Recommended Posts

Recently, I was having a conversation with an investigator and at one point, she made a very interesting observation. 

In the scriptures when describing humanity as a whole, the Lord uses “and the children of MEN”, or, “if MEN humble themselves...” . 

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

I made the attempt to express that in any language, the general way to describe humanity as a whole, it was by using the word “MEN” and that in noway it’s used to demean women. She wasn’t sastified with that answer. 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xavier said:

Recently, I was having a conversation with an investigator and at one point, she made a very interesting observation. 

In the scriptures when describing humanity as a whole, the Lord uses “and the children of MEN”, or, “if MEN humble themselves...” . 

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

I made the attempt to express that in any language, the general way to describe humanity as a whole, it was by using the word “MEN” and that in noway it’s used to demean women. She wasn’t sastified with that answer. 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

1.  You can't.   There's no way to form a rational argument that will satisfy an irrational one.  The use of 'men' to refer to humanity as a whole has been in common use for centuries.  

2. It will try, until enough people are fed up and reassert rationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Xavier said:

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

This bit is confusing to me.

Is she saying that God expects less of women - e.g. that men are expected to be humble, but not women?

Or is she suggesting simply that the choice of words used in scripture is demeaning to women (but women are expected to obey just as men are)?  (i.e. the "restrictions on women" bit simply means that she doesn't think God would word things that way, but that He would be more inclusive in His word choices?)

That's mostly for my curiosity.  I think the point is irrelevant.  I don't think anything will satisfy her - even a complete re-write of scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask her how she thinks God would say it.  Let her answer the question as to what she is wanting the scriptures to say.  Then you will know what she is looking for.  Once you know that, you will know either she is being ridiculous, or if not, you will know how you might better explain to her that the way God did it is best.

If she says that God would say, 'children of women', then you could point out that we would then be having the same conversation with men, so it would accomplish nothing.  If God would sometimes use one and sometimes the other, then people would get confused by the inconsistency.  If God used both every time or some other word like people, I think individuals would not personalize it as much.  Additionally, despite how God may have said it, it doesn't mean that the person writing it down wasn't going to write it based on their existing language constructs.  It is entirely possible that God actually said 'people' or similar, but the author still wrote 'children of men' because that was the colloquial word for people at the time.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xavier said:

Recently, I was having a conversation with an investigator and at one point, she made a very interesting observation. 

In the scriptures when describing humanity as a whole, the Lord uses “and the children of MEN”, or, “if MEN humble themselves...” . 

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

I made the attempt to express that in any language, the general way to describe humanity as a whole, it was by using the word “MEN” and that in noway it’s used to demean women. She wasn’t sastified with that answer. 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

She might benefit from learning the etymology for the word "man" or "men" or male and female (see also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)  

In short, the word "man" was derived from "humanus" or "homo" or "mann," meaning human being or mankind,  and began generically as meaning "person(s)"  or "earthly being" (as differentiated from  heavenly being") or of the "ground,"  or "one who thinks."

Eventually, the genders were distinguished using the pre-fix wo or wif (wo-man--, meaning person with stomach, or, female/femina, "she who suckles":),  and wer or guma or waepen (waepenmann--meaning male, or person with a weapon or penis).

Evidently, the gendered prefix for males was dropped and later became the prevailing meaning for "mann" or "man," though the generic meaning continues, thus causing confusion among those prone to identity politics, toxic feminism, and making "man" an offender for a word (pun intended). ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xavier said:

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

Have your investigator talk to a LDS lady about how she is valued and kick-butt in the LDS church as a wonderful child of God.  Speaking personally, one of the things I love the the Gospel is that I am just as prized as any other person-- I don't have to be "just like a man" to be important but I am just as valubable AS a woman.  

If you don't have any LDS ladies available locally, I'd love to talk to her and I'm sure many of the other ladies here will also volunteer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to study more herstory.  And it's not woMAN, it's womyn - time to take back the word that has long been oppressed!   And don't label your baby male or female, that's oppressive and hurtful - let them pick their own gender. 

Yes, people believe this stuff.  I personally think people have always believed stupid things and 99% of them eventually stop when presented with enough reality.  It's just that these days, the dumbness is seen by everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xavier said:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

If men (and women) humble themselves, God will show them their weaknesses. Clearly, this woman is blind to her own weaknesses. She should humble herself.

4 hours ago, Xavier said:

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

Nope. In a matter of a few generations, good old ruthless Darwinian selection will unerringly root out feminists and those unduly influenced by feminism, just as it will root out (has rooted out) those who don't like having children. There is a reason that there are no more Shakers in the world today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The church uses the King James Version of the Bible. It was compiled in 1611. In that era, and up until about 1970, masculine pronouns were used in English by default. Gender-neutral pronouns are now used for references to a general audience. When reading older literature, understanding this basic reality should help all of us avoid the false belief that prior to 1970 everyone was misogynist.  :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zil said:

This bit is confusing to me.

Is she saying that God expects less of women - e.g. that men are expected to be humble, but not women?

Or is she suggesting simply that the choice of words used in scripture is demeaning to women (but women are expected to obey just as men are)?  (i.e. the "restrictions on women" bit simply means that she doesn't think God would word things that way, but that He would be more inclusive in His word choices?)

That's mostly for my curiosity.  I think the point is irrelevant.  I don't think anything will satisfy her - even a complete re-write of scripture.

She thinks that by using the word "MEN" to describe both, MEN and women, is misogynistic and sexist. She feels that God would never want to demean women to that extent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The church uses the King James Version of the Bible. It was compiled in 1611. In that era, and up until about 1970, masculine pronouns were used in English by default. Gender-neutral pronouns are now used for references to a general audience. When reading older literature, understanding this basic reality should help all of us avoid the false belief that prior to 1970 everyone was misogynist.  :whistling:

I more-less explained this to her, but she didn't want to hear that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she sincerely believes that the equality of women is in any way affected by pronouns, she's probably not mature enough to receive the very serious and sober minded message of the Book of Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she not understand the reality of English language development, or does she just refuse to read anything pre-1970? If you are willing to step outside of LDS sourcing, "The Status of Women in the Gospels," from  religioustolerance.org,  gives a great explanation of just how radically pro-women Jesus was. Go to religioustolerance.org and look up the article title. I believe it does a lot to show that, generally, the Christian movement has been ahead of society in its treatment of women.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xavier said:

She thinks that by using the word "MEN" to describe both, MEN and women, is misogynistic and sexist. She feels that God would never want to demean women to that extent. 

You will never get past people like this. Anything you say will be met with some variation of “You are sexist”. Just bear testimony and let them get over their own ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xavier said:

I more-less explained this to her, but she didn't want to hear that!

I remember when I was a bratty teenager.  My buddy and I prided ourselves at being willing to hear the things we didn't want to hear.  Because it was hard, and accomplishing hard things made us cooler than everyone else.

Now, with decades of hindsight, I realize we were actually on to something important.  I mean, it didn't make us cooler than others, but it did make us cooler than we were before hearing the thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Xavier said:

Recently, I was having a conversation with an investigator and at one point, she made a very interesting observation. 

In the scriptures when describing humanity as a whole, the Lord uses “and the children of MEN”, or, “if MEN humble themselves...” . 

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

I made the attempt to express that in any language, the general way to describe humanity as a whole, it was by using the word “MEN” and that in noway it’s used to demean women. She wasn’t sastified with that answer. 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

Maybe tell her that language isn’t perfect but the Lord’s intended message is. The Lord by His example showed He serves both male and female equally. He often clarifies His meaning in more specific terms, and because of the nature of human communication, will not always use the same phrases in each and every statement:

1 Ne. 8: 27And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

2 Ne. 10: 16Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

2 Ne. 26: 33For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Alma 1: 30And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

Alma 11: 44Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Just about any "ism" will destroy humanity, just as any manner of "ites" (see 4 Nephi 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

Try turning the question around.  Ask her if the Declaration of independence applies to women:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If she says yes, then tell her that the scriptures are the same way.  If she says no and says that the Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to women, then the the question is harder to answer.   

Since she is an investigator she might not be familiar with historic terminology in the scriptures and may not identify with it.   She may however be able to identify with the Declaration of Independence, so I think it is worth a shot.

Anyway, as far as the Old Testament goes, that's a tough one.   Women were often treated as property (even non-slave women) and were bought and sold at the with of fathers and husbands.  It can be a very difficult concept to grasp those concepts in modern days.  

Quote

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

No.  Although feminism can have a negative connotation, here is a real definition of feminism:  

1.  the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

When looking at the true definitions, I don't really see true feminism as a negative thing.  Woman should be treated as equals, and they should have rights such as the right to vote, right to fair educational opportunities, etc.

If feminism is used to try and erase all differences between the genders; yes I would have to disagree with that.   Although that sometimes comes to mind, that really is not the goal of true feminism.  


 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Xavier said:

 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

Tell her to stop reading scriptures in English and start reading it in... uhm, Bisaya.  Or the more inferior (hah hah) Pilipino (which is so inferior they can't even call it by its proper name - they keep on calling it Tagalog - boom!).

I mean, English is fine and all but what's up with the crazy "apart-ments" when they're stuck together or having a sleeveless outfit but not a sleevefull... 

 

20 hours ago, Xavier said:

 

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

3rd wave Feminism is cancer.  But not to worry.  There are not that many women who buy that extremist garbage.  And women are not attracted to 3rd wave feminist men.  So no, it's not going to abolish masculinity because... well, simply, because... Men.

Men - the people who spread humanity though frontier after frontier through impossible passes and the harshest of environments... the same people who thought, hmm, there's that orb in the sky over there - I'm going to it.  Or hmm... we can run a gigantic cable under the ocean, and use fire - deep in the water -  to weld it.  Trust me - Men and their masculinity are not going to be abolished by a bunch of shrieking harpies.   And that's not even counting the bunch of women who love their manly men shrieking back at them harpies. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

When looking at the true definitions,


 

Except nobody cares about true definitions when you're talking to the general public.  Like the word liberal, when used in American arena of public discussion has no resemblance to the true definition of liberal.  Or the word race.  Or the word gender for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Except nobody cares about true definitions when you're talking to the general public. 

Call me nobody then because I do care about the true definitions.   I do agree that  women should be treated as equals, and they should have rights such as the right to vote, right to fair educational opportunities, etc.  That really is part of true feminism. 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott said:

Call me nobody then because I do care about the true definitions.   I do agree that  women should be treated as equals, and they should have rights such as the right to vote, right to fair educational opportunities, etc.  That really is part of true feminism. 

Yeah... go over to a bunch of American women and say... "I'm a feminist!".  Don't be surprised if they then use your name as a supporter for government funded abortions, even government funded tampons, and that you believe there's rape culture and male privilege and that masculinity is toxic.

You can insist on your definition if you like and demand that everybody else use your definition.  Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott said:

Anyway, as far as the Old Testament goes, that's a tough one.   Women were often treated as property (even non-slave women) and were bought and sold at the with of fathers and husbands.  It can be a very difficult concept to grasp those concepts in modern days.

It is, indeed, as your post illustrates. I wager that you have no real familiarity at all with the position of women in ancient societies of the Near East, or of what their privileges and responsibilities really were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott said:

Although feminism can have a negative connotation, here is a real definition of feminism:  

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes. This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

That's a feminist definition of feminism. Do you also accept a Nazi's definition of Naziism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now