Sealings: I GAVE myself to him??

Anyway, does this bother anyone else?

Has anyone else come to terms with this?

Yes.

Not really.

But I’m married to a good man who virtually never acts in a way that brings the unpleasantness of the language to my mind.

The wife gives herself to the husband.

The husband takes the wife unto himself.

In my marriage we have focused on the significance of the word “receive.” Much has been said about how we “receive the HG” – how it is not merely a passive thing but includes “making accommodation for” and actively accepting the gift. We have applied that same meaning to the reception of one another in marriage. In a way it can be harder and take more work to receive someone than to be received. Which position is more enviable, the houseguest or the host? I suppose it depends on the perspective and how nobly the other party is performing their part. If you had a terrible houseguest, then I would pity the host. If you had a terrible host, then I would pity the houseguest.

For DW and I, we both say that we “receive” each other. If this part were to be changed to give ourselves to each other then I hope that it could also include that we receive each other as well – that way we can both be equal parts host and houseguest. :thumbup:

This wording always bothered me. DH and I used to do sealings when we went to the temple, so I heard it quite often. It still bothers me. DH never even noticed it until I pointed it out. Now it bothers him too. We actually plan on doing some sort of “renewal of vows” type of thing in a few years on one of our anniversaries where we can say what we want to say to each other and celebrate the union of our two lives and how far we’ve come together and look to the future. It won’t be anything big or extravagant, but it saddens me that our wedding didn’t feel like it was about two people giving themselves to each other and promising to love and support one another.

The temple classes were absolutely no help at all.

and that is a HUGE part of the problem. It is SO easy to fix that, but we’ve taken a few things that are not to be shared openly and turned it into not talking at all – which is pointless and not actually in line with the ceremony itself. All of my kids and everyone with whom I talk about it are prepared (as much as they can be), and I never cross any forbidden lines.

I know a woman who is old enough that my mother considers her to be old. I would guess she is in her 90’s – which means her parents were born a few years before or after the turn of the century – around 1900. Those parents had grandparents who were alive during the Nauvoo period.

I asked this woman about the wording addressed in this post, and the following is what she said, in my own summary wording:

Back then, they talked about sex in terms of taking and giving. They believed consent couldn’t be “taken”. Rather, it had to be “given”. If a woman wasn’t willing to “give herself” to a man, sex with her was not appropriate – since she would have been “taken” without permission. It was a way to put power in the hands of a woman in a physical situation where she most often could have been powerless.

Thus, in order for a marriage to be legitimate, the woman FIRST had to “give herself” to the man BEFORE that man could “take her unto himself”.

I thought that was fascinating – that what we tend to see as discriminatory against women was seen by this older woman as a wonderful construct to give her power and protection when she wouldn’t have had those things otherwise.

I am extra impressed that you have the chutzpah to ask 90 year old women about specific temple wording and sex.

I’ve found that most 90 year old women miss having it, so they don’t mind talking about it. 😆 Memories . . . 😯

I know a woman who is old enough that my mother considers her to be old. I would guess she is in her 90’s – which means her parents were born a few years before or after the turn of the century – around 1900. Those parents had grandparents who were alive during the Nauvoo period.

I asked this woman about the wording addressed in this post, and the following is what she said, in my own summary wording:

Back then, they talked about sex in terms of taking and giving. They believed consent couldn’t be “taken”. Rather, it had to be “given”. If a woman wasn’t willing to “give herself” to a man, sex with her was not appropriate – since she would have been “taken” without permission. It was a way to put power in the hands of a woman in a physical situation where she most often could have been powerless.

Thus, in order for a marriage to be legitimate, the woman FIRST had to “give herself” to the man BEFORE that man could “take her unto himself”.

I thought that was fascinating – that what we tend to see as discriminatory against women was seen by this older woman as a wonderful construct to give her power and protection when she wouldn’t have had those things otherwise.

Makes sense.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2