets would be set. Was this the understanding in the church prior to the 1980s?
I can testify that I have gained understanding on the subject to which you claim to be unclear when going more frequently to the House of the Lord to participate in sealing ordinances💞
Thought provoking subject Conner. I try and keep at the forefront of my observations that the war which started in heaven is real, and is still waging here on earth. Satan and his followers speak to our feelings and minds, and God speaks to our feelings and minds constantly. Satan uses those more accepting to his influence to change the influence of the church as a pattern shown in the scriptures. We will call, I believe accurately, those most easily influenced by Satan, "The World." With this pattern in mind we can see "The World's" point of view as Satan's point of view in this continuing war. I cannot help but be influenced by Elder Eyring's talk where he said many times his wife received revelation from God on a subject prior to he also receiving that same revelation. With this statement in mind, I would suggest that we use all the weapons at our disposal to fight in this continuing war and protect our families and ourselves. Remember, " contention is of the devil" If husband and wife work together to fight for the eternal welfare of their family and themselves, then we cannot fail. I see a woman as spiritually wise by expecting her husband lead, not being influenced by "The World" , and I see a husband as spiritually wise by being sensitive to his wife's spiritual promptings, which he asks God for confirmation for humbly, not exercising unrighteous dominion, and the wife accepting the answer. Personal example; my wife had very unreasonable ideas for design of a house I have built, but am not finished with, but I incorporate her ideas into my design the best I can, which can be design challenging for me, and the end result is pretty cool, but sometimes I have to just say your idea won't work, and do it my way.
This is such a hot topic for so many. Good job presenting in a tactful manner. In my opinion, the family proclamation presiding comes down to that righteousness phrase. Husbands that reign with unrighteous dominion are going to be divorced or jailed by 21st century standards….not the recipe for an eternal family unit that we strive for. Women are just as capable of being domineering and exerting unrighteous dominion in the home also. Both partners need to do what they can to keep the Holy Spirit of righteousness guiding them in their thoughts, words, and actions.
I feel like Heavenly Father is not going to hold the mother responsible for how their family turns out but will turn to the father of the family and hold him accountable. That is the definition of presiding that I understand. I have counseled young women in the past to marry only young men that agrees with you in the major decisions. That way you can trust him to lead the family because you agree with him. You , as a woman, need to trust him to have the family's best interest at heart , even if he makes an occassional mistake. Women , do we really want beta male husbands? I certainly don't.
The Relief Society broadcast (technically recording as it was prerecorded) is quite interesting in light of this discussion. There was a lot of emphasis on women exercising priesthood. It seems like there was a lot of effort to make those pushing for women getting ordained feel better. Of course, that's ignoring that there was a general RS-type of meeting (the format was a bit different than previous Gen RS) and we haven't had any Gen PH meetings for since 2021.
I helped my wife set up the room for this and watched the presentation. It was a bit weird that the one sister emphasized that she was single and had not been married despite being in her mid-forties. I think she was likely targeting her message to single sisters, but it struck me as odd, almost like a tone of indifference toward marriage. She is not unattractive, so it makes me wonder why she chose that path. Maybe I misinterpreted it. Anyway, I did like the message from President Nelson to the sisters that their ability to discern truth will be critical.
@@danjohnson8556 I noticed that even with Sister Johnson's talk, every video/image they cut to during her comments about covenants only showed women and groups of women - no famiies. I feel like we talk about the family proclamatioin, but somehow it appears we don't want to message it. Sister Yee - who I assume you are talking about - seems to have been called to fulfill that function. She does a lot of messages focusing on single sisters. I really don't have too many concerns on that specifically, as there are more and more single sisters not getting married. I don't want to go into anything about her personal life. As family structures are breaking down, it's quite difficult for couples to connect. I have two adult daughters - a little younger than Sister Yee - but once you get out of college, it's very difficult to find people to connect. The singles wards are supposed to facilitate that, but I don't see them being very effective. Sister Johnson's career path and career choices may have limited them. Of course, the reason women in the Church find it difficult to find partners is that we're losing single men at a very high rate. Once you leave college, your exposure to available partners drops significantly. And of course, the focus on sisters while kind of ignoring the men gets that result. We can't only focus on one.
Minute 15:00. This entire discussion emphasies the important of dating couples carefully considering marriage in all its implications. For example, her student debt and credit card debt becomes his debt. His driving record and insurance premiums become her premiums. Her choices how to spend money or how to arrange the furniture or where to live become his choice. If the man and woman espouse similar life choises, then who acts as supervisor or chair or presidor or boss or leader is totally irrelevant.
21:25-22:55 is answering, or attempting to answer the question for me. My understanding of how the leading quorams of the church officiate in spite of differing views, is that they council together until uninementy of voice can be reached,and in this way give voice as one to the church. If we as husband and wife hope to be one through Christ,with the Father and the Son, to rule and reign as king's and queen's I believe,it to be essential for us as a married couple to go forward as one in union of voice , thought and action. This for me squares with the Lord's statement,"if ye are not "one"ye are not mine.
This is actually simpler than anyone is making it out to be. I say this from the perspective of a woman who used to be a single mother, Whose husband was not a church member. I am currently married to a man who joined the church and served with me as an ordinance worker. But I present the idea to you to you as a paradigm of a whole LDS family. This is not about gender roles. God has made us physically capable of certain things based on our gender. Slowly the culture of the world at large is facing this fact. A transitioning male competing in a all female sport has a distinct advantage because he is a biological male. Most of us understand this is unfair and needs to be addressed. So put the biological gender rolls on a shelf, Because clearly men can do manly, things and women can do womenly like things, and both genders can do some of the same things depending on their likes and dislikes. What the church needs to focus on is priesthood. And the way to understand this is simple. When anyone uses their priesthood authority in any degree of unrighteousness, For example when yelling and name calling and physical corporal punishment become the means to manipulate people into doing what is wanted, their priesthood becomes void because of unrighteous dominion. Every man who holds the priesthood and is married to a woman presides in the family like a Bishop or a Stake President president presides in a ward. The husband should be willing to delegate all priesthood to the woman. He should be willing to train her and help her learn how to do what is required. And the best way to understand this is to imagine an example where the woman is home alone and the husband cannot come home for whatever reason; something terrible happens, and now the woman must act. So the question is, Do you really want the woman to not know how, or feel empowered to administer a priesthood blessing? In the moment where the need is dire, All questions of usurpation of priesthood authority become null and void. For a clear example of this look at how women administer priesthood blessings in the temple under authority of a temple president. They bless, anoint and ordain women to the priesthood in the initiatory ordinance. I'm not saying this is the final word, and there is no need for further clarification. But I think this does something to simplify the way we look at it.
I really liked your approach. I have never viewed this topic like that, thank you. And yes, I agree that women in the church should be empowered. I heard stories about the church in Ukraine when men were drafted to the war and women in the church were left powerless because there was no one to lead them or administer the sacrament. The church was scattered in the small towns immediately after the full scale invasion started. We never know what may happen in the future. It is true, if you take men out of the church, there is no church. If you take women out of the church, there is still church. So what does it tell us about women and their worth? I think the problem is that we profoundly misunderstand the priesthood doctrine. Early Christian women were empowered. I don't see Christ putting women in a position of passive receivers of the blessings that come from the men. The most recent findings in early history of Christianity, we find evidence of women being counselors, healers, even prophetesses. If it had a precedent before why not look into it more today.
really interesting how you present presiding showing us the history and how it has evolved as well as some confusion that the Priesthood might have about it today. I think there is no easy answer and that this conflict will always be with us.
This is one of the major topics I've noticed the church changing on, over the years. The changing language in temple endowment always stood out with each change. It used to say "wives, obey your husband..." Then the word "obey" was dropped for "hearken". They also used to say wife was husband's "helpmeet." Now, it's dropped anything about obey or hearken and even says "husband & wife to be helpmeets to each other." We're bending to culture and slowly undoing differences in the sexes, just as is the idealogical subversion in media, acedemia, & hollywood. #yuribezmenovwarnedus
Minute 18:30. These recent Conference Talks are translated into about 90 languages and broadcast to multiple cultures which may not be concurrent with 21st century North American culture. Thus, persuading culturally domineering men to be less domineering is something that Jesus would approve.
Minute 1:00. World wide, religion wide, culture wide, across centuries men preside, provide and protect. President Hinckley's comment contrasting men and women is Self Known by men everywhere. In fact, recently, many young women have posted Instagram videos lamenting their decision to preside, provide and protect their own lives as single women. They want a man to do it.
Very good discussion points. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a Priesthood Holder? All identity seems to have been diminished - I wish we had a Jordan Peterson in the LDS church at times. Taking away of the Priesthood session is a big erosion of our brotherhood in the church. There has been so much squawking that we have ceded any ground we had. Manhood is under attack and the attack will work unless we stand up as men.
I joined the Church convinced that the Church would teach me what I needed to do to be a Father and a Husband. LOL. What they taught me is and was directly opposite to that goal. Two wives later, I now KNOW for myself what needs to be done, what needs to be said, how to kindly but firmly lead the way. The KEY is to lead your wife and children and not let them know you are doing that. The Church taught me to put her, my wife on a pedestal and do ANYTHING she asked of me or anything she wanted. LOL. THAT was a disaster and after years of confusion and heartache and difficulty, we divorced. It was madness and the LDS "Marriage Counselors" were a mess. Second wife, I had a better idea but still, didn't have it all figured out. One thing I did learn was to NEVER listen to your Church leaders nor LDS Marriage Counselors. Use your common sense. Do what needs to be done without the drama and the confusion. You set your way and your direction and quietly and firmly go about pursuing that way, open to suggestions of course, but not in any sort of "drama". Kids and wives bring drama. You have to be peaceful and full of good-hearted conviction to lead them and to love them and to be kind yet firm. After 41 years of marriage to TWO women and some time alone, I finally "caught on". LOL. Yes, the Church has DESTROYED Patriarchy in its ranks and to me that is so sad.
Young women should not marry Returned Missionaries simply because a Church leader tells them to do so. Every year, 50,000 missionaries Return, but not all 50,000 are marriage material. Duh. Men should not take husband advice from Church leaders. The Church teaches Two Laws: Moses' Lower Law aka 10 Commandments and Jesus Higher Law aka Temple Endowment. Apart from those Two Laws, The Church's advice on real estate, occupation, whom to marry, how to be a husband, politics, guns, free speech etc etc etc as outside the wheelhouse. You should have known better before you got wife #1.
This was a really interesting topic to consider. I can’t say I have a good definition of what it means for a father to preside if we’re talking about all members of the church simply because there are is such a variety of family dynamics that exist. However I feel I can speak on behalf of how my own family functions. I feel my husband has given me a lot of autonomy to make decisions in our family, specifically with our kids; their piano lessons, sports, preschool, the pediatrician they see, ect. We often counsel but for the most part those are decisions that fall on me because I’m the one that’s with them all day and getting them where they need to go. However from time to time my husband has brought up concerns or plans that he wants to implement. An example would be suggesting we have too many activities and need to scale back. I follow his council because 1. He’s already shown his trust in my judgement 2. He wouldn’t bring it up if it wasn’t important to him. 3. We counsel together to make the best decision that we are both happy with. I liked the analogy of a bishop because I feel a good bishop trusts his relief society president, YW president, elders quorum president. But will suggest, correct, or implement as needed.
This is a good question. I would really like to know the answer. I think that the older statement about children being confused and even rebellious without the example of a mother that follows a father have merit bc as this tendency in society has changed society seems to society has degrade. On the other hand, in some places at some times, society has become severely corupt and oppressive under the rule of men that didn't view women as equal to them. Early Deseret, with polygamy was an example of that. Women really were treated as like property, and unwanted boys also suffered because they had the potential to become a threat to the powerful man that wanted many wives. So, what do we do?
Just a thought. Eve was brought forth by man’s rib. Where is the rib physically located? I believe the Lord taught us from the beginning and then gave further instruction, i.e. Family Proclamation
In biology, chromosomal material is located in, wait for it, ribs. Men's Y chromosome appears to be a modified or broken X, with a rib having been removed from it. (I have a Biology degree, but you don't have to take my word for it, start researching it and I think you may find it spiritually fascinating!)
What if it’s not an either/or? What if both the early church leaders and the modern leaders have tried to clarify but the men of the church haven’t listened. What if it’s one of those instances where the Lord has asked, the people haven’t obeyed, so the lesser law is all they can talk about, since the men of the church have demonstrated it’s all they are willing to follow? In one of President Nelson’s first talks to the men, he called on them to rise up and do better. In my little corner in the Utah corridor, I witnessed a lot of men shrug it off. I still share this talk with my husband and sons, and it seems to fall on deaf ears 🤷♀️
These different teachings don't actually seem in conflict when you apply the principle of husband and wife becoming one flesh. Zion starts in the family. We should be of one heart and one mind, that requires husbands and wives to work alongside one another, regardless of the fact that men preside. Men and their wives should be off one mind, and then men should enact.
This is really interesting. I recently heard some really great stuff about this from Sandra Tanner. I challenge all active LDS members to go and listen to her full story.
Context is everything! The current priesthood leaders have been speaking to the challenges of the people in their given places and times. Just like when Paul sent letters to each of the seven churches in Asia Minor…..the letters addressed different challenges each ward was having with the specific members in their congregations. The challenges of the Roman Saints were different from the challenges of the Corinthian Saints, so therefore different counsel was given to meet their needs. Today, General Conference is addressing the whole Church-so the counsel will be more generalized allowing the Spirit to deliver the specific message. Presently the whole Church is receiving one letter to be applied where needed. In earlier generations, most men were doing their duty, but some were not. The Spirit’s job is to convict the hearts of those who need to change and provide the standard for them to do better. Generally speaking most men were living up to that standard, because of the teachings of the previous generation, their role models who applied those standards, and the duty that they themselves had developed in the military fighting world wars. Therefore they knew their duty to God, family, and country, and they demonstrated it, by rising to the occasion. Today because of society’s attack on manhood, we have different challenges that have diminished the strengths and successes of the past. Today’s culture, education, role models, and norms, have weakened men and their families. Because of this, women have had to rise to the occasion-to make up the difference. This was a hard thing but a good thing for women. One does not know their own strength until it is challenged. This opportunity allowed women to see what we were truly capable of. “As such a time as this,” the counsel today is to be equally yoked, which necessary action, was needed to preserve the family unit. In the past, women have not had the freedom, opportunities, or the role models to know how capable they were. Their mothers were legally kept down, not allowed to own land, to provide for themselves, and not allowed to have a vote in their own future. Basically they were indentured slaves….having taxation without representation and there was no hope in the future to govern their own affairs. Currently women are now free to act for ourselves and we have the role models to see how that looks in the real world. We have found our freedom, agency, and our voice. This type of “equity” was the prerequisite that was needed so that women could fulfill our divine role and divine destiny…..allowing us the opportunity to be an equal partner to our husbands. All these things had to happen “for they were the means in fulfilling the desired end” goal. We are now living in the days of Esther, she and us, are living “in such a time as this” when male and female are uniting to fulfill our divine Union and roles. She is the example of how to be both queen and priestess to our husbands. Ultimately we are to be united as one king and queen on the throne in the household of faith….”neither is the man without the woman in the Lord.” Unified as one. The story of Esther is important now, because the present eclipses 2020-2024 have the same pattern that happened during Esther’s day-,prior to her being crowned as queen. We have seen the sign in the constellation of Virgo, spoken of in the book of Revelation’s description of “the woman with the sun on her shoulder and the moon under her feet”-ready to birth the “kingdom of heaven.” The sign was given September 23, 2017 and then the eclipses (2017-2024). Woman is the mother of all living as was the case with Mother Eve. The Tree of Life (representing the feminine deity) is being placed back into the Temple as it should have been all along.. The love of God is to His wife (mother in heaven) and the love they produce (or fruit that they produce) is their Son Jehovah. She (like Esther) will finally be crowned to take back Her rightful throne sitting by Her husband.
There is something greater than patriarchy that even the ancient patriarchs and civilizations lived. It was called matrilineal patriarchy and one might consider studying matrilineal patriarchy prior to the division of priesthoods. Essentially, the mother's duty, right, and spiritual responsibility religiously and culturally, was to select, nuture, raise up, and prepare the next patriarch, who would be ordained or given the birthright by his father. From Eve to Moses's wife, Zipporah, the mother's responsibility was taken seriously and is a perfect explanation for many misunderstood and distorted biblical stories. In this way, a mother's and father's influence was naturally balanced in marriage and family life. In my mind, preside
I’ve seen a trend in the Christian realm where they are going back to a man presiding in the home. Many of my Protestant Christian friends male and female are embracing the patriarchal order and seem to be very happy doing so. While on the other hand I’ve seen the culture of church leaders make jokes about wives always being right and men are typically wrong and think to myself how can men rise to prepare themselves and their families for Christ’s second coming if we degrade and belittle their role in the family and society. Even if it’s just jokes and light humor it sends a powerful message to fathers and youth who will become fathers one day that they might be secondary and not even equal. Just my thoughts.
I think you are correct. The church could do a great service by standing firm and clearing this up so everyone can understand. I think they from the past and present are saying the same thing-ish. But not clarifying in a way that we can really help everyone understand. I believe that “Equal” does not mean “the same”. Both are equally in importance and in authority in their own way. Presiding righteously means that the man leads his family making decisions that are informed by the needs, desires and feelings of his wife and children. And what is best for the marriage and family. When a woman feels strong leadership that is considering the above, she knows that even if he gets it “wrong” sometimes, his priority in choices is for their good and not him being selfish, or a dictator. This gives her the ability to support and sustain his leadership and can relax knowing he will take care of those things. She can then fulfill her role. The wife has her own roles in leading the family and that is sometimes carrying out the plan along side. They should counsel together or how else would he have the information to lead. She needs her man to assume a strong role to create a safe environment for her to do her role that is equally powerful and maybe more so since she has great influence in the home and in the nurture of her children. Women have so much more power in divine feminine dynamic than they could ever have in masculine roles such as “priesthood positions”, corporate boardrooms, presiding in the home. I can find all of this in those talks and throughout the scriptures. Just nobody is teaching it in a way that clarifies.
We need to look to the covenants we make. Righteous men submit to the will of God. And righteous women submit to their husband, as the husband submits to God. Yet Eve was allegorically created from the rib of Adam to be at his side. Not above or below him. Celestial marriage covenants are made with a man and a woman who both wholly covenant to the Lord individually. All of these things can be true at the same time. And also, my patriarchal blessing says something to the effect of “…your wife will stand equally beside you as your counselor and helpmate…preside in the home in truth and righteousness, protect your family from harm, evil and the dangers of the world”. If somebody can’t figure out how to be a priesthood leader and preside in their home while their spouse stands at their side. Both being before God equally. Then they need to continue to study the scriptures and counsel with the lord to figure that out. Prophets help us navigate the world in our day. While maintaining eternal truths and doctrine.
any man who contradicts the ancient prophets is not a prophet and we don't need a modern prophet to tell us the same things we have been told by all the prophets . if we want more specific personal answers , prayer is always best we met years ago and i admire and support your other works but i only recently found your youtube channel - > this video surprised me
God did not make the gospel because He is God God is God because He obeys the gospel Our Father came to earth first to show us the way His Son came in the meridian of time to show us again and to fulfill His unique part to satisfy justice we are not asked to be like other christians we are not asked to be like other saints He invites us to be like Him that includes how we raise our family babylon has gone to the extreme but the gospel is eternal
Preside is done with the wife’s help and nurturing is done with the husbands help. Just like Joseph couldn’t translate until he made things right with Emma, to preside, a man has no authority if he is not one with his wife. Both are to be in harmony and seek to be one with God. And you don’t go forward until you are. That’s the hard part. The priesthood ban was not lifted until every member of the quorum felt it was right (and they finally asked the right question) Just like the brethren need to be one in their decisions so do the husband and wife. Preside means to just lead that effort. ETA: it’s isn’t so much a checklist of things to do but a matter of the heart and how you treat your family and persuade them out of love, long suffering, to help them see it your way if you truly feel you’re r”right.” D&C 121 is a blueprint for how to preside.
The Priesthood holder presides. But it should be by persuasion, not compulsion. The woman should not be presiding. My wife and I work as a team. It’s wonderful. We both work at the things that need to get done.
Ask yourself this, do you think Heavenly Father is constantly (every minute, every hour of making decisions that impacts our earth and individuals) is checking back with Heavenly Mother asking her "is this ok?" "what do you think about this?" 😂 No, and I suppose it isnt just because hes all knowing and perfect. He knows his role and responsibility and his wife supports and trusts his decisions whether she disagrees or not. Im sure she agrees 💯 with everything he does because they are ONE in mind and spirit. Maybe one day in eternity spouses can reach that level of clarity and unity. Obviously, our leaders are still confused on the matter.
Because we have no doctrine about a Heavenly Mother, it's hard to theorize about how God has a relationship with her, if she even exists. There's no scriptural basis. It seems logical, that there is one. It there is a Heavenly Mother, I would expect that neither of them check in with each other about everything. And I can't imagine any people agreeing with each other perfectly about everything.
I see it like a king. He’s the ultimate decision maker in his kingdom and he takes council from others in his decision making. So a husband may be the ultimate decision maker while coinciding with his wife as the nurturer in their home. This is obviously when a father/husband is presiding in righteousness.
According to an Interpreter Foundation article from 2018 titled Was Adam meant to rule over or rule with Eve? Genesis 3:16 means in context that" rule over" is a king ruling over his people. The article's interpretation is that it is a consequence of the Fall and not a positive for marriage. It's an interesting article worth muling over. Here is an excerpt." However, when the Lord tells Eve “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” the word Hebrew word for “desire” does not refer to a romantic attraction, but rather a contentious wish to “overcome or defeat another.”[9] In addition, the “rule” of the husband depicted in Hebrew version of the phrase is not benevolent but controlling.[10] The sense of this terrible situation is well captured in a modern Bible translation: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”[11] As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.”[12]
I'm not sure I agree with your comment about protect and provide being a mortality only need. Didn't Heavenly Father protect us from external factors (if not, why did we need to come here and be trained and filtered to our place in the eternities), and later from our elder brother who wished to supplant Him? Didn't He provide us a place to come for that training and filtering, and comfort in hard times?
The reason why I don't approve of making the Family Proclamation "scripture" is because of the language that husbands and wives are "equal partners". I hate that language. There is nothing equal about the roles of men and women at all.
I always understood “equal” not as “the same”, but meaning just “as important, as essential”. I think that’s the spirit of it, that’s what’s trying to convey, but the world will understand it differently of course.
The context in the Proclamation seems to convey they mean they are equal in value, but different in their roles. It's possible to be equal in value but have different roles, each role is just as important as the other even though they're not literally the same.
why wouldnt my hubby protect, provide and preside in heaven?.... Heavenly Father has literal wars he is over...he creates ans rulew over galexies of land ....he has a family and is preaiding over it now
The reason the church has not been consistent in regards to priesthood authority is because they are reluctant to receive further revelation that women are infact equal to men in power and authority. It’s yet another example of the church reluctantly dismissing a long held practice that goes against the true nature of God. All patriarchy has interpreted the roles of women and men as of God and not as a result of the fall. God warned Eve that men would rule over women. That doesn’t mean God wanted men to rule over women. Also, I would argue that God and Christ scripturally speaking has already recognized women with power and authority. Also, original source documents NOT included in gospel essays explain women with the fullness of priesthood authority include Emma Smith and Mary the mother of Jesus. The church is confusing for a reason.
I really wish Boyack would do more research on any number of topics before spouting off on yet another video. First, the Church is the scaffolding with which eternal families are built. Not the former the extension of the latter. Second, husband and wife being equally yolked, while the man presides, is not mutually exclusive. If you do some actual gospel study on presiding in the family context, it has mainly to do with the husband's priesthood roles, i.e. taking the lead in family prayer, giving blessings, baptizing children, etc. This isn't rocket science and its not unclear. The Brethren shouldn't have to hold your hand and spell every jot and iota out for you.
I believe as a single mother that men as sons of God have all the rights as priesthood holders to lead the home in rightchasness. Mothers have all the power as Mothers to make decisions that are needed at home and even when fathers luck a vision because are to busy with the load of responsibilities. Think about Rebecca wife of Abraham, because of her intervention the Pristhood was safe in Jacob who was more obedient then Esue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Larter Days Saints had all the doctrine of Christ; And its Leaders are been guided by revelation and so we too. If you are guided by the Spirit of the Lord and keep the commitment and covenant there is no need of leaders to tell us every single step we need to do. The Lord told his disciples be one if you not one you not my. Also, men and women will leave mother and father and unite to one onothet and become one. One in God. This topic shouldn't be complicated if we Fowler the Lord. ❤
What does it mean to preside? 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; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
The church is morphing to fit in with the world, Holland even claimed that. Separately, the church is a corporation - its goals are to get customers and survive.
Symbolically, the man has always represented government and the woman is the church. Each have complimentary dominions. Just like the church is to submit to the laws of the land, the government is to provide an atmostphere with laws that ensure safety and structure (knowledge). Church is for teaching, nurture, compassion compassion (wisdom). All things must be done in order and righteousness...if there is dysfunction, we are allowed grace to create balance in each different situation.
I tend to think of Jacob or Abraham, they are invested in not only the survival but in allowing their families to thrive. They personally taught their sons to fulfill their roles. Even Jacob made his own meal, and then sold it to obtain something more fulfilling for him and his posterity, though his brother labored exhaustively he obtained no meat and turned to the nurture and patience of his brother. Esau still worked and became a wealthy man, Jacob worked and was taken advantage of but patiently he obtained some wealth and a name. I would suppose the Father to preside is to be an honorable priesthood barer and though the Mother is a natural nurturer, we are to obtain charity still. The 2000 Stripling warriors had the example of their father’s repentance, their mother’s nurture and faith, and Helaman’s leadership, though they knew what was to be done and it was Helaman who did not want to compromise them. They filled their father’s role in work and protection and their fathers did provide in their sacrifice, repentance and choice in companion. In the last days people will be lovers of their own selves and even if the Adversary alters the social structure the Lord will use that to still serve His purposes. Conventional wisdom would criticize the fathers of the 2000 Stripling Warriors, for abandoning their families and laying down their weapons even for defense but in the end it served a superior purpose in presiding over their families.
I can say this, I sure miss the Priesthood session at Conference. I still have no idea why it was done away with, it was my favorite part of Conference. I guess it offended somebody or something.
@16:29 equally yoked, partnership, anti hierarchy, is counter to biblical teachings and an impending disaster for society and the church. Sharp criticism is in order for women in the church, in my opinion. There is a division within the body of the church, on one side there are traditional Mormons who hold to the paradigm of the past when truth was more black and white. On the side, there are the modern LDS, who are quite liberal minded, embracing, diversity, and inclusion, viewing all worldly changes in church policy as progress, even if it contradicts early church teachings.
Who protests their Church you either Believe it or you don't if you don't like what it teaches go make your own or find one that teaches what you want to hear that's a thought kind of sounds familiar too
I think that presiding means that the husband/father takes responsibility for the direction and the decisions that are ultimately made. If a man is not strong enough to stand up to his wife as she turns away from covenants, the family follows suit and he never stands up for what’s right, that onus is on him. She can make her own decision- but he is responsible for keeping HIS covenants and inviting his family to keep covenants. He ultimately stands before God to make an accounting for his role in shaping future generations. He and his wife counsel together- they are a presidency, but if something goes awry, he’s the one who takes responsibility. It’s no different than in a church meeting: the presiding authority has the responsibility to ensure that the meeting doesn’t go off the rails. In my presidency, I counsel with my counselors, but if I make a call (even at their behest) I take responsibility for it. If a ship goes down, the captain takes responsibility- not the first mate.
Complementarianism (equal but different, with neither above the other: a partnership) has replaced patriarchy (unequal and different, with husband over wife: a monarchy) in the Mormon church. The Proclamation on the Family was written up with complementarianism in mind, but while still using language that harkened back to patriarchy. Mormons are patiarchal in name only today, not in deed. Patriarchy, plural marriage and other past practices have been stopped and scrubbed from the church over time for various reasons. One particular reason is so that prophecy can be fulfilled. The end-time Elias cannot come and restore all things (see Matt. 17:10-11), which restoration of _all_ things must, _by definition_ , include a _church restoration_ , unless the church has lost some practices. If the church remained perfectly whole and unchanged from the time of Joseph Smith onward, Elias would not be able to make any repair or restoration to it, thus falsifying Jesus' prophecy.
I often thought the scriptures portray the husband as the executive branch. The wife as the legislative branch. God's laws (scriptures) the judicial branch. This means the woman can override a husband's veto if she vehemently opposes a decision he makes. But I may be wrong.
You're wrong. That would mean that a wife decides how everything is to be. And the man just carries out what she decides, and nothing else (since the executive branch can make ZERO legislation).
Thanks for the reply. Yes its not black and white. And there is a lot of overlap. Just as God can be part of executive and legislative decisions, etc. Notice how the legislative branch operatives in a house? As in House of Commons, House of Representatives. Similar to how women with children are in charge of the house. While the executive branch handles more external duties. And can veto the house when necessary. Although the House can override that veto too. So its complicated.
Think about "counsel and labor together in love and righteousness" Im sure there was misunderstanding and abuse in cultures where the father is all powerful and dictatorial. That isn't presiding .
That’s great for the lucky wives that have trustworthy righteous husbands, thank goodness I have a marvelous husband and I’m totally fine with him being in authority, I’d not be great in that role. But what about the ones who weren’t as fortunate, what should they do?
I suggest that the example for presiding in the home is the way the preisthood is designed (as in D&C 121) - through long suffering, gentleness and love unfeigned, and not exercise of authority or power. If we look at the President of the Church with the Q12, we can see that the presiding officer is to gather the information and work to get agreement by all of the apostles. Ultimately, the presiding officer has the authority and the accountability to make a final decision, but should not act until there is agreement. I suggest there's a reason why preside and lead, rule, manage, etc are different words. The concept of power over others has no place in the priesthood or in the marital relationship. On the 1973 article by Brent Barlow, I notice they refer to an 2020 article by Alan J. Hawkins, PhD, Director of the School of Family Life atBYU and Laura Waters Black. In the article, they give some great advice, and of course, they use exclusively an example of male behavior as the problem. But they key missing part is any discussion of presiding, and they make a point to drop those parts from their quotes from the Family Proclamation. I guess one could argue that they were focusing on partners coming together as one, but it's interesting how the editor's note uses that as a reference to update a talk on the patriarchal order.
@@cboyack No, Joseph and Brigham both made unilateral decisions that the others followed. Sometimes they would council with them but they would have the final say. This changed with future prophets to the point today where we rule by the council that must be unanimous before taking action. This has made us more careful, but less able to deal with issues quickly and decisively.
Yes! One problem with many in the church is that we don’t study the gospel or ask God to teach us personally what these things mean. There is so much information out there and personal revelation if we will just step up and do the work to find out what God wants for us.
@@cboyack - I guess you have to ask if D&C 26 is truly a prophecy? To answer your question, they both offered them up to the membership for sustaining. I suggest they did that to the extent possible with the Q12. Sure, they would give revelationwithout agreement before hand, but the sustaining was part of the process. I suggest using those as examples of using your authority to control your wife is misplaced and is a violation of the principles found in D&C 121. So the real question is what are you trying to suggest? I think I understand, but it seems like it goes a bit off the rails at times. I fully agree with you in general about roles in the family, although I hear some specific things that I disagree with. Feminism is too focused on power dynamics in regards to women, and I get a little concerned when I see/hear a bit of backlash by reversing that. The Bishop is called to preside over the ward - that doesn't make him superior or better, it just means that he is the one called, set apart and accountable for ward. It's a function of order. There can't be two leaders. It causes chaos. In my home, I am called to preside over my family.
I don't see any contradictions I believe every Church leader would agree that to preside has always meant, "Men, listen to your wives! In that is wisdom! It never meant be the boss! A couple presides side by side... Adam's rib was taken from his side!
1828 from Websters PRESI'DE, verb intransitive s as z. [Latin proesideo; proe, before, and sedeo, to sit.] 1. To be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer. A man may preside over a nation or province; or he may preside over a senate, or a meeting of citizens. The word is used chiefly in the latter sense. We say, a man presides over the senate with dignity. Hence it usually denotes temporary superintendence and government. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over as inspector.
As a mom, I can tell you that I LOVE being home with my children. I love being able to hear about their day, the good and the bad.
Thank you for being a good example and caring for your children. You are taking a stand against Babylon and we need more people like you.
I did too. It was worth the sacrifice of having to live on one income. It was hard to make ends meet a lot of times.
@@kgreene9935 The funny/ironic thing is that it's often as cheap or cheaper. The costs of the second parent going to work is often offset by the costs of actually going to work - transportation, wardrobe, child care, etc. Even when I was a poor airman making very little, my wife and I explored that and it was always cheaper for her to stay at home. Of course, she wasn't in a position to get a high paying job. Of course, neither was I at the time.
What double incomes have really done is mangle the economy. Regardless of what we think or want, the family is the basic economic unit. THe more double incomes, the more it becomes the standard and the markey adapts to it. All the young folks complaining how they can't get by on two salaries much less one, and their predecessors who insisted on dual incomes to blame. The economy has shifted to expect that.
I wish God made more like you and the church nurtured more women to be like you. I have watched all my sisters and sister in laws and my nieces fall for the trappings of Babylon and corporate servitude instead of traditional family values. I love feminine traditional women.....very hard to find a Gen X or Millennial one to marry . They all want dogs, careers and travel it seems
@@ruckin3 My daughters all want to be moms. I’ve stayed home with them the whole 17 years.
I think Greg Matsens Cwic video "The Priesthood is Not What You Think" is a great answer to what is being addressed here. I encourage all to go listen to it.
I 2nd that. I'll be watching it again and again. I think the answer to Connors question is there
I loved it as did my husband and we have shared it with several people this week
Yes
This resonates. I've been called "a man's man" all my life..... something I've gotten annoyed with over time, but as "that type" of guy I can say I've felt lost at church for the past several years. It's clear the church does not want to encourage warrior minded men to step up. Rather the messaging is the opposite, that we need to fade away and be less.
On top of that, in my own home I am left wondering how to lead when i have a partner who resents any such idea strongly. I am successfully married for nearly fifteen years and we've managed OK, but I was shocked to find, upon marrying my sweetheart, that she simply refused to be lead at all.... period. I have been left to debate with her ALL decisions regarding the family and am locked out of many of them and in order to keep enough peace to live with I've had to capitulate. In short, the roles are reversed.
How does one lead when the thought offends one's partner? Ironically the partner who is offended insists on the executive role herself on most matters.
Hang in there brother 💪, our day is coming.
I'm in the same boat. I wish I had had a conversation with my wife shortly before getting engaged. In it we would decide and commit to our roles in the relationship. I'm sure arguments would still come up but if we had spoken of these things beforehand it would have been easier to maintain my boundaries. When young men ask me for advice before they get married I tell them to have two conversations. This is one of them. Sometimes the man or woman can't see eye to eye and they end up breaking things off. In the situations where they make such commitments it has laid a firm foundation for their marriage.
I had that situation, and unfortunately I'm now divorced. It seems a lot of women have been raised thinking they can pick and choose what they want from a man. They like the idea of a man leading, but they don't want to follow. They want the benefits without the responsibilities.
But don't give up. To righteously preside means that you have to lead, but as the leader in God's kingdom, you have to represent the interests of all those that you lead. So you have to make sure that your wife feels heard and that when you make a decision, you have valued her opinion equally as your own. Try to cultivate an environment where your wife feels you honestly listen to her and value her opinion, and always take her advice seriously, which makes it much more likely that she will respect your decision when you make it. And if you have a history of making good decisions where you weren't being selfish, then at those times that you have to do hard things she will respect you and still follow.
the church has leaned into a gynocentric feminist frame and it is destroying fathers, family formation , marriage. I WANT to be married but I will not sign up to be in constant battle with a wife. If she doesnt trust me to lead ....then she married the wrong guy .
Im a multi millionaire who works with loads of people respectfully in order to get projects completed. If we were all equal and those I presided over, were constantly challenging my direction, nothing would get done....and I would stop working with them and get another to work with. I treat all my employees and subs respectfully and am kind to all of them and "treat them as equals" but I do preside and am the Alpha with the project...and they all understand that and it works out great.
Men are stepped on in Christian circles today....loaded with beta males and feminists.
I feel for you my man. I have several friends in this position and at least one person in my RUclips subs who has confided in me that they struggle with this and its driven them to the edge of divorce It is really hard to watch the church foster the egos and ambitions of the women in the church while ignoring what is happening to the men.
Our girls camp theme was "you are enough" and my wife wears the branded sweatshirt around the house to annoy me because it 1) It's the opposite message of the plan of salvation and 2) They would NEVER put that on anything they expected a boy to wear.
The prophets in scripture are Alphas, as was Jesus. (I like your term warrior-minded) The priesthood is a tool to turn men loose on their potential. It's a head-scratcher why they treat women as if they are fragile while telling them they are strong.
One of the reasons I miss my husband so much. He passed 2 years ago. So now he isn’t here at what will probably be the most challenging time of our lives. I know his mission has changed and I have grown sons with the priesthood but sometimes I feel overwhelmed. I do have to point out , not bc you have a problem with it Conner, but we are to follow & sustain our husbands as long as they preside righteously. I feel like our Church leaders are pointing that out also. Enjoy your Sunday musings.
*"...as long as they preside righteously."*
Yes! The wife is to follow her husband *only inasmuch as he is following the Lord.* If he starts to follow his own path, and authoritatively demands that his wife obey his wicked demands, she is instantly under no obligation to obey him; i.e. "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."
When men preside righteously, whether here or after this life, they progress, and they clear the way for those in their stewardship to progress, as well. If women presided, they could be very capable, but most men would not progress, and the plan of salvation would be forever frustrated.
So the old statements about the husband presiding are correct, but must include the caveat that his right to preside is entirely dependent on his righteousness. But if he doesn't, then his wife may -- and *should* -- take over the presiding role in the family.
Yes.
I'm sorry for your loss. That must be hard.
I think following husbands as long as they preside righteously is a tare that has grown up with the wheat. That requirement was removed from the endowment. My take is that it should have never been there, not that it should be there, but we are appeasing current cultural norms. The original D&C 101, that stated marriage promises, did not say that women were to follow and hearken to their husbands.
Then the problem may arise concerning what constitutes "Presiding righteously"?
My exwife would tell me she did not have to listen to anything I say because i wasn't presiding righteously, citing spending too much time at work, not heading family prayer consistently, & not reading my scriptures everyday.
Ever since the church stopped having a priesthood session every conference, I have had to look more outside the modern leadership for masculine examples to emulate. That's why so many people have flocked to Jordan Peterson and others. For those who don't believe we currently live in a Matriarchal society (with useful male idiots), you should read Hugh Nibley's article "Patriarchy and Matriarchy."
This may sound silly, but I first started noticing this in the Bernstein Bears I read to my children when they were little. Then in sitcoms. And Disney has been pushing this idea for years imo.
THAT was your take-away from general priesthood meetings?!?
Presiding, means making the hard calls when stakes are high and consequences are intense. You'll need your team (family) to buy in, so you cant alienate them. This means being skilled at mediating and negotiating as well as directing and correcting.
Sounds like long suffering, gentleness and love unfeigned...
I feel like this topic just reeks of political correctness. And 100% a Worldly point of view. Always needing to sew division and contempt.
As a woman I don’t feel the need to hold the priesthood. I don’t feel like my Life is less fulfilled because of it. I think a lot of women get upset by this topic because they’re listening too much to the whisperings in their ear from the world, instead of thinking for themselves. And in part I don’t think it’s 100% their fault; because those whisperings have been happening at least to some of us our entire lives.
Have you ever listened to Valerie Hudson’s “Two Tree’s” lecture? It is on RUclips I would start about 3 min in. It would be interesting to hear your feelings about Sister Hudson’s observations and understanding.
Yes so many are trying to sow division without knowing they reap what they sow instead of sewing patches to repair clothes.
Women not having the priesthood is not something that has been explained. Prophets have said that we don't know why women don't have the priesthood. Any answers people give are theories. If even prophets don't know why, then it seems a little self-righteous to say that anyone who wonders about this is NOT thinking for themselves. This isn't a problem for you, but that doesn't mean you are more righteous than people who wonder, without answers.
@@charisecarlsonyour comment is a bit confusing as I don’t recall a prophet responding to this question as they don’t know. The priesthood is an administrative role given to men to aide them in their calling to wash themselves clean of the blood and sins of their generation. Sisters are washed and clean as they fulfill their priesthood calling to give life. The life they give is turned over to the husband to see that saving ordinances are conferred upon that child which both the father and the mother have fullness of patriarchal priesthood responsibility for the child’s soul (body and spirit) again I refer your to the excellent address concerning your question posted above. See also elder oaks, christopherson and Eyring each have addressed this topic in recent conferences.
@@brianbacon3106 Okay, so we agree that we don’t have a definitive answer as to why women don’t have the priesthood. Also, I don’t agree that women have to give birth to fulfill priesthood duties. You really think God created a path for people that only Mormon men with the priesthood and only Mormon women who give birth can fulfill their duties? That doesn’t make sense.
I didn’t understand, but now I am grateful my Dad was an atheist, but I knew he was the head of our home, as I have watched the men in the church they have no backbone, but he honored and loved my Mom and treated her with total respect and love and they were married at 16, he was more of a Priesthood holder than the men I have watched the way they treat their wives! I am so grateful my Dad was the head of our home!
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, *as they suppose,* they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39)
Sounds like your dad didn't suppose that he had a little authority, and so never got drunk on power. Member or nonmember, believer or atheist, the order of the family with the father at the head is entirely dependent on the father's righteousness. And it sounds like he fulfilled his role well. 😌
@@jasonsellers56 That's one scripture when they quote in General Conference they don't hurriedly add "and women" do they?
@@romdos11 I always read it as men encompassing humanity, therefore women are included in the word men. I don’t need ‘woman’ stated for me to think it applies to my life; it’s sad that so many in this world want it spelled out for them.
@@amynazza I understand it that way too which is why it bothers me when they do that in Gen Conf. I feel it is pandering to the wokesters and trying to get the praise of the world. I wonder if we will eventually see a schism in the leaders. Joseph Smith once gave us a "key that will never rust" which is go with the majority of the 12 and the church records, whatever that means. That worries me that he felt he had to say that.
If the father presides in the home, what's he doing taking direction from the church and worrying about what the church thinks? The father is entitled to personal revelation concerning his stewardship. Do you believe this, or is it just a Mormon euphemism? Who is in charge of your life? The church? The feminists? God?
I preside in my family, not over my family. As such, and as one who is entitled to revelation concerning my stewardship, and as one who has the faith to ask God for wisdom, and actually receive an answer, the revelation I received on this matter was for both of us to seek the Spirit and with that same spirit, become on ONE HEART and ONE MIND. My will is my spouse's will and my spouse's will is my will, and both of our wills are the Lord's will. There is no fighting or contention within our walls, for over 37 years.
This is the reason why it is so imperative for church members, after their water baptism to seek to be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. If this isn't happening in you home and family, you are so far out of line with God, and how it will be in Zion, and how it is in heaven, that nothing else you do matters
Beautiful
Exactly this. It is a partnership with my husband and God. We are working to bring ourselves and our family closer to God. That is the ultimate goal.
Great video. My take. Filtering this issue through the scriptures, I would side with the earlier church leaders. I see no scriptural basis for equally yoked.
Agreed 100%. We have different roles and it's important to view this issue from history and the scriptures rather than clouded by our modern lense.
Define equally yoked. The phrase can have drastically different meanings, from beliefs, education, intelligence, faithfulness, etc.
@@RichardChappell1 Having interchangeable stewardships
@@watcherpalmerlds I would agree with that completely. I don't often see that usage anywhere. Normally I see at as level of belief or intelligence - as in member/non-member marriages - which I suggest present many problems, or different capacities, which I see no concerns with per se.
Thankyou watcherpalmer. You ain't scared of speaking the truth.
I feel scared of the consequences of men being emasculated. It’s difficult because as a women, as society falls apart the increased responsibility that I will be responsible for worries me. I believe following the leaders and the way we grew up with men in the presiding role is beneficial to me and my family. But if anything happens death or divorce, you are now thrust into a world where it will take you being a girl boss to make it financially and have no one to rely on but yourself. If have to be the man and the women. It’s like we are on two different tracks in the world and it’s increasingly difficult to see how this is gonna work out for future generations.
About 5 minutes into the major tribulations of the last days, feminism will be an incomprehensibly ridiculous though experiment.
In the RS broadcast this weekend there was a major emphasis on women having the priesthood, or specifically, covenant keeping women have just as much priesthood power and authority as covenant keeping men.
This really got me thinking, what does it mean then to be ordained and set apart to an office in the priesthood? What is even the point to ordaining men if all you have to do is keep covenants to have priesthood power and authority?
(To be clear, Church leaders usually refer to women having priesthood “power” and “authority” but rarely/never will say that women “hold” or “bear” the priesthood)
I encourage you to go to the temple repeatedly until you get your answers. Specifically, do initiatories. Then go do some sealings and speak to the sealer about what ordinances are different between men and women and why that is. If you have done enough initiatories before you have that conversation, you’ll be able to have the words come to mind that matter, and everything will make sense. Ask and ye shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. All the answers are in the temple! ❤❤❤
Just being endowed doesn’t mean you can do ordinances. If you are a worker you are set apart but only in the temple.
Enjoyed the discussion here in light of today's "protest". I think as we enter harder times strong men will be needed and these luxury beliefs of easy times will start to fade.
Protest?
@@barb7014The ATC (activism towards the church) groups of females (Julie Hanks, Michelle Stone, Jana Reiss and a slew of others who foment division between the sexes in the church and many others in our local wards and stakes) planned a women walk out today during church. I’m not saying those I named planned it, but their ideologies that they push have given way to activism and action now. Nobody in our ward walked out, in fact, we had our highest women attendance in a while today.
Feminism is cancer.
@@dcarts5616 As a convert in Texas, I’ve never experienced these radical views. I’m delighted your ward was filled with women choosing the right. Thanks for the info.
@@barb7014 Texas women are usually awesome, and less susceptible to the liberal pathogen infection.
I agree they'll be needed, but I fear the church (and society in general) will reap what we've sown from decades of bending to gynocentric culture, which I believe is Marxist & communist cultural subversion by design, as Yuri Bezmonov warned us about.
Pres Benson, j Reuben Clark, and other long since passed church leaders warned us of the same :(
But things started really changing in the church around Pres Hinckley's time.
Minute 9:00. To Preside = To Chair A Congessional Committee which means that the Chair gives time for Everybody to weigh in, to comment, to persuade, to speak, to argue, to question.
To Preside: verb; to excercise guidance or direction; to act as a chairperson or moderator.
I am LDS and my husband is not. A son also not. I love my husband dearly and it's a great guy but I sure wish he would have been the leader. I have had to do all the leading and it makes me very sad he has abdicated that responsibility. We don't even really discuss much. I have to do it all. I am absolutely NOT a feminist but he is. As we are aging he is going to suffer the consequences of his abdication.
Once upon a time in Christendom the pendulum swung too far in favor of men. Women were told to obey and submit to their husbands even if they are abusive. Not submitting to an abusive husband is as biblical as submitting to a husband that strives to be Christlike.
Now it has swung too far in the other direction. I was told that to preside meant that I get to choose who says the prayers. However my wife doesn't respect that "authority" when she doesn't want to.
I think that Nephi set a perfect example of what submission looks like broke his bow and made a new one. Even though his father has murmured he knew that his father was a good man who had simply made a mistake. Nephi decided to extend his father grace because he knew that his father typically had his best interest at heart. Nephi submitted to his father, and Lehi, being the good man he was repented and was able to empower his son to find animals to hunt.
We all have to submit to others in this life. Husbands have to submit to bosses and priesthood leaders. Christlike leaders will empower us when we submit. We need to destigmatize that word. If we submit to the right people it's not a form of slavery. It's a path to empowerment.
In country swing, the man leads, the woman follows. As she follows, the man lifts and elevates her above himself to heights she can not attain on her own. As he becomes her strength, she comes to respect, adore and rely on him. As they work to be in sync with one another they become one in purpose and achieve together what they can not achieve alone.
I like that!
Perfect example. I love that!!
That gave me goosebumps. So beautifully illustrated! Seeing a couple dance or ice skate together brings a magical kind of joy, and men (and women :) are that they might have joy.
Preside is not authority, (this is an earthly perspective). Preside means to make sure the job gets done. Whatever the obstacle.... Get it done! That is why the direction to "preside with/in love and righteousness".
This is the correct answer!!!!!! Also when they do this in love and righteousness means to sacrifice and do for their families what Christ does for us. It is actually a servant role.
@@becourteous6414 Leadership is always a servant role.
I always think of King Mosiah. He was a king with presumably absolute power but he ruled righteously. I think that's an ideal to strive for as we preside.
Thank you! I wanted to say something similar, but now I don't have to! ❤❤
responsibility to get things done without the authority to do it is an extremely unjust proposition. No wonder men are struggling so much.
I am so grateful for a wife who expects me to lead. She helps me to be a better man. I do my best to listen to her counsel and make decisions together, and once we reason together I make sure the plan is put into practice.
I would propose you consider that there is still a need in the afterlife for the man to provide and protect. We just don't know what that looks like. Just like a resurrected body still has a heart or a digestive tract, those organs have and will have purpose. The roles of provide and protect will still exist in the next life.
Great point! And Father in Heaven is providing and protecting us down here.
@@truthfox1844 , good points. I didn't think of that.
Your comment will apply for only those who attain Eternal Marriage/Celestial life. Right?
@@l7846 , that's a good question. Even they don't have a family of their own, they are still a part of HF's family, as his children. I haven't thought about it but what purpose do terrestrial and telestial bodies serve? I can't help but believe that these people will have some purpose to fulfill, I think they will at least have to provide (something). The question of whither they will have to protect is still in doubt.
Agree with the above point. And disagree with Connor’s final point that we “know how to provide and protect.” I think we need constant consistent clarity and prophetic prioritization in all three.
Minute 20:00. My dad "presided" by gently nudging us to behave better. Also, he acted as a sounding board (for me and for my two brothers and two sisters) for whatever Issue Of The Day happened to arise.
He "presided" consistenty from 1955 (when he first became a father) until 2022 when he died at age 91. I once asked my dad, "Aren't you exhausted by being a father (to five adult children) for so long?" He answered with a slight grin.
A lot of what came from early Utah church leaders was heavily influenced by the “doctrine” of polygamy. Having two parents equally yoked in following Christ is a protection that one won’t lead in the wrong direction. Anytime there is one insisting that they have the final say and are in charge, this is unrighteous dominion. Instead parents should be making decisions together on what is best for their family. My husband and I decided it was best for us that I stay home and school our children, while he worked. Later we felt led by God for him to leave his business and for us to move our family to a farm in the country. We made these decisions together as we both sought to know the will of God and to become more like our Savior.
The church was originally set up to be run with this same protection- common consent. The idea that one person was in charge is what led the church off track into abominations and the “following a leader at all costs” mentality.
"Final say" cannot be unrighteous dominion, else the word "preside" is meaningless.
@@danjohnson8556it is interesting, the word “preside” is not used in the Bible at all (disregarding chapter headings which were added later by the lds church) and only one time in the BOM. I wonder how important this concept really is, or what it means?
@@danjohnson8556when a husband and father says something should be a certain way no matter what anyone else in the family think or feel, with the excuse that he presides and is in charge, that is definitely unrighteous dominion. First of all, we are all agents unto ourselves, so one person cannot have such authority over another.
When the church leaders use that word "preside" I'm most certain they're meaning in the context of the priesthood as an order. You preside, or lead, by example, by encouragement, by SERVICE. Some of these older quotes Connor shared seemed very heretical to me and not consistent with scripture. They're the result of the polygamy era false teachings. The clip that Connor shared of Boyd K. Packer is SPOT ON, and that whole talk is spot on, go find it.
Then he doesn't preside over the family.
Easy during conference define it followed by thus sayeth the Lord, I’m a convert and it’s a confusing message coming out about transgenderism and apparently some Bishops giving callings to active Gays having callings, even saw recently a transgender attending the Temple, it’s causing confusion, I’ve nothing against gays but where does it put the Family a Proclamation to the World, it’s simple and true and beautiful, I personally through revelation believe our prophet is the prophet but I believe church media are completely off the rails and are really trying to be part of the world same as the neutering of men. As a member I’m also deeply concerned with the churches involvement with the UN and representation with the European Union, all who are involved with strategies not in line with freedom, I’ll always look to the Lord, since Russell M Nelson has been profit he has. Emphasised the importance of being worthy to receive our own revelation and secular is trusting in the arm of flesh, right now the Catholic’s are having problems with the Pope whose coming out with things like blessing gay unions, taking part in a pagan worship service l, even saying that pedophelia isn’t that wrong and they have a special place in Heaven, he is setting up. New world religion called Chrislam, I agree we need clarity and the Lords church is simple and clear that’s the beauty of it.
I'm just old enough to remember when teenage boys were told that they were the presiding priesthood authority in the home when their fathers were away. I don't know that anyone actually put the kid in charge over his mother, but that was the implication. I can't tell you when that faded away but I remember hearing it.
Same in our home while growing up.
That was not just in LDS circles either. Watch some old western movies or war movies and they show the father telling the teenage son that he’s in charge while the father is away.
I see marriage as a ballroom dance. The vast majority of women will walk off the dance floor if the man can not lead her. Nor does she want to lead him.
But it takes 2 to tango. She has to agree with every decision made in the dance. And he must listen to her wants and desires.
If not, she will say, "See ya."
Preside might mean that men have the responsibility of being in strong connection with God to receive revelation for the family to guide in the weightier decisions.
Like I choose what the family eats every day but my husband chooses where we are moving to. I am glad I have him to make these bigger decisions for our family, it’s his responsibility.
I respect my husband's priesthood authority. However, I disagree that something as obvious as what pertains to good health habits is the same as where to LIVE. That should be a shared decision. In fact, the mother's feelings about that should hold more weight since a support network in raising the children how you both want to raise them is so vital. I mean, however your marriage works well, works. That's great. But I have to weigh in that this is not how God thinks, in general, a family should be managed: being that the man has assign deicisons and then the women has assigned decisions. They should be made with considering both side's intuition and stewardship, through the authority of a priethood holder who takes it all to God.
@@AngelPuff1012You’re right. If it was a place I didn’t like I’d say no, let’s trust God and wait for a better option. But if it was where the job took him, well, I guess we’d have to go. But thank goodness he has great judgment, so I don’t need to worry much, it makes it easy for me. It’s not the same in every family though. In some families it’s the woman who has better vision thus taking the lead, and the husband is more of a follower rather than a leader, I know some. I’m more of a follower myself.
Go to God and let Him teach you what He wants you to do instead of waiting for an organization or a man to tell you what you should do. God is waiting for us individually to come to Him for our answers.
Does one member of the Godhood preside and if so does that mean they aren’t equal and unified? You don’t hear God the Father and Jesus Christ speaking simultaneously in unison. One speaks at a time but they are perfectly unified.
But who is unified with who? Jesus said he did the will of the Father in all things, so one was the head...
I don't think that presiding in the home is any different from presiding in other church affairs. We can look at how the prophet presides in meetings with his counselors and apostles.
The presiding authority makes the final decision, but it's not his own will that he's seeking. He takes into account The interests of all those over whom he presides, and then makes a decision for the body. His right to preside will be respected as long as everyone feels heard and valued equally. A leader who is self-serving, or playing favorites, will not continue to be respected.
I would propose that the power of a presiding authority is directly proportional to fairness or righteousness of that authority. So if we want more authority to preside in our homes, maybe we need to do a better job at earning it, which we do by demonstrating our selflessness and by listening and valuing the counsel of our wife. The wife has to do her part as well, but we can only persuade her to respect our authority, not coerce. So let's be more persuasive.
Except that's not what the brethren say. I recall a talk by Elder Oaks at the time specifically saying that this equal partners way of presiding in the home is NOT the way it works in Church hierarchy. In Church hierarchy, the presider makes the final decision. But not in the home. So if you think this presiding thing in the home is not any different from presiding in other church affairs, then you are not listening to what they are saying.
This is perfectly said, well done!
At the real heart of it, I truly believe no women can properly respect a man that won't lead, whether they realize it or not.
Also, if a man is leading in righteousness, guarantee you a righteous woman would happily submit everytime because she knows he is competent, considering the best path forward for her and the kids partially by counseling with them to understand their needs.
Women don't respect their husbands these days. And in the church the main reason my husband and I have seen for this is that the man is either not leading, or not leading righteously.
@@g71816 I actually think that you can be both equal partners, and have one preside. You're equal in the sense that both of your opinions and preferences matter equally. But anytime you are making a decision for a group, someone has to make the decision, And the voice of each of the individuals in the group has to be taken into account.
Of course the ideal that we are striving for is that both the man and the woman will become so unified that they want the exact same thing, in which case it matters in less and less who is actually making the decision or being the voice for the group. The more unity there is, The less individual differences matter.
I think the real issue is that we take concepts of power from the world and apply them to leadership in God's kingdom (whether we are talking about the church or the home). In the world, power is sought for personal gain, but in God's kingdom, power is a duty that we accept, not seek, And it is only used for blessing others.
I have read that one every decision the Brethren are united/unanimous in their decisions. They talk about an issue and if even one person is unsettled, they table the issue and revisit until all are unanimous. Ever since I read that it gave me guidance on how to handle decisions in the family - meaning unanimity between my wife and myself - not the children! lol
Husbands and wives being equally yoked and the husband presiding are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has experience with training a team of oxen or draft horses knows that there is always one who is the leader/pace setter and the other matches the pace. Picking a good team has so much to do with the temperament of the animals and how they work together.
To me presiding as a husband is not about being entitled to your wife's respect, loyalty, obedience, etc. But rather that you as a man are called and given the responsibility to earn your wife's and childrens' trust, loyalty, etc. through selflessness, righteous judgment, fairness and consistency, serving, loving, open communication and actually listening to and valuing the opinions and input from your wife and children and so on.
Presiding is to love your wife and children as Jesus loved his Apostles. He was their minister. When you've shown your wife and kids that you have their best interest at heart then your family will be able to move in the direction the Lord who is actually at the reigns wants you to go.
It is not us vs. them. It is us vs. The adversary and the Lord showed us the pattern to follow if we want to beat the adversary.
Don't try to take the reigns from the Lord. That is not presiding.
Based on the comments here, its apparent, sadly, members are confused as to the role fathers/husbands have. The variety of opinions clearly shows that. This is the reflection of the conflicting and contradicting messages our prophets/apostles & current culture have taught over the years. Do they even know? There must be a clear cut definition. Why has "eternal" doctrines changed? God is not an author of confusion so who's confusing the definition?
I think Connor hit the nail on the head. This culture is seriously confused and struggling to live the intended doctrines, practices and roles of men and women instead of both submitting to their God given roles as originally taught. This isn't an evolving progression of revelation. This is a result of wordly inspired indoctrination mingling with scripture paraded by as latter day revelation.
I think it can help to realize that Joseph Smith taught marriage differently than Brigham Young. You can read the original D&C 101. And Brigham Young's teachings have been the guiding force in the church since he was President. We've slowly been getting rid of his teachings, like polygamy, black priesthood ban, that Adam was God, that some people should be killed for certain sins - no due process (including women caught in adultery, but not men), and that women should obey their husbands. Brigham Young and Willard Richards wrote the endowment in the 1870s, before the St. George temple was dedicated. BY preached vehemently against women. If you look at our church's teachings through the lens of BY's teachings, and how we are pulling away from those, it makes more sense. At least to me.
I've been thinking about that word "preside" in the proclamation of the family for a long time. The way the roles of husband and wife are taught today makes the word preside absolutely meaningless. It can be just as well applied to the wife as it is to the husband. I don't think this was intended by the original document. The word preside has meaning. "Equal partners" is much more ambiguous of a term... equally necessary, equally important, etc.
I've done what you said and asked fellow members what they think it means for the man to preside. And I get the same thing that you do. Just confusion for the most part. Someone tried to argue that it means the husband has the responsibility to make sure his family is exalted, but that he does not have the right to make decisions. That sounds like such an unjust structure to me. Responsibility without any authority.
It is obvious to me that the eternal nature of the family is absolutely patriarchal. God the Father is the presiding authority of his great family. Everything in the scriptures points to this truth. It blows my mind that we are throwing all that away because of cultural changes in the last 50 years.
When Zion is redeemed, very few will remain that accept the principles that it is built on.
Thank you, Connor, for another thoughtful discussion that made me think. It’s hard to give a short answer.
To me presiding means that I strive to demonstrate to my children and others that my wife is consulted on atmosphere and policy matters pertaining to
family finances, parenting, chores, job changes, etc ;and to come to agreement in ways that evoke loving kindness in the process and acceptance of her good ideas too. Hopefully, a bad day in life can be a good day in our marriage if Jesus Christ and his ways are included in the discussion process.
We do need clarification on that issue. Thanks for this, it’s awesome!
I think we have it - it's just that so many don't like the answer...
My uncle, who is a bishop, brought up this exact question at a family gathering. Everyone there was very orthodox, yet still there was a lot of hesitation to attach basically any meaning to the word preside.
But going back to the older quotes on father's presiding: what did that word mean in the past? What would have presiding looked like to a Latter-day Saints in the 1970s? What would it look like specifically? I'm guessing some specific examples of presiding as it used to be understood might be: the father has the final say on where the family lives, what he does in his career, What the rules of the house are, how budgets would be set. Was this the understanding in the church prior to the 1980s?
I can testify that I have gained understanding on the subject to which you claim to be unclear when going more frequently to the House of the Lord to participate in sealing ordinances💞
Thought provoking subject Conner.
I try and keep at the forefront of my observations that the war which started in heaven is real, and is still waging here on earth. Satan and his followers speak to our feelings and minds, and God speaks to our feelings and minds constantly. Satan uses those more accepting to his influence to change the influence of the church as a pattern shown in the scriptures. We will call, I believe accurately, those most easily influenced by Satan, "The World."
With this pattern in mind we can see "The World's" point of view as Satan's point of view in this continuing war.
I cannot help but be influenced by Elder Eyring's talk where he said many times his wife received revelation from God on a subject prior to he also receiving that same revelation. With this statement in mind, I would suggest that we use all the weapons at our disposal to fight in this continuing war and protect our families and ourselves. Remember, " contention is of the devil"
If husband and wife work together to fight for the eternal welfare of their family and themselves, then we cannot fail.
I see a woman as spiritually wise by expecting her husband lead, not being influenced by "The World" , and I see a husband as spiritually wise by being sensitive to his wife's spiritual promptings, which he asks God for confirmation for humbly, not exercising unrighteous dominion, and the wife accepting the answer.
Personal example; my wife had very unreasonable ideas for design of a house I have built, but am not finished with, but I incorporate her ideas into my design the best I can, which can be design challenging for me, and the end result is pretty cool, but sometimes I have to just say your idea won't work, and do it my way.
This is such a hot topic for so many. Good job presenting in a tactful manner. In my opinion, the family proclamation presiding comes down to that righteousness phrase. Husbands that reign with unrighteous dominion are going to be divorced or jailed by 21st century standards….not the recipe for an eternal family unit that we strive for. Women are just as capable of being domineering and exerting unrighteous dominion in the home also. Both partners need to do what they can to keep the Holy Spirit of righteousness guiding them in their thoughts, words, and actions.
I feel like Heavenly Father is not going to hold the mother responsible for how their family turns out but will turn to the father of the family and hold him accountable. That is the definition of presiding that I understand. I have counseled young women in the past to marry only young men that agrees with you in the major decisions. That way you can trust him to lead the family because you agree with him. You , as a woman, need to trust him to have the family's best interest at heart , even if he makes an occassional mistake. Women , do we really want beta male husbands? I certainly don't.
The Relief Society broadcast (technically recording as it was prerecorded) is quite interesting in light of this discussion. There was a lot of emphasis on women exercising priesthood. It seems like there was a lot of effort to make those pushing for women getting ordained feel better.
Of course, that's ignoring that there was a general RS-type of meeting (the format was a bit different than previous Gen RS) and we haven't had any Gen PH meetings for since 2021.
I helped my wife set up the room for this and watched the presentation. It was a bit weird that the one sister emphasized that she was single and had not been married despite being in her mid-forties. I think she was likely targeting her message to single sisters, but it struck me as odd, almost like a tone of indifference toward marriage. She is not unattractive, so it makes me wonder why she chose that path. Maybe I misinterpreted it. Anyway, I did like the message from President Nelson to the sisters that their ability to discern truth will be critical.
@@danjohnson8556 I noticed that even with Sister Johnson's talk, every video/image they cut to during her comments about covenants only showed women and groups of women - no famiies. I feel like we talk about the family proclamatioin, but somehow it appears we don't want to message it.
Sister Yee - who I assume you are talking about - seems to have been called to fulfill that function. She does a lot of messages focusing on single sisters. I really don't have too many concerns on that specifically, as there are more and more single sisters not getting married. I don't want to go into anything about her personal life. As family structures are breaking down, it's quite difficult for couples to connect. I have two adult daughters - a little younger than Sister Yee - but once you get out of college, it's very difficult to find people to connect. The singles wards are supposed to facilitate that, but I don't see them being very effective. Sister Johnson's career path and career choices may have limited them.
Of course, the reason women in the Church find it difficult to find partners is that we're losing single men at a very high rate. Once you leave college, your exposure to available partners drops significantly.
And of course, the focus on sisters while kind of ignoring the men gets that result.
We can't only focus on one.
Minute 15:00. This entire discussion emphasies the important of dating couples carefully considering marriage in all its implications. For example, her student debt and credit card debt becomes his debt. His driving record and insurance premiums become her premiums. Her choices how to spend money or how to arrange the furniture or where to live become his choice.
If the man and woman espouse similar life choises, then who acts as supervisor or chair or presidor or boss or leader is totally irrelevant.
21:25-22:55 is answering, or attempting to answer the question for me. My understanding of how the leading quorams of the church officiate in spite of differing views, is that they council together until uninementy of voice can be reached,and in this way give voice as one to the church. If we as husband and wife hope to be one through Christ,with the Father and the Son, to rule and reign as king's and queen's I believe,it to be essential for us as a married couple to go forward as one in union of voice , thought and action. This for me squares with the Lord's statement,"if ye are not "one"ye are not mine.
This is actually simpler than anyone is making it out to be. I say this from the perspective of a woman who used to be a single mother, Whose husband was not a church member. I am currently married to a man who joined the church and served with me as an ordinance worker. But I present the idea to you to you as a paradigm of a whole LDS family. This is not about gender roles. God has made us physically capable of certain things based on our gender. Slowly the culture of the world at large is facing this fact. A transitioning male competing in a all female sport has a distinct advantage because he is a biological male. Most of us understand this is unfair and needs to be addressed. So put the biological gender rolls on a shelf, Because clearly men can do manly, things and women can do womenly like things, and both genders can do some of the same things depending on their likes and dislikes.
What the church needs to focus on is priesthood. And the way to understand this is simple. When anyone uses their priesthood authority in any degree of unrighteousness, For example when yelling and name calling and physical corporal punishment become the means to manipulate people into doing what is wanted, their priesthood becomes void because of unrighteous dominion. Every man who holds the priesthood and is married to a woman presides in the family like a Bishop or a Stake President president presides in a ward. The husband should be willing to delegate all priesthood to the woman. He should be willing to train her and help her learn how to do what is required. And the best way to understand this is to imagine an example where the woman is home alone and the husband cannot come home for whatever reason; something terrible happens, and now the woman must act. So the question is, Do you really want the woman to not know how, or feel empowered to administer a priesthood blessing? In the moment where the need is dire, All questions of usurpation of priesthood authority become null and void. For a clear example of this look at how women administer priesthood blessings in the temple under authority of a temple president. They bless, anoint and ordain women to the priesthood in the initiatory ordinance. I'm not saying this is the final word, and there is no need for further clarification. But I think this does something to simplify the way we look at it.
I really liked your approach. I have never viewed this topic like that, thank you. And yes, I agree that women in the church should be empowered. I heard stories about the church in Ukraine when men were drafted to the war and women in the church were left powerless because there was no one to lead them or administer the sacrament. The church was scattered in the small towns immediately after the full scale invasion started. We never know what may happen in the future. It is true, if you take men out of the church, there is no church. If you take women out of the church, there is still church. So what does it tell us about women and their worth? I think the problem is that we profoundly misunderstand the priesthood doctrine. Early Christian women were empowered. I don't see Christ putting women in a position of passive receivers of the blessings that come from the men. The most recent findings in early history of Christianity, we find evidence of women being counselors, healers, even prophetesses. If it had a precedent before why not look into it more today.
really interesting how you present presiding showing us the history and how it has evolved as well as some confusion that the Priesthood might have about it today. I think there is no easy answer and that this conflict will always be with us.
This is one of the major topics I've noticed the church changing on, over the years. The changing language in temple endowment always stood out with each change. It used to say "wives, obey your husband..." Then the word "obey" was dropped for "hearken". They also used to say wife was husband's "helpmeet." Now, it's dropped anything about obey or hearken and even says "husband & wife to be helpmeets to each other."
We're bending to culture and slowly undoing differences in the sexes, just as is the idealogical subversion in media, acedemia, & hollywood.
#yuribezmenovwarnedus
Yeah, way confused on this and frankly disheartened. I fully understand unrighteous dominion. What about rightous dominion?
Minute 18:30. These recent Conference Talks are translated into about 90 languages and broadcast to multiple cultures which may not be concurrent with 21st century North American culture. Thus, persuading culturally domineering men to be less domineering is something that Jesus would approve.
Minute 1:00. World wide, religion wide, culture wide, across centuries men preside, provide and protect. President Hinckley's comment contrasting men and women is Self Known by men everywhere. In fact, recently, many young women have posted Instagram videos lamenting their decision to preside, provide and protect their own lives as single women. They want a man to do it.
Gender is eternal. Preside, provide and protect l
Very good discussion points. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a Priesthood Holder? All identity seems to have been diminished - I wish we had a Jordan Peterson in the LDS church at times. Taking away of the Priesthood session is a big erosion of our brotherhood in the church. There has been so much squawking that we have ceded any ground we had. Manhood is under attack and the attack will work unless we stand up as men.
I joined the Church convinced that the Church would teach me what I needed to do to be a Father and a Husband. LOL. What they taught me is and was directly opposite to that goal. Two wives later, I now KNOW for myself what needs to be done, what needs to be said, how to kindly but firmly lead the way. The KEY is to lead your wife and children and not let them know you are doing that. The Church taught me to put her, my wife on a pedestal and do ANYTHING she asked of me or anything she wanted. LOL. THAT was a disaster and after years of confusion and heartache and difficulty, we divorced. It was madness and the LDS "Marriage Counselors" were a mess. Second wife, I had a better idea but still, didn't have it all figured out. One thing I did learn was to NEVER listen to your Church leaders nor LDS Marriage Counselors. Use your common sense. Do what needs to be done without the drama and the confusion. You set your way and your direction and quietly and firmly go about pursuing that way, open to suggestions of course, but not in any sort of "drama". Kids and wives bring drama. You have to be peaceful and full of good-hearted conviction to lead them and to love them and to be kind yet firm. After 41 years of marriage to TWO women and some time alone, I finally "caught on". LOL. Yes, the Church has DESTROYED Patriarchy in its ranks and to me that is so sad.
Young women should not marry Returned Missionaries simply because a Church leader tells them to do so. Every year, 50,000 missionaries Return, but not all 50,000 are marriage material. Duh.
Men should not take husband advice from Church leaders. The Church teaches Two Laws: Moses' Lower Law aka 10 Commandments and Jesus Higher Law aka Temple Endowment. Apart from those Two Laws, The Church's advice on real estate, occupation, whom to marry, how to be a husband, politics, guns, free speech etc etc etc as outside the wheelhouse. You should have known better before you got wife #1.
Provide; Here is space... Here are materials.... We will form an earth, where these, our children, may dwell.
This was a really interesting topic to consider. I can’t say I have a good definition of what it means for a father to preside if we’re talking about all members of the church simply because there are is such a variety of family dynamics that exist. However I feel I can speak on behalf of how my own family functions.
I feel my husband has given me a lot of autonomy to make decisions in our family, specifically with our kids; their piano lessons, sports, preschool, the pediatrician they see, ect. We often counsel but for the most part those are decisions that fall on me because I’m the one that’s with them all day and getting them where they need to go. However from time to time my husband has brought up concerns or plans that he wants to implement. An example would be suggesting we have too many activities and need to scale back. I follow his council because 1. He’s already shown his trust in my judgement 2. He wouldn’t bring it up if it wasn’t important to him. 3. We counsel together to make the best decision that we are both happy with. I liked the analogy of a bishop because I feel a good bishop trusts his relief society president, YW president, elders quorum president. But will suggest, correct, or implement as needed.
This is a good question. I would really like to know the answer. I think that the older statement about children being confused and even rebellious without the example of a mother that follows a father have merit bc as this tendency in society has changed society seems to society has degrade. On the other hand, in some places at some times, society has become severely corupt and oppressive under the rule of men that didn't view women as equal to them. Early Deseret, with polygamy was an example of that. Women really were treated as like property, and unwanted boys also suffered because they had the potential to become a threat to the powerful man that wanted many wives. So, what do we do?
Just a thought. Eve was brought forth by man’s rib. Where is the rib physically located? I believe the Lord taught us from the beginning and then gave further instruction, i.e. Family Proclamation
In biology, chromosomal material is located in, wait for it, ribs. Men's Y chromosome appears to be a modified or broken X, with a rib having been removed from it. (I have a Biology degree, but you don't have to take my word for it, start researching it and I think you may find it spiritually fascinating!)
What if it’s not an either/or? What if both the early church leaders and the modern leaders have tried to clarify but the men of the church haven’t listened. What if it’s one of those instances where the Lord has asked, the people haven’t obeyed, so the lesser law is all they can talk about, since the men of the church have demonstrated it’s all they are willing to follow?
In one of President Nelson’s first talks to the men, he called on them to rise up and do better. In my little corner in the Utah corridor, I witnessed a lot of men shrug it off. I still share this talk with my husband and sons, and it seems to fall on deaf ears 🤷♀️
These different teachings don't actually seem in conflict when you apply the principle of husband and wife becoming one flesh. Zion starts in the family. We should be of one heart and one mind, that requires husbands and wives to work alongside one another, regardless of the fact that men preside. Men and their wives should be off one mind, and then men should enact.
This is really interesting. I recently heard some really great stuff about this from Sandra Tanner. I challenge all active LDS members to go and listen to her full story.
Context is everything!
The current priesthood leaders have been speaking to the challenges of the people in their given places and times.
Just like when Paul sent letters to each of the seven churches in Asia Minor…..the letters addressed different challenges each ward was having with the specific members in their congregations. The challenges of the Roman Saints were different from the challenges of the Corinthian Saints, so therefore different counsel was given to meet their needs.
Today, General Conference is addressing the whole Church-so the counsel will be more generalized allowing the Spirit to deliver the specific message. Presently the whole Church is receiving one letter to be applied where needed.
In earlier generations, most men were doing their duty, but some were not. The Spirit’s job is to convict the hearts of those who need to change and provide the standard for them to do better. Generally speaking most men were living up to that standard, because of the teachings of the previous generation, their role models who applied those standards, and the duty that they themselves had developed in the military fighting world wars. Therefore they knew their duty to God, family, and country, and they demonstrated it, by rising to the occasion.
Today because of society’s attack on manhood, we have different challenges that have diminished the strengths and successes of the past. Today’s culture, education, role models, and norms, have weakened men and their families. Because of this, women have had to rise to the occasion-to make up the difference. This was a hard thing but a good thing for women. One does not know their own strength until it is challenged. This opportunity allowed women to see what we were truly capable of. “As such a time as this,” the counsel today is to be equally yoked, which necessary action, was needed to preserve the family unit.
In the past, women have not had the freedom, opportunities, or the role models to know how capable they were. Their mothers were legally kept down, not allowed to own land, to provide for themselves, and not allowed to have a vote in their own future. Basically they were indentured slaves….having taxation without representation and there was no hope in the future to govern their own affairs.
Currently women are now free to act for ourselves and we have the role models to see how that looks in the real world. We have found our freedom, agency, and our voice. This type of “equity” was the prerequisite that was needed so that women could fulfill our divine role and divine destiny…..allowing us the opportunity to be an equal partner to our husbands. All these things had to happen “for they were the means in fulfilling the desired end” goal.
We are now living in the days of Esther, she and us, are living “in such a time as this” when male and female are uniting to fulfill our divine Union and roles. She is the example of how to be both queen and priestess to our husbands. Ultimately we are to be united as one king and queen on the throne in the household of faith….”neither is the man without the woman in the Lord.” Unified as one.
The story of Esther is important now, because the present eclipses 2020-2024 have the same pattern that happened during Esther’s day-,prior to her being crowned as queen.
We have seen the sign in the constellation of Virgo, spoken of in the book of Revelation’s description of “the woman with the sun on her shoulder and the moon under her feet”-ready to birth the “kingdom of heaven.” The sign was given September 23, 2017 and then the eclipses (2017-2024).
Woman is the mother of all living as was the case with Mother Eve. The Tree of Life (representing the feminine deity) is being placed back into the Temple as it should have been all along.. The love of God is to His wife (mother in heaven) and the love they produce (or fruit that they produce) is their Son Jehovah. She (like Esther) will finally be crowned to take back Her rightful throne sitting by Her husband.
There is something greater than patriarchy that even the ancient patriarchs and civilizations lived. It was called matrilineal patriarchy and one might consider studying matrilineal patriarchy prior to the division of priesthoods. Essentially, the mother's duty, right, and spiritual responsibility religiously and culturally, was to select, nuture, raise up, and prepare the next patriarch, who would be ordained or given the birthright by his father. From Eve to Moses's wife, Zipporah, the mother's responsibility was taken seriously and is a perfect explanation for many misunderstood and distorted biblical stories. In this way, a mother's and father's influence was naturally balanced in marriage and family life. In my mind, preside
I’ve seen a trend in the Christian realm where they are going back to a man presiding in the home. Many of my Protestant Christian friends male and female are embracing the patriarchal order and seem to be very happy doing so. While on the other hand I’ve seen the culture of church leaders make jokes about wives always being right and men are typically wrong and think to myself how can men rise to prepare themselves and their families for Christ’s second coming if we degrade and belittle their role in the family and society. Even if it’s just jokes and light humor it sends a powerful message to fathers and youth who will become fathers one day that they might be secondary and not even equal. Just my thoughts.
The correct order was taught in the endowment. It has been removed by popular demand. 😔
or by modern revelation. Do you think we should bring back the other teachings that were removed 30 years ago?
@@hermanmackay8611 other teachings? I must not be old enough. 😮😂
We change things when necessary.
Pearls before swine.
@@hermanmackay8611 They are still there whether taught or talked about.
I think you are correct. The church could do a great service by standing firm and clearing this up so everyone can understand.
I think they from the past and present are saying the same thing-ish. But not clarifying in a way that we can really help everyone understand.
I believe that “Equal” does not mean “the same”. Both are equally in importance and in authority in their own way. Presiding righteously means that the man leads his family making decisions that are informed by the needs, desires and feelings of his wife and children. And what is best for the marriage and family. When a woman feels strong leadership that is considering the above, she knows that even if he gets it “wrong” sometimes, his priority in choices is for their good and not him being selfish, or a dictator. This gives her the ability to support and sustain his leadership and can relax knowing he will take care of those things. She can then fulfill her role. The wife has her own roles in leading the family and that is sometimes carrying out the plan along side. They should counsel together or how else would he have the information to lead. She needs her man to assume a strong role to create a safe environment for her to do her role that is equally powerful and maybe more so since she has great influence in the home and in the nurture of her children. Women have so much more power in divine feminine dynamic than they could ever have in masculine roles such as “priesthood positions”, corporate boardrooms, presiding in the home. I can find all of this in those talks and throughout the scriptures. Just nobody is teaching it in a way that clarifies.
We need to look to the covenants we make. Righteous men submit to the will of God. And righteous women submit to their husband, as the husband submits to God. Yet Eve was allegorically created from the rib of Adam to be at his side. Not above or below him. Celestial marriage covenants are made with a man and a woman who both wholly covenant to the Lord individually. All of these things can be true at the same time. And also, my patriarchal blessing says something to the effect of “…your wife will stand equally beside you as your counselor and helpmate…preside in the home in truth and righteousness, protect your family from harm, evil and the dangers of the world”.
If somebody can’t figure out how to be a priesthood leader and preside in their home while their spouse stands at their side. Both being before God equally. Then they need to continue to study the scriptures and counsel with the lord to figure that out. Prophets help us navigate the world in our day. While maintaining eternal truths and doctrine.
any man who contradicts the ancient prophets is not a prophet and we don't need a modern prophet to tell us the same things we have been told by all the prophets . if we want more specific personal answers , prayer is always best
we met years ago and i admire and support your other works but i only recently found your youtube channel - > this video surprised me
God did not make the gospel because He is God
God is God because He obeys the gospel
Our Father came to earth first to show us the way
His Son came in the meridian of time to show us again
and to fulfill His unique part to satisfy justice
we are not asked to be like other christians
we are not asked to be like other saints
He invites us to be like Him
that includes how we raise our family
babylon has gone to the extreme but the gospel is eternal
Preside is done with the wife’s help and nurturing is done with the husbands help.
Just like Joseph couldn’t translate until he made things right with Emma, to preside, a man has no authority if he is not one with his wife. Both are to be in harmony and seek to be one with God. And you don’t go forward until you are. That’s the hard part. The priesthood ban was not lifted until every member of the quorum felt it was right (and they finally asked the right question)
Just like the brethren need to be one in their decisions so do the husband and wife. Preside means to just lead that effort.
ETA: it’s isn’t so much a checklist of things to do but a matter of the heart and how you treat your family and persuade them out of love, long suffering, to help them see it your way if you truly feel you’re r”right.” D&C 121 is a blueprint for how to preside.
The Priesthood holder presides. But it should be by persuasion, not compulsion. The woman should not be presiding.
My wife and I work as a team. It’s wonderful. We both work at the things that need to get done.
Preside, provide and protect are all one and the same. Cant do one without doing the others.
Ask yourself this, do you think Heavenly Father is constantly (every minute, every hour of making decisions that impacts our earth and individuals) is checking back with Heavenly Mother asking her "is this ok?" "what do you think about this?" 😂 No, and I suppose it isnt just because hes all knowing and perfect. He knows his role and responsibility and his wife supports and trusts his decisions whether she disagrees or not. Im sure she agrees 💯 with everything he does because they are ONE in mind and spirit. Maybe one day in eternity spouses can reach that level of clarity and unity. Obviously, our leaders are still confused on the matter.
Because we have no doctrine about a Heavenly Mother, it's hard to theorize about how God has a relationship with her, if she even exists. There's no scriptural basis. It seems logical, that there is one. It there is a Heavenly Mother, I would expect that neither of them check in with each other about everything. And I can't imagine any people agreeing with each other perfectly about everything.
Actually the man has the right to agree with his wife or face disaster.
I completely agree with you.
I see it like a king. He’s the ultimate decision maker in his kingdom and he takes council from others in his decision making. So a husband may be the ultimate decision maker while coinciding with his wife as the nurturer in their home. This is obviously when a father/husband is presiding in righteousness.
According to an Interpreter Foundation article from 2018 titled Was Adam meant to rule over or rule with Eve? Genesis 3:16 means in context that" rule over" is a king ruling over his people. The article's interpretation is that it is a consequence of the Fall and not a positive for marriage. It's an interesting article worth muling over. Here is an excerpt." However, when the Lord tells Eve “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” the word Hebrew word for “desire” does not refer to a romantic attraction, but rather a contentious wish to “overcome or defeat another.”[9] In addition, the “rule” of the husband depicted in Hebrew version of the phrase is not benevolent but controlling.[10] The sense of this terrible situation is well captured in a modern Bible translation: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”[11] As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.”[12]
I'm not sure I agree with your comment about protect and provide being a mortality only need. Didn't Heavenly Father protect us from external factors (if not, why did we need to come here and be trained and filtered to our place in the eternities), and later from our elder brother who wished to supplant Him? Didn't He provide us a place to come for that training and filtering, and comfort in hard times?
The reason why I don't approve of making the Family Proclamation "scripture" is because of the language that husbands and wives are "equal partners". I hate that language. There is nothing equal about the roles of men and women at all.
I always understood “equal” not as “the same”, but meaning just “as important, as essential”. I think that’s the spirit of it, that’s what’s trying to convey, but the world will understand it differently of course.
I use "complementary" partners
Good point. I never thought of it that way.
@@greentree_that is how I have looked at it as well.
The context in the Proclamation seems to convey they mean they are equal in value, but different in their roles.
It's possible to be equal in value but have different roles, each role is just as important as the other even though they're not literally the same.
why wouldnt my hubby protect, provide and preside in heaven?....
Heavenly Father has literal wars he is over...he creates ans rulew over galexies of land ....he has a family and is preaiding over it now
The reason the church has not been consistent in regards to priesthood authority is because they are reluctant to receive further revelation that women are infact equal to men in power and authority. It’s yet another example of the church reluctantly dismissing a long held practice that goes against the true nature of God. All patriarchy has interpreted the roles of women and men as of God and not as a result of the fall. God warned Eve that men would rule over women. That doesn’t mean God wanted men to rule over women. Also, I would argue that God and Christ scripturally speaking has already recognized women with power and authority. Also, original source documents NOT included in gospel essays explain women with the fullness of priesthood authority include Emma Smith and Mary the mother of Jesus. The church is confusing for a reason.
I really wish Boyack would do more research on any number of topics before spouting off on yet another video.
First, the Church is the scaffolding with which eternal families are built. Not the former the extension of the latter.
Second, husband and wife being equally yolked, while the man presides, is not mutually exclusive. If you do some actual gospel study on presiding in the family context, it has mainly to do with the husband's priesthood roles, i.e. taking the lead in family prayer, giving blessings, baptizing children, etc.
This isn't rocket science and its not unclear. The Brethren shouldn't have to hold your hand and spell every jot and iota out for you.
I believe as a single mother that men as sons of God have all the rights as priesthood holders to lead the home in rightchasness. Mothers have all the power as Mothers to make decisions that are needed at home and even when fathers luck a vision because are to busy with the load of responsibilities. Think about Rebecca wife of Abraham, because of her intervention the Pristhood was safe in Jacob who was more obedient then Esue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Larter Days Saints had all the doctrine of Christ; And its Leaders are been guided by revelation and so we too.
If you are guided by the Spirit of the Lord and keep the commitment and covenant there is no need of leaders to tell us every single step we need to do. The Lord told his disciples be one if you not one you not my. Also, men and women will leave mother and father and unite to one onothet and become one. One in God. This topic shouldn't be complicated if we Fowler the Lord. ❤
What does it mean to preside?
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; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
The church is morphing to fit in with the world, Holland even claimed that.
Separately, the church is a corporation - its goals are to get customers and survive.
Symbolically, the man has always represented government and the woman is the church. Each have complimentary dominions. Just like the church is to submit to the laws of the land, the government is to provide an atmostphere with laws that ensure safety and structure (knowledge). Church is for teaching, nurture, compassion compassion (wisdom). All things must be done in order and righteousness...if there is dysfunction, we are allowed grace to create balance in each different situation.
I tend to think of Jacob or Abraham, they are invested in not only the survival but in allowing their families to thrive. They personally taught their sons to fulfill their roles. Even Jacob made his own meal, and then sold it to obtain something more fulfilling for him and his posterity, though his brother labored exhaustively he obtained no meat and turned to the nurture and patience of his brother. Esau still worked and became a wealthy man, Jacob worked and was taken advantage of but patiently he obtained some wealth and a name.
I would suppose the Father to preside is to be an honorable priesthood barer and though the Mother is a natural nurturer, we are to obtain charity still. The 2000 Stripling warriors had the example of their father’s repentance, their mother’s nurture and faith, and Helaman’s leadership, though they knew what was to be done and it was Helaman who did not want to compromise them. They filled their father’s role in work and protection and their fathers did provide in their sacrifice, repentance and choice in companion.
In the last days people will be lovers of their own selves and even if the Adversary alters the social structure the Lord will use that to still serve His purposes. Conventional wisdom would criticize the fathers of the 2000 Stripling Warriors, for abandoning their families and laying down their weapons even for defense but in the end it served a superior purpose in presiding over their families.
I can say this, I sure miss the Priesthood session at Conference. I still have no idea why it was done away with, it was my favorite part of Conference. I guess it offended somebody or something.
@16:29 equally yoked, partnership, anti hierarchy, is counter to biblical teachings and an impending disaster for society and the church.
Sharp criticism is in order for women in the church, in my opinion.
There is a division within the body of the church, on one side there are traditional Mormons who hold to the paradigm of the past when truth was more black and white.
On the side, there are the modern LDS, who are quite liberal minded, embracing, diversity, and inclusion, viewing all worldly changes in church policy as progress, even if it contradicts early church teachings.
I believe that if nothing else the man is called upon to be the moral and spiritual example, just as Christ is to us all.
Who protests their Church you either Believe it or you don't if you don't like what it teaches go make your own or find one that teaches what you want to hear that's a thought kind of sounds familiar too
It’s a ‘church’ led by lawyers and professional word smiths and bureaucrats. Expect HR language lol
You want more clarity from the church so the members can question it and pick it apart like they are doing with everything now?
I think that presiding means that the husband/father takes responsibility for the direction and the decisions that are ultimately made. If a man is not strong enough to stand up to his wife as she turns away from covenants, the family follows suit and he never stands up for what’s right, that onus is on him. She can make her own decision- but he is responsible for keeping HIS covenants and inviting his family to keep covenants. He ultimately stands before God to make an accounting for his role in shaping future generations. He and his wife counsel together- they are a presidency, but if something goes awry, he’s the one who takes responsibility. It’s no different than in a church meeting: the presiding authority has the responsibility to ensure that the meeting doesn’t go off the rails. In my presidency, I counsel with my counselors, but if I make a call (even at their behest) I take responsibility for it. If a ship goes down, the captain takes responsibility- not the first mate.
That really is a good question: what does it mean to preside?
When it comes to the consequences of poor decisions, women love it when there is a man to blame. Equity goes right out the window.
Complementarianism (equal but different, with neither above the other: a partnership) has replaced patriarchy (unequal and different, with husband over wife: a monarchy) in the Mormon church. The Proclamation on the Family was written up with complementarianism in mind, but while still using language that harkened back to patriarchy. Mormons are patiarchal in name only today, not in deed.
Patriarchy, plural marriage and other past practices have been stopped and scrubbed from the church over time for various reasons. One particular reason is so that prophecy can be fulfilled. The end-time Elias cannot come and restore all things (see Matt. 17:10-11), which restoration of _all_ things must, _by definition_ , include a _church restoration_ , unless the church has lost some practices. If the church remained perfectly whole and unchanged from the time of Joseph Smith onward, Elias would not be able to make any repair or restoration to it, thus falsifying Jesus' prophecy.
I often thought the scriptures portray the husband as the executive branch. The wife as the legislative branch. God's laws (scriptures) the judicial branch.
This means the woman can override a husband's veto if she vehemently opposes a decision he makes.
But I may be wrong.
You're wrong. That would mean that a wife decides how everything is to be. And the man just carries out what she decides, and nothing else (since the executive branch can make ZERO legislation).
Thanks for the reply.
Yes its not black and white. And there is a lot of overlap.
Just as God can be part of executive and legislative decisions, etc.
Notice how the legislative branch operatives in a house? As in House of Commons, House of Representatives.
Similar to how women with children are in charge of the house.
While the executive branch handles more external duties. And can veto the house when necessary. Although the House can override that veto too.
So its complicated.
Every answer I get at church is superficial
Think about "counsel and labor together in love and righteousness" Im sure there was misunderstanding and abuse in cultures where the father is all powerful and dictatorial. That isn't presiding .
That’s great for the lucky wives that have trustworthy righteous husbands, thank goodness I have a marvelous husband and I’m totally fine with him being in authority, I’d not be great in that role. But what about the ones who weren’t as fortunate, what should they do?
I suggest that the example for presiding in the home is the way the preisthood is designed (as in D&C 121) - through long suffering, gentleness and love unfeigned, and not exercise of authority or power. If we look at the President of the Church with the Q12, we can see that the presiding officer is to gather the information and work to get agreement by all of the apostles. Ultimately, the presiding officer has the authority and the accountability to make a final decision, but should not act until there is agreement. I suggest there's a reason why preside and lead, rule, manage, etc are different words.
The concept of power over others has no place in the priesthood or in the marital relationship.
On the 1973 article by Brent Barlow, I notice they refer to an 2020 article by Alan J. Hawkins, PhD, Director of the School of Family Life atBYU and Laura Waters Black. In the article, they give some great advice, and of course, they use exclusively an example of male behavior as the problem. But they key missing part is any discussion of presiding, and they make a point to drop those parts from their quotes from the Family Proclamation. I guess one could argue that they were focusing on partners coming together as one, but it's interesting how the editor's note uses that as a reference to update a talk on the patriarchal order.
Curious: did Joseph Smith first wait for unanimous consent of the apostles before he announced new revelation, made decisions, etc?
@@cboyack No, Joseph and Brigham both made unilateral decisions that the others followed. Sometimes they would council with them but they would have the final say.
This changed with future prophets to the point today where we rule by the council that must be unanimous before taking action. This has made us more careful, but less able to deal with issues quickly and decisively.
Yes! One problem with many in the church is that we don’t study the gospel or ask God to teach us personally what these things mean. There is so much information out there and personal revelation if we will just step up and do the work to find out what God wants for us.
@@cboyack - I guess you have to ask if D&C 26 is truly a prophecy? To answer your question, they both offered them up to the membership for sustaining. I suggest they did that to the extent possible with the Q12. Sure, they would give revelationwithout agreement before hand, but the sustaining was part of the process.
I suggest using those as examples of using your authority to control your wife is misplaced and is a violation of the principles found in D&C 121.
So the real question is what are you trying to suggest? I think I understand, but it seems like it goes a bit off the rails at times.
I fully agree with you in general about roles in the family, although I hear some specific things that I disagree with. Feminism is too focused on power dynamics in regards to women, and I get a little concerned when I see/hear a bit of backlash by reversing that.
The Bishop is called to preside over the ward - that doesn't make him superior or better, it just means that he is the one called, set apart and accountable for ward. It's a function of order. There can't be two leaders. It causes chaos. In my home, I am called to preside over my family.
@@cboyack excellent point. I also think church history shows that unanimity was rare and schisms not so rare.
As if priesthood sessions were that useful anyway. Every message our "leaders" give are bland, safe, and largely empty.
Gosh you sure have to go back quite a few decades to hear any general authority speak with any clarity about this issue, huh?
I don't see any contradictions I believe every Church leader would agree that to preside has always meant, "Men, listen to your wives! In that is wisdom! It never meant be the boss!
A couple presides side by side... Adam's rib was taken from his side!
1828 from Websters PRESI'DE, verb intransitive s as z. [Latin proesideo; proe, before, and sedeo, to sit.]
1. To be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer. A man may preside over a nation or province; or he may preside over a senate, or a meeting of citizens. The word is used chiefly in the latter sense. We say, a man presides over the senate with dignity. Hence it usually denotes temporary superintendence and government.
2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over as inspector.