Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto to them to speak".


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Sometimes I think that F&T becomes a time when some of our more lonely members get a chance to talk. For them it is important even though for most of the rest of us it has little to do with bearing a testimony.  

There is a man who moved into our ward this last year. Just before moving in his wife died. I think he has got up every month since he moved in. The first several months he told about his wife dying and then went on a long time from there

A couple of months ago I groaned inwardly when he once again. This time I was reprimanded that he must have some need. How was I going to do my part to help take care of his need? I began to have more patience then.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Sometimes I think that F&T becomes a time when some of our more lonely members get a chance to talk. For them it is important even though for most of the rest of us it has little to do with bearing a testimony.  

 

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

There is a man who moved into our ward this last year. Just before moving in his wife died. I think he has got up every month since he moved in. The first several months he told about his wife dying and then went on a long time from there

A couple of months ago I groaned inwardly when he once again. This time I was reprimanded that he must have some need. How was I going to do my part to help take care of his need? I began to have more patience then.

I think in a lot of cases, the benefit that these people get from "open mike amateur hour" F&T meeting outweighs our suffering. Within reason, I don't begrudge them the opportunity to get up and talk. 

I enjoy hearing what's in people's hearts, and what's on their minds (what Brigham Young called "telling what kind of Mormonism is in you"). Even when it violates the dos and dont's that have been repeatedly taught. It's always most effective when people talk about what means most to them. I thought of this on Sunday. Most of our testimonies centered on modern-day revelation, the changes, etc., and I thought of those who go into conniptions if "Christ isn't emphasized enough!" On that particular Sunday, that particular issue was on their minds, and this doesn't mean that they don't have a testimony of the Savior. 

Link to comment
On August 8, 2017 at 7:36 AM, california boy said:

Either we follow the teachings of Paul and revere him as someone whose writings come from God, or we don't.  Since we don't then we reevaluate his writings and acknowledge that Paul like most Biblical writers inject their own ideas and opinions. The test that Christ gives is to ask if it bears good fruit.  I would say that in this case, allowing women to speak in church brings forth good fruit.  Like other departures from Paul's writings, may we have the wisdom to recognize that which is good and that which is harmful to the salvation and building up of the kingdom of God.  We give it our best effort and leave the rest up to God.

Without Paul, or other Apostles and Prophets of old we would not enough know there is a God, or his name. Without the Hebrews, the Jews, and the early Christian writers and Fathers, we would be worshiping,  those of Greek or Norse Mythology. It is true that some, possibly many things in early scripture reflected cultural norms, but certainly not all. Because of this we cannot dismiss, or be dismissive of the "Word of God", without dismissing, or being dismissive of "God". Paul's writings were also reflective of the early Prophets and Patriarchs, although many, especially in the Evangelical movement want to paint Paul as a radical who sought to undo all, the laws and commandments of God, which is very short sited. Others want to dismiss other the aching of Paul, suggesting that they were his own, but all can be traced by to the Prophets, who taught the words of Christ from the beginning. Also Christ who used the words and doctrines that he gave unto them from Eden to John the Revelator , and on to current teachings today. So, we must tread softly and carefully, else we find ourselves again in the wilderness. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, pogi said:

I find this difficult to accept though, as we see the justification for such teachings as being the consequences of Eve's transgression and being created second, after Adam:

Justifications are almost always post hoc. (Not always) The basis for Paul's belief has been debated for a long time of course.  Second I think we need to distinguish these teachings somewhat. You're conflating 1 Tim with 1 Cor and while there's some relationship I think we should be careful.

I also think we have to pay close attention to the nature of the texts. To assume that everything in a letter Paul wrote is of equal inspiration seems dubious. I think we as Mormons while denying some of our Evangelical friend's more fanciful views of the Bible often fall into a similar burden of proof. That is we treat Paul's letters like the D&C whereas they were letters by someone to particular wards (in our terminology) not necessarily approved by head leadership back in Jerusalem. To assume every verse is the same or that Paul's given explicit revelation rather than reasoning from shared beliefs seems problematic. Brigham Young certainly thought so and I thus don't think we ought feel obliged to accept everything he writes - particularly when the theology behind them seems questionable. I mean in the restoration these things weren't made part of our church, suggesting they were either just for the needs of that region & time or else were just Paul being wrong.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Justifications are almost always post hoc. (Not always) The basis for Paul's belief has been debated for a long time of course.  Second I think we need to distinguish these teachings somewhat. You're conflating 1 Tim with 1 Cor and while there's some relationship I think we should be careful.

I also think we have to pay close attention to the nature of the texts. To assume that everything in a letter Paul wrote is of equal inspiration seems dubious. I think we as Mormons while denying some of our Evangelical friend's more fanciful views of the Bible often fall into a similar burden of proof. That is we treat Paul's letters like the D&C whereas they were letters by someone to particular wards (in our terminology) not necessarily approved by head leadership back in Jerusalem. To assume every verse is the same or that Paul's given explicit revelation rather than reasoning from shared beliefs seems problematic. Brigham Young certainly thought so and I thus don't think we ought feel obliged to accept everything he writes - particularly when the theology behind them seems questionable. I mean in the restoration these things weren't made part of our church, suggesting they were either just for the needs of that region & time or else were just Paul being wrong.

Thanks for your thoughts.  This raises new questions however, which are being discussed in the Standard Works thread I just started, inspired by this one.  If we can dismiss some of the the writings of Paul as non-revelatory reasonings, then how can we justify Articles of Faith 8 and the long standing teachings of the church as to the standard works.  Please discuss these questions in the other thread, so as to not derail this one.  Thanks.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, there's a third option: We seek to better understand the teachings of Paul through study and prayer.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

We also seek guidance from modern prophets and apostles.

You are ignoring the JST.

Nevertheless, you have a point.  There are times when we cultural influence/bias can affect a Church's leader's counsel.  Hence the importance of avoiding proof-texting, eisegesis, reading scriptural passages in isolation, and so on.  As Elder Andersen wisely put it:

Yep.

Indeed.  But what "good fruit" means is not always immediately apparent.  Consider, for example, John 6, which includes a record of the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon.  That sermon, we are told, caused many of his followers to "murmer" and be offended, even to the point that "{f}rom that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

I am curious how you gauge this sermon.  Was it "good fruit" or not?

Same here.  Fortunately, we have the JST and additional guidance from prophets and apostles, such that women have never been forbidden to speak in our church.

Such as?

Indeed.  Wisdom is to be found through the scriptures, through study, and prayer, and through listening to the counsel of modern prophets and apostles.

There are times when what Jesus taught will, as in John 6, cause murmurings and offense.  As He elsewhere declared in Matthew 10:

The "fruit" of obedience can sometimes take a while to ripen.  If we rebel in the moment, if we reject those aspects of the Gospel which are difficult to accept, then we may stray.  We may be divided. We may deprive ourselves of the "good fruit."  Again from John 6:

Thanks,

-Smac

I am sure you are well aware that the Bible contains a lot of things that are forbidden that the church ignores.  Wearing jewelry, gold, and pearls, braiding your hair, using makeup, forbidding divorce, forbidding of women from praying in church etc.  Paul even teaches that man should not touch a woman, but if you are week and going to fornicate, then it is better to marry.  Hardly the resounding endorsement the church puts on marriage.  

So like I said, church leaders choose what they want to believe from the Bible and ignore the rest.  When church leaders don't want to follow the Bible teachings, they come up with some excuse to ignore the part they don't want to follow.  It certainly is not unique to the Mormon Church.  But let's not pretend that the church closely follows all Bible teachings.

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Without Paul, or other Apostles and Prophets of old we would not enough know there is a God, or his name. Without the Hebrews, the Jews, and the early Christian writers and Fathers, we would be worshiping,  those of Greek or Norse Mythology. It is true that some, possibly many things in early scripture reflected cultural norms, but certainly not all. Because of this we cannot dismiss, or be dismissive of the "Word of God", without dismissing, or being dismissive of "God". Paul's writings were also reflective of the early Prophets and Patriarchs, although many, especially in the Evangelical movement want to paint Paul as a radical who sought to undo all, the laws and commandments of God, which is very short sited. Others want to dismiss other the aching of Paul, suggesting that they were his own, but all can be traced by to the Prophets, who taught the words of Christ from the beginning. Also Christ who used the words and doctrines that he gave unto them from Eden to John the Revelator , and on to current teachings today. So, we must tread softly and carefully, else we find ourselves again in the wilderness. 

I don't disagree with you.  Is all I am saying is the Bible contains a lot of personal opinion.  Not everything comes from God.  It has been that way since Moses sat down and wrote out the first 5 books of the Old Testament.  In my opinion, it continues on today.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't disagree with you.  Is all I am saying is the Bible contains a lot of personal opinion.  Not everything comes from God.  It has been that way since Moses sat down and wrote out the first 5 books of the Old Testament.  In my opinion, it continues on today.

The question is which parts, which gives rise the entire Restored Church and Living Prophets. With which how could anyone know? I am not qualified to say.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sure you are well aware that the Bible contains a lot of things that are forbidden that the church ignores.  

Advisedly, yes.  Not indiscriminately or arbitrarily, in my view.  And under the guidance of the Spirit, or pursuant to the reasoned and reasonable consensus and best efforts of those in authority.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wearing jewelry, gold, and pearls, braiding your hair, using makeup, forbidding divorce, forbidding of women from praying in church etc.

Yes.  Rules in place 2,000 years ago may need some adjustment now.  Hence the need for living prophets and apostles, and the need to listen to living prophets and apostles, even if what they say is not popular.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

So like I said, church leaders choose what they want to believe from the Bible and ignore the rest.  

Again, yes.  Advisedly.  Not indiscriminately.  Not arbitrarily.  

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

When church leaders don't want to follow the Bible teachings, they come up with some excuse to ignore the part they don't want to follow.  

I disagree.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

It certainly is not unique to the Mormon Church.  But let's not pretend that the church closely follows all Bible teachings.

I think the Church is following the teachings it is supposed to follow.

And there are still the lessons to be learned from John 6...

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Maybe the Corinthian women were just motormouths. Greek women were certainly expected to neither be seen or heard. Roman women had a bit more autonomy. Of the above mentioned scriptures concerning women, I really only consider the Corinthian letters to authentically have been written by Paul. The others are widely considered either apocryphal or simply based on earlier texts. I don't really think Paul meant that women should never speak in church, but there may have been some controversy with the way the women of Corinth were doing so. Paul had some good relationships with some of the wealthier patronesses of the early church and was generous in his praise and appreciation of them.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, in summary. One is to pick and choose which scriptures are to be followed or not.

Don't we all do that? Do all Christian women cover their heads whenever in public? Do all Christians honor their parents at all times?  Do we ever sit in a chair that has been occupied by a menstruating woman? Should we cut off the hand of a woman who tries to protect her husband from an assault? Do we avoid wearing clothing that is made of both linen and wool? Yes. I think we do all pick and choose which scriptures we follow--usually based on an intelligent interpretation of such scripture and factoring in the cultural context of the teaching.

Link to comment

There is one cultural situation that might have something to do with what Paul stated.  In ancient times many congregations sat with men and women on opposite sides of the congregation, much like old synagogue arrangements.  Women wanting to ask questions of their husbands would have to disrupt the meetings to ask questions.

Paul seems to me, at least in part, to be trying to put a stop to such disruptions by instructing them to wait to ask questions at home.  I imagine some of them might have been pretty loud about it, and then also smarted-off at leaders when asked to cease such disruptions.

Some of the Greek women may also have had positions of importance (such as oracles and pagan priestesses) before their conversions, and continued to demand the same kinds of honors in their Christian congregations.  Paul may also have been addressing such behavior in addition.

Edited by MormonMason
Link to comment
On 4/10/2018 at 6:21 PM, california boy said:

I don't disagree with you.  Is all I am saying is the Bible contains a lot of personal opinion.  Not everything comes from God.  It has been that way since Moses sat down and wrote out the first 5 books of the Old Testament.  In my opinion, it continues on today.

Spoiler: Moses didn't write any books in the OT. Carry on. :)

Link to comment
12 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Don't we all do that? Do all Christian women cover their heads whenever in public? Do all Christians honor their parents at all times?  Do we ever sit in a chair that has been occupied by a menstruating woman? Should we cut off the hand of a woman who tries to protect her husband from an assault? Do we avoid wearing clothing that is made of both linen and wool? Yes. I think we do all pick and choose which scriptures we follow--usually based on an intelligent interpretation of such scripture and factoring in the cultural context of the teaching.

Hush woman, the men are talking....

(Sorry, couldn’t resist the witticism):D

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Gray said:

Spoiler: Moses didn't write any books in the OT. Carry on. :)

For a more comprehensive alternative view and summary of the relevant literature, see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 3-662.  His work exposes many of the weaknesses of Graf-Wellhausen, and related hypotheses, from multiple perspectives.  He discusses internal evidence of the text and other matters that show, aside from some later interpolations by later redaction, that the text shows a greater age for the Pentateuch than some have been willing to admit. Worth a look.

Edited by MormonMason
Link to comment
On 4/11/2018 at 1:36 AM, Marginal Gains said:

So, in summary. One is to pick and choose which scriptures are to be followed or not.

Yes.  Not arbitrarily or unreasonably, but yes.  Under the guidance of the Spirit and with counsel from living prophets and apostles, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 4/11/2018 at 1:36 AM, Marginal Gains said:

So, in summary. One is to pick and choose which scriptures are to be followed or not.

I've seen this over and over again. I agree! I don't trust the majority to be from God. In fact I think men totally used them to control the narrative to fit to their liking. All of it breaks the commandment to not take the Lord God's name in vain. Anytime someone uses God's name to get people to do what they want they are breaking this commandment. It's much more than to say the name God/Jesus in a swearing tone. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

For a more comprehensive alternative view and summary of the relevant literature, see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 3-662.  His work exposes many of the weaknesses of Graf-Wellhausen, and related hypotheses, from multiple perspectives.  He discusses internal evidence of the text and other matters that show, aside from some later interpolations by later redaction, that the text shows a greater age for the Pentateuch than some have been willing to admit. Worth a look.

My understanding is that no serious critical scholar would ever attribute the Pentateuch to Moses, regardless of age (and certainly, some threads within the literature are older than others)

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

My understanding is that no serious critical scholar would ever attribute the Pentateuch to Moses, regardless of age (and certainly, some threads within the literature are older than others)

'Critical' is the operative word.  Most of those base their stance on some variant of Graf-Wellhausen.  That hypothesis is fraught with many weaknesses and assumptions.  As I wrote before, see Harrison, and decide your own conclusions.

Link to comment
Just now, MormonMason said:

'Critical' is the operative word.  Most of those base their stance on some variant of Graf-Wellhausen.  That hypothesis is fraught with many weaknesses and assumptions.  As I wrote before, see Harrison, and decide your own conclusions.

Critical meaning academic, scientific, as apposed to methods working backwards from a preexisting theological commitment.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Critical meaning academic, scientific, as apposed to methods working backwards from a preexisting theological commitment.

Yes.  And some go far overboard and further than internal evidence allows.  Again, see Harrison before you decide what his stance might be.  He is balanced in what he states and why.  Decide what you think about what he writes after reading.  You should know that Harrison is internationally recognized as a scholar, in any case.  There also are more than one reason why Graf-Wellhausen still is only a hypothesis even after a century of further research.  There is more hard, scientific evidence for the Theory of Evolution than for the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis or variants.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...