I’ve noticed lately in both the endowment ceremony, as well as the sealing ceremony, wording that men covenant to obey God, while women covenant to obey men. In 1991, the words were soften a little in that women obey their husbands only so long “as their husbands obey God.” While this seemingly absolves women from obeying any ungodly commandment, why are husbands essentially mediators between women and God?
It goes further. Men are blessed and anointed to be kings and priests, but women are anointed to become queens and priests, not to God, but “to their husband(s)” (though we know that polyandry is not allowed, so the plural husbands is really singular.) Once again, why aren’t women queens and priestesses to God?
We all know that there is some egalitarianism in the scriptures “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,” (1 Cor. 11:11), but there is also some rampant sexism too “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22). So while Mormons seem to follow Ephesians quite well, my question is why are women treated differently (1) by God, (2) in the temple, and (3) is it right?
I think this is a case of revelation being influenced by the surrounding culture. We may expect to see male headship in a ceremony that was revealed in the 19th century. Other leaders have taught that women become queens and priestesses to God Himself. Off the top of my head I can think of one statement by Elder Talmadge in particular.
Also, in his book Alonzo Gaskill talks about a layer of symbolism in the Garden narrative where Adam symbolizes Christ and Eve represents “all living.” Just as Adam chooses to leave paradise to be with Eve, Christ leaves the presence of the Father so He can be with us and then we in turn covenant to obey Him. This layer of symbolism was obscured when they changed it to make the language more egalitarian which is unfortunate but given the number of Mormons who view the endowment ceremony as a video documentary it was probably for the best.
In any case, I do not think there is any practical difference between being a priest unto God or unto your spouse and so I would not be surprised if they made further changes since it continues to be a source of pain.
In spite of the hierarchical language, I do not think that indicates that there is unequal treatment in heaven. Father and Son are titles that are hierarchical also, and yet Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God and I do not think anyone would say that makes Him deficient in His divinity compared to the Father.
“Is it right?”
I don’t think so, which is why I no longer say, “Yes.” It’s too humiliating.
And I didn’t really know that that’s what I was feeling until I went through with my daughter. Escorting her through it was one of the best and worst days of my life.
I think it is this kind of parsing of words which is affected by the culture. For example, if a man were told he would be a “king and priest unto his wife” would we think that he would be subservient to her? No answers, just questions.
“I’ve noticed lately in both the endowment ceremony, as well as the sealing ceremony, wording that men covenant to obey God, while women covenant to obey men.”
It’s in the Initiatory, as well.
To elaborate on Bryan’s comment, if during the endowment ceremony (particularly the garden section) you substitute Christ/Bridegroom for Adam and Church/Us for Eve every time it’s said, it all makes a lot of sense and works beautifully and avoids some of these gender painful moments.
This is my entire problem with Mormonism: the assumption that women are treated differently by God. In fact, the only real fight I’ve ever had with my mother was on this very question, and it ended with me yelling a truth I hadn’t verbalized before — that I have no interest in a God who sees me as less than.
As I have grappled with these questions, I’ve come to realize that while Mormonism in general and the temple ceremonies in painful specific treat women as second class citizens, God does not. Is it right for the church to continue doing so? Absolutely not. Full stop. To those who would argue a “separate but equal” defense, I join the US Supreme Court in their famous judgment that by definition, separate never really means equal.
To Bryan’s note about symbolism, I would contend that the very nature of a symbol is it’s range of interpretation, the way it allows individuals to fit it to their own context and circumstances. Thus, while I applaud you for reading the symbolism of Adam and Eve away from gender, I can’t ignore the centuries of harm other readings have caused. From the medieval Catholic writings of St Augustine to the Mormon theology of polygyny, Christianity has treated woman as an uncredited extra in the story of man. The female has existed to be acted upon while the male is an agent into himself. That is out of line with the biblical record of Christ’s interactions with women.
Guy, I’m glad that you have noticed this disparity in temple worship. We need allies like you. I have felt uneasy with it since my first endowment 12 years ago, and it only grew worse with further experience. It’s not just the overt sexism of the covenants. It’s that Eve never speaks again after she promises to obey Adam. Not a single word. It’s that I am instructed to put a physical barrier between my face and God’s while the men next to me approach Him as equals. It’s so many other painful microagressions in the words, the instructions, and the seating chart. Finally in the last year or two I have given up temple attendance. I maintain a recommend so I can attend family weddings, but even those are difficult to sit through.
Elizabeth St. Dunston,
Separate but equal doesn’t work for race because there is no difference between a black man and white man or black woman and a white woman. However, apart from the Andrea Dworkins of the world most feminists have no problem acknowledging that there are differences between men and women and have no problem accommodating for them. Few if any feminists are trying to tear down things like Title IX which enshrine “separate but equal” in the law. Separate but equal is a perfectly legitimate feminist ethic.
I do not think anyone would want you to ignore the harm that other readings of the Garden narrative has caused. Mormonism is a repudiation of centuries of this type of thinking. We see Eve as a leader and applaud her decision to leave paradise and choose knowledge. To ignore the long history of women being subjugated by men would be to diminish these plain and precious truths. It’s interesting to me that Eve’s silence in the Garden narrative happens chronologically after the Fall, which can be seen as descriptive of the condition of women in a fallen world, rather than prescriptive of how things ought to be on earth or in heaven. There is some very interesting symbolism regarding the veil as well.
I would venture that Bryan’s suggested reading is so far from obvious to most of us attending and endowment session, that unless it is specifically taught the vast majority will miss it. Further, the specific wording of the covenants, which are certainly not seen as symbolic, tends to suggest otherwise to me.
Just to add, to the above, …and I’m not happy about it.
Bryan- I do disagree about the extent and cultural baggage of differences between men and women, but that’s a discussion for another thread. What’s more, I’ll freely admit that invoking Brown v. Board was not my greatest rhetorical moment. I was trying to express some things that are very raw, and I didn’t really land it.
But on to the point about Mormon theology and Eve. We as a church today want to claim Eve as a wise and revolutionary woman, but our failure to do so appears both in the way the post-fruit-partaking moments are portrayed in the temple and our institutional failure to make a place for such radical female disruptors.
Furthermore, the early teachings of the church tell a much more disheartening tale. Brigham’s now defunct Adam-God doctrine claimed that Eve was an inherently lesser divinity, capable of presiding over but one world while her husband is God of worlds without number. And I use the term preside loosely because she does so invisibly and unacknowledgedly at that. Joseph’s doctrines of plural wives adding additional glory to the husband’s exaltation values women roughly the same as celestial merit badges. The church has denounced Adam-God teachings and distanced itself from polygamy, but the fallout from this heritage of inequality is everywhere, including in our most sacred rites.
Bryan,
Men and women might be different in some ways. However, there is NO difference between them that justifies giving men systematic institutional authority and decision rights over women whether it be in the political or religious or business spheres. Your handwavy argument that men and women have some differences ergo this justifies gendered differences in institutional agency and power is exactly the types of arguments that were made to justify slavery, Jim Crow and disenfranchisement of women etc. Now somehow men of different races are “the same” because “its obvious”. Give me one concrete way in which men and women are different that would logically justify disenfranchising their gender from organizational decision rights. In fact, shouldn’t we argue that it is precisely because women and men have some differences that those differences ought to be more or less equally represented in the leadership and power structure of the organizations and institutions that affect both their lives?
Guy,
Given that this is a constant source of discussion in the bloggernacle and has been a huge discussion point of women in the church going back to Eliza R. Snow, I am honestly curious a bit more about your path to realizing this. Is that that you just didn’t see it before but had recently become aware? Was it that you know people had been making this critique but you had dismissed it and recently changed your mind as you thought about it more? Did someone write something or discuss it with you that brought it to your attention? How was your awareness raised?
If you want a contemporary, more in-depth treatment of these differences within the temple ceremony. I would recommend my wife’s Mormon Priestess essay on FMH.
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/the-mormon-priestess-the-short-version/
It begins with Adam and Eve, however if i had followed my now ex-husband i would be both excommunicated and in prison, pity he didn’t to prison. Women an d men will both be eternally blessed for the covenants they have faithfully kept. They may not be polyandry but we will have polygamy.
How do we know polyandry is not allowed?
Mike,
It is a well known fact that current Church policy prohibits polyandry. I did ask a few months ago whether one could interpret polyandry as scripturally acceptable based on D&C 132 (obviously a VERY unorthodox interpretation), but most people said no. See https://wheatandtares.org/2016/06/26/does-dc-132-support-polyandry/
Pretty much ditto to everything Elizabeth said. The temple doesn’t represent the way my relationship with God actually works. Therefore, I reject the temple (even thinking of going back there makes me feel anxious) because otherwise I have to reject God himself.
Also to ditto to rah’s comments. This is a well chewed topic already.
Hedgehog,
Clearly the leaders of the church agree with you , which is why they changed the wording of the covenant to be more egalitarian in 1990, and I would not be surprised if they changed it again for the same reasons.
Elizabeth St Dunstan,
I don’t see how Eve’s post-fruit-partaking moments in the temple negate Mormon teachings about Eve. Like I said in my previous comment, this may just be symbolic of what ended up happening to women after the Fall, not what was supposed to happen or what God wanted to happen. Descriptive rather than prescriptive.
In addition to early teachings, a church that believes in continuing revelation must also interpret things in light of the past hundred or so years of doctrinal teaching and development. The restoration is an ongoing process, and as our culture has become more egalitarian, so has our doctrine. We have every reason to believe it will continue to do so.
Guy – Like rah, I’m also interested in how this came forward in your thinking. I honestly hope that whatever it is will be contagious. The LDS church is full of very good men who – I hope – may just have never stopped to listen and think about the temple from a woman’s vantage point.
rah,
Never said it did.
They are also the types of arguments that justify gendered differences in ways we like, such as the Title IX example I already mentioned, but you did a little handwaving yourself right past that one.
Yes. It is also because of some differences between men and women that I think the brethren are reluctant to change the institutional inequalities in the church at this time. Women in religion already outnumber men at ratios of two- and three-to-one. But everyone knows that a good way to get someone to show up is to give them a job to do. So by reserving more positions and more high profile positions in the church for men it helps them to stay engaged in what is an increasingly feminine sphere. Like a sort of spiritual affirmative action. Churches that have ordained women have seen male participation plummet. This is a sad reality but it is a reality nonetheless. On the bright side I do see church’s recent changes in the age for sister missionaries and emphasis on participating in councils as laying the foundation for a more expanded role for women in church leadership in the future.
Rah, that fmh link was pure gold. I’ve been shouting profanity at my screen all evening as my spirit digests the experience of seeing my own hunches and suspicions borne out in cold logic. I appreciate the reference.
Bryan, I certainly hope that we do have reasons to expect greater egalitarianism, but for reasons discussed in the thread about women’s leadership a few days ago, I don’t see it happening before at least one complete Q15 replacement cycle.
As relates to whether Eve’s state the temple is descriptive or proscriptive, the interactions that take place in the newly fallen world are all with either Lucifer or messengers from the Father. Would not true messengers of divinity address His daughter as well as His son? Yes, the most recent film adaptations do go through a shocking series of costume developments that place these visits in medieval Europe (or more accurately, a suburban Renaissance Fair, but I digress), but the failure of God’s messengers to interact with Eve leads me to believe this gendered omission is not simply a reflection of the fallen world’s patriarchy (unless you want to argue that it’s a reflection of our current fallen revelatory patriarchy, in which case, I’m right there with you).
Is the logic that my nineteen year-old, unattached daughter needs to covenant to hearken to a non-existent husband so that men will continue to feel purposeful in our church?
It’s just too much.
Elizabeth St Dunstan,
Even true messengers from God are not immune to the effects of the Fall. As Brigham Young said, “I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities.”
I’m glad we could come to a consensus.
I understand that feelings on these issues run deep but I would appreciate it if you would not purposely misread my comments. You took the answers to two different questions and mashed them together to try to make them sound as stupid as possible. If you would like to respond to either of them in the context they were written and in the spirit they were intended then I would be interested in your thoughts.
Guy, this is why I haven’t been been to an endowment ceremony in over 5 years. The hearkening, it’s just too much. I echo those above and would love to know if this is a new realization for you.
In case you didn’t already know, in the sealing ceremony when the wife gives herself to her husband and he accepts her, no giving of himself in return.
Folks can claim different interpretations of the divine order, hearkening covenant, etc. Whatever helps you still attend the temple. But I don’t think I should have to do mental gymnastics to come up with justifications to make the experience more palatable when I have zero experience or proof that any interpretation other than a literal one is correct. The last time I went to the temple was for the sealing of a family member. The sealer paid a lengthy homage to the divine order, going so far as to say that the wife was dependent on her husband’s faithfulness to God in order to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and her sole responsibility was to hearken to him.
I’ll go back if a significant change to the language is made. Until then I can only remain in this Church by avoiding the temple.
Maybee — A woman is asked to receive her husband — -how can she receive something that isn’t given? Historically, women were considered under the care and responsibility of their fathers until they were married. Hence, the very common practice (still seen today) of a father “giving away” his daughter at marriage ceremonies. Perhaps a woman is asked in the sealing ceremony if she”s giving herself to make it clear that she is acting on her own volition, and is expressing the fact that no one is “giving her away.” I wouldn’t care if the language was changed to leave the giving part out, but I don’t think it means what you think it means. As for your experience at the last sealing — he was out of line. You should have complained about his comments to the temple presidency.
Suppose I’m a new convert of five years. Can anyone show me on the church’s website or any other modern day church publications that say polyandry in the eternities is not possible? Suppose my non-member great great grandmother married at 20 and had three kids, then her first husband died. Then, she remarried and had three more kids with her second husband. To do her temple work, we would seal her to first husband, then the three kids of the first marriage to her and her first husband. Then, we’d seal her to her second husband, and the three children of her second marriage to her and her second husband. Where does it say she’ll have to choose one of those husbands for eternity? I thought it says somewhere that we do vicarious work for the dead, then it’s up to them to accept those ordinances and live the associated covenants. I haven’t read anything that says women sealed to more than one husband will have to choose one of them (and possibly, per my example,) have to choose the children of the marriage as well.
Guy – I want to be clear that I’m not being critical or sarcastic about your observations and questions to us in your post. We need this kind of conversation.
Bryan H. – I’m not trying to make anything look stupid. I’m a middle-aged, completely active and serving LDS woman wracking my brain for the answer to, “Why?”
And it was an emotional thing to watch out daughter, with our blessing and urging, do something I find so objectionable. I’m trying to figure out why “I” am the only one who found it so. “Our” daughter, but only one parent even noticing.
I took your comments to be an explaination for “Why?” Could we restart and I’ll try to understand you better.
For me it’s not about councils/leadership/callings outside the temple. Men – from the prophet all the way to the man who turns down opportunities to teach an EQ lesson – go to our holiest place and get the message that they are sons of God in direct relationship with him. What do women hear?
“A woman is asked to receive her husband — -how can she receive something that isn’t given? ”
That’s the whole point of the pain. A woman is required to give herself in order to be sealed to her husband. A man doesn’t have to give himself to be sealed to his wife. She gives. He doesn’t give. Thus there is no receiving for the woman.
My understanding is that this comes back to polygamy. A man can’t give himself to his wife, because in doing so he bars himself from then being able to be tied to all his other wives.
I went to the temple this weekend, and the wording just struck me strong, so I decided to post on the topic. I’m familiar with the FMH link, and have pointed out differences in temple worship between men and women since 2012. Here’s a list of things I’ve noticed on a similar vein.
https://wheatandtares.org/2012/11/29/women-and-veils/
https://wheatandtares.org/2013/01/17/temple-sealing/
https://wheatandtares.org/2013/09/05/segregating-men-and-women/
https://wheatandtares.org/2014/12/26/female-officiators/
https://wheatandtares.org/2015/11/01/female-temple-workers-no-veil/
https://wheatandtares.org/2015/06/14/standing-for-women/
https://wheatandtares.org/2015/02/16/punished-for-eve-and-not-adams-transgression/
https://wheatandtares.org/2015/02/01/before-eve-lilith/
Guy – Thanks for the links. I’m glad I’m the latecomer to what you’ve been talking about for awhile.
ReTx — first, the groom is asked if he’ll receive the bride. This is before she’s said a word, no mention of giving, etc. Groom says yes. Now, think about it . How can a groom agree to receive someone if she isn’t going to “give” herself to him? By definition the act of receiving something presupposes something is being given, right? Next, the bride is asked if she will give herself and receive the groom. I explained my thoughts on her giving herself. Suppose we remove that language completely, as it seems to give offense and concern to women. Now what are we left with? The bride receiving her groom, the same exact thing the groom is asked. And again, her agreement to receive the groom presupposes the groom is giving himself to her. I don’t know why people have interpreted the language to be some nefarious throwback to plural marriage. I guess my interpretation is no better or worse than anyone else’s. However, no matter how one reads the language of the sealing ordinance one thing is sure: In order to “receive” anyone, that anyone must give him or herself . Otherwise there’d be no point in asking the question.
MaybeNot,
I’m pretty sure you are incorrect when you state “Next the bride is asked if she will give herself and receive the groom.” In my recollection she’s never asked to receive the groom. Just her giving herself and him receiving. her. You make it sound like it’s just semantics. In order to receive one must give oneself? This is not implied as I see it. And if that is the implication (which again I don’t believe it is) shouldn’t our language surrounding covenants make these things crystal clear?
But again, from my understanding of the sealing ceremony I gave myself to my husband and he received me. Period. Not exactly the romantic vows I was taught to dream about and idealize in all those YWs lessons…
Ruth,
I feel for you. My daughters are still very young but I already get anxiety just thinking about escorting them through. It’s one thing for me to “hold my nose” as it were and just go through with it. My first experience through was supposed to be amazing, but was instead somewhat traumatic having to say “yes” to a covenant that goes so strongly against how I see my divine relationship with God. Well, I’m not going to say I have PTSD from it or anything but suffice it to say that I hold some pretty negative feelings toward the church for that bait and switch. I was young, uninformed, and coerced by my eternal progression and my desire to be married to my fiancee who sat just a few feet away (as well as so many of his family)! I wish my mom (who escorted me) would have at least given me a heads up or expressed some mixed feelings to validate my own.
Side note: this has got me thinking about informed consent and agency when it comes to covenants. We are a covenant making people. But shouldn’t those covenants be well informed and well thought out? Baptism is a big decision and requires people to prepare and ponder. Sure, we prepare to go to the temple but unless you’ve got someone giving you insider information you don’t even know what you’re agreeing to until you’re in this high pressure scenario and you have seconds to respond. Am I the only one that sees this as messed up?
My contract with the local pest control company required more discussion on the benefits of entering into a contract than did my answering the affirmative to an agreement with eternal consequences.
And had I had time to really think about it in advance, I probably would have said “No.”
Which is probably why they don’t give you the info beforehand…. 😦
But if I had had the time to ponder, and said “Yes.” Well, I would have owned it. Maybe I would have fasted and prayed over that one question. Maybe I would have had a spiritual experience and felt good about answering in the affirmative. And maybe I would be a regular temple goer. today.
Maybee — I just attended a sealing Friday night. You were in deed asked if you would receive your husband when you got sealed. You can go online and see the words of the temple ceremony through various sources. I understand the consent stuff. Some people aren’t ready to make the kind of commitments mentioned in the temple. That’s okay, and I wish stake presidents and/or bishops were given the authority to discuss the kinds of commitments made in the temple during interviews. It might prevent a lot of headache down the road.
,
Thanks MaybeNot, I’ll go check out the sealing language now.
I do think your statement of “some people aren’t ready to make the kind of commitments in mentioned in the temple misplaces blame. I will never be “ready” to agree to a covenant where I essentially obey my husband, no matter how much prayer and study I engage in. The problem is in the covenant and the implications behind it, not in my preparation.
Out of curiosity are you a man or a woman? Because if you are a man than that statement deserves an eternal “eye roll.”
Late to the conversation. Going back to what anitawells said, “To elaborate on Bryan’s comment, if during the endowment ceremony (particularly the garden section) you substitute Christ/Bridegroom for Adam and Church/Us for Eve every time it’s said, it all makes a lot of sense and works beautifully and avoids some of these gender painful moments.” This symbolism was not lost on early churchmembers, but they still brought it into gender roles. When you look at Orson Pratt’s arguments in the Seer, he understood husbands to be literal Lords, Masters, and Saviors of their families. As Christ is to the Church, men are to their families (incidentally, that was his argument against polyandry – women would then have to serve 2 masters, and scripture confirms that is impossible). When you look at the veil ceremony, it’s easy to see the husband acting as Lord to the wife.
Another theory I’ve heard on the endowment is you are to consider yourself as *both* Adam and Eve. Adam represents the spirit, and Eve represents the physical body. We see one purpose of mortality as training our bodies to become obedient to our spirit as we try to obey God. Theoretically, this makes the endowment less painful. Problem is, people still tie it to gender – we get the Two Trees stuff with women responsible for providing physical life and men responsible for providing spiritual life (via priesthood ordinances). As long as all women mimic only Eve’s actions and covenants, and all men mimic only Adam’s actions and covenants, we will continue to tie their roles (and any symbolism of those roles) to gender.
[quote]Some people aren’t ready to make the kind of commitments mentioned in the temple. That’s okay, and I wish stake presidents and/or bishops were given the authority to discuss the kinds of commitments made in the temple during interviews. It might prevent a lot of headache down the road. [/quote]
Since there is really very little that we covenant not to reveal, all the passages we’re discussing here should be available to young men and women during temple prep. Out there in black and white. Let them mull it over, and then come to the temple resolved and ready.
And some will choose not to proceed.
Mary Ann – I think the scriptures say a man can not serve two masters, not a woman….(just joking) I know what church leaders said about polyandry in the early days of the church. The problem is that I don’t see that same line of argument and discussion being offered in modern days. It would so simple to say, in handbooks of instruction or the church website, something along the lines of “even though we can seal a deceased woman to all the husbands she had in mortality, she will have to choose one of them.” In 2010 there was a line added to Handbook 1 about children being “born in the covenant” of a woman’s second marriage and how God would be fair and just in sorting out those family relationships, but the same kind of language was not added with respect to the policy allowing a deceased woman to be sealed to all husbands she had in mortality. Go figure. I’m beginning to think that in reality, church leaders have thought long and hard about it, maybe even prayed and asked for revelation on the subject, and have come up empty handed. Ergo the general position of “we’ll seal them all up and let God and the parties sort things out.”
MaybeNot,
I just looked it up and no, there is no specific language that the woman “receives” her husband as you have suggested. From what I read he first “receives” her to be his wife. Then she “gives” herself to be his wife. Receive or any language like it is not used pertaining to wife receiving husband.
http://www.ldsendowment.org/
Under Sealings:
SEALER: Sister _________, do you take Brother _________ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawfully wedded wife, and receive him to be your lawfully wedded husband,for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant; and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
I don’t know where you’re looking but here it is and that is what is asked : “give yourself to him to be his lawfully wedded wife, and RECEIVE HIM to be your lawfully wedded husband…..”
I hear many efforts to interpret things more charitably and kind, and attempts to reconcile things so it sounds better to us because it feels so unequal.
But the umbrella image still is what is happening. It is what is being said, and what happens int he temple, and what scriptures say. It doesn’t sit right with me.
To me…it is something that was taught as part of our culture and traditions, and scriptures were written that way based on views from mortals.
When the tradition is in conflict with our modern culture, there is tension. Perhaps some tension is healthy…hold on to conservative beliefs so we don’t change things too much…but…tension helps us let go of past traditions and progress in areas that never were part of the gospel, and perhaps incorrectly understood, and have no value for us today.
I reject the umbrella model. I don’t ever want my daughters thinking they must view their place from God in that way. It doesn’t feel right to me.
Late to the conversation, but I think the only way to understand (or try, anyway) is to place the temple rites in their context: polygamy, where women and children were seen as resources to increase a man’s/god’s spiritual dynasty. Phrases such as “given to him”, or “get more” were used routinely.
It’s disgusting but we can’t divorce it from the context from which it was created.
See Quinn’s essay on this topic here:
MaybeNot,
Yeah, your source looks more reputable than mine. Thanks for the clarification.
I just now noticed your first response to me upthread. You said the temple sealer at my family member’s sealing was “out of line” in his lengthy praise of the divine order. But…..was he really? How do we know? What he said isn’t at odds with the endowment ceremony. Women hearken to men who hearken to the Lord. Men are women’s intermediary to the celestial kingdom.
He works in the temple in an official capacity. How am I supposed to figure out what’s “out of line?” or too far when we aren’t open about the doctrine (is this even doctrine?) and have no way to verify other than our own personal study? Not all of us have personal access to temple presidents. So how do I know he was out of line? My nagging fear is that he was right on the money.
orangganjil,
Yes I agree. But then how do we separate doctrine from incorrect leftover historical verbage?
Where do you draw the line? What sort of spiritual authority can the temple hold in our lives if it isn’t going to at least be correct?
I prefer to see my wife and I as “one umbrella” under God’s umbrella of protections. I wear blinders in the temple to any other suggestion, though I know for others the temple experience is not something they can hear without feeling pain.
In the David O. McKay biography, Greg Prince notes that Howard W. Hunter noted the problem with knowing which women to be sealed to which husband. Pres McKay approved the procedure to basically seal the woman to all her husbands and let God figure it out. Quoting from my post,
https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/24/multiple-sealings-for-women/
MaybeNot – What I’m seeing at ldsendowment.org says:
Man-
“receive her unto yourself”
Woman-
“give yourself to him”
“receive him to be your lawfully wedded husband”
I don’t see the man giving himself. Is this source not accurate? I honestly don’t know.
I think this process advocated by Hunter in 1969 has good motives. We don’t know who a woman will want to be sealed to if she was married to multiple men. However, church doctrine is that she has to choose only 1 in the next life.
Now, have we opened up a can of worms? Absolutely. What if a woman wants to be sealed to all the husbands? And doesn’t the sealing power bind in heaven and on earth? If so, this idea that “God will sort it out” is kind of throwing up our hands. Why do the ordinance if it is not binding? And if it is binding, aren’t we creating a possibility of polyandry in the next life anyway?
By the way, Guy posted about a woman receiving her husband as well as the husband receiving the wife in the 2nd post he listed above. Back in 2013 he said,
See https://wheatandtares.org/2013/01/17/temple-sealing/
Maybee,
You asked about separating doctrine from later verbiage in the temple rites. I’m not sure we can do so since the verbiage reflects the private doctrine of the time (Nauvoo). The modern church has tried to remove the temple rites from the context in which they were born by creating a new lens through which to view them (i.e., families can be together forever), but there are vestiges of the original context remaining. I suppose you have two options:
1) Embrace the original context and revert to Nauvoo-era and early Utah-era doctrine (i.e., polygamy, dynasties, women as spiritual property, etc.).
2) Fully embrace the current narrative and remove all verbiage of the previous context.
Right now, the church seems to prefer an in-between state. I’m not sure why.
For me, I view our doctrines on family, sealing, temples, etc. to be fruit of the poisoned tree (i.e., polygamy/polyandry). I find polygamy and polyandry to be disgusting, and their practice by Joseph Smith and others to be even more revolting. I don’t know if God commanded it all or not, and leave Joseph et. al. to account to God for it, but it and all the spin-off doctrines don’t mean much to me.
IDK how it is in the LDS church, but I can tell you as a married guy that the only rule that counts at our house is Men Obey Women.
MH…we may not be necessitating polyandry if we just look at the sealings as something done with the holy spirit of promise. To me, that means that the ordinance is done. Just because a woman is sealed to a bunch of men, doesn’t mean it must be “with” them all…just a choice in the next life because promises allow it, even if details are to be figured out, right? Men or women.
It’s hard to imagine how you would choose between 2 or 3 if you loved them all individually…but it’s even harder for me to imagine what is going on in heaven anyway, so it really can’t be judged from where we are standing now.
Anon, in our LDS house…it is spouses obey each other and build trust and commitment, equal ground, teamwork, working side by side and children obey parents. Only in the temple do we feel the hierarchy presented in the story…and we discuss it together at home because it isn’t how we live it in our home…so we interpret it symbolically and choose to dismiss anything that suggests one ruling over the other.
After participating in and then just watching discussions on this topic for nearly a decade, I’ve come to the conclusion that people are just arguing on feelings, and those feelings can be SO strong. A symbol that makes one woman feel valued and eternally significant can have just the opposite affect on the woman sitting next to her. The woman who feels bad expresses her feelings, and suddenly the heartfelt joy of the other is threatened.
Personally, I see things much more as Bryan H., but I feel for Ruth. I too want everything for my daughters, and I can’t imagine how I would feel if I took them to the temple only to have them feel like God thought less of them than His sons. I can’t imagine how I myself would feel if there was something in my mind that said they were *only* daughters, as though their potential was limited by their sex. That would be very difficult for me. But yet, I am sexist. I don’t feel they’re the same as my sons. I feel like they’re something different. In my mind, whether it’s true or not, I cannot picture them becoming what my sons can become. But likewise, I don’t feel like my sons could ever become what my daughters can become. I guess that means they’re both limited, in a way, but it feels more like their potentials are somehow both infinite and different. Again, it’s a feeling. And I can’t explain how Ruth could feel the way she did with her 19-year-old daughter when my wife clearly thought bringing her 19-year-old daughters to the temple to be among the highlights of her life. My wife clearly doesn’t feel less than me, nor does she think women are less than men, and she ‘s wary of the women who suggest that’s what the temple is teaching. I know many women who feel the same way. I also know many women who feel like Ruth.
I find a beauty in believing in a complementarity of the sexes. I tend to believe in a masculine and a feminine, and there’s a beauty to the feminine that attracts me beyond physical chemistry. I like believing that there’s something about my wife that completes me, not just that she’s a separate person, but that she has a potential I lack that she can fill. I think I would appreciate that, whether she was the one taking me through the veil or whether it was me taking her. Maybe the problem is that the temple ceremony seems to offer males a more relatable potential than it offers females. Or maybe “mother of all living” isn’t a potential that our era of women appreciates (though that’s not really what’s promised). Mostly, it seems like women are offered the same thing as men, just in a subordinate role. I’m looking forward to what’s revealed in the future wrt the divine feminine. I think
Yes Heber, the thought occurred to me about the Holy Spirit of Promise. But why are we sealing men and women together if we don’t know their intentions?
Many years ago I dated a widow. She was married 7 years and her husband was killed in an avalanche while she was pregnant. I think she had 3 kids with him. She told me that even though she was sealed to him, he didn’t treat her well and she didn’t want to be sealed to him forever. Yet she couldn’t be sealed to another man without First Presidency approval. It bothered her greatly, so much so that she sought out a General Authority, and didn’t get a satisfactory answer. So she married a non-Mormon so she wouldn’t have to worry about a temple marriage. Is that a good outcome?
Of course when she dies, she will be sealed to both men. Presumably she can be sealed to the 2nd and not the first if she chooses. But if temple marriage is so important, should we be creating these hoops for women, so that they just give up on temple marriage altogether? I think that’s an unintended consequence of the current policy, and I believe the Brethren need to re-think this idea that a woman can only be sealed to one man at a time. If we seal them when they’re dead, why make it so difficult to get a temple sealing for this woman?
When it comes to women, we don’t in fact say that we seal them all and let God sort it out. We seal all the women to the man, and then assume “God will sort it out,” but the woman is only sealed to the first one, and even if he beats her, cheats on her, abuses her, she usually can’t get unsealed from him even if he’s dead and she wants to remarry. This also has another unintended consequence which is that a woman who has already been sealed is often seen as undate-able among LDS singles if the man is seeking a temple marriage because she can’t be sealed to him without FP approval. That’s not just a double standard, but it’s directly harmful to the dating prospects of our single sisters.
Again, what is that restriction if not a throwback to polygyny? We are still practicing it, our sealings are still treated as polygyny, the restrictions go all one way, it’s not equal, not fair, and it’s demeaning to women.
Martin you said:
“My wife clearly doesn’t feel less than me, nor does she think women are less than men, and she ‘s wary of the women who suggest that’s what the temple is teaching.”
So, what does your wife think about the hearkening covenant? Does she interpret it literally and she’s just totally ok with it? Or does she have some other interpretation like what’s been said above? Why is she wary of ladies like me? The temple teaches that women obey men, men obey God. There’s no suggestion or implication, it’s pretty straight forward. I’d love to understand her thoughts on this, since I know many women who have no problem with the temple and I guess you could say I am “wary” of them. (And hurt when they are “wary” of my feelings. I know, #hypocrite). Yes, I have strong emotions about this, but I also respect the thoughts of others and am genuinely curious. My personal experience was one of a young woman, engaged to be married, faithful, and very spiritually prepared to receive the endowment, who felt completely blindsided and literally sick as I first heard the hearkening covenant.
Equality is not a feeling.
Martin – Sometimes I wish to go back to thinking like the women in your family and acquaintance, and (just to be clear and not too strident) that temple day was both the “best and worst” for me.
I think all my misgivings about the initiatory and endowment were confirmed when I found out about the second anointing; it’s so much more of the same, in spades, that I just had to mentally turn away in dismay. There is no equality there, no partnership, no beauty.
But, believe me, I hope and pray my daughters will be able to salvage something meaningful out of it all.
Maybee, I’d have to ask her to answer you, and I don’t think she’d take the time unless you sent her an email. Maybe my married daughter would. As far as I can tell, if my wife disagrees with me, I’m not hearkening to the Lord, so she doesn’t have to listen to me 🙂 Yes, that’s a flip answer, but I’m not being patronizing — I think there’s an element of truth to it. I think in her mind, if there’s a right or wrong answer, if I have it, she has to listen to me. If I don’t, she doesn’t. So there’s no conflict, unless she’s going to choose the wrong thing, and she doesn’t intend to. If there isn’t really a right and wrong, we’d just negotiate. Trying to assert primacy by virtue of being the husband would automatically convict me of unrighteous dominion, and again immediately release her from having to listen to me. You could argue that renders the covenant meaningless, but I think she’d disagree. She’d probably say something to the affect that I’ve corrected her before when she’s been wrong and she’s been obligated to listen to me. And you would probably say “but that’s just what decent spouses do.” I’m not sure what she’d say after that. Maybe she’d say something about being obligated to follow me if I said we had to move or something. Or, she might say that if that’s your conclusion, then what’s the problem? Practically speaking, as in most successful marriages, we negotiate, and when there’s conflict, the person who feels most strongly about something usually gets her/his way, but mostly we negotiate.
As to why she might be wary of you, I think it’s what I described before. You’re always wary of somebody who has strong negative feelings against something you cherish. She loves the temple. Our temple covenants are probably the only thing that got us through the hard phase of our marriage, and now that we’re at where we are now, we’re very appreciative of that fact. If and when the wording changes, I don’t think it would phase her — she’s just not hung up on it and she says it’s just not a problem for her.
Our eldest daughter recently got married. I know that for some women, the idea of the father giving away the bride is very offensive, like she’s a piece of property or something. That’s not how she and I felt. I mean, we don’t really do it that way in the temple, but it did happen virtually. It was a very tender thing, knowing that my daughter’s number one man was no longer me, that the primary responsibility to care for her was her husband’s. It was very symbolic to all three of us. It was very important to me to see in his eyes that he recognized responsibility that now rested on him. My daughter felt cherished and loved. Her husband is a lucky guy. The whole thing is as sexist as can be, I know, but it was still beautiful and has meaning that will serve them well. I know that others see it differently. I wouldn’t have appreciated hearing those sentiments at the time. I’m not sure what she’d say about the wording of the covenants, but she’d been endowed for a couple years before she got married/sealed, and she didn’t seem at all uncomfortable.
Personally, I think the whole temple thing is a red herring. Jesus clearly answers the question about what happens if a man is married to more than woman over the course of his life in Matthew 22:25–30:
Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
And last of all the woman died also.
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
As for the equality of men and women in the LDS church, I’ll believe there’s equality when I see women I the first presidency and Q70 and men teaching young womens’ groups and baking cookies. Everything else is just talk.
Martin: Your wife’s interpretation of what it means to say “to hearken as he hearkens to the Lord” is one possible interpretation, although it’s belied by the unequal wording. Does AS mean “WHEN he hearkens to the Lord” or “IF he hearkens to the Lord”? Or does it mean she hearkens to her husband “In the manner in which HE hearkens to the Lord” or “in parallel to the way he hearkens to the Lord.” It’s fairly clear by the way it’s handled in the endowment that the meaning is the latter, but as a woman the only way I can follow it is the former–certainly my husband is not so far above me that he’s incapable of being wrong so any disagreement must involve me suborning my conscience to his? That would mean women are an entirely different sub-species or under-developed like children, not moral agents unto ourselves in the same way men are. Let’s repeal the 19th amendment while we’re at it!
And yet, why don’t men covenant to hearken to their wives when we are right, inspired, or hearkening to the Lord? Either we are equal or we are not. Either our marriages are equal or they are not. Our covenants are not equal. And yet (and I really do mean this) Mormon marriages really are often very equal. So the temple is out of sync with how we actually live, or at least most people under 70 years old. I’d stack the number of diapers changed by Mormon men, the number of hours spent in child-rearing, the number of hours doing dishes and laundry, against that of their Evangelical or Catholic counterparts any day.
So I appreciate women like your wife who make it work. That is doubtless a testament to the equality in your marriage. You are living above the wording of the temple. You are exceeding the covenants in the temple. Here’s your feminist cookie, and I mean that sincerely. The sexist language is so outdated that most people don’t even recognize it as such because it has no bearing on how we actually live. Why then do we insist on keeping it?
“So the temple is out of sync with how we actually live, or at least most people under 70 years old….The sexist language is so outdated that most people don’t even recognize it as such because it has no bearing on how we actually live. Why then do we insist on keeping it?” Because the men who are allowed to change it fall outside that under 70 category?….
My grandpa was a solid guy, seen as a spiritual giant. Stake president for 14 years and had a hand in constructing 8 of the 9 buildings in that stake. My grandma was a smart, strong lady. My grandpa used to boast that he never changed a diaper in his life, in spite of having seven children. We’d see that as parental neglect nowadays. Expectations for marriages have changed.
And, to be perfectly honest, the quip that women rule the roost offends my husband just as much as the idea that I always need to acquiesce to my husband. Too many members (men and women) excuse sexist language in our church because they’ll joke that “everyone knows who the *real* boss is at home.” Or people will testify that the Relief Society is the real powerhouse in any ward. We send mixed messages all the time in this church, which is why women often don’t have a clue where we stand in relation to men.
“And, to be perfectly honest, the quip that women rule the roost offends my husband just as much as the idea that I always need to acquiesce to my husband.”
Quip? 🙂 Every healthy relationship needs a healthy balance of power, but research shows that women really do “rule the roost”. This is not scientific, but it’s the first hit I got when I searched do women rule the roost:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/basics/2008-09-25-gender-power-main_N.htm
My wife and I rarely have heated discussions, but when we do, it’s about big stuff–moving somewhere to take a new job, buying a new house or a new car, going back to school full time, large investments, major vacations, etc. In those situations, I think it’s important to have consensus. For everything else, I pretty much do whatever she wants me to do. Why? Because it’s more efficient and, honestly, I want to please my wife and make her happy–for most things, I care more about her than about myself. I just don’t think we need to have a discussion about who does yardwork, who cleans up, who takes out the trash, etc. We both pitch in as needed. Sometimes, she gives me specific tasks to do, but I never ask her to do anything. That’s just how it works, and discussing everything would be a waste of time and energy.
In corporate life, I’ve had female bosses and the home dynamic is completely missing. I saw no particular difference between female and male leadership. I must say, out of all my bosses over the decades, there are more females near the top of my personal ranking in terms of effectiveness and leadership. In short, the relationship I have with my wife in terms of her “ruling the roost” is completely unrelated to how I see a female boss in the workplace. I would expect that to be the same in religious leadership, so I don’t think this should cause any confusion.
If it is supposed to be descriptive of a fallen world, if it is supposed to be symbolic of a relationship between the body and the spirit, why do women have to literally covenant to it? I’m sure the other covenants are to be taken literally, why wouldn’t the hearken covenant be intended literally?
This bothered me for years- and I thought that I must be broken for it to trouble me. It was not until years after my endowment that I realized that it was ok for me to not be absolutely thrilled about everything that happened in the temple.
Moss, such a good point!
Moss: “If it is supposed to be descriptive of a fallen world, if it is supposed to be symbolic of a relationship between the body and the spirit, why do women have to literally covenant to it? I’m sure the other covenants are to be taken literally, why wouldn’t the hearken covenant be intended literally?”
This gets at something else for me. If there is too much clash or dissonance between the covenants, I think we’re in danger of losing connection with them all as a set.
If going to the temple starts to feel like stepping into a time machine, or putting on clothes for a historical reinactment – “this is how it was to be a woman back in the olden days” – a certain percentage of women will lose interest in going at all. Not everyone likes that type of experience, and won’t go if it doesn’t resonate in the present.
Ruth – 10/31 at 3:48 pm — in response to your inquiry:
SEALER: Brother _________, do you take Sister _________ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawfully wedded wife, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant; and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
SEALER: Sister _________, do you take Brother _________ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawfully wedded wife, and receive him to be your lawfully wedded husband,for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant; and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Why do people keep leaving out “to be your lawfully wedded wife/husband? Because it suits their argument and makes it look as if the bride is doing something the groom isn’t, and that simply isn’t the case. I still think the additional question posed to women: do you “give yourself to him to be his lawfully wedded wife” is an historical throwback to the days when women were “given away” by fathers or other male relatives. To me it’s a progressive approach to make it clear that a woman, of her own free will, is agreeing to contract the marriage. Now, as I said in earlier comments, I wouldn’t care if the language was removed. Culturally, we don’t need it anymore. But as a note, there are still plenty of non-member weddings performed where the minister asks “Who gives this woman to married to this man?” See http://www.brighthubeducation.com/social-studies-help/122376-wedding-tradition-of-giving-away-the-bride/ for a good historical explanation of “giving away the bride.” My complaint is that people cleverly leave parts of the sealing wording out then argue there is some dark reason (polygamy) behind the wording. I don’t see where the wording has anything to do with plural marriage. So, sure, get rid of it if it offends. We don’t ask black people, as a nod to slavery, whether they are “free persons of color” prior to letting them enter into contracts. By the same token, since it appears to offend women and reminds women they were once under the care and tutelage of their fathers, then by all means, just get rid of the language. I think it’s way too much ado about nothing, but I’m privileged white male, so what do I know. My wife didn’t (and doesn’t) have a problem with the wording, could care less. Instead of stressing over that, perhaps better attention ought to be made at understanding what it means to keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony. Good luck finding that on lds.org! I wish all the best of luck in finding their own meanings as they participate in temple ordinances.
” I still think the additional question posed to women: do you “give yourself to him to be his lawfully wedded wife” is an historical throwback to the days when women were “given away” by fathers or other male relatives. To me it’s a progressive approach to make it clear that a woman, of her own free will, is agreeing to contract the marriage.”
That’s what I was told by the sealer who sealed my husband and I on our wedding day. (This was Britain, so church wedding followed by sealing).
“Get rid of it if it offends.”
That’s what I think, too. Look at it all – initiatory, endowment, sealing – and make changes.
I’d say they need to do a survey like the legendary one done prior to the removal of the penalties, but that was back in the pre-internet age. Now all that’s needed is handful of bloggernacle searches to know how a sizable number of LDS women feel about the temple.
And when it’s that easy to know, it’s all the more dismaying when nothing changes.
(Re. the sealing language itself, the woman gives herself, the man does not . I don’t really understand the complaint that people keep “leaving things out.” I’m not leaving any of the verbage out. The woman gives herself, the man does not. – right? The more we beat this to death, the more I wonder if my eyes are playing tricks.)
MaybeNot,
Taken in isolation, I could get on board with your interpretation of the sealing ordinance. But in the temple I learn that my eternal blessing is to be a priestess until my husband while he is a priest to God. I make a binding contract with God that I will hearken to him, and after that contract every other covenant I make (by how I view the ceremony) is made to him, not God. My husband knows my name, I don’t know his. He pulls me through the veil. He is my intermediary. So taken in that context I think it’s only natural that ladies like me would view even small differences in the promises that men and women make in the temple with some degree of skepticism, concern, curiosity, etc.
I was taught in the temple I would learn eternal truths of who I am as a woman. Where I fit into this eternal plan. What is my divine potential? I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s “much ado about nothing” when I’m just trying to figure out what that is. And when we’re taught that gender is an eternal characteristic, it makes sense that I would focus on the differences between what men and women experience in the temple.
“Instead of stressing over that, perhaps better attention ought to be made at understanding what it means to keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony. ”
Classic argument. “stop wasting time on these details and get out there and ________ (insert less controversial action item it’s assumed I’m not already doing).
The details matter, MaybeNot.
And yes, they matter way more to me than they do to you, precisely because I am female.
I don’t wish adversity on anyone, but if you were to know what it’s like to have to focus on giving something (many things!) the benefit of the doubt, instead of face up to the disheartening reality that’s staring you in the face, in what you’ve been taught is the holiest place on earth, maybe you’d understand.
Hedgehog — thanks for confirming what I think is the logical explanation for the language. The only reason I even got tied into this subject was because commenters immediately began misrepresenting the actual language used in the sealing ceremony. I have stayed out of the rest of the post subject because I don’t believe I can give an interpretation that will pass feminist muster. The temple ceremony is what it is. A question: If you and you husband were called to serve as Temple President and Matron, would you decline it because you would feel like you were not being treated equally? In other words, would you want to called as co-President or not at all? Is the thought that you would serve as Matron as opposed to president a disheartening reality? That’s what I see with respect to these arguments over what the endowment means. It is a fundamental belief that Adam only should not have been given the priesthood and that by not doing so, Eve is forever relegated to second class citizenship. If that is one’s position, then no amount of mansplaining on my part is going to convince someone otherwise.
Ruth — The bride gives herself. to be his lawfully wedded wife. What exactly does that mean to you? She is asked if she will receive groom to be her lawfully wedded husband. Again, what does that mean to you? What does “receive” mean? According to the dictionary, it means ” be given, presented with, or paid (something).” So, my point is: how can a bride receive something that isn’t being given? There would be no sense in asking her to receive the groom if groom was not “giving” himself to be her lawfully wedded husband. To me there are two parts to the bride question: Do you give yourself (as opposed to your father giving you or some other family member) to be groom’s lawfully wedded wife? (See my historical link above) And, do you receive the groom to be your lawfully wedded husband? Then, on the groom’s side (since historically no ever “gave” grooms away) the groom is only asked if he will receive the bride as his lawfully wedded wife.
Maybee – As for the rest of the comments, I know I’ll never win a feminist argument, so I’m not going to waste your time or mine trying to give an interpretation of the other temple language that will satisfy you. And let’s be honest. Even if I was female, you would reject any kind of interpretation offered. I know you will accept nothing short of a re-write of the The Fall, who partook of the fruit first, and so forth. You view the scriptures in general, and the story of the creation and fall in particular, as a way for men to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. You don’t believe the temple is The House of the Lord, but just another house created by men for men. A hundred years from now we’ll both know what it all means. So, all I can do is wish you luck on your faith journey.
MaybeNot – wow, that’s an awful lot of assumptions in a few sentences. You might be surprised to learn that I don’t feel that way at all. But I guess it’s easier to say “this is who you are, how you think, and how you feel” than to actually listen to my words and try and empathize. Funny how these conversations often come down to empathy. I find the temple painful. I expected to enter those walls, to leave the cultural frustrations I experience regarding women in the world and experience something higher. Instead I was disappointed and in some way traumatized by what I found there. That doesn’t mean I reject any other woman’s interpretation. Many women, like Martin’s wife, seem to have found peace in what they find in the temple and I can respect that, even admire their faith in many ways. I’m very interested in how other women view the temple. But my own concerns are valid. My feelings are valid. My interpretations are just as possible as any other woman’s. And they are worth considering, and the implications worth considering. That doesn’t mean I go around looking at everything from a “glass half empty” sort of perspective. But my experience has shown me that patriarchy permeates everything, even our holy temples. That is hard for me in ways you couldn’t ever comprehend as a man. You weren’t faced with an agonizing covenant to make at your endowment. One that went against everything you felt about your identity and your relationship with God. How about just hearing that. Just hear it. Try and feel it. I don’t seek a re-write of anything. I seek Truth. Who am I really? Who is Heavenly Mother? I don’t know Her. I yearn to know Her. Because I don’t know Her, I don’t know my eternal potential, which means I don’t fully understand my identity. I love love love Eve. My daughter is named after her. I believe her (and all women’s) eternal potential is equal to men’s eternal potential. I really have a testimony of that in all the “fiber of my being” beautiful Spirit confirming ways we are privileged to experience in this life. It’s frustrating and heartbreaking that that testimony is at odds with what I hear in the temple. Try and hear that.
The temple isn’t perfect. Things have changed and likely will change to reflect Truth. Real Truth. A restoration of ALL things. That’s what I want. And I’m being patient, as hard as it is, because I love this Church.
Most of us feminists aren’t all the cynical extremists some of you make us out to be.Many Mormon feminists embrace traditional aspects of femininity. Some embrace traditional gender roles. I sew, I’m passionate about it actually. I bake. I decorate my house on the holidays and wear heels to church. I consider Motherhood my most important calling in this life. I think about, worry, about, and plan for my children every day.
No one in my ward knows I feel this way. Which means that we could be in the same ward. I might be the lady bringing your family a meal during a time of need. Or your wife’s visiting teacher. Or the lady sitting next to you in Sunday School. Keep that in mind when having these conversations please. I am not encompassed by the label of “feminist” in whatever ugly, negative way you may define that word. I am your Sister.
“Most of us feminists aren’t all the cynical extremists some of you make us out to be.Many Mormon feminists embrace traditional aspects of femininity. Some embrace traditional gender roles. I sew, I’m passionate about it actually. I bake. I decorate my house on the holidays and wear heels to church. I consider Motherhood my most important calling in this life. I think about, worry, about, and plan for my children every day.
No one in my ward knows I feel this way. Which means that we could be in the same ward. I might be the lady bringing your family a meal during a time of need. Or your wife’s visiting teacher. Or the lady sitting next to you in Sunday School. Keep that in mind when having these conversations please. I am not encompassed by the label of “feminist” in whatever ugly, negative way you may define that word. I am your Sister.”
This bears repeating. And in doing it, I also get that MaybeNot could be my neighbor and husband’s HT companion. He might write these things that strike me as dismissive, but I know our families have a connection and commitment to each other that is really quite beautiful.
Maybe Not: One key problem with your latest comment is that your straw feminist arguments are all taken from the “real” world, not from the temple. The temple sexism is unique. It’s not like the sexism we encounter outside the temple in really any meaningful way. As women of faith, we went to the temple to understand our divine role, and what we found was something that was not even on par with our regular lived experience, let alone a divine future to aspire to attain. It’s portraying a heaven that’s a downgrade. For many women, the temple feels humiliating, not just humbling. We are reminded of polygamy in the language of the sealing which parallels the language of D&C 132 in which a man “receives” as many women as he wants. The word “receive” is not neutral; it’s charged by Mormon scripture and the precedent of polygamy.
You asked “If you and you husband were called to serve as Temple President and Matron, would you decline it because you would feel like you were not being treated equally? In other words, would you want to called as co-President or not at all? Is the thought that you would serve as Matron as opposed to president a disheartening reality?” Uhm, who gives a crap? The endowment itself is unequal. Being called Matron or Co-President or whatever is irrelevant to women who don’t enjoy going to the temple because we dislike the theological implications of it.
Then you go on to say “It is a fundamental belief that Adam only should not have been given the priesthood and that by not doing so, Eve is forever relegated to second class citizenship. If that is one’s position, then no amount of mansplaining on my part is going to convince someone otherwise.” Why are you bringing in a non-temple argument here as well? Nowhere in the endowment does it exclude women from the priesthood because they are represented by Eve rather than Adam. The endowment actually contradicts what you are saying. Have you actually been to the temple? The language in the temple doesn’t support what you are saying. The “Ordain Women” movement is not related to the temple–in fact the best case to give women the priesthood is because of what the temple says. The inequalities regarding priesthood aren’t whether women have it, but to whom they have it. What is said in the temple is not what is said outside of it.
Maybe Not: From D&C 132:
“52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
…
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and TO NONE ELSE. But if she will not abide this commandment SHE SHALL BE DESTROYED, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and WILL DESTROY HER if she abide not in my law.
55 But IF SHE WILL NOT abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I WILL BLESS HIM and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, WIVES AND CHILDREN, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, LET MINE HANDMAID FORGIVE my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
…
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and DESIRE to espouse ANOTHER, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he JUSTIFIED; he cannot commit adultery for they are GIVEN unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that BELONGETH unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins GIVEN unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they BELONG TO HIM, and they ARE GIVEN unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be DESTROYED; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, OR SHE SHALL BE DESTROYED, saith the Lord your God; for I WILL DESTROY HER; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.”
Reading that as a woman is completely different than reading it as a man. All a man has to do is DESIRE more than one wife and he shall be given them, and if his wife doesn’t like it she will be DESTROYED. He’s JUSTIFIED and exempt from adultery while she is DESTROYED. He is GIVEN as many women as he desires and they BELONG to him. v. 63 strongly implies that a woman’s exaltation is to bear spirit children for their husband along with his other wives. These are things we don’t hear at church any more, praise be, because they are damaging to our girls and women and they also erode trust and investment in marriages. What self-respecting woman wants to be involved in this type of one-sided arrangement?
Say what you will but who is GIVEN is fraught. Given goes hand in hand with being property and being destroyed if you expect monogamous fidelity from your spouse (although you are also DESTROYED if you aren’t faithful whereas he is JUSTIFIED). I don’t know women who want to be justified in adultery, but nor do they want to be married to someone who isn’t covenanting fidelity.
“Hedgehog — thanks for confirming what I think is the logical explanation for the language.”
Well, I’m not sure a second data point constitutes confirmation. I’m not sure why my sealer would be any more authoritative than the sealer at Maybee’s family wedding. It could just have easily been a post-hoc rationalisation come to be accepted as fact, though I accepted it at the time, and appreciate it still because that was my understanding of the covenant I made, and the one I feel bound by.
Nevertheless, the history surrounding the temple ceremonies and marriages is as hawkgrrrl points out, really quite disturbing for women.
Maybee—
I think the reason the temple sealer said what he did was because men are more likely to be the one in the marriage who strays, if someone does. I think the way the ceremony is set up is to put the man directly responsible to God for himself and his wife and his children–as if their eternal lives depend on him following God. God is holding him accountable and making sure he understands that.
@mez
“men are more likely to be the one in the marriage who strays”
Reference?
Anon:
Google
Do men stray more?
See also: Things you don’t want in your browser history.
@Ronkonkoma
“do men stray more”
Google says…. no. Men and women are equally likely to cheat, with the chances running at 20% or 1 out of 5. So think about that when you look around at your next sacrament meeting.
(clears browser history)
Most affairs involve equal numbers of men and women (at least in the hetero world.) Men and women generally stray in equal proportions.
@mh
“Most affairs involve equal numbers of men and women”
I expect you are right. This raises the point that, when creating the survey, it’s important to distinguish between “Have you ever cheated on your significant other?” and “Have you ever had an affair?” You could be single and have an affair, but that wouldn’t be the same as cheating on your significant other. I suppose a significant number of affairs could involve a single party.