First impression – within the church, this shortly follows the rescission of polygamy. This lesson could be aimed at many young women who are now in exiled families where the head of the family is often absent. I have a great deal of respect for those single parent mothers who had to support themselves and take care of everything and then pretend to be dependent when hubby showed up.

Second impression – like Diana, I was surprised at the lack of acknowledgment of any other branch of government. OTOH, maybe the author was just prescient about how giving congress any power can bring things to a complete stop.

Thirdly – this strongly encourages complete and unquestioned obedience to every head all the way up the line. How might this attitude have played into upcoming world wars where such havoc comes from just following the leader? How is it to be interpretted relative to the progressive movements and the calling for voting rights that were ongoing in society? Or, how did it impact the formative years of men who would ultimately become leaders of the church?

And, oh, yeah, that thing about nursing mothers was just bizarre.

But . . .

Why do mothers nurse their babies? I always figured there were two reasons: (1) babies get hungry; and (2) they’d all starve to death if their fathers nursed them.

As to the mother-in-law story–I think the scriptural injunction to leave father and mother and cleave to spouse can be made applicable to both husband and wife, even though the verse in Genesis speaks only to the man. That’s good enough reason for both spouses to agree to set up housekeeping away from both set of parents. Now there might be perfect harmony in the home in the example, but it’s hard to imagine that the mother-in-law’s thumb doesn’t ride the scale once in a while.

And now, excuse me while I go boss around my wife, in order that peace and love might abound.

When authority is divided between two heads, things do not get into working order; there is indefiniteness in work; one depends upon the other for the execution of work, and oftentimes neither does it.

So in other words, the man presides and the woman does all the work???

As soon as young wives recognize this principle as an ethical law, much of the friction between husband and wife will vanish.

Yeah, there’s nothing like having an entirely subservient slave at your beck and call.

Name five duties husbands owe their wives.

Evidently his first and greatest duty is to treat his wife like that afore-mentioned slave.

I’m especially bewildered by his (I assume it is a man) “statement of a law” produced by the ridiculous logic about mothers nursing babies because they are helpless.

Also, since when do “all governments recognize the fact that divided authority is no authority?” Isnt it a basic principle upon which the US was constituted that authority must be divided in order to protect the people?

This has always bothered me. Why would he be the head of the children? It’s not a calling or covenant or anything except “boys rule”.

He was a great leader, but the premise seems wrong to me.

As soon as young wives recognize this principle as an ethical law, much of the friction between husband and wife will vanish.

My mom really tried to hammer this into me before I got married. Last year. It surprises me how much staying power this idea has.

The husband of a strongminded woman once told her that her mother must be sent from his home. What a grief that was to her only a dutiful daughter can know.

It had always been a principle in her life that she must do as her husband desired, so she complied with her husband’s wish, and thereby preserved the unity of the home. Two years after, the husband saw his error and sent for his mother-in-law, and she is now a beloved member of his family. What the results would have been had she not complied with his wishes, we can all imagine.

Uhhh…?!