Sexism and Religion

[smaneck]

I don't know about US law, but less than twenty years ago, rape was defined as "extra-marital" in my country.

Pretty much. Some states began to outlaw martial rape in the mid-seventies. By 1993 it was banned in all of them.

Less than forty years ago, married women could only go to work with a written permission of their husband.
Up until 1959, husbands could immediately terminate their wives' working contract.

I don't think that was every true in the US.

In Bavaria, female teachers had to quit as soon as they got married.

That was true in the 19th century in the US but my great-grandmother was a principal in the early part of the 20th century even though she had five children.

Furthermore, husbands had total dominion over every decision, and any wages earned by their wives were to be used by the men as they saw fit, without the women having any legal say in the matter.

Now, that can still be the case in community property states. But then any wages earned by a husband can be legally used by the wife as well.

What is interesting is that according to the Islamic shariah, a man has no claim whatsoever on his wife's property or earnings. Prior to the 20th century women had more legal rights in the Islamic world than they did in Europe or America. But you are right, feminism changed that.

 

[redleghunter]

I'd say that is precisely why we need continuing revelation

I've seen a few comments about continuing revelation on this thread. Can you explain this a bit more? Also, with continuing revelation, within your church, what is used as an infallible standard to test the truth claims of the new revelations? Thanks.

 

[smaneck]

I've seen a few comments about continuing revelation on this thread. Can you explain this a bit more? Also, with continuing revelation, within your church, what is used as an infallible standard to test the truth claims of the new revelations? Thanks.

Continuing revelation is based on the premise that God will never leave humanity alone and that divine revelation did not therefore end with the Bible or the Qur'an. Mormons, I think it can be said, believe in continuous revelation at least since Joseph Smith, having routinized it within their church structure. For them the issue of legitimacy doesn't arise because each prophet is said to be elected by the divinely guided leadership.

The Baha'i concept of continuing revelation operates quite differently. We see God as revealing Himself through His Manifestations, individuals who don't merely receive a revelation from God but embody in their own Persons everything we can know about God humanly speaking. Centuries or even a millennium may pass before the appearance of a new Manifestation. How do we test the validity of a claimant? First, there is the Person of the Manifestation Himself. Second, there is the Word which He reveals and third there is the transforming potency of His revelation.
For instance, when I was a Christian I believed in Christ because of what I read about His life in the Gospels. I couldn't read those without seeing God in Jesus. Likewise I believed in the Bible as the Word of God because through it I heard God speak. Finally there was the ability of the Christian message to bring about spiritual transformation. All these proofs I saw in Christianity applied to the Baha'i Faith as well.
The performance of miracles or fulfillment of prophecy, in my book are secondary matters at best.

 

[jackcv]

I've seen a few comments about continuing revelation on this thread. Can you explain this a bit more? Also, with continuing revelation, within your church, what is used as an infallible standard to test the truth claims of the new revelations? Thanks.

Very productive questions. Smanek gave a thoughtful response. I appreciate knowing more about Baha'i doctrine. Perhaps I can clarify the LDS view somewhat.

Continuing revelation is based on the premise that God will never leave humanity alone and that divine revelation did not therefore end with the Bible or the Qur'an.

Does this not make perfect sense? If there is a consistent message in the Bible, it is that God speaks to men, women and children, members of all religions. Also to fish, donkeys, winds, waves and fig trees.

If our HaShem/Father in heaven was suddenly going to stop this millennia-old covenant pattern, wouldn't He state that clearly, more than once, with his clear reasons?

He didn't.

Mormons, I think it can be said, believe in continuous revelation at least since Joseph Smith, having routinized it within their church structure. For them the issue of legitimacy doesn't arise because each prophet is said to be elected by the divinely guided leadership.

Well, in fact the issue of legitimacy arose from the very beginning, and continues in full force today. The Prophet Joseph suffered for months under the burden of being the only witness to the golden plates, the ancient source of the Book of Mormon. He was ecstatic when, through revelation, God called 3, and then 8 other credible, sober men to see and handle the plates, personally and give their testimonies under oath.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught repeatedly and publicly to call upon God individually for the Holy Spirit to witness to each of us "if these things are not true". We and our children are taught and given the exact, 5 step procedure which one needs to follow in order to assure ourselves of the promised answers (Moroni 10:4-5). Personal revelation is the sine qua non of true religion.

We are likewise obligated and urged to obtain for ourselves God's endorsement of the callings and directions of the living prophets, seers and revelators, as well as our bishop, Relief Society president, and all others who (we believe) the Savior has called "by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

 

[Zoness]

That is a very fruitful question.

The answers, of course, are found in the first act of a 3 act play where this mortal life is merely the 2nd act. If you are an athiest or ex nihilo creationist, for example, it is difficult to even see, much less understand.

Man sieht nur was man weiss. -- One sees only what one already knows. (Goethe)​

However, I'll offer a short, incomplete answer to your question:

First, there is no benefit to the woman. What would it be?
Second, there is damage to the family when the primary nurturer is removed to change the world (even worse when her motive is simply to make more money to have more stuff.)​

The attached photo may shed more light.

I humbly recommend that after reading and pondering my weak attempt here, honest seekers of truth ask God about their own intended action steps related to this subject and see what feelings and intuitions the Spirit (inner voice; still, small voice; conscience...) brings to the table.

The benefit would probably be involvement in the church's doctrine and decision making regarding policies towards women. Wrt: Point 2. So the LDS prescribes specific roles for the genders, yes? Are you saying with your second point that the men who run the priesthood do so for money and prestige? That seems like a flimsy pretext to deny women the same rights.

At any rate, thanks for answering.

 

[redleghunter]

Very productive questions. Smanek gave a thoughtful response. I appreciate knowing more about Baha'i doctrine. Perhaps I can clarify the LDS view somewhat.


Does this not make perfect sense? If there is a consistent message in the Bible, it is that God speaks to men, women and children, members of all religions. Also to fish, donkeys, winds, waves and fig trees.

If our HaShem/Father in heaven was suddenly going to stop this millennia-old covenant pattern, wouldn't He state that clearly, more than once, with his clear reasons?

He didn't.


Well, in fact the issue of legitimacy arose from the very beginning, and continues in full force today. The Prophet Joseph suffered for months under the burden of being the only witness to the golden plates, the ancient source of the Book of Mormon. He was ecstatic when, through revelation, God called 3, and then 8 other credible, sober men to see and handle the plates, personally and give their testimonies under oath.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught repeatedly and publicly to call upon God individually for the Holy Spirit to witness to each of us "if these things are not true". We and our children are taught and given the exact, 5 step procedure which one needs to follow in order to assure ourselves of the promised answers (Moroni 10:4-5). Personal revelation is the sine qua non of true religion.

We are likewise obligated and urged to obtain for ourselves God's endorsement of the callings and directions of the living prophets, seers and revelators, as well as our bishop, Relief Society president, and all others who (we believe) the Savior has called "by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

Thank you for explaining your church doctrine on continuing revelations. However, unanswered was what does your church use as the infallible standard for truth claims? Meaning any new revelation must be tested as we are to test all spirits. Also the standard applied to a prophetic message, using the OT and NT, must come to 100% fulfillment or the prophet and prophecy are not from YHWH.

 

[jackcv]

The benefit would probably be involvement in the church's doctrine and decision making regarding policies towards women. Wrt: Point 2. So the LDS prescribes specific roles for the genders, yes? Are you saying with your second point that the men who run the priesthood do so for money and prestige? That seems like a flimsy pretext to deny women the same rights.

At any rate, thanks for answering.

You are welcome. Thanks for your comments.

The women of the Church are fully involved now, no less than men. In fact, equally to the vast majority of faithful priesthood holders.

Your interpolations of Point 2 are pretty far off the mark, both scripturally and with regards to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints particularly. My best answer is to suggest you do what I do - read it again with the question "How could this possibly be right?", then ponder it and ask the Holy Spirit to help you see and feel what is true.

 

[jackcv]

Thank you for explaining your church doctrine on continuing revelations. However, unanswered was what does your church use as the infallible standard for truth claims? Meaning any new revelation must be tested as we are to test all spirits. Also the standard applied to a prophetic message, using the OT and NT, must come to 100% fulfillment or the prophet and prophecy are not from YHWH.

Excellent questions.

Isn't the only infallible test on earth knowing the voice of the Spirit and how to obtain its guidance? Is this not a major component of the grace of God. I believe that until one has learned to recognize that Divine, still, small voice, one is whistling in the dark. Forgive me if I was not clear about that.

We are taught that personal revelation almost always comes in answer to a question - usually an urgent question. Then the Lord says, as you observed, that we must do our homework. One may not receive an answer because, "you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; (D&C 9:7-9)

BTW, I am confident that this is available to every Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Baha'i, Jew or gentile on earth who prays in the name of Jesus Christ, whether that one knows his given name or not.

As for 100% fulfillment of prophecy, how is one to know that? "Now we see through a glass darkly" The only way, I suggest, in the manner I described above.

 

[smaneck]

Thank you for explaining your church doctrine on continuing revelations. However, unanswered was what does your church use as the infallible standard for truth claims? Meaning any new revelation must be tested as we are to test all spirits. Also the standard applied to a prophetic message, using the OT and NT, must come to 100% fulfillment or the prophet and prophecy are not from YHWH.

How about we start a totally new thread on this topic so we don't derail the present one which is focused on gender issues. How about if Jack starts it out by explaining the five criteria within the LDS church? I would point out however, that you are making assumptions we might not all share. For instance, not all religions laying claim to revelation are churches. Nor do all necessarily believe there is an infallible standard for measuring truth claims. To 'test spirits' for instance, in the Baha'i Faith would be meaningless since we have no concept of an Evil Spirit aside from the one that might whispers in our own souls.

 

[smaneck]

BTW, I am confident that this is available to every Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Baha'i, Jew or gentile on earth who prays in the name of Jesus Christ, whether that one knows his given name or not.

Uh, that statement doesn't make sense to me. Can we address it in the new thread?

 

[redleghunter]

Excellent questions.

Isn't the only infallible test on earth knowing the voice of the Spirit and how to obtain its guidance? Is this not a major component of the grace of God. I believe that until one has learned to recognize that Divine, still, small voice, one is whistling in the dark. Forgive me if I was not clear about that.

We are taught that personal revelation almost always comes in answer to a question - usually an urgent question. Then the Lord says, as you observed, that we must do our homework. One may not receive an answer because, "you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; (D&C 9:7-9)

BTW, I am confident that this is available to every Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Baha'i, Jew or gentile on earth who prays in the name of Jesus Christ, whether that one knows his given name or not.

As for 100% fulfillment of prophecy, how is one to know that? "Now we see through a glass darkly" The only way, I suggest, in the manner I described above.

We know from the OT prophets that what God spoke through them came to pass. The Messianic prophecies fulfilled in the Gospels were literally fulfilled and 100% accurate. As will the Messianic prophecies in the Second Coming will be 100% fulfilled literally. The test of a prophet is: did what he or she said come to pass and is what they said consistent with what God has previously revealed. Even during the times of the Apostles, there were false teachers and prophets. The Apostles pointed believers in the church to their ministry and the Word of God as the Divine standard to test spirits and prophecies. From that time on many have come forward with prophecies which do not come to pass at all (Millerites come to mind as an example). These are false prophets.

So we can test prophets and new revelations by the God Breathed Word recorded in the TaNaKh (Old Testament) and Brit HaHadashah (New Testament).

Once again the test of a new revelation:

Did what the prophet say come to pass and is what they reveal consistent with what God previously revealed?

If we do not test in such a way we fall victim as Eve did when Satan said "You will not surely die." (Genesis 3)

 

[redleghunter]

How about we start a totally new thread on this topic so we don't derail the present one which is focused on gender issues. How about if Jack starts it out by explaining the five criteria within the LDS church? I would point out however, that you are making assumptions we might not all share. For instance, not all religions laying claim to revelation are churches. Nor do all necessarily believe there is an infallible standard for measuring truth claims. To 'test spirits' for instance, in the Baha'i Faith would be meaningless since we have no concept of an Evil Spirit aside from the one that might whispers in our own souls.

I'm game Ping me when the thread is created. However, to clarify my position. I was responding from the Christian worldview where revelation must be consistent. For example, one revelation from God says A is A; and if another prophet comes and says A is non-A, that would be inconsistent and the God of the TaNakH (OT) and Brit HaHadashah (NT) is not a God of confusion.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here's the thing: if your religion holds that women and men must have different roles (and potentially a different hierarchical status), then what it is promoting is sexism, even if you sugarcoat it with phrases like: "Equal, but different."

Telling a woman that she shouldn't pursue a career because her first duty is to be an obedient housewife to her man and a mother to her (potential) children (or telling a man that he cannot take care of his children because that's the mother's job) is the equivalent of telling an Afro-American that he cannot study medicine because his race is more given to athleticism than to feats of intellect .

 

[smaneck]

We know from the OT prophets that what God spoke through them came to pass. The Messianic prophecies fulfilled in the Gospels were literally fulfilled and 100% accurate.

To the contrary. It is because those prophecies were not 'literally' fulfilled that Jews refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. But can we please move this discussion to the other thread I established?

 

[smaneck]

I'm game Ping me when the thread is created.

The thread is created an entitled Continuing Revelation.

 

[ScottA]

Here's the thing: if your religion holds that women and men must have different roles (and potentially a different hierarchical status), then what it is promoting is sexism, even if you sugarcoat it with phrases like: "Equal, but different."

Telling a woman that she shouldn't pursue a career because her first duty is to be an obedient housewife to her man and a mother to her (potential) children (or telling a man that he cannot take care of his children because that's the mother's job) is the equivalent of telling an Afro-American that he cannot study medicine because his race is more given to athleticism than to feats of intellect .

If religion were about the things you have referred to, then what you are saying would be true. But that is just "religion."

God, on the other hand, and that is where you are missing the point, is demonstrating (saying) something in the whole male/female creation, that you have not been seeing. He has made us male and female in His image, to show us the proper relationship we are to have with Him... So, men lead, men provide, men protect, men labor, men serve...but women labor in their own way, the also serve, they are even a possession. But it is all a portrayal of God's love for us...and one we should portray well and as accurately as possible, and enjoy, knowing that He has espoused us as two becoming One.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The sexes exist because asexual reproduction allows for less genetical diversity, and renders species more vulnerable to disease. That's the reason why there are male and female, men and women.
As for homo sapiens, specifically: looking at both the remains and artifacts of pre-agrarian cultures and the few hunter-gatherers that are still around, we find some compelling evidence that the arrangement we are most familiar with (women subservient to a single husband, enormous emphasis on female chastity) is a concept that was only introduced with the agrarian revolution (which succeeded because it allowed for larger populations, not because it improved people's quality of life). I.E., of the roughly 200,000 years that our species has been around in its current form (and throughout the millions of years of our slightly more distant ancestors within the homo-genus), only approximately 10,000 years saw the rise of the male dominator-model - and it ceased to be all that functional once the industrial revolution changed the way we live on a fundamental level.

 

[smaneck]

As for homo sapiens, specifically: looking at both the remains and artifacts of pre-agrarian cultures and the few hunter-gatherers that are still around, we find some compelling evidence that the arrangement we are most familiar with (women subservient to a single husband, enormous emphasis on female chastity) is a concept that was only introduced with the agrarian revolution

I think you are wrong about this. While the introduction of the plow (not so much agriculture) does lead to a more patriarchal society women are not equal in hunter-gathering societies (and there are still some.) I recommend you read Ortner's "Is Female to Male as Man is to Culture?" It is quite relevant to the issue of religion as it relates to gender questions: https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/sai/SOSANT1600/v12/Ortner_Is_female_to_male.pdf

When I teach my course on Women and Religion I use this article as my theoretical construct.

 

[ScottA]

The sexes exist because asexual reproduction allows for less genetical diversity, and renders species more vulnerable to disease. That's the reason why there are male and female, men and women.
As for homo sapiens, specifically: looking at both the remains and artifacts of pre-agrarian cultures and the few hunter-gatherers that are still around, we find some compelling evidence that the arrangement we are most familiar with (women subservient to a single husband, enormous emphasis on female chastity) is a concept that was only introduced with the agrarian revolution (which succeeded because it allowed for larger populations, not because it improved people's quality of life). I.E., of the roughly 200,000 years that our species has been around in its current form (and throughout the millions of years of our slightly more distant ancestors within the homo-genus), only approximately 10,000 years saw the rise of the male dominator-model - and it ceased to be all that functional once the industrial revolution changed the way we live on a fundamental level.

That would be the simple, organic explanation, without the insight of higher purpose. Veterinarians should have such an outlook. But people should aspire to greater heights regarding their own species.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here's what anthropologists William and Jean Crocker found when they visited the Canela people of the Brazilian Amazon:
"It is difficult for members of a modern individualistic society to imagine the extent to which the Canela saw the group and the tribe as more important than the individual. Generosity and sharing was the ideal, while withholding was a social evil. Sharing possessions brought esteem. Sharing one's body was a direct corollary. Desiring control over one's goods and self was a form of stinginess. In this context, it is easy to understand why women chose to please men and why men chose to please women who expressed strong sexual needs. No one was so self-important that satisfying a fellow tribesman was less gratifying than personal gain."

Another tribe believes that fertilization and fetal development are continual processes that need to be kept going by sperm from different men - accordingly, their concept of fatherhood and family is RADICALLY different, and children are raised by the tribe rather than the "core family".

Also, contrary to popular imagination, women participated in stone-age hunts, and played an active and prominent part in society, WAY beyond the role of mother and housekeeper. If there was a hierarchy, it certainly wasn't based on reproductive exclusivity and controlling female sexuality.