Comments on: Women as Possessions http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:37:50 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: More bloggernacle posts about sexuality « The Visitors’ Center http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-45635 More bloggernacle posts about sexuality « The Visitors’ Center Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:08:13 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-45635 [...] Zelophehad’s Daughters: Women as possessions [...] [...] Zelophehad’s Daughters: Women as possessions [...]

]]> By: Zelophehad’s Daughters » Blog Archive » Why I Worry http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-30509 Zelophehad’s Daughters » Blog Archive » Why I Worry Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:23:48 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-30509 <p>[...] (Acts 10:34)–but there’s a lot there that confuses me–for a few examples see Lynnette’s original post on women as possessions as well as examples in the comments that [...]</p> [...] (Acts 10:34)–but there’s a lot there that confuses me–for a few examples see Lynnette’s original post on women as possessions as well as examples in the comments that [...]

]]> By: Chelle http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26928 Chelle Fri, 11 May 2007 01:55:37 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26928 Apparently there is something similar in the Jewish religion. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/fashion/06love.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Apparently there is something similar in the Jewish religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/fashion/06love.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

]]> By: Jessawhy http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26768 Jessawhy Wed, 09 May 2007 17:49:19 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26768 thanks, Starfoxy. thanks, Starfoxy.

]]> By: Starfoxy http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26721 Starfoxy Wed, 09 May 2007 05:42:59 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26721 Jessawhy, see <a href="http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=42#comment-259" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> from another old FMH thread. Jessawhy, see this comment from another old FMH thread.

]]> By: Jessawhy http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26717 Jessawhy Wed, 09 May 2007 05:17:07 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-26717 I realize this thread is pretty much dead (so i'll understand if no one responds), but I read a <a href="http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=42#comment-165885" rel="nofollow">comment</a> (#59) at fMh yesterday that really applies to this conversation. In sum: This man (ex-Mo) is being asked to give permission for his wife to be sealed to someone else in the temple. He seems gracious enough and wants her to be happy (he's in another relationship) but feels offended on her behalf that she would have to ask his permission to remarry, as if she is some kind of property. The next comment says both ex-husbands and ex-wives need to give permission for the other to be sealed to another spouse. Is this true? I am waiting to hear back from my sister-in-law whose ex was remarried in the temple (not sure if she had to give her permission). Anyway, I can see this guy's point. It does appear that we hold on to some of these ideas that women are under the control of their husbands (even if they are divorced) in an eternal sense. It's eternal polygamy and it is disturbing to many women, and I suspect affects decisions people make in this life. Such as; I will not marry a woman who has been widowed, I won't be able to be sealed to her. Or, I will not marry a man who is widowed, I don't want to be his second wife in the next life. I am honestly surprised that the PBS program didn't comment on the issue of polygamous sealings and their inequality. I realize this thread is pretty much dead (so i’ll understand if no one responds), but I read a comment (#59) at fMh yesterday that really applies to this conversation.
In sum: This man (ex-Mo) is being asked to give permission for his wife to be sealed to someone else in the temple. He seems gracious enough and wants her to be happy (he’s in another relationship) but feels offended on her behalf that she would have to ask his permission to remarry, as if she is some kind of property. The next comment says both ex-husbands and ex-wives need to give permission for the other to be sealed to another spouse. Is this true? I am waiting to hear back from my sister-in-law whose ex was remarried in the temple (not sure if she had to give her permission).
Anyway, I can see this guy’s point. It does appear that we hold on to some of these ideas that women are under the control of their husbands (even if they are divorced) in an eternal sense. It’s eternal polygamy and it is disturbing to many women, and I suspect affects decisions people make in this life. Such as; I will not marry a woman who has been widowed, I won’t be able to be sealed to her. Or, I will not marry a man who is widowed, I don’t want to be his second wife in the next life. I am honestly surprised that the PBS program didn’t comment on the issue of polygamous sealings and their inequality.

]]> By: Howard http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25896 Howard Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:40:49 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25896 Lynnette wrote <blockquote>"...a plausible case can be made that in the context of LDS thought and teaching, women belong to men in a way that men do not belong to women..."</blockquote> It strikes me that children belong to women in a way that they cannot belong to men. We each have different but complementary roles, the sum of which equals a family unit. Lynnette wrote
“…a plausible case can be made that in the context of LDS thought and teaching, women belong to men in a way that men do not belong to women…”

It strikes me that children belong to women in a way that they cannot belong to men.

We each have different but complementary roles, the sum of which equals a family unit.

]]> By: Kiskilili http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25302 Kiskilili Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:14:30 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25302 <p><em>Only personal revelation will adequately answer Kiskilili's and Rilkerunning's questions about their eternal status. It simply won't do to lay the blame for their lack of personal revelation at the feet of any other person on this earth. Look, if the wording of the temple liturgy precluded women from believing they are equal to men even when God reveals that truth to them then you would have a point here. But that simply is not the case. This church is chock full of women who read and hear the same scriptures, talks, and liturgy and have no trouble believing God when he tells them of their infinite worth and equality with men through the Holy Spirit.</em></p> <p>I'm not sure exactly how you've reached the conclusion I've had no personal revelation--I just see a whole lot of ambiguity and some apparent conflict between some of my experiences with God and certain experiences in the Church--a conflict with no obvious resolution--where you see multiple sources of truth lining up neatly. (Also, I'm hesitant to discuss actual revelation in a public forum since I consider pitting my personal revelations against others' a recipe for train wreck.)</p> <p>I do think taking the temple liturgy seriously preclues women from construing themselves as men's equals. And I'm disinclined to give any epistemological weight to numbers--a lot of Mormon women have concluded they are men's equals. A lot of other people have concluded the world is flat. I'd like to assess the evidence for myself.</p> Only personal revelation will adequately answer Kiskilili’s and Rilkerunning’s questions about their eternal status. It simply won’t do to lay the blame for their lack of personal revelation at the feet of any other person on this earth. Look, if the wording of the temple liturgy precluded women from believing they are equal to men even when God reveals that truth to them then you would have a point here. But that simply is not the case. This church is chock full of women who read and hear the same scriptures, talks, and liturgy and have no trouble believing God when he tells them of their infinite worth and equality with men through the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure exactly how you’ve reached the conclusion I’ve had no personal revelation–I just see a whole lot of ambiguity and some apparent conflict between some of my experiences with God and certain experiences in the Church–a conflict with no obvious resolution–where you see multiple sources of truth lining up neatly. (Also, I’m hesitant to discuss actual revelation in a public forum since I consider pitting my personal revelations against others’ a recipe for train wreck.)

I do think taking the temple liturgy seriously preclues women from construing themselves as men’s equals. And I’m disinclined to give any epistemological weight to numbers–a lot of Mormon women have concluded they are men’s equals. A lot of other people have concluded the world is flat. I’d like to assess the evidence for myself.

]]> By: Jessawhy http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25220 Jessawhy Sun, 22 Apr 2007 03:24:57 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25220 <p>ECS 222</p> <blockquote>Jessawhy- I agree with your explanation about why physical differences between men and women account for disparate treatment, but why would this translate into the spiritual realm as well? Do you think women are spiritually weaker because they can't do as many push ups as men? Or what do you mean by "spiritual inequality"?</blockquote> <p>As I said before, I'm just starting to think about these things and threw these comments out like a hook, to see if I could get any bites. I wonder if others have thought about the possibility of spiritual inequality (perhaps there's a better wording) or that it's utterly preposterous. I'm open to any opinions, just trying to think through why God would only give his priesthood to men, and covenant with them directly, etc. (all the things we've been talking about) It was when I realized that the physical differences accounted for the disparate treatment that I began to wonder if it applies on a spiritual level as well? Personally, I hope not, but I am just trying to imagine some reason why things are the way they are. If God does love and value us equally, perhaps we are different on a spiritual level and need different power (priesthood) and interaction with God (covenants). Just thinking aloud, here.</p> ECS 222

Jessawhy- I agree with your explanation about why physical differences between men and women account for disparate treatment, but why would this translate into the spiritual realm as well? Do you think women are spiritually weaker because they can’t do as many push ups as men? Or what do you mean by “spiritual inequality”?

As I said before, I’m just starting to think about these things and threw these comments out like a hook, to see if I could get any bites. I wonder if others have thought about the possibility of spiritual inequality (perhaps there’s a better wording) or that it’s utterly preposterous. I’m open to any opinions, just trying to think through why God would only give his priesthood to men, and covenant with them directly, etc. (all the things we’ve been talking about) It was when I realized that the physical differences accounted for the disparate treatment that I began to wonder if it applies on a spiritual level as well? Personally, I hope not, but I am just trying to imagine some reason why things are the way they are. If God does love and value us equally, perhaps we are different on a spiritual level and need different power (priesthood) and interaction with God (covenants). Just thinking aloud, here.

]]> By: Geoff J http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25219 Geoff J Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:52:06 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/15/women-as-possessions/#comment-25219 <p>Lynette: you're arguing that personal revelation is a kind of ultimate trump card, the hermeneutic which one should use to interpret everything else. But I don't see things that way.</p> <p>Ziff: <em>I agree with Lynnette (#226) that personal revelation does not actually function as the ultimate trump card, as you seem to be arguing that it does.</em></p> <p>In the immortal words of Larry the Cucumber: You couldn't be more wronger.</p> <p>This thread is getting unwieldy so I've responded to this point at my blog. <a href="http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/04/of-course-personal-revelation-is-our-ultimate-epistemological-trump-card/377/" rel="nofollow">See my response post here</a>.</p> Lynette: you’re arguing that personal revelation is a kind of ultimate trump card, the hermeneutic which one should use to interpret everything else. But I don’t see things that way.

Ziff: I agree with Lynnette (#226) that personal revelation does not actually function as the ultimate trump card, as you seem to be arguing that it does.

In the immortal words of Larry the Cucumber: You couldn’t be more wronger.

This thread is getting unwieldy so I’ve responded to this point at my blog. See my response post here.

]]>