Years ago I was in a Sunday School class where the teacher shared an opinion regarding the father’s responsibilities as stated in the Proclamation on the Family. He confessed that he was uncomfortable with the word ‘preside.’ It seemed that he felt the father’s role to preside was somehow demeaning to women. The discussion changed too quickly for anyone to comment, but I wonder if the discomfort the teacher had with the word preside may originate from a misinterpretation of that word. We too often think it means to direct, to determine the course of action, to rule. A more correct meaning could be found with a proper understanding of the type of government God intends for families and within His church, and what it means to preside within that type of government.
Government by Council
The world governs through aristocracies, monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, etc. God’s government does not fit any one of those models. Neither does it fit the typical model of organizations, corporations, institutions, or other earthly groups. It is conceivable that a man in a leadership position in the Church could lean heavily on management and organizational skills he has acquired in other realms of his life that have made him successful. Some of these attributes and skills are useful, but others are inappropriate and do not reflect an understanding of proper church government and power. President Stephen L. Richards, first counselor to former President David O. McKay defined church government in these words:
“As I conceive it, the genius of our Church government is government through councils. The Council of the Presidency (First Presidency), the Council of the Twelve, the Council of the Stake Presidency (Stake High Council) … the Council of the Bishopric (Ward Council) . … I have had enough experience to know the value of councils. … I see the wisdom, God’s wisdom, in creating councils to govern his Kingdom. In the spirit under which we labor, men can get together with seemingly divergent views and far different backgrounds, and under the operation of that spirit, by counseling together, they can arrive at an accord.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1953, p. 86.)https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/church-government-through-councils?lang=eng.
Elder Henry B. Erying shared an insightful experience in seeing this type of church government operate when he was interviewed in a press conference as a newly called general authority. Previous to that he had had a lifetime of experience in leadership in both the Church and in professional pursuits. Elder Erying was asked by a reporter how his background at Harvard and Stanford would influence him in his calling. His response was informative. He said:
"When I first came as the President of Rick’s College I attended my first meeting watching the general authorities of the church running a meeting. I had been studying for the 10 years I was a professor at Stanford how you make decisions in meetings and groups. So I got a chance... to see the way the servants of the Lord do it, of which I am now one. I looked at it with my Harvard/ Stanford eyes. And I thought this is the strangest conversation… I mean, Here are the prophets of God and they are disagreeing in an openness that I had never seen in business. In business you are careful when you are with the bosses. I watched this process and here they were just … disagreeing. I thought revelation would come to them all and they would all see things the same way. And it was more open than anything I had ever seen in all the groups I had ever studied in business. I was just dumbfounded. But then after a while the conversation cycled around and they began to agree. And I saw the most incredible thing, that here these very strong, very bright people all with different opinions suddenly the opinions began to just line up. I thought I’ve seen a miracle. I’ve seen unity come out of this wonderful open kind of exchange that I had never seen in all my studies of government or business or anything else. And so I thought oh what a miracle. Pres. Harold B. Lee was chairing this meeting - it was a board of education meeting and I thought now he’s going to announce the decision because I’ve seen this miracle. And he said, wait a minute, I think we’ll bring this matter up again some other time. I sense there is someone in the room who is not yet settled. And we went on to the next item. And I thought that is strange. And I watched someone, one of the twelve, walk past Pres. Lee and say Thank you, there is something I didn’t have a chance to say…’ We are in another kind of thing here (not Harvard, not Stanford). This is what it claims to be - this is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Revelation is real, even in what you call the business kinds of settings. A great man whom I love, Pres. Harold B. Lee taught me a great lesson - that says we can be open, we can be direct, we can talk about differences in a way that you can’t anywhere else because we are all just looking for the truth, we are not trying to win, we’re not trying to make our argument dominate. We just want to find what is right. And then a man sensitive enough to sense without anybody saying anything that somebody in the room was not settled. There is a kind of process of openness, and yet coming together and having confidence that you know what the Lord wants and not what we want.” I loved Harvard. I loved Stanford. I was a professor at Stanford, thought I’d stay there forever. We went to Rexburg, Idaho from there and then came down here (being a general authority in the Church) and found out that there was a kind of way of making decisions and working together in groups that I had never seen in anywhere else in the world, except here.”
A further example of this type of church government and its practical application was given by Elder M. Russell Ballard in an address entitled, “Counseling with our Councils”. In the talk he refers to training meetings where a ward council and bishop were given a theoretical problem about a less-active family and asked the bishop to use the ward council to develop a plan to activate this family. His observations of this charge were these:
“Without exception, the bishop took charge of the situation immediately and said, “Here’s the problem, and here’s what I think we should do to solve it.” Then he made assignments to the various ward council members. This was a good exercise in delegation, I suppose, but it did not even begin to use the experience and wisdom of council members to address the problem.”
I imagine these consecrated, well-intentioned bishops relied on their culturally based earthly experiences to know how to lead without even realizing it. Their leadership style reflected what they had learned at work or through other life experiences, but they were not governing by council. Elder Ballard continues:
“Eventually I asked the bishop to try again, only this time to solicit ideas and recommendations from his council members before making any assignments. I especially encouraged him to ask the sisters for their ideas. When the bishop opened the meeting to council members and invited them to counsel together, the effect was like opening the floodgates of heaven. A reservoir of insight and inspiration suddenly began to flow between council members as they planned for fellowshipping the less-active family. The best leaders are not those who work themselves to death trying to do everything single-handedly; the best leaders are those who follow God’s plan and counsel with their councils.”
These examples show us how the church is to be governed, but as an extension of that Elder Ballard also taught that this type of government is the way a man should preside at home. He said, “Let us remember that the basic council of the Church is the family council. Fathers and mothers should apply diligently the principles I have discussed in their relationships with each other and with their children. In doing so, our homes can become a heaven on earth.”
Governing by council, particularly in a family, requires great humility because even if you feel your ideas are wonderful and inspired, you understand that to receive the complete revelation you must seek and rely on the other members of the council. The ancient Asian story is told of a group of blind men who each use their sense of touch to discover what the elephant is. Each is influenced by their personal experience. One who touches the trunk is certain that the elephant is some sort of snake. Another touches the tusk and thinks the elephant is a spear. The story goes on with each blind man touching a different part of an elephant, sure that their perspective is the correct one. When they share their observations, they find that they are in complete disagreement. Poet John Godfey Saxe summarizes the truth taught in this parable with these words,
“And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
A righteous man and a righteous woman making family decisions should follow the same principle. Both should humbly understand that they need each other’s unique perspective and neither one has a monopoly on insight and revelation. Even if one party may be more worthy of revelation, both have valid perspectives that can contribute to a better decision.
The idea that the father receives revelation for the family by fasting, searching, pondering, and praying is necessary but incomplete. It certainly can begin that way, but when governing by council, all should feel free to share the revelation and insight they have received. As you listen to the members of the council, a solution can be reached that is better than any one person’s ideas. My brother in law uses the phrase “scattered revelation” to explain this idea of the Lord scattering among the members of the council a piece of the revelation’s magnificent whole. Only by listening and sharing can we receive the full revelation that the Lord would give us. In a family setting, all members including children, should feel that their participation is welcomed, respected, and valued.
This is especially true when there is a member of the family council who doesn't share the same faith or general world view. It is tempting to discredit everything that person says as being false. I think this is unwise. The prophet Joseph Smith was often criticized. Most of the criticism was blatant lies, some the grumblings of disgruntled dissenters. It is tempting to discredit all those in such situations. Joseph did not. He counseled those in similar situations to do the following: “‘Look deeper, Brother, and see if maybe there is a kernel of truth in what they are saying.’ That, I suggest, shows wisdom.” (Joseph Smith the Prophet, Truman Madsen, pg. 94-95). I regret every time that I have felt wrongly accused that I was so eager to clear my name instead of searching for the kernel of truth that was there. This attitude can alleniate family members and send the message that there perspective is not valued. Even after family members drastically change their beliefs we can still value something in what they have to say. Siblings still can hold a chair at the family council. A father not of our faith can still preside in a family. There may be much that we choose to discredit. But we can search through their words to find kernels of truth and say to them through our demeanor that they have a perspective and a role that is valuable.
Some people think that a family council is a kind of family "meeting" held regularly. But this limits the scope and purpose of this type of government. When any member of the family has a concern that affects the family, a council is needed, whether formal or informal. Particularly if either parent raises the flag of being in disagreement with the direction the family is going, the gears of motion come to a grinding halt, and an informal family council is in session. it might be two sentences long or it might require further discussion, but the resolution should always come from a council approach. This is the way Heavenly Father intends families as well as His church to be governed.
Differences Between a Family Council and a Church Council
While the basic principle of governing by councils is the same within the Church and the home, there is one important difference. Elder Oaks explained this difference in these words:
“A most important difference in the functioning of priesthood authority in the family and in the Church results from the fact that... the concept of partnership functions differently in the family than in the Church. The family proclamation gives this beautiful explanation of the relationship between a husband and a wife: While they have separate responsibilities, “in these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”
In seeking to apply the truths learned about how Church councils operate, we cannot assume that the relationship between a father and a mother in a family is the same as the relationship between a bishop and his counselors for example. Nor is a man and a woman governing a home like thinking of the man as the president of the company and the woman as the vice president. This philosophy would assume she has the authority of the president when her husband is gone and when he is there she helps operate the business under the husband’s direction. Another explanation I have heard is that a woman has 49% and a man has 51% of the family vote, power, authority, last word, etc. . I believe that these philosophies are the product of well-intentioned people trying to use their worldly understanding of what it means to govern a country, business, or institution and translate those principles into the power structure of the family. However, these examples are inaccurate because in worldly organizations, and even in church councils, someone has the ultimate authority. This is not true in the family. There are two people at the highest level of authority who are equal partners.
Many prophets have taught about how the family is governed through an equal partnership:
President Spencer W. Kimball said this: “When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 315)
President Howard W. Hunter taught, “A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto...The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. Presiding in righteousness necessitates a shared responsibility between husband and wife; together you act with knowledge and participation in all family matters. For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion.”
President Hinckley taught, “The wife you choose will be your equal. In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey.”
There is a danger that the woman or the man or both do not understand the vital role that each plays. Women may forge ahead in raising a child in a way that the husband feels uncomfortable with, or men may dictate how things are going to happen. We disregard each other as equal members of the family council. We do this because we either lack the correct understanding of how God would have us interact with each other or because we lack the attributes required. We all fail but must resist becoming discouraged by our imperfect efforts.
President Marion G. Romney taught: “[A husband and wife] should be one in harmony, respect, and mutual consideration. Neither should plan or follow an independent course of action. They should consult, pray, and decide together. … Remember that neither the wife nor the husband is the slave of the other. Husbands and wives are equal partners” (“In the Image of God,” Ensign, Mar. 1978, 2, 4).
Not one of us does it perfectly. We are all in the process of learning. I wonder if learning how to do this as husband and wife isn’t one of the purposes of life. I don’t believe that we will experience the level of joy God intends for a celestial marriage until we master the principle of working together as equal partners. So it is worth the effort to try again though we fail many times.
Does this concept of 'equal partners' infer that every decision must be made jointly? Not necessarily. Some matters may be trivial. Sometimes one partner may feel very strongly about an issue while the other is not as committed to a certain course of action. Sometimes it is wiser to defer to the partner even though personal preferences might lead to a different decision. Being equal partners does not mean that equal input is needed on all decisions that are to be made. Both men and women need to make some choices independent of each other. Some decisions aren’t group or council decisions. They are made individually.
Beloved former prophet of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley and his wife Marjorie were good examples of giving space to each other in their own arenas. Sister Hinckley once said, “ I am very grateful for a husband who always lets me do my own thing...he never insists that I do anything his way, or any way for that matter. From the very beginning he gave me space and let me fly. What a man!”
President Hinckley explained, “Some husbands regard it as their prerogative to compel their wives to fit their standards of what they think to be the ideal. It never works.” He also said, “If there’s anything that irritates me it’s these men who try to run their wives’ lives and tell them everything they ought to do.” When asked how he gave Sister Hinckley space and let her fly he said, “I’ve tried to recognize my wife’s individuality, her personality, her desires, her background, her ambitions. Let her fly. Yes, let her fly! Let her develop her own talents. Let her do things her way. Get out of her way, and marvel at what she does.”
In another article written about the relationship that the Hinckely’s enjoyed, they confessed there were times when they didn’t perfectly agree. The article state, “There were times, of course, when they had differences of opinion and she put her foot down and prevailed. He was always, for instance, remodeling their house when the kids were home, turning the garage into a bedroom or part of the kitchen into a bedroom and so forth. ‘He always had the house ripped up,’ says Virginia. ‘He'd work on it at night. Sometimes it was one too many projects and she would say you're not going to do this. She stuck to her ground. When he could see she was going to stand her ground, he'd just laugh or leave the room and let it go. So there was never any tension.’”
Many disagreements are not as trivial as the one that the Hinckley’s described. Sometimes a husband and wife have opposing views about an important issue and struggle to find common ground and make a decision that both feel comfortable with. When my dad was a bishop and counseled a man and a woman who found themselves in this situation, he suggested that they flip a coin. In giving this unusual counsel he was saying that it wasn’t right for a man to make the decision if the couple is unable to decide together. That would make them unequal partners. He didn't want them to literally flip a coin, but suggesting the ludicrous served as a reminder that the work of the family council was not yet finished. And he probably did think it would be better to have decisions made haphazardly by the flip of the coin rather than have the damage that is caused from a domineering marriage.
Sometimes the decisions that couples must make together as equal partners need to take a different direction. Sometimes the decision itself may not be of primary importance. The most important thing is that husband and wife are united on the course of action. Are we going to let our children sleep in our bed? Are we going to let our kids ride motorcycles, play football, etc.? What type of education will our children receive--traditional or home school? These decisions should be made between husband and wife. Answers to these questions are not revealed from God to the prophets. Some decisions might be better than others, but the most important principle is that the husband and wife work together as equal partners and they come up with a decision together.
A simple example may serve to illustrate this principle. A husband and wife have planned to go on a date. The wife wants to go hiking, but the husband wants to go to a movie. Usually, in such situations either the husband or wife goes along with what the other wants to do. That can be an acceptable course, but if both parties feel dissatisfied with the date proposed then a council begins, both options are closed, and husband and wife try to find something together that they would like to do. They take a step back and try to define the principles of what they really wanted and try to come up with a solution that fits the needs or the principles of both parties. The wife was hoping to enjoy good conversation, exercise, and be in nature. The husband is exhausted and wants to relax. They come up with some ideas together that fit both of their needs. Neither one of them gets to do what they really wanted to do, but they do something that is better for both people. That is a council operating on the basis of equal partners. What the couple ends up doing for their date may not be the best thing for the husband or for the wife, but it is the best thing for the group.
Another example of this principle can be seen in the Constitutional Convention - a historical "council" where many differing ideas and strong personalities attempted to find common ground and establish a new government.
Our country was trying to replace the articles of Confederation with a stronger form of government. James Madison felt strongly that presidents should be elected by a popular vote, while the smaller states felt that they wouldn’t have as much power and so favored the electoral college. George Washington visited Madison to try to persuade him to compromise with the smaller states even though he also did not favor the electoral college plan. Madison reminded Washington that they had enough votes to make a majority, they could push through the plan that they preferred even if the small states did not like it. Washington wisely said that a majority wasn’t enough. The fledgling country was too new, too vulnerable for that. They needed a consensus! Madison saw his wisdom and compromised with the smaller states. The compromise was better for the group even though it was not the preferred course of either leader.
I believe that marriages are this way. Sometimes we may be doing a plan B or plan C that isn’t as good as plan A that was our proposal, but a consensus is more important than a superior idea and better than a majority. “An adequate decision made unanimously is better than than an excellent decision made unilaterally.” Learning to work together as equal partners is one of the great challenges of every marriage. Great blessings follow when this is achieved.
PRESIDING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS
The Proclamation on the Family teaches that “by divine design the father has the responsibility to preside over a family in love and righteousness.” How is it that a man is to preside in the family and that a woman and a man are to work together as equal partners? These two doctrines, if not understood, can seem to contradict each other. The key to resolving this seeming contradiction is a proper understanding of the word 'preside'.
Frequently we think of examples where the father becomes the "ruler" and has the final decision making authority in the family. We have already seen that this is not God's plan because He intends the family to be governed by equal partners. However, there is a new threat to this presiding role of fathers. In recent years prophets and apostles have warned about our society’s trend to demean the role of the father. Elder Perry taught, “During the past few decades, Satan has waged a vigorous campaign to belittle and demean this basic and most important of all organizations….It appears to me that the crosshairs of Satan’s scope are centered on husbands and fathers. Today’s media, for example, have been relentless in their attacks—ridiculing and demeaning husbands and fathers in their God-given roles." The pervasive message in our society to fathers is, “You aren’t needed here." We must be so careful that our voices do not echo the messages we are inundated with in the media. We must examine our hearts to see if we have in some way begun to believe this lie. We must examine our actions and ensure that we are not sending this false message to the men in our lives. God intends them to preside!
What then does it mean to preside? Elder Oaks taught that “the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—includes directing the activities of the family, family meetings like family home evenings, family prayer, teaching the gospel, and counseling and disciplining family members. "
Elder Perry explained what it means to preside in these words, "Father, with the assistance and counsel and encouragement of your eternal companion, you preside in the home. It is not a matter of whether you are most worthy or best qualified, but it is a matter of [divine] appointment.” 7
Your leadership in the home must include leading in family worship.
“You preside at the meal table, at family prayer. You preside at family home evening; and as guided by the Spirit of the Lord, you see that your children are taught correct principles. It is your place to give direction relating to all of family life.
“You give father’s blessings. You take an active part in establishing family rules and discipline. As a leader in your home you plan and sacrifice to achieve the blessing of a unified and happy family. To do all of this requires that you live a family-centered life.”
Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. As President Gordon B. Hinckley has taught: “In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals.” 1 Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity. 11 Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward."https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng
There is always order in God's government - whether church or family. Order necessitates a presiding person. I love the wording used in the scriptures regarding the need to have a presiding authority. We read in Doctrine and Covenants 107:21, "Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers." To me it seems almost apologetic that you would have a leader in a government by council, but it is necessary. Presiding means organizing family councils. It means enlisting the participation of each family member and listening to all opinions and ideas. It means striving to create concensus and unity, even if that requires more time and discussion. It means seeking for decisions and actions that are acceptable to all, rather than favorable to one. It means being the facilitator of the discussion.
What does it not mean for a man to Preside?
It does not mean that the presiding person holds the decision making power. It is not a function of the Priesthood, as a single mother or a non-member father preside in their families. It is not a position of honor or power, but rather a role that is given to the father. And it does not mean that the presiding person is necessarily the most spiritually capable of the group.
This point is illustrated in the “broken bow” story of Lehi and Nephi. At one particularly low point during the years of exodus through the wilderness the company had stopped because they were in need of food. While Nephi and his brothers were on their hunting trip, Nephi broke his bow. They returned to the camp exhausted because of their journey and “suffer(ing) much for the want of food (1 Nephi 16:18).” Because Nephi’s brother’s bows had already lost their springs the record understatedly says, “It began to be exceedingly difficult, yea, insomuch that we could obtain no food.” This very low moment of the journey seems to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the tipping point. They had already sacrificed their riches, their sacred lands, the comforts of civilization, their friends and relatives, and now they lost one more thing--their ability to get food. This blow seems to be more than even the faithful prophet patriarch Lehi can endure and even he descends to a state of murmuring against his God (1 Nephi 16:20). At this point only Nephi remains faithful. He makes a bow and arrow out of wood and then does something quite remarkable. Rather than taking over his father’s presiding role and emphasizing his failure of faith, he seeks out his father and asks, “Whither shall I go to obtain food (1 Nephi 16:23)?” He didn’t take over his father’s position as the leader of the family even though he may have been more spiritually suited to the task at that particular moment.
Nephi didn’t just stand by quietly after his father’s spiritual weakness. On the contrary, he said “many” things to him with “all of the energy of (his) soul “(1 Nephi 16:24). Nephi’s words caused Lehi to “humble himself,” saying in essence, “You are still needed here. You are still the leader of this family.”
The decision to respond in this way to his father has a dramatic impact on Lehi. He humbles himself because of Nephi’s words and accepts his invitation to resume the presiding leadership role he was given by God. He asks God where to go to find food. Lehi turning to the Lord for direction brought first the Lord’s correction, and then the Lord’s guidance, as he “...was truly chastened because of his murmuring against the Lord, insomuch that he was brought down into the depths of sorrow.” Nephi’s decision to honor his father’s role as the head of the family in essence saves his father.
This pattern of honoring Lehi’s role as the patriarch continues as the family builds the ship to cross the great waters. Though Nephi received the revelation to build the ship and he was apparently in charge of this project, when the ship is completed, the voice of the Lord comes to Lehi, not Nephi, saying that they should board the ship (1 Nephi 18:5).
Nephi’s example can be used in my own life. When he who presides over my family stumbles, what is my response? Do I take the lead when I see a weakness or failing? Or do I speak to him, as Nephi did to his father, with all the energy of my soul and then in some sincere way invite him to lead and show him that I still consider him to be the leader of this family? Do my words and actions tell him that he is needed? Can my response help him to rise again spiritually to his God-given role?
The essential key to "presiding in righteousness" is to understand and develop the attributes that are necessary. These are clearly identified in the scriptures. D & C 121:41-43 gives this description: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained ... only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge..." These Godly attributes are the only way that this type of leadership works. When a man loses these attributes, he no longer presides in righteousness.
In Doctrine and Covenants 107:20 the Lord teaches that only with these attributes can you achieve a government by council. “And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other— Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings....The decisions of these quorums . . . are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long-suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity; Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.”
Perhaps the attribute that is most needed by both husbands and wives is humility. Humility does not need to be right. Humility does not need to be in charge. Humility does not need to have its own way. Humility does not look for the faults and mistakes of others. Humility enables a man to continually learn how to preside in righteousness.
Conclusion
Some of the principles that I have shared may seem to contradict each other I am at peace with these principles, even when some may seem contradictory and all may be difficult to achieve. I can imagine reading a parenting book that emphasized the importance of being merciful and kind to children in one chapter and the next chapter being firm, disciplined and having consequences. Both principles can be true. I imagine in my mind two truths pulling on each other and forming a tight rope, a balancing act that we must walk. We can’t expect of our spouse or ourselves to walk that line perfectly without making a mistake any more than we could imagine a plane being able to fly without any need of slight correction.
I believe that a woman should listen to her husband’s perspective and let him lead. I also believe that a man should get out of a woman’s way and marvel at what she does. I believe that families should be governed by council, including all family members in its scope and activities. I believe that women and men are equal partners, and I also believe that God gave man the mandate to preside. I believe that men become who God intends them to become as they embrace this role. I believe that when a man righteously presides, a husband and wife will be equal partners and a family will work together in harmony. I believe that families need both fathers and mothers. I believe husbands and wives need each other. I believe that learning to work together as equal partners, though challenging, is one of the fundamental lessons, if not purposes, of this life. Does it not strike at the very purpose of life--to prepare for Eternal Life--and isn’t that to rule and reign as husband and wife? Is it any wonder that these are skills to be learned here in family settings?
