- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Today in SS, the focus was on 1 Corinthians: Paul’s teachings about women. Sister who usually teaches had her husband teach this lesson. He was going on .. and on .. and on about how women were told to not speak in church and to be subservient to men. He talked about the reasons behind this. Essentially the fact that men have the priesthood and women don’t. He was trying hard to be diplomatic about it, but he kept talking about Paul and his important teachings that we should follow. Finally, I just couldn’t take it any more. I mentioned that Paul’s teaching about women were actually fairly contraversial. Scriptural historians were unsure if those were from Paul, or if they were added later. They are not found in early Gnostic works.
Suddenly, the room was very quiet .. Too quiet. But someone did ask me how to spell Gnostic.
That is the way I generally interject – along with a smile when I add, “and we say, ‘as far as it is translated correctly.’ I choose to believe that part was not translated correctly.” Also, I use that phrase in relation to LOTS of things, including our other scriptures and the endowment script.
My understanding of the not speaking part is that it was added about 200 AD by a well meaning scribe. Whatever the reason was it was enough for Jimmy Carter to leave the Southern Baptist convention when they made a big deal about it. For me it’s another reason to believe what makes sense and ignore the stupid stuff. Old-Timer wrote:That is the way I generally interject – along with a smile when I add, “and we say, ‘as far as it is translated correctly.’ I choose to believe that part was not translated correctly.”
Also, I use that phrase in relation to LOTS of things, including our other scriptures and the endowment script.
LikeI understand that this might not have been Paul’s actual words but for me this is a non-issue. Am I really supposed to take advice on how to treat and respect women from someone that lived 2k years ago in a time when women had very few rights. At the very least I might expect that his cultural norms colored his interpretation of the Gospel and that I might need to account for those biases in applying his teaching for our day.
I would be surprised in the extreme if Paul was NOT sexist by today’s standards.
And yet, I suppose the argument about those comments possibly being added later is the more effective path to take in an SS setting.
Yes, for me, translation now involves perception. the Sender-Receiver model of communication says there is a message, the sender encodes (translates) it, sends it to the receiver who then decodes (translates it) and then receives its meaning. Perception is a highly variable translator.
I wrote another post back in Oct. comparing the striking parallels in some Pauline scriptures and the temple ceremony. Quote:1) I believe that gender disparities have been embedded in our culture for a long time. There is all this talk about asking the father of your intended for permission to court her. The father then “gives her away” at traditional weddings. She goes from being part of her father’s household to being part of her husband’s household. She surrenders her last name and takes up his last name. Etc.
2) Gender disparities are evident in the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 11 reads:
Quote:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,
since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
3) I believe that the gender disparities of the temple are carry overs from these two points above.
As for cultural influences, it is documented that JS used a pattern of approaching male relatives of women he intended to marry and asking them to act as intermediaries. Perhaps this was the more seemly and appropriate way to go about it by approaching the “head of household” so to speak.
As for Biblical influences – 1 Corinthians 11, verse # 11 is used by us to defend the practice of eternal marriage and may very well have been part of Joseph’s inspiration to begin with. Is it any wonder that the sexism apparent in these verses might bleed into the temple ceremony? I see verses that seem to have direct application to the veil that women wear during certain parts of the ceremony. I also see verses that could be the source text for men covenanting to God but women covenanting to man. “3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God… [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10”
Recently I attended a Christian church’s marriage seminar and they used these verses and others to present a Godly and biblical pattern of marriage. Man submits to Christ and woman submits to man. The pastor said that “Man is functionally subordinate to Christ but is not of greater value than the woman. Woman is functionally subordinate to man but is not of lesser value than Man…God covers the Man. Man covers the woman… If a man is properly submitted to Christ, most women will not mind submitting to him. Most women in their heart of hearts yearn for this relationship.”
I saw clear parallels with the disparities in the temple ceremony.
4) Unfortunately, I believe that our theology of polygamy and eternal dominion put an extra twist on this doctrine. Some women may yearn for their husbands to step up as “spiritual leaders” in their home but I doubt that very many would yearn to be one of several women that submit to the same husband (regardless of his relative success in submitting to Christ).
My understanding of polygamy as a form of kingdom building is built upon these unequal relationships. Women and their progeny belong to their husband in a way. In turn these women have claim upon him for sustenance and protection but he does not “belong” to her in the same way that she belongs to him. It is a subordinate relationship.
In summary, I believe that these are holdovers from previous generations’ understandings of marriage and gender relationships. I believe that they become less and less relevant with each passing generation. I even believe that part of our trouble understanding polygamy is that we do not view gender relationships in these “functionally subordinate” roles any more. I do not believe them to be an important/essential part of the temple. I believe that the language of the temple could be changed to remove the gender disparities and that this will eventually happen.
FWIW, NT scholars, like Bart Erhman, view Paul as quite progressive regarding women (for his day). To me, it’s important that early Pauline Christianity was revolutionary in how it saw all people, including women; not servants of a church or state, but individually connected to God. While Paul was long-ago, I find “truth” in his teaching because he was a social/spiritual visionary. The passage about staying quiet in I Corinthians is not really “controversial”. My perception is that it is widely rejected among scholars and widely accepted among fundamentalist Christians, but each group has its consensus. Also, this was no scribal error. It was inserted to further refine rules about prophesying in church meetings. Paul was saying that adherents should show some restraint and not go on and on… Later addition used that as an opportunity to reinforce arguments found in passages in 1 Timothy – an entire book not authored by Paul.
Thanks for the information OON. I do not doubt that Paul was ahead of his time on several issues. Likewise JS seems to have been ahead of his time on gender and race issues of his day.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.