Page 4 of 12

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 12:32
by hawkgrrrl
I don't think I'm making issues where none exist. As an endowed female, I can tell you I am one hundred percent invested in this problem.
Hear, hear. I'm with Joni!

I don't like the idea that Eve was simply "tricked." It's not the Mormon theology I was raised on in which we were taught that Adam and Eve made a choice (Adam fell that man may be). Beguiled also means something slightly different than tricked - it's nuanced. It means I found something too desirable to resist it, not just that I was deceived. There's an element of being charmed or attracted to it, interested in something, captivated by it. To me, that implies more thought.

I haven't been back to do a session since the one in which I felt a spiritual confirmation that the role of women as depicted is a cultural artifact. I'm glad I had that feeling, but I still don't like it.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 12:34
by On Own Now
Joni wrote:he's stressed many times that he will NOT rule over me even if it means flouting God's will.
Well, that's great. And I think that is the first step in finding a peaceful solution for yourself. As long as you and your husband have an agreement on this, then the path is cleared for a lot of positive strides. I'm not saying that most of even many husbands don't think exactly the same way, but the fact that you have already communicated such is big.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 12:39
by hawkgrrrl
OOO: "The way I look at this kind of thing is to recognize that, in general, men and women are wired differently." I really firmly disagree about this line of thinking. Are there any differences? Probably some, but it's not clear what they are, and it's not that all men are one way and all women are a different way. I often find I have more in common with men I know than with women, and I'm without a doubt a woman. That just tells me most of the patterns of thought are culturally driven. Because I've been a high level executive in a corporate environment, I relate more to others with similar backgrounds. Men and women are far more alike than different. If men were patted on the head the way women are, they would feel the same. They would not like it.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 12:52
by On Own Now
One thing I'd like to point out that I hope you can find helpful is that the symbolism of Adam and Eve is imperfect. We generally accept that Adam and Eve represent us and our state of separation from God, etc, and that is fine. But where it gets really sticky is that we then go down one more level to say that Adam represents men and Eve represents women. I personally don't look at it like that.

I think Adam represents each of us and Eve represents a partner. The role of Eve is as a foil for Adam, but there is no mistaking that he is the central character. IMO, Adam represents you. Unfortunately, this is a hard one to tease out because we all have such a hard time with finding the dividing line between symbol and what is being symbolized, so when we see a female actor, we assume that's your character.

But I believe that the whole ceremony hinges on the idea that each of us, each individual, is symbolically represented in the rite. Because, in LDS theology, we are all individual children of God, I think it only makes sense that each of us is symbolized in exactly the same way. It simply falls apart if you think of yourselve as being represented by the relatively minor character of Eve, when this is the story of Adam.

This world was created for you, and God gave you your husband to be a "help meet" for you. By seeing ourselves in Adam and our spouses in Eve, the covenants become a lot more personal between you and God. You are to "hearken" to God, and your spouse will follow you. In the same way, your husband in his own personal view, also represented by Adam makes the same covenant to follow God, and he knows you will follow him when he does.

Yes, I know that the mechanics of the rite don't follow that perfectly, because you respond as Eve, while your husband responds as Adam. But I look at that as carrying the motif of the story, not as literal gender roles.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 12:53
by Joni
On Own Now wrote:
Joni wrote:he's stressed many times that he will NOT rule over me even if it means flouting God's will.
Well, that's great. And I think that is the first step in finding a peaceful solution for yourself. As long as you and your husband have an agreement on this, then the path is cleared for a lot of positive strides. I'm not saying that most of even many husbands don't think exactly the same way, but the fact that you have already communicated such is big.
My husband isn't a saint by any means - he has plenty of flaws; misogyny just happens not to be one of them. Unfortunately, waaaaaaay too many men in the Church are comfortable taking the things in the temple literally. My father certainly had no problem expecting my mother to "hearken to" him while totally failing to "hearken to" her. [Returning to the appliance buying analogy - when my parents renovated their kitchen, my mother spent weeks researching their new fridge. She found a fridge that was a good value, a reputable brand, and spacious enough to accommodate our huge Mormon family. My father took this information, went to the store, and bought a completely different, smaller fridge because it was a hundred bucks cheaper. He didn't hearken to her one bit.] This goes a long way in explaining why my mother A) left the Church and B) divorced him. Yet my dad continues to believe that she was solely the one at fault, because his actions towards her were supported by the horribly unequal language presented in the temple.

I know a lot of men like this. You don't have to be abusing your wife - you can be a valiant temple recommend holder and still see your wife as your inferior, because the language of the temple supports it. And it likely won't be changed any time soon because we've created a nice Catch-22 where the people who are most hurt by the language of the temple (women) aren't being heard because the language of the temple says that no one has to listen to women.

I wonder how many faithful Latter-Day Saint women will lose their testimony over this before the Lord gets around to revealing a better version. (And as On Own Now has eloquently pointed out in the General Support thread, no one is listening to the voices of Latter-Day Saints who leave the church because it's so, so easy just to write them off.) With the priesthood ban, it took several generations.

Unlike a lot of women in the Church I'm not particularly interested in holding the priesthood. For me, not holding the priesthood is a symptom; the disorder is the Lord not valuing women equally. Treating the symptom won't resolve the disease. I know a lot of women feel differently. But I think we can all agree that it's hard to feel good when you have to cover your face in the temple (which, to me, is symbolic of being ashamed to stand in the Lord's presence) and your husband does not.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 13:00
by hawkgrrrl
"the people who are most hurt by the language of the temple (women) aren't being heard because the language of the temple says that no one has to listen to women."
Exactly. Only, I would still substitute "the Church" for "the Lord" in what you say.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 13:12
by On Own Now
hawkgrrrl wrote:OOO: "The way I look at this kind of thing is to recognize that, in general, men and women are wired differently." I really firmly disagree about this line of thinking. Are there any differences? Probably some, but it's not clear what they are, and it's not that all men are one way and all women are a different way. I often find I have more in common with men I know than with women, and I'm without a doubt a woman. That just tells me most of the patterns of thought are culturally driven. Because I've been a high level executive in a corporate environment, I relate more to others with similar backgrounds. Men and women are far more alike than different. If men were patted on the head the way women are, they would feel the same. They would not like it.
Fair enough, hawkgrrrl, but just for the record, I think you and I are both on the same side of the street. I probably think there are more differences than you do, but I freely and openly acknowledge that that only holds on a "general" level. My entire point is that even if we acknowledge that there are differences, we must not let the differences between men and women (and in deference to you, I'll say, if any) set either up as better than the other and not to let it drive gender roles.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 13:22
by Joni
I'm okay with saying that the sexes complement each other. But in my experience it happens more on an individual level than on a gender-wide level.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 13:50
by Forgotten_Charity
On Own Now wrote:
hawkgrrrl wrote:OOO: "The way I look at this kind of thing is to recognize that, in general, men and women are wired differently." I really firmly disagree about this line of thinking. Are there any differences? Probably some, but it's not clear what they are, and it's not that all men are one way and all women are a different way. I often find I have more in common with men I know than with women, and I'm without a doubt a woman. That just tells me most of the patterns of thought are culturally driven. Because I've been a high level executive in a corporate environment, I relate more to others with similar backgrounds. Men and women are far more alike than different. If men were patted on the head the way women are, they would feel the same. They would not like it.
Fair enough, hawkgrrrl, but just for the record, I think you and I are both on the same side of the street. I probably think there are more differences than you do, but I freely and openly acknowledge that that only holds on a "general" level. My entire point is that even if we acknowledge that there are differences, we must not let the differences between men and women (and in deference to you, I'll say, if any) set either up as better than the other and not to let it drive gender roles.
While brain research has shown that men and women do in fact use different parts of their brain when asked the exact sane question at the sane time monitoring their brain patterns, it is only a way to understand ones self... Rather and bit to be used as a way to try to prove ones theory or role.

The more we understand how each of our brains and brains in general work. The more we can understand ourselves and our relationship and interaction to each other. I had already theorized or recognized a bygone era thinking throughout the ceremony. Or the way it was presented seemed to represent the very dominate thinking of generations for hundreds if not thousands of generations with result to black and white thinking and categorizing that into roles for each sex.
For me it's more of a history lesson to how the world predominately thought back then and where we have come in conscious thought now. We aren't there yet because there are still many minds thinking in black and white and they usually and do make good administrators and lawyers and law makers.
Unfortunately that means also they also make the rules and polices to follow including in the temple. It's not surprising but it won't be going away anytime soon since this will continue to be the case for some time to come.

We can revision the ceremony to something that is meaningful and pleasant to us. We don't have to internalize what someone else had the need to categorize everything into a 2 class system of thought. There can be many or even just one redshifted to suit our needs.
My wife by the way of example actually sees me as the head of the household and "authority" despite my gentle and covers to her that I really dislike and am very uncomfortable with that role and thinking. It rally gives me high anxiety and sadness.

I can't change her and won't try/don't want to. Instead I do what I need to do that is healthy for me. I'm just not that kind if guy no matter how anyone may insist/and do. Both church leaders and my wife try to get me to furfill my obligation as head of household and patriarch. They feel that way, I do not. I am a patient guy but sometimes I am a guard breath away from shouting "enough already, that isn't me.". But I filter it and coy explain it's not who I am.

They can try all they want it's not changing who I am on the inside . They can say it out of love, but I have had some really really bad things happen to me by those closest out of "love".

I reinvesting it all into something more pleasant. Something I actually have co troll
Over--- myself.

Re: The big one: Being a woman in the temple.

Posted: 16 Jan 2014, 14:31
by Curt Sunshine
Beguiled also means something slightly different than tricked - it's nuanced. It means I found something too desirable to resist it, not just that I was deceived. There's an element of being charmed or attracted to it, interested in something, captivated by it. To me, that implies more thought.


I agree, Hawkgrrrl. "Tricked" is too simplistic and was a bad choice of words. I like "captivated" instead.