- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi, I am another feminist here, just trying to find support. I stumbled upon Mormon Stories from FMH, and then stumbled upon Stay LDS, I think this was a direct blessing from God. Hmm, Its late and I’m tired, so I am going to try to keep this short. Well attempt actually. Anyway, I come here with a problem with Patriarchy. After mingling around and reading some of the posts, even commenting, I seem to come away with some idea of how people have stayed LDS while being a feminist. It is hard though right now to be at peace with patriarchy and I don’t know if I ever will.
I am only 22, and I am about to enter the Temple for the first time, before I marry my lovely fiance, who is a slight feminist and supports me (though sometimes I feel I am alone, he at times surprises me to show me I’m not), in my question of patriarchy for he questions it too (though not to the degree I do).
I would love input from those who can about this topic, of attending the Temple and just trying not to be ill, or even cry (which I am certain I may do, when asked to cover my face with a viel), and how you have attempted to live with this where you can and just chuck it where you have to.
I mean what do I do? Do I disregard callings? Attend Church only for sacrament (because isn’t that what they ask in the Temple recommend interview anyway, “Do you strive to attend sacrament meetings?” Maybe I heard that wrong), then go home? If you can remember, how have you, or how are you making peace with patriarchy? Tips may help. I have only been a self-declared feminist for a year and a few months (as I have put down elsewhere on this forum).
I started by frequenting FMH and then found LDS WAVE, then the Exponent II, then obviously Mormon Stories, then I found Daughters of Mormonism, so I am slowly building my network. Wanted to build it here to. I look forward to many good discussions.
Anyway, That is me and my main problem.
Wondering Current
Tough questions. Here’s what I will share. The temple has gotten better over time with regard to women, but let’s be honest, it’s still not perfect! Well meaning octogenarians have made the progress they can fathom; even in my lifetime (I’m in my 40s), that progress is pretty big. It’s hard for them to make changes to the temple because it wasn’t even written down for like 30 years, so there is a strong reverence for it but a lack of concrete, shared understanding. They don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and it is completely open to interpretation, so one person’s bathwater is another person’s baby. There’s no “temple dictionary” that tells you exactly how to interpret it. I read a book I really enjoyed called Mysteries of Godliness that gives a big history lesson on the temple. Warning: I’ve heard this was faith demoting for some, especially who hadn’t studied much about the history of the temple or didn’t know the Masonic connections, and the author is no longer a practicing Mormon. However, I found the author to be respectful and pretty optimistic about the temple. I’ll past a link in here to my own Goodreads review of the book in which I recap some of the fascinating tidbits. Frankly, my recap is almost as good as the book, if I do say so myself!
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/35186396http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/35186396” class=”bbcode_url”> Generally speaking, here are some things I like about the temple. The temple is a good symbolic description of “the Hero’s Journey” (Joseph Campbell), and takes each initiate through a personal progressive journey toward going back to God. There’s a lot to reflect about on the way. I’ve grown to like the symbols. Many people like the egalitarianism, that everyone is dressed alike and there are no rich or poor, even age differences seem to smooth away.
While there are many elements that are sexist holdouts, there are also some that are very progressive and equalizing for women. I’ll leave it at that and PM you. Best wishes to you on your wedding!
Welcome to our community! Marriage is a big milestone in life. So is going through the temple endowment (in Mormon culture). It’s kind of a shame that for a lot of women those are both crammed into such a frenzied period of time. It doesn’t leave a lot of time to mentally, emotionally and spiritually process it all.
My recommendation for dealing with the immediate issue at hand is to just go through it all and try to ignore the parts that are upsetting. Don’t look at them as being as literal and large as we build them up to be on the surface. Enjoy your wedding day. Enjoy being with all your family and celebrating this big event. Enjoy the moment (the parts that are important to you). Perhaps it would be helpful to mentally put the temple into it’s cultural context — it’s largely a 19th century religious passion play, created in a much different cultural context before so many advances were made in regard to women in our society. Back in it’s own time, it was actually pretty progressive in a lot of ways, in relative terms.
Perhaps view yourself as an actor in a play. You can play a temporary role for the benefit of an audience, but you still are who you really are when the “makeup” and “costumes” come off when the curtain closes. This doesn’t work in the long run for dealing with the temple as a potential part of your religious life. But it might work temporarily so that this aspect of our religious culture doesn’t upset your special day too much.
My personal view is that the temple is 100% symbolic. And if it is symbolic, that means I am free to interpret it and make meaning however I choose. There really isn’t a wrong answer, only perspectives that have value or that do not have value for me. You can decide in the long run what to do with that, and you can even change your mind at different points in your life.
I am also a big fan of the book Hawkgrrrl mentioned. But that is only helpful if you really want to dig in a deconstruct the temple from a historical perspective: how did it come about, and how has it evolved and changed over time. I found it incredibly helpful, but the symbolic nature of the temple doesn’t bother me. It might not be a good process if you want to retain a more literal view of it (which is probably the most common in the LDS Church).
Those are great tips, the book however I may read, or just read your link (I like really good summaries). I don’t think I can look at the Temple as symbolic because I have been taught these covenants are literal, and even though I have been taught its symbolic, and one of the temple prep lessons is on symbolism I find the talk about the symbolism lacking. Of course I also find the symbolism patriarchal. I guess focusing on those parts which are empowering to me, maybe will get me through the temple. Please, please comment more. I like to hear comments, but only if you are comfortable talking abut it. If you are uncomfortable that is fine, I totally understand. Or PM me. Would love to hear more thoughts.
It’s OK in our community to also look at something like the temple and the ordinances as literal and literally required for blessings. I just wanted to throw that out there since you are new, and the first two responses had views in the metaphorical direction. Nobody here really has the only-true, new, correct answers to these questions. We mostly try to focus on what works and doesn’t work for us.
Does anyone know of books or articles, perhaps from feminist authors, that do notdeconstruct the temple ordinances and history in order to resolve these types of problems? I think I will contact some friends who might be more familiar with that type of literature. First, welcome. I think you’ll find you aren’t alone (or even close to it) being a feminist here. In fact, I think that’s an understatement. :clap: Quote:We mostly try to focus on what works and doesn’t work for us.
That is the short answer for me when it comes to the temple. I really don’t give a large rodent’s hairy hindquarters exactly how much of the ritual an individual takes as literal or symbolic. I mean that. It can be 100% symbolic for Brian and 100% literal for a friend in my ward. I don’t care.
When we talked about the Old Testament in Seminary this year, I told the students very clearly that I don’t care if they look at it as a literal history, a bunch of mythological stories or a combination of the two –
as long as they study it and come up with what works and has meaning for them as individuals. That’s how I view the temple. Whatever works to give you meaning, even if that includes elements of “I really hope that changes in my lifetime” for you. Frankly, enough things have changed in my own lifetime that I don’t feel it is wrong or “apostate” in any way to hope other things change. I’m fine with change, and I have liked almost every change I have seen in the 27 years I’ve been attending. (Really, I only dislike one – but I think I understand and can appreciate why that one was changed, even though I would prefer that it hadn’t.)
May have to make on thing clear, I take the Temple journey through the different rooms as symbolic, the words as literal to me though, the viel as symbolic of something that is hidden, I can’t shake that out of my head, and it really hurts on so many levels to me, it reminds me of 1) Women’s power is largely unknown, 2) Heavenly Mother is hidden, so women will be hidden too (why I hate why women wear it, I don’t mind covering the hair so much, as covering the face). Honestly I’ve read somewhere one woman’s thoughts and it was beautiful I just don’t remember it, so I really guess that for me, that wont’ get me through it. Which I know you say is fine, which I get. I mean is it wrong then that the Viel is used to cover the face, if it is a symbolism of that? I don’t know, but the fact that its largely explained as modesty (when I am already covered from neck to toe), drives me insane. Hmm, more questions, this time about men and the temple clothing they wear, do they cover their heads? If so it may make me feel a bit better. My problem is the vieling of the face, not necessarily the covering of the head. For Jesus per Jewish law covered his head, Orthodox Jewish men cover their head at all times as a respect for God. So if men cover their head in the Temple (of this I am unsure of), I wouldn’t mind it so much. (Yet still mind covering my face, I also have an extremely sensitive face, sometimes even kisses on the cheek are just too much its that sensitive, that just will probably exacerbate the problem).
On the veil, I’ve never heard anyone say it was related to modesty. Both men & women have heads covered, but women veil faces only at a specific time, then they unveil them. There is no explanation given as to why, so if anyone says they know, they are making it up. The veils are see through. In context of what is happening, it does seem as though women are being more removed from god, which doesn’t sit well with me. I sometimes use it as a way to get 3-5 minutes of shut eye before the next stage of the endowment. 
Given the sexist statements of past leaders, I do think this stuff is probably just tenacious sexism. It’s hard for leaders to change it if 1) they aren’t affected by it personally, 2) it’s become a tradition for them after decades of the same thing, and 3) they don’t know whether it has a divine origin or not.
hawkgrrrl wrote:On the veil, I’ve never heard anyone say it was related to modesty. Both men & women have heads covered, but women veil faces only at a specific time, then they unveil them. There is no explanation given as to why, so if anyone says they know, they are making it up. The veils are see through. In context of what is happening, it does seem as though women are being more removed from god, which doesn’t sit well with me. I sometimes use it as a way to get 3-5 minutes of shut eye before the next stage of the endowment.
Given the sexist statements of past leaders, I do think this stuff is probably just tenacious sexism. It’s hard for leaders to change it if 1) they aren’t affected by it personally, 2) it’s become a tradition for them after decades of the same thing, and 3) they don’t know whether it has a divine origin or not.
in my humble opinion, covering is a cultural artifact. one by one, veeeeeerrrrry slowly, these are being removed….What Hawk and wayfarer said. (I think that a lot, fwiw.) Well head coverings I get, though yes I agree they are completely cultural. Sort of feel as if many of these are Law of Moses type attitudes still left in the world. Vieling faces, still bug me. Actually my darling fiance asked me why, now I just say I don’t know, I tried to give him my opinion on it, but I found they just tasted sour to both of us, so I just say “Its sexist, I don’t know why we keep it” and just will get through it. Praying for it to change. Of course these all seem as I have said Law of Moses-ish to me. Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, why oh why do we continue to perpetuate it even in our own temple ceremony? I mean really if the GA’s would look at the Law of Moses and some of the things we do, they could very well match that. I think they could probably change it due to a heavy belief in our Church, and what Christ himself said, that he fulfilled the Law of Moses, and that means everything, including how women are supposed to behave, and what they are supposed to do. I mean if I can have these thoughts, why not a General Authority?
Maybe that also plays a large role in my dislike for patriarchy, I find it just caused by the fall in many ways, and then perpetuated by a law for the weak (those who need to be told what to do every step of the way) in the Law of Moses. In fact in my view though, what symbolizes Christ the most, is that women are really in fact asked to descend below all things, the fact they where removed from the rest of society during their bleeding, reminds me of Christ removing himself to the Garden. My interesting thought may sound like Heresay, but as Women are a symbol of Christ in that way, I believe Christ is a symbol of what women go through. I highly think that birth and the atonement/death/resurrection are so interconnected with each other. And to me, it makes sense that it would be retroactive, as I see it, because if Birth and what Christ did is connected, then Birth and the Atonment are really one and the same, just different sides. yes Christ took the weight of the worlds Sins upon our shoulders, I would say in this Christ is unique. But what is Birth? Just something that comes near the atonment? I can’t view it as that. Birth must be the atonement in someway that when a woman gives birth to the child she nurtured and grew and created in her body, with some help from her husband and God the Father and Mother, she in fact helps saves those around her.
I once heard the scripture of the creation of Eve written this way (found it on Women in the scriptures blog) (though I take a little liberty with how it was written on the blog:
“It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an equal [yet opposite] who has strength, and a saving power.”
To me if the scriptures where written this way about woman, nobody could make it out to be that woman are just weak and vulnerable. However I also fear it being written this way, as to be interpreted “because of that patriarchy and the man protecting and presiding is needed even more”. The unintended consequence weighs heavily in my mind on that.
And that leads me to this thought, that I thought was so eloquently put, that I will not change a thing. It was on Temple Garments, from the Wheat and tares website, but I think it can be applied to the viel in this case. Quote:Ryan on May 1, 2011 at 9:42 PM
“And second, I assume that God will tell them if they are doing something that is truly wrong. Since, through our leaders, garments have changed so much, I have to assume that NONE OF THE CHANGES MATTER. Perhaps all that matters are having the symbols somewhere in their general vicinity. I don’t know that having cap sleeves, for example, has anything to do with the symbols. In my mind, the cap sleeves have nothing to do with the eternal purpose garments, but more to do with the generation that makes decisions about garments.
Why must we assume that God will tell leaders when they’re doing something wrong when God doesn’t always tell people they’re doing something wrong? Many scriptures discuss both the ADDING to and TAKING away of things as evil (i.e. adding to commandments/scripture as the “new” standard, or taking away from something that’s too hard to make it easier), but even if there were an absence of scripture to dictate such things I wonder why we’re so easily pleased by assumptions. It’s akin to infallibility’s one-way street.
Instead of confronting these changes and seeing if they do matter (where you assert they simply cannot because those in the high seats decided that they don’t matter), we simply trudge merrily along and have discussions about how to make the most of those changes.
It’s a bizarre culture.
There is actually something to this. There is much to suggest that Joseph Smith actually meant garments to symbolize polygamy, and were never meant for every day life. There is much to suggest that they WERE for special occasions only. And when Joseph Smith was killed, he wasn’t actually wearing garments himself.”
So, if the leaders don’t at least acknowledge this – much less know about it – then how come do we assume that the changes they make incontrovertibly mean that the changes don’t matter?
Maybe they were changes out of ignorance, and enlightenment could/should encourage a retracement in order to see the “proper” route.
Ooh, ooh, another thought: Maybe God doesn’t so much care about the wording of the covenants, the covenants we make, or what we do when we make those covenants, but the fact that we show we are committed to follow him. I however certainly believe that these things should be looked at over again and truly be found out if they are of God, or of men. I believe that we make covenants so that we can enter into the Celestial Kin-dom (I will write it that way for now on on this board), I also believe that the covenants we make are essential, but thier wording or what we do during them, not so much. But maybe they don’t matter how we think they matter, and maybe that is why God doesn’t go out and change things we think are wrong. Maybe so long as we “Love God, and love our fellow man as we love ourselves” (I think there are three things here, 1) Love God, 2) Love others, 3) Take care of and love yourself warts and all even while trying to correct that which you think you should correct) he is fine with the covenants because we are doing what we are doing. Even though he greatly aware of it hurting many of his children in regards to the sexist parts.
And another thought: I believe that revelation is a process of correction. What type of revelation have we received that has not corrected previous thoughts and opinions? In my humble opinion, I believe that there is no revelation that we received that has not corrected previous thoughts.
What say you?
Quote:Maybe God doesn’t so much care about the wording of the covenants, the covenants we make, or what we do when we make those covenants, but the fact that we show we are committed to follow him.
That, in essence, is a good way to state my own view of covenants. It’s not the specifics; it’s the intent.
Quote:I believe that revelation is a process of correction.
In one way or another, I accept that completely – which is why on-going revelation is absolutely necessary.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.