quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
That also seems fairly dissmissive of fatherhood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent male role?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not from a religious tradition in which motherhood is so deeply entrenched--and I'm a mother--and I STILL skipped church deliberately on Mother's Day. It's just too sentimental and icky and forced.
My husband didn't spend any money on me--he didn't buy a card "from" the toddler for me--although he did let me pick what I wanted to do all day, which was exactly enough recognition.
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I'm not from a religious tradition in which motherhood is so deeply entrenched--and I'm a mother--and I STILL skipped church deliberately on Mother's Day. It's just too sentimental and icky and forced.
My husband didn't spend any money on me--he didn't buy a card "from" the toddler for me--although he did let me pick what I wanted to do all day, which was exactly enough recognition.
Stupid invented Hallmark holiday.
I'm not a huge fan of mother's day either. My husband and I have adopted a tradition of going out to eat with the family sometime around mother's day, but no on mother's day, because the restaurants are too busy and sometimes they even jack up the prices. We don't do cards or gifts or anything like that and to be honest, when my husband brought up going out to eat this past Saturday, I considered telling him to drop even that. I'm just not big on these forced, made up holidays. Don't even get me stated on Valentine's Day...
The only thing I was looking forward to about Mother's Day was my son coming home with some kind of Mother's Day art project from school (it's his first year in pre-school so this would have been the first time). Instead, the school sent me, I kid you not, a stuffed rabbit. I would have much rather had scribbles on the fridge.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
That also seems fairly dissmissive of fatherhood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent male role?
Absolutely! It's not intended to be dismissive of fatherhood, but it certainly is.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's a myth. The celebration of Mother's sunday goes back at least to the 16th century in England. Mother's Day in the use was founded in 1912 due to the efforts of Anne Jarvis, founder of the Mothers International (or something like that).
My Mother told me that she used to hate Mother's Day because all the exultation about wonderful mothers made her feel horribly inadequate. She said that changed when she started thinking of the day as being about her mother rather than about her. By that time, her mother had been dead for several years and so she dedicated the day to thinking about all the good thing she remembered about her own wonderful mother. I think that would be a good practice for anyone except perhaps those who had abusive mother's or for whom remembering their mother is painful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: rivka, there are situations where I would consider that exploiting a loophole and situations where I would consider it insurance fraud. Raja and I have talked about getting married to help him find a job in this country, since many companies reject his application out of hand because he's not a resident. We've been together 4 years, and would be doing it with the intent to stay together. Ultimately we're not comfortable with it. But I don't think I'd feel like we were commiting fraud if we did it. I know you asked about strangers, not us, but. . . *shrug*
I don't consider that a remotely comparable question. Without speaking to anyone in particular's situation, when a couple has been together for years and plans to stay together, my question is why aren't they married, not why are they.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I know it's not comparable. I mostly mentioned it to say that even in our circumstances, we weren't comfortable doing it, among other reasons because we would be doing it for the purpose of getting him a visa rather than because we decided we wanted to get married. Yet I can still imagine situations where I would not consider it insurance fraud for two near strangers to marry to get one on the other's insurance.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: among other reasons because we would be doing it for the purpose of getting him a visa rather than because we decided we wanted to get married.
Ah! I see.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Yet I can still imagine situations where I would not consider it insurance fraud for two near strangers to marry to get one on the other's insurance.
I can't. That is, I can see reasons for two near strangers to get married (although it concerns me), with insurance being a benefit of that. I cannot see any way getting married in that situation for the insurance benefits would not be fraud. Ethically, and possibly legally.
(Leaving aside that the plan was to claim that he was a full-time student without that actually being the case.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am somewhat confused by the idea of the husbands making the gifts on Mother's Day.
Before I went to preschool, I was too young to understand what the holiday was anyway. In preschool, our teachers had us make cards for our mums. Later on I bought flowers (yes, with money from my dad, but this was the only contribution he's made towards that day -- and rightly so, I think. It's not Wife's Day, it's Mother's).
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am somewhat confused by the idea of the husbands making the gifts on Mother's Day.
I do it because being a mother is a big part of my wife's life, and she's really, really good at it.
I made a whiz bang dinner for her this year-- bacon wrapped shrimp on the grill, corn on the cob, french fries, and crab cakes, with Dutch crumb apple pie for dessert.
The kids picked out some impatiens and pansies for her, and we gave her the whole Mother's day weekend "off." I think we were pretty successful in communicating our appreciation for her.
The trick is to not go a whole year between bouts of appreciation; or even days...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
That also seems fairly dissmissive of fatherhood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent male role?
Absolutely! It's not intended to be dismissive of fatherhood, but it certainly is.
I'm not so sure it is. Priesthood is routinely explained to encompass one's duties as a father. Being the a righteous head of the household and administering gospel ordinances within the family has always been described to me as a priesthood role.
In the past I think the church overwhelmed some fathers into shirking their fatherhood responsibilities in lieu of stake or ward callings. Fairly recently there seem to have been strong currents from the first presidency instructing priesthood leaders to encourage men to never put one above the other, and instead achieve balance between the church and home.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Priesthood is routinely explained to encompass one's duties as a father. Being the a righteous head of the household and administering gospel ordinances within the family has always been described to me as a priesthood role.
I am so glad my husband doesn't think this is his role as a father or husband.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fatherhood is spoken of separately. How often and how much seperately has a lot to do with the age and background of the person doing the talking.
It isn't completely settled, but the impression given from this thread is not how I think either the gospel deals with the issue nor how it has most often been experienced by me. In other words, people are giving their impressions, not a complete picture. I don't agree with any of the characterizations here, except ScottR's on why it is nice for fathers to be involved in Mother's Day.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What does it mean to administer gospel ordinances?
Giving blessings-- the priesthood holder lays his hands on the head of the person to be blessed, and basically prays over them.
Baptizing/confirming family members-- the priesthood holder dunks the person to be baptized, and later blesses them (see above) to receive the Holy Ghost.
Conferring priesthood-- priesthood holder blesses the family member, and confers either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood upon him.
Giving blessings of healing or spiritual strength is the most frequent ordinance usually performed at home.
Other ordinances not usually performed at home: temple ordinances, sacrament or communion, naming a baby, patriarchal blessings. With the exception of temple ordinances, all of these are performed by men.
I have no good answer for why that is.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Priesthood is routinely explained to encompass one's duties as a father. Being the a righteous head of the household and administering gospel ordinances within the family has always been described to me as a priesthood role.
I am so glad my husband doesn't think this is his role as a father or husband.
Um, yeah. Totally not what I meant by fatherhood. I was talking about changing diapers, giving baths, singning songs and reading stories, keeping the kid from running into the street, helping with homework, supporting and teaching and guiding -- you know, parenting.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Fatherhood in the parenting sense is spoken of separately, and it is spoken on its own.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What does it mean to administer gospel ordinances?
Giving blessings-- the priesthood holder lays his hands on the head of the person to be blessed, and basically prays over them.
Baptizing/confirming family members-- the priesthood holder dunks the person to be baptized, and later blesses them (see above) to receive the Holy Ghost.
Conferring priesthood-- priesthood holder blesses the family member, and confers either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood upon him.
Giving blessings of healing or spiritual strength is the most frequent ordinance usually performed at home.
Other ordinances not usually performed at home: temple ordinances, sacrament or communion, naming a baby, patriarchal blessings. With the exception of temple ordinances, all of these are performed by men.
quote:Um, yeah. Totally not what I meant by fatherhood. I was talking about changing diapers, giving baths, singning songs and reading stories, keeping the kid from running into the street, helping with homework, supporting and teaching and guiding -- you know, parenting.
I don't think I can be a worthy priesthood holder without being a worthwhile father. Priesthood, fatherhood, and husband-hood are connected and complementary.
*A man can be a good father without the priesthood; a priesthood holder can be a good man without being a father. If a man is a father and a priesthood holder, and a husband, then in order to truly be good, he must engage all three to be good.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Right. Fatherhood in the parenting sense is spoken of separately, and it is spoken on its own.
That's not the language used in the Priesthood classes that I attend. I'm not saying that's how God sees it, but it's a very common practice to refer to all acts a father does that could be described as parenting as part of his Priesthood calling.
Over and over we're asked, "How can fulfill our calling as holders of the Priesthood at home?" Teachers frequently go on to then describe attributes like counseling with ones spouse what is best for the children, being involved in school activities, gathering the family together for family home evening.
When a religion believes that eternal families are forged by the bonds of the priesthood, the unit becomes a natural extension of the priesthood office.
I'm not saying that we must always talk about the Priesthood when discussing parenting, but parenting is often juxtaposed with being a good Priesthood holder in the Priesthood classes I've attended.
Scott did a good job of describing the relationship more succinctly.
--- Christine:
quote:I am so glad my husband doesn't think this is his role as a father or husband.
I was not aware that comment you were responding to could be seen in a negative light. Could you elucidate my understanding?
---- Scott: I have ideas and impressions as to why men and women don't have the priesthood together, but nothing that's convincing to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: The part I had a problem with is the idea that the role of a father/husband is as the "righteous head of the household." I have a couple of problems with it, including the meaning and possible connotations of the word "righteous," which causes me to have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of, "Well, that's a bit arrogant." (Although I accept that I may not be understanding your use of the term.)
But putting that aside, I do not see my husband as the head of the household but rather that we are co-heads of the household and co-parents of our children.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, that's were most people's problems with the LDS view of marriage comes in. The 'righteous' part is more about he must be doing things correctly (from proper fathering in exactly the sense DKW was talking about) to keeping Church standards (ex-nay on adultery for example ), and that a husband acting as 'Head of Household', well, shouldn't be acting as head of household if he's not righteous. What the heck is mean by the phrase 'head of household' is really the big question and to my mind it's not really fully answered even within the Church. I think (notice the shift into my views away from the general comments on Church views) shying away completely from the patriarchal overtones it brings on isn't right as the Church's main document that most often sited on the matter, "Family: A Proclamation to the World" doesn't seem to avoid those overtones. However, the traditional ideas of a ruling father, or the stereotypical 50s view of marriage is also not right. A lot of it becomes semantics and my guess is that most active LDS would agree that you definition of "co-heads" of the household would coincide with they way they think a marriage should be run (though not being most active LDS nor knowing your exact definition I can't promise that ). Certainly a domineering, or in any way controlling father or husband is very specifically against Church teachings. It's a subject that comes up fairly frequently and is always spoken against by Church leaders.
posted
Co-heads is exactly what is taught by the church. The husband and father has no place to be controlling and domineering and should never think of himself as the sovereign in the household. He does have the responsibility to see that things are being done properly in the home according to church teachings, and I think that's where the connection between priesthood and fatherhood comes in most strongly in LDS homes. He also needs to make sure his family is provided for and protected--the alternative being, perhaps, him sitting on the couch playing video games all day and ignoring the household. When the husband and father takes his role seriously he is essentially holding up his part of the partnership with his wife. However, he is also reminded that his leadership is not unilateral; he is an equal partner with his wife and the family is led by this council.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: I'd be one of the first to admit that even when playing at being "the righteous head of the household" I am woefully inadequate much of the time. It's an ideal to be aspired and accomplished whenever one can manage it.
I see a father and mother as being co-heads of the household virtually all the time. I don't think I've ever made a decision without my wife being happy about it, and many times I've acquiesced to my wife. But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision." Ideally, the husband and wife could pray about the decision and find out the will of the Lord on the matter. But it still seems possible that God might leave the decision to the parents. In that case, typically in Mormon culture when all else fails, the father makes the decision so long as he is acting in righteousness.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if the wife disagrees about the righteousness... you're back where you started. This sort of thing must be worked out between the people involved; saying that decisions default to one gender or the other is just not very helpful.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were being self-righteous, which is the type of righteousness I think KOM is implying, my wife would have full authority to call me for it and disregard what I was directing. She is under no compulsion to agree with me or accept my decisions if she doesn't feel good about my actions or attitude.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:She is under no compulsion to agree with me or accept my decisions if she doesn't feel good about my actions or attitude.
But if she can't detect any unrighteousness, but still disagrees with the head of household tiebreaking vote, what then?
The head of household thing can never solve a disagreement, in my view. If you can't reach agreement then I think the answer is "keep trying." That is, for situations where agreement is necessary.
Asserting authority even as some sort of last resort tiebreaking thing is bound to cause resentment and definitely implies unequal partnership. Which is fine, if both people sign up for it.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: I'd be one of the first to admit that even when playing at being "the righteous head of the household" I am woefully inadequate much of the time. It's an ideal to be aspired and accomplished whenever one can manage it.
I see a father and mother as being co-heads of the household virtually all the time. I don't think I've ever made a decision without my wife being happy about it, and many times I've acquiesced to my wife. But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision." Ideally, the husband and wife could pray about the decision and find out the will of the Lord on the matter. But it still seems possible that God might leave the decision to the parents. In that case, typically in Mormon culture when all else fails, the father makes the decision so long as he is acting in righteousness.
This makes it sound like the husband is the tie-breaker, which amounts to the same thing as his being the head of the household, especially since there are only two votes.
Really, I get the difference between an authoritarian husband, ruling over his family, and one who takes his wife's feelings into account. These are clearly two different scenarios and I can even accept, by your definition of righteous, that the authoritarian husband isn't.
Of course, righteousness as you've described it is an idyllic concept. Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined. Where is her out?
I don't feel like my marriage requires a tie-breaker. When we disagree we strive for negotiation and compromise but sometimes that is difficult. In the end, the bottom line is that we are both striving for the same goal: to make one another happy. In the heat of confrontation, a lot of couples miss this point and strive instead to be right. I often accede to my husband's desires not because I like it, but because in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things. Then again, sometimes he acedes to my desires for the same reason. In neither case, do I feel that he gets the deciding vote, I just feel like we've made a decision together to put our marriage above petty disagreements.
In no case have I ever felt like one of us needed to have the deciding vote. We work things out together.
posted
Asserting authority would in my view be completely wrong. Coming to a decision is the domain of the husband and wife together. If my wife says, "It's your call," it will be when we have discussed it thoroughly and she is happy with or at least accepting of either decision. If she disagrees with one or another, we haven't ironed it out between us sufficiently yet.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined.
If you think the husband and wife roles are highly defined you are getting the wrong impression. The church does teach that husbands and wives have different roles but the definition of what those roles are is not at all clearly defined. All the LDS couples I know of are continually struggling to figure out what those roles are in there own marriage and families.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All the LDS couples I know of are continually struggling to figure out what those roles are in there own marriage and families." --The Rabbit
I think about 85% of married couples in America are struggling to figure out their roles to some extent or another.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Flying Fish, but I think the process is complicated for LDS couples by the fact that the LDS church gives strong council on the subject which despite being frequent and strong is sufficiently ambiguous to give rise to broad interpretation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Even for people who get no religious proscriptions, or people like me who get the minimum (I've had no council outside of the Big 10), you get so many mixed messages from pop culture and elsewhere. Women get messages that they are failures if they don't wish to be an executive or a politician along with being a Mommy, or if they feel they need let the man be the titular or de facto head of the family. Men get messages that they are by nature idiots or ogres, or patriarchal dominators. And as for fidelity or chastity? Pop culture doesn't exactly place these values at the pinnacle.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it does. Everyone knows that people who have affairs are either murderers or get murdered. Don't you watch cop shows?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: And as for fidelity or chastity? Pop culture doesn't exactly place these values at the pinnacle.
I would agree that it doesn't put a high value on chastity, but IMO, it does put a very high value on fidelity. No one likes a cheater.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined. Where is her out?
Her out? There are no restrictions that I can think of, or community repercussions beyond the natural consequences anybody would face in any community for airing their laundry. There's no sheen of perfection on husbands or any sense of immunity or infallible "righteousness." She has no obligation to take his word as gospel. He needs to earn her trust, and she his. There aren't any shortcuts there.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife loves cop shows. I really like very few of them. I did watch something called Law and Order CI a few times, in which a detective named Bobby solved crimes with Sherlock Holmseian powers of ivestigation. (I think he unspooled a typewrite ribbon and applied an ad hoc algorithm to determine what had been typed on that typewriter).
I do watch the news occasionally. I think people who have affairs can win awards, get elected, head foundations, and such.
Not that it bothers me when Tom Brady has a child outside of wedlock, or Ray Lewis has 4 or 5 and tells the women and the kids, "I'll pay support but I don't want to know you or have anything to do with them." and then someone on ESPN says, "But that doesn't MAKE HIM A BAD FATHER...."
Is it any wonder people get confused?
(Sorry about the editorial)
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying Fish: I'm not sure who's unclear about that situation. It's pretty wrong. The fact that there are bad people in the world doesn't mean that pop culture in general feels it's ok.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: And as for fidelity or chastity? Pop culture doesn't exactly place these values at the pinnacle.
I would agree that it doesn't put a high value on chastity, but IMO, it does put a very high value on fidelity. No one likes a cheater.
Speaking as the cultural ambassador of sexually-liberated-libidinous-twentysomething-youthistan: Unrepentant or serial cheaters are treated worse than dogs here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: I'd be one of the first to admit that even when playing at being "the righteous head of the household" I am woefully inadequate much of the time. It's an ideal to be aspired and accomplished whenever one can manage it.
I see a father and mother as being co-heads of the household virtually all the time. I don't think I've ever made a decision without my wife being happy about it, and many times I've acquiesced to my wife. But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision." Ideally, the husband and wife could pray about the decision and find out the will of the Lord on the matter. But it still seems possible that God might leave the decision to the parents. In that case, typically in Mormon culture when all else fails, the father makes the decision so long as he is acting in righteousness.
This makes it sound like the husband is the tie-breaker, which amounts to the same thing as his being the head of the household, especially since there are only two votes.
Really, I get the difference between an authoritarian husband, ruling over his family, and one who takes his wife's feelings into account. These are clearly two different scenarios and I can even accept, by your definition of righteous, that the authoritarian husband isn't.
Of course, righteousness as you've described it is an idyllic concept. Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined. Where is her out?
I don't feel like my marriage requires a tie-breaker. When we disagree we strive for negotiation and compromise but sometimes that is difficult. In the end, the bottom line is that we are both striving for the same goal: to make one another happy. In the heat of confrontation, a lot of couples miss this point and strive instead to be right. I often accede to my husband's desires not because I like it, but because in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things. Then again, sometimes he acedes to my desires for the same reason. In neither case, do I feel that he gets the deciding vote, I just feel like we've made a decision together to put our marriage above petty disagreements.
In no case have I ever felt like one of us needed to have the deciding vote. We work things out together.
Well to be candid, I've yet to encounter a situation where anybody needed to be a tie breaker. I've yet to have something come up, where a decision absolutely needed to made, with no more time to deliberate, and yet Tiffany and I had not yet reached a consensus. Theoretically such a thing could happen but even then prayer would most likely resolve the issue. Barring all thatI'd still be reticent if my wife was going to be upset if we did things my way. At the very least I would hope that while we might not agree, we are at least convinced the others way is not unbearable.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well to be candid, I've yet to encounter a situation where anybody needed to be a tie breaker. I've yet to have something come up, where a decision absolutely needed to made, with no more time to deliberate, and yet Tiffany and I had not yet reached a consensus. Theoretically such a thing could happen but even then prayer would most likely resolve the issue. Barring all thatI'd still be reticent if my wife was going to be upset if we did things my way. At the very least I would hope that while we might not agree, we are at least convinced the others way is not unbearable.
My husband and I have also yet to be able to resolve things through discussion, compromise, negotiation, prayer, and the occasional night on the couch.
I can't really come up with a reason someone would need to break a tie in our marriage.
I guess the thing is this: You seem like a nice, reasonable guy. And nice, reasonable men don't need a tie breaking vote because in the end, they care too much about their wife's happiness to use it. So why even claim the power? The only reason I can think of using it is basically because the couple has poor argument and communication skills (the #1 reason that marriages break up). Or I guess because the couple has gotten to a point where their differences are irreconcilable.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: Couples do disagree, and on rare occasions strongly. I feel the mechanism needs to exist because the situation is not impossible.
I think one of the benefits of society today is that men and women have so much information at their fingertips they no longer need to cultivate specific skill sets in order to cover the full spectrum. There's no need for one parent to know all about running the household while the other simply provides. It's just, ultimately we are all accountable to somebody IMHO. Decisions I make will be weighed and measured by my God as will my stewardship over my family unit. I feel commanded to be a good husband to my wife, a loving father to my future children, as well as a dutiful son, and a helpful brother. I just feel it's important to acknowledge that perfect harmony is a destination fraught with mistakes. As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
I'd be far happier if the day never comes where such a decision would need to be made. I cannot see any sort of decision of that kind being anything but disappointing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision."
No. There has never been a case in which I would make an important decision about our family and our home without the approval of my wife. It has never happened and will never happen.
You know what that whole concept reminds me of? Those silly little coupons lovers sometimes give each other, for "one night of hot sex" or "half an hour of massage." I've received a few of those over the course of my life, but I've never redeemed one in a situation where I couldn't've gotten the same thing just by asking. I wouldn't want any "hot sex" from someone who's only doing it because the coupon says she has to; nor, I suspect, would I be able to enforce the terms of the coupon on someone unwilling.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: Couples do disagree, and on rare occasions strongly. I feel the mechanism needs to exist because the situation is not impossible.
As long as the mechanism exists, you are using it. It only takes one person to push a disagreement to a stalemate, so you have that choice every time. You choose to defer to your wife or not. She does not have that choice, because if you ever feel strongly enough about something you have the option to hold out until your "tiebreaking" vote is required.
If you and she are both happy with that arrangement I'm sure it works for you. It's not a relationship I would agree to, from either side.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I don't think you can know that it will never happen. What happens if your wife is in a coma? What if she is hysterical in a moment of crisis? What if something is wrong with her behavior and she can't see it? All of those things can of course happen to men as well and were I to be any of those things I would expect Tiffany to step beyond her role as co-head and take the reigns. Do you really think it's impossible that a situation could arise where you and your wife would be unable to stop and reach a consensus? I concede it's quite unlikely, and again I can't see any such situation leaving me with anything than a bitter taste, but never will happen? ----- dkw: I'm not sure I follow. How does active application of a principle necessarily follow it's existence? My wife most certainly does have the right not to differ to me. In the worst case scenario I could say, "You have to trust me on this," and she could very easily say, "I'm sorry but I think you're disastrously wrong on this and I can't go along with it." Tiffany has only promised to love, honor, and obey her husband so long as he is following God's council. If she is not convinced that I and God are in agreement why would she capitulate?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom: I don't think you can know that it will never happen. What happens if your wife is in a coma? What if she is hysterical in a moment of crisis? What if something is wrong with her behavior and she can't see it?
If my wife's in a coma, her input on new decisions doesn't count. I don't suddenly become free to revisit old disagreements, however, now that she's not around to argue with me.
If something's wrong with her behavior and she can't see it, it's my job to make her see it. It's not my job to just go ahead and do something anyway; it's my job to bring her around.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Application of a principle does not necessarily follow its existence.
However, in this instance if you automatically have the tie-breaking vote, then in every disagreement you are the one who decides whether you will follow your wife's preference or yours. You can choose to defer to her, in which case you are choosing in favor of hers. She can choose not to defer to you, but if you feel strongly enough about it her choices are to defer or push it to a stalemate, in which case you get to decide. So the only time her preference is the choice is because you chose to give the choice to her.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |