The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

I believe the unimportance/inferiority of women as presented in the temple to be factually true and in keeping with the way God created us. And to be honest, I am pretty frustrated with Him.

Joni,

Then I would offer that the different treatment of the sexes is merely a layer. The heart of the Gospel is pure and worthy of admiration. All that gender stuff… all that racism… all that anti-gay ornamentation that goes on top of it is a vestige of old-time thinking. It is frustrating that it still shows up in the Church, but the Gospel itself is so much more simple. I don’t know you or your situation, but if a friend were angry at God and frustrated by the teachings of religion, I’d suggest they read Mark… after that, Luke, and after that John… And then top it off with Romans.

I don’t believe in God at all, so there is nothing for me to frustrated with Him about. Because of my belief that we are alone, I get to pick and choose the best parts of the Gospel; I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the things that don’t resonate with me. But the core Christian theology is wonderful, warming, reconciling… if we let it be that way. The author of John wrote that in Jesus there was life and that life was the light of all people, and that light shines in the darkness and the darkness could not stop the light from shining forth.

[Anonymous]

If it’s not factually true, how do we get it changed? The endowment has obviously been changed in the past (it used to say “obey”). But the ones who are the most fully invested in the problem are the ones who don’t get listened to. Men are the chickens and women are the pigs. You can’t tell yourelf “Well as long as I am hearkening to God, I don’t have to hearken to any woman” and then sit back and pat yourself on the back because you aren’t hearing any complaints about it.

(I mean the general “you,” not anyone here.)

[Anonymous]

Joni,

I think one approach that I have found helpful is to compartmentalize when it comes to issues like this one. There is no single solution that is going to solve both your belief that God has created you unequal to your husband and also your desire for the endowment to be changed. That’s like flipping a coin and expecting it not to come up either heads or tails.

In the interest of trying to compartmentalize, let me put it this way.

Though it’s probably not going to be any time soon, I would like to see the rite changed. The reason I would like to see it changed is entirely, completely, and only because it is so easy for OTHERS to interpret it in a sexist way. In fact, that is the easiest way to interpret it, so I feel like the important message of the endowment is completely lost in the transmission. I believe the endowment contributes to sexist tendencies in the Church and changing it would do much for the culture of the Church.

That’s one compartment or box… the one about sexism in the culture of the Church. I would like to see it changed to avoid the implication in the Church that God is sexist. But this is one box I can’t really control.

Now I get to another box… one about me. This is one I can control.

For me, within my brain and my heart, I derive no sexist message in the way it is written. This is because, as I described earlier on this thread, I don’t believe Eve represents you and I don’t believe Adam represents your husband.

Way back on the OP of this thread you asked if there were constructive ways to resolve this issue. IMO, yes. I think the first and most important way is to find a non-sexist belief. Frame your own faith in a way that is good for you. Then, find a way to match these rites, teachings behaviors to YOUR framework for faith, not the other way around. Then last, because it’s the one where you have the least influence, work to change archaic views on gender issues within the Church. This is something that is happening right now. It’s too bad it hasn’t already happened long ago, but on the up-side, I sort of like being a part of this major change.

[Anonymous]

I regret that I got left back somewhere around page 4 or so, I’ll have to catch up sometime. In the meantime.

Joni,

I went to the temple for the first time in several years yesterday. I recognized the points you made, it is troubling. Thanks for sharing your perspective, as a man I might have never noticed otherwise.

I just wanted to share something I came across today, I even cryptically used it in a post earlier today but I feel that it’s probably appropriate to explain why I used those words in this thread.

In short the phrase “help meet” was poorly translated from the Hebrew “ezer kenegdo.” You can google the phrase, but here’s a link to get you started:

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ezerkenegdo.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ezerkenegdo.htm

Know that I view my DW as an equal, anyone that would tell me otherwise can safely be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Excellent, nibbler. That is the best breakdown of “helpmeet” (partner of equal strength) I have read.

[Anonymous]

Last week I came across a quote by a GA that said he didn’t like how “ezer kenegdo” was translated, or something like that. I can’t find it now

I did find this, though:

Quote:

What does it mean when the Lord said he would create for Adam “an help meet for him”? (Gen. 2:18.)

…As indicated in a footnote to Genesis 2:18 in the LDS edition of the Bible (note 18b), the Hebrew term for the phrase “help meet for him” (‘ezer kenegdo) literally means “a helper suited to, worthy of, or corresponding to him.” The King James translators rendered this phrase “help meet”—the word meet in sixteenth-century English meaning “fitting” or “proper.” It might be clearer if there were a comma after “help”—“I will make him an help, meet for him.”

…They are to each leave their parents who have cared and provided for them both physically and spiritually; and now, “corresponding to each other,” are to help, care for, and nurture each other. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

I do like the clarification about “help meet”. Thanks for those who have posted those ideas.

However, the story still clearly places Eve in a “sidekick” role. Even if she is equal to him in every way (meet), she is still only in a supporting role (help). I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve, and by extension, the Temple, can ever be truly equalized if taken as a story that represents men (Adam) and women (Eve). IMO, it only works if taken as a story which represents PEOPLE (Adam and Eve).

I think the story would be much better if told as the story of Sally and her pet ferrets, Buckaroo and Mr. Hide. That way there would be no gender roles, expectations, or comparison implied.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

The danger of using Wikipedia, though, is that any one of us could have written the article, and that doesn’t make it definitive. If I had been writing it, I wouldn’t have have said that Eliza R. Snow’s poem “acknowledging the existence of a Heavenly Mother”. I would have said “postulated” the existence. ‘Acknowledge’ makes it sound like ERS had special knowledge that she decided to let out. I believe that JS, if he didn’t already believe it, would have liked ERS’s take, and likely would have adopted it into his framework…

I think there is sufficient evidence (there is more than what is referenced on the Wiki page) that Joseph Smith taught some people about Heavenly Mother, so saying Eliza R. Snow wrote a poem “acknowledging the existence of a Heavenly Mother” works for me.

FWIW, I think Wikipedia is reliable enough. The checks and balances that have been implemented have improved its quality a lot over the years. Having people from various backgrounds contribute to a page makes it better – they balance it out. Of course, sources are required as well.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I do like the clarification about “help meet”. Thanks for those who have posted those ideas.

However, the story still clearly places Eve in a “sidekick” role. Even if she is equal to him in every way (meet), she is still only in a supporting role (help). I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve, and by extension, the Temple, can ever be truly equalized if taken as a story that represents men (Adam) and women (Eve). IMO, it only works if taken as a story which represents PEOPLE (Adam and Eve).

I think the story would be much better if told as the story of Sally and her pet ferrets, Buckaroo and Mr. Hide. That way there would be no gender roles, expectations, or comparison implied.

😆

[Anonymous]

The understanding that I will be answering to my husband in the CK (and not directly answering to God, which is another problem) has led me to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in the Celestial Kingdom at all. I have control over precisely one thing, and that’s whether I accept it and allow my husband to ‘preside’ over me – and I choose to reject it. I don’t have the potential to be like Heavenly Father – I only have the potential to be like Heavenly Mother, who isn’t important enough to get any official mention in the temple (and barely acknowledged out of it). I’ve spent a lot of time vacillating between “Is it better to be alone forever or is it better to play second fiddle to my husband’s exaltation” and I’ve finally come down in favor of the former.

The problem is, an awful lot of unpleasant things we do in this church are only done with the promise of celestial glory. Paying ten percent tithing (of gross!), wearing unflattering and uncomfortable underwear, sitting through THREE HOURS of church plus the pre-church and post-church meetings (on an empty stomach once a month), not drinking coffee or beer or wine, avoiding ‘self-abuse’, not watching R-rated movies, etc., etc., etc… What on earth is my incentive to toe the line if all I get at the end of the day is to be the facilitator of someone ELSE’S glory?

My husband is deeply troubled by this realization on my behalf. He was, after all, promised that if he got an Eagle Scout/served a mission/didn’t masturbate, he’d earn a hot/faithful/virginal wife who would gaze on him adoringly and “hearken” to his “counsel” for all of eternity. I’ve pointed out that Husband doesn’t stand to lose anything. As long as he keeps his covenants he doesn’t lose out on any blessings – I will simply be replaced at the judgement day by another, more righteous woman who knows her place and he will forget all about me.

(Sorry if I seem bitter. If I do, it’s just because I’m bitter. )

[Anonymous]

The only advice I can give is that it doesn’t have to be 100% literal – the way you say you see it now. I think you actually DON’T see it that way, since that would not be “Heaven” for you. (or me or anyone else here) I think you want to believe in a Heaven /Celestial Kingdom where you aren’t an inferior auxiliary ornament – and I think, deep down, you really do believe that if there is a Heaven that’s not what you will be.

Thus, if you really don’t believe it, you don’t believe it. Understand that lots of other Mormons, even very active orthodox ones, also don’t believe it. If thousands of other Mormons don’t believe it either, you don’t have to believe it. (It’s like a whole lot of Catholics who don’t believe in literal transubstantiation (that the wine and wafer literally become Christ’s body when it enters their mouths) but continue to find meaning in a symbolic understanding of communion.) So, work on letting it go and simply not believing it.

MUCH easier said than done, but I really do believe you need to work on letting it go.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

The understanding that I will be answering to my husband in the CK (and not directly answering to God, which is another problem) has led me to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in the Celestial Kingdom at all.

It has been important for me to depart from the take it or leave it proposition. I take what I can take on my terms and leave the rest. If anyone has a problem with that, then tough luck because their opinions are not factors in my relationship with my God.

I believe that the evolution of our theology has been from a male position and bias from the beginning of time down until now. Heavenly Mother is not presented as an equal partner. Eve also is presented as secondary to her husband in the bible and in the temple ceremony. JS explained to Hyrum that polygamy was the solution for a remarried widower to keep both wives in the eternities – yet no consideration seems to have been given to the plight of the remarried widow. Even today with our very male centric hierarchy it is very difficult to have women’s perspectives represented (I know there are some baby steps in this direction with the ward counsel format).

I believe that this results in having our policy, doctrine, and theology skewed toward men.

So essentially you are not seeing the real celestial kingdom – you are seeing someone else’s imperfect and highly biased version of it.

Joni wrote:

The problem is, an awful lot of unpleasant things we do in this church are only done with the promise of celestial glory. Paying ten percent tithing (of gross!), wearing unflattering and uncomfortable underwear, sitting through THREE HOURS of church plus the pre-church and post-church meetings (on an empty stomach once a month), not drinking coffee or beer or wine, avoiding ‘self-abuse’, not watching R-rated movies, etc., etc., etc… What on earth is my incentive to toe the line if all I get at the end of the day is to be the facilitator of someone ELSE’S glory?

Again this is where I depart from the take it or leave it proposition. I participate in the church and live the church lifestyle to the degree that I can for social and personal reasons. Many of the things you listed are fairly negotiable (I personally don’t think the prohibition against ‘self-abuse’ even applies after marriage when much greater leeway is granted in the pursuit of sexual fulfillment. Just my $.02…and I’m not going to ask my bishop for his opinion. ). Unfortunately there is a higher cost associated with not following some of the highly visible expectations. I approach these under the cost/benefit analysis.

Joni wrote:

My husband is deeply troubled by this realization on my behalf. He was, after all, promised that if he got an Eagle Scout/served a mission/didn’t masturbate, he’d earn a hot/faithful/virginal wife who would gaze on him adoringly and “hearken” to his “counsel” for all of eternity.

This is somewhat of an extreme depiction but I tend to agree with the general outline. Elder Callister recently said explicitly that living a virtuous life will qualify you for a partner of like virtue. However your husband doesn’t have to be a raging misogynist to be troubled by your changing the paradigm.

I really don’t want you to conclude that if people say heaven is X then I don’t need it, and if God lives in such a heaven then He is a Jerk and I reject Him, and if the church teaches this then it has nothing to offer me, and if my marriage was predicated on these assumptions then I want out!!!

Please slow down. 40-80% of what you hear on Sunday might be based on fairytales (statistics invented by me :thumbup: ) but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t real people and real lives at stake. Whatever you decide about the church and heaven I would be extra nurturing towards your marriage. IF you have a decent marriage other than the religious thing, then that is something of value that cannot be easily replaced. Just be careful.

P.S. – I strongly reject the idea of getting a replacement spouse in heaven. To me it diminishes the ideal of becoming “one” with my spouse down to just so many interchangeable and disposable parts. That is not compatible with my heart on this subject.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Joni wrote:

The understanding that I will be answering to my husband in the CK (and not directly answering to God, which is another problem) has led me to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in the Celestial Kingdom at all.

It has been important for me to depart from the take it or leave it proposition. I take what I can take on my terms and leave the rest. If anyone has a problem with that, then tough luck because their opinions are not factors in my relationship with my God.

I believe that the evolution of our theology has been from a male position and bias from the beginning of time down until now. Heavenly Mother is not presented as an equal partner. Eve also is presented as secondary to her husband in the bible and in the temple ceremony. JS explained to Hyrum that polygamy was the solution for a remarried widower to keep both wives in the eternities – yet no consideration seems to have been given to the plight of the remarried widow. Even today with our very male centric hierarchy it is very difficult to have women’s perspectives represented (I know there are some baby steps in this direction with the ward counsel format).

I believe that this results in having our policy, doctrine, and theology skewed toward men.

I agree with Roy. Society and the Church is more centered around a male dominance hierarchy. Humans and most animal species are more inclined to having males being the leader. But there are a few species that have a female dominance. Have you ever heard of a “king bee”? I’m pretty sure if humans were more female-dominant from the beginning, then the roles of men and women in the church and society would switch. I also think we will see God as a woman.

The story of Adam and Eve was probably made up by people that lived in a male dominated society. So, in the story of Garden of Eden, Eve was probably created for Adam. But I don’t think God sees it that way. I believe He created men and women as equals. Men need women as much as women need men. The human race would have gone extinct if one gender existed without the other. I don’t think God is sexist.

Also, I don’t think gender will matter that much in the next-life. Gender/sex differences are mostly needed in this life. There probably won’t be any biological differences between males and females in the next-life.

Just remember that God wanted women to experience pregnancy. Males will never be able to experience that. Who knows? Maybe God felt women can handle pregnancy and childbirth better than men. So maybe He does think women are better than men in some ways.

I understand your bitterness though. I don’t like it either. Just as others have previously said in this thread, it’s only cultural.

[Anonymous]

joni,

Live your life as if there will be no life after. If something is important to you, live it. If you are managing your life as a protest against how some people imagine God to be, then you are wasting your time.

[Anonymous]

Joni,

I feel same way you do…if the price of the Celestial Kingdom and an eternal marriage is to forever be subservient to a husband, then I’m not willing to go there. I divorced an abusive husband that used the language of the temple to justify his abuse, and have not remarried despite many opportunities to do so because I find myself feeling suicidal whenever I seriously contemplate entering another temple marriage.

The sexism of the temple makes me think either:

1. God is a jerk, or

2. The Church is not yet restored enough to be in alignment with God’s will.

I’ve had too many good experiences with God to think #1 is true. IMHO, the sexism of the temple is a manifestation of Satan’s efforts to use religion (“buying up false priests to oppress”) against God’s purposes. What better way for Satan to counteract the strength and moral influence of women than to setup a religious environment that undermines women’s native moral authority by giving them less-than-equal authority in their own marriage relationship?

I’m seriously considering having my name removed from the Church over this issue. The thing that kills me is:

– doing so will break my parents’ hearts

– the Church does so much good in so many areas…its good influence is much needed in this fallen world. If only there were a non-sexist version of the Church, I’d love to stay and contribute.

But, I’ve recently realized that the only way I can marry again is if I marry outside the temple, to a husband who already believes that men and women are equal…which probably means I need to marry a non-mormon.

[Author]

Posts