Anybody else feel this way about Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching?

[Jeanne]

I haven't been through the Temple, but I am curious too as to why Temple blessings favor women..can you enlighten me mfb??

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Great clarifications, thanks for explaining your perspectives on this, I think you made good points and I understand much better.  

That men have evolved to think differently in some ways seems plausible, but how much of traditional gender roles is derived from evolution and is hard wired vs. societal influence?  There are a lot of knee jerk gender stereotypes that get used as justifications for discriminatory practice that I am concerned about in Mormon culture and in religion in general.  This is why I was concerned, and I appreciate your added clarifications.  

My only question would be why you believe temple blessings favor women, but that might not be a question you can answer on a message board in a sensitive way, so we can leave that one.  

We are talking evolution here and since we are social animals it is impossible to decide how much is "hard wired".  Our language apparatus,the tongue and brain connections are built for social interaction, our brains are built for social interaction etc.  The way we reproduce, the relationship between men and women in that area evolved as well- perhaps at God's behest, but we are now taking a scientific view of this.  We can and do as much as we are capable of doing to make sure that women are treated equally with men now that we live in a push-button culture where none of that makes a difference, but we will never erase millions of years of evolution.  I have seen women protesting where they deny the sexiness of portions of their own bodies without a clue of the way men see that- it is utterly naive.  Even looking at one of our symbols of love- a heart, like a Valentine's Day heart, recalls human anatomy.  (Read Desmond Morris' Naked Ape).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape     I suppose it has old information in it but I think it makes great points.  At least it illustrates where I am coming from.

The women's movement has been around what- a hundred years?   You are not going to change evolution in a hundred years of wishing it away.

Besides the fact that it might come in handy in the future.  I can easily imagine the male role of Defender emerging in some future chaotic events, and indeed in some cultures it has never gone away.  

The temple blessings?  Yeah, I am not going there- most LDS are not even aware of them because they don't try to compare the male blessings with the female blessings because they assume they are the same and never discuss the differences.  

Edited May 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I haven't been through the Temple, but I am curious too as to why Temple blessings favor women..can you enlighten me mfb??

 

Deleted.  Temple content.

[Jeanne]

Tacenda, my parents were married civilly at first and then when I was nine, they were sealed and the family was sealed to them.  This took their marriage to a different level.  Dad seemed to think he could demand obedience and my mom fought hard.  This was no heaven on earth!  Thanks for sharing the link.

Edited to add:  When I became engaged to be married in the Temple, my mother took me aside and said..."please don't do this".

Edited May 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Deleted.  Temple content.

I don't know that I ever considered the temple covenants misogynistic, per se, but I am having trouble understanding how they "favor women." Of course, it's only apostates like you and me who are having trouble understanding this, so maybe that should tell us something. 

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know that I ever considered the temple covenants misogynistic, per se, but I am having trouble understanding how they "favor women." Of course, it's only apostates like you and me who are having trouble understanding this, so maybe that should tell us something. 

I hardly think you or I are apostates, if we were I doubt we'd spend much time on this board.

[Foreigner]

On 19.05.2016 at 7:38 AM, JarMan said:

So we've got a new EQP. He's a young guy with a young family, just graduated from BYU and teaches seminary for a living. He's a genuinely good guy and he decided to hand out a short survey on Sunday asking about what we liked and disliked in EQ.  I wrote down that I hate everything about EQ. I hate the manual. I hate home teaching. I hate being home taught. Elder's Quorum is the worst hour of my week unless my HT's were over that week, then it's the second worst hour. 

Anyway, I feel a twinge of regret about survey-ambushing him like that, but I answered honestly like he asked us to. So now that I've lain down on the virtual couch, can anyone tell me: am I normal or is it common to feel this dissatisfied with everything EQ related? 

Hi JarMan,

I am afraid, dissatisfaction with EQ and HT is rather common. Such harsh reflections as these may be helpful on the way for deeper inspiration.

Some time ago, I have found that the practice of HT looks contrary to design. It seems that this was designed for... Saints; while the folks are merely... Mormons, all around.

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hardly think you or I are apostates, if we were I doubt we'd spend much time on this board.

A friend of mine said something the other day that really made sense to me. He and I went through our "faith crises" at the same time, and yet we find ourselves being drawn back into the conversation about Mormonism. He said he finally figured out that what he understands about humans and life he learned in a Mormon context, so it's still the most familiar for him and the most understandable. He has trouble understanding how things work outside a Mormon context. I think there's some validity to that, as it's much easier for me to understand people when it's a Mormon context. I don't know if that makes sense.

Or it could just be that we can leave the church but not leave it alone.

[mnn727]

On 5/19/2016 at 1:24 AM, JarMan said:

I find it to be a major invasion of privacy for people to invite themselves into my home, pretend to care about me, all the while not-so-covertly gathering information that they can take back to the EQP which may ultimately find its way to everybody at Ward Council. Meanwhile they get to literally check the box and thus ensure they are one step closer to salvation. 

Wow, paranoid much?

[mnn727]

On 5/19/2016 at 9:13 AM, JAHS said:

I am in High Priest group and I really like our discussions there. The teacher hardly has to do anything but introduce the topic and lead the discussion. Everyone contributes during the class making it more interesting and uplifting. 

I had to check to see if I posted this, its exactly how my H.P. group is. the instructor is pretty much there start the topic, maybe ask a few questions, to guide the discussion. We do have a large and active HP group, but then our E.Q. is also large and active.

Edited May 23, 2016 by mnn727

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I had to check to see if I posted this, its exactly how my H.P. group is. the instructor is pretty much there start the topic, maybe ask a few questions, to guide the discussion. We do have a large and active HP group, but then our E.Q. is also large and active.

That's how my high priests group is, only I had to sit and bite my tongue, as the discussion almost always veered off into politics and other non-church issues. I had to stop going because it was stressing me out.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We are talking evolution here and since we are social animals it is impossible to decide how much is "hard wired".  Our language apparatus,the tongue and brain connections are built for social interaction, our brains are built for social interaction etc.  The way we reproduce, the relationship between men and women in that area evolved as well- perhaps at God's behest, but we are now taking a scientific view of this.  We can and do as much as we are capable of doing to make sure that women are treated equally with men now that we live in a push-button culture where none of that makes a difference, but we will never erase millions of years of evolution.  I have seen women protesting where they deny the sexiness of portions of their own bodies without a clue of the way men see that- it is utterly naive.  Even looking at one of our symbols of love- a heart, like a Valentine's Day heart, recalls human anatomy.  (Read Desmond Morris' Naked Ape).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape     I suppose it has old information in it but I think it makes great points.  At least it illustrates where I am coming from.

The women's movement has been around what- a hundred years?   You are not going to change evolution in a hundred years of wishing it away.

Besides the fact that it might come in handy in the future.  I can easily imagine the male role of Defender emerging in some future chaotic events, and indeed in some cultures it has never gone away.  

The temple blessings?  Yeah, I am not going there- most LDS are not even aware of them because they don't try to compare the male blessings with the female blessings because they assume they are the same and never discuss the differences.  

There is a lot here and I'm pretty new to trying to expand my thinking about feminist issues.  History, evolution, society are all factors that play into our contemporary culture and the man and women dynamics.  I believe we have a long long ways to go for the status of women to be on a more equal playing field.  I hope to see more progress in my lifetime.  

As for the temple, since Tacenda and a couple others commented on this as well, I would just say that since the temple theology was developed in the 19th century, it reflects much of the thinking of its time.  That thinking very clearly showed a lesser status for women than men in temple terms, and this is an extension of polygamy and Joseph's theosis doctrine.  The remnants of these ideas are still in the current temple ceremonies, but much of the harsher language has been modified in recent changes to the wording.  I haven't done a side by side comparison of male and female blessings as MFB has, and that sounds like it would be interesting to do.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The temple blessings?  Yeah, I am not going there- most LDS are not even aware of them because they don't try to compare the male blessings with the female blessings because they assume they are the same and never discuss the differences.  

I'm pretty darned familiar with both the men's and women's ordinances (both pre-1990 and post-1990).
I have to honestly say, I don't know what you are referring to as favoring women.

But then I don't see "misogyny" either.  No hatred of women is involved.  Differentiation is not hatred.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm pretty darned familiar with both the men's and women's ordinances (both pre-1990 and post-1990).
I have to honestly say, I don't know what you are referring to as favoring women.

But then I don't see "misogyny" either.  No hatred of women is involved.  Differentiation is not hatred.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't know what he's referring to. I made a rough estimate of how many temple sessions I did, and it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 250-300 sessions. I must not have been paying attention because I never noticed the covenants favoring women. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

A friend of mine said something the other day that really made sense to me. He and I went through our "faith crises" at the same time, and yet we find ourselves being drawn back into the conversation about Mormonism. He said he finally figured out that what he understands about humans and life he learned in a Mormon context, so it's still the most familiar for him and the most understandable. He has trouble understanding how things work outside a Mormon context. I think there's some validity to that, as it's much easier for me to understand people when it's a Mormon context. I don't know if that makes sense.

Or it could just be that we can leave the church but not leave it alone.

In my mind, I'm more Mormon than I've ever been.  It's all I ever think about.  Kinda crazy I know!

[Skylla]

Reminder:  Do not post temple content.

Skylla

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my mind, I'm more Mormon than I've ever been.  It's all I ever think about.  Kinda crazy I know!

I wouldn't say that about myself. I admit I find the church, its history and doctrines, fascinating, perhaps even more so than when I was a believer. Maybe it's just that I see clearly how the church developed as a human institution, whereas in the past, I saw it as developing out of direct revelation. Fascinating stuff, IMO. 

Either that, or I'm just a hardened apostate who is, in the words of Dylan, "doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle."

Edited May 23, 2016 by jkwilliams

[canard78]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

A friend of mine said something the other day that really made sense to me. He and I went through our "faith crises" at the same time, and yet we find ourselves being drawn back into the conversation about Mormonism. He said he finally figured out that what he understands about humans and life he learned in a Mormon context, so it's still the most familiar for him and the most understandable. He has trouble understanding how things work outside a Mormon context. I think there's some validity to that, as it's much easier for me to understand people when it's a Mormon context. I don't know if that makes sense.

Or it could just be that we can leave the church but not leave it alone.

I like that. I might have to borrow that. 

The first paragraph... just for clarity. The other... not so much. 

[canard78]

57 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't know what he's referring to. I made a rough estimate of how many temple sessions I did, and it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 250-300 sessions. I must not have been paying attention because I never noticed the covenants favoring women. 

Gonna be difficult to say so without referencing off limits content...

There are certain benefits promised to women unconditionally. The same blessings/benefits are also made available to men, but with certain conditions and caveats. 

I don't think that makes it misogynistic... just pointing out that there's a difference. 

I remember my Bishop drawing attention to it and then paying more attention next time through.

Edited May 23, 2016 by canard78
Spelling

[jkwilliams]

Just now, canard78 said:

Gonna be difficult to say so without referencing off limits content...

There are certain benefits promised to women unconditionally. The same blessings/benefits are also made available to men, but with certain conditions and caveats. 

I don't think that makes it misogynistic... just pointing out that there's a difference. 

I remember my Bishop drawing attention to it and then paying more attention next time through.

I'll have to go back and review. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm pretty darned familiar with both the men's and women's ordinances (both pre-1990 and post-1990).
I have to honestly say, I don't know what you are referring to as favoring women.

But then I don't see "misogyny" either.  No hatred of women is involved.  Differentiation is not hatred.

In what part of the endowment are women separated from men? 

I really don't care if no one else here knows

I will not mention it again but you will find out

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In what part of the endowment are women separated from men? 

A couple of times, once at the beginning, and again at the end briefly.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A couple of times, once at the beginning, and again at the end briefly.

That's my recollection, but then it's been about 10 years since I last went through.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Wow, paranoid much?

In your opinion should HT's "return and report" on their families?

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I really don't care if no one else here knows

 

Just FYI, at least one other person here is aware of it.