Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry for the Long post, I was just looking for a lot of help, but I have barely any. I think maybe though I will look at scripture stories of my favorite women in the scriptures, and see how they dealt with hardship. I am still finding something to help me. Sometimes though I feel like this:
:crazy: I am trying to make sense of what the Holy Spirit is speaking to my heart and my mind, though this is hard, when I have my own thoughts swirling inside my head.
Bad and worse, yeah probably. I will choose the bad in this case, getting married in the Temple with all its flaws, and things I would rather have changed. I also realized for now, I can’t rely on the Lord or any one else for that matter to change anything. And considering I have absolutely zero power and authority in this church to change anything, except by prayer, I will just stop trying to pray for change. I go back and forth on this one. In the next minute I could be optimistic.
Yeah life choices, as of now though I do believe in the Temple, however I do not highly believe I will find anything to make it be all right, it just isn’t all right. And I think I know that now. It just will not be all right when I go through the Temple. I will just do those really weird ritualistic things, and just try to find at least ONE thing that works for me, rather then seeing if anything will change.
As I said in my new topic “More discussion on Temple, Women and a Rant”. I’m getting my endowment tuesday. I am nervous, I am frightened to some degree actually. Can I even say I’m a little bit excited? I don’t know why I am excited, but I think its not because of anything that I will be covenanting to do, I think its more, it is a life goal that will come true, something I have looked forward to since I was a child, but at least I will not be innocent going in. I am going in with my eyes wide open about what happens in there. I don’t know everything, but I know the big things. And I’m prepared somewhat to deal with it as just something very weird, and something I disagree with at certain points. Don’t know how I am going to really react through it. But I am at least praying, at least for some sense of restraint from crying.
So I keep going back and forth, I feel fine one minute, feel not so fine the next (to the point of feeling ill). I feel that the Temple IS significant, and IS of God, because I remember once seeing what I could only describe as a robe on the floor, the man (and I feel highly strongly it was a man) walking out of view. I feel that experience (it was my first time in the Temple, waiting to do baptisms for the dead, and I felt strongly it was the Lord. I though feel that as with everything, He accepts thing with human flaws, even sexist human flaws. Like Patriarchy has been accepted for a huge period of time (Like about 6,000 years of human existence as we know it). And lets just say in this Last dispensation that patriarchy will slowly go away. Let us be optimistic, that it will become egalitarian. I think there will still be human flaws even then, I think people will still get things wrong. So will the Temple ceremony be perfect? No. I don’t think it will ever be perfect, but will it get to the truer aspect of what God wants of us, yeah I do.
1) I think as I’ve said before, I will just say “Its okay not to like this”. 2) I wonder if anybody has not said yes to the hearken covenant and still was able to go through the ceremony. I am thinking of just not saying yes, rather I will raise my hand to acknowledge that it is there, but not the yes, to acknowledge I will follow it. 3) I realize now the Temple is mostly and entirely a marriage covenant, The Washings and Anointings, The Endowment, and the Sealings are part of the same overarching covenant of marriage. All the wording, all the things in it is about marriage. Ultimately to become as God, we must all be married. 3) We don’t know everything and our Temple ritual shows that, we don’t know about Heavenly Mother and her power, and only have figured the most obvious part of women and that is the womb, we don’t know how a priestesshood works, and therefore, we assume that the priesthood is the only power of heaven able to get men and women to Heaven, and so the temple shows these things. 4) It is true, that one comment I heard on FMH, I looked up the 1931 version, after breathing, and I didn’t see the hearken and obey laws of your husband in that version. It must therefore have been added. 5) Agency plays a large role in our church, and the leadership has leeway, and ability to do as they see fit. I bet that is the answer more times then naught, I just wonder why.
And I think I may make this a habit. If any of the Brethren find themselves reading this site, I have this to say to them:
“I find that being anointed to be a Priestess empowering, being endowed to power empowering, I find having this “hearken to husband” and Priestess to Husband and not to God a downgrading of that empowering thing. I find that having the ability to be married for time and all eternity empowering, I find that I give myself, he takes me, completely inappropriate for the occasion. I find acknowledgement that we are endowed to a priest(ess)hood empowering, I find that we have no power to actually use that, except with in the confines of the temple and male overview downgrading. I find the paradox that I live in to be highly troubling, and I care for change. I’m certain I’m not alone.”Personally, this is why I say, “Yes” to the questions. Honestly it isn’t the questions on the TR interview that bug me. Its the assumption that everything is doctrine and of the Lord. That excuse was used up at School on more then one occasion for things to happen. (I went to BYU-Idaho, have graduated), It just doesn’t make sense to me. No not everything is of the Lord in a Church, in which the Lord gives men agency to do as they see fit so long as they follow certain commandments. Reading, and reading and interpreting, these thoughts these feelings and the one thing I get over and over again is: Quote:It’s Okay not to like things
That I feel is coming from God. I get this mental image of the Temple, of everything in there I think are patriarchal holdouts, that if changed would change the church dramatically and for the better in my opinion. But that for now I get the feeling it’s okay, though not perfect, and not everything God wants, but he gave us our agency (and that is even to change the things we can).
It is okay not to like the viel, and at the same time try to find some way to be at peace with it. It is okay to do things out of going through the motions if you don’t like them. (yeah heresy to most OBM’s (again orthodox believing mormon I am a TBM I just am not orthodox much anymore), How can God want us to go through the motions? Well sometimes he just does, like Adam and Eve and the sacrifice of the animal, that was simply going through the motions, and they didn’t understand it at all until an angel revealed the true meaning). (as a really interesting side note. I am going to start believing that anytime the gender of the angel is not mentioned, it is because said angel is a woman even if said pronoun used is “He”, and that can be another post, if any one is interested, should probably write that under some title such as “Heresy”
:think: ).It is okay…it is okay…it is okay. Is the only thing I keep getting from my Father and Mother in Heaven. I feel peace whenever I tell myself, it is okay. It is okay to be human, to have doubts, and fears. I think what Christ was saying when he said “Do not doubt, do not fear” isn’t don’t have any fears, but it is Not to have fears of him, or of the gospel. But as many things of men are intermingled with things of God, it can get blury.
Read an analogy I liked on FMH. It was so good here is the quote:
Quote:I thought of an analogy last night that relates to the temple: God has a message for us. It is like a clear picture on a white piece of paper. Without interference, the message would be readily apparent. But, here on earth, we have layers of things separating us from God. The veil is one. I imagine it like layers of plastic covering the picture – some are different colors, some are fuzzy and dirty. To see the image underneath, I would have to squint and guess at what it is. Then add the cultural glasses that warp the view of everything.
So, in Joseph Smith receiving the endowment, I imagine it as something like him squinting through both his cultural glasses and all those layers of plastic and doing his best to interpret the image underneath. Then, as time goes on and both 1. our cultural glasses become a little more clear and 2. we learn line upon line and precept upon precept to remove some of the layers of plastic, the image becomes a little more clear, and someone sees something that wasn’t readily apparent before and modifies the ceremony.
I think the current ceremony reflects God’s message with warped cultural glasses and colored plastic sheets still there (not as fuzzy as before, but still not clear).
My way of coping is that I’m hanging in there for the message underneath. (That doesn’t necessarily help with the feelings, but it does keep me going).
Comment by Stephanie — July 27, 2011
This really is interesting to me. I think I needed to read this. I have definitely been concerened, and for now I’m just going to go with the attitude of “Its okay, its not exactly what God wants, it is patriarchal, but it will be okay, no you don’t have to like it”, instead of rationalizing it, or spiritualizing it, the parts I do not like, and feel God doesn’t hold me to, is fine to say yes to, because that yes is just a going through the motions. Honestly I’ve been going through the motions at church, I truly though truly believe in Eternal Marriage, in the beauty of the sealings, in the power given to me, and there are things I feel are cues as to a woman’s great worth, power and authority, but are masked behind the colored glasses and plastic sheets.
Oh and Brian I think the LA temple does that too (other big temples may do it as well), considering its size, that is where I am going to get endowed. So I think there is a viel or heavy curtain in those three temples at least between each room.
Oh wow, I found a comment on that FMH article (2nd link) that just put everything in perspective (not that I want to do exactly what she did, and look up all versions of the Temple Endowment, just reading the one online was enough for me) but this comment makes sense and I will post it here. Quote:This repost is timely. I went to the temple last week with someone who was going through for the first time. I decided to listen to it as if it was my first time. When it got to the hearken covenant, I couldn’t even “croak” out a yes. I opened my mouth and nothing came out. Then everyone else moved on and I shut my mouth and silently cried for the rest of the ceremony. I remembered why I cried the first time (and second and whole first year).
But, since that first time, I’ve done a little research, and I have a different understanding. Here it is:
What I heard before going to the temple (and since) is that nothing in the temple is new. Everything in the temple is also in the scriptures, so there shouldn’t be anything “new”. I disagree. Go back and read the story of Adam and Eve’s Fall in Genesis, Abraham and Moses. The Lord says to Satan, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle . . . “. He says to Adam, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife . . . ” When the Lord speaks to Eve, He doesn’t qualify His statement. He just says, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.
I’ve been meaning to post for a long time on my reading of Adam and Eve, but, briefly, to me, this verse is saying, “Okay, Eve, now that you guys have fallen, you are going to start bearing children. It is going to be hard. Turn to your husband. He will care for you”.
There is NOTHING in the scriptures that says that Eve has to obey her husband. And yet that is what this verse has been turned into (by most of Bible-reading humans through history). I think it is a gross misreading of the text.
Back to the temple. The temple qualifies Eve’s covenant as being because she partook of the fruit first. I can find nothing that even remotely resembles that in the scriptures. (Someone point it out to me if I am wrong). So, my next question is: where did that come from?
I looked up historical versions of the endowment on the internet (hoping I won’t rot in hell for that). In the 1931 version (or any version before that), there is no hearken covenant. It shows up in the 1990 version. It sounds to me like that particular covenant was put into the endowment sometime between 1930 and 1990. What else was going on during that time? The 1950′s and everything that went along with it (like “Fascinating Womanhood” mindsets).
Here is my conclusion: I don’t believe that this particular covenant is necessary to the endowment. If so, noone before 1930 would make it to heaven, right? Maybe it was put in to “help” husbands and wives (by well-meaning priesthood leaders). I do believe in the temple and in the endowment. From reading over the historical narratives, my feeling is that the Lord gave an idea of what He wanted to have happen in the endowment to Joseph Smith, who verbalized it to Brigham Young, who wrote it down. Then it has been changed and modified as needed (or as wanted).
In reading about Moses and the Tabernacle in the OT, my testimony of the purposes of temples and the endowment has been strengthened. But I can’t say that I have any testimony at all of this particular covenant. Where does that leave me? I did make the covenant. I don’t really do anything about it.
So, anyways, I think this is why women are blindsided by the temple. Nothing in our doctrine or in the scriptures says that women are to “hearken” (or obey – That’s what the covenant used to be, and the Bible uses hearken and obey interchangeably) to their husbands. So, people like nat kelly and I go along and are good little Mormon girls and get our educations and do our PP and prepare for the temple, etc. We think we are equal to the YM. We think we are marrying an equal partner. And then we go to the temple and are told that we have to obey them? (Oh yeah, but only if they obey God) Yes, we are BLINDSIDED. I totally did not see it coming.
I comfort myself with the thought that I just don’t think it is a permanant part of the endowment. I’ve tried a million ways to rationalize and make sense of that covenant, but nothing makes more sense to me than the idea that it was put in as a reflection of the culture at the time.
So, I’m prepared to go back to the temple with that in mind. I just don’t think that God really expects me to hearken to (obey) my husband. I expect that that line will be removed. In the meantime, I am not going to let it hurt me anymore. I’ll ignore it and seek for the good because I know the good is there. I can’t let that covenant be a stumbling block for me anymore.
Comment by Stephanie — September 5, 2010
I think that is exactly what I am going through, and that I have been blindsided by the whole thing, because we are taught we are equals, and then these covenants surely aren’t very equal. And yes to a certain point equality should be we make the same covenants, we do the same things. Differences to me don’t matter much, except I like what she said about God saying, “Look, you will get pregnant because of the fall, turn to your husband for help”. I mean Eve had it way different then any one of us woman here, if we believe it was literal, she was the only woman on the planet, she was a lone, with no other woman around to help her understand what was going on with her body, but God said (And in my personal belief it makes sense thinking this was Heavenly Mother talking to her, not Christ, I love Christ, I do, I just don’t and can’t really honestly believe Christ talked to her about this, I do honestly believe it was Heavenly Mother, makes much more sense Heavenly Mother would give her a head’s up) to her “No you are not alone, your husband will help”. It does make sense in that context, that the only person she could look to for help was Adam, in that particular situation (I do however also believe that they had a longer chat then what is recorded in the scriptures, a lot of questions and answers probably where asked).
Also I personally believe this was a mistranslation. That the “Rule over” is of men and not of God. Even yes in the Book of Moses. Notice however that the older record of the Garden of Eden story, the Book of Abraham, stops after a certain point. We do not get the full creation/fall story. I hypothesize its because it was really different then the creation story we have already on the earth. I can’t hypothesize anything else. Anyway going back to the Mistranslation: What if it was written like this:
Unto the woman he said, due to thy mortality I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule by and at thy side, with thee, in thee, and through thee. And because of the mortal fall would want at times to Rule Over thee.
The hebrew word (not the latin Vulgate translation that the original 1611 edition was translated out of) the Hebrew word can mean “In, by, at, through, with”…If we included all those words, it would paint a clearer picture of what Adam was really supposed to do. He was supposed to 1) Be at her side, 2) Ruling through to me feels a little like he has to go to her, in order to rule, 3) In thee, well this one I’m uncomfortable with, but it makes sense in the whole pregnancy matter talked about previously, it just makes more sense then that even if one of the terms means over, if that is really meant by the Lord, it would be in conjunction with the Fall, and mortality, and not anything the Lord commands.
Hope I make sense. To me, I just keep thinking about this, and had to get it out. It’s our scriptures in the End, that dictate how we are going to view God, and view this world. And so far as they are translated correctly we will view a correct view of the world. I do not think they are translated correctly, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. I personally believe that this now makes some more sense, though I personally feel the need to pray for comfort. I think I can go to the Temple and just try to detach myself from it, and sincerely make covenants with God, despite what the covenants the Priesthood holder in the front of the room is asking me to say yes to.
I will probably not very much like the viel. I can’t say what my reaction will be. I just hope that I can think of these words, when going through the temple.
Okay, I will go read those links. Honestly the dual nature of a woman representing those who are on the spirit side of the viel, and the men representing those who are on the mortal side of the viel, makes it more better for me but I still don’t like it. I have come to terms that everything is symbolic, and I also do most certainly believe that somethings are just sexist hold overs and that God gave Joseph, and Brigham Young, and even our current day prophets and apostles the agency to change it to however they felt in many places. Honestly in ancient history though there are many cultures (even some modern ones) and even one particular (Sexist) religion that have men cover their face (Zoroastrianism). Maybe we just lost that idea to our cultural underpinnings, that a man shouldn’t need to cover his face, and possibly due to mistranslation and misunderstanding of our scriptures (And oh that happens on more occasions then the Brethren like to admit).
I now think that if the Brethren ever decide to roam the sites of us confused members (I say that with the highest degree of honor I can possibly say it with, for really that is what I am…confused). And they see this thread, here is what I want to tell them.
“Brethren, you have a few choices. You can leave as is, and make it just for everybody to create or construct in their own minds why only women wear a viel in the temple, and leave it to be confusing for us who don’t really like the idea at all. Or you can 1) Eliminate it completely, 2) Pray for the real reason of why women wear their viels, and if men should or shouldn’t, 3) Make it optional for women to wear the viel”
In all my reasoning, and praying, I haven’t come to an answer, and that is because I have decided I just simply don’t like it. For the very reason of answer #1, so is it that women are more holy then men? Is it because women don’t have the priesthood, therefore must wear a symbol to state their holiness? It just doesn’t make sense. I also personally believe lack of knowledge of Heavenly Mother drives our sexist practices, what we don’t know we usually make up, and this is why revelation is so important.
I personally feel that this is going to be a topic I disagree with, and I will probably go back and forth between this over and over again. For now I will just try to see it as 1) Cultural, 2) With meaning of The Viel, 3) With meaning that men represent mortal life, and women represent pre/post mortal life, and 4) I don’t have to like it at all.
In fact on speaking of viels, I wouldn’t mind that if in the Temple, Men stood before the viel, not behind it as they do now, and opened the viel to let people in, rather then pull people through the viel. This stems from my personal belief that on the Resurrection of Christ the viel between this life and the next was rent, and that Christ is not going to be pulling us through a viel, he is going to be pulling apart the viel in front of us. I mean if one symbolism of the Viel, disappears in the Temple (The viel women wears), then that means we should also focus on what that other viel means to us, and how we get there.
On the other hand about the viel being thought to be by some women a represenation of birth, if so, then shouldn’t in the creation room, it be a woman, who is pulling through the men, and women after the washings and anointing. Ah…i get it, that is another thing the Brethren could do, The Viel to the Creation room (Or endowment room in the smaller temples) has a viel, and there a woman pulls both the brethren and sisters through. Then at the celestial viel, the men can remain standing behind the viel. That makes much more sense, rather then having each woman wear a viel to cover their face, have one viel in the Temple represent Birth, the Other Death/Resurrection. Hmm…I am just pontificating now, but that one makes more sense to me, and would to any other who enters the temple.
:think: And isn’t there viels between each room anyway?Well, that is just my thoughts, hope they make sense, I was rambling a bit.
Oh, okay. Well I wasn’t saying you where downplaying it. Hmm, maybe by my comment I kind of was, I didn’t mean that. Anyway, I wish there was more too, Oh boy, I’m going to love the Millenium and many many writings of women that will be restored. Can’t wait. (Wish it would come sooner).
I like that story, forgot about it (haven’t been really studying the scriptures, just reading one verse a night). I’m trying though hard to also remember a woman who did such a thing, oh yeah. Zeloephads daughters (forgive me on the spelling if I got that wrong), they went to Moses, to inquire of him, they didn’t wait for God to decide to change it for them. They presented their problem to Moses, and then Moses, becoming aware of it, asked of God and thus they where allowed to inherit their father’s property. I think those few stories are there to tell us, we can change things, it isn’t just all “What God wants” and things can’t change. Yes, I do agree with the whole “Loving” the church for being a church of revelation. I just don’t know if we’ve received a strong revelation since the lifting of the priesthood ban. Doesn’t hurt praying for it.
Different then NT and Modern times yes, but I don’t think that means she had any less authority upon her as Judge of her people, then any male counterpart of hers had. And she seems if she wasn’t the ONLY leader of Israel at that time, to be the central leader. Which is what makes Deborah such a huge story to me, even if it spans 2 chapters only in our current scriptures. Yes of course organziationally all of this was different. And of course the primitive church means, the Church christ set up, but we do not even know ALL about the church christ set up, only we have a limited view of how it is. Cultural practice like always sweeps into every dispensition, now as always.
Of course getting back to Deborah, I would sure like to have that be my Temple name, once I go through in a week. (hmm is that sacrilegious to say? I don’t think so.
:shifty: )Yeah, I understand that. I have decided to just change what I can, and that would be working in my home with my husband to be, and just having counsels together, but in no way is he Bishop-Husband, and I’m first counselor-wife, I don’t think we are ever going to use the Family Proclamation in our home, except that I will have only a phrase from it, hanging in my home, and that is going to be “By Divine Design…Husbands and Wives are…to be equals”. Basically just taking out the objectionable stuff in that line, and putting it down to what works for me. I guess I would have to. Today I am doing a limited one meal (all I can do) fast for softening of hearts for revelation to be received on what needs to be changed, line upon line as Jesus taught.
Any little bit helps I guess, even if I can’t see it helping.
Then I guess I will just pray for change where I can’t change it, and change it where I can with my fiance once we are husband and wife. I really do think that. God gave us agency, I think part of that is to change what we can. It makes sense. I can’t really disagree with it. Nope. This one concretely makes sense to me.
Yeah, I still have to think this one through. Its just this one makes sense to me. That covenants, and how we do them and what is said changes. And some covenants, even what we covenant to do changes.
Like Passover became the Sacrament, but the covenant to remember remained the same.
However baptism took on a new meaning when it was coupled with the Holy Spirit what we call baptism by fire. And I’m sure there are more. Hmm, that would be a good research paper (for those who want to do it, I may at some point
😆 )
