#55097 A mind in despair

[vorpal blade]

My first reaction to the question was a lack of patience with the asker. She was obviously in a confused and disturbed state of mind when she asked the question, so I tried to put my mind in a state of understanding and compassion. I thought it would take extraordinary tact and skill to answer her question without offending.

Fortunately the Board was up to the task. Good job Queen Alice, and especially Waldorf (and Sauron).

[Damasta]

Something else that I think was overlooked in the response to the question was v. 61:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

In v. 65 this is identified as "the Law of Sarah". The Law of Sarah says, basically, that a wife has the right to permit or deny her husband additional wives. So the woman who posed the question needn't worry about being "one of billions"; she can simply disagree to practice polygyny.

[vorpal blade]

I think the asker had preempted your response, Damasta, when she said:

And yes I do realize the part about asking the first wife permission exists, but it really seems like the Lord deals with them in a "Why aren't you obeying the commandments? Now I am going to smite you!" sort of way.)

[oliviaik]

Actually, I was very disappointed with Waldorf and Sauron's answer. I thought they took her very founded and understandable uneasiness with this chapter of scripture and tried to make it seem like she didn't have any reason for feeling the way she did. I have personally met MANY, MANY women in the church who have a problem with this chapter and with other aspects of the church that seem very demeaning to women. This is not a situation where someone looked at the chapter and specifically looked for a "patriarchal bias against women". This is a case where an unsuspecting, faithful person ran into a blatant example of obvious patriarchal bias against women that does exist in the church. When I read that scripture asking the question you suggested, "What does this scripture show about our relationship to God, as men and women?", I am forced to come to the conclusion that my relationship with God as a women is not as important or as strong as a man's relationship with God.

I would like to second Queen Alice's suggestion of checking out Feminist Mormon Housewives. If it were not for that blog and the honest conversations that take place there, it is possible that I would no longer be a member of this church. When I found that blog, I suddenly realized that there are other people in this church that feel the same way I do, that I am not an evil person for feeling these things, and that my concerns with the church do not need to stop me from embracing the many good things that the church has to offer.

I do like our church. I do not, however, feel that it is completely perfect in every way and I do believe that concerns like the one this girl brought up should not just be brushed aside but should be discussed in an intellectually honest way. Even if you do not agree with my (or her) opinion, at least consider why we might be upset by these things and why we just might not be complaining about nothing.

[Tao]

This is not a situation where someone looked at the chapter and specifically looked for a "patriarchal bias against women". This is a case where an unsuspecting, faithful person ran into a blatant example of obvious patriarchal bias against women that does exist in the church.

Interesting choice of wording here.

When I read that scripture asking the question you suggested, "What does this scripture show about our relationship to God, as men and women?", I am forced to come to the conclusion that my relationship with God as a women is not as important or as strong as a man's relationship with God.

Does this conclusion come entirely from that scripture, or are there other influences involved?

I would be rather interested in seeing an intellectual discussion on this topic, as I'm afraid I do not see what upsetting conclusions can be found without actively seeking them.

[Damasta]

I think the asker had preempted your response, Damasta, when she said:

And yes I do realize the part about asking the first wife permission exists, but it really seems like the Lord deals with them in a "Why aren't you obeying the commandments? Now I am going to smite you!" sort of way.)

Good eye, vorpal. I must've glazed over that part. However, she seems to have glazed over the part where the Lord deals with men in a ""Why aren't you obeying the commandments? Now I am going to smite you!" sort of way." (D&C 132:4, 6, 27).

Actually, I was very disappointed with Waldorf and Sauron's answer.

There was, in fact, a nice balance in the answers. If you think about it, the woman who asked the question either needed validation that her feelings and concerns aren't unusual or illegitimate; or she needed soothing, a reconciliation of apparently conflicting doctrines, and a reminder that God loves her greatly. Queen Alice provided the former; Waldorf and Sauron provided the latter. All the bases were covered. And she's free to ignore the answer that didn't meet her needs.

This is a case where an unsuspecting, faithful person ran into a blatant example of obvious patriarchal bias against women that does exist in the church. When I read that scripture asking the question you suggested, "What does this scripture show about our relationship to God, as men and women?", I am forced to come to the conclusion that my relationship with God as a women is not as important or as strong as a man's relationship with God.

I would like to second Queen Alice's suggestion of checking out Feminist Mormon Housewives. If it were not for that blog and the honest conversations that take place there, it is possible that I would no longer be a member of this church. When I found that blog, I suddenly realized that there are other people in this church that feel the same way I do, that I am not an evil person for feeling these things, and that my concerns with the church do not need to stop me from embracing the many good things that the church has to offer.

I think it's important to remember that God only cares about one equal right: the equal right to achieve salvation through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. All other equalities are nice, but ultimately irrelevant. Don't sell your inheritance (eternal salvation) for a mess of pottage (political ideals that are only relevant for the 70-odd years you live in mortality). And by "you" I mean "anyone who is reading". Either this Church is true and it's run by God, no matter how unfair or incomprehensible some of its doctrines and/or policies are; or it's false. If the Church is false, then your concerns are justified. But if the Church is true, then your concerns are stumbling blocks. That doesn't mean you should ignore them. They're real concerns! You're not an evil person for feeling them. But if each one is a fork in the road, a choice between "I stay in the Church in spite of this" and "this is the last straw, I'm out", eventually you will reach the last straw--and not necessarily because the Church is false. Once you know the Church is true, however, then concerns become potholes instead of roadblocks. The path is still bumpy, but not impassable.

We all have ideologies, as influenced by our families, our friends, the media, and our teachers. Some of those ideologies will end up being contrary to the Gospel. I think eventually that will turn out to be true for just about everyone; we all have some misguided ideologies. The question is: who do we put our trust in? God or NOW? God or the NRA? God or MTV? God or Fox News? Any ideology which comes into conflict with God's will must eventually be discarded. Since any given ideology (no matter how convinced we may be of it at the moment) is ultimately flawed and not entirely true, we cannot judge God nor his Church based on their alignment with said ideology. In the conflict between God and another ideology (i.e. concerns), the other ideology must always give way. That doesn't mean exercising blind faith; it means searching for the truth and having the patience to wait until God reveals it to us.

It should also be kept in mind that D&C 132 was given in response to Emma Smith's defiance of the commandment. So of course it has a strong tone. But recall that when the doctrine of plural marriage was given to Joseph Smith, it terrified him. He avoided revealing it and putting it into practice. An angel was sent several times to remind him, and the last time the angel wielded a sword and promised Joseph immediate destruction if he didn't repent. In essence, Emma got a nasty letter for her recalcitrance; Joseph got a sword to his throat for his. In perspective, Emma got the more lenient reprimand. So this wasn't about God favoring men over women; this was about obedience to God's will, irrespective of gender. Also, if you've been through the temple, compare the initiatory rites for men and for women and you'll find that there's a strong positive bias there in the favor of women over men. And don't forget the reverent terms that the Brethren always use when speaking of their wives; I know that is a direct reflection of God's esteem for women.

God encourages us to seek truth, but He also gives us a way to identify truth: through the Holy Ghost. When things are true, we feel comfort and love. When they aren't true, we feel confusion and anxiety. The woman who asked the question, though she may not realize it, has experienced both. She said "Last summer it really felt like my life was going good. The scriptures were really coming alive to me and I felt like the Lord loved me and I was finally starting to feel at peace with some of the conditions in my life that I had previously felt to be unfair." Those are all confirmations from the Holy Ghost. Then, while reading D&C 132 some new ideas came into her head, namely "God loves women more than men", "I'm just going to be an insignificant one-of-my-husband's-billion-wives", "God created women only to benefit men", "my existence has no further point than that", and (my embellished interpretation of her remarks) "If polygamy were reinstated and I refused God would instantly smite me with boils and then burn me to ash", etc. She immediately felt horrible, confused, and distraught. I believe that this was the Spirit rejecting these new ideas as false.

My point is that God does love both men and women. Neither are inferior to the other in His eyes. Some doctrines and policies may seem to belie that fact. But that is because we are blinded by 21st Century American ideologies and sensitivities. God's Church may not be perfect, but He would never allow those imperfections to obstruct the salvation of its members. And, like I said, that's all he really cares about: our salvation. Because He loves us.

[NerdGirl]

From Doctrine and Covenants section 132:
"19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (emphasis my own)

I have always found this to be one of the most comforting and most inspiring scriptures. These blessings are promised to both men and women, joined eternally as husbands and wives in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. There is no distinction made in these verses between the man and the woman. Both will be gods, and both will inherit everything our Heavenly Father has to give us. I don't dispute that there are people in the Church with a patriarchal bias against women. I don't dispute that some people interpret scriptures in ways that approve of a bias against women. But if we believe the scriptures to be true, all of them, then we must believe what I quoted to be true, and that scripture is very plain and doesn't take much interpretation. Therefore, I think any interpretation of subsequent verses that concludes that God loves men more than women or will bless men more than women must not be the correct interpretation. There are certainly things that could be interpreted that way, but they shouldn't be interpreted that way, if this scripture is also true. One thing I do know for sure is that our Heavenly Father does not have a bias against women.

I don't know how polygamy is going to all work out. I admit that I have heard things and thought things about it that make me uncomfortable. But I take great comfort in the scripture I quoted, because to me that means that the uncomfortable things I have heard about must be wrong and the scenarios I have come up with in my mind that make me uncomfortable must also be wrong. I do not know how the polygamy thing will be worked out so that everything is fair, but I have faith that it will be worked out so that everything is fair. I can't even begin to imagine how that will happen, but I know that it will. As Nephi said to the angel of the Lord, "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:17) I don't know that we are even capable of understanding it in our present state, because as Isaiah explained in Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." But He will make everything right in ways we can't even imagine.

And Damasta, you make an excellent point about feelings of confusion and anxiety not coming from the Spirt and not being indicative of truth.

[Marduk]

Nerdgirl, we are thinking the same thoughts, it seems. I was about to come to this forum and quote Nephi, and I find you've already done so.

Building on that, we often have to rely on the understanding that God loves His children, all of them, and that everything He does is for our eternal happiness. There is so much confusion about the way polygamy was practiced in this dispensation, and, in my opinion, the doctrine was never really clear. It came in rough, and it went out rough. Coming in, many chose to practice it without being so commanded, and were hence excommunicated. Going out, many who practiced it refused to denounce it, and were hence excommunicated. In perspective of the church as a whole, very few were actually commanded to practice it, and of those who were, it is unclear what the eternal result would be. As my dad says, this is just one of those things we don't have enough information about, and we just need to put on the shelf with a question mark by it, waiting until we have more information.

When in doubt, return to the policy that God loveth His children.

[Damasta]

One other thing I've come across while studying this topic is that while a few women expressed having great difficulty with plural marriage, some of them described it as some of the most spiritual experiences of their lives. Why that is, I don't know. But that tells me two things: 1. there must've been more going on than a man simply having multiple wives; and 2. if we obey God, no matter how difficult or troubling the commandment may be (cf. Hosea 3:1; 1 Ne. 4:10; Abr. 2:24), we will be blessed, not only temporally, but also with greater understanding.

[oliviaik]

Ummm. . .not sure what you mean by the initiatories being strongly biased towards women. I felt as though they were highly biased AGAINST women, as were other portions of the endowment ceremony.

Secondly, I do not believe the church has to be all or nothing. I believe the gospel is true, but this is a church run by humans who can make mistakes. There have been MANY things in this church that have changed throughout history. The fact of the matter is that there are things in this church that make me feel uncomfortable, confused, and upset EVERY TIME I hear about them and study them. Even when I pray about them sincerely and try to give them a chance, I am repeatedly given the answer that those things are not correct. I do believe that some of these things will change in the future.

So, if there are things in the church that I disagree with and some things that I completely feel are wrong after much prayer and study, why do I stay in the church? Mostly, it is because I believe the core of this church is true. I believe in Christ and the atonement and I believe the overwhelming purpose of this church and the reason God brought it into existence was to bring souls unto Christ. I do not believe God has handed down every single doctrine and policy this church has ever had. I believe his main goal was to bring more souls to Christ and the details he will work out later.

I strongly believe in personal revelation and I believe that anything you hear you should pray about and ask God directly about. Just don't get angry if you don't get the same answer as someone else. I am not sure why we all do not always get the same answers, but I guess God knows his reasons.

[Tao]

Ummm. . .not sure what you mean by the initiatories being strongly biased towards women. I felt as though they were highly biased AGAINST women, as were other portions of the endowment ceremony.

Interesting. I would love to have the chance to sit and talk with you, or anyone who sees similarly. I could see elements in the Endowment ceremony that could be interpreted as being biased if you were so inclined, especially the ceremony as it stood years ago before being streamlined. But the Initiatory? I would be very interested to learn in what light it could be seen as biased.

A significant percentage of my female friends in the church would consider themselves as feminist, yet this is one topic that I have yet to be exposed to. I may have to ask next time we have a chance to talk at length.

1. there must've been more going on than a man simply having multiple wives; and 2. if we obey God, no matter how difficult or troubling the commandment may be (cf. Hosea 3:1; 1 Ne. 4:10; Abr. 2:24), we will be blessed, not only temporally, but also with greater understanding.

Agreed. Nowhere in my study of the scriptures has God come across as capricious or whimsical, yet I do get the impression marriage is the greatest of all the ordinances in His church. For Him to present differing regulations at different times, we know that the circumstances must run deep. And a later Nephic quote (if that of Delphi is Delphic, is that of Nephi Nephic? Perhaps Nephitical?) 2 Ne. 26:24 "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. "

[Damasta]

Ummm. . .not sure what you mean by the initiatories being strongly biased towards women. I felt as though they were highly biased AGAINST women, as were other portions of the endowment ceremony.

Then perhaps you aren't familiar with how it differs from the way it's administered to men. Particularly the "washing" step.

So, if there are things in the church that I disagree with and some things that I completely feel are wrong after much prayer and study, why do I stay in the church? Mostly, it is because I believe the core of this church is true.

That is an important concept to grasp while in mortality: we are not capable of understanding all things. Some things we must "put on the back burner" and rely on faith until the Lord sees fit to reveal more to us. So, kudos to you for learning that and recognizing that.

I believe his main goal was to bring more souls to Christ and the details he will work out later.

I normally wouldn't get nitpicky, but you've got this wrong in a few ways. First, God's main goal is to is to save souls. Christ's goal is to bring souls to God. So Christ and his Atonement are the means, not the end. I'm sure you get that, though, and just worded it wrong.

The details that matter, though, God has worked out; the rest is just minutiae (in my opinion). And just to clarify, the details that matter are these: to be saved you must have faith in God and Jesus Christ, repent of your sins, be baptized by the proper authority, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the proper authority, receive the Melchizedek Priesthood if you're male (yep, men have an extra step to go through before they can be saved), receive temple initiatories, receive a temple endowment, be sealed for time and eternity, and endure to the end. Eventually you have to do all of those things to be saved; God has made those details clear and immutable. And God will make allowances (e.g. temple work for the dead) for any situation which prevents a sincere individual from fulfilling those requirements (even if that situation is caused by Church policy). Any policy or situation which is unpleasant, but does not negatively impact an individual's access to salvation is ultimately irrelevant. If an individual chooses to reject salvation in response to said situation or policy, then the fault is their own, not God's nor the Church's.

Like I said, you seem to have the ability to recognize when situations or policies are unpleasant or even incorrect, but deem them immaterial to your personal salvation. You're right to give your attention to the weightier matters: applying the Atonement in your life and developing Christ-like attributes. So let me just say that I admire you for that. I know that it isn't always easy and I've struggled with it at times myself.

...don't get angry if you don't get the same answer as someone else. I am not sure why we all do not always get the same answers, but I guess God knows his reasons.

Yeah, that is a puzzler. But we can be confident that he always gives us the answers that we need at that time.

[Tao]

Then perhaps you aren't familiar with how it differs from the way it's administered to men. Particularly the "washing" step.

mmmm. I don't believe there are many whose knowledge of the differences in the initiatory would be considered familiar. There are plenty who officiate in one or the other who are unaware of any significant differences between the two.

To those who are (rightfully) unaware; there are differences, but in my opinion nothing that signifies a bias of any sort. To go further would be beyond my abilities in this medium.

[Damasta]

Then perhaps you aren't familiar with how it differs from the way it's administered to men. Particularly the "washing" step.

mmmm. I don't believe there are many whose knowledge of the differences in the initiatory would be considered familiar. There are plenty who officiate in one or the other who are unaware of any significant differences between the two.

To those who are (rightfully) unaware; there are differences, but in my opinion nothing that signifies a bias of any sort. To go further would be beyond my abilities in this medium.

I was initially notified of the differences by the man who sealed my wife and me. So after she'd had some time to get familiar with the ordinance, I asked her about it. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about omitting the ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood; besides that there are two major differences and taken together I'd say it's quite clear that something positive about women is implied.

That aside, I wanted to add one more thing to this discussion. I wanted to make it clear that when I say that gender equality doesn't matter with regards to eternal salvation, I mean that a woman who doesn't get paid as much as her male colleagues isn't any less likely to reach the Celestial Kingdom—unless she uses that as an excuse to lose her faith. So as unfortunate as that situation is (I believe it is a result of the Fall), it doesn't matter the way that faith and repentance do. However, any man who is disrespectful to women, who treat them as inferior, as worthless, or as chattel—especially their wives—will be held accountable by God. In the eternities there will be gender equality. But it will be perfect equality, not the distorted views of equality that are concocted by well-meaning, but blind and misinformed 21st Century mortals living in industrialized nations. So I suspect that most of us will have to change our views on gender equality before we ultimately achieve perfection.