Equal Partners, Presiding, and Governing By Councils

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!

(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_poems_of_John_Godfrey_Saxe/The_Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant)

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? 

    

The Patience of Melchizedek

I am sad when I look back on history and see that women were not always considered equal to  men.  That sorrow is magnified when I see  women suffering the same prejudice today. I recently spoke to a friend that finds herself in just such a circumstance. Instead of always being valued as an equal partner in her marriage, she often is criticized and controlled.    The salt in the wound is the analysis of a well-intentioned therapist.    Instead of finding comfort from the therapist, there is more criticism.  She seems to be criticized from every angle.  She is looked down upon by her husband because she wants to buy frivolous items like paper towels; she is looked down upon by the therapist because she doesn’t leave that marriage.

This friend called me on this day that she found to be particularly disheartening.  It was the kind of day when you replay every discouraging thing that people have told you about your situation, or even that you have imagine that they have thought.  At the bottom of the downward spiral of thoughts there was one particularly ugly fear:  maybe she wasn’t so good afterall.  Maybe what she thought was her strengths,  weren’t of benefit to her or to those around her.  Was her unfair treatment somehow her fault? Was her determination to stay by her husband and preserve her family really just enabling his behavior?

Her discouragement, coupled with the criticism of others, made us reconsider what we once thought to be true.  Should a woman leave a marriage because a man is controlling with money, critical, and not willing to consider her as an equal partner?  The therapist would say, “Absolutely.  This treatment isn’t fair. You can’t change your husband and you deserve better!”

But, if unequal marriages should be terminated, if that therapist could go back in time, would she counsel women to leave their homes and families if their situations were unfair?  Wouldn’t that end nearly all of the marriages of the 50’s?  But, didn’t they raise great children and have wonderful familial success even in unequal circumstance? Would seeking equality  be worth such a high price to pay? Maybe we should be more cautious to not throw the baby out with the bathwater as we seek for total equality while trying to preserve our families.

But, my friend and I happen to like the 50’s.  We want to be as cute and nurturing as June Cleaver. 

 We want our homes to be as clean, comfortable, and lovely as June’s home.  We know what it makes us feel to be like in a refuge like that, we want to provide that feeling for those we love most.  We want our kitchen tables to resemble the Norman Rockwell painting “Freedom From Want” 

-- All of those who we love most gathered around a nutritious and delicious meal that they joyfully anticipate.  We are  willing to pay the high price for that home with the toil of our hands and the training of our children. And when our children leave home, we want to have earned the type of relationship with them that would lead them to say that they refused to indulge in immoral activity because they didn’t want to disappoint their mothers.  In essence, we want the 50’s.  

However, we  would also like to enjoy the more enlightened perspective of our times.  We  want the freedom to become anything we  want, to study any topic, and at any university.  We  want the respect of others; to know that our opinions and perspectives are esteemed.  We  want to be valued as equal to men.  Isn’t there a way that women can have the old-fashioned home life of the 50’s and the freedom of opportunity and respect of our times?  Can’t we have both?  How will we get there?  How does my friend  get there in her marriage?

I tucked my short conversation with my friend in the back of my brain and went along with the rest of my day.  It came out again later that day during my scripture study.  During that study I found my answer. I believe I learned how the fairness I yearn for will eventually be achieved.

I happened to be reading a section known as the Servant Songs in the book of Isaiah. In these chapters a remarkable servant is described.  It is  prophesied  that this servant would have great character and accomplish great good.  Scholars speculate about what characters in history could fulfill the requirements listed or what leader will yet come.  Though there may be several servants that fulfill parts of these prophesies, the only mortal that has ever lived, that could ever live up to all that is prophesied in these chapters, is the Lord Jesus Christ.  Ultimately, I believe all of the servant songs are not only a description of who the Lord is, but also who he would like us to become.  

The servant is described as one who would be able to accomplish a feat many other rulers tried to do before, but ultimately failed. The servant would be able to bring justice to the world (Isaiah 42:1  reads, “He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” Other translations of that sentence are that he would, “Bring justice to the nations.” ). Considering other powerful nations and leaders that sought justice, I also see a loss of freedom, undervaluing of the individual, and  brutality.  Though much less grave, I  even have tendency tinged with this imperfection as a mother.  Playing with my children, cuddling up with them to read them a good book, and serving them up delicious treats are things that I love to do.  But sometimes motherhood requires that I seek for order, justice, and fairness. There have been many times I have regretted that my firmness was a little too cranky. Sometimes in my quest to “get things done” I clumsily trample around on the fragile little things around me.  And so I absolutely marvel at the next description of this prophesied servant.

This servant would  bring “justice to the nations” not using coercion and force, but gentleness and persuasion. Verse two begins with a description of the gentleness of this ruler, “He shall not cry, nor lift up (the voice), nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” --Isaiah 42:2.  This leader achieves justice in a terribly unfair world, and would do so without raising his voice!  The following verse is a further description of the gentleness of this servant: “A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench” (Isaiah 42:3).  In other words, he will not harm or hurt the weakest.  A well known historical example of this brutality is Nazi Germany and their quest for a perfect society.  They sought to eliminate the weakest such as the mentally retarded and those  and absolutely trampled those that would stand in their way.  How opposite they were from the description of the Servant!

The scriptures continue by teaching,  “He shall bring forth judgment unto truth” (Isaiah 42:3).The justice that will be achieved will not be based upon opinion, culture, or any other inconsistent thing.  It will be according to the unchanging truth of God.  

In the final description of this servant we gain a more complete understanding of patience of the servant. Not only was there gentleness, there was also unwavering determination: “He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law” (Isaiah 42:4). As human beings, we make efforts to change; we make mistakes and are not perfect on our first try. We should marvel at this servant who would not stop or even get discouraged until the goal was reached.  

We typically think of the servant of God as a member in a church calling, but there is no more important calling that we have than husband, wife, mother, father, child. The patience described by this servant is what we must have in our family relationships. We can strive to be more like the servant in our marriages.  It isn’t to say that as Latter-day Saints that we don’t believe in divorce.  Prophets have taught us that sometimes the terrible costs that come with divorce are worth the risks because the damage in staying is even greater.  Elder James E. Faust taught:

Divorce can be justified only in the rarest of circumstances. In my opinion, “just cause” for divorce should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable  relationship that destroys a person’s dignity as a human being. Divorce often tears people’s lives apart and shears family happiness. Frequently in a divorce the parties lose much more than they gain.    

But many of us, perhaps even most of us, are in the category of the still striving, amidst some victory and some failure.  God teaches us to not give up, to fight discouragement, and to keep trying for what is right with a gentle and loving heart.  And if in this life we never achieve the grand gospel standard, then we can die knowing we gave our lives to the best of causes.  There are some goals in this life, like the scientist striving to end human suffering from cancer, that are worth the great effort required even if the goal is never reached.  Unlike the scientist though, we know that none of our efforts are wasted. And we know that if we do what God asks of us, eventually our character, our spouse’s character, and our relationship with them will be perfected.   

I thought of my friend and  what a fitting description this servant song  was of her.  She works for what is just and fair according to the eternal truths of the Gospel.  She seeks to conduct her life and persuade her husband according to those truths.  When either of them fall short of that lofty standard, she forgives and she tries again.  How painfully ironic it is that she is sometimes looked down upon, instead of being looked up to.

While I sat there pondering the description of this servant I remembered other examples in the scriptures where the servant didn’t exhibit those qualities.   Just days earlier, I had studied about Hezekiah who was righteous servant, but lacked the patient determination required when working with people.  In Isaiah chapter 39 Hezekiah made the mistake in showing off his wealth to the King of Babylon.  Isaiah came after this incident and told him that the Lord had a message for him as a result.  The day would come when the King of Babylon would take all of Judah’s wealth he had just witnessed and that Isaiah’s sons would be taken captive and demoted to being eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.  Hezekiah’s response was, “Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken…For there shall be peace and truth in my days.”  Hezekiah seems to be reassured that at least during his time of reign they would enjoy peace and resigns himself to the fate and autonomy of the next generation.  

I have to say I was disappointed with the resignation that Hezekiah showed.  In just the chapter before there is the record of Hezekiah  who receives the word of the Lord through Isaiah that his sickness will lead to his death and that he should set his house in order.  Hezekiah’s response is the opposite in this circumstance than it was from the next chapter.  He humbly pleads with the Lord for more time, praying all night long, he begs.  His answer from God is an additional 15 years of life.  Maybe if he would have approached the message of the fall of his nation with the same zeal that he had when praying to the Lord for extended health, his outcome would have been different. But sometimes we can throw our hands up in the air when it comes to forces we can’t seem to control; this is especially true when working with people.  But, not all leaders in the scriptures give up so easily and some show an extraordinary, determined patience.

Melchizedek was such a man.  He was given an awesome responsibility. When he was called on to be king of Jerusalem we read that, “His people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness” (Alma 13:18).  But Melchizedek exercised “mighty faith” and preached repentance to his people (Alma 13:18).  The scriptures teach that he accomplished his feat of achieving peace in the way that Enoch did (JST Genesis 14).  Repentance and great change doesn’t happen in a moment. As Enoch’s ministry illustrated, Zion, or a god-like people of a just society, comes about only in “the process of time” (Moses 7:21).  The greater priesthood was named after Melchizedek because he was such a great high priest (D&C 107:2).    Surely, his patience and persistence contributed to such lofty praise.  Melchizedek’s character fits the description of Isaiah’s servant song.

I thought to myself that in order for my friend to fulfill her mission in life she will not need the priesthood of Melchizedek; she will need the patience of Melchizedek.

**********************************************************************************

About five years ago, my family and I were gathered in an LDS church eating a luncheon prior to my brother’s temple marriage.  One of the people there was my Aunt Julie.  She is not LDS, but rather Catholic.  I asked her and her husband if they would like  me to walk them through the chapel when the luncheon was done.  They welcomed the opportunity.  When we arrived at the chapel they shared that they felt that women should be allowed to preach and pray in church, and asked if women could be priests.  I answered that while we preach and pray, the office of a bishop requires the priesthood and we believe that it is a man’s responsibility to hold the priesthood.  They spoke of equality and something was said, I don’t remember what, that indicated to me they thought that LDS women might want that opportunity. The idea was laughable to me. “No,” I laughed. “LDS women don’t want the priesthood and the responsibility that comes with it.  We are maxed out as it is.”

I tried to explain why it was that I perceived that we weren’t looking for more work to do at Church. I explained to them about the visiting teaching program being similar to how a pastor would visit members of his congregation to minister personally to them.  I had several women that I was responsible to visit every month, spiritually feed them, and administer to their needs. I explained how the typical pastoral duty of preaching to the congregation is shared by members of the Church, men and women alike.  I told them that talks commonly begin with the joke of how the speaker tried to avoid the member of the bishopric whom they feared would ask them.  Most of us cringe when we get called on to speak. I shared how women were given additional  church responsibilities such a teaching Sunday School or leading in the Relief Society, Young Women’s, and Primary organizations.   I said the idea that L.D.S. women felt there wasn’t enough work for them to do at Church and are looking for an opportunity for more was the exact opposite of the truth.  Rather,  there is camaraderie in feeling overwhelmed by what we have already been asked to do.

I thought of the myriad of other Gospel activities away from Church life that I feel a love of doing, a responsibility to do, and yet I constantly fall short of what I would like to accomplish. I didn’t mention this list because I didn’t want to terrify them about the prospect of ever becoming a member; I thought of missionary work, temple worship, family history work, personal Gospel study, service to those around me, and so forth.

I found the question of my Aunt and Uncle so ironic because my big conundrum at that time in my life was how to carry out the immense amount of work to create the family culture I wanted,  and somehow also do my calling.   Wanting the Priesthood was the exact opposite of what I was feeling. “No,” I thought to myself. “Allowing women have the priesthood would not encourage gender equality.  On the contrary, it would tip the scales, becoming terribly unequal if women had the priesthood.”

My parting thought for them was that a fundamental doctrine of our religion is  that the greatest work we will ever do will be within the walls of our own home. While we are equal partners with our husbands, we believe that women are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.  We dream of having strong, faith-filled, fun families and raising amazing children.  And in my experience,  it was the women of those families that intuited what needed to be done  and would sacrifice themselves until they reached that goal. They orchestrated the symphony that is a family.  They were the CEO’s of the household. “No,” I said authoritatively, “The women of this church do not want the priesthood.  We have enough on our plates already!”  

  I had this conversation before I understood that there was a group of women in my church, that I didn’t rub shoulders with, that actually wanted to “ordain women.”  I still believe all  that I shared with my aunt. If I were to have that conversation again with my aunt today, the only thing I would change is that I wouldn’t be so bold to speak on behalf of 5.5 million women.  

My initial response to the Ordain Women movement was confusion.    The women that I associated with were saying,  “We have too much already.”  So to hear other LDS women saying that they wanted “more” was surprising to me.  However, after listening and trying to understand, I  now think that for many women  it isn’t actually the additional responsibility of the  priesthood so much that many of them want, but fairness, justice, equality.  Now, that is something I understand and want as well.

The question then becomes how we will achieve that fair treatment?.   I believe that justice will eventually come through servants with the determination for justice, but also the gentleness like those described in Isaiah 42.  Each of us can be that patient, persistent servant in our families and in our wards.

In order for us to have the fairness and equality we crave, we don’t need the priesthood of Melchizedek,  we need the patience of Melchizedek.  

How do we best respond when we are confronted with inequality, perceived or real? Especially in relationships we aren’t willing to discard, like our families,  and opportunities we aren’t willing to walk away from, like our membership and callings in the church?

We need both patience in the weakness of others and persistence to achieve what is right.

We must learn to not be offended as Elder Bednar taught, “One of the greatest indicators of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of others. A thing, an event, or an expression may be offensive, but you and I can choose not to be offended—and to say with Pahoran, ‘it mattereth not.’”

Later on in his talk Elder Bednar explained that while we refuse to take offense, we also shouldn’t just take it without complaint. Rather, he instructed that we should do the following: “If a person says or does something that we consider offensive, our first obligation is to refuse to take offense and then communicate privately, honestly, and directly with that individual.”  Being patient and refusing to take offense shouldn’t be confused with being passive-aggressive or being a doormat. We don't just take mistreatment, we work for what is right. We honestly communicate our feelings. 

I suspect that my whole life I will either be making mistakes or dealing with the mistakes of others in regards to ruling equally with a man. I love the examples of those more righteous than I who are involved in that process with such grace, patience and persistence for truth. Such a person is described in a talk given by Elder Anderson. He shared an example of the patient service of a female leader in the Church.  He said, “There was a question raised about strengthening the worthiness of youth preparing to serve missions. Sister Elaine Jack said with a smile, ‘You know, Elder Ballard, the [women] of the Church may have some good suggestions … if they [are] asked. After all, … we are their mothers!’”  To me, these are the words of a woman who might have experienced some being overlooked and undervalued.  In my interpretation, they are the words of a woman who has loved the Church,  who has tolerated and even loved the stellar, yet imperfect leaders within it,  and still persisted for “justice unto truth.” I am sure she loved the men of the Church and saw so much good in them, but we are all working towards perfection. I love her patience and her persistence.  

We will need the same qualities in our lives as well. Your bishop, your dad, your husband—Why did you think that they wouldn’t make any mistakes?   Did you forget that we are all here to learn from our experiences and that none of us are perfect?  Did you underestimate the magnificent task of becoming the priesthood leader described in D&C 121?

Even our beloved president Eyring shared a personal experience of a time when he fell short in this regard. In his book…… when he was experiencing success at his new calling as a general authority.  At this time a situation arose at home that his wife wanted to speak to him about.  He gave his opinion about what needed to happen in a tone stating that there didn’t need to be any further discussion about it.  After he left the home, he said that he felt such a loss of the Spirit that it frightened him. Even this meek, humble, giant of the Lord has made mistakes in this arena of life. This encourages me so greatly because I so frequently make mistakes in this arena as well. I feel like there is hope for me. I can improve.

Elder Larry Wilson shared a similar faux pas in these words.  

A month or so after we were married, my wife and I were taking a long road trip in the car. She was driving, and I was trying to relax. I say trying because the highway we were traveling had a reputation for speed traps, and my wife might have had a slight tendency toward a lead foot in those days. I said, “You’re going too fast. Slow down.”

My new bride thought to herself, “Well, I’ve been driving for nearly 10 years, and other than my driver’s education teacher, no one ever told me how to drive before.” So she replied, “What gives you the right to tell me how to drive?”

Frankly, her question caught me off guard. So, doing my best to step up to my new responsibilities as a married man, I said, “I don’t know—because I’m your husband and I hold the priesthood.”

Brethren, just a quick tip: if you are ever in a similar situation, that is not the right response. And I’m happy to report, it was the one and only time I ever made that mistake.

Now, if those good men made mistakes sometimes in understanding how to lead in the home, it brings me to ask the question: How could we ever expect any average LDS man to not make mistakes when it came to leading?  We are human, and we are learning.  This is a challenging task.  Some men chronically hang back instead of taking their places to preside in their homes.  Other men are seemingly constantly guilty of unrighteous dominion.  Most men are doing remarkably well, but “learning by experience”  means that they sometimes don’t strike the perfect balance and need slight course corrections.  

We can learn a lot from other faithful Saints who were treated unfairly.  The idea that a man has 51% of the vote  at home versus 49% of a woman is distasteful to me and contrary to the doctrine of equal partners.  I can only imagine how it must have tasted to be treated as less than human because of the color of your skin.  I was inspired by the patience shared in the story of Thoba and Julia, members of the church in South Africa.

Julia and Thoba were among the early black converts in South Africa. After the apartheid regime ended, black and white members of the Church were permitted to attend church together. For many, the equality of interaction between the races was new and challenging. One time, as Julia and Thoba attended church, they felt they were treated less than kindly by some white members. As they left, Thoba complained bitterly to her mother. Julia listened calmly until Thoba had vented her frustration. Then Julia said, “Oh, Thoba, the Church is like a big hospital, and we are all sick in our own way. We come to church to be helped.”

Julia’s comment reflects a valuable insight. We must not only be tolerant while others work on their individual illnesses; we must also be kind, patient, supportive, and understanding. As God encourages us to keep on trying, He expects us to also allow others the space to do the same, at their own pace. The Atonement will come into our lives in even greater measure. We will then recognize that regardless of perceived differences, all of us are in need of the same infinite Atonement.

If Julia and Thoba, survivors of apartheid,  found a way to love and be forgiving with the weaknesses of those around us, then we can too.  However, my heart breaks for women who are under-appreciated and under-valued.  I would do anything to help heal the pain that was caused by such a wound.  Many years ago, the second General Relief Society President of the Church, Eliza R. Snow, spoke to that need we have as women to be appreciated.  She said:

We like to be appreciated but if we do not get all the appreciation which we think is our due, what matters? We know the Lord has laid high responsibilities upon us, and there is not a wish or desire that the Lord has implanted in our hearts in righteousness but will be realized, and the greatest good we can do to ourselves and each other is to refine and cultivate ourselves in everything that is good and ennobling to qualify us for those responsibilities.”

Remember what Elder Maxwell taught, “Our individual worth is already divinely established as “great ”; it does not fluctuate like the stock market.”  Your worth is not dependent upon what others think of you. We don’t need the priesthood to be equal because we already are equal, regardless of what others think.  In order for others to value us as equals we will not need the Melchizedek priesthood; we need Melchizedek patience.