Sexism And God

[JLHPROF]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/25/temple-prep-for-daughters-brace-yourself/#comment-348030

 

This rather adamant article takes a new(ish) approach to the concerns of Ordain Women.  While holding the priesthood is mentioned in passing, the main idea behind the article appears to be that the Temple Endowment is sexist, plain and simple.  The implication being that it is so because men made it that way and it should be changed.

 

Taking into consideration the teaching of the prophet Joseph:

“Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” – Joseph Smith

is she right?

 

I am not denying what is actually in the temple itself.  The question is "Is it actually sexist" or are we missing something in what God has revealed?

 

Because I believe that God revealed the endowment to Joseph and it shouldn't be changed, but while I believe that God has different roles for men and women, I don't believe one is favored in any way and I don't believe God is sexist.

 

Quite the article...

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

"Every week she is told, as I was, that attending the temple will be the loftiest goal of her life, the culmination of her religious experience, and the final step in ensuring her eventual exaltation"

Funny how different we each interpret what we are taught.

"and to be one of the first ones done at each stage"

This I don't understand, it all depends on where one sits.

"  I downplayed her concerns by pointing out that it’s kind of lame anyway"

Another POV that I don't get and doesn't really make sense in the context.

"we will feel differently (our eventual celestial lobotomy) rings hollow"

Another interpretation I didn't pick up (mine was that we didn't know enough to properly judge, not that it would be as expected but we would be changed)

Edited February 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/25/temple-prep-for-daughters-brace-yourself/#comment-348030

 

This rather adamant article takes a new(ish) approach to the concerns of Ordain Women.  While holding the priesthood is mentioned in passing, the main idea behind the article appears to be that the Temple Endowment is sexist, plain and simple.  The implication being that it is so because men made it that way and it should be changed.

 

Taking into consideration the teaching of the prophet Joseph:

“Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” – Joseph Smith

is she right?

 

I am not denying what is actually in the temple itself.  The question is "Is it actually sexist" or are we missing something in what God has revealed?

 

Because I believe that God revealed the endowment to Joseph and it shouldn't be changed, but while I believe that God has different roles for men and women, I don't believe one is favored in any way and I don't believe God is sexist.

 

Quite the article...

 

Ultimately, after all is said and done, this is what I believe is happening: The adversary is using well-meaning but spiritually ignorant dupes to do his dirty work in order to attempt the overthrow the kingdom of God. These dupes have been deceived and actually believe they are pursing goals that are nobel and good, but the adversary is fully aware of the fact that his ultimate goal in manipulating these dupes is to set up an earthly condition of spiritual darkness so pervasive and intense that eventually Gospel truth -- and I mean any and all Gospel truth -- will  become so unpopular and toxic that only those with the strongest testimonies and unconquerable faith and courage will be willing to publicly admit they are Latter-day Saints.

 

By recruiting those of the so-called "loyal opposition" within the Church, the adversary can do much more harm because the opinions these putatively "heroic souls," who battle against the Church from within, will be co-opted by the non-LDS secular media to be used as a battering ram to break down the resolve of the members till many of the now true blue mormons will become so fearful and weary they will also demand changes, with the hope that the internal and external anti-LDS forces will placated and call off the dogs. But there isn't any chance they'll be placated until there is utter defeat, with the Church abandoning that which is most sacred till it becomes just another religion that embraces the wisdom of the fallen world as a substitute for the revelations of God.

 

To prove my point, I'm now going to quote from the Holy Bible; and though the words I'm about to quote are found in the word of God, it's likely many here will disagree with the principle taught and consider it merely a vestige of a bygone era of barbaric ignorance and oppression that must be repudiated.

 

 

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11)

Edited February 26, 2015 by teddyaware

[carbon dioxide]

I think the Church should come out with several versions of the endowment and let the members decide which one they want to attend that does not offend them.  For me,  I rather have the real deal that has not been watered down so that it avoids offending people.  Few things in life annoy me more than political correctness.  If I am going to spend 2 hours in a session, give me the truth or I will just stay home and watch something on Netflix.

[JLHPROF]

I think the Church should come out with several versions of the endowment and let the members decide which one they want to attend that does not offend them.  For me,  I rather have the real deal that has not been watered down so that it avoids offending people.

 

Depending on your perspective and understanding you are either 25 or 88 years too late for that...

[carbon dioxide]

Depending on your perspective and understanding you are either 25 or 88 years too late for that...

That is why all versions should be offered.  Let us decide for ourselves which one is the right one.  At 9 A.M. one can attend the 1980s version, at 9:30 one can attend the 1880 version.  At 10 one can attend the current. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

That is why all versions should be offered.  Let us decide for ourselves which one is the right one.  At 9 A.M. one can attend the 1980s version, at 9:30 one can attend the 1880 version.  At 10 one can attend the current. 

 

Totally in favor of that.

[The Nehor]

That is why all versions should be offered.  Let us decide for ourselves which one is the right one.  At 9 A.M. one can attend the 1980s version, at 9:30 one can attend the 1880 version.  At 10 one can attend the current. 

 

I can just see the petty superiority complexes now between the 1880s conservatives and the 2010s liberals smugly imagining they found the truth while the 1980s moderates pat themselves on the back for being above the subdued "discussion".

 

I don't trust members to make their own decisions about ordinances beyond entering into them or not. Truthfully I am not sure I trust them much on that point either but God seems to think the decision important.

[Kaleb Webb]

 

 

“Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” – Joseph Smith

Considering how much certain aspects of the Endowment have changed since Joseph Smith said that, I can imagine it being changed even more in the future. I'm not sure about whether or not it's sexist though.

[DJBrown]

 Ultimately, after all is said and done, this is what I believe is happening: The adversary is using well-meaning but spiritually ignorant dupes to do his dirty work in order to attempt the overthrow the kingdom of God. These dupes have been deceived and actually believe they are pursing goals that are nobel and good, but the adversary is fully aware of the fact that his ultimate goal in manipulating these dupes is to set up an earthly condition of spiritual darkness so pervasive and intense that eventually Gospel truth -- and I mean any all Gospel truth -- will  become so unpopular and toxic that only those with the strongest testimonies and unconquerable faith and courage will be willing to publicly admit they are Latter-day Saints.

 

By recruiting those of the so-called "loyal opposition" within the Church, the adversary can do much more harm because the opinions these putatively "heroic souls," who battle against the Church from within, will be co-opted by the non-LDS secular media to be used as a battering ram to break down the resolve of the members till many of the now true blue mormons will become so fearful and weary that they will also demand changes, with the hope the internal and external anti-LDS forces will placated and call off the dogs. But there isn't any chance they'll be placated until there is utter defeat, with the Church abandoning that which is most sacred till it becomes just another religion that embraces the wisdom of the fallen world as a substitute for the revelations of God.

 

To prove my point, I'm now going to quote from the Holy Bible; and though the words I'm about to quote are found in the word of God, it's likely many here will disagree with the principle taught and consider it merely a vestige of a bygone era of barbaric ignorance and oppression that must be repudiated.

 

 

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11)

 

The teachings in the Book of Mormon about administering that which is sacred to the unworthy is relevant, I think.  I believe that is where much of the conflict within the church is going- the push to allow members who do not really qualify to enter the temple and receive (or renew) these covenants to enter the temple anyway.  

 

It is amazing to read many of the bloggers who make the sexism argument and really seem to think they are not in outright apostasy.  I wondered for many years how members of the ancient church could allow the events and process that was the apostasy to occur.  It is getting easier and easier to see how it could all happen.

[Ahab]

Sheesh. First the idea that we shouldn't discriminate and now the idea that we shouldn't be sexist. What are we supposed to do now, act like all people are the same without regard to how they act or what sex they are???

Is Satan still trying to get us all back to heaven or what?

[JLHPROF]

Sheesh. First the idea that we shouldn't discriminate and now the idea that we shouldn't be sexist. What are we supposed to do now, act like all people are the same without regard to how they act or what sex they are???

Is Satan still trying to get us all back to heaven or what?

 

Well he did say he'd get everyone back whether they followed the rules or not and nobody would be lost...I think many are trying to take him up on the offer.

[Ferdinand55]

Sheesh. First the idea that we shouldn't discriminate and now the idea that we shouldn't be sexist. What are we supposed to do now, act like all people are the same without regard to how they act or what sex they are???

I'm not sure if you understand what "sexism" is. Sexism is believing that one gender is inherently superior to the other. It isn't recognizing differences between genders.

[Ahab]

I'm not sure if you understand what "sexism" is. Sexism is believing that one gender is inherently superior to the other. It isn't recognizing differences between genders.

I'm not sure feminists understand what sexism is either, thinking it's bad to give anything to one sex but not the other. like priesthood offices only to men. which I am okay with.

[pogi]

I'm not sure if you understand what "sexism" is. Sexism is believing that one gender is inherently superior to the other. It isn't recognizing differences between genders.

 

I can see how saying that the man is the head of the women could be easily construed as being sexist.  The head is anatomically "superior" to the body, and the body is in complete subjection to the will of the head.  Can anyone explain to me how this is not sexist?  The scriptures and temple hint that this familial order is a consequence of events in the garden of Eden.

 

Can anyone help me to reconcile this teaching with the teaching that man and women have "equal partnership"?  How is the head not superior to the body?  The head leads the body, yet we are taught to walk side by side.  Does anyone else have difficulty understanding and reconciling this metaphor with other teachings?  

[rodheadlee]

Can a head do anything without a body?

[bluebell]

I can see how saying that the man is the head of the women could be easily construed as being sexist.  The head is anatomically "superior" to the body, and the body is in complete subjection to the will of the head.  Can anyone explain to me how this is not sexist?  The scriptures and temple hint that this familial order is a consequence of events in the garden of Eden.

 

Can anyone help me to reconcile this teaching with the teaching that man and women have "equal partnership"?  How is the head not superior to the body?  The head leads the body, yet we are taught to walk side by side.  Does anyone else have difficulty understanding and reconciling this metaphor with other teachings?  

 

In my understanding, the head is not superior to the body because the head cannot survive without the body.  

 

Can we overestimate the value of the heart, for example? Can the brain function when the heart is not working?  How about the lungs?  How important are the lungs in terms of the brain's survival?  

 

The head may lead the body, but it is as much at the mercy of the body as the body is at the mercy of the head.  They are truly equal and one is not superior to the other.  To say so is like saying (to borrow from C.S. Lewis on another topic) that one blade of the scissors is superior to the other blade.  

 

One blade of scissors is completely worthless, just like a head without a body would be and a body without a head would be worthless as well.

[bluebell]

I made this comment on a friend's Facebook post concerning this blog so i'll just paste it here as well with some editing-
 
I have mixed feelings about this blog.

 

On one hand, i agree that it's very good for people to realize that no one struggles with doubts alone.  Everyone has doubts in some form or another. We have covenanted to mourn with those that mourn and accepting blog posts like this (not necessarily agreeing with them but accepting them with love and care) is part of fulfilling that covenant.

 

However, these kinds of things really are about our unique experiences, thought patterns, and ways of seeing the world (and the differences between how we each do that is not necessarily good or bad-just different). The problem that I see with this blog is that she has taken her perspective and tried to make it everyone's truth. When she says-How do I help [my daughter] to embrace what is good in the temple rites and covenants without being sidetracked by the inherent sexism and secondary status women face in each of the ceremonies?-is one example of what I mean.

 

I know exactly what she's referring to here but I do not personally believe that it shows that the temple is inherently sexist. The wording that she uses though does not leave room for the expression of her opinion but instead proclaims what she has said as fact, and she doesn't have the right to tell anyone else how the temple endowment must be interpreted. She has no authority to do so, not even for her daughter.

 

My biggest concern though is that she doesn't seem to even really know what she's talking about yet. And i don't mean that in a judgmental 'if she just knew what i knew she would agree with me' way but in the way that she gives us no reason to accept her perception as correct. Where does she tell us about her prayers and talks with her Heavenly Father to understand the endowment correctly? Where does she talk about the guidance of the Spirit? Where is her wrestle to know God's will? All that is absent from the blog, leaving me no choice but to conclude that she has absolutely no special understanding of the endowment whatsoever. No spiritual insights to impart, not to those reading her blog and not even to her daughter.

 

And that's not a bad thing (not in the least!) except that she's written a blog telling everyone that her understanding of the endowment is the correct one and she's calling for everyone (including the Apostles and Prophet) to change things to match her understanding and beliefs.  

 

So basically, I see her feelings as valid, but that's pretty much all that i see as valid in her blog. Since she's calling for much more than just validation of her feelings though, I see that as a big problem. 

[The Nehor]

Can a head do anything without a body?

Yes.

Even play the guitar:

[JLHPROF]

So basically, I see her feelings as valid, but that's pretty much all that i see as valid in her blog. Since she's calling for much more than just validation of her feelings though, I see that as a big problem. 

 

I just went over and read the comments below the article.  I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

To my way of thinking too many people undersell the significance of the endowment.  God called it an endowment of power.  Too many of us call it a nice symbolic lesson but that's all.  And personally, I think that is a huge shame to downplay a gift from God like that.

[stemelbow]

I don't know that it's wise to take the wording in the temple as directly from God--it is just as any scripture or revelation from God to a person and then to others. Sometimes it goes through a few others before it's written down it seems. The fact that wording has changed tells me we need not treat the wording we have now as inerrant and completely representative of God's will.

me personally? I like the idea of a much more balanced language, in that men are not only answerable to God and women to men, but men and women answerable to each other and jointly to God. That's how we work it, my wife and I. Never in any way in my married life have I seen it quite like the temple describes it. I think some polishing and fixing is in order. And I grant, I could be wrong. That I'm not quite seeing it right. But if so, I'm all ears.

And I loved the idea about young boys getting to participate at a young age to our regular meetings, but girls not, suggesting we need to fix that. I say, no doubt. We need to.

[stemelbow]

I just went over and read the comments below the article.  I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

To my way of thinking too many people undersell the significance of the endowment.  God called it an endowment of power.  Too many of us call it a nice symbolic lesson but that's all.  And personally, I think that is a huge shame to downplay a gift from God like that.

That's not really the issue. It seems she realizes the blessings she gets from participating in the temple. But even if it is an endowment of power, we could very well clean up some of the language. And we've realized that in the past and made changes. It'll happen again. We aren't stagnant. We are learning and growing.

[JLHPROF]

That's not really the issue. It seems she realizes the blessings she gets from participating in the temple. But even if it is an endowment of power, we could very well clean up some of the language. And we've realized that in the past and made changes. It'll happen again. We aren't stagnant. We are learning and growing.

 

I realize that isn't the issue.  I was referring to the comments made below the article.

 

And if you think changes to the endowment are showing learning and growing I disagree completely.  I think they are a perfect example of Isaiah 24:5 and what Joseph taught as referenced in my OP.

[Duncan]

maybe we can start again paying people to attend the Temple, like they used to and that would ease the burden!

 

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2011/01/20/meeting-an-obligation-temple-receipt-1926/

[JLHPROF]

I don't know that it's wise to take the wording in the temple as directly from God--it is just as any scripture or revelation from God to a person and then to others. Sometimes it goes through a few others before it's written down it seems. The fact that wording has changed tells me we need not treat the wording we have now as inerrant and completely representative of God's will.

me personally? I like the idea of a much more balanced language, in that men are not only answerable to God and women to men, but men and women answerable to each other and jointly to God. That's how we work it, my wife and I. Never in any way in my married life have I seen it quite like the temple describes it. I think some polishing and fixing is in order. And I grant, I could be wrong. That I'm not quite seeing it right. But if so, I'm all ears.

And I loved the idea about young boys getting to participate at a young age to our regular meetings, but girls not, suggesting we need to fix that. I say, no doubt. We need to.

 

The wording isn't the issue.  It's really not.  You are talking about changing fundamental aspects of the temple ceremony itself to please our current social beliefs.  I can think of nothing more incorrect to do.