(To me) Shocking post at FMH

[Guest]

The Church has been instructing priesthood leaders for years that young single women* (often read as Young Single Adult Women) without immediate marriage prospects shouldn't be recommended for the endowment (unless, of course, they have a mission call). What they don't talk about as often is the context, however. The instruction was initially given because 19 and 20 year old women were seeking to be endowed because they wanted to attend the sealing of one of their best friends. It was my understanding that the spirit of the instruction was that young single women shouldn't be endowed so that they may participate in social niceties, but should be endowed when they demonstrate the spiritual maturity to take on the sacred covenants.

* and men, really, but the problem doesn't show up with men as often since they usually go on missions.

Ahh... yes. She did go on a mission...

[rameumptom]

MoE, The Church no longer teaches what you think it does. For over a decade now, it has encouraged young women to get their endowment, when they are worthy and the bishop feels she is ready to receive it (normally at 21 years or older). Handbook 1 actually speaks to this.

This friend of yours is probably not telling the whole story. There are reasons for the bishop and stake president not to grant a recommend at this time. And she probably is just not forthright in explaining it.

[beefche]

ram, I think MOE is right. The church is not encouraging single women to not receive their endowments until later unless marriage or mission is happening.

[MarginOfError]

MoE, The Church no longer teaches what you think it does. For over a decade now, it has encouraged young women to get their endowment, when they are worthy and the bishop feels she is ready to receive it (normally at 21 years or older). Handbook 1 actually speaks to this.

This friend of yours is probably not telling the whole story. There are reasons for the bishop and stake president not to grant a recommend at this time. And she probably is just not forthright in explaining it.

I know it's been getting better. It started getting better after the First Presidency letters on the topic stated something to the effect of, "desire to witness a friend or sibling be sealed is not sufficient cause to receive the endowment."

Regardless of what language has changed in the handbooks, and whether or not the tone of the instruction has changed, change like this comes slowly because people tend to stick to what they were taught when they learn when they are first exposed to leadership and fail to keep up with current instruction. (RTFM syndrome)

Even if the bishop in question is up to date with instruction, if what the sister reports is true (that she was just flatly denied), something is wrong. He should give her a reason and a goal, not a brick wall.

[rameumptom]

And that is the question. Is what this sister is saying "true"? Has she sat down with the bishop to find out what she needs to do? Or is she just assuming he is ignoring her. I'm not saying that bishops are perfect - they are not. But in my experience, I've seen many members take offense, simply because they assumed things and did not get the real information.

If the bishop will not explain to her, then she should speak with her stake president.

[mnn727]

Something about BYU blocking sites, even on campus, does not feel right to me.

I think people should govern themselves. Blocking people from websites seems like the other guy's plan. March us through mortality making no mistakes. Like robots.

Tell that to my employer who blocks many more sites than BYU does.

Nothing wrong with a group or college or employer having rules -- nobody say you have to go to school there or work for a certain employer.

[NeuroTypical]

My wife grew up in an abusive household that was uberly-observant-LDS on the outside. Yeah, Families Can be Together Forever holds a special place in her thoughts. She takes a lot of comfort in that word "if". And she also looks at her family as me and our kids.

But hey, when you let your moral compass get so unbridledly pointed by your feelings, you often end up as melodramatically upset as this blog and commentor #8.

[mtnbikemom]

As purely anecdotal support, I know that the incident in reply #8 does indeed happen.

When I called to make an appointment for my first temple recommend interview the Stake Executive Secretary asked when I was planning to go through. I explained that I was going through for the the first time in June and getting married in August. He told me that they don't typically allow women to take out endowments that far in advance of getting married. I calmly explained that my endowments were a separate activity from my marriage, neither one dependent on the other, I would be getting my endowments whether or not marriage was on the horizon. And, I was 30 years old-8 short years ago. Had I not pushed the issue, multiple times, I would not have been allowed to get my recommend for a June endowment.

This does not imply that it is common practice or that all men in leadership positions are power hungry misogynists, but it does happen.

[RescueMom]

I find the blog absolutely heart breaking...I am sad that sister feels this way. I am not shocked, as a single mom, I've seen plenty of human mistakes made by members of the church...and I am still waiting on my home teachers to show up...but I don't blame the church for the imperfections of the members.

That said, I still feel heart broken for this woman...and the woman on replies. Yes they may have taken offense at things, but I feel it is our place to ease those offenses so they feel welcome in the flock, not make them to sit outside the gates of Zion left to the wolves because we are offended that they are offended...because the wolves will take them..and their children.

[jayanna]

Wapow, that whole thread was very upsetting, I wish I hadn't read it.

[Mahone]

Seeing as how we're still getting posts about BYU blocking the website, I thought I'd clarify. BYU use cisco WSA/Ironport for their web filtering. Ironport gets continual updates for blacklists from cisco run senderbase.org. It's blocked because it has a poor reputation on senderbase.org, for one of several potential reasons, including the site being run off a server that has been known to exibit suspicious behaviour.

Cisco IronPort SenderBase Security Network

This is nothing to do with BYU, and nothing to do with the site being LDS related in any way. We run the same systems at my workplace and the page is also blocked here. Cisco can be contacted if you have any queries :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Great. Another "Mormon-curtain" conspiracy theory dashed to pieces.

You, sir, are zero fun whatsoever.

[Maureen]

Just saw this over at Feminist Mormon Housewives: Second Class Citizens - Part-Member Family. What I'm caught my attention was not so much the blog post itself, but Comment #8, about the woman who was not allowed to get sealed to her parents because she was supposedly too old!! It seems to me her bishop and stake president were waaaay out of line, considering that the Church teaches that everybody is supposed to be sealed to their parents, as well as to their spouses and children.

What's your reaction?

I just read the Sealing thread in the Advice forum and am in astonishment how Comment #8 person and the OP of the Sealing thread can have such similar circumstances but such opposite outcomes.

Comment #8 person desires to be sealed to her parents but she has been told No, and the OP of Sealing does not want to be sealed to her Dad and stepmom, but is being encouraged to do so. Replies from the Sealing thread mention the blessings a person can receive when sealed to their parents. I can't help but wonder why the Bishop and SP of Comment #8 person, have prevented this person from receiving these blessings. Or the fact the sealings are so encouraged in the LDS faith that it seems so odd that two LDS leaders would be so anti-sealing.

M.

[HEthePrimate]

But hey, when you let your moral compass get so unbridledly pointed by your feelings, you often end up as melodramatically upset as this blog and commentor #8.

So, being upset that you can't be sealed to your parents is a sign that your moral compass is "unbridledly pointed by your feelings?" Strange, I thought we Mormons were supposed to encourage people to get sealed to their families!

[HEthePrimate]

As purely anecdotal support, I know that the incident in reply #8 does indeed happen.

When I called to make an appointment for my first temple recommend interview the Stake Executive Secretary asked when I was planning to go through. I explained that I was going through for the the first time in June and getting married in August. He told me that they don't typically allow women to take out endowments that far in advance of getting married. I calmly explained that my endowments were a separate activity from my marriage, neither one dependent on the other, I would be getting my endowments whether or not marriage was on the horizon. And, I was 30 years old-8 short years ago. Had I not pushed the issue, multiple times, I would not have been allowed to get my recommend for a June endowment.

This does not imply that it is common practice or that all men in leadership positions are power hungry misogynists, but it does happen.

Agreed. I don't think she's trying to say that all men in leadership positions are like that, just that she has a problem and would like it fixed.

[Just_A_Guy]

So, being upset that you can't be sealed to your parents is a sign that your moral compass is "unbridledly pointed by your feelings?" Strange, I thought we Mormons were supposed to encourage people to get sealed to their families!

We want people to get sealed after they have received the temple endowment. We want them to receive that endowment when they are ready and willing to keep the covenants that pertain to that endowment--and not a moment before.

I don't know that we emphasize it much these days; but the fact is that the Temple covenants are serious business. If someone within my realm of stewardship seemed to view the Endowment as primarily an induction into the Mormon Church's "in group", or as a vehicle for "warm fuzzies" or "inclusion", I would really wonder about whether that person were truly prepared to undertake those covenants.

This particular woman has gone onto a public venue, presented a deliberately one-sided view of a Church leader's decision process, carped about the ultimate decision, and generally attempted to expose the Church to open contempt because of that decision. It's not my business to determine whether that woman is dedicated to keeping the covenants associated with the endowment. It is her Bishop's call; and he seems to have decided that she isn't. It's not my business to know what factors went into the Bishop's decision; but I can at least make an observation that her current conduct makes her bishop's decision at least defensible.

The Endowment, properly understood, will change a person's life. Not all at once, maybe; but over time it will. People who are unwilling to change, have no business receiving the endowment. If that creates a two-tiered system of Mormon membership, or leads people to feel "excluded", then we may need to get creative in finding ways to address that. But one thing we are scripturally prevented from doing, is administering covenants to people we know to be unwilling to abide by those covenants.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

We want people to get sealed after they have received the temple endowment. We want them to receive that endowment when they are ready and willing to keep the covenants that pertain to that endowment--and not a moment before.

I don't know that we emphasize it much these days; but the fact is that the Temple covenants are serious business. If someone within my realm of stewardship seemed to view the Endowment as primarily an induction into the Mormon Church's "in group", or as a vehicle for "warm fuzzies" or "inclusion", I would really wonder about whether that person were truly prepared to undertake those covenants.

This particular woman has gone onto a public venue, presented a deliberately one-sided view of a Church leader's decision process, carped about the ultimate decision, and generally attempted to expose the Church to open contempt because of that decision. It's not my business to determine whether that woman is dedicated to keeping the covenants associated with the endowment. It is her Bishop's call; and he seems to have decided that she isn't. It's not my business to know what factors went into the Bishop's decision; but I can at least make an observation that her current conduct makes her bishop's decision at least defensible....

Comment #8 person says:

Then at the last minute my bishop and stake president pulled the plug, saying it was “not appropriate” for me to be sealed to them — not now, not ever. Little children can/should be sealed to their families, they said, but not adults. Adult women like me need to be finding a man to be sealed to and start my own family, and until then I was not going to be allowed to receive my endowment. To say I was devastated is a severe understatement. I felt like I had been misled all my life regarding the doctrine of eternal families. Here after a lifetime of praying and preparing I finally was poised to get my forever family — and not only was I denied, I was told that I *shouldn’t* seek after it!

This woman has been told by her leaders that she should not seek to be sealed to her parents only her future spouse. Other posts on the Sealing thread have told of other people being sealed to their spouse first and then later in life being sealed to their parents. Either this woman's church leaders are poor communicators in giving her the impression that she should never be sealed to her parents or they've given her wrong information altogether.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Comment #8 person says:

Then at the last minute my bishop and stake president pulled the plug, saying it was “not appropriate” for me to be sealed to them — not now, not ever. Little children can/should be sealed to their families, they said, but not adults. Adult women like me need to be finding a man to be sealed to and start my own family, and until then I was not going to be allowed to receive my endowment. To say I was devastated is a severe understatement. I felt like I had been misled all my life regarding the doctrine of eternal families. Here after a lifetime of praying and preparing I finally was poised to get my forever family — and not only was I denied, I was told that I *shouldn’t* seek after it!

Here's the weird thing, though:

What is written above is not Church policy. It is not Church doctrine. I find it utterly bizarre that one mid-level Church manager would wander so far off of our ultra-correlated theological reservation. But two?

I'm sorry; I just don't believe it happened. At least, not in the way she's telling it.

This woman has been told by her leaders that she should not seek to be sealed to her parents only her future spouse.

Well, no; she wants us to believe that this is what she was told.

Other posts on the Sealing thread have told of other people being sealed to their spouse first and then later in life being sealed to their parents.

If you are referring to this thread, I don't think I see anything directly analogous. Yes, if you have separated biological parents and want to be sealed to both of them, then under current Church policy you have to wait until they die, seal the two of them by proxy, and then seal yourself to them. It's a long, frustrating, and oft-misunderstood process--especially where someone (quite naturally and understandably) takes the "families can be together forever" meme at face value without really digging into concepts like the patriarchal order, the law of adoption, and what "together forever" really means in an existence where space and time are irrelevant.

But the fact is that an adult's own marriage is not an official antecedent to that adult's being sealed to his or her own parents.

Either this woman's church leaders are poor communicators in giving her the impression that she should never be sealed to her parents or they've given her wrong information altogether.

Well, I daresay there are at least three more options; and the truth may lie in some combination of all of them:

Option 3 - this woman is so hypersensitive and so wrapped up in some other agenda or worldview, that she mistook "not now" for "not ever", regardless of how carefully her leaders tried to explain the rationale for their decision.

Option 4 - this woman's leaders made additional statements to her regarding the rationale for their decision, that she did not bother to put into her account of the conversation.

Option 5 - this woman is subject to additional life circumstances which she chose not to disclose to her readers, but of which her leaders were aware and which factored into their decision.

Whatever the basis for the decision, the reaction is telling. Rather than pursue further study and introspection, this particular commentator seems to have chosen to blame the Big Bad Patriarchy™ for shattering her hopes and dreams and eternally consigning her to second-class citizenship in the heavens.

Why is this a big deal? Because in Mormondom, the temple isn't just a place where you go, get some spiritual feel-good sermons and promises, and walk away as one of the "cool kids" in the LDS subculture complete with super-secret knowledge. You make specific promises about the way you're going to live your life and the way you will relate to other people in general, and the Church in particular. Those promises are very broad in their scope--shocking, really; and in times past even more so. They were meant to make the congregant think about the duties he or she was undertaking.

When I read this comment at FMH, I cannot help but see someone who wants the blessings but neither knows (understandable, given the secrecy that shrouds the temple) nor cares (not nearly so understandable) about the obligations associated with the endowment ceremony. I know it looks weird and probably even a little cultish to an outsider, but humility and diplomacy are highly valued in Mormon culture. My own experience is that I enjoy more spiritual growth when I try to cultivate those virtues in myself. Not blind obedience, mark you; but a willingness to give Church authorities the benefit of the doubt and to seek to understand the status quo before (politely, and often very quietly) suggesting that it be changed.

More to the point, our temple liturgy alludes to that concept--very blatantly at times. If you stick around FMH long enough, you'll see that a lot of participants there hate--hate--those portions of the ceremony; and they are not shy about saying so.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Here's the weird thing, though:

What is written above is not Church policy. It is not Church doctrine. I find it utterly bizarre that one mid-level Church manager would wander so far off of our ultra-correlated theological reservation. But two?

I'm sorry; I just don't believe it happened. At least, not in the way she's telling it.

This is exactly my thought on the matter. I don't believe it.

[beefche]

JAG, you. are. awesome. Thank you.

[laffopuritain]

What is written above is not Church policy. It is not Church doctrine. I find it utterly bizarre that one mid-level Church manager would wander so far off of our ultra-correlated theological reservation. But two?

When I first joined the church, I started going to gospel doctrine instead of Gospel Principles for sunday school. I specifically remember one of the High Priests (not the teacher) going on and on about how when you are sealed to a spouse, the sealing to the parents is obsolete. His logic was that if you are together forever with your spouse in an exalted state, you can not also be together forever with your parents, because that would take you away from your 'sphere' of control.

I recognize this as an apostate belief. However, I also see it as a possibility that a Stake President could hold to apostate belief (the second counselor in my bishopric mentioned his mission president when he served in Japan being excommunicated for telling sister missionaries he had received revelation that Polygamy was going to be reinstated soon, and that they could become his wives) and the Bishop towing the line in the name of 'sustaining' his local leader.

After all, we have the stories of Joseph F. Smith and the Sandwich Islands, where pretty much the entire Islands had apostasized.

Not willing to say this is what happened here, but I'm also not willing to call a lady a liar just because I'd rather believe in an anonymous Bishop and SP.

Overall though, I agree with your observations.

Edited February 26, 2012 by laffopuritain

[Vort]

When I first joined the church, I started going to gospel doctrine instead of Gospel Principles for sunday school. I specifically remember one of the High Priests (not the teacher) going on and on about how when you are sealed to a spouse, the sealing to the parents is obsolete. His logic was that if you are together forever with your spouse in an exalted state, you can not also be together forever with your parents, because that would take you away from your 'sphere' of control.

I recognize this as an apostate belief. However, I also see it as a possibility that a Stake President could hold to apostate belief (the second counselor in my bishopric mentioned his mission president when he served in Japan being excommunicated for telling sister missionaries he had received revelation that Polygamy was going to be reinstated soon, and that they could become his wives) and the Bishop towing the line in the name of 'sustaining' his local leader.

After all, we have the stories of Joseph F. Smith and the Sandwich Islands, where pretty much the entire Islands had apostasized.

Not willing to say this is what happened here, but I'm also not willing to call a lady a liar just because I'd rather believe in an anonymous Bishop and SP.

You are right, but to be fair, saying "I don't believe her" is much different from saying "She is lying." It is certainly possible that things happened just exactly how she claimed. but in my opinion it is very unlikely. It is much more likely that she is one of those with an axe to grind against the Church and who, consciously or unconsciously, is framing the entire event (assuming it happened at all) to sound like The Oppressive Patriarchy® at work yet again.