Today’s guest post is from Maybee.
It was 14 years ago. I sat in a cushioned chair in a room decorated with rosy pastels, white, and gold. A large screen hung in the front of the room. An elderly gentleman stood silently with his arms outstretched, his wife seated nearby, smiling. The deep voice on the speaker informed the women of the next covenant. The hearkening covenant. My heart dropped as I heard the words. I knew from what I had witnessed thus far that I had but a short pause to respond. I looked at the women around me, at my young future husband across the aisle. My heart racing, my stomach churning, I bowed my head and said “Yes.”
Agency and Covenants
We are taught early on that choosing and acting for ourselves is one of our most precious gifts from God. The story of Lucifer vs. Christ in the preexistence and the choice each of us made individually is a truly unique and wonderful teaching of Mormonism. But how does this agency translate to making covenants? Certainly when making a binding contract with God, it’s imperative that we fully understand what is being asked of us. The Church Handbook of Instructions 2 advises leaders to counsel children about the covenant of baptism before their 8th birthday. Potential new converts must hear all of the discussions prior to baptism to understand the implications of their decision. So why, in the holiest of places on earth, do we make eternal contracts with God without knowing beforehand the details and implications of those contracts?
The manual often used in temple prep courses “Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple” does give some insight into temple covenants:
“The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions. (The House of the Lord, page 100.)”
But where is the hearkening covenant? I see no hint of it here.
Some might argue that a certain degree of faith is required with covenants and the temple. Part of temple preparation is recognizing that you are committed to the faith, and ready to show that commitment to God, even if what is being asked is difficult. I suppose there is an argument for this, and I’ve had these thoughts regarding some of the other covenants made in the temple. But those covenants didn’t surprise me, nor feel so very much against my core belief of my relationship with God, as did the hearkening covenant. Even Abraham, when asked to do the unthinkable and sacrifice his son, had a long walk up a mountain to contemplate his decision. So is it just to ask me to make a very personally difficult eternal agreement without more than a few seconds to think it over?
Coercion
-
I recognize that the term “coercion” may seem ugly and harsh when talking about temple covenants, however, I do think that it applies. Coercion is the act of using force or intimidation to obtain compliance. It is related to duress, where a party is essentially forced to act in a way contrary to their best interest or desires, and may involve psychological pressure. I consider my response to the hearkening covenant to have been made under psychological duress and therefore consider the situation coercive. I was caught by surprise with no time to think, my fiancé and future in-laws seated only feet away, and my temple marriage and future eternal progression hanging on my response. Add to that my aversion to confrontation and creating a ruckus, as well as my generally pleaser type personality and a “yes” was all but guaranteed.
So what if the conditions had been different? What if the temple matron had explained to me what I was about to agree to prior to the ceremony? I consider myself a woman of integrity, in part thanks to all of those YW lessons on the matter. So although I never expected a test of my integrity to occur in the House of the Lord, I can say with certainty that given more than a few rushed seconds to make the decision, as difficult as it would have been, I would have certainly said “No.” And what if the conditions were even more different, with more time and transparency? Perhaps RS lessons or General Conference talks regarding the definition of “hearkening.” An open discussion in temple prep class as to the wording of the covenant, maybe even official language as to what the implications of what hearkening meant? Would I have said yes? I can’t answer that with any certainty. But I do know I would have pondered, prayed, and wrestled over my decision. Maybe I would have received an impression from God that the covenant was a remnant of past culture and not really binding at all. Or perhaps I would have felt strongly that I was simply to have faith on the matter and that it would all be ok in the end. Whatever my reasoning, unlike how it originally went down, a “yes” decision in those scenarios would be a true yes, a decision that I could own. Which is really how agency should work, no?
In the years following that first time going through the temple, I have reflected often on the heartache and pain associated with the experience. For several years I thought it was simply the wording of the hearkening covenant that I found so troublesome. I think I had naively expected that in the temple I would witness a more egalitarian relationship between men, women, and God, similar to the positive emotions I felt as two kindly elderly women placed their hands on my head prior to the endowment ceremony. Discovering that the patriarchal order existed so explicitly in the temple was no doubt disappointing. However, time and age have given me better insight and words to understand and express my emotions. As frustrating as it is to experience patriarchy in the temple, it is really the disregard for my agency that is most traumatic. Free will is truly a precious gift from God, so to have mine overlooked so blatantly, by the organization that professes to hold agency in such high esteem, is degrading. For me this realization is a much harder pill to swallow than the patriarchy I’ve been exposed to since a child, as it truly goes against the core doctrines of the church, really, everything I’ve been taught about who I am fundamentally. My Spirit cries out in protest, and rightly so.
So why does it happen this way? Here are a few scenarios I’ve considered:
- It’s simply an unfortunate oversight by our leaders who have never really considered how, for many women, making such a decision might be difficult without advanced notice.
- the details are purposefully kept secret from women so they will answer in the affirmative without questioning, a sort of “bait-and-switch” scenario.
- the hearkening covenant is simply a cultural vestige of a bygone era, and not a truly binding covenant, so it’s null anyway.
- as a woman my agency doesn’t really matter (see Law of Sarah), that precious gift given to mankind in the preexistence is really only for men, since they are the real humans anyway.
In the celestial room I was met with hugs of congratulations and expressions of love from my future family members. I should have been able to celebrate that moment. Instead, I found myself calling into question the very relationship to God that I held so dear. And I felt sorrow and dismay for the active participation I had played in what felt like a demotion of my spirit, my worth, my standing in God’s eyes. For many of us yes, the temple experience is painful. For me it is a wound that refuses to heal, the depth and extension of which I am still discovering, the pain ever present.
I’d love to hear your *respectful* thoughts.
How do you view agency and temple covenants, specifically the hearkening covenant? Should we be informed of these covenants beforehand to allow study and preparation? Or should temple covenants be held to a different standard?
Did you have prior knowledge of the hearkening covenant? If not, were you taken aback? Do you feel it was unfair to ask such a question without adequate time to consider the implications before answering?
Did you say “No?” (I’ve heard of a few cases, but I don’t know of anyone personally who has done this).
Is coercion too harsh of a term? Is “psychological duress” an unfair characterization?
Do you think the details of the hearkening covenant are purposefully left out of temple prep classes? If so, why do you think this is?
Wheat & Tares 
I agree, this is a challenging situation for many of us personally, and I intend to discuss it with my daughter before she goes through for the first time. However, when I look up the definition of “hearken” it means to listen. I’m happy to listen to my husband’s counsel! 😉
Hi anitawells,
I can understand that. Did you know what hearken meant in the few seconds you had to say yes or no? My post doesn’t really go into detail about the hearkening covenant, because I recognize that many women interpret it differently. The premise of my post has to do with agency. But I will say that although “hearken,” now that I know what it means, is still problematic for me. And from my understanding it was changed to the softer “hearken” from “obey” a few decades ago.
@anitawells
“when I look up the definition of “hearken” it means to listen”
Hearken doesn’t just mean “listen”. It is closer to “heed”. It means listen with attention, obedience, compliance. See http://www.yourdictionary.com/hearken
@maybe
I’d say that if you made a covenant without a full understanding, then your covenant is void. IMHO, it’s analogous to a contract made without a “meeting of the minds”. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds
“Hearken” can mean much more than “listen”. For a relatively thorough discussion see http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2011/04/29/what-does-hearken-mean/ Sometimes as in the book of Samuel it means “obey.” One advantage of the lack of discussion of the meaning of the covenant is that you get to choose what it means to you. Of course it would be best if husband and wife agree on what it means, if it even needs to be discussed at all.
That single advantage, however, doesn’t go to the agency/coercion point you made. I believe that point to be valid and that “coercion” is not too strong a word for what happens. That aspect of your post, however, is equally applicable to men — not with respect to the “hearkening” covenant, but with respect to all the others. “Hearkening” is not the only one absent from the temple preparation manual. Unfortunately we have had, for decades, various priesthood leaders telling us [falsely] that we had made covenants not to discuss outside the temple what happens within its walls. There are certain things as to which there is such a covenant of silence, but the hearkening covenant and many others are not among them. The refusal to quote, let alone explain, those covenants combined with the intense social and religious pressure to go to the temple amounts to coercion contrary to the basic principle of agency. When early on in the endowment ceremony we were told that we would be making covenants if we continued, we were invited to leave if unwilling to make the undisclosed covenants “of our own free will and choice.” Decades later that remains ludicrous, intensely offensive, and extraordinarily damaging to real respect for the institution and those of its leaders who cannot or will not either see the offensive coercion or do anything to prevent it from continuing.
I’m glad you felt free to speak up about the subject. Maybe someday enough such speaking up will get the necessary attention from decision makers to make appropriate changes.
JR thank you for your thoughtful comment. I agree that all covenants should be made in a transparent way, and by keeping them so secretive and essentially “coercing” the affirmative responses, members are not being trusted with their own decision making which is a big problem. This is true for all covenants made by both men and women in the temple.
With that in mind it is the hearkening covenant that for me is most problematic of the other covenants. I am being asked, without prior knowledge, to consent to a hierarchy which places my husband between myself and God. I am acknowledging him as my superior and myself as his inferior. So although making a promise that you will devote your your time, etc. to building up the kingdom, without previous understanding that you were going to make that promise in the first place is problematic, with the hearkening covenant I am essentially forced to be complicit in the demeaning of my relationship to God which is really quite humiliating. (I recognize not all women will define “hearken” or the covenant the same way I do, and I respect that, these are just my own feelings).
I’m familiar with that excellent blog post, and many others, from ZD. Any voice that I have found regarding my issues with the temple is thanks to blogs such as this one, ZD, and BCC.
and FMH of course 🙂 Their series on “When the Temple Hurts” has been very helpful.
Honestly, the whole endowment felt like a bait-and-switch from the theology I was taught in YW! I was taught in YW over 20 years ago to be a partner with my husband, that we each had our complementary roles but to be a triangle with God at the head. The temple contradicted all of that by making my husband an intermediary with God. Where is this taught in the last 20+ years outside of the temple? All females are caught unawares and this is the big secret of the church and the temple. It’s not right. Which doctrine is correct?
I felt a lot of nothing when I first attended the temple. I thought maybe I had been so caught up in preparing for my mission that I’d neglected to properly prepare for the temple. I, like many others who felt the social and religious pressure to love the temple, decided to fake that connection until I felt it. Eventually I came to love much of the initiatory ordinance, but not the endowment.
In the dozen years since then, I have come to understand my problem was a combination of the agency dilemma you mentioned and the theological conflict between my lived relationship with deity and the structural distance imposed by the temple. In my own life, I have begun resolving that issue by avoiding the temple.
I appreciate this post and discussion very much. Thank you for facilitating it.
It’s a problem that is only going to get worse the more autonomy and freedom women experience outside the church. The disconnect becomes glaring.
For myself, I took hearken to mean listen, and though I could wish it went equally both ways in the ceremony I was aware at the time that my husbands patriarchal blessing instructed him to listen to his wife, and treat her as an equal partner, so I wasn’t overly distressed for myself on that one. I was aware that there had previously been an obedience covenant, and was heartily glad it had been removed because I couldn’t have stomached that. But any prior knowledge of the covenant was as a result of talking with YA friends who had gone through the temple previously prior to missions. There certainly was very little in the way of specific information in the temple prep classes. That’s wrong.
“So although making a promise that you will devote your your time, etc. to building up the kingdom,”
This is the thing I find bugging, because in all the prep materials I have read it talks about consecrating to God, yet in the ceremony itself that isn’t the case, it’s to the church instead. Those are not synonymous for me. And the older I get, the more experience I have, the smaller any overlap appears to be. I’ve come to really hate that one. Still, at least they’ve appeared to stop yelling the name of the church at us with the new films, which is what the less than subtle increase in the volume at that point always felt like…
I also agree that the whole free will spiel at the beginning of the endowment before the covenants are even introduced is very creepy, and frankly I wouldn’t blame anyone for bolting at that point. That took me by surprise and only gets more disturbing with time.
You were 14 when you made covenants in the temple? Isn’t that child abuse?
I chose to go to the temple to make the same covenants when i was 22 years old. I went because i knew it was the right thing for me to do and not because i was preparing for a mission nor was i getting married. Now, i am grateful that i made the choice myself, to go at that time.
Within a few months i had a paid job working at the temple. It was while i was working there that i met a friend who had recently returned from his mission and he introduced me to my now ex-husband, who had also recently returned from a successful mission. We were married within a year. It was my choice to marry him and at the time i did not marry the wrong man.
41/2 years into our marriage my father-in-law died suddenly and my husband became someone else. In the end he left the family home and returned to his mother’s house, 200+ miles away. A year later he came for a visit – he had also left behind 3 small children – he came back to confess he had had an affair . By the time i left the marriage at 12-years and a day later, he had had 6 affairs and i left after i found out he was having an affair with a 16-year-old girl. I divorced him. It was only at this point that he confessed to church leaders about the affairs and was excommunicated.
It wasn’t until several years later that my daughter told a teacher that her father had been sexually abusing her. Although he was charged with 4 accounts of sexual assault against a minor, she had been between 9-11 years old. He didn’t confess to the Police, and they couldn’t gather enough evidence against him, he got away with it. As far as i know, he has never confessed to church leaders, neither does his present partner know about what he did. He is very dangerous.
That is the very shortened version of what went on, but why am i telling you this?
1) We confuse the words Free Choice with the words Choice and Accountability – we are free to choose, but the consequences are set, but not all consequences are bad, some are actually good.
2) We covenant to hearken unto our husbands as he hearkens unto the Lord, therefore we do not and never have been expected to follow our spouses down to hell. We still have a choice.
3) We have a choice to walk away from God, from the church and from the covenants we have willingly made, but we are not free of the consequences.
4) God will never force us to heaven, to keep the covenants. In 30-years of attending the temple i have only once seen a person choose not to make to covenants and leave the endowment room, it was a sister.
5) The first time i attended the temple i did not remember anything when i left, but it felt like i had gone home to God for a visit and it still feels that way.
Beverley, Thank you so much for your comments, especially “it felt like i had gone home to God for a visit …” I think that is a fine description of what we are encouraged to believe we would experience in the temple. I’m glad it works for some.
Unfortunately, for some others the experience of the temple feels more like going home to an abusive father who has not repented. It would seem unhealthy and inappropriate for them to attribute that feeling to God rather than to an institutional failure of communication and preparation and an institutional failure to make the language of the endowment more consistent with what is preached from the pulpits of the Church. Still, sitting quietly in the celestial room following an endowment session can be an opportunity to put all the inconsistencies and the offense aside in favor of private individual communication with the divine, just as one can do in a quiet cathedral or alone on a mountain top or in one’s prayer “closet” or in any other place that allows one to quiet one’s wandering mind from distractions.
A simple acknowledgment by the Church that not everyone finds the temple experience inspiring or uplifting and that one’s connection to the divine can happen equally well in other places would help put the focus where it belongs – on individual responsiveness to the spirit and becoming a new creature in Christ – rather than on worship of a building or of a ritual or of oaths of loyalty to the Church rather than to God.
This comment is not meant to express any disrespect for or disbelief of those who report feeling in the temple like they had gone home to God. I think that is a a wonderful and important thing for them. I wish, however, that some of them (not including you, as your comments did not do this) would stop insisting that the temple is the only or even the best place for that to happen for everyone. Why not simply acknowledge that for some that feeling is best facilitated elsewhere and that the origin of that feeling is in the individual’s relationship to God and openness to divine inspiration and not in his/her physical surroundings such as the temple? One’s surroundings may facilitate an individual’s openness to the spirit by eliminating distractions or because that individual has special feelings for the place, but they do not cause that openness to the spirit (“the wind/breath/spirit blows where it pleases” John 3:8) and for some the words of the endowment ceremony itself are unfortunately a significant distraction, or even an obstruction, rather than a facilitation.
For myself, I will continue to appreciate the celestial room, the mountaintops and canyons, the cathedrals, etc., where I have experienced a feeling of going home to God. Though I wonder how long my knees or my patience will hold out, for the experiences in those places, I can at least sometimes endure the effort and difficulties of getting there. And when I can’t, I can find a “closet.”
Beverly – it was “14 years ago”, not “when I was 14” (I misread it also and had to go back as I was saying, “what??”)
I find that even as a man I don’t feel I was prepared at all for what promises I was going to make in the temple. Temple prep has improved in the 30+ years since I went in, but I still don’t feel like it is what is needed. Your issue of lack of agency is compromised when they ask BEFORE telling you what you are going to commit to if you want to leave. The FMH on “When the Temple Hurts” has made me realize just how much harder it must be for sisters. I am appalled that I didn’t see it before. Actually I saw it but as a man 1/2 ignored it and 1/2 put it on the shelf. And given you can’t dare talk about this to anyone without feeling shameful, it just adds to the pain.
As to your specific questions, I do think that coercion is an appropriate word. I do feel it is intentionally not discussed before. Partially to some men in charge just not thinking it is that big of a deal and not wanting to scare anybody off from going the first time to the temple. I know in ward council the bishop has mentioned several women that will not go back to the temple.
How do you view agency and temple covenants, specifically the hearkening covenant? Should we be informed of these covenants beforehand to allow study and preparation? Or should temple covenants be held to a different standard? We absolutely should know. I always just thought all the “God is to man as man is to woman” stuff that shows up in a few places in the scriptures were cultural relics of bronze age cultures, not something we were going to impose on our relationships for eternity. I was gobsmacked. I had no idea we took that stuff literally.
Did you have prior knowledge of the hearkening covenant? No. I had a roommate warn me about the veiling (and when I asked the Stake President about it I got a non-helpful “I dunno”) but the veiling is so far down on my list of concerns vis a vie The Temple.
Did you say “No?” I wish I had known that was an option. I wish someone had told me, “Don’t do anything that makes you uncomfortable.”
Is coercion too harsh of a term? Is “psychological duress” an unfair characterization? Not at all. I have never had a stronger witness from the Holy Ghost in my life that I needed to leave, that I needed to get out, but I went ahead with it because I trusted my Heavenly Father. I trusted that at some point I would learn some “key of knowledge” that made it all better. Spoiler alert: I didn’t. I haven’t. (And then it’s a week out from my wedding and everybody is there with me and this event has been built up to me my entire life ) So, yes, coercion.
Do you think the details of the hearkening covenant are purposefully left out of temple prep classes? If so, why do you think this is? I could see the people writing the manuals thinking that this isn’t a big deal and leaving it out. I could also see them being very uncomfortable about it and leaving it out. I don’t know which approach is a more charitable assumption. Both seem rather unconscionable.
Rereading my comment, it sound like I am blaming my Heavenly Father, that I misplaced my trust in him. I do not see it this way. I see that human bias creeps into everything and the temple is no different. I trust my Heavenly Father that everything will eventually be made right.
Can I make two simple points?
Firstly, I believe the so called “Abrahamic covenant” is a myth. I prefer to think that Abraham failed his test which was to do what Nephi did and that was to argue with God. I know if I’m ever in a situation where I’m being asked to violate one of my core beliefs by anyone up to and including God I’m hoping that I will want more than a simple “Because God willed It” reason.
Secondly, I believe that God will only hold us responsible for those covenants that we make of our own free will. This means if you felt coerced then you are free to ignore any of the so called covenants you made in the Temple. The beauty of the Temple is that regardless of your degree of acceptance God still gives us all that He has.
Fairchild – absolutely, which is why I agree that “bait and switch” is a good description. Either the equality rhetoric we grew up hearing in YWs is correct, and the temple isn’t, or the rhetoric was to keep us coming and get us to the temple where the “truth” could be revealed. I like to think it’s all just a bunch of oversight and elderly leaders hanging onto past traditions, but the possibility that these things are done purposefully exists and is sorta terrifying.
Elizabeth – sounds like we’re in a similar place regarding the temple. In order to stay active, I have to avoid the endowment ceremony. I tried “faking it” for quite awhile, it is really freeing to be honest and trusting of myself and my feelings. Thanks for engaging.
Hedge – “It’s a problem that is only going to get worse the more autonomy and freedom women experience outside the church. The disconnect becomes glaring.” Yes-o-lutely. I pay close attention to the current generation of women going on missions and getting married, since they have grown up in a much more egalitarian world than generations past, and many of them now have leadership experience and perhaps confidence in a way that wasn’t possible for some of us. I have young daughters, and I am hopeful that the current young women and the voices I hope they’ve found for themselves will lead to change that will benefit my girls. At any rate, my daughters, if they choose to be endowed, will do so with knowing the covenants beforehand, I can at least assure that.
Beverly – ” We confuse the words Free Choice with the words Choice and Accountability – we are free to choose, but the consequences are set, but not all consequences are bad, some are actually good”
So what happens when you agreed to something before you could understand the terms of the contract? Is it really a choice at all? I agree that accountability to our choices is important. Which is why I think it’s paramount that we enter into any contract with God knowing the full terms. As I grow and learn I am really trying to own my choices. I just don’t feel that my “yes” to the hearkening covenant was really a choice at all, so I can’t own it or the consequences. Sadly the entire experience has led me away from the temple. Had I said an informed “yes” perhaps I’d still be attending.
Hubby – thanks for your comment and not leaving these issues on your shelf 🙂
“I know in ward council the bishop has mentioned several women that will not go back to the temple.” I’m intrigued by this, did he elaborate? I have yet to feel comfortable enough with a bishop or a stake president to burden them with my temple issues. I sometimes wonder how much thought, if any, these leaders put into this particular subject.
Happy Husband – the word coercion means to force or to threaten someone so that they bend to your will – i have never seen that happening in the temple. What goes on in the temple is far more open now than it was 30 years ago, about the time i went for the first time too, to the point when i was an escort for one of my daughters recently, she knew far more than i did when i went for the first time and i was surprised? shocked?. In fact, i wasn’t even offered temple preparation classes. Attending the temple is the same as living the gospel from day to day, we do so by faith – we will at the end of time only be judged by what we understand, think, say or do and not by what someone else thinks, says or indeed does. God has already given us all that he as, but we need to accept it.
Moss:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.
” I was gobsmacked. I had no idea we took that stuff literally.” I’m right there with you. The YWs lessons on divine nature, what it means to be a daughter of God, etc. didn’t really go into detail. I fully expected I would learn my true Divine Nature in the temple, and what I learned was that my eternal potential appears to be much more limited than I expected.
” I trusted that at some point I would learn some “key of knowledge” that made it all better. Spoiler alert: I didn’t.” Yes. Although I was disappointed in myself for not saying No and walking out, I do remember wondering if we would get to the part that talked about my husband hearkening to me or something, which or course it didn’t. Which I think underscores the importance of full disclosure in making covenants.
Bob,:
I’m with you on Abraham’s choice. I think there’s a reason that stories with a strong emphasis on agency (such as the story of the Fall, Lucifer vs. Christ, and the Abraham/Isaac story), as well as references to “wrestling with God”, are part of our doctrine. I really think agency is central to our progression. Which is why it feels so wrong not to have full agency in temple covenants. Like you said, we can’t be held accountable for agreements made under duress. But then I start to down the rabbit hole of questions. If temple covenants are executed incorrectly, are the covenants themselves wrong? Is the temple really cultural or spiritual? If a large % of it is cultural, to the detriment of God’s children, can we really call it the House of the Lord? What’s the purpose of it all anyway?
Beverley, it sounds like you have had the kind of temple experience often held up as the ideal with the expectation that it is there for everyone. A very substantial difference between your experience and some others is the fact that you were 22 and knew it was the right thing for you to do, even if you did not know what it entailed. Some others have gone to the temple under much different circumstances, including extreme social pressure. “Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.” There are many forms of social pressure that can amount to coercion. I was recently in a meeting with several of the general authority seventies. One of them explicitly lamented a growing cultural pressure on young Mormons to go on missions (and therefore also to the temple for their “endowment”) at the earliest allowable age, when many of them are not ready. While it is true that the “coercion” issue is slightly moderated by the invitation to leave, that invitation is close to meaningless in view of the incredible social pressure on a young person already seated in an endowment room because he/she had decided (ignorantly of the temple covenants) to bow to social pressure to go on a mission or to be married in the temple rather than elsewhere. There is an extraordinary amount of pain, frustration, and loss of faith in the Church that could be avoided by moving that invitation and an explanation of those covenants that can be discussed outside the temple into a temple preparation class that should be a mandatory prerequisite for a temple recommend to “take out” one’s own endowments. [“Take out endowments” always sounds too similar to “take out the garbage” or having one’s tonsils “taken out.” Wherever did that odd phrase come from anyway?! Do we ever even think of what the English word “endowment” means? or do we only speak Mormonese, divorced from its English language origin?] Such temple preparation should also be mandatory before allowing anyone to submit papers requesting a mission call. It is wonderful that for you going to the temple that first time as well as later was like going home to God. Some who are less prepared or more apt to see the contradictions between the temple endowment language and what they have been taught in Church classes and from the pulpit should be expected to experience that first time as being more like going home to manipulation and abuse, however unintentional. Thankfully most of those I’m acquainted with have not concluded that they should blame that on God. For some the going-home-to-God feeling is found far more readily in places other than the temple.
I know this is slightly off topic, but every time I hear people discussing the definition of hearken I am reminded of my Seminary days. We had at least 2-3 lessons per year in Seminary on what the work hearken means. We were always told that it means “listen and obey.” In fact, there was one day where we were tasked with going through the D&C and finding every single time it said hearken, crossing it out and writing in “listen and obey.” When I heard the word hearken in the temple I had been properly educated on what the church’s definition of hearken is.
So out of curiosity I wanted to see if this is still the case 15 years later. I searched the word hearken under “manuals” on lds.org. The first 5 references in the seminary student manual that define hearken are listed below:
“Remember that the word hearken means to listen attentively and obey.” -Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, 2013, Unit7: Day4
“The word hearken means to listen and obey.” -Old Testament Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, 2014 Unit 3: Day 2
“Remind students that hearken means to listen attentively and obey. When we truly hearken to the Lord, we will follow His counsel and commandments.” -Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 2013, Lesson 51.
“Explain that the work hearken means to listen attentively. When we truly hearken to the Lord, we will listen to and obey His commandments. . . Ask the class to follow along, looking for who Cain hearkened to instead of God.” -Old Testament Seminary Teacher Manual, 2014 Lesson 12. (This definition sounds softer, but are we really going to argue that Can “listened attentively to Satan’s advice but then ultimately didn’t obey it because Satan was not following the Lord?”)
“Notice the word hearken in Doctrine and Covenants 45:1. You might want to mark it. To hearken to someone means to listen attentively; it can also include both listening and obeying. When we truly hearken to the Lord, we follow His counsel and commandments.” -Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, 2013, Unit 11: Day 1. This leaves some room that hearken only means obey sometimes . . . but then it says that TRULY hearkening means we follow counsel and commandments.
To address the post directly, I think any discussion of the hearken covenant is left out of temple prep on purpose. I don’t necessarily think the main reason is to bait-and-switch women, although I suppose it’s possible that it is. I think the reason is to keep it vague and open to multiple interpretations. The church is trying to appeal to a wide variety of people. If they keep a lot of the temple covenants vague then people can interpret them how they want. Feminists can interpret it to mean that women should listen to our husbands and only follow their righteous counsel in an equal partnership. Those (especially in other countries) who believe that women should not be equal with men can interpret the covenant to mean that women are always supposed to obey their husbands. The church doesn’t have to convince anyone that their interpretation makes sense, the members convince each other. They stay silent so as not to undermine any of the interpretations that justify people’s reasons for continuing to go to the temple and stay active.
Maybe, Maybee, the purpose of the Endowment is to make us think. One thing I noticed about the Endowment is that the whole presentation is neatly divided into a live potion and a filmed portion.
What we learn from the film is that blessings come from being disobedient. In other words without the fall, or in my words being disobedient, we would not exist.
On the other hand what we learn from the live presentation is that blessings come from being obedient.
What do we learn from mixed messages like this?
And maybe, Maybee, what we learn is that we are here to make decisions and the harder the decision the better. Choosing to do the right thing because it is obvious doesn’t entail any learning. It is only when things are gray that we really learn.
Was it coercive? Probably. I have thought of it more in terms of informed consent. Many here will know that the ceremony changed around 1990; I received my endowment some time after that change and was unaware of it. The hearkening covenant fell in line with my world view at the time, and perhaps because I am male I did not have to face the issue straight on. At the time I was buying into the “fathers-and-mothers-are-equal-but-fathers-preside” paradox. But there are things in the older ceremony that would have (or should have) bothered me. But even in the older ceremony, with the pressure of my family watching, the pressure to serve a mission, the idea burned in my brain that I would never be marriage material until I was an RM, there is no way that I would have declined to perform the ordinance, having to make that decision there and on the spot. It would have been unthinkable.
Temple prep classes: the class I took (a long time ago) seemed well designed to skirt around this issue. The main thing I remember is that the covenants made in the temple were described as being extensions of the covenants already made. So I didn’t worry about specific wording at the time.
I think it is wrong to ask people to make covenants without giving them advance knowledge about the specific covenants to be made. I also don’t think people are accountable for covenants made under such circumstances, but that doesn’t really matter because the real problem is that after having made such a covenant we have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding two contradictory philosopies and committing to the wrong one by oath.
EBK, Some of the covenants are vague, e.g., the “law of the gospel” and “the law of sacrifice” as contained in _________. Others are not, or at least are not recognizable as vague without some knowledge of 19th century frontier American and Mormon cultural and linguistic context, e.g. consecrating time and talents to the Church [not to God] for the building up of the “kingdom of God”, and avoiding “all loud laughter”. By persisting with these formulations (and others) without discussion of the variety of meanings they have had and can have, the Church is teaching a good number of our people that they need not take seriously the covenants made in the endowment ceremony. I doubt very much that that is an intended result. Of course, open discussion of the possible variety of meanings or of the historical origin and the history of changes leading to the endowment ceremony we now have or even clarification might also teach some not to take the covenants seriously. Understanding that there are multiple possible meanings does not ameliorate the sense of betrayal felt by some when they have to twist unexplained historical language out of the context of their contemporary linguistic usage in order to even find any such vagueness or multiple meanings to avoid blatant contradiction of some of the things they have otherwise been taught at Church. If the Church is unwilling to clarify and unwilling to help these people understand and prepare in advance of making those covenants or to acknowledge multiple possible meanings, then it cannot reasonably complain when they choose not to go back to the temple.
For some the endowment ceremony is an unfortunate, confusing or offensive, lengthy rite of passage to be admitted to the celestial room which is one of many places in the world where one can quietly encounter God. Sometimes it is worth putting up with, but when it negatively overwhelms one’s ability to put it out of mind having reached the celestial room for quiet contemplation, then it is not. Sometimes it is just as well to climb a difficult or even ugly mountain for the sake of the view, the quiet solitude, and the opportunity to commune with the divine in a mountaintop setting. It is false to suppose that all who are “worthy” will find the temple the best, or even a good, place to invite the spirit, find inspiration, or open one’s heart to becoming a new creature in Christ.
To return to the subject of the post, the hearkening covenant and defining “to hearken” as “to listen attentively and obey” can be expected to be seen as inconsistent with the Church’s marriage-as-an-equal-partnership jargon, and should be expected to be so significantly offensive to many women that they would choose, for their own mental and spiritual well-being, not to return to the temple.
When the change was made from “obey” to “hearken” in 1990, that change must mean something. I’m just not sure what interpretation is correct:
– Obey is wrong; hearken (with the caveat of when the husband’s counsel is aligned with God’s will) is more accurate?
– Hearken still means obey, so the word change is meaningless. Hearken just sounds less inflammatory.
– The inequality is tradition, not doctrine. Old people would balk at removing it entirely, so it’s been left in place.
I really don’t know. But I do know that sexism exists in the temple, and that’s painful. I don’t and can’t believe that God views women as inferior to men, but I am forced to see that our church leaders do. Going back to Maybee’s post and her 4 possible reasons the hearken covenant still exists despite how degrading it feels to women,
1 – Oversight. Possibly. Church leaders are not confronted with it when they attend, and they are all older gentlemen. “Obey” was a traditional marriage vow in their day. It is not now and has not been for many decades, but that doesn’t mean they would see a pressing reason to change it. Temple changes are always slow to come, and often, like many church policies, choices made demonstrate the lack of a woman’s perspective.
2 – Deliberate bait & switch. If there are some in charge who feel that women must be subjugated in order to be saved, then they are most certainly guilty of this bait & switch. I’m not sure I believe this to be a majority view, but it’s possible.
3 – Relic of the past. I do certainly think this is the most likely scenario. Removing it entirely will probably feel too “radical” to our deeply conservative male leaders. Softening the language to “hearken” allowed them to feel like they were giving something, but it’s enough of a weasel word to be taken to mean “obey” by older people and to be taken to mean almost nothing by more egalitarian generations, for who does not hearken to his or her spouse? We hearken to our children. We hearken to our bosses. We hearken to our customers. We aren’t hermits.
4 – Law of Sarah. This is utterly reprehensible, the notion that women don’t really have choice. It’s akin to a rape justification. Truly some of our leaders historically believed this–it’s on record. It is an utterly evil deception, and there will be a reckoning for those who perpetuate this lie. That it was further bolstered in the church’s essay on polygamy last year is a blight.
I’m inclined to vote #3 with a dose of 1 and 2.
I am inclined to feel, as Hawk indicates, that God does not view women any differently to men. The doctrines regularly taught, teach equality. The culture, however is another story. I have been privy to several situations where men behaved terribly towards their wife, in the name of being the patriarch. This, to me, is heinous.
Whilst the notion of hearkening accords with my cultural experience in the church, it is very far removed from my doctrinal understanding.
So I went through the temple just over a year ago. I was in the midst of my feminist awakening and part of the reason that I wanted to go was to learn what it taught about Heavenly Mother. Because she couldn’t possibly be too sacred to be talked about in the temple right?
I had seen a few things hinted at online about “hearken” but no details. I was concerned but wanted to know for myself. Plus we all know we can’t trust everything on the internet. But I did bring up what little I knew with my bishop and told him I was concerned and wanted to know more before going in. He told me he couldn’t talk about it.
I was even more concerned at that point and decided that I would still go but I wanted a small group, just my brother, parents and grandparents rather than the whole extended family so that if I chickened out it wouldn’t be a big deal.
So I went and the chance to leave came and went before the actual “hearken” covenant came up. I kind of panicked. I didn’t want to say yes. But the chance to leave had already gone. I knew too much, what would they do to me if I left? But if I lied and said yes in the temple I’d certainly be struck by lightning and die immediately right? So I sent a quick prayer heavenward “Hey Heavenly Father and Mother! So I just want you to know I’m totally not okay with this covenant but I don’t know what to do and maybe I should be? I don’t know, my mom and grandmothers and everybody else in the room don’t even seem to be blinking an eye at all this. I really want to leave but it seems to late for that. So I’m just going to say yes right now and rely on my moms testimony of this whole thing and try to figure it all out later. Because this really doesn’t make sense to me. Please don’t strike me down or hate me for my lack of faith and belief in this situation!”
So I dunno, does that qualify as coercion?
I was very sad and hurt and disappointed in so many aspects of the temple. My mom, grandmothers, friends, and so many other people in my life seem to have absolutely no problem with it, even really good experiences with it. And I believe them that the temple is a great thing for them. But I still struggle with it. So thank you for sharing. This helps me feel a little less alone.
In the OP: Did you say “No?”
In 1984, I said, “Yes.”
In 2016, I say nothing. Sometimes I wonder if there’s anyone else in there doing the same. Maybe eventually it’ll be obvious that the few “yesses” don’t nearly add up to the women there. I don’t judge anyone who says it, but I just won’t – because I really think that the God I’m trying to get closer to there doesn’t want that for me. I still raise my hand because I don’t want to be a very obvious disruptor and cause stress for others.
If I think much about the temple, I come to the conclusion that only one of the following can be true: Either the church is not true, at least not the way that they want us to believe it is, or God actually does esteem women as lesser than men. There is really no other rational ending place. Trust me, I have tried to find one.
As far as coercion, absolutely yes the current system is coercive. In fact, the one moment in the ceremony when they say that you can leave if you don’t want to covenant occurs before you know what the covenants are and actually, I think, makes it even HARDER to leave once you actually hear the conditions because…well, they offered you a chance to leave and you didn’t take it. Saying “if you want to leave, now is the time” makes it feel very much like you cannot leave at a later point.
Additionally, it really bothers me when people say “it’s the culture. The doctrine doesn’t teach that.” I would argue, in the case of gender issues, the exact opposite is true. I would define culture as the things we teach in RS and Sunday school, the lived experience of Mormons, the people we interact with on a daily basis, the things we talk about on the bloggernacle. Doctrine would be the things taught in scripture and in the temple, the official policies of the church, and official statements from Salt Lake. In my experience, everything comforting and equality based comes from the former (the culture) and everything in scripture, temple, and policy is entrenched in misogynistic patriarchy. The doctrine teaches me that their is a clear hierarchy of humanity where I will always fall below a man, or many men. The culture on the other hand is trying desperately to convince me that I am loved and equal and valuable and that the doctrine doesn’t say what it very unambiguously does say.
Nona, I am also sometimes irritated by various LDS uses of the word “doctrine” as in undefined “pure doctrine” or “the doctrine never changes” etc. E.g., one first presidency stated that the black/priesthood ban was doctrine; another denied that it had ever been doctrine and asserted that it was a mere “policy.” BKP called the hymns a “course in doctrine,” but certain hymns used in the early days of the Church stated explicitly that Jesus was the son of Jehovah. Now we equate Jesus and Jehovah. The Lectures on Faith do not consistently teach the same doctrine of the Godhead now taught, yet they were once included in the published Doctrine & Covenants, though I think not canonized. Various sections of the D&C were amended, sometimes adding whole paragraphs, by JS after their first publication.
Your definition, like some other implied definitions, may be too broad, or even internally inconsistent (as the scriptures sometimes are). Consider for example the following scriptural “doctrine” from D&C 10:
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me …
Maybe there is a good deal included in what you call “doctrine” that might better be considered a part of “culture.” That possibility, however, doesn’t make the statement you object to any less irritating for its vagueness and its use to brush off your concerns. Maybe it is best to conclude that the “church is not true” in the way some wish to believe it is. That doesn’t preclude its being a true and living church in other ways.
Even though it was over a decade ago, I remember vividly my experience going through the endowment the first time. I had been through four years of seminary, read all the scriptures, attending temple prep class and more…but was very unprepared for the ceremony. Like others have said, it was a “bait and switch.”
When the “hearken” part of the ceremony came up, I was blindsided. My mother and future MIL were next to me, family all in the room, future spouse etc. I was surrounded by family but felt entirely alone. I mumbled ‘Yes’ while my brain said ‘NO!’ The part felt not only inconsistent, but morally wrong, and against everything I was taught.
When the ceremony was finished and I was in the celestial room I was weeping uncontrollably. I felt betrayed, disillusioned, panicked, a great fog was around me. My family surrounded me and thought I was “feeling the spirit” with my tears. But there was no spirit in the temple.
After marriage I went back, thinking “maybe I missed something” or “if I pray enough it will make sense” but it never felt right and no matter what prayers or hours studying did, the endowment ceremony felt wrong.
I already had my doubts on that first day of my endowment, but it was my temple experience that really pushed me down the road to leaving the church. If the “holiest of holies” only brings pain and confusion, then I know this was not a place where God resides.
Nona and JR –
I’m becoming less and less a black and white thinker, more and more I’m comfortable with the gray when it pertains to the church. Humans are fallible, influenced by culture and the era in which they grew up, etc. I can be charitable to our aged leaders and it actually feels very good to do so even if it stings that it always ends up being the marginalized that have to forgive (active black and gay members must be the most charitable among us IMO).
Call me idealistic, but I hold the temple to a different standard. We have been tasked to create spaces that are considered the House of the Lord. We pay millions in tithing every year to these temples. They are beautifully adorned and every detail is thought out. So it is the responsibility of our leaders to ensure that what happens in the temple is as close to Godly as possible. Like Nona, I’m coming to realize that either real Truth cannot be found in the walls of our temples or Truth actually is there, and my value and divine nature is less than great (scary).
At church I can pick and choose what to believe is doctrine vs. culture vs. “pure doctrine” as JR describes, but I don’t think cafeteria Mormonism should exist in the temple. I think some get around this hurdle by claiming different interpretations of troublesome covenants and principles. And I like the idea of the experience not being completely literal and spelled out for us. But yet again, the burden of an interpretation of the hearkening covenant that isn’t really horrible lies on the shoulders of women. And the Holy Ghost, the most important tool I have been given, makes it clear to me the hearkening covenant isn’t right. So more than anywhere, a glaringly (to me) false teaching in the temple creates a domino effect where I really can’t trust anything else taught there to be Truth, which is why I’m becoming closer to Nona’s way of thinking (I’m fighting it, but it’s really difficult): either God sorta hates me, or it’s all false.
EBK: “We were always told that it means “listen and obey.””
Oh boy! We were told hearken is hear and know (ken) with I took to mean understand. Nothing about obey in that. Your report sounds like the sort of stuff that seriously bugs me about the current seminary curriculum, where a question is asked, and passage of scripture given which is intended to hold the answer, but which actually does no such thing.
Starla, your experience mirrors mine so closely. And what was with our family members not giving us a heads up? I know some people think we can’t talk about anything temple related, but no way would I let my girls go through without first outlining it for them. The experience is actually pretty traumatic.
Ruth, I don’t think you are alone on this. I’ve heard of occasions in my local temple of women refusing to veil their faces and they are quietly asked to leave. I wouldn’t be surprised if this sort of thing continues.
LDS_Aussie – Yes, if only we had a place of solace to go to meditate, far from the worries of the world AND the troublesome culture of the church.
Angela – I’m with you on the more likely reasons transparency with covenants (esp hearkening covenant) doesn’t exist. Also the Law of Sarah is the worst, there’s just no possible way to spin it that doesn’t make women out to be slaves to their marriage and husband and waaay less than men in God’s eyes. But I can be charitable to Joseph that he was doing a really bad job of implementing something he says God told him to do. That echoes of the Law of Sarah exist in the temple in 2016, however, is unacceptable.
Rockwell – thanks for sharing. I imagine (lack of) agency in temple covenants must be difficult for many men as well, especially young ones getting ready to go on a mission.
Bob Cooper – Maybe.
🙂
“On the other hand what we learn from the live presentation is that blessings come from being obedient.” The ever present struggle between agency and obedience is a cool teaching of the temple and the story of the Fall. I really enjoy thinking about it and learning from it. If only I didn’t have to submit my will to a mortal man (as adorable and kind as my husband is) as part of the story of obedience the temple teaches me. If there was no sexism in the temple, I could actually really get on board with regular attendance.
EBK – Thanks for all of those references to hearkening. Sure makes me wonder why they’re drilling “listen and obey” into teenager’s heads, unless it’s to essentially prepare those girls for the temple 😦
Re: what you said about wording of covenants appealing to large groups of people. Yet again it’s the ladies who are burdened with interpreting a problematic covenant. Why can’t the temple be the one place where we don’t have to do this? Like I said above, I’m fine with some vague language. But why does that vague language have to include the (likely) possibility that women are less than men in God’s eyes? Men don’t have a vaguely worded covenant that could cause them to question their divine nature/worth or create such cognitive dissonance on such a personal level.
Maybee, I had for a time tried to hold the Church, then the scriptures, then the temple, to an all or nothing Truth standard, Truth being understood as accurate statements of fundamental reality beyond culture and perception, rather than as in Christ’s “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” John 14:6, and “revelation” being understood (I now think incorrectly) as dictation from God. I could not make it work.
I have had to learn to live with ambiguity and with the understanding that certainty, and not doubt, is the opposite of faith. Even Alma seems to agree with the latter.
I agree that the temple should be a place where it is not necessary to be a “cafeteria Mormon.” Unfortunately, it isn’t, at least not as I am able to understand the words with my feeble efforts to be responsive to the Holy Spirit. Apparently, about 1990 the Brethren decided that some language should be changed, the former “penalties” should be omitted, the dramatization of a non-LDS preacher and the ridiculing of certain non-LDS theology should be omitted, and the apparent condemnation of popes and priests should be limited to those “who oppress.” These changes and the earlier addition of “legally and lawfully married” to the chastity covenant would seem to indicate clearly that (a) much in the endowment ceremony is at least directed to if not influenced by human culture and (b) changes to the endowment language lag behind changes in the culture in which it is used. If the earlier forms of the endowment were wholly accurate reflections of unchanging Truth, then those changes were not, and vice versa. Since I choose not to attribute mere fickleness to God, I must either reject the whole thing (contrary to some of the spiritual impressions I’ve had) oracknowledge that the ideal standard I would like to see applicable at least to the temple cannot be expected there.
I am much more satisfied with the idea that Christ is the Truth, that my understanding is significantly limited, that a church is “true” to the extent it is true, i.e. loyal, to Christ and “living” to the extent its members invoke and respond to the Spirit. I prefer to think of “church” in accordance with the concept of the Greek word “ecclesia”, translated “church” in the New Testament, but better translated “assembly” as in an assembly of persons. In my experience of the LDS Church (an organization) I see such loyalty and spiritual responsiveness among the assembly of its members often enough, despite some individual and institutional failures, that I am content with its being a true and living church in the sense most meaningful to me. I have some relatively significant experience of some other Christian churches, and while I can also find such loyalty and spiritual responsiveness among their members, the spirit has directed me to the LDS Church. I keep my balance best by abandoning some of my former expectations and striving to be open to the direction of the spirit and to God’s creating in me a clean heart and renewing in me a right spirit. Psalm 51:10. That can happen in spite of errors, inconsistencies, and historical anomalies even in the temple. I hope you find a Way that works for you.
JR, I think we agree quite a bit on these issues. If I had not been open to ambiguity I would have left the Church years ago. Avoiding the temple is one way that I am able to maintain my membership. And I’m familiar with the changes to the temple you described and I’m glad they made those changes. I am hopeful that things will progress regarding the hearkening covenant. Often I tell myself that Zion will occur when women’s full divine nature is understood and realized. I hope I can be patient. I try to be charitable to our leaders, but it’s 2016 and they changed the videos again not that long ago and yet the hearkening covenant remains, and women are expected to answer often without understanding what they are answering to and in the face huge social pressures. So I’m holding on and trying to take the good and ignore the bad, but my charity is starting to faileth. I can trace the moment when the shift happened for me, it was when I had my oldest daughter. The stakes got a whole lot bigger.
I hate to pull out the privilege argument, and I don’t know your particular circumstances, but I imagine it’s a lot easier to live in ambiguity when you are a white hetero male. That the possibility even exists that the hearkening covenant is Truth is very scary to me.
Let’s hope for all of us, but especially our daughters, that things change soon. Because the temple doesn’t just hurt for some of us, it’s really hurting a lot of women’s faith and activity in the church.
Personally, I think the temple is the one place where we are the most cafeteria Mormon in our approach, and this is for a few reasons: 1) the endowment wasn’t even written down for 40 years, and as with other oral traditions, there’s always some institutional knowledge lost along the way (more on this in a moment), 2) the whole sacred / secret thing means we never talk about it, or very nearly never, and 3) everyone pretends like they know what it all means, but it’s highly symbolic and subjective. In some way this third point is like all personal revelation–it’s personal (subjective), but we believe it is universal and divine and capital T Truth.
Back to the first point, there was an episode of the original Star Trek series (The Omega Glory) in which this culture consisted of two warring groups of people: the Yangs and the Kohms. At the end of the episode, the Yang chief recites a badly slurred version of the Pledge of Allegiance, which he refers to as the holy words that only a chief can speak. Kirk of course knows the words and says them correctly, to the amazement of the Yangs. He then explains the meaning of the Preamble of the US Constitution, another of their holy documents. Sometimes I think our temple ceremony is like that–we are (collectively) slurring our way through it without really comprehending it because there was this huge gap of time when it was oral tradition. We have built up ideas about what it means, but these are mostly just from authority figures who’ve expressed opinions. But the less leaders know about its purpose and its meaning, the more unlikely they will make changes to it. They wouldn’t want to accidentally remove something important just because they didn’t understand why it mattered.
And again, we can’t underestimate the fact that women are not in these discussions. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a man express that he’s completely clueless how the endowment sounds different to a woman. Lack of empathy. Lack of imagination.
Angela, “We have built up ideas about what it means, but these are mostly just from authority figures who’ve expressed opinions. But the less leaders know about its purpose and its meaning, the more unlikely they will make changes to it. They wouldn’t want to accidentally remove something important just because they didn’t understand why it mattered.” So then I come back to the question of what is the purpose of it all anyway? Other than being able to meditate in the Celestial room, why do we even have the rest of it? Especially if some of it is harmful and coercive? Perhaps I’m naive to think that our leaders could still be privy to the quantity and quality of revelation that was received in the days of the Restoration. At minimum I hope they are actively petitioning God for capital T Truth when it comes to the temple.
Also, I’m noticing a trend in you likening TV shows to modern times in the Church. As a fellow TV junkie I’m enjoying the comparisons 🙂
“At minimum I hope they are actively petitioning God for capital T Truth when it comes to the temple.” You don’t petition for a thing you already believe you have. If OW taught us nothing else, it certainly reinforced that notion.
Maybee, I do think it is a lot easier for many white hetero male members to accept, ignore, or even fail to recognize those things in the Church that are extraordinarily negative for women, for people of color, and for our lbgt members. Some of those, however, are not “living in ambiguity”; they are committed to the notion that those things are right and how they should be; to them there is no ambiguity, but only certainty. (There are also many LDS women who fit that description.) But there are also many white hetero male members who do empathize with women, gays, and people of color, who are upset with, or who have left the Church over, those policies and practices that do not affect them individually and directly. After all, those practices and policies do affect many of their friends and loved ones. I can’t even count the many times I’ve heard white hetero male members express dissatisfaction with Church policies, practices, and “doctrines” that are negative for women, people of color, and gays, let alone the relatively minor issues of boring, judgmental, or unmotivating talks and bad to abominable music in sacrament meetings and elsewhere that get in the way of, rather than facilitating or inspiring either worship or Christian living. And so, “easier” for some white hetero males does not equate to “easy”, not even to “easier,” for all members of that class. Unfortunately in some ways, it seems that it is those for whom it is easy to fail to recognize or to set aside the institutionalized mistreatment of women, gays and people of color, who rise in the hierarchy of the Church and are in the best position to seek or effect institutional change.
JR, couldn’t agree more! Let’s hope the rising generation of white hetero males are more empathetic, inclusive, and questioning of the status quo.
JR: Allies are always welcome. Glad to hear some men get it.
“Was it coercive?” Maybe. But it certainly is used to feed cycles of coercion and abuse. My grandmother stayed with an abusive husband who molested their daughters because she took the covenant literally to obey her husband (this was before the change to hearken) and believed that she would be damned if she disobeyed him or left. When her daughters later left the church after their own temple marriages, the whole family was told that it was because they weren’t righteous enough for the temple, not that the temple was triggering to them and it’s very language echoed the language used to justify their abuse. I am truly glad that the temple is spiritually edifying for so many, but we need to acknowledge that the religiously sanctioned process of making secret covenants to obey people and promising never to talk about what we do there does set a pattern of secrecy that abusers can exploit. We need to discuss these covenants openly outside the temple. We need to set a cultural norm of open discussion over secrecy because our current model leaves too many invitations open to abuse.
A friend in my ward who taught the temple prep class was telling me that she was surprised to learn she was not allowed to talk specifically about the language of the covenants to be made. I believe she said this was in the temple prep teacher’s manual, but I don’t remember for sure.
We talk about how vague the language of hearken is however, it’s not vague when men are told they can become kings and priests but women can become queens and priestesses TO THEIR HUSBANDS. I knew fully about the law of conservation when I went to the temple. The covenant to hearken had never been mentioned.
I have too avoided the temple as it just does not go along with my belief system but I am currently at a cross roads (like it seems many of you can at least relate with if not in this same place) where either the truthfulness of the church is very different than what I have believed for so many years or the God I know is not truthful.
I have read through what you have written a couple of times to try and understand more fully what you are saying. I began attending church when i was 14-years-old, against my parents wishes, i call it my teenage rebellion. It is now nearly 40-years later and my parents have accepted the fact that it is not a phase i am still going through and in some ways see my faith in God as a good thing, now. I am still the only member of my family, however i do have children, some who are active members and some who are not. I think it is easier to accept what is being told to us and what we see in the temple when we chose to go for other reason than we ‘want to.’ I think when we do things that others expect us to then i can see why it may feel like we are being ‘coerced’ or that we feel it would have been better if we had had more information beforehand. The temple is a spiritual place, full of symbolism and i believe that the covenants that we make there are also symbolic of things that we will need to accept in the eternities.
I am now have a disability that makes attending the temple difficult; i no longer need to remove my shoes because i can no longer put them back on, i sometimes cannot stand and have to dress sitting down and there are times when kindly sisters put their hands around me and dress me. I am 53, at first i struggled with allowing others to do these things for me, but the Spirit softened my heart and now i see it as a blessing instead. My favourite place is in the initiatory when i can hear over and over again the promises that one day my body will be whole again and while i live in my broken body God will strengthen me, if i allow him to.
I have known sisters and brethren who have attended the temple for the first time and have vowed never to attend again, which is sad, because we cannot know nor understand the temple in one visit. People need to take away all that goes on there and see as a visit to heaven.
Beverly – thank you for trying to understand my post. I’ve read your comments a couple of times to try and understand what you are saying. You have had had some pretty incredible, and sadly very difficult life experiences. My life thus far has been pretty easy by comparison. We are in two different generations (I’m 35). I grew up in the church and you are a convert. So far my spouse has proven to be kind, loving, and completely faithful. I do not suffer from debilitating physical ailments as it sounds like you do.
However, I went to the temple my first time excited and, I felt, ready having taking the prep classes, fasted, prayed, etc. I was not following any prescribed expectations by family/friends, I wasn’t pressured. In fact my immediate family wasn’t very active growing up so being an active member was not at all expected. I was engaged to an RM and following the path that I wanted for myself. A’t that time I had a pretty strong testimony of the Church, but having approached God in the preceding years with some particularly specific concerns, my testimony of two principles was especially strong. First, that God’s love for me is more expansive than I can comprehend, and second that God considers me as valuable as my male peers, my eternal potential equal to theirs. So this framework might explain why hearkening covenant felt so especially wrong to me the first time I heard it. So wrong in fact that everything in me wanted to say “No!” but with so much at stake, and so little time to think, I really couldn’t do that. I left the temple that day feeling angry and sad that I wasn’t a stronger person to say No. And also very confused that what I saw in the temple could be at such odds with what I knew deep down to be true. As I explained in the post, the circumstances surrounding the hearkening covenant, for me, was coercion. I was not given the full agency I deserved as a child of God when making a covenant.
I agree that frequent temple attendance probably does help some people better understand some teachings. But for me the temple is not a visit to heaven, the sexism is at odds with my personal witness of my role in the eternities. I’ll never be ok with the hearkening covenant, no matter how many times I go. However, I absolutely respect and in many ways admire women like yourself who find a lot of comfort and joy in the temple.
I think your question about it being something unnoticed is defeated when we learn men can become kings and priests to the most high God and women will only be queens and priestesses to their husbands (this is something I remember hearing and being frustrated with although I have to admit I have not been been to the temple for years so I could be wrong and feel free to correct me if I am). I get frustrated as I have learned a lot about other covenants outside of the temple. We speak about the law of consecration but never about hearkening to our husbands. I have never liked the temple and felt like I was less than I should be every time I hear someone talking about how much they love the temple. As time has gone on I have struggled with many things with the church and the role women play. I am left feeling like some others here that either the church is not true the way I once believed it to be or the God I believe in sees men as being higher than women. Both of these make me sad and leave me wondering what I should do. I have two daughters and don’t want to teach them to believe they are less but I also think a lot of the principles are good. For now I am an ala carte mormon but really how long can I do this? I also have a husband who sees it very differently so I don’t know if being honest about my religion stance is worth the rift it will cause in my marriage.
I definitely got more out of the initiatory the first time I went through as opposed to the endowment. I don’t remember being bothered by the sexism of the endowment, more that I didn’t get to hear any new or incredible mysterious doctrines – the doctrine was same-old, same-old and I felt the covenants really were just extensions of basic ones I already made. I agree with Hawk that most spouses have no qualms about listening to the other, and I definitely took it in that vein. Any discrepancy was explained by the whole patriarchal order thing and husbands “presiding” in the home, which in our modern church culture is kind of a nod to some ethereal divine order but not reflective of real world husband/wife daily interactions.
The sexism became more stark when I learned about the original “obey” covenant and how many older people I knew took it quite literally. Reading up on 19th century church views on marriage relationships helped me put the words in a historical context – the covenants are definitely in line with views of early church leaders. It became much more personal for some reason when I attended a live session after a decade of doing the temple videos. The interactions between Adam and Eve throughout the session (after the video normally ends) really drove home the God–>Man–>Woman hierarchical nature of the marriage relationship, and I was more disturbed than I’ve ever been in the temple. I still see the language as reflective of a particular time and culture and see the covenants as more extensions of promises I already made to God. But I agree it will alienate more of the rising generation if they continue to emphasize the equality of spouses outside the temple and hierarchical relationship inside the temple. I suspect there will be more tweaking to the endowment in my lifetime.
As far as the coercion goes, I think it’s valid to state the manner of the ceremony violates informed consent. I kind of get why they did it originally (looking at the historical context), but it’s highly suspect in our modern culture.
This thought process isn’t unique to the temple. It has been in the Bible all along.
Ephesians 5: 21-33.
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
@b b owen
“This thought process isn’t unique to the temple. It has been in the Bible all along.”
Of course, that it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean anybody has to subjugate women. Those passages you quoted were written thousands of years ago in a different culture. This same culture recorded Biblical dietary laws, clothing laws, and social laws that nobody follows today. Likewise, the LDS temple ceremonies were written in a different time and a different culture. Now they are obsolete. In most cultures, women hold equal standing with men in the home and in society. That’s how it is, and religious institutions will adapt over time.
BB Owen, it’s true that the God–>Man–>Woman hierarchy is prevalent in many cultures. Orson Pratt spelled out his personal views quite clearly: “When a man has obtained his wives, let him not suppose that they are already perfect in all things; for this can’t be expected in those who are young and inexperienced in the cares and vicissitudes of a married life. They, as weaker vessels, are given to him as the stronger, to nourish, cherish, and protect; to be their head, their patriarch, and their saviour; to teach, instruct, counsel, and perfect them in all things relating to family government, and the welfare and happiness of themselves and their children. Therefore, let him realize the weighty responsibility now placed upon him, as the head of a family; and also let him study diligently the disposition of his wives, that he may know how to instruct them in wisdom for their good.”
Those views are not consistent with how we talk about marriage relationships outside the temple. The views in the temple are from Orson Pratt’s time (and earlier) when men were considered spiritually superior to women. Outside the temple, church culture currently tends to justify priesthood gender distinctions by suggesting men are spiritually inferior to women. The messages are inconsistent, and neither one puts men and women on equal footing before God.
A lot of feminists are going to find themselves separate and single forever and ever and ever in the eternities. That is a long time. Women, think about this.
Other than God, who is your greatest champion and your biggest believer? Your husband. Not other women but your husband.
Exaltation is reserved for those who promoted the church, preached it, lived it. It won’t be for those who endlessly criticize it and seek to bring it down.
Nona:
Either the church is not true, at least not the way that they want us to believe it is, or God actually does esteem women as lesser than men
Think long term. Family life in the eternities is patterned after life on earth, husband, wife, and children and so on.
Husband may not be exalted without his wife and she without her husband. As an exalted woman you go forth in the eternities WITH YOUR HUSBAND and do your thing same as in this life.
Husband and wife are expected to go away together and make a life here in mortality so that same holds true for eternity.
Feminists just don’t want to submit but if you think about it family life is all about submission.
Wife submits to husband, husband submits to wife, children submit to parents and parents submit to children. All submit to God.
I
Ronkonkma: Nobody would be objecting if husbands DID also submit to wives in the temple. I said so already in my comment above. It’s the inequality in the covenants, which Mary Ann rightly points out is a vestige of 19th century (Orson Pratt) thinking. That doesn’t make it eternal–that’s the definition of man-made.
If our eternal relationships are patterned after my real relationship I have in my actual marriage here and now, that’s fine by me. We are equal partners. Nobody is forcing their will on another person or seen as the “boss” or “superior” to the other, certainly not the “God” to the other person. That’s where reality and the temple don’t match up. Pointing that out is not making anyone ineligible for celestial glory. I put my garments on one leg at a time just like you do, feminist or not, thank you very much.
MANY changes have been made to the temple ceremonies. Why was that? Not because of people like you who think anyone who doesn’t like it should just get out. Because of people who pointed out what was harmful and unnecessary. That’s why change happens.
Hawk – your last point is slaient. That’s the exact reason why the death penalties were taken out. Nothing to do with revelation. It had to do with listening to genuine people who had genuine concerns.
Ronkonkma, “Wife submits to husband, husband submits to wife, children submit to parents and parents submit to children. All submit to God.” This is how we currently talk of marriage and family relationships outside the temple. This is *not* how the temple talks of relationships between husband and wife. So the question a Mormon women may ask herself is, which one is accurate?
Ronconkoma, if you’re going to say intentionally offensive things, please find another blog and blaspheme (such as “God actually does esteem women as lesser than men”) please go somewhere else. These sorts of offensive comments are not welcome here.
In the British Musem there are Egyptian artefacts, where husband and wife sit side by side, both holding rods symbolising their equal power. That’s what I understand from the temple, and other interpretations jar for me. I refuse to disempower myself when God has empowered me, and experience any man who attempts to do so as abusing their priesthood. At that point they have no authority over me.
Otherwise I’m prepared to accept the status quo as a necessary evil, for the sake of 19th century views of women which will have to evolve, but I’m not holding my breath. I look forward confidently to the day when poor Ron has to re- think his view of subservience/weakness of women and understand his mutual dependence on his wife’s priesthood in order to embrace his exaltation. Notice, Ron, I’m not presuming to judge that you will not be exalted.
Sorry; ladies. The doctrine of the patriarchal order is crystal clear.
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/09/marriage-and-the-patriarchal-order?lang=eng
Mh
Do you really want a Blog where everybody agrees with you?
Oh I loved your post and your comments, they really resonated with me..
Not the kind of world we live in.
Ronkonkoma – MH was referring to offensive comments, he was not saying that he wants you to agree with him, or anyone else. You can disagree without being offensive.
The talk you refer to by Elder Larsen holds no binding nature on youmor me. Unusually he prefaced his remarks, rather intelligently, by stating,
“These comments on the importance of the patriarchal order in marriage represent my personal views”.
Pehaps he realised that most of what he was saying is a social and religious byproduct of bygone times and that the Lord allowed him to lend his own personal views on the subject. Interesting that you had to go back 34 years ago to get someone that agrees with your opinion. People still say that garbage now, but thankfully at a far less rate of frequency.
I choose to ignore about 90% of what he says as it is wrong, wrong, wrong. The statements you are making, in my opinion, are trending about the same.
MH, Ronkonkma was quoting Nona on that offensive remark (which she had in a much less offensive context), he just didn’t use quotation marks.
Ronkonkma, that article merely proves the point that we have teachings in this church that place men and women on unequal footing before God. Men are to exercise authority in their households, “Where is the personality more perfectly endowed by nature and divine ordinance to receive and exercise authority in his own household than the father of that household.” And women are to abide by that authority, “And however superior her attainments may be, she owes a duty to her husband, to respect him as head of the family and adequately teach her children to do likewise.”
A more current understanding is found in the “marriage” topic on LDS.org, “Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals, with neither person exercising dominion over the other, but with each encouraging, comforting, and helping the other.” (https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng) This understanding is more like what you stated above, with both husband and wife submitting to each other.
Mary ann
First of all, it’s time to stop calling the United States a patriarchy. A patriarchy is a system where men hold the power and women do not. Women do hold power in the United States — they lead major universities and giant corporations, write influential books, serve as state, federal judges and chief judges and even manage winning presidential campaigns. American women, especially college-educated women, are the freest and most self-determining in human history. Why pretend otherwise?
First of all, I never called the United States a patriarchy, so I don’t understand where you are getting that from. We are discussing the church. Second of all, I have a degree in Anthropology, so I am quite aware of the difference between patriarchal and egalitarian societies.
Egalitarian – “a society without formalized differences in the access to power, influence, and wealth.”
Patriarchy – “where a father figure and males have authority.”
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
As you stated so succinctly earlier, “Sorry; ladies. The doctrine of the patriarchal order is crystal clear.” The church is patriarchal. Since the United States is egalitarian (still shaking off some patriarchal vestiges, but officially egalitarian), girls in this church grow up in a secular egalitarian culture. That secular egalitarian culture has affected the way the church talks about marriage (see the difference between your 1982 article and the current section on marriage in the gospel topics section). The *temple* exhibits patriarchal thinking, and you have argued that the patriarchal order is what the eternities have in store. So, the church needs to either stop pushing an egalitarian view of marriage outside the temple, or the temple needs to be adjusted to reflect what church leaders are currently teaching outside the temple. If the status quo is maintained where patriarchy is taught inside the temple and a patriarchy-in-name-only (because it’s based on more egalitarian principles) is taught outside the temple, you will continue to have women with major cognitive dissonance.