Sexism And God

[pogi]

Can a head do anything without a body?

 

You and bluebell make good points.  I think the difficulty comes in the full context of the passage however, in that the man is the head of the women as Christ is the head of the church.  By viewing this in its full context it seems clear to me that the "head" means the leader, the Shepherd who's voice and will is to be followed in all things.  This is the parallel that this passage seems to be making.  That the relationship of Christ to the church should be like the relationship of the man to the woman.  I don't know if any one would deny that Christ is superior as the head.  This is the cultural context of the time as well. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by pogi

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

but how do you tell the leaders about these kinds of things without getting accused of boat rocking or steadying the ark or something, people vote with their feet and the problem never gets addressed other than 'how do we get more people in the Temple' and that doesn't sound like the real problem

[stemelbow]

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.

Interesting. So you are saying changes to the endowment are evidence of the Church bending to pressure from members or exmembers? That they should nto have been made?

[JLHPROF]

Interesting. So you are saying changes to the endowment are evidence of the Church bending to pressure from members or exmembers? That they should nto have been made?

 

Yep.

Changes in administrative things (and even theatrical things) are one thing.  Changes in doctrine, blessings, performances, teachings, etc change the fundamental nature of the ordinance every bit as much as if we switched from baptism by immersion to sprinkling.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

but how do you tell the leaders about these kinds of things without getting accused of boat rocking or steadying the ark or something, people vote with their feet and the problem never gets addressed other than 'how do we get more people in the Temple' and that doesn't sound like the real problem

Beats me how we do that. When I say something I usually get accused of steadying the ark and other such stuff. It seems many just want others to stop thinking and expressing ideas--well I guess that's kinda the message the church is putting out there currently.

[pogi]

Yep.

 

If changes to the endowment is a deviation from the original pure version, then you have to accept that the changes that BY made regarding Adam/God are a deviation too.  Uh oh. 

[stemelbow]

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.

I can think of nothing more correct to do. Why should we be including wording that no one follows? No one actually treats life like the men are answerable to God and women to men. All women in the Church answer to God individually. They don't answer to their husbands other than for both husband and wife get together, talk, think things through, and resolve with an answer jointly agreed upon.

It's really no big deal to make a change in wording that no one actually pays attention to anyway.

[stemelbow]

Yep.

Changes in administrative things (and even theatrical things) are one thing.  Changes in doctrine, blessings, performances, teachings, etc change the fundamental nature of the ordinance every bit as much as if we switched from baptism by immersion to sprinkling.

Interesting. But things revealed from God are filtered through humans, many of which are prone to error, no? I'm just not sure how your way of thinking works in reality.

[JLHPROF]

If changes to the endowment is a deviation from the original pure version, then you have to accept that the changes that BY made regarding Adam/God are a deviation too.  Uh oh. 

 

That's an assumption that he didn't learn it from Joseph in Nauvoo during the endowment...

 

And we aren't talking about additions, we are talking about subtractions.  Not more truth, less truth.

There are elements our parents learned how to perform in the temple that people attending today are unable to perform and therefore cannot receive the blessings attached.  There are specific ways in which parts of the ordinance were to be done that are no longer done, so those blessings are also not received.

 

D&C 130:20-21

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

That's an assumption that he didn't learn it from Joseph in Nauvoo during the endowment...

 

And we aren't talking about additions, we are talking about subtractions.  Not more truth, less truth.

There are elements our parents learned how to perform in the temple that people attending today are unable to perform and therefore cannot receive the blessings attached.

We subtracted the priesthood ban too. To think making changes that shorten something is subtracting truths is not realizing that a better perspective on what is true is exactly that which may be the decider on subtracting things.

[JLHPROF]

We subtracted the priesthood ban too. To think making changes that shorten something is subtracting truths is not realizing that a better perspective on what is true is exactly that which may be the decider on subtracting things.

 

Then we might as well eliminate everything, have the SP & Bishop lay their hands on our heads and pronounce us endowed.

Should do the trick...

[pogi]

That's an assumption that he didn't learn it from Joseph in Nauvoo during the endowment...

 

And we aren't talking about additions, we are talking about subtractions.  Not more truth, less truth.

There are elements our parents learned how to perform in the temple that people attending today are unable to perform and therefore cannot receive the blessings attached.  There are specific ways in which parts of the ordinance were to be done that are no longer done, so those blessings are also not received.

 

D&C 130:20-21

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

I figured as much 

 

If he learned it from Joseph in Nauvoo during the "endowment", why change what was already there?

[The Nehor]

That's an assumption that he didn't learn it from Joseph in Nauvoo during the endowment...

 

And we aren't talking about additions, we are talking about subtractions.  Not more truth, less truth.

There are elements our parents learned how to perform in the temple that people attending today are unable to perform and therefore cannot receive the blessings attached.  There are specific ways in which parts of the ordinance were to be done that are no longer done, so those blessings are also not received.

 

D&C 130:20-21

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

You should probably just declare the church to be in apostasy then. The apostles are cutting us off from God's blessings if your are right.

[stemelbow]

Then we might as well eliminate everything, have the SP & Bishop lay their hands on our heads and pronounce us endowed.

Should do the trick...

Seems like an overreaction to me. The endowment, as even the article that we are discussing says, is very helpful and enlightening to people. No one's coming close to advocating for the kind of thing you are saying.

It seems to me very likely that as we learn we may need to subtract from our language and practice at times, and at other times we may need to add.

[JLHPROF]

You should probably just declare the church to be in apostasy then. The apostles are cutting us off from God's blessings if your are right.

 

Well, I for one am grateful I have learned the original teachings - including how to pray and get an answer and how to present myself at the veil, even if I don't get to practice them in the temple anymore.  I worry for those who don't learn these blessings.

Hopefully that will suffice when those two endowments of power are neededin my life/afterlife.

[bluebell]

You and bluebell make good points.  I think the difficulty comes in the full context of the passage however, in that the man is the head of the women as Christ is the head of the church.  By viewing this in its full context it seems clear to me that the "head" means the leader, the Shepherd who's voice and will is to be followed in all things.  This is the parallel that this passage seems to be making.  That the relationship of Christ to the church should be like the relationship of the man to the woman.  I don't know if any one would deny that Christ is superior as the head.  This is the cultural context of the time as well. 

 

I don't disagree at all that the head means the leader.  Or maybe a better term in regards to church doctrine and the relationship between husbands and wives is that the head is who 'presides'.  

 

It seems to me that our example in what this means is the relationship between the members of the Godhead.  We know that God the Father is the Head.  He 'presides'.  Christ is subordinate to Him and is not equal in that specific way.  But also, every member of the Godhead is completely unified and none is 'less' than the next.  Even Christ, who does nothing but what the Father tells Him to do (a perfect illustration of his subordination to God the Father) is Himself the Almighty and Eternal God.  

 

His subordination takes absolutely nothing away from Him in any way.  He is not less than God the Father because He is subordinate to Him.

 

As far as the relationship of Christ to the church and husband to wife, as far as the scriptures go in regards to that comparison, it is in reference to love.  That husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church.  I don't see any teaching that says that husbands should be to wives as Christ is to the church, but maybe that's my own interpretation.

[BlueDreams]

It is an interesting article, though I would hardly call the perspective new. I’ve heard it several times in the past on other sites. This isn’t a new outtake, but rather a parallel concern that has existed for a while.

I found myself juxtaposing my first experience to what she describes as hers.

For one I was not fresh-faced and enthusiastic. I was dreading it and wondering if this was the right order of events for me. The temple endowment was the symbol to every last fear that I had about my mission, a perpetual commitment to garment wearing, and leaving the man I loved to go serve the Lord. I was not thinking about any ideal that this would be the “final step” in ensuring exaltation. So that was me before the temple.

While in it, I was not struck by sexist language, rather no one had mentioned the initiatory experience much at all to me. So I was caught off guard that old women were laying their hands on me. And rather than feeling like I was inferior or in a place of needing an intermediary called my husband, I was more struck by a sense of profound feminine power in this experience than anything else. It left myself perpetually curious and rather than wanting to head to initiatory I wanted to understand the endowment first and before I was a temple worker I would go to initiatories only when I needed to be out more quickly. I preferred the endowment.  (That’s flip-flopped as a worker….but for a different reason)

Where she went to the temple to finish faster than anyone, I was going weekly so that I could try to have the words memorized before I left. I wanted the temple experience and I was astounded by the new insight and experience….one that fit my personal preference of receiving knowledge: through symbol and visual representation. So I loved the temple…

 And I still love the temple. I’m more aware of critiques that point to sexism and I now have something that feels like double vision. On the one hand I still feel a deep feminine power in the temple. I am loathe to leave temple work (despite my hectic schedule) because it’s the place I feel most connected to it. On the other, I see the point now for the ones who feel it’s a form of sexism in the language. And I do sense that the role of women is not fully fleshed out. I feel that the temple hints at that. That there is a power that women have that is to be utilized with one’s husband (and I’m not talking about baby-making). I think this power is hinted at in the temple (more so) and in scripture but is missed because it’s also covered in a history that was male-dominated and male-centric.

Her 3 expectations for what women do with the language in the temple so that they can find peace is not at all what I’ve done nor the reason I’ve found piece.  I hone in on the differences, not only in language but in actions. I assume God’s not sexist and that it will work out now….that these are things I need now, not just when I’m dead. I’m aware there is cultural infiltration….including my own expectations about what it means to be equal and work to see through them to the point of the language. I deliberately became a temple worker because I wanted intimate knowledge of the temple and an easier way to memorize and study it… not because I wanted to play a game with practicing some form of cognitive dissonance.

I’ve watch hundreds of women come in and out of the temple. Many of these women come consistently, at all ages. I doubt what she’s mentioned is most of their experiences. The only point that I’ve heard that women find inherently sexist is the fact that women can’t work in the temple when the have children at home, yet men can. That rule will probably bite the dust or become more equally applied for men and women.

As bluebell mentioned she’s assuming her thoughts are more universal than they actually are and that doesn’t work. 

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

His subordination takes absolutely nothing away from Him in any way.  He is not less than God the Father because He is subordinate to Him.

 

I hear what you are saying, and I agree on many points, but I still struggle with this idea of subordinate but equal.  If the women is subordinate to the man, the man is by definition superior to the woman.  The Father will always be Christ's superior as Christ will always be my superior.  The oneness that they share does not apply to superiority in my understanding.

 

Sexism was obvious in the early church, it was deeply engrained in the culture and made its way into several scriptures, forbidding women to pray or teach at church etc.  Was the passage which states that the "man is the head of the woman" another example of culture making its way into scripture, or is it an example of scripture being falsely interpreted to justify sexism?  I still struggle understanding its meaning given the church's more modern teachings on marriage.  Even the temple does not suggest that the woman should obey the man in all things, but it gives conditions.  This condition puts them on equal ground, in my view, to where they are both obedient to the Lord only. 

 

It is kind of like how an absolute monarchy is the most pure form of government and the most dangerous depending on the head.  Unless man is completely obedient, he should not be considered the head of the woman, it is too dangerous for the woman (in other words, he should never be considered the head in my reckoning).

[bluebell]

I hear what you are saying, and I agree on many points, but I still struggle with this idea of subordinate but equal.  If the women is subordinate to the man, the man is by definition superior to the woman.

 

How exactly is the man superior?  (I think answering this question will help us understand each other better).

 

The Father will always be Christ's superior as Christ will always be my superior.  The oneness that they share does not apply to superiority in my understanding.

 

In my understanding, being someone's superior and being superior are two completely different things.  When i was the RS president it could be said that i was the superior of my counselors, but no one would have argued that that made me superior to them.  A bishop is the superior of the executive secretary but no one argues that Bishop 'so and so' is of greater value than brother 'so and so'

 

Being someone's superior just means being higher in rank, station, or authority, while being superior to someone means being better or having greater value than someone else.

 

Sexism was obvious in the early church, it was deeply engrained in the culture and made its way into several scriptures, forbidding women to pray or teach at church etc.  Was the passage which states that the "man is the head of the woman" another example of culture making its way into scripture, or is it an example of scripture being falsely interpreted to justify sexism? 

 

 

I agree that there are no easy answers to those questions and i agree that sexism is always with us, whether earlier cultures or our culture now.  

 

It is kind of like how an absolute monarchy is the most pure form of government and the most dangerous depending on the head.  Unless man is completely obedient, he should not be considered the head of the woman, it is too dangerous for the woman (in other words, he should never be considered the head in my reckoning).

 

 

I agree.

[JLHPROF]

I hear what you are saying, and I agree on many points, but I still struggle with this idea of subordinate but equal.  If the women is subordinate to the man, the man is by definition superior to the woman.  The Father will always be Christ's superior as Christ will always be my superior.  The oneness that they share does not apply to superiority in my understanding.

 

The will always be some above us and some below us eternities without end.  We will always be working to help those below and striving to reach those above.  The scriptures tell us that of any two things one is always greater.  Permanent equality is a mortal concept, equal opportunity is more in line with the gospel I think.

 

I have no doubt that Heavenly Mother in power and authority is above me.  So is any woman who has received her higher blessings.  Men aren't always above women.

 

Since this is fact it means what is REALLY being complained about here is the idea that a husband might be considered to be the head of his wife.  And the scriptures are clear that he is.  We either accept scripture or we don't.

I have no issue with the fact that there will be some females ahead of me in the gospel.  Nobody seems to have an issue with Christ being at the head of everyone except his Father.  Why then do so many females have issue with the idea of a male being ahead of them in the gospel?  It's a neverending journey, not a race.

 

[pogi]

 How exactly is the man superior?  (I think answering this question will help us understand each other better).

 

Simply by nature of calling the woman "subordinate" to the man.  I don't believe that man is superior, but this passage seems to place the woman in a subordinate position to the man.

 

 In my understanding, being someone's superior and being superior are two completely different things. 

 

Interesting thought, I'll have to think on that some more.

 

Since this is fact it means what is REALLY being complained about here is the idea that a husband might be considered to be the head of his wife.  And the scriptures are clear that he is.  We either accept scripture or we don't.

 

I am not complaining as much as I am seeking other perspectives to understand it.  You are right, it is scripture, and I would like to believe as much of it as possible, but am obliged to disregard some of it as cultural practices and beliefs at the same time (for example: woman can't pray or teach at church).

 

I have no issue with the fact that there will be some females ahead of me in the gospel.  Nobody seems to have an issue with Christ being at the head of everyone except his Father.  Why then do so many females have issue with the idea of a male being ahead of them in the gospel?  It's a neverending journey, not a race.

 

If "equal opportunity" rather than "permanent equality" is the proper way to view it, will your wife have "equal opportunity" to be your head, or will you always be above her?

 

Nobody has issue with Christ being the head because he is perfect, the same cannot be said for the man.  To put an abusive man as the head of a woman is outright dangerous.  No doubt much unrighteous dominion has been the result of this passage combined with an unstable man.  The temple is a much safer approach and healthy dynamic in my opinion.

Edited February 26, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

If "equal opportunity" rather than "permanent equality" is the proper way to view it, will your wife have "equal opportunity" to be your head, or will you always be above her?

 

Such a petty way of looking at it.  Equal opportunity means we will have the chance to achieve the same levels of glory and power.  No blessing or power will be withheld from man or woman, even while maintaining separate roles or callings.  We will all have the opportunity to become God's - with all eternity at our feet and our kingdoms to rule over.  Then any woman that is a Goddess will be "the head" over ALL the men on the earth.  We are SO worried about who is in charge instead of who we can become.

We sound the the High Priest who grumbles to everyone that HE hasn't had a turn to be Bishop in the ward.

Silly.

 

Nobody has issue with Christ being the head because he is perfect, the same cannot be said for the man.  To put an abusive man as the head of a woman is outright dangerous.  No doubt much unrighteous dominion has been the result of this passage.  The temple is a much safer approach and healthy dynamic in my opinion.

 

Funny, I thought we all, male and female, were working towards perfection.  In the eternities it's pretty safe to say anyone above you, be they male or female, will be perfect, or at least perfect enough.  And NO abusive man has ever been the legitimate head of his wife.  The second he became abusive that covenant was void due to unrighteous dominion - amen to the priesthood.

 

Edited February 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

Such a petty way of looking at it.  Equal opportunity means we will have the chance to achieve the same levels of glory and power.  No blessing or power will be withheld from man or woman, even while maintaining separate roles or callings.  We will all have the opportunity to become God's - with all eternity at our feet and our kingdoms to rule over.  Then any woman that is a Goddess will be "the head" over ALL the men on the earth.  We are SO worried about who is in charge instead of who we can become.  Silly.

 

I understand this, but isn't it dangerous to place an unrighteous man as the head of the woman, just as it is dangerous to place an unrighteous monarch as the head of a nation?  There needs to be conditions and that passage gives none, while the temple does. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

I understand this, but isn't it dangerous to place an unrighteous man as the head of the woman, just as it is dangerous to place an unrighteous monarch as the head of a nation?  There needs to be conditions and that passage gives none, while the temple does. 

 

Of course.  But as I said in the second half of my response, no man who abuses is the legitimate head of the woman and she breaks no covenant to disobey him and leave him.  A covenant is a contract.  If either party breaks it the contract is void.

Nobody is placing an unrighteous man as the head of the woman except the woman that chooses him.  And she has every right to not have him as her head should he prove unrighteous.

[pogi]

Of course.  But as I said in the second half of my response, no man who abuses is the legitimate head of the woman and she breaks no covenant to disobey him and leave him.  A covenant is a contract.  If either party breaks it the contract is void.

Nobody is placing an unrighteous man as the head of the woman except the woman that chooses him.  And she has every right to not have him as her head should he prove unrighteous.

 

You are right that the legitimacy is void in unrighteousness, but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible.   On occasion, this passage engendered much unrighteousness in the name of God and made women the subject of much cruelty as subordinates with no voice.  How many Christian men throughout history have used that passage to rule over his wife in unrighteous dominion?  How many woman became subordinate to such abuse of power because she believed that was the righteous thing to do and the God appointed role of a woman?

 

I think we are better off to think of man and woman as equal partners with different roles, walking side by side as they follow their head, the Lord.  No subordination, no superiority, no heads, but sides rather (as symbolized by the rib of his side.)

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi