How To Preside
Posted by Yam on June 13th, 2007We all know families, either our own or others, in which the members (especially the fathers, but not limited to them) use anger, physical power, or a sharp wit to maintain control of each other, instead of love.
In this situation, I think it helps to remember this line from The Family: A Proclamation to the World:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness.
I’ve thought a lot about what that means. I don’t think it’s very complicated, though it has many implications, and putting it into practice is tricky.
We parents are bigger and stronger and wiser than our children; we can drive, and control the money, and have the social position of authority. But the question is, do we use these advantages responsibly, or do we use them to enforce our will? Because when we use these advantages to get our way at the expense of others, we diminish our own authority, bit by bit. Someday, these devices won’t work anymore–children grow up, they grow strong, they grow independent, and they can and will leave.
Sometimes, one spouse will use these same advantages to dominate over their partner. And again, over the long term, they will only bring about anger and alienation.
I believe D&C Section 121:41-45 has some wisdom for this subject, as well. While it’s talking specifically about the priesthood, the same fundamental logic holds true for any position of power and authority:
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
You can not maintain power or influence by exerting your authority. In the long run, it simply doesn’t work. What does work is to love those you live with, to be humble enough to listen to their needs, to be gentle with them.
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
Sometimes, sharp words are necessary, but using them in anger doesn’t work. Instead, let yourself be filled with the Holy Spirit, and act in that spirit. How would President Hinkley scold? How would Jesus Christ reprove? That’s the way to do it.
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
When you act in this way, it demonstrates your faith; your actions are a testimony of the Holy Spirit.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
Treating other people well, in particular your family, isn’t just good for them; it strengthens and purifies you, too.
On a particular note about physical force: it doesn’t prove that a person’s right, it only proves that they’re stronger. Stronger is a temporary phenomenon; they’re going to need something better when their children grow up.
Not only is such leverage temporary, it’s also unnecessary. There are countries where the laws have banned spanking, and you see that parents do find other, nonviolent, ways of disciplining their children, and the children turn out just fine. So violence is unnecessary, and unnecessarily inflicting pain is cruelty.
In President Hinkley’s words:
In terms of physical abuse, I have never accepted the principle of “spare the rod and spoil the child.” I will be forever grateful for a father who never laid a hand in anger upon his children. Somehow he had the wonderful talent to let them know what was expected of them and to give them encouragement in achieving it.
I am persuaded that violent fathers produce violent sons. I am satisfied that such punishment in most instances does more damage than good. Children don’t need beating. They need love and encouragement. They need fathers to whom they can look with respect rather than fear. Above all, they need example.
(From his 1994 Semiannual General Conference talk, Save The Children)
Even with such clear counsel, many of us continue to act in unhealthy ways.
How it gets fixed depends a lot on the individual family; each situation is unique. There’s often quite a bit of unspoken collusion going on: everyone’s stuck in bad habits, and no one wants to be the first to break out of them.
I find that just being made aware that there’s a problem helps a lot. Once people see how they’re treating each other, and see that there might be another mode of interacting, that they can be just as happy as the happiest family in the ward they know, they usually want to make things better.
School Thy Feelings also really brings the point home to me, and I like singing it. 
I’m sure most of the people reading this don’t need the advice; my hope in repeating it is to invite you to think about it, to look for places where the ideas might be applied, and to provide a couple of useful references. I haven’t yet tried to use this for missionary work, although I’m getting close to trying it with a friend of mine; if you have any thoughts about that, or any other thoughts on the subject, I’d be very glad to read them.
Thanks, and peace,
Yam
This is good advice, and on a difficult topic.
I certainly have made some mistakes as a parent. I have one child that I can never really remember having to scold or punish in any significant way. He is the type of child that allows a parent to pat themselves on the back without actually doing anything.
I have a couple of other children that seem to require, and even need, firm solding, punishment and discipline at nearly every turn. In some cases I have been pushed to last resort mode, and did not know what else to do but give what I hoped was a harmless swat.
This made me think of just what would Christ do. It is easy to look at the scriptures and get a little ‘law of Moses’ thing going. Much of the Law of Moses had strict punishments - even death for certain misbehavior. We are even told that those who do not repent must suffer such great pain that it would cause even God to tremble because of pain.
Might it be possible that we as Latter-Day Saints may have unrealistic expectations? We may view misbeahvior as having even eternal consequences. This might cause us to overreact sometimes.
It seems that Christ at times show both ends of some spectrums. Sometimes he might say go thy way and sin no more, sometimes he might make a whip and crack it. Some of this seems case by case doesn’t it? Do we limit ourselves when we take an absolute stand on certain things?
Well, I don’t have all the answers. Thanks for making me think, again.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on June 13th, 2007
If it is the nature and disposition of ALMOST ALL men to immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion, why are we given it in the first place. So often the sociological perspective is driven by the perspective that leaders will, as a matter of course, trample the rights of the individual or minority, so their solution naturally is to have said minorities fight for rights in law and public discourse.
Section 121 is magnificent. It undoubtedly describes leadership the way the Lord leads. What I don’t think we get enough instruction in is how to be led. Too often, the party line is sit down and shut up, with the increase of love described, of course. My question is, in light of the fact almost all men will begin immediately to exercise power unrighteously, how do we correct our leaders. I suppose the reproof with sharpness and increase of love could conceivably go both ways. The truth is I simply do not know.
Comment # 2 left by Doc on June 13th, 2007
Doc,
This kind of conversation went on elsewhere, but one of the things I think the Lord has set up to prevent unrighteous dominion is the council. If a husband councils with his wife and finds ways to work with her in unity, the Spirit can be there and he won’t be unrighteously dominioning. (The same could go both ways; a woman could as easily end up ruling the roost and ignoring her husband or not involving him in planning, communication, etc.)
In the same way, I think the council system (along with the law of witnesses) provides protection against any one person being able to dominate or domineer or push through. The council system works at all levels of the Church.
I also think ‘how to be led’ will look different at different levels. At a local level, I think there is a lot we can do to express feedback, either directly (I have no qualms about going to my bishop with ideas or concerns) or through councils (I have also gone to my RS president with ideas and thoughts and asked her to consider taking them to ward council). With general leaders, we can send feedback up the chain. There are also various ways to get feedback on different elements of how the Church functions (e.g., the curriculum dept. invites feedback; the Church’s CIO is doing the same right now on his blog for lds.org and for mormon.org (and what the Church is doing with the internet in general)).
I think there is sometimes a mistaken notion, though, that somehow it is the job of the members to inform the Brethren about what they really should be doing and preaching and focusing on. One can send feedback up the chain, but I think often we really should accept what they do in faith. Being led requires humility and trust. Sure, the leaders are not perfect, but the Lord has a lot of protection built in to the system.
I ran across this from Elder Ballard while preparing a lesson this weekend:
Comment # 3 left by Michelle on June 13th, 2007
Excellent point, Michelle. I think that in the terms used, “preside” means more of a chairman position. It is as I once said to a difficult companion: In a working companionship, there is no difference between senior and junior companions. In a dysfunctional (or at least imperfect) companionship, the difference becomes necessary.
Comment # 4 left by SilverRain on June 15th, 2007