- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This concept was part of the lesson in Gospel Essentials this week. I felt REALLY sheepish teaching that to the class, and almost skipped it. But I felt non-members should know that we believe in that principle. How do you present that principle in this day and age where differences in roles between men and women is often met with the cry of “foul”? I didn’t like feeling sheepish about that principle. Sure, there are the standard reasons:
1. Men don’t take responsibiilty, so we have to lay it heavily upon them.
2. It’s a matter of order…..there needs to be one ultimate person who presides in the home.
However neither are satisfying, particularly when you realize the research has shown that the most effective groups are those with “shared leadership”, where everyone has a leadership role; if you ask the team who the leader is, the team says “we all were leaders at different times; it just evolved naturally”. Also, when in one breath we say the man presides, but then say marriage should be approached with the husband and wife as equal partners — bit of a conflict there. Also, with other practices that are obvious to temple recommend holders
Thoughts on this?
Fwiw, I believe the Church leadership as a whole has moved away from the former concept that the man presides “over” his wife in the home. There still are a couple of holdouts (and I think the most obvious one is obvious I’ll try to find the older thread here about the Proclmation to the World. There was some good discussion about that – and, like most things here, we didn’t see it exactly alike.
In the meantime, if you want to read something I wrote on my own blog a couple of years ago:
“
Presiding: An Evolution of Definition” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/10/presiding-evolution-of-definition.html Quote:I take final responsibility for what my wife and I decide, but I NEVER play the “I preside, so this is how it is” card. It never crosses my mind – mostly because I like breathing and the attendant joys of true marital unity. (*grin*)
The “I preside so this is how it is” card isn’t consistent with D&C 121 either, which says that we should use persuasion etcetera, and imposition of authority. However, you mentioned some last bastions of hold-outs on this issue; they are still strong statements and I’m not convinced the Proclamation really redefines the role of father as “presiding”.
This one is a tough one to teach.
I hope I wouldn’t teach anything harmful or hurtful even if it is in the manual. Amen, Tom. The concept of the “man presiding” in the household is egregious and insulting on so many levels – but it is NOT an LDS tenant. It is a WORLD CULTURAL tenant, and if one really honestly looks at the current state of the LDS church, we are quite progressive comparably – IMO. Sure, we have yet to “give” women the right to exercise the “priesthood” like many of the protestant churches, BUT still, compared to other world christian churches, and especially other religious beliefs outside of Christianity…
Yes, we have many many folks who use that statement at church to take advantage of the females, but I think the vast majority of LDS male members, IMO, do not.
I don’t. I wish my wife would take more responsibility and take more initiative – make some choices for the family instead of asking/putting all the pressure on me. Boo-hoo to me, right?
Kind of a side note: I made the comment this weekend to the 1st councilor on the BP, that we could solve a lot of our problems staffing the branch if the church would allow the females to exercise their priesthood. Nope – it did not go over very well at all.
I think maybe you may want to incorporate that the eternal family is both a mother and father or husband and wife and that with that goal in mind. I never make any big decision without talking about it with my wife and frankly I don’t think most LDS men really do make biggies without talking about it. You may also, assuming you do, talk about decisions made between you and your other half and or good examples of loved ones making cooperative, well informed decisions. 
Oh, and as far as “good reasons for it?” – because men have had the power historically and don’t want to give it up – and need a justification for not doing so? 
Seriously, one of the reasons I am not adamantly opposed to keeping the presiding wording is because I’ve worked in multiple areas of the country where men are no more than baby daddies – and just getting them to “preside in righteousness” is a major need. Egalitarian, ideal partnership can come later (like it is being taught now in the Church); just getting them to take responsibility for their sexual activity, their sexual partner (instead of partners) and the resultant offspring is a good first target.
Old-Timer wrote:.. Egalitarian, ideal partnership can come later (like it is being taught now in the Church); just getting them to take responsibility for their sexual activity, their sexual partner (instead of partners) and the resultant offspring is a good first target.
This made me laugh. So true.
Good reason – What Ray said. DH and I married young. We talked about this a long time ago. At one point I think he actually thought he had an up on me (through “manly” priesthood authority) to make the important decisions for our family. I don’t believe he feels that way anymore or least doesn’t think it is that simple. I seriously hope not .. he is smarter now than he was when he was 19.
In some ways it is a harmless theory in other ways I’m sure, like with certain personalities and leaders, people can go off the deep end with the whole idea.
Old-Timer wrote:Oh, and as far as “good reasons for it?” – because men have had the power historically and don’t want to give it up – and need a justification for not doing so?
Perfect and quotable, Ray!
Hawkgrrrl did a post very similar to this at Mormon Matters yesterday, and I think she shares your unease about this topic. See http://mormonmatters.org/2010/08/31/mormon-org-faq-role-of-husbands-wives/ SilentDawning wrote:Also, when in one breath we say the man presides, but then say marriage should be approached with the husband and wife as equal partners — bit of a conflict there.
Our culture teaches us that the person who gets to make the final decision is more important, valued, competent, powerful, etc. But what if that’s not true? What if it’s just a chore, like taking out the garbage?
I say this, b/c I hate making important decisions that affect others. The credit I get when I choose well never makes up for the grief of when I choose wrong. Plus the decision process itself causes anxiety. I don’t see how it’s worth it. As a kid, I never fought over “being in charge” of anything. I’ve learned to manage when I need to, but I still usually avoid leadership roles. Sometimes it’s wisdom and sometimes it’s a character flaw. But the point is, maybe “being in charge” isn’t as great as everyone thinks it is.
Presiding selflessly isn’t fun anyways.
To me “equal partners” means the needs/wants of both people are equally valid. The chore of presiding doesn’t elevate the person. Unlike the worldly tradition, he isn’t considered to be more important.
I preside in my home. My wife tells me to pick someone to say a prayer, and I pick someone to say a prayer. Same thing happens at my house!!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.