D&C Section 138 and women

[askandanswer]

In Doctrine and Covenants 138, Joseph F Smith gives the names of those who he saw in Paradise. With the exception of Eve, “with many of her faithful (unnamed) daughters” they are all named men – 18 of them. He even tells of seeing his own father and uncle Joseph, but says nothing about his mother or aunt Emma. I wonder if the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why we read almost nothing about God’s wife. What reasons do you think there might be why Joseph F Smith either didn’t see many women in Paradise, or didn’t feel to properly record what he saw? Perhaps his style of writing is just a cultural artifact of the early 20th century?

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

In Doctrine and Covenants 138, Joseph F Smith gives the names of those who he saw in Paradise. With the exception of Eve, “with many of her faithful (unnamed) daughters” they are all named men – 18 of them. He even tells of seeing his own father and uncle Joseph, but says nothing about his mother or aunt Emma. I wonder if the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why we read almost nothing about God’s wife. What reasons do you think there might be why Joseph F Smith either didn’t see many women in Paradise, or didn’t feel to properly record what he saw? Perhaps his style of writing is just a cultural artifact of the early 20th century?

Writing style cultural artifact, nothing more. 

[Anddenex]

15 hours ago, askandanswer said:

In Doctrine and Covenants 138, Joseph F Smith gives the names of those who he saw in Paradise. With the exception of Eve, “with many of her faithful (unnamed) daughters” they are all named men – 18 of them. He even tells of seeing his own father and uncle Joseph, but says nothing about his mother or aunt Emma. I wonder if the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why we read almost nothing about God’s wife. What reasons do you think there might be why Joseph F Smith either didn’t see many women in Paradise, or didn’t feel to properly record what he saw? Perhaps his style of writing is just a cultural artifact of the early 20th century?

Later on we also read, "and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times." If we look at the individuals mentioned, all mentioned are ones who performed works mentioned in the Bible, and not just the everyday works. Adam is mentioned with Eve, and Eve being mentioned seems appropriate (surprised though Mary was named as one of the daughters seeing her important work).

Sure, we could say cultural, as well as work performed on this earth. It could also be who was present in Joseph F. Smith's mind and heart. For example, when we all go to a reunion, we don't mention in our journals all who were there, but we do point out specific people who more have an impact on our lives, in this case, specific to the bringing forth of the gospel of Jesus Christ in all dispensations. At least one person is mentioned from each dispensation.

EDIT: None of the prophets were mentioned in the Book of Mormon save these words, "All these and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance," Moroni is mentioned solely to say who he testified of was there.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest]

15 hours ago, askandanswer said:

What reasons do you think there might be why Joseph F Smith either didn’t see many women in Paradise, or didn’t feel to properly record what he saw? Perhaps his style of writing is just a cultural artifact of the early 20th century?

There were plenty of faithful men that he didn't mention either.  Why didn't he?

Answer that and you'll answer this question.

[askandanswer]

53 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There were plenty of faithful men that he didn't mention either.  Why didn't he?

Possibly he was only mentioning those who were important to him

[Snigmorder]

Perhaps he wasn't being shown an unbridled view of things, but rather what he ought to see.

I would argue it's simply unimportant to mention them in a vision. It seems to me that visions are as concise possible.  Same goes for our knowledge of the gospel. We don't need to know about the ancient and eternal woman/women to whom the ancient and eternal Man is married, for example.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Guest]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Possibly he was only mentioning those who were important to him

So, his immediate predecessors were unimportant to him?  Elijah was unimportant to him?  None of the BoM prophets were important?

Edited August 29, 2017 by Guest

[askandanswer]

His immediate predecessors get a mention in verse 53 and Elijah gets a mention in verse 46. His mother and wife don't get a mention at all so perhaps importance is not the criteria he used for inclusion. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

His immediate predecessors get a mention in verse 53

Not Lorenzo Snow.  Not other counselors and apostles with whom he had forged a brotherly kinship for many years prior to accepting the mantle of Prophet himself.

33 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

and Elijah gets a mention in verse 46.

He's only mentioned as one who brought the sealing power back.  But nowhere does it say that he saw Elijah there.

35 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

so perhaps importance is not the criteria he used for inclusion. 

So, what was it?  Answer the question and you'll answer your own.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

He's only mentioned as one who brought the sealing power back.  But nowhere does it say that he saw Elijah there.

Verse 49 appears to specify that Elijah was there, as 47 and 48 speak particularly of Elijah and verse 49 then states, "All these and many more..."

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Verse 49 appears to specify that Elijah was there, as 47 and 48 speak particularly of Elijah and verse 49 then states, "All these and many more..."

I think you got that a bit mixed up.  49 talks about the Nephite prophets, but none of them by name.  You may have meant 46.  In 46, it states that Malachi was there (the guy who prophesied of Elijah...) However, none of the verses specifically say Elijah was there.  He's only mentioned as one who was to plant in the hearts... Not that he was there.

"All these and many more..." is a catch all.  I get that.  But why couldn't that be applied to the OP?  He was asking about those who were not specified individually.

[Anddenex]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think you got that a bit mixed up.  49 talks about the Nephite prophets, but none of them by name.  You may have meant 46.  In 46, it states that Malachi was there (the guy who prophesied of Elijah...) However, none of the verses specifically say Elijah was there.  He's only mentioned as one who was to plant in the hearts... Not that he was there.

"All these and many more..." is a catch all.  I get that.  But why couldn't that be applied to the OP?  He was asking about those who were not specified individually.

I could, but at this moment, I think I am not mixed up. The catch all appears to me to "catch" Elijah as one of the attendees seen in the vision (his name specifically being mentioned indirectly).

I agree with, "But why couldn't that be applied to the OP?" and I think though that is the point of the OP's question. Only "one" woman is mentioned by name, and the rest mentioned are "men."

I think I understand why; however, one would think more women could have been mentioned, but if we take scripture (past), it coincides with scriptural writings.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I could, but at this moment, I think I am not mixed up.

The part I believe you got mixed up was:

15 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Verse 49 appears to specify that Elijah was there

Verse 49 says nothing about Elijah

Quote

49 All these and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance,

"Specify" means that he was "specifically" mentioned.  He is not.

59 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The catch all appears to me to "catch" Elijah as one of the attendees seen in the vision (his name specifically being mentioned indirectly).

His name was not "specifically" mentioned "indirectly".  I don't see how that is possible.  Is that some word play you're using?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Guest

[Anddenex]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The part I believe you got mixed up was:

Verse 49 says nothing about Elijah

"Specify" means that he was "specifically" mentioned.  He is not.

His name was not "specifically" mentioned "indirectly".  I don't see how that is possible.  Is that some word play you're using?

I know verse 49 doesn't name Elijah specifically (nothing mixed up here). Elijah is mentioned in the verses previous with a catch all statement in 49 "All these and many more." The statement "All these" is referring to the prophets mentioned before verse 49 (1-48, any prophet or woman mentioned in verses 1-48 are being referenced by "All these..). The many more is referring to others particularly the Nephite prophets as they immediately come after "many more."

Word play? Elijah's name is not "specifically" mentioned as others in stating, "I saw [insert name]." His name though is "specifically" mentioned (which is part of the OPs question pertaining to the number of male names, verses one woman).  Elijah's name is "indirectly" confirmed as one in this vision with the catch all statement, "All these..." All these is referring to the previous verses, which implies Elijah was among them there, and his name was specifically mentioned.  Not a word play, trying to explain that Elijah was indeed specifically mentioned in this section. He was indirectly confirmed as being there with the catch all statement in verse 49.