The Lord delights in the chastity of women

[Anonymous]

ydeve wrote:

I think it’s important to remember who actually wrote the scriptures. It was not God. It was mortals. Inspired mortals yes, but mortals. As Moroni wrote on the title page of the Book of Mormon:

Quote:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God

I think it is entire possible that people who are inspired by God still say things that are incorrect or possibly even hurtful to others (It doesn’t take that deep of a study of general conference talks to find many examples). But that doesn’t, or shouldn’t, detract from the core message behind what they are saying.

Canonized scriptures are not words directly out of God’s mouth; they are the words of mortals, prophets, and thus contain mistakes, prejudices, even misunderstandings of doctrine, etc. But in spite of these mistakes, they are still inspired, are still a great treasure, and the Spirit can still teach us through them.

That’s a good way of looking at it. Maybe God wasn’t saying that a woman’s virginity is the most important thing about her. Actually, if you compare this verse with the only OTHER time the word ‘chastity’ appears in the BoM, maybe God is actually telling men not to rape women in this verse. But if you’re the man transcribing this verse, maybe it’s a little embarrassing to admit that God had to SAY “Hey guys! Don’t rape people!” so you try and reframe it in a way that’s a little more palatable. And if you live in a highly patriarchal, militaristic society, then of course the reframing is going to appear to put some or all of the burden on women, because if you’ve grown up in a culture like that, the idea of reading those verses from a woman’s point of view makes about as much sense as trying to understand the perspective of your pet curelom.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

Jacob 2:28 “For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.”

Why only women? Does God not also delight in the chastity of men? (After all, it takes two to tango.) Or did He simply not think it was worth mentioning?

I read this passage of Jacob in the context of protecting women from polygamy and other loose relationships. I hear it saying “women are entitled to a secure relationship with one devoted husband.” In that context it doesn’t mention men because the culture of the day did not have them at risk in the same way. The men’s hearts were not being broken by the actions of women.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

As for the temple covenants. I find that they track pretty closely with scriptures from the New Testament. The concept of women turning to their husbands as a stand-in for God is a very Christian idea.

Therefore I do not see the sexism in the temple covenants as being born in early LDS polygamy. I believe the sexism was already prevalent and that helped to give cover to those wanting to justify polygamous relationships.

I believe it started before Christianity and is a Jewish tradition as well. Walk into an orthodox synagogue during services and you will see the men seated on one side and the women on the other just as it is in the temple.

[Author]

Posts