- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Peace wrote:
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.
Peace, kudos to you on escaping an abusive marriage. That can’t have been easy. I’m sure that your story isn’t at all unique in the Church, and it makes me wish that the top leadership would take a serious look at the language used in the temple. One of the things I noticed the last time I sat through an endowment ceremony was how easy it would be for my husband to use it to justify all kinds of abuse if he wanted to. Fortunately, he doesn’t.
I totally see the dichotomy you are referring to. I draw the line in a different place, but I feel the same way. My conundrum is:
1. either the language of the temple is accurate, and that’s how God really sees us; or
2. the language of the temple is inaccurate, but God hasn’t bothered to reveal a better version.
Whichever way you slice it, I think there’s a lot of truth to what you say about the sexism of the temple being Satan’s influence. We are always told that Satan wants to target women and the family because we are sooooooooo strong.
:wtf: BUT if I were Satan and I really wanted to undermine both the men and the women, I’d convince the women that they are inferior AND convince the men that they are superior.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.
Please give input – Thanks!
I think that’s a great analysis Roy. Those scriptures you reference certainly seem to parallel the temple experience. Even though we are going away from that kind of thinking, I worry that we may be wrong about how heaven is governed. One of my biggest religious fears is that those scriptures and the temple are how God really views women. The fact that Heavenly Mother is not worshiped (or mentioned at all) seems to imply that women are less than men in heaven. I assume the temple wording will change over time too, and remove those parts but I don’t know if that will completely take away my concern, since I don’t know if I should believe that they were wrong back then or that we are now. 
We have let go of a LOT of things from that past – and I am positive we will continue to do so. I say you should go with your heart and believe this too shall pass. journeygirl wrote:The fact that Heavenly Mother is not worshiped (or mentioned at all) seems to imply that women are less than men in heaven.
I’ll choose to have it imply that patriarchal societies allowed their culture to taint their worship. In other words the problem is from the bottom up, not the top down. People casting god in their image.
I sure hope so, nibbler. journeygirl wrote:I worry that we may be wrong about how heaven is governed. One of my biggest religious fears is that those scriptures and the temple are how God really views women. The fact that Heavenly Mother is not worshiped (or mentioned at all) seems to imply that women are less than men in heaven. I assume the temple wording will change over time too, and remove those parts but I don’t know if that will completely take away my concern, since I don’t know if I should believe that they were wrong back then or that we are now.
In regards to this discussion DW surprised me by saying “But God is sexist.” I asked her to explain further and she mentioned how “Most people believe that He is a polygamist with many wives. How could so many good people come to an erroneous view of God unless it was based in truth.”
My response to this is that MOST people do not believe this about God. Most people that believe in a Judeo-Christian concept of God do not believe him to be married at all. Speaking of LDS, I venture to say that MOST if polled would not count God as a polygamist.
This does not mean that Judeo-Christianity is not sexist. I believe that to come largely from the fact that when the scriptures were being written down women were very clearly second class citizens with severly limited rights. I find it interesting the lengths that my pastor friend goes to in order to justify and explain Paul’s sexist statements. To him it is not possible that Paul was just sexist and wrong on some things.
I very much hope that we LDS with our continuing modern revelation can progress fastor than our “solo scriptura” brothers and sisters – but that remains to be seen.
But it very much bothers me that my smart accomplished wife would think that she will always be second fiddle in the economy of heaven. In a way it is as though she is afraid to reclaim a full share of the divine inheritance because she has been conditioned to believe that she doesn’t deserve it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.