The Proclamation and Me

Preparing the elder's quorum lesson this week, I ran across two quotes from President McKay that ably explain how I have made peace with the Proclamation (I didn't initially realise that this was something I had to do, but time, talking with my wife and other women, and confusion have led me to this position). It also provides some insight into what exactly is wrong with unrighteous dominion. The first is from pg. 43 in a section focused on unity in the home: Very frequently discords arise in the home because husbands desire to save their own dignity and have their own way, have their own wishes carried out. Wives desire the same. Some exercise their prerogative to have the last word. Husbands are sometimes even more eager to have it than wives. Each really is trying to save himself or herself, and instead of having harmony and peace in the home there arises discord. Instead of saving the life of harmony in the home, you lose it, merely because you are seeking to save your own selfish life, or have your own selfish way. Better to lose that desire. Say nothing, and in losing your desire and that feeling of enmity, of ruling, of governing, you say nothing, and you gain your life in the home. The most interesting thing about this quote to me is the identification of enmity with the idea of ruling or governing in the home. Not only is it selfish, but it is an act of hate (or pride in the Pres. Benson sense). It really is perplexing that some areas of Mormon culture continue to perpetuate the "ideal" of the patriarchal lawgiver when talks like this have been in circulation for a while. Unrighteous dominion is an act of hate, against both the dominated and (in the Pres. Benson sense) God himself. The second quote is from pp. 45-46 in a section dealing with unity in the church: The greatest safeguard we have for unity and strength in the Church is found in the priesthood, by honoring and respecting it. Oh, my brethren—presidents of stakes, bishops of wards, and all who hold the priesthood—God bless you in your leadership, in your responsibility to guide, to bless, to comfort the people whom you have been appointed to preside over and to visit. Guide them to go to the Lord and seek inspiration so to live that they may rise above the low and the mean, and live in the spiritual realm. Recognize those who preside over you and, when necessary, seek their advice. The setting is clearly a "priesthood meeting"-type setting, meaning that he is primarily talking to ecclesiastical leaders and dealing with issues of ecclesiastical unity. The way he uses "preside" here (the most problematic of the three p's in the Proclamation) is interesting. We should recognize those who preside and seek advice (when necessary). Those who preside "over" are to comfort, to bless, to visit, and to guide under the blessing of God. My question is, does the description of presiding given in the second quote work well with the description of "governing" in the family as hatred? I am not certain that it does. I have long had the feeling that "presiding" means fundamentally different things in the church and in the family. Whereas in the ecclesiastical order it does imply a type of governing power (delegated to leaders as they accurately represent the will of Jesus Christ (as far as possible)), I don't believe that it carries that connotation in the family. Instead, may I offer as an alternative, that to preside (in the family setting) may mean something along the lines of "to represent". Ultimately, because unrighteous dominion is hateful to God and humanity, we are only presided "over" by our choice. Attempts to force conformity from the top down usually fail; power rests with the people. But the Church views itself as a top-down organization. The primary responsibility of the prophets and apostles is to represent the will of God to the people, not the other way around. In the ecclesiastical setting, this representation takes the form of the highest ranking worthy holder of the priesthood being acknowledged in some way. It shows that the meeting is authorized by the hierarchy and, in particularly, that someone authorized in this setting to speak for God is present and that he will correct any mistakes that we (the less-authorized) might make. But this cannot be the way the family works. In the family, both parents are to be considered equal partners. The fact that one can openly use the priesthood cannot, according to D&C 121: 39-44, be used as a means of establishing dominion or governance in the family. Both father and mother are in the same boat, gaining power to govern within the father as it is delegated to them within the family. This generally means that within the family, the mother has greater power to govern because she has earned more trust from the family members than the father, having (stereotypically) spent more time with them. Nevertheless, in a two-parent household, both parents negotiate between themselves and with the children what exactly those powers for governance are that the parents hold individually and jointly. None of that has anything to do with the priesthood. So what does presiding have to do with the family? Well, presiding in the ecclesiastical sense is based on the idea that the ecclesiastical leader is representing the Savior (and the leader is worthy so to do and that the leader is doing a good job of it). It is in this less governmental sense that I think presiding enters into the family. The father's role as a "presider" in the family is to represent the interests of the church (and, ideally, Christ). The mother's role is to represent the interests of the family (and, ideally, Christ). Between the two roles, the co-equal partners negotiate a way to satisfy both sets of interests in the family. Ideally, both will always agree, but I believe that life is complex enough that negotiation between the two viewpoints is necessary to create the sort of family with whom the Spirit can be found. So, that is my theory. I know it has a couple of holes in it and I know that it may not represent any sort of reality outside of my head, but it became necessary to develop it as I found myself caught in a sort of double bind between the equal partner clause and the "traditional" meanings of preside in the Proclamation. I do think that there might be something to this reinterpretation of "preside". If nothing else, I feel like it gets rid of the double bind there. And Pres. McKay's comments seemed to illustrate what I was getting at. So, what do you think?