Couldn’t it be that the wife is presiding in her husband’s stead? Just as a Bishop’s counselors preside in his absence, through automatically delegated authority, though not Bishops themselves.

I’ll need to think more about what you wrote, Rosalynde, because I can’t untangle it. Undoubtably my fault, not yours, but there you have it.

Julie: Yes, he did say that when the father is unavailable, the mother presides in the home—which obviously is a significant departure from the procedure in the Church. One of Elder Oaks’ main points seemed to be that “presiding” in the home has a very different meaning than presiding in the Church; thus his designation of family structure as patriarchal and Church structure as hierarchical. In other words, he seems to disclaim precisely the analogy between family and church governance that you and Adam and Maren have been agreeing on. Presiding in the home, then, seems NOT to be a priesthood function, although it is still gender-linked (thus exploding the one theory of presiding in the home that made any sense to me). Because it’s not a priesthood function, we’re left needing an entirely different rationale for the gender linkage. Unless, of course, it IS still a priesthood function, and we’re seeing a softening of the gender-allocation of priesthood office.

The more I think about it, the more questions I have about the whole thing, in fact. It is probably always thus when we witness active doctrine-making.

“…in the language of these Scriptures was called Adam—male and female created he them, and called their name Adam, which in the original, in which these Scriptures were written by Moses, signifies “the first man.” There was no effort at distinguishing between the one half and the other, and calling one man and the other woman. This was an after distinction, but the explanation of it is—one man, one being, and he called their name Adam. But he created them male and female, for they were one, and he says not unto the woman multiply, and to the man multiply, but he says unto them, multiply and reproduce your species, and replenish the earth. He speaks unto them as belonging together, as constituting one being, and as organized in his image and after his likeness. [...]

” ‘What,’ says one, ‘do you mean we should understand that Deity consists of man and woman?’ Most certainly I do. If I believe anything that God has ever said about himself, and anything pertaining to the creation and organization of man upon the earth, I must believe that Deity consists of man and woman. Now this is simplifying it down to our understanding, and the great Christian world will be ready to open their mouths and cry, ‘Blasphemy! Sacrilege!’ [...]

“I only repeat what he says of himself; that he created man in the image of God, male and female created he them, and he called their name Adam, which signifies in Hebrew, the first man. So that the beings we call Adam and Eve were the first man placed here on this earth, and their name was Adam, and they were the express image of God. Now, if anybody is disposed to say that the woman is in the likeness of God and that the man was not, and if vice versa, I say you are both wrong, or else God has not told us the truth.

“I sometimes illustrate this matter by taking up a pair of shears, if I have one, but then you all know they are composed of two halves, but they are necessarily parts, one of another, and to perform their work for each other, as designed, they belong together, and neither one of them is fitted for the accomplishment of their works alone. And for this reason says St. Paul, ‘the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.’ In other words, there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female.”
(Erastus Snow, JD, 19: 269 – 271.)

So, can’t we all get along?

“I say unto you, be *one*; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:27)

Though I really liked your word choice: “Your duties as RS President are organizational, motivational and exemplary; you do not have executive authority” I must quibble on the blanket statement that ward RS Presidents do not preside.

I double-checked the CHI and Elder Scott’s address. The handbook section on Relief Society only uses the word ‘preside’ once that I can find: (Bottom of page 201) “[Enrichment meetings are held monthly at a time other than on Sunday or on Monday evening. The ward Relief Society president presides, and the counselor assigned to [enrichment] conducts….” It describes the bishop’s role thus: “The bishop oversees the ward Relief Society.” [Pretty good since the word bishop derives from the Greek word for overseer.]

The point that the R.S. President provides recommendations to the Bishopric for counselors to serve with her, doesn’t seem all that persuading, since the Bishop likewise provides recommendations to the Stake Presidency for counselors to serve with him. [and so on, and so forth all the way up to and including the First Presidency.]

I think Elder Scott’s address turned on the point of Keys of Presidency. Since the Bishop holds the keys of the oracles of heaven for his ward, ward callings issue from his Bishopric. Likewise, since the Stake President holds the keys of the oracles of heaven for his stake, the stake callings issue from his high council (NB, in his case a quorum of the high council must sustain the recommendations that come from the Stake Presidency, not just his two counselors.)

But if you want to quibble, you could point to the Elders Quorum Presidency and High Priest Group Leadership, who have to confer with the Bishop (and Stake) but may issue some calls within their respective Quorums/Groups. In the case of the Elders Quorum, the logic of Keys follows, but in the case of the Group Leadership…. Besides which, isn’t every member supposed to exercise the gifts of the spirit in her/his respective callings? So I’m not sure that I fully understood Elder Scott’s point here.

I’m going to quibble with you on the necessity of needing the priesthood to preside: Didn’t Elder Oaks say (and, we’re in the realm of oral tradition here–I may be remembering wrong) that his widowed mother presided in the absence of his father?

That said, your understanding of “presiding” as an essentially pragmatic and, in some sense, arbitrary assignment that facilitates organizational behavior is the way that I prefer to understand the term, as well. But because the right to preside in the home and in the Church is linked to gender, many people make the claim that such a right is in fact NOT assigned arbitrarily, that there is something essential in women that makes them less suited to preside and something in men that makes them more suited to that right. This is the sort of reasoning that is difficult for some women to accept.

My sense was that the role of a counselor in a presidency is to provide counsel and then, if the president (or bishop) decides contra your input, to support that decision 100%. Whereas I think Elder Oaks et al has made clear that in marriage (as Pres. Hinckley said about the 12) “no consensus means no action” (paraphrase).

In fact, the Pres. Packer quote I referenced above involves him training a new stake pres. He told him that he shouldn’t treat his wife the way he treated the stake. Since he wasn’t planning on mistreating either, he was a little taken aback. Pres. Packer explained what my above paragraph does about his relationship to his counselors and then said that if the stake p. ever “pulled phood rank” on his wife like that, he had failed.

I concede that if the presidency members were all equally and fully inspired, then this situation should never come up, and you are right that it is an accomodation to practicality in that sense. But my understanding of all the above is that this kind of “accomodation to practicality” is NOT acceptable in the context of marriage.

I don’t think this is true, Julie in A. Presiders in church callings aren’t supposed to override their advisers either. They do, but that’s just an accommodation to practicality.