Mike Huckabee: Women Should Submit To Their Husbands

John Dehlin Mormon 9 Comments

It’s official. I definitely prefer Romney to Huckleberry (and yes…I know Romney some big weaknesses).

Via Daily Kos:

Huckabee’s opinion on gay marriage is out there, but we should also be publicizing Huckabee’s opinions on heterosexual marriage. Specifically, what he believes about a women’s role in a marriage.

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: “I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention.” What was in the family statement from the SBC? “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Read on…

The Huckster is trying his best to hide his full gospel, but somehow I doubt this factoid will attract more women to his campaign. If you needed further proof that this religious extremist will set our country back even further than President Bush has, look no further. Of course, what do we expect from a man who lobbied to have a convicted serial rapist paroled for political gain.

UPDATE: (Nicole) BeliefNet has rated Huckabee a perfect 10 on the theocrat scale, but that’s still not enough to win over Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins.

Comments 9

  1. “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Isn´t this in substance the same thing required in the temple endowment? I´m not sure of the words used today, but my memory of pre-changes 1990 is that Huckabee nearly parrots temple language.

  2. Pre 1990:

    You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husband and abide by his counsel in righteousness.

    Current:

    You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of the Lord, and hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens to the counsel of the Father.

  3. I would say there may be some extreme LDS folk who might interpret the temple endowment scenario as similar, but most reasonable people I know would recognize the very important caveat implied that the husband has to be following the Lord’s counsel to merit that respect. As soon as he’s wrong the game is off.

    I’m confused about the term “servant leadership”.

  4. I think the to versions listed by Phouchg are interesting.

    The latter sounds much softer and actually more specific than the Pre-1990, but basically means the same thing.

    I don’t think that any of these statements mean that the Husband gets to “Rule” and “Lord” over his wife. Each of them has a caveat…

    SBC: “…servant leadership of her husband” I belive this refers to the husband as as the servant.

    Pre-1990: “…abide by his counsel in righteousness…” Referring to the husband’s righteousness.

    Current: “…hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens to the counsel of the Father.” This statement I think is the best and most clear. The woman is taught that she should observe and keep the law of the Lord, and listen to (and maybe follow) her husband as long as he follows GOD…

    It actually reminds me of a statement I heard attribute to Brigham Young on a tape I used to have…something to the effect of “I told the sisters to follow their husbands…but I never have told a sister to follow her husband to Hell…

  5. paul w.,

    considering the differences between the two temple covenants is interesting but can get caught up in semantics.

    i think the greater point is that men dont make a covenant to obey or follow their wives. sorta goes along with men not having to answer the temple recommend questions that are posed by a woman and then have the woman sign the temple recommend.

    the interview is not part of a priesthood ordinance, so why the hell cant the woman ask the questions and decide who gets to have another woman covenant to follow the dudes? seems fair to me.

  6. M.E.,

    What you are missing and fail acknowledge is that major and important caveat expressed in this specific temple covenant…by doing so you deemphasize it. Husbands are to “hearken to the counsel of the Father”. Part of this (Following God) is “Loving their wifes as themselves”, if you Reference Ephesians 5. This is all about the “Oneness” of the marriage covenant.

  7. Paul W.:

    If it’s all about “oneness” then why not have the men agree to hearken to their wives as their wives hearken to the counsel of the Father and Mother, part of which is the wives loving their husbands as themselves? That would work, right?

  8. “It’s official. I definitely prefer Romney to Huckleberry” – but John, what about Ron Paul? The mainstream media is ignoring him, but he is winning in the polls they do after the debates, and he is raising the most money – all because people hear his message and love it! True that Romney is better than Huckleberry, but I think you should do a story on Ron Paul!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.