- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mom3 wrote:
Quote:Do the women still veil their faces during prayer?
No. Not ever. They still put on the hats/veils but they never cover them. I think we should drop the hat/veil thing all together. As usual no one has called to collect my input.
I’m not trying to be irreverent here, but what would you replace the veil with? I’m sure you’ve seen what the men wear, and that also seems to serve no purpose and frankly looks a bit ridiculous IMO. (FWIW I’d be OK with a kippah/yarmulke or kufi type headgear if anything at all were required.)
Oh, and just for what it’s worth, the no veiling includes when the lady is buried in her temple clothes.
Quote:I’m not trying to be irreverent here, but what would you replace the veil with? I’m sure you’ve seen what the men wear, and that also seems to serve no purpose and frankly looks a bit ridiculous IMO.
I think all head items should be removed. I am sure there is biblical reasoning for it. But there is tons of biblical stuff we don’t do. Symbolic and otherwise.
There has never been a head covering covenant. Robes alone seem adequate to me.
BJE wrote:
I haven’t done the new sealings so I can’t comment on that. However there is a specific place in the endowment where just a few words left out and to me the meaning is unchanged but I don’t feel free to be so specific here as to the wording of the ordinances.
BJE, I tend to agree with you that 99% of the meaning of the covenants and ordinances is “unchanged”for the man. For the woman receiving her endowment I believe that some of these changes fundamentally alter the understanding of her relationship with God the Father and her relationship with her husband.
Roy wrote:
The first presidency released a statement that said, “Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to his servants.” This implies that the most recent changes were the subject of revelation by God.
There is a statement presented before the endowments ceremony begins that makes an even stronger and much more specific claim to revelation for these changes:
Quote:Brothers and sisters, since the temple endowment was first administered in this dispensation occasional adjustments have been made by the First Presidency and the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, acting unitedly in their capacity as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Upon seeking the will of the Lord and after solemn prayer in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple, the Lord has again revealed inspired adjustments to the temple ceremonies.
These adjustments, which you will notice during your worship experience in the temple today, will bring harmony to the way men and women make covenants with God. They deepen our understanding of His will and His relationship with his daughters and sons.
When the endowment changed to no longer require women to veil their faces or to hearken to their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, etc. I was thrilled with the changes. I don’t hold a recommend, so I haven’t seen the changes personally, but it was one thing that always bothered me. Another was not being able to sit with my wife. I still don’t understand why the room has to be split by gender. Anyway, I was talking with my sister-in-law this week and she said that her husband HATES the changes. When they went through the temple and he heard the changes for the first time, he immediately went to the front desk after the session and complained about it. And he continued to complain about it to the point that the clerk called the temple president to come to the front desk. The two of them (my sister-in-law and her husband) spent an hour in the temple president’s office with her husband going back-and-forth with the temple president about this issue. I can only imagine how this must have made her feel having her husband get so upset that she no longer has to promise to hearken directly to him.
This was the first time I’d heard about anybody not liking the changes. Everyone else I’ve talked with about it has been really excited about the changes.
Has anybody else heard about anybody who was not excited about the updates?
Holy Cow wrote:
Has anybody else heard about anybody who was not excited about the updates?
Wow! And, no. I also haven’t been since the changes were made but I haven’t any negative feedback and I have had a few discussions about it, including one in stake council.I don’t know your relative, of course, but I’m surprised he complained about it in the temple. I’d love to hear what the president said. Either way, it was “above the president’s pay grade” so to speak. These changes come from the highest echelons and I’m reasonably sure temple presidents are not part of the process – in other words, they don’t make the law, they just enforce it. And since when has complaining to a local leader (and temple presidents are local in this sense, they’re not general authorities and their keys are only valid in their temple) done anything to change the church’s mind about anything? Perhaps he should address his complaint directly to the Q12/FP, which will likely only get him a referral to his SP where once again he’ll be wasting his breath. In short, I pretty much don’t get it. And I don’t get what his beef is to begin with – that’s why I’d love to hear what the TP said.
Loss of privilege often feels like persecution. I don’t know if he felt he was being attacked, but that is a common reaction to every push for equality throughout history.
I’m not a fan of it. What gets me, apart from most of the beautiful nature footage being gone, is that people have short memories. Other people in the ward keep saying how short it is, but I have to point out to them that the endowment was much shorter ten years ago (these are no spring chickens so they were around back then). I met someone who did six of the old ones in one day (the video dated from the nineties). It got longer a few years ago and then was shortened again but is still longer than the nineties one. Old Timer wrote:
Loss of privilege often feels like persecution.I don’t know if he felt he was being attacked, but that is a common reaction to every push for equality throughout history.
Quote:
“I’m not prejudiced, but by golly a white male in this country has very few rights, and they’re getting took more every day.”The above quote was in the news yesterday and today. It was made by a local official in Tennessee that had disparaging things to say about the current crop of democratic presidential candidates. I only point to it as an example of what Old-Timer describes.
Old Timer wrote:
Loss of privilege often feels like persecution.I don’t know if he felt he was being attacked, but that is a common reaction to every push for equality throughout history.
This is why a lot of American identity politics is a bankrupt ideology. It thinks without a trace of irony that the low paid white guy who mows the lawn in the park is more “privileged” than Oprah Winfrey who is one of the richest people in America.
Do you honestly think that guy complaining is more “privileged” in the LDS than Sheri Dew? I know who has the balance of power and it’s not the guy you claim is privileged. If women don’t have to veil up, how does that affect the privilege of men in the room? Not much. It does something for the women but not the men. We know women get a bad deal in the LDS, but there are also women in it who are much more powerful than the bulk of the men. A couple of words and Sheri Dew could get many policies changed since she has unfettered access to the president of the church.
If you believe that the white guy mowing the lawn is more privileged than Oprah you will believe anything. That is a
right wingidea posing as a left wing one. Plenty of countries have had female leaders who were just as bloodthirsty as their male counterparts. Just moving the pieces around like the American idea suggests doesn’t change things the way you think. We could have a church led by women, and then we could be in the same boat as Christian Science once which was led by a female. The real privilege is money, access to education, connections to move up the tree (Oprah’s route) etc. But since this idea comes from an élite who could get themselves into the most privileged colleges and universities in the land, and strangely enough social class is conspicuous by its absence in all of these debates.
If you want “equality” as you put it. Don’t allow someone from the Ivy League (of whatever gender or skin color) to fool you that they are more oppressed than you. Nor let any multimillionaire or billionaire of any background, who may have inherited their money like Jayden Smith, tell you that they are more oppressed than a homeless man or someone who is laid off at the local steel plant.
SamBee wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
Loss of privilege often feels like persecution.I don’t know if he felt he was being attacked, but that is a common reaction to every push for equality throughout history.
This is why a lot of American identity politics is a bankrupt ideology. It thinks without a trace of irony that the low paid white guy who mows the lawn in the park is more “privileged” than Oprah Winfrey who is one of the richest people in America.
Do you honestly think that guy complaining is more “privileged” in the LDS than Sheri Dew? I know who has the balance of power and it’s not the guy you claim is privileged. If women don’t have to veil up, how does that affect the privilege of men in the room? Not much. It does something for the women but not the men. We know women get a bad deal in the LDS, but there are also women in it who are much more powerful than the bulk of the men. A couple of words and Sheri Dew could get many policies changed since she has unfettered access to the president of the church.
If you believe that the white guy mowing the lawn is more privileged than Oprah you will believe anything. That is a
right wingidea posing as a left wing one. Plenty of countries have had female leaders who were just as bloodthirsty as their male counterparts. Just moving the pieces around like the American idea suggests doesn’t change things the way you think. We could have a church led by women, and then we could be in the same boat as Christian Science once which was led by a female. The real privilege is money, access to education, connections to move up the tree (Oprah’s route) etc. But since this idea comes from an élite who could get themselves into the most privileged colleges and universities in the land, and strangely enough social class is conspicuous by its absence in all of these debates.
If you want “equality” as you put it. Don’t allow someone from the Ivy League (of whatever gender or skin color) to fool you that they are more oppressed than you. Nor let any multimillionaire or billionaire of any background, who may have inherited their money like Jayden Smith, tell you that they are more oppressed than a homeless man or someone who is laid off at the local steel plant.
If the complaint is that the woman no longer has to swear (covenant) allegiance to her husband and the man’s point of view is that he is more privileged before God because he holds the priesthood (and I know people who believe that to be doctrine) then maybe privilege isn’t the right word – or maybe it is. Wealth is unquestionably privilege, but wealth is not the only thing that can bring privilege. And while money and power often go hand-in-hand there are powerful people within smaller groups, even those with no money.
The temple president could have responded with: Doctrine and Covenants 121:36-37 wrote:That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
That said, I don’t know the person’s real issue. It could have been a machismo thing or it could have been related to something else entirely. For example, the man could have had an extremely deep belief that ordinances cannot change, not one iota, and it was a case where he recognized an ordinance being changed.
“Privilege” is not an individual issue. It is a systemic issue. Throughout history, it has been a serious issue. Almost nobody believes a poor white man in America has more power than a rich black woman. That isn’t the issue here at all. The issue is a man who used to have an advantaged position (and in the endowment, men did have an advantaged position) losing his advantage (his privilege based solely on his maleness) and being upset that his wife (who previously had been presented as inferior due solely to her femaleness) now was presented as his equal (or more so than in the past). He lost his former privileged status, and it felt to him like he was losing a “right” when it actually was losing his former privilege.
Also, just to say it, in America, generally speaking, a typical poor white man or woman still has less of a chance of being profiled in a negative way than a rich black man or woman, especially if the rich black man or woman is not known to people observing him or her. For example, a young white man walked into a Walmart in the South fairly recently in full body armor and holding a semi-automatic rifle – immediately after a mass shooting at a Walmart. He said when the police arrived that he was testing his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I doubt a single black man in America would have considered such an action, much less done it. They would know the likelihood of being killed was nearly 100%, while the likelihood of that white man being killed was much lower (and didn’t happen). If the white man lost his ability to act in that way, he might see it as persecution, being attacked, or losing a right – but the black man would see it only as equality. That is simply a fact of life still in America, and it is a manifestation of privilege.
I don’t want to turn this into a debate about privilege, but it is important to understand what it means in relation to a man being upset about women being treated more equally in the temple. It has nothing to do with the individuals and everything to do with the systemic treatment of groups.
To piggyback on what Curt said in the preceding post, the man’s perceivedtemple privilege was only that – perceived. Many people recognized before that change that the wording was unequal while the actual doctrine seemed to indicate we’re all equal before God, male or female, bond or free, etc. This change in wording aligns with doctrine. This infers that I am saying that the temple ceremonies prior to the change taught false doctrine, and if that’s true it is what it is (or was what it was). I could also infer that perhaps the complaining individual was not around for prior changes in the ceremony, because they were also thought to be doctrine by most. Some people thought (and some still think) we’re not allowed to talk about anything that happens in the temple – but that is not doctrine nor is it doctrine that the temple ceremonies can’t change. Just a side note: if you are wondering what can be talked about outside the temple and what you can’t talk about I think the church website is very valuable.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng nibbler wrote:
That said, I don’t know the person’s real issue. It could have been a machismo thing or it could have been related to something else entirely. For example, the man could have had an extremely deep belief that ordinances cannot change, not one iota, and it was a case where he recognized an ordinance being changed.
Unfortunately, the machismo had a lot to do with his complaints. My brother-in-law is an extremist when it comes to church stuff. He’s the young men’s president and his wife is a primary teacher, and he claims that he has a calling with more responsibility because he is living a ‘more worthy’ life, and unfortunately he sincerely believes that. If his wife or kids leave anything out of place, he yells at them because he claims the home should be just like the temple, and you never see anything out of place in the temple (he doesn’t see the irony that his yelling and bullying creates a hostile environment which is the opposite of what it should be in the temple). He sincerely believes that as the patriarch of the family, EVERY decision requires his input and approval. His wife can’t spend a dollar without his consent. And, he believes this is the true order of how things should be. So, he was irate that his wife no longer has to promise to ‘hearken’ directly to him, because he believes that a wife’s relationship to God has to go through the husband. It’s a sad thing to see, but it sounds like nobody else has come across anybody else that has had such a negative reaction to the changes, so I’m glad this is an isolated case.
Your poor sister and her kids. I am so sorry to know they have to go through that – and that it might rub off on any boys they might have.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.