Oops, She Did It Again

[volgadon]

Why was feminism or Valerie's lack thereof even brought up? I'm not sure it was a great article. It was an interesting piece, no doubt. I also don't think it's that stellar of a point. If the correction is necessary I'm glad it's out there, but I simply don't see it as a significant point. Rule with vs rule over? meh.

It is a significant difference, and, frankly, neither my country's language nor its biblical predecessor are all that elastic.

[stemelbow]

It is a significant difference, and, frankly, neither my country's language nor its biblical predecessor are all that elastic.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to indicate otherwise. I don't know that we ought to tie our understanding on this to these words in the OT anywho. As I suggested my wife and I work with each other. That seems to be the most harmonious and productive approach. I can't imagine eternity to be any different. It is too bad if Hudson and company were wrong on this. I don't think it necessarily is a commentary on her status as a feminist though.

[volgadon]

I don't know that we ought to tie our understanding on this to these words in the OT anywho.

The issue is that not only had some done so, but done so badly and repeatedly.

[stemelbow]

The issue is that not only had some done so, but done so badly and repeatedly.

Why is that such an issue? Many have done things like that repeatedly and badly. We all tend to move on smoothly enough. I don't see it as an issue, per se. I see the issue is that it was wrong, if indeed it is (I can't make that call).

Edited March 26, 2013 by stemelbow

[Damien the Leper]

Feminism was an underlying issue as compared to the deliberate Gen. 3:16 mistranslation. Jack dealt with that issue first. She followed up with the poor corellation between any minimal kind of feminism and that wrong translation. Hudson has been corrected on this issue a few times. Furthermore, Hafen had been corrected, it seems, concerning the false translation and/or interpretation. I am under the impression that Hudson used the poor translation to validate some kind of feminism or gender equality but has failed to do so adequately.

[stemelbow]

I am under the impression that Hudson used the poor translation to validate some kind of feminism or gender equality but has failed to do so adequately.

I don't think that's the case. it was merely a point to consider, it seems. I think the real validation of her feminist position was far more than a small translation attempt from a passage in the OT.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think that's the case. it was merely a point to consider, it seems. I think the real validation of her feminist position was far more than a small translation attempt from a passage in the OT.

The fact that Hudson regurgitated Hafen's remarks on multiple occasions indicates a problem. I'm confused as to why we would consider anything not found in the historical text or earlier translations. Hudson and Hafen are and were wrong.

[urroner]

I think that it's important that we realize that our culture today is very different from the culture from thousands of years ago and we need to stop attempting to explain that ancient culture in terms of our culture. We need to explain another culture in terms of that culture, both the good and the bad. Ancient Israelites were not modern day Mormons and in some ways, they probably weren't anything like us in some of their beliefs.

The beliefs of ancient Israelites, early Christians, and those of the Church today have plenty of differences and I feel we need to admit that.

Jack's article wasn't about whether or not wives should be equal powers with the husband. It has to do with taking a scripture and attempting to, not reinterpret it, rather to retranslate it so it'll meet ones expectations.

It really irritates me when a critic of the Church has been shown that one of their criticisms of the Church is based on incorrect data and is invalid, but they continue to use that criticism as if it has never been demonstrated to them that it is wrong. Should I not also be irritated when a member of the Church, in an attempt to build the faith of members, continue to use something as truth when it has been shown to them that it is not the truth? Stemelbow, that is the crux of the problem here. Should we hold members of the Church up to the same standards that we hold the critics of the Church to or should we simply look away because the member had "good" intentions?

Edited March 27, 2013 by urroner

[juliann]

Should I not also be irritated when a member of the Church, in an attempt to build the faith of members, continue to use something as truth when it has been shown to them that it is not the truth? Stemelbow, that is the crux of the problem here. Should we hold members of the Church up to the same standards that we hold the critics of the Church to or should we simply look away because the member had "good" intentions?

Do you really want to set that standard, Urroner? The irony here is feminists who go after a woman who merely quoted rather than the Seventy who actually said it. Do you hold him to the same standard? Do you hold JS to the same standard? How many mistakes did he make in the JST that have been pointed out? How many mistakes do we have in the Ensign? Should you be irritated at the prophets who have quoted others who were in error?

Obviously, there is some sadly serious hatred towards Hudson. But technically accurate or not, it is how LDS interpret Genesis. We have changed the helpmeet thing, we have changed Eve's culpability, changes to raise women's status are ongoing. We have similar changes in the JST minus all the hollering and faux outrage. First Corinthians 14:35 (KJV) says "it is a shame for women to speak in the church." JS changed it to "for women to rule in the church." JS used that same word as a mistranslation to make it sound a little better. Let the abuse begin.

The real eye roller is that not one person has railed against Elder Hafen, corrected him with insults, impugned his standing as a GA, and publicly demand the church correct him. That is only done to the woman who quoted him. The mistranslation has been noted. Someone could write a letter to the Ensign, I suppose. Or they could engage in a prolonged feminist witch hunt.

Edited March 27, 2013 by juliann

[Bikeemikey]

Do you really want to set that standard, Urroner? The irony here is feminists who go after a woman who merely quoted rather than the Seventy who actually said it. Do you hold him to the same standard? Do you hold JS to the same standard? How many mistakes did he make in the JST that have been pointed out? How many mistakes do we have in the Ensign? Should you be irritated at the prophets who have quoted others who were in error?

Obviously, there is some sadly serious hatred towards Hudson. But technically accurate or not, it is how LDS interpret Genesis. We have changed the helpmeet thing, we have changed Eve's culpability, changes to raise women's status are ongoing. We have similar changes in the JST minus all the hollering and faux outrage. First Corinthians 14:35 (KJV) says "it is a shame for women to speak in the church." JS changed it to "for women to rule in the church." JS used that same word as a mistranslation to make it sound a little better. Let the abuse begin.

The real eye roller is that not one person has railed against Elder Hafen, corrected him with insults, impugned his standing as a GA, and publicly demand the church correct him. That is only done to the woman who quoted him. The mistranslation has been noted. Someone could write a letter to the Ensign, I suppose. Or they could engage in a prolonged feminist witch hunt.

The article specifically mentioned that she is to be held to a higher standard than him as she is promoting the content as an academic. It also stated the concern with the way in which the hebrew interpretation was stated... she never said one of many, or a commonly rejected translation that we accept in the LDS community. She said this is the translation and provided a source reference that is not credible in academic circles.

It is unnerving that we would publish an article resting on an interpretation of a hebrew word that virtually no one accepts; that is with out stating that no one else agrees with this interpretation but that we hold to this translation as it makes sense based on, modern revelation, prophetic teaching, the general gist of our doctrine etc.

To use this translation and not do harm to the process of scriptural literacy requires a broader background that was given.

[ttribe]

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

Your comment only makes it apparent that you don't know MsJack...at all.

[CASteinman]

As honest as i can be. this is almost pointless.

I"m not sure why she had to comment about Hudson's status as a feminist. She had to call her something equivalent to an apostate or something. Why is that part of it?

Why all the angry comments about Hudson in the comments from Jeffries?

Why didn't she just point out the error and move on?

Apparently she said she had to embarrass Hudson because Hudson didn't take her seriously?

I kind of get it because I"ve spoken with msjack as a poster for a while now.

And, in my estimation, in the end, I don't think it matters that much. In some ways we're probably pretty close to views from thousands of years ago and in other ways we're probably miles apart. I would say my wife and I approach working together enough to say "with".

I don't know what the history is or what its all about but I agree, the article sounded bitter and harsh toward Valerie Hudson. Which sort of turned me against it even though the point it made about translation made some sense.

(I don't know the author or Valerie Hudson -- except I have read a few articles by Valerie Hudson).

Despite it making sense, I really do, personally, prefer the "rule with" rather than "rule over" translation. But I am fine if God prefers it the other way also.

Edited March 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[juliann]

The article specifically mentioned that she is to be held to a higher standard than him as she is promoting the content as an academic. It also stated the concern with the way in which the hebrew interpretation was stated... she never said one of many, or a commonly rejected translation that we accept in the LDS community. She said this is the translation and provided a source reference that is not credible in academic circles.

It is unnerving that we would publish an article resting on an interpretation of a hebrew word that virtually no one accepts; that is with out stating that no one else agrees with this interpretation but that we hold to this translation as it makes sense based on, modern revelation, prophetic teaching, the general gist of our doctrine etc.

To use this translation and not do harm to the process of scriptural literacy requires a broader background that was given.

She is held to higher standard because she is an "academic"....published in the Ensign along with Pres. Erying, who you will hold to a lower standard when he is in error because he is only in the First Presidency? I'm still trying to figure this all out.

One more time....she was quoting Elder Hafen, a Seventy. That primary quote remains in the 2007 Ensign. It has been there over five years. How has the process of scriptural literacy been harmed? Why is there not equal concern in correcting Hafen when you know quite well that 99% of Ensign readers would consider a Seventy a more credible source than an academic?

[volgadon]

One more time....she was quoting Elder Hafen, a Seventy. That primary quote remains in the 2007 Ensign. It has been there over five years. How has the process of scriptural literacy been harmed? Why is there not equal concern in correcting Hafen when you know quite well that 99% of Ensign readers would consider a Seventy a more credible source than an academic?

There already is a a cogent rebuttal of the Hafens' translation, a rebuttal that Hudson is aware of, yet persistently ignores.

[juliann]

There already is a a cogent rebuttal of the Hafens' translation, a rebuttal that Hudson is aware of, yet persistently ignores.

And has he been treated with equal disdain, contempt, and ad hominem? I am not defending the error, do not miss my point. Bad, bad, bad. Shame on Hafen. Shame on Sorenson. Shame on Hudson. Shame on Miller. Shame, shame, shame on all the Ensign editors. Everybody agrees. That was easy and doesn't take long...so now what? Why, let's maul the woman! This was a rather nasty attack on an internationally known expert in women's rights by someone claiming to be a feminist. In every instance where a man has been involved, only the woman has been demeaned. Even to the point that it was only mentioned Hudson co-wrote the article. Well, her co-author was a man who is equally responsible yet is not even named.

This is turning into a rich satire of those who mouth support of Mormon feminism. Claudia Bushman asked me what I thought of the eruption over Julie Beck's talk years ago. She didn't even let me finish before she expressed her shock that Mormon feminists attacked a Mormon woman. She didn't even note the problems with the talk. The attacks stopped her cold. That is what this is about and the very fact that so many refuse to even notice when it comes to their own doings is just as shocking.

Edited March 27, 2013 by juliann

[Bikeemikey]

She is held to higher standard because she is an "academic"....published in the Ensign along with Pres. Erying, who you will hold to a lower standard when he is in error because he is only in the First Presidency? I'm still trying to figure this all out.

One more time....she was quoting Elder Hafen, a Seventy. That primary quote remains in the 2007 Ensign. It has been there over five years. How has the process of scriptural literacy been harmed? Why is there not equal concern in correcting Hafen when you know quite well that 99% of Ensign readers would consider a Seventy a more credible source than an academic?

It is clear that there was concern for both.

An academic is held to different standards because there job is not to promote and develop the faith of religious membership. For a religious leader with no/minimal training in a field to mess a translation in favor of a religious perspective is (unfortunately) run of the mill.

There is a sell out criticism being made here, one academic toward another. The criticism, though directed at her, includes Hafen by consistently criticizing his continue use of the translation with out some response to the legitimate criticisms.

I do have a lower expectation regarding sourcing, broad based academic referencing, general academic practices and accurate translation from original texts from our Church leaders than I do from academics... they are not academics and there is not the same expectation that they are to be held to an academic standard... I also dont expect to feel all holy ghost goose bumpy when I read academic work, though I do when I hear the church leadership speak. At least in that regard I balance things out.

[Bikeemikey]

The subject of the criticism is...

an internationally known expert in women's rights

Hence the difference in expectations... The argument she made is a bad argument. It is not supported by the translation and she opted to use a Church GA as her reference for using the source (because she couldn't find any other ones).

The criticism of her position is very through. She is held to a different standard... you keep asking why...

1. She is a women.

2. She is an academic.

3. She is making a very bad argument.

4. She is seen as having affinity with the Mormon feminist perspective by some LDS (this level of attack is an attempt to make the distance between her and the broader movement very clear).

Of all of these four extremely obvious responses to your question the one that is least likely to be the primary reason is her gener.

As for Claudia Bushman being upset that some Mormon women criticized another mormon women's talk/position on something? So what... should mormon women not do things Claudia Bushman doesn't like?

Edited March 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

I don't think Hafen's translation was wrong.

Sure... there are technical reasons to describe it as being incorrect according to scholars, but that does not make it wrong.

I suspect that even Joseph Smith might say "Not bad", based upon some things he said and the way he would stir or mix things up to get them to go the way that they should go.

I remember reading a story from his life. When he was a very young man and had not yet organized the Church. He was walking down the street and he heard a man abusing his wife. He walked up to the door of this man and knocked on it. The man answered and Joseph -- a young man talking to an older man -- said that the fellow should not treat his wife that way. The older man swore and told him that it was none of his business and made some threats.

Joseph recorded, "He was a large man and it was a difficult struggle, but I finally prevailed with him".

(I memorized this story years ago, but have not been able to find it. If anyone knows where it can be quoted from I would appreciate it. I think it MIGHT be from They Knew the Prophet.)

Edited March 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[juliann]

I do have a lower expectation regarding sourcing, broad based academic referencing, general academic practices and accurate translation from original texts from our Church leaders than I do from academics... they are not academics and there is not the same expectation that they are to be held to an academic standard... I also dont expect to feel all holy ghost goose bumpy when I read academic work, though I do when I hear the church leadership speak. At least in that regard I balance things out.

Except that Hafen got his information from an academic and Hafen has more credibility with Mormons as a Seventy than any professor could ever dream of.

Hence the difference in expectations... The argument she made is a bad argument. It is not supported by the translation and she opted to use a Church GA as her reference for using the source (because she couldn't find any other ones).

Her position is solid Mormon theology at this point in time whether supported by the translation or not. That isn't even arguable. In fact, the church is criticized for window dressing in its attempt to put women on more equal footing. That is why the outrage will not resonate with the rank and file who deal quite well with the preside but equal conundrum. Hafen/Hudson/Miller are merely stating commonly held beliefs.

The criticism of her position is very through. She is held to a different standard... you keep asking why...

1. She is a women.

2. She is an academic.

3. She is making a very bad argument.

4. She is seen as having affinity with the Mormon feminist perspective by some LDS (this level of attack is an attempt to make the distance between her and the broader movement very clear).

Of all of these four extremely obvious responses to your question the one that is least likely to be the primary reason is her gener.

Good luck with separating gender from feminist anything.

[Bikeemikey]

Except that Hafen got his information from an academic and Hafen has more credibility with Mormons as a Seventy than any professor could ever dream of.

Her position is solid Mormon theology at this point in time whether supported by the translation or not. That isn't even arguable. In fact, the church is criticized for window dressing in its attempt to put women on more equal footing. That is why the outrage will not resonate with the rank and file who deal quite well with the preside but equal conundrum. Hafen/Hudson/Miller are merely stating commonly held beliefs.

Good luck with separating gender from feminist anything.

I agree with all of your statements.

Because GAs have more credibility with LDS we actually hold them to a lower standard than we do academics. I also agree that her position is solid mormon theology... however, that translation is an after the fact argument... we had the theology and went trolling for a translation that would help it... our doctrine is not based on that translation.

I also agree that all of this is stating commonly held beliefs. That article went around not to long ago talking about how our church has more men interested in priesthood equality that it does women (though that looks like it is likely going to change sometime soon). Mormon homes with active phood holders, on average, are run with high degrees of equality. The practice of our members and presence of high equality in LDS home life is one of the reasons feminist movements related to the phood extension to women.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[urroner]

Do you really want to set that standard, Urroner? The irony here is feminists who go after a woman who merely quoted rather than the Seventy who actually said it. Do you hold him to the same standard? Do you hold JS to the same standard? How many mistakes did he make in the JST that have been pointed out? How many mistakes do we have in the Ensign? Should you be irritated at the prophets who have quoted others who were in error?

Obviously, there is some sadly serious hatred towards Hudson. But technically accurate or not, it is how LDS interpret Genesis. We have changed the helpmeet thing, we have changed Eve's culpability, changes to raise women's status are ongoing. We have similar changes in the JST minus all the hollering and faux outrage. First Corinthians 14:35 (KJV) says "it is a shame for women to speak in the church." JS changed it to "for women to rule in the church." JS used that same word as a mistranslation to make it sound a little better. Let the abuse begin.

The real eye roller is that not one person has railed against Elder Hafen, corrected him with insults, impugned his standing as a GA, and publicly demand the church correct him. That is only done to the woman who quoted him. The mistranslation has been noted. Someone could write a letter to the Ensign, I suppose. Or they could engage in a prolonged feminist witch hunt.

Juliann, is there a different between the following:

1. Believing/Knowing X to be the truth and teaching it as the truth.
   
2. Believing/Knowing X to be untruthful and teaching it as the truth.
   

In the case of the former, the person doing so is still being truthful, while in the case of the latter, the person is being duplicitous.

I don't know Hudson nor Hafen, but I do know Jack.

I know Jack to be a truthful person. If she says X is true, then I believe she believes X to be true.

If person is claiming the position as an academic and saying that X is truthful, but it has repeatedly been demonstrated to that person,that it is not truthful, yet he/shecontinues to say that it is truth, I have a problem with that.

I can't get inside Hudson's head to know if she honestly believes the scripture should be correctly translated as "rule with" as opposed to "rule over," but she has repeatedly been told that it is correctly translated as "rule over" by the experts. Juliann, is that something we should simply ignore or say that it doesn't matter.

I guess it just boils down to integrity. In case 1, the person has integrity in that instance while in case 2, the person, in that instance, doesn't have it.

Juliann, does Hudson have integrity when she says that Hebrew version of the scripture could correctly be translated as "ruled with?"

[urroner]

I don't think Hafen's translation was wrong.

Sure... there are technical reasons to describe it as being incorrect according to scholars, but that does not make it wrong.

I suspect that even Joseph Smith might say "Not bad", based upon some things he said and the way he would stir or mix things up to get them to go the way that they should go.

I remember reading a story from his life. When he was a very young man and had not yet organized the Church. He was walking down the street and he heard a man abusing his wife. He walked up to the door of this man and knocked on it. The man answered and Joseph -- a young man talking to an older man -- said that the fellow should not treat his wife that way. The older man swore and told him that it was none of his business and made some threats.

Joseph recorded, "He was a large man and it was a difficult struggle, but I finally prevailed with him".

(I memorized this story years ago, but have not been able to find it. If anyone knows where it can be quoted from I would appreciate it. I think it MIGHT be from They Knew the Prophet.)

CAS, I might be misreading you here, but are you saying that there are people involved in this discussion on this board that believe that men should rule over women simply because they are men?

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think Hafen's translation was wrong.

Sure... there are technical reasons to describe it as being incorrect according to scholars, but that does not make it wrong.

I suspect that even Joseph Smith might say "Not bad", based upon some things he said and the way he would stir or mix things up to get them to go the way that they should go.

I remember reading a story from his life. When he was a very young man and had not yet organized the Church. He was walking down the street and he heard a man abusing his wife. He walked up to the door of this man and knocked on it. The man answered and Joseph -- a young man talking to an older man -- said that the fellow should not treat his wife that way. The older man swore and told him that it was none of his business and made some threats.

Joseph recorded, "He was a large man and it was a difficult struggle, but I finally prevailed with him".

(I memorized this story years ago, but have not been able to find it. If anyone knows where it can be quoted from I would appreciate it. I think it MIGHT be from They Knew the Prophet.)

No. Hafen was wrong and he knows it.

[Damien the Leper]

CAS, I might be misreading you here, but are you saying that there are people involved in this discussion on this board that believe that men should rule over women simply because they are men?

I certainly hope not. The Apostle Paul would have a field day with such a person and rip them apart with the power of God backing him.

[Vance]

Your comment only makes it apparent that you don't know MsJack...at all.

I only know MsJack from the stuff she writes. To me, she always comes across as having a feminist/anti-Mormon chip on her shoulder.

It is as if she has some female/evangelical inferiority complex which compels her to lash out.

If her true character is different than that, it sure doesn't show in what she writes.

Just saying.