If Jesus Christ was so radical, why not buck the system and....

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Not seeing a problem.  We have Sister missionaries, so we allow women to be called as teachers as well, do we not?  I am not suggesting wives share in the authority of their husband's calling anymore than a mission president's wife or temple matron can stand in for the mission or temple president, just that they be recognized as the teachers they are in the case of the women that are constant/frequent teaching companions of their husbands.

Alma 13 is about the ordination/fore-ordination of priests, high priests, and prophets to the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, AKA the Melchizedek Priesthood, not about the wives of missionaries and apostles or temple workers. Some folks, apparently not you,  try to make the case for Sister apostles and prophets. Alma 13 is clearly speaking about men. I’m simply asking how they square the two.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

There has been only one female professor in all my wards and she is married to another professor.  Don't know if this is just the randomness of where we have lived or Saints don't produce that many female professors.

We have none of either sex in our ward because we do not have a university in our boundaries. We did visit a ward in Hilo where a female professor gave a very impressive GD lesson, however.

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4361236&itype=CMSID

I think the best qualified candidate should be hired regardless of gender. One highly-qualified male relative was recently passed over for a faculty position at BYU in preference to a far less qualified woman....box checkers in Zion, too.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Alma 13 is about the ordination/fore-ordination of priests, high priests, and prophets to the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, AKA the Melchizedek Priesthood, not about the wives of missionaries and apostles or temple workers. Some folks, apparently not you,  try to make the case for Sister apostles and prophets. Alma 13 is clearly speaking about men. I’m simply asking how they square the two.

No, when I used Sister Apostle, I just meant that as a generic name, instead of listing Sister Holland, Sister Nelson, Sister Bednar, etc.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think by any standards, he said some radical things. His most radical statements were that he was the son of God and that only way to God was through him. By Jewish standards, suggesting that the law of Moses was outdated was radical. Similarly whenever any progressive Mormon suggests some policy or even doctrine is out of date or disfunct, it is often labeled as apostate, our going word for radical.

I can see what you are saying (though I thought that Jesus followed the law of Moses while alive?).  I also agree with your idea of labels, where we all put a positive label on those things that we agree with and a negative label on those we don't.  The label doesn't necessarily mean anything (good or bad).  

  

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think by any standards, he said some radical things. His most radical statements were that he was the son of God and that only way to God was through him. By Jewish standards, suggesting that the law of Moses was outdated was radical. Similarly whenever any progressive Mormon suggests some policy or even doctrine is out of date or disfunct, it is often labeled as apostate, our going word for radical.

It's unlikely that the historical Jesus ever said those things of himself in life. However his embracing of people normally considered "unclean" was pretty radical.

Jesus also didn't preach that the law of Moses was outdated. On the contrary, he taught people to keep the law.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

"Apostle to the apostles".  Are you suggesting a 13th apostle?  I know the names of the 12, and she is not listed. 

"All four gospels identify her, either alone or as a member of a larger group of women..."  If she was an apostle to the apostles, it seems strange that she would only be mentioned alone or as a member of a larger group of women and not identified with that group...ever. 

What about Junia/Julia in Romans 16:7?  Paul lists her as an apostle.  He also claims to be an apostle.  And is James the Brother of Jesus an apostle?  Do we have solid lists of apostles in the NT?  Matt 10:2-4, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:12-16, Jn 14:22, Acts 1:13-14,21-26, Rom 1:1, 16:7
1. Simon (Peter)
2. James, son of Zebedee
3. John, the brother of James
4. Andrew
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas (Didymus)
9. James, son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddaeus
11. Simon the Zealot
12. Judas Iscariot
13. Judas the son of James (Jn 14:22)
14. Matthias (Acts 1:21-26)
15. Paul (Saul) (Rom 1:1)
16. Andronicus (Rom 16:7)
17. Junia/Julia (Rom 16:7)

[Tacenda]

Any guys out there that would take the time to read this?

https://mormondom.com/letter-to-a-mormon-man-8d251aa1f062?fbclid=IwAR0R1sV9gKnHjrbJeiXXpfuoXCESouZhncFR2OIwb1DpY2pODpDM3zslUCc

Dear Mormon Man, tell me what you would do.

Me: I'm not so much a feminist, I don't want the PH etc. But I understand that some women out there could handle it! There are a lot of good points the article above makes though and I've just been conditioned so well to not have a huge problem with it. Except the Bible is a problem in that it portrays women as less then, or to be used by men for their pleasure or services. And can lead to sexual/physical abuse of women. Hadn't realized it until former President Jimmy Carter shared it. https://www.makers.com/blog/jimmy-carter-red-talk-womens-rights 1. Misinterpretation of holy scriptures
Carter states that doctrines are misinterpreted to keep men in "ascendant positions."

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What about Junia/Julia in Romans 16:7?  Paul lists her as an apostle.  He also claims to be an apostle.  And is James the Brother of Jesus an apostle?  Do we have solid lists of apostles in the NT?  Matt 10:2-4, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:12-16, Jn 14:22, Acts 1:13-14,21-26, Rom 1:1, 16:7
1. Simon (Peter)
2. James, son of Zebedee
3. John, the brother of James
4. Andrew
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas (Didymus)
9. James, son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddaeus
11. Simon the Zealot
12. Judas Iscariot
13. Judas the son of James (Jn 14:22)
14. Matthias (Acts 1:21-26)
15. Paul (Saul) (Rom 1:1)
16. Andronicus (Rom 16:7)
17. Junia/Julia (Rom 16:7)

True, we don't necessarily have a solid list, but of note Mary is never listed (that was my main point).

As far as Junia goes in Romans 16:7, when considering the different interpretations, I find it unlikely that there was a Junia (female) apostle.  Some scholars argue that it should be Junias (masculine), but beyond that, interpretations range from "outstanding among the apostles" to "noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles".  On top of that, the Greek "apostolos" is used to refer to the office of Apostle, but it also is translated elsewhere as "messenger", or "one who is sent", or "servant or slave".

Considering other passages in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, Paul clearly removes any possible confusion about the meaning of that verse and clarifies that he could not possibly have meant that a female Junia was an apostle - women were not even allowed to speak in church at the time, let alone hold positions of authority.  Given the times, I just can't buy that a female was an apostle (office) in the early church, but very well could have been a messenger or servant who was noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles - more likely.

Edited March 19, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Any guys out there that would take the time to read this?

https://mormondom.com/letter-to-a-mormon-man-8d251aa1f062?fbclid=IwAR0R1sV9gKnHjrbJeiXXpfuoXCESouZhncFR2OIwb1DpY2pODpDM3zslUCc

Dear Mormon Man, tell me what you would do.

Me: I'm not so much a feminist, I don't want the PH etc. But I understand that some women out there could handle it! There are a lot of good points the article above makes though and I've just been conditioned so well to not have a huge problem with it. Except the Bible is a problem in that it portrays women as less then, or to be used by men for their pleasure or services. And can lead to sexual/physical abuse of women. Hadn't realized it until former President Jimmy Carter shared it. https://www.makers.com/blog/jimmy-carter-red-talk-womens-rights 1. Misinterpretation of holy scriptures
Carter states that doctrines are misinterpreted to keep men in "ascendant positions."

I read it, what I could get through anyway.  

I know what point she is trying to make, in some ways it's a valid point, but that the whole premise that a person released from a calling against their will is sign that the person has no voice in the church is just dumb.  My husband was released from a calling against his will.  Obviously, being released from a calling, or not listened to, is not a problem for only one gender in the church.  That's a problem that is relevant to everyone.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

True, we don't necessarily have a solid list, but of note Mary is never listed (that was my main point).

As far as Junia goes in Romans 16:7, when considering the different interpretations, I find it unlikely that there was a Junia (female) apostle.  Some scholars argue that it should be Junias (masculine), but beyond that, interpretations range from "outstanding among the apostles" to "noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles".  On top of that, the Greek "apostolos" is used to refer to the office of Apostle, but it also is translated elsewhere as "messenger", or "one who is sent", or "servant or slave".

Yes, "apostle" does mean all that (cf. angel "messenger").  All the more reason to be skeptical that we actually know how apostles were chosen (casting lots), what their responsibilities were, and whether they were exclusively a priesthood function.  Likewise, we have female prophets in both OT and NT, and Paul even approves of women prophesying (1 Cor 11:5; cf. Acts 2:17-18, 21:19).  In 1 Tim 2:9-15, Paul is giving his personal opinion, which he puts in the 1st person.  In writing his epistles, Paul was likely unaware that his work would become canonized Scripture.  Instead he was engaged in ordinary pastoral work.  Even today, apostles express their personal opinions on a regular basis, much of it culture-based.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Considering other passages in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, Paul clearly removes any possible confusion about the meaning of that verse and clarifies that he could not possibly have meant that a female Junia was an apostle - women were not even allowed to speak in church at the time, let alone hold positions of authority.  Given the times, I just can't buy that a female was an apostle (office) in the early church, but very well could have been a messenger or servant who was noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles - more likely.

Most LDS members and traditional Christians would likely echo this view, but it is not at all clear that this is the correct view.

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I read it, what I could get through anyway.  

I know what point she is trying to make, in some ways it's a valid point, but that the whole premise that a person released from a calling against their will is sign that the person has no voice in the church is just dumb.  My husband was released from a calling against his will.  Obviously, being released from a calling, or not listened to, is not a problem for only one gender in the church.  That's a problem that is relevant to everyone.

 

For sure.  The sentiment is legit, but the article is a bit far reaching and she loses some of her audience.  She would have made a really unarguable statement had she appealed to the mainstream.

(And for the record, if you can't handle a releasing....check the ego (often).  Things change for multiple reasons.  I'm about to be released because I'm not able to do what needs to be done in my assignment.  I get it.   Time and season.)

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's unlikely that the historical Jesus ever said those things of himself in life. However his embracing of people normally considered "unclean" was pretty radical.

1

I don't have a dog in the race in terms of what the historical Jesus did or didn't say. However, statements like the teachings I mentioned are in Mark, which is the earliest gospel, so there is, of course, a possibility he did teach those things. More importantly, Bluebell isn't talking about the historical Jesus but instead, the one found in the New Testament, who she worships and reveres. In that context, my comments are very relevant, whether Jesus actually said those things or not. In other words, the common Christian conception of Jesus is definitely a radical.

 

Quote

Jesus also didn't preach that the law of Moses was outdated. On the contrary, he taught people to keep the law.

I should clarify that Jesus taught that the then contemporary interpretation of the law of Moses was incomplete and sometimes entirely wrong.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Benjamin Seeker

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Any guys out there that would take the time to read this?

https://mormondom.com/letter-to-a-mormon-man-8d251aa1f062?fbclid=IwAR0R1sV9gKnHjrbJeiXXpfuoXCESouZhncFR2OIwb1DpY2pODpDM3zslUCc

Dear Mormon Man, tell me what you would do.

Me: I'm not so much a feminist, I don't want the PH etc. But I understand that some women out there could handle it! There are a lot of good points the article above makes though and I've just been conditioned so well to not have a huge problem with it. Except the Bible is a problem in that it portrays women as less then, or to be used by men for their pleasure or services. And can lead to sexual/physical abuse of women. Hadn't realized it until former President Jimmy Carter shared it. https://www.makers.com/blog/jimmy-carter-red-talk-womens-rights 1. Misinterpretation of holy scriptures
Carter states that doctrines are misinterpreted to keep men in "ascendant positions."

I have no standing to be able to comment on this. 😔

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, "apostle" does mean all that (cf. angel "messenger").  All the more reason to be skeptical that we actually know how apostles were chosen (casting lots), what their responsibilities were, and whether they were exclusively a priesthood function.  Likewise, we have female prophets in both OT and NT, and Paul even approves of women prophesying (1 Cor 11:5; cf. Acts 2:17-18, 21:19).  In 1 Tim 2:9-15, Paul is giving his personal opinion, which he puts in the 1st person.  In writing his epistles, Paul was likely unaware that his work would become canonized Scripture.  Instead he was engaged in ordinary pastoral work.  Even today, apostles express their personal opinions on a regular basis, much of it culture-based.

Most LDS members and traditional Christians would likely echo this view, but it is not at all clear that this is the correct view.

However, it is clarified and supported by Book of Mormon teachings about the 12 on both continents. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[let’s roll]

On 3/17/2019 at 7:51 PM, MustardSeed said:

...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? 

Why not have women as apostles? 

Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? 

Or another reason? 

I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture,  I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one).  I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. 

It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. 

Perhaps being one in the way Deity intends isn’t the same as being equal in the way the world views equality.

I would expect Deity to exert all its efforts in moving mortals toward being one in the way they intend and be concerned about equality only if, and when, that concept intersects with being one.

[jpv]

On 3/18/2019 at 1:20 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps it has something to do with the Father/Son/Elder Brother relationship in the Godhead. If there is a bone to pick, it would be with this - the fundamentally male figure relationship in the equations of salvation.

If you have some revealed knowledge to support the notion that God doesn’t care about gender-based authority, could you please share it?

Alma 13 has been quoted in Conference with reference to women, not just men. Perhaps that chapter refers to something different than a teacher or elder being advanced in office.

[jpv]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

According to the endowment, both the Aaronic and Melchizedek orders, and according to current explanations, the patriarchal order is entered through sealing, so that one too. Could Jesus have been a girl? Again, I’m not sure why he couldn’t have been.

Right D&C 131 explicitly calls those married in the temple as having entered into a priesthood order.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

However, it is clarified and supported by Book of Mormon teachings about the 12 on both continents. 

That's all well and good, but doesn't explain for us why we have more than 12 apostles currently and in the past.

[jpv]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Alma 13 is about the ordination/fore-ordination of priests, high priests, and prophets to the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, AKA the Melchizedek Priesthood, not about the wives of missionaries and apostles or temple workers. Some folks, apparently not you,  try to make the case for Sister apostles and prophets. Alma 13 is clearly speaking about men. I’m simply asking how they square the two.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Holy Order of God as a technical term in LDSism.  It's not just basic Melchizedek priesthood office.

Read Lisle Brown's The Holy Order in Nauvoo, oft quoted by Mormon Interpreter and Church historians.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242493984_The_Holy_Order_in_Nauvoo

[SeekerB]

The Plan of Salvation is there to help Heavenly Father's children receive exaltation. I think His giving the Priesthood only to men is the best way to maximize the number of men who make it to the Celestial Kingdom.   It isn't a slight to women.

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

The Plan of Salvation is there to help Heavenly Father's children receive exaltation. I think His giving the Priesthood only to men is the best way to maximize the number of men who make it to the Celestial Kingdom.   It isn't a slight to women.

So by your logic, Heavenly Father does not want to maximize the number of women in the Celestial Kingdom?

How is the idea that God cares more about saving his sons not a slight to women?

Or are you being sarcastic?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, jpv said:

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Holy Order of God as a technical term in LDSism.  It's not just basic Melchizedek priesthood office.

Read Lisle Brown's The Holy Order in Nauvoo, oft quoted by Mormon Interpreter and Church historians.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242493984_The_Holy_Order_in_Nauvoo

For this discussion, let’s stick with the Book of Mormon. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

So by your logic, Heavenly Father does not want to maximize the number of women in the Celestial Kingdom?

How is the idea that God cares more about saving his sons not a slight to women?

Or are you being sarcastic?

The way I read his comment, it said that without the PH, men wouldn't rise to the occasion and make it to the CK. 

And want to add that back when there was the ERA march for equality my mom told me that she thought the men were given the PH to make them feel good about themselves since they couldn't conceive a child or something. I didn't even care what was going on, but apparently my mother was affected by all of what was going on. And this was her way to look at it and justify the lack of PH for women. IOW, men needed it to feel like they can do something as special as bearing a child. This was her thinking. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's all well and good, but doesn't explain for us why we have more than 12 apostles currently and in the past.

Yes, but it does establish a revealed pattern of a quorum of twelve that has been followed in three dispensations on three continents.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, jpv said:

Alma 13 has been quoted in Conference with reference to women, not just men. Perhaps that chapter refers to something different than a teacher or elder being advanced in office.

Alma is speaking about much more than priesthood offices. Here we are talking about priests, high priests, and prophets (and by extension Apostles) as special fore-ordained servants of the Son of God, not teachers or elders. Perhaps it is good to read the chapter in that context.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui