When is it too much?

[wyarwehere]

Okay--my thoughts are on submitting, to parents, husbands and in serious relationships. When does submitting to another become too much? How do you allow that person to lead, while being submissive, if what they are doing contradicts either your personal standards or Scripture. Just looking for some "outside the emotions" answers.

[FunkyTown]

Okay--my thoughts are on submitting, to parents, husbands and in serious relationships. When does submitting to another become too much? How do you allow that person to lead, while being submissive, if what they are doing contradicts either your personal standards or Scripture. Just looking for some "outside the emotions" answers.

We'd need something more specific than this. People can make mistakes - So if they were... Say... Suggesting we have FHE on a Tuesday and you wanted it on a Monday, you would calmly discuss it, find out their reasons and then listen.

You don't need to be submissive to be supportive, and honoring your mother and father doesn't mean doing whatever they want.

[Dravin]

When does submitting to another become too much? How do you allow that person to lead, while being submissive, if what they are doing contradicts either your personal standards or Scripture. Just looking for some "outside the emotions" answers.

Are you talking about personal standards in a wholly moral sense? Or are you including a more expanded sense? For an example of the expanded sense, how one person mows a lawn may not be up to the personal standards of another person. Say person A insists on a diamond pattern and person B doesn't, baring a larger context being involved it's not really a moral issue.

[mnn727]

Submissive does not mean your a door mat. There's a 2nd part to the submission verses that many men and women never consider - underlined/bolded below:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church

[Dravin]

Submissive does not mean your a door mat. There's a 2nd part to the submission verses that many men and women never consider - underlined/bolded below:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church

I would also say, in my opinion and within an LDS context, that Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-46 is also applicable pertaining to leadership in the home.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

On a somewhat less-related note, I don't think that women should submit to their husbands only, but that men should also submit to their wives. The former implies an unequal relationship, with one in a position of power. The latter implies humility and a partnership.

[Windseeker]

I think this explains it pretty well.

The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles Chapter 42: As Thou Has Testified of Me in Jerusalem, So Must Thou Bear Witness Also at Rome

(42-22) Colossians 3:18. How Should a Wife “Submit” to Her Husband?

In Greek the word submit does not imply that women are inferior to men. Rather, it means a willingness to put oneself under the guidance or direction of another. The same word is used in Luke 2:51 wherein Luke portrays how Jesus returned to Nazareth with Mary and Joseph where he was subject unto them. In any organization, including that of the family, someone must govern; and Paul here suggests that man has that priesthood assignment and that the woman should recognize it and submit herself to it. In the very next verse, Paul charges the man to love his wife; so he provides no justification for verbal or physical abuse or for a dictatorship of any kind in the home. (See Ephesians 5:22–31.)

(42-23) Colossians 3:19. “Husbands, Love Your Wives”

“There are those married people who permit their eyes to wander and their hearts to become vagrant, who think it is not improper to flirt a little, to share their hearts, and have desire for someone other than the wife or the husband, the Lord says in no uncertain terms: ‘Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else.’ (D&C 42:22. Italics added.)

“And, when the Lord says all thy heart, it allows for no sharing nor dividing nor depriving. And, to the woman it is paraphrased: ‘Thou shalt love thy husband with all thy heart and shall cleave unto him and none else.’ The words none else eliminate everyone and everything. The spouse then becomes preeminent in the life of the husband or wife, and neither social life nor occupational life nor political life nor any other interest nor person nor thing shall ever take precedence over the companion spouse. We sometimes find women who absorb and hover over the children at the expense of the husband, sometimes even estranging them from him. The Lord says to them: “… Thou shalt cleave unto him and none else.’

“Marriage presupposes total allegiance and total fidelity. Each spouse takes the partner with the understanding that he or she gives self totally to the spouse: all the heart, strength, loyalty, honor, and affection with all dignity. Any divergence is sin—any sharing the heart is transgression. As we should have ‘an eye single to the glory of God’ so should we have an eye, an ear, a heart single to the marriage and the spouse and family.” (Spencer W. Kimball in CR, Oct. 1962, p. 57.)

[mnn727]

I would also say, in my opinion and within an LDS context, that Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-46 is also applicable pertaining to leadership in the home.

Absolutely!

[garryw]

men should also submit to their wives.

So if Brigham Young had 37+ wives how would he know which one to submit to? Which of Jacob's 4 wives did he submit to? Does God the Father submit to his wife (or wives)?

No. The proclamation on the family says men are to preside in marriage. Sounds like a lot of fun, but in reality it puts a greater burden on the man. If he does not preside, he's skirting his job.

[Wingnut]

No. The proclamation on the family says men are to preside in marriage. Sounds like a lot of fun, but in reality it puts a greater burden on the man. If he does not preside, he's skirting his job.

Perhaps you missed the next line?

In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

[garryw]

Perhaps you missed the next line?

In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Of course they are equal partners. It's a stretch to interpret that statement by saying men should submit to their wives. Would Christ submit to the Church of Christ? Impossible, he is the leader of his Church. Christ submits to the Father. The church submits to Christ. Women are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. This isn't new doctrine. Christianity has been this way since Adam and Eve.

Edited August 8, 2013 by garryw

[garryw]

Perhaps you missed the next line?

In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

It's a leap to interpret this statement to mean husbands should submit to their wives. You are welcome to make that leap for yourself.

[TalkativeIntrovert]

A very temporal view of why I do not submit to my husband at times:

This week we went on a business trip (flying). We have 2 sets of car keys and he insisted on putting them both in the luggage as we would net need them. By insisting, he picked them both up, put them in and was angry when I said we should separate them and keep 1 set in my handbag. After explaining my view (security/potential loss of luggage) he disagreed. It was stupid and stubborn. I took 1 set of keys anyway.

There have been a number of issues like this where common sense must prevail.

On a church view of this - my husband is inactive, he wanted to force the kids to finish their pamphlet job on a Sunday, in conflict with keeping the Sabbath holy (we have until Wednesday to finish the job). I can't in good faith submit to that.

I should say that he is a good man and these are a couple of bad instances, but, no, I will not submit, honour or obey under ALL instances. I have a brain, I have common sense, I have a strong sense of right and wrong and justice.

I have had similar issues with parents as well - I wanted to go to Uni, they wanted me to just get any job. My (non member) father would constantly push certain views on drugs and alcohol, I would not partake.

A blanket statement of submitting does not make sense.

[Lakumi]

I don't want anyone to submit to me, that implies that I am somehow better then them. There would be no "head of the household"

no one submits to me, I submit to no one (human)

[SoCal_Counselor]

Presiding ultimately means that you are leading by example. When a husband/father presides over his family it means that he is setting the precedent for proper behavior. He should be the one who is reading his scriptures the most and praying to know God's will for his family. He is the one who strives every day to be like Christ. He sets the example. He calls on family members to say prayers. He uses the priesthood to bless his children and his wife.

Control is something completely different than presiding. In terms of running the family, husbands and wives should be equally yoked. They work together for the benefit of a family.

This article in the 2004 Ensign is very helpful: Presiding Righteously in the Home - Ensign Feb. 2004 - ensign

[Quin]

Submitting does not mean followingly blindly.

It is not abdicating one's own responsibility (to god, family, country, etc).

It is not powerlessness, mindlessness, hopelessness.

It does not confer omniscient wisdom on the shoulders of another.

it is not BDSM, slavery, or robot invasion.

_____

We all have an obligation to do what is right.

It is incumbent on us to do so as kindly and thoroughly as possible.

Q

[MarginOfError]

With all due respect for your point of view, garryw (and your point of view isn't deserving of a lot of respect), it's hard to separate cultural biases from doctrinal truths in Paul's words here.

Let's take a look at the whole passage here, not just the convenient verse.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

So, according to Paul, wives are supposed to be subject to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That is, husbands give themselves to their wives so that they can present themselves a wife sanctified, cleansed, without a spot or a wrinkle...It starts to sound a little self-serving doesn't it? But such comments were contextually appropriate to cultural norms of the time. The question is are we expected by the Lord to extend those same norms into the modern era? If you answer yes, then I would like you to look at a similar passage in Collosians.

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

Do we expect servants to obey their masters? Oh wait, that's right, we don't expect people to have servants (at least not in the same cultural context of which Paul was speaking).

Cultural norms have changed in the past 2000 years, and so it seems reasonable to evaluate how such advice from Paul applies within current cultural contexts. To that regard, the Lord has given new counsel, like, "In these sacred responsibilities, husbands and wives are to be equal partners." It isn't a relationship where the husband gets the final word and the wife obeys. It's a relationship where husbands and wives work together. They collaborate and innovate.

A husband who expects his wife to be submissive to his will simply because he is the husband fails the fundamental expectations of husbands and priesthood holders. A husband ought to lead by persuasion, meekness, kindness, love unfeigned, etc. And one of the essential components of leading by persuasion is being open to being persuaded; otherwise, one usually becomes authoritative and manipulative, at which point, 'Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.'

So yeah, it is perfectly reasonable to expect men to submit to their wives just as women submit to their husbands. At least it does if you look beyond the Gospel of Sound Bites.

[Guest]

There are a handful of posters here who don't have much respect or like for women. Those aren't posters whose opinions I give any regard when it comes to issues of righteous presiding or anything like that.

[Anddenex]

I apologize if I repeat another poster, I only skimmed a few comments. For the OP, if you have received your temple endowments then you already know when enough is enough.

Man, by themselves, have not or are not given any power of presiding. This power is granted by God, and only when a man obeys the predicated laws. If a man does not obey the predicated laws of presiding, then the wife is not obligated by rule or commandment to submit to anything a man says.

Thus, by covenant a woman (technically) never submits herself to her husband. She submit herself to God to honor his covenant, and when a man doesn't honor or follow his covenant a woman is not obligated to follow a man who is not following God. This then becomes her decision solely, and hers alone to follow or not to follow.

[Windseeker]

Thanks to this thread I spent the night in the doghouse.

So I ask my wife what she thinks about the scripture where women need to submit themselves to their husband and after I try to clarify her response she ups and leaves. There were no arguments leading up to this question. I was just thinking about the discussion and wanted her opinion.

She didn't even give me the chance to tell her what I thought. I was just probing her responses for clarity.

Oh well, it's all better now, I'm a little bit wiser (though not allot) and we seem to be on the same page.

But not after a sleepless nights lesson in what it means to submit..LOL

Edited August 9, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

Thanks to this thread I spent the night in the doghouse.

So I ask my wife what she thinks about the scripture where women need to submit themselves to their husband and after I try to clarify her response she ups and leaves. There were no arguments leading up to this question. I was just thinking about the discussion and wanted her opinion.

She didn't even give me the chance to tell her what I thought. I was just probing her responses for clarity.

Oh well, it's all better now, I'm a little bit wiser (though not allot) and we seem to be on the same page.

But not after a sleepless nights lesson in what it means to submit..LOL

[Eternum]

Of course they are equal partners. It's a stretch to interpret that statement by saying men should submit to their wives. Would Christ submit to the Church of Christ? Impossible, he is the leader of his Church. Christ submits to the Father. The church submits to Christ. Women are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. This isn't new doctrine. Christianity has been this way since Adam and Eve.

I registered to reply to this + the OP. I found the definition of "submit" online:

sub·mit [suhb-mit] Show IPA verb, sub·mit·ted, sub·mit·ting.

verb (used with object)

1. to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).

2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.

3. to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application.

4. to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually followed by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required.

I think most often submission is thought of in the first definition. However, I find the second definition happens as part of the flow of a connection with someone. The closer I am to someone, the greater the influence s/he has on me.

Same with honoring one's parents. I find submission, as in definitions 2 - 4, is the willingness to work with someone else rather than, say, fight for control or create a lot of contention.

However, I also find submission comes in steps. If the person isn't a good leader, doesn't respect or listen to me, is a bad influence on my life, etc., it's a personal responsibility for my spiritual, emotional, and mental health to do something about that, which can include not being a part of it. People are fallible, after all.

So, when is it "too much"? It's ultimately if you can answer yes to this question: Would I be better off without this influence?

[Guest]

2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.

I think most often submission is thought of in the first definition. However, I find the second definition happens as part of the flow of a connection with someone. The closer I am to someone, the greater the influence s/he has on me.

(...)

However, I also find submission comes in steps. If the person isn't a good leader, doesn't respect or listen to me, is a bad influence on my life, etc., it's a personal responsibility for my spiritual, emotional, and mental health to do something about that, which can include not being a part of it. People are fallible, after all.

So, when is it "too much"? It's ultimately if you can answer yes to this question: Would I be better off without this influence?

Love this. Thank you.

[NightSG]

Once again, Art Of Manliness has advice that's just as good for women as men; 30 Days to a Better Man Day 18: Find Your N.U.T.s | The Art of Manliness

Think of these as being like the guidance that we won't receive genuine promptings that conflict with Scripture; when an earthly influence conflicts with a well thought out N.U.T. there is a problem, and you need to think hard about continued submission to that influence.

[KingDavid]

Submitting ourselves to others must involve a delicate balance. Nobody, not even children, like to be in submission to another or others if they feel they lose control of themselves, and/or essentially feel like they are giving up their agency.

The other night, my wife and youngest child of nine just saw a marvelous LDS movie at a movie theatre called, "Ephraim's Rescue". It was a much abbreviated story of Ephraim Hanks. In one series of scenes, Ephraim is at a dance at the Social Hall. President Brigham Young is in attendance. Many men, including young men, sported beards (as even President Young did in the movie). Brigham motions Ephraim to come over to him, which he does. BY tells him to go home and shave his beard. Which Hanks does. But, he doesn't shave his mustache. After returning to the dance, BY motions Ephraim Hanks over again. Tells him to go home and finish the job (meaning to shave off the mustache too). Now this was a century before the clean shaven look became considered to be somewhat mandatory among male members of the Church. However, Hanks complies. When he returns the 2nd time, BY tells those men by him that he (Ephraim Hanks) is one who will obey willingly and completely.

Last night, we were trying to put a movie on using our computer. My youngest child, a daughter, was doing it. I told her to do something one way, and she didn't do it. So, she ended up with screen messages that were there before, that seemed to present an impasse. I then instructed her again to do what I had previously told her to do (the tone was not condemnatory, but merely and simply instructive). This time she did. And, following my directions, she successfully got the movie going. I THEN asked her if what I told her to do worked. "Yes", she acknowledging replied. "You see," I taught her, "I knew what I was talking about."

I am, unlike God, NOT omniscient. I don't know everything. And I readily (and often) admit it. However, even if I am not 100% certain something will forcibly always work, I am right by far most of the time.

But, I often find, my wife, who is several years my junior, though we've been married for a third of a century now, more often that not, will not "hearken unto" me, in following what I suggest or recommend she do, in such matters. And, more often than not, she has to go back and do it the way I told her to initially.

Pride, even stiffneckedness, can get in the way of much progress.

In a number of matters regarding our children, unfortunately, my wife often supposes she knows better, and ignores my advice, even my wishes. I do not force her to follow me. But there is a flip side to the subject of not "hearkening" (part of, if you will, "submitting" that we really hardly ever discuss (we discuss abuse of those "in authority", but not so much, on the flip side, what is oft called in the scriptures "rebellion".

You see, one need not totally ignore or fail to follow what another tells or asks a person in authority to "rebel". Sometimes, it need be only one time in one thing. (Consider, to be sure, a somewhat extreme example, "Lot's wife"). However, when we read of those example that are given to us of absolute obedience, and the absolute faith it portrayed and conveyed, we read of the "...sons of Helaman" who followed every word (in battle, and probably out of battle, too) "...with exactness...". And none of them perished, because of their incredible faith, as manifested by their incredible obedience to fallible leaders.

I don't think this was any one-time happenstance thing. I believe that they followed their appointed military leaders out of habit. And they developed this habit at home. And, I would bet "dollars to donuts" that they followed the example of mothers hearkening to the voices of their fathers (also) with exactness.

Our current bishop, who was previously our bishop around two decades ago, back then, would say that it doesn't really matter how the tithing funds we give (willingly) to the Church are spent. He said, they could be (ultimately) "be thrown in the Great Salt Lake", if such were done. Still, he reminded us, the Lord would bless us for being obedient both to him and the the recommendation of our appointed leaders in keeping this principle.

Yes, those in authority should not force their will on those who should submit themselves willingly to them. But, what happens when those who are commended to—

And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times... (Book of Mormon | Alma 7:23)

When they don't, there are consequences. Not necessarily at all from the person who asked, and should have been hearkened to. But to everyone, in a way. Especially those in a relationship, and familial relationships are perhaps paramount—

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 130:20 - 21)

This pertains as much to this as it does to anything.