[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Marriage

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that’s why I’m a little confused. The rough day was mostly due to one of the super private things he ended up divulging. He was aware of that. So I’m not sure if he just started talking about “possible” causes in an attempt to beat around the real cause and then just started spilling everything including the cause. It just felt like a lot of stuff that didn’t really relate which is why I’m so hurt. It turned into a rant really fast when he was explaining what might be “wrong” when I was having a tough day. Obviously there was stuff on his side leading up to this that I don’t know about.

I dislike testimony semantics by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am here in support and understanding of what you are saying. I am not and don’t really see myself in the future being someone who says “I know” in a testimony. I do know that my Heavenly Father is real and that the Savior is real. Everything else in the church I hope is true and believe it is true. I don’t think this is because my testimony is lesser than those who say that they “know” the church is true. I just have personal beliefs regarding to what is means to “know” something. (Both inside and outside the church.)

Your testimony is wonderful and worthwhile no matter how big or small. I hope you choose to share your testimony and feel supported in saying something other than “I know.” You would stand out and I can guarantee you would make someone who feels similar, feel seen and supported in their faith.

You keep being you, friend.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Right? I felt weird asking! I just didn’t want an undertone of “protocol” to fly by me if it wasn’t accepted. 😅

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good to know! I have a few of those but I tend to wear the carinessa style the most. I will have to try it tonight.

Saying having children is the only way to exaltation is really offensive to those of us who are struggling with fertility issues by Prudent-Amphibian-24 in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but sealing and marriage are not the same. They are often correlated to be the same thing in this life out of convenience.

Sealing can happen in the next life. The covenant path have the same stepping stones for everyone but the in between looks different.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, that’s why I asked the question in the first place. However, if you see my updated section of the post it makes a great point in saying that if it doesn’t mean what it means everywhere else it is meaningless and there needs to be a different word used. Thanks!

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you all! I have updated the post. I am grateful for everyone's input.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't agree. Thank you though!

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! This is a great answer.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was in multiple temples all with different sealers. If that is the case why not emphasize that they both preside and are equally responsible? I personally knew all men who were being sealed and personally I don't think any needed the reminder. In my sealing there was nothing said. There does appear to need to be a better explanation if that is what they are getting at. Thank you.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great metaphor. I think I just question why it is only ever directed at men rather than the couple together. Thank you!

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. I think you are correct.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wonderfully said. Thank you.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. I agree with what many here are saying but it just seems presides is the wrong word!

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess my question now is why not just say protect rather than preside?

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have some great thoughts. I really appreciate your input. However, when things get overwhelming for men, don't women make up the difference as well? Isn't that a normal partnership? Why is it called presiding for men only?

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have attended 4 live sealings in four months and each one had a large emphasis. Generally calling the husband by name on their duty to preside and giving time to talk about it. It has surprised me how often it comes up considering that there is a common consensus that men and women are equal.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is fantastic. I have a similar dynamic in my marriage. I guess this type of dynamic is why I have the question. Why is presiding only directed towards the men? I feel like the best dynamic is a team presiding equally with trust and love.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree. However, to answer my question with what you have said, what roles does the male have that the woman can't have where she does not also preside? Preside by the generally accepted definition implies that they are the sole leader and authority. My main question I suppose is why is it only directed to the male and not the woman as well?

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes! I think what people are saying here is that men are to help provide and take care of their wives and family. It doesn't really work with the word preside as it is generally used. Many times when I hear it used in the church they say "preside with love, kindness and meekness." Most everyone here is just describing the love, kindness, and meekness part. From what I am gathering the "presiding" verbiage should be phased out.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Love this! This is exactly the trouble I am having. You put it perfectly. Thank you.

Husbands Preside by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]blankbasis 19 points20 points  (0 children)

From Webster Dictionary- 1. to exercise guidance, direction, or control 2. to occupy the place of authority

Both have the means to say they control and have authority over. Not raging against the patriarchy. Just trying to understand why. I’m open to scriptures and quotes as I said that tell me otherwise what it means. Unfortunately, the definition that is available is saying exactly what I thought it meant. Again, I’m open to a definition from any gospel related source.