I agree, anonon, that contradiction is a perception, just as deciding that there isn’t contradiction is also a perception. But I don’t see contradiction as a negative perception or a perception that means the church isn’t “true” or good. It’s simply unavoidable in a church of 11 million+ imperfect, flawed people, which includes the leaders of the church. How can there not be contradiction? And I think the best way to deal with contradiction is to discuss it instead of dismiss it because we will overcome our imperfections faster by confronting them rather than simply looking the other way.

sure it can. i think contradiction is a perception, not a reality. a wife can let her spouse (as an equal partner simply saying, OK, hon, you can be in charge of these things cuz prophets say you should be – no biggie, right?) preside over things like fhe, family prayer, etc. no big deal. spouses work +together+ to discuss and find solutions for family issues and problems as equal partners. lots of room exists to figure out how to divide and conquer stuff at home as equal partners. different roles (provider and nurturer) complement efforts as equal partners who share in the same goals. i don’t see contradiction. contradiction is supposed because of semantics as understood by some, but is not there in spirit.

I think Ann is right – preside means exactly what it says, hence my confusion in comment #14. The problem is, the same paragraph in the FP says husbands and wives are equal partners. It really can’t be both. I see the internal contradiction as evidence that we are a church in transition, and families can embrace either the idea of a presiding head or the idea of husband-wife equality, or (since my view expanded due to comment #15) they can come up with a way to reconcile or merge the two. It seems to me that any family system that a wife and husband come up with that supports loving and nurturing relationships within their family is a viable and healthy system. I can’t see how it could contradict the spirit and purpose of the Family Proclamation.

That’s why I don’t think “preside” is a code for “involved.” I think preside means exactly what it says – leads, has authority, makes decisions.

I’m not one of those who places much value in the Proclamation, though.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is–if the idea that men should preside is some kind of code for saying that men should be involved (an argument I’ve heard fairly frequently), is there any reason for saying the former instead of the latter?

The tie-in to your post is that if a father wants biological success, all the same applies- he has just as much at stake in providing the neccesities of life (food, shelter, social network) until the grandbabies are raised.

On the issue of presiding, I don’t think presiding in a Church capacity should be our model for marriage, a fact even Elder Oaks seems to recognize (as problematic as his solution is). Bishops actually do have power over the members of the ward, even if one hopes they exercise it benevolently and prayerfully.

It interests me that, if women marry upon leaving home and remain married for life, there is no time or sphere in their life in which they are not presided over, first by their fathers and then by their husbands. The average man is presided over by other priesthood authorities in his ward, but in his home, in his personal life, he holds that responsibility himself. Married women, in contrast, are presided over in every facet of their lives.