If Women Wrote the Scriptures: Unrighteous Submission
Unrighteous dominion is a pretty popular topic around the Bloggernacle – defining it, condemning it, acknowledging that there really isn’t a penalty for it.
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
D&C 121:44-45
This is typically seen as a man’s sin, not because women are so pure and virtuous, but because men have the authority. Unrighteous dominion is a sin of authority – if you don’t have it, you can’t commit the sin.
If women had input in writing the scriptures, perhaps this passage on unrighteous dominion would be paired with a passage on unrighteous submission – explaining how people without authority can amplify the sins of authority by supporting unrighteous dominion. Every schoolyard bully needs a sidekick. Villains need minions. Dictators need staff to clean up the mess. The narcissistic boss has underlings who tell him exactly what he wants to hear.
And in a context in which priesthood authority is being abused, the person most likely to be committing unrighteous submission is a person who has no priesthood authority – a woman. Now, let’s make it clear that unrighteous submission is only a sin when it’s paired with supporting morally wrong behavior, which is unrighteous dominion in this discussion. Further, if there’s nothing you can do, then keeping your head down and your mouth shut to avoid getting hurt may be your best option in a bad situation.
Unrighteous submission is when you stand up and speak out in favor of unrighteous dominion. Is this morally wrong? Yes, but the definition of unrighteous submission would have to be as nuanced and fact-specific as the definition of unrighteous dominion. Sometimes it’s obvious when a priesthood leader is abusing his authority; sometimes the priesthood leader may be sincerely trying and he’s gotten in over his head. Unrighteous submission would have the same layers. Sometimes a woman is obviously forfeiting her integrity and trustworthiness to enable a wrong done by a man in authority; sometimes she might genuinely desire to help and she got caught in a difficult context.
Unrighteous Dominion: D&C 121: 37. That [the powers of heaven] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Unrighteous Submission: When we undertake to cover someone else’s sins, or to gratify the pride of a proud man, or help him achieve his ambition in hopes that we will raise with him, or to smooth over the pain caused by his control, dominion or compulsion inflicted upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of dishonesty, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the integrity and trustworthiness of that woman.
—-
Questions:
- What do you think of the idea of unrighteous submission being a sin?
- Can a wife unrighteously submit to her husband? Can a husband unrighteously submit to his wife?
- Have you ever unrighteously submitted in a tricky situation that you later regretted?
Wheat & Tares 
I do think unrighteous submission is a sin. We can’t read each other’s minds. If we don’t speak up and say something, those who dominate may never even realize the problem. Of course speaking up becomes a problem in and of itself when the person you are speaking up to has the power and authority to hurt in return for your feedback. But acting with honesty and integrity cannot be expected to be free of effort and pain.
Years ago I was having some conflict with my bishop. I was at the church with my teenagers waiting for them to be through with young men’s when my husband unexpectedly showed up at the church. He said the executive secretary had called him at home and asked that the both of us meet with the bishop. When he said it I suffered a warning from the Spirit that was so intense I almost doubled over. It felt like a punch in the gut. I knew I shouldn’t go in the bishop’s office. I walked around the church one time and then did it anyway.
Why did I do it? I guess I just was raised in the church as a good Mormon girl who always complies. I couldn’t picture refusing to do what my bishop asked. By walking into his office I aided him in his unrighteous dominion over me. The bad things that happened in that office that night were partly on me. His sin became partly my fault.
I learned from that experience to stand by my personal revelation and personal authority. I learned that there are times to stand up and walk out.
There are also times when speaking up is a virtue, and staying quiet is a sin in marriage. I don’t think it matters what sex a spouse is. In my opinion being married gives you an obligation to speak up to your spouse when you see a problem. Of course you can’t control what they do. At a certain point you may have to be silent when they know what you think, but are choosing something you disagree with anyway.
But absolutely, submitting quietly can be a sin that can make you responsible to a level for another person’s behavior. It can even land you in jail as an accomplice to a crime. Do not take your obligation lightly in this regard.
I think we unrighteously submit when we outsource our moral authority to another person.
I heard so frequently growing up that if you follow a priesthood leader, even if it ends up being wrong, you are off the hook – you’re blessed for following the leader. This encourages so much spiritual laziness, erodes integrity, and gives up what is supposedly your god-given agency.
Whether someone is guilty of unrighteous submission on this basis depends a lot on their own heart and motives, so I’d never judge. But sometimes I think it’s pure laziness and not wanting to take responsibility for our own choices. And that’s unrighteous submission.
If unrighteous submission can apply to institutions rather than just people, then you have just given a name to the reason I feel guilty every time I step into a Mormon chapel.
My child’s best friend from high school, who is gay and just a wonderful and talented person, dreamed of going to BYU, but he isn’t there because he made the wise choice not to attend a Church school as a gay young man.
One of the only people I baptized as a missionary that actually stayed active more than a few months after baptism loved the Church. He was just a freshman in college then, and I didn’t know he was gay at the time (this was a very long time ago, and I’m honestly not sure he knew he was gay at that time, either). He ended up marrying a woman to un-gay himself which, of course, ended very badly. Gratefully, he is now happily married to another man–but, of course, no longer able to participate in the Church.
Every time I walk into a Mormon chapel, am I “undertaking to cover the Church’s sins” towards my two gay friends? I know that the Church wouldn’t really miss me–I’m just one person–yet I wonder if I am committing an act of unrighteous submission by showing support for the Church who I believe is exercising unrighteous dominion over my gay friends as I sit in the pews each week.
Oh, good, a wonderful thoughtful post with an aspect of the gospel we seldom think about. And we get to challenge “follow the prophet even if it is wrong” thinking. And I really love the new name for an old sin, unrighteous submission. Love it.
My husband put in 20 years in the military, and there even more than in the church you follow orders. Except unlike the church, you are not encouraged to follow stupid orders or illegal orders or immoral orders. For example, with stupid orders, say you are the private who just got in from patrol. You saw the enemy position. So, your captain orders the whole group to go into what you know is an ambush. Do you follow orders, or do you risk speaking up. You speak up because you have information your captain doesn’t have. What if you have some enemy who surrendered to you and are now prisoners of war, and you are the lowly private and your commanding officer orders you to shoot the prisoners. Do you follow orders? What if you are in a small village and you know that some in the village are enemies, but you are not sure who. So, your commanding officer orders you to kill every adult in the village? Do you follow such orders? The defense of “just following orders” doesn’t work when you get charged with war crimes.
So, do you really think that obeying the prophet even if it is wrong is going to work with God? It doesn’t work for the private, and it won’t work before God. God gave us individual moral agency. He didn’t give us collective obey the prophet agency. That is for ants, or for science fiction. What the “follow the prophet even if it is wrong” people think we are the Borg? Nope. God gave you a brain and expects you to use it.
Feminists have long lamented that it is women who are the worst enforcers of the patriarchy. Those women have found that men in power just love women who will enforce their power, so of course they toss those women a few benefits. That is also unrighteous submission.
I know that we feminists complain on the feminist blogs that we get such horrible lessons in Relief Society and in young women. And predictably, some man comes along and points out that those horrid lessons are taught by women. They may be originally written by men, but then it is women who teach. Those women are good examples of unrighteous submission. Horrid modesty lessons taught by women. Body shaming enforced by women. Stupid “modesty” at girls camp where girls have to swim with a t-shirt and knee length shorts over their swim suit, enforced by women. Rather than the women looking at the one or two adult males at girls came, and saying, “what, you’re a pedophile and need the girls to hide their bodies so you don’t get tempted?” Now, that would be standing up to unrighteous dominion.
Because if you want to be accepted in a male dominated church, you have to keep the boss (bosses) happy.
Oh, and those general authorities who give a talk in conference full of prophet worship with six quotes, yup more unrighteous submission.
If you’re a TBM, you probably accept that RMN is the Prophet AND president of the Church. As the Prophet he has the keys (and God given authority) to administer the priesthood for the Church and as president he has the corporate authority to run the organization. I think most of us (even x-TBMs) are very comfortable with the latter but not so much about the former.
I don’t see RMN abusing his presidential authority. But what I see is him abusing his prophetic authority by claiming that presidential decisions are actually prophetic ones. The massive building of temples, the elimination of “Mormon” from our language, etc….to me these are presidential but they’ve been packaged as prophetic.
To me this is the ultimate in unrighteous dominion.
I want to clarify something that I should have put in the original post. This idea I’ve introduced could be tweaked, put in a more severe situation, and then used to blame an abuse victim for the abuse. We do not blame victims for the way they are treated. If someone abuses you or treats you with disrespect, that is 100% on them. If you got yourself into that situation or were too scared/uncomfortable to stop what was happening, that’s not unrighteous submission. That’s a trauma response. If you want to be really hard on yourself, call it bad judgment but it would probably be more accurate to say you didn’t see any good options and got trapped. But you are in no way, not ever, responsible for someone treating you badly.
lws329 – I really appreciated your comment, but PLEASE do not suggest that you were in some way responsible for the bishop’s conduct in that interview. As you said, you’d been conditioned to obey the bishop. I’m willing to bet you felt backed into a corner and didn’t want to make a scene. That’s pressure, not a free and unfettered choice.
The unrighteous submission that I’m talking about is when you do have a real choice. You (general ‘you’ not lws) could choose not to say anything, or you could choose to speak out against what’s going on, or you could choose to stand up and defend someone else’s bad behavior. Choosing to stand up and defend someone else’s bad behavior is unrighteous submission. There’s a difference between this and a whole bunch of situation. Like I said in the post, this is a complex idea and factual nuances matter.
I don’t believe it’s unrighteous submission to attend Church even if you disagree with some of RMN’s decrees. You’re keeping the peace in your family and associating with a community that you value.
The personal example I thought of was when I was a YW teacher and there was a lesson about father’s blessings. I knew one of my girls didn’t have a father in the home and it was a touchy subject for her (recent awful divorce). Instead of turning the lesson into a general lesson on priesthood blessings, I stuck with the topic because lessons are inspired. I even read the stuff specific to fathers. When this young girl, her voice shaking with emotion, tried to speak up and say that this lesson hurt, I steamrollered her with my testimony. I regret doing that, and I have no way to find her to apologize. That was me unrighteously submitting – going with unquestioning faith in the correlated lessons when I should have changed up the lesson to protect this young girl’s feelings in a difficult situation.
Here’s another example of what I would consider unrighteous submission. It’s based on a talk I heard 30+ years ago. I doubt anyone would say this nowadays, but it was such an awful thing to say that it’s stuck with me.
A stake-level priesthood leader told a story about a teenage girl who came with her mother to talk to him when he was bishop and seek comfort/counsel about a sexual assault. This man told the girl that some day she would thank Heavenly Father that he chose her to be sexually assaulted because of the testimony she would gain about the healing power of the Atonement. The girl and her mother quit attending Church (good mom). The priesthood leader was telling the story to shake his head in pity that this girl and her mother had turned their backs on the saving priesthood ordinances. Clearly, his comments were awful. The mother in this story apparently stood by her daughter. But imagine she didn’t. Imagine if they left the interview, and the daughter was devastated, and her mother doubled down on believing priesthood leaders are inspired and insisted that everything he said was true and inspired. That would be unrighteous submission – if the mother backed up the awful things said by the priesthood leader.
@janey I thought it was pretty clear from the post that you weren’t using unrighteous submission as victim blaming. But good additional callout 🙂
Janey, I also thought you did a pretty good job of distinguishing between abuse and enabling abuse. But then, I had years of therapy in which I figured this stuff out, so I might be ahead of other readers. And there are gray areas in between.
For example, I was the victim of abuse as a kid. No questions there. However, my mother kind of was a victim in some ways, kind of was in the gray area in some ways, and in other ways flat out enabled my dad’s abuse. She was at times a battered wife, so in that case she was also a victim of my dad.
But then she saw something was wrong between me and my dad, and she never asked or attempted to figure out what. She never asked me what was wrong when she knew something was very wrong. That would be a gray area. She knew something was very wrong and didn’t act. Partly she was afraid, partly confused because she couldn’t imagine. But she should have asked, but I giver her the benefit of the doubt of this one and call it gray, because she was kind of immobilized.
The way she was all the way into enabling was she confided in me about money and marital problems that were adult problems. She should not have told me stuff that were adult problems that it was her job to protect me from. She told me the gawd awful things the bishop told her after my dad beat her and the bishop refused to help and blamed her. She cried to me about how she couldn’t leave my father because of finances. I was the kid. She was the adult. She should have confided in another adult, not leaned for protection on a kid. So, guess why I couldn’t go to the police or confide in anyone about the abuse. My mother had made me responsible to save the family from the financial ruin of my dad going to prison. My mother made it clear there would be no help from the church or anyone if my mother left my father. And my mother taught me that nobody helps when you are being abused. But she was the one responsible to protect me, not me supposed to protect her by staying quiet about the abuse. She made it my responsibility to save the family from my dad’s abuse by keeping quiet about what was really wrong. So, I took the abuse so my siblings didn’t go hungry. She enabled the abuse to continue. Only that last part was unrighteous submission to my dad’s abuse of the family.
As you can see, it gradually goes from ways she was a victim, to how she helped to victimize me. There was no clear line screaming at her that she was being a chicken shit coward. It went from a bad situation where she didn’t see any good options, to where she became part of the problem all without giving her an easy way out.
In the same way, it can go from, “I really believe RMN is a prophet of God,” to I really don’t feel good about this new revelation that the prophet is claiming to not baptize children of gay couples.” There is no clear line there, between what most members believe to what many of us were uncomfortable with. But some of us said, “wait a cotton pick’n minute, I think that is wrong and don’t support that,” while others just said, “sure glad I don’t have to enforce that,” while still others actually refused to baptize a kid, possibly breaking a child’s heart. That last, I would say is unrighteous submission. But if you believe it was sill righteous following the prophet, I understand why you believe that. I guess that shows how murky this situation is.
Sometimes, like with my mom, people don’t see it till it is too late. This is a tough sin to navigate. Which is why it is a good one to discuss. We need all the help we can get.
This is a fascinating idea and I appreciate the nuance about abuse vs enabling abuse. Perhaps one way to steer it away from the direction of victim-blaming is to focus less on the negatives of Unrighteous Submission and more on the positives of Righteous Resistance.
Standing up to corrupt authority, civil disobedience, nonviolent protest, speaking truth to power—these virtues are all heavily extolled in the secular world but completely alien at church. I struggle to imagine church leaders (it gets harder to imagine the higher up the chain you go) encouraging members to refuse obedience to unrighteous leaders or to call out their leaders for abusive policies and practices.
That, in part, explains why the church’s rhetoric around abuse can often feel somewhat hollow—because abuse hides in plain sight within power structures and the church does not tolerate disrupting their power structure.
Anna – your description of your mother’s situation is exactly the sort of nuanced situation that makes the idea of unrighteous submission so tricky to discuss and/or condemn. There was nothing your mother could do about some of the situation, but then she did cross a line eventually.
Kirkstall – wouldn’t that be an amazing idea? The reason the Church can’t do it is for exactly the reason you state, and yes, that is why the Church’s condemnation of abuse rings so hollow.
If the Church talked about unrighteous submission, it would have to teach women and men that they have a Godly obligation to stand up against abuses of power. That’s the last thing the Church wants the general membership to do.
Janey,
Thank you for your post and the careful and kind response to my comments. I want to add how that experience taught me. My husband was with me but he had a trauma response and kind of blacked out and can’t remember what the bishop said to me. Our friend, the member of the bishopric who was in the meeting, was apologetic afterwards but didn’t do anything about anything during the meeting.
I didn’t either. But I went over and over it in my mind. I wasn’t brave and strong enough to not go into that meeting than, but I am now, having had the experience of the meeting.
Once I was in the meeting and the bishop started talking to me in the manner he did, I could have protected myself by standing up and walking out. Afterwards I ran over and over it in my head. If my younger sister had been there and the bishop had spoken to her in that manner, I would have stood up and escorted her out. I came to the conclusion that I deserve the same protection from emotional damage that my sister does, and I can give it to myself!
The next year my practice of this concept paid off in a non church forum, where I had the strength to stand up to authority in a difficult situation, and stand up and walk out. We each need to develop our personal authority, our connection with God and our commitment to choose the right as we see it, even when people in authority around us do not.
lws329, That’s an excellent outcome and I glad you were able to make a learning moment out of a difficult and stressful situation. I’ve had experiences like that too – where I lay awake at night churning through all the things that I wished I’d done. The fact that a turning point for you was realizing that you would defend your sister, and so you should defend yourself, was very relatable. I went through that exact same reasoning. Would I sit back and watch someone treat someone I love like this? If not, then I should take the same action to protect myself that I would to protect somebody else that I love. I believe the ability to stand up for yourself is an important self-care skill; it’s a way to show love to ourselves.
Thanks again for your contributions to the discussion.
Another area I see unrighteousness submission is surrounding church courts (long known as excommunication).
D. Michael Quinn’s stake president set a shining example when he quietly did NOT WITHHOLD a temple recommend from Dr. Quinn when he was a historian at BYU. DMQ was maligned quite publicly by an apostle for “speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed” for writing about historical facts surrounding post manifesto polygamy.
SP knew that not having a temple recommend would result in Dr. Quinn losing his employment. He also seems to have known how much the church (and temple) meant to DMQ, which would further bring deep hurt to him.
The stake president signed the temple recommend, and told the professor that if his employer asked if he has a temple current recommend, to honestly answer, “Yes”. SP subsequently kept the TR in his own desk drawer.
SP was supported by his counselors, apparently including the son of a First Presidency member.
Contrast that with the multiple l stake presidencies and high councils we have heard of that did what they were told to do by their higher ups. They often even played along that it was a local decision. There are various circumstances: excommunicating academics, feminists, historians, therapists, etc.
DMQ link will follow.
Background and Fallout of My 1985 Article: “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904”
By D. Michael Quinn
Sunstone magazine. January 31, 2021.
https://sunstone.org/background-and-fallout/
*oh, and how can I leave out the category of excommunication for requesting youth interview changes to protect youth?
Here’s a thought experiment that should make it clear how bad unrighteous submission is. If we were supposed to obey church leaders, well, there would not only never have been a restoration, but there would never have been a Christian gospel at all. Joseph Smith would have been a quiet, happy Methodist (probably still having extramarital affairs, so yeah), and Jesus would have shut down his sermons as soon as the Sanhedrin told him to knock it off. In a more modern context, we should all learn the lesson of Helmuth Hubener who was excommunicated for refusing to go along with Naziism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener