Oops, She Did It Again

[volgadon]

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.

Aside from the issue of prophetic authority (which can certainly be argued as changing things by his own will and by his own hand and power), this perception of language is somewhat unrealistic. Language- any language- is not static, and hapax legomena abound in the Hebrew Bible. Afarkeset, for instance.

[Nemesis]

get back on topic

[Avatar4321]

I have to admit, I never imagined I'd be sitting here reading a thread in response to something Jack wrote when I introduced her to the Church so many years ago.

She's right though in her argument for the verses interpretation. Given that she acknowledges the interpretation, I am curious how she reconciles the verse and other verses like that with her view for Equality of the roles of men and women. That's likely another topic.

It seems to me that what is missing from the whole discussion is what does the Lord mean when He tells us men are to "rule over" their wives.

There are two scriptures which I think enlighten us on the topic. The First is in Ephesians:

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Eph 5:23-25)

We are to be the head, as Christ is. we are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church. The second scripture i think clarifies it even more:

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:42-45)

Too often, I think we interpret the Biblical commands for a husband to rule over his wife the way the Gentiles account it, instead of how the Lord has defined it. In this passage, Christ clearly tells us that men rule by becoming ministers and being a servant. He even points out that He came not to be ministered to, but to minister and give His life for others.

That is what the Lord is telling Men when He tells us to rule over our wives. He is telling us to love her as Christ loves us all. He is telling us to minister to her physical and spiritual needs. He is telling us to serve her with all our heart. She is not to wait on us hand and foot, if anything it's the exact opposite. We are supposed to give our life in taking care of her.

I think this is also what the Lord is trying to teach us in Section 121:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever (D&C 121:41-46)

Anyway, that's my two cents

[juliann]

David Bokovoy has provided an examination of the problem for those who don't want to wade through insults

http://www.withoutend.org/parry-translation-genesis-316-interpreting-bible-privileged-text/#comment-6698

[urroner]

Juliann, thanks for pointing out Dave's article.

[ttribe]

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.....

My apologies, Juliann, I know I owe you a response. IRL is a little hectic and unpredictable for me at the moment. I'll try to organize some thoughts on this before too long.

Edited March 29, 2013 by ttribe

[Vance]

Do you realize she's a BYU alum,

Yes. I knew that.

married to an active member

Yes, I knew that.

and switches off every other week attending her own EV church and attending church with her husband?

Yes, I knew that.

Do you know that her daughter does the same thing with her and attends primary on the weeks she's at the LDS ward?

Yes, I knew that too.

And she comes across as being very proud that she has resisted the "evils" of Mormonism through the whole thing. She has played with fire and came away unscathed.

What "Anti-Mormon" would do that?

Why not?

"I live in the belly of the beast, and look at me, I am still a "real" Christian".

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.

No, but then again those to which those labels DO apply are also passionate. So what?

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

Possibly. It is also possible that things are just they way I see them and it is you that has clouded vision.

[volgadon]

Yes. I knew that.

Yes, I knew that.

Yes, I knew that.

Yes, I knew that too.

And she comes across as being very proud that she has resisted the "evils" of Mormonism through the whole thing. She has played with fire and came away unscathed.

Why not?

"I live in the belly of the beast, and look at me, I am still a "real" Christian".

No, but then again those to which those labels DO apply are also passionate. So what?

Possibly. It is also possible that things are just they way I see them and it is you that has clouded vision.

This is an uncharitable caricature bearing little resemblance to reality.

[Vance]

This is an uncharitable caricature bearing little resemblance to reality.

Yes, my dear and loving NANNY!!!!

[volgadon]

Yes, my dear and loving NANNY!!!!

Somehow, I doubt that objecting to your unfair characterisation is the same as board nannying.

[ttribe]

Possibly. It is also possible that things are just they way I see them and it is you that has clouded vision.

Right...or you could just be engaging in thoughtless name-calling. Your mileage may vary of course.

This is an uncharitable caricature bearing little resemblance to reality.

+1

Somehow, I doubt that objecting to your unfair characterisation is the same as board nannying.

+1

[juliann]

I certainly would not consider Jack to be an anti-Mormon nowadays. But if the recent dust-up about "tone" there is something important to be said for civility from everyone. A lack of civility, or even an unpleasant "tone" (especially involving mockery) will risk being seen as anti-Mormon because that is the only place where it is not only accepted but applauded. I am astonished to see anyone who wants to be seen as part of a Mormon discussion even attempting a defense of verbal attacks....which is why there is so much diversion to her many positive attributes rather than facing how she said what she said head-on.

I see not even the tiniest indication that attacking or mocking will be considered acceptable for one scholar but not another. I find it very hard to imagine the new Maxwell board, for instance, giving one person a pass to mock a Mormon theologian while demanding respectful disagreement from all others who want to engage in Mormon studies.

[stemelbow]

I certainly would not consider Jack to be an anti-Mormon nowadays. But if the recent dust-up about "tone" there is something important to be said for civility from everyone. A lack of civility, or even an unpleasant "tone" (especially involving mockery) will risk being seen as anti-Mormon because that is the only place where it is not only accepted but applauded. I am astonished to see anyone who wants to be seen as part of a Mormon discussion even attempting a defense of verbal attacks....which is why there is so much diversion to her many positive attributes rather than facing how she said what she said head-on.

I see not even the tiniest indication that attacking or mocking will be considered acceptable for one scholar but not another. I find it very hard to imagine the new Maxwell board, for instance, giving one person a pass to mock a Mormon theologian while demanding respectful disagreement from all others who want to engage in Mormon studies.

What a fine post.

[ttribe]

I certainly would not consider Jack to be an anti-Mormon nowadays. But if the recent dust-up about "tone" there is something important to be said for civility from everyone. A lack of civility, or even an unpleasant "tone" (especially involving mockery) will risk being seen as anti-Mormon because that is the only place where it is not only accepted but applauded. I am astonished to see anyone who wants to be seen as part of a Mormon discussion even attempting a defense of verbal attacks....which is why there is so much diversion to her many positive attributes rather than facing how she said what she said head-on.

I see not even the tiniest indication that attacking or mocking will be considered acceptable for one scholar but not another. I find it very hard to imagine the new Maxwell board, for instance, giving one person a pass to mock a Mormon theologian while demanding respectful disagreement from all others who want to engage in Mormon studies.

"Metcalf is a Butthead" ring a bell?

[juliann]

"Metcalf is a Butthead" ring a bell?

As I noted above, there has been a noticeable avoidance of dealing with the matter at hand by bringing up diversions. Start a new thread if you want to talk about Butthead. You can line up offenders from here to Russia and it does not have any bearing on the blog under discussion. Or should I understand you to mean that attacks are to be excused in perpetuity based on one decade + old event?

Do you consider ad hominem and mocking to only be of consequence when it is coming from someone you don't like?

[ttribe]

As I noted above, there has been a noticeable avoidance of dealing with the matter at hand by bringing up diversions. Start a new thread if you want to talk about Butthead. You can line up offenders from here to Russia and it does not have any bearing on the blog under discussion. Or should I understand you to mean that attacks are to be excused in perpetuity based on one decade + old event?

Do you consider ad hominem and mocking to only be of consequence when it is coming from someone you don't like?

Ummm, wow. Who said I "don't like" anyone? I'm simply pointing out the lack of clean hands on all sides of the divide.

That being said, having read Jack's blog, I just don't see the invective you and others seem to see. Is it the mere fact that she is critical of Hudson that has raised the ire of those who insist this blog post is some kind of hatchet job on Hudson? I see Jack having taken Hudson to task for misrepresenting the translation of a term which is key to her article, but I must be missing where she crossed over into personal insults. Having spent a little time in the academic research environment, I would consider Jack's rebuke mild, by comparison (not to mention what I see quite frequently in my professional work as an expert witness).

Edited March 30, 2013 by ttribe

[juliann]

So, you would you be willing to go to FMH and use the same language used on this blog to describe those feminists? Better still, here is a feminist that is actually using Hudson's theology that Jack mocked as "girls can have babies". Start here and let us know if the author of this blog agrees with you as to the benign nature of insults: http://www.patheos.c...author/rgivens/

I'm quite serious. Because you are trying very hard to not mention what is under discussion...the ad hominem and insults to Hudson questioning her feminism, not her bad translation. Another diversion. Hmmm

Edited March 30, 2013 by juliann

[ttribe]

So, you would you be willing to go to FMH and use the same language used on this blog to describe those feminists? Better still, here is a feminist that is actually using Hudson's theology that Jack mocked as "girls can have babies". Start here and let us know if the author of this blog agrees with you as to the benign nature of insults: http://www.patheos.c...author/rgivens/

I'm quite serious. Because you are trying very hard to not mention what is under discussion...the ad hominem and insults to Hudson questioning her feminism, not her bad translation. Another diversion. Hmmm

[sigh] In the interest of fairness, I will read your link later. That being said, I'm not "trying hard" to do anything, despite your snarky intimation to the contrary.

Edited March 30, 2013 by ttribe

[ttribe]

So, you would you be willing to go to FMH and use the same language used on this blog to describe those feminists? Better still, here is a feminist that is actually using Hudson's theology that Jack mocked as "girls can have babies". Start here and let us know if the author of this blog agrees with you as to the benign nature of insults: http://www.patheos.c...author/rgivens/

I'm quite serious. Because you are trying very hard to not mention what is under discussion...the ad hominem and insults to Hudson questioning her feminism, not her bad translation. Another diversion. Hmmm

Please, patiently, help me understand a couple of things. 1) What "language" are you referring to that you find objectionable? 2) Where do you see Jack casting "insults"?

I've re-read Jack's article at this point and I just read Rachel Givens' article you linked as well. I realize it's quite clear Jack does not care for the priesthood-vs-motherhood dichotomy espoused by our doctrine. But, her article attacks the foundational element Hudson relies upon in her attempt to prop-up that doctrine and criticizes her as a trained researcher who should be less sloppy in the development of her arguments. Beyond that, I see a reasonable debate amongst thoughtful and passionate women on this topic.

Could Jack have been more gentle in her description of our philosophical/doctrinal justification for the limitation on priesthood ordination? I suppose, but I hardly think her statement - "It was the most poetic and well-written rendition of 'women don’t need priesthood because they can have babies' that I have ever heard, but in the end, it was still 'women don’t need power/authority XYZ because they can be mothers'—which is one of the oldest and most trite anti-feminist arguments on the books." - to be the mockery you seem to. Perhaps, if you are patient in your approach with me, you might help me understand why you find this so bothersome. I'm more than willing to try to understand your point of view. I am curious, though, why you have chosen to take me to task over the language in Jack's article and not David Bokovoy who plainly referred to Jack's article as "well written".

That being said, my participation in this thread was not an attempt to be an apologist for Jack's article, the conclusions in which I may, or may not, even agree with. I joined the discussion because I saw a number of gross mis-characterizations of someone I know personally and decided to speak up. Volgadon is much more capable of speaking to the issue of Hebrew translation, and others have clearly applied a great deal more energy of thought to the underlying priesthood issue than I have. Vance took the short-cut to dismiss the entire substance of Jack's argument on the basis that she is an "Anti-Mormon." Not only is that approach devoid of anything resembling intellectual honesty, it does nothing more than poison the well. It's an approach we (as LDS) decry when it's used against us, and I happen to be of the opinion that we should be above it. I simply raised my hand to point that out.

[Calm]

Having spent a little time in the academic research environment, I would consider Jack's rebuke mild, by comparison (not to mention what I see quite frequently in my professional work as an expert witness).

Why do you think I have such disdain for what Hudson has done?

You think using the term "disdain" is mild? My mother taught me that was worse than hate.

[ttribe]

You think using the term "disdain" is mild? My mother taught me that was worse than hate.

Okay, well, I'm not interested in debating whether yours or my mother was better at teaching morals and ethics. Nevertheless, Jack used the word "disdain" to describe her feelings toward using a well-known mistranslation of scripture to justify a philosophical/doctrinal argument. That strikes me as akin to saying - "I hate it when she does that!"; not - "I hate her!"

[Calm]

I didn't mean to imply that my morals were superior or not, just explained that I personally interpret the word "disdain" as being extremely harsh in tone and it surprises me that someone else would label it "mild" whether directed at a person or a behaviour. And you are right, the quote I quoted refers to the behaviour, not the person which I agree is a significant difference.

However, she also agrees with Juliann when Juliann states that she has shown disdain for Hudson herself in another post:

you have recently shown disdain towards Hudson on another post in which you dismissed her as the Gertrude Bell of the movement. Further, you diminish her theology as a faux-feminist doily.

Guilty on both counts, and I stand by what I wrote.

Jack seems quite comfortable with what she wrote...at least from the parts I read which was the blog and the first dozen comments or so, I don't see a need to downplay it if she is. And if she wasn't comfortable, Jack is quite capable of correcting herself....as she does when she sees a need.

Edited March 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

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

[stemelbow]

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

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

[juliann]

[sigh] In the interest of fairness, I will read your link later. That being said, I'm not "trying hard" to do anything, despite your snarky intimation to the contrary.

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