Sign in to follow this  
pam

Women and temples

Recommended Posts

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, this is privileged temple knowledge, not something that should be discussed openly. The answer is actually pretty straightforward. It's called "the patriarchal order" for a reason. Beyond that, I don't think it's an appropriate topic for open discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

There are some things that are not appropriate to discuss outside of the temple, and many of these questions, at least to my frame of mind, fill that condition.

That said, one of the greatest commandments that the Lord gave to Moses that is most commonly ignored, even among the Members is that regarding coveting.  We are NOT to covet.

Why do I bring this up.

Sometimes questions relate to certain things and items that show that we covet what we do not have.

A prime example would be the Bishop of the Ward. 

Now, I know personally that times a Bishop really doesn't want to be seen as an example.  The Bishop would actually really rather be doing something else.  The Bishop really doesn't want to have some of the responsibilities laid upon them when asked.

However, there are others that ask questions of the nature of...

Why is the Bishop MY judge?  Shouldn't that simply be the Lord?

Why is the Bishop the one that give me worthiness interviews?  Shouldn't that simply be between me and the Lord?

Why was he called to be the Bishop?  He's not even that righteous!  I stand a better chance of going to heaven than he does!  So why is he the Bishop?

Speaking of the Bishop...he has the Priesthood!  Why is it that only MEN get the Priesthood at this time?

Some may ask, how is asking the questions above coveting?

It is coveting what someone else is or has.  It is seeking to have something that currently is held or done by someone else. 

Now, I'm sure some Bishop somewhere probably asks...why do I have to report to the Stake President and have monthly interviews with him?  You'd think by now I'd know what I'm doing and don't need regular checking up on!  Why is he Stake President and not I?

That is also coveting to degree, though most Bishops I think are more of the idea of...Why me?

When we covet, we only bring unhappiness to ourselves.  We are asking the wrong questions. Rather than ask things like this, a better question probably would be...

In humility, what would the Lord have me do?

How can I best be like what the Lord would want me to be?

How can I be the best person that shows the Lord's spirit through me?

There are some things in this life that we may not understand.  We may have to wait until the eternities to understand them.  We know that our Modern Moralities are NOT the Lord's Moralities, and what the West considers good, many times is what the Lord considers evil, and what the Lord considers good, the West considers evil.  In some of these things, we may not come to an understanding of in this life.

Rather the covet what we perceive as things others have (and ironically, though some may hold it as something that is to be coveted when they have it, I find that those who are righteous in many times feel it is more a responsibility rather than an authority), understand that each of us is a child of our Father.  He wants us to be happy.  Remember that when asked about his Greatest apostles and which would stand at his right hand...he did not say any of them.  It is possible that the least of us will be the greatest, and the greatest the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. 

With that said, though for one who is seriously aggrieved by the Temple and cannot let go of coveting, it will NOT BE A SATISFACTORY answer, I will say, be happy with what you have.  Those who have been baptized into the Church compose less than .2% of the World's population.  Those who have gotten their Temple promises are less than .1% of the population.

One who has received the ordinances of the temple has been blessed in this life more than 99.9% of the entire world as far as heavenly gifts go.  Instead of coveting and asking what others seem to have (and many times we paint a pretty picture of what we think, rather than what is reality), ask...

Why did I get so blessed to be part of that .1% rather than the other 99.9% of the world.  What did I do to deserve these blessings that place me above so many others, especially those who may seem to be even more righteous and dedicated to the Lord than I?  What can I do to show my appreciation for this and what can I do to show that I truly deserve these blessings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One needs to take the gender factor out of the teaching and, instead, look at it in terms of Roles.  The Kingdom of God is organized into a specific order.  In that order are specific Roles.  Each person falls into their specific roles in the building of this Kingdom in the Plan of Salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend this sister attend the endowment session now. There are specific answers to her questions in the endowment now. Listen carefully to the words and notice the wording of the covenants. If there are still questions, then ask to speak to the temple president or matron to discuss. Further explanations on a public forum aren't appropriate, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

I thought all that changed at the beginning of this year. When was this person's last visit to the temple? If it hasn't been this year, maybe she should go for a visit.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/02/lds-church-releases/

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I thought all that changed at the beginning of this year. When was this person's last visit to the temple? If it hasn't been this year, maybe she should go for a visit.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/02/lds-church-releases/

M.

The important distinction is that your first time going through the temple you are going for yourself. Every time after you are going for someone else.

So if someone went through over a year ago, the covenants they made them would presumably be different then if they had gone through today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, beefche said:

I would recommend this sister attend the endowment session now. There are specific answers to her questions in the endowment now. Listen carefully to the words and notice the wording of the covenants. If there are still questions, then ask to speak to the temple president or matron to discuss. Further explanations on a public forum aren't appropriate, in my opinion.

I would point out in passing that minor changes in wording designed to cater to current hypersensitive sensibilities do not invalidate the doctrine taught consistently over the past 150 years. Things that were once eternal truths have not suddenly become false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

I would try.  In mortality we are given laws, ordinances and covenants.  In all cases there is a proctor provided in the law and covenant through the order of the priesthood.  Sometimes there exist misunderstanding of a proctor concerning the laws, ordinances and covenants of the kingdom of G-d.  First we must understand that a proctor does not exist between an individual and G-d but rather is the means through the blessings of the Laws, Ordinances, and Covenants are given.  

By the Order of the Priesthood those that receive the Laws, Ordinances and Covenants do so through their proctor that is the spokesman for G-d.  For women the proctor comes through their husband.  For the husband the proctor comes through the order of the Priesthood.  Only the Prophet High Priest received through Christ that is the Proctor for the Father.  All are responsible to their proctor for the Laws, Ordinances and Covenants they receive.  But the proctor is given greater responsibility in that they are responsible not just for the Laws, Ordinances and Covenants but also for their stewardship as proctor.

Anyone can reject their proctor and appeal to a higher authority but in so doing they release the proctor of responsibility and take that upon themself.  I have often said that I have never met a Bishop in the church to do a poor enough job of it for me to want to replace them.  G-d commands in the 84 section of the D&C that rejecting one's proctor is the same as rejecting him.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fether said:

The important distinction is that your first time going through the temple you are going for yourself. Every time after you are going for someone else.

So if someone went through over a year ago, the covenants they made them would presumably be different then if they had gone through today. 

Since I don't know if this woman must consider her temple covenants "carved in stone", so to speak; but maybe she can take comfort that going forward these changes will help others have a more positive temple experience.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

With more questions, building on the narrative as given in the Book of Moses:

—Where was Adam when Eve was confronted with the opportunity to partake the fruit?  

—Why wasn't she with him at that time?

—How did Eve handle temptation in Adam’s absence?

—What motivations did Eve act on?

—Was Eve deceived when she chose to take the fruit?

—To what degree did Adam have any input on Eve’s decision?  

—To what degree did Eve seek Adam’s input on a decision that affected both of them?

—Where was Eve when Adam was confronted with the opportunity to partake the fruit? 

—Why wasn’t he with her at that time?

—How did Adam handle temptation in Eve’s absence?

—What motivations did Adam initially act on?  When he finally took the fruit, what motivations guided him then?

—Was Adam deceived when he chose to partake of the fruit?

—To what degree did Eve have input on Adam’s decision to take the fruit?

—To what degree did Adam seek and accept Eve’s input on that decision?

—Was Eve’s influence on Adam at this moment, a righteous one?  Was she advancing Adam’s interests, or her own?  Were her tactics at all manipulative?

—What sacrifices did Adam make for Eve in the garden?  What sacrifices did Eve make for Adam in the garden?  What motivations underlay those sacrifices (or failures to sacrifice)?

—Was Eve, as a partner for Adam, replaceable?  Was Adam, as a partner for Eve, replaceable?

—What does the narrative of the fall as given in the temple, say about the degree of respect Adam and Eve each had for their partner’s autonomy?

—What does it say about the way each of them approached major life decisions?

—What does it say about the degree to which each values the other’s companionship and counsel?

—What does it say about the degree of selfishness or selflessness that drove each of their actions?

—Do the characteristics and dynamics we see playing out between Adam and Eve in scripture and in the temple drama, have any broader bearing or reflection in the way men and women tend to interact in modern times, the priorities people tend to set in Christian marriage, and/or the way those priorities may be misplaced or exploited?  

—To what degree might the provisions of the temple ceremony that the questioner finds problematic, have served to “level the playing field” between the sexes given the gender dynamics hinted at above?  To the degree that such elements are no longer necessary—why might that be, and what new elements of Christian marriage have arisen to take their place?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

1) I would invite her to go since the newer changes.

 

But speaking more broadly: the temple is extremely symbolic, and forward looking.  The exalted persons whom will be dancing around with the Father for eternity are NOT like the sinful you and me.  I very much have my sinful flaws, and so do you, and every other mortal here.  All of those flaws will be completely done away with, and each newly exalted person will be as flawless & perfect a the Son of God Himself  --- there will be no difference between all these person is goodness and glory.  

The "husband" in the temple endowment ceremony is that exalted person, Perfect just like the Son of God Himself--- having that same goodness and glory.  And you bear witness to God and everyone to follow God's goodness.

The "husband" in the temple endowment ceremony is NOT the sinful natural man whom can be prideful, a bit greedy, petty, or whatever sins he's still struggling with.  It is DEFINITELY not that sinful dude when he goes against God's will.  No way.

 

Likewise, the "wife" in the endowment ceremony isn't the sinful natural woman whom can be prideful, a bit greedy, petty, or whatever sins she's still struggling with.   All those things need to be washed away still.  

 

Both sinful woman and the sinful man need each other to move forward in the eternities, closer to Christ until they are indeed Perfected the same as Him.

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you comfortable making your covenant with God (He is a man)?
 

Remember that the temple is about reaching perfection.  Perhaps you are not making a covenant with the imperfect dude that you married, but with the potential man that he can become through the trans-formative power of the atonement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vort said:

I would point out in passing that minor changes in wording designed to cater to current hypersensitive sensibilities do not invalidate the doctrine taught consistently over the past 150 years. Things that were once eternal truths have not suddenly become false.

I would agree with this, but there are some that would argue that the Prophet CAN change doctrine with revelation.

(Just to be clear, I actually agree with your statement.  I think that there can be some confusion on the topic to a degree which is what I am bringing up below).

A prime example would be that Wilford Woodruff and others would say that temple ordinances could ONLY be done by one who held the higher Priesthood (the Melchizedek) only.  This was the doctrine (or what they would call doctrine, though I do not think we can actually find it anywhere in the scriptures).  The reasons was that while the Lower Priesthood dealt with earthly ordinances and our immediate ordinances for this earth, the Melchizedek Priesthood also covered ordinances that were for things beyond this earth and this life, which ALSO included that of the dead. 

Do we follow this anymore?  No.

We found out a little while ago that those who are Priests can do Baptisms for the dead.  So, in this the question would be...has the doctrine changed?  Originally you COULD not, doctrinally supported, perform ordinances for the dead if you did not have the Melchizedek Priesthood. 

Today, we obviously are allowing those with the Aaronic Priesthood to do at least one ordinance for the dead (as per this Church adds new opportunies for youth and children in temple participation

There was very little wiggle room previously in this regards.  Unlike Blacks and the Priesthood (where one can actually say that this was in fulfillment of prophecy and the words of Brigham Young technically were fulfilled at that point in 1978, even if not all saw it that way at the time), this wasn't something that really was up to interpretation.

I could say that we had a "restoration" or change in our understanding that since Priests could do Baptisms for the Living, this was extended by common sense to those of the Dead.  Yet, it is still an ordinance performed by those who are in another world, rather than in the immediate life here right now.

The question then, is this a change in doctrine, or how do we interpret it?

If ordinances are unchanging, and so regulated to the point that we must get them exactly word for word...then this is actually a pretty MAJOR deviation or change in an ordinance.  Though it does not change words per se in what was announced, it actually did FAR more, in that it changed the AUTHORITY of the one who was involved with the Ordinance itself.  It also changes the understanding of what the Priesthoods would be in relation to the World of Spirit and the Worlds beyond this one.

What qualifies as a change in doctrine and what does not?

I would postulate most things are based on things with Scripture, but when one gets to the Temple...originally I'd say what was revealed to Joseph Smith and originally written down later is the official ordinance (or we have not performed most of the ordinances we said we have because it was not correct)?

With things beyond scripture, it can be tough to determine what is and what is not...doctrine.  How then, would one define such things?

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

I suggest you make an appointment with the temple president and go over the initiatory. Ask him whether/how this is different from the men's. If he is comfortable answering that, you will be amazed (in a good way!). But keep it private!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

At first read, I don't think this person is a member. This appears to be the questions from an anti-Mormon. If she truly is a member, then this type of question will only be answered by the Spirit of Truth, and through this individual exercising faith, hope, and charity.

I would simply recommend the following verse of scripture, Helaman 3:35. Invite her to follow the counsel and then act in faith, hope, and charity and if she does so the Lord will reveal unto her his love.

How can a women's place be worse in the eternities when she is perfect, glorified, immortal, and "one" with her husband and God? Does the notion of "one" somehow mean a person is "less"?

The sealing promises the same regarding giving and receiving. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church...that is part of the sealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

At first read, I don't think this person is a member. This appears to be the questions from an anti-Mormon.

My sister and her husband, both members and great people, struggle with this issue, among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

And?

You seem to be insinuating that because this woman is uncomforable with her temple experience that must mean she must be an anti-mormon. Does that mean you don't think a faithful member can struggle with their temple experience?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maureen said:

You seem to be insinuating that because this woman is uncomforable with her temple experience that must mean she must be an anti-mormon. Does that mean you don't think a faithful member can struggle with their temple experience?

Maureen, you're not a Latter-day Saint. In the present case, you are participating in an explicitly LDS sub-forum dedicated to discussing LDS doctrine about the gospel. If you have honest questions meant to dispel your ignorance, go ahead and ask, and then carefully listen to the answers. If you want to debate, go elsewhere. Instead of butting in, consider butting out of conversations where your ignorance vastly supersedes any possible contribution you might make. The present thread is an example of such a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

You seem to be insinuating that because this woman is uncomforable with her temple experience that must mean she must be an anti-mormon. Does that mean you don't think a faithful member can struggle with their temple experience?

M.

Let's actually take a moment to read what I actually said (Though I should probably just leave it with @Vort 's response):

1) Upon first read I don't think she is a member.  (That should be clear)

2) In light of the recent change that is well known in the temple I said the following, "This appears to be the questions from an anti-Mormon." (That should be pretty clear also)

3) If she truly is a member, then this type of question will only be answered by the Spirit of Truth, and through this individual exercising faith, hope, and charity. (Dprh and Maureen seemed to have stopped at the first two sentences while ignoring the rest of the response). The rest of the response, which is 8 sentences, are pertaining to the OP as a member of the Church and what she should do. (That clearly answers your question (and is pretty clear also), which didn't require a question as I already understand a member can have questions pertaining to the temple)

Thus my question to Dprh, "And"? As my response, the majority of it, was based on her being a member; although, at first glance (in light of new changes in the temple), it seems odd a member would ask this especially since the question appears to be recent (endowment recent) -- not old.

EDIT: This a solitary statement pertaining to this individual, this OP, not any other member of the Church.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 11:39 AM, pam said:

How would YOU answer this question:

I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

I would tell her to go to the source of where she finds truth--whatever that may be. And that these types of questions are not bad to have. As long as you look for answers in the right places (like many discussed here). And to try to take away her "worldly" view of the temple, which is hard to do but helps with understanding and interpreting the symbolic nature of the temple ordinances. This may take many visits and time, but if she is truly seeking answers to these questions, this is how she will successfully do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this