The Mormon Priestess

I have felt very ambivalent about posting this essay here but I have finally decided that I should, if only to bring slightly more awareness to this issue. The temple is the source of what MoFems call "my feminist awakening", because it was the first time in my experience in the church that I felt unavoidably confronted with doctrinal inequalities between men and women. It broke my heart. It shook my relationship with God to the core. It deeply damaged my sense of self-worth. It still does. I can honestly say that I have sought long and hard for spiritual and logical explanations outside of the most obvious ones, and I have found some, but the endowment is still deeply painful for me, almost every time that I go.

I understand that many men and women in the church would find my feelings and perspective difficult to understand. That is why I am posting This Essay. Because her essay describes and lays out exactly how I understood the endowment the first time I was endowed. This interpretation is why I was bawling in the bathroom afterwards. Why I considered turning down my mission call. Why I have struggled with feelings of worthlessness and doubts of God's love for me ever since. Why I sometimes wish I had never been endowed at all.

I don't believe her interpretation is correct in reality. It is inconsistent with the revealed statements about the relationship between men and women by modern prophets. It is inconsistent with my knowledge of the God I love and worship. But I do believe her interpretation is logical, reasonable, even obvious. I do believe that this is what Brigham Young was trying to express when he organized the ceremonies. I can see how she comes to these conclusions because they are the same ones I came to. They are the most logical face value conclusions that one could come to, in my opinion.

I wish such an interpretation were impossible. I pray that changes will be made so that it can be made very clear that such an interpretation does not come from God. Because I know that such a view of men and women is not of God and that it breaks the hearts of thousands of members of the church, all over the world.

Comments

  1. Leave it to your blog posts to make me think! :) That said, I do have some thoughts on this. It really saddens me that so many women feel second-class within the church. I don't believe that's how God would want us to feel and I know He does not condone those that demean women. In my own family, I have seen my sisters leave the church and express anger at their perceived inequality in their membership. After pondering and praying and seeking answers myself on the role of women in mortality, I've come to a few conclusions that help bring me peace and understanding.

    First of all, I try to look at things from an eternal perspective. Not much has been revealed about what we did or how we progressed before we came to this earth. We know we were tutored by God personally, we know we chose the plan of Jesus Christ, but beyond that, we really don't know a whole lot. I personally feel women progressed and developed differently from men in the premortal life. I feel we came to an understanding that we were to be on earth in part to help our male counterparts grow spiritually. The word "helpmeet" used in the scriptures and in the temple ceremony help justify these feelings for me.

    While our modern prophets have revealed men and women in marriage are absolutely equal, I can see how it feels demeaning to have it declared men "preside" over their families and in the home. The way I see it, though, I truly want my husband to take it upon himself and preside so he continues to progress in his priesthood. We both make decisions together, and we both preside in many ways, but I know instinctively I would do it all myself if I had to (I know many women who do this already and struggle to encourage their husbands to initiate/participate in prayer, scripture study, and FHE). I think women have a natural devotion, faith, and desire for obedience that men simply did not come to earth with. Of course there are exceptions, but I think as a general rule this applies. What does this say about our pre-existence? To me, it says women progressed further than men before coming to earth. What does that entail for men? Again, to me, it means God needs them to take a role of leadership - with the unending and at times frayed patience of the women in their lives - to help them achieve the obedience and faith necessary for progression in the next life. I do not think this kind of leadership is necessary for women in this life because I believe we already achieved that level of progression in the lifetime before. What I do think is necessary for our progression in this life is supporting our husbands and children on their paths toward salvation through humility, charity, and faith.

    I don't know if any of this makes sense or if I sound really ridiculous! It's hard to articulate my feelings on this topic. Let me sum it up this way: women have an innate spiritual maturity men lack (again, in general). God knew and understood this before sending us to earth. I believe we agreed to help our male counterparts in their roles as they progressed toward salvation. Part of that knowledge was knowing they would preside in leadership positions in the church and preside in the home. This would be essential to their progression toward salvation. Part of our path as women that is essential to our progression is both motherhood and sustaining these men in this journey. It does NOT mean we take a backseat and blindly let men make all the decisions. It does NOT mean we allow abuse of any kind. And it does NOT mean we are not active participants in leadership positions or various callings in the church.

    Anyway... I really hope my comment is not misconstrued. These are simply some of my opinions and feelings and maybe I should have kept them to myself :) But I felt compelled to write them out. My prayers is women can feel peace and understanding from God about their roles and the absolutely pure love He has for them. If anything, I personally feel more treasured and loved as a daughter of God than if I were one of His sons. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ashley, I appreciate your perspective. I've come to a lot of similar conclusions myself. I don't know if you read the essay that I linked to in this post, but my problems lie in what is said in the endowment ceremony. It is implied there that the presiding of men over women will not end after this life and is due to Eve's sin. My problem is that whatever soothing answers I come up with to make me feel better about perceived inequalities are not supported by the endowment. If anything, they're negated there, which is why the temple continues to challenge my ability to see equality between men and women. It's funny because I really believe that what is said over the pulpit and what most members believe is actually very different than what is taught in the temple. I find that confusing and unfortunate, but I think that is the source of continuing sexism in spite of GA's statements that men and women are equal. How equal can they be if we believe a woman never becomes like God while her husband does? That she can only be a priestess to him and not to God. That just isn't equality. It brings up a lot of questions about the doctrinal place of women in general. I mean, if women can't become like God, are they even children of God the same way that men are? Do you see what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I don't feel the same way as you do, or the author of the link you shared, I do appreciate the intensive thought that you have put into your posts. And I will never attack you or anyone else for how you feel or what you believe. I do agree that I would like to know more about my Heavenly Mother and have more talks like Elder Oaks gave to clarify things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting stuff. I have to admit I hadn't really thought much about this kind of thing until the past couple of years. There are so many that just brush off a lot of these concerns with trite excuses like, "these women just don't understand the doctrine and are looking beyond the mark"...etc. The reality is that I don't think there is doctrine that has been revealed to answer some of these totally valid and legitimate questions. It is difficult to reconcile what we've always been taught regarding the nature of the atonement (infinite and eternal) and the 1st article of faith (not punished for Adam's transgression) and the phrasing in the temple. I can't say I have a good answer or any comforting ideas. You're right that there are some discrepancies with the way people talk about it outside the temple, trying to explain and uplift the position of women. I don't think I want to leave the church, but I do hope things get sorted out and we can have a more clear picture of feminine divine potential.
    I hope no one is offended or disgusted by my next thoughts, but...Part of me tells myself that I love my husband so much that I honestly don't know if I mind being "just" a priestess unto him. The article was saying "Husbandgod replaces Fathergod" and looking at my relationship as it is right now, I wouldn't mind if it continues as it is, with my husband becoming divine. Is that totally weird? I wouldn't feel that way if I knew our relationship had to change in the next life. But I fully expect to have a position of high prominence in my husband's life. If I may be permitted to say, if I cannot become divine/goddess, then I think I prefer being in a married relationship with my "husbandgod" than a parent-child relationship with "fathergod". I just don't know what it will be like. I just know my husband's heart and mind and what our relationship is on earth. It is odd though that there is no evidence in the temple of a heavenly mother being involved in the creation, even though it is often taught that we have one. Anyway, I've been thinking about this a lot lately and will continue to give it more thought. I still need to read Elder Oakes talk.

    ~Chelsea

    ReplyDelete
  5. ^^^ Love your honesty. So many people are so defensive about this topic. At least you seem to see it logically and honestly. I get so tired of answers that just don't address the very real logical inconsistencies that are so plainly visible in the ceremonies. Sometimes I just want to say, "Can we all just be honest about this?" It's sort of an emperor's new clothes situation for me, unfortunately. That's why this essay was at once so validating and horrifying. I finally found an explanation that fit it all so perfectly and answered all the questions. Those answers were horrifying, however. And yet, I also don't think the answer is to leave the church. I don't think the ceremony is as it should be. That doesn't mean I don't believe the church is true or led by inspired men. We as a church tend to have revealed to us what we are willing to accept. Hopefully we are nearing a time when the church will be willing to accept that further revelation that you mentioned is so lacking about the eternal destiny of women.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have many friends that feel the same way you do/did when going through the temple, especially for the first time. My first time was so different, despite the fact that I noticed and puzzled over many of these same issues. And so I wanted to ask you ask a question. Just as a brief background: I went through a semester-long temple prep class 3 times in a row. So for a full year, I met off and on with my bishop and several times with a member of my Stake Presidency, asking them questions about my issues with gender roles in the church and how that would relate to the temple. Both my bishop and later my mom basically told me, "Hey, you'll have some issues with the temple. No doubt. But I think you'll find a lot of good there too if you look for it." After agonizing for a year, my first time was a tremendously positive experience as I found a lot of the good and just sort of noted some of the things that I found more bothersome. I guess what I'm wondering is, did anyone sort of "warn" you in the same way? If not, do you think that would have made a difference? I am curious because I have a daughter now and even though she's far from going through the temple (4 years old) I want to figure out how I can help have the kind of experience that I had. Wonderful, and yet one that has kept me continually searching and pondering because it's not just easy for me. I really enjoy your blog even though I don't know you in real life!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm so glad you like my blog and that your first time in the temple was more positive than mine. I'm sad to say that no one warned me about the gender disparities in the temple, although in my family/loved ones' defense, my gender issues really mostly started after my traumatic experience at the temple. It sort of sparked all the questions/concerns. I did take temple prep, and I read a few books. I talked to my parents about it. I think I went into it a little overconfidetn. (Which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows me well :) I thought I knew exactly what it would be like. I was wrong. I definitely will be warning my kids about the gender issues. I wish someone had given me a heads up. I had my mom sitting beside me and when I started silently sobbing, she leaned over to me and said, "I know what you're upset about, but it's not what you think it means." So there was that. But more than anything, I wish someone had told me exactly what each of the covenants were and what each of them means. That is totally allowed to talk about outside the temple and that would have made a HUGE difference for me. I'm glad you get a lot of good out of it. I have sort of gone through cycles. At times I have gotten some good out of it. I've always loved being in the celestial room and passing through the veil. At other times, the endowment ceremony has been nothing but painful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Abigayle,

    I just want you to know that I feel pretty much exactly like you do, and I admire you and appreciate you for posting this.

    I believe that anyone who really reads the essay and ponders it will admit that we have some major doctrinal gaps (best case scenario), inconsistencies (likely scenario), or an eternity of inequality and subjugation that we will need to simply accept because it is by divine design (worst case scenario.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I wrote a personal response to the Mormon Priestess article, but haven't decided whether or not to publish it. That said, I'd like to share it with you and would love your thoughts. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PtIpX6mh0GNU_-2_n6pzybdzmm9ThCvCf3nHjt8ynJk/edit?usp=sharing

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very interesting. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that just because it doesn't repeat "unto your husband" the second time, that women get to eventually become Priestesses and queens unto God. If that is such an important distinction, I would think they'd say it outright.
    Am I correctly understanding you that you're saying that Eve is covenanting with God, not Adam by virtue of being at an altar and that she only addresses Adam to inform him of her choice to do so? I guess my question would be, why is important for her to inform Adam of her choice but not vice versa? And I like what you said about married couples making big decisions together, but in my marriage that goes both ways. That covenant does not, although I suppose it is possibly that by giving Eve the title and job description of helpmeet, it is clearly implied that she is supposed to help Adam and that he should seek her counsel.
    I love the Erastus Snow quote. It's kind of mind blowing, actually. I would love a conference talk on that! Why do you believe that "The Law of the Lord" is specifically referring to D&C 42? I've never heard that. I've always believed the Law of the Lord to be the higher law that Christ taught in His earthly ministry e.g. the Sermon on the Mount. In D&C 42, the prophet specifies that the first 72 verses are the law of the church, but the endowment says the law of the lord.
    I love your thoughts about the veil. It's a beautiful interpretation, and one that will hopefully bring me comfort if I can get up the gumption to go back to the temple.
    "There are many policies and practices of the Church that need to change – but perhaps the greatest change needed is the way we think about men/women’s power. For example, there are many duties that now fall solely in the realm of priesthood authority and stewardship which, at one time, fell under both men and women’s jurisdictions." AMEN TO THAT!
    I also love, "However, if the temple has become a stumbling block then, by all means, it should change. The temple should be at the forefront in un-conditioning men and women from the world’s fallen notions about gender roles and re-conditioning them to eternal truth. Obviously the use of symbols facilitates learning through the spirit, but if our world’s modern paradigm, in which women are routinely subjugated, leads us to misunderstand the temple teachings, then there is great cause for concern. "
    Your conclusion was beautiful and powerful and brought me to tears. I think there are a couple parts that need a little more fleshing out, more support, more detail, but I definitely hope that you do publish it. I found it very comforting. I wish I could go to the temple with you!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center

ValHud to the Rescue!

Changes Worth Waiting For