As a woman, it can sometimes be difficult to determine what in the scriptures applies to me and what doesn’t. Sometimes when I mention this to people, they think I am being purposefully obtuse.
Today’s guest post is from EBK.
To illustrate the issue, I have made a list of scriptures below that can present a problem if I misinterpret the term “man” or “men.”
“No man has a legal right to this office [bishop], to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.” D&C 107:16.
Does the term man in this verse apply to just men or to both men and women? Can a woman who is a literal descendant of Aaron claim the legal right to be a Bishop? Do certain Jewish women have more right to be Bishops then Mormon men?
“If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” Joseph Smith – King Follett Discourse
Do women need to comprehend the character of God to comprehend themselves? Do they need to comprehend the character of Heavenly Mother to comprehend themselves? Can they comprehend themselves without comprehending any divine beings?
“And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my work, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and they keys of this priesthood;” D&C 132:19.
If I interpret man in this verse to mean both men and women, I have to conclude that Joseph Smith considered lesbian marriage as part of the new and everlasting covenant.
Furthermore, three verses before the first use of the phrase, “if a man marry a wife” D&C 132:12 says: “no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.”
Does this only apply to men? Can women come unto the Father through some other means than the word of the Lord? Do women have a different path to exaltation entirely? Or do women not really have any path to anywhere?
“…but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.” D&C 88:118
I’m sure in the Church we believe that all men should have equal privilege. The question is if we believe all women should have equal privilege? Do we believe that women should have a say in every decision that “all may be edified of all?”
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Genesis 1: 26
In a later verse, male and female are cited separately. Does this verse, where power and dominion are assigned, apply to men only or to both men and women? Do women fall into the category of “man” or the category of every creeping thing?
“[God] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority…” OD 2
Clearly we interpret this scripture to only mean men. What if we got the revelation right and the interpretation wrong? Maybe the men in this verse meant both men and women.
“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” 2 Nephi 2:25
Perhaps this only applies to men. Maybe men exist to have joy, but women exist for a different purpose. To give men joy? That would sure explain polygamy.
What do you think? Can you add any scriptures to the list? How do some of our major doctrines change if we change how we interpret words like “man,” “brethren,” and “sons.”
Wheat & Tares 
This is a question that other churches have been seriously grappling with for quite a number of decades. How do we square traditional English usage with our modern, more inclusive culture?Should Mormons join in the discussion? Should we also pro-actively retranslate everything written from a certain era to reflect modern values? Should we abandon all exclusionary forms of speech when we speak and write ourselves? When we are speaking in traditional forms (such as prayers, sermons, religious discussion, etc.), should we use traditional language, or should we use more modern, gender-sensitive language? Liberal churches say at Christmas time, “Glory to God on the Highest, and peace on earth, good will to all.”
Personally, when I use more traditional language, I feel a greater sense of connection to the historical and spiritual conversation through the ages. Modern language sometimes makes me feel cut-off from that. This is why I prefer the KJV to other translations. I’m not bothered by “man” as “male and female.” But of course, I’m a man, and should probably be more sensitive to feelings of disenfranchisement some women may feel about traditional forms of speech.
I think it is well understood that “man” and “men” have historically meant “all humans” in many contexts. The problem arises when we have to decide when “man” means “men and women” and when “man” means “man”. We are all told to “liken” the scriptures to ourselves, but that frequently raises serious doctrinal issues (many of which EBK points out above) for women in the church. As with many things in the church the language of scripture reflects the fact that, for all intents and purposes, women are, at best, an after thought. “Sure, this verse very clearly says men, but it means women too! Really! Don’t feel bad!” Of course, sometimes man doesnt mean women,l but how we are supposed to judge the difference has never been particularly clear. Revising scripture to use more modern or inclusive language doesnt really solve the problem because who gets to decide which verses are truly gendered and which are just using archaic language that can be updated?
I’ve tried to get my husband to understand the weirdness of this but it doesn’t really work on him; when they say ‘women’ they mean ‘women’ so he’s never had to apply gender-exclusive language to himself. Furthermore, it’s extremely rare that a man to liken himself to a female character in the scriptures, partly because female characters in the scriptures are so rare. Women are used to seeing Alma the Younger or Nephi or whomever as role models; I don’t know that men ever look at Sariah or Esther and think ‘now how can I become like her.’
Whenever I teach in Young Women, I change pronouns whenever it’s not doctrinally incorrect to do so. For example, I gave a talk for New Beginnings based on D&C 46, and I said things like, “to every young woman is given a gift by the Spirit of God.” I mean yes, the girls probably KNOW that in that particular instance the word ‘man’ includes them too, but I still think they need to HEAR it.
Nate,
I second everything Eliza said. It is not that my feelings are hurt that we are not using gender inclusive language. The problem is that there are many scripture passages that our doctrine precludes from applying to women, there are many that do apply to women, and there are many that are up for debate. This is a problem.
Moreover, I think that the LDS church has a different problem than other Christian religions that are dealing with this issue. One of our core doctrines that is getting a lot of screen time right now is that men and women are different. We were different before we came to earth, our purpose on earth is different, our pathway to exaltation is different (men need the priesthood to be exalted and women don’t), and even our exaltation is different (men are kings and priests to God while women are queens and priestesses to their husbands). More than any other Christian church of which I am aware, we differentiate between men and women eternally. This means that it is highly likely that some of the doctrines given and blessings promised in the scriptures may not even apply to women. It is also possible that there are doctrines out there that only apply to women that we don’t have access to because our current understanding of the gospel was written by men, about men, and for men.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either men and women have the same spirits and the same exaltation or they don’t. You can’t use a map of Utah to make it to Sri Lanka.
Joni,
Yes, the fact that we have to use men as our role models brings up other issues. We are told over the pulpit how women need to embrace their femininity and stop being like men but almost all of our role models are men. The greatest role model we have is Christ himself. We need to be like Christ, Nephi, Alma, Paul, Moses, but we need to not be like men.
This video illustrates the weirdness of this I think. It discusses a list of characteristics that everyone should develop and then says that they are characteristics of a real man, which I am supposed to avoid trying to be like.
https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2009-06-24-let-us-be-men?lang=eng
I am always touched when I hear someone add gender inclusive pronouns. It shows thoughtfulness and consideration for the audience.
I recently saw a meme of a policeman with the caption, “I don’t mind being called a ‘policewoman’ because I know that includes men, too.” The absurdity of that statement gets at how the inverse feels to women.
EBK, you are right, and this becomes apparent when you try and translate this phrase into more gender neutral language:
“As man now is, God once was, as God now is, man may become.”
Should it be, “God was once like men and women on earth, and men and women on earth can become like God.”?
Or
“As men and women now are, God and His wife once were, and as God and His wife now are, men and women may become.”
It is more complicated for Mormons than other religions because our own gender distinctions are inseparable from God and Heavenly Mother’s gender distinctions. In Mormonism, God is unalterably a He, and Joseph Smith said, “if we don’t know the character of God, we don’t know ourselves.”
So without a strong conceptualisation of Heavenly Mother, women will ALWAYS have a more marginalised place in the basic doctrine of Mormonism.
While I fully endorse yours and others’ concerns about the historical and current (at least in our Mormon culture) diminution of women, yeah, I think you are being obtuse about these scriptures.
IMO…They were written by the hand of male men (their source is up for debate). They were meant to be interpreted as they long have been. There is no secret/hidden meaning in some of them that would allow any current claim of misunderstanding.
Common sense and principled logic certainly lead us to conclude that, among several other changes, the church is well behind where it should be in regarding women.
Funny how it’s usually referred to as the Fall of Adam, when most everyone agrees that Eve transgressed first. Whenever I hear of the Fall of Adam, in my mind it means the Fall of Eve as well. So that verse in 2 Nephi would be “Adam (and Eve) fell that men (and women) might be; and men (and women) are, that they might have joy.” Logical, but not guaranteed.
I once attended a very crowded devotional where a newly-sustained President Hinckley was speaking. He got up, explained he’d forgotten his notes, and said his wife would talk a bit while he gathered his thoughts. When Sister Hinckley got up, she offered a few choice words to her husband for putting her on the spot like that, and then spoke a bit. After watching that interaction and hearing her speak, my mind instinctively thought, “Wow, her husband must be cool to be married to a woman like that.” I then laughed at the curious thought, since everyone around me would’ve probably thought me an idiot for assuming Hinckley was cool because of his wife, and not because of the obvious fact he was a prophet. Years later I realized where that instinct came from to think of the spouse. I love scriptures, and long before I’d developed a habit of thinking about the type of women who were married to the men I was reading about. I *knew* a spouse existed when it mentioned the guy’s sons, so if I just looked hard enough, I might be able to tell what kind of a woman she was. If nothing else, I could at least assume the woman must have been cool if I respected the man.
Our native tongue affects our reality and thought processes. (http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language_5.htm) This gender dichotomy is just one social construct that is hostage to the language we use.
In Spanish, for instance, the masculine “we” includes men or mixed genders. The feminine “we” can be used only if everyone referred to is female. Similarly, the language of our KJV Bible is a product of Tynsdale’s time and culture (1300s).
To resolve these issues, a good first step is to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek
fbisti,
“IMO…They were written by the hand of male men (their source is up for debate). They were meant to be interpreted as they long have been. There is no secret/hidden meaning in some of them that would allow any current claim of misunderstanding.”
Not all scripture has always been interpreted the same way. For most of history, women were not considered agents unto themselves. It is only recently that we have risen above the status of property. So I’m unsure what you mean when you dismissively say that all scriptures were meant to be interpreted as they long have been.
The Other Clark,
“To resolve these issues, a good first step is to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek”
Agreed, this is a good idea. Unfortunately, this only works for the Bible, not any of our other standard works or other doctrinal writings.
Great post. A lot of things to think about.
Thanks for pointing these out, EBK. My favorite example was when a teacher in a gospel doctrine class I was in once read in D&C 76 where it says that some people will end up as “sons of perdition” that of course this means that only males can achieve this status, and not five minutes later, read about exalted people, where it says “just men made perfect” as “just men and women made perfect.” It struck me as absurd that he was so sure that “sons” meant only males in the first case, but totally ignored the similar cue for “men” in the second.
Mary Ann,
I always appreciate your optimistic view on so many topics. It serves to pull me out a bit from my inborn cynicism. Thank you for your comment.
Ziff,
Ha ha ha. This is what I’m talking about! I have been taught so many times that in certain passages, the use of the word sons or men or brethren means that it doesn’t apply to women. But in most cases we assume that these words apply to everyone. Then there is sort of a dismissal of anyone who finds this confusing or disingenuous. Also, the idea that women cannot be sons of perdition implies that we either aren’t capable of getting that kind of witness from the Holy Ghost that is a requirement to becoming a son of perdition. If we don’t have the power to become sons of perdition, we don’t have the power to become Gods.
In reference to the video from #5, I remember my initial reaction to that story was “Why can’t the dad and sons iron their own clothes?” The second thought was about packing a lunch instead of eating out and having to skip lunch altogether. I guess men and women really do think differently.
Ranae,
I thought the same thing! Why didn’t he just iron his own shirts or wear wrinkled shirts? Different times…
My favorite (?) example of this is in the BOM in Mosiah 2:
“5 And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple, they pitched their tents round about, every man according to his family, consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters, and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest, every family being separate one from another.”
Then in v. 9:
“9 And these are the words which he spake and caused to be written, saying: My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day . . .”
The point is beaten home that this is an audience consisting of men, women and children (although women & children are referred to in the possessive case). This point is made deliberately. Then he addresses the crowd as “my BRETHREN” and then implies that the phrasing encompasses all who can hear him. It’s just mind boggling.
The other place that the differences between the language for men & women are pretty serious is in the temple. I tend to think most women assume that the language for the men applies to them, but there really is no justification to do so.
Hawkgrrrl,
I’ve thought for a long time that there is little clarification on which temple blessings apply to women because then people can interpret in whichever way works best for them. If the church takes a stand either way, they are likely to alienate a large group. It makes sense that there are a lot of scripture passages and quotes from prophets that lack clarification for the same reasons.