The short answer is, I think the GAs are doing their damndest to bleach “preside” of any meaning whatsoever, and I’m thrilled most members reconcile “preside” to “equal partnership,” rather than understanding “equal partnership” in terms of presiding. But I don’t find this solution entirely satisfactory, personally, for the following reasons:

(a) The temple ceremony has multiple indications that women are subordinate to men.

(b) If “preside” means “call on someone to say the prayer,” this hardly fits the gravitas in tone of the context in which it occurs: was it really God’s divine eternal design that it’s absolutely essential men must call on someone to pray? It’s a matter of eternal import that women not choose the person to pray? Women’s role is to nurture, and men’s parallel role is to decide who prays?

(c) It’s now being asserted, confusingly, that “preside” means something different in every context in which it occurs. When men preside in the home, whatever they do, they are specifically NOT in charge. But if the husband is absent and the woman presides, this means (as I read Elder Oaks), that she IS in charge. Why the discrepancy? This in addition to the fact that men presiding in ecclesiastical contexts are certainly in charge.

Justine, I think you’re absolutely right that the separation of home and work space as a result of the Industrial Revolution underlies the entire discussion of whether women should work outside the home, and presupposes a modern context.

The idea of women staying home as a doctrinal issue may have been a response to society moving away from a more agrarian lifestyle. 200 years ago, everyone worked from home for the most part. Douglas Thayer’s new book about growing up in the 30s in Provo would be appalling today because he was kicked out the door in the morning to play and stayed out roaming around Provo all day long until dinner time — every day. The requirements of parenting have changed in some ways as the world has become a more violent and dangerous place. Maybe the church is just reacting to that?

As to the defining of presiding, I see it very tied to the Priesthood. My husband can only bless others through his Priesthood, not being able to administer to himself. I find that fascinating. It’s so interesting because of the position it puts him in. He holds this mantle that he must only use on behalf of others. And perhaps so it is with presiding. The church has worked really hard, I think, to get abusive and power-mongering men out of their wives faces, but the idea of presiding was never one of that ilk, I think. Maybe presiding is as simple as using the priesthood to bless and administer to your family. That does indeed require the proper authority, but it does not require authoritative behavior. I don’t know for sure, but that seems to make sense to me.

But within Mormonism specifically, my impression is that the doctrine that women should stay home was developed largely in response to second-wave feminism (and thus relatively recently), and so the brouhaha over this doctrine and the shift away from emphasizing it is even more recent. This isn’t something I’ve studied in any depth, though, so I’d welcome any evidence to the contrary, such as earlier authoritative pronouncements emphasizing the importance of women staying home. Certainly there’s a long cultural history of discussion of “the woman question” (what are women for?), since it was determined that men had evolved to fill specialized slots in the Market and women were apparently designed to create for men a nurturing anti-Market in the home, masochistically giving themselves to their husband and children and protecting their delicate uteruses and all that–but does anyone know of examples of this rhetoric being picked up in the Church? Did earlier Church leaders ever insist women stay home (indicating significant numbers had careers!)? Or was it taken for granted that they would stay home, and did? Motherhood has only become important to the Church in the last couple of decades, and my sneaking suspicion is that women staying home is but one facet of that development. (Obviously polygamy facilitated women’s careers so attitudes then were different.)

An even more interesting question of mine centers on marital egalitarianism; this was certainly a prominent concern of first-wave feminists (Elizabeth Cady Stanton refused to covenant to obey her husband at her wedding in 1840, for example), but was it ever picked up in Mormonism specifically before recent times? Can the embracing by Mormon women of marital egalitarianism all be dated to after the 1990 temple changes, or are there examples of it earlier? (And if so, how on earth did earlier Mormon feminists reconcile their views, which is challenging enough today?)

I actually think the Church generally claims it takes a stance of constancy amid change, and the vagueness of certain statements (in the FamProc and elsewhere) facilitates our efforts to mask change as it occurs. If we were more open about our doctrinal changes, why not repudiate now defunct doctrine? But we probably need a whole post to discuss the Church’s attitudes toward change and prophetic authority.

And although a discussion of women’s role in the world is more recent than, say, discussions on animal husbandry, I have stories of generations of women who felt the issue keenly. I can think of many, many women in the last three centuries who were a part of that discussion. Women from my personal ancestry were part of that discussion. I just think the discussion has grown louder in the last 5 decades (and I’m not suggesting it has grown in ill).

Part of the difficulty in making concrete assertions is the doctrine that we embrace as Mormons: the doctrine of change. We would have no need for modern prophets if change weren’t an important part of our make-up. I have to force myself to acknowledge that I am not the purveyor of all truth, and as such, must accept the Lord’s truth as it is given to me.

Back to the original discussion, though, my husband just sauntered past and suggested that presiding is something done entirely outside of providing because either can certainly be done without the other. That’s probably been mentioned previously, but thought I’d throw it in anyway.

If, on the other hand, the aforementioned “discussion” is in reference to whether women should work outside the home, my impression is exactly the opposite: far from being an age-old philosophical conundrum that has bedeviled generations of brilliant minds, it strikes me as incredibly recent, and historically contingent on two related legacies, that of second-wave feminism and that of unrepudiated authoritative statements to the effect that women should stay home except in truly exigent circumstances.

The fact that it is asserted by many that it is “a private matter between a couple and the Lord” is in itself fascinating, and seems to follow a track parallel to the Church’s attitude toward birth control, once anathema, now a wholly personal matter on which the Church would not presume to interfere with people’s personal choices and lay down the law. This in spite of the fact that the Church has had no trouble answering both these questions in the past and presuming to lay down all sorts of laws. Just imangine if in 30 years the Church’s attitude toward alcohol is that there simply can be no general policy applicable to everyone, but that individuals should pray about how much alcohol to consume and negotiate this privately with the Lord.

The conversation on this thread illustrates why I would love to see research on how Mormon women rationalize personal choices, given the tensions between different Church statements. When I was growing up I was taught unequivocally that women should stay home if at all possible, and I knew scores of women who stayed home specifically because they believed it was what the Church required of them. The Church has seemingly backed away from emphasizing this strain of thought, at least in some quarters, but I’m still absolutely intrigued that there are those who assert effectively that the Church has never crafted a specific policy for how women should behave when it comes to childcare and income. Do Mormon women who work outside the home consider themselves exceptions to a general policy? Do they consider themselves heterodox (or better, heteropractic)? Or do they simply deny any such policy has ever been preached over the pulpit?

It’s true that one’s personal revelations might be at odds with Church teachings, but I don’t see any easy way to harmonize these (for example, by concluding that what the Church is teaching is not what it appears to be teaching).

Back to the first issue, that of presiding and providing: like others of you, I can certainly imagine an egalitarian relationship in which only one person brings in income. And perhaps, as Julie implies (if I’m reading her right), the Church’s teachings on how couples should jointly make financial decisions are firm enough and people are obedient enough that the possibility of the income-earner ever exploiting that power is a negligible contingency not worthy of being addressed.

In practice, though, as Starfoxy points out, women who don’t earn income are in an inherently vulnerable position that is only partially mitigated by the Church’s insistence on joint control of finances. Such women have a lot more to lose if they divorce than men do, so their threshold for divorce is necessarily much higher. No doubt in most situations this simply isn’t a problem. But in most situations men won’t sexually abuse children, and yet the Church sees fit to create a system of checks nevertheless. In the same way men are taught not to hog control of the finances and there’s ostensibly no problem, why not tell men not to abuse children and assume they’ll just be righteous and nothing more is required of us? It’s hard not to reach the cynical conclusion that what separates these situations is the very real specter of litigation in the case of the latter.

Mark, maybe we should start a group for people addicted to these questions! The two of us and several others on this thread can be the ringleaders. One definition of addiction (Ziff tells me) is a point at which pleasure and pain are indistinguishable. I know I’ve long since passed that point when it comes to these conversations!

It’s interesting (and obviously unfair) that women would think money they earn is “their own,” discretionary income, whereas the husband’s money belongs to the family. But this fits perfectly with a model of male providing, don’t you think? Women aren’t asked to provide for the family.

I have to disagree with SingleSpeed (#6)–”are to provide” has the force of “should provide.” It’s hard for me to read the FamProc as vaguely saying “do whatever you think is best” (by the way, though, this is a universal policy proclamation to the world!).

Kaimi sums up my views well in comment 18–I don’t think theoretically there need be a relationship between the two, but in practice the two frequently are linked, and historically they have been.

I don’t see as much latitude as Naismith in the phrase “fathers are responsible to provide the necessities of life.” (I also don’t see evidence the language in the FamProc was hammered out with anything approaching the care applied to the Nicene Creed.) Certainly the clause could mean that fathers need not work necessarily–for example, they could steal those necessities, Jean Valjean-style. Or they could collect unemployment checks. But if the insertion of “responsible” is really meant to indicate that the father’s role might entail delegating the job of providing to the mother–the wife brings home the bacon but the husband is responsible for her to bring home the bacon–whoa! Far from comforting me, such an interpretation indicates a WHOLE lot more control of husband over wife than I’m happy with!

In my opinion (which, rather than being humble, I should admit, is rather proud), the FamProc pretty clearly lays out a prescription for traditional gender roles: men are in charge and provide income, and women are responsible for childcare. Part of the problem is that that protrait doesn’t look as charming as it did even 15 years ago, so why not “creatively reinterpret” it to say: “A Proclamation to the World: do whatever you think is best.” Too bad that creates some incongruities in tone, among other problems, but then the document never entirely made sense to start with.

We’ve all got to reach our own decision with the Lord.

He has established a general expectation, but if we focus on behavior alone, we miss intent. We could be going through the motions (or not) and have the right or wrong intent. Your place with the Lord is private and between you and He. That’s all I think on the matter…

Well, I guess I am a stupid convert who has lived on two other continents and didn’t get the memo. I am not part of your exclusive little club of “we” who smugly dismiss others as “exceptions.”

Naismith, while I think your perspective is a valuable one and we hope you continue to contribute to the discussions around here, on behalf of ZD admin I’d respectfully ask you to refrain from these kinds of comments. No one, here or anywhere else on the Bloggernacle I’m aware of, has ever called you a “stupid convert.” No one has referred to any clubs, exclusive or otherwise. Perhaps you’ve been poorly treated because you’re a convert, and if so, I’m genuinely sorry that’s the case. But it’s unfair to transfer blame for mistreatment you’ve suffered in other contexts to this one and to mischaracterize m&m’s genuine disagreement with you as the result of smugness or insider status. We believe reasonable people can disagree, and we oppose comments suggesting, intentionally or otherwise, that the only reason someone might disagree with a given position is some deficit in personal righteousness (in this case, the quite unfair suggestion that m&m is smug).

In accordance with our comment policy, I’d respectfully request that you refrain from attacking other people and from putting sharp words in their mouths that they themselves have not voiced.

Thank you. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of presiding and providing.

Wow. I am not trying to do what you are painting me out to do. I don’t think you are a stupid convert. I’m not trying to beat anyone with a stick, nor be smug. And I’m not drawing a line nearly as hard as you think I am.

I just don’t think mom at home/dad provider is as sacred a model as you do.

That’s fine, but let’s agree to disagree agreeably, ok? I don’t disagree with you as much as you think I do, though. Seems to me this is a hot button for you, and I’m sorry I pushed it.

If we are all praying, and God thinks as you claim, why do we get different answers?

Because I see these as general principles to guide us, not absolute specifics to beat each other with (and again, that is not my intent). It’s like we can’t declare how many children a couple should have, even though the general principle is multiply and replenish and have as many as you can. (This is a tender one for me, because we have wanted more, but have felt inspired not to have more because of health problems. I don’t feel that talking about the general rule and principles, though, is wrong, even as my life necessitates something different, to a degree, than the ideal.)

The specifics for responding to general principles like these will by definition often look a bit different. That’s the beauty and challenge of the gospel in my mind — we each take general principles and seek God’s guidance on the specifics. And that is part of why we can’t judge each other on things like this, because there is variation in our lives and God knows our situations, our hearts, and everything else. And we simply can’t know what kind of prayer and effort has gone into someone’s decision about something.

Perhaps we think of exceptions in different ways, but I don’t think calling something an exception invalidates it. There are ideals that are taught and have always been taught.

Well, I guess I am a stupid convert who has lived on two other continents and didn’t get the memo. I am not part of your exclusive little club of “we” who smugly dismiss others as “exceptions.”

Yes, there are ideals that have been taught regarding the rearing of a righteous posterity. I totally embrace and support those ideals. Rarely do they ever mention where mom is physically located or whose name is on the paycheck. Sure you can find an occasional quote, but there have been maybe half a dozen references in the 30 years I’ve been a member. The ideals that I hear over and over and over are about making time for children, making family the priority, etc. The details of how one does that are left to the members.

I think this is partly because church leaders think raising the kids is more important than any particular method of doing so, as well as that as the church spreads to other cultures, the issues are different.

Where we lived in South America, children start school at age 3. So a lot of the dynamic of “being home with preschoolers” changes dramatically.

Also, it was common for women there to take their babies with them to their place of employment. So the notion of “staying home” seems irrelevant, as long as the baby is being cared for. I mean, why is it okay to wear a baby in the backpack while you clean your own house, but not okay to carry the baby in a backpack while you clean a doctor’s office? Why is it okay to perch a little one on the counter while you can tomatoes, but not okay to perch a little one on the counter while you serve a customer?

I think church leaders know this. That’s why the recent WW leadership didn’t mention those specifics much. Because it was for a truly worldwide audience.

I just don’t think mom at home/dad provider is as sacred a model as you do. And it runs the risk of being used as a stick to beat others with, or at least dismiss them as an “exception.”

If it was so darn important that mom not take a paid job, why would any woman get inspiration to do so? If we are all praying, and God thinks as you claim, why do we get different answers?

I think the general principles are much more important and positive.