Sexism And God

[rodheadlee]

Yes.

Even play the guitar:

The guitar player has a body, even if it isn't his own.

[The Nehor]

The guitar player has a body, even if it isn't his own.

That is clearly a robot body without a head attached to a head. Unless women are also analogous to robot bodies the point stands.

[Tacenda]

You are right that the legitimacy is void in unrighteousness, but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible. On occasion, this passage engendered much unrighteousness in the name of God and made women the subject of much cruelty as subordinates with no voice. How many Christian men throughout history have used that passage to rule over his wife in unrighteous dominion? How many woman became subordinate to such abuse of power because she believed that was the righteous thing to do and the God appointed role of a woman?

I think we are better off to think of man and woman as equal partners with different roles, walking side by side as they follow their head, the Lord. No subordination, no superiority, no heads, but sides rather (as symbolized by the rib of his side.)

You're talking my language Pogi!! And need to add, if the one spouse wants a certain task in the marriage and doesn't want the other...they negotiate to what works best. Make it workable.

[Ahab]

You and bluebell make good points. I think the difficulty comes in the full context of the passage however, in that the man is the head of the women as Christ is the head of the church. By viewing this in its full context it seems clear to me that the "head" means the leader, the Shepherd who's voice and will is to be followed in all things. This is the parallel that this passage seems to be making. That the relationship of Christ to the church should be like the relationship of the man to the woman. I don't know if any one would deny that Christ is superior as the head. This is the cultural context of the time as well.

Women can do whatever they want to do, and so can each member of the Church whether male or female. Does a leader lead others simply by being a superior person, then, or by being in a superior position "above" another person? No. Not at all. A leader doesn't lead anybody who will not follow that that person as a leader, no matter how "superior" that person is, or thinks he is. So if any woman follows any man as a leader it is because that woman has decided, with her own head and heart, to follow that man. And not necessarily because the man is or thinks he is a superior person, but because she wants to, or has chosen to, with her own head and heart.

So what do you end up with? A leader and a follower who do the same things together, and not only because that is what the man wants to do but also because it is what the woman wants to do too. That's what happens when both are of the same heart and mind with each using their own head to do whatever they want to do.

And even our Lord would not be the leader of his Church if his Church didn't follow him.

[Bobbieaware]

You are right that the legitimacy is void in unrighteousness, but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible. On occasion, this passage engendered much unrighteousness in the name of God and made women the subject of much cruelty as subordinates with no voice. How many Christian men throughout history have used that passage to rule over his wife in unrighteous dominion? How many woman became subordinate to such abuse of power because she believed that was the righteous thing to do and the God appointed role of a woman?

I think we are better off to think of man and woman as equal partners with different roles, walking side by side as they follow their head, the Lord. No subordination, no superiority, no heads, but sides rather (as symbolized by the rib of his side.)

I disagree with you when you say, "but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible." That's nonsense and I'm quite sure you know better. The Bible is so full of warnings that those in leadership roles need to be meek and humble that only the willfully ignorant could miss this frequently made the point. What you should have said, if you wanted to be accurate, is that over the centuries unrighteous, spiritually ignorant men have made a habit of conveniently seizing on that one verse and isolating it from the rest of the New Testament in a cynical ploy to justify unrighteous dominion over their wives.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

I disagree with you when you say, "but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible." That's nonsense and I'm quite sure you know better. The Bible is so full of warnings that those in leadership roles need to be meek and humble that only the willfully ignorant could miss this frequently made the point. What you should have said, if you wanted to be accurate, is that over the centuries unrighteous, spiritually ignorant men have made a habit of conveniently seizing on that one verse and isolating it from the rest of the New Testament in a cynical ploy to justify unrighteous dominion over their wives.

 

CFR.

 

Sure the bible teaches how a husband should love his wife etc, but it falls short of saying that his authority and position as head of the woman is null and void in unrighteousness.  There are no conditions in the bible for the wives obedience to the husband.  He is the head period.  Please show me where it says otherwise. 

Edited February 28, 2015 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

So what do you end up with? A leader and a follower who do the same things together, and not only because that is what the man wants to do but also because it is what the woman wants to do too. That's what happens when both are of the same heart and mind with each using their own head to do whatever they want to do.

And even our Lord would not be the leader of his Church if his Church didn't follow him.

 

These have been some of the more disturbing relationships that I have seen as a therapist and in my general life.  This is not what I see many get. Instead, what I've seen is that we woman ends up dependent or with a lowered sense of capacity....many probably already started there. But either way, they have a tendency to turn submission, meekness, or "choosing to follow" into persistent trying to meet another's need. Women in general have a tendency to place other's needs before their own....part of that can be biological (woman to a child) but a larger part, IMO, is socially derived. These relationships chose a dynamic as you mentioned. But these relationships often have unforeseen limitations as well that neither partner fully sees. What I've seen happen is that the husband will end up in a christ-oriented, benevolent role....they often see themselves as good in their role....good stewards. The wife, as followers, often have a limited sense of being able to make choices for their lives....and this can often feed emotional distress. The husband will then will assume there's something wrong and try to help her see that. But it becomes fixing HER not him. And she agrees, because she's the one emotionally distraught, incapable of doing XYZ, etc. Neither are fully aware that it's this persistent sense of incapacity that is driving her faults. He's not exempt from having problems... I've seen caregiver burnout, over compensation, having many of their human faults left unchecked, they're often partially blind or unable to admit faults/persistent weakness, etc. They CAN'T be weak because the have a wife to take care of. Hierarchical relationships, in my mind, have no place in marriage relationships. At their best, they go on for years with determined roles that inadvertently can limit each person's potential and feed into their personal problems unchecked. At worst, you get the general problems with "unrighteous dominion" that can be horrifying.   

 

I disagree with you when you say, "but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible." That's nonsense and I'm quite sure you know better. The Bible is so full of warnings that those in leadership roles need to be meek and humble that only the willfully ignorant could miss this frequently made the point. What you should have said, if you wanted to be accurate, is that over the centuries unrighteous, spiritually ignorant men have made a habit of conveniently seizing on that one verse and isolating it from the rest of the New Testament in a cynical ploy to justify unrighteous dominion over their wives.

 

I think this is over-simplifying the poblem to solely unrighteous dominion. Not just this post but a few others who've talked about this concept (see my response above). The New Testament has a mix of cringe-worth as well as acceptable quotes about marriage and wives. But, frankly, it's not a cynical ploy....it's pretty easy to do with the New Testament particularly. There are parts that are sweet about it, but there are parts that are bitter  and very obviously culturally derived. It's not just urighteous, spiritually ignorant men who've grabbed onto that verse. I've seen very pious, spiritually determined and well read men (and women), who believe these verses and follow some form of benevolent patriarchy that can be subtly insidious. I don't think it's a deliberate misread, rather I think it's reading passages from a culture that had a definite hierarchy between men and women.....being read by a people in varying cultures that still hold vestiges of that hierarchical relationship, and I think both were wrong.

 

I prefer the more ancient stories, that didn't spell things out as much, but showed/gave indication that women have a necessary power in alignment with men. I think the NT haphazardly shows some indication of that, but has a few points that definitely fail.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Duncan]

These have been some of the more disturbing relationships that I have seen as a therapist and in my general life.  This is not what I see many get. Instead, what I've seen is that we woman ends up dependent or with a lowered sense of capacity....many probably already started there. But either way, they have a tendency to turn submission, meekness, or "choosing to follow" into persistent trying to meet another's need. Women in general have a tendency to place other's needs before their own....part of that can be biological (woman to a child) but a larger part, IMO, is socially derived. These relationships chose a dynamic as you mentioned. But these relationships often have unforeseen limitations as well that neither partner fully sees. What I've seen happen is that the husband will end up in a christ-oriented, benevolent role....they often see themselves as good in their role....good stewards. The wife, as followers, often have a limited sense of being able to make choices for their lives....and this can often feed emotional distress. The husband will then will assume there's something wrong and try to help her see that. But it becomes fixing HER not him. And she agrees, because she's the one emotionally distraught, incapable of doing XYZ, etc. Neither are fully aware that it's this persistent sense of incapacity that is driving her faults. He's not exempt from having problems... I've seen caregiver burnout, over compensation, having many of their human faults left unchecked, they're often partially blind or unable to admit faults/persistent weakness, etc. They CAN'T be weak because the have a wife to take care of. Hierarchical relationships, in my mind, have no place in marriage relationships. At their best, they go on for years with determined roles that inadvertently can limit each person's potential and feed into their personal problems unchecked. At worst, you get the general problems with "unrighteous dominion" that can be horrifying.   

 

 

I think this is over-simplifying the poblem to solely unrighteous dominion. Not just this post but a few others who've talked about this concept (see my response above). The New Testament has a mix of cringe-worth as well as acceptable quotes about marriage and wives. But, frankly, it's not a cynical ploy....it's pretty easy to do with the New Testament particularly. There are parts that are sweet about it, but there are parts that are bitter  and very obviously culturally derived. It's not just urighteous, spiritually ignorant men who've grabbed onto that verse. I've seen very pious, spiritually determined and well read men (and women), who believe these verses and follow some form of benevolent patriarchy that can be subtly insidious. I don't think it's a deliberate misread, rather I think it's reading passages from a culture that had a definite hierarchy between men and women.....being read by a people in varying cultures that still hold vestiges of that hierarchical relationship, and I think both were wrong.

 

I prefer the more ancient stories, that didn't spell things out as much, but showed/gave indication that women have a necessary power in alignment with men. I think the NT haphazardly shows some indication of that, but has a few points that definitely fail.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

in his autobiography Pres. Hugh B. Brown lamented that he was too much "Pres. Brown" and not what he should have been because he was Pres. Brown, not that I think he beat his kids but he thought he could have been a different parent, looking back

Edited March 1, 2015 by Duncan

[Bobbieaware]

CFR.

Sure the bible teaches how a husband should love his wife etc, but it falls short of saying that his authority and position as head of the woman is null and void in unrighteousness. There are no conditions in the bible for the wives obedience to the husband. He is the head period. Please show me where it says otherwise.

The called for reference is the entirety of the New Testament itself. Is this not self evident? Are we supposed to cast aside the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes and every New Testament admonition to treat others, both men and women, with genuine love, kindness respect and compassion because somehow husband and wife relationships are exempt from the commandment to demonstrate all of these holy virtues, virtues that spring forth from the gift of the Holy Ghost? Do you not understand that in the so-called "controversial" New Testament verses that speak of the husband being "the head of the wife" that the specific role model cited for husbands to follow is the sacrificial meek and lowly Lamb himself, the Lord Jesus Christ? Can you show me one verse in the New Testament where the Savior either advocated or demonstrated that men should use a domineering, free agency destroying heavy hand in their relationships with women?

I fear what's happening is that some members of the church are beginning to pick and choose what verses of scripture they will believe are inspired, thus the justification for the demand of some (cited in the OP) that the temple endowment must be now be changed in order to accommodate those who no longer believe the verses of scripture that teach the husband is the head of the wife are inspired and true. And as surely as night follows day, so too these "enlightened ones" no longer believe certain parts of the temple endowment are inspired as well, thus their call to have the endowment altered so as to reflect the tenets of modern feminism.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

I fear what's happening is that some members of the church are beginning to pick and choose what verses of scripture they will believe are inspired, thus the justification for the demand of some (cited in the OP) that the temple endowment must be now be changed in order to accommodate those who no longer believe the verses of scripture that teach the husband is the head of the wife are inspired and true. And as surely as night follows day, these "enlightened ones" no longer believe certain parts of the temple endowment are inspired,, thus their call to have the endowment altered to reflect the tenets of modern feminism.

 

Love this.

It's happened before.  Let's hope it doesn't continue to happen.

[Bobbieaware]

Love this.

It's happened before.  Let's hope it doesn't continue to happen.

I believe it's likely alterations to the endowment to accommodate and not offend "modern sensibilities" have gone just about as far as they can do without beginning to repudiate the eternal underlying principles. So I don't think we'll see many more changes. If there are future changes, they will probably minor and "cosmetic" in nature.

[JLHPROF]

I believe it's likely alterations to the endowment to accommodate and not offend "modern sensibilities" have gone just about as far as they can do without beginning to repudiate the eternal underlying principles. So I don't think we'll see many more changes. If there are future changes, they will probably minor and "cosmetic" in nature.

 

I think they've already repudiated some underlying principles...but the endowment given is the only one available and it's better than nothing I suppose.

[pogi]

The called for reference is the entirety of the New Testament itself. Is this not self evident? Are we supposed to cast aside the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes and every New Testament admonition to treat others, both men and women, with genuine love, kindness respect and compassion because somehow husband and wife relationships are exempt from the commandment to demonstrate all of these holy virtues, virtues that spring forth from the gift of the Holy Ghost? Do you not understand that in the so-called "controversial" New Testament verses that speak of the husband being "the head of the wife" that the specific role model cited for husbands to follow is the sacrificial meek and lowly Lamb himself, the Lord Jesus Christ? Can you show me one verse in the New Testament where the Savior either advocated or demonstrated that men should use a domineering, free agency destroying heavy hand in their relationships with women?

I fear what's happening is that some members of the church are beginning to pick and choose what verses of scripture they will believe are inspired, thus the justification for the demand of some (cited in the OP) that the temple endowment must be now be changed in order to accommodate those who no longer believe the verses of scripture that teach the husband is the head of the wife are inspired and true. And as surely as night follows day, so too these "enlightened ones" no longer believe certain parts of the temple endowment are inspired as well, thus their call to have the endowment altered so as to reflect the tenets of modern feminism.

 

Again, you are missing the point.  The point is not that the NT doesn't teach wonderful principles on how a man should treat his spouse.  It does all of this.  My point is, what happens when a man doesn't follow those principles of righteousness but sticks to the "I am the head".  Does the NT give conditions when the woman should not be obedient to the husband as the temple does?  The CFR still stands.  Show me the conditions outlined in the NT of when a woman can righteously disobey or not heed the counsel of her husband.

 

Perhaps you are confusing me for someone who is pushing to change the wording in the endownment.  Go back and read my posts.  I have consistently said that the temple has it right - it gives conditions, while the Bible does not. 

 

Do you not pick and choose verses to believe?  You believe all mistranslations, cultural practices, false teachings, etc.?

 

"As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14:34, 35).

Edited February 28, 2015 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

You two may just be talking past one another rather than disagreeing.  The abuse of the command to be the head does not invalidate the function of being the head of the family.  Just because some men abuse the position does not invalidate the role.  

 

A leader, any leader, functions best when they serve those they lead in a righteous manner.  It is even more important in the family unit.  When a man and wife seeks to become one, it means they truly seek to align their way of being with God.  It is his oneness that is sought and desired.  

[canard78]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/25/temple-prep-for-daughters-brace-yourself/#comment-348030

This rather adamant article takes a new(ish) approach to the concerns of Ordain Women. While holding the priesthood is mentioned in passing, the main idea behind the article appears to be that the Temple Endowment is sexist, plain and simple. The implication being that it is so because men made it that way and it should be changed.

Taking into consideration the teaching of the prophet Joseph:

“Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” – Joseph Smith

is she right?

I am not denying what is actually in the temple itself. The question is "Is it actually sexist" or are we missing something in what God has revealed?

Because I believe that God revealed the endowment to Joseph and it shouldn't be changed, but while I believe that God has different roles for men and women, I don't believe one is favored in any way and I don't believe God is sexist.

Quite the article...

When you say that you believe the endowment was revealed to Joseph... Which version? Which parts?

Evidence suggests it was a more naturalistic/organic creation:

Discussing the Endowment:

"Bro[ther] Joseph [smith] turned to me [brigham Young] and said: “Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so and each time I got something more; so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo, I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N04_35.pdf

[bluebell]

I don't necessarily think that the endowment needs to change because it reflects cultural rather than gospel doctrine, but i do think that's a possibility.  I also think that we need more revelation and inspiration on the spiritual role of women in general-not just in the church but in life.  There are parts of the endowment that are confusing, limiting for women in a way that men are not, and which can be very difficult for women who truly wonder how their Father in Heaven views them.

 

Brigham Young taught that all women were like children and would be exalted because they weren't smart enough or spiritual enough to sin in a ways that wouldn't automatically be covered by the Atonement of Christ (like children's sins are).  That's hurtful doctrine, and it was taught by a prophet of God which just illustrates how deeply these cultural beliefs about men and women really go inside each of us.  

 

I have no doubt that eventually we will get past our cultural tendencies in regards to gender but probably not until we seek after it.

[Bobbieaware]

Again, you are missing the point. The point is not that the NT doesn't teach wonderful principles on how a man should treat his spouse. It does all of this. My point is, what happens when a man doesn't follow those principles of righteousness but sticks to the "I am the head". Does the NT give conditions when the woman should not be obedient to the husband as the temple does? The CFR still stands. Show me the conditions outlined in the NT of when a woman can righteously disobey or not heed the counsel of her husband.

Perhaps you are confusing me for someone who is pushing to change the wording in the endownment. Go back and read my posts. I have consistently said that the temple has it right - it gives conditions, while the Bible does not.

Do you not pick and choose verses to believe? You believe all mistranslations, cultural practices, false teachings, etc.?

"As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14:34, 35).

As a member of the church, perhaps I haven't made it clear that I am informed on this thread's topic not just by what's in the Bible but also by what's in the standard works, by the words of the prophets and apostles, and by the instructions we receive in our temples. Whatever problems there might be for non-members when it comes to correctly interpreting the Bible's teachings on the proper relationship dynamics that should exist between husbands and wives, for LDS members there is no excuse to be improperly informed. Fact is that our LDS scriptures (including the Bible) and the teachings of the teachings of the modern prophets make it perfectly clear that any kind of unrighteous dominion, even in the least degree, sounds the death knell for any real priesthood power existing in a man, especially in the case of the priesthood power and authority of an unrighteous husband and father. Here's an example, among many, of the clarifying scriptural passages found in the LDS canon that can mightily help to prevent any potential misunderstandings some New Testament passages might create in the minds of the unlearned and spiritually ignorant.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121)

As far as any supposed or implied suggestion that domination of husbands over their wives is somehow taught and approved of in the Bible, I offer the following:

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (1 Corinthians 7)

Edited March 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

When you say that you believe the endowment was revealed to Joseph... Which version? Which parts?

Evidence suggests it was a more naturalistic/organic creation:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N04_35.pdf

 

I believe all that we are taught and given was part of the endowment and if any of that is changed or altered we leave the endowment with fewer blessings, less power, and less knowledge.  That is what was given to Joseph - the knowledge of the organization of the universe, the initatory, the garments, and all the signs, tokens, penalties and keywords.  In short, I beleive that Joseph was given

" all those ordinances in the house of the Lord which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the keywords, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell."

 

 

Unfortunately some of those items are no longer taught, preventing us from being able to walk back into the presence of the Father.

 

I recognize that the theatrical method of delivering this knowledge was established over time and as Brigham said:

“Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.”

 

More than the organization has been changed.  Key teachings, blessings and information have been removed.  Fortunately they still exist in the records so that any endowed member can complete the missing knowledge if they so choose.

[Bobbieaware]

I believe all that we are taught and given was part of the endowment and if any of that is changed or altered we leave the endowment with fewer blessings, less power, and less knowledge.  That is what was given to Joseph - the knowledge of the organization of the universe, the initatory, the garments, and all the signs, tokens, penalties and keywords.  In short, I beleive that Joseph was given

 

Unfortunately some of those items are no longer taught, preventing us from being able to walk back into the presence of the Father.

 

I recognize that the theatrical method of delivering this knowledge was established over time and as Brigham said:

“Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.”

 

More than the organization has been changed.  Key teachings, blessings and information have been removed.  Fortunately they still exist in the records so that any endowed member can complete the missing knowledge if they so choose.

After observing firsthand the "changes" I was previously told were made to the endowment in the late 1980's, I came to realize there were fewer actual changes to the ceremony than there were outright deletions -- the endowment now existed in truncated form. I immediately presumed the deletions were made because I knew of several newly endowed members who were emotionally and spiritually unprepared to receive the deleted ordinances and I assumed this phenomenon of unpreparedness had become church-wide. For this reason, I don't find the deletions to be troubling because it's a well-known gospel precept that it's not right nor wise to give sacred things to those who are spiritually unprepared to receive them. In retrospect, I now realize those deletions coincided with the beginning of the post-modern LDS church, a church where today there are a significant number of members who do not hesitate to publicly to criticize the church leaders.

[pogi]

As a member of the church, perhaps I haven't made it clear that I am informed on this thread's topic not just by what's in the Bible but also by what's in the standard works, by the words of the prophets and apostles, and by the instructions we receive in our temples.

 

You actually made it sound as if the Bible was clear without the other standard works etc. You said:

 

disagree with you when you say, "but unfortunately that part was left out of the Bible." That's nonsense and I'm quite sure you know better.

 

The two verses you offer from the Bible have nothing to do with the conditions in which a woman does not have to "obey" her husband. 

 

Sexism was a part of that culture and made it into scripture plain and simple.

 

COLOSSIANS 3:18 - Wives submit to husbands.

1 PETER 3:1 - Wives submit.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22 - 25 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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.

Titus 2:3 - 5 - [Woman to be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:5 -7 - Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel…

 

 

If you don't see how these verses are a gross mischaracterization of the true relationship between man and woman, then I dare you to share your feelings in church, that the woman should be obedient and submissive to their husband in everything, as the man is their head and the woman is the weaker vessel, and that if a woman has a problem with what you are saying that they should take it up with their husbands at home because it is a shame for a woman to speak at church and will not be permitted.

 

Lets see what kind of reaction you get.  The funny thing is, everything you siad would be completely biblical.  No stretch at all from what is written.

 

Thank goodness for modern revelation!

 

The Greek word for "submit" in the bible is "huppotasso". It means:

1. to arrange under, to subordinate
2. to subject, put in subjection
3. to subject one's self, obey
4. to submit to one's control
5. to yield to one's admonition or advice
6. to obey, be subject

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html

Edited March 1, 2015 by pogi