Now this article/talk that implies the man is dependent on the woman. I suspect that this article/talk is nothing more than an attempt to quantify the role of the woman so that she doesn't feel inferior in her current role. Building up her sense of worth so to speak.
The mere fact, that according to LdS teachings, she is to be subservient to her husband in all things "as long as the man is worthy" is indicative of the position mormon women really have within the LdS hierarchy.
Where once before(or actually currently?) the woman "was dependent" upon her mate to get her to the celestial kingdom, now they're saying that they're intertwined and the man cannot achieve the celestial kingdom without his woman.
I find it an interesting change as well. This is the same church that fought so hard against the ERA and ex-communicated those who vocally supported it.
now they’re saying that they’re intertwined and the man cannot achieve the celestial kingdom without his woman.
___________________________________________
But that’s not what their earlier prophets said...
Heber C Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, had forty-five wives, but he claimed that in the resurrection he would be able to have thousands:
“Supposing that I have a wife or a dozen of them, and she should say, “You cannot be exalted without me,” and suppose they all should say so, what of that? ... Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man ... do you think I will be destitute there. No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here ... there are millions of them, ... we will go to brother Joseph and say, “Here we are brother Joseph; we are here ourselves are we not, with none of the property we possessed in our probationary state, not even the rings on our fingers?” He will say to us, “Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?” “They are back yonder; they would not follow us.” “Never mind,” says Joseph, “Here are thousands, have all you want” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.209).