Oops, She Did It Again

[juliann]

Agreed. And as I recall, I won't even revisit it, Jack suggested she had to resort to embarrass Hudson because Hudson didn't previously take her seriously or something. I think chip on the shoulder and the attack on Hudson about feminism is the types of problems I have with it. Jack also is very much into the I find mormon apologetics in bad form if that is true she ought to at least watch her own irrelevant attacks when she critiques things.

She had even saved an email she sent to FAIR about the Hebrew error two or three years ago. She seems truly incensed that her instructions were not followed. (She also seems to think I know about and do everything in an organization as large as FAIR but that is another topic). Since she is just now saying she is getting her MA, I would assume she hadn't even started back then. So I have to wonder why whoever she wrote to at FAIR and Hudson would be expected to take someone's opinion they had never heard of with no credentials whatsoever over that of someone like Parry, who translated Dead Sea Scrolls text on an international team. And right or wrong, that remains the problem with this. I have seen a lot of undocumented statements about what happened and with who....but there does seem to be agreement that Hafen got his information from Parry. It was said that it was from an "off hand remark" Parry made but that is rather ridiculous to think that anyone unfamiliar with Hebrew would remember Hebrew grammar to that detail from a casual conversation. So it still seems to me that the real problem is Hafen and Parry but no one is gunning for them and demanding all kinds of stuff, only the woman who quotes them.

[Stone holm]

Okay, I finally unbagged the Ensign article, why are we even searching to justify a position that we know is sensible, that running a family should be a partnership of equals by going back and arguing over the meaning of words re-copied by a Hebrew scribe a thousand some years ago. Are we that doctrinally stuck on the written word?

[ttribe]

Now that is telling. My saying that you are trying hard not to mention what is actually under discussion snarky....when you have said twice now that you would engage in serious discussion but choose to only do drop and run comments like the above. But mocking a woman with demeaning labels like faux feminist and describing her work as a "doily" is defended by you. So it isn't about attacking being wrong ....it is only about who is allowed to do it and who is not. That is becoming more and more clear.

Juliann, I really am trying to understand your position. This is the first time you've even told me what the phrases are that concern you. Did you read my later reply? By the way, I don't recall actually defending what was written...I guess I'll just ask you read my later reply first.

Edited March 31, 2013 by ttribe

[urroner]

Okay, I finally unbagged the Ensign article, why are we even searching to justify a position that we know is sensible, that running a family should be a partnership of equals by going back and arguing over the meaning of words re-copied by a Hebrew scribe a thousand some years ago. Are we that doctrinally stuck on the written word?

Stone, I don't think anybody involved in this discussion, even Jack, is saying that the husband/man should rule over the wife/woman. If you know Jack, you would realize that if her husband even attempted to do that, the poor dude would rue his life.

I don't even think that discussion is about what the scripture should say if it was written today or even how the scripture has been used and abused. The discussion should be about what the scripture meant when it was originally written which isn't an easy task since it was written thousands of years ago, in what is now considered a "dead" language and in a culture that is very, very different from the one we live in today.

The discussion should also be about whether the scripture was given as way of a commandment, telling Adam to rule over his wife and telling Eve to submit herself to her husband, or if the scripture was a prediction of the way things would be, given the culture it was given in and the attitude and past history of the culture.

The discussion should also be about whether we should attempt to retranslate scripture in an attempt to change its original meaning into something more reasonable with our culture and then to state that the original translation was incorrect. If the original translation was incorrect, then I would like to know how it was incorrect and by what reasoning the correction was made.

If the correction is made by an academia type person on a scholastic basis, then the reason of the change needs to withstand the scrutiny of its critics, whether those critics be within the Church or without.

If the prophet comes out and says that it has been revealed to him that the scripture should have say X and not Y, that is one thing, but if the one attempting to change the scripture is stating that the original language of the scripture could have meant X and not Y, then that change has better withstand the scrutiny of its critics. The former is a matter of faith while the latter is a matter of scholastic.

Edited March 31, 2013 by urroner

[Stone holm]

Stone, I don't think anybody involved in this discussion, even Jack, is saying that the husband/man should rule over the wife/woman. If you know Jack, you would realize that if her husband even attempted to do that, the poor dude would rue his life.

I don't even think that discussion is about what the scripture should say if it was written today or even how the scripture has been used and abused. The discussion should be about what the scripture meant when it was originally written which isn't an easy task since it was written thousands of years ago, in what is now considered a "dead" language and in a culture that is very, very different from the one we live in today.

The discussion should also be about whether the scripture was given as way of a commandment, telling Adam to rule over his wife and telling Eve to submit herself to her husband, or if the scripture was a prediction of the way things would be, given the culture it was given in and the attitude and past history of the culture.

The discussion should also be about whether we should attempt to retranslate scripture in an attempt to change its original meaning into something more reasonable with our culture and then to state that the original translation was incorrect. If the original translation was incorrect, then I would like to know how it was incorrect and by what reasoning the correction was made.

If the correction is made by an academia type person on a scholastic basis, then the reason of the change needs to withstand the scrutiny of its critics, whether those critics be within the Church or without.

If the prophet comes out and says that it has been revealed to him that the scripture should have say X and not Y, that is one thing, but if the one attempting to change the scripture is stating that the original language of the scripture could have meant X and not Y, then that change has better withstand the scrutiny of its critics. The former is a matter of faith while the latter is a matter of scholastic.

Except do we really know what was "originally written"?. But you mistake my argument, why would the Church reach back in time and reopen a debate based on Hebrew semantics just to justify a position that common modern sense tells us is true? Are we that afraid of the Evangelicals now?

[Damien the Leper]

Stone Holm, whether we like it or not, scripture must continue to be authoritative. Keep in mind that Ancient Judaism is more of a patriarchy than Mormonism could ever imagine or attempt to be.

[volgadon]

Except do we really know what was "originally written?"

We are discussing the Hebrew text as it now stands, the same text to which Parry/Hafen/Hafen/Hudson are referring.

[volgadon]

Stone Holm, whether we like it or not, scripture must continue to be authoritative.

Though how authoritative is a different matter.

Keep in mind that Ancient Judaism is more of a patriarchy than Mormonism could ever imagine or attempt to be.

For sure.

[Stone holm]

We are discussing the Hebrew text as it now stands, the same text to which Parry/Hafen/Hafen/Hudson are referring.

I was referring to some prior arguments regarding original meaning.

[Damien the Leper]

Though how authoritative is a different matter.

I suppose it depends on how much you rely on the scriptures for spiritual edification, drawing closer to God, etc. No Christian church could survive without the scriptures.

My priority list for deepening my spirituality:

1) scripture

2) prayer

3) Communion

4) modern prophets

[Calm]

why would the Church reach back in time and reopen a debate based on Hebrew semantics just to justify a position that common modern sense tells us is true?

And if revelation itself supports that common sense....

I read scriptures to find out how the ancients sought out God and how God interacted with them, but that does not lock us into having the same identical interactions that they had with God. Rather we should build on their experience, see where their successes led them and avoid what horrors their failures caused.

We can take scripture and write it anew to meet the needs and righteous desires of our time...we just need to be clear that is what we are doing and not attempt to claim this is the way it was for others in the past. We have modern prophets as well as personal revelation so that we don't have to rely on what God had to say to people in the past, we have God's Word to us in the here and now to depend upon.

[Stone holm]

I suppose it depends on how much you rely on the scriptures for spiritual edification, drawing closer to God, etc. No Christian church could survive without the scriptures.

My priority list for deepening my spirituality:

1) scripture

2) prayer

3) Communion

4) modern prophets

You really believe that no Christian Church could survive without the Scriptures?

[Damien the Leper]

You really believe that no Christian Church could survive without the Scriptures?

Yes, I do believe that. The scriptures are indispensable.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Valentinus

[Stone holm]

Yes, I do believe that. The scriptures are indispensable.

Guess we would have to disagree on that hypothetical. I think that so long as there is a human still drawing breath with an understanding either from past study, or directly from God of the essentials of the Plan of Salvation, you could have Christian Religion based solely upon verbal tradition handed down from generation to generation. But that is a hypothetical I am not sure we can test. I know there is some discussion of what happens without the Scriptures in the Book of Mormon though.

[Damien the Leper]

Guess we would have to disagree on that hypothetical. I think that so long as there is a human still drawing breath with an understanding either from past study, or directly from God of the essentials of the Plan of Salvation, you could have Christian Religion based solely upon verbal tradition handed down from generation to generation. But that is a hypothetical I am not sure we can test. I know there is some discussion of what happens without the Scriptures in the Book of Mormon though.

The scriptures are what provides checks and balances for Christianity today. It disallows for totalitarian or authoritarian religious power struggles to develop.

[stemelbow]

The scriptures are what provides checks and balances for Christianity today. It disallows for totalitarian or authoritarian religious power struggles to develop.

Still it doesn't mean that scripture is correct on this point.

Scripture is not intended, it seems to me, to be infallible. With that, I think scripture is often viewed as wrong.

But i agree, Christianity would probably not exist without scripture.

[stemelbow]

I suppose it depends on how much you rely on the scriptures for spiritual edification, drawing closer to God, etc. No Christian church could survive without the scriptures.

My priority list for deepening my spirituality:

1) scripture

2) prayer

3) Communion

4) modern prophets

And what's your priority list when it comes to the teaching regarding how women are to be treated or viewed? Is the OT higher in authority on that than modern prophets?

I think that's the point in all of this. Even if Hudson was wrong, which again I don't doubt, it matters very little. Why? Because in the modern world we tend to view it more as with than over. And no, her feminism is not contingent upon this tiny infraction.

Why is this an issue? Just tell her she's wrong and move on.

[Damien the Leper]

Still it doesn't mean that scripture is correct on this point.

Scripture is not intended, it seems to me, to be infallible. With that, I think scripture is often viewed as wrong.

But i agree, Christianity would probably not exist without scripture.

I wasn't suggesting inerrancy. ALL scripture is flawed as they are the human response to God and not necessarily God dictating Holy writing.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

And what's your priority list when it comes to the teaching regarding how women are to be treated or viewed? Is the OT higher in authority on that than modern prophets?

I think that's the point in all of this. Even if Hudson was wrong, which again I don't doubt, it matters very little. Why? Because in the modern world we tend to view it more as with than over. And no, her feminism is not contingent upon this tiny infraction.

Why is this an issue? Just tell her she's wrong and move on.

Keep Judaism in its historical context. As I said before, Judaism is more of a patriarchy than LDS could imagine or attempt to be.

I'm not concerned so much with Hudson's feminism. That is irrelevant to the incorrect Hebrew she employs. I have no problem saying she's wrong. But she deepens her hole by continually employing it.

As for modern feminism and the place of women, I believe in gender egalitarianism as opposed to the failing gender complimentarianism.

[Vance]

I don't know either of the women. I have no real ax to grind either way. I thought the article was needlessly harsh and abrasive -- like some sort of chip on her shoulder. She makes good technical points but loses on style by going at it like a video game that says "Finish Him".

WOW ! Just WOW!!!

Do you realize that you are the ONLY ONE that sees it that way?

Oh, wait!!!

No, you aren't.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Vance

[stemelbow]

Keep Judaism in its historical context. As I said before, Judaism is more of a patriarchy than LDS could imagine or attempt to be.

I'm not concerned so much with Hudson's feminism. That is irrelevant to the incorrect Hebrew she employs. I have no problem saying she's wrong. But she deepens her hole by continually employing it.

As for modern feminism and the place of women, I believe in gender egalitarianism as opposed to the failing gender complimentarianism.

Yep. You highlight the exact issues I had with Jack's piece. If she left it as Hudson was wrong, then great.

[CASteinman]

Do you realize that you are the ONLY ONE that sees it that way?

I don't think you got my point. I don't know either of the women. I don't really care about the particular argument that they are having. Other people seem to care about that argument and about who each of the women is and their backgrounds. I am saying that without any knowledge on that and without any concern about the argument, one just seemed bitter.

Which, if you had not noticed, is not something anyone else has actually said. Its all been about personalities, history, feminism and what argument is being made.

[Vance]

I am saying that without any knowledge on that and without any concern about the argument, one just seemed bitter.

Which, if you had not noticed, is not something anyone else has actually said.

Not quite!

MsJack does seem to have a giant chip on her shoulder.

I got excoriated for that statement.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Vance

[canard78]

Well regardless of what was in fact said thousands of years ago in the Garden when supposedly Adam first threw Eve under the bus, and then Eve through the serpent under the bus ( a fairly despicable series of statements that certainly should not continue to be ascribed to the two supposedly finest examples of humanity save Christ Himself. What is clear is that those manuscripts were in the hands of Jewish scribes for thousands of years and their culture was and still is predominantly patriarchal. Heck, the have a legend that Adams first intended was Lilith and she said, "Forget that!" When confronted with the subordination covenant. I have sincere doubts about our being able to maintain our somewhat sexist tradition indefinitely based upon a story which Brigham Young in large part dismissed as fable.

Bolded by me. Sounds interesting. Could I get a CFR on that please? (unless one's already been requested).

[Calm]

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

• Journal of Discourse 2:6-7 (October 23, 1853)
  

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brigham_Young