Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?

[The Revolting Man]

Real mature. "I don't agree with you, here's a meme!" you're entitled to your opinion, but if you aren't taking historical and cultural context into consideration when reading the scriptures, then you're missing a LOT.

Everyone stand down. We’re not going to dogpile the new guy. @IndianaLife , Mormons are very welcome here but as a ministry we do not accept the validity of the Book of Mormon, nor do we recognize the ministry of any Mormon prophet.

Mormons are and have been, welcome to fellowship with us. The only restriction is that we do not allow any group who falls outside of our statement of faith to proselytize for their beliefs. It is the firm conviction of our board of directors that Mormons are such a group.

I see no evidence that you intended to proselytize for Mormonism and so there is no need for anyone to pursue this further.

 

[MeganC]

 

[Maia]

Because leader doesn't require permission from follower.

Captain Smith of the Titanic likely followed that doctrine when he ignored reports of ice bergs his subordinates passed on to him.

It is always good to listen to sound advice.

 

[FollowingHim]

Listening to sound advice from a subordinate before making a decision is, however, entirely different from requiring permission from a subordinate to make that decision.

 

[OttoM]

Proverbs 19:20
Get all the advice and instruction you can, so you will be wise the rest of your life.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to counsel.

There’s nothing wrong with receiving opinions from other members of the household. But the Creator gave the husband the final authority.

 

[Maia]

Listening to sound advice from a subordinate before making a decision is, however, entirely different from requiring permission from a subordinate to make that decision.

It can depend on the situation. A General outranks a Sergeant, however, a lot of Generals have not maintained the qualifications need to command troops in combat. So if a General is surveying a new building project in some village, and some one one starts shooting, then you can (politely) have the Sergeant pushing the General aside in this specific situation.

In a family situation if there is a medical emergency and if the wife is a Medical Doctor, and the husband is not, then simple logic dictates that the person with the better qualifications to handle this specific task is in command.

 

[FollowingHim]

In a family situation if there is a medical emergency and if the wife is a Medical Doctor, and the husband is not, then simple logic dictates that the person with the better qualifications to handle this specific task is in command.

No. Because that would mean that whenever there was a situation where the wife thought she was better at handling the situation, and the husband thought he was better at handling the situation, both would think they were in charge. This is disordered and impractical.

Rather, if there is a medical emergency and the wife is a medical doctor, any sensible husband will delegate her to deal with it.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have a very interesting theological book "The Ethics of Sex" by Helmut Thielicke, a prominent German theologian. He takes a generally "progressive" stance in the entire book, he is very egalitarian and says many things that a patriarchal thinking person would disagree with. His basic assumption is the equality of men and women when it comes to decision-making.

But after all of this, even he concludes that every relationship must have a single person who has the final decision in the event of a disagreement, and, for biblical reasons, that single person must be the husband.

Because the only alternative to that is for someone outside the family to be the final authority in the event of a dispute. For instance, a secular family court being used to decide on disputes. And that is both impractical and may tear a family apart.

He gives the specific example @Maia of a child with a severe medical condition. The parents have gone to two specialist doctors to get their opinions. One doctor states that the child needs major surgery, and strongly advises they receive this immediately. The other states that the surgery is too risky, and strongly advises that they do not get surgery at all but do something different. One parent believes one doctor and wants to get surgery, the other believes they should not get the surgery. What do they do? There is no middle ground - it's either surgery or no surgery, so one parent will get their way and the other will not.

In this example, there is no "right" answer. Both options have medical officials recommending them. If the parents were to go to an external family court to judge their dispute, the judge would be in just as much of a dilemma as they are, and would just have to pick one parent to support and the other to oppose. And, being less involved in the situation he may understand it less and actually make a poorer decision. That would create severe emotional turmoil that could destroy the marriage.

In this case, Thielicke argues that the only logical solution that preserves the integrity of the family is for the husband to have the final say. His decision may be right or wrong (as may the judge's decision), but at least it is a decision made within the family. It will still be emotionally upsetting but, overall, less so than if an external judge had made the ruling, so the marriage is far more likely to survive it.

 

[Maia]

No. Because that would mean that whenever there was a situation where the wife thought she was better at handling the situation, and the husband thought he was better at handling the situation, both would think they were in charge. This is disordered and impractical.

It can lead to disorder, especially if egos rear their head, however if everyone looks at it from a rational point of view it does not have to. To use a another military example. You can have the commanding office of a ship be a Lieutenant Commander, and the Chief Medical Officer be a full Commander, there is no doubt about who the skipper is.

 

[FollowingHim]

Just checking you noticed my second post, since we posted at the same time.

 

[Maia]

He gives the specific example @Maia of a child with a severe medical condition. The parents have gone to two specialist doctors to get their opinions. One doctor states that the child needs major surgery, and strongly advises they receive this immediately. The other states that the surgery is too risky, and strongly advises that they do not get surgery at all but do something different. One parent believes one doctor and wants to get surgery, the other believes they should not get the surgery. What do they do? There is no middle ground - it's either surgery or no surgery, so one parent will get their way and the other will not.

In this example, there is no "right" answer. Both options have medical officials recommending them. If the parents were to go to an external family court to judge their dispute, the judge would be in just as much of a dilemma as they are, and would just have to pick one parent to support and the other to oppose. And, being less involved in the situation he may understand it less and actually make a poorer decision. That would create severe emotional turmoil that could destroy the marriage.

In this case, Thielicke argues that the only logical solution that preserves the integrity of the family is for the husband to have the final say. His decision may be right or wrong (as may the judge's decision), but at least it is a decision made within the family. It will still be emotionally upsetting but, overall, less so than if an external judge had made the ruling, so the marriage is far more likely to survive it.

Get a third opinion?

 

[MemeFan]

Get a third opinion?

You can't do this forever.

Third doctor could have third approach which would create even more confusion.

After some time somebody needs to make decision and everybody will have to live with consequence. And asking for additional "check" is decision itself.

 

[MelissaE]

Being a fundamentalist Mormon, I point to the Law of Sarah, which says a man does need his wife's permission.

Being a fundamentalist Mormon, I point to the Law of Sarah, which says a man does need his wife's permission.

As a Fundamentalist Mormon, according to Mormon scripture, permission from the current wife isn't a thing. The following lines up with the Bible which is the authoritative and only acceptable source on this forum.
I'll leave it here for you. Everyone else can just ignore this comment as it's way out in the weeds for everyone else.

Doctrine and Covenants 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates...

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

 

[NBTX11]

then you can (politely) have the Sergeant pushing the General aside in this specific situation.

Spent 32 years in the US military. This would NEVER happen. No Sergeant would EVER push aside a General…no matter what. The Gen may ask the Sgt his opinion, but authority would ALWAYS rest with the Gen. No matter what.

In practicality, the Gen would virtually never be in the ground dealing with minutiae anyways. He has subordinates to do that and report back to him. He doesn’t have time to do minor minutiae. He’s concerned about the big picture, commanding thousands of troops or leading major military organizations and operations.

If you said the Sergeant was pushing, or trying to push aside a lieutenant, then your story would have been more believable.

 

[OttoM]

Spent 32 years in the US military. This would NEVER happen. No Sergeant would EVER push aside a General…no matter what. The Gen may ask the Sgt his opinion, but authority would ALWAYS rest with the Gen. No matter what.

In practicality, the Gen would virtually never be in the ground dealing with minutiae anyways. He has subordinates to do that and report back to him. He doesn’t have time to do minor minutiae. He’s concerned about the big picture, commanding thousands of troops or leading major military organizations and operations.

If you said the Sergeant was pushing, or trying to push aside a lieutenant, then your story would have been more believable.

Imagine the Father in Heaven asking permission from Israel (his wife) in order to do anything? He says through the prophets - "come let us reason together." But in the end - the Father in Heaven has absolute authority. Men are made in his image - and the husbands have that same authority over their wives. Today most women choose their own husbands without seeking approval from their father; so they don't have any excuse for rebellion.

Polygyny is amazing for the women, because the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and onward wives can see the man's fruit before joining his household as his wife. So she can see how he treats his current wives. How are his children? How is he managing his household? So there's much less risk involved, because someone else already took the first steps.

 

[Maia]

Spent 32 years in the US military. This would NEVER happen. No Sergeant would EVER push aside a General…no matter what. The Gen may ask the Sgt his opinion, but authority would ALWAYS rest with the Gen. No matter what.

In practicality, the Gen would virtually never be in the ground dealing with minutiae anyways. He has subordinates to do that and report back to him. He doesn’t have time to do minor minutiae. He’s concerned about the big picture, commanding thousands of troops or leading major military organizations and operations.

If you said the Sergeant was pushing, or trying to push aside a lieutenant, then your story would have been more believable.

I cannot claim to have been part of the military but that was told to me by someone I trust who considered it a huge problem in Afghanistan that many * Officers are not qualified to lead troops into combat. I guess the good ones keep up their proficiency.

Polygyny is amazing for the women, because the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and onward wives can see the man's fruit before joining his household as his wife. So she can see how he treats his current wives. How are his children? How is he managing his household? So there's much less risk involved, because someone else already took the first steps.

I agree, but the risk is still there. Plus they are things that some woman would except simply because they have no skills to support themselves.

But yes, both sides should really vet the other.

 

[Maia]

You can't do this forever.

Third doctor could have third approach which would create even more confusion.

After some time somebody needs to make decision and everybody will have to live with consequence. And asking for additional "check" is decision itself.

Then in that case both sides will need a heart to heart to and come to some understanding.

If the woman uses the courts to push through her will (she would win), or the man tries to use his state as head of the family to push through his will, then there is a severe risk that the marriage will fail. I am not sure either side can forgive the other for what they perceive as having allowed a child to die/undertaken a risky procedure.

 

[frederick]

I am not sure either side can forgive the other for what they perceive as having allowed a child to die/undertaken a risky procedure.

If there is a clear leadership structure in place, the one in authority takes the responsibility, and all those under his leadership submit to and accept the outcome. That structure is indisputable biblically. 1 Cor. 11:3, But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

 

[Maia]

If there is a clear leadership structure in place, the one in authority takes the responsibility, and all those under his leadership submit to and accept the outcome. That structure is indisputable biblically. 1 Cor. 11:3, But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Easy to say in the abstract, in everyday life it leads to difficulties.

 

[steve]

Easy to say in the abstract, in everyday life it leads to difficulties.

And the lack of structure leads to even more difficulties.