Thoughts Re: "Veils"

[smac97]

I have a friend who has been asking some questions about the significance of veils (as in worn by women).  I recently came across this rather interesting article by Lynne Wilson: Unveiling Women’s Veils of Authority.

Could anyone point me to additional resources that provide insights as to the wearing of veils in the LDS tradition?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Interesting topic - I am about half way through the article.

The author makes a good case for the point that wearing a veil in the temple actually bestows authority on women.  I learned things today I had not even considered before about chains of authority and its sources.  There are some really beautiful passages and I love what I have read so far of the article.

On the other hand I fear perceptions have changed so much since the scripture was written that presentism will triumph and no one will understand the importance of the point being made, and will still see that women wearing a veil before the Lord shows their subservience and not their position of authority.

But it is a brilliant analysis- thanks for pointing it out.  Never looked at it that way before!  

I will add this as an interpretation and summary of what I have read so far.  This is intentionally a vast over simplification.

Essentially we all have our place in the Kingdom- and Adam is made in the image of God our Father.  He stands bare before his father.  

Yet it would not be appropriate for Eve to stand bare before her Father, she should be bare only before her husband.  If she were bare before a man not her father, that would be inappropriate 

So the veil is a symbol of her being covered before her father to show her proper authority as one of his daughters instead of a woman standing uncovered before a man.

So the head covering or lack is a symbol of how we stand before our Father in a chain of command.  Perhaps it could be compared to different uniforms to designate our authority and place in the Kingdom.

Edited March 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I................................

Could anyone point me to additional resources that provide insights as to the wearing of veils in the LDS tradition?...............................

I don't know whether it might be helpful, but you might want to consider this short discussion of the ancient Jewish practice (continued today) of the bride being veiled before her wedding.  https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/267679/jewish/Why-Does-a-Jewish-Bride-Wear-a-Veil-on-Her-Face.htm .

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting topic - I am about half way through the article.

The author makes a good case for the point that wearing a veil in the temple actually bestows authority on women.  I learned things today I had not even considered before about chains of authority and its sources.  There are some really beautiful passages and I love what I have read so far of the article.

On the other hand I fear perceptions have changed so much since the scripture was written that presentism will triumph and no one will understand the importance of the point being made, and will still see that women wearing a veil before the Lord shows their subservience and not their position of authority.

But it is a brilliant analysis- thanks for pointing it out.  Never looked at it that way before!  

I will add this as an interpretation and summary of what I have read so far.  This is intentionally a vast over simplification.

Essentially we all have our place in the Kingdom- and Adam is made in the image of God our Father.  He stands bare before his father.  

Yet it would not be appropriate for Eve to stand bare before her Father, she should be bare only before her husband.  If she were bare before a man not her father, that would be inappropriate 

So the veil is a symbol of her being covered before her father to show her proper authority as one of his daughters instead of a woman standing uncovered before a man.

So the head covering or lack is a symbol of how we stand before our Father in a chain of command.  Perhaps it could be compared to different uniforms to designate our authority and place in the Kingdom.

I’m not following this logic. Both men and women in the temple have the same coverings for most of their body parts, including all their ‘bathing suit’ parts (to use the phrase we use with our kids). 

The only thing a veil covers is a woman’s face. Why is it inappropriate for a daughter’s face to be seen by her father?  

[blueglass]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have a friend who has been asking some questions about the significance of veils (as in worn by women).  I recently came across this rather interesting article by Lynne Wilson: Unveiling Women’s Veils of Authority.

Could anyone point me to additional resources that provide insights as to the wearing of veils in the LDS tradition?

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting article.  However, the article has a fatal flaw.  It fails to discuss the rich passages on the rending of the veil from Matt 27, 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 6,9,10.  

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Interesting article.  However, the article has a fatal flaw.  It fails to discuss the rich passages on the rending of the veil from Matt 27, 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 6,9,10.  

I thought of that, too.  Perhaps the author intended to limit the scope of the topic to the veil as it pertains to authority.  The veil as a symbolic representation of "separation" may warrant a separate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I’m not following this logic. Both men and women in the temple have the same coverings for most of their body parts, including all their ‘bathing suit’ parts (to use the phrase we use with our kids). 

The only thing a veil covers is a woman’s face. Why is it inappropriate for a daughter’s face to be seen by her father?  

A fully grown and married daughter?  Naked before her father?

THAT is the context, symbolically.

Read 1 Cor 11 - which is horribly difficult to decipher in the KJV English.

Your question would be like asking if everyone in the military had the same uniform, with no "stripes" or whatever it is that designates rank- how could you tell who is whom?

Read the article and disagree with it or not- I have still only read half but it throws a lot of light on the cryptic English most of us go by and therefore decide Paul was a sexist, as if that word even made sense in those days.

For a woman to be "shorn" - ie: without hair - was a symbol of nakedness and so covering the head is a symbol of being clothed - as it were- in "garments" by analogy.

Read the article- I am just the messenger trying to make it readable for this audience and I am only half way through myself

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

A fully grown and married daughter?  Naked before her father?

THAT is the context, symbolically.

Read 1 Cor 11 - which is horribly difficult to decipher in the KJV English.

Your question would be like asking if everyone in the military had the same uniform, with no "stripes" or whatever it is that designates rank- how could you tell who is whom?

Read the article and disagree with it or not- I have still only read half but it throws a lot of light on the cryptic English most of us go by and therefore decide Paul was a sexist, as if that word even made sense in those days.

For a woman to be "shorn" - ie: without hair - was a symbol of nakedness and so covering the head is a symbol of being clothed - as it were- in "garments" by analogy.

Read the article- I am just the messenger trying to make it readable for this audience and I am only half way through myself

 

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying.  The veil, when in use, doesn't cover the hair, it covers the face.  How is a woman's uncovered face a symbol of nakedness, where is that taught?

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying.  The veil, when in use, doesn't cover the hair, it covers the face.  How is a woman's uncovered face a symbol of nakedness, where is that taught?

Numbers 5 11

Cutting off hair is a punishment for adultery.

It's the head not the face read the article.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying.  The veil, when in use, doesn't cover the hair, it covers the face.  How is a woman's uncovered face a symbol of nakedness, where is that taught?

As I said I guess it's not readable for this audience.

[mfbukowski]

Telling who was a man and who is a woman in the olden days actually mattered.

They had true unisex clothing. Everyone wore burkas.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I thought of that, too.  Perhaps the author intended to limit the scope of the topic to the veil as it pertains to authority.  The veil as a symbolic representation of "separation" may warrant a separate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

The other part to investigate is if it is correct to connect or conflate the covering of 1Cor11 Strong's 2619  κατακαλύπτεται, with the veil descried by Moses in Exodus 34:33 masveh Strong's 4533, which I believe parallels the veil of 2Cor 3:13 κάλυμμα, Strong's 2571.  The one (the cover) covers the head and hair honoring the authority of man as  the image and glory of God 1Cor11:7 which could represent the power, authority, keys of the priesthood, and the curious phrase "because of the angels" which could represent the Nephilim and watchers in the pseudepigrapha Enoch literature.  LDS Christianity sees God as a divine marriage - as heavenly parents.  Woman created in the Image of Goddess.  See the mother there essay by Paulsen and Pulido where it quotes President Kimball, God “made women in the image of his wife-partner.”  Also women believe like men that we can be little christs when our ministry reflects the image of the Son,  see Kathryn H. Shirts, “Women in the Image of the Son: Being Female and Being Like Christ,”  (Women Steadfast in Christ: Talks Selected from the 1991 Women’s Conference).  

Also men do wear head coverings in the temple (see bonnets and mitres described in Exodus 28, 29, and 44)  as representations of glory and beauty.  Exodus 28:40 
40 ¶ And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.

Anyway good strengths to the article pertaining to the covering as representative of equal access to ruling authority. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by blueglass

[stemelbow]

Quote

His counsel acknowledges Christian women’s participation in public worship. His instructions capture the order of creation — a fortifying link between women, men, Christ, and God — that endowed humanity with God’s power. The woman’s head covering represents her authority or “power on her head” in the presence of angels (11:10). Essentially, Paul asks whether it is “not better to pray and prophesy with humility before God and with a sign of her authority?” For Paul, the sanction derived from the creation allows God’s glory (referring to man) to pray unveiled; and by the same token, humanity’s glory (referring to woman) should humbly commune with God veiled. As he explains [Page 154]these principles, he recognizes and encourages unity between men and women in their covenant relationship with God.

This comes off to me as nothing more than an attempt to explain that one traditional expression from a couple of thousand years ago can be taken as something more than it is.  The creation story carries symbolism with it, unique to cultures long gone.  We adapt I suppose, as did Paul, apparently.  But if God then women are nothing different then men in that they also have a God after whom they are patterned (or whatever this guy said about men being that).  Paul's reasoning is strained, and this effort to save Paul from misogyny is strained.  I think you're better off just accepting that misogyny has been so well accepted in so many ways by so many cultures and times, there really is no saving Paul from it's clutches.

If God, then there is nothing that should hold us back from openly accepting the frailties of our existence and the failures that have held us back for so long.  

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Numbers 5 11

Cutting off hair is a punishment for adultery.

It's the head not the face read the article.

But the head is already covered without utilizing the veil.  The veil is unnecessary if covering the head is the goal and besides, during the endowment the veil is specifically used to cover the face, not the head.  

I understand it's not your theory but one put forth by the article, i'm just wondering if you've been able to solve that seemingly obvious problem with it.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 But the head is already covered without utilizing the veil.  The veil is unnecessary if covering the head is the goal and besides, during the endowment the veil is specifically used to cover the face, not the head.  

I understand it's not your theory but one put forth by the article, i'm just wondering if you've been able to solve that seemingly obvious problem with it.

As I read it, I was pretty sure the linked article is assuming that Paul meant face when he said head, or that face is the head in his parlance.  

Edited March 15, 2018 by stemelbow

[Jeanne]

Whatever it means...to me it rings so tacky..(I'm sorry)...but when Mom died..the last thing I wanted to do was cover that beautiful face..why not let it shine and mean something beautiful?  No veils..approach God and Men..unashamed.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Jeanne

[smac97]

It is interesting how the veil, as a symbol, can either represent somethingt that is elevating and ennobling (as per the article), or else that is oppressive and subjugating (such as here).

It's a matter of perspective, I think.

Historically the wearing of a veil in some cultures has been a symbol of status:

Quote

Elite women in ancient Mesopotamia and in the Greek and Persian empires wore the veil as a sign of respectability and high status. The earliest attested reference to veiling is found a Middle Assyrian law code dating from between 1400 and 1100 BC.  Assyria had explicit sumptuary laws detailing which women must veil and which women must not, depending upon the woman's class, rank, and occupation in society.  Female slaves and prostitutes were forbidden to veil and faced harsh penalties if they did so.  Veiling was thus not only a marker of aristocratic rank, but also served to "differentiate between 'respectable' women and those who were publicly available".

...

Classical Greek and Hellenistic statues sometimes depict Greek women with both their head and face covered by a veil. Caroline Galt and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones have both argued from such representations and literary references that it was commonplace for women (at least those of higher status) in ancient Greece to cover their hair and face in public.

Or as a symbol of being married (same link):

Quote

Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. Unmarried girls normally didn't veil their heads, but matrons did so to show their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia.

Or as a means of warding off the "evil eye" (same link):

Quote

Veils also protected women against the evil eye, it was thought.

Quite a few more interesting bits at that link.  See also here.

From an LDS perspective, the veil is used only in the temple (where there is also a mandatory, though differenty type of, "covering" for men).  And although Latter-day Saints are generally encouraged to adhere to general principles of modesty in terms of dress and deportment, there is not any particular mandate for specific types of clothing.  Perhaps there is a limited exception in terms of white shirts (typically, though not necessarily, expected for a priesthood holder passing the Sacrament), suits (by priesthood leaders presiding in a church meeting) and, to some extent, dresses for women (in Sunday meetings).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This comes off to me as nothing more than an attempt to explain that one traditional expression from a couple of thousand years ago can be taken as something more than it is. 

And some grievances come off to me as nothing more than presentism.  That is, if wearing a veil is subjectively representative to me of oppression and subjugation now, that is what it must have meant a couple of thousand years ago.

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The creation story carries symbolism with it, unique to cultures long gone. 

And yet many ancient symbols carry on.  "Forbidden fruit."  "Shibboleth."  "The writing on the wall."  "Split the baby."  "Good Samaritan."

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We adapt I suppose, as did Paul, apparently. 

But Latter-day Saints also claim to be guided by revelation.  So we're speaking of more than simply cultural shifts.

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But if God then women are nothing different then men in that they also have a God after whom they are patterned (or whatever this guy said about men being that).  Paul's reasoning is strained, and this effort to save Paul from misogyny is strained. 

More presentism, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blueglass]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Whatever it means...to me it rings so tacky..(I'm sorry)...but when Mom died..the last thing I wanted to do was cover that beautiful face..why not let it shine and mean something beautiful?  No veils..approach God and Men..unashamed.

I like what it says when you bring together 1Cor13, with 2Cor3, In 1Cor13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.  Or better in the ESV, "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."  So we are taking away the distortions or reflections of a glass (i.e.mirror or veil) through Christ.   2Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ."  Also in Ether 3 the brother of Jared has the faith to ask,  "Lord, show thyself unto me."  He knows that God is a God of truth and cannot lie.  The Lord then says, "Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you."

[rongo]

The Ogden temple president explained to my grandparents (who worked in that temple for decades) long ago that women are symbolically in the presence of God in a way that men are not (or at least, men's being in his presence is conditional, whereas women's is not). This correlates with other areas in the temple where women receive unconditional promises where men receive conditional ones. 

A much different perspective than veils being a relic of male chauvenism or patriarchy, no? 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Ogden temple president explained to my grandparents (who worked in that temple for decades) long ago that women are symbolically in the presence of God in a way that men are not (or at least, men's being in his presence is conditional, whereas women's is not). This correlates with other areas in the temple where women receive unconditional promises where men receive conditional ones. 

A much different perspective than veils being a relic of male chauvenism or patriarchy, no? 

So women need to cover their faces because they are in the presence of God, but having a non-covered face means you aren't in the presence of God?  (just making sure i understand what you are saying.  Thanks for sharing what the temple president said).

[rongo]

Yes. Symbollically, of course. 

I don't want to go in greater depth, but there is a context to that. That is, there is a specific time and place when women veil their faces. There is also another instance where both men and women remove their shoes, which is another clear symbol for preparation to be in the presence of God.

I, personally, really do think this is closer to the meaning, and don't think it really comes down to it being an archaic relic from ancient (or not so ancient) patriarchy.

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes. Symbollically, of course. 

I don't want to go in greater depth, but there is a context to that. That is, there is a specific time and place when women veil their faces. There is also another instance where both men and women remove their shoes, which is another clear symbol for preparation to be in the presence of God.

I, personally, really do think this is closer to the meaning, and don't think it really comes down to it being an archaic relic from ancient (or not so ancient) patriarchy.

what about the men? why don't we need to have a veil or anything to hide our faces?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

what about the men? why don't we need to have a veil or anything to hide our faces?

Because you are a man. 

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Because you are a man. 

and?!