"Equal Partners" in marriage -- can the equality be lost through sin, neglect, embezzling, and following vain ambitions outside the means of the family?

[Shoot_The_Moon]

There is great talk of "equal partnership" in marriage, but is that equality a right by virtue of matrimony or a privilege that can be lost through sin, neglecing family responsibilities, misappropriating family funds/resources for vain ambitions, or other means?

Edited April 3, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[LeSellers]

28 minutes ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

is that equality a right by virtue of matrimony or a privilege that can be lost through sin, … or other means?

Yes.

Lehi

[Guest]

I think it depends on what kind of equality we're talking about. Are both partners equally important? Of course. But when someone decides to go to the side of "sin, neglecing family responsibilities, misappropriating family funds/resources for vain ambitions, or other means", the partners are no longer equally yoked, and that's a problem.

[Sunday21]

14 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I think it depends on what kind of equality we're talking about. Are both partners equally important? Of course. But when someone decides to go to the side of "sin, neglecing family responsibilities, misappropriating family funds/resources for vain ambitions, or other means", the partners are no longer equally yoked, and that's a problem.

Eowyn always gives such clever and beautifully phrased answers.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sunday21

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Eowyn always gives such clever and beautifully phrases answers.

Gosh, you don't know how much I needed such kind words right now. Thanks, Sunday. 

[Sunday21]

8 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Gosh, you don't know how much I needed such kind words right now. Thanks, Sunday. 

You are in our prayers!

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

There is great talk of "equal partnership" in marriage, but is that equality a right by virtue of matrimony or a privilege that can be lost through sin, neglecing family responsibilities, misappropriating family funds/resources for vain ambitions, or other means?

When base things and desires take priority over the marriage, equality isn't the biggest concern. Do you think it would be any better if both spouses shared equally in unrighteous acts?

[The Folk Prophet]

No marriage will ever be "equal" equal. Like Eowyn said, it's more about equality of value. As to equality...no. One spouse is smarter. One is prettier. One is taller. One is on a higher spiritual plane. One is stronger. One is kinder. Etc., etc., etc...

As to the point of the OP question...uh...what is the point? Are you looking for validation to dominate?

[Shoot_The_Moon]

D&C 121:37:

Quote

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

I know this mentions the "authority of man", but since women can also exercise Priesthood Authority, can their authority not also be "Amen'd" if they seek to cover sins / gratify pride / vain ambitions / control or dominion (through passive-aggressive, stonewalling, being overtly overbearing, or otherwise)?

I guess what I'm getting at is does "unrighteous dominion" (which can be committed by either gender) mean that the "equal partnership" is temporarily suspended?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Guest]

Here's what I'm getting: your wife has made some changes. Something like, she's spending too much on clothes, or works out too much, or she's chasing a position you don't approve of. So you're wondering if you can, therefore, use this scripture as a means to show her that because of those things, she has no more say and you are the boss of All the Things, presumably because of your superior righteousness?

I don't see you finding many allies here.

If I'm way of base, more details would help you find a better answer to your specific situation.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

D&C 121:37:

I know this mentions the "authority of man", but since women can also exercise Priesthood Authority, can their authority not also be "Amen'd" if they seek to cover sins / gratify pride / vain ambitions / control or dominion (through passive-aggressive, stonewalling, being overtly overbearing, or otherwise)?

I guess what I'm getting at is does "unrighteous dominion" (which can be committed by either gender) mean that the "equal partnership" is temporarily suspended?

If a husband behaves in such a way then he can not tap into the power of the priesthood because of his sins.  But that verse is not about the husband wife partnership, its about being able exercise priesthood authority.  The only priesthood authority a wife can exercise is what gets delegated to her.  If you are going to claim that the husband loses authority in the home though sin, then the wife would also lose it because he can't delegate what he doesn't have.

But the position of father and husband are not priesthood positions, so it doesn`t work that way.  The family is based on patriarchal authority.  Even when a husband behaves poorly he is still the head of the house, even when he is a non-member he is the head of the house.  The wife can`t go `You are not living the gospel so I`m in charge around here now!`.  That would be unrighteous dominion on her part, even when he really isn`t living the gospel.

So, no.  The partnership should be equal as long as the marriage lasts, and hopefully they will both do their part.

 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Here's what I'm getting: your wife has made some changes. Something like, she's spending too much on clothes, or works out too much, or she's chasing a position you don't approve of. So you're wondering if you can, therefore, use this scripture as a means to show her that because of those things, she has no more say and you are the boss of All the Things, presumably because of your superior righteousness?

I don't see you finding many allies here.

If I'm way of base, more details would help you find a better answer to your specific situation.

Right,  And likewise if in a case where the husband is sinning the wife doesn`t get to claim authority over him and declare herself the Boss of All Things.  Either way they should council together as equals.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

But the position of father and husband are not priesthood positions

In the long view, I suspect this is untrue. I believe the very concept of Priesthood is inextricably bound up with those of husband and father. But I do agree that the mortal position of husband and father are not Priesthood functions per se.

[Guest]

On 4/3/2016 at 2:05 PM, Shoot_The_Moon said:

There is great talk of "equal partnership" in marriage, but is that equality a right by virtue of matrimony or a privilege that can be lost through sin, neglecing family responsibilities, misappropriating family funds/resources for vain ambitions, or other means?

I'm not sure if I understand your question.

15 hours ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

D&C 121:37:

I know this mentions the "authority of man", but since women can also exercise Priesthood Authority, can their authority not also be "Amen'd" if they seek to cover sins / gratify pride / vain ambitions / control or dominion (through passive-aggressive, stonewalling, being overtly overbearing, or otherwise)?

I guess what I'm getting at is does "unrighteous dominion" (which can be committed by either gender) mean that the "equal partnership" is temporarily suspended?

No.  I'd point to FP's post.

On 4/4/2016 at 8:27 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

No marriage will ever be "equal" equal. Like Eowyn said, it's more about equality of value. As to equality...no. One spouse is smarter. One is prettier. One is taller. One is on a higher spiritual plane. One is stronger. One is kinder. Etc., etc., etc...

We strive for more than equality.  We strive for oneness.  If you and your wife are not moving forward as one in all things, you've both got to work on some things.  If either of you shows the trait of selfishness in any of its manifestations, it is poison on a marriage.

It seems that you're not just asking about whether you're equal, or if she is practicing unrighteous dominion.  It seems you're asking if selfishness destroys a marriage and the answer is absolutely YES!!!  How can you be one, if one or both of you are being selfish?  Impossible.  How can you be one with the Lord, if one or both of you are valuing earthly things above the things of God?  Impossible.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

I am one of those that takes Section 121 to heart as instructions for anyone in authority.  (Yes I know it is explicitly about priesthood authority but I stand by my thoughts on it)

The interesting thing to note that it is talking to those in authority... It is not telling us how we should respond to "Unrighteous dominion" but what the Lord does.  Someone else exercising the sin unrighteous dominion does not excuse us from the requirement of Section 121 for our own authority.  Or in other words we are not justified in responding to someone elses unrighteous dominion with some of our own.  That just makes us both sinners in the eyes of God.

The proper response to the sin of unrighteous dominion against us is the same as it it for all other sins committed against us. 

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We strive for more than equality.  We strive for oneness.  If you and your wife are not moving forward as one in all things, you've both got to work on some things.  If either of you shows the trait of selfishness in any of its manifestations, it is poison on a marriage.

It seems that you're not just asking about whether you're equal, or if she is practicing unrighteous dominion.  It seems you're asking if selfishness destroys a marriage and the answer is absolutely YES!!!  How can you be one, if one or both of you are being selfish?  Impossible.  How can you be one with the Lord, if one or both of you are valuing earthly things above the things of God?  Impossible.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it can possibly be so black and white. If it is, then all marriages are doomed to fail, because all people are imperfect, have some selfishness, etc. I just think that calling any level of imperfection a "poison" is a bit extreme. In theory, yes...I agree... In practice, we deal with less than imperfections in marriage without it "poisoning" things all the time.

[anatess2]

The objective of a marriage is to be ONE with CHRIST.

A husband's job is to fulfill his covenants to get himself closer to Christ as he works to get his wife and family closer to Christ.

A wife's job is to fulfill her own covenants to get herself closer to Christ as she works to get her husband and family closer to Christ.

In this they are equal partners.

They both don't have to be at the same place closer or farther from Christ at the same time.  Sometimes, the husband gets to carry the wife forward.  Sometimes the wife gets to carry the husband forward.  Sometimes, one is carrying the load while the other spouse is dragging and pulling the other way.  Doesn't matter.  The task is the same... you work to get yourself closer to Christ while at the same time working to get your spouse and children closer to Christ.

This is the 2nd greatest commandment.  To love others as you love yourself.

[Connie]

I’ve been reading a book by Elder Richard G. Scott called 21 Principles: Divine Truths to Help You Live by the Spirit. His 14^th principle relates to this subject: “A happy marriage results from making correct choices prayerfully together. It can transform a house into a place of heaven on earth.”

Here’s a quote from the chapter on this principle that I like:

“Some brethren don’t recognize that there is a difference in how the priesthood is used in the home and how it is used in the Church. Because the Church is an organization where there are different levels, a hierarchical structure, we sometimes need to make decisions for those who are serving under us. In the home, the priesthood is not used that way. It is a patriarchal order. Who should make the decisions in the home?
The way of the Lord is that you make every decision together—period. And if you can’t do that, you work until you do. You pray about it.
You will find the greatest happiness if you will base every decision on the question, ‘What does the Lord want us to do?’ Seek together the will of the Lord. That, I believe, is the way to keep the balance we should.”

Hope that helps.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it can possibly be so black and white. If it is, then all marriages are doomed to fail, because all people are imperfect, have some selfishness, etc. I just think that calling any level of imperfection a "poison" is a bit extreme. In theory, yes...I agree... In practice, we deal with less than imperfections in marriage without it "poisoning" things all the time.

I think that goes without saying.  But just to be clear.

The greater the level of selfishness in a marriage by one or both parties, the greater the level of poison.  Any body is capable of handling small doses of poison.  The ideal, of course, is to be completely free of all poison.  But in life, that is really difficult, especially when you consider all the things that people say will kill you.

In the case of marriage, all marriages and each individual is made to take a certain level of imperfections.  But the greatest and most important trait that keeps marriages together is unselfishness.  Yeah, you can say charity.  But that is just too broad a word and too vague to apply or focus on.  Selfishness is a fairly specific word that is easy to focus on.

While there are certainly many factors that make a bad/good marriage, selfishness/unselfishness is the greatest factor and is among the more noticeable ones.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Guest