An Opposing View

[JLHPROF]

A few weeks ago I posted this blog:

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

in this thread.

 

The basic premise of this blog was 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.

 

Today I came across this wonderful article in the Deseret News with the complete opposite viewpoint.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865624888/Why-I-don7t-call-myself-a-6Mormon-feminist.html

 

 

So for discussion, how can two good and faithful member women have such different perspectives and experiences with the temple.

Short answer - people are different.  Got it.

I'm interested in any possibly longer answer?  How do we change our perspectives in the face of things that make us uncomfortable?  How do we ensure we are seeing things as they really are?  Can sharing differing experiences with the same thing be beneficial?

[Storm Rider]

These types of questions have been asked since humanity began to question things. To change your perspective you need to change your position.  It is like looking at a work of art; seeing it from the left can reveal things that are not seen as well from the right.  Put another way if you are looking at Michelangelo's sculpture of the David you have to change your position by walking around it to gain a full appreciation of the sculpture. 

 

I think the concept applies well to all situations of perspective.  Individuals get very entrenched in their way of seeing things and never take the opportunity to look at a problem from another position or perspective.  To be fair to others we have to learn to empathize or sympathize with position and perspective; only then can we understand their concerns and motivations.  Learning to understand others is not a five minute conversation, but an understanding of true motives and interests. 

 

I thinking sharing our ideas, concerns, and thoughts with others is valuable, but who we share these things with and when is important.  I have always thought that the purpose of prayer is the true sharing of ourselves with God has more to do with gaining a better perspective of God and building a foundation to strengthen an eternal relationship.

[janderich]

I would say we first need to stop forming hasty judgement and labeling our experience in the temple. Labeling has a tendency to cut us off from deeper understanding. The roles of Adam and Eve have deep symbolic meaning that in a very important aspect have nothing to do with their gender. However, those who label the endowment as sexist will never see this symbolism.  Our biases will also cut us off from additional understanding in the initiatory and in the sealing ordinances. In fact I have wondered if in the temple the Lord intended to use our worldly opinions to prevent us from understanding.

[JLHPROF]

In fact I have wondered if in the temple the Lord intended to use our worldly opinions to prevent us from understanding.

 

Oh I'm sure that's part of the plan.  If we were all in perfect tune with the spirit we'd understand it perfectly first time through.

We have all our worldly hangups to get in the way to keep us going back.

[readstoomuch]

Have you read the article about the two trees in the garden of Eden? Written by Valerie Hudson. I think it goes far in explaining "sexism" in the endowment.

[stemelbow]

From the first piece:

Usually women make it work one of three ways: 1) they simply ignore the differences in language and basically don’t listen or they selectively hear only the good things (these women are the most successful at making it work, and I’m not knocking this strategy; it just doesn’t work once you know what’s being said), 2) they assume God’s not sexist and it will all work out in the eternities, or 3) they look at the world around them as being sexist, so they see this as a cultural infiltration and mentally separate it from any theological implication, which would be fine except our current leaders keep insisting that it is theological.

Seems like the author of the desnews piece fits in her number one. She focuses on the good stuff and doesn't pay attention to the sexist language (which I think goes without saying).

[JLHPROF]

From the first piece:

Seems like the author of the desnews piece fits in her number one. She focuses on the good stuff and doesn't pay attention to the sexist language (which I think goes without saying).

 

Actually, I'd say she fits number two better - they assume God’s not sexist and it will all work out in the eternities

[bluebell]

From the first piece:

Seems like the author of the desnews piece fits in her number one. She focuses on the good stuff and doesn't pay attention to the sexist language (which I think goes without saying).

 

I don't know that we can say that she doesn't pay attention to what's being said.  I agree that she's probably in #1 (at least she doesn't give any explanation for how she resolves the differences in language in the endowment and instead talks about it as if the differences aren't there) but we have no idea why she's in #1.

 

The first article that you quoted from is insulting to women in that the author basically says "if they don't find this troubling like i do it's because they don't pay attention or pretend it's not there".  This is the classic "if you don't agree with me its because there's something wrong with you" approach.  It's condescending.

 

It's best to let this woman speak for herself (that she doesn't find it sexist) without assigning her motives or reasons.

 

I don't personally feel her article is a good counter point to the other one though for exactly the reason you mentioned.  This article does not at all deal with the arguments in the first.  It's kind of like the equivalent of someone writing out exactly why riding on a boat makes them seasick and someone else responding with "I like the ocean, it's pretty".

 

Not to take away from anything this woman said. It just doesn't address the issues in the first one.

[Vanguard]

Both articles were quite well written - kuddos to the both of them. From the first piece I was reminded of my 11 yro daughter leaning over to me recently during the passing of the sacrament to ask me why her older brother is allowed to pass and girls can't? It made me fill bad for her as she is quite the outgoing young lady and virtually always desirous of serving while in church. After some thought about it, I wished I could have told her that on a very practical level I don't feel privileged in the least for having the priesthood; that the challenges of parenthood far outweigh and occupy my attention and that any sexist "leg up" rarely enters the equation when negotiating with my wife. I would have told her also about how wonderful it has been to have her mother, her younger sister, and herself in the pews with me while the sacrament is being passed. I am quite affectionate with my daughters and very much enjoy hugging and even kissing them during that most sacred ritual. My son at almost 14 yros and who I am also quite affectionate with has now missed out on that time for almost two years and I miss him telling him how much I love him while waiting for the bread. On more occasions than not, the spirit moves powerfully for me during sacrament and my beautiful daughters are there to appreciate it and benefit from it. Why is my son - simply because he is a boy - not able to participate with us? Hmmmm.....

 

On a more academic note, I suspect the first sister may well have to focus on those many things that are positively powerful in the temple rites. There was a time when men indeed did have more of a patriarchal leg up on the sisters though for good reason*. That time, however, over the last 50 - 100 years is passing as is evidenced by the messages we hear from the pulpit regards to the equality of the sexes. I celebrate this change and only wish that those sisters who are still wrestling with notions of sexism could better appreciate this too. IMO, the ultimate struggle has nothing to do with the "haves and have nots" as it relates to gender but rather the manifestly daunting task of keeping our spiritual sanity as we schlep together through this mortality.

 

* Pm me to ask me why I feel that way and perhaps I will be inspired to open a new thread on it.  

 

  

[stemelbow]

I don't know that we can say that she doesn't pay attention to what's being said.  I agree that she's probably in #1 (at least she doesn't give any explanation for how she resolves the differences in language in the endowment and instead talks about it as if the differences aren't there) but we have no idea why she's in #1.

 

The first article that you quoted from is insulting to women in that the author basically says "if they don't find this troubling like i do it's because they don't pay attention or pretend it's not there".  This is the classic "if you don't agree with me its because there's something wrong with you" approach.  It's condescending.

 

It's best to let this woman speak for herself (that she doesn't find it sexist) without assigning her motives or reasons.

 

I don't personally feel her article is a good counter point to the other one though for exactly the reason you mentioned.  This article does not at all deal with the arguments in the first.  It's kind of like the equivalent of someone writing out exactly why riding on a boat makes them seasick and someone else responding with "I like the ocean, it's pretty".

 

Not to take away from anything this woman said. It just doesn't address the issues in the first one.

I see your point. Angela C doesn't really leave room for an interpretation that the language is not sexist. I have a hard time seeing it as not sexist too, so it was easy for me to go along with what she was saying.

[Rain]

There is a 4th option, similar to number 2. Instead of assuming someday Heavenly Father will work it out they take an active part in pondering, studying and praying to get light and understanding now or at least having faith that they might get it while on earth.

Quote: I took pride in my ability to memorize the ceremony, to find new meaning in the symbols, and to be one of the first ones done at each stage.

I found that when I quit doing that, then I started to gain much more understanding. I realized that pride didn't belong in the temple. Instead of hurrying I try to think about what I am doing and others around me.

I actually find the articles comparable, sort of. The problem, I think, comes from what the second is willing to share. So for some it may not do much. Others may go looking for what the second woman found.

Last, I think it is kind of funny that the blogger says women like initiatory better because it is not sexist. EDITED because she didn't say that when I reread her article. She said women prefer it because we are nit confronted with what is said to the men.

The biggest reason I started going to initiatory was timing. I don't have to wait for a session and if I am in a hurry then it usually takes less time (except on occasions when the wait is quite long. There are other practical reasons why I like it too that I won't share. That isn't to say there are not spiritual reasons I go. It's just I never worried about the endowment being sexist so it wouldn't be a reason I prefer initiatory.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Rain