The Inferiority of Women

[Just_A_Guy]

In which "form" is a woman not inferior---and her children? Sorry, but your link just proved that concubines are inferior.

My point wasn't to refute your assertion of inferiority. My point was to address the notion that concubines are always "slave wives".

[TruthSeekerToo]

Do you think Abraham would treated them 'inferior'?

Hmmm. Giving Hagar bread and a bottle of water and sending her into the wilderness with her child...

Yup.

[TruthSeekerToo]

My point wasn't to refute your assertion of inferiority. My point was to address the notion that concubines are always "slave wives".

Oh, I see. I was working off the point of inferior and used the word slave to drive the point home. Sorry. You are right, they are not always slaves, but they are always treated as inferior whether by inheritance, status or actual treatment.

ETA: It does appear that the early pioneers/settlers had a different definition of concubine. It was more of a woman you had children with who could not legally be your wife....at least that is what I'm seeing. Again, she would have no legal recourse if she was dumped out on the streets.

Edited April 30, 2009 by TruthSeekerToo

[Hemidakota]

Hmmm. Giving Hagar bread and a bottle of water and sending her into the wilderness with her child...

Yup.

And who made Abraham do it - SARAH or Sariah. http://i.azjmp.com/0SbSY

[TruthSeekerToo]

Yes, because Hagar was treated inferior because she was a concubine.

Oh, and remember that the man can override his first wife. It says so in D&C 132. So he didn't have to do what Sarah said.

[Gwen]

oh but women have ways of making a man miserable.... lol and who is inferior?

[Hemidakota]

Yes, because Hagar was treated inferior because she was a concubine.

Oh, and remember that the man can override his first wife. It says so in D&C 132. So he didn't have to do what Sarah said.

It did not state that all but if you like, you can quote the exact scripture.

However, here is the overview of D&C 132:

1. Joseph Smith's inquiry concerning the ancient practice of plural marriage (vs. 1-2)

2. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage and its blessings (vs. 3-14, 19-25)

3. Marriage for time only (vs. 15-18)

4. Sin against the celestial marriage covenant (vs. 26-27)

5. Saints directed to do the works of Abraham (vs. 28-33)

6. Plural marriages authorized by the Lord in ancient times (vs. 34-39)

7. Punishment for adultery (vs. 40-44)

8. Joseph Smith has the power to seal on earth and in heaven (vs. 45-48)

9. Joseph Smith sealed up to his exaltation (vs. 49-50, 57)

10. Emma Smith admonished to be faithful (vs. 51-56)

11. The law of the priesthood pertaining to the plurality of wives (vs. 58-66)

[john doe]

Did I mentioned the sword was flaming? :)

Oh great, a gay sword! Didn't they already do that once? I seem to remember a movie with that Hamilton guy playing Zorro, the Gay Blade.

[Moksha]

Oh great, a gay sword!

Perhaps this flaming sword was but poetic Freudian symbolism.

[TruthSeekerToo]

You guys are cracking me up!

But, in all seriousness, if the "wife of his youth" annoys him he can just go get another wife.

If you read some of the journals, letters and stories of women who were in polygamy they were often ignored once a new wife entered the mix.

[Maxel]

Hmmm. Giving Hagar bread and a bottle of water and sending her into the wilderness with her child...

Yup.

Yes, because Hagar was treated inferior because she was a concubine.

Oh, and remember that the man can override his first wife. It says so in D&C 132. So he didn't have to do what Sarah said.

lalalal

[Maxel]

Hmmm. Giving Hagar bread and a bottle of water and sending her into the wilderness with her child...

Yup. [Abraham treated her as an inferior.]

Perhaps some context will help...

Genesis 21

-vv. 6-8: Sarah bears Isaac; Isaac is weaned; Abraham throws a great feast

-vv. 9-11: Sarah sees Ishmael (son of Hagar) "mocking"; Sarah asks Abraham to cast Hagar and her son out; Abraham is grieved because of this

-v. 12: The Lord comes to Abraham, tells him to not be grieved but to do what Sarah asked of him.

-vv. 13-21: Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael into the wilderness; Hagar despairs and is visited by the Lord, who looks after them. Ishmael grows up to become an archer and marries an Egyptian woman.

In Genesis 16 we are told that Sarai gives Hagar to Abram to wife, and that when Hagar conceives she begins to despise Sarai. Abram leaves the situation to Sarai to deal with; she does so and Hagar flees; she returns after being commanded to do so by the Lord.

May I suggest that this action from mother and son- the despising and mocking- might be related and the real reason Hagar was sent away? The very act of sending Hagar away was Sarah's idea, which was then confirmed to Abraham by the Lord.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Maxel, I am really not seeing how the context paints this any prettier. Polygamy caused this family all kinds of disfunction.

Am I the only person who sees anything wrong with sending away (into the wilderness) your wife and child?!?!?!?!?!?!

Mocking is not a grevious sin. It certainly can be repented of. If your wife mocked your child would you have the right to "put her away"?

Clearly the fact that Sarah could choose the fate of her servant who she gave to her husband to sleep with (did Hagar have a choice) makes Hagar INFERIOR! That is the whole point. Apperently people STILL believe that women are inferior and that God sanctions it.

[Snow]

So you take the Humpty-Dumpty view of communication.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Hard to argue with that. And when I say "argue with", I mean "douse with gasoline and set on fire."

That's my view - unless, of course, I (like you) am trying to give someone a hard time for misusing a word / phrase.

[Guest missingsomething]

Then I challenge you to demonstrate that I have taken anything out of context. I suspect you will will not... because I haven't. The scriptures, in context, represent just how I presented them.

It is amazing to me that you would think simple referencing to scriptures - NOT taken out of context - is contentious. Admittedly they are controversial because some people believe the verses and some people do not, but there is nothing inherently contentious in the passages.

Furthermore, I am offended that you called me a troll, which I am not. I call your attention to the rules of this board: "name calling... will not be tolerated" and admonish you abide by the rules.

Taking things out of context is not the only way to twist a scripture, fyi... and no this is not a personal attack, Im saying you me anti-mormons, can quote things in context and still twist the meaning to fit what they want. Does not mean it is inspired of God, does not mean it coordinates with the Prophets.

Edited May 1, 2009 by missingsomething

[Guest missingsomething]

You seem to imply that I do not respect women, including my wife.

I know that you won't be able to prove that so it begs the question - what is your motivation here?

You are right - you can not prove anything to anyone who is closed minded or set in their position, regardless of what or who says it. Again, you, me, anti's.. or rednecks with inflammatory remarks about others.

Edited May 1, 2009 by missingsomething

[Snow]

Taking things out of context is not the only way to twist a scripture, fyi... and no this is not a personal attack, Im saying you me anti-mormons, can quote things in context and still twist the meaning to fit what they want. Does not mean it is inspired of God, does not mean it coordinates with the Prophets.

Which is hardly relevant to whether or not I, Snow, took something out of context.

I guessing that you also cannot show that I did.

[Snow]

You are right - you can not prove anything to anyone who is closed minded or set in their position, regardless of what or who says it. Again, you, me, anti's.. or rednecks with inflammatory remarks about others.

That too is irrelevant since I am not closed-minded. If you have evidence that I do not respect my wife, drop the implication and demonstrate it. If you provide convincing evidence that I do not respect my wife, I will gladly acknowledge it.

[Snow]

Do you think Abraham would treated them 'inferior'?

I don't know exactly what's being discussed here but Abraham seems to have treated his wife improperly in that he lied about her being his wife - or at least that's the way the author portrayed it.

[john doe]

Okay guys, if you can't be civil to each other and have to resort to throwing stones, we're going to have to shut this thread down. Please review the site rules before continuing on down this road. If you think this advice doesn't apply to you, then you're wrong. Just about everyone here has gotten out of hand and we can't allow this to go on. Let's end this denigration of each others' character now.

[pam]

Okay this is the way I see this thread. Let's start with the OP.

Many parts of the Bible clearly teach that, in many ways, the woman is inferior to man. It starts at the beginning of Genesis and continues up through the New Testament. That is not to say that there are not also passages that show women as equal to men but this thread will focus on the passages that show the female species derogatorily. This is not an exhaustive list, merely a sampling. I know this there is a thread about poster’s opinions of men and women but this thread is an examination of the biblical record or part of the biblical record on women, and grows out of another thread where women's status in the bible was discussed.

It starts with Genesis where woman was created out of man - that is - woman’s creation is dependent upon the man. This does not explicitly say that woman is inferior to man but immediately sets up the pecking order. (Gen 2)

Then we learn that woman comes the story of the serpent and Eve is portrayed as the one who was deceived and that God would multiply woman’s sorrow and from then on man would rule over her (Gen 3)

Stories in Genesis relate woman’s status of property of men and such is sanctioned by God. For example, when the men of Sodom as going to rape Lot’s visitors, he eagerly offers his virgin daughters up to be raped instead. Unmarried young women were the property of the father until they became the property of a husband. Even after Lot’s outrageous and evil behavior, Lot is still considered righteous. (Gen 19)

Leviticus shows women’s natural cycles as unclean and unholy (Lev 20)

After a woman has given birth, she is unclean. If the baby is female, she is unclean for twice as long than if the infant were male. (Lev 12)

If a woman came to the defense of her husband who was fighting with another man but in aiding her husband by grabbing the genitals of the other man, she was to have her hand cut off. (Deut 12:11-12)

Man is the head of the woman and woman was created for the man’s glory ( 1 Cor 11)

If a woman is represented to be a virgin but upon marriage consummation she does not bleed, then the woman is to be taken outside and the other men of the city are to throw rocks at the woman until she is so injured that she dies.

Women are to be silent in Church and if they want to know something, they are to ask their husbands at home, (1 Tim 2)

Women are the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7)

11. Women are to be trained to be subservient or subject to their husbands. (Titus 2:4)

Then we go to another post which explains a bit more the intent of the thread:

Here’s the rest of the story...

While ancient Jewish culture in many ways held women in contempt - and attributed to God, in scripture, the abject female status, Christ, as you would expect, turned that uncivil culture on it’s head. He treated women as the equals of men in many ways. He existing flaunted rules.

Mark 5: Christ ignores impurity laws with a woman with menstrual bleeding by curing her.

John 4:7 and 5:30 Christ talks to a foreign woman who was thus doubly unclean - in those days it was a transgression for a man to talk to a woman other than his wife or children.

Luke 10; In violation of tradition he taught Jewish students.

Luke 13:16 Christ used terminology that indicated equal status calling a woman a daughter of Abraham - implying equal status with the sons of Abraham in and unheard of way. Luke 7:35-8:50 ... he refers to women and men as children of wisdom

Luke 8: Christ accepted women into his inner circle. Perhaps half of his following were women.

Matt 28” He appeared to one of more women after the resurrection.

Matt 27 and Mark 15: Women were present at the crucifixion.

Christ told parallel male and female stories > Simeon and Hannah - Luke 2 > Widow of Sarepta and Naaman in Lule 4 > Healings Luke 4 etc.

Luke 2, 4, 7, 18, 20, 21 Expressed concern for widows

Mark 10: Extends equality in divorce against tradition to woman

That is not to say that Christ didn’t also NOT call for equality in all instances but taken on as a whole, he was revolutionary.

Paul - the real Paul - was also a revolutionary... so revolutionary that a anti-Paul was, theoretically, created to temper the threat such radical ideas posed to Roman power structures.... which is the topic of an upcoming thread.

Note: In some ways Joseph Smith was also ahead of his time, with some of his beliefs re woman and how how he incorporated them into his inner circle - for example: The Quorum of the Anointed. However, not all Church leaders kept up the approach. I remember when women could not speak in general meetings of the General Conference.

... and, if you should want to know, I do not think that women are inferior - regardless of what some scripture says. If it should be that one day the prophet is inspired to extend the priesthood to women (which President Hinckley once said could happen), I would be on board in no time flat.

Were the original scriptures quoting God's word or were they man's word written in a time in history where women might have been thought of as inferior.

I think Snow's post about Christ changing the thought pattern and showing women far from being inferior very relevant to the way we think of women today. I think it also shows that not everything written in scripture is attributed to what God intended or would have said. Whether it be the way it was translated or what I don't know.

Edited May 1, 2009 by pam

[Snow]

Okay guys, if you can't be civil to each other and have to resort to throwing stones, we're going to have to shut this thread down. Please review the site rules before continuing on down this road. If you think this advice doesn't apply to you, then you're wrong. Just about everyone here has gotten out of hand and we can't allow this to go on. Let's end this denigration of each others' character now.

You say "guys" plural as if I too am not being civil. I am. Please read my two post above - there is nothing uncivil about them. I am simply saying that if one is to make or imply an accusation, one ought to back it up with evidence. I am making no or implying no references here to anyone's character.

[pam]

I think JD was saying "guys" as to not single one individual out. Or any group of individuals.

[Snow]

Okay this is the way I see this thread. Let's start with the OP.

Were the original scriptures quoting God's word or were they man's word written in a time in history where women might have been thought of as inferior.

I think Snow's post about Christ changing the thought pattern and showing women far from being inferior very relevant to the way we think of women today. I think it also shows that not everything written in scripture is attributed to what God intended or would have said. Whether it be the way it was translated or what I don't know.

You know what's of interest to me?

If Christ had lived, or if JS had lived, longer, what would be the role of women in the Church?

It's hard to make any assumptions about Christ because the underlying assumption is that He is God and so everything unfolded according to His will, but still - I wonder. What is Paul's true beliefs about women prevailed after his passing? Paul referred to women who seems to possess priesthood authority. Early Christianity had women officiating at church - which was a home-based worship with small groups of followers, and women often in charge. Would that have continued and prospered had it not been for the apostasy?

[pam]

Snow correct me if I am wrong..but didn't women possess some type of Priesthood authority back in early days? With the restoration of the Gospel and perhaps with a more modern revelation approach that is no longer the case.

I must admit I have not thought much on the subject. I was brought up in the Church knowing that the men held the Priesthood. I've never thought much about whether women could/would or should hold it.

While I do believe Christ and Heavenly Father hold women in very high esteem..I'm not sure if women holding the Priesthood is the plan. Very interesting question.