This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for all of this.  I want to read it again..but it sounds like my nephew will still be okay with both parents...that is, if his mother is sealed again to someone else for exaltation..or she does not sign for a Temple divorce..but it another wife.  Correct me...please.  In any case, my brother comes out on top..I love my bro..but he has no right to do this to her..IMO.

Why does he want a cancellation when there is no impediment to him being sealed again?  Why does she feel like she has to agree to it?  And there is no reason she has to assume that she will still be attached to him, I've always thought of sealings as a box that people could move in and out of. Unless it has changed, I was always told that my sealing to my ex was important to keep because it was an ordinance (like baptism.) 

On the other hand, I personally don't think there is any reason to remain sealed, especially if he is asking for it. I would have cancelled that sealing in a heartbeat if I hadn't been talked out of it by more than one bishop. That was before they were so liberal in handing out cancellations to unmarried women anyway.

Edited January 3, 2017 by juliann

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why does he want a cancellation when there is no impediment to him being sealed again?  Why does she feel like she has to agree to it?  And there is no reason she has to assume that she will still be attached to him, I've always thought of sealings as a box that people could move in and out of. Unless it has changed, I was always told that my sealing to my ex was important to keep because it was an ordinance (like baptism.) 

On the other hand, I personally don't think there is any reason to remain sealed, especially if he is asking for it. I would have cancelled that sealing in a heartbeat if I hadn't been talked out of it by more than one bishop. That was before they were so liberal in handing out cancellations to unmarried women anyway.

You know Juliann, I don't know what he is doing or even understand why.  This woman he is marrying now..I have met her only once and I don't know if she has been maried before.  He is extremely impulsive and wants his own way..it has made relationships tough..even between us siblings.  It is kind of like he is in a world where he is going to get his Temple marriage..have everything that goes with it..his son.family and the rest be damned.  I am so no happy about this..but it is not for me to be happy about it..you know..really none of m business and I really dont understand or really believe in such sealings anymore.  I just know that so many people are unhappy because my sister-in-law feels so cut off.  Thank you for any empathy on the matter.  He has talked to more bishops/stake presidents than you can shake a stick at...and none of it was her fault..it was just a complicated marriage during a time when he couldn't figure out what he wanted to do...he came home early from a mission to marry her. 

[juliann]

This is yet another example of why sealing policies need to be changed.  Now that I think about it, I don't think I have ever heard of a man being granted a cancellation (from online tales, so take that for what it is worth.) 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for all of this.  I want to read it again..but it sounds like my nephew will still be okay with both parents...that is, if his mother is sealed again to someone else for exaltation..or she does not sign for a Temple divorce..but it another wife.  Correct me...please.  In any case, my brother comes out on top..I love my bro..but he has no right to do this to her..IMO.

Your brother will only "come out on top" if he deserves it by repenting of any sins and accepting Christ's Atonement.  If he uses the currently inherent favoring of men in living sealings to hurt or dominant others, it will not be him 'coming out on top', but him spending a goodly time in hell repenting of his abuse of the blessings of the family covenants.

Same with his son and his exwife.  God sees all and blesses us with that which we can receive.  If we are unkind to others, we cannot receive/understand and incorporate blessings that need a core being full of love and light to use and fulfill.

If he has abused or misused his exwife in any way, his covenant with her is broken and will only be restored if first he repents and second, if she agrees to it (I believe there is plenty of doctrine on this out there).  Of course, she can't force him to keep to it any more than he can her.  It is equal in that way, imo.  

If he softens his heart, repents, and reaches out as much as he can to undo the harm he has caused others, relying on the Lord to fix all he cannot (which is most of it for all of us, I believe), he will receive blessings in the same way as those who did not sin against their family, but it may not be in the identical way that he would have received it if he hadn't sinned because others have agency to choose as well and they may realize that what he wants for eternity in his life is not the same thing they want in theirs, even if both want good things.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is yet another example of why sealing policies need to be changed.  Now that I think about it, I don't think I have ever heard of a man being granted a cancellation (from online tales, so take that for what it is worth.) 

I agree that the sealing policies should be reviewed and changed.

I am aware of men who have sought and received sealing cancellation.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Why does he want a cancellation when there is no impediment to him being sealed again?

Perhaps it is a clearance? Add-on:  I see that it isn't, it appears he wants to pretend life isn't messy.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that the sealing policies should be reviewed and changed.

I am aware of men who have sought and received sealing cancellation.

Good to know.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm not sure why these temple things would be bothersome. Christ should be the one taking everyone through the veil when it gets right down to it.  What happens in a temple is after all, ritual. Not everyone is married anyway. Part of the problem with ritual is that it does eventually break down, we don't really attend to the logical holes. I'm curious as to what you see as a problem with sealing vows being the same. What difference does semantics make now that women are also receiving more than one husband? Realistically, shouldn't both parties receive and give? I can't speak to male initiatory ritual. There was an early belief that women weren't actors, they had no power and thus no responsibility. I remember a popular book in the 70s (I think) on priesthood that was still saying that. It is the idea that only men, who have the knowledge/priesthood, can sin sort of thing. Again, archaic.

The temple is where women do share in priesthood so ordination is a separate issue. My thoughts on this are still evolving, but my preference for now would be to open up callings for women by separating some jobs from priesthood. Was it  Elder Oaks who spoke of priesthood as an umbrella...or one of the women conference speakers? Anyway, it is a great way to start seeing priesthood that can open up so much more opportunity for women, we all operate under the umbrella. Ordination isn't always necessary as long as you are under the umbrella. 

I guess we are different in that I don't see highlighting as a problem, I see it as a solution in that it advances our knowledge as the restoration of the gospel proceeds.

Before answering further, let me be clear that I fully support making all ordinances, invitations, obligations, and rewards equal between the sexes. I don't see anything in Christ's teachings to suggest that He wanted women and men to have different roles or that salvation works differently. Christ couldn't put into effect a perfect system because he was working with people who would only accept so much (He still is), but he pushed and pushed as much as possible. 

As for myself and sealing vows, it bothers me that the church's wording of the ordinances places my wife and me on unequal ground. The reasons may be archaic, and we reject them in our actual lived lives (for example, she and I equally preside, provide, nurture, etc.), but it still affects me that the wording is trying to make us unequal. The wording is trying to place me above her, as an intermediary between her and God. It affects to me to the degree that I rarely go to the temple for work other than baptisms with the youth. It may just be semantics, but for myself and many other members who actually care deeply about the wording of our covenants, the gender-focused wording in the temple is damning.

Women do perform some limited priesthood ordinances in the temple. IMO, this is done for Victorian moral purposes and not as a nod to something greater. To wit, if our culture would allow men to be in the women's changing areas, then men would be performing the female initiatory too. Women are only allowed this exception because most of women would not accept a male-administered initiatory - especially the way it used to be done.

As for growing women's roles without full ordination, I'm all for it and rather think that is how things will go. Women will serve as SS Presidents and Ward/Stake Secretaries. As they do so, members (both women and men) will become more comfortable with women presiding over men, will see that men do not leave just because women are allowed the same opportunities (the same as with missionary service and education) and will see that men will follow women's instructions to the same degree that they follow men's instructions. That all takes time, but it will happen. Only after those gains will we look around and say, "so why not allow the women to also baptize, serve as bishops, etc."?

As for the umbrella analogy, I don't think that comes from Oaks. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes from a sister. Personally, I think the analogy misses the mark for the same reasons as so many other folklore defending women's exclusion from ordination. I'm not interested in only the blessings that come from standing under the umbrella. I'm interested in the blessings that come from holding it. Under the current system, my sons and daughters both stay out the rain. Great. But only my sons build muscles by holding the umbrella. I want my daughters to build muscles too. Its the same problem as with the analogy of priesthood to Christmas presents - yes, I'm glad that everyone gets presents, but the giving of presents shouldn't be limited to men. In my experience, there is greater joy in giving presents (performing ordinances) than just receiving them. I want my mother, wife, and daughters to have that same joy as me. Limiting them to receiving presents keeps them from the greatest joy of Christmas morning.

As for 'highlighting' problems, that happens anytime there is a partial change. For example, when the wording for the law of obedience was changed circa 1990, members asked why. The FP issued a general letter so that members understood the change was legit and that changes happen from time to time, but the church did not give any explicit reasons as to why those changes happened, much less why other changes were not done. Even today, if you ask a group of older sisters whether they still view themselves as under the original covenant to obey their husbands (period) rather than the modified covenant to obey their husbands (conditional), you'll get a few differing answers, but mostly some very uncomfortable silence. In like manner, if some of the current wording is further changed, but not everything, members (like me) will continue to ask why. The questioning and prodding won't stop until our ordinances reflect a God who is no respecter of persons.

Moreover, changing the wording of ordinances opens all kinds of dilemmas, not the least of which is whether all previous proxy work needs to be redone. Imagine if sealing ordinance was changed so that men now give themselves to their wife. I would love to see that for my sons' and daughters' sealings. But I would also want to have the new wording pronounced for myself - again, I care very much about the wording of my covenants. So would the church allow my wife and I to be sealed again? And even if so, what does that mean for all the millions where were sealed under the 'old' system? Do they just get grandfathered into the new wording? If so, we're getting perilously close to the line of admitting that our temple proxy work need not be done correctly and that in the end we can just perform one mass ordinance for everybody.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it is a clearance?

Ah, that would make sense. Jeanne, are you sure she knows the terms?

I had a friend who had a bum of a husband (he had even been arrested) and she had to give a statement before he could remarry in the temple. She said no...not because of her sealing but because he was a fraud. They denied him but he eventually was able to be sealed to the next wife. When I asked for a cancellation for a new sealing , they tracked down my ex. He said no. They cancelled it anyway.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Your brother will only "come out on top" if he deserves it by repenting of any sins and accepting Christ's Atonement.  If he uses the currently inherent favoring of men in living sealings to hurt or dominant others, it will not be him 'coming out on top', but him spending a goodly time in hell repenting of his abuse of the blessings of the family covenants.

Same with his son and his exwife.  God sees all and blesses us with that which we can receive.  If we are unkind to others, we cannot receive/understand and incorporate blessings that need a core being full of love and light to use and fulfill.

If he has abused or misused his exwife in any way, his covenant with her is broken and will only be restored if first he repents and second, if she agrees to it (I believe there is plenty of doctrine on this out there).  Of course, she can't force him to keep to it any more than he can her.  It is equal in that way, imo.  

If he softens his heart, repents, and reaches out as much as he can to undo the harm he has caused others, relying on the Lord to fix all he cannot (which is most of ithe t for all of us, I believe), he will receive blessings in the same way as those who did not sin against their family, but it may not be in the identical way that he would have received it if he hadn't sinned because others have agency to choose as well and they may realize that what he wants for eternity in his life is not the same thing they want in theirs, even if both want good things.

Thanks..I am hoping, because of course I love my brother, that he mends fences honestly...and if he loves this new lady deeply that he finds happiness.  All this without the extra pain of loss again for his first wife.  I am sure she will be okay..and she is so faithful and has raised my brother's two other kids another son and daughter..very well.  I guess  this is where we leave justice at the door for the Lord...and I sure don't envy Him on even things like this...no big sins..just another mortal pain to endure for what I think is something that basically LDS women have to find that extra strength.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Jeanne

[juliann]

Buckeye, I agree with you for the most part. However, the temple priesthood I was talking about has to do with being clothed, not the initiatories. And I'd quibble with you in saying that a "sister" said something in General Conference, the implication being it is a lesser statement. Language is key here if we are to make any movement whatsoever. That "sister" would likely have been President [name].  So it would be a matter of Elder Oaks saying it or Pres.___, not "a sister."  Since Elder Oaks did say that women were using priesthood in their church callings ("What else would it be?) my best guess is that is what the umbrella analogy is. 

As for redoing covenants, is there any precedent for redoing them for previous changes?  Women used to covenant to "obey" after all.  

Edited January 3, 2017 by juliann

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Ah, that would make sense. Jeanne, are you sure she knows the terms?

I had a friend who had a bum of a husband (he had even been arrested) and she had to give a statement before he could remarry in the temple. She said no...not because of her sealing but because he was a fraud. They denied him but he eventually was able to be sealed to the next wife. When I asked for a cancellation for a new sealing , they tracked down my ex. He said no. They cancelled it anyway.

I have no idea...I will be talking to him soon.  I am going to try and slip in some questions and get some assurances. Thanks so much..and your experience speaks volumes for your strength and endurance in the face of some tough stuff!!

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I think there will eventually be changes to the archaic wording. I think the more recent interpretations of women being able to determine if their husband is making righteous choices is an afterthought, an attempt to justify the unequal position of the wife. It is question begging, actually. It assumes that there is a situation in which a husband would have to step down from his presiding role. It also assumes there is a policy/ procedure for such that a wife could rely on, there isn't. Such an occurrence is, in actuality, a marital argument and little more. 

When this wording was created, men were in charge. Period. They had social, legal, and political control of women, and there were consequences to women who stepped out of line. I don't see any way to salvage wording from another time, it is going to have to be modified to match the modern language of our leaders that is emphasizing equality in marriage. 

Well I can only speak for myself, but I know there are times it has helped me, but I do grant that, as you say, it leaves a big gap available for abuse if not taken as an essential part of the covenant.

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks..I am hoping, because of course I love my brother, that he mends fences honestly...and if he loves this new lady deeply that he finds happiness.  All this without the extra pain of loss again for his first wife.  I am sure she will be okay..and she is so faithful and has raised my brother's two other kids another son and daughter..very well.  I guess  this is where we leave justice at the door for the Lord...and I sure don't envy Him on even things like this...no big sins..just another mortal pain to endure for what I think is something that basically LDS women have to find that extra strength.

Don't forget the extra strength of being sealed to children, for believers, though. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, juliann said:

Don't forget the extra strength of being sealed to children, for believers, though. 

For sure...those feelings are real ..tangible..and for believers the very reason for all things...This is why I try to understand and empathize with the feelings of LDS women.  I wish that I had better understanding now back when my Mom was dealing with so many things.  You women rock!

[Calm]

"IMO, this is done for Victorian moral purposes and not as a nod to something greater."

I think you are dismissing/forgetting? past history of healings as well as the original relatively independent structure of the RS that had nothing to do with Victorian morality...the RS handled its own finances, had its own projects, etc.  Perhaps the source of the initiatory is that empowerment of women 'in her sphere' since both came in the same time period.

[Buckeye]

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

Buckeye, I agree with you for the most part. However, the temple priesthood I was talking about has to do with being clothed, not the initiatories. And I'd quibble with you in saying that a "sister" said something in General Conference, the implication being it is a lesser statement. Language is key here if we are to make any movement whatsoever. That "sister" would likely have been President [name].  So it would be a matter of Elder Oaks saying it or Pres.___, not "a sister." 

As for redoing covenants, is there any precedent for redoing them for previous changes?  Women used to covenant to "obey" after all.  

Apologies for the implication that sisters are less than brothers. That certainly wasn't my intent. To correct things, I just ran a search for "lds umbrella priesthood analogy." The first hit was this: https://www.lds.org/church/news/young-women-leaders-priesthood-helps-keep-young-women-safe?lang=eng, which attributes the analogy to Sister Mary N. Cook, first counselor in the general YW presidency at the time. As a counselor, Sister Cook would not be called 'President.' Then again, under current church practice, even if she was the president she would still be called "Sister." I don't agree with the practice, but it is what it is.

FWIW, in my local units, I tend to call the female presidents "President" to the point that they get annoyed with me and ask me to just call them "Sister."  I use proper titles because they matter. But when asked to use "Sister," I demur because the person's comfort matters to me more that calling attention to her important position.

As for redoing covenants, I am not aware of any precedent. IMO, we could sort of get away with that in the past because the changes either took away parts of the ordinances (e.g., penalties and oaths for vengeance) or modified them in a way that people could still believe that the covenant was unchanged (e.g., members could assume that the new wording for women's covenant of obedience was always implied in the old covenant and so the new wording just made things more clear without actually changing the covenant). IMO, these arguments would be much more difficult to hold if the temple ordinances were changed so that gender no longer matters; those changes would be additions to the ordinances and therefore arguably render prior ordinances as 'lacking.' For example, if the endowment were changed so that my daughters covenant directly with deity rather than to their husbands, that change would not have any impact on my wife's own covenants which were made to me. Were such a change made to the wording of the covenant, I'm confident that many women would want to receive their endowments again under the new wording. That hasn't been an issue with prior changes.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

"IMO, this is done for Victorian moral purposes and not as a nod to something greater."

I think you are dismissing/forgetting? past history of healings as well as the original relatively independent structure of the RS that had nothing to do with Victorian morality...the RS handled its own finances, had its own projects, etc.  Perhaps the source of the initiatory is that empowerment of women 'in her sphere' since both came in the same time period.

Those are important points, Calm. You may very well be correct as to how things were set up initially by Joseph. Still, in my view, I believe that were it not for cultural sensitivities, women's roles in female initiatories would have been correlated away in the early-mid 20th century for the same reasons that women's healings were stopped. There's no control group so we'll never know. More importantly, though, I'm hopeful that women's participation in the female initiatory will help grow the current desires in some circles for women's healing practices to return. That would be great, though, for the same reasons I mentioned above, would then lead to further difficulties as the church wants to maintain the importance of priesthood ordinances. For example, allowing mothers to give healing blessings to their children would raise these questions: (1) Is a mother's blessing just as 'good' as a priesthood one? (2) If so, would a father's blessing be just a 'good' even if he doesn't have the priesthood? (3) If so, there's now less value/incentive for a man to obtain a priesthood office.

That's the underlying catch-22 of women's priesthood issues - so long as women are exclude from priesthood office, we can't expand women's sphere of agency without simultaneously reducing the priesthood's sphere of authority. As women grow in importance, the priesthood will necessarily diminish. The only complete solution is to combine women and priesthood by ordaining them.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Still, in my view, I believe that were it not for cultural sensitivities, women's roles in female initiatories would have been correlated away in the early-mid 20th century for the same reasons that women's healings were stopped

I go back and forth.  If I was more familiar with how prevalent women's healings were in society, I would probably better decide.  It could be the strength of the initiatory was stronger than the tradition of healings due to the greater group process (every woman included who went to the temple), more set ritual...written down rules have greater staying power, and just frequency of occurrence might have allowed it to resist change without the moral imperative.  It could be all that was minor compared to the outrage that would have occurred among men and women if men were shifted to performing them.

Otoh, the women also do the work for women that occurs when men are present and it could have been very easy to shift to only male workers in the endowment.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

I wish I was gay and then people would quit telling me how I can relate to my wife.

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I go back and forth.  If I was more familiar with how prevalent women's healings were in society, I would probably better decide.  It could be the strength of the initiatory was stronger than the tradition of healings due to the greater group process (every woman included who went to the temple), more set ritual...written down rules have greater staying power, and just frequency of occurrence might have allowed it to resist change without the moral imperative.  It could be all that was minor compared to the outrage that would have occurred among men and women if men were shifted to performing them.

Otoh, the women also do the work for women that occurs when men are present and it could have been very easy to shift to only male workers in the endowment.

Your bolded statement is a strong argument. I'll have to reconsider my views.

Perhaps the better angle is to consider why women's healings were stopped to begin with, as well as the RS's loss of autonomy. Was it because church leaders thought the healing practice in error? Was it because they thought the RS a challenge to priesthood's authority to govern (which became paramount in the post-manifesto days when a hard line had to be drawn). Was it because everything needed to be brought under the priesthood umbrella in order to correlate the church (something that did have great value, I'll admit)? Or something else?

To the degree that women's authority in the temple was seen as something that would not challenge the FP/Q12, and was also not something that would inhibit correlation, perhaps women's initiatory authority would have remained even were it not for victorian morals. Thanks.

[canard78]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

First of all, I can't believe that you would bring something so unsettled as an introduction of the church to a nonmember. Really??

We have been over this soooooo many times it is really frustrating to have to explain it every. dang. time. So here it is. Again.

We have had a board member say she has a second (living) sealing. I know a woman who is sealed to a second husband. Another poster, a former bishop, has even explained that two women in his ward (and I think they were divorced) had a second sealing. In other words, it is done with special permission. That means that I, as an individual, know for sure of one instance and have credible accounts of three others. That said, I had a situation with a sealing that required permission and a woman has to get past the gatekeepers, first the bishop and most important the Stake Prez. Mine were very supportive. My opinion is that if you don't have a stake prez who is fighting for you rather than just pushing through the paperwork, it's not likely to happen. Not fair but that is the stage we are in. 

Leaving aside the problem of almost no one being aware of this to be able to take advantage of it, what it represents is the most important. What we currently have is a policy of sealing dead women to all husbands.... as well as some live women. What does that do to stubborn belief that we are still operating under Brigham Young? What happens is that we actually have members telling others that proxy work is meaningless for women, the very proxy work that is a basis of our religion!  And it gets worse as justifications are created to undo women's live sealings while protecting men's (apparently with the belief that men's sealings have nothing to do with women's sealings and are always secure.) 

So where are we now? Both men and women are being sealed to more than one spouse. When it comes to the theology, it doesn't really matter if it is one woman being sealed or thousands. The only thing that matters is that it can be done.

What this may do, and what I see more of (as Stem noted above)  is to force a more realistic look at the purpose of sealings and the construction of the heavenly family. It seems to me that with the emphasis on the family, we are stuck with messy mortal families as our only model. That has pushed us into what I call the honeymoon cottage theory of eternal life where we are in exclusive enclaves with people we love.... more than everybody else.  That isn't very heavenly let alone Christlike.

So this is but one more example of how elevating women ultimately enhances and expands our understanding. 

Don't worry, it's not normally my opening introduction to Mormonism when discussing the church with non-members!

The non-Mormon in question raised it himself. The "Louise" in my example is HIS mother in law. He had been asking "Louise" if she would ever consider remarrying. "Louise" was the one who'd told him no and had given the "already sealed & could be sealed again" explanation to him. He hadn't wanted to pry so had asked me for clarification as to why. 

She (Louise) was perhaps raised in a different time or with different leaders to you as she is convinced she can't remarry and also has accepted that she will be a polygamous wife in eternity. 

Perhaps you're right that exceptions have been made when the right stake president lobbies hard enough for it. There isn't a doctrinal basis for doing so, but I can see how an indivdual case can be treated as a "seal her to both and let the Heavens sort it in the eternities."

For something so fundamental and central to Mormon doctrine, it seems strangely vague and ad hoc in approach. 

President Uchtdorf have a talk in the last few years to the effect of saying that the restoration wasn't over and that the fullness of the gospel was still being revealed. 

From where I'm standing, the ongoing fullness seems to be more ambiguous not, not offering greater clarity. Things that used to be more certain seem to be growing less certain. 

Perhaps that's what a fullness and a maturity of doctrine is supposed to look like, but to me it looks more like mainstreaming and sanitising.  

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Apologies for the implication that sisters are less than brothers. That certainly wasn't my intent. To correct things, I just ran a search for "lds umbrella priesthood analogy." The first hit was this: https://www.lds.org/church/news/young-women-leaders-priesthood-helps-keep-young-women-safe?lang=eng, which attributes the analogy to Sister Mary N. Cook, first counselor in the general YW presidency at the time. As a counselor, Sister Cook would not be called 'President.' Then again, under current church practice, even if she was the president she would still be called "Sister." I don't agree with the practice, but it is what it is.

FWIW, in my local units, I tend to call the female presidents "President" to the point that they get annoyed with me and ask me to just call them "Sister."  I use proper titles because they matter. But when asked to use "Sister," I demur because the person's comfort matters to me more that calling attention to her important position.

As for redoing covenants, I am not aware of any precedent. IMO, we could sort of get away with that in the past because the changes either took away parts of the ordinances (e.g., penalties and oaths for vengeance) or modified them in a way that people could still believe that the covenant was unchanged (e.g., members could assume that the new wording for women's covenant of obedience was always implied in the old covenant and so the new wording just made things more clear without actually changing the covenant). IMO, these arguments would be much more difficult to hold if the temple ordinances were changed so that gender no longer matters; those changes would be additions to the ordinances and therefore arguably render prior ordinances as 'lacking.' For example, if the endowment were changed so that my daughters covenant directly with deity rather than to their husbands, that change would not have any impact on my wife's own covenants which were made to me. Were such a change made to the wording of the covenant, I'm confident that many women would want to receive their endowments again under the new wording. That hasn't been an issue with prior changes.

I think I would have better expressed the umbrella thing by using the terms power and authority, which Elder Oaks set into action. The umbrella has customarily been used to explain how everyone under it receives blessings regardless of who holds it but with the addition of power vs authority I think it is beginning to morph a bit. As an aside, the minute we start saying it doesn't matter who holds it, it obviously does. We then get ourselves into the dilemma of trying to dismiss the importance of holding the priesthood, the 'ol the man can't bless himself nonsense. Meanwhile, priesthood talk after priesthood talk dives into the multiple blessings received from holding the priesthood. It's just more talking out of both sides of our mouths to avoid having to admit we do teach that holding priesthood is a fundamental blessing, if not the greatest blessing....which women can do without. 

Again, language is still being developed.  Like calling those sisters president whether they like it or not. Can you imagine a Bishop objecting to being called bishop and getting away with it? Women are trained to not like recognition in the Church. That is one of the things male allies need to insist upon for it to be overcome, in m opinion. It is one area where the perceived superiority of priesthood holders can come to good use. And maybe if these women think beyond their understandable discomfort, they will do it for the benefit of others A reminder that it isn't about them, it is about what our girls see,(I can't be it if I can't see it,) should be effective. And if the men in the First Pres are called president, so should the women in auxillary presidencies. We have this inexplicable custom of tying priesthood to everyday business titles that is absurd. It is only what it is if we let it be what it is ;-) Again, language before behavior change.

And you are right, if I would want a redo to covenant  to God (or should I say Heavenly Parents). But that should be a good thing. 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Don't worry, it's not normally my opening introduction to Mormonism when discussing the church with non-members!

  

I suspected as much. Whew ;-)

Quote

 

The non-Mormon in question raised it himself. The "Louise" in my example is HIS mother in law. He had been asking "Louise" if she would ever consider remarrying. "Louise" was the one who'd told him no and had given the "already sealed & could be sealed again" explanation to him. He hadn't wanted to pry so had asked me for clarification as to why. 

She (Louise) was perhaps raised in a different time or with different leaders to you as she is convinced she can't remarry and also has accepted that she will be a polygamous wife in eternity. 

 

This was not only taught...but talked about in church back when. I remember it as well. It wasn't that long ago that the CHI pulled the instruction that a woman would have to choose one husband. This is but another example of what IRL damage these policies do. 

 

Quote

Perhaps you're right that exceptions have been made when the right stake president lobbies hard enough for it. There isn't a doctrinal basis for doing so, but I can see how an indivdual case can be treated as a "seal her to both and let the Heavens sort it in the eternities."

It is no different situation than a man being sealed twice. No one seems to worry about sorting then. 

Quote

 

For something so fundamental and central to Mormon doctrine, it seems strangely vague and ad hoc in approach. 

President Uchtdorf have a talk in the last few years to the effect of saying that the restoration wasn't over and that the fullness of the gospel was still being revealed. 

From where I'm standing, the ongoing fullness seems to be more ambiguous not, not offering greater clarity. Things that used to be more certain seem to be growing less certain. 

Perhaps that's what a fullness and a maturity of doctrine is supposed to look like, but to me it looks more like mainstreaming and sanitising. 

 

Yeah, I get that. But it has been women, for the most part, who have quietly been suffering because of discriminatory policies that no longer have any basis whatsoever.  I remember reading an important reminder....the opposite of doubt is not faith, it is certainty. I think certainty has been the enemy. When we have too much of it who needs revelation or spiritual progress?

[canard78]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

I suspected as much. Whew ;-)

This was not only taught...but talked about in church back when. I remember it as well. It wasn't that long ago that the CHI pulled the instruction that a woman would have to choose one husband. This is but another example of what IRL damage these policies do. 

This is all really interesting, thank you. How recently have these changes happened? I've not been a branch president/on the branch presidency since 2011, so haven't had access to handbook 1 since then and haven't been on a PEC (or, indeed, to any church meeting)   since 2014, so I'm guessing these changes have happened since at least 2011? 

It is no different situation than a man being sealed twice. No one seems to worry about sorting then. 

As far as I know, the church hasn't revoked its doctrine of polygamy... only it's active practicing of it. I would say that there is a difference both attitudinally and doctrinally. Most men I've met who are sealed to multiple women (or people whose ancestors are men sealed to multiple women) believe that no choice will be made, but that they will all be his wives. There's an opposite belief/assumption for women... I.e., they will need to choose at some point.

If you're saying that different is changing and that both men and women are believed to be in a "wait and see" status, then I'm glad to hear it. 

Out of interest, is there anything official that could be referenced on that topic other than handbooks removing statements?

Yeah, I get that. But it has been women, for the most part, who have quietly been suffering because of discriminatory policies that no longer have any basis whatsoever.  I remember reading an important reminder....the opposite of doubt is not faith, it is certainty. I think certainty has been the enemy. When we have too much of it who needs revelation or spiritual progress?

I like that idea and if Mormonism moves that way in the coming generations then it's more likely to be sustainable. 

I left Mormonism in 2014, the year we were studying Joseph Fielding Smith. The weight of certainty in his teachings was frustrating and contributed (among many other complicated reasons) to my departure. 

I still hear a lot of language of certainty from the brethren too.  I suppose they are also generationally different and even more likely to have influenced by the JFS/McConkie generation, what the language of absolutes seems so prevalent.