- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The word of Paul in Corinthians is strikingly similar to what is said in the temple. I previously wrote the following: Quote: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:
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.
Joni: Quote:“Do the feelings of the thousands of women who feel unloved or less loved by God constitute acceptable collateral?”
Uhm, yeah. From the folks who brought us polygamy.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Joni:
Quote:“Do the feelings of the thousands of women who feel unloved or less loved by God constitute acceptable collateral?”
Uhm, yeah. From the folks who brought us polygamy.
You sisters could use an attitude adjustment. I always read Section 132 when I need a little boost. It just drips with poetic beauty.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.