- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I don’t think I’m making issues where none exist. As an endowed female, I can tell you I am one hundred percent invested in this problem.
Hear, hear. I’m with Joni!
I don’t like the idea that Eve was simply “tricked.” It’s not the Mormon theology I was raised on in which we were taught that Adam and Eve made a choice (Adam fell that man may be). Beguiled also means something slightly different than tricked – it’s nuanced. It means I found something too desirable to resist it, not just that I was deceived. There’s an element of being charmed or attracted to it, interested in something, captivated by it. To me, that implies more thought.
I haven’t been back to do a session since the one in which I felt a spiritual confirmation that the role of women as depicted is a cultural artifact. I’m glad I had that feeling, but I still don’t like it.
Joni wrote:he’s stressed many times that he will NOT rule over me even if it means flouting God’s will.
Well, that’s great. And I think that is the first step in finding a peaceful solution for yourself. As long as you and your husband have an agreement on this, then the path is cleared for a lot of positive strides. I’m not saying that most of even many husbands don’t think exactly the same way, but the fact that you have already communicated such is big.OOO: “The way I look at this kind of thing is to recognize that, in general, men and women are wired differently.” I really firmly disagree about this line of thinking. Are there any differences? Probably some, but it’s not clear what they are, and it’s not that all men are one way and all women are a different way. I often find I have more in common with men I know than with women, and I’m without a doubt a woman. That just tells me most of the patterns of thought are culturally driven. Because I’ve been a high level executive in a corporate environment, I relate more to others with similar backgrounds. Men and women are far more alike than different. If men were patted on the head the way women are, they would feel the same. They would not like it. One thing I’d like to point out that I hope you can find helpful is that the symbolism of Adam and Eve is imperfect. We generally accept that Adam and Eve represent us and our state of separation from God, etc, and that is fine. But where it gets really sticky is that we then go down one more level to say that Adam represents men and Eve represents women. I personally don’t look at it like that. I think Adam represents each of us and Eve represents a partner. The role of Eve is as a foil for Adam, but there is no mistaking that he is the central character. IMO, Adam represents you. Unfortunately, this is a hard one to tease out because we all have such a hard time with finding the dividing line between symbol and what is being symbolized, so when we see a female actor, we assume that’s your character.
But I believe that the whole ceremony hinges on the idea that each of us, each individual, is symbolically represented in the rite. Because, in LDS theology, we are all individual children of God, I think it only makes sense that each of us is symbolized in exactly the same way. It simply falls apart if you think of yourselve as being represented by the relatively minor character of Eve, when this is the story of Adam.
This world was created for you, and God gave you your husband to be a “help meet” for you. By seeing ourselves in Adam and our spouses in Eve, the covenants become a lot more personal between you and God. You are to “hearken” to God, and your spouse will follow you. In the same way, your husband in his own personal view, also represented by Adam makes the same covenant to follow God, and he knows you will follow him when he does.
Yes, I know that the mechanics of the rite don’t follow that perfectly, because you respond as Eve, while your husband responds as Adam. But I look at that as carrying the motif of the story, not as literal gender roles.
On Own Now wrote:Joni wrote:he’s stressed many times that he will NOT rule over me even if it means flouting God’s will.
Well, that’s great. And I think that is the first step in finding a peaceful solution for yourself. As long as you and your husband have an agreement on this, then the path is cleared for a lot of positive strides. I’m not saying that most of even many husbands don’t think exactly the same way, but the fact that you have already communicated such is big.My husband isn’t a saint by any means – he has plenty of flaws; misogyny just happens not to be one of them. Unfortunately, waaaaaaay too many men in the Church are comfortable taking the things in the temple literally. My father certainly had no problem expecting my mother to “hearken to” him while totally failing to “hearken to” her. [Returning to the appliance buying analogy – when my parents renovated their kitchen, my mother spent weeks researching their new fridge. She found a fridge that was a good value, a reputable brand, and spacious enough to accommodate our huge Mormon family. My father took this information, went to the store, and bought a completely different, smaller fridge because it was a hundred bucks cheaper. He didn’t hearken to her one bit.] This goes a long way in explaining why my mother A) left the Church and
divorced him. Yet my dad continues to believe that she was solely the one at fault, because his actions towards her were supported by the horribly unequal language presented in the temple.I know a lot of men like this. You don’t have to be abusing your wife – you can be a valiant temple recommend holder and still see your wife as your inferior, because the language of the temple supports it. And it likely won’t be changed any time soon because we’ve created a nice Catch-22 where the people who are most hurt by the language of the temple (women) aren’t being heard because the language of the temple says that no one has to listen to women.
I wonder how many faithful Latter-Day Saint women will lose their testimony over this before the Lord gets around to revealing a better version. (And as
On Own Nowhas eloquently pointed out in the General Support thread, no one is listening to the voices of Latter-Day Saints who leave the church because it’s so, so easy just to write them off.) With the priesthood ban, it took several generations. Unlike a lot of women in the Church I’m not particularly interested in holding the priesthood. For me, not holding the priesthood is a symptom; the disorder is the Lord not valuing women equally. Treating the symptom won’t resolve the disease. I know a lot of women feel differently. But I think we can all agree that it’s hard to feel good when you have to cover your face in the temple (which, to me, is symbolic of being ashamed to stand in the Lord’s presence) and your husband does not.
Quote:“the people who are most hurt by the language of the temple (women) aren’t being heard because the language of the temple says that no one has to listen to women.”
Exactly. Only, I would still substitute “the Church” for “the Lord” in what you say.
hawkgrrrl wrote:OOO: “The way I look at this kind of thing is to recognize that, in general, men and women are wired differently.” I really firmly disagree about this line of thinking. Are there any differences? Probably some, but it’s not clear what they are, and it’s not that all men are one way and all women are a different way. I often find I have more in common with men I know than with women, and I’m without a doubt a woman. That just tells me most of the patterns of thought are culturally driven. Because I’ve been a high level executive in a corporate environment, I relate more to others with similar backgrounds. Men and women are far more alike than different. If men were patted on the head the way women are, they would feel the same. They would not like it.
Fair enough, hawkgrrrl, but just for the record, I think you and I are both on the same side of the street. I probably think there are more differences than you do, but I freely and openly acknowledge that that only holds on a “general” level. My entire point is that even if we acknowledge that there are differences, we must not let the differences between men and women (and in deference to you, I’ll say, if any) set either up as better than the other and not to let it drive gender roles.I’m okay with saying that the sexes complement each other. But in my experience it happens more on an individual level than on a gender-wide level. On Own Now wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:OOO: “The way I look at this kind of thing is to recognize that, in general, men and women are wired differently.” I really firmly disagree about this line of thinking. Are there any differences? Probably some, but it’s not clear what they are, and it’s not that all men are one way and all women are a different way. I often find I have more in common with men I know than with women, and I’m without a doubt a woman. That just tells me most of the patterns of thought are culturally driven. Because I’ve been a high level executive in a corporate environment, I relate more to others with similar backgrounds. Men and women are far more alike than different. If men were patted on the head the way women are, they would feel the same. They would not like it.
Fair enough, hawkgrrrl, but just for the record, I think you and I are both on the same side of the street. I probably think there are more differences than you do, but I freely and openly acknowledge that that only holds on a “general” level. My entire point is that even if we acknowledge that there are differences, we must not let the differences between men and women (and in deference to you, I’ll say, if any) set either up as better than the other and not to let it drive gender roles.While brain research has shown that men and women do in fact use different parts of their brain when asked the exact sane question at the sane time monitoring their brain patterns, it is only a way to understand ones self… Rather and bit to be used as a way to try to prove ones theory or role.
The more we understand how each of our brains and brains in general work. The more we can understand ourselves and our relationship and interaction to each other. I had already theorized or recognized a bygone era thinking throughout the ceremony. Or the way it was presented seemed to represent the very dominate thinking of generations for hundreds if not thousands of generations with result to black and white thinking and categorizing that into roles for each sex.
For me it’s more of a history lesson to how the world predominately thought back then and where we have come in conscious thought now. We aren’t there yet because there are still many minds thinking in black and white and they usually and do make good administrators and lawyers and law makers.
Unfortunately that means also they also make the rules and polices to follow including in the temple. It’s not surprising but it won’t be going away anytime soon since this will continue to be the case for some time to come.
We can revision the ceremony to something that is meaningful and pleasant to us. We don’t have to internalize what someone else had the need to categorize everything into a 2 class system of thought. There can be many or even just one redshifted to suit our needs.
My wife by the way of example actually sees me as the head of the household and “authority” despite my gentle and covers to her that I really dislike and am very uncomfortable with that role and thinking. It rally gives me high anxiety and sadness.
I can’t change her and won’t try/don’t want to. Instead I do what I need to do that is healthy for me. I’m just not that kind if guy no matter how anyone may insist/and do. Both church leaders and my wife try to get me to furfill my obligation as head of household and patriarch. They feel that way, I do not. I am a patient guy but sometimes I am a guard breath away from shouting “enough already, that isn’t me.”. But I filter it and coy explain it’s not who I am.
They can try all they want it’s not changing who I am on the inside . They can say it out of love, but I have had some really really bad things happen to me by those closest out of “love”.
I reinvesting it all into something more pleasant. Something I actually have co troll
Over— myself.
Quote:Beguiled also means something slightly different than tricked – it’s nuanced. It means I found something too desirable to resist it, not just that I was deceived. There’s an element of being charmed or attracted to it, interested in something, captivated by it. To me, that implies more thought.
I agree, Hawkgrrrl. “Tricked” is too simplistic and was a bad choice of words. I like “captivated” instead.
This was the big one for me – women in the temple, and the role of women. It wasn’t until I went to the temple that I realised how bad it was in the church. From my conversations with abused women, there are a lot of men out there that simply do not deserve the role of priesthood holder in the family, yet they have it, and it seems to be held over the woman’s head. It is yet another way to keep these women downtrodden. In all 3 cases I have seen lately, the male still holds a TR, attends the temple, and the woman is encouraged to stay with him – regardless. 1 lady ended up in hospital after being beaten in front of the children, another took his female “friend” to a temple session one week and his wife the next. One, after she left, had a woman come up to her in church and ask how she could possibly leave such a good priesthood holder and did she realise what she was doing to her and her children’s eternity. Makes me wonder what a man has to do to lose that esteemed priesthood status. Also makes me wonder what the counsel to the husband would be if the wife did those things.
I am by no means a man hater and I know there are a lot more good men than bad, but this view of the roles of men and women in the church is creating an environment where the bad can flourish.
Of all things that could be considered wrong with the church, it is this issue that caused me to finally leave. I cannot and will not let my girls grow up in an environment where they are considered “less”. My son (13) had a bit of an attitude problem as it is, I can only imagine how much worse that could be if he started to hear that he was better than women (and that is what he would hear!).
This discussion has reminded me of a conversation I had with my MIL over the summer. (MIL is a temple worker.) I went through the temple about a month before my wedding, so that my endowment would feel like a separate entity from my wedding day. I think that was the right thing to do – I wanted my endowment to be about MY personal salvation and not about my relationship with my future husband. (This was before I understood that my eternal purpose is to serve as my husband’s accessory and not to achieve exaltation in my own right.) MIL told me that that is no longer allowed, that unendowed brides are restricted to getting their endowment within a few days of their wedding. I don’t remember the exact timeline she gave me but it seemed like a pretty short one (like a day or two). Her non-official explanation for the change is that in between a girl becoming endowed and getting sealed, “anything could happen.” (Sex? Do you mean sex? Then just say sex.) I have no idea if a similar restriction applies to grooms, but the cultural norm in the Church is that a young man getting married has already been endowed for several years due to missionary service. I’m not sure why “anything can happen” would apply only in the case of young women who are endowed more than a few days before their temple sealing. Personally, I feel that the addition of baggy, unflattering undergarments would tend to deter premarital sexual excursions.
What does this policy tell us about the Church’s view of women’s temple covenants? From where I’m sitting, nothing good.
Quote:What does this policy tell us about the Church’s view of women’s temple covenants?
It tells us absolutely nothing, since your mother-in-law is wrong. That is not a church-wide policy. There is NO difference in policy regarding how far before a sealing a man can go to the temple, if he is not endowed at the time, and how far before a sealing a woman can go, if she is not endowed. One of my sons is in that exact situation, and there has been nothing from the temple that even hints at what your mother-in-law said. Not once has anyone suggested that he should go to the temple before she does. There is no church-wide policy dictating a specific time frame that differs for men and women.
Also, the Church just lowered the minimum age for unmarried young women wanting to serve missions to 19. That means the church just opened the temple to women two years earlier than they had previously, and it pretty much guaranteed that more young women would be endowed for a significant time period prior to marriage than ever before in its history. In the context of this discussion, that’s not a small thing.
Quote:(This was before I understood that my eternal purpose is to serve as my husband’s accessory and not to achieve exaltation in my own right.)
That is one view, but it absolutely isn’t the only one – or, frankly, the dominant one among most members. It simply isn’t the view that the majority of members believe. Also, a man can’t “achieve exaltation in (his) own right”. There is NO Mormon doctrine and NO room in Mormon theology that says any individual can “achieve exaltation in (his or her) own right.” Since there are FAR more men and women in the Church who do NOT see it as worded above, you can choose not to see it that way, also. You aren’t tied to the view above, no matter how you learned it. You can see it as wrong and choose to see it differently, just like a whole lot of members do – even a whole lot of very traditional, orthodox members.
Old-Timer wrote:It tells us absolutely nothing, since your mother-in-law is wrong. That is not a church-wide policy.
I’m glad to hear that. Maybe it was just a Utah policy or specific to the temple she was working at (I forget which one, Timpanogos maybe?)
Quote:From my conversations with abused women, there are a lot of men out there that simply do not deserve the role of priesthood holder in the family, yet they have it, and it seems to be held over the woman’s head. It is yet another way to keep these women downtrodden. In all 3 cases I have seen lately, the male still holds a TR, attends the temple, and the woman is encouraged to stay with him – regardless. 1 lady ended up in hospital after being beaten in front of the children, another took his female “friend” to a temple session one week and his wife the next. One, after she left, had a woman come up to her in church and ask how she could possibly leave such a good priesthood holder and did she realise what she was doing to her and her children’s eternity. Makes me wonder what a man has to do to lose that esteemed priesthood status. Also makes me wonder what the counsel to the husband would be if the wife did those things.
Conflicted, I think part of the problem is that we do a really, really bad job of defining unrighteous dominion. I think every woman should know what unrighteous dominion is starting with maybe the Beehives. Out of all the RS lessons I’ve heard about how wonderful the priesthood is and how we should sustain the PH holders in our home, I’ve only heard unrighteous dominion brought up once. And that was because Iwas the teacher! I was shocked at how few women have a working definition of unrighteous dominion but we absolutely shouldknow what is and is not okay from a priesthood holder. I remember one woman commenting that she believed it was totally fine for a man to boss a woman around because that’s how it was done in her home. It wasn’t until her marriage that she realized there was any other model available. That makes me sad. I’m raising a son and two daughters, I need to know what to tell my son to do and my girls to expect, but there’s a total lack of dialogue about it in the Church. Joni wrote:I wouldn’t have a problem agreeing to “hearken to” my husband if he was also under covenant to “hearken to” me. But he’s not. The only one my husband has to “hearken to” is God. It feels like we are just paying lip service to the idea of spouses as ‘equal partners.’
“Hearken” is kind of an interesting word to use in the covenant because it’s not really well defined in its use. I think it’s somewhere between “listen to” and “obey.” (I’ve heard that pre-1990, women actually agreed to “obey” their husbands. That was before my time so I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it would confirm my suspicion that “hearken” was chosen because it’s a less offensive way of saying “obey.”)
However, I don’t think that in the specific context of the temple “hearken” means “counsel with” or “have discussions with” or even “listen to respectfully” because the exact same word describes whatmy husband does with the Lord. And I don’t think my husband is under covenant to take advice from the Lord and then weigh it against his own opinions and then decide whether to follow that advice or not. I think my husband is under covenant to OBEY the Lord.
I don’t get it, either. Problems like this just reduce my investment in the whole thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.