Mormon claims Paul was a misogynist?

Theo1689

Well-known member
(2) Paul is not your best proof text for dealing with women in the church. Paul hated women! He told women shut their stupid mouths in church, and cover up their stupid heads (1 Cor. 11, 14). He also taught that it is better to remain single than to get married (1 Cor. 7).

1) Do other Mormons agree with the above opinion?

2) Did Paul ever write, "I hate women!"?

3) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid mouths"?

4) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid heads"?

5) Did Paul only teach that it was good for "women" to be single, or was that meant for men, too?


I see "hatred of women" in these comments, but it sure isn't by Paul!
 

Bonnie

Super Member
1) Do other Mormons agree with the above opinion?

2) Did Paul ever write, "I hate women!"?

3) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid mouths"?

4) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid heads"?

5) Did Paul only teach that it was good for "women" to be single, or was that meant for men, too?


I see "hatred of women" in these comments, but it sure isn't by Paul!
Really, this stuff is ridiculous! Paul never said anything bad about women at all. Talk about desperation!
 

The Prophet

Active member
1) Do other Mormons agree with the above opinion?

2) Did Paul ever write, "I hate women!"?

3) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid mouths"?

4) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid heads"?

5) Did Paul only teach that it was good for "women" to be single, or was that meant for men, too?


I see "hatred of women" in these comments, but it sure isn't by Paul!
Mormons realize that Paul wasn't teaching Mormon dogma when Paul advised Christians not to marry

Was the Apostle Paul Married?

Question: We seem to be in controversy on our discussions as to whether Apostle Paul was married or not. Some of our quorum feel that as he knew the various principles of the gospel he would certainly have complied, although no mention, to our knowledge, is in the scripture. We would certainly appreciate your help in this matter."

Answer:
You state that members of your quorum are in a controversy over the question whether Paul was married or not. The controversy hangs on the statement of Paul in the seventh chapter of I Corinthians, verse 8, which reads:

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

This does not bear witness that Paul was not married, and his own evidence in other scripture infers strongly that he was.

ALL MINISTERS REQUIRED TO MARRY

It is my understanding that in Paul's day all ministers had to be married, however, I think the evidence is strong enough that Paul was married, based upon his own statement in 1 Corinthians 11:11:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

The expression, "in the Lord," would certainly infer celestial marriage. That being true Paul would have to be a married man.

PAUL'S COUNCIL TO TIMOTHY

It was Paul's council to Timothy that a bishop was to have a wife:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2.)

The same council was given by Paul to Titus:

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6.)

It would be inconsistent for Paul to teach others they had to be married and that marriage was essential for exaltation and then not be married himself. Paul was worthy of the exaltation, therefore, Paul was without any question a married man. (For a more detailed study of this question see Pau1's Life and Letters by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, pp. 9 and 130, 132. ) Answers to Gospel Questions Vol 5 Page 151 Joseph Fielding Smith
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
More examples of Mormon "eisegesis" (reading INTO the text):

This does not bear witness that Paul was not married, and his own evidence in other scripture infers strongly that he was.

This seems to be a common tactic by Mormons, to use phrases like "strongly infers". Something is either inferred, or it isn't. There is no "strongly or "weakly" abut it. And most of the time, at least in my experience, when a Mormon says something is "inferred", he ACTUALLY means "assumed".

ALL MINISTERS REQUIRED TO MARRY

It is my understanding that in Paul's day all ministers had to be married,

"It is my understanding...."
I'm an academic. That means when people make historical claims, supporting evidence is expected, and something more tangible than "it is my understanding".

however, I think the evidence is strong enough that Paul was married, based upon his own statement in 1 Corinthians 11:11:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Here is a perfect example of Mormon eisegesis. There is absolutely NO reason to think this passage is referring to "marriage":

1 Cor. 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

This passage isn't about "marriage", but rather about "creation" order. This is what happens when you rip a verse out of its context, and try to assign a foreign context (like "marriage") onto it. You miss two verses earlier where it EXPLICITLY talks about "creation", and you miss the explanatory comment in v.12 where it explains:
1) woman was made from man (Eve out of Adam's side);
2) man is born of woman (men are dependent on women for our birth).

The point is that men and women aren't independent on each other, but interdependent.

The expression, "in the Lord," would certainly infer celestial marriage. That being true Paul would have to be a married man.

So "in the Lord" means "celestial marriage"?!
SERIOUSLY?!

And there's that magic word, "infer" again. If Mormons can't support something, they simply have to ASSUME it, and then use the magic word, "in the Lord".

PAUL'S COUNCIL TO TIMOTHY

It was Paul's council to Timothy that a bishop was to have a wife:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2.)

Why is this even relevant?
Paul wasn't a bishop.

The same council was given by Paul to Titus:

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6.)

Funny thing, according to the KJV (which Mormons use), this passage is referring to ELDERS:

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

So if Mormons actually BELIEVE this verse, why do Mormons ordain 18-year-old "elders", who aren't married, in CONTRADICTION to this verse?

It would be inconsistent for Paul to teach others they had to be married and that marriage was essential for exaltation and then not be married himself.

Paul never mentioned anything about "essential for exaltation".



Thank you for sharing this, Prophet.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
More examples of Mormon "eisegesis" (reading INTO the text):



This seems to be a common tactic by Mormons, to use phrases like "strongly infers". Something is either inferred, or it isn't. There is no "strongly or "weakly" abut it. And most of the time, at least in my experience, when a Mormon says something is "inferred", he ACTUALLY means "assumed".



"It is my understanding...."
I'm an academic. That means when people make historical claims, supporting evidence is expected, and something more tangible than "it is my understanding".



Here is a perfect example of Mormon eisegesis. There is absolutely NO reason to think this passage is referring to "marriage":

1 Cor. 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

This passage isn't about "marriage", but rather about "creation" order. This is what happens when you rip a verse out of its context, and try to assign a foreign context (like "marriage") onto it. You miss two verses earlier where it EXPLICITLY talks about "creation", and you miss the explanatory comment in v.12 where it explains:
1) woman was made from man (Eve out of Adam's side);
2) man is born of woman (men are dependent on women for our birth).

The point is that men and women aren't independent on each other, but interdependent.



So "in the Lord" means "celestial marriage"?!
SERIOUSLY?!

And there's that magic word, "infer" again. If Mormons can't support something, they simply have to ASSUME it, and then use the magic word, "in the Lord".



Why is this even relevant?
Paul wasn't a bishop.



Funny thing, according to the KJV (which Mormons use), this passage is referring to ELDERS:

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

So if Mormons actually BELIEVE this verse, why do Mormons ordain 18-year-old "elders", who aren't married, in CONTRADICTION to this verse?



Paul never mentioned anything about "essential for exaltation".



Thank you for sharing this, Prophet.
I don't think Paul means that a bishop/elder MUST be married, but that if he were, he should only have one wife, manage his household well, and have respectful children. After all, there are ministers out there who are not married. I have known a couple. And they are just as dedicated to their ministry as the married ministers are.
 

kpasa

Member
I wouldn't subordinate any of Paul's epistles to those of any Mormon that has ever lived. I'm sure that Paul will be seen at the marriage supper of the Lamb, and in an elevated position near the King!
 

Mesenja

Active member
1) Do other Mormons agree with the above opinion?

2) Did Paul ever write, "I hate women!"?

3) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid mouths"?

4) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid heads"?

5) Did Paul only teach that it was good for "women" to be single, or was that meant for men, too?


I see "hatred of women" in these comments, but it sure isn't by Paul!
What is your reason for asking the question?
 

Magdalena

Active member
1) Do other Mormons agree with the above opinion?

2) Did Paul ever write, "I hate women!"?

3) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid mouths"?

4) Did Paul ever say that women had "stupid heads"?

5) Did Paul only teach that it was good for "women" to be single, or was that meant for men, too?


I see "hatred of women" in these comments, but it sure isn't by Paul!

If that’s how the poster feels about women, perhaps he should follow Paul’s advice to remain single.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No it looks like I'm disagreeing with a personal attack on a forum member.

<Chuckle>

"Did you report it to the police?"
(Double standards much?)


And just for my own curiosity, how is a Mormon referring to the "stupid mouths" of women, and "stupid heads" of women, NOT an attack on women?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
This lame attempt to make Paul appear to be a misogynist is just to cast doubt on what he wrote in his epistles..."How can anyone believe what Paul wrote, when he was a misogynist?" Lame, really lame...
 
Last edited:

Mesenja

Active member
<Chuckle>

Not the reappearance of Mr. Chuckles again. Groan. Is your strategy trying to irritate me into submission?

"Did you report it to the police?"

It's called sarcasm. I'm sure you heard of it.

(Double standards much?)

It was sarcasm remember?

And just for my own curiosity, how is a Mormon referring to the "stupid mouths" of women, and "stupid heads" of women, NOT an attack on women?

Zerinus attributed this hyperbole to the apostle Paul.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Not the reappearance of Mr. Chuckles again. Groan. Is your strategy trying to irritate me into submission?

Wow...

You must really be paranoid if you think a simple "<chuckle>" is loaded with all that...

It's called sarcasm. I'm sure you heard of it.

<Chuckle>

So when you get called out on bad behaviour, you simply justify it as "sarcasm"?
Sorry, nobody's buying it...

Zerinus attributed this hyperbole to the apostle Paul.

Except that Paul never said anything about "stupid mouths" and "stupid heads" of women.
That came from Zerinus' keyboard.
And he needs to own it.
 
Top