Can The Book Of Mormon & The Pearl Of Great Price Help To Restore Priesthood To Women?

[rongo]

I have a basic outline of the divine role of motherhood from the proc[lamation on the family]: nurturing children. But then what does it mean to nurture really?

This gave me a thought, Blue. One of the terms used historically and recently to describe part of a bishop's role is "father of the ward." Do the father's and mother's duties outlined in the proclamation have any bearing on the subject of men vs. women bishops? Could a woman be a "father of the ward," or would that necessarily become "mother of the ward?" Are there fundamental differences between men's and women's natures, once we strip away "fluid, malleable cultural baggage?" Do the "common judge" aspects of being a bishop conflict with the "nurturing" component of the "premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" components of gender outlined in the proclamation? Not that nurturing isn't a part of counseling and the repentance process (it most certainly is), but is it the primary aspect? Etc.

Just some early morning musings . . .

[selek1]

This gave me a thought, Blue. One of the terms used historically and recently to describe part of a bishop's role is "father of the ward." Do the father's and mother's duties outlined in the proclamation have any bearing on the subject of men vs. women bishops? Could a woman be a "father of the ward," or would that necessarily become "mother of the ward?" Are there fundamental differences between men's and women's natures, once we strip away "fluid, malleable cultural baggage?" Do the "common judge" aspects of being a bishop conflict with the "nurturing" component of the "premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" components of gender outlined in the proclamation? Not that nurturing isn't a part of counseling and the repentance process (it most certainly is), but is it the primary aspect? Etc.

Just some early morning musings . . .

Given that the Bishop's wife has- in every ward I've ever served, attended, or visited- been the defacto "Ward Mom", I'm not sure that your theory is entirely without merit.

I do not, however, believe that this arrangement is codified in anything other than tradition.

How does the old saw go?

"When looking for a Bishop, the brethren find the sweetest, most faithful, strongest Saint in the ward- and then call her husband."

This we do know- the Priesthood holds the keys to judgement, repentance, and forgiveness.

Bishops are literally, "Judges in Israel (Zion)."

For all of the historical "evidence" being interpreted to fit the OP's stated conclusion, I can't think of a single scriptural or historical account in which a woman was called to be a judge in Israel, nor given the power to judge, condemn, or forgive.

The sole exception to this might be Deborah (no, the biblical Deborah, not our beloved poster), though I will have to study her life more closely before I can say yeah or nay..

Update:

I've checked the articles on LDS.org, the LDS Scriptures CD-ROM, and even the bastion of all modern knowledge, Wikipedia.

Each refers to her as a prophetess who was made a judge "because of her faith, her wisdom, her fairness, and her obedience to the Lord."

She is recounted only in two chapters: Judges 4 and 5. The latter is a poetic repeat of the former.

None of the extant resources mention Deborah holding or being ordained to the Priesthood.

Any argument made therefore- for or against- is technically an argument from silence.

Edited March 8, 2012 by selek1

[BlueDreams]

Well, your early thoughts are better than mine: mine were along the lines of eat and get my homework done without falling asleep (woke up a 4:30 to do so….ah the life of a college student)

I have a problem with the connection of the bishop’s role as “father of the ward.” In part because it blur the very different roles that a bishop and father play. Bishop, though service oriented, still works in a chain of command type system. Father is based on partnership and an egalitarian system between the equal role of mother within the family system. My worry is that the idea of father would be confused with the idea of bishop, in that the mother would become the first counselor in a relationship. Either way the two are not equivalent.

A number of your musings to me seem to be confusion between roles and attributes. “Role” to me is similar to “calling,” while “attributes” are related to character/who we intrinsically are. It can also be connected to what it means to the “Christ-like.” Nurture in no means conflicts with common judge because it’s an attribute as well as a call. Both men and women can be nurturing (ie. Promote development). Common judge isn’t an attribute, but a specific calling. Within that specific call, the attribute of nurturing is necessary. I don’t know if it matters that there be a “primary aspect.” From what I’ve learned, character roles in an out of each other culminating into the whole that is charity, the pure love of Christ. I see it organically, like a tree. What’s more important in a tree, the roots, the trunk, the branches or the leaves? All need to be in optimal condition and work together to build support the other part in order to develop fruit (or in this analogy Charity). Charity is the optimum point of the tree, because it is life giving. It cannot exist in its best quality unless the whole body of the trees is healthy. If you wanted to take the analogy further, you could note that you need different plants and trees to have a good diet. The differences in the plants are specific calls that help to create my diet (can you tell I’m hungry) but they have basic similar parts that are brought together for a different specific purpose. That would be similar to a calling/role, in my mind.

Are there fundamental differences between men's and women's natures, once we strip away "fluid, malleable cultural baggage?

If “natures” are really “character,” no, I don’t think so. They’re both children of God, full of eternal potential, and must develop the same basic Christ-like traits. Their eternal roles are different. So how those parts come together to interact are distinctive, not only between the two categories of female and male, but also from individual to individual. There’s a fundamental difference in their calling/their role in the context of universal and identical purpose and character.

My problem then, isn't different gender roles, but how we perceive these different gender roles. I think how we, as a whole see and use them, is flawed, constricting our potential to fulfill them and also to develop our character. It's stunting and stalls Zion.

With luv,

BD

[rongo]

My worry is that the idea of father would be confused with the idea of bishop, in that the mother would become the first counselor in a relationship. Either way the two are not equivalent.

Yes, a first counselor (either counselor, really) certainly doesn't fit the model of an Ehepaar ( married couple), does it? It's not a one-to-one correlation, that's for sure. Still, drawing upon experiences with families in mortality, regarding the ward as a family and the bishop as its father works, as far as it goes (like with Jesus' parables. They can also be taken further than Jesus intended when people regard every detail as having a one-to-one correlation with something).

A number of your musings to me seem to be confusion between roles and attributes. “Role” to me is similar to “calling,” while “attributes” are related to character/who we intrinsically are.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about that. I don't know that we can really, clinically and definitively, differentiate between roles and attributes such that it's universally satisfactory. If roles are divinely appointed (or recognized), is there even a difference between roles and attributes?

Are there fundamental differences between men's and women's natures, once we strip away "fluid, malleable cultural baggage? If “natures” are really “character,” no, I don’t think so . . . Their eternal roles are different. So how those parts come together to interact are distinctive, not only between the two categories of female and male, but also from individual to individual.

This seems too "post-modern" to me. Carried to its logical extensions, are there even really genders, then? You seem to suggest that there are only an infinite spectrum of different interactions "from individual to individual . . . not only between the two categories of female and male."

There’s a fundamental difference in their calling/their role in the context of universal and identical purpose and character.

Well, what would that be, then? You, birdgirl, calmoriah, etc. all reject attempts to describe or give examples of this, but haven't given us any examples or explanations of what gender roles actually *are*, then, "in the context of universal and identical purpose and character."

My problem then, isn't different gender roles, but how we perceive these different gender roles. I think how we, as a whole see and use them, is flawed, constricting our potential to fulfill them and also to develop our character. It's stunting and stalls Zion.

If "how we perceive . . . gender roles . . . is flawed," how can we ever really understand them? For, any "progress" we make would be equally "flawed," then, wouldn't it? And if not, how could we know that it was(n't)?

Deep water we're treading, right?

[Calm]

IIRC, I think the primary thing I am rejecting is the attribution of a certain set of personality or behavioral traits to women as opposed to men....but the thread has been going for awhile and I may have forgotten something.

I define the gender roles as men are supposed to be men and women are supposed to be women. Pretty open to anything after that.....

[mfbukowski]

I'm hopng to go into grad school in psych and hopefully my PhD as well. I want to go into therapy and my interest is in women's issues. Women, how society views us, and how we come to view ourselves, is a constant interest for me. And I haven't heard too much about social constructivism....but I could probably take a guess.

Short form: All cognitive thought, because it is linguistic is "nurture"- ie our thoughts are totally conditioned by our language and culture. In essence, humans create themselves socially.

I see that going well with God- the "creator" being human- and we are gods in embryo

On the other hand, evolution dictates a difference in roles between men and women. The smaller weaker one who is physically equipped to do so, (breasts) takes care of the children, while the larger stronger partner is trying to get food

Culture must conform to these evolutionary rules, because culture itself has evolved- and if a culture violates the rules the culture will die. That is one of the reasons I think the differences between men and women are never going to go away- because they have survival value, and civilization can break down- and has - repeatedly. When that happens all the niceties of civilization go bye-bye and we are back to the jungle for a while.

But my view of evolution is metaphysical- I think it is organic- like a huge plant unfolding itself- that the tree of life is just that- the transformation of species according to a pre-designed plan (not "intelligent design" though- my view is metaphysical rather than attempting to be quasi-scientific)

I'm not a hard liner on total cultural conditioning of the self- I think that at least a sliver of the "self" persists in spite of culture. But that kind of defines what the social constructivist position is.

Edited March 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

IIRC, I think the primary thing I am rejecting is the attribution of a certain set of personality or behavioral traits to women as opposed to men....but the thread has been going for awhile and I may have forgotten something.

I define the gender roles as men are supposed to be men and women are supposed to be women. Pretty open to anything after that.....

But what does it mean to be a "man" or a "woman," other than biology (i.e., reproductive functions)? Anything that goes beyond that necessarily involves "attribution of a certain set of personality or behavioral traits."

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Still too weary to attempt a substantive response to some of the great comments in this thread, but here's a good article I nabbed from BCC to consider: Are All Alike Unto God? by Eugene England.

[Calm]

But what does it mean to be a "man" or a "woman," other than biology (i.e., reproductive functions)? Anything that goes beyond that necessarily involves "attribution of a certain set of personality or behavioral traits."

Exactly.

[mfbukowski]

Still too weary to attempt a substantive response to some of the great comments in this thread, but here's a good article I nabbed from BCC to consider: Are All Alike Unto God? by Eugene England.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with most of that article, especially this part (underlining added):

By 1852 the Church openly adopted a clearly sexist practice—polygamy—and

then developed a semi-official sexist theology to support it. The Church, by revela-

ended that practice in 1890, but it has not repudiated the sexist popular theology

that went with it, the notion that the ideal form of celestial marriage is not an equal

yoking of one woman and one man in an eternal union of polar opposites that makes

possible a continuation of the seeds forever, but rather one patriarchal man and plural

wives. i have presented in an essay elsewhere five reasons why i believe that though

nineteenth-century Mormon polygamy was revealed to Joseph Smith from God, it

was for mortal purposes and not to be practiced in heaven. My chief reason is that

there is no clear scriptural support for such a crucial but sexist idea about the highest

ordinance of the gospel, celestial marriage.

To be honest, I am not quite sure yet how I feel about polygamy as revealed to Joseph, but I certainly agree with the idea that men and women are supposed to be equally yoked to a "polar opposite". That is the whole yin and yang thing- it is "opposition in all things" it is what love IS- is the unification of opposites. That is also why I oppose gay marriage incidentally- I see the unity of opposites as a great cosmic force.

And of course in my opinion it is clear that the entire policy of disallowing Blacks to have the Priesthood was just plain wrong from the beginning- there is no place for any kind of racism in the church.

Clearly men and women are supposed to be equal partners- but to say they are somehow "identical" in thought patterns is, I believe totally unwarranted and scientifically unsustainable.

I believe there are universal differences- yes, they are manifested culturally in different ways and can be altered but you cannot alter what evolution- has done.

That is probably not a social constructivist position but neither is the idea that the "self" is at least partially non-contingent. The will to survive is at the cornerstone of what the self is, in my opinion, and as long as we have sexual reproduction there will be differences.

Perhaps if we one day alter our genetics and give up sexual reproduction, all deals are off though- I am certainly willing to allow that as a possibility!

[BlueDreams]

Yes, a first counselor (either counselor, really) certainly doesn't fit the model of an Ehepaar ( married couple), does it? It's not a one-to-one correlation, that's for sure. Still, drawing upon experiences with families in mortality, regarding the ward as a family and the bishop as its father works, as far as it goes (like with Jesus' parables. They can also be taken further than Jesus intended when people regard every detail as having a one-to-one correlation with something).

Yeah, still not comfortable with it….it blurs the line between the churches hierarchical order and the family’s patriarchal order mentioned in a talk I think by Oaks. A line that is already constantly blurred in societies the world over with terrifying consequences.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about that. I don't know that we can really, clinically and definitively, differentiate between roles and attributes such that it's universally satisfactory. If roles are divinely appointed (or recognized), is there even a difference between roles and attributes?

I don’t think it needs to be so clearly definitive. Less as separate boxes and more like two support and integrative aspects to humanity

This seems too "post-modern" to me. Carried to its logical extensions, are there even really genders, then? You seem to suggest that there are only an infinite spectrum of different interactions "from individual to individual . . . not only between the two categories of female and male."

I don’t see how it removes genders entirely. There’s men, there’s women. If you’re a man you’ll have a number of roles that are specified (like father) if you’re a woman you’ll have a number of roles that are specified to that (mother). But those are incredibly general. There will be far more differences found within those two broad categories. For example a marriage will be between a man and a woman generally, bring two together to work together, and probably raise children together. But how each couple will work, what they teach/emphasize for their children, and what their specific roles will be individualistic. No two families are the same. No two women are the same. No two men.

Well, what would that be, then? You, birdgirl, calmoriah, etc. all reject attempts to describe or give examples of this, but haven't given us any examples or explanations of what gender roles actually *are*, then, "in the context of universal and identical purpose and character."

I agree with Cal to a good level on this. What it means specifically…well I’m still learning about that one.

If "how we perceive . . . gender roles . . . is flawed," how can we ever really understand them? For, any "progress" we make would be equally "flawed," then, wouldn't it? And if not, how could we know that it was(n't)?

Deep water we're treading, right?

Simple: Rely on God, seek revelation, and be willing to change our thoughts and actions in accordance to God’s will. How else do we progress on anything on this earth?

On the other hand, evolution dictates a difference in roles between men and women. The smaller weaker one who is physically equipped to do so, (breasts) takes care of the children, while the larger stronger partner is trying to get food

Except the roles weren't that clearly defined. The roles from what I've heard recently stem not from evolution but the beginning of agricultural activities. Ergo, it's not based on something inherently genetic since agriculture was very late in the evolutionary game. But in general I'm skeptical of evolutionary explanations. I believe we've evolved, but I find that often evolution is used to explain all of human behavior and that this is quite holey in reasoning and actual evidence. What I find more common is that evolution is often used as a quick explanation for who we are that we've come to see as just "natural." Many of these "natural" outcomes become problematic when it's applied to larger studies.

Thanks for explaining you philosophical background though.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 10, 2012 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

Simple: Rely on God, seek revelation, and be willing to change our thoughts and actions in accordance to God’s will. How else do we progress on anything on this earth?

Now that's one on which I think we can all agree!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Fun stuff from the Gnostic Manichaean sources:

"Jesus is praised in a hymn where he is linked with the main gods of the Realm of Light as 'flower of the Mother of the Lights'. [...] The second kiss of peace is the one that the Father of Life and the Mother of the Living gave to the Primal Man when he came back from war. [...] 'The beginning of all blessings and all prayers is the Mother of Life, the First Holy Spirit.' [...] The establishment of the worlds by the Father of Life and the Mother of Life is repeated in the Kephalaion LIV."

[Mehrdad]

I might have missed it, but when did Women receive the Priesthood in the past?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hey, a General Conference talk on Bee Symbolism! Whaddayaknow, Nibley had a big chapter on that: The Deseret Connection!

In Greece, as elsewhere, the oldest of all religious centers was established when the Bee maidens, the daughters of Melissaeus and nurses of Zeus, swarmed at the sacred oak of Dodona, while sacred doves brought the oracular cult of Ammon from Egypt. The first oracular shrine in Israel was founded by Deborah the Bee, where she died on the migration from Egypt at the sacred Oak of Deborah. The procession that opened the celebration of the mysteries of Eleusis was led by a sacred wagon along the Sacred Way (of the Migration) by priestesses called the Melissai -- the Bee maidens or the Swarm.

The serving maidens at Delphi were a chorus of Bees, and the high priestess was called "the Bee." A recent archaeological discovery strikingly confirms the many legends that trace the bee shrines to Egypt. It is the statuette of a singing girl, found in the Temple of Delos, brought directly from Neith's cult center at Sais, and inscribed with a supplication by the girl to be remembered by the maidens "who have been admitted to the temple of the Bee, . . . who have entered the sanctuary of Neith."

...

What ties it all together is Asenath, the queen of the Deseret hive, then and now, as the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh by Joseph, whom she married in the midst of a swarm of bees, bringing her honey and covering her person to do her reverence. Her name is generally explained today as "meaning in Egyptian 'she belongs to, or is the servant of, [the goddess] Neith,'" Neith being the primal Bee mother of the Egyptians.

Hint. Hint.

Edited October 6, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[rongo]

Now there's a resurrected thread!

I don't think Elder Ballard had the dsrt crown and matriarchal Egyptian order in mind when he chose to make bees, hives, honey production, etc. a parable in his talk . . .

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Which is why I had to bring it up!

[MormonMason]

While parakletos and spiritus are grammatically masculine and pneuma is a neuter noun, ruach, the Hebrew 'Spirit', is feminine.

I would not make too much of this. Hebrew only has two genders on the surface. However, Hebrew also uses the feminine gender to denominate neuters.

The Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, or Spirit of the Lord, is male gender because of the use of masculine pronouns used regarding him in the New Testament and because Nephi saw him and stated that he was a man.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The point is that while (of course) grammatical feminine doesn't prove a feminine referent in the Holy Spirit, it certainly can't be used as an argument to preclude it. The use of masculine pronouns in John is based on the ambiguous Latin translation privileging masculine monotheistic premises, and in fact Nephi's vision does not necessarily include a masculine Spirit of Wisdom in the first place; as I quoted earlier in this very thread, Bruce R. McConkie has stated that:

"When we read the account of the appearance of 'the Spirit of the Lord' to Nephi (1 Ne. 11), we are left to our own interpretive powers to determine whether the messenger is the Spirit Christ or the Holy Ghost. Presumptively it is the Spirit Christ ministering to Nephi much as he did to the Brother of Jared.” -- Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine" pp. 752

Leaving plenty of room for a feminine Spirit of Wisdom, which is attested in many other places in the Book of Mormon, along with prominent (feminine) Tree of Life symbolism. For references, see my post in the thread related to Don Bradley's FAIR presentation.

[volgadon]

Jeremy, I apologise for the derail, but you might enjoy this. http://books.google.com/books?id=n8oGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80+%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87+%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%22&source=bl&ots=VEa5uc7TeO&sig=a-S_ektt6KLOBkKIAE42QpVYksM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SzByUMmUD-S8igLDh4HYAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false The figure furthest left at the top of page 29 of Stasov's book shows an ornamental initial B (that is, V) from a medieval Russian manuscript. It depicts a person worshipping the tree of life. The tree itself is depicting the same way as in Turkic and Persian manuscripts. Pretty cool, I think.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sooo not a derail, dude. Point Tree of Life stuff to me any time; that illustration is awesome! Now if only I could read Russian, hah. I took a course on Medieval Russian history a few terms back, and got a chance to dig into some fun stuff like The Descent of the Virgin into Hell (where there was the Tree of Iron with branches of iron barbs) and Adam's Address to Lazarus in Hell. Good times.

Edited October 8, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[MormonMason]

... The use of masculine pronouns in John is based on the ambiguous Latin translation privileging masculine monotheistic premises

...

Untrue. Take a look at the Greek text. For instance, see John 16:13-14 (7-14) in Greek. The masculine is used.

7 ἀλλ' ἐγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑμῖν, συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, πέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 8 καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως· 9 περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ· 10 περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ, ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὑπάγω καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με· 11 περὶ δὲ κρίσεως, ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται.

12 Ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω ὑμῖν λέγειν, ἀλλ' οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι· 13 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ' ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει, καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. 14 ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν.

Ekeinos = "That (one)"; masculine. (This is the form used in these verses throughout).

Ekeinē = "That (one)"; feminine.

Ekeino = "That (one)"; neuter.

Therefore, the verbs used in conjunction with the above demonstrative adjective also are in the masculine. "He comes," not "she comes." "He shall not speak concerning himself," not "she shall not speak concerning herself." "He shall hear," not "she shall hear." "He shall speak," not "she shall speak." "He shall guide you," not "she shall guide you." "He shall glorify me," not "she shall glorify me." This certainly did not come from any "ambiguous Latin translation privileging masculine monotheistic premises." The Latin actually followed the Greek, with the English agreeing.

McConkie's statement is debatable as there seems to be difference of opinion as to the identity of the person speaking with Nephi. I grant you that.

The Hebrew text also is debatable because neuters also appear as feminines. I also grant that but that is why we turn to context to sort that stuff out. For example, The Hebrew of 1 Kings 22:24 uses the masculine form of a verb to speak of which way the Spirit of the Lord went in the question directed at the prophet. There are other passages where this is done as well. But, when the feminine is used one has to determine from context and usage whether it is a feminine or a neuter. This must be done on a case by case basis.

See also the example of Ezekiel 11:5, where masculine verbs are used to discuss what the Spirit of the Lord said and did ("and he fell," not "and she fell"; "and he said," not "and she said"). The first verb in the sentence is ambiguous because it either can be the 2nd person singular masculine or can be the 3rd person singular feminine. But, when coupled to the action of the second verb in the sentence by waw this ambiguous verb is definitely shown to be masculine, because the context of the second verb is unambiguously masculine (it is the difference between יֹּאמֶר y'mr (masculine) and תֹּאמֶר t'mr (feminine), for example).

Edited October 8, 2012 by MormonMason

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I specifically noted the masculine Greek translation in my first post. I apologize if I was sloppy and incomplete in my later phrasing, but I wasn't trying to imply that the Latin translation (indeed based on privileging masculine monotheistic premises) had no precedents; instead, I was merely noting that our tradition had likely inherited that paradigm in part from the predominance of the Latin Vulgate and early Christian mistrust of feminine deity -- a paradigm which would certainly not be corrected in later translations from the obviously masculine Greek (specifically including the King James Version which we LDS canonized).

That's a bit tangential to my overall point, tho, which was that if the Deuteronomic reforms had attempted to wipe out Lady Wisdom centuries before true monotheism emerged during the Hellenistic era, the switch would therefore precede both the Greek and Latin texts. It was indeed the context of the ambiguous Hebrew I was trying to get at; I think Margaret Barker provides the "case by case basis" you're looking for, and the big-picture context supports the feminine Spirit of Wisdom. (See, for instance, the chapter on 'Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven' in her The Great High Priest, if you haven't.)

[MormonMason]

I specifically noted the masculine Greek translation in my first post. I apologize if I was sloppy and incomplete in my later phrasing, but I wasn't trying to imply that the Latin translation (indeed based on privileging masculine monotheistic premises) had no precedents; instead, I was merely noting that our tradition had likely inherited that paradigm in part from the predominance of the Latin Vulgate and early Christian mistrust of feminine deity -- a paradigm which would certainly not be corrected in later translations from the obviously masculine Greek (specifically including the King James Version which we LDS canonized).

That's a bit tangential to my overall point, tho, which was that if the Deuteronomic reforms had attempted to wipe out Lady Wisdom centuries before true monotheism emerged during the Hellenistic era, the switch would therefore precede both the Greek and Latin texts. It was indeed the context of the ambiguous Hebrew I was trying to get at; I think Margaret Barker provides the "case by case basis" you're looking for, and the big-picture context supports the feminine Spirit of Wisdom. (See, for instance, the chapter on 'Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven' in her The Great High Priest, if you haven't.)

Yes, you wrote above in your first post:

From this perspective, the very few references in John to a masculine Spirit might simply be an error of incorrect assumptions.

So, are you saying that Jesus was making incorrect assumptions? That John, the close disciple of Jesus, was making incorrect assumptions? The masculine usages in the texts of the Gospel of John are deliberate. The overall structure of the text shows that. The reflexive pronoun also is masculine. But, it isn't just John that uses the masculine. In many cases, on the other hand, where it speaks of the Spirit of the Lord we have to choose between feminine and neuter, for as I said above, Hebrew uses feminines to refer to neuters as well.

But, regardless of what resulted from the Deuteronomists in the Hebrew text, we have what was recorded of Jesus' teachings on the subject of the Holy Spirit and what we have quite clearly refers to the Spirit of the Lord as masculine. I rather think Jesus would know whether or not the Holy Spirit was masculine or feminine. In what we have of his words, it is rather obvious that he used masculine terms in his Aramaic vernacular and that the Greek preserves that sense in the translation of his teachings there. If he had used the feminine for those passages speaking of the Spirit of the Lord I think we would see evidence of such in the use of feminines and neuters in the Greek where he speaks of the Holy Spirit and his work that would follow Jesus' leaving.

The phraseology and diction overall refers to the actions of a male person who would be advocate and who would be another one of like kind rather than another one of a different kind. It is the difference between allos and heteros. And, this is spread across three chapters of material in John alone, being represented as the very teaching of Jesus himself.

There also are other masculine references to the Holy Spirit elsewhere in the New Testament but the teachings of Jesus in John are the clearest and most unambiguous. If the Gospel of John contains the teachings of Jesus on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit who was another advocate to come and guide the saints is male, according to the teachings of Jesus. As I mentioned above, I am pretty sure that Jesus would have known whether or not the Holy Ghost was male or female--being closer to the source, as it were. I think it is a safer bet to stick with those teachings than with the (very tentative) scholarly speculations of others.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Of course Jesus and John knew what they were talking about. I'm saying we may be making incorrect assumptions which are ultimately based on the scribal discomfort with feminine deity. Jesus and John certainly knew what they were talking about, but we can't assume that we have perfect copies of what Jesus and John originally said. If there was a debate in early Christianity specifically over the question of whether feminine deity was legitimate ("Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye") then it seems reasonable to suspect that scribal harmonization was not out of the question, leading to the masculine texts you've taken such pains to point out and that I've acknowledged. I understand that the scriptures we have refer to a masculine Spirit in some places; I feel like we're talking past each other, since the assumption that this is correct is what I'm calling into question. As Barker wrote:

"A new paradigm alters everything, and its value cannot be assessed by the extent to which it agrees with, and is compatible with, the paradigm it seeks to supersede. It has to be judged on the extent to which it offers an explanation of the evidence. [...] Another major consideration [is] the context within the Hebrew text, within the versions, within related traditions, and within the beliefs of the heirs of those traditions."

(Though I should point out that this isn't even a "new" paradigm for some; I've certainly always read the Bible this way, and was rather surprised to find through later conversation that it's not the norm.)

The trend with male deity was to move away from anthropomorphic personifications; it doesn't make sense that there would simultaneously be a move towards hypostatization with feminine Wisdom imagery. If what we have of the Hebrew Bible was filtered through the Deuteronomist loathing for Asherah and essential Wisdom texts weren't even included in the canon after the destruction of the Second Temple, then that's a huge shift away from the earlier Temple theology. If Christ was referred to as being a representative of Wisdom, thereby causing ambiguous references to a male "Wisdom" (which Nibley noted at great length in the Garden Stories section of his Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri where the initiate was "fused" with Ma'at as a sign of preserving Good Order), and if Protestant scholars were suspicious of anything that looked too much like Roman Catholic "Mary-worship" ... then we have a lot of inherited presuppositions working against us. I'm saying we should step around that and look at the context of the imagery, which in fact is overwhelmingly feminine.

I pointed out The Great High Priest because I can't reproduce at length here the entire argument Barker makes for why the context favors the feminine, thereby calling into question the masculine terminology (though I should note that I came to my conclusions largely independent of her, and so read her with relief as independent confirmation), but it shouldn't be dismissed merely because it is speculative. There's simply too much pointing in that direction, specifically the controversies about the correct translation of the Asherah groves, Eloah and Shaddai ("Almighty", or "Of The Breast"?), parallels with Qudshu, the Tree of Life and the Burning "Bush" and the Menorah Light of the World, the Bread of Life, Jeremiah's Queen of Heaven disputes, the Deuteronomist purge, the intertestamental stuff like Enoch, Lady Wisdom (A "tree of life" to those who grasp Her) as High Priest archetype who is justified of Her children, mediterranean Dove-Goddess symbolism and the Temple imagery in Revelation regarding the feminine Tree with healing leaves which was inherited by Mary iconography.

Edited October 9, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith