Comments on: Females and murmuring

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:41:42 +0000

I disagree with m&m in comment 15. Neither the mention of women who were murmuring, nor the mention of women who were strong in the wilderness, was aimed at women in general. Both comments were describing a particular set of women at a particular time. Neither purports to be a generalization about women; neither indicates an attitude about women in general.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:51:07 +0000

In answer to the original question, no. In my view, the absence of specific mention of women in this sentence doesn't strike me as significant in the least.

By: Kevin Christensen

Kevin Christensen — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:42:51 +0000

Johanna,

You are welcome. It's amazing sometimes, what you can see in a overly familiar text when you stop and think about it.

Best,

Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA

By: Johnna Cornett

Johnna Cornett — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:34:20 +0000

Kevin,

thanks to the pointer to your essays, particularly the one about the mothers of the 2000 warriors. That story in the BOM has always bugged me--particularly when I am told I should teach my children that no harm will come to them. I don't know no harm will come to them. What I know is rather the opposite. Which you point out very well, pointing to the history of these convert women who have suffered and seen at first hand what violence is. It gives me great peace to interpret instead, that what these mothers knew was given to them by revelation, not by whistling in the dark.

By: m&m

m&m — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:28:16 +0000

Just a few verses later, women are mentioned as murmurers. But then in 1 Ne. 17, it talks about women being strong in the wilderness. It sounds to me like there was a lot of attitude variation. :)

By: rick

rick — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:12:21 +0000

"more women then you will ever be able to count" "no rights" "Women are also mentioned in the Book of Mormon, 2000 of them actually."

Your gift for hyperbole aside, there are many, many women in positions that are as equal as their male counterparts.

My argument was not whether or not women had equal rights, anyway. My point was that they were not even considered people until late in the 18th and early 19th century.

If you indeed believe that women have no greater rights now than in 'biblical times'(whenever that actually applies to) then I think it is indeed you who live on another planet. I sure hope your granddaughters don't feel the same way when they reach your age.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:08:05 +0000

Women can hold property now. They can hold a job now. They can choose what they want to wear. They can choose where they go. They can choose when they leave their house. They can get a formal education? They can hold political office. They can unveil their faces. They can choose if they have children.

Sure, there are many people in shelters and elsewhere who live in fear and/or in controlling environments, but there are hundreds of millions of women who do not.

By: Sally

Sally — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:54:26 +0000

uh Rick.. what planet do you live in that you would think that women have rights more then they did back in the biblical times? Yes women can vote and women can work at jobs that aren't "menial" but you only have to check any women's shelter to find more women then you will ever be able to count that feel that they have no rights and have grown up being told they have no rights. Women are also mentioned in the Book of Mormon, 2000 of them actually. Those are pretty good numbers for honourable mentions :)

By: rick

rick — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:49:28 +0000

It shouldn't be surprising that women were treated like property in these books.

Given the timeframe these stories are to be set in, it would be entirely appropriate.

Most of the western world was not enlightened enough to give women their rights until the 19th century - we still have countries today where women are second class.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:15:47 +0000

Actually women are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and bible let's see, there is the Lamanite Queen, Abish is another). Maybe not a lot, but what is said is significant. Mormon abridged the Book of Mormon so he had to sift through a lot of the work which was relevant to what the Lord wanted for us to read. And Deborah is one of my favourite (probably the favourite) in the Old Testament. Need more women like her.