27 April 2020
Hi President Lewis,
I've been thinking a lot about the changes the LDS Church has made in the last few years. I remember meeting with you to discuss policies, programs and doctrine that bothered me, and have been very pleased to see the Church making improvements in those areas. There is one thing that I haven't been able to wrap my mind around, though, and I wondered if you'd be willing to share your thoughts with me.
I never agreed with the covenant I made in the temple to obey my husband (which was later changed to "hearken"). I felt like it created a hierarchy with wife at the bottom, then husband, then God at the top. You explained this to me as patriarchy and told me that it was God's plan for governance. This plan was eternal and how God would govern in heaven. My take away from that conversation was that if it was God's plan, then I was going to need to change and be willing to be a part of it. This was the main reason I ultimately became inactive. After my daughter was sealed in the temple 5 years ago, I turned in my temple recommend to the bishop. I told him I just couldn't spend my life making sacrifices to get in to 'Mormon heaven'. The idea of living with the hierarchal nature of patriarchy took away all my joy and hope.
Imagine my surprise when I heard that the temple ceremony has eliminated that covenant of obedience to husband. I've heard that women now make their covenant to obey God just like men do. If that is correct, I was wondering how you explain it? How can that covenant have been a requirement for me but it is no longer a requirement for women now?
When I've asked other people about it, I often get a general answer of "Isn't it great we have continuing revelation?" I agree that it is. But I just don't understand how I'm supposed to believe that God is leading this Church if a covenant that was so fundamental is just gone now. Why in the world did I ever have to agree to something that seemed so wrong if it can be changed when a more progressive President is in charge? Was it ever right in the first place? I never thought it was, but you and other leaders told me it was. Were all the other Presidents just making stuff up because it matched their world view? The idea of wives being obedient to husbands has been around a long, long time around the world.
The Church obviously still believes in patriarchy since women are not allowed to serve in most leadership positions. Do you believe that patriarchy is still how we will be governed in heaven?
Well, that's a lot of questions, I know. If you feel like answering any of them I'd be very grateful.
Thanks,
Jennifer Miller
Hi, Jennifer…
Thank you for reaching out. I don’t think I’ll be able to respond to your satisfaction, but I’ll be happy to share a few opinions. Thanks for understanding that they’re opinions, not doctrines or policies.
Why the change in the temple?
I don’t think anything has changed as to the doctrine, but I believe the Brethren (President Nelson specifically) was disturbed by the offense that the temple wording cause. I don’t think you’re old enough to remember the wording of the earlier temple ordinance when I was first endowed in 1968, but there was some pretty harsh language that surely offended converts from other faiths and was disturbing because it harkened back to pioneer and even ancient times.
I’m grateful that language was changed. But the promises are still the same.
Reverence for the temple ordinance is such that changes take time—sometimes a LONG time. But the ordinances don’t change. Obviously, wording in the covenants can change, as you mentioned. I personally don’t think the ordinance changed because of the change in wording. The outcome is still the same—binding us to a loving Heavenly Father and out-of-this-word promises.
At the heart of your concern, I believe, is that there was not a proper understanding (especially by men) as to what it means when the scriptures describe the marriage relationship using words like “rule” (Gen 3:16), “head” (1 Cor 11:3), “obedient” (Titus 2:5), “subjection” (1 Peter 3:1), and “submit” (Eph 5:22). I believe that when the Brethren realized that people, even covenant people, (especially men) were misunderstanding scriptural terms like these and using the misunderstanding to justify abuse, over bearance, etc. You can see why they would try to alter the temple presentation to remove any support or endorsement of mis-understood or mis-used terminology. I think it’s a blessing that enough women, like yourself, spoke up and it got the Brethren’s attention…and, to their credit, they responded where possible.
BTW…you’ll love the terminology changes made to the sealing ordinance, which still contains the same promises.
And I suspect we’ll yet see more changes to terminology, wording and phrasing as we all become more sensitive to words that can hurt. What they couldn’t do was change the scriptures or the doctrine or the promises.
So, I personally, don’t think this was a doctrinal or ordinance change, as much as it was a terminology clarification to help all of us appreciate the true balance that should exist in an eternal marriage—and that did not exist in many marriages because men apparently used the wording to justify inappropriate behavior.
And I don’t believe that because you and I earlier in life made covenants with different wording means we are under a different standard or obligation. The Lord’s covenant of marriage is still in tact.
So why didn’t the Lord make the change long ago through His prophets? That’s a fair question if you believe the Lord dictates every policy and gives daily direction to the prophet. I personally don’t think he does. My own experience tells me that the Lord usually allows very ordinary men and women to figure things out, become more sensitive, make mistakes, yearn for help, learn to judge righteously…before He gives revelation. I think the prophet is also allowed to struggle, to listen and learn from others, become more sensitive, etc. (in President Nelson’s case and the temple change, it may be because he has 10 daughters!)
Whatever the reason, I’m grateful the Church is moving forward, changes are happening, revelation is continuing, restoration is ongoing, and the Lord’s purposes are being fulfilled. It’s thrilling to watch how He is moving us toward His second coming. We are blessed to live in such a day!
I hope this is helpful. Would you like to visit on a Zoom call sometime? I would be honored to visit with you, though I can’t guarantee you’ll be satisfied with my responses. But I’ll be happy to apologize for and, if possible, clarify anything I’ve shared before that has offended you.
Please know we love you and Herb and miss you both!
Crismon
No comments:
Post a Comment