Yes, you are literally God's daughter and you can have a relationship with him. I went through the temple for the first time less than two months ago before marrying my husband. I can agree that the response given is an interpretation of the endowment, but I don't feel like I'm the counselor and my husband is the bishop/president.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World states
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I think the better explanation would be to say that Heavenly Father is the president of the family and the husband and wife are the counselors to Heavenly Father. Yes, we have different roles, but I don't think either is the first or second counselor.
Shrinky Dink wrote:
I think the better explanation would be to say that Heavenly Father is the president of the family and the husband and wife are the counselors to Heavenly Father. Yes, we have different roles, but I don't think either is the first or second counselor.
Here's a devil's advocate question -- if you did believe the temple ceremony was sexist, would it influence your desire to go? (I think it is, and the idea of being anyone's First Mate is, well, not in my wheelhouse, but I do want to spare my temple-going sisters unnecessary pain. Also, the way A Writer put it makes no sense if one doesn't have an actual husband. Is one's proxy husband then in a Ship Captain position over you? If so, double ugh.)
I think the issue basically comes down to whether or not you believe things in the church are inspired by God or by men. Sexism, by definition, can't come from God, because God is perfect and not sexist. Sexism comes from people. So if I believe that the temple ceremony is inspired by God, then I'm going to believe it's not sexist, and I'm going to interpret it in a non-sexist way. But if I believe the temple ceremony just comes from people, then I could believe it was sexist. But if it isn't inspired of God, why would I want to go?
When I hear these questions about the temple, I tend to have faith that God isn't sexist, therefore the true meaning isn't sexist, and a host of built-up cultural perceptions over the centuries may cause us to take things the wrong way, but whenever I go with the Spirit, it is explained through the Spirit to me in a way that makes sense and assures me of my standing in God's eyes. The way the Spirit explains it to me isn't always something I can explain to other people, and when I try to put it into words, I often still describe it in ways that other people interpret as sexist, even though the Spirit absolutely did not say that, because I can't explain it. But I know that if those people go, and listen to the Spirit, the Spirit will give them the exact same answer in a way that makes sense to them. But if we go with the preconceived notion that it is sexist, instead of trusting God to not be sexist, and are looking for it to be sexist, then they will find what they are looking for and still feel like it is sexist.
Zedability wrote:I think the issue basically comes down to whether or not you believe things in the church are inspired by God or by men. Sexism, by definition, can't come from God, because God is perfect and not sexist. Sexism comes from people. So if I believe that the temple ceremony is inspired by God, then I'm going to believe it's not sexist, and I'm going to interpret it in a non-sexist way. But if I believe the temple ceremony just comes from people, then I could believe it was sexist. But if it isn't inspired of God, why would I want to go?
When I hear these questions about the temple, I tend to have faith that God isn't sexist, therefore the true meaning isn't sexist, and a host of built-up cultural perceptions over the centuries may cause us to take things the wrong way, but whenever I go with the Spirit, it is explained through the Spirit to me in a way that makes sense and assures me of my standing in God's eyes. The way the Spirit explains it to me isn't always something I can explain to other people, and when I try to put it into words, I often still describe it in ways that other people interpret as sexist, even though the Spirit absolutely did not say that, because I can't explain it. But I know that if those people go, and listen to the Spirit, the Spirit will give them the exact same answer in a way that makes sense to them. But if we go with the preconceived notion that it is sexist, instead of trusting God to not be sexist, and are looking for it to be sexist, then they will find what they are looking for and still feel like it is sexist.
Well that's what I mean about listening to the Spirit. It lets you get the message directly from God, unfiltered. So I don't worry about the specific wording, because I know how I feel and how God wants me to feel valued. Words are never going to express things perfectly.
Ok, I'm not going to comment on whether or not I think the temple is sexist, and that's because I personally have never had issues with it, but can completely see how people would. My experiences have all been very positive, but that doesn't invalidate the many women who have not had positive experiences there. I think it largely comes from me having gone to the temple in a very different context than most women do (I was 19 and not going on a mission or getting married) and also from the fact that I tend to interpret things differently and maybe unorthodoxly. But I thought it was a little weird that the answer said that women make the same covenants that men do in the temple, because we actually don't. Some of them are the same, but there are also some differences in both the covenants themselves and the promised blessings. You might try to make the argument that the differences don't mean anything, but the fact is that there is different wording for men and women in some of the covenants, so it's hard to really say that they are all the same.
Yeah, I can totally see where people are coming from, because there are multiple ways to interpret what is said for sure. But because the Spirit leads me to believing that the non-sexist way of interpreting it is correct, I don't worry about it. But I also know that everyone has different last experiences that are going to make certain interpretations resonate more strongly with us, and so when people have had bad experiences with sexism in the past, I can understand that they would hear that.
yes, the women covenant to "hearken" unto their husbands, but men don't covenant to hearken to their wives (there are some things we covenant not to talk about in the temple, but the wording of the covenants isn't one of them). Melyngoch wrote a pretty thorough article on it for zelophehad's daughters: http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2011/04 ... rken-mean/
I just read this and even though I'm no longer active I have to say I cannot imagine ever having been okay with interpreting the temple ceremony as making the woman in a relationship the "counselor." I probably would just not have made that interpretation because it is so ridiculous. REALLY? I'm so glad to hear that, at least in some circles, that is not the prevailing interpretation nor is it particularly liked.
Yeah I don't really understand the counsellor thing...I would say that in my opinion, this principle has always been taught, but in each dispensation the wording does reflect the culture of the times. For instance, Eph 5:23-25 also describes the relationship between husbands, wives, and God, but the wording sounds sexist to our ears. The temple teaches the same principle, with different wording, and now we have the Family Proclaimation over 100 years later that describes husbands and wives as equal partners. I don't think this describes a contradiction -- the doctrine has always been true and unchanging. The way we describe it changes with the influence of time, but the Spirit will always help the honest seeker of truth understand.
Marduk wrote:What if it is inspired by God but filtered through fallible and sexist men, who have put the meaning through their own sexist lens?
+1
Seriously though.
Someone once asked what issues I had with the church. I stupidly dropped a bombshell - I said women should be ordained. As shocked as the question asker was, he got more hung up to my answer to his next question: no, I did not believe that my husband was to preside over me. The ensuing hour and a half consisted mainly of him and his wife begging me to reconsider this radical idea. I was completely confused as to why this would be so upsetting to them until someone else pointed out the wording in the temple (which I have since read).
At this point I have to admit I have no plans of going through the temple. My husband is not my intermediary for God. He does not get to know secrets about me without reciprocating. I am not going to sit through a session where he is referred to even if he is not there, even if I am single, whereas a man can be referred to without having a wife also mentioned. I may reconsider if things change, but for now I refuse - and the God I believe in would not fault me for that.
The Epistler was quite honestly knocked on her ethereal behind by the sheer logic of this.
