Another feminist

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I still have to think this one through. Its just this one makes sense to me.

That covenants, and how we do them and what is said changes. And some covenants, even what we covenant to do changes.

Like Passover became the Sacrament, but the covenant to remember remained the same.

However baptism took on a new meaning when it was coupled with the Holy Spirit what we call baptism by fire. And I’m sure there are more. Hmm, that would be a good research paper (for those who want to do it, I may at some point 😆 )

[Anonymous]

First of all…welcome to the forum. Your posts are great…thanks for joining the conversation.

Secondly, one of my favorite quotes I’ve posted here often is from CS Lewis:

Quote:

If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellant; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellant which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know … the truth we need most is hidden precisely in the doctrines you least like and least understand. – CS Lewis

There are good points that have been made about looking at the symbolism, and keeping that the most important part of the things we do in the temple and at church.

That doesn’t mean some of the other things won’t bother us…there will be things that bother us and we get the opportunity to figure out how to handle that, and can be the best teaching tools to help us develop who we are because we care about them enough to wrestle with them and work through them. If it was all perfect and flawless and easy and never evoked emotional responses from anyone…I don’t think we could develop the experiences we need to develop in this mortal existence.

This issue is one that provides experience and learning to navigate through. Hawkgrrrl has some of the best responses and perspectives on this topic, in my opinion. I doubt she developed all her ideas easily or quickly.

[Anonymous]

I asked a few leading Mormon feminist thinkers outside our community for some advice on your situation. They are all active members currently (as far as I know). So they resolved this or dealt with it on some level and stayed connected to the Church. I asked them if they knew of any articles, books or thoughts that helped resolve problems with patriarchy in the temple ceremony that also preserved a literal and traditional belief in the ordinances.

Here are the replies I received (not sure if I have permission to site their names, so leaving that out):

ANSWER #1

Quote:

Shoot. Is such a thing even possible? I’ve never come across anything in writing, and I searched for a good while back then. I don’t know that any justification can be made for the woman giving/ man receiving, or the hearken covenant.

But the veil in the prayer circle was what bothered me the most, and every single person I talked to about it gave some sort of version of “It’s for respect” which only made it worse. It wasn’t until I had fasted and prayed about the issue for months that I got an answer in personal prayer that satisfied me. And that was that the symbolism of the veil had nothing to do with our modern association of burkas or veiled faces, but was a symbol of THE veil. That in the true order of prayer we move behind the earthly veil to commune with God. It’s still unsatisfying from a feminist perspective because it assumes that men are constantly within the veil by nature of the priesthood, or else somehow unworthy, or the symbol is unneeded. All problematic, absolutely. But far far less problematic than the thought that women’s faces are somehow disrespectful to bring before God.

ANSWER #2

Quote:

Actually, on that first link I provided I think, somebody gave an explanation for the veil that satisfied me from a feminist perspective. The prayer circle represents people pleading on behalf of those who need it from both sides of the veil. So men represent those here and women represent those on the other side of the veil.

There’s still no reason why men and women fill their relative positions, but at least it provides a nice reason for the dual roles.

ANSWER #3

Quote:

The temple is my hot-button issue, so I’ve authored a couple of posts on it.

It sounds like the conversation in the comments of this thread might be beneficial–lots of faith-sustaining understandings of the temple symbolism. http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2317

The same post was archived sunday-ed here, and the comments were much more numerous, but with a very different tone, here: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=3151

And so that she can prepare herself for the things that might be hard, here is my recent post outlining the major feminist issues: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=5722

I hope she can find an answer that gives her peace.

The women who replied are way smarter than me, and much more knowledgeable about this subject 🙂 (I include Hawkgrrl in that group, but she answered directly here as a community member). That’s the best I could find for you.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I will go read those links. Honestly the dual nature of a woman representing those who are on the spirit side of the viel, and the men representing those who are on the mortal side of the viel, makes it more better for me but I still don’t like it.

I have come to terms that everything is symbolic, and I also do most certainly believe that somethings are just sexist hold overs and that God gave Joseph, and Brigham Young, and even our current day prophets and apostles the agency to change it to however they felt in many places. Honestly in ancient history though there are many cultures (even some modern ones) and even one particular (Sexist) religion that have men cover their face (Zoroastrianism). Maybe we just lost that idea to our cultural underpinnings, that a man shouldn’t need to cover his face, and possibly due to mistranslation and misunderstanding of our scriptures (And oh that happens on more occasions then the Brethren like to admit).

I now think that if the Brethren ever decide to roam the sites of us confused members (I say that with the highest degree of honor I can possibly say it with, for really that is what I am…confused). And they see this thread, here is what I want to tell them.

“Brethren, you have a few choices. You can leave as is, and make it just for everybody to create or construct in their own minds why only women wear a viel in the temple, and leave it to be confusing for us who don’t really like the idea at all. Or you can 1) Eliminate it completely, 2) Pray for the real reason of why women wear their viels, and if men should or shouldn’t, 3) Make it optional for women to wear the viel”

In all my reasoning, and praying, I haven’t come to an answer, and that is because I have decided I just simply don’t like it. For the very reason of answer #1, so is it that women are more holy then men? Is it because women don’t have the priesthood, therefore must wear a symbol to state their holiness? It just doesn’t make sense. I also personally believe lack of knowledge of Heavenly Mother drives our sexist practices, what we don’t know we usually make up, and this is why revelation is so important.

I personally feel that this is going to be a topic I disagree with, and I will probably go back and forth between this over and over again. For now I will just try to see it as 1) Cultural, 2) With meaning of The Viel, 3) With meaning that men represent mortal life, and women represent pre/post mortal life, and 4) I don’t have to like it at all.

In fact on speaking of viels, I wouldn’t mind that if in the Temple, Men stood before the viel, not behind it as they do now, and opened the viel to let people in, rather then pull people through the viel. This stems from my personal belief that on the Resurrection of Christ the viel between this life and the next was rent, and that Christ is not going to be pulling us through a viel, he is going to be pulling apart the viel in front of us. I mean if one symbolism of the Viel, disappears in the Temple (The viel women wears), then that means we should also focus on what that other viel means to us, and how we get there.

On the other hand about the viel being thought to be by some women a represenation of birth, if so, then shouldn’t in the creation room, it be a woman, who is pulling through the men, and women after the washings and anointing. Ah…i get it, that is another thing the Brethren could do, The Viel to the Creation room (Or endowment room in the smaller temples) has a viel, and there a woman pulls both the brethren and sisters through. Then at the celestial viel, the men can remain standing behind the viel. That makes much more sense, rather then having each woman wear a viel to cover their face, have one viel in the Temple represent Birth, the Other Death/Resurrection. Hmm…I am just pontificating now, but that one makes more sense to me, and would to any other who enters the temple. :think: And isn’t there viels between each room anyway?

Well, that is just my thoughts, hope they make sense, I was rambling a bit.

[Anonymous]

The endowment has changed in small ways many times. Some things were taken out because they upset people. Other things have been modified to adapt to changes in technology and the need for efficiency. I really would not be surprised if the issues of veiling faces ends up in that category.

It seems like you are really going through that process of deciding what everything means to you. That’s what you are supposed to do (IMO). It’s great! Religious ritual and ceremony exists for exactly that reason — to be a gateway to transcendent thoughts and spiritual growth. It means to you what it needs to mean to you. Some of the symbolic elements can mean different things to others. That’s the genius of it!

wonderingcurrent wrote:

And isn’t there viels between each room anyway?

Only the Salt Lake and Manti temples still do the endowment with live actors and different rooms. All the other temples do the endowment in a single room with a movie screen (larger temples have multiple endowment rooms for simultaneous sessions). You don’t leave the room. They represent the transitions between rooms with changes in lighting, etc. I’ve never been to either of those temples, so I have only experienced the movie version myself. I am old enough to have gone through the pre-1990 version that still had the symbolic penalties though .

[Anonymous]

Oh wow, I found a comment on that FMH article (2nd link) that just put everything in perspective (not that I want to do exactly what she did, and look up all versions of the Temple Endowment, just reading the one online was enough for me) but this comment makes sense and I will post it here.

Quote:

This repost is timely. I went to the temple last week with someone who was going through for the first time. I decided to listen to it as if it was my first time. When it got to the hearken covenant, I couldn’t even “croak” out a yes. I opened my mouth and nothing came out. Then everyone else moved on and I shut my mouth and silently cried for the rest of the ceremony. I remembered why I cried the first time (and second and whole first year).

But, since that first time, I’ve done a little research, and I have a different understanding. Here it is:

What I heard before going to the temple (and since) is that nothing in the temple is new. Everything in the temple is also in the scriptures, so there shouldn’t be anything “new”. I disagree. Go back and read the story of Adam and Eve’s Fall in Genesis, Abraham and Moses. The Lord says to Satan, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle . . . “. He says to Adam, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife . . . ” When the Lord speaks to Eve, He doesn’t qualify His statement. He just says, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

I’ve been meaning to post for a long time on my reading of Adam and Eve, but, briefly, to me, this verse is saying, “Okay, Eve, now that you guys have fallen, you are going to start bearing children. It is going to be hard. Turn to your husband. He will care for you”.

There is NOTHING in the scriptures that says that Eve has to obey her husband. And yet that is what this verse has been turned into (by most of Bible-reading humans through history). I think it is a gross misreading of the text.

Back to the temple. The temple qualifies Eve’s covenant as being because she partook of the fruit first. I can find nothing that even remotely resembles that in the scriptures. (Someone point it out to me if I am wrong). So, my next question is: where did that come from?

I looked up historical versions of the endowment on the internet (hoping I won’t rot in hell for that). In the 1931 version (or any version before that), there is no hearken covenant. It shows up in the 1990 version. It sounds to me like that particular covenant was put into the endowment sometime between 1930 and 1990. What else was going on during that time? The 1950′s and everything that went along with it (like “Fascinating Womanhood” mindsets).

Here is my conclusion: I don’t believe that this particular covenant is necessary to the endowment. If so, noone before 1930 would make it to heaven, right? Maybe it was put in to “help” husbands and wives (by well-meaning priesthood leaders). I do believe in the temple and in the endowment. From reading over the historical narratives, my feeling is that the Lord gave an idea of what He wanted to have happen in the endowment to Joseph Smith, who verbalized it to Brigham Young, who wrote it down. Then it has been changed and modified as needed (or as wanted).

In reading about Moses and the Tabernacle in the OT, my testimony of the purposes of temples and the endowment has been strengthened. But I can’t say that I have any testimony at all of this particular covenant. Where does that leave me? I did make the covenant. I don’t really do anything about it.

So, anyways, I think this is why women are blindsided by the temple. Nothing in our doctrine or in the scriptures says that women are to “hearken” (or obey – That’s what the covenant used to be, and the Bible uses hearken and obey interchangeably) to their husbands. So, people like nat kelly and I go along and are good little Mormon girls and get our educations and do our PP and prepare for the temple, etc. We think we are equal to the YM. We think we are marrying an equal partner. And then we go to the temple and are told that we have to obey them? (Oh yeah, but only if they obey God) Yes, we are BLINDSIDED. I totally did not see it coming.

I comfort myself with the thought that I just don’t think it is a permanant part of the endowment. I’ve tried a million ways to rationalize and make sense of that covenant, but nothing makes more sense to me than the idea that it was put in as a reflection of the culture at the time.

So, I’m prepared to go back to the temple with that in mind. I just don’t think that God really expects me to hearken to (obey) my husband. I expect that that line will be removed. In the meantime, I am not going to let it hurt me anymore. I’ll ignore it and seek for the good because I know the good is there. I can’t let that covenant be a stumbling block for me anymore.

Comment by Stephanie — September 5, 2010

I think that is exactly what I am going through, and that I have been blindsided by the whole thing, because we are taught we are equals, and then these covenants surely aren’t very equal. And yes to a certain point equality should be we make the same covenants, we do the same things. Differences to me don’t matter much, except I like what she said about God saying, “Look, you will get pregnant because of the fall, turn to your husband for help”. I mean Eve had it way different then any one of us woman here, if we believe it was literal, she was the only woman on the planet, she was a lone, with no other woman around to help her understand what was going on with her body, but God said (And in my personal belief it makes sense thinking this was Heavenly Mother talking to her, not Christ, I love Christ, I do, I just don’t and can’t really honestly believe Christ talked to her about this, I do honestly believe it was Heavenly Mother, makes much more sense Heavenly Mother would give her a head’s up) to her “No you are not alone, your husband will help”. It does make sense in that context, that the only person she could look to for help was Adam, in that particular situation (I do however also believe that they had a longer chat then what is recorded in the scriptures, a lot of questions and answers probably where asked).

Also I personally believe this was a mistranslation. That the “Rule over” is of men and not of God. Even yes in the Book of Moses. Notice however that the older record of the Garden of Eden story, the Book of Abraham, stops after a certain point. We do not get the full creation/fall story. I hypothesize its because it was really different then the creation story we have already on the earth. I can’t hypothesize anything else. Anyway going back to the Mistranslation: What if it was written like this:

Unto the woman he said, due to thy mortality I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule by and at thy side, with thee, in thee, and through thee. And because of the mortal fall would want at times to Rule Over thee.

The hebrew word (not the latin Vulgate translation that the original 1611 edition was translated out of) the Hebrew word can mean “In, by, at, through, with”…If we included all those words, it would paint a clearer picture of what Adam was really supposed to do. He was supposed to 1) Be at her side, 2) Ruling through to me feels a little like he has to go to her, in order to rule, 3) In thee, well this one I’m uncomfortable with, but it makes sense in the whole pregnancy matter talked about previously, it just makes more sense then that even if one of the terms means over, if that is really meant by the Lord, it would be in conjunction with the Fall, and mortality, and not anything the Lord commands.

Hope I make sense. To me, I just keep thinking about this, and had to get it out. It’s our scriptures in the End, that dictate how we are going to view God, and view this world. And so far as they are translated correctly we will view a correct view of the world. I do not think they are translated correctly, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. I personally believe that this now makes some more sense, though I personally feel the need to pray for comfort. I think I can go to the Temple and just try to detach myself from it, and sincerely make covenants with God, despite what the covenants the Priesthood holder in the front of the room is asking me to say yes to.

I will probably not very much like the viel. I can’t say what my reaction will be. I just hope that I can think of these words, when going through the temple.

[Anonymous]

Reading, and reading and interpreting, these thoughts these feelings and the one thing I get over and over again is:

Quote:

It’s Okay not to like things

That I feel is coming from God. I get this mental image of the Temple, of everything in there I think are patriarchal holdouts, that if changed would change the church dramatically and for the better in my opinion. But that for now I get the feeling it’s okay, though not perfect, and not everything God wants, but he gave us our agency (and that is even to change the things we can).

It is okay not to like the viel, and at the same time try to find some way to be at peace with it. It is okay to do things out of going through the motions if you don’t like them. (yeah heresy to most OBM’s (again orthodox believing mormon I am a TBM I just am not orthodox much anymore), How can God want us to go through the motions? Well sometimes he just does, like Adam and Eve and the sacrifice of the animal, that was simply going through the motions, and they didn’t understand it at all until an angel revealed the true meaning). (as a really interesting side note. I am going to start believing that anytime the gender of the angel is not mentioned, it is because said angel is a woman even if said pronoun used is “He”, and that can be another post, if any one is interested, should probably write that under some title such as “Heresy” :think: ).

It is okay…it is okay…it is okay. Is the only thing I keep getting from my Father and Mother in Heaven. I feel peace whenever I tell myself, it is okay. It is okay to be human, to have doubts, and fears. I think what Christ was saying when he said “Do not doubt, do not fear” isn’t don’t have any fears, but it is Not to have fears of him, or of the gospel. But as many things of men are intermingled with things of God, it can get blury.

Read an analogy I liked on FMH. It was so good here is the quote:

Quote:

I thought of an analogy last night that relates to the temple: God has a message for us. It is like a clear picture on a white piece of paper. Without interference, the message would be readily apparent. But, here on earth, we have layers of things separating us from God. The veil is one. I imagine it like layers of plastic covering the picture – some are different colors, some are fuzzy and dirty. To see the image underneath, I would have to squint and guess at what it is. Then add the cultural glasses that warp the view of everything.

So, in Joseph Smith receiving the endowment, I imagine it as something like him squinting through both his cultural glasses and all those layers of plastic and doing his best to interpret the image underneath. Then, as time goes on and both 1. our cultural glasses become a little more clear and 2. we learn line upon line and precept upon precept to remove some of the layers of plastic, the image becomes a little more clear, and someone sees something that wasn’t readily apparent before and modifies the ceremony.

I think the current ceremony reflects God’s message with warped cultural glasses and colored plastic sheets still there (not as fuzzy as before, but still not clear).

My way of coping is that I’m hanging in there for the message underneath. (That doesn’t necessarily help with the feelings, but it does keep me going).

Comment by Stephanie — July 27, 2011

This really is interesting to me. I think I needed to read this. I have definitely been concerened, and for now I’m just going to go with the attitude of “Its okay, its not exactly what God wants, it is patriarchal, but it will be okay, no you don’t have to like it”, instead of rationalizing it, or spiritualizing it, the parts I do not like, and feel God doesn’t hold me to, is fine to say yes to, because that yes is just a going through the motions. Honestly I’ve been going through the motions at church, I truly though truly believe in Eternal Marriage, in the beauty of the sealings, in the power given to me, and there are things I feel are cues as to a woman’s great worth, power and authority, but are masked behind the colored glasses and plastic sheets.

Oh and Brian I think the LA temple does that too (other big temples may do it as well), considering its size, that is where I am going to get endowed. So I think there is a viel or heavy curtain in those three temples at least between each room.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

So I think there is a veil or heavy curtain in those three temples at least between each room.

If that is the case, that veil exists for women AND men. That might be a little thing or it might be a big thing (depending on how you see it), but it is important to recognize and acknowledge, imo – anything else notwithstanding.

[Anonymous]

So I keep going back and forth, I feel fine one minute, feel not so fine the next (to the point of feeling ill). I feel that the Temple IS significant, and IS of God, because I remember once seeing what I could only describe as a robe on the floor, the man (and I feel highly strongly it was a man) walking out of view. I feel that experience (it was my first time in the Temple, waiting to do baptisms for the dead, and I felt strongly it was the Lord.

I though feel that as with everything, He accepts thing with human flaws, even sexist human flaws. Like Patriarchy has been accepted for a huge period of time (Like about 6,000 years of human existence as we know it). And lets just say in this Last dispensation that patriarchy will slowly go away. Let us be optimistic, that it will become egalitarian. I think there will still be human flaws even then, I think people will still get things wrong. So will the Temple ceremony be perfect? No. I don’t think it will ever be perfect, but will it get to the truer aspect of what God wants of us, yeah I do.

1) I think as I’ve said before, I will just say “Its okay not to like this”. 2) I wonder if anybody has not said yes to the hearken covenant and still was able to go through the ceremony. I am thinking of just not saying yes, rather I will raise my hand to acknowledge that it is there, but not the yes, to acknowledge I will follow it. 3) I realize now the Temple is mostly and entirely a marriage covenant, The Washings and Anointings, The Endowment, and the Sealings are part of the same overarching covenant of marriage. All the wording, all the things in it is about marriage. Ultimately to become as God, we must all be married. 3) We don’t know everything and our Temple ritual shows that, we don’t know about Heavenly Mother and her power, and only have figured the most obvious part of women and that is the womb, we don’t know how a priestesshood works, and therefore, we assume that the priesthood is the only power of heaven able to get men and women to Heaven, and so the temple shows these things. 4) It is true, that one comment I heard on FMH, I looked up the 1931 version, after breathing, and I didn’t see the hearken and obey laws of your husband in that version. It must therefore have been added. 5) Agency plays a large role in our church, and the leadership has leeway, and ability to do as they see fit. I bet that is the answer more times then naught, I just wonder why.

And I think I may make this a habit. If any of the Brethren find themselves reading this site, I have this to say to them:

“I find that being anointed to be a Priestess empowering, being endowed to power empowering, I find having this “hearken to husband” and Priestess to Husband and not to God a downgrading of that empowering thing. I find that having the ability to be married for time and all eternity empowering, I find that I give myself, he takes me, completely inappropriate for the occasion. I find acknowledgement that we are endowed to a priest(ess)hood empowering, I find that we have no power to actually use that, except with in the confines of the temple and male overview downgrading. I find the paradox that I live in to be highly troubling, and I care for change. I’m certain I’m not alone.”

[Anonymous]

It is OK to like some things AND not to like other things in the temple (or anywhere else in church). It doesn’t make you a bad person. It isn’t a sin. It makes you someone who is in touch with their feelings. That same ability to feel the “truth” and to live our way into the Gospel is how we progress. It’s how our soul grows.

I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and watching how you work through all these ideas. The world is a messy place. Life is full of choices. In the Church growing up, we get this impression that our free agency is to choose between right or wrong. Well … what we find out as we journey out into the adult world and become responsible for so many things is the choices are more often between good or better (with different costs). Or the most difficult of all choices: bad or worse, when there sometimes isn’t a good option.

This is one of those big moments for you, tied into a big life event: marriage.

Assuming the leaders of the Church aren’t going to change the temple ceremony to suit your tastes before you go through and get married in a few weeks, you have a choice: get married in the temple as it is with the flaws that bother you, or get married somewhere else. I don’t know you that well, but i’ll make the leap and say those options = bad and worse. You do get to choose though

Welcome to the messy world of being an adult, being married, and someday probably soon being a parent. It’s a wild ride.

[Anonymous]

Bad and worse, yeah probably. I will choose the bad in this case, getting married in the Temple with all its flaws, and things I would rather have changed. I also realized for now, I can’t rely on the Lord or any one else for that matter to change anything. And considering I have absolutely zero power and authority in this church to change anything, except by prayer, I will just stop trying to pray for change.

I go back and forth on this one. In the next minute I could be optimistic.

Yeah life choices, as of now though I do believe in the Temple, however I do not highly believe I will find anything to make it be all right, it just isn’t all right. And I think I know that now. It just will not be all right when I go through the Temple. I will just do those really weird ritualistic things, and just try to find at least ONE thing that works for me, rather then seeing if anything will change.

As I said in my new topic “More discussion on Temple, Women and a Rant”. I’m getting my endowment tuesday. I am nervous, I am frightened to some degree actually. Can I even say I’m a little bit excited? I don’t know why I am excited, but I think its not because of anything that I will be covenanting to do, I think its more, it is a life goal that will come true, something I have looked forward to since I was a child, but at least I will not be innocent going in. I am going in with my eyes wide open about what happens in there. I don’t know everything, but I know the big things. And I’m prepared somewhat to deal with it as just something very weird, and something I disagree with at certain points. Don’t know how I am going to really react through it. But I am at least praying, at least for some sense of restraint from crying.

[Anonymous]

Look, I just want to say publically on this forum that I am feeling very bad right now, for hammering the topic of the Temple so much.

I have gotten a lot of good advice, and I will for the most part try to take that into my life, and how it works for me.

I appreciate all your help, and will continue to frequent this site as much as possible, for some camaraderie in my heterodox beliefs.

I will now again, just make a simple list, of my not so simple feelings and how I could handle it all on Tuesday in the Temple.

1) Clearing my head, and being still, its the only way God has spoken to me, and given me revelation. When I do think to much, I do become to freaked out and rant. It never ends well when I do that. I should definitely just take the Temple time to meditate, mostly on my relationship with God the Father and Heavenly Mother too.

2) Understanding it’s okay to not understand or even agree with something in the Temple, I will for the most part, just act it with the intent of trying to understand it. If I don’t understand it, maybe I am not yet in a spiritual place to accept it, or that it really does have no consequence to me.

3) The Patriarchal parts and seemingly sexist parts, if of God, aren’t going to hurt me, and if of men aren’t going to have effect on me outside the Temple.

4) Its okay to have a big cry about it, I realize that its okay to cry about things we are absolutely confused on

5) See it as a culmination of a lifelong goal I have had, and deeply hold as something very important to me, this is something I should be more happy then sad, but that doesn’t mean the parts I am disappointed on, even saddened about has to be repressed

6) Consider the Endowment a lesson in life, and that though things seem unfair in this world, in the Celestial room, after its all said and done, one can find much peace just like I hope to find in the Celestial Kin-dom of Heaven.

I apologize if I sounded to bugging about this whole thing. It has been on my mind a lot, because i truly wanted to understand it, but since I haven’t experienced it, I guess a lot of this is just plain fear as well.

So I ask just for prayers to help me get through this, oh I’m praying to. “Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief”.

I will all let you know my experience.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I’m not bothered by the “pounding” on a topic as much as worried about your health (mental, emotional and physical). I’m just concerned that you not reach the point of obsessing over it and harm what can be a day of celebration. That’s all.

Iow, no apology necessary – and I like the list you just wrote. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Okay, yeah my mental health has been bugged by this. I just have had my entire life believed that my Heavenly Father was not sexist, but there are just too many glaring things with in the past year that make me wonder, and have hurt me deeply. The fire and the wound inside me are engulfing.

I care about this subejct more then any other because I seek understanding. I seek knowledge, I seek knowing. I still remarkabley believe in the Gospel heavily. This has weighed on my mind constantly, but I still managed to get through my last semester of College, I will still manage to go to work and earn a pay check for my husband-to-be and me, and a little dog when we get her. I still manage to live my life.

Yes I am highly distressed. I am not helped with the sexism in the church, by the sexism in the world. I am a woman, and I have health problems, that compound the problem with the stereotype that all women are weak and vulnerable and because of a woman’s condition a man needs to be there all the time for her, and protect her. And I highly dislike that, because in my case at times it feels like I have had agency stripped away from me. For me, I have had a terrible time for the past 11 years with personal issues. I highly disliked the constant painful reminders that I am a woman and the whole patriarchal thing, doesn’t help matters for me. I feel I must explain this publicly, I have had issues. I know I have issues. I have to deal with these issues. But it sure would be better to deal with them, if my God didn’t remain silent on things.

I am mixed. I will try to do everything I can on Tuesday to remain calm, but I may end up crying. Maybe that is okay to cry, maybe its okay to just sit down and have a good cry. I have been crying pretty heavily for a good year and a few months about things. Maybe that is okay to do. One day I may wake up from this nightmare, One day I may just learn to ignore the nightmare, and look at the beautiful dream mixed in with it.

So for now this is me: 😥 :wtf: :lolno: :eh: :think: 🙄 😆 :clap: 🙂 😥 And all the other emotions in between

[Anonymous]

I must say I will be taking a hiatus from this forum as quickly as I came. My constant thoughts and emotions are ruining my relationship with my fiance. And before a late cancellation happens, I have to take a break, I can no longer be on this for a few weeks. I hope I have the strength.

I really appreciate every one here. I realize now I must continue this lonely path, to where it may lead. All this stress is killing me slowly, inside and out. Everything I thought I am, I need to revisit, and set my thoughts straight. I had a good cry tonight. WIll probably cry like this in the Temple.

Thank you.

[Author]

Posts