282 Comments »

1. How do you view women who do not share your negative experience nor rhetoric (ie. “forced” “silenced” “pushed aside”) about the temple?

   Comment by Ben S. — February 25, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

2. I know intelligent thoughtful women who had and have positive temple experiences. Why have I not read any of their experiences here?

   Comment by Ben S. — February 25, 2006 @ 3:49 pm

3. … the women’s obedience covenant is wrong, unjust, hurtful…

   Men make an obedience covenant, too. Is that wrong, unjust and hurtful?

   Comment by Mark N. — February 25, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

4. Ben, NotOphelia has a temple post planned for a few weeks out that is vastly different from Caroline’s and we welcome guest posts from different perspectives, including yours.

   Comment by fMhLisa — February 25, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

5. Mark, men make an obedience covenant to God, women make one to men. If both made one to God, then it would be equal. Since that’s not the case….

   Comment by Artemis — February 25, 2006 @ 3:59 pm

6. Ben,
   Some of my dearest friends have vastly different attitudes about the temple. I respect their experience and their journey. They respect mine.

   I do wish, though, that those women who have had dark or painful experiences because of the hearken covenant would be open about it. Because a) it makes us women who struggle with it not feel so alone and b) the covenant is far more likely to change if our leaders knew just how many people are terribly hurt by it.

   Comment by Caroline — February 25, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

7. Oh dear. For so many reasons.

   Caroline, I’m deeply sorry for your distress, and though I’ve never experienced the overpowering emotionality of your response, I’m not incapable of understanding it.

   Because I respect you, though, and because I believe you when you say that you love the church, I have to ask: why have you chosen to share your experience this way and in this format? It seems pretty clear from the way you’ve framed your experience and from Lisa’s introduction that you’re not interested in critical discussion on the matter (which is tricky on this topic, in any case, but not impossible), nor do you seem open to the sharing of positive personal experiences. You ask us to take your experience entirely on your own terms, which are highly polarizing. In a format such as a blog, then, one in which discussion is an integral part of the rhetorical purpose, a post like this seems bound to do nothing but endlessly amplify hurt, misunderstanding, fear, and defensiveness on both sides. And the real casualties, it seems to me, will be those who have not yet attended the temple, or who don’t yet understand it well: they will be deterred from attending, or will have their own nascent understanding overpowered by the echo chamber of hurt and counter-defensiveness.

   Experiences like these are valuably shared in intimate settings, with the guidance of the Spirit, where shared relationships can facilitate real communication: in one-on-one conversations, in VT visits, perhaps even in exceptional RS situations. Or even, perhaps, in a print medium that will minimize the echo-chamber effect. There is a time and place for women to share their experiences with one another, and with men, and to do so honestly and openly. You’re a gifted writer, a sensitive soul, and a good thinker, and your experience was powerful and, no doubt, real. But I fear that this forum is the wrong place to share it.

   Comment by Rosalynde — February 25, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

8. I have a very different interpretation of the covenant that caused Caroline’s trauma. And I have very different experiences in the temple. I find a good deal of knowledge and enlightenment there, although I also am bothered by the depictions of women. And I can say that Caroline has nothing but respect for me. She and I are good friends and have discussed the temple and our differing experiences there many times. She has always responded to my own experiences with respect and a desire to understand. She very honestly tries to represent her own experience and to understand mine. And I try to do the same for her. I understand the strength of her reaction and its source. and my heart hurts because she has been hurt by the church that she has always been a part of.

   I know that her experience is radically different from the one we are taught as Mormons to experience. and the first time she told me about it, my initial response was to feel a bit at a loss as to how to respond–because I believed that everyone should have a response to the temple that is the same in kind, if not in detail. I have since, after spending many hours in discussion with Caroline and others of our friends, realized how wrong it is of me to believe that others should feel the same way I do or that they should strive to have a certain kind of experience. I do believe that it is requisite that we do our best to find truth in this life, and particularly in the places where God urges us to find it. But I believe it is even more important and vital that we be honest to our own souls as we seek truth. and that is what I see in Caroline and her struggle to come to terms with her temple experience.

   Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 5:07 pm

9. I haven’t had the same negative reaction as Caroline had to the temple ordinances. The ‘hearken’ part just sort of washed over me and didn’t bother me at all when I first heard it (and many times since then). But since I heard Caroline’s story (over a year ago), I’ve thought a lot about how difficult that part of the ceremony would/could be for many women. For example, how hard it might be for women who have been abused by male family members or priesthood holders, or by their husbands.

   I’ve also wondered why women don’t have the direct access to God’s counsel that men have. And I’ve wondered why it is that way? It doesn’t feel ‘right’ to me that God doesn’t want the same direct relationship with his daughters that he has with his sons.

   I’ve come to believe that this part of the ceremony is just a cultural remnant of our patriarchal society.

   Comment by jana — February 25, 2006 @ 5:10 pm

10. Caroline,

    Thank you for this post. I am sorry you had such a negative experience and I hope that you have found some peace within the church. But I am having a very difficult time understanding why you had such a negative reaction.

    In the temple, women don’t make covenants with just any man. A woman makes the covenant with one man–her husband. She chooses her husband. And she chooses whether or not to make the covenant. There is no force involved. Don’t these facts ameliorate your concerns a bit?

    Also, you don’t seem to address the reasons for this covenant. Assume for a minute that the temple cerimony is inspired. Assume that it is the way HF wants it to be. Have you considered the possible reasons that HF set it up this way? Are there possible reasons for the covenant that might make sense for you?

    For example, have you read Hugh Nibley’s discussions about the covenant? He has some insights that might interest you.

    Comment by Jason — February 25, 2006 @ 5:20 pm

11. i don’t believe that the covenant indicates a lack of such direct communication, jana. i believe, to the contrary, that it demands a direct communication and a very close relationship. if a woman is to hearken only as her husband hearkens to God, then she must first–before she chooses to hearken–determine if her husband is hearkening to God. and in my mind that means she must have a very close, personal relationship with God in order to be able to evaulate whether her husband is indeed hearkening.

    I recognize the problem you and Caroline point to. This relationship is not positively constructed in the presentation of the endowment. Which is a problem. It’s even more a problem given that Eve is never depicted participating as anything other than a mute witness to the instruction God gives Adam. But I believe the seeds of truth are there. and I believe we must sieze on those and use them to reclaim ourselves as powerful daughters of God.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 5:22 pm

12. what are those reasons, jason?

    and I don’t think the fact that it’s a single man involved in the covenant is as powerful a mitigating factor as you claim. Nor is the matter of choice. When was the last time you saw someone stand up in the temple and leave because they chose not to make one of the covenants in the ceremony? I’ve been attending the temple regularly for seven years and have never seen it happen. not once. I don’t think it ever would. Because the endowment is not presented there. There is a representation of choice, but I don’t think it’s the same kind of choice as when we vote, for instance. There is an enormous burden of expectation (which is actually inscribed in the ceremony itself) that everyone in the room will (of course) consent.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

13. let me clarify: when I asked Jason what the reasons were, I meant what the insights were that he referred to from Nibley.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 5:26 pm

14. i’m full of problems today. When I said “The endowment is not presented there” I meant that the option of not choosing is not presented in the endowment. Sorry for my failures to communicate clearly.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

15. Rosalynde,
    Thanks for your sympathy.

    I’m sorry that my post gives the impression that I’m not interested in a critical discussion of the matter. Just to explain where it’s coming from, I originally wrote this little essay not as a blog post, but as an exercise for an LDS women’s reading/writing group I am in. We had just read Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique, and I was inspired by her chapter on the passionate journey. I wrote this as a reflection on my own passionate journey - as a woman, as a Mormon, as a human being trying to make sense of the world around me. Perhaps that’s why it sounds as if I am not inviting discussion on the matter.

    In actuality, I am very interested in hearing diverse perspectives. I love stories of people’s life journeys and insights and reconcilings. I also deeply appreciate stories of people’s pain, confusion, and resultant understandings of life and God. I hope some people who read the post will likewise appreciate my attempt to be honest about one of the most painful moment’s in my life, and the resulting insights I have gained from it.

    In no way do I expect everyone else to have the same reactions as I have had, and I welcome and invite others to tell me what their, perhaps entirely different, reactions to this covenant are. After all, I think it is by sharing these things that are so personal that we can learn from each other. I want to learn from others. And I hope they can learn from my experience - not they they have to feel the same way, but that people are indeed terribly hurt by certain aspects of temple worship. And then maybe we can have a little bit more sympathy and compassion all around.

    You mention concern for those who read this post and have not yet attended the temple. I am less worried about this. For years upon years, young LDS people who have not yet attended the temple are told over and over again how beautiful, peaceful, sacred, wonderful, etc. the temple is. It is indeed that for many people, but I think it would be very healthy for them to know that they may not love every single aspect of every word that is spoken there. I know I was incredibly grateful when my fiance warned me about this covenant before I went through the temple. And, though I understand it, I will never forget (though I have forgiven) my Young Women’s teacher who, when I asked if women had to promise to obey their husbands in the temple, hesitated and then answered no. I still feel a bit betrayed by her answer; I would have so deeply appreciated some forthcomingness (is that a word?) and honesty about it.

    Comment by Caroline — February 25, 2006 @ 5:29 pm

16. I’ve said enough on this issue and don’t feel the need to shove in my oar right now on the correctness or incorrectness of Caroline’s feelings.

    I will say though, that I think that our Church’s culture of silence on these troublesome issues is unhelpful. Too much is miscommunicated or misunderstood, and feelings are hurt.

    Comment by Seth R. — February 25, 2006 @ 5:32 pm

17. Thank you for your candor and depth. People articulating matters of deep concern is critical for the church to continuously improve. Let’s hope some GA’s drop into the Nacle at least occasionally to see candid opinions like yours and accelerate reforms. Best wishes on your future family.

    PS – I think the endowment should include HM and HF directing creation, my two cents.

    Comment by Steve EM — February 25, 2006 @ 5:33 pm

18. Ben, this is one of the few places in Mormondom where women (and men for that matter) can share negative experiences of the temple without censure.

    Rosalynde suggests that negative temple experiences are best shared in private forums, and part of her concern is that those who haven’t attended might be deterred from going. While this is possible, I think that discouraging open dialogue can foster difficulties like Caroline’s.

    Consider this: in the Church, the temple rites are presented not only as positive but as the epitome of Mormon spiritual experience. By not allowing for any nuancing or complication of this, by minimizing discussion of anything that runs counter to this image, we set the stage for the dashing of unrealistically heightened expectations. We create an environment in which people who struggle privately with temple rites wonder what is wrong with them and question whether or not they truly belong in the temple (and, by extension, in the Celestial Kingdom).

    I received my endowment as a young convert before the 1990 changes. I was fortunate enough to have someone tell me that some of what happened in the temple was very strange and that I should just let it all wash over me. As a result, I lowered my expectations and had a fairly positive experience.

    I wonder, too, how this affects many women who are single, widowed, married to non-, less active or non temple-worthy members. What recourse is left to a woman whose husband does not obey God?.

    I recognize that many, if not most, temple-going women treasure their experiences in the temple. I don’t want to minimize their feelings in any way. But here we have an opportunity to talk about a comparatively little discussed side of temple worship, and I hope that we don’t minimize the experiences of Caroline and others who feel as she does. How else can healing occur?

    At any rate, I sympathize with Caroline and Jana (my wife). I am glad that my direct access to God as a man is emphasized in the temple, and I am grieved that women’s access is presented, in this important instance, as indirect and subordinate to men’s.

    Comment by fireymind — February 25, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

19. I wrote my response before I saw comment #15. Sorry, Caroline, for the redundancy!

    Comment by fireymind — February 25, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

20. “I think the endowment should include HM and HF directing creation” -that’s hilarious. I would love it.

    I had a similar, if not as overt, response to the temple as Caroline. It is definitely comforting to hear I am not alone in this troubling response, since no one I know IRL has any issues with the temple.
    The trouble I have with the interpretation ‘the woman determines if her husband is following God, therefore the relationship is equal,’ is that there are no biblical references supporting this theory. If the scripture is used to interpret the temple ceremony, it essentially supports the traditional patriarchal interpretation that a wife must submit to her husband. This interpretation is much more obvious than any other, although Julie Smith did put good effort into re-interpreting the veil as a covering of power.

    I think any acceptance of these temple covenants necessitates a belief in the divinity of patriarchy. Although as a feminist, I believe in equality between genders, Nibley has the best argument in support of patriarchy I’ve seen.

    Comment by Bucky — February 25, 2006 @ 6:23 pm

21. i guess i just place a lot of trust in us using our reason when interpreting the gospel/temple/scriptures. more than in simply turning to scriptural examples, especially given the fact that the scriptures were written down by men in cultures that were very unequal and usually (if not always) misogynistic. So while I appreciate the value of the scriptures, I’m not one to take what they say about gender very seriously. Mostly because it makes little sense and it contradicts other things in the scriptures that I believe are more essential to the core of Christ’s gospel than the scriptures’ teachings on gender.

    It makes no sense to believe that God refuses to have direct relationships with women. and I believe if we were to ask most Mormons whether that is how God wants things to be, they would probably say no. At least the Mormons I’ve asked about this–and they’re mostly pretty mainstream, faithful, conservative Mormons–reject that idea. Which tells me that somewhere there’s a contradiction between that interpretation of the temple and the tenets of the church.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

22. In the temple, women don’t make covenants with just any man. A woman makes the covenant with one man–her husband. She chooses her husband. And she chooses whether or not to make the covenant. There is no force involved. Don’t these facts ameliorate your concerns a bit?

    Yes, let’s contrast that with a portion of the “oath and covenant of the Priesthood”. From D&C 84:

    40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.
    41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.
    42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.

    Darned if we do, and darned if we don’t.

    Comment by Mark N. — February 25, 2006 @ 7:05 pm

23. I’m a single adult female, never married, and with no children. I finally took out my endowments a little over a year ago. I have to admit that I was sadly disappointed in the ceremony for the same reasons Caroline has expressed.

    I have survived and lived a beautiful and successful life as an independent woman. I am a feminist in the sense that I am an equalist. I believe men and women are equally important in all areas. Yet there have been many times over the years where I feel that I am not valued as a single woman in our church. I have cried and prayed to HF to help me understand if He truly loves His daughters the same as he loves His sons. I believe that He does. Yet, if that’s true, why oh why are women made to feel so inferior. Who am I covenanting to obey? I don’t have a husband…and even if I did, those words are hard to accept.

    Last year I ended a relationship with a man who blatantly said he felt men were superior to women. Ha! I laughed in his face. But I tend to think this attitude is more prevalent than we women might think. A smart man just doesn’t say it out loud, but I’ll bet many still think it.

    I still have not given up hoping and praying to meet a man with whom I can have a loving, equal partnership. He better not expect me to ‘obey’ him, unless he’s also prepard to ‘obey’ me

    Comment by Julz — February 25, 2006 @ 7:13 pm

24. Caroline: the covenant is far more likely to change if our leaders knew just how many people are terribly hurt by it.

    Who knows, this might happen. You probably already know this, but the wording was already changed during your lifetime. You likely would have found the previous version even more unacceptable. (I suppose many would argue that the intended meaning was always the same, and that the present formulation only ‘clarifies’ it. It may yet undergo further ‘clarification.’)

    It is probably presumptuous and unwise of me, as a random male, to offer a suggestion on how to read it, but FWIW: When it is said that the woman is to “hearken” as her husband hearkens, “as” seems to mean, at least in part, ‘to the degree,’ for she is under covenant first to “obey” the Lord. Note the difference between “obey” and “hearken,” the latter meaning (not only, but at least at first) “to listen.” This sequence not only authorizes, but requires the woman to independently measure her husband’s leadership against the Lord’s will, and ultimately follow the Lord’s will.

    My wife is a very conservative believer; the last thing in this world she would want to do is disrespect the priesthood or any covenant she has made; but she does not budge one inch to follow any suggestion of mine she feels is not in harmony with the Lord’s will. Very properly, she does not feel the slightest bit of guilt about not adopting my views in such cases, or that she is in any way breaking any covenant.

    Now many things in life do not seem to directly relate to the Lord’s will; is the wife to hearken in these cases as well? Note that the present formulation takes care of this as well: If it is not a circumstance in which a husband would hearken to the Lord—because the Lord wouldn’t care—then neither is the wife required to hearken to her husband in such cases. And once again, the woman has the independent opportunity to judge the Lord’s will for herself—in this case, not just what the Lord’s will is on a particular matter, but whether his will has anything to do with a particular matter.

    Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 25, 2006 @ 7:20 pm

25. Caroline,

    The fact that the text of the temple ceremony changed several years ago to soften the covenants women make suggests that you are not alone in your concerns. My understanding is that the change came about, in part, because of a survey the church commissioned. In their answers, many women indicated that the notion of obeying their husbands was deeply troubling. The LDS Church and the temple ceremony are structured in such a way that women relate secondarily to God through their husbands and their male priesthood leaders. Certain ordinances in the temple, in particular, still punctuate this patriarchal structure. Like Caroline, I cannot accept such a structure. It is contrary to everything I am, everything I think and believe.

    Jason, I was in the audience at BYU in the 1970s when Nibley presented his matriarchy/patriarchy paper. Nibley indicated that “archy” means to rule over or dominate, and, as such, is inherently corrupt. It’s been a long time since I heard the presentation, but I believe he then tried to make a case for a sort of benevolent, divinely-driven patriarchy. However, his previous comments on the abuse of power, on the essential corruption of any attempt to rule over or dominate another human being, were the more convincing. One of the most compelling aspects of Mormonism is the belief in a God who wants peers, not fawning underlings. I don’t believe in patriarchy–or matriarchy, for that matter–no matter how benevolent it might appear. Feminist historian Gerda Lerner has suggested that patriarchy has a history, which means it had a beginning and, therefore, can have an end. Since women like me, and I assume Caroline, cannot accept the notion that it is divinely, rather than culturally, derived, asking us to speculate on why it might be is pointless.

    Comment by lorie — February 25, 2006 @ 7:43 pm

26. If the gender roles of the scriptures are just a creation of a mysogenist culture, why would you accept the temple covenant that was also started in a sexist culture? Couldn’t the temple covenant also be just a hold-over from the culture it started in?

    Do you believe modern prophets are valid references for gender roles? If so, why would you think modern prophets would be any less influenced by their patriarchical culture than those of old?

    Comment by Bucky — February 25, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

27. Thanks so much for your comments, everyone.

    Amy, I also absolutely believe that God does indeed have a direct relationship with his daughters. That’s why I wish the women’s obedience covenant clearly represented that. I just don’t see why women’s relationship with God should have to be mediated by their husbands, while men’s relationship with God has nothing to do with their wives.

    I appreciate the interpretation that it is the woman deciding whether or not her husband is righteous, and therefore she is in touch with God. But it still leaves me feeling empty inside. Mainly because I then think of think of the converse. A woman is obliged to listen to a righteous husband, but a man is not obliged to listen to a righteous wife. Seems sadly imbalanced to me. And it seems to go against the spirit of nearly every conference talk I’ve heard about marriage over the last 20 years. Thankfully, those talks generally play up the equal partnership aspect of marriage, and I that that’s why there’s such a harsh disconnect when some of us go to the temple and have to covenant to do something that seems so different.

    Thanks, Bucky. i’m glad I’m not alone

    Fireymind, You perfectly stated so many things I would like to have said. Thank you.

    Steve EM, I would LOVE it if Heavenly Mother were represented in the creation too. We know from the temple that women are to become queens and priestesses. It would be wonderful to actually have that depicted in the endowment ceremony. And also, I too, hope that a GA happens accross this thread. I really do believe that a change in this covenant is not only possible but probable. It’s just a matter of time and a matter of enough leaders realizing there are are troubling and painful issues for many with this covenant.

    Jason, just to answer some of your questions, in the past I have indeed thought that this covenant was inspired, that God wanted it this way for some reason. I thought like that for probably a year or two after I went through the temple. And it nearly destroyed me to think this way. I can’t even begin to describe to you how painful it was for me to think that the covenant actually was representative of my relationship with God. In the year or two that I really grappled with this covenant and considered it God’s truth, I shed countless tears. You see, I twisted my mind around every possible reason for it. I read all I could find about it, including Nibley’s essay. I forced my husband to have dozens of painful conversations about it with me. And nothing made me feel better about it. Nothing made it justifiable to me. In fact, the more I read, the more convinced I became that it was a cultural remnant of the past. I felt especially liberated when I discovered that the women’s hearken covenant was added to the ceremony in the 1870’s or so; that it was not part of the original endowment ceremony. That was a good day for me.

    Jason, you seem to think that there are reasons for the covenant to be structured this way. I’d be interested in hearing your (and others’) perspective and insights about this. And I’d also love to know how people balance this idea of women hearkening to righteous husbands with the idea of equal partnership. Do people just tacitly assume that good, kind husbands are also hearkening to righteous wives?

    Comment by Caroline — February 25, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

28. yes. the temple covenant certainly could be a hold over from misogynist culture. i have no problem with seeing it that way. as to why i accept it. i suppose i accept it because i don’t see any reason why i should let a misogynist culture or its remnants keep me from a relationship with God and I do believe the temple enhances my relationship with God. so i choose to reclaim that covenant in the best way i can now and to believe that God in his goodness and perfection and mercy and equity will make it right. i’m reading through a lot of scholarship on medieval virgin martyrs and medieval virgin ascetics right now and one of the things i am finding over and over is the way that these women took a construct that is undeniably misogynist and meant to control women and reinvented it in order to carve out a space of independence and opportunity for themselves. which is what i try to do with the church. rejecting such constructs altogether is certainly an option and i see caroline’s choice to not return to the temple so long as this covenant is in place (at least i believe that is what she has told me is her decision) as a form of rejecting the construct. but women trying to redefine a role that was perhaps created in patriarchy and misogyny is also a viable option.

    and no. i’m not really too prone to take what modern prophets say about gender too seriously. precisely because i believe they are subject to the influences of their culture/society. and i think gender, quite honestly, can be something of a red herring. not that i believe that men and women are or will become sexlessly the same. i believe there are important differences. just that i don’t think paying attention to those differences in the way the church does is productive. if we are naturally different (something I do believe; although i do not believe that implies any inequality or natural hierarchy of position), we shouldn’t have to spend time thinking about how to be different correctly. we should just be and our natural differences will inform how we are.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 8:04 pm

29. Rosalynde articulated very well (see #7) why this conversation is unlikely to be productive (although half-way through the comments, I must admit that it isn’t nearly as bad I had expected), so I’m going to make one statement for people who haven’t been through the temple who may be reading this and then I’m outta here:

    In the temple, women do not covenant to obey their husbands. There is no covenant of obedience.

    I think that Christian (#25) does an excellent job articulating a better understanding of what the covenant means.

    (And, unlike Bucky, I don’t think ‘obviousness’ is the best metric for evaluating interpretations. I also am not convinced that reference to a few scriptures is the best way to interpret the temple ceremony–especially since I could point you to other scriptures that would support my reading.)

    Comment by Julie in Austin — February 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

30. technically it’s true that there is no obedience covenant. the word used is not obey but hearken. which, in my mind, is quite different from obey. but it does bring with it connotations of obeying as it connotes not merely listening or hearing, but also heeding or observing–both of which are stronger than merely listening and imply doing in addition to hearing.

    Comment by amelia — February 25, 2006 @ 8:12 pm

31. Have you ever spoken to the Temple President about your concerns while in the temple (outside of a session of course)? I know that many people have found that to be helpful, and it’s the perfect setting to address your concerns because you can discuss every single aspect without violating any concerns about saying “too much” about ordinance specifics.

    Also, I have always thought that the covenants made were to encourage humility-for men and women. This is probably because I know I struggle with pride myself. It takes humility, obviously, for a woman to “hearken”/submit/whatever, and it takes humility for a husband to be a good steward of that. I would think that a man would CONSTANTLY have to be thinking about his wife/family’s best interests for him to be a good steward of that responsibility. I wonder if all men realize what they are really covenanting? It seems like everything in the Gospel is to encourage humility if we really think about it - keeping the commandments, serving our fellow beings, vicarious temple work. Thy will, not mine, ya know. Come to think of it, in the temple, when doing work for others, we’re giving them the opportunity to accept or reject those covenants. I like the fact that we do that whether or not we would agree with their choice. “In the world” it’s not that way. We sometimes refuse association/service with people because of their choices. Anyway, I’m rambling. I hope these issues will be resolved so that you can truly enjoy temple service. After the trial of your faith comes the blessings.

    Comment by HeidiAnn — February 25, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

32. Mark-
    using “damned” in this context would be highly appropriate… my husband has an awsome shirt that says “heck is the place for people who dont believe in gosh:”

    Julz-
    The way I see it you are covenenting to obey your future husband IF he is faithful and hearkens unto God.

    Caroline-
    So do you think that men are not judged for their sins by The Father? I feel like you think men who go to the temple have a one way ticket to the Celestial Kingdom . And to clarify, do you feel that because of a covenant that you participate in the the temple, you no longer are given the gift of revelation, which IS a direct path to Father that is given to ALL of his faithful children who recieve the Holy Ghost?

    My interpretation is that a married couple is united, through covenant with the Lord. I love the way Christian worded it. I suppose that the wording is sexist, but isn’t the english language sexist in general? To me it is an issue of semantics and artistic lisence, but, perhaps that is me trying to justify it all so that I can continue to have positive experiences in the temple.

    I think that if you were to plug your ears and close your eyes in the temple you would still have an amazing peaceful fealing. Isn’t that the root of the “spirit of the law, not the letter of the law”?

    That said, I find it enlightning to know that the covenent was added in the 1870s. Maybe one day I won’t have to reconcile the way it is worded and the way I feel it actually is.

    Despite the seemingly sexist wording in a few moments of the endowment., I felt more validated as a woman in the church, than I ever had before. I saw women performing ordinances (especially the initiatory) that made me happy to be a daughter of HF, and gave me a glimpse of what is to come, for me and my sisters, in Eternity.

    Comment by kristi — February 25, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

33. HeidiAnn,
    Thanks for the good wishes. I did speak with a member of the L.A. temple presidency right after one of my first sessions. I asked him a number of questions about women’s roles in the ceremonies, and I, unfortunately, was completely unsatisfied with his responses. He seemed impatient and uncomfortable with my questions. I don’t remember what he said about the hearken thing, but I do remember his response to my question about why women had to cover their faces at one point. His response was something like “You have to veil your face because the veil’s there. If men had veils, they would have to cover their faces too.” Umm. Ok. Maybe that has some really deep meaning, but I have been unable to get much out of that response. I have recently considered, however, talking to the temple president here at the new temple they just built by my house. Maybe I’ll have a better experience next time.

    Christian, thanks for your interpretation. I appreciate your reading of the covenant. I am however, still left with the same problem - that the man is in no way required to listen to his wife, even if she’s speaking in righteousness, while the opposite is true for the woman. You seem like a thoughtful, nice guy. Do you think that you are required to listen to your wife when she speaks in righteousness? Would you be troubled if the covenant were changed to overtly reflect that type of equality? (Man listens to woman in righteousness; woman listens to man in righteousness. Or both simply listen to God.)

    Julz,
    Hah! I have the same exact philosphy. I have a wonderful nice husband and everytime he goes to do an endowment session, he privately covenants to hearken to me as I hearken to God. It makes me feel so much better to know that he does this.

    Lorie,
    Thanks so much for your comments. I’m right there with you when it comes to concerns about patriarchy. I have ideals of a hierarchy-less world in the next life. Heaven to me will be a world where I can learn from and interact with all of God’s children as my equals.

    Comment by Caroline — February 25, 2006 @ 8:46 pm

34. Caroline: you seem to think that there are reasons for the covenant to be structured this way. I’d be interested in hearing your (and others’) perspective and insights about this.

    I don’t have any good answer for this, but I’m not sure it’s any more difficult than the question of why there is top-down prophetic authority. Clearly there is a need for order whenever more than one person is involved, but why that order must be pre-defined—both gender-based, and involuntary—is not clear. (Marriage and church membership are both voluntary, but in both cases, who presides is not.) In the case of the Church as a whole, for example, one might imagine a bottom-up approach in which the will of God is manifest through the united voice of the members rather than through the voice of a single mouthpiece. Even if the priesthood were gender-neutral, this ‘inequality’ between prophets and members would still exist, and seems to be at least as big a ‘problem’ as the current structure of marriage.

    Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 25, 2006 @ 8:47 pm

35. Thanks for speaking up Caroline. I wish I could have read this 15 years ago (but I probably went to the temple long before you).

    I felt betrayed, shocked and hurt after my endowment. I’ve yet to reconcile those feelings and really there was no one to talk to. As a result, I’m LDS in name only–my belief is no longer with the church. The ceremony is hurting members and causing them to leave. If open dialogue could cause change, that would be a good thing for the next generation of LDS and the church.

    Comment by Wendy — February 25, 2006 @ 9:01 pm

36. Caroline,

    Does your wonderful husband have a wonderful, single brother?

    Comment by Julz — February 25, 2006 @ 9:13 pm

37. Caroline, I submitted my #33 without reading your #32, but fortunately I sort of anticipated it: I don’t have a good explanation for why husbands are not required to hearken to their wives (they are, arguably, in the Church’s rhetoric, though not in the Church’s covenants—something many would view as an inconsistency), but I also don’t have a good explanation for why the prophets are not required to hearken to the members, as well as the members to the prophets.

    I suppose one answer is that when everyone is ‘one,’ aligned with the Lord’s will, it’s a non-issue; but in the meantime, for stability and coherence, there are default structures in which everyone has to answer to someone. Perhaps the existence of default expectations allows focus on others in a way that freedom to negotiate one’s position would hinder.

    But such arguments were not good enough reasons to maintain feudalism, and I admit that for me personally the apparent necessity of default structures in the Church—where inspiration is in principle available to everyone—is something that troubles me. If the Spirit is so obvious and real, why the need for authority? On the other hand, observing that evolution is even more rapid in bottom-up denominations than in our own, I can’t help thinking that there’s so much human influence that all religion might be human invention.

    So, while I would feel more comfortable if there were explicit parity in husband/wife covenants as you suggest, I have even more fundamental problems. ;->

    Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 25, 2006 @ 9:32 pm

38. Caroline:

    Here’s the irony for me: I actually really enjoy the temple — partly because of women do the “laying on of hands” in the washings/annointings, partly because of meaningful Celestial Room prayers, and partly because of how I’ve come to embrace the paradoxical path of Eve. But I haven’t been recently. Why? My temple recommend has expired and I HATE recommend interviews. Hate isn’t the right word. I find it truly uncomfortable — at a gut level — to be alone in a room with a man I don’t know well and have him ask me personal worthiness questions — and then have to do it all over again at the stake level. It feels particularly disconcerting now that I am married. I share personal details about my life with one man only: my husband.

    I really really wish they let the Relief Society President issue recommends — I would feel perfectly comfortable talking with her (we could probably get a good conversation going with the questions as a guide). But perhaps I am an anomaly in this regard.

    Comment by Deborah — February 25, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

39. As far as not letting others’ words hurt you. Good! Remember that anything anyone says to you is information about them, about their views, understanding, thought patterns, etc. It is not about you, unless you choose to internalize it yourself, and even then it is not their words that hurt you but rather your choice to internalize it. We all get to choose how and what in this world we take in to ourselves. You have taken a hugely empowering step in realizing that for yourself.

    In regard to your perception of the endowment ceremony, I offer some of my views. I sincerely hope, my sister, that they can give you some succour. They differ from yours, but I hope that, at least in some small way they may color your synthesis and bring you closer to a place of peace.

    The adversary is what I’ve termed a ‘devious intelligence,’ and his most cunning instrument is that of ’seemings.’ He leads us astray by taking a good and holy thing and recreating a semblance of them that serves his purposes. Conversely, he can take good and holy things and reframe them in our mind, by making it seem like something bad. Sexism and the putting down of any of HF’s children is wrong. Man and woman standing together before the Lord as a complete celestial unit involves different words but it, in no way puts women down or demeans them. It is important to remember that the man is no closer to God than we are when we are separate (single, unmarried/sealed). A sealing is as essential to their (men’s) exaltation as it is to ours. I’m going to copy over a (fairly lengthy, but certainly germane in light of your struggles with your perception on the endowment) comment that I made on a somewhat similar entry over on ZD, and I hope that you see the love in my gesture.

    Heavenly Father loves you, as much as he does any of His sons. Boys and girls are just different; neither is better than the other. The differences themselves are not good, bad, right, or wrong. They just are.

    Comment by Naiah Earhart — February 25, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

40. While each and every one of us need to be a whole and healthy individual to function in our societies in this life, in a celestial scheme, we are each but half a unit. The fundamental priesthood unit is the sealed couple. It can be said that men have authority to exercise priesthood even before marriage, but it must conversely be noted that the men’s priesthood is incomplete without the sealing ordinance.

    I see us as puzzle pieces that together make a whole. And when that whole is complete, brings both of us together, and each of us individually, closer to Heavenly Father.

    We daughters of God are no less loved. We, too, can equally be recipients of the most potent manifestations of His power, the gifts of the spirit and personal revelation.

    A man’s priesthood is not his own. It is incomplete until he is sealed to a wife. It is simply his responsibility to steward that priesthood until such time as he is joined to a celestial partner, and, only then, together, they form a complete priesthood unit before the Lord.

    We, the sisters, by acting with priesthood within the walls of the temple, but not visbily in the world, are a reflection of our Heavenly Mother. She is there; none doubts her necessity in creation, and yet, She is witheld from the slings and arrows of the world–out of reverence. It is Heavenly Father who is visible in the fray, like the pristhood in the world, and it is Heavenly Mother whose presence is reserved for holiest places.

    With Her lessened presence in this world, She is preserved from Her name being misused as profanity; she is spared the angry cries of confused children who spit their rage at Heavenly Father, etc. She is not less; She is *more*–more revered, more sacred, more reserved from this temporal world.

    So, to summarize:
    -Men alone, do not truly ‘have the priesthood’ it *is* a joint venture.
    -Men exercising it publicly, but together with women in the temple, is a reflection of Heavenly Father’s overt presence in the world, and Heavenly Mother’s revered place in the eternities.

    To address your specific concern Caroline, we pledge to be part of that unit, and our husband pledges the unit to Heavenly Father.

    Comment by Naiah Earhart — February 25, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

41. My first time at the temple I tried to just listen to everything that was going on around me. Some of it seemed interesting (as apposed to odd), and when I left that day I felt slightly disappointed and somewhat surprised that I didn’t have this big, spiritual “to-do” during or after the session. Looking back, I don’t believe it was possible for me to have that experience while I was going through everything for the first time. There was so much going on, how could I? For some people, maybe they don’t have it until their 10th or 100th time.

    Some women would call me unfortunate to have the views that I do, but I for one am grateful to not hold the Priesthood. There is -far- too much responsibility associated with that job!

    Perhaps it is indicitive of my current spiritual plane, but I don’t feel comfortable speaking of HM anywhere. She is held in such high regard by our Lord that Her name is not even known to us so that we might not use it in vain as some folks do His. To me, that says -plenty- about the importance of women in our Father’s eyes.

    Comment by Anonymous Today — February 25, 2006 @ 9:48 pm

42. I felt especially liberated when I discovered that the women’s hearken covenant was added to the ceremony in the 1870’s or so; that it was not part of the original endowment ceremony. That was a good day for me.

    Can you tell me a source for this? I’d love to read more about it.

    I didn’t have an issue with the ceremony when I first participated. I noticed the lopsidedness, but it was just part of the whole weird experience. But lately I just can’t stop thinking about Heavenly Mother, and as much as I’d like to think that “inequality of the sexes” is only an earthly condition, my thoughts about HM cause me to think otherwise. If a woman is in charge of the “home realm,” is HM involved with us pre-birth and post-death? While earthly life is HF’s “work”? This seems silly, as Gods are omnipresent. Why the silence of HM? Why should we think it is going to be any different for us as women in the very long run when our entire belief system is set up worshipping a male deity? Somedays it’s enough to make me want to worship Mother Earth just to balance it out.

    Comment by mindy — February 25, 2006 @ 9:53 pm

43. Caroline,

    Thank you for sharing your experience.

    Acknowledgement that the temple can be something other than “the most spiritual day of your life” is so refreshing! It is *healthy* and wise to stop perpetuating the myth that members will experience the temple in some stereotypical fashion when the reality is that we all have unique experiences. My experience left me with mixed emotions and many questions. My brother, however, felt deeply satisfied and his testimony was strengthened. I am still trying to find answers to many of my questions…..

    I agree with Seth’s suggestion that we end the church’s culture of silence on these type of issues–amen, brother!

    ala

    Comment by ala — February 25, 2006 @ 10:06 pm

44. don’t have a good explanation for why husbands are not required to hearken to their wives (they are, arguably, in the Church’s rhetoric, though not in the Church’s covenants—something many would view as an inconsistency), but I also don’t have a good explanation for why the prophets are not required to hearken to the members, as well as the members to the prophets

    Christian, thanks for your further explication. I find your parallel between the relationship of husband between husband and wife and relationship between members and prophets interesting. To me, they are completely different beasts. I like to think of husband and wife as an equal team that works together to help each other and their family. I just don’t see the need for any type of hierarchy in this marital relationship. On the other hand, I do see the need for some sort of hierarchy in a Church context, since it’s a huge organization and it really does need administrators to get things done. (Of course, I personally would like women to be included in that hierarchy.)

    Thanks everyone else for your comments. I have to go now, but I’ll be back in a few hours and try to respond to more of you.

    Comment by Caroline — February 25, 2006 @ 10:12 pm

45. Re: Julie in Austin (#29), thanks. As a not-endowed, slightly feminist member, I was getting a little worried.

    Comment by Ariel — February 25, 2006 @ 10:15 pm

46. This reminded me of Kiskilili’s post a few weeks ago. This is what I had to say over there on the subject:

    “Although I’m no where near at the point that you are, I’ve had my questions about the temple (boy, have I ever). I can only explain my reasoning for being able to overcome my questions with the following: I don’t take it personally or 100% literally. I see the Church as a living, evolving, imperfect entity designed to help us here on earth because we are not yet able to live in the unified way we will when Christ returns to earth. The Church is a vehicle to help me find my own personal path to God. I see the temple as one of the places I can go to meditate advance on that path. But the Church itself is not the end all be all authority. (Does that make me apostate? Huh. Oh well. I don’t mind being a closet apostate.) In addition, we (including the Church leadership) are constantly recieving new pieces of the puzzle–some which negate previously held doctrine. The way I see it, the temple ceremony has changed many times through the years. It has softened, evolved. Ten years from now, who knows?

    So to make a long story short, I don’t take it personally. I know where I stand with God–I just think that the rest of the Church hasn’t quite caught up yet. (smile) I find great joy and peace in my involvement with the Church. So if I find myself silently balking at some of the current temple format, I remind myself that even the temple is an earthly and imperfect shadow of the way things will be when we are living a higher standard.”

    I have found too much truth in the LDS faith to ever be satisfied anywhere else, even if I don’t think we have it all just right yet. It helps for me to just sit back and look beyond the here and now and not take the unexeplained inconsistencies personally in the meantime.

    But that is my choice and my path. I know it wouldn’t work for everyone.

    Comment by Anelie — February 25, 2006 @ 10:32 pm

47. The best way I’ve learned to think about the Temple is that it isn’t normative. It isn’t a reflection on how things should be. The obvious question is “Well then, what is it a reflection of?” I don’t know. I’ve been trying to take it piece by piece, phrase by phrase, asking ‘what can this teach me?’

    The hearken covenant teaches me that life is unfair, and that I agreed to it before I came to earth. It teaches me that I understood before entering mortality that I would be treated poorly just because I’m a woman, but I agreed to come anyways.
    The way that I deal with the fact that it is an actual covenant that I make is the fact that after making that covenant I don’t have to do anything that I shouldn’t already be doing anyways. So in reality it’s an empty commandment. It’s almost like saying “I command you to breath!” It is unfair that men don’t have to make a similar promise, but then again, I think the unfairness is the whole point of it being there. I hope that made sense.

    Comment by Starfoxy — February 25, 2006 @ 11:05 pm

48. NotOphelia has a temple post planned for a few weeks out that is vastly different from Caroline’s

    I look forward to reading it, thanks.

    Several people responded to me, in essence, by saying “We shouldn’t oversell the temple, and people need to know that if they have a less-than-ideal experience, they’re still good people and not alone.”

    I’m not unsensitive to those who don’t have an uplifting first experience, and I have taught that the odd, strange or negative experience is competely normal in the Temple Preparation class I’ve taught for about 18 months now. I have also brought up President McKay’s negative first experience both in class and on-line.
    (If you read through that whole oage, you’ll see my feelings in this regard several times.)

    I’m also aware of the various experiences women in particular can have with the temple.

    What I take primarily take issue with in this post has been well expressed by Rosalynde and Christian Cardall, so I won’t rehash it.

    Thanks to you who have offered constructive comments, and differing experiences.

    Comment by Ben S. — February 25, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

49. Testing…

    Comment by Ben S. — February 25, 2006 @ 11:17 pm

50. Naiah, I posted before refreshing the page and seeing your thoughts. You wrote:

    We, the sisters, by acting with priesthood within the walls of the temple, but not visbily in the world, are a reflection of our Heavenly Mother. She is there; none doubts her necessity in creation, and yet, She is witheld from the slings and arrows of the world–out of reverence. It is Heavenly Father who is visible in the fray, like the pristhood in the world, and it is Heavenly Mother whose presence is reserved for holiest places.

    With Her lessened presence in this world, She is preserved from Her name being misused as profanity; she is spared the angry cries of confused children who spit their rage at Heavenly Father, etc. She is not less; She is *more*–more revered, more sacred, more reserved from this temporal world.

    This sounds so nice and happy that I wish I really could believe it. It just seems unfair to abandon the daughters of heavenly parents on the earth without a heavenly role model to look at. If motherhood truly is the noblest calling known to man, then WHY don’t we have a heavenly mother to emulate? I am fine with the Savior as a male, simply because of the fallen nature of the world I don’t think a woman would have been able to do what He did for us, but I don’t see why I, as a daughter of God can’t pray to a Mother who I would feel even more closely connected to. The idea of HM being “protected” just doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to cause so many daughters to flounder and struggle. It’d be nice, too, to know more of Mary. I think our church could probably stand a bit more focus on Mary, except they are too worried about coming across like the Catholics.

    Comment by mindy — February 25, 2006 @ 11:19 pm

51. #32
    

    I have a wonderful nice husband and everytime he goes to do an endowment session, he privately covenants to hearken to me as I hearken to God. It makes me feel so much better to know that he does this.

    Well, actually, no he doesn’t. The first time one goes through the temple it’s for oneself. Additional times through are for the dead. He’s already made his covenants, and I doubt anything he mentally/privately adds is binding on the dead.

    N.O.

    Comment by not ophelia — February 25, 2006 @ 11:32 pm

52. #29
    

    In the temple, women do not covenant to obey their husbands. There is no covenant of obedience.

    Pre-1990 there was.

    N.O.

    Comment by not ophelia — February 25, 2006 @ 11:36 pm

53. Caroline, Amelia, and Lori,

    Here is a link to Nibley’s patriarcy and matriarchy paper paper.

    I am concerned about sharing my thoughts on the reason for the husband and wife covenants. First, I don’t believe that temple language should be directly quoted or discussed outside the temple. Second, I think that to understand the temple covenants it is necessary to be in the temple experiencing the spirit of the temple. Finally, I think that to really address Caroline’s issues, it would require me to be judgmental and I won’t do that either.

    Caroline, I am happy to point to some things in the temple covenants (not just the endowment but the washings, anointings, endowment and sealing) and if you will go back to the temple and go through the washings, anointings, endowment, and sealing in one day and listen closely to the language covenants I will refer to, it might be helpful.

    First, there is a difference between the blessings and covenants given to men and women at the washing and annointing. Pay close attention to the difference, it relates to Eve’s covenant with Adam. (You can ask a temple worker what the diffences are. This is very, very important.

    Second, Eve’s interaction with Satan is important to Eve’s later covenant with Adam.

    Third, look closely at how the angels interract with Adam and Eve. Look at the promises given to Aaronic priesthood holders as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants.

    Fourth, listen carefully to the differences in the sealing cerimony for men and women. Those difference are important to the covenant as well.

    I suggest that once you are in the temple and have gone through every step you ask a temple sealer (don’t ask just anybody) about these issues that I have raised.

    Comment by Jason — February 25, 2006 @ 11:37 pm

54. I mean ceremony. I’m not stupid, just tired.

    Comment by Jason — February 25, 2006 @ 11:43 pm

55. Re #49–

    I did not go through the temple before 1990. While changes in the temple may be interesting for historical reasons, nothing that happened before June of 1996 was/is binding on me.

    Comment by Julie in Austin — February 26, 2006 @ 12:01 am

56. I did not go through the temple before 1990. While changes in the temple may be interesting for historical reasons, nothing that happened before June of 1996 was/is binding on me.

    Of course not. It doesn’t effect you nor anyone contemplating attending the temple [which was, of course, your point in the above comment]

    OTOH, there are a lot of us who did make those pre-1990 covenants, so blithly stating here or elsewhere in the blogosphere that there is no such thing as an obedience covenant isn’t terribly helpful to those of us who are [still, I believe] bound to a different standard.

    N.O.

    Comment by not ophelia — February 26, 2006 @ 12:12 am

57. I have to join Mindy in responding to Naiah’s comment:

    We, the sisters, by acting with priesthood within the walls of the temple, but not visbily in the world, are a reflection of our Heavenly Mother. She is there; none doubts her necessity in creation…With Her lessened presence in this world, She is preserved from Her name being misused as profanity; she is spared the angry cries of confused children who spit their rage at Heavenly Father, etc. She is not less; She is *more*–more revered, more sacred, more reserved from this temporal world.

    I find this hard to read without responding viscerally. I know you mean well, but you’re theologically justifying the public silencing of both Heavenly Mother and her daughters. Mothers are told that theirs is the highest calling but this isn’t reflected explicitly in the scriptures (esp. in the composition of the Godhead). According to your reasoning, Mother is protected from hateful remarks, but what about the children who want to talk to her, hear from her, be comforted by her? What mother wouldn’t risk torment to hold and nurture her children?

    I heard Doe Daughtrey present a paper at an American Academy of Religion conference a while back that demonstrated that the doctrine of Mother in Heaven seems to be dying a slow, suffocating death in our Church. References to her in official Church publications keep decreasing, and we’re even at the point where many members are afraid to mention her name in Church (I try to mention her name, though always paired with HF, whenever I bear testimony).

    And I agree with Mindy that it would help us to focus more on Mary. Her role is at least as important as some of our prophets, but she gets very little airtime.

    I miss my Mother. I don’t know why she’s not accessible. I want to connect with her and follow her example as much as Father’s.

    Sorry for the digression, Caroline. Now back to the regularly scheduled blog.

    Comment by John Remy — February 26, 2006 @ 12:46 am

58. Y’know, mindy, She is there, and Her presence has given me great comfort over the years.

    As for needing a mother to emulate–just some off-the-cuff speculation–anyone who has given birth knows that, even without one to emulate (my mother walked out on my family when I was all of seven years old), it is almost hard *not* to be a mother to that child (I now have 2). Perhaps that is part of our lesson to learn in this life–how to be a mother strong and on our own. How else could we count ourselves ready to the task of Mother-Goddesshood? We knew Her, Her presence, and Her love, and even in this life, some primal part of us can still feel and move and think and do as She would do.

    In a sense it is a Mystery and a Paradox, but that does not make it cease to be real.

    If you’re interested, I have something to tell you that could bring you some real comfort on this score, but it’s not for a public forum. Email me naiah at synthian d’org.

    Comment by Naiah — February 26, 2006 @ 12:54 am

59. Steve EM, I would LOVE it if Heavenly Mother were represented in the creation too.

    If we’re to believe Eliza Snow, she’s been there all along, because Heavenly Mother is Eve. There are excised chapters in GospeLink from “Women of Mormondom” (chapters 18 through 20) where this is made clear, if you can find them elsewhere.

    Comment by Mark N. — February 26, 2006 @ 1:28 am

60. John, you say “What mother wouldn’t risk torment to hold and nurture her children?”

    I ask in return, when it is time for them to grow, prove themselves, and stand on their own, what loving mother would do aught but stay her hand and let them try and do and succeed and fail on their own–so that they may come in to their own?

    Let us not confuse the trappings of worldy fame or reknown with true reverence. Our Heavenly Mother needs no headlines, and frankly, we do not need her paraded about like a spectacle. To know that She is there is, and can be if you let it–if you let yourself get it– enough.

    Mary did her duty, fulfilled her calling, if you will. I would be wary of picking any one woman from our heritage on which to focus–as wary as I would be of picking any one man. (I am wont to say that my testimony of the restoration does not hinge on Joseph Smith, but rather what God did with him).

    Now, a greater focus on ALL women in the scriptures would be wonderful and healthy. Lists, like Lisa B’s compilation need to be taken beyond a list, and we need to do something with them. Those of us who can write, need to. If you have time to blog–you have time to write something that’ll make a difference. It’s all about adding to the net amount of good in the world, y’know?

    It is sad, but true; we live in a consumerist culture, and much of what is experienced in American homes hinges on what is available for people to buy. More books on women in scripture means more little girls grow up with solid role models, feeling more intimately connected to the sisters who have gone before, knowing as women–feeling viscerally, their place in the grand scheme of our celestial destiny just how good and right they are.

    Comment by Naiah — February 26, 2006 @ 1:36 am

61. Mindy and John,
    I feel much the same about Mother in Heaven. I know the idea that HM is too sacred and that HF doesn’t want her name sullied is bandied about quite a bit in Mormon circles, but I’m afraid it’s very unsatisfying to me. She’s a God, for goodness sake. If HF can handle his name being sullied, I think she can too. But I do appreciate your thoughts on HM, Naiah. It’s good to know that there are others out there that are thinking about her as well.

    N.O, thanks for clarifying. Of course, when my husband does endowment ceremonies he is indeed making covenants as a proxy. But everytime he goes, he steps out of that proxy role for 5 seconds and makes that covenant of hearkening to me. I love him for doing this for me.

    Jason,
    I’m intrigued by your ideas. Hmmm. I’m familiar with most of what you mention (I pay close attention whenever females are mentioned or portrayed in any way) and I have to say that the differences in the way women are treated in washing & annointings, the endowment, and sealings do not comfort me. They only make me sad and upset. You definitely must be seeing something in the ceremonies that I am not. Can you tell me in some vague language what you see in the disparity between the ways women and men are treated that is empowering and uplifting for women? If not, no worries. If I ever go again, I’ll keep your advice in mind.

    Starfoxy, thanks for sharing your interpretation. I am rather drawn to it. I have a friend who once gave me her take on the covenant, and it kind of reminded me of yours. (I think because you both acknowledge that the covenant is unfair.) She told me that she’s glad to be a woman, and if the price of that is to go through the motions of making an unfair covenant, she would. It’s her nickel in the tollroad of life. And she tells me that the covenant means no more to her than the meaningless nickel that she tosses into the recepticle as she speeds by. I kind of envy her (and your) ability to distance yourself from it enough that it doesn’t hurt you.

    I remind myself that even the temple is an earthly and imperfect shadow of the way things will be when we are living a higher standard.”

    Anelie, Thanks for your comment. I absolutely agree with you that the Church and the temple are evolving entities which are colored by humans’ imperfections and lack of understanding. I think I’m just more impatient than you are, as I would love to see some changes here and now.

    Thanks ala and Wendy. And Deborah, I’m right there with you about having male strangers ask me about the intimate details of my life. I can see how such an interview might be terribly traumatic for women who have been abused. I’ve talked to some of my friends about this, and we all agree that, at the very least, a woman who feels threatened by being alone with a strange man who is asking her intimate questions should be able to bring along another woman, or request to have the RS pres present. (But I like your idea of getting the rec through the RS pres even better.)

    Comment by Caroline — February 26, 2006 @ 1:49 am

62. the argument that she isn’t present in our lives because she’s standing back to let us learn our lessons doesn’t work any better for me than the argument that heavenly mother must be protected by being secreted away in the heavens so she doesn’t get slandered. it’s true that good parents (both mothers and fathers) let their children occasionally learn lessons the hard way, but good parents do not simply disappear on their children. nor does one good parent make the other one disappear. there is no rational, positive explanation for why we don’t know our heavenly mother better than we do. the only rational explanation i can come up with is that our world is not prepared for a female deity–not that it never was prepared for such, because many cultures did have female deities. but as descendants of judeo-roman civilization and as descendants of protestants, i don’t think that most people in our church are prepared for worship of a female deity.

    and i *know* john isn’t interested in having her paraded around as a spectacle or lauded in headlines. he genuinely wants a mother figure alongside our father figure. he wants a connection with both of his divine parents, not just one. i agree with him. it makes no sense that we emphasize motherhood so much but have no divine example of it while we do have a divine example of fatherhood.

    at the end of the day, i just accept it as the way it is right now. i think that’s the best thing we can do. i see no reason to try to rationalize why there is no mention of her or why she isn’t more visible in our theology and worship. it’s like so many other things that are problematic in our church. it just is. kind of like those temple covenants. they are what they are. we can hope for change–i do; for both the temple covenants and for the (non)presence of heavenly mother. and we can be willing to voice our concerns. but after that we can’t do much more. and i don’t think inventing excuses will get us very far.

    Comment by amelia — February 26, 2006 @ 1:51 am

63. just quick clarification: my comments about us being descendants of judeo-roman/protestant heritages is meant to describe the mormon church, not our world at large.

    Comment by amelia — February 26, 2006 @ 1:54 am

64. Bravo Caroline. Peace to you!

    I’d like to see the Church adopt an Icon. Yin and Yang would be my first choice. Perfectly balanced.

    I love how I feel in the temple. I wish you could feel it too.

    My advice is to try and overlook what is obviously a flaw in the language of the ceremony. It has already been correctly pointed out by others here that it is nothing more than an archane patriarchical remnant of days gone by. Hopefully some traditions will die sooner than later. Time is a great healer. Look for the beauty of the rich symbols that are represented in “the greatest story ever told” — our own Zweck des Lebens. The temple film isn’t really about Adam and Eve. It’s about you and me — why we are here, where we came from and where we’re headed. Most of the film is clearly nothing more than allegory and illustration.

    Start back by avoiding the endowment, and do initiatory work, or sealings. Plenty to do there anyway.

    Meanwhile, recognize that change comes slowly — this is the church of the maintaining of the status quo after all (why so many are ‘barking mad’ Republicans for crying out loud!). But it will come. Truth always prevails. Hang in there!

    PS, I prefer the dark-haired Eve. She doesn’t have surfer bangs, and doesn’t look so darn anglo-saxon! ;o) Mother of all living indeed…

    PPS I kinda miss the old blonde Eve with the Swedish accent, the Gordon Jump Peter, and the “claws like a bear” speech from the ‘good old days’. But most of the changes were indeed for the better.

    Comment by Rich the iconoclast — February 26, 2006 @ 1:57 am

65. Oh, and Mindy, I first heard of Brigham Young putting in the women’s obedience covenant in the 1870’s from historian Kathleen Flake during an informal discussion after she gave an academic talk on the temple at Claremont Graduate University. I know I have seen it somewhere else since, but I cannot remember at the moment. I’ll dig around and try to find it.

    Comment by Caroline — February 26, 2006 @ 2:00 am

66. Parts of the temple ceremony reflect a viewpoint that was prevalent in the LDS church during the 19th century. Literally-minded early church leaders wondered how a man could become a king without a kingdom. He could not, they reasoned, and so women as plural wives and their children came to be seen as facilitators of a man’s kingdom-building, indeed, jewels in his crown. (Given this image, my husband and I had a good laugh when we read about a company that will turn the ashes of a dead loved one into a very over-priced diamond . . . but I digress.) This is why, as has been mentioned, the initiatory ordinances are different for men and women. The modern church has become queasy about polygamy. I’m waiting for it to become equally as uncomfortable with its doctrinal remnants.

    I think this mindset is also why we don’t talk much about MH. I’m told an old seminary manual used to have a chart that listed “Father in Heaven,” uppercase F and H, and “a mother in heaven,” lower case f and h. Given our polygamous roots, we would have to ask ourselves, “Which one?” So, rather than confront such issues, we put the idea of MH on the back burner. Too, because of our discomfort with our past, when we abandoned polygamy, we adopted Victorian values with a vengeance. (Both Mike Quinn and Sonia Farnsworth have discussed this in their published work, and Linda Wilcox wrote a ground-breaking article about MH in Suntone, which I think was reprinted in Women and Authority. It’s 2:30 AM, and I don’t feel like checking references.) The Victorian notion of separate spheres, in which men occupy the public sphere and women occupy the private, protected sphere, took hold and, I believe, influenced how we think about MH.

    Comment by lorie — February 26, 2006 @ 4:51 am

67. I think a big point that seems to be missed by many (i.e. how hurtful it would be to hearken to a husband who has abused her) is that the temple ceremony first has the men vow to God to follow Him, and then the women vow to follow their husband’s as he follows God. A man that abuses his wife is not following God. And a clear distinction should be made.
    I am not a feminist by any means- which many of you may read and by so admitting– write my comment off.
    One thing I have learned since joining the church is that many many times our earthly egos need to be checked at the door. I have many friends who hate the idea of plural marriage. To the point that it has hurt their belief and testimony of the gospel. But you should think— what if you were to have a sister– who in this life never marries– would you honestly not allow your husband to marry her, so that she too could partake in the Celestial kingdom? I don’t like the idea of plural marriage, but in the universal knowledge that there are more women than men on this earth (although I, with two boys, feel I’m helping the male species catch up), it’s only sensible that when we get to the next side, plural marriage will be a part of our lives for that reason. At least that is my understanding.
    Another point is– how do you raise your hand and support the leaders of this church you claim to love? People are always saying “Why don’t the women have the priesthood?” Shoot– I don’t want it! I trust in my Heavenly Father and His infinite knowledge that has the priesthood ordained only for the men. They need it. Women are so much more spiritual naturally.
    Enough with my non-feminist ramblings– I just wanted to leave with this thought. Don’t get caught up in the deep philosophies of the church (i.e. being God’s some day, temple ceremonies, plural marriage) unless they deal with your personal salvation. Not to say that we’re “too stupid” to grasp the ideas, but merely– why waste the time and risk your testimony on things not relevant to your personal salvation.

    Comment by Lindsay F — February 26, 2006 @ 9:16 am

68. Caroline, thanks very much for your post. I think a blog is a perfectly appropriate forum in which to discuss such issues, and like Seth, I think the “culture of silence” can be extremely isolating and unhelpful.

    There’s a tendency when approaching sacred texts to manipulate the language to offer the meaning we’ve intended to glean from the text all along. Jews and Christians both have been practicing this strategy in various ways for millennia. The advantage is, of course, that if you can convince yourself the text says what you already believe, and what you want and need it to say, you don’t have to renounce claims to transcendence that you’ve invested in the text.

    But I’m not convinced this approach is valid. The church is accountable to its language, and that means it’s accountable to the obvious reading of the text. If we mean something other than what we say–let’s say we mean that wives and husbands both hearken to each other and both hearken to the Lord–we have to actually say that.

    Implicit in the system the temple sets up for us is that revelation from God is ambiguous; if it were crystal clear what God wanted, why wouldn’t we just all hearken to God together? For this reason, men have power over women, and whether or not they exercise it, they’re granted it in the temple. This says something about God’s attitude toward women, as indicated by the temple.

    I’m also uneasy with the tendency I see to explicitly invoke personal experience in interpreting the language of the text. I recognize language is unstable and our experience inevitably shapes how we encounter a text, but I’m not sure we should consciously make use of this strategy. Several people have explained to me what the temple ceremony actually means on the basis of how their father treated their mother. I remain unconvinced–I think it’s fantastic if your parents were egalitarian, but it’s not directly relevant. Let’s say President Hinckley makes the following statement in General Conference: Do not watch the Superbowl on Sunday. Let’s say I know countless Mormon males who watch the Superbowl on Sunday anyway. Do I then conclude, on the basis of my experience, that what President Hinckley *really* must have meant was something else entirely?

    And if there’s any doubt in our minds as to what the covenant in question “means,” we have the entire film to demonstrate it. Let’s just watch how Adam treats Eve, and how God treats Eve, and decide whether Eve is marginalized.

    Comment by Kiskilili — February 26, 2006 @ 9:27 am

69. Just curious,

    did anyone else read that post on Times and Seasons about Paul’s admonition to women to veil themselves when praying and prophesying?

    It was one of the the Julies who posted it … either Smith or Austin …

    I’m not going to try to explain it, since I’d butcher it. Does anyone else remember this?

    Comment by Seth R. — February 26, 2006 @ 9:31 am

70. Ah, but Lindsey, these things are fundamental to our understandings of ourselves as women. Right at the core.

    As an aside, there may be more women on earth, but that’s only because men have a higher mortality rate at all stages of development. More baby boys are conceived and born, but fewer of them survive. So your theory on polygamy doesn’t wash with me, either on grounds of numbers or philosophy.

    Jason, I agree with Caroline about your interpretation of the other temple ceremonies. I have listenend closely to them and they only bring me pain. My wedding day was the 2nd most spiritually painful day of my life, next to the day I received my endowments, years earlier, and it was because of hurtful inequities in the sealing language and the activities prepatory to it. And my husband was just as disturbed by the inequities. (Fortuanately we were able to shelve all that and have some fun that day as well).

    I’ve described some of my experience on Kiskilili’s post, so I won’t repeat too much of it here. However, I felt similarly betrayed, similar aching sorrow for what I saw portrayed, the silencing and sidelining of Eve and all the women there. I went frequently after, trying to make sense of it all, and it was months, months, before I could stop (silently) sobbing through a session and crying myself to sleep at night. I did talk about my concerns with a temple president once–it took a lot of guts for me to do it–he seemed impatient and almost offended that I would have such concerns and basically told me things were the way they were because that’s just the way they were. That God’s organization for his children is, was, and always will be patriarchal and that’s just how it is. I have not been interested in asking a temple president about it again.

    As for our Mother in Heaven (and I believe there is only One), I don’t buy the arguments that she’s too fragile, delicate, or anymore sacred than our Father to have need of ‘protection’ from her children. Nope. I believe She is One Powerful Woman and I think one of the ways the church has not helped its women is by not giving them more powerful and specific role models to follow. We’re simply pointed to and lifted on that ivory pedestal of True Womanhood, angelic and stereotypically mothering. Very limiting and, really, de-humanizing because we’re not supposed to be fully human. When we act it, we’re labeled as un-womanly.

    I also don’t buy that women are inherently more spiritual than men, nor how that concept may play into justifying women’s unequal treatment in the church and in the temple. I think such a concept harms men just as it does women and is unhealthy for both. Men are wonderful, noble, and spiritual and we don’t help them realize their full potential by labeling them with an artifical handicap, done really to assuage the inequities toward women that we as a culture are unwilling to recognize for what they are. We need to give men their due, face up to & acknowledge the inequities, and respond to them in an adult way. Only then can we have healthy change.

    Comment by Artemis — February 26, 2006 @ 9:42 am

71. I am with Artemis and Caroline as to being a bit befuddled by Jason’s advice for feeling better about this issue. The parts he recommends listening to closely were quite painful for me. The beginning of the end of my compsure the first time through the temple was in the washings and annointings. I had such a deep sinking feeling at a certain point that references the inequalities between husband and wife. The tears started slowly right then and then turned into a torrent during the endowment’s hearken covenant. The sealing was not too bad, but only because a friend (for who the wording completely ruined her wedding day) had warned me in advance. So I deal with the pain before hand. With this advance warning I was able to talk to my husband before the sealing and solidify to ourselves that we were equal, equal in every way. We decided that as we knelt across the altar, no matter what the wording said, we would look into each other’s eyes and think about our equal partnership and love. We were also grateful for the head sup that the seaing is devoid of “romantic” wording-ie., no ‘to love and to cherish, to honor, ect. So before the sealing as we waited in the Celestial room we made personal covenants to each other about all the romantic stuff.

    Comment by Katie — February 26, 2006 @ 10:13 am

72. I disagree with Rosalynde comment #7. As you can see most comments have been quite supportive and heavy on the hang-in-there attidutes. Where else can you recieve positive feedback about the temple from a generally supportive group of similarly thinking members of the church. You say it is better to share during “one-on-one conversations, in VT visits, perhaps even in exceptional RS situations’. These are not really appropriate venues unless you want to place your bets on a frightful reaction and subsequent passive advice leaving you with a stigma and a wish that you had just kept your mouth shut.

    I’ll be honest and say I’m dissapointed with the wording in the temple that makes women seem to own second place. It seems absolutely contrary to what our leaders have taught in recent times and I can’t image why we faithful (and yet spineless) women allow it. Where are our advocates? What can we do individually to sensitively explain our sorrow?

    Comment by pellar — February 26, 2006 @ 11:02 am

73. Where are our advocates? What can we do individually to sensitively explain our sorrow?

    Pellar, I think this is one of our problems. I’m not sure if women like us have advocates in the institutional Church. I would like to think that our General Relief Society President, Bonnie Parkin, would an advocate for all sorts of women (and in fact I’m about ready to mail off a letter to her) but it’s extremely hard to reach women like her. I have doubts she will read my letter since I believe it’s the policy for such letters to be mailed back to stake presidents.

    So what can we do? I think the only thing to do is talk openly about things that hurt us. Tell your bishop. Tell your stake president. Tell your temple president. Tell the wives of these men. If enough women tell them how wording such as that used in the temple is so hurtful, they will start telling the GA’s and then I truly believe changes will happen. I really don’t believe President Hinckley wants us to be hurt like this, when all it really is is a matter of clarifying and updating the language so that it jives with the respect Christ showed women in the New Testament. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28).

    Comment by Caroline — February 26, 2006 @ 11:31 am

74. I too am curious about how Jason sees those differences in wordings as being helpful.

    As far as HM is concerned I”ve said it before but I maintain that HF and HM are too interconnected to refer to eachother as being separate beings. To refer to Her separately would be to deny the extent to which they are one being. Furthermore I think that when they were dealing with mankind the prophets were unable to concieve of them as one being, and assigned masculine characteristics to them, thereby creating the illusion of HF being a separate being from HM, and the one that interacts with us.

    I also would like to add that increased visiblity of HM would do more than give mothers a role model, and makind a chance to see women as part of the divine. It would most importantly (to me) give men and women a chance to see how a perfect being treats His wife and vice versa, and how a perfect couple deals with their children together.

    Comment by Starfoxy — February 26, 2006 @ 11:42 am

75. I appreciate your approach, Starfoxy (see #46), and in other contexts it makes sense to me.

    The problem I have, though, is that everything in the church and in the temple itself claims very much that the temple IS normative, that it IS in fact a reflection of the way things ought to be. Allegedly, it’s the “highest expression of our theology.” There’s a lot of weight behind that. It’s not just another androcentric text originating in a fallible patriarchal culture. It may be that, but it’s also binding on us; we covenant to behave in specific ways. So it’s more difficult to just dismiss it.

    Comment by Kiskilili — February 26, 2006 @ 12:23 pm

76. I haven’t found anything that really does say that the Temple is normative. Mostly because it is hard to find anything published by the church that says much about the teachings of the Temple. I have heard many people, not even people with any sort of authority, say that the Temple is normative.
    Something can very easily be the highest expression of our theology without being composed entirely of instructions on how we should act and view ourselves. Laman and Lemuel are some of the most well known characters in the BoM, and some could say are strong symbols of aspects of our belief. They are an expression of our belief, more especially an expression of how we believe we should not act. It is very telling, to me, that the covenant we’re talking about happens in the ‘telestial kingdom,’ the fallen world, and nowhere else. I do agree that it is upsetting that it is binding on us, and I’m not sure how to really reconcile that.
    If you do happen to find something written by the church or said by a GA that does say that all the teachings and covenants of the Temple are normative I’m not sure I want to hear it. It makes it so much easier to see God’s love for me when I think of the Temple this way.

    Comment by Starfoxy — February 26, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

77. So, if the temple covenants have changed over time, are you bound by the covenant YOU made at whichever point in time? Or are we all “updated” together? At the beginning of temple rites, they didn’t know what they were doing and sealed people to Joseph’s family when they had no relation to him. Are those sealings “binding” because they happened, or not binding because they were wrong?

    The only way I’ve been able to come to any sort of peace (using the term very loosely) about the idea of the covenants changing through time is that the prophets are only given a VERY general picture of what it supposed to be taught there. Maybe they are shown a scene or something, or maybe the words used in their visions can’t be uttered by man, so they just write the language of the temple as they understand it. As Brigham Young stated, the point of the temple is to learn the signs and tokens so we can pass by the angels that stand as sentinels. So I guess there is some comfort in the fact that the S&T for each gender are identical. I think I have to chalk the entire rest of the “presentation” up as the prophet’s interpretation of some vision/revelation. Otherwise, why wouldn’t it remain the same? And that gets us back to the problem of why the Church leaders espouse equality over the pulpit, but haven’t “updated” the ceremonies accordingly.

    Sigh…

    Comment by mindy — February 26, 2006 @ 1:01 pm

78. I appreciate having a forum for this discussion. I am glad to have a place for it until the day when I can discuss these feelings with my friends and family in the real world.

    Like many here, I also feel betrayed by the portrayal of women in the temple. But for me, the more compelling reason that I stopped attending the temple was that I wanted to take my power back from the church. I don’t want a man to have the power to say whether I am worthy or not. This was a very important and freeing step for me to take.

    Now if RS presidents started having authority to issue temple recommends, perhaps I could change my mind. I remain open to possibilities. I’m still in an angst-ridden, unresolved stage in my relationship to the church. I’m not sure where my path will lead.

    Comment by AmyB — February 26, 2006 @ 1:45 pm

79. Forgive a newcomer. Are we not all imperfect? How many times has our prophet admonished the men of our church to cherish and treat with respect the women? To me, this would indicate a problem and a need for improvement. It would also indicate the awareness and care with which we are considered and prayed over. I do not think HF or HM are particularly proud of the way their children treat eachother, male to female or the reverse. I think we could each identify couples where the wife is an abuser. (emotionally or physically) I also know we could all identify families with the opposite travesty occurring.
    I too have been uncomfortable in the temple at times, but I have come to the conclusion that it is in our nature to question, to be hurt when we cannot have our way, so to speak. Are we here to learn obedience to God’s laws? Each time I go through a session I cannot help feel a little manipulated. When I leave I remind myself of the nature of man/woman, of the purpose of my being here, and of the desire of our HF that each of us return to him. Every time I am hurt or offended by unthinking comments/attitudes from the brothers AND sisters of my ward, I remind myself they are here to progress just as much as I. The stake president, the bishop, the GA’s, even the prophet, are all on the same road as I. These are imperfect people. This helps me feel better. There was never a time, barring the savior’s sojourn, that a true example of the way we ought to treat eachother has been given. I can with confidence state even our dear, sweet prophet has not figured out that completely yet.
    This is the first time I have perused the site. I appreciate all the thoughts and ideas shared.

    Comment by Charis — February 26, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

80. Here’s Julie Smith’s post on veiling as power.

    I also find her discussion about parallel relationships helpful in thinking about the temple endowment, which is itself all about parallel relationships (accepting inspired instruction from authorized delegates as if it came directly from God). Through various parts of the endowment, I think God is trying to teach us that intermediaries ought not to matter on many levels–if we are one with God’s will, then that unity means that it doesn’t matter how many channels we go through to receive instruction from Him. (And although we communicate directly with Him, He very rarely communicates directly with us–at the least it is through the Holy Ghost, but often also through mortals like dead prophets, friends, even soccasionally trangers. I wonder if this practice, too, is desiged to emphasize how crucial unity is in the Gospel.)

    I’ve been following these recent women-and-temple discussions across the blogosphere, and am very sympathetic to those who can’t reconcile the current temple endowment with their conviction that God values His daughters equally. I have felt God’s love for me often enough in the temple that I am ok with postponing resolution on some issues and accepting explanations that fit with my own feminist convictions on other issues I realize, though, that my approach is one of many equally valid approaches.

    One thing I wonder about, though, I haven’t seen brought up yet in discussions: do you think it possible God intentionally chose non-equivalent language to help the spiritual progression of women by forcing them (or maybe, “strongly encouraging them”) to be humble?

    Certainly women have been demeaned and suffered greatly throughout history, and certainly many still are and do–but I recognize in my own feminist ideology and in discussions with female friends a tendency to downplay men’s character strengths (innate and socialized), and to reduce them instead to smelly, crude, shallow animals. In the current historical moment, women (especially in the church?) tend to be very capable in many, many areas–maybe God WANTS a husband to be one of the portals through which a wife receives His instruction, for that very reason that it could be very easy for women to dismiss the value of men, without being reminded that men can be at one with God’s will just as much as women can. Maybe God thinks we women need to be humbled.

    After all, in Julie Smith’s argument, this parallel relationship makes the husband essentially an empty doorway–his presence does not restrict God’s light to the wife, any more than delegating, say, the creation of a world, makes that creation any less God’s own. And again, the husband is not the only portal through which God communicates to His sons and daughters. The Holy Ghost, scriptures, children, even Christ Himself all can stand in for God without distorting the message at all–clearly, the end goal is for all of us to become so pure we can be Urim and Thummims ourselves, just like the celestialized earth–so pure that we are entirely one with God and each other (and yet, somehow, still eternally ourselves).

    Comment by Laura O — February 26, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

81. I don’t mean to demean or criticize anyone’s thinking, because I recognize that there are some open wounds out there.

    I just want to ask a question about from where we believe the text of endowment originates? If we’re going to spend time parsing the discourse here, then it begs the question as to where it originated?

    Was it written by a Correlation committee? Was it written by a group of misogynistic men? Did we steal it from the Masons? Was it crafted/inspired by the Lord?

    If we believe that it came from the Lord, then is it at all possible that we’re ascribing meanings to some of the text that aren’t correct? If we believe that it came from the Lord, do we believe the Lord to be misogynist?

    Flipped around, I would say that if I believe the Lord to love everyone equally, and if I believe that He gave us the endowment and the ceremony, then maybe there’s a way to correlate what we believe about Him and what we’re hearing in The House of the Lord.

    Comment by queuno — February 26, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

82. Yeah, that was the post I was talking about.

    I also thought that there was another good point made somewhere on the bloggernacle:

    Basically, it says that the wording demands “obediance and honor” only if the husband is following Christ.

    This puts the woman in a position of judge over the husband and his conduct. She has a duty to determine whether he is acting in righteousness or not. If not, she need not follow him.

    Therefore, the husband really has no power to compell the wife in anything. His only authority is derived from being in harmony with God. It would seem that any claims that the temple makes the husband any sort of dictator is purely illusory.

    The post compared the roles of husband and wife to that of the President and the Supreme Court. The husband has certain obligations and duties, but the Supreme Court may judge “his” actions and possibly declare them unlawful.

    So it’s basically separation of powers and checks and balances and all that good stuff.

    I don’t know how doctrinal that is, but I’m adopting it as my own opinion anyway. It resonates with me and seems to describe my marriage better than some kingdom with me as king.

    Comment by Seth R. — February 26, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

83. Re:Laura O’s 77

    do you think it possible God intentionally chose non-equivalent language to help the spiritual progression of women by forcing them (or maybe, “strongly encouraging them”) to be humble?

    Why would God set about to achieve equal consideration of men and women through inequal treatment/covenants of men and women?

    I personally loathe conversations/jokes that perpetuate stereotypes about men and women–I feel that it is one of Satan’s ploys to create a divide between the genders with the end result of undermining marriages, families and societies.

    I cannot see anything that furthers spiritual progression in that particular aspect of the ceremony. If one has a problem with demeaning men, it’s not likely to be solved by that covenant.

    Re Naiah’s 39

    we pledge to be part of that unit, and our husband pledges the unit to Heavenly Father.

    I echo the idea put forth before–why wouldn’t he in turn pledge to me to be part of that unit and then pledge the unit to Heavenly Father? He pledges to God that he is pledged to God, and I have only pledged to God that I am pledged to my husband.

    Comment by Téa — February 26, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

84. queno,

    Now we’re venturing into that territory of the old “God speaks, but he leaves the implementation to mortals” dilemma.

    How much of our Church is from a perfect God and how much is (imperfect) mortal implementation of God’s word?

    One thing is clear however: God has given this Church and its leaders the authority to be wrong in his name. Even if the Church is incorrect in its practices, the scriptures still make it clear that we are subject to its policies.

    It takes a great deal of humility to be absolutely convinced that the Church is wrong, and yet still obey after the final decision has been made.

    Comment by Seth R. — February 26, 2006 @ 2:39 pm

85. Tea,

    Maybe the plain disagreeable truth is that men and women aren’t equal and there’s no reason for God to treat them the same.

    Comment by Seth R. — February 26, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

86. Well, the second I clicked “add my comment” (#7) last night I regretted doing so, and immediately asked the admins to delete it, but it looks like that’s not going to happen at this point. (I must remember not to blog on FMH on the nights my husband is on call; I always get myself into trouble around here when I do that!) I regretted the comment because I feared it would be perceived as unsupportive of women who struggle with these issues—and that’s the last thing I want: I consider myself one of those women, for one thing, and if I challenge certain attitudes or methods prevalent among feminists, it’s only because I almost certainly am attracted to them myself, and I want to challenge myself to think more carefully and more courageously.

    In any case, I’m glad to know more about the origins and aims of Caroline’s essay (#15): I think a small reading/writing group is an ideal social situation for approaching these issues from the highly personal, emotional position that the essay takes. I’d love to see more LDS women interested in these sorts of conversations in settings like that: I’m no fan of codes of fearful silence or needless taboos, and I personally have made it a point to discuss these matters with my sisters and close friends and RS sisters before (and after) their temple experiences, often to very satisfying effect. And I’m also glad to know, Caroline, that you’re not averse to critical discussion or to divergent experiences.

    As it turns out, the thread has so far belied my dire predictions, at least mostly, and while I’m still concerned about its effect on the silent readers, I’m highly pleased to be proved wrong! I’m a cheery pessimist about most matters, so it’s a pleasure when my expectations are exceeded. Kudos to Caroline and to the many earnest, constructive commenters who have contributed.

    I maintain my skepticism, however, that the cherished (if rarely realized) ideal of unfettered public discourse is any sort of panacea for painful divisions within communities. I’m passionately in love with vigorous critical discourse for its own sake, don’t get me wrong. But prolonged discussion from confessional (that is, personal) perspectives seems to me far more often to polarize than to unite when carried out in rowdy public places like blogs. I realize that unhibited self-expression has become something of a sacred cow, particularly among marginalized groups, and I expect many to disagree with me on this point. What can I say? I’m a skeptic through and through, though an unwilling one.

    Comment by Rosalynde — February 26, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

87. Seth, that’s a horrible idea and it goes completely against every experience I have had with God. I have always felt that God considers his daughters and sons to be equal and this truth cries from the core of my soul. If God were a respecter of persons, i.e., men over women, then he wouldn’t be God. Nor would I worship him.

    Comment by Artemis — February 26, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

88. Re Seth’s 82

    Maybe the plain disagreeable truth is that men and women aren’t equal and there’s no reason for God to treat them the same.

    You know what, I would disagree with that.

    My first experience with God, letting me know of His very existence through the Holy Ghost, counters the notion that it would be a plain truth.

    I hold out some hope we have different definitions/connotations for the word “equal” and that your view was not explained properly in that brief comment.

    Comment by Téa — February 26, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

89. What about a boycott, or better yet, a girlcott, of the temple? “We’ll go make covenants there when you get the language correct”….?

    I tell the folks that come around collecting for Friends of Scouting that I’ll happily contribute after they send out someone to collect for “friends of YW” first.

    Seriously, how do we actually go about effecting change where it’s needed, without turning the Church upside down and finding ourselves relegated to the “dogs barking after the caravan” category?

    Comment by Rich — February 26, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

90. On the substance: I think the interpretation that Christian and Seth and Julie and others lay out above (and in other places) of the husband-wife relationship constructed in the endowment—-that is, a relationship in which the wife’s duty to “hearken” is minimized and conditional—-is entirely compatible with the vision of marriage that has been emerging in the last decades in official church discourse, so I have no problem with folks adopting it in their personal relationships.

    I don’t, however, think that interpretation is compatible with the original meaning of the text. It hinges on the meaning of the word “as,” which can mean either “like” or “while.” The conditional interpretation requires the latter meaning: the wife obeys the husband only “while” he obeys God. But given the symbolic structure of the endowment as a whole, which establishes a set of hierarchical relationships deriving ultimately from God by means of a set of relational resemblances, I think only the former meaning is warranted: the wife obeys the husband “like”—in the same way that—the husband obeys God, that is, faithfully and steadfastly.

    On the matter of Eve’s post-Garden silence and the nature of her relationship to God: it’s crucial to note that outside the Garden, outside God’s direct presence, the endowment focuses solely on the hieratic realm—that is, the realm of experience mediated by priests and priesthood. Indeed, the temple itself is, precisely and solely, a hieratic space. So no, Eve doesn’t participate in that realm of experience, and she requires a (male) priestly intermediary to facilitate her ritual relationship to God—-but that shouldn’t be news to anyone who’s ever attended Sacrament Meeting. That she does not relate hieratically to God, however, and that she doesn’t intervene in the chain of communication that structures priesthood, says nothing about her personal, spiritual relationship to God or her participation in other realms of human experience.

    Comment by Rosalynde — February 26, 2006 @ 3:17 pm

91. OK, for a moment, how about we just set aside all the brainwashing we’ve had about what “equality” is supposed to mean that we get in elementary school, TV commercials, social groups, etc.

    For you and I to be absolutely equal, you would have to have brown hair, with a receding hairline, about 6 feet tall, glasses, and a few gold fillings in your teeth. Oh yeah, you’d also have to be biologically male. There’s a lot of other things.

    Either that, or I’d have to be a clone of you.

    Mentally, its the same story. Socially? Economically? Yup.

    You can’t be equal with me unless you are me. Neither can I be equal with you unless I am you. You can’t have diversity without inequality. No two things in this world have an equal chance. That goes for rocks, trees, penguins, and yes, people too.

    I don’t want God to treat me the same way he treats you because I am not you. Nor do I wish to be.

    I don’t want equal treatment! I want fair treatment. There’s a massive difference.

    But today’s society would have you think that it’s equality with men that you desire when really, we ought to be seeking fairness.

    I see no reason why God need be bound by American legalistic notions of equality. Sameness between the sexes seems to work well in managing a secular society. But that is not a sufficient reason to import sameness into a theological paradigm.

    Comment by Seth R. — February 26, 2006 @ 3:44 pm

92. “It was one of the the Julies who posted it … either Smith or Austin …”

    Haha. I’m Julie M. Smith, also known as Julie in Austin. Something to do with our Wordpress update changing my screen name.

    “We’re simply pointed to and lifted on that ivory pedestal of True Womanhood, angelic and stereotypically mothering. Very limiting and, really, de-humanizing because we’re not supposed to be fully human. When we act it, we’re labeled as un-womanly.”

    I just don’t know what to do with statements like this, because my experience is so different. Maybe my experience is atypical. I don’t know. I’ve never gotten the sense that a fellow Saint valued me because I was a mother but I constantly get the sense (becaus they tell me) that they value me because I am a teacher.

    Comment by Julie in Austin — February 26, 2006 @ 3:47 pm

93. Seth, maybe you’re the one confusing “equality” with “sameness.” I for one do not want to be the same as men. But I do want to be equal with them, or, as you put it, I want to be treated fairly.

    Comment by Artemis — February 26, 2006 @ 3:52 pm

94. I think Rosalynde’s #87 is the most significant contribution to the conversation so far. Whatever hierarchical relationship there is between husbands and wives, it is certainly less than the explicit hierarchical relationship between members and their leaders. And yet, I hear no complaints that our relationship with god is diminished or second-class because it is mediated through the prophets. (At least not within the church; those who have such concerns generally leave.) Nor do I understand that there is any sense in which the general membership is less valued or less significant in god’s eyes than the leadership because of the hierarchy.

    Comment by Eric Russell — February 26, 2006 @ 4:03 pm

95. I can appreciate the difficulties that some go through as they try make sense of their relationship God and His church. It seems like I crash (not sleep–though I do that all too often as well) at just about every sacrament meeting. The reality of the covenant is just too much for me at times. And so it seems that I’m taking the sacrament about once or twice a month–even though I attend regularly.

    As for the temple–I went two and a half years without attending–though my recomend has always been current. It wasn’t until this very month that I went back. And though I hope to keep going back at least once a month, I know better than to promise myself that I will continue to do so.

    IMO, what is required of each of us is that we do the best we can in our fearful approach to God. What else can we do?

    That said, let me state, for the record, that my problems are personal in nature. I don’t look for the church to adjust itself to meet my criteria for worship. What I look for is God’s healing influence so that I can better shoulder the burdens that come of sustaining His kingdom.

    Comment by Jack — February 26, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

96. Starfoxy, I really like your explanation of HM’s silence. I’d like to rephrase your argument to see if I’ve got it right: it’s man’s vision that is limited to see only the masculine aspects of a God that is actually a partnership between a divine Mother and Father. Does that sound right? I think it parallels the idea that blacks were denied the priesthood for so long not because God was not ready but because his fallible humans couldn’t get it through their heads that black (men) and white (men) were on the same spiritual plane.

    Re: Rosalynde’s #83: I agree that open forums on sensitive subjects are a risky business, and it may be that the ideal place to air out this sort of problem is in supportive, private environments. The one benefit of this forum is its potential to reach those who feel isolated. I spent years feeling isolated with some of my own faith struggles, and often simply reading online that someone fought some of the same doubts that I did was enough to comfort me and to give me hope. I hope that Caroline’s brave post will bring similar comfort to some women who lurk in quiet desperation.

    Comment by John Remy — February 26, 2006 @ 4:14 pm

97. Eric (#91): Whatever hierarchical relationship there is between husbands and wives, it is certainly less than the explicit hierarchical relationship between members and their leaders. And yet, I hear no complaints that our relationship with god is diminished or second-class because it is mediated through the prophets.

    See my #33 and #36 on that very point. (Not noticing it is completely forgivable in a thread of this length!)

    Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 26, 2006 @ 5:14 pm

98. Regarding HM . . .
    Maybe I’m not as strong, independent, confident, whatever as everyone else, (forgive me if someone already said this) but if I had more knowledge about Her, I’d constantly be comparing myself to Her, and I know I’d see myself as falling short every time. I don’t think that men do this to themselves regarding HF, the way that women might. I know we women tend to compare ourselves with our earthly counterparts and we can be pretty harsh on ourselves. I imagine that our Heavenly Parents know this about us. Maybe that’s why we know more about Father at this point. Who knows? Maybe Heavenly Mother looks after those spirits about to come to earth and those in the spirit world (that’s not to say she doesn’t care about those here), and Heavenly Father deals more with those on the earth. Maybe that’s a ridiculous theory, but just a thought.

    Comment by HeidiAnn — February 26, 2006 @ 5:47 pm

99. Regarding the comment on boycotting/girlcotting the Church or temple until it changes … at the risk of being snarky, let me ask:

    Do you really think that is the solution? Aren’t you risking doing more damage to your own testimony than you are convincing the Church to “change”?

    Someone asked about whether or not there was an advocate for women within the Church hierarchy (sorry, I’m not going to track back numbers). I think that yes, there is, and, unfortunately, this is obviously not an issue that they’re worried about (until I read an address by Parkin et al in Women’s Conference to the contrary).

    So where does that lead you?

    I’m not being insensitive here. I have had many of the same wonderings when I’ve been in the temple (and I’ve oft take the same approach as Caroline’s husband). So i ask my wife (”LF”) about her stance on this (after all, it is she who would be more affected than me). LF is a feminist, in most senses of the word. But, as a feminist, she gives an passionate argument for why the Church should be quiet about HM, why she doesn’t feel the temple is demeaning, and why she absolutely, positively, does not want the priesthood.

    Everytime LF gets hot-and-bothered about something, her answer is that she can’t stay away from Church or the temple because it’s too critical to her testimony, other uncomfortableness aside (and again, she considers herself a real feminist). She has thought about boycotting Church things, but she says the personal cost is too great. She stays away from things like enrichment and super saturdays because those offend her, but she says she doesn’t get anything out of them anyway. WRT the weighty issues, she takes the approach that there is further knowledge that she has not yet received, and that suffices.

    Comment by queuno — February 26, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

100. In light of her desire to be treated as an equal with the priesthood (strong feminist convictions, etc.), Caroline’s reaction, which surfaced as an emotional, public “meltdown”, is somewhat surprising, but unfortunately typical of how many women approach stressful situations. This comment will not be popular, but perhaps that reaction to a newly revealed, challenging insight best demonstrates the need for her to “hearken unto [her] husband” for strength and leadership.

     Rather than feeling anger toward the leaders, perhaps reconsidering the widsom and guidance of the priesthood would be in order. But, then again perhaps not…

     Comment by Martin Thomas — February 26, 2006 @ 5:54 pm

101. And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?
     ***
     And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
     ***
     And as Enoch saw this, he had a bitterness of soul, and wept. . ***
     Jesus wept.

     Now back to what has been a remarkably civil and thought-provoking thread.

     Comment by Deborah — February 26, 2006 @ 6:13 pm

102. re: Seth 82 & Artemis 84

     Different we are, though those differences do not imply one above the other. They are simply differences. Take two identical twins. Each has her own personality. One is quietly kind; the other is gregarious an affectionate. Do their parents place either above or before the other? Certainly not. Are they different? Of course! Are the differences at all good, bad, right, or wrong? Nope. They just are.

     Men and woman can be, and actually are, different–this implies no greater love for either sex. We’re just different, and that is actually ok.

     In our culture in recent generations we have built in what was meant to be an encouragement that has somewhat backfired–especially in regard to issues like this. The whole “you can be anything that you want to be” is a fantastic, horizon expanding notion, but if you carry it far enough it does not hold. I can not become a man–a *real* through and through down to my DNA man–no matter how much I might deicde that I want to be.

     There are different lots in life, and that is not oppressive, repressive, or unkind of me at all to say. People are different, each uniquely, and collectively as they can be sorted by different characteristics. It simply is; as politically incorrect as it is to say so, there are differences, and they are OK.

     They need not carry any implication of rank. Neither is better–they’re just different, and that’s ok.

     Comment by Naiah — February 26, 2006 @ 7:09 pm

103. Eric (#91) (and Christian #33 & #36): Whatever hierarchical relationship there is between husbands and wives, it is certainly less than the explicit hierarchical relationship between members and their leaders. And yet, I hear no complaints that our relationship with god is diminished or second-class because it is mediated through the prophets.

     Let me see if I can articulate why the parallel you’re both drawing is troublesome (or at least not helpful) to me.

     Certainly the relationship between the members and leaders is explicitly hierarchical and significantly less problematic because most members operate under the assumption (or on faith) that the prophet and the GAs merit their position and authority. That is, they are better and wiser than we are, and they are called of God to do what they do. Isn’t this so? This becomes more problematic at a local level, where we can see that the bishop is often just a flawed person among flawed people, but neverthelss we generally assume that he is called to his position because of some standard of worthiness that warrants his being placed on the hierarchy above the rest of us, at least for that moment in time.

     Therefore, to suggest that there is an easy parallel between the relationship of man to wife and prophet/GA to membership is to suggest that there is something meritorious in the mere possession of a Y chromosome. Which mysterious merit females just naturally and will always lack, no matter what level of spirituality, intelligence, compassion, etc. they accomplish in life. Being born to a flaw that one can never overcome…doesn’t that seem like something akin to original sin?

     Comment by EmilyS — February 26, 2006 @ 7:13 pm

104. EmilyS–

     I think that what you describe is very much alive in Mormon Folkdoctrine, but actually false. I do NOT think that those with higher church positions are more worthy or deserving than those without them. If your logic were valid, a stake president could never be released and asked to teach Sunday School to 10 year olds unless he had commited a fairly major sin.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 26, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

105. EmilyS: “meritorious”

     Not necessarily. The general authorities are plain old, ordinary men, just men with a really busy, really visible calling. They, in themselves, divested of their mantles, are no closer to God than any others among us. They each have been given that calling, and by virtue of such they are no more deserving of merit. It is not the men it is what God does with them that counts.

     Husbands, acting as such, fulfill a calling of sorts as well. It does not mean that he as a child of God is any closer to his heavenly parents than his wife is; it just means that that is his role to fulfill.

     I don’t know how I manage to be so at peace with these issues that seem to give so many such cause for consternation. I wish I knew how to hand each and every one of you my entire synthesis of thought on this score. I really do…

     Comment by Naiah — February 26, 2006 @ 7:22 pm

106. Julie: If your logic were valid, a stake president could never be released and asked to teach Sunday School to 10 year olds unless he had commited a fairly major sin.

     This isn’t what I meant, really, so let me try to refine. We understand many positions of authority (including your example of stake president) to be “term” positions, and we expect that whomever is called to that position will be thoughtful / loving/ “in-tune”/ what-have-you enough to fulfill that calling worthily. For a time. Until his term is up and the next person with those essentials is called for a term. Yes, I agree that there are many who could be called to those positions, and the mantle (as Naiah mentions) that descends upon them for that term does most of the heavy lifting. But the person called still needs to be something the Lord can work with, and that simply isn’t just everyone. Maybe 8 of 10, but not 10 of 10. Know whaddamean?

     As for the prophet. I’m not convinced that he isn’t a kinder/more loving/ more “in-tune” person than most of the rest of us. Sure, there are others who could be prophet (maybe…2 of 10? heh.), and again, the mantle of his office probably has more to do with what he does than the man himself, but there’s still got to be something there the Lord can work with. And we’re certainly not all equal to that task. At least, I can’t claim for myself that I’m equal to it, and I consider myself to be pretty darn capable.

     But this underlying assumption that the callee has something the Caller can work with seems to indicate (if we insist on this parallel of hierarchy to patriarchy) that the female of the pair is a lesser lump of clay.  Which is why it’s not helpful for me in the way that Eric and Christian seemed to be offering it.

     Comment by EmilyS — February 26, 2006 @ 7:52 pm

107. She has thought about boycotting Church things, but she says the personal cost is too great.

     Queno, I think that’s an entirely valid and understandable decision. I fully support women who choose to participate in things they don’t like/understand because they think in the end it is helping them in some way.

     My questions would be this: What if someone reaches a point where the personal cost to participate in such things is too great? That is where I am at with the temple. I’m sure there are great and good things I might learn in there, but a) it is just too painful for me to endure and b) I feel like I need to be true to my conscience and my own understanding of God, which necessitates me not at this time participating in something I find personally violating. Like you said above, the personal cost is just too great. I don’t imagine my not going will “change” anything in the institutional church. All it will do is give me more peace of mind. Does this make sense?

     Eric Russell,
     See my comment #43 about the parallel between hierarchy in the institutional church and hierarchy in marriage. As I said above, I think they are entirely different beasts.

     Deborah, thanks

     But prolonged discussion from confessional (that is, personal) perspectives seems to me far more often to polarize than to unite when carried out in rowdy public places like blogs.

     Rosalynde,
     Glad you’ve rejoined the discussion. I can understand where you’re coming from with the above quote, but on the whole I would probably tend to disagree with you. Some of the moments I have felt most enlightened and uplifted in my life have sprung from discussions from confessional perspectives. Most have indeed occurred in a small group or one on one context, but I have also felt really enlightened by discussions on personal topics that I have encountered in blogs. I find it interesting that you think that personal stories are more likely to polarize than more objectively critical discussions. In my mind, it’s easy to invalidate and dismiss someone else’s interpretation of a scripture, but it’s a lot harder for me to invalidate someone else’s feelings. It’s hard to argue about the way someone else experienced something. (Perhaps this is where you think the polarization comes in. If someone does try to invalidate someone’s feelings, where to go from there…)

     Comment by Caroline — February 26, 2006 @ 8:14 pm

108. EmilyS,

     Thanks for clarifying. It certainly isn’t my position that a really unrighteous person would be called to a high calling so, yes, the calling does indicate that that person is righteous. However, it doesn’t imply that someone (regardless of gender) who didn’t get that calling is any less righteous. There might have only been ten men in a stake in tune enough to be called as pres., but the calling of one of them doesn’t imply that he was more worthy than the other nine.

     Similarly, whatever else one might think about gender relationships, I don’t think you can find anything in current LDS doctrine that suggests that men get the roles they do because they are more righteous than women. (We sometimes hear that women get their roles because they are more righteous, but I think that’s bunk.)

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 26, 2006 @ 8:17 pm

109. I would think that part of what feels wrong with the heirarchal husband/wife prophet/membership parallel is that a need is implied. The church as a whole needs a prophet to guide the whole church, to expound doctrine for those of us who aren’t ‘in-tune’ enough to understand the Holy Ghost fully. God chooses one mouthpiece for him to speak to *all* His children, especially the unbelievers. That mouthpiece is often marked from birth as a special person.
     I don’t see a default need in women that would necessitate that they be presided over. I don’t see why one needs to be over the other in *any* way.

     Comment by Starfoxy — February 26, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

110. Hi Caroline,
     What can I say, Well aside from being a Tattooed shaven head pierced harvard divinity school dropout… I am suprised to see what you had to say here. If I can through in a few things. First, well , women commit to hearken to thier husbands, as they harken to the father. The husband covenants to live the law of Elohim. Women covenant to live the law of The lord, or Jehova, being Christ. If you go through the bible, or even any of the cannon, you will find that women are helt by covenant to a totally different set of laws. Men are to follow a different set of laws, women are not even bound to, Christs laws, . . there are plenty of other things in this that I cant cover, but I think it was never made clear to you how great a set of blessings you get, by covenanting to follow christ. You are only to hearken unto us, but follow christ. if the two are different … well you are under covenant for christ, over what your husbant wants. I am afraid I cant give more on this, here….

     Comment by BaldPunkrockDiety — February 26, 2006 @ 8:31 pm

111. If you go through the bible, or even any of the cannon, you will find that women are helt by covenant to a totally different set of laws.

     This statement is baseless.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 26, 2006 @ 8:48 pm

112. EmilyS (#100): On the contrary, the prophetic ideal (perhaps prior to heavy institutionalization at least) has typically been that they are drawn from the weak and simple things of the earth—no prophet with honor in his own country, can any good thing come out of Nazareth, this man we know, Joseph’s neighbors unable to conceive of him as a prophet, Pres. Hinckley’s daughter joking she her testimony was shaken when he became an apostle, etc. etc. etc. The Lord’s power is deemed all the more manifest because their works seem so much beyond their “merit.”

     But, as I think has been pointed out, Elder Oaks’ talk in the last conference does distinguish patriarchy (in a brilliant Orwellian move, now conceived in terms of equal partners) from the hierarchy of the institutional Church, so EmilyS and Caroline are in good company in not buying the parallel (unlike Eric and I, I suppose). I will say that however welcome it may be, it strikes me as a belated and ad hoc development. (I think Rosalynde senses this too, hence her argument in #87 reading the old understanding into the new covenant language. However, this would render completely mysterious the need for a change, unless the intent was to strengthen the old understanding rather than update it—something that seems implausible given, as she points out, decades of official discourse trending towards softening the old understanding.)

     Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 26, 2006 @ 9:01 pm

113. Caroline (#43) and Starfoxy (#106), the idea that the Church as a whole needs a prophet above them could in principle have also gone a different way: it could have been that the receipt of God’s will was conceptualized as bottom-up rather than top-down, manifest by the combined wisdom of the members, who would then provide the necessary order by choosing their leaders instead of having them imposed. (Indeed this seems to have been the initial impulse of the Church in its roots, with “common consent” etc.; this was very quickly found to be unworkable, at least for Joseph’s taste or inspiration.)

     So it doesn’t seem to be a matter of logical necessity to assume that in either the case of marriage or larger institutions that there’s some obvious inherent need for top-down hierarchy—the justification (or not) in either case seems to only be “that’s the way the Lord wants to do it.”

     Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 26, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

114. Christian, you caught me! I was reading quickly.

     Emily, even if it were true that leaders were given their callings by merit, it still doesn’t follow that the hierarchy is suggesting that regular members are being told that they are inherently inferior and of less worth in the eyes of God.

     Caroline, I agree that the hierarchy of leadership and patriarchy are completely different beasts. However, this fact strengthens my argument. If it’s true that members are not inherently inferior to their leaders when there is very clearly a rigid hierarchy, then it would certainly follow that wives are not inherently inferior to their husbands when there is barely any hierarchy to speak of.

     Thus, it seems to me that your concern is not just with the wording of the temple, but with the simple fact that men are the ones given the authoritative power of the priesthood. And if it’s true that the prophet has missed the boat on this issue, I don’t see why there’s any reason to believe that anything the prophet says is true at all. If you want to say the church simply isn’t true, as Kiskilili did, then that seems a fair response. But you can’t cherry pick beliefs and practices. What’s the point of believing at all?

     Comment by Eric Russell — February 26, 2006 @ 9:13 pm

115. RE: #90

     Artemis,

     No, I think the original poster was coming very close to equating equality with sameness. Many of the responders did the same. Which is fine since that is really what “equality” literally means. But equality is completely different from fairness.

     Yet the call here is not for “fairness.” The call is for “equality.” Nothing, it seems, will satisfy until the temple ceremony says the exact same thing to both women and men.

     This isn’t a call for fairness. It’s a call for sameness. And that is what I was warning against.

     My point is that you can’t argue that the temple ceremony, in its present form, is equal. Obviously it isn’t. But you can make an argument that it is fair.

     Comment by Seth R. — February 26, 2006 @ 9:35 pm

116. Emily (#100): I’m surprised your point about the implications of integrating marriage into the priesthood hierarchy has been contested at all: the temple narrative specifies explicitly that Eve’s relationship to Adam obtains inasmuch as she was the first to eat the fruit—that is, she hearkens to him, rather than he to her, because she was the first to sin (and please, please please let’s skip the transgression bit this time, okay?). Of course, we have no evidence that women are heir to any moral stain from Eve’s shame—in fact, the scriptures and prophets are quite clear that Christ’s atonement covers all, without respect to status—but, quite clearly, the Church is heir to the institutional result of her actions, or at least to the results of narrative logic of the story of her actions.

     Most of the discomfort being expressed, I think, stems from temple’s unique (that I’m aware of ) incorporation of the marriage relationship into the hieratical sphere. Because, of course, I wasn’t quite candid above: Eve is not, in fact, exactly excluded from priestly relationships, and she does operate in the hieratic sphere, by means of her relationship to Adam. (We might not like the capacity in which she does so, granted.) It was never a very easy fit, marriage into priesthood, I don’t think, but it was—in my mind, without question—a central project of early Mormon thought. Recently, as Christian points out, we’ve seen Elder Oaks attempt to reverse this move, extracting marriage from priesthood—or the patriarchal from the hierarchical, as he puts it. This is much more easily wished for—as it clearly is, by Elder Oaks and many commenters here—than accomplished symbolically and narratively. I take comfort in Elder Oaks’ apparent intentions, await further developments of this line of thought with great interest, and meanwhile relish the delicious complexity of the emergent and the residual. Give me a social text over a novel any day.

     Comment by Rosalynde — February 26, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

117. I stopped reading comments about hierarchy vs. patriarchy at about comment 100, so forgive me if this duplicates anyone’s comments, but I just wanted to point out that Elder Oaks has spoken to this issue very directly, and said that priesthood authority in the hierarchical nature of the church is NOT the same as priesthood authority in the family. He just gave this talk last conference, so I’m surprised it’s not been more talked about. It was the talk I remember most. Granted, it still leaves some questions, but I think he was a lot clearer about it than most previous authoritative statements.

     The talk is at LDS.org in the November Conference issue.

     He specifically states: “Each of the circumstances I have described results from misunderstanding priesthood authority and the great principle that while this authority presides in both the family and the Church, the priesthood functions in a different way in each of them. This principle is understood and applied by the great Church and family leaders I have known, but it is rarely explained. Even the scriptures, which record various exercises of priesthood authority, seldom state expressly which principles only apply to the exercise of priesthood authority in the family or in the Church or which apply in both of them.”

     I think that’s important, and what he goes on to say about the differences should really inform this discussion, in my opinion.

     Comment by stacer — February 26, 2006 @ 11:01 pm

118. Eric #111:
     

     But you can’t cherry pick beliefs and practices. What’s the point of believing at all?

     It’s a dangerous game to turn this into an all or nothing deal. We have to leave room for people to struggle with questioning, or we risk driving everyone who has serious doubts out of the Church.

     Seth/Artemis/Naiah - Regarding the equality and sameness issue: I think that I can say with some confidence that Caroline doesn’t want sameness. As her friend, I can say that she values her identity as a woman. Caroline’s experience above focuses on her struggle to with an authoritative symbolic gesture that subordinates women to men. Difference in and of itself isn’t the focus–it’s when the difference is used to put one group in a position of power over another that it becomes problematic.

     For example: blacks and whites are often very different in appearance, and until recently this difference was used to effectively lock those of African descent out of the Church hierarchy and to deny them many basic blessings of the Gospel. In the portion of endowment referred to above, gender determines whether you promise to heed God or a human (or you can argue that you ultimately heed God, just through a man). Gender is the sole determinant of your place in that hierarchical relationship.

     Trying to boil Caroline’s struggle down to “equality = sameness” is reductionist and disregards important aspects of her experience.

     Comment by John Remy — February 26, 2006 @ 11:09 pm

119. …And right where I stopped reading, someone brought up Elder Oaks’s talk. Yay! I’m glad for the people who brought it up.

     Comment by stacer — February 26, 2006 @ 11:16 pm

120. But you can’t cherry pick beliefs and practices. What’s the point of believing at all?

     Dude, that is the biggest bucket load of crap anyone’s posted here in a long time.

     Swallow it all or nothing? What exactly constitutes “beliefs and practices” anyway? Word for word, literal interpretation? Every word of “Mormon Doctrine” (written I’ll remind you by a man we all raised our arm to the square and sustained as a “prophet, seer and revelator”)? If we abandon our own abilities to know doctrine for ourselves, to rightly divide the word of God (from opinions and speculative writings), we might as well have stayed at the monkey stage of evolution.

     Reminds me of a joke. Jesus and Mary are out pulling weeds in the vegetable garden. Jesus jumps up and runs into the woodshop. “Did you call me, dad?”

     “No son, I just hit my thumb with a hammer”.

     Comment by Rich — February 26, 2006 @ 11:17 pm

121. Seth, I’m heartened to see that I was correct in supposed that we were defining equal in different terms. I was thinking in terms of women and men having equal value–being treated fairly.

     Your quibble is with the term equality–I could repeat my comment substituting the term fairness.

     My point is that you can’t argue that the temple ceremony, in its present form, is equal. Obviously it isn’t. But you can make an argument that it is fair.

     Would you (or anyone else) articulate this argument, please? I’m very interested in this angle.

     Comment by Téa — February 26, 2006 @ 11:49 pm

122. Rich and John,

     If someone says they believe the church is true, that suggests to me that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God. If someone says that Hinckley is falsely perpetuating a practice that is heinous in the eyes of God, that suggests to me that Gordon B. Hinckley is not a prophet of God.

     Now, I really don’t care if anyone believes that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God or not.

     However, if someone tries to suggest that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God and that Gordon B. Hinckley is not a prophet of God, then my logic alarms are going to go off.

     Comment by Eric Russell — February 26, 2006 @ 11:54 pm

123. Seth R, I was about to reply, but then I decided that you’re right. I’d like to hear you flesh out your last statement, though- how is it fair?

     Comment by Ariel — February 27, 2006 @ 12:53 am

124. Eric, let the logic alarms go off. It’s better than driving people from the church.

     Comment by Ariel — February 27, 2006 @ 1:03 am

125. If someone says they believe the church is true, that suggests to me that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God. If someone says that Hinckley is falsely perpetuating a practice that is heinous in the eyes of God, that suggests to me that Gordon B. Hinckley is not a prophet of God.

     Eric, I’m very willing to believe that President Hinckley is indeed a prophet of God. But I also believe he is a human being who is influenced and subject to the cultural restraints and traditions of his time. How could any human not be? Therefore, I have no problem “cherry picking.” (In fact I tend to believe that nearly every member of the church cherry picks to some greater or lesser extent. Whether it’s watching R rated movies or TV on Sunday, drinking coke, etc. it seems to me that most of us pick and choose what we think is binding on us and what we think is not.)

     Perhaps you will then ask, “then how do you decide when he’s speaking for God and when he’s not?” My answer: I listen to my conscience (i.e. the spirit.)

     Comment by Caroline — February 27, 2006 @ 2:08 am

126. I was unable to blog today and therefore erase Rosalynde’s #7 as requested. But I think it’s probably all for the best.

     It’s a good thing that we collectively question the appropriateness and usefulness of the discussions we hold in the public sphere (and this does seem to be a reoccuring theme with Rosalyde at fMh) however, I would like to be clear that I do not make these decisions lightly. I sat on this post for six months. We discussed it in depth amongst ourselves. I pondered and I prayed. Six months.

     (I realized that my first annoyance that this was once again a topic of discussion was due to my feeling that I have earned the right to have my decisions respected. Insufferably arrogant. It creeps up on me I’m afraid.)

     I would like to thank all those who contributed for making my decision the correct one. You bless me. Every day, I am amazed by the people who come here and share their ideas with so much beauty and love. As Rosalynde feared, this could have been a disaster, it is because of all the thoughful, careful, honest comments that this is instead a great tool for me.

     It certainly would be nice if we all had access to an “ideal setting” of “private support”. But for most of us this is just not the case. It certainly isn’t for me. There is nowhere in my private life that I would be able to engage in a discussion as varied and wise and thoughtful and helpful as this one has been for me. Not even close.

     And while it is the public sphere it is also, in the end, my space. I do hope it isn’t polarizing for the rest of the silent masses, I do worry about that, but in the end I can not drive myself crazy trying to interpret silence. If the discussion will help me, then I hope there are others like me who are helped, and that is enough.

     Comment by fMhLisa — February 27, 2006 @ 2:41 am

127. I admit, Im confused about Seth’s understanding of “equality,” particularly that it’s the American understanding. The Founding Fathers declared “all men are created equal”–were they trying to say all men were identical, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I thought they meant laws should apply identically to everyone (that is, adult white males with property, but we’ll leave that aside for the sake of discussion). That is, people obviously aren’t “equal” coming into the system–we all have different abilities, we’re all born into different financial situations, etc.–but that people should be treated equally by the system, nevertheless. The point isn’t that women have to be identical to men to be equal to them. The point is that the system has to apply the same standards to women and men to be considered equality.

     Regarding the difference between hierarchy in Church leadership and hierarchy in marriage, it’s interesting to note that the hierarchy in the former is a porous boundary. The man called to pass out hymn books might become stake president tomorrow, and might be passing hymn books out again five years from now. If the two hierarchical arrangements really are analogous, then would it be possible to imagine a switch in the marriage arrangement? Let’s try the following thought experiment. For the sake of the argument, let’s accept men “preside” and men have the priesthood because they need it–women have special natural spiritual gifts and don’t. But are ALL women better than ALL men? Let’s imagine a marriage in which the wife is extremely prone to temptation where the husband is naturally nurturing and charitable. Would the wife then “preside” and the husband “hearken”? Why or why not, and what does it indicate about the current arrangement?

     (Just to be perfectly clear, I actually refuse to believe women are more naturally spiritual than men. My point is partially that this justification is nonsensical.)

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 27, 2006 @ 9:03 am

128. RE: #123

     Ariel,

     Well gee, now the pressure’s on isn’t it?

     Actually, I think others have made the argument better than I could, as I mentioned in posts #69 (answered in post #80) and #82.

     I’ll try to sum up what I’m thinking about it anyway though.

     First off, one could argue that “hey, the temple says some wierd stuff, but it doesn’t really reflect the way we’re taught to behave by church leaders, etc.”

     Basically, this relegates the temple to an anachronistic formality that we all put up with. Kinda like an annoying grandparent or something. They might criticize you cooking and bad-mouth your husband, but they mean well, and really have done a lot for you, so you owe it to them to put up with a bit of rubbish.

     Of course, I don’t care much for that description being applied to the pinnacle of sacred ordinances in our faith. So the dismissive route isn’t going to work for me.

     Secondly, I am not closed to the idea that the temple ceremony might need occasional updates to bring it message more in line with the frame of reference that church members bring with them to the temple.

     As mentioned, the temple ceremony has been changed before and I expect it will be changed again. This does not bother me. God doesn’t change, but His children do and he must work with the material he has. This could have manifested itself in two ways regarding the content of the temple ceremony:

     1. The temple ceremony, as it was given to Joseph Smith, is exactly, word-for-word, the way God intended it.

     But what about all that stuff that was either chauvinist, misogynist, or just downright wierd?

     Realize that God would have had to tailor His message to the listeners. He would have required a message that could resonate with the saints of the mid to late 1800s. Ideas of hierarchy were very deeply ingrained in society and both the men and the women bought into the patriarchal model quite deeply.

     Could God have taken on these “incorrect assumptions” and challenged convention? Yes, I’m sure he could have.

     But would that have been the best way for Him to spend His time?

     God’s main purpose was to restore the fullness of the Gospel, reinstitute His Priesthood, and prepare His saints to be an “ensign to the nations” before and during the great calamities of the last days.

     It’s possible that womens rights just weren’t priority number one at the time. So he settled for the scriptures He already had (which clearly oppose mistreatement or disrespect of women) and decided to leave that fight for another time. In the meantime, He left us with a powerful view of creation that would resonate well with the listeners.

     Or, perhaps He never intended to directly command us on the issues raised by the feminist movement. God does not say He will clean up every mess we make on earth. He only offers us the tools. Many fights must be fought primarily through the efforts of His children, and not through divine pronouncement.

     So under this view, the temple ceremony was just the way God intended it to be and was carefully tailored for an audience trapped in an imperfect world, with imperfect assumptions. God had to work with the materials He had, and His message was quite servicable in that respect.

     On to the second possibility.

     2. The temple ceremony was not implemented exactly the way God wanted it implemented, because he chose to work through imperfect messengers. But He allows people to make mistakes in His name.

     I mentioned above that this Church has been given authority from God. Certainly, that includes the authority to succeed and flourish in His name. But it also includes the authority to make mistakes, implement wrong-headed programs, and “live and learn.”

     We are not “commanded in all things.” Perhaps God is allowing His church to make its own voyage of discovery in women’s issues and many other areas (I would put environmentalism in this grouping).

     That’s another possibility.

     Or perhaps it is a combination of both.

     Take home message: It is important to take the temple ceremony seriously and deeply ponder the message being conveyed. But it is also important to look beyond the mortal trappings, to recognize that the ceremony is only a representation of eternity, it is not eternity itself.

     You have to realize that

     “Temple Cermony”

     does not equal

     “pristine representation of Heaven and everything you need to know about it.”

     Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 9:37 am

129. I realize that that post doesn’t explain how the temple ceremony could be fair. It merely lays a framework for admitting the possibility that it can be fair.

     One battle at a time though. Gotta go right now.

     Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 9:39 am

130. Rich,

     You may be right in that there is ample wiggle room for what we are responsible to uphold as correct doctrines and practices in the church. But the real trick is to be discriminating in such a way that it doesn’t diminish our commitment to uphold the kingdom, generally.

     Also, BRM was a seventy–and therefore, not sustained as a prophet seer and revelator–at the time he wrote the first edition of MD.

     Comment by Jack — February 27, 2006 @ 10:13 am

131. I stumbled across this site tonight and I feel completely exhausted after reading it. I want to thank Caroline for being brave enough to share her experience and feelings.

     I went through the temple 9 years ago, with my husband, my entire family and extended family. I was expecting the a-typical experience I was told/taught I would have, throughout my entire growing years. Instead, I think it was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life.

     I am not as articulate as Caroline, in being able to define why it was so bad. However, I have never been back. This, in itself, is really difficult when you are an active member of the church. The pressure to ‘get over myself’ and ‘just do it’ is phenonemal.

     Until tonight, I honestly thought I must be the only person who hasn’t had a wonderful temple experience. So…for those of you who are questionning whether this is the correct forum for such discussions…I think that it is. I have tried talking to my intimate friends, family and RS leaders. Even my priesthood leaders. Nobody has been able to understand me, they all just say I need to accept and not question (a recurring theme in my church life) and that the best way to ‘get over it’ is to go back and continue to go back, until I am ‘over it’.

     The fear I have, is that if I go back, and it is as traumatic, how can I continue to progress in the gospel?

     I think if more people were honest and open about their experiences, we might all be able to help each other overcome our issues a little better and also have a better sense of compassion and understanding for others.

     If we are truly trying to live Christ-like lives, we should have empathy for individual differences. Instead of trying to cut each other down and ‘prove’ our own point, we should embrace differing opinions and learn from each other.

     I think my one saving grace is my relationship with my Heavenly Father and my trust in Him. He knows me, He knows my thoughts and how I got to be the way I am. He knows how I feel and where I am at in my life. I don’t have to answer to anyone but Him and that gives me comfort. So when the ‘institution’ gets me down…I just try and remember that He thinks I’m okay and that’s that.

     But thanks Caroline and everyone else. I think this has been a little therapeutic and that’s always good. I appreciate the fact that there are people out there who are willing to take a chance and be honest about some tough things. It’s hard to be the minority in a ‘molly-mormon’ world.

     We were given our questionning personalities for a reason, one day this reason will become clear to us. Until then, we just have to push on and do the best we can.

     Good night :o)

     ps. #128, comments like this don’t help anyone, especially you. Do you think Heavenly Father would make comments like that to a child who was struggling to understand something? Everyone is on their own journey, you must have a long way still to travel!!

     Comment by dan — February 27, 2006 @ 10:52 am

132. re: 131

     sorry #128…this posted message isn’t the same one I originally read. I am new to this…will try and keep up. :o)

     Comment by dan — February 27, 2006 @ 10:57 am

133. Oaks’ remarks reflect the growing discomfort among church leaders with the notion of hierarchy in marriage. As has been noted in previous comments, partnership in marriage is being stressed more and more. However, they can’t quite let go of the idea that God wants men to preside, even in the home. They either refuse or are unable to acknowledge that partnership and patriarchy are fundamentally incompatible, softened rhetoric notwithstanding.

     I’m not a student of organizational behavior, however, my observation is that most extra-familial organizations, particularly the larger they get, require some form of hierarchical structure in order to function. This means, as Bonner Ritchie has often noted, they will almost always be abusive in some way because institutional demands are often at odds with individual needs, no matter how benevolent in purpose. What we need to do is minimize as much as possible the inevitable institutional abuse. Refusing to give women voice within the structure of an institution doesn’t minimize the possibility for abuse. In fact, it almost insures it.

     There are those who probably find my posts to be unrelentingly tedious in their insistent challenging of patriarchal norms. I make no apologies. The inequities seem so blatant and fundamentally wrong to me that I just can’t help myself.

     Comment by lorie — February 27, 2006 @ 11:51 am

134. Dan: The fear I have, is that if I go back, and it is as traumatic, how can I continue to progress in the gospel?

     Something I did when struggling with the Temple Ceremony was to focus on two things at a time. I would pick one thing that was uplifting to me about the temple (ie the way men and women are able to interact in the Celestial room) and one thing that bothered me. I would think about the uplifting thing during the whole session, to the point where I ignored most of what was going on. However, I would pay *very* close attention during the one thing that I had picked that bothered me (at first it was the veils that women wear) I would try to memorize the wordings, the context and everything I could about it. After the session I would study and pray and ponder about the thing that had bothered me. Often I would be able to get to a point where I was okay with something that had bothered me after just two sessions. Sometimes I had to ignore it again and try working on something else. I don’t know if that would help you or not. It worked for me though.

     Comment by Starfoxy — February 27, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

135. partnership in marriage is being stressed more and more

     Gee, for the past sixty or seventy years or more.

     I’m reminded of Joseph Fielding’s “This will surprise you, but your wives are not your property” speech to the MM & Gleaners program while he was still an apostle, or David O McKay’s talks on the subject.

     I think the difference is that we are starting to hear them when they say those things.

     It was reading all of those sermons thirty years ago that started me wondering what else they were saying that we just were not hearing.

     Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 27, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

136. I like to think of the “hearken” covenant as a counterbalance to the unilateral decision Eve had just made. As I attempt to liken the temple drama to myself, I try to put myself in the position of each of the actors. The message is universal. We are to be unified as followers of Christ. Not just in marriage, but in quorums and auxillaries, on committees, in councils. Adam had already hearkened. The individual who had not needed to reminded to do so in the future rather than acting independently in a matter that required consensus. Adam had acted in consensus, but perhaps failed to answer directly to God as Eve already had. Hence the need for him to be called to answer directly to God in as concrete a manner as Eve had been reminded to seek consensus in decisions affecting more than herself.

     Comment by Alixandre — February 27, 2006 @ 12:28 pm

137. Maybe. But I don’t believe that the endowment presentation is a literal depiction of history. I suspect that there was more than Satan making one attempt on either party. My own theory is that Eve and Adam probably discussed it quite a bit before any decision was made. In fact, if Adam was anything like an old almost-boyfriend of mine, he may not have been prepared to make such a momentus decision, at least by the time Eve was far beyond ready. Eve may still have acted unilaterally, but it may not have been a premature or unwarranted/sinful action. Maybe she had a conviction that her actions (both of acting “unilaterally” and eating the fruit) were exactly what God wanted her to do. In which case, it makes no sense to punish her for acting unilaterally, especially since it wasn’t (that we know of) one of the commandments given to her and Adam. No law, no transgression.

     Comment by Artemis — February 27, 2006 @ 12:46 pm

138. Also, BRM was a seventy–and therefore, not sustained as a prophet seer and revelator–at the time he wrote the first edition of MD.

     Picky picky picky! Of course we belong to the church of “once said never retracted”, so he didn’t have to deny any of it after he became an apostle (the really outrageous things you just quietly omit in subsequent editions and pretend they were never said in the first place). And of course that was only one example. His father-in-law had too many to count, back when he was the pres. of the Q of 12.

     Interesting aside: my dad has a first-edition MD, signed by Bruce himself (a house guest of ours once upon a time when my dad was a SP). He offered to buy it back from my dad, who politely refused. I don’t think Bruce was interested in its monetary value as a collector’s item…

     Comment by Rich — February 27, 2006 @ 2:08 pm

139. Kiskili,

     You’re right. The founding fathers didn’t mean literal equality when they wrote that “all men are created equal.” They meant equal in the eyes of the law.

     I have never suggested that people should not be equal in the eyes of the law. Nor am I simply ignoring the scripture that says all are equal unto God.

     My comments were directed at a trend that I have seen in the feminist movement and in our society in general.

     These people are taking legal equality one step further and demanding for not just legal equality, but actual equality, i.e. sameness. The demand for unisex bathrooms would be an easy (and admittedly silly) example. Although I don’t think those kind of demands are even half as common as people like Ann Coulter say they are.

     I was simply warning those reading this post that the discussion is coming very close to crossing the (rather vague) line and calling for sameness in how the church treats both sexes. I felt it was time to remind people that we are not seeking the same treatment for both men and women within the Church and from God.

     Therefore, we should not rush to distress ourselves simply because the Church and God seem to be treating our sisters differently than our brothers.

     Oh by the way, nice point about the “women are more spiritual” homily. I made the same point in Elders Quorum a while back and said it wasn’t fair to our wives to trust them to be the “spiritual guardians” of the relationship and the home while we go watch football and play with the entertainment system.

     Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 4:03 pm

140. Caroline - Brava.

     As for my two cents: Like you, I feel that the covenant is misguided; the results of which, are not intended for women. For an insightful perspective, I recommend “A Walk in Pink Mocassins” by Carol Lynn Pearson. It addresses the need for men to put the shoe on the other foot.

     Speaking to your detractors: Perhaps consider the fight for which Caroline is fighting. It is a noble one. It is a fight for every person’s right to have a direct relationship with God. I think we can all get on board with that.

     To individuals that tag Caroline’s reactions as prideful: Caroline, has a deep sense of being a child of God. As such, she seeks direct communion with Him, a communion that is not contingent upon someone else’s relationship with Him. To me, this wish is the opposite of pride - it is the deepest humility - to know and act according to God’s will for oneself.

     Comment by HGSE Student — February 27, 2006 @ 6:18 pm

141. Seth, I haven’t seen an explanation of how the differing treatment meets your defintion of fairness.

     I’m not distressed about it (unless we are defining things differently again), merely wondering whether you still stand by your original statement.

     My point is that you can’t argue that the temple ceremony, in its present form, is equal. Obviously it isn’t. But you can make an argument that it is fair.

     Your general concern about trends in society or (radical?) feminism aside, I have a hard time understanding what exactly you’re trying to convey.

     We agree that women are no more spiritual than men as a whole. We agree that men and women are equally loved and valued by God and -in principle, if not in practice-by the Church as an institution. Where do we go from here in this discussion?

     Comment by Téa — February 27, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

142. That was just groundwork stuff.

     But I’ve already admitted that others made the argument better than I have and I alluded to those arguments in my earlier posts (#69 and 82).

     Perhaps if you wanted to discuss those ideas (or point me to a post responding to them that I missed) we could discuss them further.

     Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

143. Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I really appreciate it and can relate to it in many ways. That was very brave of you.

     Comment by Braidwood — February 27, 2006 @ 7:38 pm

144. Let’s say that the temple ceremony is in some way “fair.” Men and women are treated differently because men and women are different.

     What does this mean? God gives women virtually no positive direct attention. God refuses to enter into a direct relationship with women. God seems to view women as appendages to their husbands.

     If it’s “fair,” I can’t understand what this could possibly mean other than that women are lesser beings than men. This is why I just can’t help “rushing to distress” myself.

     Starfoxy’s point in 109 is worth repeating. I understand some need for hierarchy in the church as an institution, and obviously that can present its own problems. But I don’t see that there’s any corresponding need for hierarchy in a marriage relationship. In fact, the sociological material I’ve read suggests that spousal abuse occurs almost exclusively in marriages in which one spouse has power over the other–whether it’s the spouse with the power doing the abusing or the spouse without the power doing the abusing.

     Hierarchy in marriage is a problem and no matter how we try to sidestep it, it’s overwhlemingly indicated throughout the temple ceremony.

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 27, 2006 @ 8:00 pm

145. “God gives women virtually no positive direct attention. God refuses to enter into a direct relationship with women. God seems to view women as appendages to their husbands.”

     I think you vastly overinterpret and read in to what is a minimalist ceremony.

     James and John never get to do anything but introduce themselves. What should we read in to that?

     Comment by Ben S. — February 27, 2006 @ 8:38 pm

146. I, too, struggle with the temple. The one thought that helps me with the apparent inequities is one that was alluded to years ago in conference once - that when we went through the transition from intelligences to spirit children, we chose our gender. Probably nothing has greater influence upon our eternal journey than our gender and God would not force the role on us - he allowed us to choose. That makes perfect sense to me. So in whatever inequity I see, I feel that because fully half of us chose to be women, that in the eternities, we must have felt that this was the better part.

     Comment by Sally — February 27, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

147. Sally, can you give us the source on that? I don’t think I’ve ever before heard the idea that we chose our gender.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 27, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

148. Julie
     I came across this, surprisingly enough, in “Women and the Priesthood” when I was studying for a RS lesson on priesthood.
     “Did women by their own first choice choose to be partners with God in his creative processes? Faced with an alternative - partnership or priesthood - did you, Sister, pass up priesthood? Did women by their own fee choice choose to be the family heart rather than the family head?”
     William J. Critchlo, Jr. Conference Report Oct. 1, 1965
     I strongly believe this is a true doctrine - our right to choose has always been paramount to HF. Although I get very frustrated with things here on earth, we must have understood in the pre-existence that these things eventually won’t matter when we fully understand why we chose as we did.

     Comment by Sally — February 27, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

149. Firstly, how do you explain hermaphroditism? About 1% of the human population is hermaphroditic. These individuals’ parents choose the gender or they do later in life.

     Secondly, it’s just this partitive sense of the nature of men and women - head vs. heart - that limits soul growth. I do not have to choose to be the head or the heart. I am both. I have a head and I use it. I have a heart and I use it.

     Thirdly, the rhetoric used by Critchlo (”did you, Sister, pass up priesthood?”) is a thinly-veiled attempt to put the blame of oppression on women themselves. In essence, “Hey, don’t you compain, lady! You chose this yourself!”

     Sorry, don’t buy it.

     Comment by HGSE Student — February 27, 2006 @ 10:00 pm

150. dan, lorie, kiskilli, Tea, Starfoxy, HGSE Student, thanks for your comments. I tend to agree with the views that you are expressing. It’s nice to hear from others who have come to similar conclusions I have.

     Sallie, thanks for sharing your ideas. I think the idea of choosing our genders in the pre-mortal life is interesting, though I personally am not ready to believe it. Since the way women and men are treated varies so much from culture to culture, I think it would be nearly impossible to make an intelligent choice about it in the pre-mortal life.

     Thanks to everyone else as well for contributing as well. It’s been an enlightening discussion for me.

     Comment by Caroline — February 27, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

151. Sally-

     The Family-A Proclamation to the World states “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” How, then, could our choosing our own gender be an option?

     Comment by Laura S — February 27, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

152. Ben S:
     

     James and John never get to do anything but introduce themselves. What should we read in to that?

     In the ceremony we are told to think of ourselves as if we were Adam or Eve. Theoretically, everything that happens to Eve in the ceremony happens to all women, because she represents us. There is nothing to indicate that the role Peter, James or John play have anything to do with how we are treated or are supposed to act.
     I don’t think she’s over interpreting. She’s trying to work out complex symbolism that we are repeatedly told is there.

     Comment by Starfoxy — February 27, 2006 @ 10:51 pm

153. HGSE,
     #1 Hermaphrodite. I can’t explain that any better than I can explain homosexual tendencies. But no matter which sex the parent choses, I would think the individual would have the final say in the next life.
     #2 , 3I don’t agree with the heart or heart verbage either (remember this was said in l965) and “pass up the priesthood” was also worded poorly, but I feel that the underlying principle is true.
     Many things don’t seem fair here and I can’t imagine that HF forced anyone to fill the female role that did not wish for that. Again, I think that we will see clearly the advantages of womenhood that we can’t see now and understand better our choice.

     Comment by Sally — February 27, 2006 @ 11:02 pm

154. In the ceremony we are told to think of ourselves as if we were Adam or Eve.

     Yes, for *covenantal* purposes. When the original covenant is re-administered to others, those receiving it are as if they were in the place of the original recipient. Take, for example Deuteronomy 5:3 and the Sinai covenant.

     I have trouble believing that the terse ceremony is meant to be as broadly defining and all-encompassing as some have read it.

     It’s a setting for covenant making, not an extended systematic theological treatise on gender-role definition. To read it as such is to misread it. It’s a minimalist production, with very little, if any extraneous text.

     I could paraphrase you and say,
     “There is nothing to indicate that the role Adam or Eve play has anything to do with how we are treated.”

     Given that information, If Eve’s lack of dialogue can be mined for far-reaching implications, why not James and John? I don’t think we can extract anything from either.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 27, 2006 @ 11:10 pm

155. I had honestly never considered that the advice to think of ourselves as Adam and Eve was just for the covenant making. I think I like what that may imply and will be trying to look at it from that frame of mind the next time that I go.
     However, you must admit that the wording in that respect isn’t particularly clear. It is very for most women and men to see everything that happens to Adam and Eve as applying to themselves personally as men and women. I’ll also point out that your idea of their representation of us being limited to the covenants that we make still encompasses the treatment of Eve during the making of the hearken covenant that is the main basis of this whole post. And that covenant is where the “God refuses to enter into a direct relationship with women.” part of what you quoted in #145 comes from.

     Comment by Starfoxy — February 27, 2006 @ 11:21 pm

156. Caroline
     “Since the way women and men are treated varies so much from culture to culture, I think it would be nearly impossible to make an intelligent choice about it in the pre-mortal life.”
     I think that is the whole point - this life is just a moment in time and whatever gender mess there is here doesn’t really matter in the eternal perspective.

     Laura
     “The Family-A Proclamation to the World states “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” How, then, could our choosing our own gender be an option? ”
     We did have gender in the pre-existence as spirits - just not as intelligences before that time.

     Comment by Sally — February 27, 2006 @ 11:37 pm

157. Thank you for this thread - the discussion here has been helpful for me to follow.

     Sally - that seems to be a HUGE stretch.

     Comment by sue — February 28, 2006 @ 1:00 am

158. Wow, amazing how a concept that rings so true to one person sounds false to another. Complicating our search for answers… Thanks for the input.

     Comment by Sally — February 28, 2006 @ 1:19 am

159. I guess I take offense when Eve is shunted aside in part because the way she’s subsequently treated seems to follow logically from the covenant she made, and people in the audience were asked to make the same covenant, so it has implications for those of us who did. Are Adam and Eve virtually interchangeable? Can I relate to Adam rather than Eve? If so, why don’t I get to choose which of the two covenants to make?

     Eve covenants essentially to be a second-class citizen. Eve is then treated as a second-class citizen. Are these two facts really completely unrelated?

     I realize everyone approaches texts differently, and what strikes one person does not necessarily strike another. But I don’t feel I mined the text for far-reaching implications. I felt I was hammered over the head with implications that were too obvious to overlook.

     In any case, I appreciate your difference of opinion–no hard feelings :). I’d love to discuss the ceremony in more detail and defend my interpretation, but then, it’s secret, so that’s going to be difficult. Nevertheless, I stand by my earlier statement.

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 28, 2006 @ 9:42 am

160. I think Ben’s reading–i.e., the way Eve is treated matters no more to women specifically than the way James and John are treated matters to anyone specifically–would be more convincing if there were some other female that God interacted with positively, directly, and abundantly in the film, just to make it perfectly clear that Eve’s femaleness and the fact that Eve is sort of pushed aside have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other.

     I guess Lilith might be a bit problematic. I don’t know–do you think they could somehow work in a Hulda or a Deborah? ;)

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 28, 2006 @ 9:49 am

161. Let’s say that the temple ceremony is in some way “fair.” Men and women are treated differently because men and women are different.

     What does this mean? God gives women virtually no positive direct attention. God refuses to enter into a direct relationship with women. God seems to view women as appendages to their husbands.

     If it’s “fair,” I can’t understand what this could possibly mean other than that women are lesser beings than men.

     K, can’t we think a bit more precisely—and broadly—about this? Again, the temple is a space mediated entirely by priests and priesthood, so it is only in this sense that God’s ritual relationship to women is indirect. I think it’s entirely unwarranted to suggest that the temple implies that God eschews any direct spiritual relationship with women, does not handle them as individuals, gives them no attention, and so forth. This is the case only in the hieratic-institutional sphere—which is an important one, yes, but certainly only one of many facets of religious experience.

     When it comes to the issue of the priesthood, though, you’re entirely correct: it’s impossible to reconcile a gender-segregated priesthood to post-Enlightenment liberal constructs of the individual, particularly when we conceive of the priesthood as a liberal right, like the right to vote. The above discussion about “equality” as a liberal concept enshrined in, for example, the Declaration of Independence is highly enlightening in what it shows about how we think about the priesthood and our relationship to it—but I think it’s an entirely unsatisfactory framework from which to understand priesthood and, frankly, a very limited way to understand the individual. It’s difficult to get outside the hegemonic philosophy of liberalism, particularly because it has become so constitutive in the identity politics that drive feminism and other forms of activism. It’s an open question whether Mormonism has any chance of competing with such a monolithic ideological system as liberalism for the self-concepts of its members—-and if it does not, we’ll have to be prepared for a lot of ongoing conflict or else some serious accommodation. But for the analytical purposes of understanding how priesthood has functioned among God’s people, and thus forming an accurate sense of what we have inherited, we simply must be able to set aside, at least temporarily, modern ideas of liberal rights, fairness, and enfranchisement.

     Comment by Rosalynde — February 28, 2006 @ 10:27 am

162. Eve covenants essentially to be a second-class citizen.

     I simply do not see this as being obvious or a self-evident “fact” in any way, no matter how many ways you rephrase it or repeat it (”pushed aside” “shunted aside” “second-class citizen.”) I have trouble seeing it as more than knee-jerk rhetoric of oppression, because the ceremony (and its practical effect in the Church) simply can’t bear the weight of such an all-encompassing interpretation.

     Aside from the difference in the covenant made, Eve is treated exactly as Adam. Both are addressed individually to account for their choices, both are cast out together. God never addresses Eve through Adam like a petulant teenager who’s giving someone the silent treatment.

     Practically speaking, your interpretation runs counter to Church history back to the beginning. Have women ever been taught that their inspiration from God must come through their husband? Or that while mortal, they must pray and interact with God solely via the mediation of a husband? If so, where is this counsel? Otherwise, why have the leaders of the Church failed to implement the practical implicatons of this self-evident obvious fact, especially when it would reinforce their (supposed) need/want for patriarchal order?

     more convincing if there were some other female that God interacted with positively, directly, and abundantly in the film

     But this is just my point. There’s no abundant interaction with *anybody.* I think it absurd to hang this much weight on so minimal a ceremony.

     I see your interpretation as a “feminist” parallel to what Jon Levenson has called the “hermeneutic of suspicion” in Biblical studies. (Camille Williams discusses it a little in her JBMS article on Women in the Book of Mormon.) If you have a pre-existing template of “bad white patriarchy,” then the minimal information in the temple is easily accomodated and interpreted within that matrix.

     But I think if you step outside that kind of hermeneutic and realize that the practical results of that interpretation are absent from church history, it becomes much more difficult to support.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 10:44 am

163. Sorry, the above should read “But this is just my point. There’s no abundant interaction with *anybody* and I don’t think we need a “control” female against whom we can measure Eve. I think it absurd to hang this much weight on so minimal a ceremony.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 10:46 am

164. Ben S.,

     could you at least take a minute and step outside your own hermeneutic (and define that word for me, please), and try to see why Caroline’s and Kiskilili’s and my and many other women’s reactions are so negative and we all see similar oppression and symbolism in the temple? Most of us went into it looking, looking for something beautiful and uplifting and were shocked by what we found. It’s not just some I-want-to-be-a-real-feminist or I-must-over-read-misogyny-into-everything knee-jerk reaction. The symbolisms and implications are THERE. And I defy you to reduce the temple ceremony as merely a minimalist production, especially with the constant reiteration and reaffirmation we get from current church leaders, general and local–the temple IS cast as the highest, most signifiant expression of our faith, we are encouraged to look for deep and complex symbolisms to understand the gospel AND OURSELVES and it is regularly cited as a pattern for our lives, both mortal and eternal.

     And the fact is that once Eve makes her covenant, she never opens her mouth again. She never goes anyplace without being escorted there, and she never shows any further autonomy. You can argue whether it’s prescriptive or descriptive, you can argue at what point she becomes secondary (which, depending on where you place it, can have even more disturbing connotations for women), but you cannot possibly, reasonably deny the existence of this dynamic.

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 11:09 am

165. Bravo, Artemis.

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 11:20 am

166. Artemis,

     I was just thinking … The inequality you point out only happens on this side of the veil. Once you’re past that, the inequalities vanish and all are in direct communion with God.

     Just a thought (although I don’t pretend that it addresses your concerns).

     Comment by Seth R. — February 28, 2006 @ 11:41 am

167. Thank you, Seth. That is a good thought. And when I do go, it’s at that point I pour out my soul to God and absolutely nobody else is involved.

     Pity I can’t ditch my own veil at that point, too.

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 11:48 am

168. And thank you too, Caroline. Sisters in Zion, we are.

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 12:00 pm

169. Re-145 & 154
     I’m voicing an objection to Ben’s statements about the depiction of the treatment of Eve v. other men in the endowment presentation. Either by omitting it, or by being unaware of it, I’m not sure which, the comments ignore other parts of the ceremony/presentation. I’m unsure how to be more specfic in a way that corresponds with my own personal lines about the temple…

     (I made my covenants and received my endowment in the Salt Lake temple–maybe the things I’m thinking of may not be as evident if one has never attended the SL or Manti temple)

     The point may be moot–Artemis’ 164 bypasses this issue altogether =)

     Comment by Téa — February 28, 2006 @ 12:21 pm

170. I apologize for having gotten caught in the hermeneutic circle and applying my own liberal concepts of the individual and of equality when I went to the temple. I would love to hear how everyone else transcended their culture and experienced it objectively.

     I’m not asking for my own culturally conditioned notions of equality to be implemented–I recognize they are not necessarily transcendant; also, speaking practically, I would settle for a lot less. I have, undoubtedly, culturally constructed expectations of equality, and of happiness, and of love, and of whether the individual has any right to any of them, in this life or the next (and of whether there is an individual).

     But I’m a culturally situated person. Even my conscience is culturally situated. God is going to have to work within that framework or give up on me.

     And who really cares about the temple anyway? It’s only this tiny facet of our religious experience, right–the House of the Lord, the pinnacle of our religious experience, the highest expression of our theology. It’s not as though the temple matters in our discourse or anything, fortunately, so we can easily dismiss it.

     So, all discussion of “equality” aside, the underlying point is that the evidence from the temple leads me to doubt God cares. A whit. So say it: the fact I even think God SHOULD care is a cultural expectation, absolutely undeniably. And what I construe as constituting “caring” is purely a cultural construction.

     Somehow this doesn’t comfort me.

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 28, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

171. K, I apologize for having put you on the defensive; that wasn’t my intention, and perhaps I am simply too temperamentally different from you to be able to say anything valuable to your concerns. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t attempting to comfort you—I’m not much good at that kind of thing, alas, though I wish I were—I was trying to work through ideas that seem important to both of us.

     Anyway, apologies from the bottom of my—thoroughly historically embedded, to be sure!—heart for pouring salt into your wound.

     Comment by Rosalynde — February 28, 2006 @ 1:16 pm

172. ou at least take a minute and step outside your own hermeneutic

     So the only reason I’m arguing against you is because I’m too rooted in my own perspective to see yours? Should I grant the *validity* of your interpretive conclusions or your framing of the temple simply because they come from *your* experience? I recognize the arguments and hermeneutic at play here, and I’m arguing that they’re not the best reading.

     That has little to do with one’s subjective experience per se. (My own first experience wasn’t great, but again, that’s not the point here.) I’m just trying to deal with interpretive conclusions. (And instead of typing more, let me just refer back to comment #7.)

     the temple ceremony as merely a minimalist production, especially with the constant reiteration and reaffirmation we get from current church leaders, general and local–the temple IS cast as the highest, most signifiant expression of our faith, we are encouraged to look for deep and complex symbolisms to understand the gospel

     These are not mutually exclusive. When I say minimalist, I mean only that there is very little in the way of extraneous material. It’s not a long, text-heavy thing. Its brevity, though, does not preclude “deepness,” importance, centrality, or complexity.

     To draw a rough parallel, the sermon on the mount runs for 3 chapters (in Matthew, anyway.) You can read the whole thing in under 20 minutes. Yet commentators and scholars have written thousands upon thousands of pages trying to understand it, preach it, reconcile it with the rest of the NT, etc.

     (Or were you responding to a perception of me minimalizing the importance of the temple? Far be it from me to do so. I’ve blogged about it, spoken in church about it, have two webpages devoted to it, worked in the Provo temple and memorized large chunks of it, taught Temple Preparation, run the Family History center, and it forms one of my central research interests. After 10 years, the temple has become one of the pillars of my testimony. I’m not minimalizing its centrality or importance.)

     I’m curious what in particular you have in mind when you say

     as a pattern for our lives, both mortal and eternal.

     There are several ways the temple can be a pattern for our existence or behavior and yet not require the interpretation you claim for it. So, I’d like to see an exmpla of the kind of statement you’re thinking of.

     once Eve makes her covenant, she never opens her mouth again. She never goes anyplace without being escorted there, and she never shows any further autonomy. You can argue whether it’s prescriptive or descriptive, you can argue at what point she becomes secondary (which, depending on where you place it, can have even more disturbing connotations for women), but you cannot possibly, reasonably deny the existence of this dynamic.

     Again, let’s reapply this. “James” and “John” are never autonomous. They never have any dialogue at all, except to introduce themselves. They just follow “Peter” around.

     What “autonomous” activity would you expect to see Eve doing? I don’t see Eve being “escorted” anywhere. I see her and Adam sticking together.

     Again, after that covenant, Adam has what, 3 lines? That’s not a whole lot of difference. If Adam had extensive dialogue while Eve sat by, I would grant some validity to your argument. But again, the difference between them is so minimal that I don’t think one can read in deep and wide-ranging gender implications for it.

     I note that no one has yet bothered to respond to my church history point.

     As for my own hermeneutic, (a method, means, or framework of interpretation), I am (sorry to use it again) a minimalist, in the sense that I require significant amounts of data before declaring that x,y, or z is a established. I am strongly in the historical-critical camp. As for my background, I’ve read widely on the temple, both the faith-promoting, the anti, the scholarly, the historical, and everything in between. Professionally, I’m working on PhD in Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Aramaic), so I spend most of my time reading books and articles relating to the Hebrew Bible, particularly the philological, but also ritual and interpretative aspects. I grew up in Minnesota, served a mission to France, and live in Chicago. I like small children but we are apparently prevented from having any. I am no stranger to diversity or perspectives other than my

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 1:26 pm

173. No worries, Rosalynde–you haven’t poured salt in any wounds :). Keep commenting. I appreciate your pushing me to think things through. Sorry to have come off so melodramatically! I’ve just never figured out a way to think through the issue that didn’t leave me tearing my hair out, whatever conclusion I came to.

     Ben, I’m really not convinced at all, I have to admit, but I don’t entirely understand your reading. I still don’t think there’s any way to avoid seeing a relationship between the way Eve is treated and the covenant Eve makes. And even if there is, the covenant itself is still a serious problem for me.

     You almost sound like you apply a knee-jerk hermeneutic of suspicion when you encounter a feminist text, such as my comments.

     But thanks for sharing the way you honestly see things. (And by the way, I absolutely share your love of Semitic Philology–what an awesome field!–although, as an Assyriology student, I tend to see some of the most interesting developments occurring in the east . . . )

     Anyway, I’m sorry if I made it sound like I was trying to shut down the discussion. Whoops! Carry on, everyone.

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm

174. Please everyone take a deep breath and be very thoughtful about how you comment. Diplomacy, please.

     I haven’t really caught up on any of the drama that’s going on around here, my kids are NUTS right now and I’ve got to go be a mom, so please, please, please do your best to be kind, be thoughtful, be careful.

     Thanks,
     Lisa

     Comment by fMhLisa — February 28, 2006 @ 2:11 pm

175. Artemis #167 You could. Female temple workers are.

     Comment by Alixandre — February 28, 2006 @ 3:31 pm

176. Alixandre,

     But are you allowed to when you’ve just come from a session? I have this fuzzy memory of a temple worker scolding me for such an attempt. But it could’ve just been the temple worker.

     Ben, I don’t have time just now to respond to your analysis, and really, the point of my last email was to get you to stop telling us our concerns are all nothing. There may be various explanations and it is possible that your interpretations and explications are correct, but you can’t discount the validity of our interpretations. There is strong support for them as well.

     Besides, must you be well-educated in hermeneutic and other studies to be able to properly understand the temple ceremony? If it’s geared for all members, it needs to be accessible to all (or most) members, at least upon reflection (as we’re counseled). If so many members are having a difficult time with it and since most don’t (and shouldn’t be expected to) have your particular background, oughtn’t it be portrayed in a way that more clearly suggests the interpration you advocate? And if it doesn’t, why not?

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

177. stop telling us our concerns are all nothing.

     I don’t believe I’ve done so.

     Are these really “concerns” or are these conclusions? I’m simply trying to provide an alternate interpretation that I believe fits more of the data, better. If they were concerns and not conclusions, one would expect a more receptive discussion of someone attempting to help.

     As said above, it does not appear that critical discussion is what is sought here. Rather, the purpose appears to be entrenchment in the conclusions Caroline has already reached and evangelizing.

     you can’t discount the validity of our interpretations

     Indeed, I can and have, and I am not the only one to do so. You say that I can’t discount your interpretations, but I don’t actually see any counter-responses to the arguments I’ve put forward. (Though I do recognize lack of time as a legitimate reason.)

     Besides, must you be well-educated in hermeneutic and other studies to be able to properly understand the temple ceremony?

     A baiting question, and I perceive some disdain, perhaps wrongly. It’s so hard to tell in these physical context-free discussions.

     I’m not sure the temple is *meant* to be understood, like a math problem or a chemical pathway, or historical set of dates and causality. Rather, I think the temple ceremonies are meant to be experienced. That’s not to say that it’s deliberately arranged to be obfuscating, but I think the nature of the thing makes it difficult.

     I think there are a few reasons why people don’t get the temple, but they boil down to this, in essence. (I’ve written more on this elsewhere, so here’s the very abbreviated version.)

     Our Temple system is strongly rooted in the covenantal/sacrificial/atoning matrix of OT symbolism and ritual, and modern people, by comparison, have very little ritual and symbolism.

     We don’t understand the OT system because it doesn’t exist anymore except in the literary remnant of the scriptures. We also, in contrast with those who lived in OT times, live in a relatively symbol-free and ritual-free culture.

     So not only do we not understand the OT system (as adapted in the temple) because it’s not native to us, we don’t even have a comparable system of ritual/symbolism.

     The temple is a complex interplay of those OT elements adapted and fit into a modern framework or arrangement. I really can’t elaborate on this part, and it’s frustrating somewhat…

     I don’t believe there’s any way it (or anything else) could be arranged to guarantee both “correct” understanding on every level, nor do I think it would be desirable. Why did Jesus teach in parables? Why does Isaiah take work?

     Caroline, at least from the information she gave, has made this interpretation of hers based on three sessions. Three!

     Do you want to argue that one can or should be able to understand the temple based on three sessions? Five? Ten? Or do you think that real understanding comes with repeated attendance, prayer, and study of the scriptures as well as the modern and ancient context of the temple?

     I can understand her response as a first impression. But, as hashed out above, when you look closely at the data and at Church history, her interpretation is not born out. That doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt and didn’t have an effect. But the bottom line is that I think it’s not correct, and I think evangelizing for it is a bad idea.

     One can share a negative experience without biasing someone who hasn’t gone, or without suggesting that the conclusions drawn therefrom are the only conclusions possible. It’s possible to prepare people for the temple in such a way that they have realistic expectations. But I don’t see that or anything else constructive taking place here.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 6:20 pm

178. Is the dead horse sufficiently beaten?

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

179. Well, I guess I’ll just keep on making a fool of myself, ’cause, ya know, I can’t make enough enemies in real life, so I like to get online and make more.

     The point about church history is a good one. I certainly agree that we can find abundant support from sources outside the temple for the idea that women can have a direct relationship with God, to take one example.

     But it nevertheless makes sense to me to try to understand the temple ceremony on its own terms, more or less as a self-contained unit, simply because I cannot understand all of church doctrine being preached in every setting as a unitary whole–it’s too full of contradictions. I’m not convinced that a statement from scripture or from a GA can be invoked to explain what the temple is saying, anymore than I think how people actually behave on the ground explains what the temple is saying. When we read the Bible, for example, we might notice apparently different attitudes on the part of, say, Chronicles and Job. We might bring them into dialogue with each other, but it makes little sense to me to convince ourselves they somehow must be saying the same thing. For the same reasons, I’m convinced we just need to admit that the temple is saying something different from other statements coming out of GAs’ mouths.

     Part of what frustrates me is this very fact. I don’t feel the church is owning up to the implications of what it’s teaching in the temple. I don’t think it’s being reflected in statements leaders make such as that men and women should treat each other as equal partners in marriage. I applaud such statements. But I see things in the temple ceremony that run counter to this idea, and I take these statements for what they are–contradictary ideas. The situation is schizophrenogenic.

     About Eve. Let’s say she’s just Eve. She is in no way meant to be “everywoman,” and it’s pure coincidence that women make the same covenant she does, and it’s pure coincidence that the rationale behind the covenant is attributed to Eve’s behavior.

     I would still argue that the fact that there is only one token female in the presentation (and I’m counting film here as “text” too, not just words) is just naturally going to lead us to invest her portrayal with signficance, for good or bad. Even if Adam has all of three lines after the covenant in question, and the reason for this has nothing to do with the covenant in question, that is still infinitely more lines than Eve’s zero.

     Why was it offensive to so many members to see a black Satan? Why on earth were people investing so much signfiicance in this single character, given the minimal nature of the text, and drawing these seemingly far-reaching conclusions from something that surely didn’t warrant it, something that was surely nothing more than coincidence? Could they really not grasp that there only happened to be one black character because the text was so short anyway, and that how this single black character was portrayed in one instance in the church had nothing to do with how the church, or the society at large, views blacks in general?

     I would argue very strongly that members had every reason to invest the role of the single black character in the film with significance, and to take offense. I would argue that the association between “black” and “evil” was not forced onto a reading of the text, did not arise in a vacuum, and was no coincidence.

     For parallel reasons, I think that unless there is a control female in the text against which to judge Eve, Eve’s role is invariably significant to the viewers, all of whom, to my knowledge, are socialized in cultures in which gender distinctions matter and people are taught to pay attention to them.

     Now everyone jump on me and show me why I’m wrong. I really have no hard feelings toward any of my fellow bloggers, so I’m sorry if I’ve given the impression that you can’t step on my toes. I have lots of good friends who completely disagree with everything I think.

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 28, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

180. As said above, it does not appear that critical discussion is what is sought here. Rather, the purpose appears to be entrenchment in the conclusions Caroline has already reached and evangelizing.

     Ben, read comment 15 again. I think we’ve had some great critical discussions, and I’ve read them all with interest.

     I’m not sure the temple is *meant* to be understood, like a math problem or a chemical pathway, or historical set of dates and causality. Rather, I think the temple ceremonies are meant to be experienced.

     If the temple is meant to be experienced, not understood (a comment, by the way, that seems to contradict most of your other statements) why is my experience less valid than yours? Does one have to experience the same thing 100 times before it is truly “experienced?”

     I don’t actually see any counter-responses to the arguments I’ve put forward.

     I’ve seen some. And I definitely agree with those who have challenged your parallel between Eve and James. Eve’s counterpart in the ceremony is Adam, not James, so it’s not very fruitful IMO to compare them.

     I can understand her response as a first impression. But, as hashed out above… her interpretation is not born out. That doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt and didn’t have an effect. But the bottom line is that I think it’s not correct, and I think evangelizing for it is a bad idea.

     ‘

     You seem to be implying that you have the correct interpretation of the temple ceremony, while I and others like me don’t. If as you said before, the temple is to be experienced not understood, is there even such a thing as a correct interpretation? And if we forget about the “experience” idea for a moment, do you deny that there could be a plurality of entirely valid interpretations? Or is there only one?

     These questions are not meant to be combative in any way. I’m truly interested in your ideas and am glad you’re contributing, though I acknowledge that I don’t agree with some of your interpretations.

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 7:00 pm

181. To be fair, I think “evangelizing” is taking place on both sides of the issue, not just one–I think we’re all trying to convince each other that how we “read the text” fits the data that we have the best. All of us think our own interpretation is the most obvious one, otherwise why would we have adopted it? So I think there’s a tendency for all of us to label other readings as “subjective” and “influenced by hermeneutic” whereas our own is “natural” and “free of bias.”

     And personally, I’ve found this conversation extremely constructive. But maybe it’s just a neurosis I have, beating dead horses . . .

     Comment by Kiskilili — February 28, 2006 @ 7:08 pm

182. I don’t feel the church is owning up to the implications of what it’s teaching in the temple. I don’t think it’s being reflected in statements leaders make such as that men and women should treat each other as equal partners in marriage. I applaud such statements. But I see things in the temple ceremony that run counter to this idea, and I take these statements for what they are–contradictary ideas. The situation is schizophrenogenic.

     Kiskilli, you’ve perfectly stated a major concern of mine. For the most part, statement by leaders nowadays about marital dynamics are fairly benign. I really like the equal partnership thing that is being played up so much. But in the temple an entirely different marital model is introduced. (And a different model of how a woman relates to God.) And because the temple is “sacred,” and people think that they are not allowed to discuss temple specifics, many women are silently and painfully dealing with this disconnect. That’s why I’m grateful Lisa was willing to take a risk in posting my personal experience and subsequent journey. I think we’ve had lots of great comments on how people deal with the disconnect or interpret the ceremony in diverse ways, and I hope they’ve been helpful to others who are likewise struggling.

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 7:14 pm

183. Ah hell,

     Why don’t we just petition to have the thing changed? Or at least petition to have it explained officially from some General Authorities.

     Cause I’m not entirely sure the benefits of maintaining a gender distinction are worth the drawbacks.

     I always thought it sort of stunk that the capstone ceremony in our religious observance is not subject to being understood because we’re not supposed to talk about it anywhere.

     But now I guess I’m getting a bit flippant and dismissive of the whole thing. Maybe I just need some sugar in my system … What’s for dinner? …

     Comment by Seth R. — February 28, 2006 @ 7:38 pm

184. “I always thought it sort of stunk that the capstone ceremony in our religious observance is not subject to being understood because we’re not supposed to talk about it anywhere.”

     This isn’t entirely true–you are completely free to discuss it (1) with your companions in the celestial room and/or (2) with God any time you want.

     I think that a major reason for this is that we don’t want anyone–high council speaker, Caroline, me, Ben, Kisilili–allowed to interpret the ceremony for others. Part of the idea of restricting the endowment to ‘mature disciples’ is that they should be capable of asking God directly to help clarify things for them.

     I would encourage anyone reading this thread to do the same. No one should accept how I or Caroline et al interpret the ceremony. You know, James 1:5 and all that. I am deeply concerned that an unendowed person reading this thread might think that when Artemis says that “so many members” have a difficult time with it or when Kisilili states that it is unquestionably sexist that she’s representing my reality. Do not confuse a vocal internet minority for a real life majority.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 28, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

185. By “meant to be experienced and not understood” I meant that the primary reason we go there is for covenants. Any knowledge or comprehension we gain is secondary to the covenant making.

     I don’t know that there’s a single “correct” interpretation, but I don’t think the intent is how you read it (and let’s not get off onto intentionality debates.)

     I don’t see a “marital model” put forth in the temple, unless you mean sticking together and hte law of chastity. I don’t see how one can derive a comprehensive model from so little.

     Eve’s counterpart in the ceremony is Adam, not James, so it’s not very fruitful IMO to compare them.

     I’m not trying to equate Eve with James. I’m simply trying to point out the following. If one is going to hang great interpretive weight on the amount of dialogue that Eve has in respect to Adam, one must do the same for James and John in respect to Peter. Is James eternally inferior and subservient to Peter? Is James a second class citizen? Does James’ lack of dialogue or autonomy define him? Does Peter mediate for James vis-a-vis God? I would answer no to all of these, and apply the same reasoning back to Adam and Eve.

     This is especially pertinent because of the minimal amount we have. If Adam had 500 lines of dialogue with the three visitors and Eve 1, it would be significant. Since the ceremony and dialogue is so limited, I can’t see the minimal difference between them as a significant enough to justify heavy and sweeping conclusions about prescribed gender roles.

     I cannot understand all of church doctrine being preached in every setting as a unitary whole–it’s too full of contradictions.

     I’m completely with you on that one. With regard to church history, doctrine, and scripture, you can have it all or you can have it consistant, but you can’t have both.

     However, let’s make a naturalistic assumption purely for sake of argument, and remove God from the picture. If Joseph Smith and later GA’s wrote/modified the temple ceremony with the intent to make women second-class citizens and make their husbands mediators with God, they could have done teh job much more explicitly than “chop Eve’s dialogue, it makes her look autonomous!” And I think we would have heard about it more from the GA pulpit and the Ensign. So I think the fact that GA’s do not and have not interpreted it that way militates against a “second-class citizen” reading.

     These questions are not meant to be combative in any way. I’m truly interested in your ideas and am glad you’re contributing, though I acknowledge that I don’t agree with some of your interpretations.

     I thank you for this. I don’t often read or comment here because it so often feels subjectively like “hey white male! Quit oppressing us in our forum!” I recognize in saying that that we (and I) easily and often perceive things differently than intended and act according to our (faulty) perception.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 7:54 pm

186. BTW, Kiskilli, I have finally been informed that I passed all my exams but one- Akkadian.

     How do you do it?

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 8:01 pm

187. “I’m not trying to equate Eve with James. I’m simply trying to point out the following. If one is going to hang great interpretive weight on the amount of dialogue that Eve has in respect to Adam, one must do the same for James and John in respect to Peter. Is James eternally inferior and subservient to Peter? Is James a second class citizen? Does James’ lack of dialogue or autonomy define him? Does Peter mediate for James vis-a-vis God? I would answer no to all of these, and apply the same reasoning back to Adam and Eve. ”

     Actually, the anwers seem to be yes, in a sense. It is a presidency with Peter as president. He would have final authority over his counselors and Peter would be the spokesman for/with God and relay info to his counselors.

     Comment by Sally — February 28, 2006 @ 8:18 pm

188. Ben, thanks for clarifying. For the record, and speaking only for myself, your whiteness or your maleness in no way makes you unwelcome on this thread or this blog. I imagine it is some of the opinions that you express that gets people’s backs up.

     Sally, I think you are making a very good point. And now in my mind I am comparing James’ relationship with Peter to Eve’s relationship with Adam. And I have to say it doesn’t make me feel better about Eve’s position. I shudder at the idea of a marriage operating like a church presidency, with one spokesperson and one person delegating tasks and one person making final decisions. Ugh. Thank goodness for a church talk or two that have expressly said that a man does NOT preside over his wife the way a bishop presides over his counselors. Wish there were more talks like that.( And wish the temple ceremony also made that clear :))

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

189. It is a presidency with Peter as president.

     Except that husband and wife are *not* in a presidency. The point of the comparison is amount of dialogue.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 8:52 pm

190. Caroline et al.,
     Being a “white male,” I want to thank you for your openness in describing your experience with the temple. I have to admit–this is something I can see and understand only after it having been brought to my attention by other women like yourself. I was 25 at the time, and had been through the temple many times–yet I almost feel ashamed for not having understood your perspective and the experiences that you and other women must have had–until this was brought to my attention. Not to impute my ignorance to all men–especially GAs and such, but I feel that diaolgue like this contribute significantly to concerns that women have–with such diaolgue I admit that I was in the dark–and I suspect other men were/are also.
     Julie Smith makes such an example in her recent book review where Ardeth Greene Kapp says,
     “Brethren, if you want to know about Young Men, you can hear about them at the annual priesthood restoration commemoration. If you want to know about Young Men, you can attend their annual Scouting conference. But if you want to know about Young Women, the satellite screens are dark and the message vague. [Or in other words, Eve is mute–and commanded to hearken to her husband–but those are my words, not Sister Knapp’s]

     When she finished her presentation, which called for more recognition of the young women as well as giving them a clearer sense of what they could contribute to the church and a better understanding of their identity, President (of the Quorum of the Twelve) Benson said, “Brethren, I think we should stand in acknowledgement that this is acceptable to the Lord.” Another GA told her, “You have not only opened our ears, but also our hearts.”

     I also suspect that since some male members interpret the temple differently–they vigirously defend their own interpretations instead of admitting that–hey they may be wrong–heaven forbid a woman be able to interpet a spiritual topic better. But that may be just a guess. Anyway, thanks again Caroline!

     Comment by matt — February 28, 2006 @ 8:54 pm

191. Matt, thanks so much for the nice comments. I sometimes wonder if it’s even worth it to bring these things up when there is a constant refrain from some camps that nothing productive is being achieved by talking about experiences such as mine. (Though I repeat that I really do appreciate their alternate interpretations and am glad when they explicate them.) But comments like yours do make me feel like it is worth it. I don’t expect everyone reading this post to agree with me. I was just hoping that by sharing this story I might excite a little bit more compassion and understanding for those that have concerns about what goes on in the temple. So I’m glad to know that you have been enlightened by people sharing stories such as mine.

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 9:11 pm

192. Ben, yah, it’s probably dead. Sigh….

     Here are some responses for you, anyway:

     So the only reason I’m arguing against you is because I’m too rooted in my own perspective to see yours? Should I grant the *validity* of your interpretive conclusions or your framing of the temple simply because they come from *your* experience? I recognize the arguments and hermeneutic at play here, and I’m arguing that they’re not the best reading.

     Right back atcha, baby. That’s my whole point. Except for the ‘best reading’ bit. I agree, the “dark” reading of it is certainly not the most uplifting–but that’s a given. That’s where the trouble comes from. And it may not be the “true” reading. Nobody’s said that it is. We’re not arguing right or wrong per se. And yes, you should grant the validity of the conclusions, not just because their “my” experience, but also because the context supports them. Whether you agree with them or whether they’re totally correct or not is only part of the issue.

     Artemis: the temple ceremony as merely a minimalist production, especially with the constant reiteration and reaffirmation we get from current church leaders, general and local–the temple IS cast as the highest, most signifiant expression of our faith, we are encouraged to look for deep and complex symbolisms to understand the gospel

     Ben: These are not mutually exclusive. When I say minimalist, I mean only that there is very little in the way of extraneous material. It’s not a long, text-heavy thing. Its brevity, though, does not preclude “deepness,” importance, centrality, or complexity.

     Yes, I agree there’s not a lot of extra material. But what there is is significant and significantly affects our understanding of the text. It also is intended to be “read into” significantly and have a significant impact of our understanding of how things are and, just as importantly, our understanding of ourselves. I think it is not a stretch to interpret Eve as being representative of all women (and Adam of men), based on what is said and done during the ceremony–I’d even guess that a majority of temple attenders read it this way and that this attitude is encouraged by church leaders. So while the presentation may be “minimalist”, it still has significant weight.

     I’m curious what in particular you have in mind when you say

     as a pattern for our lives, both mortal and eternal.

     There are several ways the temple can be a pattern for our existence or behavior and yet not require the interpretation you claim for it. So, I’d like to see an exmpla of the kind of statement you’re thinking of.

     An example would be the way we’re interpreting it–women being subordinate, secondary, appendageary, whatever to men, both in this life and the next. I think you would agree that many, if not most, LDS believe the patriarchal order to be something eternal and the way the text is presented, especially in this context, supports a more primary role for men and a more secondary (supporting?) role for women. I’d like to see a (brief) example of this statement from the interpretation you claim for it.

     Again, let’s reapply this. “James” and “John” are never autonomous. They never have any dialogue at all, except to introduce themselves. They just follow “Peter” around.

     I think this has already been adequately answered by others.

     What “autonomous” activity would you expect to see Eve doing? I don’t see Eve being “escorted” anywhere. I see her and Adam sticking together.

     Watch more closely. She stands where she is, usually off to the side, until Adam comes and guides her to wherever they’re going.

     I’d like to see her have some direct conversation with whomever Adam’s talking to, including the congregation at the end.

     stop telling us our concerns are all nothing.

     I don’t believe I’ve done so.

     Not in so many words. But you persist in “evangelizing” your position and maintaining that the problems we see and express dismay over are not supported by the text and context (which we’ll just have to agree to disagree about) and are therefore baseless or non-existant. I’m surprised you don’t recognize this.

     Are these really “concerns” or are these conclusions? I’m simply trying to provide an alternate interpretation that I believe fits more of the data, better. If they were concerns and not conclusions, one would expect a more receptive discussion of someone attempting to help.

     Oh please. Yes, they are “concerns”, concerns about the role of women within either the church or the cosmos, whichever is the source of the debated elements, as suggested by the “dark” interpretation of the ceremony. And I think there has been much receptive discussion of people trying to help. Your approach, however, seems to me to be rather dismissive of those concerns–trying to explain everything away rather than acknowledge the validity of the interpretation–and that does no seem especially helpful to one who is struggling with them.

     I’m not sure the temple is *meant* to be understood, like a math problem or a chemical pathway, or historical set of dates and causality. Rather, I think the temple ceremonies are meant to be experienced. That’s not to say that it’s deliberately arranged to be obfuscating, but I think the nature of the thing makes it difficult.

     It certainly is difficult. But I think the whole point of it is to be a learning experience (especially if we are to believe the prophets), and therefore it is to be understood, as much as possible. And we are to try to understand it more each time we go. And if it’s just to be experienced, well, I find it bewildering at best. If that’s all it’s for, I’d rather pass, thanks.

     I think there are a few reasons why people don’t get the temple, but they boil down to this, in essence.

     Our Temple system is strongly rooted in the covenantal/sacrificial/atoning matrix of OT symbolism and ritual, and modern people, by comparison, have very little ritual and symbolism.

     We don’t understand the OT system because it doesn’t exist anymore except in the literary remnant of the scriptures. We also, in contrast with those who lived in OT times, live in a relatively symbol-free and ritual-free culture.

     So not only do we not understand the OT system (as adapted in the temple) because it’s not native to us, we don’t even have a comparable system of ritual/symbolism.

     The temple is a complex interplay of those OT elements adapted and fit into a modern framework or arrangement. I really can’t elaborate on this part, and it’s frustrating somewhat…

     Enh. Perhaps to a degree. But I believe the temple ceremony as practiced and adapted in modern times is meant to be meaningful within a modern context. I mean, if all we’re going to do is misinterpret it (unless we have a thorogh understanding of historical, um, hermeneutic?), what’s the point? I maintain that God and the general authorities intend for it to be understood and arrange for it to be understood in a modern context. So I just disagree. The OT stuff may add extra layers meaning to some of it, but….

     Caroline, at least from the information she gave, has made this interpretation of hers based on three sessions. Three! Do you want to argue that one can or should be able to understand the temple based on three sessions? Five? Ten? Or do you think that real understanding comes with repeated attendance, prayer, and study of the scriptures as well as the modern and ancient context of the temple?

     I’ve done everything you suggest (except for an extensive study of the ancient context of the temple) in the best possible faith and humility (believe it or not). And I still have the understanding that I have.

     But, as hashed out above, when you look closely at the data and at Church history, her interpretation is not born out. That doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt and didn’t have an effect. But the bottom line is that I think it’s not correct, and I think evangelizing for it is a bad idea.

     This is you clinging to your own point of view again. Caroline may not be correct, I may not be, you may not be. But we are all reasonably intelligent & educated people. You cannot simply dismiss an alternate interpretation just because it doesn’t hold up in your mind, your point of view. Which is exactly what you seem to think we’re doing. But we’re not telling you that what you think is invalid.

     One can share a negative experience without biasing someone who hasn’t gone, or without suggesting that the conclusions drawn therefrom are the only conclusions possible. It’s possible to prepare people for the temple in such a way that they have realistic expectations. But I don’t see that or anything else constructive taking place here.

     I’m sorry you don’t. Of course, this isn’t a temple-prep forum. This is a forum for people to discuss issues and concerns within a feminist mormon context and feel safe doing so. And I feel this discussion is a positive, healthy thing for those having the concerns Caroline described and for those sympathetic to them. In other words, it’s appropriate to the audience. And if there are lurkers, well, there are lurkers. But the general intended audience is, I believe, being edified.

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 9:15 pm

193. Ben S and any other males, white or otherwise (also women who don’t count themselves feminist, or any other group who may have cause to think themselves marginalized in this forum) -
     I think men often wander into this forum with preconceived notions (usually negative) about how they and their ideas might be received. We often get comments with preambles like, “I’m a man, which may mean you’ll all just completely disregard what I have to say…” etc. I suppose I know that this sort of discomfort or (dare I say it) paranoia stems from a charicature of man-hating feminists which represents absolutely no one here, but really, I think we need to try to steer clear of self-fulfilling prophecy whenever possible and just give each other the benefit of the doubt.

     Most of the women here are married to (white) males, whom we love dearly, whose opinions we value, and with whom we discuss these very things all the time (and our husbands don’t always agree with us). We come here to discuss, not to cheer lead. Of course, if your ideas are very conservative, you will likely be out-numbered in many cases, because of the nature of the forum. But unless someone is being combative or insulting him/herself, I, for one, have rarely (if ever) witnessed the commenters here swarm mindlessly on a man like angry hornets. And I, for one, am pretty darn proud of the way most everyone has comported themselves on this thread, which might very easily have unraveled into “I’m righteous and you’re too proud.” “No, you’re blind and oppressive and have no love in your heart.” Well done, people.

     Comment by EmilyS — February 28, 2006 @ 9:17 pm

194. “I think it is not a stretch to interpret Eve as being representative of all women (and Adam of men), based on what is said and done during the ceremony–I’d even guess that a majority of temple attenders read it this way and that this attitude is encouraged by church leaders.”

     But I don’t think this is mutually exclusive with Ben’s position as a minimalist text. To use just one small example, Adam and Eve do not have children nor do they parent in the presentation of the endowment. Does that mean that if we model ourselves on them, we shouldn’t have kids or at least shouldn’t regard it as important? Hardly! That’s where and why I part company with Kisilili on not reading outside-of-the-temple church teachings into the temple. Ben is right–this is a spartan reenactment designed primarily to convey covenants.

     Artemis, I also think that you are being too hard on Ben. Of course he’s advancing an interpretation. Of course that interpretation is at odds with that of others. This doesn’t make what he is doing wrong. He’s been no more dismissive of you, Caroline, Kisilili, et al than you (and they) have been of him.

     EmilyS–What you describe is true of many of the men that I have seen comment at FMH. But I’ve e-known Ben S. for a good while, and I can assure you that it isn’t true of him. I think he is here in good faith, putting his opinion on the table. I haven’t been more active in this thread because my sense is that many of those who disagree with Ben S. are not genuinely interested in new understanding, they just want to complain. And I have better things to do. I think Ben S. should be applauded.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 28, 2006 @ 9:29 pm

195. Julie - I wasn’t in any way impugning (sp?) Ben. I was merely taking the opportunity presented by his comment in 185 to make a general pronouncement:

     Caroline: These questions are not meant to be combative in any way. I’m truly interested in your ideas and am glad you’re contributing, though I acknowledge that I don’t agree with some of your interpretations.

     Ben: I thank you for this. I don’t often read or comment here because it so often feels subjectively like “hey white male! Quit oppressing us in our forum!” I recognize in saying that that we (and I) easily and often perceive things differently than intended and act according to our (faulty) perception.

     You e-know your friends and I e-know mine, and I think pretty much everyone is trying to sincerely discuss, but getting frustrated at what they perceive to be obstinacy on the part of the other “side.” I just wanted to clarify that no one here has an agenda to male bash (or female bash, for that matter), and I wish that such assumptions weren’t so often the basis for unfortunate and needless drama.

     Comment by EmilyS — February 28, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

196. Artemis, how much of your concerns would be addressed by simply getting a new temple video? The one being shown is getting a bit dated in several respects.

     Comment by Seth R. — February 28, 2006 @ 9:49 pm

197. Can I help direct?

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 9:55 pm

198. what’s the point?

     The point is covenant-making, not knowledge or modeling. That’s why up until the 1920’s or so, members went to the temple once, for their own covenants and then didn’t go back (several GA quotes about this in Buerger.) There was no emphasis on “learning” whatsoever. That has come to be emphasized today, but it sure wasn’t the case originally or for a good while thereafter.

     Does a modern context help you understand signs and tokens? Degrees of holiness? Ritual entry into the presence of deity? Changing footwear once but not twice? There’s a reason why the apostles refer frequently to the OT when teaching about the temple, as Elder Nelson did recently. Dismiss the ancient context at risk of losing greater understanding and testimony.

     it may not be the “true” reading. Nobody’s said that it is. We’re not arguing right or wrong per se. And yes, you should grant the validity of the conclusions, not just because their “my” experience, but also because the context supports them.

     How is this even internally consistant? In essence, you say “We’re not arguing we’re right or you’re wrong, but you should just grant that we’re right anyway.”

     You cannot simply dismiss an alternate interpretation

     No I can’t. I can only marshall my counter-arguments, which I’ve done several times now. I consider the horse thoroughly beaten.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 9:58 pm

199. I also think Ben S. should be applauded. Of course, I think Artemis and Kiskilli should be applauded too. All are vigorously and intelligently explicating their interpretations of the temple. They have all enlightened me with their various perspectives. I’ve enjoyed every minute of it.

     many of those who disagree with Ben S.are not genuinely interested in new understanding, they just want to complain

     I’ve heard this kind of statement before about this post and many others at FMH. I worry that statements like this summarily discount and invalidate our discussions and experiences, even though many, many interesting and insightful points are brought up. I am always surprised when I come across the above attitude, since it seems to me like the vast majority of commenters are doing a lot more than just complaining. My reading is that they are searching for compassion and/or insight, and are contributing their own experiences and perceptions. And many are engaging in a critical exchange of ideas with those who have different opinons. All good stuff that I hate to see dismissed so easily.

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 10:02 pm

200. Caroline, there’s a world of difference between someone seeking compassion and someone seeking insight. There’s no point trying to explain anything to someone who wants compassion as they just want, as it were, to be held while they cry. There’s nothing wrong with wanting compassion, but there’s also no point in what Ben is doing if the goal was to express compassion.

     I find it hard to believe that many on this thread are seeking insight, because I haven’t heard, “That’s interesting Ben, I’ll have to think about that one a little more.” Instead, I’m hearing, “That can’t be true because it IS sexist.”

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 28, 2006 @ 10:06 pm

201. I’d like to see a (brief) example of this statement from the interpretation you claim for it.

     Ok. Here’s one on viewing the temple as an outline of the plan of salvation, in which we go from pre-mortal through the fall, and back into God’s presence.

     This sacred edifice becomes a school of instruction in the sweet and sacred things of God. [What are we instructed in?] Here we have outlined the plan of a loving Father in behalf of His sons and daughters of all generations. Here we have sketched before us the odyssey of man’s eternal journey from premortal existence through this life to the life beyond.

     President Hinckley, Ensign March 1983, as quoted on p. 2 of the Temple Preparation Manual.

     In other words, the knowledge we acquire is not that of emulation of Adam and Eve, or deriving models from them, but knowledge of the plan of salvation on the large scale.

     Also, above where I said “Changing footwear once but not twice?” it should read “Removing slippers once but not twice?” It’s unclear otherwise.

     Comment by Ben S. — February 28, 2006 @ 10:20 pm

202. it may not be the “true” reading. Nobody’s said that it is. We’re not arguing right or wrong per se. And yes, you should grant the validity of the conclusions, not just because their “my” experience, but also because the context supports them.

     How is this even internally consistant? In essence, you say “We’re not arguing we’re right or you’re wrong, but you should just grant that we’re right anyway.”

     Sigh…. I don’t know why I can’t seem to communicate this. I’m not claiming to know THE interpretation. But I don’t accept that you know THE interpretation either. Both can be supported, depending on what evidence/context we use. Both are valid. I’m not saying you should ‘grant that we’re right’, I’m saying that you should acknowledge the validity of the interpretation.

     But I do appreciate your perspective. And I am newly motivated to study OT temple contexts. Short of studying hebrew and aramaic, anyway. I haven’t got the time.

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

203. Julie,
     Hmmm. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. I think it’s very possible to want both compassion and insight. And I think it’s very easy to give both (”I see where you’re coming from. I acknowledge that there are some difficult things. But here’s how I see it and I hope you find it helpful…”) So actually for me, I think comments that combine the two are ideal.

     I think what you’ve heard is some vigorous critical debating over different readings of a text. And if you’re going to blame Artemis, Kiskilli, and I for not agreeing with Ben (or, to be more precise, agreeing to think about his opinions more), to be fair, you also need to blame people like Ben for the same thing. The modes of rhetoric and interaction on both sides seem very similar to me.

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

204. I second Caroline. And hereby bow out of this particular debate. It’s been fun!

     Comment by Artemis — February 28, 2006 @ 10:27 pm

205. “I think what you’ve heard is some vigorous critical debating over different readings of a text.”

     Maybe something was lost in translation, but this isn’t what I’ve heard at all.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — February 28, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

206. Both can be supported, depending on what evidence/context we use. Both are valid. I’m not saying you should ‘grant that we’re right’, I’m saying that you should acknowledge the validity of the interpretation.

     Artemis, I don’t fully agree with all of Ben’s positions, but we share a basic perspective that you seem wilfully to be rejecting or ignoring; namely, that the temple endowment—if it is to be critically explicated rather than purely performed for the primary purpose of establishing a covenantal relationship to God (and the latter is far more important than the former, though of course I love critical explication)—must be situated in an ancient ritual context. In this context, and taken on its own terms, the very idea of sexism is simply not thinkable: it requires an entire ideological apparatus that is simply anachronistic to the historical moment.

     Now, when we’re talking about the difficulties of transplanting an essentially ancient, esoteric artifact into a modern context, issues of sexism can fairly be raised. As I’ve said, I don’t think there’s a way to reconcile the endowment with modern ideals of gender parity; this is a significant challenge for both members and leaders, living in the world that we do, and I don’t want to minimize it. But do you see how this admission is significantly different than insisting that the endowment itself is inherently sexist?

     Comment by Rosalynde — February 28, 2006 @ 10:43 pm

207. Rosalynde,
     I’m not quite sure I understand what you are saying, so sorry if I’m misinterpreting you. But are you saying that it’s impossible for ancient rituals to be sexist, because the very idea of sexism didn’t exist back then?

     Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 11:00 pm

208. And now in my mind I am comparing James’ relationship with Peter to Eve’s relationship with Adam. And I have to say it doesn’t make me feel better about Eve’s position. I shudder at the idea of a marriage operating like a church presidency, with one spokesperson and one person delegating tasks and one person making final decisions. Ugh. Thank goodness for a church talk or two that have expressly said that a man does NOT preside over his wife the way a bishop presides over his counselors. Wish there were more talks like that.( And wish the temple ceremony also made that clear )

     Caroline, I addressed this in my comment #116 (I completely understand you not having read or remembered it—this thread is getting unwieldy). The temple in fact does precisely what you dislike: it integrates marriage into the priesthood hierarchy, with its structure of presiding authority that so many find so noxious in the personal realm. Recently, as you point out, leaders have been reworking this—I think we’re seeing new doctrine in the making, and it’s very exciting (if a little confusing at times). I think it will be a difficult task to accomplish, particularly given the present, rather odd status of the endowment: both a pinnacle and a remote outpost of our religious experience. But I think it becomes us as members to be slow to charge duplicity or hypocrisy on the part of church leaders, and to allow some time for the revelatory and institutional processes to unfold—if, in fact, we see this new line of throught continue.

     Comment by Rosalynde — February 28, 2006 @ 11:00 pm

209. Caroline (#207): I’m saying that if our goal is to understand the endowment on its own terms, the idea of sexism—with its inherently activist construction—is not a useful lens through which to achieve understanding; it would be like trying to understand same-sex relationships in the Renaissance through the lens of modern gay identity. Like I said, when we’re talking about how we ought to incorporate the endowment into present day religious experience, it makes more sense to consider issues of sexism and gender parity and so forth. I’m certainly not averse to that sort of discussion. But what I’m hearing from some is “the endowment is inherently sexist, and you can’t tell me it’s not.”

     (By the way, the comments are unbearably slow, admins—I’ll have to step away because it’s making me more than a little crazy.)

     Comment by Rosalynde — February 28, 2006 @ 11:06 pm

210. From #170 -

     And who really cares about the temple anyway? It’s only this tiny facet of our religious experience, right–the House of the Lord, the pinnacle of our religious experience, the highest expression of our theology. It’s not as though the temple matters in our discourse or anything, fortunately, so we can easily dismiss it.
     

     I think that the millions and millions of spirits waiting to have their work done might get a little offended to think that this all just a personal issue of the temple participant. Yes - the temple is a personal issue. Yes, we go there for instruction. But outside the initial ceremony, the ordinances and commitments are NOT ours. Methinks that even if you can’t stand the discourse in the temple, you still owe it to those who do want it. Just treat it like a bad movie if you must, because none of the commitments you are making are for you — you’re not renewing your covenants as with the sacrament. What you have done is past.

     Comment by queuno — February 28, 2006 @ 11:32 pm

211. A couple of comments were made about the temple film. I have mixed feelings about it primarily because I see the temple ritual as entirely symbolic. In trying to be quasi realistic in presentation, I think the film blurs the boundary between the literal and the figurative. If I were directing the film–which I am completely unqualified to do–I would merely film a live ceremony in one of the more visually interesting temples with temple workers in temple attire. It might not be as artistically compelling, but it would better maintain the symbolic, ritual sense of the ceremony.

     Lorie

     Comment by lorie — March 1, 2006 @ 12:49 am

212. A few thoughts:

     1. Our insights into the ceremony are extremely limited by seeing only the two film variants. The times I’ve been to a session with live actors, I’ve been pleased to see how much room there is for interpretation of the roles by the actors themselves. Much of what we think we know about the endowment is to a significant degree artistic interpretation on the part of the film director and the actors. (Obviously, the films were approved by the 1st presidency, but my point is that we now only have two artistic interpretations instead of a fresh perspective every time the endowment is presented.)

     2. Regarding Eve not speaking: In the Pearl of Great Price, Eve speaks OUTSIDE the garden about the blessings and benefits of their transgression (Moses 5:11). This verse is given HUGE doctrinal weight in the church — this single verse distinguishes Mormons from mainstream Christianity as much as almost any other of our teachings. And verse 12 points out that Eve and Adam together made “all things known unto their sons and their daughters.” I refuse to believe that Eve’s lack of dialogue in the movie indicates a historical fact.

     3. It’s been about 8 years since I’ve been to a live session and so I don’t remember details clearly, but I remember being pleasantly surprised that Eve had more to do that couldn’t be conveyed in the movie. It is unfortunate that this is lost by embracing the efficiency of the movie presentation.

     4. We are told a little about the man at the altar, but I’ve wondered about the unveiled woman temple worker at the front of the room throughout the ceremony. Nothing is said about her, but she certainly passes information on to the other women in the room.

     Comment by Eliza Roxcy — March 1, 2006 @ 3:46 am

213. I am forever on the lookout for patterns as (YW General) President Pat Holland suggested, but entirely missed that one (#4), Eliza. Thank you ever so incredibly much.

     Artemis–I was thinking of a time that I went to the temple and it was too busy to accommodate all of the patrons in an endowment session before “closing time” so we were told we could go into the celestial room to meditate and pray wihtout doing a session. But now that I think of it, I’m not sure whether we were told to first put on our ceremonial clothing or not. Either way, I really like the clothing symbolism of putting on Christ as a means of preparing to enter God’s presence, see the men’s and women’s clothing as fairly analogous, and would be hesitant myself to hastily remove it because of my own feelings about it. I wish there were a way to transmit those feelings to someone else. It is really difficult when what we hope to be uplifting feels painful instead.

     An example for me is Mother’s Day Sunday sacrament meetings. No, Sister Dew, we are not all mothers, and while none of us have perfect mothers, some of us have mothers who are much further from the mark than others. Some years (the barren years, and the years when I most keenly feel Mother’s absence) I have not even been able to attend or sit through a Mother’s Day service. But at other times, the messages have been nurturing and even healing for me.

     From way back re: unilateral decision-making. My understanding is that Eve and Adam were married (ie covenanted to / commanded to remain together) and were given the other commandments in the garden jointly.

     Comment by Alixandre — March 1, 2006 @ 9:44 am

214. starfoxy (74)
     that’s how I see it too- that HF and HM are so unified as one person that we can’t rightly refer to them as two people anymore. and in history and transation, we’ve named the force of godhood “Father” when that inacurately conveys him as a lone person doing all his Godly work, instead of a celetsial unified creative force with his perfected wife, 2-became-1.

     Comment by cchrissyy — March 1, 2006 @ 10:21 am

215. #214

     How do you explain the first vision? Joseph described HF as a seperate and unique being who was male.

     Comment by Jason — March 1, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

216. 215,
     Even without relating to Heavenly Mother, the 1st vision doesn’t do much for me to “prove” HF or Jesus’ actual apearance- God can manifest visually as anything he pleases- light, burning bush, baby, animal, armies. I believe the viison happend as descirbed. I believe Jesus is a seperate person- but more from church teachings than that his apearance in a vision was his true phsyical apearance.

     but on to HM- I’m not saying I know what the HF/HM force looks like. Just that when choosing to apear to man, they could choose male, or female, or anything, and it doesn’t tell us what they really are.

     Comment by cchrissyy — March 1, 2006 @ 12:32 pm

217. Jason- That is a good point, that I hadn’t really considered until now. I looked at the JS-H and Joseph never describes God as male, he doesn’t even refer to God as a ‘He’ as he does with Jesus. (JS-H 1:17)

     It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him![emphasis mine]

     That’s the only place I know of off-hand where Joseph recounts seeing the Father. Do you have any others you could point me to so I can check those as well?

     Comment by Starfoxy — March 1, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

218. #215

     Your statement is inconsistent with D&C 130:22 which states,

     The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

     I don’t know of anywhere in scripture that HF appeared as anything but a man. You can point to the buring bush example, but that was Jehova, not the Father.

     As to 216, I think that D&C 130:22 answers your question as well, right?

     Comment by Jason — March 1, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

219. Jason,
     I think there may be a slight disconnect in interpretations. I think that HF and HM being a unified being does not necessitate that they share a body, or that they be disembodied melded spirits. Instead I think that they act in unison and are essentially interchangeable. Similar to how in the OT the term ‘God’ often refers to either Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ. I think that it just hasn’t been clarified that the term Heavenly Father has been used to refer to both the male and female part.
     The scripture you quoted, I think, doesn’t preclude this interpretation. Basically, when I read the words “The Father” I take it to mean, The Father, or The Mother, or both at the same time.
     Re-reading my initial posting of this idea I can see very easily how one would get the idea that I think they share a body or something like that.

     Comment by Starfoxy — March 1, 2006 @ 1:27 pm

220. Starfoxy 219
     that clarification speaks for me as well. thanks!

     Comment by cchrissyy — March 1, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

221. Interesting thread. Some thoughts:

     Though there are actually some excellent comments, the overall thread bugs me because it seems to be assumed by too many that it is the ordinance or ritual itself that is wrong and must conform to previously held beliefs, rather than the possibility that the interpretation of that ritual could be wrong or that those previously held beliefs are wrong. Time (years?) for learning (which a number of GAs have mentioned in conference, that they still seek and find new understanding) seems to be dismissed.

     I don’t doubt Caroline’s pain and frustration (though I admit the extreme emotionality of the reaction to that part - or even any part - of the endowment leaves me baffled, unless it was a PMS thing - but perhaps I am not a particularly emotional person), but I don’t understand how such venting is thought to be helpful without acknowledging that her experience and study are, admittedly, limited. If the post was understood as venting, I probably wouldn’t be bothered by it (I’m all for a good vent, though perhaps not this particular topic in this particular venue), but the author and some others on this thread seem to want it to be understood as a way to help others who don’t like that part (or any other part) and as a way to band together to press for a change in the ceremony, regardless of whether such a change is appropriate or not.

     It has a tone of finality, that that person’s interpretation is the final word. Such a perspective is harmful in that it gives others who may have concerns license to stop seeking understanding and to join the group who assumes that the church must conform to their understanding ; it is also harmful to those who have not been to the temple before in that it solidifies in their minds that part of the ceremony is wrong before they even experience it. Discussing concerns with that section of the endowment does not bother me; I think it can be good. However, it is all about tone, and the tone of the original post is not one of seeking understanding or explanation, but just a solidifying that the church is simply wrong. I totally understand confusion and wanting to seek understanding. However, this post is not that.

     It seems that too much of this thread is not a matter of seeking more knowledge or understanding, but more seeking comradery in interpretations that have already been determined to be correct, regardless of data.

     Comment by Tanya Spackman — March 1, 2006 @ 5:22 pm

222. So I have a big mouth and talk too much, and sometimes my DH likes to speak for the two of us ( I usually do). So sometimes before we go somewhere I tell him that I’m gonna puill an “Eve”. Meaning that I will sit there with an insipid look on my face and BE QUIET.

     hmmmmmmm

     Comment by kristi — March 1, 2006 @ 5:40 pm

223. #219 and #220,

     Very interesting ideas. What scriptural or other authority do you have to support your views?

     Comment by Jason — March 1, 2006 @ 5:42 pm

224. Jason–I’ve not followed this discussion closely and maybe somebody else has said this, but if I recall correctly “Elohim” is not only plural but genderless as well. It’s been a while since I obsessed over ancient languages, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm or deny. There’s also certain wording in the temple that makes me think maybe a feminine presence was involved in the creation, but like so many others I don’t think the wording is a transparent window into history so much as a ritual facilitator.

     Anyhow, that’s all I’ve got for Scriptural possibilities. Since all of our present Scriptures were recorded in the context of highly patriarchal cultures, it seems unlikely that HM would pop up, frankly. Scripturally her very existence seems in question, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t exist.

     Comment by Janet — March 1, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

225. Janet–

     Are you the Janet I knew in CA?

     Comment by Julie in Austin — March 1, 2006 @ 6:47 pm

226. Tanya I found your thoughts in 221 to be very interesting. At the risk of prolonging an already extended discussion, I’d like to ask some questions I had while reading your thought.

     Would it be correct to say this thread bugs you because some have expressed how aspects of the temple ritual are contrary to their understanding of God? Am I oversimplifying?
     In your view, is it possible that those who express no problem(s) with the ceremony/covenants may not be interpreting it correctly?
     Could there be multiple, even paradoxical, lessons from all parts of the ceremony?
     Is the temple meant to be everything to everybody?

     (side note–was N.O.’s query about updating covenants made prior to any changes answered anywhere?)

     I agree that it can be very confusing for persons who have not entered the temple to have the ceremonies discussed in a semi- open venue, where each participant seems to have a different line of what’s appropriate to mention. If you disagree with the treatment of this particular topic in this particular venue, what alternatives would you suggest?

     I went back and re-read the original post (but not all of the comments) looking for your p.o.v.. that it was intended to solidify the idea that the Church is wrong. I didn’t come to your conclusion. Is it from Caroline’s expressed personal intent to decide for herself if leaders are inspired of God when they speak? Or could it be from her characterization of leaders as well-intentioned but flawed human beings? Is it something I skipped over entirely?

     Truthfully, I can see the air of finality you describe as coming from all over in this participation. I don’t always regard carefully expressing how one feels as necessarily trying to persuade others. Those who state they don’t know what the ceremony means/why it is the way it is appear the exception in this discussion. I would number myself with that camp, trying to see and understand what others have to say, and at the same time I can see how my comments might be construed otherwise. Where do you see yourself on this spectrum? Or should there even be a spectrum?

     I want it to be evident that my intent with this comment is understand you/your thoughts/beliefs better. You shouldn’t feel obligated to answer them (heh, I’m telling you what to feel by trying to tell you I’m not telling what to do)–I hope it makes good food for thought without leaving a nasty taste in your mouth =)

     Comment by Téa — March 1, 2006 @ 7:07 pm

227. Julie–Nope. I’ve never lived in CA. But I’d love to meet you!

     Janet

     Comment by Janet — March 1, 2006 @ 7:56 pm

228. Jason (#222)
     The scriptures that most indicate my take on this mostly come from creation accounts Gen. 1:26-28

     26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the …[emphasis mine]

     From this I interpret ‘man’ to be not singular. Since the ‘man’ is created in the image of more than one being (our image), and is later referred to as a ‘them.’

     Moses 6:9

     In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam,…

     There is the indication here that “his own body” means a separate male and female body at the same time. Another important point being that the created male and female are only given one name for both of them, Adam. So they together are “The Man Adam” where Man is both the male and female at the same time. This sort of language is also used in the Temple.
     I also find it telling that Man of Holiness is one of God’s titles.

     Comment by Starfoxy — March 1, 2006 @ 8:22 pm

229. Starfoxy–

     Pres. Kimball also interpreted it this way, suggesting that Adam should be Mr. and Mrs. Adam, or Brother and Sister Adam.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — March 1, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

230. Having not recieved my endowments this thread has had no effect on my desire to go through the temple.(FYI) However I now have something to prepare for specificly. I am sorry for the many people that have had negitive experiances and feel pretty strongly that just going through the temple to get the work done when it causes grief to the proxy is more damaging than any one of our dead would want to bear responsibility for.

     As far as the idea women are placed in a dominated role through the temple ceremony…was Christ in the same role? He was so in unison with HF the plan would fail without the contributions he alone could make. Through the unity of two like minds all people are given life. ( Much like the family model we have on Earth.) I have a hard time thinking of Christ’s mission being treated as a “less than” role. In fact many Christians see a single figure because these two are so close. I like the way that fits in with the thought HM is indeed present everywhere HF is too.

     Comment by Amy C. in Va. — March 1, 2006 @ 8:45 pm

231. Julie, That reminds me, this idea was gathered through reading a bunch of talks(including Pres. Kimball’s), and all sorts of interpretations of the language used there. These ideas are by no means the product of my own clever reading. (But if you want to call me clever I’ll always let you.)

     Comment by Starfoxy — March 1, 2006 @ 8:54 pm

232. Another thought I had ….Adam was created in the image of God and then Eve was seperated from Adam..right???

     Comment by Amy C. in Va. — March 1, 2006 @ 8:54 pm

233. I don’t doubt Caroline’s pain and frustration (though I admit the extreme emotionality of the reaction to that part - or even any part - of the endowment leaves me baffled, unless it was a PMS thing - but perhaps I am not a particularly emotional person)

     Wow, it’s funny to hear another woman bring up the PMS thing. Generally I tend to hear that from men as a way of discounting a woman’s reaction to something. But just for the record, no; it was not PMS. I’ve never had it in my life (that I know of). The extreme emotinality was just a reaction to the most crushing despair I had ever felt - stemming from a belief that God didn’t love or respect me as much as a man. It was devastating.

     but the author and some others on this thread seem to want it to be understood as a way to help others who don’t like that part

     that’s true.

     and as a way to band together to press for a change in the ceremony,

     Well, I don’t know if I’d put lt like that, but I was interested in seeing if others also felt that it should be changed. Through hours of thought, study, and meditation, I have come to that conclusion (you are perfectly free to disagree). I don’t think there’s anything wrong with thoughtfully coming to such a conclusion. I imagine before blacks were given the priesthood, thousands upon thousands of members had decided that such a policy should be changed. I don’t see a problem with that, but perhaps others such as yourself do? Does the discomfort you feel stem from a regular member believing that something can and should be improved in the institutional church? Or just voicing it?

     and the tone of the original post is not one of seeking understanding or explanation, but just a solidifying that the church is simply wrong.

     As I have explained in comment 15, I wrote this as a personal reflection (kind of like a diary entry) of a journey I have taken as a woman and as a Mormon. That is why there are no questions asking for others’ advice or insight. I will repeat, though, that I really appreciate others’ insights into the ceremony and ideas about how they deal with the difficulites this covenant presents. I feel really enlightened and grateful that so many have shared their personal interpretations. I also don’t think I imply anywhere in the original post that the Church as a whole is entirely fouled up. I was, of course, referring to the wording of that covenant.

     Comment by Caroline — March 1, 2006 @ 8:55 pm

234. Also, Starfoxy, someone–meems?, manean?–posted a lengthy quote (at T & S? BCC?) from the JD saying, essentially, that when we say ‘God’, we are always referring to both our Mother and Father. I wish I could find it, but haven’t so far.

     Caroline writes, “a belief that God didn’t love or respect me as much as a man”

     Just out of curiousity, had your previous church experience led you to believe this to be true, or was it an entirely new idea in the temple?

     Caroline writes, “I imagine before blacks were given the priesthood, thousands upon thousands of members had decided that such a policy should be changed.”

     As a data point on this, Pres. McKay felt that it should be changed, so I think it instructive to see how he ‘dealt with’ those feelings. He never discussed it publically or complained or suggested that it was wrong. He realized that he (the prophet!) didn’t have the authority to change it. He just prayed and prayed and prayed about it. (Eventually he was told “Not now and stop asking” [er, paraphrasing, of course].)

     Comment by Julie in Austin — March 1, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

235. Certainly, there were/are ideas in other aspect of the Church that made me concerned. But those were always mediated by talks that reinforced that women were equal partners. When I had that temple experience, there was nothing there (that I detected) that mediated what I was hearing. Also, the temple was so built up to me as a place where one got unfiltered truth from God, that I think I felt especially betrayed that such ideas were being communicated there.

     Interesting comparison: me and President McKay. You’re right, he didn’t write to newspapers or anything about his opinons, but he was far from quiet about them. My understanding is that he and other general authorities hashed out that policy over and over again in heated debates for decades. If only I could hash out my ideas with general authorities….:)

     I think a better comparison might be me and the people who were publishing constantly in Dialogue about the blacks and the priesthood issue. I’m sure many G.A.’s, though some may have been annoyed at the time, are now eternally grateful for the work Lester Bush did which proved historically that blacks in J.S’s time had been ordained, and that it was a policy instituted under B.Y., not a doctrine. (Though actually, it’s probably not fair for me to compare myself to Lester Bush, as I in this post am not presenting research and scholarship. It’s just a personal essay - many of which I imagine Dialogue did publish on this issue of blacks and the priesthood.)

     Comment by Caroline — March 1, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

236. Also, Starfoxy, someone–meems?, manean?–posted a lengthy quote (at T & S? BCC?)

     Well, it wasn’t me, but I’m dumbstruck at the thought that Julie in Austin (!) knows my name.

     Comment by meems — March 1, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

237. Caroline writes, “When I had that temple experience, there was nothing there (that I detected) that mediated what I was hearing.”

     Are you joking?!? In a ritual that takes over one hour you found approx. 60 seconds that suggests a gender disparity but you didn’t think that the other 59+ minutes of absolute identicalness (I know that isn’t a word) in terms of the covenants they enter as well as what they are taught and how they are treated counted for anything? 99% of the ceremony is completely identical for men and women. Let alone the fact that both are functionally and ritually identical once in the celestial room? That meant nothing to you? Can you tell that I’m flabbergasted?

     “You’re right, he didn’t write to newspapers or anything about his opinons, but he was far from quiet about them. My understanding is that he and other general authorities hashed out that policy over and over again in heated debates for decades. If only I could hash out my ideas with general authorities….:)”

     I’m not sure about this; _DOMAROMM_ suggests that he often played defense when others came to him, but his activity was otherwise _very_ limited outside of praying about it.

     “I think a better comparison might be me and the people who were publishing constantly in Dialogue about the blacks and the priesthood issue.”

     That comparison is telling. You’ll note that the policy didn’t change because of the article or any other scholarly effort. The policy changed when the Lord answered the prayers of his prophet. If I were you, I’d stick with the DOM analogy over Bush any day :).

     Comment by Julie in Austin — March 1, 2006 @ 9:54 pm

238. Well, I wasn’t going to chime in here, since I felt I had nothing to add to the conversation, but then I thought, this has never stopped me before! So, to Caroline, I grieve with you about feeling something is unfair from HF — the one person(age) we feel we should be able to trust. I had a similar reaction with regards to the (IMO) unfairness of the sealing ordinances (which I’ve alluded to before). With regards to the Harken convenant, I’ll admit that it surprised me the first time I heard it, but then, so did a lot of things, and I was mind-numb and just plain scared the first time I went through anyway.
     To respond to way-old-comment #? back at the beginning of this thread who asked about single sisters or those married to non-members, I can tell you as one who is married to a non-member that
     1. my very first thought was, “whew! I’m glad that I don’t have to do that!” and
     2. my next thought was, “but actually, everything here is conditional.” This has been said already, but my reading of this is if one’s husband isn’t perfectly in tune with HF and you, then that covenant really is a moot point. Ideally, any husband who you’re willing to be there with and is willing to be there with you (not you personally…), should be of one mind. If that’s the case, then I don’t see that is has that much importance except as some sort of form of symbolic gesture regarding our place in this mortal world. In practical terms, I just can’t give the harken thing that much weight. Then again, I’ll probably be eternally punished for that, so you may not want to listen to me anyway!!

     And to those people who were worried about there being an obedience covenent, does anyone here actually have a husband who commands them to obey? I can’t imagine it. DH has never ordered me to do anything, and I can’t imagine any woman taking orders from a partner like a dog. It just isn’t realistic (except maybe in abusive relationships, but those people wouldn’t / shouldn’t be in the temple anyway!)

     That’s all.

     Comment by meems — March 1, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

239. Julie: I find myself feeling a bit disconcerted by your last two comments, and I’ll try to articulate why. It seems simplistic to suggest that church policy only changes through the prayers of prophets — though I do not discount the role of direct revalation. But what do prophets (and the rest of us) choose to pray about and why? I find that sometimes it takes me a good while to figure out what to ask for — and finally finding the core of a question helps often helps lead to an answer. And I do a lot of reading and talking to find this core. Prophets do not stand in isolation. A bishop isn’t told to simply use prayer to make decisions — he is instructed to counsel with his councils, to listen to different points of view, to include the female auxilary leaders . . . and doing so may shape the very nature of the prayers he offers up. If I have issues with veiling, and I read your thought-provoking post, this instructs the dialogue I send heaven-ward. If a stake president hears that a stake program is leaving some people cold, he may pray for a solution he would never think to ask for before. The evolution of the temple ceremony in the last 25 years seems to me an indication that leaders heard the concerns of members and thought it worth taking the matter up in council and prayer. Articles and essays may not change policy, but perhaps they helpe change people praying about those policies — if only by giving them greater empathy for the various ways people find meaning in this faith.

     Comment by Deborah — March 1, 2006 @ 10:43 pm

240. “It seems simplistic to suggest that church policy only changes through the prayers of prophets — though I do not discount the role of direct revalation.”

     I didn’t say this and I don’t believe this. I was just responding to Caroline’s analogy of blacks and priesthood to the temple covenant changing by pointing out that she was ignoring/misreading/not considering some of the relevant data.

     Deborah, it is possible, theoretically, that research on the ban led indirectly to prayers on it. It is also (however remotely) possible that discussions like this one could lead to change. (But I seriously doubt it.) But we don’t have to hunt for a correlation between the lifting of the ban and someone praying about it. Caroline et al have no idea whether their public discussions of their discomfort will lead to change. But I hope they know that the most likely route for resolving their issues is through prayer. Especially since that scenario assumes change is appropriate, while, needless to say, I dont’ agree with.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — March 1, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

241. I was seriously disappointed when I went to do initiatories last summer and found they had been changed. I was told they were changed because some members were “uncomfortable” with the way they used to be, and possibly to dispel any rumors about modesty in the temple. I’m sure this must have been prayed about, but this particular change sounds as if its impetus came from the outside in.

     Comment by meems — March 1, 2006 @ 11:06 pm

242. Whoa there, Julie. I am honestly telling you my impression. Sorry it doesn’t line up with yours more. But yes, since that is the part of the ceremony that is addressed to me as a woman, that is the part that made the biggest impression on me about my woman’s relationship with God. And of course, there are other parts of that temple ceremony and others that confirmed to me the impresson that you find so flabbergasting.

     We can agree to disagree with this, but my understanding is that Bush had a HUGE impact on the authories. Once they read his stuff, (and once Lee who was adamently opposed to a change was out of the picture), they finally had the proof to move forward. And then God confirmed that decision in the meeting we’ve all heard about. So thanks anyway, DOM was great and all, but I expect I’ll be more in a position like Dialogue writers for the rest of my life, rather than one of the 12. So I’m happy to continue to compare myself to them, as I think that many of them have done some very important things for the Church.

     Meems thanks so much for your input. I also don’t give much (any) weight to the hearken covenant anymore, but I remember the grief it induced when I did give weight to it. What a relief it is to have that albatross finally off my neck.

     And yes, I do know of couples where the husband expects his wife to obey him. She was a convert, so I think it was easy for him to initially convince her that it was supposed to be this way, but now it’s causing some serious problems in the marriage. One of my biggest fears is that the temple hearken covenant might reinforce ideas like wifely obedience in people who are already attracted to the idea or vulnerable to it in some way.

     Deborah, beautifully, perfectly stated. Thank you.

     Comment by Caroline — March 1, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

243. Well, I have a few thoughts that I’ve been going back and forth about sharing. I also have a temple post [very different in both content and conclusion] I was going to share, but after all this, well I think there probably needs to be some space before we take up this subject again

     So I’ll say a couple of things before dropping out of this conversation [and leave the majority of it for my own future post]

     1) First someone said, way back, that they can’t believe that HF would want us to do anything that would make us unhappy. A question — do you mean long or short term happiness? Cause if your talking about short term happiness, I’ll have to disagree. I think HF asks us to do a lot of things that make us unhappy in the short run. Read history, read the scriptures, read the pioneer accounts. Babies buried on the plains, wandering in the wilderness, leaving father and mother and wealth, dying a martyrs death. Yes, he does want us to ultimately be happy, but sometimes we’ve have a lot of questioning and suffering and pain to go through before that happens.

     2) Sorry if this sounds a bit snarky [not meant to] but if the hearken covenant in the temple were the worst thing we had to deal with in the church I’d say we should all have a party. The church is far from perfect [as it probably should be] but if you gave me power to change something, that bit of temple ritual would not be it.

     3) Finally, when I first read this post I had recently gotten back from a really excellent SS lesson on Abraham and sacrifice. The teacher had talked about Abraham and what he was asked to do and then made this interesting note — Joseph Smith taught that all of us, just like Abraham, will someday be asked to sacrifice that which we hold most dear to prove that we value our relationship with God more than x.

     We read or noted a few other scriptural accounts of the same kind of Abrahamic sacrifice — Isaac [as sacrifice] Sarah [taken as wife to Pharoh], Job, Lehi and company, the rich young man in the New Testament, the Pioneers.

     What that test might be would vary from person to person. In some cases it might even conflict between one person’s experience and anothers. But the important point was that we be able to take that thing [our riches, our pride, our prejudices, our liberal politics, our conservative politics, our feminism, our understanding of how the world ought to work, even our preconceptions of morality [i.e. those early church members who were asked to live polygamy were Victorians, you know] and willingly, if sorrowfully place them on the altar as an act of ultimate faith. Sometimes only then will the light and knowledge come.

     I found the whole thing very powerful.

     Finally, if any of you haven’t read Eugene England’s piece on why the church is as true as the gospel, I’d highly recommend it.

     NO

     Comment by not ophelia — March 1, 2006 @ 11:19 pm

244. I’ll have to disagree. I think HF asks us to do a lot of things that make us unhappy in the short run.

     I would agree with this.

     if the hearken covenant in the temple were the worst thing we had to deal with in the church I’d say we should all have a party

     I smiled when I read this. I don’t know if I’d party, but I’d certainly have less angst than I currently do. I suppose for me the hearken covenant is representative of other very serious problems I see in the Church. I think I see it as the theory that informs practices that I find troubling.

     Joseph Smith taught that all of us, just like Abraham, will someday be asked to sacrifice that which we hold most dear to prove that we value our relationship with God more than x

     I find this terrifying. Frightening. Awful. I know this idea of JS has been taught, but there are some things I personally am just not willing to do for God, one of which would be to kill my own child. And if I go to hell for not killing someone, I think I’ll be able to live with that. But on a more realistic note, I would really like to believe in a God that wouldn’t require us to do things that we find fundamentally, morally, universally wrong. And even if he does require such things of us, the loving God I believe in will look with great compassion and love on, for example, those Mormons who decided they simply could not practice polygamy, since it violated their sense of morality and posed a heinous threat to the sanctity and happiness of their marriages. (this is assuming, of course, that God really did want polygamy practiced)

     Comment by Caroline — March 1, 2006 @ 11:55 pm

245. Rosalynde (#209),

     I’m so glad to see my sarcasm didn’t scare you permanently off the thread. I appreciate how well you think things through and enjoy your comments.

     I’m genuinely not understanding, and I’m sure you can make better sense than I can of the philosophical underpinnings and implications for what I say. So this is just an effort on my part to refine my thought processes on the matter. I don’t claim to have a full mastery of either the data or the methodologies I’m about the explore, and I expect people with more training to critique both. But the issue of how we responsibly approach ancient texts is one that fascinates me.

     It’s a fair point that from our perspective the ancient world may appear “patriarchal,” but that this view itself egregiously imposes a modern category. But “the ancient world” is by no means uniformly or monochromatically “patriarchal,” and a whole range of attitudes is refracted in different ways in different texts (and iconography). If it’s inappropriate to apply a modern Western liberalist critique to the temple ceremony, is it appropriate to bring ancient Israelite evidence to bear, such as the possibility (I’m thinking of evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, as just one example) that in some circles Israel’s God was worshiped with a female consort, or that there were segments of the Israelite population worshiping the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 44:17-19; 44:25; 7:18)? I know the people involved in these practices were railed against by the biblical authors as heretical, but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making; whatever they believed, they belonged to the very same community that constructed Solomon’s Temple and worshiped in it, so their ideas must have been born or at least taken root in that same environment.

     If we’re permitted to look a little further afield, we notice that in Mesopotamia there was a venerable tradition of legitimating one’s policital authority by installing one’s daughter as high priestess to the moon-god in the temple in Ur, a tradition extending both before the building of Solomon’s Temple and after its destruction. Certainly I don’t want to argue that this was “proto-feministm” of any stripe; these women were appointed by their fathers. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to note that in another Semitic and Semitic-influenced population (outside Israel), within the hieratic sphere, women were playing a ritual and hieratic role of some significance already in c. 2300 BCE.

     In this vein, would it be appropriate to notice that some early Christian women may have (arguably) exercised more priestly authority than women in our church do today? (see Romans 16:1, for example–not the KJV). I recognize “deaconess” is a problematic term, but it’s suggestive of at least *some* religious authority, as I understand it. Or that in some communities that were eventually stamped out as heretical, women apparently considered themselves religiously authorized to baptize?

     To be perfectly clear, I’m in no way trying to comment on the legitimacy of any of these practices. I’m not making a statement as to whether they were right or wrong, inspired or uninspired. I’m only noticing that there were other perspectives on women and their appropriate role in the hieratic sphere than the one that produced Solomon’s Temple and its successors. Thousands of years before liberalism developed in the West, people weren’t so constricted by the dominant “patriarchal” worldview that it never occurred to anyone to attempt to negotiate women’s appropriate religious roles, even in the priestly sphere. The point I’m trying to make, and to better make sense of myself, is that I think there’s reason to believe that *the space for discourse* on women’s status in the religious sphere was already accessible in some way even to the ancients.

     This doesn’t address whether the temple is “inherently” sexist or “inherently” anything else, because, as I understand the situation, what it “inherently” is, if anything, can’t really be assessed.

     Comment by Kiskilili — March 2, 2006 @ 10:23 am

246. Re #234: Manaen posted a quotation from Erastus Snow along those lines.

     Erastus Snow

     Comment by Justin — March 2, 2006 @ 11:06 am

247. meems said,

     And to those people who were worried about there being an obedience covenent, does anyone here actually have a husband who commands them to obey? I can’t imagine it. DH has never ordered me to do anything, and I can’t imagine any woman taking orders from a partner like a dog. It just isn’t realistic (except maybe in abusive relationships, but those people wouldn’t / shouldn’t be in the temple anyway!)

     I’ve often heard variations on this attempt to brush gender problems with the temple aside, and I find it fundamentally contradictory. The temple is the heart of our religion. Whatever our approach to dealing with whatever issues we may have with the temple, I don’t think this kind of dismissal lies open to us unless we want to say the temple is simply unimportant. (And certainly some people decide that for themselves, personally, but I don’t think there’s any way we can argue that the temple is unimportant to us as a people.) I think a little substitution in meem’s very articulate paragraph might help make this clear:

     And to those people who were worried about there being an obedience covenent, does anyone here actually have a [God] who commands them to obey? I can’t imagine it. [God] has never ordered me to do anything, and I can’t imagine any woman taking orders from [God] like a dog. It just isn’t realistic (except maybe in abusive relationships, but those people wouldn’t / shouldn’t be in the temple anyway!)

     (meems, I don’t in any way mean this as an attack on you. I always find your comments interesting. I’m just disagreeing with you on this one. :>)

     Comment by Eve — March 2, 2006 @ 11:16 am

248. Interesting points in 228.

     In response to 224, “Elohim” is morphologically masculine plural; like many languages, Hebrew uses the masculine plural to refer to mixed company.

     So the actual form of the word is a plural. But I’m not sure the form is the best indicator of how the term was understood in its context. When it refers specifically to Israel’s God, it almost invariably takes a masculine singular verb (unlike Indo-European languages, Hebrew verbs are gendered in the 2nd and 3rd person). When a pronoun is required, the pronoun is “he.” So it seems quite clearly in the Hebrew texts we have to be understood to describe a masculine singular entity.

     One might construct the argument that at some earlier stage of Israelite religion, “God” was perceived as a couple, and the form of the word is a vestige of that time. There’s no way to disprove such a theory. I see no evidence for it based on my current knowledge, but it’s an intriguing thought.

     Comment by Kiskilili — March 2, 2006 @ 11:38 am

249. NO,

     I just want to second your idea that God does give us ‘opportunities’ for Abrahamic sacrifice. I know that’s one thing I’ve concluded about my life and the heartache I’ve had with the temple–that maybe the only reason it is the way it is and I’m asked to do it that way is to see if I’ll still stick with God. And so far, I have. I expect I will continue. And I feel the experience, painful as it’s been, has taught me a greater understanding of Christ’s sacrifice, one impossible to have gotten without giving up my whole soul to God, as He did, in spite of the overwhelming pain. Whatever pain I had/have, His was infinitely greater.

     Though I think that discussing things relatively openly and hoping/praying/asking for change doesn’t hurt.

     Comment by Artemis — March 2, 2006 @ 11:54 am

250. Are you joking?!? In a ritual that takes over one hour you found approx. 60 seconds that suggests a gender disparity but you didn’t think that the other 59+ minutes of absolute identicalness (I know that isn’t a word) in terms of the covenants they enter as well as what they are taught and how they are treated counted for anything? 99% of the ceremony is completely identical for men and women. Let alone the fact that both are functionally and ritually identical once in the celestial room? That meant nothing to you? Can you tell that I’m flabbergasted?

     Julie, I think you’re overstating the gender identicalness. For one thing, gender disparity is the only human difference acknowledged before and by God, and the division between men and women physically structures the entire endowment. I’ve often heard people wax rhapsodic about how beautiful it is that in the temple we are all equal before God. That’s certainy true, in terms of race, ethnic origin, class, occupation, education, income, and so on, and I actually find those leveling effects beautiful for what they are, but they clearly don’t extend to gender.

     Also, I’d question the assumption that the way to measure the extend of the gender disparity of the temple ceremony is with a stopwatch, so to speak. The difference is ritually foundational and sets men and women apart, in an assymmetrical relation to each other and God, from the outstet. The endowment is ritually progressive; each stage depends on the previous. Thus, access to any of the higher stages is mediated, for women, by their ritual submission to the gender inequality of the first.

     Comment by Eve — March 2, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

251. Artemis, I think your perspective on gender and the temple is the closest I’ve come to making sense of it. For me anyway, it’s an Abrahamic sacrifice, and I constantly struggle with the heartache that’s dogged my religious life ever since I took out my endowments almost thirteen years ago. I go through long periods of not thinking about it because I don’t want to go completely crazy, but sooner or later, in some context or other, I come back to it. It’s pretty tough to be a Mormon and avoid the temple entirely.

     I realize it’s not this way for many, perhaps most, Mormon women. Perhaps our Abrahamic sacrifices are ultimately as individual as we are. But I appreciate Caroline’s and others’ openness about the agony that they have experienced in the temple. It can be very, very lonely to struggle so profoundly with something and find no one else who will admit to struggling similarly. I think back to my weekly district-meeting trek to the temple in the MTC and my struggle every time to weep quietly. It would have meant the world to me at that time just to know I wasn’t the only one.

     Comment by Eve — March 2, 2006 @ 12:15 pm

252. I’d also love to know how people balance this idea of women hearkening to righteous husbands with the idea of equal partnership. Do people just tacitly assume that good, kind husbands are also hearkening to righteous wives?

     My husband does. I think the idea behind this covenant is that the man and the woman will be united in their stance, in their ideals, in their commitment to their covenants. As I remember, Eve promises to hearken unto Adam as he hearkens unto Father. If Adam doesn’t hearken unto Father, Eve is then relieved of her promise to Adam, because Adam is NOT hearkening unto Father. She can then righteously take matters into her own hands, in whatever form that may take. If Adam beats Eve, she can then press charges against him, divorce him, take the kids and sue him for child support. If Adam chooses to watch sports on TV on Sundays (my current predicament) and Eve believes that watching TV on Sunday is not keeping the Sabbath day holy, then Eve can decide that Adam can take his TV-watching butt into the bedroom and shut the door and watch it there, so she can continue to keep the commandment. It seems to me to be a covenant of checks and balances. Both partners are protected. Neither the man nor the woman are subject to the unrighteous whims of the other one.

     I implicitly believe that the husband/father is the head of the family. Just as we have a Father in Heaven that we pray to, worship, receive commandments from, we have fathers here whom we should look to for leadership, as they righteously lead. What of Mother in Heaven? She’s there, and if her household is anything like mine, she’s not sitting in the corner like a shrinking violet - she is hands-on and the decisions are made jointly and equally.

     Comment by Natalie — March 2, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

253. Caroline writes, “We can agree to disagree with this, but my understanding is that Bush had a HUGE impact on the authories.”

     Bush wrote in 1973, which is after McKay (who had prayed about the issue repeatedly, discussed it, and made minor changes to the ban) had died. So while his article may have impacted later thinkers, leaders at the highest level already had this issue on the agenda before he wrote.

     Re 246–the quote that I was thinking about was much, much longer, but that one is interesting, too.

     “Julie, I think you’re overstating the gender identicalness.”

     No, I think we’re just too used to focusing on the differences. Let’s start with some basics: women are present. Woemn do not sit behind men, but to their sides as equals. Women wear ceremonial clothing. Women receive the same knowledge men do. Women come to the altar as men do. Most covenants are identical. Men and women pray together. Most importantly, once in the celestial room, there is no gender difference. The list can go on and on. This isn’t, of course, to deny that gender differences exist or are important, it is simply to refute Caroline’s jaw-dropping (to me, at least) observation that nothing in the temple provided a counterweight to the parts that bothered her. And you won’t be surprised to see me dispute your use of the word ’submission’ as entirely inapprorpiate to the context.

     Comment by Julie in Austin — March 2, 2006 @ 3:39 pm

254. And you won’t be surprised to see me dispute your use of the word ’submission’ as entirely inapprorpiate to the context.

     Julie, we’re probably just going to see this one differently, but I tend to think we’re better off calling things what they are. I think the church is in a very interesting phase right now of trying to deal with the cultural unaccaptability of women’s submission, which used to be perfectly acceptable, and I won’t even dare to speculate where it will go from here. I’d guess we’re in an intermediate phase, and maybe it’s in the process of evoloving into something that’s not submission, but I would tend to say that at this point, it’s still too early to call.

     Comment by Eve — March 2, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

255. Caroline, I too am sorry about your negative experience in the Temple. There is a great book out, called, “The Lost Language of Symbolism” by Alonzo Gaskill, an intellectual and convert to the church. I think you might find the answer to about half of your questions in the book. I found it immensely enlightening and has given me a deeper understanding of my Temple visits.

     Comment by Becky — March 2, 2006 @ 5:03 pm

256. Someone fill me in on Abrahamic sacrifice. I thought the whole point of the Abraham story was that a ram was provided, that Christ was sacrificed so we don’t have to be, that God does not delight in human sacrifice but would rather suffer for us than us for God.

     Comment by Alixandre — March 2, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

257. I thought our sacrifice is of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

     Comment by Alixandre — March 2, 2006 @ 8:31 pm

258. I can’t find an authoritative definition at the moment, but basically, an Abrahamic sacrifice is where you sacrifice something most precious to you because God commands it, often when doing so seems to violate other of God’s commands or is contradictory; i.e., Abraham was commanded to kill/sacrifice Isaac, a great personal and heart-wrenching sacrifice, done knowing God’s commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’. While God prevented him from actually doing it, his obedience was so complete that he was in the act of doing it and had essentially done it, but was stopped.

     Comment by Artemis — March 2, 2006 @ 9:32 pm

259. I second Caroline on the issue of Abrahamic sacrifice. I find the story theologically problematic–if God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, why did God command it? What do we learn from this about God–he tells people to do emotionally wrenching things he, if we interpret the ram this way, actually thinks are wrong? It’s awfully nice of him to provide a ram and thereby prevent us from doing what he’d rather we didn’t, but why command it to begin with?

     I think there are virtues higher than obedience.

     If I press this point perhaps to a nonsensical degree, one might even argue that God has provided a “ram” to the implications of the temple ceremony for women in the form of extra-temple statements softening the language and claiming women and men are equal. So I’m genuinely happy for those of you who, in my framework–and I recognize it’s my framework, and many don’t see it this way–are sacrificing the “ram” instead of your autonomy (Isaac) and so are living in egalitarian marriages.

     But I still wonder what it means to my conception of God that he asked me to make the sacrifice. Even if nobody lives that way, as meems suggested, I wonder what it means about God that he would even ask it.

     Having said this, I think the original point of bringing up Abraham was not to construct an airtight analogy, but to convey something of the depth of certain individuals’ own emotional reactions to the temple and the level of commitment this has required in order for them to maintain a relationship with God. Your examples inspire me.

     For my part, unlike Abraham, I will not even pretend to God that I have intentions of sacrificing Isaac or that I consider this request acceptable.

     But maybe I can find a way to stay committed to the God of my experience in spite of the emotional depth of my own reaction.

     Comment by Kiskilili — March 2, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

260. I hesitate to bring this up here, 260 comments deep, but my experience is very similar to Caroline’s. However, it goes in the opposite direction.

     I think we are considering the endowment too narrowly in this thread, and that we should also include the initiatory ordinances when we think of the endowment. And the language used for women is different from the language used for men. When I became aware of the differences, I was shocked. It troubled me intensely to think that God values women more than men. I struggled for months to regain my balance, but found that I was unable to exercise faith as I had before. It was depressing to think that God thinks that women are better than men. This wasn’t something I inferred, it was simply the direct and clear meaning of words.

     I’ve made my peace, finally, and again I love going to the temple. Caroline, I think I understand very well what you felt, but I think you are ignoring enormous amounts of evidence.

     Comment by Mark IV — March 2, 2006 @ 10:57 pm

261. #247 - Eve:
     That’s okay! I know there are probably many women whose husbands do order them around, but I guess I’m an idealist at heart!

     But, in substituting [God], I think I have to say that God does order us around! He gives us rules. He’s our father. He’s supposed to set boundaries and commandments for us. Husbands aren’t (here in my idealistic world again!).

     Comment by meems — March 2, 2006 @ 11:34 pm

262. meems, I completely agree that God does, and should, tell us what to do. My only point (which I don’t think I made very clearly!) was that we couldn’t very well dismiss a covenant to obey God as somehow insiginificant, and by the same token, I don’t think we can dismiss the covenant women make, either, while maintaining that the temple is the center of our faith.

     But I would definitely agree with you that husbands aren’t supposed to set commandments for us, and I’m personally very grateful that mine doesn’t, either ;>

     Comment by Eve — March 3, 2006 @ 12:36 am

263. I just read this on a website talking about temple meanings and thought it was interesting. I had never considered this idea:

     “At the higher level, one realizes that Adam and Eve are represented in oneself and that the story is all about ones own individual sojourn in life. At this level, one realizes that Adam represents the spirit and Eve represents the physical body. This is why Eve is placed under subjugation to Adam – it is because the body is meant to be subject to the guidance of the spirit. ”

     Sally

     Comment by Sally — March 3, 2006 @ 12:41 am

264. That’s a very interesting interpretation, Sally. I accidently ran across a letter from an old Sunstone (Mar-April 1981) that says BY said that Eve is supposed to be the same as Mother in Heaven and I guess we could interpret that as being representational to each of us and our potential future roles.
     ‘ …when you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve…. (Unpublished sermon in Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives; also see L. John Nuttall journal, Vol. 1:18-20.) and
     “You will become Eves to earths like this” (J. D. 8:208; also see Millennial Star 31:267 and J. D. 12:97)
     While that obviously doesn’t directly address the covenent making that Caroline is talking about, it seemed like interesting food for thought!

     Comment by meems — March 3, 2006 @ 2:58 am

265. I’m with you Kishkilili. I have a hard time believing God commanded it. Maybe Abraham was confused about what God wanted, coming from an idolatrous background himself. The message I get from the story is that Jehovah is NOT like the gods of Abraham’s father who demand human sacrifice. It’s a different scenario than w/ Nephi & Laban since (ostensibly) Isaac was innocent and hadn’t threatened Abraham’s life as Laban had Nephi and his brothers.

     Now this is not to say that bearing one’s cross isn’t sometimes difficult, even heartwrenching. I just disagree that this is what the law of sacrifice is about. Sacrifice is the humility to give up one’s SELFISH and EVIL desires–the things which separate us from God–not good desires.

     Comment by Alixandre — March 3, 2006 @ 7:39 am

266. I normally agree with this idea that we don’t know why women don’t have priesthood and speculative doctrinal explainations usually turn out regretable once we know the real reason.
     but…
     it seems to me, that assuming the “hearken” covenant is true, that it constructs that woman relates to God through listening to man, and that it is because of her transgression (”inasmuch as eve was the first”) . So presuming that “hearken” is divinely inspired, it fits my picture that women don’t have the preisthood on earth because she lost it in eden, similar to earning bread by sweat and laboring with child, so women have an unfortunate condition of lesser power/authority in God (for now). This works with GAs and scriputres that say Eve knew what they were sacrificing but inteligantly chose to endure mortality’s pain for a good cause. It also fits with how women do get some indications of preisthood in the temple but are barred from expressing it in the outside world.
     Oh, and let me quickly add, her lack of preisthood describes a fallen, worldy limitation, not her power and authority moving forward towards Godhood in eternities.

     anyway, that’s what I’ve got. or else the covenant is dated from days when the world thought all wives “obeyed” and polygamy necesitated clear order within families.

     Comment by cchrissyy — March 3, 2006 @ 10:43 am

267. Alixandre (265),

     I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you about sacrifice only being giving up selfish and evil desires. Explain to your friends or family members who, for no fault of their own remain single or childless. Being a father had been one of my deepest dreams, but life had other plans. Is it better for me to stay with my wife who cannot bear children, or to leave her for a woman who can? I’m not saying that I am especially noble for my choice, but I am sacrificing my desire to be called “daddy,” even once in my life, to be with the woman I love. Don’t tell me that is a sacrifice of a selfish or evil desire. And don’t tell me that my wife’s desire to be a mother is selfish or evil, either.

     Comment by CS Eric — March 3, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

268. CS Eric,
     It is pretty clear to me that Alixandre is making a distinction between “bearing your cross” and “sacrifice” as being two different kinds of situations.

     Bearing your cross — losing out on good desires in heartwrenching ways.
     Sacrifice — intentionally giving up selfish desires.

     You apparently disagree with these definitions. You think the term “sacrifice” applies to both kinds of situations, and that is a valid opinion. But there is no need to unleash the emotional accusations of #267 on a dry semantic problem like this one.

     Comment by Beijing — March 3, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

269. I’m sorry, CS Eric; that sounds like a geniunely painful situation, and I agree that the desires you have to be a father are certainly righteous ones. It’s truly unfortunate that they’re seemingly at odds with your arguably even more righteous desire to remain faithful to the wife you love.

     You bring up a good issue: that the church sometimes asks us to sacrifice good things in the interest of arguably better ones, and this isn’t easy for a number of reasons, one of which is that it simply seems “unfair”–God blesses so many other people with the opportunities of fatherhood, for example. There’s no good reason why he shouldn’t bless you. (Yeah, I realize it’s a fallen world and nothing’s fair and all the rest. It doesn’t make it any easier though.)

     I think I see a difference between having to choose, for circumstantial reasons, between two righteous desires, both of which the church approves, and having to choose between what you feel is right and what the church asks of you. But neither situation presents easy answers.

     Comment by Kiskilili — March 3, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

270. Maybe it’s useful to make a distinction between the “problem of evil” and another issue that may be more painful or less painful than the latter, depending on the circumstances, but that poses separate theological problems.

     In one instance, God allows evil to occur. In another, God actively commands us to behave in ways that are “evil,” that perpetrate “evil” in the world, for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

     (I’m speaking purely on the theoretical level. I’m not trying to imply everyone is in agreement that the latter situation applies either to Abraham or to the temple. Quite a lot hinges on our definition of “evil.”)

     Comment by Kiskilili — March 3, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

271. In response to my own comments in #245 (yes, I have this problem of talking to myself in public in real life too–I’m certifiable ;)) I have a few additional thoughts.

     A) To what degree are we even capable of reconstructing an “original” cultural setting in which the current temple ceremony “belongs,” given that our material on ancient Israelite religion is both so limited and so varied in nature?
     B) To what degree is the ceremony, if we are able to locate it securely in an original cultural context which we reconstruct around it, accountable primarily to that setting rather to our own cultural contexts?

     Even if inspired, the temple ceremony is and always has been mediated by human understanding, so I would argue there’s no pure ceremony that can be distilled from the contaminating cultural environment–they are entirely intertwined. But even when ritual actions and words remain exactly the same, as the culture in which they are embedded changes, they are commonly reinterpreted and invested with different meaning.
     To what degree does the earlier cultural context have a legitimate bearing on the present context? (This is an honest question–I’m not trying to say it has NO legitimate bearing.) (Conversely, to what degree does the inspired nature of the ceremony reflect on the cultural context to which we claim it “belongs”?)

     I would argue that, whatever else the temple ceremony is or has been, it is also an artifact of the modern world with implications for the current situation. So I see no reason to refrain from critiquing it on the basis of the values of the modern world to which, I would argue, it belongs as much as it has ever belonged to any previous context. The fact that the ceremony has actually changed several times only makes this more so. It only makes the ceremony more ours.

     Looking to the past might explain some of what goes on. It’s an open question whether or not it justifies it.

     Comment by Kiskilili — March 3, 2006 @ 7:47 pm

272. I would argue that, whatever else the temple ceremony is or has been, it is also an artifact of the modern world with implications for the current situation. So I see no reason to refrain from critiquing it on the basis of the values of the modern world to which, I would argue, it belongs as much as it has ever belonged to any previous context. The fact that the ceremony has actually changed several times only makes this more so. It only makes the ceremony more ours.

     Kiskilili, I absolutely agree. Thanks so much for all your insights and comments. I’ve read them with great interest.

     Comment by Caroline — March 4, 2006 @ 9:34 am

273. Caroline - Thank you for your post! It helps to know I am not alone.

     Comment by sarah — March 5, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

274. Outsider here with a few questions (just ’cause I’m curious - ignore me if you like):

     Jason said that women make a convenant through their husbands when he was trying to point out that this is a choice (although I’m not quite sure what choosing who one makes a convenant through has to do with complaints about not having direct access to God).

     Are only married women allowed to make a convenant? (Am I using the terms correctly? Please let me know if I’m not.) If unmarried women can, who do they do it through? If they aren’t, are unmarried men allowed to make a covenant to God?

     To those of you that are bothered by the ceremony: are you also bothered that only men can attain priesthood?

     To those of you who are arguing for interpretations more in line with Ben S.’s - How do you reconclie this with the actual gender make-up of the preisthood?

     Comment by Mickle — March 9, 2006 @ 3:20 am

275. Mickle,

     All women make the covenant and they usually do it before they are married, though it IS directed toward their husbands. The understanding being that once you have one, you’ll ‘hearken’ to him. All men make the covenant to God and, like the women, they’re usually unmarried when they do.

     The priesthood question is a little more problematic, as we’ve discussed, because it’s open for whether the priesthood exclusion is doctrine or policy. I would say there are a range of feelings on whether we’re ‘bothered’ by that exclusivity. Let me say that I’m bothered that only men have positions of real authority. I’d like to have equal authority, even if it’s not the same (priesthood) authority, which is one reason I like the possibility of a women’s order of the priesthood, but one that functions essentially the same way and in tandem with the men’s priesthood.

     Hope this helps. Thanks for visiting.

     Comment by Artemis — March 9, 2006 @ 9:01 am

276. I realize this is an old thread but I’m new to this site and I’ve been reading lots of great posts.

     I too have struggled with aspects of the temple and I’m so glad to see that I’m not alone. My mom has issues with both the temple and RS but would never tell me specifically what they were. I think I’ve figured out most of them.

     Anyway- to my point. I have been fortunate to have several great discussions about these exact issues- such as wording in the sealing and endowment session. Two things that have helped me (and may help someone who is still reading this):

     1) A seminary teacher told me to pay attention when the men stand up during the endowment. He asked me what purpose it served, pointing out that there was no purpose other than out of respect for Eve (and women). This helped me some.

     2) Another comment that was great for me (I think this was from a bishop) was that Heavenly Father does NOT want us to be offended by anything in the church. It is run by imperfect people. He told me he firmly believed that when all truths are revealed and we are perfected that we will not be offended.

     I cling to the idea mentioned above. I went through a rough time several years ago and began to question a lot of things- stopped doing everything other than going to church. I finally realized that the LDS church has helped me a lot and that I have an unshakable testimony of HF and his love for me. I cling to that and continue to live as I have been taught because it brings me peace.

     I hope this makes sense- it’s late for me on the East coast.

     Comment by Nicole — March 16, 2006 @ 10:07 pm

277. I read with great sympathy Caroline’s experience in the temple. I am so sorry it felt that way to you, and understand why that is not comfortable for you to participate in again.

     I, however, had exactly the opposite reaction - I was struck by the ways women administered to one another, and how fully represented they were within the priesthood.

     Also, the “hearken” has a contractual requirement of the men, “even as he harkens”. To be, that is not God, Church, etc, putting women in their “place”, it is a missive to MEN to be humble servants of the Lord, and not abuse their requirement of preisthood SERVICE - a reminder they are not to abuse and demean women.

     I also have a testimony that God does and always has had a personal relationship with his daughters, as well. It is mentioned in ancient scripture (Deborah was a prophetess), and I have witnessed it in my own life. I truly have a personal Father/Daughter relationship with my Heavenly Father. My husband, who is a very good man, and very respectful of his priesthood covenants) is NOT an intermediary between me and my Father. The way I see it, his “responsibility” is in making sure he is not the CAUSE of my relationship with HF being “broken”.

     For instance, and abusive man, who uses the prieshood as a club to harm his family,, WILL ultimately be held responsible for his wife and children leaving the church. It does NOT mean he will be Glorified, should they remain. on the other hand, a woman is NOT responsible for the sins of her husband. So to me, that makes men ’s purpose to SERVE women, not to make them his subjects.

     And it was in the temple that this was made clearer to me.

     My prayers are directly answered. DH and I BOTH recive personal revelation, as well as that for our family. I am in no way lesser than he is.

     Can you be a feminist, and still be an active LDS woman? A good wife and Mother, and not lose yourself?

     Absolutley. And we LDS feminists need to be sure we are not leaving our meeker sisters behond, in a CULTURE that forgets how Father reveres his Daughters.

     Comment by Jennifer — July 17, 2006 @ 12:29 pm

278. It might be interesting to note that the Hebrew word Elohim is both masculine and feminine and is plural. This is the name used throughout the temple ceremony and we know that God our father could not have become a God without his wife. It is my personal interpretation that when Elohim is used it is in reference to our heaveanly parents….plural….their union. They are God. That is in the same way that our own children relate to us as parents as well. We are one.

     Comment by Kathryn — September 11, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

279. It just made me angry, no matter how hard I tried to tell myself that it was just “symbolic” and not literal, that it was only meant to be followed when they used it in righteousness. I was raised with a father who used it any way he liked, and I do mean in ANY way. Lucky for me, I married a “feminist” man, who thinks the same way I do!

     Comment by bleedingrose — April 28, 2008 @ 10:03 am

280. Hi,

     Long before I entered the temple for my first time, I had been told (several times) that G*d wanted to teach us all to be humble, teachable and obedient to celestial laws, so that we might return to Him. To do this, He ask us to strive to do what is hardest for us. He asks that the men obey His laws, and exercise stewardship over our wives,and priesthood leadership over the church. He asks the sisters to be obedient to their husbands.

     Now, if you think of women as inferior in any way, that plan is senseless. But when you think of women as having superior leadership talents, and more capable of “priesthood” leadership over the church and their husbands, and men having a real struggle to accomplish this stewardship righteously, then you see how this set up teaches each gender to be humble, and teachable, and ultimately to become Christlike.

     So I was not surprised by the obedience covenants, nor have I ever thought they indicate any superiority of talent in men. I can empathize with sisters who feel diminished in G*d’s eyes by this obedience to husbands thing.

     There are two places in the bible where instruction is given to wives and husbands. They also say that wives should be obedient to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves His church, giving their lives for them (her?).

     So you feminists can view these things as anachronisms of sexist traditions, but they are scripturally based, and seem to have always been a part of Christianity. Sorry.

     Comment by Trueheart — August 26, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

281. Caroline: You don’t have to stay in an man-made and dominated organization. I think your intellect is telling you to make another choice.

     Comment by Ruby — August 26, 2008 @ 9:02 pm

282. Chen Deming said that China-US economic and trade cooperation is an important basis for Sino-US relations, bilateral economic and trade cooperation in recent years, rapid development, the two countries has brought Carmelo Anthony Shoes

     Comment by basketball shoes — May 24, 2010 @ 2:40 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

• Information
  • Introduction & Contact Info
  • Comment Policy
  • Newbie? Introduce Yourself
  • fMh bloggers
  • Submit a Guest Post
  • Need Advice? "Ask fMh"
  • T-shirts Cafepress or Zazzle
  • fMh Facebook group            
  • Help us pay our server fees:
  
• Search
  • 
    

• Recent Comments (IE click link twice)
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • JNR: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • djinn: God in the gaps.
  • LindseyM: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Ray: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • Coffinberry: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • nat kelly: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • James McOmber: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Ray: Our Blue-Eyed Savior
  • Mommie Dearest: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Alicia: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • AllieKay: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Brian: Jane Austen Fight Club:
• Do Good
  • Join fMh's Kiva microloan team
  • Join Team fMh at Kiva
• Sideblog
  • - Ms: Obama Signs Act To Empower Native Americans to Fight Rape
  • - What’s Hard to Look At
  • - BCC: A mother’s heart, A father’s heart
  • - The Fifty Deadliest Things
  • - I Enjoy Crushing Bastards
  • - Latter-Day Saints and Modern-Day Pioneers
  • - From Untouchable to Businesswoman
  • - Ms. Mag: Women’s Rights Quiz
  • - The Stigma of Being a Housewife
  • - One Bride for Two Brothers: A Custom Fades in India
  
  
  • more » | feed »
• Facebook Blog Network
  Blog Networks

  Blog:

  feminist Mormon housewives

  Topics:

  feminism, Mormon, LDS

  Join my network
• FMH Book Group
  "Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich -----Sep 1st-----
  
• Special Guest Discussion
  
  • Women & Authority:
  • Re-emerging Mormon Feminism
  • Discussion Lead By: Lula and Stephanieeeeeee
  • Now Reading:
  • Chapter Three
  • Discussion Date: Wednesday (usually)
  • Discussion Archives:
  • Introductory Material (2006)
  • Introductory Material (2010)
  • Ch. 1 (2006)
  • Ch. 1 (2010)
  • Ch. 2 (2006)
  • Ch. 2 (2010)
  • Ch. 3 (2006)
  • Ch. 3 (2010)
  • Ch. 4 (2006)
  • UP NEXT Ch. 4 (2010)
  • Ch. 5 (2006)
  • Ch. 6 (2006)
• Feminist Mormon Blogs

  A Liberal Mormon
  Beginnings New progressive site for YW leaders!
  By Common Consent
  Dave's Mormon Inquiry
  Doctors & Covenants
  Erin's LDS Women's History Blog
  Exponent II blog Am I not a woman and a sister?
  Hieing to Kolob
  Letters from a Broad
  Mama Nirvana
  Mind on Fire
  On Our Own
  PilgrimGirl
  Sunstone Blog
  The Faithful Dissident
  Zelophehad's Daughters
  




• Blogs by Mormon Women

  • Groups
  Mormon Mommy Wars
  Segullah Blog
  
  • Individuals
  Almost, But Not Entirely
  But I digress . . .
  Cchrissy's Tender Cargo Blog
  Dandelion Mama
  Enduring to the End
  Excelling at Mediocrity
  Gay Blanchard
  good times, noodle salad
  How I deal Faithful Gay Woman's Blog
  I hope you dance
  Keepapitchinin
  law blawg of theres petrey
  Lollygaggering
  Miss Jill in NYC
  Mom on a Wire
  Mrs. Everything
  Navel Gazing at it's Finest
  Neddy Palaver
  Posts of My House
  Reese Dixon
  Selo's Mini
  Tater Tot Casserole
  Tickle the Pear
  Watch out For Mama
  

• Official LDS sites
  LDS.org
  Mormon.org
  
• Random Links
  • (Because we're nice like that.)
  11 D
  Advice for New Feminists
  Black LDS.org
  Danithew
  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  EMSA
  Ethesis
  FHA site (Geoff's)
  Gospel Cougar
  Holla Back NYC
  Invisible Green Photography
  Kulturblog
  Latter-day Main Street
  Liberal Oasis
  Life On Gold Plates
  Morman Mentality
  Mormon Chic
  Mormon Matters
  Mormon Stories
  Mormon Women's Forum
  Mormons for the Environment
  New Cool Thang
  Our Thoughts
  Segullah
  Sunstone Magazine
  Tender Cargo Baby Store
  The Good Democrat
  The Red Brick Store
  Times & Seasons
  
• 
> > Archives
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004

• July 2010

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Jun
  			1	2	3	4
  5	6	7	8	9	10	11
  12	13	14	15	16	17	18
  19	20	21	22	23	24	25
  26	27	28	29	30	31

• Categories
  • Abortion/Contraception
  • Abuse
  • Best Posts
  • Body
  • Book Club
  • Career
  • Conversion
  • Day in the Life
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Faith
  • Father in Heaven
  • Feminism
  • Food
  • Jesus Christ
  • Just Life
  • Humor
  • Marriage
  • Mormon Culture
  • Mormon History
  • Mother in Heaven
  • Motherhood
  • Parenting
  • Patriarcy
  • Politics
  • Polygamy
  • Pop Culture
  • Prayer
  • Priesthood
  • Reconciling Questions
  • Sexuality
  • Social Issues
  • Spirituality
  • Temple
  • Womens History
  • Young Women
• Meta:
  • RSS 2.0
  • Comments RSS 2.0
  • WordPress
  • JS Quicktags
  • 
  • 

•