Feminism in the temple?

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Feminism in the temple?

dianoia · Senior Member

Hmmm. Interesting article - and I really enjoyed the rather intelligent discussion that happened in the Comments.

It brought back memories of when I was first endowed and married, and that particular promise rankled me just a little bit back then. I sometimes wonder if it's possible for a woman raised in the late 20th century not to have an initial knee-jerk reaction like that.

As I pondered my own reaction, I realized that when I thought of it in general terms, I gritted my teeth. But when I asked the question, "How do I feel about making this promise to my husband?" there was no issue. He is gentle, guileless and very in tune with the Lord. So I make this covenant very specifically to my husband every time I say yes.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

It would be really hard to respond to a friend with such strong negative feelings, because to address the flaws in her logic would make her feel invalidated. When people share that kind of stuff, they want validation, and I have a really hard time with that, since i feel like I'm agreeing, when in that case I certainly don't.

I think there will always be those who have issues with the way the Church is organized. The Church itself does not have equality issues, but a lot of people have issues with the Church.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

beefche wrote:

Do you think the church still has issues with equality for women?

weirdface I don't believe the church ever had issues with equality for women.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Excellent point, di. Dilbert is also gentle, in tune, and exceedingly kind. Hearkening to him is a pleasure, when I am able to subject the prideful side of me, that is.

In the fMh post, she complains about "women make a covenant with men". No. Each woman makes a covenant to hearken to her husband. And I'm not at all convinced that she is covenanting with her husband. She covenants (I think with God) to hearken to her husband.

Big difference to me.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Btw, look up the word "Hearken". Interesting.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

hiccups wrote:

beefche wrote:

Do you think the church still has issues with equality for women?

I don't believe the church ever had issues with equality for women.

Good point, hic. I stand corrected.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

I understand what dianoia and bok are saying. They have wonderful, God-fearing husbands. It's easy to listen to them.

It's difficult for me to hear this covenant and make this covenant each time I go to the temple. You can certainly say "oh, but, beef, someday you'll have a wonderful husband. Until then look at that covenant as making a covenant with him." But, saying that to a woman nearing 40 years old, it falls short of sounding true. I wonder how women who are married to non-members or abusive men feel during that time.

Please don't get me wrong. I understand that so much of the temple is symbolic. And I know next nothing of all the deeper meanings. I have a testimony that temple attendance is necessary for my salvation. I certainly don't have such an emotional reaction as this woman did.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Something else I was thinking about. I've heard of some people who do not have a good experience in the temple. I thank the Lord that my best friend sat me down the night before I received my own endowment and gave me a summary of what to expect. I had someone, quite seriously, tell me a year or two before that moment that I would be naked in the temple and around others who were naked. And that person had been in the temple and was dead serious. So I had some trepidations about entering.

I wonder how I would react if I had someone come to me seeking comfort/advice for a bad temple experience.

arbilad · Head Chef

The temple never "violates" people, as the person on the website put it. She brought her grief with her into the temple. Regular temple attendance is the right path for all God's children. Simply put, in my opinion, her political beliefs and her religious beliefs battled, and her political beliefs won. She had tried to make over her religious beliefs to fit her political beliefs, and found a huge incompatibility. Politics won. I think that's too bad.
I know single women who go to the temple and have no problem with the promises. Granted, I am not a single woman, or even a woman. But I know that I am safe in saying that if you put God first, and not your preconceived notions of anything (including politics), you'll be better off.

Dyany · Senior Member

I was single and endowed for a number of years so I had a while to ponder those particular promises as well. I hope i'm not discussing too much that's sacred here, but something I find very important is the phrase "as he hearkens to the Father". Many people interpret that as "LIKE he hearkens to the Father", IOW, the woman needs to hearken to the husband like he was her god. However, the word "as" has TWO meanings, and I prefer to interpret it as "WHILE he hearkens to the Father" which means something so vastly different that it removes all hints of misogynistic interpretation to me. Even though I often feel my husband is a dork, I have the obligation to keep the Spirit with me to determine if he is following the Father, and if he is, I have an obligation to hearken to him, and since I have faith in my Father, I know that will never steer me wrong.

Dyany · Senior Member

Oh and I basically agree with arbi. If we have the Redeemer as our Rock, around which other things must bend, then we are good. But if something else becomes our immovable 'rock,' then when it runs into other things, like our perception of God, they will warp around the 'rock' to form a morass of untruth.

dianoia · Senior Member

I understand what dianoia and bok are saying. They have wonderful, God-fearing husbands. It's easy to listen to them.
Well.... I wouldn't quite say it was easy to listen to him - like bok said, my pride gets in the way at times. It's something I consciously work at. It's always easier to make a covenant than keep it, right?

(ooh, and thanks for the clarification, bok, I don't actually covenant with my husband, I covenant with God.... oh wait, I just thought of something. Hmmm, too bad this isn't the place to talk about it.)

It's difficult for me to hear this covenant and make this covenant each time I go to the temple.

I wish I knew what to say to ease that burden for you, beef. I even considered telling you in my previous post that my husband sometimes found pain mingled with the joy in temple attendance in the years when he struggled to find a companion. But then I decided it wouldn't be that helpful to hear that .

sigh. Still, my heart feels for you.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'll say right off - I did not click on the link. But in my own defense, it's that time of the month where I know I don't handle stuff like I'm pretty sure is in there nearly as well.

I don't feel like dwelling on the topic the rest of the weekend.

As for temple covenants, there is not one single covenant that we make with anyone but the Lord. Even during the sealing ceremony, you are instructed to turn your eyes away from your almost spouse and your attention is entirely on the sealer.

As for the part of the endowment we are talking about... Dyany is right, there is a condition. There are always conditions. Women hearken to their husbands as they hearken to the Lord. There is never an obligation to hearken to a man that is leading you astray, in fact it's strongly implied that you have the responsibility NOT to follow, as when Adam was "cursed" for hearkening to Eve and partaking of the forbidden fruit. (Actually that's a pre-1990 phrase that was removed. And yes, many parts of the endowment were changed in '90 as Eve went largely unaddressed before that. So yes, there have been *significant* changes in the "equality" thing in the Church, not only with the temple rites but with marriage/sealing practices, etc.)

Sort of reminds me of the Priesthood power. Some people seem to think it's possible to "dishonor" the Priesthood. The Priesthood can ONLY be exercised upon principles of righteousness. It cannot be "dishonored" any more than God Himself can be dishonored. If a man wants to walk the walk, then he will have the Priesthood power. It's God's way or no way.

I look at following your husband the same way. If he wants to lead in a righteous manner, I and the children will follow. If not, we still have the responsibility to our covenants regardless of what he chooses to do. We do not force righteousness on another any more than God does.

So really, with all due respect, bok and di, the righteousness and loveliness and wonderfulness of one's husband and the warm fuzzy happily-ever-after stuff really is a non-issue. It's all fine and dandy when you have a good husband. But so what? Are you saying you have some eternal advantage because of someone else's faithfulness? Absolutely not. All women, just like all people in general are on the same playing field. Beef will have no disadvantages WHATSOEVER whether she marries the Prophet, a man who turns apostate and eventually gets ex'd or if she remains single. She covenants with her Heavenly Father.

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 10:23, 2008-06-14

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:
So really, with all due respect, bok and di, the righteousness and loveliness and wonderfulness of one's husband and the warm fuzzy happily-ever-after stuff really is a non-issue. It's all fine and dandy when you have a good husband. But so what? Are you saying you have some eternal advantage because of someone else's faithfulness? Absolutely not. All women, just like all people in general are on the same playing field. Beef will have no disadvantages WHATSOEVER whether she marries the Prophet, a man who turns apostate and eventually gets ex'd or if she remains single. She covenants with her Heavenly Father.

Whoa. There was no allusion to any "eternal advantage" in my or di's posts... where did you get that from?

Adam was "cursed" for hearkening to Eve and partaking of the forbidden fruit.
Actually, it was the ground that was cursed, not Adam directly.

Genesis 3:17 "...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow thout shalt eat of it all the days of thy life."

An interesting side note is the additional phrase "for thy sake." In current usage, doesn't that mean "for thy benefit"? Could it be that it was beneficial to Adam and Eve that they would have to labor mightily to earn their living from the ground, instead of having it easy, like they did in the garden? In other words, hard work is good - in fact necessary - for the mortal experience.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

As Dyany and coco pointed out, the woman's covenant is conditional: she is only required to hearken as long or as well as her husband hearkens unto the Lord. The men have no such escape clause. This makes sense to me, since the Lord gives only benevolent commands. Mortals, as we all know, are not so dependable.

Additionally, I think the wording used is of paramount importance. IMO, the words used in the temple ceremonies are very carefully chosen. Thus, I think it's important to note not only where they occur, but what the words actually mean. We think we know what a word means, but upon closer scrutiny, we may find we had an incorrect or incomplete connotation in mind, rather than the true definition.

First, we note that the words in the men's and women's covenants are different. The men covenant to keep the commandments of the Lord and obey the Law of the Lord. This is very clearly an "obedience" covenant. Women covenant to hearken to their husbands as the leader of the family. I think it is very significant that women do not covenant to strictly obey their husbands. We tend to assume that hearken = obey. The poster in beefche's link certainly seems to do this. If hearken = obey, then why is the word obey not used in both cases? I don't think it's just for dramatic variety so the audience doesn't get bored.

Let's take a closer look at what the words obey and hearken actually mean.

Obey:

1 : to follow the commands or guidance of
2 : to conform to or comply with
intransitive verb : to behave obediently

Hearken:

1 : listen
2 : to give respectful attention
transitive verbarchaic : to give heed to : hear

Well well. Does anyone disagree that a wife should give respectful attention to a righteous husband's counsel? In the absence of a husband, there is no counsel to give attention to, is there?

I think we should also keep in mind that later in the enodowment ceremony, both men and women directly covenant to to keep the Law of Obedience. Is this redundant to the scene we've been discussing? I don't think so. The garden covenants scene in the film is specifically teaching us about the proper relationship and line of authority between a husband and wife. The Lord's way is to have the husband as the steward of the family; responsible toward and for his wife and family. The wife's responsibility, in turn, is to give respectful attention and consideration of her husband's counsel and opinions. There is nothing that says she must obey his every command. Indeed, a righteous husband doesn't issue commands. He talks respectfully with his companion, and gives his opinion and suggestions, and leads by persuasion, long suffering, and love unfeigned. A righteous wife does the same.

Obviously, if the husband is either absent or unrighteous, the wife is not bound by any obligation to give heed to his words.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Very good points, bok. I guess I find it difficult to covenant something I have no way of fulfilling (even in a small way). It seems like I shouldn't poo-poo that covenant simply because I'm not married, or you aren't married to a righteous husband. The Lord is fully aware of the lack of righteous husbands for some of His daughters.

I wonder if men in less than ideal situations feel the same distinction?

Something bok said got me to thinking. You mention that the men are covenanted to obey the law of the Lord. Then later we are all coventanted to the law of obedience. Why? Why the distinction? If obedience is the first law of heaven, then is law of the Lord something on equal footing, higher, lesser than obedience? It's interesting to me that at that point, there is a distinction in the covenants between a man and a woman. It's been awhile since I attended a sealing, but I wonder if there is a distinction there as well (between the covenants of the man and woman).

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Cocobeem wrote:

I'll say right off - I did not click on the link. But in my own defense, it's that time of the month where I know I don't handle stuff like I'm pretty sure is in there nearly as well. I don't feel like dwelling on the topic the rest of the weekend.

I wish I'd had the sense not to click. I had that little warning twinge, but I ignored it.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

bokbadok wrote:
Whoa. There was no allusion to any "eternal advantage" in my or di's posts... where did you get that from?

You had mentioned it was "easier" somehow to go with this covenant because you thought of your (good) earthly husbands. "There is no advantage" I was just saying as a general point. Some women do not have "good" husbands and yet they keep the covenants also.

Adam was "cursed" for hearkening to Eve and partaking of the forbidden fruit.
Actually, it was the ground that was cursed, not Adam directly.

Genesis 3:17 "...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow thout shalt eat of it all the days of thy life."

That's why I put quotes on "cursed" - he will eat his bread by the sweat of his face, etc. That is the punishment.

An interesting side note is the additional phrase "for thy sake." In current usage, doesn't that mean "for thy benefit"? Could it be that it was beneficial to Adam and Eve that they would have to labor mightily to earn their living from the ground, instead of having it easy, like they did in the garden? In other words, hard work is good - in fact necessary - for the mortal experience.

It was a punishment. I guess it's true that all of God's punishments are for our benefit, right?

A great article on this topic is Patriarchy and Matriarchy, by Hugh Nibley.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=151

bok says -- "First, we note that the words in the men's and women's covenants are different. The men covenant to keep the commandments of the Lord and obey the Law of the Lord. This is very clearly an "obedience" covenant. Women covenant to hearken to their husbands as the leader of the family. I think it is very significant that women do not covenant to strictly obey their husbands."

This is a change from pre-1990, when they did in fact covenant to "obey" their husbands. Eve still does not covenant by speaking directly to God, although we now both covenant to obey the law of the Lord.

bok says -- "the woman's covenant is conditional: she is only required to hearken as long or as well as her husband hearkens unto the Lord. The men have no such escape clause. This makes sense to me, since the Lord gives only benevolent commands."

What do you mean by "escape clause?" A man needs to follow an unfaithful wife? I don't think I'm getting what you're saying here at all.

Actually hic, I ended up reading it a little later on. Glad the original post wasn't all that long. biggrin It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. It's obvious she went through pre-1990. Too bad she doesn't go back again and see all the changes.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

bok says -- "the woman's covenant is conditional: she is only required to hearken as long or as well as her husband hearkens unto the Lord. The men have no such escape clause. This makes sense to me, since the Lord gives only benevolent commands."

What do you mean by "escape clause?" A man needs to follow an unfaithful wife? I don't think I'm getting what you're saying here at all.
There's no clause like "obey the commandments as long as God is righteous" type of thing. He is on the hook to obey the commandments and Law, no excuses. The wife is only required to hearken to her husband as long as he hearkens to the Lord.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

It's obvious she went through pre-1990. Too bad she doesn't go back again and see all the changes.
I'm not convinced that's the case. As recently as 2005, she describes herself as a 30-yo mother of a toddler. Even if that's outdated and she's 33 now, she would not have been eligible to go through the temple before 1990.

I wouldn't doubt that she's read the transcripts of the pre-1990 endowment, though. They're easy enough to find online.

The bottom line is, you find what you are looking for. Either her adopted ideology or previous experience with unrighteously dominating men makes it impossible for her to accept the idea of any man, no matter how righteous, having any authority over her. And that's entirely her issue. My challenge is not to let it become mine.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Okay, I gotcha now, bok.

Yeah, I guess it's an authority issue with her. It's funny, because men have authority over other men, too... My own personal experience: The two times when I've thought it the most absurd to follow the authority thing (one was regarding my ex and one was regarding a former bishop) - I just KNEW they didn't get it. I was right. I knew that. The Lord surely works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform, because both those times turned to my lasting benefit. So I am personally convinced when I follow this authority "plan" I am following the Lord and He is *obliged* to bless me for it. Boy, does THAT make your prayers have some power!

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

From the PoG, Moses 4:22-23

22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
23 And unto Adam, I, the Lord God, said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, sayingThou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

That's right, we're in charge and you want us!!! biggrin

OTOH, I think the lady missed some important things:

36 That the ^arights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be ^bcontrolled nor handled only upon the ^cprinciples of righteousness.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but ^afew are chosen.

41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile

43 ^aReproving betimes with ^bsharpness, when ^cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of ^dlove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

I wouldn't say you're in CHARGE, I'd say you preside. Remember, the woman is a helpmeet, which isn't a subservient title, it means companion and helper. My husband is also a companion and helper to me, in my responsibilities. The Family Proclamation says:

"In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners" (emphasis mine).

That's how things go in my marriage, anyway. My husband sees his calling to preside over our family as a responsibility, not a declaration of power of any kind. . . and my input is just as important as his. Heavenly Father is a God of order. Someone has to preside, but that doesn't make his say any more important than mine. He'd never say he's "in charge" of me, and I think that's how Heavenly Father intended.

Sorry to quibble over semantics. :)

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Psst, hey, Jen! I think Val was joking.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

hiccups wrote:

Psst, hey, Jen! I think Val was joking.

Yep!!!

Also, that is why I quoted the scriptures from the D&C below in my post.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Man's the head. Woman's the neck.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

My funny bone must be numb this morning. Totally missed that. :duh:

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

"He shall rule over thee."

I don't see anything nebulous, confusing or wishy-washy about that.