The Dichotomy of Eve
One of the doctrines that appealed most to me as an investigator of the Church was the Second Article of Faith: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
This varied greatly from my Protestant and fleeting Catholic teachings I’d grown up with that we are all sinners because of Adam and Eve, and lest we never accept Christ into our hearts we are doomed to eternal damnation because of something some guy did millions of years ago (or however long you believe it to be).
I lovedthis. And my heart pitter-pattered even more when I heard this tidbit: Eve wasn’t taken from Adam’s head as to be at his head, nor from his feet as to insinuate she would be at his feet, but rather from his rib, his side. Equals. Yay! I loved telling family and friends this.
Then there’s Moses 5:10-11:
“And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”
Eve. Without Eve, we wouldn’t know good. We revere Eve for her foresight. For her transgression. For knowing that it would be better to know good from evil than remain in such an innocent state wherein they could never progress. President Faust states in What It Means to Be a Daughter of God in the 1999 November Ensign,
“We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Eve. In the Garden of Eden, she and Adam were instructed not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, they were also reminded, ‘Thou mayest choose for thyself.’ The choice was really between a continuation of their comfortable existence in Eden, where they would never progress, or a momentous exit into mortality with its opposites: pain, trials, and physical death in contrast to joy, growth, and the potential for eternal life. In contemplating this choice, we are told, ‘And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, … and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.’ And thus began their earthly probation and parenthood.
“After the choice was made, Adam voiced this grateful expression: ‘Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.’ “Eve made an even greater statement of visionary wisdom after leaving the Garden of Eden: ‘Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.’ If it hadn’t been for Eve, none of us would be here.”
Sounds great, right? There’s a problem though, and it starts with scriptures such as “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”
Erm…where’d Eve go?
The problem is furthered in the Bible: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
Anyone who has been to the temple understands that the teaching of subjection still exists. Some of you will say that a righteous priesthood holder would never put his foot down and proclaim his God given authority, but the fact remains that he has it. The man is the head. The priesthood holder gets the revelation. His wife can pray and discuss issues with him, but ultimately he makes the decision. That isn’t a partnership. It’s not even compromise. It’s a parent-child relationship, and Adam and Eve set the pattern. It all seems to stem from Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy.
By initially being more obedient to God, Adam is given greater access to God. No matter what Eve thinks now, she has to listen to Adam who would have counseled her to reject the fruit. Apparently she’s only allowed to be right in that one thing. Lucky for her she wasn’t taught beforehand to listen to her husband. Lucky for her she didn’t even ask. She didn’t have to. No covenants had been made yet.
Ahhhh, innocence.
Does anyone else see a disconnect here?
I don’t covet the priesthood, just a place at the table; a chance and the right to have just as much access to God as my husband. Real equality. Not something that resembles it, but something that is equal despite what Eve did. I don’t want to pay for what she did.
Spin it as you will, in the end it is a patriarchal order which, by definition, puts the man at the head of the family – read: in charge. Last say. An understood clearer connection with God all by virtue of a Y chromosome.
And yet we go on and on about how holy women are despite these teachings. The more I hear about our inherent holiness the more condescended to I feel. The more we insist there is no distinction is to bring more attention to the actual distinction. I understand that men are generally stronger, taller, etc. than women. I get that women are generally physically weaker, more nurturing, shorter than men. I’m not speaking of physical inequalities: I’m speaking to mental and spiritual equalities, equalities that we should understand to fundamentally exist.
I have a hard time believing my God would make me inferior to men, and this makes the Bible and scripture sometimes incredibly difficult to read. I am His daughter. I am to feel loved and in peace. Like I matter. Sometimes I don’t feel like I really do.
Is the patriarchal pattern a consequence of Eve?
Scripture would tell us yes; the Church would say no - but as my scriptural notes attest we are still rationalizing, still insisting the priesthood trumps all, and as men hold the priesthood and not women (except for the temple), I am somehow inferior. And no, I’m not looking for inversion of roles. If the priesthood is not complete without the woman in marriage, if neither man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord, than I say these things ought to be reflected in the family order.
I have felt respected in our church, but I’ve also felt very much like I don’t matter. I am not the only one, and so we need to address this rather than dismiss it as silly feminism that seeks to destroy not only gender roles but the basic foundation of God’s plan. That just adds salt to an already open wound.
I agree with you 100%. I’ve tried to explain this concept to my priesthood leaders. Women are condescended to constantly and the temple ceremony does put us as second class citizens. I have yet to talk to a man who really gets it.
Comment by C. J. Warburton — December 23, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Agreed. One of the things that kept running through my mind after participating in the endowment ceremony for the first time–and ever after, I guess–was “men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression, but women are punished for their own sins AND Eve’s transgression.” The subjection and marginalization of women in the ceremony was very distressing for me and I felt like the church had betrayed my faith. For awhile I wondered if God had, but after a number of earnest, tearful prayers, I realized it wasn’t Him. Still, the experience ground my heart like hamburger.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 12:51 am
This is a dichotomy like the whole “preside vs. team of two equals” that husbands/men get all the time. Does the husband preside? Or is it that the husband and wife operate as a team of two equals? I think the current answer to this question is “yes.” And perhaps it’s the same with the Eve dichotomy? Both are correct. Not a logical answer, granted, just the current state of things.
(I am NOT saying that I agree with the notion that women should be punished for Eve’s transgression.)
Comment by Hunter — December 23, 2008 @ 1:16 am
I hear it said that these things are as a result of a fallen world and will be different in the celestial kingdom. But it doesn’t need to be so in the gospel. If these things are not as they should be right now, God can easily correct them with a revelation through the prophet. Why are we told we have the fullness of the gospel if we are still told to operate under laws of a fallen world.
Comment by Sally — December 23, 2008 @ 3:05 am
Realize this, that God loves women and men the same. Realize that our earthly church can only be as good as we are, and we’re always, hard as we try not to be, we’re always steeped in our current culture and prejudices. It was that way for blacks and the priesthood, and it is that way for women now. Know that you are a beloved child of God. Realize that the church is not infallible. Don’t let the transient earthly ideas and doctrines of human beings teach you something profoundly untrue, that you are inferior or less important than other human beings. It simply isn’t true. Realize that eternally you have a divine nature and unlimited potential. Don’t waste that potential. Live up to it. Don’t take things too literally. We’re learning line upon line and precept upon precept. There’s a whole lot more for us to learn. Don’t take the wrong lesson from what we have now. We have saving true doctrines that haven’t been known on earth for centuries, doctrines that surpass anything known by the wisest scientists or heads of state on earth today. Instead of letting them squash you down and hold you back, take those doctrines and fly upward with them to the stars.
Comment by Tatiana — December 23, 2008 @ 8:42 am
[cough] Some of us see the entire creation story as allegory, a fragmented version of God’s truth designed for an imperfect world. So maybe it’s just a way of explaining things as they are now, leaving us to rely on God for what could be.[cough]
Sorry, it’s drafty in here. Not that I’m really happy with the whole second-class thing. But I think that when the world is perfected, women will co-officiate in the Priesthood outside the temple, in deed and not just in word. I might run things differently if I were in charge, but I ain’t in charge, and God probably did that for a reason.
Comment by Bro. Jones — December 23, 2008 @ 9:15 am
My heart goes out to you and I have felt the same way myself, sometimes with my own husband, who is a kind and loving man. I wish I could go to the temple with you and talk about this, but I can’t, so I’ll say what I can.
Yes the husband presides, and the husband and wife are a equal partners in the family. These things do not have to be mutually exclusive. It’s God’s way of providing checks and balances for his children. Similar to the way that there are checks and balances in the US government.
The senate and the house of representatives make the laws, edit them, and pass them, but the president has power to veto those laws, but then you can send the bill back and if you can muster enough votes, pass it anyway, even though the president has vetoed it. So it is with the family. There is still room to disagree and the woman still has power, in fact equal to that of the man because the power of the senate and house of representatives is weaker only because there are several individuals, instead of just one. We need each other to avoid overstepping our bounds. God is like the judicial branch…
As for problems at the church level. I don’t know, I’m still working on those. But, I’ve been in a ward that I felt the priesthood leadership really looked at women as equals. It was amazing what that ward was able to do.
I also think that part of the problem is that there are a lot of women in the church that do honestly believe that women are inferior to men. Which makes the things worse.
I hope you can understand what I’m trying to say.
Comment by Arlynda — December 23, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Hi Lisa - What a great post - Thanks for sharing.
Comment by California LDS — December 23, 2008 @ 9:37 am
I think the confusion comes from misunderstanding the priesthood. The man is only the head so long as he is righteously wielding that power of the Priesthood. If he is righteously wielding it, being the head means submission just as much as not being the head means submission. The leader and those lead submit to each other. True leadership is making sure everyone’s needs (and even righteous wants) are taken care of. If he is not wielding it righteously, then he loses his priesthood position, is no longer the head, and the point is completely moot.
Comment by SilverRain — December 23, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I look at it as driving. Someone has to be behind the wheel. You can have someone in the passenger seat, looking at the map, pointing out directions, and discussing with you all that you should do, as the driver. However, at the last second, it’s up to the driver, and the driver alone, to make the turns, hit the gas or the breaks, etc.
If you have two people trying to drive the same car, you won’t get anywhere. In fact, you’re likely to have an accident. A wise driver, however, will rely on the navigator beside him for directions, so he can focus on driving safely, rather than being distracted from traffic, looking for road signs that may be hard to read.
It’s a true partnership. However, many see it as unequal, because the man is “behind the wheel” and makes those final decisions. He also, however, has the complete responsibility, in the case of an accident. If it’s the driver’s fault if he crashes, if he hits the gas instead of the brake. That’s a lot of responsibility.
That’s one reason why I believe that women should live singly for a while before marriage, so that they can learn and understand the responsibility of being in the driver’s seat. Also, if they marry, and then lose thier husband, they will know how to drive.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 10:12 am
One of the several things which bother me about the endowment ceremony is exactly this issue: I don’t like that the word “subject” is used in reference to their relationship with their husbands. I’d never made the connection to AofF 2–a very good point–but it still really bothered me. Because while the Church rationalizes the husband’s authority by comparing it to the leadership of Christ (leadership as service), the word “subject” isn’t really consistent with that interpretation.
In the contemporary Church, the practice is rarely one of subjection. For the most part, we’ve become a much more sensitive priesthood and manhood–and rightfully so. But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the inherent doctrine has a much less respectful tone, and that it has not infrequently been abused to rationalize the treatment of women like chattel in the past.
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 10:24 am
The endowment process was a serious blow to my faith. I went about a year and half ago, and have not gone back since, even though I’ve had plenty of opportunities. I felt awful. Everyone my whole life had constantly talked about how wonderful it was. I went and was A) super freaked out about some COMPLETELY unexpected stuff, and B) completely deflated and hurt by the portrayal of women. I could tell my soon-to-be husband was worried about my reaction.
Then at the end, while we were in the celestial room, all my relatives were standing around me, smiling so happily and looked like they were just waiting for me to fall to my knees and praise God for my newfound enlightenment. But I didn’t feel enlightened. I felt horrible, and confused. And I felt (feel?) guilty for somehow missing the beautiful spirit that everyone talks of there. I went in knowing there were some things that might bug an equality-believing woman, but when I actually heard the words, and the hierarchy, I believe it broke my heart.
Artemis, how did you deal with these feelings? How do I handle it when I go to ward council meeting and they are planning the next temple trip, and I just don’t don’t don’t want to go? People can say all these sweet things about human frailty now, and different roles that are equally important, and how it is impossible for it to be used to do evil, but at the end of the day, I just feel devalued. By that which I have always loved most.
Comment by Just Someone — December 23, 2008 @ 10:28 am
I really don’t think that marriage is like driving a car. My husband and I make decisions together- always have, always will. We have yet to crash our “car.” And when if/when we do crash our “car”, it will be both our responsibilities.
I was raised LDS, so I’ve been through every example, allegory, and parable meant to explain why men are supposed to preside over women. For a long time I really tried to believe it. But then I stopped. And for the first time in my life I really independently thought, “Why should a man preside over me?” I really couldn’t come up with a good answer. Without the scriptures, or the prophet, or the bishop telling me the “answer,” I could not come up with a good reason as to why an Y chromosome should preside over an X chromosome.
For the first time in my life I knew totally that I was capable of making my own decisions. That my objections to any said predicament where important and real. That when I was to form a relationship with a man, such as marriage, that we would make decisions together, always.
Leading together isn’t as easy as being led, but I think that it yields better results. If you disagree with your husband on a major point in your relationship (ie. children, career, housing), there’s probably a good reason why. Besides, making a major decision without one spouses’ approval is likely to split a marriage apart.
I like the FMH blog a lot. It’s really enlightening to see so many intelligent LDS women struggle under the weight of these issues. I hope that my comment can be of some help.
-Hay
Comment by Hay — December 23, 2008 @ 10:45 am
I meant “submit,” not “subject.” Same meaning.
Re: 12
If the temple is not meaningful to you, if it makes you struggle, don’t go. You should only do what helps you build your relationship with your Father. If it the temple doesn’t do it, find something else which does. If your bishop presses you, be honest. If he is a good bishop, he will respect that and seek to help you find your own. If he is a bad bishop…well, what is he going to do? Take away your temple recommend?
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Oh Carrie, I want to respond to your analogy, but I’m just filled with despair reading it. Mostly because I know your view is widespread and that, despite the many posts on this topic on fmh, it just keeps coming back. Equal partners can never mean that one person gets to make the final decision. That is simply not compatible with the term equality. Maybe it can mean that men and women have different roles (another can of worms, but at least logically possible), but it cannot mean anything like the man is the driver and the woman is the passenger. What does that mean for the idea of priesthood ‘presiding’? I can’t answer that (in my family that means we embrace the equal partners injunction and ignore the contradictory one).
Comment by Markie — December 23, 2008 @ 10:56 am
I believe as women we have as much power as men. We can communicate with God through prayer and in my experience - get done what’s gotta get done. I know He hears and answers me. I don’t need to have the power to anoint for that happen. There are certain ordinances I cannot do, I am comfortable enough in my own abilities for that to not sway my opinion or feelings.
Comment by bigmama — December 23, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Actually, the temple shows God as the head. At best, according to the endowment ceremony, Adam is an intermediary.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Until the eternal law of submission or subjection is understood, I doubt that the temple ceremony and other such things can be understood. But look at Christ as an example: He, the most righteous and powerful of us all was subjected to unspeakable things, and submitted Himself willingly. Abinadi’s words in Mosiah 15 are a good place to start. Especially when you start examining the Fall of Adam in light of the Atonement, it all becomes a little clearer. The Atonement and the Fall are inextricably connected, and the Priesthood is one of the main links between the two.
Equality is not the most important concept in the world, let alone in eternity. “Equality” is self-evident and thus meaningless. As long as a person is worried about whether or not they are worth the same as the next person, they cut themselves off from understanding and consequently from power.
Of course, it is up to the individual to seek that understanding and to believe it or not, but suffice it to say that there are other perspectives on the matter.
Comment by SilverRain — December 23, 2008 @ 11:18 am
One other thing to consider is that prior to the 1990 overhaul of the ceremony, the endowment was much less favourable to Eve than it is today.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Well, I do believe in the driving thing because I’ve seen it in action. My parents talk about their decisions, and work together, and almost always agree on the decision. And sometimes, there simply is no compromise on a yes/no question. In that case, my parents talk about it, discuss it, lay all their cards on the table, and when the time comes to make a decision, with no more delay or discussion possible, my father has to make it, one way or the other. Sometimes the decision he makes is actually to go with my mother’s point of view! The point is, you can’t really “take a vote” with only two people. In a tie situation, someone HAS to take that responsibility and make the decision before the time passes and the decision is made for you.
Back to the driving analogy - if he wants to go left, and she wants to go right, and no one convinces the other, so you wind up going straight, you may very well drive right into that concrete barrier dividing the upcoming lanes. The driver HAS to turn left or right. There’s no avoiding it. Does that mean he’s in command over her, and she has no choice but to meekly obey in silence? No. She can say, “Go back and turn right.” “Look, honey, we’re on the wrong road. These landmarks aren’t right at all. See here on the map? We should be over there.”
If time didn’t come crashing down on us, we could continue the debate until we reached a consensus, but sometimes it just doesn’t happen that way, and will not happen that way, and we have to accept that. One person MUST take control at that point. However, ONLY at such points. For the rest of the time, we should be discussing and agreeing.
Furthermore, that doesn’t mean he’s in charge of ALL THINGS in the marriage. My father, for example, happily handed over financial control to my mother, because she’s better at it than he is. They discuss purchases and expenses together, but in the case of a disagreement and a looming deadline, she’s the one who writes the checks and makes that final decision. He has placed her in the driver’s seat for finances. It works.
If we had marriage consisting of three partners, we could take votes, and simplify the matter greatly. However, in the case of two people, we have to agree to that final say principle, when there is no more time for discussion. And the person who has that final say has all the responsibility that goes with it, which is not really pleasant when things go wrong.
Does my mother just submit quietly, give up all her own opinions, and say, “Whatever you want, dear. You’re in charge?” No. She tells him what she wants, what she needs, and makes sure that he takes it to heart.
The vast majority of the time, it’s not an issue. However, there ARE times, when time is of the essence, when it becomes an issue, and in such cases, I remember the driving analogy.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 11:24 am
#12 — I am with you on that one!
This may go against the grain here, but what really bothers me is how people (men and women) downplay Eve’s sin. I think Eve was the “bad guy” in the Garden of Eden. Sure, we can rationalize it after the fact, but what she did was wrong and should be owned up to. I don’t like it when people make excuses when a woman does something wrong. To me, that perpetuates the “weaker sex” concept.
Comment by StillConfused — December 23, 2008 @ 11:26 am
SilverRain,
I agree that equality is not the most important thing in the world, but I think it is very important for our mortal life. It’s important for selfish reasons (I want to feel valued, too!) and for very unselfish reasons (everyone benefits when all people are fully included).
The comparison to Christ doesn’t quite add up for me. I am very, very happy to submit myself to the will of God (in theory!), and do not even want to think about being equal to Him. But there is a big difference between making personal sacrifices to submit to the higher plan of an all-knowing Father, and accepting a permanent second-class standing from people who know little more than you do, and just happen to have testicles. Not the same scenario.
In general, I agree with most of the posts above that there is a huge contradiction here. LisaJ., I think you elucidated some of it very clearly. I too take issue with the notion that women are to men, as men are to God. I guess we’re all just waiting for the revelation to come.
Comment by natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 11:27 am
But Christ didn’t only submit Himself to the will of the Father, He also submitted Himself to the will of men.
Comment by SilverRain — December 23, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Re #11 & 14
Submit? I am pretty sure all Eve does is promise to obey God’s law and listen to Adam’s counsel (only as he listens to God). I do not think there is any mention of “submit” in the covenant she makes.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:31 am
5, Tatiana: Thank you for your response. I just wish it was reflected more in the church. We have come a long way, but we’ve still so far to go.
7, Arlynda: I appreciate what you were trying to say, and I do get it. I just don’t like the way the church states it, the way we speak of needing the father to be in charge of the household, the need to put him back at the head of the family.
#12: I’m wth Derek. Though I can imagine a scenario where a bishop may take away a recommend would be rather frightening(I don’t imagine he would for this, but *shrug*), I don’t think you should be pressured or FEEL pressured to go if it’s only making things worse. In the meantime I’d take it to lots of prayer, study, personal…well. It’s a difficult one because you want to talk about it, but don’t know what’s appropriate and what’s not.
#17, Kim: Ah, I thought I made my understanding of that clear.
God –> Adam –> Eve
God –> Husband –> Wife.
Still a problem.
Look, I don’t think any level-headed person is looking to belittle the father/husband. I grew up without really knowing my dad, and I regret that completely. I need(ed) my dad. I will ensure to the best of my ability that my kids will have a relationship with their father because I know how important it is.
I think men and women can complement each other well, but we can’t speak of man being both at the head AND at the side of woman without sounding slightly hypocritical, you know?
Comment by LisaJ — December 23, 2008 @ 11:31 am
I’m not 100% sure I agree with this, but if it’s true why does it have to be the husband who must take control? Why always the same person?
I’m uncomfortable with how you’ve phrased this. You may be unconscious of it, but you have said that your father has “handed over” responsibilities to your mother and “placed” her in power positions regarding finances. You are still saying that the default person of power is your father and it is up to him to delegate. Problematic.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 11:33 am
I do love this discussion, but as many have already stated …. it’s a conversation that just goes around and around without reaching a satisfactory (at least for me) ending.
I’m LDS now 8.5 years - and there have been long periods when I just couldn’t go to the temple. One more time a man was saying, “She did it, it’s all her fault.” using a broad brushstroke here Ray et al.- Why is that when men feel challenged/insecure about anything, they blame women??
At the end of the day I still feel as though any 12-yr-old deacon is just another Bishop-in-training just waiting to pat me on the head as if to say “It’s ok Sister Mary Magdalene - you have the greatest role of all.” (lest we forget the Solemn Assembly, ummm)
This reminds me of another thread.. what would we consecrate? There are days I’d love to consecrate my thinking mind in order that I might find a measure of earthly peace in a plaid jumper and a non-questioning demeanor. Naturally though, that could only be short-lived in that I do find joy in learning and wrestling with puzzles that do have an understandable outcome/picture.
Can you believe it’s already Tuesday? I am so gonna make it a great day sisters and brothers. Wanna joy me in that pursuit?
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 23, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Why?
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Kim - still a problem because where in that equation is God in direct contact with a woman?
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 23, 2008 @ 11:37 am
But the endowment doesn’t say women cannot have direct contact with God.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:38 am
This is true, especially at the end. She’s alone before God at the end. So why have the hierarchy in the first place?
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 11:40 am
I ditto SilverRain!
There is so much to this gospel that we just don’t understand, and I to believe there will be a time where the man and the woman will hold the priesthood together, again.
Comment by Sunshine — December 23, 2008 @ 11:41 am
…. if only it were the case that men had to harken unto women as they harkened unto the Lord could you fully understand the source of the problem.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 23, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Yes, but Kim (#17), I don’t want any intermediary between me and God except for Christ, who is the mediator for us all. And the man IS represented as the “head” of the couple. The woman is effectively subjected and distanced from God for 2 reasons: she’s a woman, and she’s being held responsible for Eve’s choice (even though we’re told, now, that Eve’s choice was the right choice, a courageous choice–so she gets extra punishment for it–right).
Just Someone, I’ve tried different things. When I first went through, it was right before my mission–and, actually, James Faust was passing by the Celestial Room at the time, so the workers were all excited to introduce me to him and tell him it was my first time. They asked him if he had any advice for me, he looked at me, and said “come back”. So I did. Often. There was a temple close to me in my mission, so we would go 2 or 3 times a month. I sobbed for 6 straight months. Over time, with the familiarity of it all, it got a little better, but never better than bittersweet. After the mission I kept going, once a month, usually, though over the years it started waning a little.
Then I got married and between the wife giving the husband her name and not vice versa, and the ceremony verbiage of the wife giving herself and the husband taking her, it opened up the wounds all over again. I stopped going. I’ve been to an endowment once since and to two sealings (one marriage and one adopted child), and it’s never easy. At this point, I’m with Derek–if it’s that painful, it’s better for me and my testimony to just stay away.
So if you don’t want to go, don’t go. Don’t explain, either, unless you want to. It’s rather masochistic to, er, subject yourself to that kind of pain if you are able to avoid it. I don’t know if other people have found peace by continuing to go in spite of the pain, but that wasn’t my experience and I’m much happier and emotionally stable when I stay away.
Of course, I still know about the tension, the pain, and I have no answer for resolving that. As long as I’m committed to being a member of the church and as long as things remain the way they are, doctrinally and ritually, I think there will be no resolution and I just have to live with it.
Getting out into nature is one of my most reliable ways of finding peace and transcendence–love these Wasatch mountains–and I’ve found some ideas I like from other belief traditions. Yoga is great for me. Another thing is that I’ve kinda lifted my relationship with God out of a strictly Mormon context. I’m more of a non-organized-religion believer who is Mormon too. You might explore a little and find some things that work for you–meditation, or whatever.
I’m sorry I don’t have a definitive answer. I’m still looking for one.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Beats me. But the entire endowment ceremony is about hierarchy, even before the story of Adam and Eve. Maybe Adam and Eve’s story is an extension of that, but that just m own speculation.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Kim, it says that women should learn from and obey their husbands just as husbands should learn from and obey God. Why are women at the bottom of that chain? Why can’t women learn from and obey God themselves? Why don’t husbands have to learn from and obey their wives?
The point is, it is differentiating women and men spiritually here, and placing men in a position closer to God. For no tangible reason, that I can see.
It doesn’t say women cannot have direct contact, sure…. but it doesn’t say they can, either.
Comment by Just Someone — December 23, 2008 @ 11:43 am
It’s all patriarchal. The wife still has to go through her husband. I believe it should always be a compromise. That’s how it is in our home. Sometimes we go with me, sometimes we go with my husband. He doesn’t get the final say anymore than I do.
We’re still playing the part of Eve. Oh crap, ate the fruit. Adam never would’ve done that because he wanted to be obedient to God. Eve, though she was doing what God intended (as we beleive) disobeyed God. She should listen to Adam (as he listens to the Lord, which is what he was doing in the first place with that danged fruit)
That’s the pattern. Just replace “Eve” with “women” and “Adam” with “Men”
Comment by LisaJ — December 23, 2008 @ 11:43 am
I believe this too (you know how we all intermingle in the celestial room when up until then we’ve been separated?), but for right now, I don’t know why we have to perpetuate something that is so painful for so many women, and which is so deconstructible as to be meaningless. This sounds like I don’t like the temple. I love it despite all this.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Carrie,
The point is, with a car, only one person can drive. They are in TOTAL control of everything that it going on. Passengers in the car may complain, make suggestions, or fear for the lives, but the driver is still in charge.
I simply do not think that marriage is like that. You cannot make your spouse have another baby, get a job, or spank a child. You cannot make your spouse pack their bags and move across the country. You just cannot make your spouse do anything.
But if marriage was like a car, you actually can make your spouse go where you want to go and do what you want to do. The only option that the passenger really has if the course is not going as planned, is to jump out of the car.
I just cannot grasp how marriage (good marriage, that is) is like a car.
I really think that in marriage, two bodies -and two brains- become one. You have to do your very best to make your partner understand your point of view. This is so hard. But giving up on the process, beating your chest, declaring that all deliberation is over, and that a choice is made is a one-way-ticket to divorce. Trying to make your spouse do something that they don’t understand or agree with it just downright nasty in my opinion. And it will lead to dire consequences.
It just really irks me that men are to preside over women in this fashion, even in they do it “politely”. What if the husband isn’t very good at making decisions? What if the wife is smarter, more decisive, quicker on her toes? Should the man still make the final decision? Why should a Y rein over an X?
Yeah, I don’t get it. I’m not sure I ever will.
Comment by Hay — December 23, 2008 @ 11:45 am
I’m not saying Adam is an intermediary. I am saying that at best, compared with the false idea that he is presented as the head in the endowment, he is an intermediary. But that isn’t the only scenario possible.
How is Eve punished in the endowment ceremony for her choice?
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Now it doesn’t. It says women should obey God and hearken to their husband’s counsel as they hearken to God’s counsel. You’re extrapolating.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:46 am
It doesn’t say it verbally, but what do you call the end of the ceremony? That’s as direct as you can get. (By the way, I almost typed your exact response until I remembered end of the ceremony…which is my favorite part.)
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 11:47 am
For what it’s worth, the primary form of “as” as a conjunction is “during” or “while”, not “in the same way”.
Comment by SilverRain — December 23, 2008 @ 11:49 am
re: 24
I believe the promise is not to listen but to submit. It is qualified by the supposition that the husband is also submitting to Our Father, but that isn’t really helpful; making the husband an intermediary seems to imply the woman cannot or should not seek her own counsel with the Lord, that her revelation is inferior to her husbands. I don’t buy it.
re: 25 (re: 12)
This is yet another issue where I think the pressure to conform in the Church is not constructive. We are taught to automatically assume that the temple is a source of healing, comfort, and revelation for us. In truth, many do not find it to be so. And because of the dogma surrounding the temple, they are given to believe something is wrong with them (sin). We should be able to have a more open discussion within the Church about how the temple effects us. People like Just Someone should be able to talk about the temple without being made to feel like an outcast. If we could talk openly, perhaps others could give advice which would help her to see the temple in a different light and appreciate it in her life. Or perhaps they could help her find spiritual alternatives, and accept her for who she is (hopefully her bishop is sensitive enough to do this).
As it is, Lisa is right. Just S, talk to God about this. Seek His words in the scriptures and elsewhere. Do some quiet contemplation. If He leads you to the temple, great! If not, and he leads you to stay in the Church but find spiritual renewal somewhere other than the temple, that’s great too. You have to do what works for you.
BTW, I’ve always taken a silly joy in the fact that my grandmother was something of a protofeminist back in the ’40s and ’50s. Unfortunately, she found the temple very unnerving upon her sealing; after her first husband died due to diabetes three years later, she never went back. So I can empathize with those who struggle with the temple.
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 11:50 am
#26 - Why always the same person? Because he has been given that responsibility, along with the priesthood. Don’t kid yourself. It’s a burden. It’s fraught with guilt when things go wrong, and terror of making the wrong choice in the crunchtime. I personally don’t envy that, and I’m single!
I drive myself, and am responsible only for myself. When I have passengers in my car (reality here, not analogy), I feel that burden of having that extra responsibility. They can tell me where to go, but if we crash, it’s MY FAULT. The husband/priesthood holder feels that way all the time!
You know, if you want that driving seat in your marriage, and you and your husband agree that in an emergency, you get the final say, go for it. Whatever works for you in your relationship. The gospel is not one size fits all. It’s one size fits most.
As for “my father handed that over to her,” and “delegated,” well, they were raised in the 40’s and 50’s. What do you expect? Frankly, considering how they were both raised (abusive homes, different rules for males and females), it’s surprising how egalitarian they really are, and I find it commendable. And if you ask them *why* they’re so egalitarian, they’ll put it down to the gospel, and yes, even the temple endowment. Mother and Father have both told me, repeatedly, that when I marry, I am to hearken unto my husband ONLY so long as he is righteous.
Maybe it’s my military upbringing, or maybe it’s the time I’ve seen emergencies when absolute and immediate obedience were necessary to save lives, but I GET the idea that someone has to be in charge, and have the final say. Somebody has to be the officer, and somebody has to be the sergeant.
And just ask an officer, sometime, where he would be without his non-com!
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 11:52 am
The promise is two fold: obey God, hearken to Adam’s counsel. That’s it.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 11:52 am
empathy is nice, but i’d prefer the right to hold priesthood - just sayin’
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am
By being told to submit to a human as well as to God.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Kim (#40), are you kidding me? How is Eve punished for her choice? You know the part where God calls Adam and Eve to explain why they’re hiding and wearing fig leaves? And gives them both punishments? And women are told to consider themselves as Eve and covenant to “hearken” (which is easily taken as a euphemism for “obey”) to their husbands? THAT punishment?
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Do you believe that women are less accountable to God than men are?
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Carrie,
There are very few choices in a marriage that require on-the-spot decision making. Some examples of on-the-spot decision making could be:
- What to do if your child is seriously injured in an accident.
- What to do if somebody breaks into your house.
- Where are is the family going to stay if a fire burns down your house.
Usually, smart couples will come up with a game plan *before* these things happen. If something truly unpredictable happens, the spouse with the greatest aptitude in that particular field should probably make the decision. It’s completely gender neutral. I’m better at finances, so I handle all the finances, but my husband is a better deal-maker, so he handles buying new cars, etc, etc.
The vast majority of decisions should be made by both husband and wife. Period.
I do not wait for command from my husband because he has a penis. I just think that’s not very smart.
Comment by Hay — December 23, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Since reading across the ‘nacle, I have found many posts that seem to suggest a reason for why my teachers and cohorts have been so insistent on this particular point: It is part of the temple ceremony. What I had always excused as members’ misunderstanding is something that I will have to covenant to abide be should I ever take out my endowments.
I try not to worry about this too much. Given my many doubts in regards to the gospel, I won’t be visiting the temple any time soon anyhow. I tell myself not to worry about it. Milk before meat, right? Still, the thought that a teaching I had always dismissed is part of the temple ceremony is disturbing. Given the sacredness and secrecy of the temple, it is difficult for me to figure what I should think. The one time I tried to approach an endowed woman on the topic she was highly offended. I don’t want to be disrespectful, and have not posed my questions to others.
I am sorry LisaJ, that I don’t shed any light on your question, “Is the patriarchal pattern a consequence of Eve?,” only more questions. However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts. While this is not the first post raising such questions that I have read, I am glad that people are respectfully posing these questions in a public forum. Should my faith ever be nursed back into a healthy relationship with the gospel as taught by the LDS, I am glad that I have read writings such as yours before attending the temple. I will have many questions for my bishop and the women in my life, prior to taking out my endowments.
Comment by trill — December 23, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Well, I remember where Adam was told the earth would be cursed for his sake; he would be afflicted and tormented by thorns, weeds and the like; and he would have to work for his food.
I find it odd that what was Adam’s punishment was presented as a covenant, yet what you claim as Eve’s punishment was. Does that mean Adam’s covenant to obey God and hearken to his counsel was additional punishment for Adam?
No kidding. Despite the fact that no dictionary comes close to defining hearken in this way. Now, if you are referring to the ‘84 ceremony, that’s a whole other ball game.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Sorry, that should read “was NOT presented as a covenant”.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
At the same time … all those things that afflict Adam also afflicted Eve, but those things that were dished out to Eve were for women alone (further distanced from HF).
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 23, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
There was only one thing: hearkening to Adam’s counsel as he hearkened to the Lord’s counsel.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Do you believe that women are less accountable to God than men are?
No, I do not. I believe we are accountable for our own responsibilities. And along with the priesthood, men have been given more responsibility.
You want more responsibilty? I’m quite sure you’ll get it, in time, but first you have to prove yourself capable of handling the responsibility you already have.
Like a previous poster said, in the celestial room, we’re all mixed together.
As for why men, why now? Because for the most part it works? Because now, the vast majority of men won’t let a woman be in charge when it comes down to it. Because men and women do think differently, with different brain chemistry, and there are things in this world we don’t understand, and won’t understand for millenia to come.
I don’t understand quantum physics, but I do understand that mathematically speaking, miracles are inevitable, some of the time, due to the way electrons bounce around so darned much. Maybe it has something to do with that. I certainly don’t have all the answers. That’s why I focus on what works, from a purely practical standpoint.
Practicality rankles, sometimes, but it still works.
Meanwhile, it’s all theoretical for me, anyway, because I’m single and likely to remain that way.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Dang…. only that first line was supposed to be quoted. Is there a tutorial on this site somewhere for how to use this thing?
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Okay, Kim, let me put it this way–they both get cast into the lone and dreary world, they both have mortal conditions put on them (Adam to toil in noxious weeds, Eve to have children through suffering, though, really, Eve does both). But in their respective covenants, Adam obeying the law of the Lord and Eve obeying (yes, obeying) the law of her husband, Eve is simultaneously demoted and sublimated, which, to me and a few others here, feels like a double whammy which has no explanation other than because Eve ate the fruit first. And, even though it was only _Eve_ who ate the fruit, ALL women are to be punished for that one transgression by a doctrinal and ritual subjection to men. Which is not congruent with the 2nd article of faith.
Give them both punishments, sure, and we are all subject to the consequences of the transgression–death, toil, suffering–but why add the extra burden of inequality, of subjection to Eve on top of everything else, and why, why, WHY hold all women to the same punishment? It doesn’t add up. And if you still don’t get it, I don’t think I’m going to be able to elucidate it for you.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
re: 46
Notice that our wives are asked to do to us the same thing we are asked to do to Our Father. Putting their husbands in the same relationship to us as we are to Our Father makes them subordinate, subject, and submissive to us.
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Except the endowment doesn’t say Eve was given that as punishment. In fact, when the 1990 endowment came out, that punishment was specifically removed.
Eve covenants to obey the law of the Lord. She covenants to hearken Adam’s counsel. Nowhere in the 1990 ceremony does Eve covenant to obey Adam.
Likewise, one could argue that all humankind is punished with work, weeds, etc because of Adam’s transgression and that is incongruous with the 2nd Article of Faith.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Fine, Kim, I give up. You seem to just not want to see it. But that doesn’t make it less real.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Notice also that their covenant is conditional; ours is not.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
I guess I just don’t look at it as a punishment. On this, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
They have not. They just plain have not. Why on earth would God give one gender more responsibility to another?
This is presumptuous. You have no idea what my responsibilities are or if I’ve proven myself capable of more.
That previous poster was me. I also said that since this is the case, why perpetuate inequality everywhere else?
As for why men, why now? Because for the most part it works? Because now, the vast majority of men won’t let a woman be in charge when it comes down to it.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
re: 64
Conditional subordination is still subordination.
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Re: 12 et al.: I disagree that you should just not go to the temple because you didn’t like it the only time you went. I acknowledge that the temple ceremony is different and a lot of it is unexpected, but really? You just went once and then swore it off? It’s different for those of you who went a lot and decided never to go back, but aren’t you projecting your feelings and experiences onto Just Someone? I say, go back a few times with an open mind, and then you can make a better-informed decision.
Regarding the idea that Adam blamed Eve for taking the fruit, it seems this might be Adam’s first sin! There’s a book I read (and can’t remember the name) that states that Adam realized the need of the Atonement for Eve, but not for himself. “Oh, you know that woman? She needs forgiveness for eating the fruit! And making me do it!” Since Eve didn’t trick Adam, he took the fruit willingly, and thus needs the Atonement every bit as much as Eve.
Finally, there is a book by Elizabeth Peters (totally secular; one of my favorites) in which the female protagonist states: “Man has put woman on a pedestal in order to keep her from doing anything but stand perfectly still.” I think of this quote every time there is an annoying conference talk/sacrament meeting talk/RS lesson about how wonderful and spiritual and fabulous and great and beloved and and and women are. Barf!
Comment by Molly — December 23, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
I’m sorry for frustrating you, but all I have seen here is people arguing straw men. Everyone is extrapolating the ceremony and then arguing against the extrapolations.
Let me be perfectly clear.
I do not agree with the subversion of women. I do not believe Mary is less of a person than I am just because she is a woman. For that matter, I don’t even like referring to her as “my wife” because I feel it makes her into a possession.
I do not agree with the idea that women are to be placated for not having the priesthood by saying theirs is s noble calling, the can bear children, etc.
I agree with the idea that women should be able to hold the priesthood.
I do not agree with the idea that women are more inherently spiritual than men.
I agree that Eve’s covenant in the temple is different from
Adam’s.
I also believe that if one compares the ’84 and ’90 endowment ceremonies, one sees the Church has come a long way in changing the way Eve, and proxially all women, are portrayed in the temple. Can there be more change? Sure. But I am glad there is far more equality in the temple than what is available in the church outside of the temple.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
I think I see what the problem here is. We’re looking at things in a whole different way.
I see equal to mean equally valued parts of a whole, with different roles to fill different needs of that whole. Like cogs in a machine. (Cue the - but that’s dehumanizing! debate)
If the goals of the whole are met, then the relationship works. If you can’t agree on the goals of the whole, then you have no business joining that whole in the marriage relationship, in the first place.
The goals of the whole will vary from family to family. For some families, the goals will be individual fulfillment, and then you have to look at it from that perspective. Both partners in the marriage have to have that as a primary goal, and work toward it, supporting each other in their goal of individuals.
However, if the goal of a family is to be one cohesive unit (which was my family’s goal and the perspective I have), then both husband and wife, and children as they come along, need to have cohesion as thier primary driving force, and yes, be willing to sublimate some of their individuality to achieve that goal.
Please note that husbands and wives CHOOSE to enter into that relationship, and choose what the goals of their family will be. Except in the cases of forced marriage, which is surely an abomination. Gaaah. Don’t get me started on THAT subject. I’ll rant for hours.
However, if you freely choose to marry, and you have discussed your goals as a couple, and as a familiy, then you take whatever roles will best meet those goals.
You and I are working towards different goals. Hence, we have different perspectives and different beliefs about the same situation - the covenants of Adam and Eve (and us) in the temple.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Wait, Kim, you’re a man?
K, now I have to reread all of your statements.
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Please note that in my cohesive-unit-family situation, we are not saying people should not be individuals, find themselves, take care of themselves, or have thier individual needs met. Absolutely not. We MUST take care of our individual needs, as we take care of each other.
It’s simply a matter of priorities. The long-term goal and highest priority is family cohesiveness. Lower priority does not mean that it it never addressed. It is, in fact supporting the long-term/highest priority, to take care of the individuals.
You don’t ignore a cancer in your liver just becauses the rest of your body is working fine. You take care of that. Then, when your spleen goes on the blink, you take care of that. You take it in turns, all while eating right, exercising, and doing what you can for the body as a whole.
That’s how I look at marriage, and how I look at equality within the marriage. After all, which is more important, the liver or the spleen? The spine or the intestinal tract? They’re all parts of the whole, serving their various purposes, and I wouldn’t want to lose ANY of them.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Kim, I agree with most of your #69 except the straw man bit. We are interpreting it differently, but that doesn’t make my interpretation based on straw–it is a very real, legitimate interpretation based in reality. You may disagree with how I view it, but it is not a straw man, neither merely extrapolations.
I too am glad there is more equality in the temple than what is often (but not always) available outside it, but that does not ameliorate the lack of equality that still exists, especially since the temple is supposed to train us to Celestial, perfect life. It is supposed to represent the path back to perfection. And I do not believe women’s subordination is a part of perfection. I even question whether it is supposed to be part of what we strive for in an imperfect, mortal life. If anything, we should try to make this life and the church’s role in it as equal, just, and perfect as possible. My experience is that it is not.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I have one more thing to say about this: why does a 12-year-old boy have more “responsibility” than his 60 year old grandma?
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Oh, and Molly, you’re right about the projections, I suppose, I just wanted to spare Just Someone some pain. Maybe it will get better for her, maybe it won’t. I don’t know.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
So here’s a question: What about those of us in mixed faith marriages? Furthernore, what if we were sealed previously? I was sealed to a butthead (for lack of a better term) and am currently married to a non-member, which means the old sealing is still there. Am I still expected to hearken to my first husband - even though he doesn’t hearken now? Do I hearken to my current husband - even though he hasn’t made those covenants for himself? Or am I effectively single in regards to temple covenants? It really gets exciting when my hubby is the head of the household in all things - including spiritual matters - when he isn’t a member and therefore, doesn’t have the Priesthood. (Which is the only answer I ever get: that men preside because they have the priesthood.)
Comment by that1girl — December 23, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
that1girl,
The hearken covenant is indeed conditional on your husband’s keeping of his covenants, so if we accept this all, no you are not to hearken to him.
You don’t hearken to your current husband because he hasn’t made the covenants.
You get a free pass (:)
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
re:52
Wow, that’s what I get for poorly editing my post. I thought that I had edited my comment down so it wouldn’t be so long. Instead, I had just deleted the first two paragraphs, making it so that the beginning of my posted comment made no sense. Sorry. :
Growing up in the church, I always attributed my teachers’ insistence that the man was the head of the woman as members’ or cultural misunderstanding, not true doctrine. I comforted myself with the assurance that my teachers and I were free to understand the gospel differently. I simply would not marry a man who believed such rubbish as that one of us should preside over the other!
Still, I was confused as to why my teachers and later, in the singles wards, the other students would quote 1 Cor 11:3 in support of their understanding that the man must preside in the home. There are so many scriptures, especially in the bible, that we allow to fall by the wayside. Why were people so insistent on this point of doctrine that established an inherent inequality in the marriage relationship?
Comment by trill — December 23, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Women are condescended to constantly and the temple ceremony does put us as second class citizens. I have yet to talk to a man who really gets it.
Looks like you’ve got quite a task in front of you to convince the women as well…
Comment by queuno — December 23, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
re: 69
I too am glad that the temple ceremony has been changed to make a less negative statement about the role of women. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is still less than completely egalitarian. And it isn’t merely some straw man or theoretical extrapolation; accordng to Church doctrine, the temple endowment ceremony is supposed to be a source of learning about the Gospel and eternal concepts. Why then should this subordination in the temple not cause consternation of it is thought to somehow represent eternal truths of the Gospel?
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
I think I certainly have to acknowledge that I’m coming from a completely different angle in a lot of ways.
What if I take the problem phrases out of context of the rest of the gospel? What if it is true, that women in mortality ought to be completely submissive to men, obedient and silent? What difference does it make?
To me, very little.
To me, the gospel of Christ is generally one of submission anyways, no matter the righteousness or rightness of the one dominating. If I had a problem with submission, I wouldn’t be able to be a disciple of Christ at all. Of course, there are exceptions to submission as is amply demonstrated in each of the scriptural texts.
Even in the New Testament, where most of the submission text is sourced, the word “submit” is more often applied to men than to women. Taken in context of culture, I would say “submit” always seems to be used to say to submit to authority—whether or not that authority is completely righteous. But then, they had a lot of eye-for-eye mentality to counteract.
Comment by SilverRain — December 23, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
I’ve just been wondering this in general- at what point does one stop rationalizing something that feels inequal? I’m not saying the Church is inequal towards women. But many women feel that the Church is inequal towards them. So, at what point do we stop with the circular logic, and the rationalization, and just say “I don’t believe this is true, there is no way to differently interpret it, or make excuses. This is not true. This is not the order of God as I believe it”.
This is not one of those “get over it and shut down this discussion” comments. But, like many others, it seems posts like this regarding the priesthood come up almost monthly. I just sometimes wonder why it is so hard to say that this doctrine is just plain wrong if that’s how you feel (I don’t know if that’s how anyone feels). If it tears you up, makes you feel inequal, if all your excuses and logic can explain it away- just say you don’t believe it is divinely inspired. Would that take the weight off, or just add more, due to the priesthood being so foundational? This is a serious question, not a snappy “quit complaining” kind of thing.
When I was struggling with what the bible said about homosexuality versus what I felt about it, how my family and some friends lived, it just didn’t make sense to believe it was a sin. So I don’t. I don’t try and use any other interpretations of the scripture. Yes, I know they are there, people have quoted them to me- but I just don’t think it’s divinely inspired. Maybe that’s too black and white, yes or no, but for me it had to be that way. I couldn’t feel that strongly about it and make excuses for it to try and make myself feel like some part of it was true. It was getting in the way of my relationship with God, and I just couldn’t square it away. Once I just said “I don’t know where this came from, but it didn’t come from God” I had such a peace about it. I could appreciate other aspects of my religion, without having them be tarnished by this sore thumb, weird belief that didn’t make spiritual sense to me.
Comment by sophia*rising — December 23, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
re: #70:
I’m not sure I love your car metaphor, but the idea you’re trying to communicate does seem to comport with the “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” language in the Proclamation on the family.
This is a fascinating discussion and I think it is important to explore the boundaries where achieving the “equality” balance may erode the individuality that is perhaps even more important in the eternal scheme.
I also think it is interesting to note how many of you posting noted that you were dismayed after going through the temple ceremony for the first time and have made it a point to avoid going back. Seems to me that if one is looking for further light and knowledge on this particular subject and, given that so much of the angst appeares to come from the ceremony itself, revisiting that forum may be the best place to get said light and knowledge.
Comment by LamaniteDancer — December 23, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
sophia, #82 - I like your logic. I feel the same way about homosexuality. But applying it to the Priesthood would be more of a leap, because it is so foundational. But I am so, so, so sick of the little analogies or euphemisms that are only created to make it seem like something it’s not.
LD, #83 - I don’t think anyone “made it a point” to not return to the temple. For Just Someone, it seemed like a painful experience she didn’t feel ready to go through again. Seems like her avoidance has been more about coming to terms with things. And how Artemis described it, it seems like she gave the temple a whole bunch of tries, going 2 to 3 times PER MONTH on her mission. That’s certainly not avoidance. I just feel like it is so hard for members of the church to accept that not everyone is super-duper in love with the temple. This thread might be a big part of the reason why.
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
sophia*rising,
I feel like I have achieved this surrender of things I had to do backbends to explain. So many are afraid to do this because they think it just might lead them to apostasy. I’m not apostate. I believe in the gospel, I try to practice it though I’m usually not very good at it.
Other people will accuse you and me of being “cafeteria Mormons” but if that’s what I am so be it.
I don’t see the value anymore of forcing yourself to believe things you don’t until you believe them (fake it till you make it). You’ll never be comfortable with the truth if you force it upon yourself anyway. You have to desire it.
This is not to say I believe in giving up things I do know for things I don’t. I stay here in the Church because I love and believe in it. There are plenty of things that bug me and that I reject for now. Maybe someday I won’t reject them.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
how many times has the wording of the temple ceremony been updated with more “progressive” language? are we open to the possibility that it can happen again? in our lifetimes? if God’s word is so unchanging and eternal, how can temple ceremonies be so… “culturally dynamic”? does this suggest that they are purely manmade and influenced by the sensibilities of the membership? maybe my foremothers didn’t mind making this covenant to have one person in charge by sole virtue of gender, but I sure mind. A LOT.
all humans should be equally accountable to God (and ourselves, and each other) based on our individual merits. how can we believe that so wholeheartedly in the world, yet embrace such a contradictory doctrine in the temple? wake me up when this radical idea takes hold in the temple; maybe I’d actually be interested in going.
Comment by me too — December 23, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
I think this is a very good thought. And I wouldn’t discourage a person to give the temple several tries to see if it grows on them. But at some point, if it continues to feel uncomfortable (as in Artemis’ case), do you say decide the temple isn’t working for you? Or do you continue to gut it out time after time, year after year, hoping that this time the lightbulb will go off?
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
I guess I don’t think of God’s word like that. Well, it may be like that, but we aren’t and he tells us what we need to hear/can handle. Maybe that’s a cop-out answer on my part, but it is what I believe.
My opinion is that the temple ceremonies’ primary purpose is that outlined in D&C 128: to forge a welding link among generations. I think some of the stuff that accompanies the core purpose is reflective of 19th century culture because that’s when the ceremonies emerged. I don’t have it all worked out in my brain. I just know I have a testimony of the importance of communion with past generations and that I feel truth in certain parts of the temple ceremony and in the celestial room.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Minerva #85-
When I was investigating the Church (for the 2 years I was dating my Mormon boy, and then the 2 he was on his mission and I was waiting for him) I just thought “well, I’ll be honest about what I do and don’t believe, because the things I do believe I feel so strongly, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater”. And, unfortunately, I was deemed to have “failed” my baptism interview, haha. I guess they tagged me as “cafeteria” before they even dunked me 
The funny thing is I feel really Mormon in a lot of ways, and deeply connected to so many beliefs. It’s kind of sad- it seems like, if you’re born in the Church, it’s okay to have some flexibility, make it your own, surrender what you don’t feel is right. But to convert- you have to be full fledged, thank you Lord I’ve found the one true Church. Ah well- I’ll be a happy dry Mormon, drop into Church with my friends, make inside jokes about deep doctrine, and frequent FMH.
If it’s cafeteria I’m right behind you in line
Good luck in your journey. So many aspects of the Church are so very wonderful
Comment by sophia*rising — December 23, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
sophia*rising,
I think you’re right about this in a lot of situations, and I think it’s totally wack. But I think there are some who would be more lenient. Have you had a second opinion?
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
*raises hand* Fellow cafeteria member, here. It’s funny because I mentioned this to my husband the other day. Perhaps we should make a group on facebook, haha
I guess it’s a good thing I was Molly when I joined - though I’ll tell you now, I had no idea I’d get interviewed prior to my baptism. That caught me off guard. Nothing like speaking to a couple ninteen-year-old missionaries about any sins I have yet to repent of that need priesthood intervention. Eek. “Uhm, no?”
As for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think that’s a BIG reason many people stay when their testimonies falter and crumble. There’s so much to embrace in the gospel, things we won’t find in any other church, and yet so much we can’t embrace. So what do we do?
After all, leaving the church would almost feel like exile (socially, spiritually, emotonally, etc), and as we can see here there’s very little a person can do to convince another of their views. It’s something we have to come to on our own time with our own experiences. It’s just a problem when our feelings and experiences are dismissed as invalid/impossible.
Comment by LisaJ — December 23, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Isn’t being a “cafeteria” member part of being human? There are some who are more blatant than others (I would include myself), but I don’t know anyone who lives the Gospel one-hundred percent. They say that the meat part of the WofW was just a factor of the lack of adequate sanitation/preservation at the time, or that Consecration has been repealed, or some such. We are imperfect beings, innately hypocritical, inherently emphasizing those principles of life which are easier for us, flawed in our observances (Chandelle just had some great things to say on that topic on her own blog).
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
The primary function of the endowment is for us to make covenants that are of a higher order than those made at baptism or during the Sacrament. Everything in the ceremony is there to help us make those covenants and/or remember them.
Given the liberal use of symbolism in the endowment, I’d be careful about reading too much into the ceremony for expansion of current gospel knowledge, particularly considering the parallels between that ceremony and the Masonic degree ceremonies.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Hear, hear!
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
That’s it! I love the idea behind the temple: sealing all of us together to bind us more closely together and to Christ. The notion that we are all one eternal family is simply beautiful. But I don’t see how anything about Eve’s sin, or the patriarchal order, adds to this conception. How is any of that other fluff essential for our combined salvation?
I’m still pretty fresh, but I feel like the heart of the Endowment is making a covenant common to all humankind…. social and cultural norms just have an annoying way of injecting themselves.
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
I did that very thing several years ago.
http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2007/10/21/my-faith-crisis-story/
I feel much comfortable with things now than I did then, but I am far from having the perfect faith Jacob mentions in 2 Nephi 9.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 23, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
I really don’t know the answer to this. I do know that in the 19th century scholarly men had symposia on whether women were human; Brigham Young said something about women being unaccountable because they were a lesser form of human and would thus go straight to the celestial kingdom. I don’t think we can quite imagine how steeped everything was then in this type of thinking. Not sure why God allowed it into the endowment ceremony. Should we look at it as a descriptive something we need to change (and thus the loneness of women at the veil and the lack of rigidity in the celestial room?) and not a prescriptive something we need to submit to?
It’s been a long time since I’ve been to the temple and I’m not sure when I’ll be going again, but I’m excited to go back so I can become reacquainted with things I may have forgotten.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
there have been a lot of changes to the temple ceremony and it’s interesting that we assume they are progress and not a symptom of our unwillingness to receive the truth.
I have no idea which it is really — i hope it is progress (especially with the bits about women); on the other hand i got my endowment prior to 1990 and I can tell you although the endowment was still difficult to understand, it also used to be a coherent whole, not the bits and snippets and leftovers it is now. All those things that were taken out had lots of symbolic knowledge in them. And I really don’t know how anyone can understand the endowment without them (and lots of study into symbolism and old testament knowledge.)
As for God loving everyone equally ……. is love the same thing as value? What does value mean? Does he love a grasshoppper as much as he loves a woman? Does he value them equally? Does it make any difference since we can’t change the eternities?
And just so everyone knows what some of us old-timers are talking about, here’s what the pre-1990 women’s obedience covenant said:
I wonder what the words were previously. And which is a more correct reflection of the order of heaven…….
Comment by Not Ophelia — December 23, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
great discourse everyone
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 23, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Minerva, you just blew my mind. maybe i’m just a n00b at all the LDS history and ritual but that is horrifying.
Comment by me too — December 23, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
N.O. that slays me too. great googly moogly.
after reading some of the accounts on this thread, i’ve never been more grateful for “waiting” to go through the temple. something always told me that it wasn’t right for me (or perhaps i am not right for it). i’m beginning to understand now why that is. heartbreaking.
Comment by me too — December 23, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
me too,
I hope your mind will recover!
At least it wasn’t just Brigham Young who thought that sort of thing…not a Mormon problem necessarily…lots of people we respect today had similar views about the humanity of women.
Can someone explain to me why I still really like Brigham Young?
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Minerva, I like to think of Brigham Young in his pre-prophet days, when he was a hearty, humble carpenter.
I have a great “Work and the Glory” vision of him in those days, and sometimes I deliberately choose not to assign it to the weird, crazy stuff you hear about. Cognitive dissonance, maybe?
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Minerva, thanks for the answer (#77)… so here’s a hypothetical. What if butthead reforms his ways and starts hearkening? I’m no longer legally and lawfully married so the extracurriculars are out, but would I still have to hearken to him?
Comment by that1girl — December 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
I am also intrigued by the changing of the temple ceremony. From what I hear, it used to be pretty creepy. Sounds like they are toning it down over time. Why? Aren’t the folks in the last days supposed to be the strongest?
Comment by StillConfused — December 23, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
I miss Ray
where is he? I’d like to knowhis thoughts on this.
Comment by Aprillium — December 23, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
that1girl,
My opinion is you are no longer “accountable” to this person no matter what he chooses to do because you are married to someone else. I like to think God and I share the same opinion on this.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
re: 105
Changes in the temple ceremony seem to be evidence that less of the Church is directly inspired than we might think. I can’t see any reason why God would decide that the violence, bigotry against other Christian faiths, and sexism should now be removed. That would indicate that those items were for some reason needed in their time. It seems more rational to conclude that the earlier GAs, based on the limitations of their time and culture, felt those subjects needed to be present. Later leaders, with a more enlightened understanding, saw those aspects as flawed, and so removed them.
Comment by Derek — December 23, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Hell I’m just glad the washing and anointing ordinance/ceremony is different.
My husband (and I) are waiting for the veil requirement for women to go away. I don’t get that one.
Comment by LisaJ — December 23, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Oh, I miss the old washing and anointing ceremony! It was my absolute favorite thing about the temple.
Comment by Minerva — December 23, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
after reading the whole of everything everyone says, here’s my thoughts. Take them or leave them.
The temple is ALL symbolism. “hearken” to me symbolises “listen” not “obey”.It’s all in personal interpretation. Because of my interpretation for the covenants, I only convenented to “listen” to my husband (this includes considering his point of view fully). He is told to “cleave” (to me this mean “charish” and “value”) unto me. “Value” includes listening and considering my views. It’s the same going both ways to me.
Everyones interpretation is different. In almost everything. Does it mean one person is wrong? I don’t think so. What they have faith in is true for them. Ours is the “Church of Truth”. Is there only one “truth”? Again, I don’t think so. I think it’s individual on many levels. As long as the basics are there aka “The Book of Mormon is true” etc etc I think HF understands that everyone understands differently and therefore is making individual temple convenants.
I agree with Carrie as far as the driving a car anology (for the most part) does this mean that I don’t “drive” sometimes? Nope, I actually “drive” a load of the time. My DH and I have talked extensively about “leading” the family (At times I felt as thought I was getting no opinions, when actually it is just because he agrees with me 99.9% of the time on major things and according to him I have “more information” on most of the things that have to do with the kids and finances etc than he does… therefore am better able to come to a logical conclusion) Does this mean the priesthood is not the “head” of our household? I don’t think so. I think it depends on what your definition of “head of household” is.
I think that the temple ceremonies are what you want them to be. I think that if you are looking to be offended (consciously or unconsciously) you will be. I AM NOT implying that anyone here is easily offended… please do not take this that way. I just think that when we are offended we need to try to see from all angles and views to fully understand for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.
What some see others don’t.
Comment by Aprillium — December 23, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
I don’t think the temple ceremony was what I expected or wanted it to be. It hit me completely broadside. I went into it with very pure faith, looking for enlightenment and transcendence,and I came out of it pretty thoroughly traumatized.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
I’m with Artemis … I wish I’d been warned.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 24, 2008 @ 12:02 am
I wish I knew then what I know now. I would have embraced the symbolism rather than backing away from it.
Comment by Kim Siever — December 24, 2008 @ 12:19 am
#106 - I haven’t commented, because I just haven’t been up to it today. (Rough day, all around)
I have no problems with changes, fwiw, since I have studied the context in which the original stuff was included and can see why the changes were made. One quick example:
Some people are creeped out by the “punishment” part that has been removed. It never bothered me, since it was instituted during a time of intense persecution - when threats of physical harm for not talking about what happened in the temple were real and regular. The “punishments” were representative of ways that a believer might be killed by others who demanded to know about the tokens and signs - hence the actual words that signified allowing one’s self to be killed rather than violate sacred covenants. Iow, they weren’t really “punishments”, but rather graphic representations of the cost of discipleship.
Minus the original context, I have heard all kinds of distorted interpretations (e.g., the leaders of the church would kill you if you talked about the temple), and this was exacerbated by our misguided interpretation of the statements not to speak of particular aspects of the endowment ceremony outside the temple. It’s hard to refute incorrect interpretations if you can’t talk about them.
Once the intense persecution that caused the original part of the endowment largely disappeared, I understand totally why that aspect was dropped from the endowment - since it no longer was relevant to the lives of the vast majority of the membership and, therefore, was being misconstrued so widely. I see that same general trend in most of the changes, while some I believe have been nothing more than a nod to our much busier lives now and the need to drastically reduce the time involved in the temple.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 12:58 am
I started to go to bed, but realized I want to make one foundational point:
The endowment is a progressive morality play that lays out the history of humanity and its interaction with and approach toward God. It starts with a very accurate depiction of how men and women have functioned for a long, long time in the lone and dreary world, moves to a more egalitarian position that still includes a degree of hierarchy, and advances to a unity of married couples with a symbolic reunion of equal partners walking hand-in-hand into the Celestial Kingdom.
When the entire endowment is seen in that light - as a symbolic presentation of the gradual equalization of men and women until they enter the presence of God together as equals to each other and with God (as priests and priestesses, queens and kings, gods in their unity), much of this discussion becomes moot. Unfortunately, not enough men or women understand the overall purpose of the endowment, much less this specific aspect of it. Also, unfortunately, too many members think perpetuating the middle relationship is the ideal - when that relationship is gone by the end.
Now I really do need to go to bed.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 1:33 am
Yay Ray! I always love your insights. Thanks.
Comment by Aprillium — December 24, 2008 @ 1:39 am
There’s an aspect of this thread that I find frustrating every time it happens. It’s the “I don’t like X, so X is wrong,” or “I don’t understand why X, so there’s no reason for X.”
One of the best lines in the Chronicles of Narnia is that Aslan is not a tame lion. God is not a tame god. He doesn’t sit nicely in his cage and behave the way we want him to. He doesn’t wait for us to vote on how we want things to be and then make them that way. Not even if we throw a doosey of a tantrum, with kicking and screaming, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The challenge, quite to the contrary, is for all of us to subject our wills to his will, to bring our desires in tune with his desires, and to follow the path he would have us follow, rather than the path we would choose for ourselves. We have been given the freedom to choose not to do any of those things, but we do not have the luxury to choose to disregard his will and still receive the blessings that we would receive if we chose to follow it instead.
Now, anybody who says they completely understand the endowment is blowing smoke, pure and simple. This is not a simple matter that we can participate in a few hundred times and then completely get — it’s much deeper and way more challenging than that. If Pres. McKay was just beginning to understand it at the end of his life, folks, I don’t think we’re going to get much past that. Asking questions like this is an important part of gaining a better understanding, but that means we need to not settle for easy or comfortable answers. We need to challenge ourselves to come to the understanding God would have us have, and to learn the lessons he would have us learn at each stage in our lives. The answer that “works” for us today is not the ultimate answer, and we need to be ready for a better answer, and then another even better answer, and yet another, and another, until, long after this life, we gain the ultimate and complete understanding.
Why are things done the way they are? I don’t know. We have a confusing structure that places all kinds of intermediaries between us and God, while, all the while, having a direct channel to and from God. We can see those as people in power over us, I suppose. I see them as people called to serve us, with our Savior as our ultimate servant (because that’s what he said he was). And I’m glad to have their help, because sometimes I’m too stupid and pig-headed to really talk to God and listen to what he wants to tell me (I try to only argue with him when he’s wrong, but, unfortunately, I don’t have the patience to wait that long). So, when I can’t hear him myself, I can listen to them (maybe) and they can give me some helpful pieces I can use to get my head out of my backside where I can hear him a little better.
I can also take a turn at being a servant to others, and that helps me to get out of myself (and my head out of my backside in the process) and get myself closer to the path God would have me walk.
So, how can a man be the head of his family and an equal partner with his wife? I don’t know, and trying to do both is very, very difficult. But that seems to be what I’m told to do, and so I will try and fail and try and fail. I’m pretty sure I’ll always fail. Thank God I’m never required to succeed, even though I’m always required to try.
Why is it that men and women are given different roles in life and in the Church? The only answer I can say is because men and women are different in ways that aren’t just obvious and physical, but I don’t know specifically which differences correlate with which differences in role. Just like each of us has a different role in life because of our individual differences. Life is hard for everybody — nobody’s getting a free ride here. Nobody gets everything they want, and very many don’t get a lot of what they want — the lucky ones, I’m thinking. Because the things I want are bad for me. I understand that much, but that doesn’t make me not want them. Blessed (lucky?) are those who get what God wants them to have, instead of what they want, because God wants to give them everything he has.
And a beginning and end point for me is that God isn’t a jerk — I am. Life is hard because it has to be. But God doesn’t make it harder than it has to be — we sometimes do.
So, Lisa, I don’t find your question to be irrelevant or meaningless, but I do find all of our answers to be so in an ultimate sense. Ultimately, we’re all blind men, bumping into pieces of the elephant and thinking that elephant is a snake, or a fan, or a rope, or a tree, and all being a little bit right, but a lot wrong. Keep digging into your question, and keep coming back to it. You might get a good answer someday. That answer might even be useful to me — if I’m able to understand it (a very open question). I do believe God has a good reason for making things the way they are, or allowing them to continue being what they are.
Comment by Blain — December 24, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Thanks, LisaJ. Eve is a sore spot with me, along with the whole presiding issue. I still have a headache from the last debate over it.
Raising my hand high along with the other cafeteria Mormons. I take what I like and leave the rest (thankfully, there is a great deal that I truly love and like.
Artemis and Mary Magdelene, you are sisters of my heart. My feelings and issues around the endowment are virtually identical to your own. I was stunned my first time through and did continue to attend, hoping that I was misunderstanding my own interpretations and feelings. Now, as Derek suggested, I have adjusted the experience to fit what feeds me spiritually. I do baptisms for the dead. I volunteer for new member and youth temple trips, handing out towels etc. I stay away from the endowment and I will continue to do so until I am prompted to try it again.
I am honest enough to admit that my personal history provided a backdrop for bias and I try my best to keep that up front. Sure, I am willing to consider that I am damaged by my past experiences in life and thus, unable to comprehend some of these things at this time. If so, I’m not going to be dishonest and fake it and I’m not going to upset myself by forcing myself to endure something that hurts me on such an elemental level. Christ being who he is, understands this about me, I’m sure. Having had a childhood that was marked by unrighteous dominion, it makes it difficult to regard a human man as an intermediary to my God…and so, I do not accept it-perhaps I cannot. I’ve gone direct since I was four years old, have always received everything I required and just don’t buy an equation I believe was invented to keep women in a lesser place, for the comfort and power of mortal men and for no other reason.
No problem submitting to Christ and Heavenly Father, two perfect beings whose interest in my well-being is established and assured. However, no mortal male has earned that privilege, strictly by virtue of his private parts. I listen (hearken) to everyone, regardless of gender, with experience, strength and hope…I always listen and consider views and information. But submit? No.
Comment by Kimberly — December 24, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Blain, I think you’ve just helped me, albeit, without intending too. Perhaps the problem is that I’m not a tame woman either.
Comment by Kimberly — December 24, 2008 @ 8:13 am
120 — Perhaps the problem is that there is no problem. There is just a gap between expectation and reality. But I think, with God’s help and power, manifest in the Atonement, we can tame ourselves sufficiently for what is needed.
Life, after all, is difficult for everybody.
Comment by Blain — December 24, 2008 @ 8:24 am
I would love to be able to see this Ray. And I’m going to look for this interpretation. But how is that? In the end, the man is the one pulling the woman through to salvation. The man is the one with the knowledge of the names. The woman is still dependent on the man. Sure, we all end up in the same room, but how did we get there?
Comment by Just Someone — December 24, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Kimberly, thanks for #119 & #120. I think you just nailed one of the biggest issues for many - that there is an expectation of what the endowment “should” be for “all” - when, in reality, all of us are different. Just as all of us don’t feel answers to prayer as a burning in the bosom or experience a stupor of thought, not all of us will experience the temple ordinances in the same way. I know members who skipped the washing and annointing for years - until the touching changed, while others loved the physical “realness” of the touching and now rarely do w&a.
With that in mind, I love the fact that you get out of the temple right now what you are able to get out of the temple right now - understanding that it might change for you down the road. Frankly, if someone can’t handle the endowment right now, I’d much rather see them finding joy in service in other parts of the process than in avoiding it completely. After all, you are not required to eat every itme of a multiple-course meal every time you sit at a table - even if those who invited you would like you to do so. If one item is undigestible at the time, skip it and feast on the others until you are able to digest what you can’t handle now.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I personally love the perspective provided by Rabbi Harold Kushner in his brilliant book, “How Good Do We Have To Be”:
Comment by Rich — December 24, 2008 @ 9:53 am
#122 - A husband only takes his wife through once - to symbolize their entering the Celestial Kingdom together in their new journey. After that, it is the Lord who does so - exactly as it is for the men. Likewise, a single sister goes through exactly as everyone else does - face-to-face with the Lord. With the exception of one time with particular symbolic meaning, that part of the ceremony is exactly the same for men and women - with one critical exception.
Men are ushered into His presence by Adam - and women are ushered into His presence by Eve. That is missed in most discussions of this issue - that Adam brings the men to God, but Eve does so for her daughters.
The whole name thing with husband and wife is a detail I don’t pretend to understand. In my mind, it is part of the minutiae - since it has absolutely no relevance for me or my wife to the actual ceremony itself. (It’s not like the husband does anything with that information, and the woman can get it from the temple matron [a woman] directly, anyway - whether she’s single or married. Furthermore, it is a woman who gives it to her in the first place, so it’s not like knowledge of it is restricted to men.) There are things I will ask about in the hereafter, and that is one of them - if I remember when I am asking about everything else.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 9:59 am
#124 - Rich, that is awesome.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Thank you, Rich. You reminded me that I have to buy this book. I love the insights of Rabbi Harold Kushner; it was his other book, “When Bad Things Happen to Good People”, that kept me sane during some very challenging times. A very wise man.
Comment by Kimberly — December 24, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Ray, thank you for your thoughts and reminders. If only I could go through a session with you. I’m sure I’d have more questions.
Comment by that1girl — December 24, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Ray, I’m not sure I agree with the thought that the process of the Endowment represents increasing egalitarianism until we end up at complete equality. The fact that the husband leads his wife into the Celestial Kingdom isn’t just a minor point. The fact that the husband is given the new name of his wife is not trivial. I don’t think we should just dismiss something which makes many women uncomfortable as minutia.
Re: 118
You make a lot of noteworthy points. It is certainly true that we would be foolish to assume that we have some exhaustive understanding of the Endowment. But does that mean we can’t draw conclusions from the ceremony? Does “you just don’t understand it” work as a blanket answer for everything about it which makes us uncomfortable?
This concept (that men and women are inherently different from one another) is one which is often used in the context of the roles of husbands and wives, and has been alluded to before in this thread. But it never really rings true to me. The idea that I am given authority over my wife–not just that I am called upon to serve her, but that she is supposed to hearken (which implies obedience) to me–by virtue of my sex ignores the reality of your last line: We are at least as different individually as we are based on sex. Aside from having similar genitalia, I’m at least as different from my brother as my wife. The ways in which I am different from my wife are very different from the way you are from your wife. That argument is based on the misconception there is some major uniformity within the sexes, that most people are situated on the poles of the gender spectrum, and that is not accurate.
Comment by Derek — December 24, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Derek, I don’t mean to trivialize any of this - and I understand completely that my being a man makes it much easier for me to view the name issue as minutiae.
I have to take excpetion to this statement, because it simply isn’t an accurate description of what happens. One time, and one time only, the husabnd stands in for the Lord - and brings her through the veil BEFORE entering the Celestial Kingdom together. Again, that happens only once - and even in that very instance she can walk into the room (the Celestial Kingdom) itself ahead of him if they so choose (or if it happens without prior planning). Iow, even when he takes her through the veil, she can “lead” him into the Celestial Kingdom. There is nothing that dictates he enter first.
Finally, every other time she walks into the Celestial Kingdom completely on her own. He doesn’t even need to be there for her to enter, and often, even when he is there, she walks in ahead of him and waits for him to arrive and join her where she already is. That isn’t trivial either, but, again, it gets overlooked in many of these conversations.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
But Ray, isn’t it also true that the one time her husband pulls her through the veil is also the only time she enters the veil for herself? Every other time I go through the veil into the Celestial room, through the Lord, I am in fact a proxy for someone else.
In effect, I was pulled through the veil by my husband, and every other sister I do work for is pulled through the veil by the Lord.
Comment by that1girl — December 24, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
#131 - Yes in your own case (assuming the first time you went through was to get married), but there were two separate and distinct symbols happening simultanesously when you went through for yourself: 1) entering the Celestial Kingdom with your husband and 2) being taken through the veil by the Lord. The fact that your husband was the one representing the Lord at the veil doesn’t change the fact that it was the Lord he was representing in that action, not himself. In that regard, I or some random 98-year-old man could have taken you through - just as happens every other time someone else goes through for the first time without a husband or fiance, like a sister missionary.
Think about that:
If you go on a mission, or if you go through on your own without a husband or spouse, then your husband takes you through when you are going through for someone else. This is only being conflated in this discussion due to the general practice of relatively young women getting married without ever having been through the temple previously. If all women attended the temple prior to engagement and marriage, your entire question would never be asked.
I know that is a sudden shift in perspective for many, but think seriously about it. If every woman had been taken through the veil previously (any number of times) without a husband/finance involved, there wouldn’t be this focus on “my husband takes me through the veil and I have to go through him to enter the Celestial Kingdom” - since every woman would already have entered into the CK on her own, having passed through the veil directly by having had Eve hand her over to the Lord, with no “mortal man” involved in that process.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
please note the Helen Reddy soundtrack of “I am Woman” playing in the background …..
Ray - I must disagree. Until wives are authorized to know their husband’s name .. there is not one thing any man could say to me that would generate a feeling of equinimity. Downplaying the name and the veil at a sealing occassion to “a single event” in no way lessons the sting of subjugation. I was beyond words and shock by that point to accurately verbalize my protest. This pivotal moment shattered my heart - 8 years later we’re still trying to mend it (We were married 13 yrs before joining the church).
For me, it goes back to the haves and the have nots. My DH has the priesthood, I have not. He has my name, I have not his. He has the opportunity to lead a ward, I have not, etc. I am no skrinking violet. Don’t believe for a second that my DH doesn’t know who he married. The first time he visited me at the office, he saw on my desk plaque - “I am woman …. fear me.”
Nonetheless, I’d like to be more comfortable in the temple - but I’m just not. I still carry a recommend, just in case.
It’s an awesome day sisters and brothers - enjoy.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 24, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Mary, intellectually, I understand that feeling; I really do. All I’m saying is that when it comes to the journey to the Celestial Kingdom, women are the ones who endow other women (throughout the entire process) - and that’s not a trivial, inconsequential thing. Women perform the ordinances of salvation associated with the endowment itself; Eve presents her daughters at the veil; women have access to the Celestial Kingdon irrespective of any mortal man accompanying them; etc.
I believe deeply that women hold the Priesthood in a very real way once they are endowed and clothed in it - and carry that out into the world when they leave in a very real and tangible way through the garments “of the Holy Priesthood”. I hope one day women can exercise it more fully outside the temple, and I have said so on many occasions. I believe in mother’s healing blessings and access to revelation.
All I am trying to say here is that some of the issues many people hold regarding the temple can be ameliorated (and even eliminated, in some cases) if the overall process is understood differently - more in line with the actual process of the temple itself. The veil issue is perhaps the best example of this - since I believe it simply is inaccurate to say that women need men to enter the Celestial Room. That simply isn’t the way the temple works in our day. In the temple endowment, no man stands between any woman and the Lord; she interacts directly with Him, with the help of Eve.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
re: 130
I’m sorry Ray. I understand that it is only once that the husband pulls the wife through, that she can attend and enter the Celestial room without him later, etc. But the fact that (as that1girl said) the only time that the endowment is about her rather than as a proxy, her husband represents the Lord, stands in as the gatekeeper, and the fact that women never do so for their husbands is something I don’t think can be said not to be some sort of statement.
Comment by Derek — December 24, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Unfortunately Ray, all things aren’t intellectual. If that were the case, a much more capable woman would be in the bishopric instead of the sorry excuse for leadership plagueing some wards (mine in particular).
Absolutely, mothers can heal her family. I can’t count the skinned knees or broken hearts I’ve needed to mend - yet the Church refuses to recognize that power outside our homes in that we are not authorized to lay hands and offer blessings. (I will tell you that I laid hands on a crying infant at 3am … on a regular basis).
While the conversation is frustrating, I think it is still important. Thanks Ray, Derek, Kimberly, Artemis, et al.
Merry Christmas, EVE.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 24, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Derek, I agree that women not representing the Lord is a statement (and I’m not totally comfortable with that statement). I respect that concern completely and believe it simply is a manifestation of our inability yet to speak more openly about Heavenly Mother. I hope that changes in my lifetime.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Fortunately, all things aren’t intellectual.
I agree totally with Mary’s last comment.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Comment by Ray — December 24, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
It’s super late and I should totally be in bed, but I have two quibble’s with Ray’s interpretation (appealing though it may be).
First- before a sealing occurs a husband takes his wife through the veil. Regardless of when she went through for herself. He doesn’t take his wife acting on behalf of someone else through the veil. He takes his wife acting as herself. If she’s been for herself they have a small veil ceremony to accommodate this.
Second- ‘Lord’ is technically an office, though we usually use it to refer to Jesus Christ. It was previously believed (and may still be believed) that a woman’s husband is her lord. So it may not be that a husband is standing as proxy for the Lord, but rather that he is officiating in his rightful office. And that furthermore, upon later visits, the other men who officiate for women at the veil are not acting in proxy for the Lord, but rather are acting in proxy for that woman’s husband or lord.
Comment by Starfoxy — December 25, 2008 @ 1:45 am
I’m young and I’ve never been through the temple, but I am getting married within the year and so I have been discussing this here and there with friends. Forgive me if I have no idea what I’m talking about, but I just wanted to throw this out there.
One friend explained her view on the husband pulling the wife through as being part of the equality for a sealed couple, but again there are different roles for the genders. She said that she sees husband and wife having roles going in two different directions. The husbands role is to open the door to the progession and into the Celestial Kingdom, thus it is necessary for the wife to need his help. However, and this is the idea that I found interesting, it is the wife that opens the door to the couple’s posterity. By this she didn’t only mean by motherhood and childbirth, but something like actually having the technical link, a link that the husband is not capable of carrying on. Only with her can he carry the sealed family to progression. He is the door to the CK, and she is the door to their posterity, and only in this partnership of roles can the family progress together.
It sounded much better when she explained it, but it was a few months ago, and its a late night after a full Christmas Eve day.
This is my first post btw, Hi! I’ve loved lurking
Comment by bandgazebo — December 25, 2008 @ 2:56 am
I think what bothers me the most about this post is that I know not all women understand the Temple this way, but it’s the interpretation repeatedly pushed here on FMH as the *only* reasonable interpretation.
In doing so, it poisons the well for those who have not attended.
Comment by Passerby — December 25, 2008 @ 3:18 am
Basically, this makes me want to puke. It’s partly because I was enlisted when in the Army, and I have seen how officers treat enlisted people. When I married in the temple, I did NOT sign up to be my husband’s sergeant. I signed up to be an EQUAL PARTNER with my husband.
I can’t even say how offensive I find it that anyone would characterize a temple marriage as an officer-enlisted relationship.
I’ve been married for 30 years, and like Hay in #13, we have yet to “crash the car,” even though we don’t believe that my husband’s penis entitles him to the “final say.”
Um, I guess I missed that. Where does it say that?
I realize this is a popular notion in LDS folklore, but there is no doctrinal basis of which I am aware.
What some of us are trying to say is that there IS no “driving seat” in our marriage. It is more like a tandem bicycle, or a two-person canoe or paddleboat.
We work together, and we make all decisions together. We have a strategy for dealing with things that come up. I take the lead on finances, but I check with him before making an investment. He takes the lead on household improvements but always checks with me before finalizing plans. Other decisions are made on the basis of who cares more or who cares less or who has more expertise in the area. When one of us is out of town, the parent on duty makes necessary decisions and we back each other up when we return.
Can you give me a specific example of when in your family it was absolutely necessary that the man have the “final say”?
This is not to say that I am denigrating my husband’s role in presiding over our family. He absolutely does preside over us. He uses his priesthood to bless our lives, performing blessings when we are sick, and ordinances for the children as appropriate, and so on. Being a great provider does not include having the “final say.”
Comment by Naismith — December 25, 2008 @ 5:43 am
#125: It’s always the Lord on the other side of the veil, and He is spoken of and addressed as such multiple times, including at the veil itself. It’s not a one-time thing where a woman “converses” with her husband through the veil. It’s always the Lord.
In any play, we are expected to look beyond the identity of the actors and see the identity of the characters. It is the same in the temple. We will miss the meaning entirely if we see Sister Jones and Brother Smith and Brother Anderson instead of Eve, Adam, and whatever individuals they represent.
Comment by Left Field — December 25, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Left Field, re-read the first paragraph of #132. I agree completely.
Comment by Ray — December 25, 2008 @ 10:16 am
I agree with Naismith. Two people are perfectly capable of reaching decisions jointly, even in emergency situations. In my mission, we didn’t have “junior” or “senior” companions. Everyone was “co-senior.” We just made decisions together. It worked out fine. It works the same way in my marriage, and it works out fine there, too.
Section 121 speaks strongly against the idea that the priesthood entitles one to make decisions for someone else. If that’s not “control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men,” I don’t know what is. The priesthood itself is withdrawn if we attempt to do so.
That sounds a lot like a process of two people hammering out a decision together. Certainly, the idea of “long-suffering” argues against the idea that the priesthood may be used to make unilateral emergency decisions against the will of the other partner.
Comment by Left Field — December 25, 2008 @ 10:46 am
129 — We are welcome to draw as many conclusions as we wish, as long as we understand the limited nature of those conclusions. And that means all of us. Remember the blind men and the elephant, and remember that we remain blind in mortality. Fortunately, it’s not important that we be right.
The fact that we don’t really understand it all the way should temper whatever discomfort we find, because the discomfort could just as much be a product of our misunderstanding as it is of anything that’s there. Once again, God isn’t a jerk — I am. Following God is frequently uncomfortable, as we gradually give up the natural man and become saints through the atonement. Being uncomfortable in no way indicates that anything is wrong.
I think you missed the important part of my answer at the beginning. The part that goes “I don’t know why….” I’m indicating that difference might explain difference in role, but it remains to be established that I’m right in that, and it remains to be established that it is degree of difference that justifies the degree of difference in role. Once again, it sounds like we’re trying to shove God into the teeny-tiny little box of our limited understanding, and that’s just a failure rich environment in my experience. That is, if we stick with our understandings as more than just temporary positions along the way as we continue working with God to let him expand our limited understanding so we can gain better understandings. The hardest part about that for me is the humility to understand that God is smarter than I am, and knows better than I do — and can you really blame me? I mean, mosquitoes? Chiggers? Reality TV? What was he thinking?
But, in reality, he is smarter than I am, and I need to accept that. So I keep getting reminded of that, and, in jerks and starts, I seem to be getting closer a little bit at a time.
I don’t know why roles are different. I do know that they are. I don’t know that they won’t change to be less different, but I know they haven’t done so yet — not to the point that we might want, anyhow. Does the difference in roles justify being a jerk? Only in the minds of jerks. And I am a jerk, and I’m sure I’ve used that improperly at least a time or two. But God isn’t a jerk, and the more I become like him, the less of a jerk I’ll be. That, to me, seems to be the best way to deal with this problem — more God, less jerk.
Comment by Blain — December 25, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Or, more child of God, less teenager of God.
Comment by Molly — December 25, 2008 @ 11:44 am
To follow up a bit more on the idea that an emergency situation requires one person who makes all the decisions–I think that’s not only nonsense, but actually dangerous. Consider a situation when the house is on fire.
Wife: “We’ve got to get out of here!”
Husband (opening Son’s door): “I’ll get Son. You get Daughter. We’ll meet back here in the hallway.”
(seconds later, they all meet in the hall)
Wife (who just saw that the front door is blocked by flames): “We have to go out through the garage.”
(they leave through the garage).
In this case, the decisions are made immediately, by the person with the most information to make the decision, or simply by the first person to verbalize the decision. The result is that they quickly get everyone out of the house.
Now imagine the same emergency when the husband has to make all the decisions. The wife wants to evacuate, but they all have to wait for her husband to make the decision. The wife knows that the front door is blocked, but can’t make the decision about the exit route.
How in the world does having one person make all the decisions improve an emergency situation? All I can see is that it would make things much, much worse.
Comment by Left Field — December 25, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Re: 2 I hear you. Bugs me too. Though there does seem to be one yang to the yin in the washing and anointing when women are washed clean not only for the sins of the generation, but completely forgiven for all of their own sins. the men just get washed clean from the generational sins.
Re: all the cafeteria people: I totally agree. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that any conscientious person of faith HAS to participate in a cafeteria-style religion. Revelation/Religion comes through people and people constantly misunderstand God. (Whenever I read Genesis, I can’t help but imagine that God was trying to explain how evolution worked (first there were plants… then bugs… then animals… then humans) and what ended up in the text was the author’s attempt to make sense of WTF God just said.)
Re: 118 “The challenge, quite to the contrary, is for all of us to subject our wills to his will”
Actually, I disagree. We’ve got PLENTY of zeal for obedience in our culture. I think the real challenge is to be able to *discern* God’s will. Since revelation always comes through people, it’s inextricably bound up with mortal assumptions, cultural influences, and contextual blindspots. Blind subjection to what is supposedly God’s will is no virtue.
Comment by Isis — December 26, 2008 @ 12:35 am
147 — That works too. What I was trying to say, only clever.
149 — That’s not a fundamental disagreement with what I was saying, it’s making explicit and amplifying a portion of what I was saying. Yes, we do need to determine what the will of God is to be able to submit our wills to that will. And there are times that that’s a bit of a struggle, but not all that often in my experience. It doesn’t take me hours of study to find my defects of character and messed-up things — they slap me in the face on a regular basis. And I don’t need a lot of input from other mortals in the process. Going through scriptures provides me with ample examples of how I could be doing better that really don’t require a lot of discernment help.
However, you’ll not find that I’ve advocated blind anything, nor have I advocated that anybody needs to follow anything other than what God’s will is, including what someone says God’s will is.
My point is much more that we need to remember that the Final Judgment will not be us critiquing how God chose to handle his responsibilities. It will be us accounting for what we have done with what we were given — did we follow God, and repent when we didn’t?
Comment by Blain — December 26, 2008 @ 8:23 am
I don’t have time for this conversation. I have to get back to cleansing history of women’s accomplishments.
“I have felt respected in our church, but I’ve also felt very much like I don’t matter.” Contradiction. If you don’t matter, how are you respected by the Church?
“Scripture would tell us yes; the Church would say no.” Convenient. The Prophet is only mostly right on scriptural matters when HE agrees with me.
“Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.” Maybe Adam, due to his position in the family, holds some level of responsibility for Eve’s actions? Maybe Adam was a woman hater and he wanted to secure his place in history by placing his wife back in the kitchen? Maybe this is a fun subject to discuss but at this point has no impact on my salvation? Maybe it only creates a potential divide for Satan to drive me from the Church because the Church is wrong and must make amends now or else I will relinquish my membership as a sacrifice to the real God?
If you want answers, get a new religion: Science.
Go read the 7th book in the Narnia series to see that you are only being fooled in an attempt to have power over your person.
Comment by Roy — December 26, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Jesus said that women should submit to their husbands and that husbands should be in submission to God, so that would put them as equals.
Speaking of Eve, she was decieved, but Adam sinned wilfully having been the one given the law before Eve was made. We do not owe them a debt of honor, they messed the whole world up. It says nothing in the Bible about them not being able to procreate if they stayed in the garden. They submitted to Satan instead of trusting in God plain and simple and brought sin and spiritual death to the world. The garden was a safehaven, a special place that God made for them, the world outside of the garden was not the same.
Comment by Sharon — December 26, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
#152 - That is a classic Protestant interpretation, and I respect it as an alternate view to that of Mormonism.
Comment by Ray — December 26, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
LisaJ, thanks for publicly raising fantastic questions that I too find problematic in our view of Eve.
Artemis and Derek have very articulately made most of my points. Like Artemis, I also fail to understand why if men are not punished for Adam’s transgression, women should be punished for Eve’s.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel both repudiate the proverb “the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:2-3). Why should my teeth be set on edge because of what Eve ate?
Regarding the question: is Eve even punished for taking the fruit? Her subordination to Adam is a consequence of her eating it first: “inasmuch as Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit . . .” Her behavior violates God’s command. As a result, she’s subordinated. Subordination is unpleasant. Sounds like a classic example of a “punishment”: somebody breaks a law and incurs negative consequences as a result.
(Notice that God here addresses Eve as “she” and Adam as “you.” Could this be an instantiation of the very hierarchy the ceremony itself advocates, whereby Adam serves as Eve’s intermediary with God? The temple doesn’t come out and say God doesn’t address women. It tends to assume it. Eve is standing right there.)
Furthermore, explaining why men should submit to God does nothing to explain why women should submit to men. It doesn’t logically follow that if some hierarchy is desirable all hierarchy is justified.
Also, I find it unsatisfactory to take refuge behind the claim that everything is symbolic anyway, as if disturbing material should simply be reinterpreted to mean something more to our individual liking(s). The text quickly becomes evacuated of meaning, which should give us pause.
The temple made hash of my faith. I went in after years of preparation and intense efforts to draw closer to God, expecting not offense but peace. Ironically, in my efforts to draw close to God I was instead pushed back to a new distance by the shadowy presence of my non-existent husband. The only peace I’ve found is by committing myself never to be betrayed by God again. And the only way to do that is never to trust God again.
Comment by Kiskilili — December 26, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
#154: Don’t forget that Eve and each of us–her daughters and sons–converse directly and individually with God at the veil.
Comment by Left Field — December 26, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Kiskilili, #154. God did not betray you, and cannot. What betrayal may have occurred was the fault of man, trying, but as always, failing to represent God as accurately as possible. That has been one of the great progressions of humankind - trying to really understand the nature of God. I feel like we’ve made some leaps and bounds throughout the ages, but we still know only a little pittance. Don’t let a bad experience (that many share) with a man-made ceremony distance you personally from your Creator. I believe the ceremony is inspired, yes, but I do not think it is perfect. For that to happen, God would have to be there in person, officiating. I can’ t imagine anyone feeling devauled or betrayed in His direct presence.
Comment by Natalie — December 27, 2008 @ 10:31 am
I’m with Natalie, Niskilili.
As for roles, I just believe we’re meant to complement each other - the whole “gender role” thing bugs the crap out of me.
Comment by LisaJ — December 27, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Why don’t women hold the Priesthood? Because you all whined and many of you were in tears when Elder Jeffrey R. Holland chastised you all for gossip in General Conference a year or two ago. Hold the Priesthood and you will be ripped up and chastised more in one meeting than women will be in their whole lifetime. Chastisement and the Priesthood go hand in hand; if you can’t take, don’t wish for it.
Why did God send His only begotten Son, and not His only begotten Daughter? Maybe He wanted to spare His daughters from bleeding from every pore.
How come I, as a Priesthood holder have to ask my home teacher (who only comes around once a year anyway) for a blessing when I am sick with a fever of 102 degrees, but my wife gets a blessing from me, who loves her more than anybody else. Sheesh. Wish I could get a blessing from the one that I love. But I have to settle for some old guy who probably doesn’t give a hoot about me, and therefore probably won’t be as receptive to the Spirit.
You women have been given the greatest blessings. Sheesh. Wish I had “divine nature”; instead I cuss, swear, and get pissed off all the time, and can’t seem to kick the masturbation habit.
Ok. Now rip me up. Won’t matter ’cause I’m out.
Comment by TD — December 28, 2008 @ 1:10 am
How come I, as a Priesthood holder have to ask my home teacher (who only comes around once a year anyway) for a blessing when I am sick with a fever of 102 degrees, but my wife gets a blessing from me, who loves her more than anybody else.
With comments like this, you sound like the biggest proponent of women’s ordination on the thread.
Comment by Kiskilili — December 28, 2008 @ 6:40 am
Adam and Eve were given two commandments that conflicted with each other. They were told not to partake of the fruit and to multiply and replenish the earth. They could not have children unless they broke the commandment of eating the fruit. What does one do? One is supposed to obey all the commandments but can’t because to obey one of the commandments means breaking the other. Eve knew what needed to be done. Adam did not. Probably she should have communicated with Adam about what needed to be done. She made the decision for both of them. I can’t for the life of me, understand why this has put women, to this day, in a second class role.
The temple has also hurt and stung me. I cannot bear to go at this time. I cannot make promises that I cannot keep because I have a brain, common sense, and a strong taste for freedom. Covering my face with the veil about puts me in a panic attack, please someone, explain why we must smother ourselves, and I don’t like touching or standing close to old men at the end.
How can I let my husband make the final decisions when he is dead wrong and his bad decision would hurt my life? It would seem, not only am I accountable for my mistakes, but his as well since I would have to pay the price because he was an idiot. (Not that he is, I’m just throwing out points to consider.) Why should I let him have the final say when he’s a mere human. It’s humiliating. Why did God give me an insatiable appetite for freedom, which is just and right, just to yank it away from me just because I do not sport a penis.
I went to my brothers sealing a couple of weeks ago. The officiator was salivating at the thought of women being at the bottom. He went on and on about it. Relishing every minute of it. He said it was because everything is ordered. I wondered if the roles were reversed if he would be as enthusiastic. He said men were doubly accountable which conflicts with the churches teaching. The whole thing was sickening.
I’ve always wondered where Heavenly Mothers role is in the temple ceremony. Does she talk with Eve? Did they have a relationship? It seems we are missing a lot of the gospel.
Comment by firefox — December 28, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
[…] to all women based on Eve’s transgression, rather than a celestial ideal–but as LisaJ recently noted on fMh, this doesn’t mesh well with the Second Article of […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | The Problem of Eve’s Submission — December 29, 2008 @ 11:13 am
thanks firefox - I really appreciate your comments.
make it a great Monday.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — December 29, 2008 @ 11:37 am
#24 hit it right on the head. LDS women think they are set up to be the judge and jury if the husband and his ability to lead as regarding his righteous following of Christ. She gets to judge his worthiness to be the head of the family and if he does not measure up to her expectations she does not have to follow.
I think the lot of you have problem with leadership at any level and all want to have the Y chromosome and the testicals.
I think also you will have a very rude awakening when you meet your maker one day as to your worthiness.
Someone mentioned Christs sumbission to the Father. Perhaps his own words mean nothing at all. Something about not saying anything or doing anything that He was not given by the Father to do.
Yes, women can and should make choices, just as the man should make choices. One of those choices might be to submit to your immediate priesthood leader in all things, unless he asks you to do something that illegal, immoral or unethical.
You only feel inferiour because you are inferiour. No body can make you feel something you are not.
Comment by Suzanne — December 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Nah. I can’t speak for anyone else, I just don’t believe the Y chromosome nor the presence of testicles has anything to do with assumed qualifications for leadership- I’ll even go so far as to say that I know it doesn’t. Decision making should be based on experience, wisdom and ability and that can vary at any given time or any given situation between the individuals involved, irrespective of gender. It is not and never should be the sole province of males…it is unfair to both sexes.
Comment by Kimberly — December 30, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Sadly, in the process of curing me of penis envy, my shrink accidentally shrunk my testicality testimony. It has indeed been a rude awakening to a world of reduced aspirations.
Comment by ZD Eve, Power-Crazed Priestesshood Monger — December 31, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
I submit to no one but Christ.
What say you to that?
Comment by LisaJ — January 1, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Thank you, LisaJ.
What she said.
Comment by that1girl — January 1, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Thank God that’s not an official teaching of the Church.
Comment by Ray — January 1, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
I wish life were that easy for everyone. If I were you, I would thank God daily for a life that has allowed you to believe that.
Comment by Ray — January 1, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
If you are going to use the New Testament to substantiate your point then in my opinion you are using incomplete and often completely changed doctrine from the original text. Does the Book of Mormon anywhere teach that women are inferior to men…how about the D&C or the Pearl of Great Price…How about President Hinckley or the current Prophet Thomas Monson? And I disagree that the Temple ordinances teach that either…in fact, at least one ordinance teaches that women are recognized by God to be to be ahead of men in one very important way…all women and men have the opportunity to become as God is…whether that is our Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Father.
Comment by jerry ford — January 1, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
This is one area where I struggle to understand the other person’s point of view. I mean, logically, I read your points and understand how some could take them that way, but I just don’t understand *why* and why it is such a trial for some. I just don’t think of it that way. That scripture doesn’t bother me because I know that it is not how it works in our church. I have *never* heard anyone say that the woman is only allowed to pray, but not to have a place in the “final answer”. It is almost comical to me really, because if anything, it is totally opposite in most marraiges I know. The wife is the one who has the last say, if anyone does!
But really, most things are dealt with *together* and a decision is mutually discussed and agreed upon. In my experience, “head of the household” is more or less a figurative title, and not really a literal translation. I think ultimately we need to remember that the Bible is only true as its been translated correctly, and according to their time. And our church does not (in my experience) teach that.
One only has to look up the scriptures of Christ’s respect and compassion to women to know that He never intended for the relationship between man and woman to be the way you described.
Comment by sb — January 2, 2009 @ 3:56 am