'What is right' trumps spouse's feelings?

[Bini]

I was watching one of my favourite TV series and part of the dialogue got me thinking. Amelia is widowed after her husband is killed in Afghanistan, and is still dealing with the loss. She says to another character, "One day he told me that he needed to do the right thing." By this, she's expressing the pain of her husband leaving to serve the country, and that there was no discussion over it - he was going to do what was right.

I believe most of us would place God above all else but what about fulfilling good deeds in general? Should these trump how our spouse feels? Or, do they have a say, too? Maybe it isn't black or white but a grey area?

[Backroads]

My husband is in the Army Reserves and while I know one day he will be deployed, I hate the idea of him doing something so brave I will be widowed.

I believe "doing what is right" includes taking care of the family, which includes spouse's feelings. The family is such a sacred unit, I believe there are few things that are more right than protecting it.

[MarginOfError]

This doesn't have ties to the military, but I think principles apply in terms of good deeds.

I was at a leadership meeting where Elder Bednar did a Q&A, and one of the men in the group asked Elder Bednar how he manages to balance his time between family, work, and church. (This man was a lot longer winded about it, and clearly exasperated at how poorly he had been balancing his time). I loved Elder Bednar's response.

"I don't."

The poor man that asked the question looked like he might cry. But Elder Bednar then went on to talk about how every now and again, he would evaluate what the demands on his time were and which ones needed (really needed) to be addressed first. There were times that he'd cancel interviews for church to spend time with his family, and there are times he'd leave his family because a member really needed his support. There were also times where he let things at church and home sit unattended because his job took priority. But the key was to balance the time over a few weeks or months at a time, not over every single week.

It isn't highly comforting advice, but I think it was realistic and informative.

[rameumptom]

In 1844, Joseph Smith was about to flee Nauvoo to the West. His wife, Emma, approached him (in Iowa) and told him he was being selfish and not thinking about her feelings, nor those of the members. He and his brother Hyrum returned. Within a week, the two of them were killed.

Sometimes doing what is right is more important than a wife's feelings.

[Bini]

I want a broad view of opinions on this. The given example is just one situation out of many.

[Wingnut]

I think that sometimes "doing what is right" will trump a spouse's opinion/feeling. I don't think it should ever be done without discussion with and serious consideration for the spouse, though.

[Anddenex]

When I think of this question my first thoughts turn to Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac. I am thinking any righteous woman that had their husband approach them and say, "Hun, the Lord told me to sacrifice Isaac like an animal," wouldn't be very pleased, nor would they be very receptive.

Yet, despite the righteous feelings of a spouse, Abraham would have had to do as the Lord commanded.

Despite the feelings of many spouses in the early days of the Church, the Lord commanded polygamy and they lived it.

When it is best, truly best for the family, I think this is a time when the spouse should consider the feelings of their spouses, but always do what is best.

When the Lord commands, a person should do no matter what the spouse feels. We know from scripture that Lehi's wife, Sariah, was not happy that her sons were sent back to Jerusalem, yet the sons were still sent.

These are the first thoughts that enter into my head.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think there's a different between something being "right" versus something being a "moral imperative". The latter, I think, would ultimately have to trump a spouse's feeling; the former, not necessarily.

[jayanna]

I can't think of anything I put ahead of my spouse as far as church, job, other family or friends. If I had a job that he was uncomfortable with, I'd pitch it. No questions asked. If I had a church calling that took so much time away from him that he would be miserable, I'd asked to be released.

There is a reason that spouses are consulted upon extending a leadership calling.

Military is very honorable, if it is a risk that both parties are not willing to take, then neither party should take it. You are sealed to your spouse, not your country. When your country is long gone, your spouse will still be there.

However, there is one relationship that I put above my spouse. That is the one between myself and my Heavenly Father. If my husband were to demand of me something completely immoral I believe I would have to put my foot down and say, "no, that would take me away from the presence of my Father, not lead me towards Him."

Barring that, it is more important to be kind than it is to be right. Pres. Hinckley taught me that. Also there is no success outside of the home that makes up for failure in the home.

[mirkwood]

I think that sometimes "doing what is right" will trump a spouse's opinion/feeling. I don't think it should ever be done without discussion with and serious consideration for the spouse, though.

When I went into law enforcement the above is exactly what happened.

[Dravin]

One should always do the right thing. However, what might otherwise be the right thing, if one's spouse disapproves, may become a wrong thing.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Dravin

[Bini]

One should always do the right thing. However, what might otherwise be the right thing, if one's spouse disapproves, may become a wrong thing.

This is what I'm wondering about. Anyone got any scenarios?

[Bini]

Military is very honorable, if it is a risk that both parties are not willing to take, then neither party should take it. You are sealed to your spouse, not your country. When your country is long gone, your spouse will still be there.

This is an interesting thought. I get it. But how about all the "other things" that we are not sealed to? All those other honourable good and righteous deeds? Should a man (or woman) say, "I will do it!"? Or pass the baton onto someone else because his spouse is fearful (whether that be of his demise, or that his mission/cause will replace his time with/focus on the family)?

[JudoMinja]

I think the "good, better, best" concept applies here. Doing what is righteous should always take priority in our lives, no matter what. But there are many things that fall under the "good, better, best" category that would be considered "right". In those cases, we need to use our good judgment in determining whether or not the deed takes precedence over a spouse, family, or anything else for that matter. What may be the proper way to handle it for one couple will be totally different for another couple, depending on their circumstances.

[Wingnut]

There is a reason that spouses are consulted upon extending a leadership calling.

Thread tangent: It's been my experience that my husband has been consulted when I have received leadership callings, but I have not been consulted when he has received leadership callings. I'm not sure why this is, but it almost seems like an "asking permission" from the "head of the family" kind of thing. It doesn't bother me; it's just an observation I've made.

[Backroads]

Thread tangent: It's been my experience that my husband has been consulted when I have received leadership callings, but I have not been consulted when he has received leadership callings. I'm not sure why this is, but it almost seems like an "asking permission" from the "head of the family" kind of thing. It doesn't bother me; it's just an observation I've made.

Interesting. When my husband received a calling, they actually checked with me.

I chalk it up to ward cultures.

[Wingnut]

Interesting. When my husband received a calling, they actually checked with me.

I chalk it up to ward cultures.

When my husband was called as ward clerk, they interviewed both of us together to extend the call, but it's also technically a stake calling. When he was called into the SS presidency, I was not brought in, though I predicted it before my husband was called. :)

[jayanna]

This is an interesting thought. I get it. But how about all the "other things" that we are not sealed to? All those other honourable good and righteous deeds? Should a man (or woman) say, "I will do it!"? Or pass the baton onto someone else because his spouse is fearful (whether that be of his demise, or that his mission/cause will replace his time with/focus on the family)?

Family comes first. Before country, before job, before social demands, before your parents or your children, your spouse comes first. Military service is a couple decision. If one half is not willing, the other should not be either.

When you become one, you become one. If you are divided, you will not stand.

If you pray together, and seek an answer together you will both know what is right. Be brave enough to follow that counsel. If you are sealed regardless of what happens on this earth you will be together for eternity. But if you put any call or job before your spouse's needs, there is no success that will make up for that.

And I have always recieved some notice of my hubby getting a leadership call, except once and they apologized to me afterward on that one. They had not been able to get hold of me, and while he was being extended a leadership call, he was also leaving one, so they ran with it and called him. I didn't know until they were sustaining in Sacrament meeting on that one. Total shock, but the Stake presidency came to me and apologized.

My hubby always consults with spouse on extending calls which take a significant amount of time away from family, no matter if it is the sister or brother being called. I had never heard of it being otherwise, actually. He also asks for the brother to assist in the setting apart for his wife, or the wife to be present in the setting apart of her husband and frequently she will be given a blessing at that time by my hubby and hers. It is very couply and nice. Both halves of that relationship are acknowledged and appreciated. Callings are meant to improve a family's testimony. I'm sorry if that has not been the experience of others.

[MorningStar]

Was it actually his decision to go to Afghanistan? My brother was asked to cross train so he could go, which he never wanted to do again, but he felt a lot of guilt over the fact that the guys he went to Iraq with went several more times after he moved to a different unit. I'm sure he did discuss it with his wife, but of course she's less than thrilled. There is comfort though that this is his last deployment before he retires.

[Marlin1]

Your spouses feelings may not always be right, but you will never be right when you play the trump card in regard to your spouses feelings, that is terribly demeaning. You can act independently from your spouses feelings while still respecting and validating their feelings and concerns. You should always do what is right, sometimes that means honoring your spouses wishes over your own feelings of what is right. Each situation is unique, and if there is ever a question, you know where to turn.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I have found that defining a right, in a relationship context, quickly leads to resentment. Toss in the woman's trump card of feelings, a man's instinct to be logical and it becomes an exercise in futile communication. I have learned that acknowledging the position of the person, makes more difference than arguing whether they are wrong, even if they are. Putting it into practice is hard, because when I hear a complaint, my first thought is to fix it, so there won't be a complaint, which only angers her, because she only cares that someone is acknowledging that she exists.

Feelings don't change the situation, especially in a Military sense. I have heard time and again, that some people can't marry a person in the military because they may experience loss. Thats life. The fact that your spouse died with a bayonet in their guts, probably means more than living a full life of McDonalds, Survivor and Martha Stewart.

I have also heard that some people won't join the military because they might die. Most armies are designed for defence and to say, "Honey, I won't join the army, because I might die and hurt your feelings, despite enemy tanks tanks rolling down the street.", does not compute for me.