- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I object to the fact that my husband didn’t covenant to me in our wedding, only to God, while I did covenant to him. So I’m married, but he’s not. That’s how I see it. I know he doesn’t see it that way, but it’s not equal. No, not at all. It’s wrong. Likewise with the endowment putting men under God and women under men. It’s not the gospel in the NT. It’s not what we were taught. Women need theological answers that don’t subjugate us for eternity to men. We aren’t promised exaltation like men are. Will I really not be exalted just because of Eve’s curse and because I’m a woman? How is that right? Every feeling revolts. But the temple ceremony says what it says.
I don’t need to be ordained, but our theology surrounding women is horribly, horribly broken, and our leaders don’t hear how it sounds to any observant, thinking woman. The problem is we are so steeped in it, most don’t realize it.
I asked my sister early on in her involvement, What’s the point of ordaining women if the temple is unchanged? (Wouldn’t ordaining women dismantle the current endowment?)
I don’t think processing across temple square is a good idea. But what can I do? Tell my bishop in my next TR interview that the temple crushes a part of me every time I go? Okay, but you still want a recommend? I guess so. Here you go. End of conversation.
On Own Now wrote:
All I ask is don’t heap me onto the pile of evil misogynists because I don’t support the very specific goals and methods of OW.I would never heap you into that pile.
I’m not sure I would put
anyman in the church in that pile. Taking my husband as typical, I think he sees the great good that holding the priesthood has done in his life. He treasures it; in large part it defines him. His commitment and effort are substantial. But it’s also true that, as wonderful as he is, he has only given about thirty seconds of thought to what a woman experiences in the temple, or what she feels when told that polygamy is still on the “of God” list. And this only because I broke down and told him of my distress a year or two ago. But week in week out, he doesn’t see the priesthood as something women shouldn’t have; he’s looking from his point of view and thinking, I want to be a good man.
Ann, Wonderful post. I think that description of your husband is an apt description of a majority of men in the Church… They are good people, trying to do good things, and grateful for the opportunity. They are just unaware.
This makes me think that instead of protests or demonstrations, we should have International Explain It to your Husband Day.
Roy wrote:In one church where I participate all the pastors are husband and wife teams (Lead pastors, youth pastors, children’s pastors). I see no reason why this wouldn’t work in the LDS church. The female spouse could work under the priesthood keys of her husband. It isn’t full equality but it would get women into leadership positions and potentially add women’s voices to the table.
I don’t disagree with this idea and the whole idea that if a guy is called at mission president, so is his wife. As a side note, my son’s mission president’s wife has a large role in the mission and it’s beyond apartment inspections – she has a role in leading the sister missionaries.
I just had to point out, though, that most men don’t have any keys to begin with. I think that was the point of Elder Oaks’ talk in priesthood – almost all of us in the ward (except the quorum presidents) serve under the keys of the bishop anyway. The RSP, YMP, YWP, PP, SSP, and so forth all are under the bishop’s priesthood authority – even his counselors are. In that sense we are all already equal. The inequality comes from the YMP being on the priesthood executive committee while the YWP isn’t. That inequality could be eliminated by simple eliminating the priesthood executive committee and having ward council take over its responsibilities (which are practically the same anyway). We may not all like the idea that there are bosses and/or administrators in most parts of life, but if there weren’t there would be utter chaos. The bishop does hold those keys and it makes sense that he is the administrator. How that is done could be changed, however, to give those under his authority more input and power – perhaps through ward council.
On Own Now wrote:Ann,
Wonderful post. I think that description of your husband is an apt description of a majority of men in the Church… They are good people, trying to do good things, and grateful for the opportunity. They are just unaware.
This makes me think that instead of protests or demonstrations,
we should have International Explain It to your Husband Day. Honestly, and please excuse me for hyping Elder Oaks’ talk (I really did like it), I think that is exactly what Elder Oaks was trying to do. I think that’s why he gave that address in priesthood as opposed to another session.
DarkJedi wrote:On Own Now wrote:Ann,
Wonderful post. I think that description of your husband is an apt description of a majority of men in the Church… They are good people, trying to do good things, and grateful for the opportunity. They are just unaware.
This makes me think that instead of protests or demonstrations,
we should have International Explain It to your Husband Day. Honestly, and please excuse me for hyping Elder Oaks’ talk (I really did like it), I think that is exactly what Elder Oaks was trying to do. I think that’s why he gave that address in priesthood as opposed to another session.
Completely agree, DJ. I was surprised actually, by DHO’s talk. At first, I thought… oh boy, here we go. But actually, it was illuminating of important doctrine (a rarity for GC), and a strong reminder that men are not the priesthood, etc.But while it resonated that way for men in the Church already uncomfortable with the role of women, I’m not sure starndardized LDS men would have seen it quite that way.
I know that for me, it was when I had daughters and saw them grow up in the Church, that I really started to see what was wrong with it all… I was aware before, and there were things that bothered be, but it wasn’t until it came home that I really understood (at least as much as a man can). Half the people in our Church are women. What we need is for them to express their concerns about the Church/doctrine/culture when it comes to subjugation of women, in the way that Ann did to help her husband understand. If every woman who cared, could explain it to their husband/dad/brother I think it would help. Lest anyone think me a hypocrite for saying that this is a woman’s responsibility, let me say that I was the one who explained my angst about it to my wife. Now it is part of our normal dialog. She and I had both thought about it in our separate ways, but I was the one who gave it a voice. It’s actually been unifying, because we can talk about ways we would like to see the Church change, even to the point of talking about it with others, but without being divisive about the truthfulness of the Church (she believes, I don’t).
When I was first struggling, I talked to my husband about how I felt the subjugation of women in the church (it was the sole reason for my crisis at the time) and he just said, ” have faith, it all works out in the end” then he would be mad at me for struggling with my testimony over it. He also believed that when a female speaker was having a turn to speak in conference, it was a bathroom break. I wouldn’t describe him as a mysoginust, but this is how the church teaches men to think (indirectly teaches). Since then, he has had a faith crises and is now totally inactive. But now he looks at these situations and the inequality is so blatantly obvious to him. I think it also helps that he saw the unfairness of polygamy through JS’s practice of polyandry. Also, we have a 2 year old daughter. the idea of telling a 14 yr old girl hers and her family’s salvation hung on her decision to be a plural wife. I don’t think the daddy in him liked that if it applied to his little girl. And all the aforementioned things. Roy,
In regard to Ann’s post, I’ve seen BY quotes that women now suffer the pains of birth and jealousy (in polygamy) because of eve’s sin in the garden. (So I guess to him, the article of faith: we will not be punished for Adam’s transgressions, really does just apply to Adam). I stumbled upon those statements in the lds scriptures app somewhere. I will try to find it. Not sure if that was what ann was referring to.
Honestly, Kcarp, don’t bother. Nobody here is married to BY’s view of women. 😈 DarkJedi wrote:I agree, Hawkgrrrl. It is the inequality that needs to be fixed. I saw a national news report on the OW protest (where, by the way, an usher is heard asking one to leave) which included poll stats indicating most LDS, and most women, are opposed to ordaining women. I would bet far fewer support the inequalities. Still, there are those women who simply don’t think about it or are so into the idea that the church is true no matter what that they don’t see it as an issue. Frankly, most of those inequalities would be quite easy to fix – they’re mostly policy.
From what I understand, members of the news media were asked to leave, in accordance with their new policy, but the group in general was not.
On Own Now wrote:I think that description of your husband is an apt description of a majority of men in the Church… They are good people, trying to do good things, and grateful for the opportunity. They are just unaware.
This makes me think that instead of protests or demonstrations, we should have International Explain It to your Husband Day.
This is exactly why I think women do need to be ordained. Because the men of the church are good people, trying to do good things, but they fall short. I think that the fact that there are so many unequal policies, wording and ordinances in the church, even with good men running it, is why we need women to be making decisions as well.
rebeccad wrote:DarkJedi wrote:I agree, Hawkgrrrl. It is the inequality that needs to be fixed. I saw a national news report on the OW protest (where, by the way, an usher is heard asking one to leave) which included poll stats indicating most LDS, and most women, are opposed to ordaining women. I would bet far fewer support the inequalities. Still, there are those women who simply don’t think about it or are so into the idea that the church is true no matter what that they don’t see it as an issue. Frankly, most of those inequalities would be quite easy to fix – they’re mostly policy.
From what I understand, members of the news media were asked to leave, in accordance with their new policy, but the group in general was not.
I only know what I saw, she appeared to be a protester and was surrounded by protesters. They also had footage of women being refused tickets. They were all very polite, mind you.
Roy, here’s a post you can read about the male / female differences. http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/the-mormon-priestess-the-short-version/ On a good day, I realize that the endowment mostly is a relic of Brigham Young, whose views on women are incredibly misogynistic. I also can acknowledge that our current leaders may not feel “empowered” to radically change his vision of women as encapsulated in the endowment without a clear mandate from on high. Essentially, the endowment is still a taste of polygamy for women, and it is a bitter taste indeed. On a bad day I wonder if current leaders share BY’s distasteful view of women because they don’t see fit to change this. Going to the temple is very difficult unless you do two things: 1) women “hear” the Adam version and pretend it applies to us, and 2) ignore the fact that God is done with women once Eve sins, and apparently that curse applies to us all in putting us under covenant to a husband. When I first went through in preparation for a mission, it was particularly unsettling. It helps, a very very little, that my actual husband is not a domineering jerk and that he doesn’t take it to heart.
hawkgrrrl wrote:On a good day, I realize that the endowment mostly is a relic of Brigham Young, whose views on women are incredibly misogynistic. I also can acknowledge that our current leaders may not feel “empowered” to radically change his vision of women as encapsulated in the endowment without a
clear mandate from on high. Essentially, the endowment is still a taste of polygamy for women, and it is a bitter taste indeed. On a bad day I wonder if current leaders share BY’s distasteful view of women because they don’t see fit to change this. Going to the temple is very difficult unless you do two things: 1) women “hear” the Adam version and pretend it applies to us, and 2) ignore the fact that God is done with women once Eve sins, and apparently that curse applies to us all in putting us under covenant to a husband. When I first went through in preparation for a mission, it was particularly unsettling. It helps, a very very little, that my actual husband is not a domineering jerk and that he doesn’t take it to heart. But there are all us women here – down low. When there is no visible distress on the left side of the room, no one getting up and leaving, no one making a scene (of course not), maybe they assume nothing’s wrong. Women make do. It was having a daughter in there with me, right at my elbow, that made me think, Please, God, this can’t be right. Bittersweet day.
So here we all are. Every person who has posted on this thread wants the Church to change in major ways. Some want ordination, others don’t, but we all want women to be fairly treated and not subjugated. We all want change so that we don’t have to continue to have this issue for our children and grandchildren. The question is what can people like us do? This thread has shown that many here are not comfortable backing OW because of their tactics. It’s fine for those who do support OW, but recognizing that there are many who simply cannot, what CAN we do that is an alternative to OW?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Roy, here’s a post you can read about the male / female differences.
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/the-mormon-priestess-the-short-version/ On a good day, I realize that the endowment mostly is a relic of Brigham Young, whose views on women are incredibly misogynistic. I also can acknowledge that our current leaders may not feel “empowered” to radically change his vision of women as encapsulated in the endowment without a clear mandate from on high. Essentially, the endowment is still a taste of polygamy for women, and it is a bitter taste indeed. On a bad day I wonder if current leaders share BY’s distasteful view of women because they don’t see fit to change this. Going to the temple is very difficult unless you do two things: 1) women “hear” the Adam version and pretend it applies to us, and 2) ignore the fact that God is done with women once Eve sins, and apparently that curse applies to us all in putting us under covenant to a husband. When I first went through in preparation for a mission, it was particularly unsettling. It helps, a very very little, that my actual husband is not a domineering jerk and that he doesn’t take it to heart.
Wow – that was an eye opener. Perhaps my favorite takeaway was the following:
Quote:This … establishes the curse of Eve as an eternal God-Man-Woman hierarchy.
We have sometimes described the current LDS religious relationship to be God-Church-Man. If we might combine these two then it would be God-Church-Man-Woman. Fortunately for men – we are told that the church part is for mortality only. The order of heaven is Patriarchal (emphasis on Patriach). Polygamy makes perfect sense in this context – why wouldn’t a man with two wives have more glory just as a general with an army of 200 would be more impressive than an army of 100?
This illustrates so well how deeply these concepts are embedded into our religion – so deep that it is not openly taught or understood by 90+% of our membership.
To OON’s question – I believe the best starting point would be to have frank discussions on what the docrine is and isn’t. What exactly should the divine male/female relationship look like. I don’t believe that this dialogue can progress without addressing the elephant in the room which is how vastly unequal these relationships have been taught in the past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.