Obolus

I think you may be right. But the question of veiling surrounding Abraham and those in his group is perhaps more related to courtship than to covering up. Rebekah traveled with Abraham/Isaac's male servant ostensibly with no veil, but veiled herself when meeting Isaac for the first time (Gen 24). But who knows how, or in what ways, the tradition of veiling changed or shifted between Sarah/Rebekah (1800 BC) and Mohammad's time (600 AD)? Was the Qur'an the first social document to institute public veiling? Or did Islam inherit the practice? It's difficult to know. And even more difficult to know if the idea originated with a man or a woman.

Loudmouth, thank-you so much for sharing this experience. I think it places hijab in a different context than the messages that come through the media. The association with covenant makes me think about Muslim veiling in an entirely different light. I wonder how their veils are initially implemented. I've seen pre-teens wearing them... I wonder what their initiation is, and if it is a community event or merely between mothers and daughters.

My apologies, Pam. And sorry also to those who feel I have spammed. My main questions are those offered in the blog: Do the differences in LDS and Muslim veiling of women create more differences between the cultures? Or is there some common ground to be gleaned there? One commenter on the blog did have reservations about veiling, yet her experience in the temple didn't necessarily leave her feeling oppressed. Is there any teaching regarding the veil and its symbolic meaning? Is it taught? And if not, what are the consequences of requiring it, and only of women, without a discussion? My concerns are primarily retention. My family is dominated by members who left full activity shortly after being endowed and/or married in the temple.

.0.

Jayanna, thank-you so much. What a fantastic website/resource.

Your point here is instructive, Lisarp03. For Mormons, entrance into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom requires that males be married. The rules infer that the Father is likely married also, and thus his godhood is contingent upon the other sovereign in the equation. The term "God", in the LDS context, infers a divine identity that suggests at least two individuals. Our Heavenly parents are "one in purpose" just as much as the Godhead. If that's speculation, then it is the most beautiful and powerful kind.

I think the RLDS term is smartest: "The Inspired Version". I like the idea of Joseph being an editor and/or reviser. It's an interesting role for a prophet. Christ, after all, dictated the revising of the Nephites' record when he gave his sermon at the temple, as they had forgotten to add the words of Samuel the Lamanite.

Slavery has been the issue at hand since before the world was. All wars should be understood in context of the war in Heaven.

This is the best point made in this entire thread. It only makes sense that it would come from a woman. According to Christ, the body is a temple. If we take that to be true, then the womb/vulva must be understood as a veil. In fact, that is the only understanding that will ever lead you to pay the respect to a woman that she deserves. It all stem's from Jesus' statement, so I don't care if it's speculation. It makes perfect sense. Indeed, all must pass through that veil into this world. It is a gate between worlds through which the whole soul must pass. Just like the baptismal font and the other ordinances. Which is precisely why women of various cultures wear veils on their wedding day. The veil they wear, just as Kate Middleton when she married Prince William, is placed on their head to identify their authority... which necessarily mirrors that of the Priesthood. So what does that mean? It means that all women are sentinels of one of the Lord's veils. In other words, they are veil workers. It also means that they hold a "yes" and a "no" regarding a temple of God (their bodies) just as any bishop or stake president does. And why do we not need subsequent temple ordinances to seal children "born in the covenant" to their parents? Because in the context of the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage, the mother is authorized as a sealer that completes the sealing with her own temple body. In fact, her power to seal is just as binding as that of any male, Priesthood-holding sealer in any temple. That is the truth. The reason that this understanding of women and their authority is not typical in the church is because we don't take the symbols that the Lord has given us to their logical end: The font is a womb. The chapel is a womb. The temple is a womb. When you go into each of these places for the first time, you don't yet belong to the veils that they contain. But once you pass through those veils, you become part of the "bride" that belongs to Christ. The reason why men are given the Priesthood is so that Christ can involve them in the veil work of the second veil. Women already have the first veil, so that's why the scriptures are relatively silent towards them. When women are addressed in scripture, it is usually regarding something going on in their womb. It is men that must be brought up to speed as far as veil work is concerned. People often point to the hierarchy and "political" rank of the brethren, but what the Priesthood really boils down to is ordinances... the right to preside over them and perform them. Fatherhood by itself is simply not commensurate with motherhood. If our bodies are temples, then birth is an ordinance, period. How will any man in the world answer the fact that women put their lives on the line to pass infants into mortality? Bread-winning alone is not enough. Providing a home is not enough. Being loving and supportive isn't enough. Only ordinances can answer birth. She endows the child with mortality, and he endows the child with Eternal Life through the Priesthood of God. Hence, in the church it is the Priesthood that creates gender equality. And veil worker is the most proper context in which a woman's authority should be understood.

You're right. I don't get sarcasm.

Because I think your interpretation is erroneous. I think that when you take "pure wine" to mean "alcohol free" you are necessarily projecting a meaning that you (or someone else) made up. I also question anyone who doesn't speak for the church, as should we all. Wine is alcoholic by definition. Hence, "wine of the grape" is simply the traditional meaning. To add the adjective "pure" seems to be a reference to the fact that wine made by the Saints would be of known quality, whereas that made by their enemies might be laced with something undesirable. I really just want to see some examples of the kind of wine you speak of. Either described by a wine maker, cited in some sort of credible source, or anything from a GA. Searching_For_The_Truth mentioned some association with an ancient tradition of wine making. Ok: let's have a look at it. If you don't have any other source, then I have no reason to believe that it is a true interpretation. If you do have something other than your personal interpretation, I want to examine it. This is not about your word. It is about the interpretation of God's word, so two or three credible witnesses must be established.

It doesn't, but I am relieved to see that there is a second person making this claim that is not JuanP because the guy refuses to cite a source other than his own interpretation of the verse. I now have hope that there is in fact an existing reference. Perhaps you could provide it?

I was referring to JuanP.

To whom? Since there is no other source specifying that "pure wine" = "non-alcoholic" besides yourself, I'm inclined to disagree. Where did you even come up with the idea? Did you read it and come to the conclusion or is there some other source? So it is good to use wine for the sacrament. Just as good as water, according to the D&C.

Apologies for not making myself clear: What makes you think 89:6 references anything other than typical alcoholic wine?