Nofear Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Very interesting article. I don't know any Hebrew to judge its accuracy but it make a lot of sense to me. http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/2016/02/what-does-it-mean-for-woman-to-be.html What is the topic? A link to an article is not a discussion topic.
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Interesting thread title. It caught my attention.
Meadowchik Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 That is interesting and it explains tuma in a way I did not hear in the last article I read about Jewish orthodoxy and menstruation. That was basically about the challenge of being in tuma for days or even more (like God women suffering constant menstrual blood loss) and thus being separated from one's husband, not being able to touch or sleep in the same bed. She tried to describe the unexpected redeeming benefits of the separation which created a cycle of intimacy either characterised by physical rough or physical separation. I wish I could remember the title! I didn't find it, but here's another one on the subject which is also interesting: http://www.flare.com/health/question-of-ritual-bed-bath-and-the-beyond/
cinepro Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 Thanks goodness we've left behind such notions in our day. Oh, wait. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 It seems appropriate that a thread with that title would be started by one with "nofear". 4
Anijen Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Very interesting article. And I like it because it was short enough to keep my attention. What I liked most was this; "... in the words of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, ". . . water represents the womb of Creation. When a person immerses in the mikvah, he is placing himself in the state of the world yet unborn, subjecting himself totally to G-d's creative power."In this context, it is easy to understand why immersion in a mikvah removes tuma. After the contact with death, we submerge ourselves in the substance from which life emerged.... It made me reflect on the symbolism of the ordinance of baptism and coming out a new life, being born again and changing ones life by becoming closer to god. 2
volgadon Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Not a terribly accurate article. I will post the reasons later tonight.
volgadon Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 "In a similar way, a woman who has given birth is also tuma because when she was pregnant she was filled with potential life and the spiritual power of creation. When her child is born that spiritual power departs and she becomes tuma. In addition by bringing a new child into the world she has also brought more death, because each child who lives must also one day die." A bizarre explanation. A woman becomes tme'ah after giving birth because of coming in contact with the blood and other fluids that transmit ritual impurity. If that were true about bringing death into the world, then why not require purification after coming into contact with any living thing as all must die? The author of the blog post is trying to hard to explain away any bits in scripture that might seem unsavoury or not in complete harmony with current American Mormon notions of womanhood. 3
Nofear Posted February 19, 2016 Author Posted February 19, 2016 The open question for me was whether or not the Hebrew translation and thinking was accurately reflected. And for that she reached to Jewish opinion as well, not just Mormon thinking. As you say, we sometimes like to re-interpret things to be a little less unsavory. But on the other hand, culturally, things that we find unsavory may well not at all been so to the social mindset of those long ago. Much of the symbolism in the Mosaic law currently wouldn't/doesn't jive with us well at all. Indeed, that is the position of the article with menstruation and unclean just being one example. Ironically, being called fearless for bringing up the topic reinforces that position. I'm ok with the article's position being incorrect, but fine with it being on the right track too. Currently I am personally leaning towards the latter stance. PS: If mods get around to it, I'd be fine with the spelling of menstruation being corrected in the thread title. 1
Nofear Posted February 19, 2016 Author Posted February 19, 2016 On 2/17/2016 at 4:40 PM, Nofear said: Very interesting article. I don't know any Hebrew to judge its accuracy but it make a lot of sense to me. http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/2016/02/what-does-it-mean-for-woman-to-be.html What is the topic? A link to an article is not a discussion topic. Just what others thought about whether or not the ideas presented in the article were accurate. Does the Hebrew interpretation match up or does it fall short.
volgadon Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Nofear said: The open question for me was whether or not the Hebrew translation and thinking was accurately reflected. And for that she reached to Jewish opinion as well, not just Mormon thinking. As you say, we sometimes like to re-interpret things to be a little less unsavory. But on the other hand, culturally, things that we find unsavory may well not at all been so to the social mindset of those long ago. Much of the symbolism in the Mosaic law currently wouldn't/doesn't jive with us well at all. Indeed, that is the position of the article with menstruation and unclean just being one example. Ironically, being called fearless for bringing up the topic reinforces that position. I'm ok with the article's position being incorrect, but fine with it being on the right track too. Currently I am personally leaning towards the latter stance. PS: If mods get around to it, I'd be fine with the spelling of menstruation being corrected in the thread title. What I'm saying is that the "Hebrew translation and thinking" was not accurately reflected.
volgadon Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 Here is a helpful though slightly dated look by Jacob Milgrom at biblical purity. He was one of the scholars who contributed most to our understanding of the topic. https://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1993%2022/Milgrom22.pdf 1
Nofear Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 For those who don't read the above link (which is interesting) the thesis is bodily excretions = death and hence impure. The article does seem to have a distinctly secular take on things, but that doesn't neccesarily make it wrong (or right). Thanks for posting it volgadon. 1
katherine the great Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I like it because it gave the women lots of time off from housework. 1
juliann Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 8 hours ago, katherine the great said: I like it because it gave the women lots of time off from housework. Ha. I'd read the accounts of the awfulness of women being banished to tents. My only thought was what a great vacation that must have been. I can't imagine the women being too unhappy about this. 2
ERMD Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 This is a women's topic. Men cannot participate in any meaningful way. 1
Nofear Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, ERMD said: This is a women's topic. Men cannot participate in any meaningful way. The original article I posted and the second one by volgadon, in essence said the same thing: death = unclean. The former tries to take a positive spiritually uplifting take on that in the specific context of the female body (e.g. "Yet once the egg passes through her body that spiritual potential leaves putting her in a state of tuma.") The latter to me appeared to me as a secular interpretation that cast the Israelites in the context of a primitive culture fearful of death but lacking any deeper spiritual insight. That the two positions are at core the same (death = unclean) and yet we have two rather different "spins" on it perhaps reflect much more on us than anything else. And likely also how we view the daughters of God. Your comment, ERMD, which to me appears as a manifestation of cynical sarcasm illuminates a position... which may have been unintentional. Since I personally believe in a kind, benevolent Jehovah, I still preference an interpretation of the Mosaic Law that attempted to uplift the fallen children of Adam and Eve some from the dust and grime of this lone and dreary world. Edited February 21, 2016 by Nofear grammar
firepatch36 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 I read unclean as unhealthy. In ancient times, bleeding was unhealthy and separation from others when unhealthy is a good idea.
ERMD Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 23 hours ago, Nofear said: The original article I posted and the second one by volgadon, in essence said the same thing: death = unclean. The former tries to take a positive spiritually uplifting take on that in the specific context of the female body (e.g. "Yet once the egg passes through her body that spiritual potential leaves putting her in a state of tuma.") The latter to me appeared to me as a secular interpretation that cast the Israelites in the context of a primitive culture fearful of death but lacking any deeper spiritual insight. That the two positions are at core the same (death = unclean) and yet we have two rather different "spins" on it perhaps reflect much more on us than anything else. And likely also how we view the daughters of God. Your comment, ERMD, which to me appears as a manifestation of cynical sarcasm illuminates a position... which may have been unintentional. Since I personally believe in a kind, benevolent Jehovah, I still preference an interpretation of the Mosaic Law that attempted to uplift the fallen children of Adam and Eve some from the dust and grime of this lone and dreary world. You're reading way too much into it. In another thread dealing with women and the priesthood, it was stated that men could have no say in the discussion since they cannot understand the issue from a woman's perspective.
USU78 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 On 2/20/2016 at 10:36 AM, juliann said: Ha. I'd read the accounts of the awfulness of women being banished to tents. My only thought was what a great vacation that must have been. I can't imagine the women being too unhappy about this. Did you ever read The Red Tent? As I recall, a TV movie or miniseries was made based upon it. I never saw it.
bluebell Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 29 minutes ago, USU78 said: Did you ever read The Red Tent? As I recall, a TV movie or miniseries was made based upon it. I never saw it. I tried reading it but it just didn't keep me interested. I saw the movie-it was entertaining but not much more. However, the tent was seen as a very special place.
USU78 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I tried reading it but it just didn't keep me interested. I saw the movie-it was entertaining but not much more. However, the tent was seen as a very special place. Yes, and with menses coinciding amongst the women in the camp, it was a nice vacation from meal prep and child-rearing, etc.
bluebell Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 30 minutes ago, USU78 said: Yes, and with menses coinciding amongst the women in the camp, it was a nice vacation from meal prep and child-rearing, etc. The children stayed with the women in the tent so that wasn't much different. 1
mtomm Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, ERMD said: You're reading way too much into it. In another thread dealing with women and the priesthood, it was stated that men could have no say in the discussion since they cannot understand the issue from a woman's perspective. No man in this thread has taken it upon himself to tell us how to menstruate. I think that's what has allowed the ongoing conversation. An explanation of ancient traditions seems well within their ability to explain. I've really appreciated their input with that knowledge. The problem happens when men tell us how we should be behaving, thinking and feeling in the here and now. It would behoove many men to follow the lead of NoFear when approaching topics that have a strong female theme. And if you check out the abortion thread no woman in there told the men to take a hike either (even though that was a conversation that probably need more women participating, on both sides of the issue and a few less from someones who would never experience an actual pregnancy.) Edited February 22, 2016 by mtomm 1
USU78 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: The children stayed with the women in the tent so that wasn't much different. Ah poop.
Recommended Posts