Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeah I thought that one, thing is, I really hate the idea at times, because it has been taken so much like “Woman’s womb is so holy”, and makes it the ONLY power seemingly on earth and in heaven a woman has. I can see this, but I still can’t say it makes me feel any better. Viel women wear =birth…my thoughts “Okay yeah, makes sense, wait…huh? Wait, that can be interpreted really wrong, and result in practices still degrading to women”…It’s a thought I do think sort of came from God to me at one point, I don’t know. I mean if it makes some women happy, and I’ve been given that answer to make some woman happy,and all right for a while, while things are worked out, I am fine with that. I guess no matter what symbolism is explained, I don’t get this one.
And personally, hearing that the viel is see through, that is fine, I just…yeah heavily leaning toward just not liking this one.
I have really no other choice but wear it during the Temple I guess. I don’t have to like it, but I guess like the saying goes when in Rome, do as the romans do? (Deep breath in, deep breath out, deep breath in, deep breath out) And I guess the Temple is my Rome so to speak, the place where I am going to be tried on my faith that God is equal and just, even when the culture isn’t.
hmm…just what part of the ceremony do women viel their faces? PM me on this one.
Ooh, ooh, another thought: Maybe God doesn’t so much care about the wording of the covenants, the covenants we make, or what we do when we make those covenants, but the fact that we show we are committed to follow him. I however certainly believe that these things should be looked at over again and truly be found out if they are of God, or of men. I believe that we make covenants so that we can enter into the Celestial Kin-dom (I will write it that way for now on on this board), I also believe that the covenants we make are essential, but thier wording or what we do during them, not so much. But maybe they don’t matter how we think they matter, and maybe that is why God doesn’t go out and change things we think are wrong. Maybe so long as we “Love God, and love our fellow man as we love ourselves” (I think there are three things here, 1) Love God, 2) Love others, 3) Take care of and love yourself warts and all even while trying to correct that which you think you should correct) he is fine with the covenants because we are doing what we are doing. Even though he greatly aware of it hurting many of his children in regards to the sexist parts.
And another thought: I believe that revelation is a process of correction. What type of revelation have we received that has not corrected previous thoughts and opinions? In my humble opinion, I believe that there is no revelation that we received that has not corrected previous thoughts.
What say you?
And that leads me to this thought, that I thought was so eloquently put, that I will not change a thing. It was on Temple Garments, from the Wheat and tares website, but I think it can be applied to the viel in this case. Quote:Ryan on May 1, 2011 at 9:42 PM
“And second, I assume that God will tell them if they are doing something that is truly wrong. Since, through our leaders, garments have changed so much, I have to assume that NONE OF THE CHANGES MATTER. Perhaps all that matters are having the symbols somewhere in their general vicinity. I don’t know that having cap sleeves, for example, has anything to do with the symbols. In my mind, the cap sleeves have nothing to do with the eternal purpose garments, but more to do with the generation that makes decisions about garments.
Why must we assume that God will tell leaders when they’re doing something wrong when God doesn’t always tell people they’re doing something wrong? Many scriptures discuss both the ADDING to and TAKING away of things as evil (i.e. adding to commandments/scripture as the “new” standard, or taking away from something that’s too hard to make it easier), but even if there were an absence of scripture to dictate such things I wonder why we’re so easily pleased by assumptions. It’s akin to infallibility’s one-way street.
Instead of confronting these changes and seeing if they do matter (where you assert they simply cannot because those in the high seats decided that they don’t matter), we simply trudge merrily along and have discussions about how to make the most of those changes.
It’s a bizarre culture.
There is actually something to this. There is much to suggest that Joseph Smith actually meant garments to symbolize polygamy, and were never meant for every day life. There is much to suggest that they WERE for special occasions only. And when Joseph Smith was killed, he wasn’t actually wearing garments himself.”
So, if the leaders don’t at least acknowledge this – much less know about it – then how come do we assume that the changes they make incontrovertibly mean that the changes don’t matter?
Maybe they were changes out of ignorance, and enlightenment could/should encourage a retracement in order to see the “proper” route.
Well head coverings I get, though yes I agree they are completely cultural. Sort of feel as if many of these are Law of Moses type attitudes still left in the world. Vieling faces, still bug me. Actually my darling fiance asked me why, now I just say I don’t know, I tried to give him my opinion on it, but I found they just tasted sour to both of us, so I just say “Its sexist, I don’t know why we keep it” and just will get through it. Praying for it to change. Of course these all seem as I have said Law of Moses-ish to me. Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, why oh why do we continue to perpetuate it even in our own temple ceremony? I mean really if the GA’s would look at the Law of Moses and some of the things we do, they could very well match that. I think they could probably change it due to a heavy belief in our Church, and what Christ himself said, that he fulfilled the Law of Moses, and that means everything, including how women are supposed to behave, and what they are supposed to do. I mean if I can have these thoughts, why not a General Authority?
Maybe that also plays a large role in my dislike for patriarchy, I find it just caused by the fall in many ways, and then perpetuated by a law for the weak (those who need to be told what to do every step of the way) in the Law of Moses. In fact in my view though, what symbolizes Christ the most, is that women are really in fact asked to descend below all things, the fact they where removed from the rest of society during their bleeding, reminds me of Christ removing himself to the Garden. My interesting thought may sound like Heresay, but as Women are a symbol of Christ in that way, I believe Christ is a symbol of what women go through. I highly think that birth and the atonement/death/resurrection are so interconnected with each other. And to me, it makes sense that it would be retroactive, as I see it, because if Birth and what Christ did is connected, then Birth and the Atonment are really one and the same, just different sides. yes Christ took the weight of the worlds Sins upon our shoulders, I would say in this Christ is unique. But what is Birth? Just something that comes near the atonment? I can’t view it as that. Birth must be the atonement in someway that when a woman gives birth to the child she nurtured and grew and created in her body, with some help from her husband and God the Father and Mother, she in fact helps saves those around her.
I once heard the scripture of the creation of Eve written this way (found it on Women in the scriptures blog) (though I take a little liberty with how it was written on the blog:
“It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an equal [yet opposite] who has strength, and a saving power.”
To me if the scriptures where written this way about woman, nobody could make it out to be that woman are just weak and vulnerable. However I also fear it being written this way, as to be interpreted “because of that patriarchy and the man protecting and presiding is needed even more”. The unintended consequence weighs heavily in my mind on that.
Hawkgrrrl I agree. One of my favorite quotes is by Clare Booth Luce, and to sum it up, it states exactly that, That it is time to let what is natural just be natural, and allow opportunity for change on what can be changed.
But do we even have to call it patriarchy at all? Do we even have to call priesthood only or can we expand our language and view? Honestly yeah that sounds nice Roy, comforting at times, but still, the wording matters. And the practice matters too. And as I see it, it just isn’t necessary to me. Patriarchal Order to me does equate Male leadership, and male rule, and I just don’t really honestly see how that can be any different. I guess we could get to near-equal, but near-equal just isn’t good enough for me.
And you can say I can do it differently obviously, and I will where I can. Still don’t really like patriarchy or calling what should be Partnership, patriarchy.
I know one thing though: I don’t hate patriarchy, just find it completely unnecessary, and find it completely unnecessary to call everything after a male connotation of things.
(but then one can always blame the English Language, as I have many times)
I am giggling because my darling fiance and I love shopping together, though on certain food items I told him “its better to pay a high price for quality meats then to buy cheap”, got a bit of a bickering argument there, but he finally gave way (since we both had separate living spaces obviously, I let him have his really cheap hotdogs, probably will, just to keep the family peace). We both decided to try the Equally shared parenting model, which requires periodic sit downs. We are going to first call it the Equally Shared Partner model, because we obviously have no children.
I think that its different things for different people, but so long as things get done, we will both be happy. I honestly have had this talk with him. We will work it out, hopefully.
To me though, sometimes I see patriarchy as the hardline patriarchy, in the church, where it has to aboslutely be the way the man says things are. But I remember a good term to describe our Patrairchy. That is Chicken Patriarchy.
Men Preside, but men and women are equal. Oh men get to call on prayers (Who cares in my opinion, lets just create a chart, there every one knows when they will pray). I mean maybe i dont’ hate patriarchy, rather the insane way we view it. And i just find it completely unnecessary.
Maybe that is it. Wow, talking out problems with other people really helps me to have a new perspective.
hmm, I actually have a very strong opinion against calling what women are endowed to Priesthood power (of course yes I know I also like egalitarian words, hmm the irony). I would rather call it a priestesshood. I am a weird one on this though. Just due to personal revelation I have felt strongly I’ve gotten. Feminizing the terms seem empowering to me on this one if women have the power of it, it would obviously take a more feminine form, not “SOFT” as we consider feminism culturally, but Womanly, because it comes from woman, not because it is less or somehow softer then a man’s power. It’s just to me, it makes sense that way. But I understand if other’s view it differently. Of course I also blame the English Language on this one too.
To me if we are to speak in terms which are associated with gender, then we should keep them to their gender as allowed by our language (as corrupt and patriarchal as I consider it to be, I actually am not so afraid of messing with the dictionary, lets create new words, myself I’m on a hunt for the word like priesthood but is gender neutral in both definition and connotation, wish me luck).
I guess in a nutshell what I am saying is: If it is masculine as a power, it should be masculine. If it is feminine as a power it should be feminine, but if it really constitutes both, lets fine a new word and get creative. (of course that will never fly with the General Authorities, but one can hope
May have to make on thing clear, I take the Temple journey through the different rooms as symbolic, the words as literal to me though, the viel as symbolic of something that is hidden, I can’t shake that out of my head, and it really hurts on so many levels to me, it reminds me of 1) Women’s power is largely unknown, 2) Heavenly Mother is hidden, so women will be hidden too (why I hate why women wear it, I don’t mind covering the hair so much, as covering the face). Honestly I’ve read somewhere one woman’s thoughts and it was beautiful I just don’t remember it, so I really guess that for me, that wont’ get me through it. Which I know you say is fine, which I get. I mean is it wrong then that the Viel is used to cover the face, if it is a symbolism of that? I don’t know, but the fact that its largely explained as modesty (when I am already covered from neck to toe), drives me insane. Hmm, more questions, this time about men and the temple clothing they wear, do they cover their heads? If so it may make me feel a bit better. My problem is the vieling of the face, not necessarily the covering of the head. For Jesus per Jewish law covered his head, Orthodox Jewish men cover their head at all times as a respect for God. So if men cover their head in the Temple (of this I am unsure of), I wouldn’t mind it so much. (Yet still mind covering my face, I also have an extremely sensitive face, sometimes even kisses on the cheek are just too much its that sensitive, that just will probably exacerbate the problem).
Those are great tips, the book however I may read, or just read your link (I like really good summaries). I don’t think I can look at the Temple as symbolic because I have been taught these covenants are literal, and even though I have been taught its symbolic, and one of the temple prep lessons is on symbolism I find the talk about the symbolism lacking. Of course I also find the symbolism patriarchal. I guess focusing on those parts which are empowering to me, maybe will get me through the temple. Please, please comment more. I like to hear comments, but only if you are comfortable talking abut it. If you are uncomfortable that is fine, I totally understand. Or PM me. Would love to hear more thoughts.
Interesting, I for one at times can not really like CHI. I think at times its too controlling over things that should be left up to individual discretion with the spirit. I find it nice, but I notice a change in policy takes years to take effect. Interesting to hear about this change in policy. Interesting to hear any change in policy, when it comes to patriarchy. But I noticed that Laws (Policy) in a religion are the least of my worries, when something is so clearly stated in the Temple. Optimistic me: The Brethren are doing what they can, where they can without breaking down their idea of patriarchy to a degree they are uncomfortable with.
Pessimistic me: This is just a bone to chew on for now, and they could change it back. Policy is fluid, and it can change on a regular bases.
hehehe (very nervous laughter) I pray for change all the time. Probably shouldn’t but I do, just hope I’m not the only one. Probably not, but sometimes it feels that way. Well I know of at least one other person who prays for change. Okay now I know there is one point where all women viel their faces, great…I will probably start crying. This one hurts a lot, makes me feel less somehow, and after that dream I had, God clearly telling me he didn’t create a woman to wear a viel, I just probably will cry unless God gives me the power to with hold the tears.
As a woman with issues with patriarchy that has come out of the priesthood. Here is my simplified testimony. “I know that there is power of God on earth, and that we know that to be the priesthood, what I know of the priesthood is that it is the authority to act in God’s name. I believe it to be a power to perform ordinances, and healings and administrative work of the Church”.
That is it. That is all. I cant’ say any more. I don’t think there is “no end” to the priesthood as currently constituted by the Church. I know I am just praying for more understanding of everything.
*sigh* Still working through some things.
Okay Good reasons for it? hmm, Sorry nope. I think a lot of the Lazy men, are because of attitude and culture. I’m a constructivist. I believe if we construct one view though we are going to fight for it because those who have benefited have seen no wrong with it. I simply have this view of the world that we are naturally wanting power, and we will construct ways to get power. And if there is a God-given basis for that power, then we will hang onto it, even if that “God-given” bases is constructed. Honestly have I benefited to a degree with men presiding? Yes to a certain degree, but I find I really don’t care about that much, consideirng I have not had the family situation most OBM’s (Orthodox Believing Mormon, I am a TBM, I just am not the type of TBM that OBM’s are) have had. I like a man, who can share power, rather then do the whole administrative thing on spiritual things and I just follow, most women want a man to preside to me, because that is what they have been taught to like, and what they have learned to like. I’ve sort of came to the fact my Patriarchal blessing really is saying I am the one who is going to be the spiritual leader in my home (though not in those exact words, but God hasn’t hit me with a lightning bolt yet about this idea)
I honestly, don’t like patriarchy. My fiance feels the same. Preside to me is a word that is just the same as head. I seriously have issues with it. Preside to him is a non-issue. Will he take charge on certain things? Yes, when I am very ill and can’t get up, which may happen a lot, considering health issues. But i don’t equate taking charge when partner is ill Presiding, I call it love.
