The only people I’ve found who think that the LDS use of “preside” means “one spouse over the other” are LDS feminists who are mad about it.

Interestingly, I came to this discussion right after reading this thread at FMH, in which someone by the name of “Guest” is making the case that men do and should have the final say as part of their divinely appointed role. I’m not, of course, suggesting that anything should be concluded on the basis of random Bloggernacle commenters. But I will say that my own experience is that while the majority of LDS men and women don’t believe that “preside” means being in charge, having the final say, etc., there still exists a minority who do see things that way.

Since presiding seems to be problematic, and they continually are having to explain what they REALLY mean by presiding, since they are not using the traditional definition, why does the church cling to it? What is the purpose of retaining that language – of retaining the image/model of the man in the leadership position? Of retaining that last vestige that yes, we are saying work together, yes, we are saying you are equal, but yes, the man presides?

“to occupy the place of authority or control, as in an assembly or meeting

Authority, sure. That’s what priesthood is. Control, no. But since the definition says OR, not AND, that’s not a problem, neh? Also, let’s keep in mind the nature of this particular brand of “authority.” The priesthood is used to bless others, not amass power unto the holder.

act as president or chairperson;

Sure, no problem. We’ve already established that the father is in charge of conducting FHE, calling on people to pray, etc. But keep in mind that the power of presidents and chairpersons varies from organization to organization. In some cases, a president can commit resources and declare war. In other cases, a legislature or board of directors must be consulted before anything can be accomplished. In the case of LDS families,

then what is the Mormon definition of a husband being the head of the home and presiding over his family? And what is the point of designating him as the one who presides?

As Julie already noted, Elder Oaks discussed this at length in October 2005 general conference, in a talk entitled, “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church.”

He said,

There are many similarities and some differences in the way priesthood authority functions in the family and in the Church. If we fail to recognize and honor the differences, we encounter difficulties….

Partnership. 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.

The family proclamation gives this beautiful explanation of the relationship between a husband and a wife: While they have separate responsibilities, “in these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102; emphasis added).

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).

There are cultures or traditions in some parts of the world that allow men to oppress women, but those abuses must not be carried into the families of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I also think the vagueness of the term “nurture” is problematic in its own ways, a topic I intend to take up in a future post. We seem quite confused. We’re convinced gender roles are eternal and gender is essential, but we seem utterly lost as to what specifically those all-important gender roles are.

Kiskilili, thank you for this post, if only because it crowded other comments off the sidebar. It was quite disturbing to look at the sidebar and see only comments about Having One Spouse and Radical Heterosexuality. I feel like I need to make an appointment with the bishop for having read ZDs.

Ah, but to confess what? Just wait till we write posts on Having Multiple Spouses and Radical Homosexuality, and then you’ll have something to confess!

No language is unproblematic. As Kaimi once so helpfully offered, if all of the preside language were denounced over the pulpit tomorrow and a mandate went out to fly the “equal partners” banner from the rooftops, we could still have people saying: “We _are_ equal partners: I make all the decisions and my wife takes care of the kids. We each do some stuff, so that’s equal.”

So no matter what, we have to define and explain our word choice. This is done repeatedly in official settings, most notably and recently by Elder Oaks.

But if “preside” doesn’t mean “to occupy the place of authority or control, as in an assembly or meeting; act as president or chairperson; to exercise management or control” as defined by dictionaries, then what is the Mormon definition of a husband being the head of the home and presiding over his family? And what is the point of designating him as the one who presides?

As Rilkerunning said way back in #13: “I think the confusion comes in once again with the sticky word ‘preside.’ ” It is confusing to not only redefine a word from its current usage, but to also use it differently at church versus at home.

Tam: same thing. We can’t abandon words just because the world uses them differently.

I can understand this sentiment. But it’s abundantly clear that the conception that the brethren have of presiding in the family doesn’t entail subjugation of wives or final-word authority for husbands. Presiding in the family is different from presiding in the Church.

#29. “Yes, church leaders use ‘patriarchy’ and ‘preside’ in a way that is different from current common usage.”

With respect, Naismith, I don’t think we (Mormons) use the word “preside” differently. I don’t think anyone would balk at the idea that the bishop or stake president, after soliciting suggestions and input from their counselors, make a final decision. They may all be in agreement, but the presiding authority has to put his stamp of approval on it. It is the bishop and stake president, as the presiding voice, who direct the affairs of the ward and stake, respectively, and I don’t think we generally accept the counselors as being equal in authority to the bishop or stake president. I don’t think anyone fails to recognize that it is the prophet, as the president and presiding voice of the church, who is the only one who can receive revelation on behalf of the church. The QotT are a support and have important roles, but they do not have equal authority in being “mouthpieces of the Lord.”

It doesn’t make sense to me that we would re-define the word “preside” when it comes to the family. If a husband does not have the final say as the presiding voice for the family, if husband and wife have equal authority and power within the family, then a word other than “preside” should be used. If a man’s role is truly prescribed by God as the presiding authority in the home and a wife should rightly defer to his decisions (as counselors defer to the bishop or stake president), then the “equal” clause ought to be discarded.

And lastly, despite the powerful keys of authority and revelation that church leaders possess, I don’t believe that they have the keys to redefine the English language. There’s no “one true” definition for a word. Words are just for communication and it is current usage of a word that determines its meaning(s). And currently, best as I can tell, both in and out of the church, “preside” means having authority over others in some capacity, which negates equality in some capacity.

And I could give similar arguments for the word “patriarchy”, but I won’t because then this post would be insufferably long.