Oops, She Did It Again

[stemelbow]

What's troublesome to me about this is not whether the translation is correct or not. If it's not, cool. I don't care.

Jack said she wanted to embarrass Hudson, or something, in the comments. Feminism didn't even need to be brought up for any of this. Its as if Jack feels its her right to determine whether Hudson can be considered a card carrying feminist--juxtaposing card carrying Mormon.

Who cares if someone got something wrong? Who cares if someone is wrong repeatedly? Everybody is wrong repeatedly on many things even after correction. I don't think that means we as people aren't what we claim to be.

[CASteinman]

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 hadn't seen anything like that -- and don't really know where you got that. I'm just saying that if God wants man to rule "over" women, I am not going to jump up and tell Him that He is wrong.

[CASteinman]

No. Hafen was wrong and he knows it.

I don't think so. The modern prophets -- all the way back to Joseph Smith -- seem to teach that the relationship is one of a sort of equality and only give nods to the "over" part of it.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think so. The modern prophets -- all the way back to Joseph Smith -- seem to teach that the relationship is one of a sort of equality and only give nods to the "over" part of it.

Modern prophets don't get to change the rules of languages, especially biblical ones. If it came down to a Hebrew scholar and a prophet who can't read, speak or write Hebrew...I'm going with the scholar without question.

[Damien the Leper]

I hadn't seen anything like that -- and don't really know where you got that. I'm just saying that if God wants man to rule "over" women, I am not going to jump up and tell Him that He is wrong.

It wouldn't happen any way because Mrs. God wouldn't allow it.

[ttribe]

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.

Being critical of certain doctrines and cultural practices of the LDS Church does not automatically render someone an "Anti-Mormon." Do you realize she's a BYU alum, married to an active member and switches off every other week attending her own EV church and attending church with her husband? Do you know that her daughter does the same thing with her and attends primary on the weeks she's at the LDS ward? What "Anti-Mormon" would do that?

Being passionate about a subject also does not automatically render someone as having an "inferiority complex", "lashing out" or any of the other knee-jerk labels you seem bent on attaching to her.

Perhaps the problem is not the with the writer, but the reader...Just saying.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ttribe

[Calm]

I agree with ttribe, Jack has left her anti-mormon days long behind her. She may approach somethings from an evangelical or nonmormon POV, but that does not automatically equate to anti-mormon. Anti-mormons are intent on destroying the faith, Jack's criticism is more directed to correction....though I don't always agree with her on what needs to be corrected or with how she approaches correction (don't know anyone I always agree with except maybe Kevin Christensen...who has yet to have a post I didn't think 'you are so right' for but I am sure there must be something out there we disagree on...perhaps food tastes).

Edited March 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

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.

MsJack is an equal-opportunist mauler, just ask Will Schriver and Dr. Peterson. I have known and loved her for a decade or so, but this dog-pile side of her, manifest in the last couple of years, has me a bit puzzled and repelled.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Modern prophets don't get to change the rules of languages, especially biblical ones. If it came down to a Hebrew scholar and a prophet who can't read, speak or write Hebrew...I'm going with the scholar without question.

Prophets can change the rule of how we should live and do things though.

This is far too much of a fuss. If the Hebrew text here suggests it is rule over but modern prophets say nay, that is not God's intention, then I'm going witht he prophets. Who cares if Hudson was wrong about this minute example? The principle is a useful one in my mind. I work with my wife not over her.

[juliann]

No. Hafen was wrong and he knows it.

I keep seeing this but I have seen absolutely no evidence....so CFR please?

[Calm]

I keep seeing this but I have seen absolutely no evidence....so CFR please?

Hafen received his information, IIRC, from a Hebrew professor, didn't he? If so, why would he not assume that the professor was correct?

[CASteinman]

Modern prophets don't get to change the rules of languages, especially biblical ones.

Yes they do.

[CASteinman]

It wouldn't happen any way because Mrs. God wouldn't allow it.

I do not think you can support that with a reference. I will not call for one.

[juliann]

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?"

This is a little too close to the if you don't share my opinion you are a liar for me to be comfortable with. You say that you "know" what Hudson knows. I don't and I'll bet that you will admit that you do not either. I will not malign her integrity because of vicious comments on the internet.

MsJack has posted a link to smarthide where she apparently intended to link to something regarding feminism. http://nl.smarthide.com/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3Lm1vcm1vbmRpYWxvZ3VlLm9yZy90b3BpYy82MDQxOC1vb3BzLXNoZS1kaWQtaXQtYWdhaW4v&b=13#entry1209240651

Since this is inserted in the box for the URL so perhaps she is posting here under a different name. Jack, you are obviously so very angry with me. It has been so long I don't even remember what I did to instigate such rage. I can only apologize for it and ask for your forgiveness.

Good will is probably even more important for those who are not Mormon but want to share their knowledge with the Mormon community and you risk burning a lot of that as you can see from those who do perceive your writing style as mean spirited. As we have learned from recent events, it is the perception that matters not the reality when it comes to the internet. It is the women like Hudson that will have the ear of the Mormon community at large. She doesn't scare the rank and file and few are even aware of what goes on between academics. She has mentored countless students at BYU who adore her. I have only had a few conversations with her but I have had enough to know that she is fully committed to women's rights in and out of the church. If she can express it in ways that embrace the believer, Mormon feminists cannot afford to demean her.... even you had to go back a couple of years to find a negative comment about her online. Meanwhile, I have seen positive mentions of her theology on polygamy on several blogs. Stick with legitimate criticism of a mistranslation...but not the women who will play critical roles in giving Mormon women more visibility within the church. You gain nothing by trashing another feminist, especially when you are not Mormon yourself. It will be seen negatively by the majority. And yes, Claudia Bushman also plays a critical role and her opinion on trashing women is worth noting. I think you will be hard pressed to find a Mormon feminist who will dismiss Claudia's opinions....just as you will be hard pressed to find a Mormon woman who will denigrate a woman who has an article in the Ensign.

[ttribe]

Good will is probably even more important for those who are not Mormon but want to share their knowledge with the Mormon community and you risk burning a lot of that as you can see from those who do perceive your writing style as mean spirited. As we have learned from recent events, it is the perception that matters not the reality when it comes to the internet.

LOL! For a second there I thought you were tsk-tsk-ing some of the more notable apologetic posters here (and elsewhere) for their aggressive actions. How silly of me.

[juliann]

LOL! For a second there I thought you were tsk-tsk-ing some of the more notable apologetic posters here (and elsewhere) for their aggressive actions. How silly of me.

Does not the perception over the reality matter for all? I'm not sure how your comment is responsive to anything I said.

[ttribe]

Does not the perception over the reality matter for all? I'm not sure how your comment is responsive to anything I said.

It was a side commentary and wasn't intended to be a direct response to your post. I'm assuming Jack can/will handle that just fine. Just musing how, in the few times I've ventured back into any discussion on this board over the past 2+ years, when I've said something similar to a short-list of apologists I've been thrown out of the thread for being a "nanny." I found your statement somewhat ironic given the context of this board...but I digress.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ttribe

[juliann]

It was a side commentary and wasn't intended to be a direct response to your post. I'm assuming Jack can/will handle that just fine. Just musing how, in the few times I've ventured back into any discussion on this board over the past 2+ years, when I've said something similar to a short-list of apologists I've been thrown out of the thread for being a "nanny." I found your statement somewhat ironic given the context of this board...but I digress.

That is unfortunate, but I am still unsure what that has to do with the larger question regarding feminists taking down other feminists and a subset of that, a non-Mormon setting up standards for Mormon feminists that cuts out the woman who is potentially positioned to have the greatest influence on the most members. I'd be interested in your opinion. This is probably a better topic for the blogs but I find them too user unfriendly when they don't even format for quoting.

[juliann]

Hafen received his information, IIRC, from a Hebrew professor, didn't he? If so, why would he not assume that the professor was correct?

Again, knowing as little as anyone else about this....I do have to wonder who I would give the most credibility in that situation. A respected scholar that I knew...or strangers sending me emails claiming to know more. I can see both sides of this.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes they do.

No, they don't. Languages are what they are because God has so determined. And in His infinite wisdom they are to remain as such.

[ttribe]

That is unfortunate, but I am still unsure what that has to do with the larger question regarding feminists taking down other feminists and a subset of that, a non-Mormon setting up standards for Mormon feminists that cuts out the woman who is potentially positioned to have the greatest influence on the most members. I'd be interested in your opinion. This is probably a better topic for the blogs but I find them too user unfriendly when they don't even format for quoting.

I'm kind of working on the fly here, but before I really try to respond with something thoughtful (which takes a fair amount effort for me right now given some personal circumstances), I need to clarify whether my perception of your argument is correct - it seems the theme of your argument against Jack's criticism of Hudson and Hafen presupposes that the perception of unity amongst the body of religious feminists is of greater value than the refinement of the philosophy (and its justifications, be they scriptural or not). Is my perception off base?

[CASteinman]

No, they don't. Languages are what they are because God has so determined. And in His infinite wisdom they are to remain as such.

Until such time as He reveals to a prophet otherwise! :-)

[juliann]

I'm kind of working on the fly here, but before I really try to respond with something thoughtful (which takes a fair amount effort for me right now given some personal circumstances), I need to clarify whether my perception of your argument is correct - it seems the theme of your argument against Jack's criticism of Hudson and Hafen presupposes that the perception of unity amongst the body of religious feminists is of greater value than the refinement of the philosophy (and its justifications, be they scriptural or not). Is my perception off base?

I've been having difficulty formulating this in a meaningful way for myself....I appreciate your responses because it is coming more into focus for me. This is a very good explanation of the stakes. I see both as important and meaningful. But I see them as separate issues. The refinements of the philosophy stand apart from feminist unity (an illusion, as you note). My discomfort is seeing them intertwined as if one stands upon the other. Hafen/Hudson can both stand as excellent representatives but goof when it comes to philosophy. The ad hominem occurs when one is made dependent on the other....don't pay attention to her because she is a lousy feminist...or she is a lousy feminist because she got her Hebrew from a GA. These two things have no relation and shouldn't be together in a complaint claiming to be academically based.

Once stated and explained (and I have enough confidence in those like David. B to believe it was a translation error) we are left with

So as Jack proclaimed, she is now going to continue to discredit Hudson as a Mormon feminist. She cannot, of course, discredit her as a woman's rights advocate given her 23 page Vita. How would anyone ever get from Hebrew grammar to discrediting a woman's feminism? Through ad hominem. It also begs the question of the definition of feminism and who writes the dictionary for Mormons. Do evangelical feminists get to define who can qualify as a Mormon feminist? Interesting questions are going to emerge for the Mormon feminists.

That breaks off into other concerns that I have alluded to above. The biggest problem the online activists are having is reaching the rank and file Mormon woman. A study was mentioned somewhere saying that a much higher percentage of Mormon men than women support priesthood for women. (I think that is completely dependent on what and how questions were framed). But even if the percentage of those women was doubled, it is not near high enough to reach Pres. Hinckley's "agitation" standard. Like so many, I want to see more visibility of women in the church. So I am far more interested in results than internet turf battles and philosophical quibbling. This is real life for Mormon women.

The real question is what the Mormon feminists are interested in. Hopefully they are equally pragmatically minded by now and eager to support those who can reach the majority that they cannot. We will see, I suppose.

I hope I expressed myself a little more clearly.....

Edited March 27, 2013 by juliann

[Damien the Leper]

Until such time as He reveals to a prophet otherwise! :-)

If God is going to change the rules of language, he doesn't need a prophet to do so. There is no reason for him to alter language. The Holy Word is exactly how he wants it. Otherwise, he would change things per his own will and by his own hand and power.

[Skylla]

Get back on topic please.

Skylla