Thoughts Re: "Veils"

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, I mean just a very short distance...it is for me more thinking of moving rather than doing it.  Because of health it has been awhile since I went through an endowment and I don't trust my memory, so perhaps I am wrong and blurring my experiences in my mind today (very possible due to high sleep deprivation) but don't the women in the circle move into the circle while veiled?

No that instruction is part of the ordinance. There might be some repositioning a step left or right but that's all

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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 .

It answers many of the questions raised here but of course no one actually read it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It answers many of the questions raised here but of course no one actually read it.

I read it. I disliked all the explanations bar one, and I'm not going to reveal which one that is because I already know that a number of female posters will disagree with me.

ETA: I also read smac97's original link. I didn't much like it either.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I read it. I disliked all the explanations bar one, and I'm not going to reveal which one that is because I already know that a number of female posters will disagree with me.

ETA: I also read smac97's original link. I didn't much like it either.

Yeah I wasn't too crazy about it nor the hysteria- yes I used that word- that followed with my stupid idea of trying to explain it to others

Sheesh it's like walking on eggshells around here lately

I explained in my first post that I was just trying to explain it in easy language and then I got attacked for not discussing a position I never held even after encouraging them to argue about the article and HIS position not me.  I was just trying to be the messenger and you know what happens when you do that.

Never again.

And all these folks making up fables about what happens in the temple and then admitting they never go?   What's that about?

Edited March 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Given that both Juliann and I actually like the veil, it makes it obvious the positive symbolism is very strong for us...otherwise we would think of it primarliy in terms of the negative physical experience (or so I assume, probably shouldn't speak for Juliann because the temple experience is, I believe, so unique for everyone to experience given the difference histories, knowledge, and reasons we bring to it)

I understand and truthfully, I meant no offense.  I realize that I have not had this experience..only sealing to parents.  That being said..if you read Juliann's post without having said experience...then you can see how I might look at this.  But I meant no offense and if taken that way..I apologize. To you..and to Juliann.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah I wasn't too crazy about it nor the hysteria- yes I used that word- that followed with my stupid idea of trying to explain it to others

Sheesh it's like walking on eggshells around here lately

I explained in my first post that I was just trying to explain it in easy language and then I got attacked for not discussing a position I never held. 

Who knew that being asked questions on a discussion board can be considered both an 'attack' and 'hysteria'.  

[blueglass]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I read it. I disliked all the explanations bar one, and I'm not going to reveal which one that is because I already know that a number of female posters will disagree with me.

ETA: I also read smac97's original link. I didn't much like it either.

Here's a quick summary from the chabad article on veils and marriage:

1)  It is not proper to gaze at her face 

2)  to show that she's not concerned about the value of the ring the groom presents to her

3)  her beauty is reserved for her husband not the crowd

4)  Rebecca and Tamar wore veils and they both were blessed with twins!

5)  Moses wore a veil to attenuate the light emanating from his luminous face after seeing the Lord on Mt Sinai.  Women took no part in the sin of the golden calf, so the bride radiates special holiness, or the divine presence (Shechinah - divine feminine) shines through her face.  So like Moses she wears a veil.

6)  so no one will view her jealously and give her an "evil eye" or look

7)  she veils her face to signify that the groom married her for who she really is not for her cosmetic beauty.

My favorite is #5.

Edited March 16, 2018 by blueglass

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have done so on a number of occasions.

I was officiating once and in the middle of the prayer toward the end of the endowment,  a brother announced that he had to run- like right now- to the bathroom

We have been instructed that if something happens during that particular prayer which I am deliberately avoiding speaking of specifics, it should be resumed or re-started with the same members if at all possible.  I am not sure why that is, but that was the instruction.  I announced that that was the instruction to the congregation.

Everyone stopped and looked at each other while he ran.  A minute turned into longer.

I told the sisters to unveil their heads (last time I looked, the face is part of the head) and if they or anyone else wanted to, to sit down.  A couple did

A minute turned into four or  five.

I was ready to terminate the whole thing and re-start regardless of the instruction when suddenly the poor red-faced brother re-appeared.  I said "Sorry brother, that can happen to all of us", and called all the original participants to re- assemble, and I repeated the instructions for that prayer from memory, having heard it several hundred times, the sisters  re-veiled, and we proceeded without incident

So yes, we know the veils are hot and uncomfortable.  So is tying a knot with a tiny string on the top of your shoulder when you cannot see what you are doing while elastic cuts into your face.  Add an arthritic shoulder and we have even more fun!

Earth life has trials and sometimes we are uncomfortable

We are here to learn from those matters and the temple experience is a mirror of this life in symbols.

Having been with my wife through the births of four babies,   I think I can understand something of the pain, the constriction, the lack of ability to move into a comfortable position,  that entails.  No obviously I have not experienced it.

But perhaps being uncomfortable in the temple for a few minutes might make one think about that when finally the veil is lifted and the joy of health in the navel is contemplated a few minutes later and a symbolic re-birth is experienced and one enters - Hebrews 10: 20

²⁰ By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

But what do I know?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Who knew that being asked questions on a discussion board can be considered both an 'attack' and 'hysteria'.  

Questions about a position I never held?

How the blankety-blank was I supposed to answer a question for someone else???   On a theory that was never mine?

Would you please explain the theory of relativity to me?

Come on.

I'm waiting. 

 

[Maidservant]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

 a woman's husband is placed between her and God

 

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

I find the temple to show the opposite case.  Eve directs Adam throughout the entire narrative. In my understanding, she accepts counsel, because she is the decision maker, and it is good to have counsel before decisions.  I also have considered that the covenants are stepping stones--that is you have a telestial covenant to begin with, but the result of the telestial covenant is that you only remain in that kingdom; if you want the celestial kingdom, you must progress beyond the telestial covenant.  Gospel according to Maidservant.

All men and women have priesthood and priesthood power due to their priesthood covenants.  Men require ordination to exercise their priesthood.  Also because they are being inducted into certain MALE orders of priesthood that have very specific functions (such as the gathering of Israel).  Women enjoy the exercise of their priesthood without ordination (but also by covenant).

21 hours 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.

I also love veiling.  It's hard to say why.  I have noted that there are two veils in the temple--in the room, and on the women--and that perhaps they are one and the same veil.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Because they ARE the Most High God.  The Mother IS the Most High God.

[mfbukowski]

I wonder if a baby about to be born feels constrained by her surroundings, almost smothered yet about to be born into a new world, since her spirit has already taken on the covenant to come to earth and knows the plan better than we do now since we have not yet returned through the veil

I wonder if dying feels like being constrained and perhaps smothered before entering into a New Life.

I really wish I could wear a veil in the temple to experience this explosion into the freedom of a new life as I am symbolically resurrected from dead earth into a new body and freed to meet my Father face to face in his presence with health in my navel and marrow in my bones (section 89)

[Calm]

 

31 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Because they ARE the Most High God.  The Mother IS the Most High God.

And the Father is not the Most High God and therefore men are not? (Trying to understand your reasoning)

Edited March 16, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Everyone stopped and looked at each other while he ran.  A minute turned into longer.

The lesson being think twice about prayer circles if your bowels are filled with anything other than charity.

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

3)  her beauty is reserved for her husband not the crowd

That's a common mideastern view. It's a big part of why Muslim women cover themselves although the more liberal ones reduce this to a stylized scarf. It's also the part that people with pretty good reason see as the most sexist. I'm not at all convinced that meaning is part of the endowment and if it was, it might get eliminated like some of the non-essential Masonic trappings that people misinterpreted.

The history of women's veils aren't exactly nice. The Assyrians used it to distinguish class. Slaves and poor couldn't wear veils. However a big part of that was people basically raping poor and slaves with veils limiting who was a available. So it became tied to "respect" through subjugation and rape of everyone else. Veils moved from Assyria to Persia and Babylon. Now with Alexander's conquest you had Greek influx and by and large the Greeks didn't practice this. But elements remained. Likewise with Rome there were marriage veils whose origins went back centuries earlier but not broad veiling tradition.

The problem of "her beauty is reserved" is that it really gets into that whole sexual slave / "free" woman divide. Maybe not explicitly but it's still the idea of private sexuality with the assumption that unveiled is public sex (if only the male gaze).

I just have a real, real, real hard time seeing that context in the temple. It's possible - the idea that the veil is to keep men from being distracted - but I doubt it. Now it's possible that the 19th century marriage veil (which goes back to Rome) is the context. In that case veiling is more akin to 19th century non-Mormon ritual where you veil at the ceremony. It may be nothing but that. But then, as I mentioned, there's also that context in Exodus and apparently on the 116 pages suggesting a temple context for veiling unrelated to marriage.

While the roles of Adam and Eve have shifted in the temple over the past 150 years it is interesting that there is a strong theological strain that sees Eve much more as the hero of the garden rather than Adam (who honestly narratively sort of gets drug along in a more passive way). While that doesn't come out quite as strong in the temple, it's still there and arguably emphasized a bit more in the post 1990's versions.

Again, not coming to a conclusion, just wishing we'd be careful bringing in other veil traditions.

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Questions about a position I never held?

How the blankety-blank was I supposed to answer a question for someone else???   On a theory that was never mine?

Would you please explain the theory of relativity to me?

Come on.

I'm waiting. 

 

You said this about the article the theory was espoused in-

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

If you didn't want to be 'the messenger trying to make it readable' for us, why did you say that's what you were doing?  Really, this is all just so weird.  

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

And the Father is not the Most High God and therefore men are not? (Trying to understand your reasoning)

Well, it is better to say that men and women constitute God together (as Genesis says explicity).  However, if one must be designated, woman is the culmination of creation, not only on earth but in heaven.  The Father serves Her.  (Who else would he serve?) Again--the two veils in the temple are one.  Also I have considered the veil in the Old Testament tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, and I am starting to think (still trying it out), that it is the Mother not the Father that visits--the veiled room, Holy of Holies.  (Also I think of other realities-symbolism, such as women's blood being shed so that mankind may have life/be born).   Part of the reason I assert these things is to challenge the idea that there is something (like a husband) between her and God.  This is obviously not the case in the Old Testament, where women are acting agents every which way except in submission to husbands (they don't seem to have any submission whatsoever).

Also I like that the OP article speaks of the head covering and/or veil (not sure if meant to be the same thing) are a sign of authority, but I think it misses the job of explaining a good reason why.  In Genesis, woman is instructed to rule with her husband (check the Hebrew).  Why?  Perhaps because before she was ruling without her husband?

In the temple, previously initiated men (Father, Son, +?) are providing this same initiation to an asleep man.  What is the man being initiated into? Woman.  Why?  Because she is the God that there is.

In real time, this is initiation is not actually done in the temple, it is done in daily marriage.  A woman initiates her husband into the mysteries of life so that he may share them with her, which has to do with the way a woman's body works and brings forth life. She also initiates him into the principles and sentiments that cause this relationship to be celestial.  Now, it doesn't mean that all women know how to do this (some of it is natural), nor does it mean that a man cannot find celestial principles without a wife.  But until a man has bought sanitary napkins for his wife with a straight face at WalMart, there are some things he just doesn't know.  (I'm using that as a facetious example to point to a larger set of knowledge and understanding and progression.)  It is a man who must petition a woman for marriage, and it is she who determines his worthiness (for her) and grants him the opportunity for that priesthood.  She grants him the opportunity to share HER posterity.  She grants that his seed would continue.

Anyway . . . it is these kinds of thoughts and realities that continue to lead me to the Mother, or rather Fathers as attached to Mothers (not the other way around), as the Elohim.

I also think that the men-women stuff in the temple is less about men-women and more about our own progression of which the men and women represents parts and portions and whatnot.

[Calm]

"It is a man who must petition a woman for marriage, and it is she who determines his worthiness"

Except in biblical times, it is the father of the woman that must be petitioned as well.  And the man has first chosen the woman to ask in this case.  Nor is it impossible for a woman to petition a man...think Ruth for example.

And a woman cannot be a mother until a man gives her his seed.

It seems pretty mutual to me.  Ideally both would be virgins without knowledge, learning about eternal truths and experiences as parents together.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Calm

[blueglass]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

there's a lot of research on the symbolism of the caul (thin membrane of skin shrouding the baby's face at birth), and the gifts of seers in Mark Ashurst-McGee's thesis.  Joseph Smith Sr., and his mother say that Joseph Smith was born with a caul veil, which midwives and others believed blessed the child with second sight abilities.  

Edited March 16, 2018 by blueglass

[strappinglad]

There is an element of the traditions which involve a biological truth. The woman always knows that her child is hers ( barring some hospital mix-up) . The man , until recently with DNA, had no such assurance . Even today there are cases where a man is required by the court to expend his time and resources to raise a child that is not his biologically( not talking adoption here ). I suggest that many of the walls built around women were tied to this .

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"It is a man who must petition a woman for marriage, and it is she who determines his worthiness"

Except in biblical times, it is the father of the woman that must be petitioned as well.  And the man has first chosen the woman to ask in this case.  Nor is it impossible for a woman to petition a man...think Ruth for example.

And a woman cannot be a mother until a man gives her his seed.

It seems pretty mutual to me.  Ideally both would be virgins without knowledge, learning about eternal truths and experiences as parents together.

Maidservant, Also adding the detail that historically men have been older than their brides (and often were not expected to be virgins at the time of marriage), women have been bound to the home while men can travel.  It makes it difficult to see women in the dominant position you appear to be suggesting.  Men also served in the temple and women were limited on where they could go.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Calm

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Except in biblical times, it is the father of the woman that must be petitioned as well. 

Well, for me, ancient marriage is a sale of a human being (and slavery).  So not a fan and do not consider it a reflection of a higher order.  I was thinking more along the lines of not the marriage itself, but God and women having conversations of which the husbands were not necessarily a part.

I do agree with you about marriage being mutual and all the pathway of progression before them.   But this started with the idea of the meaning of the veil, and the place of women to their husband and God, and as it has been thought of one way (under both of them) because of certain symbols and ceremonies, I can see that flipped upside down the inverted way by the very symbols and ceremonies we take one way--and I'm saying--take it the other way, if you have to take it in an above-below way at all.

[Maidservant]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maidservant, Also adding the detail that historically men have been older than their brides (and often were not expected to be virgins at the time of marriage), women have been bound to the home while men can travel.  It makes it difficult to see women in the dominant position you appear to be suggesting.  Men also served in the temple and women were limited on where they could go.

Sorry I missed this while I was writing.  I am not talking about ancient marriage.  I am talking about the symbols we think are perpetuating ancient marriage.  I'm saying they aren't necessarily saying that.  I can see them showing the opposite.

[Calm]

"God and women having conversations of which the husbands were not necessarily a part."

I see this as happening to individuals as opposed to genders.  Could you explain where you see this happening for women (will no longer refer to Bible as that would be "ancient", is the D&C relevant in your view to the current or eternal experience of marriage?)?

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

"God and women having conversations of which the husbands were not necessarily a part."

I see this as happening to individuals as opposed to genders.  Could you explain where you see this happening for women (will no longer refer to Bible as that would be "ancient", is the D&C relevant in your view to the current or eternal experience of marriage?)?

Shouldn't that always be happening? I mean when I say my personal prayers that's a conversation between God and myself my wife is not a part of. And I assume the same happens in her personal prayers. 

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

There is an element of the traditions which involve a biological truth. The woman always knows that her child is hers ( barring some hospital mix-up) . The man , until recently with DNA, had no such assurance . Even today there are cases where a man is required by the court to expend his time and resources to raise a child that is not his biologically( not talking adoption here ). I suggest that many of the walls built around women were tied to this .

That's the evolutionary psychology argument. There are some reasons to be skeptical of it although most likely elements are correct. The reasons to be skeptical are due to the wider variety of sexual practice in the animal kingdom. Further you quickly end up into a "are humans more like chimps or more like bonobos" argument in terms of human history since the two differ quite a bit both sexually and in terms of violence and especially violence tied to sex and offspring. There's a certain question begging element to the evolutionary psychology explanations in terms of expending time and resources. They may be at least partially true, but there are reasons to be skeptical.

Often there are competing explanations as well tied to class, resources and other such things. There are also often economic/community assumptions hidden behind the discussion. For instance concern to not waste resources presupposes resources aren't shared equitably. That might be true in some communities like Assyria, but is it true of all communities? If not, then that undermines a major element of the EP argument.

Edited March 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

"Shouldn't that always be happening? I mean when I say my personal prayers that's a conversation between God and myself my wife is not a part of. And I assume the same happens in her personal prayers."

Exactly.  However, Maidservant seems to express (at least as I am interpreting her) that women have unique to their gender knowledge from God that men must seek through them and I am not sure I see a reciprocal arrangement (men must share with their wives knowledge from God only men receive).

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Exactly.  However, Maidservant seems to express (at least as I am interpreting her) that women have unique to their gender knowledge from God that men must seek through them and I am not sure I see a reciprocal arrangement (men must share with their wives knowledge from God only men receive).

Yeah, I'm skeptical of that. It seems to me there are two historic elements here - both of which seem somewhat problematic depending upon how interpreted.

The first is the traditional problem of the idea that the woman stands in relation to man the way man stands in relation to Christ. This is the old "head of the house" mindset but also appears in the temple - albeit elements have been removed since the 1990's as I recall. (Don't quote me on that - it's been an awful long time since I did my endowment prior to my mission) I should note that there's a reading of the veil tied to this theology such that women veil because Christ/God speaks to the husband rather than to them directly. Again a deeply problematic theology to say the least.

The other is really a kind of inversion of what I see as traditional late 19th through 20th century views of sex/marriage. That's the women on a pedestal which typically attributes divine qualities to women such that they're naturally more spiritual, more obedient, more chaste and so forth. I'm hoping Maidservant isn't promoting a variation on that. Again, I'm not sure I buy it to say the least. Such claims often rested on not listening to women, limiting the power of women or just plain putting ones head in the sand. Often such claims were maintained by making a big distinction between "good married women" and women of bad reputation. Which ends up of course undermining the evidence for it.

That's not to say there aren't some obvious differences. For instance women are more likely to convert to the church and more likely to stay active. But I suspect a lot of this is just differences in interest and expression - especially when given sufficient power. I am far from convinced women are more spiritual in aggegrate. (And of course staying active isn't the same as being spiritual)

Edited March 16, 2018 by clarkgoble