What does it mean to preside at home?

[KrazyKay]

I've been thinking of this thread and my family. I'm usually the one that reminds my husband and daughter that we need to have a prayer before we eat, family prayer and scripture in the evening before our daughter goes to bed, when it's time to leave for church, and making sure we have FHE. My husband is also a member, but when I left it up to him to remind the family of those things, - we were always late to church because I didn't want to miss - sometimes we didn't go, we only had prayer before we eat when my parents were there and my dad reminded us, and we didn't have family scripture/prayer or FHE. But I did always leave it to him on who to ask to say the prayers - except for FHE which is assigned/rotated (one person does open, one person does close prayer, one person does lesson/scripture/song).

I do have to say I am proud of my husband... this week he has started remembering prayer before eating without me having to remind :)

My husband was diagnosed on the autism spectrum when he was 5 years old and with this, he tends to lose track of time easily, and forget things that need to be done when they need to be done. This is why I'm usually the one reminding the family of spiritual things and making sure they are done. I'm also the one in charge of my family finances, and I'm the disciplinarian with our daughter.

I think there are exceptions where the wife has to preside because the husband can't - for variety of reasons.

[Sali]

I get soooo confused with this. Now if a man has a final say as the 'head of the home' or there can only be one head, how is this an equal partnership? Someone please explain to me. Because all I can see in my mind is yes we can discuss this, but I (the man) have the authority to pull rank if I need to. That in my mind is not an equal partnership.

[dauser]

My mother was dominant.

My wife is dominant.

How do we break false traditions handed down from our parents?

Perhaps if more than one girl agreeing to share a good and powerful man was not a criminal offense... if matrimonial freedom was legal...if women were not forbidden by law from sharing a preferred mate... If Women were not denied their agency and freedom of choice... of a preferred man... to be married to a preferred good and powerful man... to establish a righteious family.

If women would unite and storm the halls of congress and demand change!

Women would not be as compelled to marry and stay with spineless powerless dweebs.

and spineless powerless dweebs would less likely have eternal increase to muddy the waters and generations with their weak tendencies.

Edited June 15, 2011 by dauser

[MarginOfError]

My mother was dominant.

My wife is dominant.

How do we break false traditions handed down from our parents?

You continue to miss the part about "equal partners." To be fair, apparently so have your mother and your wife. I'd say there needs to be a change in attitude in both parties there.

Perhaps if more than one girl agreeing to share a good and powerful man was not a criminal offense... if matrimonial freedom was legal...if women were not forbidden by law from sharing a preferred mate... If Women were not denied their agency and freedom of choice... of a preferred man... to be married to a preferred good and powerful man... to establish a righteious family.

If women would unite and storm the halls of congress and demand change!

Women would not be as compelled to marry and stay with spineless powerless dweebs.

and spineless powerless dweebs would less likely have eternal increase to muddy the waters and generations with their weak tendencies.

What makes you think women would want to storm the halls of congress to enact this change? I think you'd be surprised at how few women are interested in such change.

[ruthiechan]

Dauser and Sali read the article I posted. It'll help you both understand what this all means. Here's the article again. Crossing Thresholds and Becoming Equal Partners - Liahona Aug. 2007

[Dravin]

What makes you think women would want to storm the halls of congress to enact this change? I think you'd be surprised at how few women are interested in such change.

Particularly LDS women who believe (or at least should) that such a relationship is not currently condoned by the Lord or his Church. I have to give him credit though, I didn't recognize it for the call for polygamy (with a side of some sort of 'social eugenics' for good measure) it is on the first read through.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Dravin

[Sali]

Ruthiechan, I have read that article before and I just read it through again. And I agree with it. The question I have concerns when people talk about the husband pulling rank as he is the head of the home and presides. How is this possible in an equal relationship? The article does not cover that question.

What happens in a stalemate situation? Does the husband as the head of the home have the final say?

I'm really not trying to pick, I'm just trying to understand how there can be one presider, yet still an equal relationship.

[Vort]

Thanks for all the comments. I'm interested to see what people think about this issue. I'm going to inject a few comments of my own, in the interest of understanding better what folks have written.

dad= president

mom= congress

but hopefully with much more harmony.

So you think that the woman should make the rules and the man enforce them? "Presiding" = "enforcing the rules made by the wife"?

I have no idea what it means to preside over my family. But I don't put that much emphasis on it anyway.

If we have been commanded to preside, that suggests to me two things:

• We are expected to preside well.
• In order to preside well, we must understand what it means to preside.

I suspect that ignorance of what "presiding" means and the de-emphasis of principles of presidency would seriously compromise our ability to fulfill our divine duties.

My mother was dominant.

My wife is dominant.

How do we break false traditions handed down from our parents?

Perhaps if more than one girl agreeing to share a good and powerful man was not a criminal offense... if matrimonial freedom was legal...if women were not forbidden by law from sharing a preferred mate... If Women were not denied their agency and freedom of choice... of a preferred man... to be married to a preferred good and powerful man... to establish a righteious family.

If women would unite and storm the halls of congress and demand change!

Women would not be as compelled to marry and stay with spineless powerless dweebs.

and spineless powerless dweebs would less likely have eternal increase to muddy the waters and generations with their weak tendencies.

Interestingly, I have never heard an LDS woman demand the right to marry an already-married man or complain that she isn't allowed to share out her stud-muffin husband. I seriously doubt this is an important area of focus for almost any women. In any case, I'm not sure what it has to do with the meaning of presidency.

Ruthiechan, I have read that article before and I just read it through again. And I agree with it. The question I have concerns when people talk about the husband pulling rank as he is the head of the home and presides. How is this possible in an equal relationship? The article does not cover that question.

What happens in a stalemate situation? Does the husband as the head of the home have the final say?

I'm really not trying to pick, I'm just trying to understand how there can be one presider, yet still an equal relationship.

This is an interesting and worthwhile question. I think it ultimately asks the same thing I'm asking: What does it mean to preside in the family?

[MarginOfError]

Ruthiechan, I have read that article before and I just read it through again. And I agree with it. The question I have concerns when people talk about the husband pulling rank as he is the head of the home and presides. How is this possible in an equal relationship? The article does not cover that question.

What happens in a stalemate situation? Does the husband as the head of the home have the final say?

I'm really not trying to pick, I'm just trying to understand how there can be one presider, yet still an equal relationship.

Some of the scenarios I can see in which one would need to pull rank would include:

• husband and wife don't agree and it isn't important to one of the parties. Potentially resolved by letting the person to whom it is important make the decision.
• husband and wife don't agree and it isn't important to either party. Potentially resolved by arbitrarily choosing who makes the decision.
• husband and wife don't agree and it is an issue important to both parties.

The last situation is where "pulling rank" tends to result in hurt feelings. It's also the situation in which I really don't like the idea of pulling rank. In situations like that, more discussion, negotiation, and compromise is warranted. If a couple can't make any progress toward a mutual agreement, then I think one of three things should generally be the result.

1) Arbitrarily decide who makes the decision. Instead of pulling rank, take turns on the big decisions if it's possible. But, when it's important to both parties, this usually isn't a real option.

2) Inaction. Depending on the issue, also may not be possible or desirable

3) Seek counseling. Probably the most beneficial of productive discussion has stalled.

[dahlia]

The man is responsible for the spiritual welfare of each member of the family.

Just a question; I'm not trying to start an argument. I can understand a man trying to teach his children right from wrong, take them to church when they're young, etc. At what point, however, is the onus to develop spiritually on the individual?

One of the great things about the church, as I saw it from an investigator's viewpoint, was the request that I read and determine for myself. Shouldn't this be true for everyone, even people born in the church?

I can see being a good father (in terms of LDS requirements) and having a child who goes astray. It happens even when the kid is still living at home. To what extent is the father responsible for that child (let's say a teen) turning away from the church? And since we're here, do people see a difference between a teen/young adult leaving the church and not going to any church and one who leaves, but joins another church?

[ruthiechan]

Ruthiechan, I have read that article before and I just read it through again. And I agree with it. The question I have concerns when people talk about the husband pulling rank as he is the head of the home and presides. How is this possible in an equal relationship? The article does not cover that question.

What happens in a stalemate situation? Does the husband as the head of the home have the final say?

I'm really not trying to pick, I'm just trying to understand how there can be one presider, yet still an equal relationship.

Pulling rank is the same as ruling over as opposed to ruling with. The family is not a military institution. If you have a situation where the husband and wife can not agree then it becomes a matter of prayer.

[dahlia]

This has been an interesting discussion. I think if my son is ever going to join the Church, it will be because of the priesthood and the role of the man in the family. He could have written the post on Marxism and family destruction. He is very concerned about the diminished role of the husband and father and the tendency of children to go off the deep end when there isn't a strong father. It's just very hard, especially with females who have defined career goals, to find a girl who really wants a strong male and a traditional family. What they want is a wuss they can whip so they can have their way all the time.

I keep telling him he needs to go to YSA, but he thinks the girls won't marry a non-member, even if he's willing to support them in their beliefs. Of course, there's a way to fix that, but he's not at that point yet.

[Dove]

Hello RuthieChan;

Thank you for responding with kindness to my post. You're right, part of sustaining my husband is listening/not disregarding his thoughts and feelings.....

Part of the rub this issue has for me is, while the quotes you have given me represent the ideal, the concept of "equality" in our church is a relatively new stance. I remember how big ERA (the equal rights amendment) was in the 1970's. While the church opposed this amendment (I honestly have no stance on that issue, being too young to know the intrinsics of it) over the years it has more and more taught the ideology of equality between the sexes. This is quite notable, given how unequal the sexes have been throughout the ages.

I appreciate how you have broken down the different meanings of "help meet" and "rule" over. Still, I remember growing up watching how abusive husbands and fathers were treated by different female members of my family. They were treated as if they could do no wrong, reigned without question, and were higher than the rest of us.....It is hard for me to take seriously the written word that is being taught now when I have seen so much to the contrary done in the name of "priesthood authority" while growing up.....

There are concepts that help me with this though...One being, as has never been so available to me now as a woman, my agency... I can choose whether or not I will support and sustain the patriarchal order. To me, agency is a core teaching of the restored gospel. This evens the playing ground. I also think of the bishops who have presided over me in absolute humility, meekness and gentle persuasion. This is the ideal, imo..... They have loved me (and my husband) with the pure love of Christ. I will always cherish their friendship and example...Perhaps the most important concept is how wonderfully I am treated by our Heavenly Father through the atonement and the Holy Ghost....He always loves me with a perfect love that has my best eternal welfare at heart. Even during the chastening process that all of us are subject to, I recognize that it is for my own good and done in the pure love of God....Because of this I do have a testimony of the restored gospel, patriarchal order and all....

[applepansy]

My mother was dominant.

My wife is dominant.

How do we break false traditions handed down from our parents?

Perhaps if more than one girl agreeing to share a good and powerful man was not a criminal offense... if matrimonial freedom was legal...if women were not forbidden by law from sharing a preferred mate... If Women were not denied their agency and freedom of choice... of a preferred man... to be married to a preferred good and powerful man... to establish a righteious family.

If women would unite and storm the halls of congress and demand change!

Women would not be as compelled to marry and stay with spineless powerless dweebs.

and spineless powerless dweebs would less likely have eternal increase to muddy the waters and generations with their weak tendencies.

This post sounds like you're strongly suggesting polygamy be legalized and as you know The LDS church no longer practices polygamy.

[qedd]

There is a lot of emotion and opinion when it comes to the authoritarian or dictatorial interpretation of 'preside', but why couldn't presiding mean that the husband / father is to function as a project manager and teacher / professor? Wouldn't this be more in line with the priesthood functioning by way of persuasion?

[applepansy]

There is a lot of emotion and opinion when it comes to the authoritarian or dictatorial interpretation of 'preside', but why couldn't presiding mean that the husband / father is to function as a project manager and teacher / professor? Wouldn't this be more in line with the priesthood functioning by way of persuasion?

I like the way you think. :)

[Sali]

There is a lot of emotion and opinion when it comes to the authoritarian or dictatorial interpretation of 'preside', but why couldn't presiding mean that the husband / father is to function as a project manager and teacher / professor? Wouldn't this be more in line with the priesthood functioning by way of persuasion?

I actually agree with this.

I think the main issue is with the dictionary definition of the word 'preside' which is to 'have authority', 'to control'.

[ruthiechan]

I actually agree with this.

I think the main issue is with the dictionary definition of the word 'preside' which is to 'have authority', 'to control'.

The dictionary definition of preside according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1: to exercise guidance, direction, or control

2 a : to occupy the place of authority : act as president, chairman, or moderator

b : to occupy a position similar to that of a president or chairman

3: to occupy a position of featured instrumental performer —usually used with at <presided at the organ>

[MrShorty]

why couldn't presiding mean that the husband / father is to function as a project manager and teacher / professor?

Might be a good picture of what "preside" means. If this is the picture of preside that we want, why is it always assigned to the man? Why couldn't a couple get together and decide that the Mrs. is a better manager and/or teacher and let her wear the "preside" hat?

For those who like to talk about egalitarian marriages (which sounds good), why do we even need someone to wear the "preside" hat?

I don't really have any answers to contribute.

FWIW, I thought it was an interesting coincidence that about the same time as Vort started this thread, Focus on the Family took on basically the same discussion on their daily radio program. If anyone is interested, it might be interesting to listen to the podcast of their discussion.

[qedd]

Might be a good picture of what "preside" means. If this is the picture of preside that we want, why is it always assigned to the man? Why couldn't a couple get together and decide that the Mrs. is a better manager and/or teacher and let her wear the "preside" hat?

For those who like to talk about egalitarian marriages (which sounds good), why do we even need someone to wear the "preside" hat?

I don't really have any answers to contribute.

FWIW, I thought it was an interesting coincidence that about the same time as Vort started this thread, Focus on the Family took on basically the same discussion on their daily radio program. If anyone is interested, it might be interesting to listen to the podcast of their discussion.

Single mothers would probably be the first to point out that this role is not "always assigned to the man" since there is no man present to fill the role. If there is room for one exception, then why not others?

As husbands and wives grow together, who is to say that the distinction between their roles will not blur over time? But early on, before such maturity and unity has fully developed, wouldn't it be nice to give them some guidelines to start with?

[MorningStar]

My mother was dominant.

My wife is dominant.

How do we break false traditions handed down from our parents?

Perhaps if more than one girl agreeing to share a good and powerful man was not a criminal offense... if matrimonial freedom was legal...if women were not forbidden by law from sharing a preferred mate... If Women were not denied their agency and freedom of choice... of a preferred man... to be married to a preferred good and powerful man... to establish a righteious family.

If women would unite and storm the halls of congress and demand change!

Women would not be as compelled to marry and stay with spineless powerless dweebs.

and spineless powerless dweebs would less likely have eternal increase to muddy the waters and generations with their weak tendencies.

I would totally storm the halls of congress if the thought of sharing a husband didn't make me want to hurl. And if I had to choose between a "spineless powerless dweeb" and a guy with a giant ego who thinks women would fight over him in a polygamous society ....... I think I would pick the dweeb.

[MorningStar]

For a man to preside, I think of him as being the shepherd of the family, but unfortunately there will always be some guys who interpret it as, "I am in charge and have superior decision making skills." My husband, father-in-law, and brother are great examples. I have a brother-in-law though who I could write a long rant about, but I won't. I'll just say that none of us understands how he turned out the way he did with his dad treating his wife like a queen.

In my marriage, my husband and I both give and receive counsel from each other. At times we will receive revelation about something our family needs at the same time. I thought one night that we needed to add Book of Mormon study every night as we tried to get through the Old Testament. The next night my husband said, "I think we should start reading The Book of Mormon too."

Years ago I was invited to a Christian women's forum and I was horrified to see what it meant to them for a man to preside. One woman said her husband came home and said, "It is time for us to have another child and you won't be using birth control anymore." She said, "I admit I was upset with him at first, but I know I am supposed to submit."

Multiple women made similar comments and I put up the scripture about submitting as they submit to the Lord. It shows no regard for a woman's feelings to tell her it's time for her to have another baby. I didn't participate there long. It was too depressing.

[MorningStar]

I like this article and think this can apply to leading our families.

LDS.org - New Era Article - Sheep, Shepherds, and Sheepherders

[ruthiechan]

Years ago I was invited to a Christian women's forum and I was horrified to see what it meant to them for a man to preside. One woman said her husband came home and said, "It is time for us to have another child and you won't be using birth control anymore." She said, "I admit I was upset with him at first, but I know I am supposed to submit."

Multiple women made similar comments and I put up the scripture about submitting as they submit to the Lord. It shows no regard for a woman's feelings to tell her it's time for her to have another baby. I didn't participate there long. It was too depressing.

Yeah, it's the presentation. For us, the husband would mention the idea of having another child, a discussion would take place, and then together the husband and wife would take it to the Lord.

[crashdown]

To me, the word preside as defined in the dictionary has many negative connotations, which have already been discussed. So I would like to redine it to mean (thanks to those who have already mentioned some of these):

shepherd

initiate

organize

oversee

guide

lead

teach

assist

help

bless

I think this is more what the Lord had in mind when He gave men the responsibility to preside. This is not weak or spineless. In fact, I daresay it takes far more courage and self-control to do these things than to control and dominate.

Men, what do you say? If you were to preside in this manner, would you feel emasculated, spineless, weak? Or do you prefer to preside in this manner?

Women, would you sustain someone who presides in this manner? Would you feel controlled/dominated? Or would you feel like an equal partner, respected and valued?

As a side note: I consider equality as regarding my opinions, thoughts, feelings, agency, hopes and dreams with the same respect as the man's and given the same weight as the man's.