Why must females veil their faces in Temples but males need not?

Comments

Comments

• you are right, onkponk, it must be discussed in the Temple.

  • Report
  

  by Snoopy on February 5th, 2007

• Generally, that which is not open to scrutiny has more to do with being indefensible than being sacred.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on July 20th, 2007

Comments

• Sacred? You mean property. In many religions, women are treated as property.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on July 20th, 2007

• Thanks.
  and to AntigoneRising,
  I think it was more the time periods in which many of the religion was created rather than the actual religious views. What I mean is that 200 years ago pretty much everyone thought of women as property, and thought that they could achieve nothing. Now that we have established a bit more equality (not nearly enough), our religions and marriage vows still remain in the past (for example the transfer of property expressed in the phrase "to have and to hold"). However, it depends completely on the people in a particular marriage. I know some Women that are LDS that remain active and devote, and still manage careers. I also know some who stay at home and watch their children. I know one that is treated like property, and has since left her husband. I think it depends more on the people in the relationship rather than which religion they belong to. wow that was long and ranting.... (sorry I'm kind of tired)

  • Report
  

  by C.A.Y. is rather confused about it all on August 10th, 2007

• If it were more the period in time the religion was created than religious views, the practice would be abandoned. Why would a career keep an LDS woman from being active and devoted any more than it would a man? I agree that it is largely the people in the relationship, but the religion can justify and propogate these views into someone who ends up in a relationship.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 10th, 2007

• I agree that the practice COULD be abandoned, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was. My point with saying that I knew a married LDS woman who had a career, was merely to point out that the LDS church will not kick you out if you do not follow the traditional Idea of and LDS family. Religion can justify these views I suppose, but I do not know that changing the religion would necessarily stop that, as the families that taught their children that women were property would still do so. In addition to this, another branch of the church would appear most likely (like when they banned polygamy and the FLDS broke off). I hope that makes sense... As I've even been confusing myself today..

  • Report
  

  by C.A.Y. is rather confused about it all on August 10th, 2007