Female Apostles in Early Church

[Nevo]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Of course "deacon" in Greek is another one of those multi-use words.  It is the same word translated as to "serve", as one would do in waiting at a table or in ministering to others.  So it's the same kind of argument for Phebe's position in this case.

True, the term could just mean that she served in the church, but even Cranfield (a conservative NT scholar) thought an office was in view: "It is perhaps just conceivable that the word διάκονος should be understood here as as quite general reference to her service of the congregation; but it is very much more natural, particularly in view of the way in which Paul formulates his thought . . . to understand it as referring to a definite office" (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 [ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1979], 781). But how much authority this position entailed, if any, remains an open question.

 

[juliann]

13 hours ago, Islander said:

You are reading more than there is in the scripture. No bible commentary in the last 1500 years has interpreted that passage the way you do. What we think is irrelevant when it comes to the word of God and the work of God. We can speculate all we want but that's all there is; speculation.

Good grief, first, I'm sure you haven't read every commentary and second, modern mainstream scholarship accepts Junia as a woman. 

[Bob Crockett]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

Paul never uses the term "apostle" to refer to an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood. S

Priesthood, esp. Melchizedek, is not a concept used by Paul as we understand it.  But it isn't "Priesthood" as much as quorum.  Plainly the NT refers to admitting an apostle to fulfill the number of 12.

Paul didn't really grasp this in his writings.  He considered himself an apostle along with the 12.  He seemed to assume there could be more than 12.  

And, we don't really know the NT truth because with rare exception, only Paul's writings survive in a rather unimpeachable form. 

The truth may be there was a quorum of 12 but Paul wasn't in it.  Peter saw him as a formidable equal (because he briefly referred to him in his writings and Luke gave a lot of real estate in Acts to the travels of Paul rather than of Peter or James in Jerusalem).  There is no question that Paul established congregations through the empire, although the strong indication (referring to missionaries) that establish congregations was not an apostolic function.  But there is no evidence that the apostles ever met to admit Paul to the quorum of 12, and had that happened, surely Paul would have mentioned it by the time of the First Jerusalem conference where Paul confronted Peter over the treatment of the Jews.  He didn't. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

...surely Paul would have mentioned it...

It always seems problematic to assume that people in the past would have acted in a way that we in the present believe they should have. 🙂

Edited December 21, 2021 by ksfisher

[Freedom]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It also seems problematic to assume that people in the past would have acted in a way that we in the present believe they should have. 🙂

We know that church government structures can change, and definitions of terms can change. Soul in the Book of Mormon refers to the spirit, but in the D&C it is redefined as both body and spirit. the quorum of the 70 used to be in ever stake, but now it is reserved for area and general authorities. There used to be assistance to the quorum of the 12, and women used to be able to participate in blessings. There was a time when only men could be witnesses for an ordination but this has been corrected. We need to be careful about applying modern definitions to ancient terms.  

 

The Book of Mormon had an office of the 12 disciples, and we speculate that this is because there can only be one quorum of the 12 apostles on the earth at a time but this is purely speculation.  

[Nacho2dope]

13 hours ago, Freedom said:

Virtually every translation of the bible renders the name as that of a woman. If you had read my posts, you would see that I am presenting an idea to be discussed and not forcing any interpretation on these verses:

 

"The problem is that we do not know what was originally stated, nor can be we be certain that Paul was property expressing his intent. The church fathers came generations later so their opinions may be based strictly on this reference from Paul which is vague at best. I think this is more of an academic exercise than anything because there is simply not enough information to draw any real conclusions. "

 

The reality is, there is no doctrinal reason why women cannot have the priesthood and this practice may change. We also cannot definitively determine if these two women were in fact members of the quorum of the 12. But we cannot conclusively state that they were not. I am not clear what you mean by me dismissing everything with the argument of social construct. We do have many practices in our religion that are just that however. Gender and gender rolls are a social construct - there is nothing in our DNA that states a man must provide the income and the woman must stay at home with the children. 

 

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

Up until the 90s, the young women's program conditioned girls to be mothers and housewives, and conditioned boys to be outdoors. This has changed because we now realize that these gender rolls are flawed. Both boys and girls need to learn how to cook and sew, both boys and girls need to learn how to camp, and both boys and girls need to get an education and a career. Both men and women have the innate ability to be a bishop, stake president or apostle. For some reason, God has not stepped in to make any changes at this point but I will not be shocked if at some point he does. 

 

I did read your post and that is why I asked you a question. You may have not read my post and that is where your confusion is coming from. You presented an idea to be discussed and I asked for your interpterion of the scripture that you shared. I asked a question in good faith that you have the opportunity to answer or not, and you have chosen to not answer. I also do not have to agree with you or The World Health Organization. Just like you do not have to agree with me. My hope was to have an open discussion with you and get some of your thoughts on this topic, unfortunately that is not what happened. Just because I don't agree does not mean I am dismissing your argument, I simply stated I did not agree. It seems that everything you disagree with is due to social construct. What is your issue with a girl who likes to sew or a boy that like to be outside? It is you who is putting individuals into boxes by stating that women and men and girls and boys have specialized roles. I'll share something with you my son likes to cook with me and my daughter likes to play sports with me. We also go camping as a family both boys and girls. This is also what I see in society around me. I do not see little girls being forced to sew why boys are locked outside. Where is this happening?  I asked a question in good faith and I am getting the impression that you are only here to argue. I will end my interaction with this post. I hope you enjoy and have a very happy holiday season. 

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Freedom said:

We know that church government structures can change, and definitions of terms can change. Soul in the Book of Mormon refers to the spirit, but in the D&C it is redefined as both body and spirit. the quorum of the 70 used to be in ever stake, but now it is reserved for area and general authorities. There used to be assistance to the quorum of the 12, and women used to be able to participate in blessings. There was a time when only men could be witnesses for an ordination but this has been corrected. We need to be careful about applying modern definitions to ancient terms.  

 

The Book of Mormon had an office of the 12 disciples, and we speculate that this is because there can only be one quorum of the 12 apostles on the earth at a time but this is purely speculation.  

Is it speculation to count them? See 3 Nephi 19:4, "And it came to pass that on the morrow, when the multitude was gathered together, behold, Nephi and his ^abrother whom he had raised from the ^bdead, whose name was Timothy, and also his son, whose name was Jonas, and also Mathoni, and Mathonihah, his brother, and Kumen, and Kumenonhi, and Jeremiah, and Shemnon, and Jonas, and Zedekiah, and Isaiah—now these were the ^cnames of the ^ddisciples whom Jesus had chosen—and it came to pass that they went forth and stood in the midst of the multitude."

There are a number of other references in 3 Nephi and after that refer to the twelve. Are you perhaps speculating that there were more or fewer in office at some time or another?

Edited December 21, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

On 12/19/2021 at 4:34 PM, Freedom said:

Romans 16:7 Great Andronicus and Junia, by fellow Jews who have been in prison with he. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was"

There is some debate as to whether Junia was a male or female, but it seems the vast majority agree that this is a woman. 

There is also some question whether this verse is saying that she is considered by the apostles to be outstanding, or whether it means that she is an outstanding apostle. 

John Chrysostom (AD347-407) is quoted as saying "Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles. To be an apostle is something great? but to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is!" 

Many translations of this passage suggest she was an apostle such as the NIRV "leaders among the apostles' and TPT 'outstanding and well-known apostles'

I could only fine a few that translate it as 'well known to the apostles'

We do need to consider, of course, that we have no idea what was originally written or even if this verse was even written by Paul so any conclusions we draw are limited to the surviving texts. There is nothing in our doctrine that requires only men can hold the priesthood, just as there was never any doctrine that states blacks could not receive the priesthood. There is also nothing in our doctrine that requires a male to pass or prepare the sacrament, this is just a social construct that has been perpetuated by a patriarchal society from which our church sprang. 

Will this be a correction that will soon come about?

 

When does expectation merge with speculation, as your use of the word "correction" seems to convey? Anything can happen of course, and all we have are authroitative remarks such as "The Lord set it up that way." In the Restoration, that began with Joseph, not Josie Smith; the First Vision being of Heavenly Mother and Jesa; and there is no Jackie the Baptist, or Petra, Jamsina and Jane. Or Moronia for that matter.

Edited December 21, 2021 by CV75

[Freedom]

48 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I did read your post and that is why I asked you a question. You may have not read my post and that is where your confusion is coming from. You presented an idea to be discussed and I asked for your interpterion of the scripture that you shared. I asked a question in good faith that you have the opportunity to answer or not, and you have chosen to not answer. I also do not have to agree with you or The World Health Organization. Just like you do not have to agree with me. My hope was to have an open discussion with you and get some of your thoughts on this topic, unfortunately that is not what happened. Just because I don't agree does not mean I am dismissing your argument, I simply stated I did not agree. It seems that everything you disagree with is due to social construct. What is your issue with a girl who likes to sew or a boy that like to be outside? It is you who is putting individuals into boxes by stating that women and men and girls and boys have specialized roles. I'll share something with you my son likes to cook with me and my daughter likes to play sports with me. We also go camping as a family both boys and girls. This is also what I see in society around me. I do not see little girls being forced to sew why boys are locked outside. Where is this happening?  I asked a question in good faith and I am getting the impression that you are only here to argue. I will end my interaction with this post. I hope you enjoy and have a very happy holiday season. 

If you disagree with gender being a social construct, then please provide a source to back up your definition. Please list all the things I disagree with due to social constructs. You make it sound like there are dozens. If you feel that today there are not gender social constructs then provide your evidence and not just your personal observations. In the church, up until quite recently, social constructs were imposed. Review the course material and activity plans from the 70s and 80s.  Go to the store and shop for clothes for babies. the girl clothing is all pink and the boy's is blue. By and large, boys clothing has sports, trucks and dinosaurs; girls have flowers, frills, and cute animals. this distinction is a very modern notion. Movies in the 90s had a male lead and a dependent helpless woman at his side. There were no roles for women, no roles for Africans or asian Americans, and on it goes. These are gender social constructs that are only now being broken down. A character like Black Window would never have existed just a generation ago. 

 

kingsmen is often translated as relation or family member. Kingswomen does not appear on the new testament but regardless, I responded by explaining that the name is translated as a female and is universally accepted as being a woman as has been explained by many others. Kingmen is not a qualifying word, it is simply the translation that is rendered elsewhere as 'my fellow jew' (NIV), and kinsfold (NAS). There was nothing in my tone that was argumentative, I was responding to your comments. 

 

You are welcome to disagree, but disagreeing for the point of disagreeing is not constructive. Provide your evidence that the person in this verse was a man and that artificial gender roles do not exist. 

 

[Freedom]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

When does expectation merge with speculation, as your use of the word "correction" seems to convey? Anything can happen of course, and all we have are authroitative remarks such as "The Lord set it up that way." In the Restoration, that began with Joseph, not Josie Smith; the First Vision being of Heavenly Mother and Jesa; and there is no Jackie the Baptist, or Petra, Jamsina and Jane. Or Moronia for that matter.

I think I made it clear that the implication that this person was an apostle is strictly based on the wording of the existing text and no conclusion can be drawn. It was a though experiment based on the fact that nothing in our doctrine requires that only men can receive the priesthood. A number of other corrections have been made regarding gender roles so could this (women receiving the priesthood) be another that could be down the road? I was not at all imposing an expectation. I posed it as a question. 

 

It is a bit troubling how some are so offended by the notion of women receiving the priesthood. It is true that there was no Josie Smith, but then we also have the endorsement of slavery for both labor and sex in scriptures. More and more we find the role improving in the church but we still have decisions being made for women by men. 

"The Relief Society [general] presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished," the late Chieko Okazaki told Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. "The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn't matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was — how come we weren't consulted?"

https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2015/10/14/after-20-years-mormonisms-family-proclamation-is-quoted-praised-parsed-and-politicked/

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Islander said:

You are reading more than there is in the scripture. No bible commentary in the last 1500 years has interpreted that passage the way you do. What we think is irrelevant when it comes to the word of God and the work of God. We can speculate all we want but that's all there is; speculation.

(Somewhere in the New England states in the Year 1830)

Religious Minister: No bible commentary in the last eighteen centuries interpreted the Bible as these Mormons have. What Joe Smith and his band of malcontents think is irrelevant when it comes to the word of God and the work of God.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

do not see little girls being forced to sew why boys are locked outside. Where is this happening? 

It happened back when I was a kid.  I had to crochet and knit in Young Women’s and maybe Primary…I am trying to remember when I made that deformed crochet covered hanger, seems like grade six (bringing sewing machines to church was too cumbersome, but we definitely talked about the advantages of making our own clothing and we were pushed to learn to do so, camping was only focused on at Girls’ Camp, which I never went to, from what I heard they mainly did womanly crafts and skits and one hike each year…my dad took us backpacking most years, so I guess they didn’t see a need to send us to Girls’ Camp if we didn’t want to go).  I had to take Home Ec in high school instead of Workshop. I heard a couple of guys complaining they couldn’t do the reverse (because they wanted to eat the Baked Alaskan and other stuff).  Not only did I have to sew in junior high and high school, we had to do a fashion show with what we made. It was humiliating to me. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

A character like Black Window would never have existed just a generation ago. 

In mainstream media as the lead character.  Comics with all their sexism, still experimented with powerful women as the main character in their books quite early, 1941 for WW. (There was tons of S&M with the original Wonder Woman though)
 

She was created in the 60’s and got her own series in the 70’s. I thought she was a cool character back then. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(Natasha_Romanova)

Edited December 21, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Good grief, first, I'm sure you haven't read every commentary and second, modern mainstream scholarship accepts Junia as a woman. 

I'm quite willing to accept Junia as a woman.
I'm even will to accept her as an Apostle (witness of Christ).

I don't believe this means she was a member of the Apostolic quorum, holding the keys to seal in heaven and earth.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

I think I made it clear that the implication that this person was an apostle is strictly based on the wording of the existing text and no conclusion can be drawn. It was a though experiment based on the fact that nothing in our doctrine requires that only men can receive the priesthood. A number of other corrections have been made regarding gender roles so could this (women receiving the priesthood) be another that could be down the road? I was not at all imposing an expectation. I posed it as a question. 

 

It is a bit troubling how some are so offended by the notion of women receiving the priesthood. It is true that there was no Josie Smith, but then we also have the endorsement of slavery for both labor and sex in scriptures. More and more we find the role improving in the church but we still have decisions being made for women by men. 

"The Relief Society [general] presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished," the late Chieko Okazaki told Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. "The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn't matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was — how come we weren't consulted?"

https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2015/10/14/after-20-years-mormonisms-family-proclamation-is-quoted-praised-parsed-and-politicked/

I was addressing the expectation you set about "correction" -- a weird assumption given your comments on speculation -- not any scholarly discussion you might be attempting, which is fine with me at face value. But traipsing out tired old quotes like these that were put into context long ago -- like when they were first made! -- undermines the face value quite a bit.

Edited December 21, 2021 by CV75

[Freedom]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

In mainstream media as the lead character.  Comics with all their sexism, still experimented with powerful women as the main character in their books quite early, 1941 for WW. (There was tons of S&M with the original Wonder Woman though)
 

She was created in the 60’s and got her own series in the 70’s. I thought she was a cool character back then. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(Natasha_Romanova)

there are always exceptions, just as there have been  gay characters and African American characters in some publications. 

[Freedom]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was addressing the expectation you set about "correction" -- a weird assumption given your comments on speculation -- not any scholarly discussion you might be attempting, which is fine with me at face value. But traipsing out tired old quotes like these that were put into context long ago -- like when they were first made! -- undermines the face value quite a bit.

have you read the interview? The context is quite clear. 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

 

We have seen a number of corrections in recent years, so I am posting the question may this be another correction that we might see in the future. I would suggest that it could be. 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Freedom said:

have you read the interview? The context is quite clear. 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

We have seen a number of corrections in recent years, so I am posting the question may this be another correction that we might see in the future. I would suggest that it could be. 

Yes, I read it. You have to string yourself along to misconstrue that she supports the correction you are advocating (which I first took to be conflated hope and speculation).

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I read it. You have to string yourself along to misconstrue that she supports the correction you are advocating (which I first took to be conflated hope and speculation).

you are attributing claims to my comments that I did not make so I am not even clear on how to respond to this. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm quite willing to accept Junia as a woman.
I'm even will to accept her as an Apostle (witness of Christ).

I don't believe this means she was a member of the Apostolic quorum, holding the keys to seal in heaven and earth.

Out of curiosity, do you think Paul was?  The topic of how people can be quite important in the Church without priesthood authority relates to Paul imo. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Freedom said:

there are always exceptions, just as there have been  gay characters and African American characters in some publications. 

Yes. But Black Widow the comic book character is an exception in that case Imo, so I had to mention that, nitpicker that I am.  In other ways her character in the books just underlines the massive sexism in the industry.  It was so much easier to enjoy them when I was blind and could ignore what was so wrong.  I can’t read them any more though.  

It was laughable (in a bad way) the excuses Marvel was making not to make her own movie like they had the rest of the Avengers (besides Hawkeye…but Hawkeye is boring too often, though it breaks my heart to say it, so much potential, need to see if the TV series is decent; got burnt out on superhero stuff and stopped watching until the Loki tv series, picked up Wandavision as well as it was different than the usual, but nothing else yet).  Not like they did right by BW in any of the movies Imo, especially pretty much ignoring her death while spending eons on Stark.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[Freedom]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes. But Black Widow the comic book character is an exception in that case Imo, so I had to mention that, nitpicker that I am.  In other ways her character in the books just underlines the massive sexism in the industry.  It was so much easier to enjoy them when I was blind and could ignore what was so wrong.  I can’t read them any more though.  

It was laughable (in a bad way) the excuses Marvel was making not to make her own movie like they had the rest of the Avengers (besides Hawkeye…but Hawkeye is boring too often, though it breaks my heart to say it, so much potential, need to see if the TV series is decent; got burnt out on superhero stuff and stopped watching until the Loki tv series, picked up Wandavision as well as it was different than the usual, but nothing else yet).  Not like they did right by BW in any of the movies Imo, especially pretty much ignoring her death while spending eons on Stark.

I agree my friend. 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Freedom said:

I

It is a bit troubling how some are so offended by the notion of women receiving the priesthood. It is true that there was no Josie Smith, but then we also have the endorsement of slavery for both labor and sex in scriptures. More and more we find the role improving in the church but we still have decisions being made for women by men. 

"The Relief Society [general] presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished," the late Chieko Okazaki told Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. "The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn't matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was — how come we weren't consulted?"

https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2015/10/14/after-20-years-mormonisms-family-proclamation-is-quoted-praised-parsed-and-politicked/

Excellent point.  For untold centuries women have been treated unequally (to say the least). I believe that sexism is as much of a social construct as gender.  

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Freedom said:

you are attributing claims to my comments that I did not make so I am not even clear on how to respond to this. 

Well, it can conveniently be made to appear that way some 3 or 4 posts after my initial observation, so I am not responding to this.

[2BizE]

I think Freedom is implying that there is precedent for a female apostle and ordination of females to the priesthood.  Sorry, Freedom, this is a man’s church… but the church has made great strides in allowing women to participate:

1978: Women allowed to pray in sacrament meeting (well, all meetings they attend…sort of)

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56026380&itype=CMSID

2013: women allowed to pray in general conference.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/04/08/176604202/a-womans-prayer-makes-mormon-history

2017: women allowed to hand out towels.

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2017/12/19/20624416/op-ed-why-last-week-s-lds-church-announcement-is-about-much-more-than-towels

2019: women allowed to be witnesses.

https://midutahradio.com/news/local-news/women-and-children-are-now-allowed-to-act-as-witnesses-to-lds-baptisms/
 

Freedom fails to see the great strides the church has made to include women in the church.  Perhaps in another 500 years there will be women Sunday School presidents?…..