INVASION of the Manly Snatchers!!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

RE: INVASION of the Manly Snatchers!!

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I don't think anyone has a lot of understanding, if we go with Isaiah's "eyes hath not seen" etc.. thought.

The term "Elohim" we know is plural...

I guess that's all I know.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

rayb wrote:

From a purely rhetorical sense, a woman does not become a god, she becomes a goddess. :)

I do not believe that the scriptures ever use the word "goddess" to refer to an exalted being. It does say that "they," referring to an exalted couple, become gods.

Perhaps that is just semantic, because one cannot correctly state that a man and a woman (a couple) become "goddesses."

But it is interesting that the word "goddess" does not appear in the scriptures except in the case of reference to the pagan dieties of Ashtoreth and Diana.

I guess what I am saying is that an exalted being is referred to in the scriptures as a "God," regardless of gender.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Interesting point, Hossy. I guess there are things yet to be understood on the matter. :)

--Ray

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Indeed biggrin

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Amen.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Cocobeem wrote:
"...men are the ones that can become a god."

Not trying to nitpick, but "we" achieve this together or it is not achieved.

Sorry, yes it is achieved together, but it is like the family where the priesthood holder/father/husband is the head of the home and bears ultimate responsibility. Definitely, both are required.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yes, Val, I agree. I also wish there were more men who took this more seriously. I believe the mother has responsibility, too, in a way. I mean, we're not supposed to just let the husband be "on the line" for everything. Even if that were possible. I guess I look at it like some women take it as a cop-out. Well, scripture study, prayer, FHE, etc. -- if that doesn't happen it's my husband's fault, because it's his responsibility.

It's wonderful when the couple is equally yoked with regard to spiritual things. Seems there is always one "stronger" than the other in this arena, though. At least that's what I've observed quite a bit. But you know, sometimes my observances are skewed.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree, Coco. My wife and I are beginning to get to this point. It's pretty amazing stuff when we work together.

I have also known both men and women who have fallen short of what might be seen as being equally yoked, often due to external and difficult afflictions not of either party's choosing.

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

That's a yoke, son.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

This yoke is Sunny side up?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

yoke?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

From Valhalla's list of manly traits:

8. Telling your wife no or it's not going to happen or that she is out of line. Many men are afraid of confronting their wives, they don't want the associated problems. At some points this has been very hard, but as head of the home/patriarch, priesthood holder (all done in righteousness and submissiveness to the Lord) it is my duty. Ultimately as husband and father, I am accountable for the wife and children as well as myself. I definitely believe that counsel should be taken with the wife, but I bear the ultimate responsibility. Where much is given, much is required.
Would you care to give an example of this? I'm really curious what kind of situation you are referring to, and whether you really use these phrases -- not going to happen, you are out of line, etc. You talk about accountability for your family, so I assume these are matters of eternal significance that you are referring to, and not trivial daily things like whether to purchase a dress or not. Help me out here, will ya?

And frankly, the word "confront" seems a little adversarial in a discussion about husband/wife relationships. I think either you choose your words poorly, or you have a very different definition of stewardship than I do.

...men are the ones that can become a god.
You backpedaled when Coco called you on this, but I don't buy that retraction for a minute. You've said stuff like this before. I think you really believe the above statement. You are the future god, and she is just your wife, and she'll ride to heaven on your coattails and she'll be grateful for it. You talk like you are her salvation or something. That's the attitude that comes through consistently in your posts on this topic. It is rather troubling, imo.

I dislike having to take the lead like that because it means we are not in harmony, and like it or not, many women tend to take things far to personally or will be angry about it for a while or well, no biggrin

But being a man means saying "oh well", if that is that way you want to handle it, fine, but, this is the decision.

I can tell you that at times my wife thinks I am mean and/or a chauvinist for some of these things and my views, but that is okay, I bear that responsibility, not her. I have to answer to God ultimately, not her, for how I managed my stewardship and took care of my family.
I hate to break it to you, but if you and your wife are not in harmony, that may be an indicator that you are not leading effectively. Saying "oh well" or "tough on you" when your wife is angry about some decision you've made is not leadership. She's not some subordinate at work who must do whatever you say. Surely you've read that scripture about effective influence with others: "^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge," (D&C 121: 41-42)

Saying stuff like "I am the priesthood holder and so I am making the decision and if you don't like it then too bad" is not only misunderstanding what stewardship and presiding really means, it also turns hearts away from you. I'm not surpised to hear that your wife thinks you are chauvinistic. If you speak to her like you post on the forums, I don't blame her for feeling that way. Maybe you get no biggrin

because you alienate her heart when you think you are leading. If my husband held the attitudes that you display, I wouldn't be much interested in biggrin

with him either.

The statement "I answer to God, not her" is simply baffling to me. It sounds like you believe the only thing that matters is what God thinks; that your wife's opinions or feelings don't count at all. Newsflash: you can stand before the bar of God and give your glowing report and feel proud of your "stewardship", but if your wife isn't standing there beside you... it ain't gonna be worth much.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yeah, Val, I take issue with your #8 as well:

8. Telling your wife no or it's not going to happen or that she is out of line. Many men are afraid of confronting their wives, they don't want the associated problems. At some points this has been very hard, but as head of the home/patriarch, priesthood holder (all done in righteousness and submissiveness to the Lord) it is my duty. Ultimately as husband and father, I am accountable for the wife and children as well as myself. I definitely believe that counsel should be taken with the wife, but I bear the ultimate responsibility. Where much is given, much is required.

This approach, to me, seems like unrighteous dominion, by the standard that Bok mentioned.

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; (D&C 121:41)

Stating, "It will be done this way because I am the patriarch/priesthood holder" is clearly an attempt to exercise compulsion by virtue of the priesthood, and not only will it fail, but also it is an unrighteous act.

I'm saddened that many saints also try to use "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" as a justification for insisting that a spouse adheres to a narrowly-defined gender role. I've underlined what I believe is the most important concept:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Jesus said, "If you are not one, you are not mine." Nowhere is the principle of unity more important than in eternal marriage. "Telling your wife no or it's not going to happen or that she is out of line" seems 180 degrees out from a commitment to unity.

-- Edited by Roper at 23:10, 2007-05-22

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

No backpedaling whatsoever. No unrighteous dominion whatsoever. In no way did I at all state she is riding on coattails or anything like unto it. That is what you have in your mind and your interpretation. I never stated she was subordinate. Sometimes long-suffering, reason, patience, gentleness, etc., just don't work, then you need to step in.

Flat out, greater accountability is placed on the priesthood holder. This means that when I account to God, I will be able to state that I did all I could. Since you are not in my family and do not know specific situations, you are not qualified to make a statement. As to her salvation, maybe a lot more than you know or understand.

How a man leads his family is dependent on each family's situation. There have only been a few times where it has been necessary to override matters, but all have been done in righteousness and love. I only need to explain that to God. Whether they are matters of eternal significance or daily matters is irrelevant, if a lead needs to be taken, it is taken. As the priesthood holder and patriarch in my home, it is my right to receive divine guidance on matters. These matters are not to be whimsical or for my personal gratification or power.

As to a disharmony, Bok, I don't think so on my leadership. A spouse has their own agency and can be improper. It is my responsibility to help in the matter as best I can. If a spouse is screaming, drinking, swearing, etc., you bet there is a responsibility to handle an issue. BTW, those are not issues, just examples. You want an example, my wife wanted to drive to visit her family, the weather was extremely dangerous and in the best conditions was a 10 hour drive. I said I did not think we should go due to the danger and she became upset and wanted to go anyway. Long story short, I said no, we're not going, too dangerous and we are not risking our lives. She was not happy, does not matter.

Maybe you think that is harsh, I do not.

I have heard my sisters-in-law and my wife all say that they wish that their father had put their mother in place many times. They think he failed by not doing so. Their mother would lash out, be hurtful in words, tear down their father, scream, yell, rant, kick things, etc. Instead of dealing with it and calling her on it as was his duty, he always backed away. I have also taken that as a cue from my wife. It is the husband's duty to maintain order.

I find it ironic with comments such as: Jesus said, "If you are not one, you are not mine." Nowhere is the principle of unity more important than in eternal marriage. "Telling your wife no or it's not going to happen or that she is out of line" seems 180 degrees out from a commitment to unity. Yet at times, it must be done. Frankly, I am a very honest person with myself and feel I follow the Lord's counsel quite closely. I have seen too many husbands who will not confront and deal with issues or not sure how to because the world says anymore that men should not be men and lead.

Most of the time balance and harmony exist, when it is out of place, you correct it. When I have been angry in issues, my wife has done right and said something to me, as she should.

Roper, what do you mean by a narrowly-defined gender role?

The statement "I answer to God, not her" is simply baffling to me. It sounds like you believe the only thing that matters is what God thinks; that your wife's opinions or feelings don't count at all. Newsflash: you can stand before the bar of God and give your glowing report and feel proud of your "stewardship", but if your wife isn't standing there beside you... it ain't gonna be worth much.

Simply, God comes first, then wife or husband, period. If that baffles you, think more on it. You better believe what God thinks is more important than what a spouse thinks, if not, there is a serious problem in priority. Because if you place God first, Christ-centered, all else is falling in place. If I stand before God and can give a "glowing" report, then it means I did all I could, if a spouse is not there and you did what God asked of you, then it is the spouse's own choices and agency that kept that spouse from being there. As to "proud of my stewardship", no pride, sometimes I have wished the stewardship were not mine, you do not know my stewardship and with what I have been given.

Frankly, comments like these to me are indicative of a lack of understanding in our roles. You seem to think that I think of women as second class, which I have not said, nor indicated. I have simply stated my responsibilities as I have learned from the scriptures, and personal revelation. In fact, a man strengthens his wife, builds her up, sacrifices for her, makes her a part of everything. A spouse has agency, though, and can make choices that require the other to handle things, meekness, persuasion, etc., are not always effective.

It's funny how people take it personal when you say you do not account to them, but you don't. If you don't think your husband is accountable for you to God, oh well, I am.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'm thinking there needs to be some clarification here...

"Flat out, greater responsibility is placed on the priesthood holder. This means that when I account to God, I will be able to state that I did all I could."

I don't see how that differs from my responsibility as the wife/mother of the family. What is the additional responsibility you're talking about?

"As the priesthood holder and patriarch in my home, it is my right to receive divine guidance on matters."

If you have any "rights" with regard to personal revelation, it is because of your personal faithfulness. Having hands placed on your head at some point in your past to receive the priesthood does not give you the "right" to do anything but faithfully follow the Gospel. You have the right to get in line with the will of God and follow it. You have the right to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. You have the right to generate within yourself a broken heart and a contrite spirit. You have the right to repent and forgive. As it says in D&C 121:37 "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." In other words, you only exercise priesthood authority in righteousness. In other words, it is impossible to dishonor one's priesthood. In other words, it is impossible to dishonor God. We only dishonor ourselves. You get in line with God's will or there is no priesthood. In fact, like bok, I'm bothered when a man even brings it up in an attempt to bolster his position. Once the line is crossed to control or compulsion, we get into Satan's school of thought.

As for the example with your wife wanting to drive to see her family. I don't know enough to make a judgment call, and I don't think you want to get into it for your own personal reasons and I respect that. But some questions that came to mind were, Had you planned on this trip or was it a spur of the moment? Was there an event- birthday, sickness, etc. - involved? Was the weather really that bad or was that an excuse? Did you in your heart of hearts want to go or not? Would you have "let" her go and leave the kids with you?

And that whole concept of "asking permission" to do something... this must be something I don't quite understand, either. I can't imagine MrCoco "forbidding" me to do something...??? What does that mean, anyway? Did you hide the car keys?

Then we've got the comments from your wife and sisters that they wish their mother was less overbearing. Okay, so I'm picturing Nels and Harriet Olsen here, is that pretty accurate? Yes, I loved it when Nels finally stood up for something on the show. Harriet bugged me a great deal. So did Nellie. So, I appreciate your wanting to be "more of a man" in your wife's eyes than her father apparently was.

As for the God first, spouse second... I would agree. I made that choice myself several years ago. I'm in an entirely different situation now. I want very much to be with MrCoco for eternity. I feel like we're "soulmates" if there's such a thing. We have a connection I had previously observed in a few other relationships but was doubtful I'd ever experience myself. I have that now. Sure, there are things we both fall short in. But never, ever has he tried to come across with a "this way or the highway" with me, EVEN WHEN I'VE BEEN DEAD WRONG. He demands respect, but not because he's loud or forceful or gets in there to take issue with this or that. He gets our respect because he holds himself to the highest standard. He leads by example and doesn't ask anything of anyone else that he's not willing to do himself. We know without doubt that he is motivated by his love and concern for us. He wants us to be happy above all. He sacrifices for that cause and feels it is a noble cause, so therefore he has no issues with underappreciation. I could go on...

Val says, "You seem to think that I think of women as second class, which I have not said nor indicated."

Now, that is some good lawyer talkin' right there. My ex is a lawyer and most men in my own family are lawyers, so I have to ask you... You haven't SAID it, true. Maybe you feel you haven't indicated it. But do you think it?? You didn't answer the question. Why didn't you just say, "You seem to think that I think of women as second class, which I don't." ?? Anyway, you're not on the stand, so I will refrain from nitpicking. Just trying to clarify...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Dude and dudette, yer on yer own on this one...

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I think that is a wise choice, Cat.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Val, please understand that I don't consider myself a judge of your particular stewardship or of your ability to receive revelation on how to best serve those whom God has placed in your care. If I came across as judgmental in that way, then I apologize.

My intent was to respond to your public statement included below.

How I view a real man:

8. Telling your wife no or it's not going to happen or that she is out of line. Many men are afraid of confronting their wives, they don't want the associated problems. At some points this has been very hard, but as head of the home/patriarch, priesthood holder (all done in righteousness and submissiveness to the Lord) it is my duty.

My response is simply this: That's not how I view a real man. The specific behaviors you mention, and the attitude they imply, indicate unrighteous dominion in my view--the exact opposite of what I believe real manhood (which could and should be referred to as discipleship) should be.

We have precious few recorded accounts of Jesus's personal interactions with women. In recalling the ones we do have, I cannot find an instance when Jesus used the behaviors you mention. In the account of the woman taken in adultery, the woman clearly was "out of line." Jesus responded with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned, with kindness and pure knowledge. In my own relationships, and in those which I have observed, that approach has much better results than the confrontational one you suggest.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I can understand why most men are confused on this issue. When you read the words of Paul and go to priesthood meetings a lot and get told to be a leader, you see certain means and ways of leading, meanwhile women (and men) regularly make husbands the source of jokes, complaints, gossip, backbiting, bitterness, hatred, disgust and make him out to be the scapegoat, it seems that confusion is bound to arise.

Men disagree with men about what it means to lead their families. Is it any wonder that most men would rather opt out to some degree or another?

Yet there is a distinct scriptural call to men to be the head of the household. The man at the head, the woman in submission to the righteous head (so says scripture). This torks off many women... they cannot abide the very mentioning of the principle--perhaps because they've seen few good examples of this and they themselves don't understand where they fit in or identify themselves if this could possibly be so... And doesn't there appear to be some sort of order here that God respects? But if not at the head, exactly where is the man in the home?

So Roper, how do you define it?

--Ray

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Roper wrote:

Yeah, Val, I take issue with your #8 as well:

8. Telling your wife no or it's not going to happen or that she is out of line. Many men are afraid of confronting their wives, they don't want the associated problems. At some points this has been very hard, but as head of the home/patriarch, priesthood holder (all done in righteousness and submissiveness to the Lord) it is my duty. Ultimately as husband and father, I am accountable for the wife and children as well as myself. I definitely believe that counsel should be taken with the wife, but I bear the ultimate responsibility. Where much is given, much is required.

Permit me to chime in here. Just one all-too-common example:

Sometimes the husband just has to say "we're going to my family's house for Thanksgiving" or "we're going to accept that dinner invitation" or "we're going to continue associating with that family member."

Honestly, women can be petty and vindictive over the smallest perceived slight. Men can wear the exact same "outfit" to a function and become life long friends. Women can't stand seeing someone wear her old hand me down dresses two years later.

So, sometimes, he has to not allow pettiness to destroy lifelong relationships.

Let the arrows fly. biggrin

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:
....But some questions that came to mind were, Had you planned on this trip or was it a spur of the moment? Was there an event- birthday, sickness, etc. - involved? Was the weather really that bad or was that an excuse? Did you in your heart of hearts want to go or not? Would you have "let" her go and leave the kids with you?

It's his responsibility to assure the safety of his family. He felt like it was unsafe. All other questions are irrelevant.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

This is my opinion as a woman...

SOME women really can't remember what ANYONE wore 2 years ago, let alone what they gave away... some women have had the same friends for 10 years, and they would honestly never think of backbiting... Some women "argue" less than their hubbies about everything, but especially when it comes to politics.

I would definitely say that some women do have the traits you mention... however do you think you could possibly leave "some" women out of your "women" statement... since it seems to "awful-ize" all women into one great whole... it just divides the parties on this man-woman issue even more than seems necessary...

Personally, I really find statements about men and women that sound like all or nothing comments to be less than helpful in a discussion... mostly because they generally are not true. Few people/traits are so universal.

Peace, love and all that jazz! wink

Organist · Senior Member

There is a difference between heirarchal priesthood leadership in the church and the patriarchal structure of a family. Elder Oaks gave a talk about that a few years ago. "A most important difference in the functioning of priesthood authority in the family and in the Church results from the fact that the government of the family is patriarchal, whereas the government of the Church is hierarchical. The concept of partnership functions differently in the family than in the Church." November 2005 Ensign.

That is a great article for anyone wishing more information.

In describing decisions made by priesthood quorums, D&C makes clear that a decision that is not unanimous will not have the same blessings as a unamimous one. I think this same principle applies to marriages.

D&C 107:27,29 "And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other...Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men."

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Okay, one last stab, I have got to get some work done. I am not baiting here, and I believe in genuine discourse. I see things from a very straight/logical viewpoint in my thinking.

Coco, I am an attorney. No, I in no way think women are second class and I do not believe that God made it that way, that is a creation of man. In fact, I think God holds His daughters in special regard and that any man that has abused them, like little children, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck..... We are expected to take care of women and children, that duty is quite clear. Also, I did not say anything about forbidding.

As to the additional responsibility, the priesthood and being responsible for an entire family, the same way that Heavenly Father is responsible for all of us. We all know the definition of priesthood and when it is bestowed on a man, he has the same authority/power that God used to create and uses to run things. An example also might be, a PH holder that has gone through the temple, etc., and commits adultery, he must go before the high council, a woman would not need to.

Furthermore, there is an established chain of responsibility/authority. This is quite clearly set out in the endowment, and also in our everyday responsibilities in the church and family life, even at work.

As to the divine guidance, right to receive, well, that is the case, if the priesthood and authority are exercised in righteousness and obedience to God. I never said otherwise. For example, were I not acting properly with regards to my own family, callings, etc., my bishop has within his authority to redirect, counsel with, and discipline if needed. Now, no, I do not spank my wife or whatever, she can follow if she respects me, if not, she can make her own choices, that is an accounting between her and God, assuming that what I say/do is righteous and proper. I have never told my wife "my way or the highway" and never will and I believe she understands it, because I do not exercise unrighteous rule, in fact strive quite hard to be submissive to the Lord, something that has been hard for me. Long story, long lesson.

As to:
"I'm saddened that many saints also try to use "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" as a justification for insisting that a spouse adheres to a narrowly-defined gender role. I've underlined what I believe is the most important concept:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Notice that it says fathers and mothers are equal partners in raising children, not husbands and wives. Husbands and wives need each other for eternal life, but (with the knowledge we now have) husbands and wives are not necessarily equal in the strictest sense. In the PoG and Bible, Eve is told that her desire will be to her husband and that he will rule over her (I take this to mean presiding in righteousness) and think of the covenants in the endowment that a woman makes regarding her husband that a man does not. But again, it is all in righteousness and spouses should counsel together and work together. Where much is given, much is required. If you are given more responsibility there is more to answer for. I also find it interesting that Adam was cursed for hearkening unto the voice of his wife. Ultimately, it comes down to how you treat your wife/help meet, and whether it is the way that God wants it or doing it wrong.

No where have I stated or exercised any kind of compulsion, nor implied it. There is no attempt to bolster a position, in fact there has been nothing stated otherwise. If something needs to be a certain way or done some way, there is a dang good reason.

As to narrowly defined gender roles, well, husbands are to provide and protect, mothers to raise and nuture children. Can't get much more specifc than that.

I know that some women may not like what I have stated, but if I am wrong, then, please, let me know. If I have stated something incorrect, I will acknowledge it, but I don't think that I have. And as a further caveat, this is within my personal relationship with God, YMMV.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

PollyAnna wrote:
Personally, I really find statements about men and women that sound like all or nothing comments to be less than helpful in a discussion... mostly because they generally are not true. Few people/traits are so universal.
Peace, love and all that jazz!

Some is the loneliest number? Sorry, I definitely should have written "some" or "a few" or "one or two."

Ooopvsille. biggrin

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

That is an interesting insight, Doc...

Right, wrong, or indifferent, patriarchal leadership has often been equated to a dictatorial system, and so the automatic thought (engrained into our culture) is that if an organization is a male heirarchy, it is in an evil dictatorial patriarchy where only the Alpha male has any power.

Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of the natural man and natural woman. As roper referenced D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion, we are warned that the reason so few men are chosen to actually administer in the priesthood relative to the great number of men in the human family who are called to come and receive that blessing is the giving into the natural man when authority is vested. And, perhaps it also has something to do with the pride that is common to both man and woman.

Satan has had quite a few centuries to perfect the argument and hatred towards what constitutes a true patriarchal organization in the spiritual sense.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

"Is it any wonder that most men would rather opt out to some degree or another?"

I don't see it this way. Do you mean this is why some men choose to stay single?

"It's his responsibility to assure the safety of his family. He felt like it was unsafe. All other questions are irrelevant."

Questions are only irrelevant if one's position will not stand up under questioning. Maybe he felt it was unsafe. Maybe that was the best reason he could think of at the time. If one cuts off communication, i.e., "We WILL go to this house for dinner," then to me this smacks of "My way or the highway" mentality. Don't question me, just do it or I'm getting in yo face! A quote from the excellent Elder Oaks article that Organist referred to-

"President Spencer W. Kimball said this: "When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner" (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 315).

President Kimball also declared, "We have heard of men who have said to their wives, 'I hold the priesthood and you've got to do what I say.' " He decisively rejected that abuse of priesthood authority in a marriage, declaring that such a man "should not be honored in his priesthood" (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 316)."

I didn't know there was a difference for proceedings when men or women commit adultery...?? I thought they all had a church court and it was the same deal...?? Didn't know that.

"I also find it interesting that Adam was cursed for hearkening unto the voice of his wife."

Okay, this is worded a little funny to me. Lucifer was the individual actually cursed, and the ground was cursed for Adam's sake. I think the root of the matter was that both Adam and Eve did not hearken to the commandment of HF. Not that one hearkened to Lucifer or Eve or whatever other thought process brought them to that point. I also take this whole episode as instruction for Adam to start paying attention to what Eve's doing, going around the Garden by herself, leaving her vulnerable, etc...

And Hoss, you must be surrounding yourself with some... um... interesting women, that's all I can say.

I'd stay single, too, if that's the best you can find.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Moses 4:22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
23 And unto Adam, I, the Lord God, said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, sayingThou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

Here's the scripture, FYI.

Guess men are screwed with lifelong work and women are screwed cuz men rule over them. Nice.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:
And Hoss, you must be surrounding yourself with some... um... interesting women, that's all I can say. I'd stay single, too, if that's the best you can find.

Thank you for so eloquently proving my point by disparaging imaginary women. You win, I guess. biggrin

FWIW, my marital status is completely my own fault. The women were above reproach. smile

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 21:21, 2007-05-23

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:

Yet there is a distinct scriptural call to men to be the head of the household. The man at the head, the woman in submission to the righteous head (so says scripture). This torks off many women... they cannot abide the very mentioning of the principle--perhaps because they've seen few good examples of this and they themselves don't understand where they fit in or identify themselves if this could possibly be so... And doesn't there appear to be some sort of order here that God respects? But if not at the head, exactly where is the man in the home?

So Roper, how do you define it?

--Ray

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

I certainly can't say it any better. I just think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the word "preside."

During an interview with my Stake President several years ago, I learned an important concept about priesthood leadership. I've shared this before, and it's worth adding to this discussion.

SP: What comes to your mind when you think of our Savior?

Me: Sacrifice and love beyond comprehension.

SP: What comes to mind when you think of priesthood?

Me: Power and authority.

SP: I submit to you that those answers should be the same.

Now there may very well be isolated examples when Val's #8 approach may be justified in a certain circumstance. In my experience, I've never had any. And I stand by my response that such an approach, as a general statement about what makes a "real man", constitutes an abuse of Priesthood authority and is neither productive nor effective in a marriage relationship.

Without going into too much detail, even though references still exist in scripture, the covenants made by wives to their husbands about obedience to "his law" and "ruling over" have been removed from the endowment by modern revelation.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

and so the confusion continues...

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

In what way, Ray?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I just feel (and perhaps that's my problem) as though the whole role of man in our current society is muddled by all the "thou shalt nots" that have crept into the family and our society as a whole.

So now a man is to be a provider but he's not to have any say in how he provides for fear of exercising unrighteous dominion. While I love the Proclamation of the Family, the counsel is so general and noncommittal as to the current practices of today to render it... well... easy for most folks to ignore or interpret in any way they see fit.

Exactly what is a man's role in the family? You can't even seem to commit to the fact that a man is to lead in his family or what is the ideal--you've just condemned Val's ideas. Just more "Thou shalt Not..." And even if you do admit it, what exactly is a leader and how does one even do it--or communicate it to your sons?

--Ray

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I can't give you a list... I just know that hubby IS this thing of which all y'all seek. He's a righteous, manly man. He's not however perfect... yet! (But he's getting awfully close, from my perspective!)

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
While I love the Proclamation of the Family, the counsel is so general and noncommittal as to the current practices of today to render it... well... easy for most folks to ignore or interpret in any way they see fit.

But that's the way many Gospel principles are--no specific practices commanded, just general principles to guide us in our application as we seek personal revelation for our own stewardships.

rayb wrote:
Exactly what is a man's role in the family? You can't even seem to commit to the fact that a man is to lead in his family or what is the ideal--you've just condemned Val's ideas. Just more "Thou shalt Not..." And even if you do admit it, what exactly is a leader and how does one even do it--or communicate it to your sons?

Ray, that's not an accurate characterization of my position.

I absolutely commit to the fact that a man should lead his family. The ideal is the example of Jesus Christ. And I believe I've fairly articulated my understanding in previous posts--specific guidance from D&C and the New Testament.

I haven't universally condemned Val's ideas. I agree with almost all of them from his original list. I just have a problem specifically with #8.

I communicate leadership, as I understand it, to my sons in many ways. Here are a few:

- I openly show respect and affection for my beautiful bride
- I strive to show them unwavering devotion to the Gospel as I understand it
- I strive to faithfully keep the covenants I have made
- I call the family together for scripture study, prayer, and FHE
- I take them with me for home teaching and other visits
- I share my testimony with them
- I provide for them the necessitites of life and physical and spiritual protection to the best of my abilities

In all of these things, my companion and I are unified. We approach them together in prayer and dedication. I seek her wisdom in every aspect of my life that has lasting importance.

Never have I said, "No," or, "It's not going to happen," or, "You're out of line." Many times I have said something like, "I don't agree at this point. Can we discuss it some more?" Almost always, we reach a unified decision. On the rare occasions that we're still divided after seeking the Lord's guidance, I let it go, because the damage to the relationship is not worth the insistence that I'm right.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Preside: to exercise guidance, direction, or control
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preside

In our case, to do so righteously.

Here is something else to think about in this. Heavenly Father has used strong measures to guide, direct, and control us. Floods, famines, pestilence, war, etc., as well as blessings, prosperity, fullness of the Gospel, His Son, etc., all to guide, direct, and control.

Now, I am not advocating using famine in the home as a means of guidance, but have told my children that if they are acting up at the table, dinner is over, go to your room, or if you don't like it, don't eat, but that is what you are getting.

God does all these things, He is the perfect example. It has been quoted from the D&C here about how we should do things, with patience, love, meekness, long-suffering. God does this, and then when it does not work, He takes other measures, becomes sterner. Now, we are not to wage war, flood the house or whatever, but we can see examples of how God operates. We are learning to be like Him, be what He is, of course for us, there is a matter of perspective and what is proper as we are not God, which is why we have to live our lives so as to have the Spirit guiding us in how we behave and in what we do.

Ray, my view is that you do what you think is right in concordance with God's direction. Doing what is right is not necessarily what the world, or your brethern in church might think, but they do not matter. What matters is what God thinks. Personally, I have felt the exact confusion you have. My answer to it, I will do what I know the Lord wants of me, even if others think I am wrong. I, along with God, know what is best for my family, above everyone else, and will thus act accordingly. Hmmm, this gives me an idea for a new thread to try out!

The ideals I have stated as to what a man should be are ones that I have developed for myself and borrowed from others. These are my views of manhood, what I think will prepare me for Godhood. Leadership, being God, means making the tough decisions, taking it on the chin, taking one for the team, doing unpleasant tasks, not worrying about what others think, sacrifice, etc. Does a spouse/parent striving for righteousness want to discipline, exercise authority, punish, etc., of course not, but sometimes it is necessary. If a man is to become a God in his own right, then it means doing the tough things and taking the heat when necessary. God made men to do this and them responsible for it, He has given them the authority to act in His name, the same power by which the universe was created, all to be done in righteousness and to glorify His holy name.

I have not laid out for the public eye what I have had to do and deal with in this, but that is for me to decide. For someone else to judge another unrighteous or practicing unrighteous dominion, you cannot look upon another's heart, you are not God, and remove the mote from your own eye. For myself, I feel quite right with God. I can count on one hand the number of times that I have had to say no or it is not happening, and can't remember specifics on most, but feel I acted right before God and made a tough decision when it needed to be made.

Ray, do what you think is right with guidance from God and the Spirit.

I think part of why and what we hear regarding being men and leaders is how people do react. The Church is public and scrutinized as well as the way people would react, even look here how some have reacted, I think it is a matter of prudence. Unfortunately, I think it sends a mixed message, but it does not prevent from doing what is necessary.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

rayb wrote:

So now a man is to be a provider but he's not to have any say in how he provides for fear of exercising unrighteous dominion. While I love the Proclamation of the Family, the counsel is so general and noncommittal as to the current practices of today to render it... well... easy for most folks to ignore or interpret in any way they see fit.

Exactly what is a man's role in the family? You can't even seem to commit to the fact that a man is to lead in his family or what is the ideal--you've just condemned Val's ideas. Just more "Thou shalt Not..." And even if you do admit it, what exactly is a leader and how does one even do it--or communicate it to your sons?

--Ray

That first sentence is just... rolleyes

I mean, is that really what you're inferring from this discussion? You're walking on eggshells...? I think there has been a considerable amount of input as far as your 2nd paragraph here... Why don't you tell us, ray, what you see as an "ideal" way of working things specifically in a marriage? "Flesh out" the Proclamation for us, if you will.

I tend to agree with roper that the Lord will guide us generally, not give us tons of specifics. He that is commanded in all things is a slothful servant idea. Do we need to be led by the hand, milked along in everything we do, or do we have an intelligent brain and a capacity to do many good things of our own free will? This would also jive with val's position, wouldn't it? roper and val may appear quite different on the surface, but both appear to me as self-sufficient, unafraid and autonomous leaders in their own right. Their M.O.'s may be different and it sounds like the M.O. is what ray is getting hung up on... ??

I really liked the interview roper had with his SP. It touched me right *here*. Maybe a little less focus on - I'm gonna' be a GOD!- and a little more on repentance and serving/working, huh?

Hoss said:
FWIW, my marital status is completely my own fault. The women were above reproach. smile

**snort** I smell some sarcasm. There are those that feel a bad marriage is better than no marriage at all. FWIW, I'm not one of them. Hold out, Hoss. That's my $.02. wink

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Valhalla wrote:
For someone else to judge another unrighteous or practicing unrighteous dominion, you cannot look upon another's heart, you are not God, and remove the mote from your own eye.

Brother Val, I intended to crtically evaluate ideas and actions put forth for public discussion. I did not intend to pass judgment upon you as a righteous priesthood bearer striving to fulfill your stewardship in accordance with God's will. It appears my previous communication resulted in the exact opposite of what I intended.

I therefore apologize for giving offense in my communication. I communicated based on the miniscule light and knowledge I have about Priesthood. I have much to learn. And I ask you to forgive what probably seemed like arrogance on my part.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:

roper and val may appear quite different on the surface, but both appear to me as self-sufficient, unafraid and autonomous leaders in their own right. Their M.O.'s may be different...

Coco, thank you for those kind words and your thoughtful analysis of the differences. I'm honored that you would think I'm as unafraid as Val. In reality, I'm pretty scared of Kindergarten students

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Kindergartners scare me, too. So does my 2yo hot-headed boy!

But he's not as intimidating since we gave him haircut.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Then I misunderstood, Roper, sorry.

"He that is commanded in all things is a slothful servant idea. Do we need to be led by the hand, milked along in everything we do, or do we have an intelligent brain and a capacity to do many good things of our own free will? This would also jive with val's position, wouldn't it? roper and val may appear quite different on the surface, but both appear to me as self-sufficient, unafraid and autonomous leaders in their own right. Their M.O.'s may be different and it sounds like the M.O. is what ray is getting hung up on... ??"

This is important, and I think it directly points to experience. Three examples, the brother of Jared, the Lord made him come up with a way to light the vessels, Joseph Smith, the Lord's revelation to him in the Liberty jail, Abraham when he went to sacrifice Isaac. It was all about learning, teaching, experience. The more one learns here, so much more the advantage to be had in the next life. These experiences are to build faith and teach us to think.

Coco, as to less focus on becoming a god, that is the majority of my drive, that I can be a joint-heir with Christ and inherit all that my Father hath. These scriptures motivate me, I want this and bad, I want it for my wife for her to be with me, for my sons.

D&C 130:20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from ^aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be ^bgods, because they have ^call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

D&C 132: 37 Abraham received ^aconcubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and ^bJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their ^cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

D&C 76 94 They who dwell in his ^apresence are the church of the ^bFirstborn; and they see as they are seen, and ^cknow as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his ^dgrace; 95 And he makes them aequal in power, and in might, and in dominion. Oh, and lest some might think that I am some authortarian, hard core, brimstone and fire type, not even close, in fact, more of a polar opposite. J. Golden Kimball is my hero, and I am very much like him, though I do try to be a bit more tactful. I am a free spirit and walk to the beat of my own drum. My dad, who is very straight-laced, I drive him nuts, and many others, especially the prim and proper type and I don't do it deliberately. My branch president thinks I am a bit of plum, but that is okay. I know I can drive wife a bit crazy, but it is good for her in all honesty. It does frustrate her sometimes that I don't care what other people think, but that has also been part of my own personal salvation, course I am saying all this in a very polite wayActually, my whole branch is a bit off plum and a bit nutty. Also is the closest knit unit I have ever been in, people really look after each other, take care of each other and accepting of others like I have never seen in the Church. Our poor branch president is very reserved and straight-laced, sometimes I feel sorry for him.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I really appreciate everyone's comments on this topic. My questions and challenges are somewhat personal but mostly because I want to hear personal words, rather than scriptures I'm already familiar with...

I found myself interested by how people read and interpret these somewhat controversial scriptures. I too hope that it does not appear I am passing judgement on anyone--that's not the point. I like to read about how others interepet and live the scriptures according to their experience and conscience.

--Ray

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Hubby and I are a really good team. BUT, I don't think a good team is built in 1 year or even 20 years in some cases. My parents were married 71 years when momma passed and they still didn't agree on everything... Daddy used to say, "What fun would that be?" Because they were so good at loving us all, warts and bad hair days included...the extended family into which I was born is very close.

My in-laws have been married for 54 years... they are like an extension of each other in personality and purpose, but they have no room in their lives and few social skills to let their own sons in. The family is quite distant because they were unhappy when hubby joined the church. Still "they" are very united. We are very close to hubby's one brother. But he lives in SE Texas so we don't see them often. Each of them have become intrinsically woven into the families they married into, because their own parents were so distant, and they were both alcoholics while the boys were growing up.

Hubby and I have taken our personal prejudices that we have from the families we were raised in... our devotion to each other, some personal hardships we had as singles and during our marriage... the gospel, our temple covenants, and many other experiences and learn truths... and we have worked that all into something that completes our desire to be one, beautifully. We are truly "getting there".

Hubby is a wonderful man, and a person that has my absolute trust and confidence... He is a good father, and is both active in and caring about his children's lives and interests. He is becoming a perfect hubby, one year at a time... He is so good to me, that I constantly feel like *I* have to play catch up... I can tell you that if you were to ask him, he would say that I am the good one and he needs to play catch up...

One of the reasons divorce saddens me so, (in some cases, certainly there ARE reasons for divorce...) is because I know that there have been times that hubby and I have struggled through some really hard things together... but it's cause we just hung on to each other and worked through it, not because we always or completely agreed on the best course of action. Still it is interesting that even our P-Blessing are complimentary... His and my strengths compliment each other...

Life would not be as wonderful without him... I thank God every moment for the gift of a great eternal companion and marriage partner. I hope I live worthy to be with my manly-man forever...

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

.

-- Edited by Valhalla at 07:42, 2007-05-25

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I see val's point.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Thanks for "pointing" that out...