LDS Freedom Forum

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:58 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

Like I said before.

I don't care about your appeals to authority.

The only reason you are referencing Hugh Nibley or Peterson is b/c they were high authority figures in the Church. That is the only reason you quote them . . ."by virtue of their priesthood". Q.E.D.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:12 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

"If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem."

I don't feel threatened in the least bit. People who yell, scream, hit, etc. those are the one's who are "threatened" b/c they don't know how to actually lead.

Leading is clear, concise, direct; they don't micro-manage, they don't lord over someone else; they clearly lay out what needs to be done, proper behavior, expect it of others and then if/when others don't measure up to it-they call them out on it.

I'm really confused as to what you are saying here:

"Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?"

Umm, yeah actually he can. Bedtime is at 8pm. If you are not in bed by 8pm no TV tomorrow. Boom-demanding compliance to a rule I just created.

You are pulling out quotes and using "the Church" as your "virtue of the priesthood". So and so said it-I like what he said, he's an authority figure who is a high, high up individual in the Church-you must accept it.

Nope sorry . . .it's almost laughable that anyone uses "the Church" as their authority figure anymore considering the tremendous amount of things the Church has socially conformed to as society as shifted. 30 years ago, the Church directly came out and said a woman's place is in the home. Today Apostles are claiming it's just simply a choice.

I don't rely upon "the Church" to solve the hard problems in life. I bet you'll find in that marriage book (maybe not anymore who knows if they took it out) where oral sex was prohibited, but now it's not.

Again, in which era were marriages overall better, today in 2019 or in the 1950s.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:05 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:58 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

Like I said before.

I don't care about your appeals to authority.

The only reason you are referencing Hugh Nibley or Peterson is b/c they were high authority figures in the Church. That is the only reason you quote them . . ."by virtue of their priesthood". Q.E.D.

Not really, Hugh Nibley was only a professor unless I'm mistaken? It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense. They make things clear as day, so I enjoy sharing it with others. If I had a talk from my next door neighbor's daughter-in-law's cousins uncle that I could send to you , I'd send it.

It'd do every man in this church a great service to read these talks and reevaluate what they think it means to preside. When you talk about leadership, all I hear is management. When you describe what a leader is, I don't see Jesus Christ.

A leader is loving, compassionate. Long suffering. A true leader does not coerce, it is not God's plan to coerce. A man shall be one with his wife, side by side, not above his wife. A man should not dictate what his wife should say or do. Any priesthood holder who feels threatened by the possibility of sharing "authority" with his wife does not understand what it means to lead and preside.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:15 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:12 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Anytime a man calls out a woman for her bull$##%, immediately thrown back in his face is the imaginary massive hordes of men who hit/punch/yell and who do horribly wicked things (which those types of behavior are minority of men in the world), but don't you worry anytime a man merely deems to criticize the holy ground that any woman walks on-he must immediately have shoved back in his face that imaginary horde of sick twisted men, so that he must grovel in her presence.

See, two can play this game.

Proper leadership does not involve yelling, screaming, shouting, fists, or violence. Proper leadership is controlled, firm and unyielding.

If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng

Another example of unrighteous dominion is when a father demands compliance with rules he has arbitrarily set. This is contrary to the spirit of gospel leadership. Indeed, a man can add a rich dimension to his leadership when he considers rules with his wife and children who, together with him, can set them in place.

Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?

Autocratic leadership is manifested in other ways. Family home evenings were discontinued in one family because members of the family became discouraged by the contention and anger that infected each meeting. The father, who may have been conscientious about his responsibility to help his family improve, unwisely used most of the time to find fault with family members and to draw their attention to things he felt they were doing wrong. There was little recognition for achievement or accomplishments. Even though he made some effort to praise the children, it was not enough to offset his negative criticism.

Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review. How he presides, however, is subject to review, and to correction, if necessary.

This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

A man needs to understand that his power to influence his wife or children for good can only come through love, praise, and patience. It can never be brought about by force or coercion.

Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions

Each husband, each father, should ask some questions of himself to see if he may be on the borderline of unrighteous dominion:

Do I criticize family members more than I compliment them?

Do I insist that family members obey me because I am the father or husband and hold the priesthood?

Do I seek happiness more at work or somewhere other than in my home?

Do my children seem reluctant to talk to me about some of their feelings and concerns?

Do I attempt to guarantee my place of authority by physical discipline or punishment?

Do I find myself setting and enforcing numerous rules to control family members?

Do family members appear to be fearful of me?

Do I feel threatened by the notion of sharing with other family members the power and responsibility for decision making in the family?

Is my wife highly dependent on me and unable to make decisions for herself?

Does my wife complain that she has insufficient funds to manage the household because I control all the money?

Do I insist on being the main source of inspiration for each individual family member rather than teaching each child to listen to the Spirit?

Do I often feel angry and critical toward family members?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

"If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem."

I don't feel threatened in the least bit. People who yell, scream, hit, etc. those are the one's who are "threatened" b/c they don't know how to actually lead.

Leading is clear, concise, direct; they don't micro-manage, they don't lord over someone else; they clearly lay out what needs to be done, proper behavior, expect it of others and then if/when others don't measure up to it-they call them out on it.

I'm really confused as to what you are saying here:

"Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?"

Umm, yeah actually he can. Bedtime is at 8pm. If you are not in bed by 8pm no TV tomorrow. Boom-demanding compliance to a rule I just created.

You are pulling out quotes and using "the Church" as your "virtue of the priesthood". So and so said it-I like what he said, he's an authority figure who is a high, high up individual in the Church-you must accept it.

Nope sorry . . .it's almost laughable that anyone uses "the Church" as their authority figure anymore considering the tremendous amount of things the Church has socially conformed to as society as shifted. 30 years ago, the Church directly came out and said a woman's place is in the home. Today Apostles are claiming it's just simply a choice.

I don't rely upon "the Church" to solve the hard problems in life. I bet you'll find in that marriage book (maybe not anymore who knows if they took it out) where oral sex was prohibited, but now it's not.

Again, in which era were marriages overall better, today in 2019 or in the 1950s.

If you took 1 minute to filter through my posts you'd understand where I stand concerning the Church and the precious Priesthood you say gives you the right to Lord over people.. Your assumptions are not even hitting CLOSE to home. Congratulations for figuring everything out in life so early though.

I wish there was a high five emoji.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:21 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:15 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:12 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.



If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng



Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?



Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside



This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside



Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions



If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

"If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem."

I don't feel threatened in the least bit. People who yell, scream, hit, etc. those are the one's who are "threatened" b/c they don't know how to actually lead.

Leading is clear, concise, direct; they don't micro-manage, they don't lord over someone else; they clearly lay out what needs to be done, proper behavior, expect it of others and then if/when others don't measure up to it-they call them out on it.

I'm really confused as to what you are saying here:

"Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?"

Umm, yeah actually he can. Bedtime is at 8pm. If you are not in bed by 8pm no TV tomorrow. Boom-demanding compliance to a rule I just created.

You are pulling out quotes and using "the Church" as your "virtue of the priesthood". So and so said it-I like what he said, he's an authority figure who is a high, high up individual in the Church-you must accept it.

Nope sorry . . .it's almost laughable that anyone uses "the Church" as their authority figure anymore considering the tremendous amount of things the Church has socially conformed to as society as shifted. 30 years ago, the Church directly came out and said a woman's place is in the home. Today Apostles are claiming it's just simply a choice.

I don't rely upon "the Church" to solve the hard problems in life. I bet you'll find in that marriage book (maybe not anymore who knows if they took it out) where oral sex was prohibited, but now it's not.

Again, in which era were marriages overall better, today in 2019 or in the 1950s.

If you took 1 minute to filter through my posts you'd understand where I stand concerning the Church and the precious Priesthood you say gives you the right to Lord over people.. Your assumptions are not even hitting CLOSE to home. Congratulations for figuring everything out in life so early though.

I wish there was a high five emoji.

I don't really care about what you've previously said, I'm talking about what you are saying here.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:05 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:58 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:51 pm Rather than Derail a thread, I'll create a new one.



If you took a breath before you replied you'd comprehend I mentioned the hit/punch/yell types specifically BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MINORITY and yet poor fools think that Unrighteous Dominion is limited to those dirtbags that abuse their women physically.

from https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1989/0 ... n?lang=eng



Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?



Wait.. The Father can't find fault with family members? But isn't that what a firm and unyielding leader does? How can you expect your Woman and you children to be submissive and obedient if you can't tell them what they are doing wrong?

Here is a fantastic phrase that you should focus on, as I have never said the Man is not the head of the household, I never said he does not Preside



This was never about whether or not a man can preside over his home or not. If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem.

How will you preside



Hmm. Join decision? As a priesthood holder, does that bother you that Elder Peterson would suggest that you must make a JOINT DECISION with your wife rather than dictating what she must accept? If so, you should rethink things.

You cannot force others to do what you want them to do? But how will you make sure they do the right things?? Well, ask Father in Heaven why he doesn't force us.


Here's a fantastic list of questions



If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we may need to evaluate our relationship with our family members.
Brethren, more of us exercise Unrighteous Dominion than you'd ever imagine. God's expectations are much higher than you've imagined. The Spirit is grieved much more easily than you've ever imagined. Your priesthood is not so easily retained.

I'd also suggest that the reader check out the talk "Leaders and Managers" by Hugh Nibley to see what a REAL LEADER does.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nib ... -managers/

Like I said before.

I don't care about your appeals to authority.

The only reason you are referencing Hugh Nibley or Peterson is b/c they were high authority figures in the Church. That is the only reason you quote them . . ."by virtue of their priesthood". Q.E.D.

Not really, Hugh Nibley was only a professor unless I'm mistaken? It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense. They make things clear as day, so I enjoy sharing it with others. If I had a talk from my next door neighbor's daughter-in-law's cousins uncle that I could send to you , I'd send it.

It'd do every man in this church a great service to read these talks and reevaluate what they think it means to preside. When you talk about leadership, all I hear is management. When you describe what a leader is, I don't see Jesus Christ.

A leader is loving, compassionate. Long suffering. A true leader does not coerce, it is not God's plan to coerce. A man shall be one with his wife, side by side, not above his wife. A man should not dictate what his wife should say or do. Any priesthood holder who feels threatened by the possibility of sharing "authority" with his wife does not understand what it means to lead and preside.

Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:23 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:21 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:15 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:12 pm
"If you feel threatened by the thought of losing your ability to tell others what to do, that's your problem."

I don't feel threatened in the least bit. People who yell, scream, hit, etc. those are the one's who are "threatened" b/c they don't know how to actually lead.

Leading is clear, concise, direct; they don't micro-manage, they don't lord over someone else; they clearly lay out what needs to be done, proper behavior, expect it of others and then if/when others don't measure up to it-they call them out on it.

I'm really confused as to what you are saying here:

"Wait, the FATHER, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD can't just demand compliance with a rule he created?"

Umm, yeah actually he can. Bedtime is at 8pm. If you are not in bed by 8pm no TV tomorrow. Boom-demanding compliance to a rule I just created.

You are pulling out quotes and using "the Church" as your "virtue of the priesthood". So and so said it-I like what he said, he's an authority figure who is a high, high up individual in the Church-you must accept it.

Nope sorry . . .it's almost laughable that anyone uses "the Church" as their authority figure anymore considering the tremendous amount of things the Church has socially conformed to as society as shifted. 30 years ago, the Church directly came out and said a woman's place is in the home. Today Apostles are claiming it's just simply a choice.

I don't rely upon "the Church" to solve the hard problems in life. I bet you'll find in that marriage book (maybe not anymore who knows if they took it out) where oral sex was prohibited, but now it's not.

Again, in which era were marriages overall better, today in 2019 or in the 1950s.

If you took 1 minute to filter through my posts you'd understand where I stand concerning the Church and the precious Priesthood you say gives you the right to Lord over people.. Your assumptions are not even hitting CLOSE to home. Congratulations for figuring everything out in life so early though.

I wish there was a high five emoji.

I don't really care about what you've previously said, I'm talking about what you are saying here.

lol.. you crack me up.

Go ahead, please define Unrighteous Dominion for me. Explain what D&C 121 really means since I don't have a clue.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:29 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:23 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:21 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:15 pm

If you took 1 minute to filter through my posts you'd understand where I stand concerning the Church and the precious Priesthood you say gives you the right to Lord over people.. Your assumptions are not even hitting CLOSE to home. Congratulations for figuring everything out in life so early though.

I wish there was a high five emoji.

I don't really care about what you've previously said, I'm talking about what you are saying here.

lol.. you crack me up.

Go ahead, please define Unrighteous Dominion for me. Explain what D&C 121 really means since I don't have a clue.

Lol. you crack me up to. You seem to have it all figured out.

I already explained it; I'm not going to do it again-you should have paid better attention.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:05 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:58 pm
Like I said before.

I don't care about your appeals to authority.

The only reason you are referencing Hugh Nibley or Peterson is b/c they were high authority figures in the Church. That is the only reason you quote them . . ."by virtue of their priesthood". Q.E.D.

Not really, Hugh Nibley was only a professor unless I'm mistaken? It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense. They make things clear as day, so I enjoy sharing it with others. If I had a talk from my next door neighbor's daughter-in-law's cousins uncle that I could send to you , I'd send it.

It'd do every man in this church a great service to read these talks and reevaluate what they think it means to preside. When you talk about leadership, all I hear is management. When you describe what a leader is, I don't see Jesus Christ.

A leader is loving, compassionate. Long suffering. A true leader does not coerce, it is not God's plan to coerce. A man shall be one with his wife, side by side, not above his wife. A man should not dictate what his wife should say or do. Any priesthood holder who feels threatened by the possibility of sharing "authority" with his wife does not understand what it means to lead and preside.

Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:32 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:29 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:23 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:21 pm
I don't really care about what you've previously said, I'm talking about what you are saying here.

lol.. you crack me up.

Go ahead, please define Unrighteous Dominion for me. Explain what D&C 121 really means since I don't have a clue.

Lol. you crack me up to. You seem to have it all figured out.

I already explained it; I'm not going to do it again-you should have paid better attention.

You have not spent a second explaining D&C 121.

I suppose a real leader would refuse to expound on Scripture when asked to?

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:43 pm This is why such men will answer for every tear shed by their wives.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:05 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 4:58 pm
Like I said before.

I don't care about your appeals to authority.

The only reason you are referencing Hugh Nibley or Peterson is b/c they were high authority figures in the Church. That is the only reason you quote them . . ."by virtue of their priesthood". Q.E.D.

Not really, Hugh Nibley was only a professor unless I'm mistaken? It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense. They make things clear as day, so I enjoy sharing it with others. If I had a talk from my next door neighbor's daughter-in-law's cousins uncle that I could send to you , I'd send it.

It'd do every man in this church a great service to read these talks and reevaluate what they think it means to preside. When you talk about leadership, all I hear is management. When you describe what a leader is, I don't see Jesus Christ.

A leader is loving, compassionate. Long suffering. A true leader does not coerce, it is not God's plan to coerce. A man shall be one with his wife, side by side, not above his wife. A man should not dictate what his wife should say or do. Any priesthood holder who feels threatened by the possibility of sharing "authority" with his wife does not understand what it means to lead and preside.

Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:18 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:32 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:29 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:23 pm

lol.. you crack me up.

Go ahead, please define Unrighteous Dominion for me. Explain what D&C 121 really means since I don't have a clue.

Lol. you crack me up to. You seem to have it all figured out.

I already explained it; I'm not going to do it again-you should have paid better attention.

You have not spent a second explaining D&C 121.

I suppose a real leader would refuse to expound on Scripture when asked to?

Actually a real leader doesn't repeat themselves endlessly. I already explained it once-in the other thread; if you didn't understand a particular part or point of my explanation you can certainly ask for clarification on that point and I'd be happy to expound.

But no, I'm not going to repeat the whole thing for you.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:05 pm

Not really, Hugh Nibley was only a professor unless I'm mistaken? It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense. They make things clear as day, so I enjoy sharing it with others. If I had a talk from my next door neighbor's daughter-in-law's cousins uncle that I could send to you , I'd send it.

It'd do every man in this church a great service to read these talks and reevaluate what they think it means to preside. When you talk about leadership, all I hear is management. When you describe what a leader is, I don't see Jesus Christ.

A leader is loving, compassionate. Long suffering. A true leader does not coerce, it is not God's plan to coerce. A man shall be one with his wife, side by side, not above his wife. A man should not dictate what his wife should say or do. Any priesthood holder who feels threatened by the possibility of sharing "authority" with his wife does not understand what it means to lead and preside.

Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:34 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm
Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

“Lady” LoL. In very few situations is it not condescending and mocking when used the way you just used it.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:34 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm
Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

I’m not interested in what else you have to say. I haven no respect toward your attitude towards women and leadership . God bless.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 7:54 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:34 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

“Lady” LoL. In very few situations is it not condescending and mocking when used the way you just used it.

I didn't mean it that way; you seem to have amazingly wrong mind-reading skills.

16 Unto the woman he 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.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;