Thoughts Re: "Veils"

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Of course, I didn't say that, smac.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

agreed.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Even if some revelation it still could be speaking of simply cultural shifts.  of coruse I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I wouldn't be certain anyway.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

More presentism, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you do.  but I didn't really say anything in those two particular sentences that could seriously be considered presentism, unless you think by me saving Paul from misogyny means I'm actually saying Paul was a misogynist.  I'm only pointing out that the article failed to save him from it, if'n he was thought to be a misogynist.  Hope that helps.  If not, I'd imagine you'll be fine arguing about something or other.  

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

According to the explanation I related, because the men are not in the presence of God (or at least, are conditionally so), while the women are unconditionally in the presence of God. At that point in the endowment. 

Again, I agree with the point of view that it has nothing to do with "women needing a veil" and "men don't need one." I think something completely different is being taught and emphasized there.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

According to the explanation I related, because the men are not in the presence of God (or at least, are conditionally so), while the women are unconditionally in the presence of God. At that point in the endowment. 

Again, I agree with the point of view that it has nothing to do with "women needing a veil" and "men don't need one." I think something completely different is being taught and emphasized there.

Might it be because less is required of women so they are held to a lower standard to come into the presence of God?

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and?!

The priesthood gives more than a power..they can face God and all things because ...they are men..above women..to whom women must answer too. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

O.k.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Might it be because less is required of women so they are held to a lower standard to come into the presence of God?

I suppose, to those who insist on viewing it this way. 

I believe for myself that it's actually a reward and a privilege for women in the temple, not a lower standard of requirements.  

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

I suppose, to those who insist on viewing it this way. 

I believe for myself that it's actually a reward and a privilege for women in the temple, not a lower standard of requirements.  

I personally don't want to view it in that way, so i'm looking for other legitimate ways to view it.  But other people's ideas aren't that helpful to me (not that I don't find them useful and really appreciate hearing them, I just don't consider them authoritative so have to take them with a grain of salt).  

It's hard to think of the endowment and find any reason that women would be given a privilege over men.  Couple the lack of an obvious reason for extra privileges with how a woman's husband is placed between her and God, and it get's even harder to understand the idea that women are being rewarded.

I want to believe that, but I need some evidence to support it.

[juliann]

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".

And who wrote those laws? Not the women.  I am stymied as to how this can be presented as a positive example of veiling when most of the women were victimized by it.

This is what I find in these attempts to find meaning for something that is unknowable given the data available, arcane and tendentious appeals. I admire Wilson's work but the very fact she has to work that hard to find a positive should be a red flag. So is the fact that scholars consistently throw up their hands when it comes to interpreting what the heck Paul was talking about. They can only guess, just like us, just like temple presidents.

Then comes the problem of relating what was said or done thousands of years ago, based on a sentence or two here and there, to what was done in 19th c America. There is no answer to this.  That so much work goes into trying to explain it away only shows that it is a problem that needs to be explained away. That women are now being allowed to not veil shows leadership doesn't see it as a necessary part of the ritual. 

I happen to be one who enjoys veiling. But others are increasingly finding it demeaning. I expect that veiling will go the way of the other things that no longer made sense to modern sensibilities in a time bound ritual and were eliminated.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I happen to be one who enjoys veiling. But others are increasingly finding it demeaning. I expect that veiling will go the way of the other things that no longer made sense to modern sensibilities in a time bound ritual and were eliminated.

I do too and i would be sad if it went away.

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

And who wrote those laws? Not the women.  I am stymied as to how this can be presented as a positive example of veiling when most of the women were victimized by it.

This is what I find in these attempts to find meaning for something that is unknowable given the data available, arcane and tendentious appeals. I admire Wilson's work but the very fact she has to work that hard to find a positive should be a red flag. So is the fact that scholars consistently throw up their hands when it comes to interpreting what the heck Paul was talking about. They can only guess, just like us, just like temple presidents.

Then comes the problem of relating what was said or done thousands of years ago, based on a sentence or two here and there, to what was done in 19th c America. There is no answer to this.  That so much work goes into trying to explain it away only shows that it is a problem that needs to be explained away. That women are now being allowed to not veil shows leadership doesn't see it as a necessary part of the ritual. 

I happen to be one who enjoys veiling. But others are increasingly finding it demeaning. I expect that veiling will go the way of the other things that no longer made sense to modern sensibilities in a time bound ritual and were eliminated.

I find it rather cool that a lot or you here enjoys the veiling.. Now..I have never been through the Temple...so what did it represent to you all personally..only if you can share.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do too and i would be sad if it went away.

We have been trained to read ourselves into everything, younger generations not so much. Younger women kind of expect to be seen, heard, and included now.  So when there is no discernible reason for something that on the face of it puts them in a lower position than the men who created the rule, they are going to want to have a good reason for it. There is no good reason for it, no more than there was a good reason for not letting women vote (heaven knows people certainly tried to create reasons.) Meanwhile, the veil creates practical stumbling blocks, such as not being able to see or breathe comfortably if asked to go to the prayer circle. I have to be able to hold the veil away from my nose and eyes if walking, which requires the use of my hands. 

My reasons for liking the veil have nothing to do with my "status" to begin with so that isn't an issue for me.  

[Calm]

It creates a personal sacred space where I am alone save for God (it appeals to the introvert in me, the veil I use cannot be seen through so it takes me more towards "hidden" than "protected" or "covered"...there is no way I can actually move with it down unless I hold it out from me and look at my feet, I never volunteer to be in the circle because I worry about passing out if I cannot use my hands to create more of a tent experience than a veil).

I am curious if other temple veils are like typically this or if most women can see well enough with it being placed over the face.

Add-on:  I see Juliann's experience is the same.

I wonder if men in general realize it is like putting a lightweight blanket over one's head, it is not like the veils typically used at weddings.  This may or may not be intentional, but it certainly affects most women's experience with it if they use a heavier synthetic fabric (cotton badly wrinkles, don't think I have ever seen a cotton temple veil).

At times it can become physically very uncomfortable as it can even interfere with breathing if there is no air moving and I don't hold it away from my face.  I think if men realized at times women feel like they are suffocating under it as in can't breathe, getting headaches from not getting enough oxygen (cover one's head with a synthetic blanket that you can't breathe through if you want to feel what it is like) they might understand why many find it hard to find a positive symbolism in the experience.  Men might want to imagine what it would be like if they were to pull their hats down over their eyes and mouth, how long they could feel comfortable in that state.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I find it rather cool that a lot or you here enjoys the veiling.. Now..I have never been through the Temple...so what did it represent to you all personally..only if you can share.

It becomes my own personal experience when I block out everything else.  I am in control of my own experience, no films, no recordings filling in the details. I see the veil as the Mother.  That is why it rather annoys me to see justifications that are based on women standing before the Father as if the Mother isn't there. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Might it be because less is required of women so they are held to a lower standard to come into the presence of God?

"Less is required of women?"  I've never heard of this concept.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I personally don't want to view it in that way, so i'm looking for other legitimate ways to view it.  But other people's ideas aren't that helpful to me (not that I don't find them useful and really appreciate hearing them, I just don't consider them authoritative so have to take them with a grain of salt).  

It's hard to think of the endowment and find any reason that women would be given a privilege over men.  Couple the lack of an obvious reason for extra privileges with how a woman's husband is placed between her and God, and it get's even harder to understand the idea that women are being rewarded.

I want to believe that, but I need some evidence to support it.

I think Paul and the article explain the symbolic woman: man relationship as follows: that the woman, symbolizing a) the Church : Son and b) humanity: Father, is not without the man (symbolizing the Son and the Father respectively); and the man symbolizing a) Christ the Son : Mary and b)  God the Father : Glory (as in Moses 1:39, which is expressed in each human estate from premortal intelligence to the epitome, the Church of the Firstborn) is not without the woman (Mary, Glory epitomized in the Church of the Firstborn). Together they represent exaltation, the continuation of the seeds, etc.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Less is required of women?"  I've never heard of this concept.

What is it then that women do that allows women to be in the presence of God when men are not?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Less is required of women?"  I've never heard of this concept.

I've heard it in some circles.  It seems to come from a faulty "keep women sheltered and let the men do the heavy lifting" and "men have the priesthood so more is required of them because more has been given to them" mindset.

[Nofear]

Brigham Young said, "there has not yet been a perfect revelation given, because we cannot understand it, yet we receive a little here and a little there. He should not be stumbled if the prophet should translate the Bible forty thousand times over and yet it should be different in some places every time, because when God speaks, he always speaks according to the capacity of the people."

I suspect there will be variance of opinion on the relevance of the above principle to the discussion on hand.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

And who wrote those laws? Not the women.  I am stymied as to how this can be presented as a positive example of veiling when most of the women were victimized by it.

I'm not sure it is being presented as a "positive" example, except for the proposition that the wearing of the veil was, it seems, a point of prestige.  

In other words, the wearing of a veil is relative to environment and context.  In some contexts, wearing a veil is a symbol of elitism/prestige (not that this was a good thing, IMO), whereas in other contexts it is apparently used to subjugate and oppress women (such as the mandatory wearing of the hijab in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Indonesian Aceh province).

And in still other contexts, the wearing of a veil or other head covering is a voluntary and sacred thing.

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is what I find in these attempts to find meaning for something that is unknowable given the data available, arcane and tendentious appeals.

I'm not sure the symbolism of the veil is entirely "unknowable."

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

I admire Wilson's work but the very fact she has to work that hard to find a positive should be a red flag.

I don't see why.  Sometimes context can be hard to work out, particularly given long passages of time (it's been 2,000 years since Paul wrote to the Corinthians) and disparity in terms of acculturation.

I am always cautious when I have an uninformed and reflexive hostility to cultural practices of other peoples.  Just because a practice is discomfiting to me does not make it necessarily a bad thing.

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

So is the fact that scholars consistently throw up their hands when it comes to interpreting what the heck Paul was talking about. They can only guess, just like us, just like temple presidents.

The article I provided seems to be more informed and referenced and substantive and thoughtful than a hands-thrown-up-in-the-air "guess."  

Is she spot-on?  Well, probably not.  But I feel I am more educated on the topic than I was last month.  

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

Then comes the problem of relating what was said or done thousands of years ago, based on a sentence or two here and there, to what was done in 19th c America. There is no answer to this.  That so much work goes into trying to explain it away only shows that it is a problem that needs to be explained away.

I can't agree to that.  It may indeed be "a problem," but complexity doesn't make it so.  

I have lost count of the number of times I, as a member of the LDS Church, have been asked short, accusatory/hostile questions that necessarily require long, contextualized answers.  But context often matters, particularly when we are seeking to understand something "said or done thousands of years ago."

I have also lost count of the number of times I, as an attorney, have been confronted by someone who is the subject of a lawsuit.  In, for example, a foreclosure dispute, "How can you kick me out of my home?!" is not unheard of.  The answer, of course, involves delving into consumer finance law, contract law, securitization, Statute of Frauds, Statute of Limitations, RESPA, FDCPA, Title 57 of the Utah Code, and a bunch of other areas.  I have had many, many instances where I file motions and other paperwork with the Court that goes into the nuts and bolts of the foreclosure process.  I understand what I am saying (since I am trained in the law).  The judge understands what I am saying (since he or she is also trained in the law).  But the party being foreclosed on, resentful and angry and not trained in the law and not represented by an attorney (by their own choice) is simply not going to be equipped to handle the complex answer to their simple question of "How can you kick me out?"  That complexity doesn't make me or the court dishonest, nor does it make the the foreclosure effort "a problem that needs to be explained away."  It just means that the individual who lacks sufficient information about a complex area of law is pretty much always going to be frustrated by those complexities.  That's just the way things are sometimes.

The wearing of the veil is not the only situation in which we have limited data from the Bible.  Proxy baptism, a saving ordinance in LDS belief, is only referenced in a single verse in 1 Cor. 15.  Interestingly, pretty much everyone but the Mormons views this verse as "a problem that needs to be explained away."

So regarding the significance of the veil, I am persuaded that there is some rich and meaningful, but not absolutely essential, symbolism relating to it.  Understanding that symbolism appears to require a fair amount of context.  

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

That women are now being allowed to not veil shows leadership doesn't see it as a necessary part of the ritual. 

I wasn't aware of that.  And I have no qualms with such a development.

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

I happen to be one who enjoys veiling. But others are increasingly finding it demeaning. I expect that veiling will go the way of the other things that no longer made sense to modern sensibilities in a time bound ritual and were eliminated.

Perhaps so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard it in some circles.  It seems to come from a faulty "keep women sheltered and let the men do the heavy lifting" and "men have the priesthood so more is required of them because more has been given to them" mindset.

I've never heard it from any authoritative source, or from anyone whom I know and whose views I respect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is it then that women do that allows women to be in the presence of God when men are not?

I don't understand this question.  None of us are going to be allowed "in the presence of God" based on our membership in a gender category.  We will be judged individually.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

6 hours 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've not read the article yet, but Moses' veiling (Ex 34:35) always seemed tied to the temple practice which likely influenced the endowment. 2 Cor 3 is explicitly tied to Moses' veil. Now of course 2 Cor 3 is a bit more complex in terms of what Paul is arguing so we have to be careful there. 

The assumption that temple veils are from 1 Cor 11 seems question begging at best.

I should note an interesting thing in Don Bradley's research is the suggestion that Nephi/Lehi had practices much more in keeping with Moses and the tabernacle particularly when consulting the Liahona. The Fayette Lapham account of Joseph Smith Sr. in particular is relevant.

Quoting:

• In the story as Lapham recounts it from Joseph Smith, Sr. is that sometime after the people have arrived in the New World, they’re traveling and they’re being led by the Liahona. And the Liahona leads them to this strange object, and the guy who finds it doesn’t know what it is. So they have a tabernacle, which shows you that they’re in between temples, which would’ve only been the case either when they first arrived in the New World and had not yet built a temple or during the exodus Mosiah led from the Land of Nephi, where they had a temple, to Zarahemla where they would build a temple. He brings this object into the tabernacle and immediately the voice of the Lord asks him a question, presumably from behind the veil covering the Holy of Holies where the Lord’s presence was understood to dwell. And the voice asks him, “What is that in your hand?” And Lapham says the man responded that “he did not know but that he had come to inquire” – those are Lapham’s exact words. So the Lord tells the man to take this object and put it on his face, and then to cover his face with animal skins. And when he does, he’s able to see anything supernaturally, it’s the interpreters. At that point the Liahona actually stops working; the Liahona, which led him to the interpreters, is actually now replaced by the interpreters. This would explain not only how the Nephites get the interpreters, but also why the military expeditions in the book of Alma ever uses the Liahona for guidance.

This seems far more relevant to the endowment particularly the places where veiling takes place. (Won't get more explicit than that)

But I'll admit that the veil of women is still a bit mysterious to me. I'm just not sure it means what critics have often taken it to mean. On the other hand if it turns out Adoptive Masonry is a context to the Nauvoo endowment (evidence is still lacking) then that would suggest the veil possibly tied to an artifact of masonry and perhaps removable. (The Masonic context seems pretty explicitly sexist to me) 

Edited March 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

This thread has got me thinking it would be very helpful for men to have the chance to experience the same sort of thing as women do both physically and emotionally.

Since I believe it would be inappropriate to use the actual veil, men should look at their wife's veil to determine the weight and feel of it and then purchase a comparable amount of comparable fabric (white semi translucent polyester, should be inexpensive so spending money on a one use item shouldn't be a concern)...I think a square of a yard and a half of fabric should do (I am rotten at guessing dimensions, women more adept should correct me if I am off, however it may need to be longer since the veil is not evenly placed over the head because it is tied on...which restriction can add its own sensations for those of us bothered by tightness around the neck, maybe get it doubled the usual length to avoid having to create a tie to hold it in place).  Then find a safe quiet place to place it over your head for several minutes.  Mediatate or pray during this time or maybe listen to a conference talk so you can get a similar experience.  I have no absolutely sense of time so perhaps someone else can make a suggestion for how long one should do this for.

Also try to walk around with it (for short distances, moving around chairs...no stairs).  Make sure nothing breakable or likely to trip you is around first.

If you aren't married, look at the Church's video to get an idea of the type of fabric or maybe someone more familiar with the terms can share some of the fabrics used.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this question.  None of us are going to be allowed "in the presence of God" based on our membership in a gender category.  We will be judged individually.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-Smac

From rongo who bluebell was responding to:

"according to the explanation I related, because the men are not in the presence of God (or at least, are conditionally so), while the women are unconditionally in the presence of God"

Edited March 15, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours 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?

I'm out

Read the article yourselves.  I am already on the outs with females here I am only the bloomin messenger

Argue with him not me.

No one seems to understand they symbology of covering the head and why Christians do not wear yamulkes

Edited March 15, 2018 by mfbukowski