“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”
-Articles of Faith, 2
The second article of faith allegedly makes a bold and clear statement of doctrine. It is a doctrine Mormons are pretty proud of and has never been (unlike some of our doctrine) subject to any kind of official repudiation or debate. You may be surprised to learn then, that this is the declaration that most bothers me in all of the contemporary church…
It’s not that I think that men ought to be punished for their own sins. It’s that in light of the temple endowment, it might be more accurate to say,
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. And that women will be punished for their own sins in addition to Eve’s transgression.”
The transgression of Eve is the oldest excuse invented by Patriarchal societies of the Abrahamic tradition to justify their systematic subjugation and objectification of women. Worse, it has been used to justify violence, abuse, misogyny, and every kind of unrighteous dominion imaginable.
Ignoring the semi-obvious fact that the creation myth and Eden narrative are chiefly allegorical and probably not the subjects of a physical reality, the placement of women in eternal subjection to men on the basis of one woman’s act makes as little sense as the idea of punishing all humans for the transgression of one man. How we can embrace the logic of the latter and deny the logic of the former, truly boggles my mind.
As a tradition that claims the supreme gift of continuing revelation and prophecy you might expect better from us. And indeed, I do. But I know we are also a product of the Abrahamic tradition. The entirety of temple worship centers around the Lord’s covenant with Abraham and the promises of the patriarchs. The legacy of millennia of injustice to women is in part, our legacy too. And it is a shameful one. In both the Torah and the Q’uran, women are explicitly designated as the property of their fathers and husbands. Their “lords” are given absolute authority over them, and a codified system of renumeration explains how one man can recompense another in the case of property damage like, oh… a rape.
Mormons, of course, do not endorse any such nonsense. Except in that one place that we do.
The inclusion of Abrahamic concepts of inheritances involving numberless posterity has given plural marriage an incredibly large presence within the ordinances of the temple. An especially large presence given the tenacity with which church has emphasized the considerable distance we’ve made with polygamy. The church even wishes to be on record in the federal judiciary with its contemporary view that “marriage between one man and one woman” is the only pattern of marriage ordained by God. And yet within the ordinances of the new and everlasting covenant, we perpetuate incorrect and harmful teachings about women’s eternal roles that make our 1950s-era ideas about their earthly roles, seem downright charming by comparison.
The church handbook of instruction states plainly that “A living woman may be sealed to only one husband”, but in the case of living men, “If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed”. (C.H.I. p.72) As succinctly as we could ever hope for church policy to put it, we still believe in polygamy… The system that yielded decades of inspired gems like these from Apostles and Prophets of God:
“What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, “Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God.” Or if he came and said, “I want your wife?” “O yes,” he would say, “here she is, there are plenty more.” -Jedediah M. Grant (JoD, vol. 2, p. 14)
“I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.” -Brigham Young (JoD, vol. 3, p. 247)
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” -Brigham Young (JoD, vol. 11, p. 269)
“This monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers… Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ It is the only popular religion there.” -Brigham Young (Deseret News, August 6, 1862)
“Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and Kingdom after Kingdom, and reign triumphantly.” -Brigham Young (JoD, vol. 8, pp. 178-179)
“… [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory.” -William Clayton (Historical Record, vol. 6, p. 226)
“It is the duty of a woman to be obedient to her husband, and unless she is, I would not give a damn for all her queenly right and authority, nor for her either, if she will quarrel and lie about the work of God and the principles of plurality.”-Heber C. Kimball (JoD, vol. 4, p. 82; also Deseret News, v. 6, p. 291)
“The holy practice [of polygamy] will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.”
– Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p. 578
“In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph [Smith] and say, ‘Here we are brother Joesph’…. He will say to us,…. ‘Where are you wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands, have all you want.’ Perhaps some do not believe that, but I am just simple enough to believe it.” -Heber C. Kimball (JoD, vol. 4, p. 209)
It’s a wonder to me how this modern church, trying its damnedest to shake the stigma of polygamy, and losing young women in high numbers, continues to send faithful sisters into an endowment and a sealing that continues to endorse plural marriage as an eternal principle. Perhaps they hope the believer will rationalize away the way she is treated differently. Maybe they expect that we’ll all take it on faith. But I know I’ll never forget the moment it became clear to me, that the women in the room were vowing their obedience to an earthy “lord” while men were vowing theirs directly to the Lord. In a beautiful and rich ceremony that has repeatedly taught me profound and earnest truths about my mortal and eternal life, that moment now sticks out like a very, very sore thumb.
All of this awful nonsense is routinely justified in the name of what Eve did in Eden. It’s the closest thing to an explanation given in the liturgy of the endowment itself. But the intolerable irony is that we know better. Mormons know that Eve made a choice. We know that she applied her mind and there is some indication that she sought revelation. We know that she wasn’t duped or hoodwinked, but that she made a courageous and brave decision to eat because it was her only path to greater light. We’ve been taught this by modern prophets since and including Joseph Smith.
And yet, in the language of our holy endowment, in the most sacred place on Earth, she is condemned afresh before our eyes, and all of her daughters are placed in silenced subjugation to “lords” no more innocent or guilty, no more wise or capable, and no more righteous or wicked than they.
Christ is the rightful center of the temple. Anything that carries us away from the redeemer is a tangential principle. Paul taught that there is no male or female in Christ.
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Receiving the promises of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is really a simple matter of whom you belong to. If you are Christ’s then you are an heir. He descended below all things so that he could rise above them all. Sister Cheiko Okazaki taught,
Jesus experienced the totality of mortal existence in Gethsemane. It’s our faith that he experienced everything- absolutely everything. Sometimes we don’t think through the implications of that belief. We talk in great generalities about the sins of all humankind, about the suffering of the entire human family. But we don’t experience pain in generalities. We experience it individually. That means he knows what it felt like when your mother died of cancer- how it was for your mother, how it still is for you. He knows what it felt like to lose the student body election. He knows that moment when the brakes locked and the car started to skid. He experienced the slave ship sailing from Ghana toward Virginia. He experienced the gas chambers at Dachau. He experienced Napalm in Vietnam. He knows about drug addiction and alcoholism.
Let me go further. There is nothing you have experienced as a woman that he does not also know and recognize. On a profound level, he understands the hunger to hold your baby that sustains you through pregnancy. He understands both the physical pain of giving birth and the immense joy. He knows about PMS and cramps and menopause. He understands about rape and infertility and abortion. His last recorded words to his disciples were, “And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20) He understands your mother-pain when your five-year-old leaves for kindergarten, when a bully picks on your fifth-grader, when your daughter calls to say that the new baby has Down syndrome. He knows your mother-rage when a trusted babysitter sexually abuses your two-year-old, when someone gives your thirteen-year-old drugs, when someone seduces your seventeen-year-old. He knows the pain you live with when you come home to a quiet apartment where the only children are visitors, when you hear that your former husband and his new wife were sealed in the temple last week, when your fiftieth wedding anniversary rolls around and your husband has been dead for two years. He knows all that. He’s been there. He’s been lower than all that. He’s not waiting for us to be perfect. Perfect people don’t need a Savior. He came to save his people in their imperfections. He is the Lord of the living, and the living make mistakes. He’s not embarrassed by us, angry at us, or shocked. He wants us in our brokenness, in our unhappiness, in our guilt and our grief.
The Lord Jesus Christ can be a perfect redeemer because he has been below it all. He transcended gender in our behalf. It is impossible for me to believe that he intends us to fail to transcend it ourselves. The question begged by our endowment is “Are men and women the same creation or different creations?”
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them.”
If we are the same creation, then why would the fulfillment of the measure of our creation, look so different?
I know that we are the same creature. We are both of the dust. And the shoddy dominions we build against each other in mortality are empires of dirt. That the day may come when this revelatory church both collectively and individually, can let the scales of these false traditions fall from our eyes, is my prayer to my God, who is both woman and man. Both Mother and Father. Both Priest and Priestess.
Jared Mooney
Jared Mooney is a video and audio systems engineer from Boston, MA. He has the world's awesomest wife, daughter and puppy. Argue if you must.
All posts by Jared Mooney
Very interesting essay. Some of us ‘out here in cyberland’ believe that polygamy was never inspired. It’s interesting that Brigham Young didn’t speak much about the Book of Mormon; the Book of Mormon talked about the pitfalls of polygamy and spoke of abominations in the same breath as polygamy.
But I believe that many woman (some not feminists) struggle with the temple, because, even now, in spite of enlightened changes, it has the stamp of Brigham Young on it.
It’s also very interesting that whenever Joseph Smith and polygamy are mentioned it is always someone else saying, “Joseph Smith said . . . ”
I believe the temple has value; I do. But it’s hard for me to imagine the kind of heaven that will be populated by men like Brigham Young.
I think many are waking to the idea that Brigham Young (and some of his contemporaries) were the ‘opposition in all things’ needed by unenlightened latter day saints.
He served his purpose; now the question is; will he spend the rest of eternity celibate?
I have often been amused at the irony of us being told rather explicitly that we. the members of the church, are supposed to learn from the Nephites. Ostensibly from their civil and spiritual failures. And yet, most members are totally blind to this…
The Nephites were by and large racists.
The Nephites had an ultimately tragic experiment in polygamy.
The Nephites struggled endlessly with wealth, privilege and pride.
The list goes on and on. And it only gets sadder (or more hilarious, depending on your mood) how well Mormons line up with all of them.
amen.
I find this to be one of the greatest evidences in favor of the BOM actually. Recently I’ve been restudying the BOM from the perspective of ignoring anything that the church has ever had to say about it. I even got a copy without of the original BOM without chapter headings and verses, etc. I’m finding that is has a profoundly different meaning than I originally thought it to have. A meaning that in many ways calls the modern church unto repentance. And I find this especially interesting because if it was a made up thing, why would Joseph make up a book that largely argues against the church he founded in so many ways. I’m not at all convinced that polygamy was or is an inspired thing, and if it was, I’m definitely not convinced that the version Brigham Young practiced was the version Joseph meant to implement.
I hope we can remove the scales. Then I hope we can remove the next scales, and the next. Thank you for this.
I appreciate this, in the idea of heaven that mind can comprehend there can be polygamy and polyiandry, there are more sealing connections, in type and quantity than we can imagine, encompassing all of creation, all together and ultimately all though Christ and to the eternal beings from whence we sprang.
I think probably even prophets have scales on their eyes as a product of their time. I believe there are many great and important things to yet be revealed.
I am somewhat troubled by the differences in the temple but I do believe they are the result of scales partially obscuring the eternal truths shining brightly there.
Thank you for writing this. It captures well my own sadness and frustration. In the place where we should be able to feel closer to God than anywhere else on earth, I feel more distanced and of less worth because of the structure and language. What is especially painful is that we know changes have been made, but this hasn’t been changed. Which means that it either is thought to be “an eternal truth” or isn’t on the radar of anyone with a say. Both of those options make me tremendously sad.
Word.
This was very well written. My desire to see hurtful past traditions towards women end grows daily. I loved Sister Okazaki’s quote btw!
Jared, I agree with everything you just said, all of this pain and heartache really does happen. We are responsible for it. I think though that I see the cause of this just a little bit differently. You said:
“Christ is the rightful center of the temple. Anything that carries us away from the redeemer is a tangential principle. Paul taught that there is no male or female in Christ.”
and,
“The Lord Jesus Christ can be a perfect redeemer because he has been below it all. He transcended gender in our behalf. It is impossible for me to believe that he intends us to fail to transcend it ourselves. The question begged by our endowment is “Are men and women the same creation or different creations?”
and,
“If we are the same creation, then why would the fulfillment of the measure of our creation, look so different?”
finally you started with this,
“The second article of faith allegedly makes a bold and clear statement of doctrine. It is a doctrine Mormons are pretty proud of and has never been (unlike some of our doctrine) subject to any kind of official repudiation or debate. You may be surprised to learn then, that this is the declaration that most bothers me in all of the contemporary church…”
I think it is in these statements you realize that when we take the first and most apparent interpretation of the Endowment (and to be fair it is only the first and most apparent interpretation of the narrative of the Endowment), we will find contradictions to the gospel of Christ. Most likely that is by design. If that is true then we are forced to examine it more carefully. I think Karen Armstrong could have been speaking directly to the saints when she lamented a lack of skillful ritual and religious observance. It is this lack of skill that is causing heart ache and pain. We could be, need to be actually, doing the temple better. We have been taught over and over that the Endowment is layered with symbolism and meaning. We often say it is like an onion. This is true, it is also accurate to see the Endowment has properties of a fractal similar to its use in physics and mathematics.
There are aspects of our culture that can cause us to confuse the ritual of the Endowment with that of the marriage ritual, or the Sealing. It is often the case that our sisters are attending the temple for the first time to be sealed, and as such the Endowment becomes confused in their (and even our) minds. It becomes part of the sealing when it is not. (one big reason I love seeing all the new sister missionaries, the time between rituals should give more distinction to the two) The Endowment itself only really has reference to marriage in three ways. One being as a conditional in our covenant to live the Law of Chastity. Another is in the symbolic marriage of Adam and Eve, and this is one small part of the narrative. The last is that the Endowment is our marriage to Christ. That is the most important aspect. It is here we start to transcend the gendered aspects of the Endowment.
I have found most saints aren’t aware that the Endowment is a dramatic ritual. It is often perceived more similar to how we perceive our church meetings. We even have chairs that fold and people sitting in front or on the stand. We need to see instead as the dramatic ritual it is. This will allow us to actively participate in the three assigned roles any ritual drama require. We are first an audience of actors. We as a group are telling the narrative. We are also assigned more specific roles to facilitate the telling of narrative. Men as Adam, women as Eve. The third role is key, we must see ourselves as every actor in their role as well. For the purposes of this comment roles we should see ourselves in is Michael, Adam, Eve. In fact everything that happens as part of the ritual is said to be happening to you. The language of the ritual itself draws this to your attention. We are the witness couple and we are Adam and Eve.
“All of this awful nonsense is routinely justified in the name of what Eve did in Eden. It’s the closest thing to an explanation given in the liturgy of the endowment itself. But the intolerable irony is that we know better. Mormons know that Eve made a choice. We know that she applied her mind and there is some indication that she sought revelation. We know that she wasn’t duped or hoodwinked, but that she made a courageous and brave decision to eat because it was her only path to greater light. We’ve been taught this by modern prophets since and including Joseph Smith. ”
and,
“Ignoring the semi-obvious fact that the creation myth and Eden narrative are chiefly allegorical and probably not the subjects of a physical reality, the placement of women in eternal subjection to men on the basis of one woman’s act makes as little sense as the idea of punishing all humans for the transgression of one man.”
This is an example of how we confuse a historical or mythical Eve with the ritual Eve of the Temple. This Eve did fall, but then again so did the others. The ritual also identifies one of the symbolic roles this temple Eve (as opposed to mythic/historic Eves) is being assigned. A couple of times She is identified corresponding to our corporeal or bodily (the number 12, she is identified in the initiatory ritual this way, thanks prof. Nibley) natures. She is our sensual (as in ‘of the senses’ not sexual) aspect. Consider the difference in her temptation and Adam’s. Temple Eve on some levels is Ego.
The covenant that binds Eve to Adam, the one that causes a lot harm, it is something the brothers and sisters both take on. It has nothing to do with men being placed above women. (Rib?) It points us to the required relationship our physical body must have with our spiritual body (Adam, the forgetting Michael, the divine aspect). The veiling of Eve in the prayer circle is teaching something of revelation and what must be done sensually and spiritually to receive revelation and priesthood. We both are Eve, we both are Adam. We are both Michaels we have just forgotten. When sisters are called clean every whit during the washing and anointing it points to the corporeal resurrection not to the fact that sisters are more or that they are less; either way having less accountability (one of the most hurtful reasonings I have ever heard) or men have to work for salvation.
“I know that we are the same creature. We are both of the dust. And the shoddy dominions we build against each other in mortality are empires of dirt. ”
Exactly, and we the saints built this interpretation, the harmful one that says other wise.
“As a tradition that claims the supreme gift of continuing revelation and prophecy you might expect better from us.”
Revelation is a desired end of the Endowment. The prayer circle and the veil ritual teach us this. Rather than seeing the Endowment as the answers we should see it as the way to find the answers.
I hope you do not feel I am disagreeing, I really believe you nailed down some important some things we need to all talk more about. I also think that there are some places where we are talking about the wrong things. I just think that the Endowment is also designed to move us past this pain and onto greater understanding, and it is beckoning us to do so. It’s us, and not just our past or current leaders, with our hurtful comments and harmful ideas, it really is us. Aren’t we after all the arm of flesh, so why take our ideas, and the traditions of our fathers about the temple as gospel? Aren’t we missing the preacher and choir roles from a previous version of the drama now?
This is a power of the Endowment. It teaches us to rely upon and embrace only the Lord. It doesn’t teach us gender roles.
(Forgive typos. I did this on a phone. frown)
If many scales could fall from Elder McConkie’s eyes during his life on earth, I have hope for Brother Brigham, and myself.
Me too, Mark.
I’m glad to see someone else speak out on this. About three weeks ago my wife and I attended an endowment ceremony and I focused particularly on the relationship between Eve/woman and God. I’m sad to say this ruined the endowment for me. Eve is condemned for her rebellion (was it a wise, calculated move or not? temple doctrine seems mixed here) and doesn’t utter a single word for the rest of the presentation. Adam/man covenants directly with God, but Eve/woman covenants only to Adam.
Despite having experienced the endowment innumerable times before, the last time broke my heart.
That’s how my wife feels almost every time she goes. And I feel it for her when I go. She appreciated your comment. Because men have enough privilege to not have to put themselves in Eve’s shoes (err, slippers?), but I think few of us ever do, and end up seeing what you saw… an Eve silenced and subjected by men.
Heartbreaking is the right word.
I very much like your interpretation (and I think it’s correct, as it matches some similar thoughts I’ve had), but I doubt that most Endowment participants read it with anything but a surface reading. In other words, if I were to teach in a Temple Prep course that Endowment patrons should consider the ceremony using something like the interpretations you and I share, I’d expect to get quickly released from that teaching post.
Which is a pity. I see the temple as both reflective of a more inclusive law as well as deliberately including some of the contradictions and “mortal” failings of life (and the church), but I feel like the standard interpretation is the most superficial reading: that the temple presentation is a literal portrayal of some kind of non-scriptural history, and its meaning goes no deeper than that.
Joseph Smith never condoned polygamy it is revealed for the first time in his Only authorized Biography called Without Disclosing My True Identity read it free along with the translated The Sealed Portion found at http://www.marvelousworkandawonder.com for Free!
So well observed and written. I hated the temple on my first visit. After a long absence, I eventually went back a lot and eventually came to a peace with the temple, but then on further reflection am coming to grips with other aspects that just don’t feel right. You captured several. The temple is an onion with many layers. Some of those layers I love. Some I think are wrong.
It strikes me that the daughters of Eve are introduced to to gods of this world. Both are imposters.
correcting a spelling error:
So well observed and written. I hated the temple on my first visit. After a long absence, I eventually went back a lot and eventually came to a peace with the temple, but then on further reflection am coming to grips with other aspects that just don’t feel right. You captured several. The temple is an onion with many layers. Some of those layers I love. Some I think are wrong.
It strikes me that the daughters of Eve are introduced to two gods of this world. Both are imposters.
It’s so hard to put into words why something (the temple) that is so well loved by those around you is so devastating to you. I have left the temple in tears. I have looked around and seen women crying before and wondered if they were crying because they were so full of the spirit, or if they were upset like I was. How on earth do you approach someone and ask her that?
We are all so silent about this pain and confusion. We need to be having more open talks like this one!
Jared,
Yep. For me we will know the church is getting serious about the role of women when they move to reexamine and revise the endowment again like they did in 1990. Looking closely at those revisions it very clear that they were very carefully made to maintain the pattern of a God -> Man -> Woman hierarchy while softening the languages and making it a bit more nebulous. I think this was either a hard fought compromise within the 12 over the issue or a real belief among them that this uncomfortable hierarchy exists. I would like to believe it was the former and there were those that believed that hierarchy was incompatible with a more modern understanding of the gospel.
For those interested in this topic this is a must read http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/the-mormon-priestess-the-short-version/ . It wasn’t only polygamy that was driving the endowment ceremony but Brigham, whose version of the endowment is the basis for current practice, was also heavily relying on and pushing Adam-God doctrine. He was in a (losing) fight with Orson Pratt and other Mormon theologians over Adam-God theory (apostles used to publicly fight about such things even with the President of the Church). Brigham used his privilege to be the one who documented the endowment to embed many elements of Adam-God theory in it. AGT is now of course as about as an official heresy in the church as we have.
For me understanding both how polygamy and AGT historically inform the endowment help me discount the more misogynous parts of the temple and feel completely comfortable in writing my own narrative. There is some evidence for example that in the Nauvoo period that women used to be anointed to be “queens and priestesses to the most High God” instead of “to their husbands” as they were under Brigham and still are now. So I simply choose to believe the true endowment does not place me between God and my wife. I have no desire to be worshiped by my wife as lord. It is incompatible with the belief that men and women are equal companions and therefor incompatible with modern teachings. I hope our leaders will get around the facing and repairing these incompatibilities.
“There is some evidence for example that in the Nauvoo period that women used to be anointed to be “queens and priestesses to the most High God” instead of “to their husbands” as they were under Brigham and still are now.”
Can you point me to this evidence? I would actually really love to believe this is true.
There is actually very thin direct documentation of the Nauvoo period and before endowment. Most of what we do have are accounts written by those who left the church as exposes and just on a basis of historical method. Heber and Violet Kimball’s account of their first endowment. The diary of Phinneas (surname escaping me; see the footnotes in Quinn “The Woman Have Had the Priesthood Since 1943”). Also how Eliza R. Snow talked and wrote about it. See her address in 1873 and printed in the Woman’s Exponent. Also, some more modern general authorities have also made direct “priestesses unto the most high God” references. In fact, there is a dissertation out there based on LDS women’s temple experiences and one of the findings is that quite a few of them missreport this and many swear up and down that “priestess unto the Most High God” is in the ceremony. I have met many women who would swear that is the wording. People tend to hear what they want to hear in many ways today. I think that isn’t necessarily a bad thing and is probably more inline with what the original ceremony said. So there is some evidence. It does beg the question as to why it was changed (its unclear when that happened) and also why it was maintained during the 1990 changes.
wow, thanks for this.
There are many inconsistencies in the church. Modern day prophets and apostles have said some ridiculous things throughout the restored church history. They are human and make mistakes. Not everything they say is gospel truth. Church members don’t have to believe or accept everything that they say. (I feel bad for people that believe we do!)
I believe in personal revelation. I know that I don’t know everything. So things like this, the temple endowment, or polygamy, I try to remind myself that I don’t know everything. There could be something about this that is missing that would make this true. Or, it could be a human error. Something that seems off, like a statement in the endowment ceremony or oppressive attitudes towards women, I don’t internalize them. I don’t have to agree with them. And I try not to be offended by them, either.
Remember that truth is truth, what is right is right, no matter what has been said or done in the past. We don’t need to get hung up on mistakes of imperfect people or this imperfect church.
I never post comments. I hope this makes sense!
Jared,
If you posted this out of compassion and concern for LDS women, then I commend you. I wanted to let you know that I too was troubled about the possibility that I was pledging to my lord (lower-case ‘l’ meaning husband). I prayed a sincere prayer and pushed myself to go back to the temple. When I did, a tender mercy occurred. The session was ASL, a screen was displayed and there for all to see was the clearly marked Lord. Capital “L.
From then on, I’ve had spectacular experiences as a feminist and I’m trying to do my part in sharing them.
Thanks for letting me do a bit of that here. –Monique
http://ohwellmormon.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-take-on-temple.html