let me ask you this:

when you were a TBM, did you ever have trouble accepting complete submission to your husband?

did you ever feel guilty for sometimes have those evil thoughts that maybe you were equal to your husband?

My mother had to take the role of the dominant one when my dad let things get to the family he told us to just ignore like me getting punched around the playground as a child so mother had to do the fighting for us. I could never take it seriously after that.

YES!!!!!
And I felt guilty for having a mind of my own & "disobeying" my husband when I didn't agree with him on something.
I really hated that part of the temple ceremony (even more than the rest of it) & usually instead of saying yes would just grunt.

just like my yorkie does when I give her a command and she's not one damn bit interested! she snorts at me! That is so funny!

I know you asked for ladies' comments, darth J, but I wanted to say that my own DW has never been comfortable with anyone telling her what to do, she's willful that way. She makes the covenant in all seriousness in the temple, but she basically dismisses the idea that she has to consider anyone else's input into her choices, be it from husband or prophet. She doesn't seem to feel any guilt about this, as she always finds some way to believe that she is morally in the right.

Bottom line, she does what she wants to.

No I did not.
Because I listened to the caveat that said "As he obeys Christ"

So I figured I was an adult who could know Christ personally and know if my husband was 'following the Lord". If he was, I'd follow him up the trail. If he wasn't I'd do what I thought was best for me. It worked.

Never thought it was necessary to follow a man into hell or off the path of righteousness as it were.

Had BP that were mad that I walked next to my husband and supported him instead of walking ten steps behind.

Actually when you bow your head and say yes you can cover up your laughter if need be... :D!

Frankly, I'm glad my TBM DH doesn't think this way. He prefers that we be EQUALS and work side by side and many times I end up taking the lead because he prefers that I take the initiative in a lot of things, especially in the bedroom, believe it or not! O_o

I think the covenant is a stupid rule in the first place, but thanks for pointing out the loop hole. If I ever get the chance, I am going to point out to my TBM sister with the abusive husband, that he is not following Christ when he beats her and their children. Of course she won't talk to us ever since we sent her hubby to jail.

First, let me say that I find all these covenants in the temple to be spurious and despicable. And to be clear, I believe in complete equality between spouses. But let's be clear about the wording of the covenant. It does not say, "as he obeys Christ".

According to Richard Packham's site, pre-1990, the covenant read,

"ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands, and abide by his counsel in righteousness. Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."
WOMEN: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.

This seems to be exhorting the wives to "abide by their husbands' counsels in righteousness", themselves, rather than basing their "abiding" on the husband's righteousness.

Post-1990, the covenant reads,

"In the 1990 revisions this Law was changed so that the woman is not required to "obey" the husband, but to "obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken unto the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of the Father."

I think it is a big stretch to therefore interpret this covenant to be limited, based solely on the husband's real or imagined "righteousness", or lack thereof. It seems to refer to a manner of protocol in the priesthood (from the father, to the husband, to the wife), rather than a qualifier based on the wife's judgments. This revised version also says nothing about the husband "obeying Christ in righteousness".

I think if you interpret this covenant as being based on the wife's judgment of the husband's righteousness, then you have basically nullified the covenant from the start, in which case, why bother making such a covenant at all?

that's what the TSCC gets for not putting our covenants in writing so we can take them home and study them! LOL!

If I'd had the wife obeys her husband and there fore is righteous for doing so no matter what the pin head dictates... well maybe I'd have been out of the church sooner... or least at odds with it.!

Also if I'd had the other covenants like dedicate everything to the church and realized it was not to the Lord.

Or notice that not once are we instructed directly from Jesus or Elohim. Only Adam who tells us to listen to Peter James and John the messengers of Jesus!

So it's the TSCCs own fault for not putting it in writing that I only "obeyed" if you could call it that, if I thought my husband was on the right track. I seriously would take his counsel with a grain of salt and knee-full of prayer. Whatever God told me to do with my husbands counsel that's what I'd do!!!

Ha! God forgot to give me a good memory. Whats up with that?

Dang, this is bad, but no. I was ridiculously tbm.
I grew up with a very submissive mother and the 1950s mentality that the man is in charge. Being a sweet, tender submissive wife was a virtuous thing to do. Of course, so much of what I did was the result of a heavily focused effort to convince myself it was true and right.

Thankfully my husband never took advantage of that. My mother was not so lucky. She never stood up for herself. Her opinions were irrelevant. She put up with a lot and continues to to this day. Now she is in her 70s, physically limited, and my father is rarely home with her. He can get around just fine. She is neglected. I see the light now and my marriage is better for it.

Apparently communication is a good thing in relationships :D Well, most of the time.

No, because I also listened to the "get out of jail free card" that was implied in the "as he obeys the Lord" phrase. Because Joseph Smith said anyone who used his priesthood to boss people around (unrighteously) was unworthy of his priesthood. So basically, he better not try to boss me around and if he did, I didn't have to listen.

Thankfully, DH is very self-directed and expects me to be too. He doesn't want the responsibility of bossing me around and expects me to make things happen in my own life w/o his supervision. He didn't consider this particular temple covenant as a benefit to him. I think a lot of guys feel that way, like "Why do I have to direct her life too?"

sexual intercourse? This was one of the things that shocked me the most.

As I sit here, I'm kind of blown over by this whole idea. I am not a submissive kind of person. I am the type of person who does things just because I want to and I think that being nice is the way to be. I am still rather shocked by "relationships"--and I have to be really careful not to be taken for granted.

The thing I struggled with is the belief that leaders, priesthood had a closer link to God--like priesthood blessings.

I think this caused a lot of conflict in my own mind about my value. I refuse to marry again because it is easy for me to give over my power to a man--and then I come out swinging when I feel taken for granted.

Otherwise LDS women would be rising -- and walking out. But by the time they get to the temple, most of them have been indoctrinated all their lives that women follow and obey men.

But sometimes I would feel bad that I might be screwing things up for the dead women that I was doing the endowment for. So far, none of them seem to be complaining.

This is a very common Biblical concept that was practiced culturally, legally, (women could not own land, or vote, for instance), and religiously in those times. Still is in many places of the world.

I think it was changed to mean to---- follow your husband as he follows the Lord. (Forgot the exact wording but it can be looked up.)

I was a Protestant convert and found the rituals very strange, but I just went along, thinking it had some meaning ... someplace, and looked for what it all meant, symbolically. I knew none of it was literal. That was clearly obvious to me from the get-go.

No, because the man you're obeying is supposed to be following the Lord. If he was directing me in righteousness then it should feel like I was being supported not like I was being oppressed.

Now, my ex took it as I was supposed to obey. That didn't work out so well.

I have quite enough bosses in my life.

I wanted a friend and a lover and a partner, NOT another blasted boss!

Maybe that's why I did not get married till I was 33. Took me awhile to find The Best Man Ever™!

The interesting thing about this from my perspective is in practice it seems that for most TBM couples I've know, including myself, it is the woman who is primarily in charge of the marriage and home.

In elder's quorum we very frequently joked about our wives being our bosses - and although said in jest, we meant it.

I think part of the dynamic is in cases where the man works out of the home and the wife is a homemaker she ends up being the one in charge at home. When I'm home, I get my marching orders from her.

This is not to diminish that some men in the LDS faith use the junk in the temple, priesthood, etc. as a excuse to lord over and be abusive to their wives. However, in my observation this is exception, not the rule.

I think abusive men take it as a reason and an excuse for their abuse. After all the Lord said the man is the head of the house.

The basic thing with which I have trouble is the idea that God obviously thinks women are inferior and of little consequence. All they are good for is cleaning up messes and cranking out children for males. The Bible is full of stuff that indicates that.

I have a real hard time loving and worshipping a deity who not only thinks I'm inferior, but is actively contemptuous of me! To me it's like an abusive relationship.

I guess there are a lot of women who cling to those too.

Amazingly I didn't think anything that went on in the temple applied to me. I don't know why. I think i will spend some time analyzing that.

"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."


see? they still think that the man presides over. i'm a guy and i find those teachings quite insulting. sisters, keep on breeding and obeying for all eternities (agh).