Question
Dear Gramps,
What does it mean for the husband and father to preside in the home? The Proclamation says, “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” President Lee said, “But even more important than that you be yoked equally’ in physical matters, is that you be yoked equally in spiritual matters.” Is it possible to be equal in all things and yet have someone preside? Is preside used in the sense of “being in charge” and/or leading? Can both father and mother lead? Is the father supposed to get the spiritual direction for the family? Does preside simply mean the guy is in charge of assigning who says the prayer? It seems so contradictory sometimes. My husband I and make decisions together. I don’t feel like he presides and I’m first counselor or something, but I still feel like we have a righteous marriage. We’re responsible to each other and to our children. If anything, I should be more responsible than him for the state of my family and children. I’m asking in sincerity, not exasperation.
A Happy Wife
Answer
Dear Happy Wife,
When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles introduced the family proclamation, it was heralded by members as a clarion call in defense of the traditional family—marriage between a man and a woman, procreation as a divine obligation, and the importance of steadfast parenting. But almost immediately, some questioned whether its prescribed roles for men and women—calling for men to “preside, provide, and protect” and women to be “primarily responsible for the nurture of their children”—reinforce an unequal or even antiquated view of gender relations in the home and the Church.
Church leaders have consistently affirmed that men and women are “equal partners” in raising families and making major decisions. Yet, the wording of the proclamation, especially its delineation of gendered primary roles, continues to prompt debate within and outside the Church. Is this structure meant to describe a divine, unalterable order—or is it reflective of the cultural context of its time? And: how does the Church itself interpret and defend these roles, especially in a world increasingly committed to gender equality?
The language of the proclamation is explicit. In its central passage, it declares:
“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.”
What does this mean in practice?
The father is described as the presiding figure, accountable before God for the family’s spiritual and temporal needs. This role, according to the Church, is less about domination and more about responsible, loving leadership. Mothers are said to have primary responsibility for nurturing children—a term the Church defines as encompassing teaching, loving, and guiding as well as providing for physical and emotional needs. The proclamation explicitly states that fathers and mothers “are obligated to help one another as equal partners,” introducing a dynamic of cooperation rather than hierarchy.
What stands out is not only the role separation but the explicit caveat that “individual adaptations” are expected, acknowledging circumstances such as disability, death, or single parenting that alter family structure.
Historically, the Church has operated under a model that can be described as “patriarchal,” in both the religious and anthropological sense. Priesthood—i.e., the authority to act in God’s name—has been conferred only upon men, who then preside in both the home and Church organizations. This model echoes both biblical precedent and nineteenth-century norms, but Church leaders have repeatedly emphasized that presiding in the home should be understood differently than within worldly structures.
As explained in an extensive Church commentary,
“He who presides in the world is an overlord; he who presides in the Kingdom is a servant… no more could a woman baptize a child than could a man bear a child. The mother exerts the greater influence as the nurturer and the father as the provider. But no action should take place in the family unless it is agreed upon by both the mother and the father.”
Church leaders have invoked scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 121) to stress that priesthood authority is not a license for control, but is to be exercised “only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” Even the idea of the “patriarch” is explained as a servant-leader, not a dictator. Decisions are to be made jointly, with each parent seeking the welfare of their companion and children above their own interests.
Nonetheless, the explicit male-only conferral of priesthood and the language of presiding cannot be separated from the broader conversation about gender roles, power, and equality—inside and outside the Church.
As society’s understanding of gender roles has evolved, the Church has sought to clarify and expand upon its teachings:
According to Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.” The Church’s educational materials echo this, stating, “We had full equality as his spirit children… These are eternal differences—with women being given many tremendous responsibilities of motherhood and sisterhood and men being given the tremendous responsibilities of fatherhood and the priesthood.”
While mothers are encouraged to nurture, the Church officially recognizes women’s roles as missionaries, teachers, leaders, and faithful disciples in all areas of Church life, emphasizing that women are “a necessary part of the plan of happiness, and that plan cannot operate without them.”
The family proclamation provides for individual circumstances, reaffirming that there is no singular, rigid structure that fits every family. “Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.” This inclusion acknowledges the diversity of family situations among Church members.
The intent, as voiced by numerous Church leaders, is a model of complementary and cooperative partnership, rather than competition or subordination.
Despite these clarifications, critics argue that the proclamation enshrines patriarchal structures and institutional barriers for women:
For some, the assignment of fathers as “presiding” cannot be separated from cultural constructs of authority, even when softened by the language of love and service. The notion that women receive motherhood and men receive priesthood as parallel gifts is challenged by some, who note that priesthood brings organizational power and a public role in the Church, while motherhood, however profound, is largely private. 19th-century leaders, such as Brigham Young, acknowledged the hardships imposed on women by dependence on men, yet simultaneously asserted male headship as both biblical and necessary.
Still, defenders point out:
Within many Church homes, major decisions are made jointly, and both men and women take on roles outside those prescribed by the proclamation, as needed for the well-being of the family. By explicitly leaving room for adaptation, the proclamation attempts to avoid shaming families that step outside traditional roles due to economic realities, single parenthood, or other challenges. Many women in the Church describe a deep sense of purpose and spiritual fulfillment in motherhood, teaching, and service, roles they consider equally vital to those of priesthood leadership.
The Church’s emphasis on distinct but equal roles puts it at the intersection of religious tradition and evolving social norms. Church leaders and members continue to wrestle with:
– How to provide equal access to meaningful spiritual and leadership experiences for women when the highest offices remain male-only.
– How to define and encourage “presiding” in a way that avoids undermining the agency of wives and daughters.
– How to support families in which traditional roles are not possible—or simply not preferred—without judgment or exclusion.
For many families and individuals, the lived reality is somewhere in between: adapting eternal principles to contemporary needs, striving for unity and shared decision making, and drawing on both gendered roles and shared responsibilities to raise children in faith.
Gramps
