- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know this issue is a mixed bag, but I know many women work through this. Hawkgrrl wrote this. Very thought provoking. http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/25/temple-prep-for-daughters-brace-yourself/ Quote:Having to ignore what is really said to women isn’t a very faith affirming experience. Ignoring things takes some level of energy. Deliberately not paying attention still requires some attention.
This is the key issue for many faithful women in the church. I believe far more women than men dislike the temple, and that this is why. I think it’s one reason women generally prefer the initiatory; we aren’t confronted with the differences in the men’s version. Women are negatively surprised by the sexism we encounter in the temple, like it was hidden from us and now we are in a high pressure situation and have to agree to it.
I would prefer that my daughter embrace the covenants of the temple, that she choose to live a Christlike life, to make sacrifices, and to bind herself to her family in love. But if the price for that is that she has to be subjugated to the arm of flesh (her husband) while the reverse is not true, and that her eternal reward is permanent second class status, that’s a hard sell. I can’t sell what I don’t buy. If the choice is between my daughter’s self worth and the temple, I don’t see how the temple wins.
If that’s not really our doctrine, then it’s time to finally update the temple script. We have revised the temple ceremonies continuously since they first began. I can only hope that thoughtful changes are in the works. In ten years, it will be too late for my daughter. It’s already been 25 years too late for me.
We talk here about baby steps, water getting to the end of the rows, etc. But I don’t know if this one can wait. In ten years, it will be too late for Angela’s daughter. In five years it will be too late for my second. It’s too late
nowfor my niece. Thanks to the internet it’s never too late to say what was going on in our heart of hearts so long ago. There were good things that day, all dressed in white, but I wish I’d had the wisdom and courage to ignore key phrases, instead of taking them as gospel truth. (I did have the courage last time I was there to be silent at certain points.)
Again,
Quote:Having to ignore what is really said to women isn’t a very faith affirming experience.
What’s the real obstacle to changing it?
I think there are two going theories on what stands in the way of changing it: 1) it’s theologically important because we really are still polygamous but not admitting it, not even to our faithful female church members, or 2) it’s a cultural artifact that the male leadership of the church largely don’t hear because their wives are from a generation that was steeped in sexism, and their wives benefit from not rocking the boat and the associated fame and feelings of importance of being married to the leadership. Even my own husband, not raised to be sexist, in our very equal marriage, doesn’t notice the sexism that much and mostly just ignores it. Easier to do on his side of the aisle. Most men assume the promises made to the women are basically the same as those made to the men, which they are not. Men and women both ignore what is really said in favor of what they think is said. How my husband feels about the sexism in the temple is how white people feel about racism in the south. It’s not good, but I didn’t do it, and at this point, we can mostly ignore it, right? But as a woman, when I go to the temple, it’s right there, literally in my face, over and over.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Even my own husband, not raised to be sexist, in our very equal marriage, doesn’t notice the sexism that much and mostly just ignores it. Easier to do on his side of the aisle. Most men assume the promises made to the women are basically the same as those made to the men, which they are not. Men and women both ignore what is really said in favor of what they think is said. How my husband feels about the sexism in the temple is how white people feel about racism in the south. It’s not good, but I didn’t do it, and at this point, we can mostly ignore it, right? But as a woman, when I go to the temple, it’s right there, literally in my face, over and over.
I am like your husband, Hawkgrrrl. Not raised sexist, equal marriage, etc. I never noticed the sexism in the temple until I started coming here. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, I quite literally did not notice and whatever I may have noticed (veiling the face, separated seating) I thought was just tradition. My eyes have been opened, but I am as powerless to change it as anyone else here. I hope that wording will change in the future – and I agree that future generations may be able to make that happen (although I don’t see anyone in the current Q15 who might take that step when they reach the big chair).
I noticed it once I was married and put myself a bit. It bothered me, but not as much as the whole temple experience. I have to admit I have never had anything close to a spiritual experience in the temple. I do agree with Hawkgrrrl on the 2 possible reasons why. I certainly hope it is the latter and will change SOON.
I tell my daughters openly that it is cultural and that I believe it will change in the future. My oldest daughter and my daughter-in-law are not orthodox by any stretch – not remotely close. Neither is my oldest son. They all attend the temple regularly. They view those elements like they view some of what Paul says in the New Testament. It’s there, but it’s okay to ignore it and hope new stuff replaces it at some point.
In saying that, I am NOT demeaning or dismissing the real pain it causes many people. I deal with it by categorizing it in the way I described above.
I agree with what has been said. I prepped my daughters for it also, trying to get them to focus on the symbolism. The problem is the wording and messages sent are symbolizing an inequality. And it should change.
I also thought for most of my adult life that it isn’t a problem, because if the man is not doing what is right, the woman has the out. So it balances out. But I have come to see that is not equal at all. It was just something I never thought much about because I never thought of it from the woman’s perspective. I suspect my view I used to have of not seeing the problem is probably the most common view.
Like many things in the church, we are asked to be faithful and sustaining and humble, and it becomes more our problem to deal with something uncomfortable than to acknowledge there is a legitimate problem.
HG’s race example is very fitting.
I wrote the following in a previous thread: Roy wrote:I have had some further realizations about gender disparities in the temple. After some searching this is perhaps the best place to share.
1) I believe that gender disparities have been embedded in our culture for a long time. There is all this talk about asking the father of your intended for permission to court her. The father then “gives her away” at traditional weddings. She goes from being part of her father’s household to being part of her husband’s household. She surrenders her last name and takes up his last name. Etc.
2) Gender disparities are evident in the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 11 reads:
Quote:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,
since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
3) I believe that the gender disparities of the temple are carry overs from these two points above.
As for cultural influences, it is documented that JS used a pattern of approaching male relatives of women he intended to marry and asking them to act as intermediaries. Perhaps this was the more seemly and appropriate way to go about it by approaching the “head of household” so to speak.
As for Biblical influences – 1 Corinthians 11, verse # 11 is used by us to defend the practice of eternal marriage and may very well have been part of Joseph’s inspiration to begin with. Is it any wonder that the sexism apparent in these verses might bleed into the temple ceremony? I see verses that seem to have direct application to the veil that women wear during certain parts of the ceremony. I also see verses that could be the source text for men covenanting to God but women covenanting to man. “3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God… [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10”
Recently I attended a Christian church’s marriage seminar and they used these verses and others to present a Godly and biblical pattern of marriage. Man submits to Christ and woman submits to man. The pastor said that “Man is functionally subordinate to Christ but is not of greater value than the woman. Woman is functionally subordinate to man but is not of lesser value than Man…God covers the Man. Man covers the woman… If a man is properly submitted to Christ, most women will not mind submitting to him. Most women in their heart of hearts yearn for this relationship.”
I saw clear parallels with the disparities in the temple ceremony.
4) Unfortunately, I believe that our theology of polygamy and eternal dominion put an extra twist on this doctrine. Some women may yearn for their husbands to step up as “spiritual leaders” in their home but I doubt that very many would yearn to be one of several women that submit to the same husband (regardless of his relative success in submitting to Christ).
My understanding of polygamy as a form of kingdom building is built upon these unequal relationships. Women and their progeny belong to their husband in a way. In turn these women have claim upon him for sustenance and protection but he does not “belong” to her in the same way that she belongs to him. It is a subordinate relationship.
In summary, I believe that these are holdovers from previous generations’ understandings of marriage and gender relationships. I believe that they become less and less relevant with each passing generation. I even believe that part of our trouble understanding polygamy is that we do not view gender relationships in these “functionally subordinate” roles any more. I do not believe them to be an important/essential part of the temple. I believe that the language of the temple could be changed to remove the gender disparities and that this will eventually happen.
I’ll just say the things that come to mind as they do. Out of love and concern for their daughters, Ray and Heber prepared them. Where is the love and concern of the church for its daughters?Why aren’t girls told? It looks VERY much like a bait and switch. Even though I don’t like the phrase, it’s hard to not be cynical about this.
They have counted on women accepting it and being quiet.But now we’re online, comparing experiences and calling it as we see it: Link to “Elisothel’s” post at feministMormonhousewives titled “Mormon Priestess.” There is an uncut version that requires the password “MormonPriestess” to view.
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/07/the-mormon-priestess-uncut-version/ Ann wrote:Why aren’t girls told?
From my experience as my girls went through YW it often came from the leaders called in the YW program…like the Turkish proverb states:
Quote:When the axe came into the woods, many of the trees said, “At least the handle is one of us.”
The talk of how special it was to support the husband, and to honor the priesthood, and to humble the needs to the proper place in the home……these things were most strongly reiterated by the YW leaders my daughters dealt with. Less so from the bishop or male leaders.
I thought it a sign of YW leaders trying honestly to show their faithfulness, which is commendable. But in doing so, left the preparation to me in making sure my daughters understood their worth, and never to feel second class in the kingdom of God, on earth or in heaven. And outright…that polygamy was wrong.
It led to many questions from my daughters on why the church leaders say it…and I cherished our long talks about such things.
“Why aren’t girls told?” I think because of the culture in mormonism. I wonder sometimes how many of those YW leaders said such strong words to the youth…if in fact, they were really trying to convince themselves about it.
Quote:Why aren’t girls told?
Most members don’t see it – or think of it as important – or ignore it as not reflective of reality – or tell their own daughters and assume others are doing the same (or don’t want to intrude into others’ parenting) – etc.
I don’t think it’s malicious or intentional; I think it just doesn’t seem like a huge deal to most members who would be in a position to say something to
groupsof girls. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Why aren’t girls told?
Most members don’t see it – or think of it as important – or ignore it as not reflective of reality – or tell their own daughters and assume others are doing the same (or don’t want to intrude into others’ parenting) – etc.
I don’t think it’s malicious or intentional; I think it just doesn’t seem like a huge deal to most members who would be in a position to say something to
groupsof girls. That, and I think the average member is afraid to discuss anything related to the temple ceremony because they misinterpret what we covenant not to discuss.
I think it’s the things you all say, but mainly the secrecy. If we had to say aloud to each other (in classes, for instance) the things that are said to women in the temple, and bear testimony of their truthfulness and beauty, I don’t think we’d be able to do it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, or whatever that quote is…. Ray said: Quote:“It’s there, but it’s okay to ignore it and hope new stuff replaces it at some point.”
That’s the best I’ve got, too, and yet I can’t go without feeling like I’m lying during the ceremony. I don’t have to lie to get a TR. I’m worthy to go. I just don’t want to do covenants that I don’t agree with and say things I don’t believe. Sometimes I do it under the guise of the person I’m going through for, but then I also feel like I’m selling out the dead woman. It’s just not right any way you slice it. So I mostly don’t go. I’ve been maybe 3 times in the last 5 years, and I’ve had a strong impression that those parts are not of God, literally a voice telling me “This is not of me.” But that doesn’t make it any easier to feel like the endowment is pushing my head in the dirt to say and do the things that I feel I’m being told are not of God.
One of my friends shared this post on her wall today, and it’s been (mostly) encouraging to see that it’s helped a lot of her friends share that this is how they too feel, despite being TR holding active Mormon women.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.