Ann wrote:I don't think most LDS men are comfortable with the temple wording when they take notice of it.
I can tell you some do!
That is good to see in print. I want to say, Please go tell
someone. Because there'sno one
I can tell. There's no appropriate place and time in mainstream Mormonism to say anything. And apparently the thousands of women on the internet expressing deep and long-standing problems with sexism in the temple - with the words
said there - are spitting in the wind. It's sad that we have to ask men to put this forward for us, but I guess that's the way it goes.
Most people who don't take notice of the wording aren't bothered by it, and many write off the wording as not relevant today, since they personally have great, equal marriages. I honestly don't think any of the top leadership don't care. They seem to be trying to change things in many ways to give women more voice in the Church.
I have a great, equal marriage. Maybe that's part of why the temple is now hitting me like a ton of bricks. (Although I have to admit it was a long time coming.) I agree that there are good changes afoot.
1) They simply don't understand the depth of disconnect and discomfort felt by many women, since they personally don't see the same implications in the wording;
What is really so hard about seeing it from a woman's perspective? Most men, when they become aware or sensitized to it, are immediately taken aback by the inequity of it all. It's pretty easy to see why many women would essentially "give up" on leaders who are so unseeing.
They see the enormity and difficulty of making wholesale changes to something so many members view as practically inerrant and are making incremental changes as quickly as they feel the root can handle it, without touching initially the words themselves.
I was more optimistic about this being true before the polygamy essays. They seem like a doubling-down and digging-in for the long haul. There are too many things that could easily change. Why couldn't the veiling be done away with? That's not in the meat of the script. I don't think anyone would accuse them of caving to feminists.
Many things have been removed from the endowment over time, but it is easier to remove something than to make changes to something like the script itself - which is what I think would be best. For example, it is easier to make Eve more physically and emotionally active and to portray more involvement and a more central, influential, deciding role in that way (which the new films do very obviously) than to give her new lines or change the script to include her more directly. I actually believe the latter approach will be taken in the future, and I wish I believed it would be sooner than I think it will be.
I understand what they were aiming for there, and it is a good thing, but it's just not enough. I'm afraid they won't change it until after the survey (ala the one that resulted in removing the penalties) to find out why so many women under age 40 have stopped going to the temple. The "new" Eve is a more expressive and active participant, but that's what makes the words that come out of her mouth all the more inexplicable. To be fair, these leaders inherited a script from people who inherited Genesis, but we're the ones who talk about the restoration being ongoing and the beauty of an open canon.