Why don’t we talk more about the hearkening covenant?

[Anonymous]

Just a thought I had after having the same argument with DH that we always have.

While we don’t like to talk about our temple covenants outside the temple, we do at least discuss the ideas behind them and how to keep them. (For example, we covenant to the Law of Chastity, and we talk about that one a LOT.) However, we never ever talk about the moment when women are placed under covenant to hearken to their husbands as their husbands hearken to God. Why do you think that is?

I’m not even sure what the wording MEANS – Does hearken mean obey, or doesn’t it? (You can make a case either way.) Why don’t we have a clear definition, why don’t we talk about this in Gospel Doctrine, why don’t we have talks in the women’s session of conference where the prophet explains to women the *how* and *why* of hearkening to our husband (if we have one)? Why do we keep hearing again and again that husbands and wives are ‘equal partners’ (a phrase which is never spoken in any temple ordinance) but we aren’t given any insight on how to reconcile that with the decidedly UN-equal ‘hearkening’ verbiage?

Do you think the reason we never talk about it outside the temple is not that it’s ‘sacred,’ but just that we are uncomfortable with it? And shouldn’t that tell us something?

[Anonymous]

This is off the cuff, but unless I say that the temple has brought me to the brink of leaving the church, it’s hard to sense much interest on my husband’s part – at home, at church, in the car, in the temple…wherever. Because he doesn’t really care what it says, what it means to me, what “should” be, etc. Also, if we went to the temple tomorrow and it was all different, he’d say, Okay, fine.

The temple – his covenants – are very important to him, but mine, not so much. And that’s not an all-bad thing. He lets me be me, but it’s lonely sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m not even sure what the wording MEANS – Does hearken mean obey, or doesn’t it?

The tricky thing is that it used to actually say “obey.” So does the change mean that obey (do as you’re told) actually meant hearken (listen to, take seriously) or was it just to get women to go along, an appeasement?

[Anonymous]

The sexist parts of the endowment (mostly just this one covenant) are the only parts of the temple that bother me. I try to keep in mind that things have changed in the past and will likely change in the future. The patriarchy stuff seems (imo) completely unrelated to what I understand the point of the endowment to be (building Zion, truly living the two great commandments).

Joni wrote:

Do you think the reason we never talk about it outside the temple is not that it’s ‘sacred,’ but just that we are uncomfortable with it?

Yes. Or maybe not necessarily that we’re uncomfortable with this particular covenant but rather uncomfortable with discussing temple specific covenants, like the law of consecration. It’s a culture thing. As far as I’m aware, the only things we covenant not to reveal outside the temple are the tokens and signs and the new name. But how we just avoid talking about everything can make young adults nervous about receiving their endowments.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Do you think the reason we never talk about it outside the temple is not that it’s ‘sacred,’ but just that we are uncomfortable with it?

I think it’s because nobody really understands why it is the way it is or what the symbols mean, but everyone pretends they do and that it’s just too sacred to talk about. The temple can be peaceful. If not for the sexist parts, I could see myself going and finding it a real touchstone. But it’s ruined by the sexism for me. Utterly ruined.

[Anonymous]

The only part of the temple ceremony that we’re not to discuss are the signs and tokens that used to be associated with the penalties. If we don’t discuss the covenants themselves it’s only from our own discomfort but in reality they’re on subjects that come up in church one way or another. The covenant about hearkening has an out for the wife as it specifies that the husband has to hearken to God for her to hearken/obey him. Since I’m a slacker at heart, I always figured my wife would get a pass on that one.

[Anonymous]

It drives me CRAZY that my husband has the luxury of putting his head in the sand and pretending that this inequality doesn’t exist. I don’t know if he just doesn’t listen in the temple to the stuff that’s not aimed directly at him, or what. Because whenever I mention that the temple places women in subjugation to men, he will say, well, here’s a General Conference quote from Elder So -and-so which says that husbands and wives are equal partners. I’m sorry, but that is NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE TEMPLE! And if our church’s teachings inside the temple contradict what we say outside the temple, I’m going to assume that what actually counts, what is eternally binding, is the stuff that we actually covenanted to.

Which gets back to my original question: WHY don’t we talk about it honestly and openly? Why do our leaders continue to beat the drum of ‘equal partnership’ when they KNOW full well that our highest form of worship contradicts that?

It probably sounds cynical, but I assume they say ‘equal partners’ when outsiders are listening. Imagine if President Nelson got up in the Women’s Session of conference and said “now women, remember that you are under covenant to hearken to your husbands,” and then spent the next fifteen minutes talking about what that means. It would be totally truthful and a lot of people would probably find it helpful. And it would be a PR nightmare for the church. Nobody would want to get baptized; at least, no women.

Instead, the (mostly male) church leaders get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to insist that the Church sees men and women as equal, knowing full well that it doesn’t – and since they are the only ones with power to change it, nothing gets changed. The problem is that the Church gets to save face, but at what cost? Do the feelings of the thousands of women who feel unloved or less loved by God constitute acceptable collateral?

I’ve been thinking about how Carol Lynn Pearson describes the threat of polygamy as driving a wedge between loving husbands and wives. (Haven’t read her book yet – I’ve gotta get through RSR.) I’ve finally come to understand that the grossly sexist ‘hearken’ covenant (and other problematic elements, such as women veiling their faces) is doing the same in my marriage.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

The covenant about hearkening has an out for the wife as it specifies that the husband has to hearken to God for her to hearken/obey him. Since I’m a slacker at heart, I always figured my wife would get a pass on that one.

I think a lot of people take the same ‘escape clause’ that you do. It’s a moderate perspective that still allows you to take the covenant literally. If this loophole works for you and your wife, I wouldn’t want to take that away. For me, it still doesn’t answer the question of why I can’t hearken directly to God. Does He think I have cooties? I don’t; I already had my shot 😆

Imagine if, in a hypothetical talk in Women’s Session, President Nelson said the following: “Sisters, you covenanted to hearken to your husbands, so let’s talk about how you do that. It does/does not [pick one] mean obey. However, if your husband doesn’t hearken to God, you don’t have to hearken to him. However, it’s your responsibility to be able to tell if your husband is hearkening to God or not. Also, if you are not married, you don’t have to hearken to anyone. I mean, I guess you can hearken directly to God if you really want to, but if you don’t, you aren’t breaking any covenants.” All of which would be totally truthful and reflect the way a lot of LDS people think. Also, it sounds completely absurd. 😆

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

The covenant about hearkening has an out for the wife as it specifies that the husband has to hearken to God for her to hearken/obey him. Since I’m a slacker at heart, I always figured my wife would get a pass on that one.

That’s how I interpreted it for the longest time. These days I’m not as sure.

Quote:

…hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens to the counsel of the Father…

I want to focus on the word “as.” Is that:

1) Used to indicate that something happens during the time when something is taking place? Hearken to the counsel of your husband when he is hearking to the counsel of the father.

or

2) Used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done? Hearken to the counsel of your husband just like he hearkens to the counsel of the father.

Several years ago I did a session in a foreign language in hopes that this portion would be less ambiguous. Unfortunately it’s been a while, my memory is hazy, but I want to say that it was version #2. If the wife is mirroring the husband’s lack of hearkening I suppose they could equate to the same thing but this is a promise that’s being made. The ideal that is being aimed for, not a representation of an imperfect practice.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

Imagine if, in a hypothetical talk in Women’s Session, President Nelson said the following: “Sisters, you covenanted to hearken to your husbands, so let’s talk about how you do that. It does/does not [pick one] mean obey. However, if your husband doesn’t hearken to God, you don’t have to hearken to him. However, it’s your responsibility to be able to tell if your husband is hearkening to God or not. Also, if you are not married, you don’t have to hearken to anyone. I mean, I guess you can hearken directly to God if you really want to, but if you don’t, you aren’t breaking any covenants.” All of which would be totally truthful and reflect the way a lot of LDS people think. Also, it sounds completely absurd. 😆

I’ve had the feeling for awhile now that they’re just making it up as they go along so the “absurd” comment makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I talk about everything except the specific token and sign aspects covered in the actual covenant in any setting. As long as I do so respectfully, I am not violating any covenant I make.

The hearkening wording is interpreted by the large majority of members as “listen to and value”, although it used to be “obey” (as has been mentioned already), because the large majority of members don’t want it to mean obey.

Practicality beats theory every time – and FAR more members see it that way than those who struggle with it realize. In other words, many people don’t struggle with it by either ignoring it or changing the originally intended meaning.

Humans do that a lot, and it’s not a bad thing as we wait for changes to the wording itself.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

. . . here’s a General Conference quote from Elder So -and-so which says that husbands and wives are equal partners. I’m sorry, but that is NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE TEMPLE! And if our church’s teachings inside the temple contradict what we say outside the temple, I’m going to assume that what actually counts, what is eternally binding, is the stuff that we actually covenanted to.

Book of Orson: What actually counts is what the spirit carries into your heart and is bound up there. We drive ourselves crazy when we try to hold within us all the opinions of everyone else.

All this confusion around interpretation is part of the human condition. I see it as testing our patience in dealing with our fellow men, speed bumps on the highway of the great commandment. It’s not so hard when we place it all in proper perspective.

We all see through a glass darkly, this is mortality. Scriptures are based in revelation but are written by humans and unavoidably colored by human perception. The Lord cannot teach us what we are not prepared to accept. I see all that stuff in the Old Testament that does not portray a loving God as the color of human perception. The idea that men should rule over women is as old, but we are seeing the light of the Lord shine on the topic in these latter days.

[Anonymous]

Nibbler brings up a good point regarding different meanings of “as.” I’m pretty sure that this exact point came up during FMH’s ‘When The Temple Hurts’ series. It can either mean “hearken to your husband at the same time that he hearkens to God,” or it can mean “hearken to your husband in the same manner that he hearkens to God.” (Of course, that doesn’t answer the question of why I can hearken to my husband but he can’t hearken to me, but… baby steps.) We have a similar problem with the very definition of the word ‘hearken.’ There’s kind of a Schrodinger’s cat situation happening where “hearken” means “obey” when my husband is doing it to God, but “hearken” means “not obey, but something else, but we don’t know what” when I do it to my husband.

What would it take to receive further light and knowledge? If my eternal salvation rests on keeping this covenant, shouldn’t I have a better understanding of what it all means? It wouldn’t take much – a General Conference talk here, a 5th Sunday lesson there. If we don’t like talking about it in public, because it seems cultish/outdated/sexist/downright weird, shouldn’t that be some kind of sign?

[Anonymous]

I’m in the camp of “we don’t discuss it because we don’t discuss temple things outside the temple.” I do, because as others have pointed out the only thing I covenanted not to disclose outside the temple were the signs and tokens (technically when I got my endowments in 1983 I also covenanted not to disclose the associated penalties). Usually these discussions are only with close family, however, because bringing it up in priesthood usually gets it shot down and the only way to get past that is to get louder, which I am not prone to do. (We have one particular Pharisee in our ward who is clearly way more pious and knowledgeable than anyone else – especially about the temple – and if you don’t believe me just ask him, but leave out the Pharisee part, he doesn’t know he’s a Pharisee. He’s also the GD teacher, which explains in part why I don’t go to SS in my own ward but will in other wards.)

Also, as others have said, I’m not really comfortable with that part of the ceremony, either. I do interpret it as she only has to hearken if I am hearkening, and we all know I don’t hearken so she’s off the hook. Sister Jedi may be concerned about my eternal welfare in that respect, I don’t know because I never asked her. But I am not concerned. I also don’t avoid loud laughter and light mindedness, nor do I give all that I have to building the kingdom (or the church) and I would not give my life in doing so. I’m not really sure Christ commanded us to do any of those things, hence why worry?

[Anonymous]

I love the Book of Orson. It’s worth its weight in gold.

[Author]

Posts