The Inferiority of Women

[john doe]

Guys, I think Snow is pulling your collective chains. I know from his past postings that he adores his wife and children, at least one of which I believe is of the female persuasion.

[Gwen]

isn't that called a troll?

[Just_A_Guy]

Guys, I think Snow is pulling your collective chains. I know from his past postings that he adores his wife and children, at least one of which I believe is of the female persuasion.

Oh, I don't think for a minute that Snow agrees with the scriptures he cites.

[Saguaro]

what exactly is the point of this thread? how exactly is it uplifting... or rather virtuous' date=' lovely, or of good report?[/quote']

Is this criteria required of every thread here on LDS.net? I don't recall reading that in the forum rules.

[Vort]

Not so. Joseph Smith taught that a man ordained to any priesthood office was ordained to that office premortally.

Per a disscussion in the HP clas my father was in ... if they are already ordained why do they have to be ordained again?

For the same reason we have to be born again into mortality? I don't know, but the fact that we are ordained in mortality doesn't imply that we were not ordained premortally. We are taught the opposite.

Ordination is an earthly ordinance or it would not be done in the temples for the dead.

Yes, but the fact that it is an earthly ordinance doesn't imply that it is therefore not a pre-earthly or post-earthly ordinance, as well.

This is not the meaning of the word "priesthood". If you accept this idea, then men, too, are born "with their priesthood (the ability to be fathers)".

Ask any woman who has had a child ... there is WAY more involverd in a woman being a mother.

More involved in a woman being a mother than...what? More than simply bearing a child? We already know that. What has that to do with whether or not motherhood constitutes a female "priesthood"?

Or do you mean that there is more involved in a woman being a mother than in a man being a father? If so, then it appears you have a dismal view of fatherhood, for which I am very sorry. But I certainly disagree with such a brutal sentiment. If you believe this assessment of fatherhood, you might wish to discuss it with your heavenly Father next time you talk with him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't share this abased view of fatherhood.

Priesthood may not be the right word when it pretains to women

Then you might wish to find another word to use.

but this says it very clearly.

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “God planted within women something divine.”

I agree with President Hinckley.

That something is the gift and the gifts of motherhood. Elder Matthew Cowley taught that “men have to have something given to them [in mortality] to make them saviors of men, but not mothers, not women. [They] are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls … and the regenerating force in the lives of God’s children.” (from a talk by Sister Shari Dew)

I disagree with Sister Dew. Though I'm an admirer of Elder Cowley, I disagree with his assessment here, too, since he is obviously wrong. Mohandas Gandhi didn't hold the priesthood, yet was still a savior of men.

[Madriglace]

For the same reason we have to be born again into mortality? I don't know, but the fact that we are ordained in mortality doesn't imply that we were not ordained premortally. We are taught the opposite.

Yes, but the fact that it is an earthly ordinance doesn't imply that it is therefore not a pre-earthly or post-earthly ordinance, as well.

More involved in a woman being a mother than...what? More than simply bearing a child? We already know that. What has that to do with whether or not motherhood constitutes a female "priesthood"?

Or do you mean that there is more involved in a woman being a mother than in a man being a father? If so, then it appears you have a dismal view of fatherhood, for which I am very sorry. But I certainly disagree with such a brutal sentiment. If you believe this assessment of fatherhood, you might wish to discuss it with your heavenly Father next time you talk with him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't share this abased view of fatherhood.

Then you might wish to find another word to use.

I agree with President Hinckley.

I disagree with Sister Dew. Though I'm an admirer of Elder Cowley, I disagree with his assessment here, too, since he is obviously wrong. Mohandas Gandhi didn't hold the priesthood, yet was still a savior of men.

To each his own .

Physically a woman does way more toward bringing spirits into the world ... nothing simple about it.

You have no idea what my view of fatherhood is ... I the best father's in the world and out of the world.

Ghandi may have worked for mankind but did not have the authority to extend the blessings of the priesthood required to save mens souls.

[Snow]

what exactly is the point of this thread? how exactly is it uplifting... or rather virtuous, lovely, or of good report?

Do I understand correctly that you do not believe the canonized scriptures I referenced are uplifting, virtuous, lovely or of good report?

How long have you felt this way about the scriptures?

[Snow]

Hey, Hemi. Can we get source on that? I'm a little wary of accepting this piece of knowledge, since John the Baptist was called 'Angelos', or messenger. I'm also pretty sure Haggai was(But don't quote me on that). John The Baptist, we know exactly where he lived and it wasn't the City of Salem(Well, it was Judea).

Hi FunkyTown,

Last night and again this morning you forcefully stated that you no longer read any of my posts - yet here you are reading and responding to my thread.

I am glad you changed your mind. Welcome and the more the merrier.

[Maxel]

Do I understand correctly that you do not believe the canonized scriptures I referenced are uplifting, virtuous, lovely or of good report?

How long have you felt this way about the scriptures?

Oh, come on Snow, leave her be... It's easy enough to be confused by the OP, especially if one hasn't followed the recent history of the '1 Nephi 4:11' and 'Disbelieving the Scriptures' thread. I think it might be time for you to enlighten us as to your intended direction with this thread.

[Snow]

If we look at the Joseph Smith Translation of this chapter in Genesis we see something completely different.

This comes from lds.org: Joseph Smith Translation: Gen. 19: 9-15

Lot does not offer his daughters, in fact he tells the men they can have neither his daughters or the "angels" who have come to visit him. This is why he is still considered righteous.

Good point. Joseph Smith was a lot more enlighten in his views towards women than were the ancient authors or redactor of Genesis.

[Snow]

Oh, come on Snow, leave her be... It's easy enough to be confused by the OP, especially if one hasn't followed the recent history of the '1 Nephi 4:11' and 'Disbelieving the Scriptures' thread. I think it might be time for you to enlighten us as to your intended direction with this thread.

There are a couple of points to this thread - but one might be surmised from Gwen's post.

She obviously does not feel that the scriptures that I referenced reflected a virtuous or correct point of view.. in keeping with God's goodness... more evidence that many people, including Mormons, pick and choose which parts of scripture to believe... which is very compatible with MY point of view... that the Bible is a record of God's dealings with man, from the MAN'S point of view.

I don't have to reconcile the passages that describe Lot as a righteous man against his actions of offering his virgin daughters up as rape victims with the notion of the inspired word of God. Such actions are evil and not inspired.

The other points I get to shortly.

[Vort]

You have no idea what my view of fatherhood is ...

On the contrary, I do have an idea what your view of fatherhood is, based on what you have written on this thread.

I the best father's in the world and out of the world.

I'll let God know he's a distant second, and my dad that he's no better than a poor third. :)

Ghandi may have worked for mankind but did not have the authority to extend the blessings of the priesthood required to save mens souls.

Neither do women.

[Moksha]

Wish we could get more women's opinions on this topic. Elgama, Pushka, Maureen, Pam, Elphaba, MightyNancy, Talisyn wherefore out thou?

[Guest missingsomething]

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)

All I can say about this is ... you embody the spirit of contention...and are not worth proving you wrong.

[Guest missingsomething]

Guys, I think Snow is pulling your collective chains. I know from his past postings that he adores his wife and children, at least one of which I believe is of the female persuasion.

adoration does not equal respect.

[Gwen]

There are a couple of points to this thread - but one might be surmised from Gwen's post.

She obviously does not feel that the scriptures that I referenced reflected a virtuous or correct point of view.. in keeping with God's goodness... more evidence that many people, including Mormons, pick and choose which parts of scripture to believe... which is very compatible with MY point of view... that the Bible is a record of God's dealings with man, from the MAN'S point of view.

I don't have to reconcile the passages that describe Lot as a righteous man against his actions of offering his virgin daughters up as rape victims with the notion of the inspired word of God. Such actions are evil and not inspired.

The other points I get to shortly.

let me be very clear about my opinion on this thread, i was not referring to the scriptures when i said it was not in keeping with the 13th article of faith. i was referring to the removal of things from their context, the placing them in such a place in such a way as to intentionally cause contention. i was referring to your attitude not the scriptures. i was suggesting this thread was not virtuous lovely or of good report.

[Snow]

let me be very clear about my opinion on this thread, i was not referring to the scriptures when i said it was not in keeping with the 13th article of faith. i was referring to the removal of things from their context, the placing them in such a place in such a way as to intentionally cause contention. i was referring to your attitude not the scriptures. i was suggesting this thread was not virtuous lovely or of good report.

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.

[Snow]

adoration does not equal respect.

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?

[Snow]

Given how some of the Bible portrays women, it is, perhaps, understandable how influential leaders in Christianity has subsequently viewed women.

St. Tertullian (about 155 to 225 CE):

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE):

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):

"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

This is especially sad because those who profess to believe in a just and benevolent God ought to be those who believe the opposite of the passages quoted in the Bible and the beliefs of those people printed above.

[Vort]

adoration does not equal respect.

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?

In what sense does it beg the question?

[Vort]

This is especially sad because those who profess to believe in a just and benevolent God ought to be those who believe the opposite of the passages quoted in the Bible and the beliefs of those people printed above.

Why? Just because you disagree with them?

Are you suggesting that anyone who claims "to believe in a just and benevolent God" ought to accept your way of viewing things? On what logical basis do you make your above judgment?

You have made a grand show of abhorring what you consider bad logic, yet I often see you leaping to conclusions that seem ill-founded, as you seem to have done above. Perhaps you can explain this to me. (Feel free to use small words, if you think I might understand better.)

[Snow]

In what sense does it beg the question?

In the sense that the poster has absolutely no idea based in reality that I do not respect my wife so the posters motivations are suspect.

[Snow]

Why? Just because you disagree with them?

No Vort - because actions that are unjust and anti-benevolent do not jive with a God who is just and benevolent.

This isn't rocket science.

Are you suggesting that anyone who claims "to believe in a just and benevolent God" ought to accept your way of viewing things?

No Vort, I am not.

On what logical basis do you make your above judgment?

On NO basis since that is not my judgement - you just made it up.

You have made a grand show of abhorring what you consider bad logic, yet I often see you leaping to conclusions that seem ill-founded, as you seem to have done above. Perhaps you can explain this to me. (Feel free to use small words, if you think I might understand better.)

Okay - let's see - perhaps you can explain it to me. Can you tell me how unjust and anti-benevolent actions are congruent with a just and benevolent God?

Or can you tell me how offering your virgin daughters up for rape is righteous?

[Snow]

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.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Snow

[Vort]

In what sense does it beg the question?

In the sense that the poster has absolutely no idea based in reality that I do not respect my wife so the posters motivations are suspect.

How, exactly, does this beg the question?

Do you know what it means to "beg the question"?