LDS Freedom Forum

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:13 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:12 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:08 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:36 pm
You don't have a "co-equal" marriage. Either you submit to her or she submits to you.

Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church.

So glad it ain't YOUR Church. But thank you for making yourself a self-righteous jerk who takes the place of God.
lol

Name calling? Really?

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:35 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:25 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:09 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:00 pm

I'm fine with a husband presiding. I like it actually, when it is done properly, in that he makes sure things get done and everyone feels loved and appreciated. But I think that presiding is so much more than expecting submission, and we should be stressing those other parts more than the expecting submission part. If properly done, a leader leads in a way that makes those around him want to follow him. If submission was so important in our church roles, we would use that language rather than simply "sustain" or "follow." These words would be better than submit, which I think gives the impression that the submitter has no will of their own. Husbands are so imperfect, as are wives of course. So if both are striving to submit to the Lord, than we will be in agreement and be united. That is where the stress should be - in submitting to the Lord's will - because the husband's will will not always be perfectly aligned with the Lord's. We should all be ONE in Christ.

What does submit mean? It means to "to yield, resign or surrender to the power, will or authority of another; with the reciprocal pronoun."

For a husband to preside, means that the wife MUST submit. You can't preside over i.e. "to be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer.", someone who doesn't want to submit.

A husband presides a wife submits. Yes, exactly!

What you appear to be quibbling over is the actual use of the word "submit" and the different styles of "submission". All submission means is to yield one's will to another. That's it. Sometimes the one "submitting" thinks they need to be a doormat, sometimes the one being submitted to believes they need to be a brute.

I'm not talking about the styles (correct or incorrect) of submission, only that a husband presides and a wife submits.
It's simple and it's easy to understand.

What has been destroyed is the concept that a husband presides and a wife submits. It does NOT EXISTS in the Church anymore.

This is where I think the mistake is, in assuming that preside equals expecting or demanding submission. Preside can mean simply to watch over, to counsel, to lead in work or spiritual activities. Who decided that to preside means to expect submission?

lol, You see it but you don't want to see it.

Because you can't preside without submission.

I'm going to make this simple and I use this example not to show relationships between men and women but to show the reality of preside and submit.

A father "presides" over Scripture reading. What do you do when your 5 year old says no! and starts a tantrum? The child is not submitting, the child is in a state of rebellion. Okay so you claim the father is to "lead". Well you're 5-year-old doesn't want to "follow"! What do you do?

Now a brute could yell and scream at the child and stomp his feet and say "I'm the leader you must submit!".
A non-leader could just say, well I guess you don't want to submit so we won't do anything (which means the father is now submitting HIS will to the child's will).
A leader could tell the child, go to your room I will not tolerant this rebellion.

The point remains you simply cannot "preside" over someone who isn't willing to "submit". The person who is unwilling to submit will simply throw a tantrum-or as an adult cause problems, they will make it so hard that the leader cannot "preside".

So yes, presiding means you expect submission. If you don't you won't lead.

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:14 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:48 pm

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:37 pm Go research myself? YOU SAID "PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING". I didn't say that. You did. Give me some pudding!

I've already provided you with the questions you need to ask. I'm giving you the pudding.

Since equality has been preached (~1950s) are marriage rates higher or lower?
Since that time are divorces rates higher or lower?
Since that time are women happier or less happy?
Since that time are children more happy or less happy?
Since that time are more children being raised in stable homes or not?
Are their more children in day-care today vs. then?

I'm giving you the pudding. You claim you'd believe me-but you don't. You won't even investigate it yourself.

Go research the data.

I'm not going to provide the data for you. I'm providing you the ingredients to make the pudding. If you won't even put forth the effort to see if the ingredients make the pudding then you won't believe the pudding I put in front of you is good.

catcatinabox:

Only on the internet do you get to say such silly things and get a way with it.

You have no proof. Providing questions are not proof and its not pudding. Why do I need to investigate claims that you are making? Why don't you provide me with the proof since you have already investigated this?

You can try to pretend that its my fault that you can't prove your ideas, but, its just make believe.

Conclusion: catcatinabox lied when he said the proof was in the pudding. There was no proof, no pudding, nothing. He is gaslightning now because he can't prove his words yet he wants people to believe him.

Got it. Although I had already figured you out. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In case you didn't pick up on this, you've lost credibility with me. That means outside of pointing out your logical errors and nonsensical statements (if I feel so inclined) I will not be expecting anything from you and so therefore I will not be using any more of my time attempting to engage with you in a discussion. That is until you prove yourself credible again.

Valo

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:13 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:12 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:08 pm
Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church.

So glad it ain't YOUR Church. But thank you for making yourself a self-righteous jerk who takes the place of God.
lol

Name calling? Really?

Turn-about is fair play.

Fiannan wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:16 pm Does the brain regulate the heart? Yes. There is a submission, so to speak. How does the brain stay alive? The heart pumps oxygenated blood to it. So which organ is most important to the body?

They are both equally as important.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:41 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:35 pm

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

It's disgusting how women were treated throughout the centuries

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

So much this. Juvenile and ignorant doesn't even begin to describe the modern 2019 prespective of the past.

Is ignorant any better than rose colored?

Then again, rose colored is ignorant as well.

Such silliness. Poor poor guys. Please educate yourselves, you sound every bit as ignorant as sjw feminists

Stahura wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 6:21 pm

jmack wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 4:04 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 12:03 pm

jmack wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 11:56 am

Why not? I think you'd have to ask pres. Nelson how he came to this, if he prayed and pondered on it and received what he believed was an answer from God, it is what is called revelation.

I’m sure he prayed about it, but no, we are not going to call this revelation and put it up there with the revelations we find within D&C. This simply isn’t a revelation from God to a Prophet intended to guide his church. I don’t believe that for a second. God didn’t want women not to be witnesses for all these years and suddenly reveal that it’s chill for women to be witnesses.

They made a policy change, just like all kinds of other changes they make. Just like the policy on baptism of children of gay parents and the subsequent rerversal had nothing to do with revelation, this too is not a revelation.

They made the right call. There’s never been any reason for women not to be witnesses besides culture and traditions and they recognized it.

This watering down of what we have become to believe revelation actually is has damaged our people so much more than we realize.

Why did you take what I said, make inferences and get all righteously indignant about it? Revelation can come to all of us, in different ways. When we pray for guidance and get an answer, that's revelation. I never said it was the same revelation as in the D&C, you made that claim. You make a lot of judgments about how other people should do things, how the church should be run, but that right is reserved for Pres Nelson. They did make a procedure change, but that doesn't mean it wasn't prayed about to find the will of the Lord, and if you insist it wasn't prayed about, I'd like to know how you know that.

I literally said that I’m sure he prayed about it, so why are you acting like I said literally the opposite of that. Did you respond before reading my post? Honestly?

Also, I merely stated my opinion that they made the right call here. I didn’t judge them. I also, in this post, did not state if their previous call was right or wrong . In any other situation involving any other individual, you’d see me as merely stating my opinion, but because I’m talking about the brethren my action gets immediately upgraded to a JUDGEMENT? Tell me, why? If I stated my opinion about something our local government did, you’d consider it merely an opinion. You wouldn’t complain that I’m “Judging” about how the government should do things. Why make my opinion out to be a judgement instead of an opinion?

And yes, “praying for guidance and getting an answer” is revelation. It’s what people think the “answer” is that’s the problem. It isn’t warm fuzzies. It isn’t peace and joy and “the fruits of the spirit”. Our church has built up a tradition of thinking every little emotion and thought must be the spirit, when in reality you’re experiencing something that anybody in any other religion experiences. The real thing, real revelation, comes as a result of putting far more time into it. Far more tears, far more sacrifice, far more prayer. Even after all of that, there’s no telling when God will give you an answer. Many things he leaves up to us to decide. Things like church policy. The handbooks. They are a result of our leaders judging for themselves what should be within the handbooks based on their experience and knowledge. The fact that they pray for guidance doesn’t mean that the end result must have been a revelation from heaven. Football players pray to win their game, therefore their victory is attributed to God? No. You can’t use that logic.

If you have such an issue with people giving you responses you don’t like, just let me know that I need to tell you what you want to hear. Either that, or don’t have such thin skin. I didn’t realize I was supposed to please your ears and praise the things you want to hear be praised.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:35 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:25 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:09 pm

What does submit mean? It means to "to yield, resign or surrender to the power, will or authority of another; with the reciprocal pronoun."

For a husband to preside, means that the wife MUST submit. You can't preside over i.e. "to be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer.", someone who doesn't want to submit.

A husband presides a wife submits. Yes, exactly!

What you appear to be quibbling over is the actual use of the word "submit" and the different styles of "submission". All submission means is to yield one's will to another. That's it. Sometimes the one "submitting" thinks they need to be a doormat, sometimes the one being submitted to believes they need to be a brute.

I'm not talking about the styles (correct or incorrect) of submission, only that a husband presides and a wife submits.
It's simple and it's easy to understand.

What has been destroyed is the concept that a husband presides and a wife submits. It does NOT EXISTS in the Church anymore.

This is where I think the mistake is, in assuming that preside equals expecting or demanding submission. Preside can mean simply to watch over, to counsel, to lead in work or spiritual activities. Who decided that to preside means to expect submission?

lol, You see it but you don't want to see it.

Because you can't preside without submission.

I'm going to make this simple and I use this example not to show relationships between men and women but to show the reality of preside and submit.

A father "presides" over Scripture reading. What do you do when your 5 year old says no! and starts a tantrum? The child is not submitting, the child is in a state of rebellion. Okay so you claim the father is to "lead". Well you're 5-year-old doesn't want to "follow"! What do you do?

Now a brute could yell and scream at the child and stomp his feet and say "I'm the leader you must submit!".
A non-leader could just say, well I guess you don't want to submit so we won't do anything (which means the father is now submitting HIS will to the child's will).
A leader could tell the child, go to your room I will not tolerant this rebellion.

The point remains you simply cannot "preside" over someone who isn't willing to "submit". The person who is unwilling to submit will simply throw a tantrum-or as an adult cause problems, they will make it so hard that the leader cannot "preside".

So yes, presiding means you expect submission. If you don't you won't lead.

I think we need to start thinking about how to preside without expecting submission. I think presiding is different than forming rules or boundaries and enforcing those boundaries. That is what a policeman does. Husband and wife should counsel together to make those rules and boundaries with their children and enforce them. You are arguing that presiding means you have the right to make rules for your wife and she is obligated to follow those rules.
Should I as a mother expect my children to submit to me? Does that mean that I preside over my children. Interesting that nowhere in the proclamation does it say that the mother presides over her children. But under your definition a mother would preside over her children if it is her right to expect submission. Maybe we should change it to father and mother preside over their families. This puts more responsibility on the mother which many women may not want to have yet. And I do think there is purpose for the man having this right to preside, otherwise he might just let his wife do all the work.

Strawman.

[email protected] wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:18 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:41 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:35 pm

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

So much this. Juvenile and ignorant doesn't even begin to describe the modern 2019 prespective of the past.

Is ignorant any better than rose colored?

Then again, rose colored is ignorant as well.

Such silliness. Poor poor guys. Please educate yourselves, you sound every bit as ignorant as sjw feminists

Strawman.

Fiannan wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:20 pm

Strawman.

Did you just assume the straw structure's gender?

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:17 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:13 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:12 pm
So glad it ain't YOUR Church. But thank you for making yourself a self-righteous jerk who takes the place of God.
lol

Name calling? Really?

Turn-about is fair play.

Did he call you a name? He just pointed out something he disagreed with and something he felt was detrimental. He didn’t resort to childish name calling.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:16 pm

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:14 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:48 pm

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:37 pm Go research myself? YOU SAID "PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING". I didn't say that. You did. Give me some pudding!

I've already provided you with the questions you need to ask. I'm giving you the pudding.

Since equality has been preached (~1950s) are marriage rates higher or lower?
Since that time are divorces rates higher or lower?
Since that time are women happier or less happy?
Since that time are children more happy or less happy?
Since that time are more children being raised in stable homes or not?
Are their more children in day-care today vs. then?

I'm giving you the pudding. You claim you'd believe me-but you don't. You won't even investigate it yourself.

Go research the data.

I'm not going to provide the data for you. I'm providing you the ingredients to make the pudding. If you won't even put forth the effort to see if the ingredients make the pudding then you won't believe the pudding I put in front of you is good.

catcatinabox:

Only on the internet do you get to say such silly things and get a way with it.

You have no proof. Providing questions are not proof and its not pudding. Why do I need to investigate claims that you are making? Why don't you provide me with the proof since you have already investigated this?

You can try to pretend that its my fault that you can't prove your ideas, but, its just make believe.

Conclusion: catcatinabox lied when he said the proof was in the pudding. There was no proof, no pudding, nothing. He is gaslightning now because he can't prove his words yet he wants people to believe him.

Got it. Although I had already figured you out. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In case you didn't pick up on this, you've lost credibility with me. That means outside of pointing out your logical errors and nonsensical statements (if I feel so inclined) I will not be expecting anything from you and so therefore I will not be using any more of my time attempting to engage with you in a discussion. That is until you prove yourself credible again.

Valo

ROFLOL. You won't even research the questions. And then you claim I'm lying and gaslighting . . .ROFLOL

Like I said, providing you the data wouldn't help-you would reject it.

jmack wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:18 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 6:21 pm

jmack wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 4:04 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 12:03 pm

I’m sure he prayed about it, but no, we are not going to call this revelation and put it up there with the revelations we find within D&C. This simply isn’t a revelation from God to a Prophet intended to guide his church. I don’t believe that for a second. God didn’t want women not to be witnesses for all these years and suddenly reveal that it’s chill for women to be witnesses.

They made a policy change, just like all kinds of other changes they make. Just like the policy on baptism of children of gay parents and the subsequent rerversal had nothing to do with revelation, this too is not a revelation.

They made the right call. There’s never been any reason for women not to be witnesses besides culture and traditions and they recognized it.

This watering down of what we have become to believe revelation actually is has damaged our people so much more than we realize.

Why did you take what I said, make inferences and get all righteously indignant about it? Revelation can come to all of us, in different ways. When we pray for guidance and get an answer, that's revelation. I never said it was the same revelation as in the D&C, you made that claim. You make a lot of judgments about how other people should do things, how the church should be run, but that right is reserved for Pres Nelson. They did make a procedure change, but that doesn't mean it wasn't prayed about to find the will of the Lord, and if you insist it wasn't prayed about, I'd like to know how you know that.

I literally said that I’m sure he prayed about it, so why are you acting like I said literally the opposite of that. Did you respond before reading my post? Honestly?

Also, I merely stated my opinion that they made the right call here. I didn’t judge them. I also, in this post, did not state if their previous call was right or wrong . In any other situation involving any other individual, you’d see me as merely stating my opinion, but because I’m talking about the brethren my action gets immediately upgraded to a JUDGEMENT? Tell me, why? If I stated my opinion about something our local government did, you’d consider it merely an opinion. You wouldn’t complain that I’m “Judging” about how the government should do things. Why make my opinion out to be a judgement instead of an opinion?

And yes, “praying for guidance and getting an answer” is revelation. It’s what people think the “answer” is that’s the problem. It isn’t warm fuzzies. It isn’t peace and joy and “the fruits of the spirit”. Our church has built up a tradition of thinking every little emotion and thought must be the spirit, when in reality you’re experiencing something that anybody in any other religion experiences. The real thing, real revelation, comes as a result of putting far more time into it. Far more tears, far more sacrifice, far more prayer. Even after all of that, there’s no telling when God will give you an answer. Many things he leaves up to us to decide. Things like church policy. The handbooks. They are a result of our leaders judging for themselves what should be within the handbooks based on their experience and knowledge. The fact that they pray for guidance doesn’t mean that the end result must have been a revelation from heaven. Football players pray to win their game, therefore their victory is attributed to God? No. You can’t use that logic.

If you have such an issue with people giving you responses you don’t like, just let me know that I need to tell you what you want to hear. Either that, or don’t have such thin skin. I didn’t realize I was supposed to please your ears and praise the things you want to hear be praised.

Stahura, you started it. Go back and read the post you responded to me. I read it as judgmental of me and misrepresenting what I said. Yes, you said it was.prayed over but then you said .the answer wasn't revelation. And made it sound like I thought it was a revelation on par with those in the d&c, which I never suggested. That's what I responded to as I did. You took me to task for things I wasn't saying.

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:16 pm

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:14 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:48 pm
I've already provided you with the questions you need to ask. I'm giving you the pudding.

Since equality has been preached (~1950s) are marriage rates higher or lower?
Since that time are divorces rates higher or lower?
Since that time are women happier or less happy?
Since that time are children more happy or less happy?
Since that time are more children being raised in stable homes or not?
Are their more children in day-care today vs. then?

I'm giving you the pudding. You claim you'd believe me-but you don't. You won't even investigate it yourself.

Go research the data.

I'm not going to provide the data for you. I'm providing you the ingredients to make the pudding. If you won't even put forth the effort to see if the ingredients make the pudding then you won't believe the pudding I put in front of you is good.

catcatinabox:

Only on the internet do you get to say such silly things and get a way with it.

You have no proof. Providing questions are not proof and its not pudding. Why do I need to investigate claims that you are making? Why don't you provide me with the proof since you have already investigated this?

You can try to pretend that its my fault that you can't prove your ideas, but, its just make believe.

Conclusion: catcatinabox lied when he said the proof was in the pudding. There was no proof, no pudding, nothing. He is gaslightning now because he can't prove his words yet he wants people to believe him.

Got it. Although I had already figured you out. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In case you didn't pick up on this, you've lost credibility with me. That means outside of pointing out your logical errors and nonsensical statements (if I feel so inclined) I will not be expecting anything from you and so therefore I will not be using any more of my time attempting to engage with you in a discussion. That is until you prove yourself credible again.

Valo

ROFLOL. You won't even research the questions. And then you claim I'm lying and gaslighting . . .ROFLOL

Like I said, providing you the data wouldn't help-you would reject it.

Uh, huh. Yep, you sure did prove that providing me with data would result in me rejecting it because you provided me with so much data to prove your points.

Here are all the data you provided that I rejected:

Since equality has been preached (~1950s) are marriage rates higher or lower?
Since that time are divorces rates higher or lower?
Since that time are women happier or less happy?
Since that time are children more happy or less happy?
Since that time are more children being raised in stable homes or not?
Are their more children in day-care today vs. then?

These questions totally proved your point. Man, your case is rock solid! And to think I rejected all this data, all this proof, I just tossed out the window.

Valo

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:17 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:13 pm
Name calling? Really?

Turn-about is fair play.

Did he call you a name? He just pointed out something he disagreed with and something he felt was detrimental. He didn’t resort to childish name calling.

"Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church."

i.e. you are detrimental to our Church.

I'll definitely call someone a self-righteous pompeous jerk for saying that, when not but 10 months ago, the Church taught exactly what I preach.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:24 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:17 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm
Turn-about is fair play.

Did he call you a name? He just pointed out something he disagreed with and something he felt was detrimental. He didn’t resort to childish name calling.

"Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church."

i.e. you are detrimental to our Church.

I'll definitely call someone a self-righteous pompeous jerk for saying that, when not but 10 months ago, the Church taught exactly what I preach.

I don’t think you are detrimental to the church. The black and white thinking you have expressed in this thread on this topic is.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:35 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 1:25 pm

This is where I think the mistake is, in assuming that preside equals expecting or demanding submission. Preside can mean simply to watch over, to counsel, to lead in work or spiritual activities. Who decided that to preside means to expect submission?

lol, You see it but you don't want to see it.

Because you can't preside without submission.

I'm going to make this simple and I use this example not to show relationships between men and women but to show the reality of preside and submit.

A father "presides" over Scripture reading. What do you do when your 5 year old says no! and starts a tantrum? The child is not submitting, the child is in a state of rebellion. Okay so you claim the father is to "lead". Well you're 5-year-old doesn't want to "follow"! What do you do?

Now a brute could yell and scream at the child and stomp his feet and say "I'm the leader you must submit!".
A non-leader could just say, well I guess you don't want to submit so we won't do anything (which means the father is now submitting HIS will to the child's will).
A leader could tell the child, go to your room I will not tolerant this rebellion.

The point remains you simply cannot "preside" over someone who isn't willing to "submit". The person who is unwilling to submit will simply throw a tantrum-or as an adult cause problems, they will make it so hard that the leader cannot "preside".

So yes, presiding means you expect submission. If you don't you won't lead.

I think we need to start thinking about how to preside without expecting submission. I think presiding is different than forming rules or boundaries and enforcing those boundaries. That is what a policeman does. Husband and wife should counsel together to make those rules and boundaries with their children and enforce them. You are arguing that presiding means you have the right to make rules for your wife and she is obligated to follow those rules.
Should I as a mother expect my children to submit to me? Does that mean that I preside over my children. Interesting that nowhere in the proclamation does it say that the mother presides over her children. But under your definition a mother would preside over her children if it is her right to expect submission. Maybe we should change it to father and mother preside over their families. This puts more responsibility on the mother which many women may not want to have yet. And I do think there is purpose for the man having this right to preside, otherwise he might just let his wife do all the work.

Of course a mother presides over her children.

You simply can't have one without the other. I don't understand why it is so hard.

Go for it, try presiding when you don't have submission-it can not happen. It is an impossibility. You can't have a leader without a follower, you can't preside without submission. It is simply impossible.

Alaris wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:21 am I think the sifting could be as simple as the empowerment of women as theses curses are lifted - we're not talking 60s liberation where boots are made for walking - we're talking women are empowered to become priestesses to hold their own authority that speaks to their eternal roles where the man still presides over her works. Can you imagine a simpler way to weed out the proud on both extremes? Women have a restored priesthood - but yeah they're still made by, made for, and given to their husbands in sealing. How many folks would melt over that?

Add the restoration of polygamy and how many would be left after that? A tenth maybe?

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:17 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:15 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:13 pm
Name calling? Really?

Turn-about is fair play.

Did he call you a name? He just pointed out something he disagreed with and something he felt was detrimental. He didn’t resort to childish name calling.

"Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church."

i.e. you are detrimental to our Church.

I'll definitely call someone a self-righteous pompeous jerk for saying that, when not but 10 months ago, the Church taught exactly what I preach.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:25 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:24 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:17 pm

Did he call you a name? He just pointed out something he disagreed with and something he felt was detrimental. He didn’t resort to childish name calling.

"Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church."

i.e. you are detrimental to our Church.

I'll definitely call someone a self-righteous pompeous jerk for saying that, when not but 10 months ago, the Church taught exactly what I preach.

I don’t think you are detrimental to the church. The black and white thinking you have expressed in this thread on this topic is.

Nice back-pedal.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:25 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:24 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

SettingDogStar wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:17 pm

Did he call you a name? He just pointed out something he disagreed with and something he felt was detrimental. He didn’t resort to childish name calling.

"Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church."

i.e. you are detrimental to our Church.

I'll definitely call someone a self-righteous pompeous jerk for saying that, when not but 10 months ago, the Church taught exactly what I preach.

I don’t think you are detrimental to the church. The black and white thinking you have expressed in this thread on this topic is.

Nice back-pedal.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:30 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:25 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:24 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:21 pm
"Such black and white thinking is detrimental to our church."

i.e. you are detrimental to our Church.

I'll definitely call someone a self-righteous pompeous jerk for saying that, when not but 10 months ago, the Church taught exactly what I preach.

I don’t think you are detrimental to the church. The black and white thinking you have expressed in this thread on this topic is.

Nice back-pedal.

I didn’t back pedal, you put words in my mouth. At this point, given your behavior it’s not worth interacting with you anymore.

Have fun with your petty arguments with others