Temple Secrecy

[pellegrino]

Furthermore, what would the secret service do during each endowment session?

attend it with him. Mormons are everywhere, remember.

[Rosebud]

The question: Must the object (or in this case the gender) assume the literalness of the symbol it conveys? In other words, if, within a given narrative, a dog is used to symbolize intelligence, must all dogs therefore be intelligent? Are we to assume that all dogs are intelligent because they are used to symbolize?

Agreed... but since (using your figures) 99% of the women miss the symbolism and possibly 99.5% miss the fact they don't need to generalize that a dog being used to symbolize intelligence doesn't therefore necessarily mean that all dogs are intelligent, what we're left with is a high percentage of women who are hurt by the fact that they have to veil their faces and can't approach God in their own right. If the use of ritualistic symbolism is so anachronistic that only a very small percentage of people understand the point of the ceremony while a high percentage of people are hurt by the ceremony, it only makes sense that it might be time to rethink the usefulness of this particular teaching technique.

Now if we were to allow people to discuss and educate each other about the symbolism in the ceremony (at least inside the temple) I might feel differently. But not being allowed to discuss the symbolism leaves several women feeling unnecessarily hurt.... many of whom will attribute that hurt to the idea that God believes they are less worthy to be directly in his presence than men are. (Additionally, I have a hard time imagining a discussion in our culture that would realistically leave intelligent women understanding the symbolism instead of feeling pandered to.)

[Surfah]

Agreed... but since (using your figures) 99% of the women miss the symbolism and possibly 99.5% miss the fact they don't need to generalize that a dog being used to symbolize intelligence doesn't therefore necessarily mean that all dogs are intelligent, what we're left with is a high percentage of women who are hurt by the fact that they have to veil their faces and can't approach God in their own right.

To be fair nobody can approach God in their own right.

[fusnik]

Rosebud's points are valid, who likes to hear that their sex is represented by the carnal desires of the flesh? Pretty degradong, IMO. This is where open dialogue would be beneficial to the general membership surrounding the symbols behind the pagentry. The creation story isn't the creation of a man and a woman, but of a child of God, complete with a carnal and spiritual side. Women and men equally represented by both male and female. If as a female you allow the dehuminazation of your sex through representation ruin the show you misinterprut the message just as the male who justifies his domineering behaviors towards women so does.

[Surfah]

Rosebud's points are valid, who likes to hear that their sex is represented by the carnal desires of the flesh? Pretty degradong, IMO. This is where open dialogue would be beneficial to the general membership surrounding the symbols behind the pagentry. The creation story isn't the creation of a man and a woman, but of a child of God, complete with a carnal and spiritual side. Women and men equally represented by both male and female. If as a female you allow the dehuminazation of your sex through representation ruin the show you misinterprut the message just as the male who justifies his domineering behaviors towards women so does.

Nice thoughts man.

Rosebud, I'd gladly trade my headgear for yours.

[SuperGabers]

Agreed... but since (using your figures) 99% of the women miss the symbolism and possibly 99.5% miss the fact they don't need to generalize that a dog being used to symbolize intelligence doesn't therefore necessarily mean that all dogs are intelligent, what we're left with is a high percentage of women who are hurt by the fact that they have to veil their faces and can't approach God in their own right. If the use of ritualistic symbolism is so anachronistic that only a very small percentage of people understand the point of the ceremony while a high percentage of people are hurt by the ceremony, it only makes sense that it might be time to rethink the usefulness of this particular teaching technique.

Now if we were to allow people to discuss and educate each other about the symbolism in the ceremony (at least inside the temple) I might feel differently. But not being allowed to discuss the symbolism leaves several women feeling unnecessarily hurt.... many of whom will attribute that hurt to the idea that God believes they are less worthy to be directly in his presence than men are. (Additionally, I have a hard time imagining a discussion in our culture that would realistically leave intelligent women understanding the symbolism instead of feeling pandered to.)

I think I'm gonna like you rosebud. Your thoughts are well stated. I appreciate everyone's comments in regards to veiling. I think it is important to discuss issues such as these because we are able to throw ideas around and, hopefully, come to some kind of personal resolve of the matter. Perhaps I am closer to returning to the temple after this discourse.

[Rosebud]

Thanks SuperGabers .

Wuap... do you have a summon Solon card to play?

I keep hoping Solon will show up and say something about gnostic dualism and its influence on the temple ceremony. Or fusnik... is this something that you have thought about considering your comments today?

[Viking]

My wife has a hard time with it. Every time we go she wonders what the point is and why she must veil her face and not I.

Because, silly, we have to show them we are in charge.

[wuapinmon]

Thanks SuperGabers .

Wuap... do you have a summon Solon card to play?

I keep hoping Solon will show up and say something about gnostic dualism and its influence on the temple ceremony. Or fusnik... is this something that you have thought about considering your comments today?

No Solon card yet....I still don't have a feel for a topic that he is FOR SURE going to get in on...you/SU, on the other hand, well, that's an easy one.

[Tick's wife]

what was freaky for me was that the Church was so big on modesty, yet during the initiatory, I was not very modest and others were seeing me.....did not like that but there was no turning back.

[Gidget]

I was endowed almost 4 years ago. And during the initiatory I was wearing a full garment and another robe that they called a shield. They must have moved away from the poncho type thing before then. Guess I lucked out. But I think the initiatory is the coolest part. The blessing are awesome.

[Tick's wife]

I was endowed almost 4 years ago. And during the initiatory I was wearing a full garment and another robe that they called a shield. They must have moved away from the poncho type thing before then. Guess I lucked out. But I think the initiatory is the coolest part. The blessing are awesome.

The blessings are awesome but I didn't like being 'bare' in front of all those old ladies...lol But that was like 15 years ago.

[wuapinmon]

The blessings are awesome but I didn't like being 'bare' in front of all those old ladies...lol But that was like 15 years ago.

I didn't care for my dad running his oily hands up my legs.

[pellegrino]

Agreed... but since (using your figures) 99% of the women miss the symbolism and possibly 99.5% miss the fact they don't need to generalize that a dog being used to symbolize intelligence doesn't therefore necessarily mean that all dogs are intelligent, what we're left with is a high percentage of women who are hurt by the fact that they have to veil their faces and can't approach God in their own right. If the use of ritualistic symbolism is so anachronistic that only a very small percentage of people understand the point of the ceremony while a high percentage of people are hurt by the ceremony, it only makes sense that it might be time to rethink the usefulness of this particular teaching technique.

Now if we were to allow people to discuss and educate each other about the symbolism in the ceremony (at least inside the temple) I might feel differently. But not being allowed to discuss the symbolism leaves several women feeling unnecessarily hurt.... many of whom will attribute that hurt to the idea that God believes they are less worthy to be directly in his presence than men are. (Additionally, I have a hard time imagining a discussion in our culture that would realistically leave intelligent women understanding the symbolism instead of feeling pandered to.)

I've been avoiding responding to this, partly because I realized after the fact that I used an example of a dog (not so good when talking about women) and partly because I'm not sure where I stand or how to respond. With regards to the women veiling their faces, I like fusnik's exegesis because it adds another facet to my own interpretation of the endowment. I'm not going to get into that here. I believe I've given a glimpse of that in other threads so I'll leave it at that.

I am interested in knowing is how many women are truly offended that they must veil their faces. I'm not sure that the average Mormon woman is offended by it. When I say that I don't mean that they shouldn't be, nor do I mean that those who are do not have a valid reason. I just think that the women who post here think and reason on a different level than the average Mormon (woman).

I'm inclined to think that the average Mormon woman (like the average Mormon man) doesn't think much about the endowment. They go because they believe they will be blessed, because they are told it is the right thing to do, because they feel some sort of peace, because they believe they'll find an answer to a prayer, because they feel an obligation to their ancestors. I don't think that many Mormons go to the temple looking for or expecting to find great knowledge from the endowment and if they do then they are thwarted in their efforts by the lack of approved sources, the inability to openly discuss the endowment with others, and their own inability to interpret symbols and narratives.

I realize that this is a very cynical analysis and I will admit that my sample size is too small and my survey too unscientific to generalize about all temple attending Mormons, but that's what my anecdotal experience has told me. In my own attempt to understand the endowment I have probed and and prodded every temple recommend holder I know and trust as to their feelings and interpretations of the endowment (35-40 people comprised of family and close friends) and only one of them earnestly sought to understand the ceremony and felt like his diligence had given him meaningful insight. The rest cited the reasons I gave above for attending the temple or not finding meaning in the ceremony. I should note that everyone expressed some desire to understand it better but didn't know how to go about it or were overwhelmed at the thought. Clearly, a forum where members could intelligently and safely discuss the endowment ceremony in order to understand it better would be appreciated by many many members.

So, with regards to how many women are offended because they veil their face, I just don't know how accurate it is to say that a high percentage of women are offended by it. Are there women who are offended by it? Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But how many women really are is a question worth asking, not because a low number would dismiss any concerns, but because it would be indicative of attitudes about the temple. I am inclined to believe that those women who are offended by it feel so because they care deeply about their religion and are disappointed and hurt when they see and understand the misogynist strains that permeate it, despite the hope that is offered by the more progressive innovations within Mormonism.

Regarding fusnik's interpretation, I was reading an excellent thread about the queen of heaven and W.W. Phelp's thoughts on Heavenly Mother that pelagius posted this morning. It caused me to think more about the logic of having male and female deity as a means of interpreting the cosmos. I've always felt that androgyny is a trait to strive for and that those who limit themselves to the gender traits associated with their sex miss out on a significant aspects of the human experience. As we look at the temple ceremony and try to understand the narrative it presents us, I think we can extract new meaning from Corinthians 11:11

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

There's a lot that can be learned about human narrative from the endowment ceremony. We'll likely get more meaning from it if we try to look beyond the literal and try to understand it in more allegorical or anagogical manner. Fusnik's interpretation is a great example of this path.

[Surfah]

I am interested in knowing is how many women are truly offended that they must veil their faces. I'm not sure that the average Mormon woman is offended by it. When I say that I don't mean that they shouldn't be, nor do I mean that those who are do not have a valid reason. I just think that the women who post here think and reason on a different level than the average Mormon (woman).

I'm inclined to think that the average Mormon woman (like the average Mormon man) doesn't think much about the endowment. They go because they believe they will be blessed, because they are told it is the right thing to do, because they feel some sort of peace, because they believe they'll find an answer to a prayer, because they feel an obligation to their ancestors. I don't think that many Mormons go to the temple looking for or expecting to find great knowledge from the endowment and if they do then they are thwarted in their efforts by the lack of approved sources, the inability to openly discuss the endowment with others, and their own inability to interpret symbols and narratives.

I agree with this. I appreciated your other thoughts as well.