LDS Freedom Forum

Luke.......I am your father.

No, Noooooooooo!

Luke.......I am also your mother.


Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Just cut off my hand, I can't take this.......

Jeremy wrote:Veil the desires of the body (Eve) and hearken to the desires of the spirit (Adam) as the spirit hearkens to the desires of the father. Something like that.

Spirit/Adam created first. Body/Eve created second. We are both Adam and Eve.

Jeremy wrote:Veil the desires of the body (Eve) and hearken to the desires of the spirit (Adam) as the spirit hearkens to the desires of the father. Something like that.

Spirit/Adam created first. Body/Eve created second. We are both Adam and Eve.

Would that suggest that the material that the body is made of came from the material that the Spirit is made of? Hence the teaching that Eve was made from Adam's rib?

Stahura wrote:Would that suggest that the material that the body is made of came from the material that the Spirit is made of? Hence the teaching that Eve was made from Adam's rib?

Maybe. Or perhaps it suggests that your physical body looks very similar to your spirit body. Complementary opposites that are meant to be sealed together... something that would be very difficult given the desires of the flesh. Somehow we need to veil those desires and develop a unity between the two, as well as a unity between us all.

slimjamm wrote:My mother was officiating in an endowment session last week, when during a certain point of the endowment, five sisters refused to veil their faces during the prayer. My mother said she just cried as they had to stop the endowment. The new policy if this happens again, is to stop the endowment and have security come escort the individual(s) out.

I was wondering why these women felt the need to go into the temple to display their defiance? Why only the second time of veiling the face? I'm confused at the need to show a display of defiance in the temple. They came in, all five knowing what they planned to do ahead of time. Maybe one or some of the individuals are on this forum, and could explain why?

So sad. Which temple was this?

Stahura wrote:

Jeremy wrote:Veil the desires of the body (Eve) and hearken to the desires of the spirit (Adam) as the spirit hearkens to the desires of the father. Something like that.

Spirit/Adam created first. Body/Eve created second. We are both Adam and Eve.

Would that suggest that the material that the body is made of came from the material that the Spirit is made of? Hence the teaching that Eve was made from Adam's rib?

It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam, and took from his side a rib, and formed the woman that Adam called Eve. This should be interpreted that the man Adam, like all other men, had the seed within him to propagate his species; but not the woman. She conceives the seed, but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side, or bowels, of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. (paragraph from the journal of L. John Nuttall, secretary to Brigham Young. In this journal entry, dated 7 February 1877, Nuttall summarizes portions of the first lecture at the veil, composed by Young for inclusion with the first official script of the endowment.])

slimjamm wrote:My mother was officiating in an endowment session last week, when during a certain point of the endowment, five sisters refused to veil their faces during the prayer. My mother said she just cried as they had to stop the endowment. The new policy if this happens again, is to stop the endowment and have security come escort the individual(s) out.

What temple was this in?
So what did they do with the sisters - escort them out or let them finish without veiling?

I've always been confused about the veil - I've tried to research it and was always asking temple workers but I could never get a clear answer from anyone. I like the possible meanings discussed here on this thread so thanks for that!

It was the Ogden temple. Yes, they escorted them out and finished the endowment session for the rest of the group.

butterfly wrote:I've always been confused about the veil - I've tried to research it and was always asking temple workers but I could never get a clear answer from anyone. I like the possible meanings discussed here on this thread so thanks for that!

I believe that women veiling their faces is symbolic. Jesus Christ is the bridegroom and we (being the church, ergo the bride, Zion), are currently veiled from His face in this mortal life. Therefore, in the temple, wives veil their faces to represent the covenant relationship between the Bridegroom and the bride just as in traditional marriage ceremonies, a woman veils her face from the husband until their union. My two cents, anyway.

Yeah. Not sure exactly what the symbolism is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a burqa.

Why women veil their faces?

Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there. Alma 36:22

It may be that Stephen and Joseph Smith who saw God the Father, may have seen His body and form but didn't see the specific details of His face because the face of the Father may be veiled in glory. This would mean that the women who veil their faces and who stand at the left of the men, are representing the Father while the men who stand on the right of the women represent Jesus Christ.

Just a thought.

Another possibility, is that the women represent the Church, and the men represent Christ. The veiling may represent that the Church and Kingdom of God has not yet unveiled itself to the world in her full glory and beauty (God has not yet made bare His arm in the eyes of all nations).

Whatever the reason for veiling, I never have interpreted it as a "slight" on women.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: I Cor 11:4-5

Protesting at the Temple, I wonder where they'd get an idea like that?

A middle Eastern man and I discussed different views of why women cover up. Although I disagree still, I can see some validity in his point that men are very visual and women cover themselves to protect themselves from men - and also protects men from thinking lustfull thoughts.

Still, when I have been in the circle, I did not like having my face covered - I felt like it was suffocating and I've thought that men should learn to control their thoughts - or why not THEY wear blind folds?

BTW - The annoying attention to clothing is VERY distracting to the SPIRIT of the ceremony.
I wish that it was simplified so the spirit could be the focus.

Thinker wrote:A middle Eastern man and I discussed different views of why women cover up. Although I disagree still, I can see some validity in his point that men are very visual and women cover themselves to protect themselves from men - and also protects men from thinking lustfull thoughts.

Still, when I have been in the circle, I did not like having my face covered - I felt like it was suffocating and I've thought that men should learn to control their thoughts - or why not THEY wear blind folds?

BTW - The annoying attention to clothing is VERY distracting to the SPIRIT of the ceremony.
I wish that it was simplified so the spirit could be the focus.

The veil actually seems to help prevent distraction for me. As to the clothing being "distracting," I would suggest you ponder more on the actual meaning and purpose of the clothing. It is very much a part of the symbols and each and every piece has a meaning relating to our eternal relationship with Jesus Christ and the Father.

The clothing is extremely symbolic.
To the ignorant, many things seem awry.

slimjamm wrote:My mother was officiating in an endowment session last week, when during a certain point of the endowment, five sisters refused to veil their faces during the prayer. My mother said she just cried as they had to stop the endowment. The new policy if this happens again, is to stop the endowment and have security come escort the individual(s) out.

I was wondering why these women felt the need to go into the temple to display their defiance? Why only the second time of veiling the face? I'm confused at the need to show a display of defiance in the temple. They came in, all five knowing what they planned to do ahead of time. Maybe one or some of the individuals are on this forum, and could explain why?

The Gentiles reject the Gospel while the Lamanites embrace it...short answer.

Long answer: The sisters want to feel equal to the men in the United States, influenced by a political undercurrent that the prophets warned about that would destroy family as well as gender.

Meanwhile, the Lamanites, influenced by scripture and prophecy, are coming more and more to a knowledge of their Father in heaven and go to the temple in unprecedented droves. (see my MX temple thread for this).

I wish we still had the pre-1990 ceremony.
The present one seems so incomplete to me.

Robin Hood wrote:I wish we still had the pre-1990 ceremony.
The present one seems so incomplete to me.

You're probably thinking of all that was taken out, but a lot was added in 1990, too. In fact, those additions tend to be in the same vein as the current topic under discussion—casting Eve in a more significant, equal role, making her less submissive. They even changed one of the covenants to reflect her new stature.

slimjamm wrote:My mother was officiating in an endowment session last week, when during a certain point of the endowment, five sisters refused to veil their faces during the prayer. My mother said she just cried as they had to stop the endowment. The new policy if this happens again, is to stop the endowment and have security come escort the individual(s) out.

I was wondering why these women felt the need to go into the temple to display their defiance? Why only the second time of veiling the face? I'm confused at the need to show a display of defiance in the temple. They came in, all five knowing what they planned to do ahead of time. Maybe one or some of the individuals are on this forum, and could explain why?

Seems like a pretty tacky way to protest.

samizdat wrote:The Gentiles reject the Gospel while the Lamanites embrace it...short answer.

Long answer: The sisters want to feel equal to the men in the United States, influenced by a political undercurrent that the prophets warned about that would destroy family as well as gender.

Meanwhile, the Lamanites, influenced by scripture and prophecy, are coming more and more to a knowledge of their Father in heaven and go to the temple in unprecedented droves. (see my MX temple thread for this).

All is proceeding as prophesied.

Let's be realistic. MANY LDS women don't care for the fact that they are required to veil their faces in the temple. The temple ceremonies have evolved SIGNIFICANTLY since the 1840's. Did you know that in the 1800's all participants were required to completely disrobe and stand naked in a bathtub as they were washed and anointed in the Initiatory? Heck, it wasn't until 2005 when they stopped having ordinance workers touch people all over their nearly naked bodies with oil and water.

I knew a man who received his endowments in March of 1990. This was back when the penalties were still part of the endowment. He freaked out and stood up and said, "I WILL DO NO SUCH THING! THE LORD WOULD NEVER REQUIRE THIS OF HIS FOLLOWERS!" and he walked out. Sadly, if he had gone through the temple just two weeks later, he wouldn't have had to pantomime slitting his own throat. Was he "wrong" or "being defiant" because he didn't feel comfortable pretending to slash his own throat?

My point is, just because something doesn't offend YOU, doesn't mean it isn't offensive to someone else.

Nortinski wrote:My point is, just because something doesn't offend YOU, doesn't mean it isn't offensive to someone else.

Just because something offends YOU doesn't mean it isn't what God wants.

I once heard a ridiculously false notion from someone at church who said that God would never ask them to do something that made them uncomfortable.

shadow wrote:The clothing is extremely symbolic.
To the ignorant, many things seem awry.

You mean to those who think secret Freemasonry/Illuminati rituals and clothing seem awry.

I used to love the temple until I understood more about it - how it's used to make money (members are charged $$$$$$ for temple worthiness as a requirement for a temple recommend), and Freemasonry imitations.
The first time I went through, I felt an evil spirit, but then at the encouragement of others, I ignored it and tried to see the good.
Then I had mostly bad experiences in the temple (only one very sweet experience).

It is used as a tool to be exclusionary and anti-family (by breaking up families during weddings etc) - which to me, both equate to being anti-Christ and anti-God.

I'm all for uplifting symbols that point to GOoD, but when the symbols become the focus - they defeat their purpose - as has been the case of clothing in the temple endowment ceremonies.

Nortinski wrote:Let's be realistic. MANY LDS women don't care for the fact that they are required to veil their faces in the temple. The temple ceremonies have evolved SIGNIFICANTLY since the 1840's. Did you know that in the 1800's all participants were required to completely disrobe and stand naked in a bathtub as they were washed and anointed in the Initiatory? Heck, it wasn't until 2005 when they stopped having ordinance workers touch people all over their nearly naked bodies with oil and water.

I knew a man who received his endowments in March of 1990. This was back when the penalties were still part of the endowment. He freaked out and stood up and said, "I WILL DO NO SUCH THING! THE LORD WOULD NEVER REQUIRE THIS OF HIS FOLLOWERS!" and he walked out. Sadly, if he had gone through the temple just two weeks later, he wouldn't have had to pantomime slitting his own throat. Was he "wrong" or "being defiant" because he didn't feel comfortable pretending to slash his own throat?

My point is, just because something doesn't offend YOU, doesn't mean it isn't offensive to someone else.

Sooo.. were you one of these women?

I was not. However, it's the 21st century. Women are starting to get more and more annoyed by things that make them feel like they are "less" than men. Even Mormon women. ;-)