Here's a link to a very interesting post over at Feminist Mormon Housewives. I wanted to have a bit of a different discussion.
I would be very interested to hear the discussion with gender issues removed. I'm more interested in the dynamic of power that is presented in Gaia's post. What do people think/feel about this and what does it mean to belong to a church that has this unequal power "sharing" (taking away considerations of which gender is doing what to whom).
I have a friend who was investigating the church. While she loved the basic doctrine, ultimately she couldn't stomach the patriarchal order of the church. There was no bitterness, however, when she told me, "your church is young. Give it a couple hundred years to evolve and learn. I'm sure the role of women will change within your church as it grows up." What an amazing perspective. I really like it. What do you think?
15 February 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's a bit difficult to come at the question the way you pose it (i.e. without specific cases to consider), but I think the first, Sunday-School-type answer would be that it seems impossible. There is a very good piece by Eugene England that ILFONY sent me while I was on my mission that speaks tangentially to this (although I haven't read it in awhile.)
I'm not positive, but I do think that the day will come when Church policy will allow women to exercise the priesthood openly. I hope that it is within our lifetimes.
Incidentally, some of the posters to the thread Kitti posted have suggested that women are allowed to stand in a baby blessing circle. Is that true? I would love to have Kitti and some of our female friends stand in when our next child is blessed. That would be outstanding. (And maybe they wouldn't immediately start bouncing the child in an effort to "calm" it.)
In any case, I plan to discuss this with our bishop. We blessed Grace at home, and plan (I think) to do the same with our next one. I would love to have it be a mixed circle--I can't think of a more beautiful and powerful ordinance.
I cannot comment much since I haven't read the blog (sorry no time just yet) but I am curious about the situation as it stands.
It seems like the creation story found in Moses and in the temple (which I won't treat here) portrays Eve as a symbol of humanity in general and not necessarily as woman (though what is history and what is metaphor is not entirely clear). If Eve is mankind then Adam would be a representation of Jesus Christ or perhaps the prophets (most likely Jesus). Eve having taken the fruit (mankind falls into a telestial fallen state, because of our own choices) then Adam realizes the necessity to do the same (Jesus becomes mortal to save us).
So it seems to me since all things testify that there is a Christ, why not the order of life here. This is just a thought so no one stone me, I am just pondering out loud here. Maybe the patriarchal system set up here on earth--with man (Adam as a type of Jesus) holding the keys to salvation (keys to ordinances of the priesthood) and Eve needing them for her (all of mankinds) salvation--is just a type of the plan of salvation.
In any case it seems to me that women will be equal in the priesthood in the hereafter. Maybe the situation is as it is now simply as a reminder of our reliance on the Savior for our redemption.
Just an idea. Maybe a little off topic. Obviously I can't go into too much detail, but if you want to talk more about it via private e-mail I would like to learn what you all think/know about the topic.
dioditus, I really appreciate your thoughtful answer. I certainly don't have any better ideas and yours is thought- provoking.
I think unequal power really only becomes any issue when I come into contact with men who practice unrighteous dominion. Mostly I assume that I am every bit as important - to Justin exercising his priesthood and to the order of the church- as any other man.
Dioditus: It seems like the creation story found in Moses and in the temple (which I won't treat here) portrays Eve as a symbol of humanity in general and not necessarily as woman (though what is history and what is metaphor is not entirely clear).
That's exactly the problem. Since we're asked in the temple to identify personally with the characters we're seeing, the metaphor breaks down into a direct relation. That is, men are asked to identify with Adam, and women with Eve.
So if Eve metaphorically stands for humankind's fallen nature, and Adam for salvation, then what are women and men to think when they leave?
Further, Jesus didn't realize that we needed to be saved after the fact--the plan was in place (especially his Atonement) before the foundation of the world.
I don't know much about the temple, or about the deeper lessons we're supposed to learn there. But it doesn't feel right to me to interpret the creation story this way.
I guess I just hadn't seen it that way.
The way I look at it is that Eve represents us and Adam represents Jesus. Not that we are suppose to think of ourselves as saviors to our wives. That would seem contradictory to our doctrine that women can obtain to celestial glory without men but not vice versa. There is a distiction between the historical context--in which Eve partook of the fruit first (making her in my eyes wiser and more selfless that Adam) and Adam second--where we are to relate to the characters of Adam and Eve directly, and the metaphorical context (as I see it)--where in the story is a symbol of the plan of salvation. In the historical sense I think it places women in a place of preeminence above men.
I sees Eve's choice as having been wise an totally necessary for the Plan of Salvation to work, as I am sure you do. The brethren have been pretty clear on this particular point.
As for Adam representing Christ, I think here the historical and the metaphorical get mixed up. Adam did then understand that he had to take of it too, but all three of them (Adam, Eve, and Christ) all knew there had to be a fall and so there had to be an atonement. The fact that Adam is a man (and represents Christ) who marries Eve fits nicely with the bridegroom analogies where Christ is married to the church. That Christ is a male may or may not have anything to do with his ability to save. Can't say I know anything about that.
In short I think the interpretation still holds, and that further it portrays women in a better light than man historically, and Christ above humanity metaphorically.
B:The way I look at it is that Eve represents us and Adam represents Jesus. Not that we are suppose to think of ourselves as saviors to our wives.
But how is this avoided, if the man in the story represents the Savior? The transgression (no matter how pragmatic, wise, or necessary it may be portrayed) is still a transgression, and it's clearly identified with a woman.
The thing is that Jesus is a character in the story! There's no reason not to have him represent himself. Since the story already depicts Adam and Eve on a different level than God and Christ, why re-script the metaphor in a way that clearly identifies transgression as female and salvation as male? That is, since Jesus is in the story, why does he need Adam to stand in for him?
B:That would seem contradictory to our doctrine that women can obtain to celestial glory without men but not vice versa.
I'm not familiar with this doctrine, and it seems to make God a respecter of persons, when I believe that he is not.
B:There is a distiction between the historical context--in which Eve partook of the fruit first (making her in my eyes wiser and more selfless that Adam) and Adam second--where we are to relate to the characters of Adam and Eve directly, and the metaphorical context (as I see it)--where in the story is a symbol of the plan of salvation.
I get what you're saying here. But first, the story itself about the plan of salvation. That is, God tells Jesus what to do so that Adam and Eve can be saved, and Jesus does it. What good does it do to reenact that with Adam and Eve standing in as Jesus and humankind? Why the allegory, if the story already explicitly makes the plan clear?
Second, Mormons tend to a very literal interpretation of scripture. That is, we believe that our scriptures are both spiritual and historical records. Thus the Adam-Eve story will definitely be read as history, even if it is also parsed as a metaphor. You can choose to interpret the Adam Eve story as purely allegorical, but most people don't and most people haven't throughout history.
B:In the historical sense I think it places women in a place of preeminence above men.
I'm not sure I follow you here. In what way does interpreting the story historically make Eve out to be the good one?
B:I sees Eve's choice as having been wise an totally necessary for the Plan of Salvation to work, as I am sure you do. The brethren have been pretty clear on this particular point.Nevertheless, why didn't she consult Adam first? Why didn't they work together as a couple, as the brethren have also been clear in urging? Whatever the result, Eve disobeyed God, and the story portrays her literally dragging Adam down with her. So again, we have woman as weak and man as savior.
B:As for Adam representing Christ, I think here the historical and the metaphorical get mixed up. Adam did then understand that he had to take of it too, but all three of them (Adam, Eve, and Christ) all knew there had to be a fall and so there had to be an atonement.
Where is this indicated in the story? Michael may have known the details, but I think the argument can be made that Adam didn't. If he did know, then why didn't he take Lucifer up on the offer the first time? Adam is constantly demonstrating that he doesn't know what's going on--what does he keep telling people he's waiting for?
B: The fact that Adam is a man (and represents Christ) who marries Eve fits nicely with the bridegroom analogies where Christ is married to the church.
It's not surprising to me that the metaphors that come after the Adam Eve story reinscribe the basic equations {man/male=Savior; woman/female=in need of salvation}. That's the message of the creation myth, so it makes sense that subsequent metaphors would follow the same basic conceptual framework.
B: That Christ is a male may or may not have anything to do with his ability to save. Can't say I know anything about that.
Whether you know anything about it or not, many people think they do know, and precisely because the association of maleness to salvation is central to a core Christian myth.
B: In short I think the interpretation still holds, and that further it portrays women in a better light than man historically, and Christ above humanity metaphorically.
I disagree (and am still not quite sure how the creation story portrays women in a positive light historically, especially). What do you think? Am I missing your point?
Post a Comment