Thanks for the replies to my various points. After re-reading your review (which was very good, by the way), I fear I am getting your post, if I haven’t already, off topic. I will save additional comments for another time.

I appreciate your insight and look forward to participating in other discussions.

James

Your reading of 1 Cor 14 seems very strained to me since you are relying on a ‘priesthood duty’ that I cannot find enumerated in any writings of any Church leaders. Further, why would Paul give directions for women for praying and prophecying in church three chapters previous if even so much as a woman asking a question is less than desireable? I think it makes much more sense to see this verse as an addition by a later writer.

James, welcome to Times and Seasons and hello to a fellow Austinite. I’d like to invite you to the Wells Branch Ward. We meet at 1pm. I teach Gospel Doctrine. :)

“Women aren’t silent in the LDS Church. We don’t wear headcoverings all the time, either. We don’t think single people are better at serving God than married people. etc.”

I think in many of these instances, the verses can be reconciled when considering the culture in which Paul lived. I agree with Kimball’s clarification of Gen 3:16, which is how I would also read the verse about women being silent in church. Although I’ve not studied it at depth, I’ve always assumed this had more to say about not holding the priesthood and the fact that, in my view, the husband is “responsible” for the family and thus it was the husband’s responsibility to answer any questions his wife might have before she asked the question in public. Maybe that is a strained reading. I need to spend a little more time on this.

While single people might not be better at serving God than married people, I believe Paul was speaking about spreading the gospel. A single person has a lot more time than a married person, who is likely raising a family or newly married, to do missionary work.

“I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this and I am somewhat afraid to ask”

– nothing to worry about; I was just refering to your statement that in graduate school you studied women in the New Testament.

Anonymous — don’t know. I’ve never posted on here before and only recently started reading this blog.

My name is James and I’m in Austin as well. I’m a member of the church, although inactive.

I’m not the first to read it this broadly. I think it is reasonable given JS’s statement about ‘corrupt and designing priests’ and the BoM on the loss of ‘plain and precious parts.’ If you (over)limit ‘translation’ to mean strictly ‘moving from one language to another’ then I don’t know how you explain the JS and BoM statements above.

“I’m not familiar with Pres. Kimballs’ comments’ on Gen 3:16. Did he teach that verse was in error? Or, perhaps you mean that he indicated it was simply incomplete without modern revelation?”

This is from: Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 70

“The Lord said to the woman: “… in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” I wonder if those who translated the Bible might have used the term distress instead of sorrow. It would mean much the same, except I think there is great gladness in most Latter-day Saint homes when there is to be a child there. As He concludes this statement he says, “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16.) I have a question about the word rule. It gives the wrong impression. I would prefer to use the word preside because that’s what he does. A righteous husband presides over his wife and family.”

My point in citing it is that it isn’t reasonable to maintain that the JST was complete/perfect or future prophets wouldn’t make these kinds of comments.

“With respect to Paul’s teaching about women, I guess I never saw those to be in conflict with modern revelation (especially when read in conjunction with the rest of the Bible).”

Women aren’t silent in the LDS Church. We don’t wear headcoverings all the time, either. We don’t think single people are better at serving God than married people. etc. As far as reading in conjunction with the rest of the Bible, I have no beef with that.

“You, obviously, have more experience and have spent more time studying this area, so I am perhaps wrong. It just bothers me when folks are o.k. with rejecting certain teachings, which have not been rejected by the church leaders or modern revelation, because those teachings are ones with which they disagree.”

I think it is pretty clear that I am only rejecting things that have been already rejected by modern Church leaders. If there is anything else you think I am rejecting, please call it to my attention so I can clarify.

After reading your biography, however, I recognize that you probably have quite a bit of basis for rejecting Paul’s “teachings dealing with women and are probably not doing so based only on your personal feelings.”

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this and I am somewhat afraid to ask ;)

Why are you anonymous, anyway?

Thanks for your reply.

I don’t see how believing that “the Bible is God’s word inasfar as it is translated correctly” leads one to believe that parts of Paul’s writings are wrong. It would seem that you have expanded “translated” to include additions, omissions, false doctrines, etc. You may be correct, but I have never read it that broadly.

I’m not familiar with Pres. Kimballs’ comments’ on Gen 3:16. Did he teach that verse was in error? Or, perhaps you mean that he indicated it was simply incomplete without modern revelation?

With respect to Paul’s teaching about women, I guess I never saw those to be in conflict with modern revelation (especially when read in conjunction with the rest of the Bible).

You, obviously, have more experience and have spent more time studying this area, so I am perhaps wrong. It just bothers me when folks are o.k. with rejecting certain teachings, which have not been rejected by the church leaders or modern revelation, because those teachings are ones with which they disagree.

After reading your biography, however, I recognize that you probably have quite a bit of basis for rejecting Paul’s teachings dealing with women and are probably not doing so based only on your personal feelings.

Actually, the Church teaches that the Bible is God’s word inasfar as it is translated correctly, which is an entirely different thing.

As for 1 Timothy, I am referring to the idea that women are saved by childbearing, which is false doctrine. The JST cleans up a mismatched singular-plural problem; it doesn’t address this issue. As I am sure you know, the JST was a work in progress and we should have a healthy distrust for the ‘if that verse were a problem, JS would have fixed it’ argument. Instances of later prophets, such as Pres. Kimball, offering corrections that JS didn’t (Gen 3:16) would support the idea that the JST wasn’t complete/perfect.

You wrote, “The Church is Restored, which means a restoration of the Gospel preached by Christ, including the teachings of Paul.”

This statement assumes that “the Gospel preached by Christ” equals “the teachings of Paul.” While I think that Paul did a good a job (and in some cases an exceptional job) of preaching the Gospel, given what we have of his (a few scattered letters), given a history of ‘corrupt and designing priests’, given our historical and linguistic and cultural distance from Paul, well, let’s just say that I’m extremely thankful for modern revelation as a guide by which to judge Paul’s writings.

You wrote, “I am curious if you have any basis for rejecting portions of the Bible when Church leaders have not felt the urge to do so.”

I’m not sure what I wrote that led you to believe that I ‘reject portions of the Bible,’ but I don’t. All I meant to suggest in comment #3 is that in cases where some have interpreted Paul to denigrate women, I choose not to get worked up over those passages but instead focus on the teachings of modern prophets that clarify the role of women in the gospel.

RW–

I was following you and agreeing with you until I got to “If we take this definition of canonicity, though, your move (and my customary move, too) simply to discount some elements of “false doctrine” (and assuming these are irreducible elements, not merely translational problems) seems like a really suspect way to reconcile Pauline feminism.” and then I lost you. I want to understand what you are saying here but I don’t.

Until post #9, you said nothing about referring to only a few scattered ideas, so you can perhaps see why others understood you to mean more than that. I suspect that I’m often mentally lazy, but I don’t think I was in this case.

Other than the things that Paul says about women (which, as I said, I think are less problematic than they seem at first glance–though still not unproblematic), can you point to Paul’s teaching that are not also found in the Book of Mormon and that cause you difficulty?

As for the supposed parallels between Alma the younger and Paul: other than the fact that both were converted by a dramatic visionary experience, there aren’t really very many parallels between the experiences of the two. If that is enough to be a suspicious parallel, then we should also suppose that St. Theresa of Avila and Moses before the burning bush were also templates for the Book of Mormon.

I was troubled by your #3. Not only does the Church teach that the Bible is God’s Word (as recorded often by Paul), but according to my edition, Joseph Smith revised 1 Tim. 2:15, which would mean that he certainly didn’t consider it false doctrine (unless you are refering to the unchanged verse).

The Church is Restored, which means a restoration of the Gospel preached by Christ, including the teachings of Paul.

I am curious if you have any basis for rejecting portions of the Bible when Church leaders have not felt the urge to do so.