Temple Prep for Daughters

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

What are some concrete ways to move those small pieces? Things that would really make a difference.

That’s the question isn’t it? In some ways we’re doing that now, discussing how the temple ceremony as it currently stands doesn’t represent the “that they all may be one” ideal. We can also address inequalities we see with our children.

I don’t see myself as being someone that can remove large chunks of the mountain at a time. I might only end up removing a small piece of dirt that gets caught in the treads of my shoe but if enough people like me walk across the mountain progress can be made. Unfortunately that’s the slow way.

Like DJ said on the first page, many men on StayLDS that feel like they are in an equal partnerships with their wives may have failed to pick up on the inequalities in the temple ceremony. Thanks to the voices here more and more people are starting to see. The first step in correcting a problem is to recognize the problem. Like in the parable of the unjust judge, revelation may come when enough people start to agitate for one. :angel: The discussion has to take place somewhere for it to be heard.

[Anonymous]

This is really a new topic for me to think about. I heard the words in the temple, but wrote them off even in my TBM days as more of what you hear in the old testament.

But the last few weeks hearing how so many women can’t just have a chuckle at the statement. I am not saying they should, but I just had not thought about it from their perspective.

Ann – your comments are very interesting on how it feels. I can say there is a bit on the flip side for men – you MUST go on a mission, must get “good” callings, … or you are not going to have a wonderful girl. Your going to have to settle for “other” girls if any and you can’t get into the CK with that type of marriage. Not saying the two are equal.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Like other things, I think they’re afraid to make sweeping wholesale change.

I can deal with that. What I can’t deal with is the very real possibility that they aren’t changing it because our doctrine really is eternal polygamy. If that’s our doctrine, they need to be open about it. But they can’t be because 80% of the women would leave, and probably 30% of the men would too.

[Anonymous]

If eternal polygamy really is our doctrine and the end-all destiny for women, I want no part of it.

I don’t feel like it is. But in that case, I’d have to reconcile what I believe and what other people say is truth.

[Anonymous]

In my experience in my own family, the sexism present in the temple isn’t the norm in our family. It seems the ceremony tries to establish one kind of patriarchal order in the home, but in practice, personalities dictate who “obeys” (for lack of a better word), whom. In my family, who is the ultimate decision-maker tends to change with the issue, each person’s strengths, and how deeply each person feels about the issue being discussed. Often it’s a consensus decision.

And given my desire to see the philosophy I hold exist in reality, I wish the temple ceremony dispensed with the sexism.

I will say, another factor that contributes to the perpetuation of sexism is the fact that our leaders are appointed to office for life, at the highest levels in the church. This makes for a slow-moving organization that is heavily influenced by tradition, and presumably by senior members. The fact that there are 15 of these men influencing policy doesn’t help, as the death of one doesn’t have the same sweeping effect compared to a single leader who has most of the power. However, having that many lifers at the top also creates stability which is important, but with that stability comes slow, slow change.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

What I can’t deal with is the very real possibility that they aren’t changing it because our doctrine really is eternal polygamy. If that’s our doctrine, they need to be open about it.

{shudder} …if that’s what they really believe…{shudder}

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I will say, another factor that contributes to the perpetuation of sexism is the fact that our leaders are appointed to office for life, at the highest levels in the church. This makes for a slow-moving organization that is heavily influenced by tradition, and presumably by senior members. The fact that there are 15 of these men influencing policy doesn’t help, as the death of one doesn’t have the same sweeping effect compared to a single leader who has most of the power. However, having that many lifers at the top also creates stability which is important, but with that stability comes slow, slow change.

This floated across my FB feed today:

With average age of 80, Mormon church has never had older top leaders

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Ann wrote:

Are they thinking, We like it just like this? We think this is great for our granddaughters, great-granddaughters? It does not inspire confidence.

Like other things, I think they’re afraid to make sweeping wholesale change. I have witnessed changes in the ceremony over my past 30 years of going to the temple (actually 20 since I haven’t been in 10 years). Changes come one at a time – like elimination of the penalties. I think they are afraid, maybe rightly so, of shaking faith. On the other hand, I honestly believe that if Pres. Monson just said “We are making some changes we feel are in accordance with the will of the Lord” most people would just accept it – and many would jump on the bandwagon of it being a revelation (and maybe that’s what they’re afraid of). Sunday will come, but Saturday can be a very long day.

(DJ – I’m not understanding your meaning here.)

It’s frustrating. Part of me thinks they don’t want to make changes because they can’t be made “quietly” anymore. The pre- widespread internet days are gone and it’s all going to happen in a fishbowl. If they’re waiting for a lull when no one will notice, where it might not make the news….

I wonder how they estimate the potential of changes to shake faith. I assume they think it’s greater than the lost faith being chalked up to their inaction.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

Like other things, I think they’re afraid to make sweeping wholesale change.

I can deal with that. What I can’t deal with is the very real possibility that they aren’t changing it because our doctrine really is eternal polygamy. If that’s our doctrine, they need to be open about it. But they can’t be because 80% of the women would leave, and probably 30% of the men would too.

Agreed. I certainly hope it isn’t doctrine, but you’re right – if it is they need to make it clear.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Ann wrote:

Are they thinking, We like it just like this? We think this is great for our granddaughters, great-granddaughters? It does not inspire confidence.

Like other things, I think they’re afraid to make sweeping wholesale change. I have witnessed changes in the ceremony over my past 30 years of going to the temple (actually 20 since I haven’t been in 10 years). Changes come one at a time – like elimination of the penalties. I think they are afraid, maybe rightly so, of shaking faith. On the other hand, I honestly believe that if Pres. Monson just said “We are making some changes we feel are in accordance with the will of the Lord” most people would just accept it – and many would jump on the bandwagon of it being a revelation (and maybe that’s what they’re afraid of). Sunday will come, but Saturday can be a very long day.

(DJ – I’m not understanding your meaning here.)

It’s frustrating. Part of me thinks they don’t want to make changes because they can’t be made “quietly” anymore. The pre- widespread internet days are gone and it’s all going to happen in a fishbowl. If they’re waiting for a lull when no one will notice, where it might not make the news….

I wonder how they estimate the potential of changes to shake faith. I assume they think it’s greater than the lost faith being chalked up to their inaction.

I think there are a fair amount of the most orthodox (and most non-thinkers) who believe anything out of the prophet’s mouth is revelation. The missionary age change thing is a good example. Am I opposed to the age change? No, and I support it, it really doesn’t matter to me. From an objective point of view it is an attempt to increase the number of missionaries serving and perhaps have some serve (especially women) who otherwise probably would not have served. Pres Monson made the announcement pretty matter-of-factly and gave no indication that it was a revelation or even just plain old inspired (I think inspiration is low level revelation). Within in short time we had a Seventy talking about it being a revelation, and I think many members believe the same. I recognize this is my own point of view and I am using my own definition of revelation, nevertheless I see the age change as nothing more than a policy change. I do think our top level leaders have become sensitive to the idea that all they say is inspired, and a couple (especially Elder Christofferson) have made mention of the issue of late. Even when Pres. Monson did measure his words carefully he has been credited with a revelation he never claimed to have had. I do think he is concerned about that – if only because so many of us have had doubts about things previous presidents have said which turned out to be incorrect or were parts of failed programs (let us not forget the 18-month missions).

[Anonymous]

I have seem the same. It was just a policy change. Maybe it was inspired. I just hope they are taking other things to the lord, like changing the policy in north America that makes you wait a year after a civil marriage to be the same as other places. The amount of ill feelings of converts having to tell their parents they can’t come to tier marriage is terrible.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

This floated across my FB feed today:

With average age of 80, Mormon church has never had older top leaders

In that page, it references a Modern Mormon Man post on the same topic. I had read it a little while ago and thought it was very interesting.

I do wonder if they will ever consider the option of emeritus status for the apostles. I see 2 good reasons. One is as the blog states, it would create a bit more turnover and ideas (and possibly one nay-sayer holding up a change for decades). But the other reason is much more charitable. The call as an apostle is a lifetime calling. They spend decades of their life with no option of retirement. That just seems unfair. Combine that with ill health in older age and it just seems a bit cruel or at least unkind to put these guys (and their family) through that.

[Anonymous]

Anybody else following what is going on with Kirk van Allen – the guy that posted a very detailed blog post how he feels D&C 132 is not of God? He was told he is going to have a church court called if he does not take it down. I had to laugh when the SP came to visit him, the SP didn’t know about the essays on Polygamy.

Here is the link http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/

Brian and Laura Hales (Brian of course has written volumes on JS polygamy and says there is room that he never did anything wrong – as in keeping “after this life” marriages celibate and distinct from “mortal marriages.”) give a rebuttal at http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf

Brian’s wife Lindsay gives a reply to the Hales http://mormonverse.com/2015/03/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonverse.com/2015/03/

It will be interesting to see if the SP backs off a bit. Apparently the blog is getting tens of thousands of hits.

And of course I would be remis if I didn’t mention hawkgrrl’s post at W&T http://www.wheatandtares.org/16791/one-more-reason-i-dont-want-to-gather-in-missouri/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.wheatandtares.org/16791/one-more-reason-i-dont-want-to-gather-in-missouri/

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the follow up, LH. I was actually wondering about this the other day.

[Author]

Posts