Women, Relief Society and being LDS

[blueadept]

This is interesting. What about a situation where the wife is LDS? If she wanted home teachers but her husband didn't, what would be the proper course of action? In such a situation maybe the visiting teachers would just be sure to make sure her spiritual needs were being met. I'm sure this isn't a common scenario, but I imagine it exists.

This situation is probably more common than anyone would like to admit.

If I didn't want the HTs coming by as a non-member husband, my wishes would be honored regardless of my wifes desires. I'm sure this might get me a visit from the Bishop explaining the silliness of this stance though.

A note about the VTs. I sat in the room during one of their visits and was bemused that they didn't end their get together with a prayer and I asked my wife about it. She said that since a priesthood holder wasn't present, there was no absolute need to do one since blessings come through the priesthood. So from that experience, I would say that the VTs would not be able to meet the ladies spiritual needs but still be there for the supportive needs.

My 2 cents

[LeSellers]

This is interesting. What about a situation where the wife is LDS? If she wanted home teachers but her husband didn't, what would be the proper course of action?

As I understand it, the Home Teachers would not visit.

And blueadept has it right to the extent that such a refusal would be silly. Nonetheless, to each his own, and the husband would be accountable for that choice and all its outcomes.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

As I understand it, the Home Teachers would not visit.

And blueadept has it right to the extent that such a refusal would be silly. Nonetheless, to each his own, and the husband would be accountable for that choice and all its outcomes.

Lehi

But understand in a case like this there could be a legitimate concern of some husband who did not understand the church that his wife was being visited by strange men. It is not that his wishes were being observed over hers, it is more the avoidance of appearance of inporopriety

[mfbukowski]

But understand in a case like this there could be a legitimate concern of some husband who did not understand the church that his wife was being visited by strange men. It is not that his wishes were being observed over hers, it is more the avoidance of appearance of inporopriety. And typically in a case like this the VT's are relied on to make sure the woman is ok and the bishop would make himself very available for her needs if any.

Double post- with edit- I am running out the door to do home teaching and my ride just arrived!

[LeSellers]

But understand in a case like this there could be a legitimate concern of some husband who did not understand the church that his wife was being visited by strange men. It is not that his wishes were being observed over hers, it is more the avoidance of appearance of inporopriety

That is a possible reason, but if the Home Teachers were primarily "teaching" (read "ministering to") the husband, as their calling mandates, that would not be a problem.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

That is a possible reason, but if the Home Teachers were primarily "teaching" (read "ministering to") the husband, as their calling mandates, that would not be a problem.

Lehi

I agree, but the question was asked about what would happen if the husband did NOT want the HT's, presuming that for whatever reason the "ministering" didn't work.

[Wants2know]

Why is it pre-determined that the man is the head of the household and has the final say?

[blueadept]

Why is it pre-determined that the man is the head of the household and has the final say?

The simple answer, the priesthood.

In reality though it wouldn't behoove me to push the issue of who 'really' is in charge of the household but it does make the process of when the missionaries or HTs come over easier to handle.

OTOH, I've taken advantage of 'guiding' the conversation when I don't necessarily agree with the topic that the HTs are going to be talking about. I'm not sure if my wife is annoyed that I've pre-read the monthly lesson and she never seems to. Oh well.

[LeSellers]

Why is it pre-determined that the man is the head of the household and has the final say?

There are several reasons.

The law recognizes the husband as the head of his house (even if many wives do not).

The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments and others, assert the man's headship.

It is traditional (probably based on either or both of the above).

And, based on the second, at least, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that headship.

There are probably a myriad of other reasons, but these pop to mind immediately on reading your query.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Wants2know:

The Priesthood is patriarchal.

Also the man maybe the head,but the neck turn the head anyway it wants.

[LeSellers]

I agree, but the question was asked about what would happen if the husband did NOT want the HT's, presuming that for whatever reason the "ministering" didn't work.

Then, as I interpret the word, they would be ministering to the husband by not visiting. that is their assignment from him.

And, as I said, he will be responsible for the outcomes, whatever they may be.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Then, as I interpret the word, they would be ministering to the husband by not visiting. that is their assignment from him.

And, as I said, he will be responsible for the outcomes, whatever they may be.

Lehi

Agreed. Also to Wants2know it is LDS doctrine that men and women have different roles in the family, as evidenced by this document which has the full weight of doctrine: The Family, a Proclamation to the World.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. 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. Extended families should lend support when needed.

[katherine the great]

Wants2know:

The Priesthood is patriarchal.

Also the man maybe the head,but the neck turn the head anyway it wants.

It's kinda old now, but I still get a kick out of it every time I watch the movie. (and I'm glad I'm not Greek!)

[staccato]

I have a very good friend who was married to a nonmember man. She wanted to go through the temple, took the temple prep courses and set up an appointment with the bishop for her recommend. She was taken aback when the bishop said her husband would need to come with her and give his consent in writing before she would be able to take out endowments for herself.

Her husband refused. She was out of luck. And quite disturbed that her nonmember husband had more power over her life than she did in her church.

She is no longer a member.

[katherine the great]

I have a very good friend who was married to a nonmember man. She wanted to go through the temple, took the temple prep courses and set up an appointment with the bishop for her recommend. She was taken aback when the bishop said her husband would need to come with her and give his consent in writing before she would be able to take out endowments for herself.

Her husband refused. She was out of luck. And quite disturbed that her nonmember husband had more power over her life than she did in her church.

She is no longer a member.

Maybe she needs to get herself a little D-I-V-O-R-C-E (as the country ladies say...) Why would her husband think he had the right to "refuse"? (and why would the church give that more weight than her own feelings?)

[staccato]

Maybe she needs to get herself a little D-I-V-O-R-C-E (as the country ladies say...) Why would her husband think he had the right to "refuse"? (and why would the church give that more weight than her own feelings?)

Coincidentally enough, she finally did divorce, but this was several years after.

[blueadept]

She was taken aback when the bishop said her husband would need to come with her and give his consent in writing before she would be able to take out endowments for herself.

Last year, I was amused when the Bishoporic stopped by our home to discuss my wife's new calling and to get my endorsement.

As a non-member it seems silly to me but I view it as an opportunity to show support for my wife's beliefs.

[katherine the great]

Last year, I was amused when the Bishoporic stopped by our home to discuss my wife's new calling and to get my endorsement.

As a non-member it seems silly to me but I view it as an opportunity to show support for my wife's beliefs.

I think it is a nice courtesy. In the case of an endowment, I think the leaders should meet with the spouse and discuss it with them and explain what it is, and answer any questions or concerns, etc. but I certainly don't think they should require written permission from the husband. That smacks a bit of sexism (unless it works both ways.) I wonder if that is still the policy.

[blueadept]

(unless it works both ways.)

When I last checked.......nope

I wonder if that is still the policy.

yes

[Garden Girl]

When I wanted to go to the temple for my own endowment in 1999, my non-LDS hubby had to give his permission in writing. Don't forget, there are things like the covenants we make, the wearing of temple garments, etc., that impact a spouse. I can't imagine my husband withholding his "permission," but I understand the Church's wanting couples to be in agreement in this important matter.

GG

[Wants2know]

Agreed. Also to Wants2know it is LDS doctrine that men and women have different roles in the family, as evidenced by this document which has the full weight of doctrine: The Family, a Proclamation to the World.

Roles are one thing. Power is another. I read this to state equality in the power of the relationship, and a differentiation in roles.

[Wants2know]

When I wanted to go to the temple for my own endowment in 1999, my non-LDS hubby had to give his permission in writing. Don't forget, there are things like the covenants we make, the wearing of temple garments, etc., that impact a spouse. I can't imagine my husband withholding his "permission," but I understand the Church's wanting couples to be in agreement in this important matter.

GG

I see validity in wanting couples in agreement GG, but a wife needing to have her husband's written permission? That seems quite demeaning, especially in light that from the perspective I'm reading these posts... I'm not hearing that it works both ways. In other words, an LDS husband is not required to have his non lds wife's written permission.

[mfbukowski]

Roles are one thing. Power is another. I read this to state equality in the power of the relationship, and a differentiation in roles.

That is how we regard it.

[katherine the great]

When I wanted to go to the temple for my own endowment in 1999, my non-LDS hubby had to give his permission in writing. Don't forget, there are things like the covenants we make, the wearing of temple garments, etc., that impact a spouse. I can't imagine my husband withholding his "permission," but I understand the Church's wanting couples to be in agreement in this important matter.

GG

I totally agree that couples should be in agreement. Hence my opinion that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If women need written permission, then so should men. It only seems logical (to my finite mind, anyway...)

[staccato]

I totally agree that couples should be in agreement. Hence my opinion that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If women need written permission, then so should men. It only seems logical (to my finite mind, anyway...)

Agreed. Reciprocation in this situation, in my opinion, is the only way it would qualify as equal. Otherwise it is sexism in action.