Stop popping off, woman

[wuapinmon]

So, in Sunday School today, in the misleadingly-titled Gospel "Doctrine" class, we were studying the Book of Numbers, chapters 11-14.

In this chapter we find Miriam and Aaron murmuring about Moses for various reasons, including his Ethiopian wife (anyone know whether her being called "Ethiopian" implies that she was dark-skinned?). For those up to speed on the story, Miriam starts grousing to Aaron about it, and then they both start talking to others.

The Lord gets pissed at them and then curses Miriam with leprosy for seven days. The explanation in the lesson manual is that the Lord punished them both, and then it goes on to explain that only people with keys can receive revelation for people besides themselves.

The teacher then says, "So, why did the Lord punish Miriam more than Aaron? Why not give them both leprosy? It's because Aaron had the priesthod and had the right to revelation; Miriam didn't. God punished her more because she didn't have the authority to speak for the Lord.

I waited a couple of seconds, thinking about how to respond so that I didn't sound like a jerk. Then another sister says, "Well, Aaron was the high priest of the temple, so it would've really been difficult for him to have been stricken with leprosy too." (these are the same people who also believe that nothing is impossible for the Lord). Other sisters, including the teacher, said, "Women don't need the priesthood." "Women shouldn't have the priesthood." and so on.

I raised my hand and said something like, "that's not the case. If anything, the Lord punished Miriam for being the instigator, and not because she was a woman and didn't have the priesthood. If anything, Aaron should've been more severely punished because he had the priesthood and still was murmuring."

No one else in there corrected the false doctrine, not even the bishopric member in attendance (I spoke with him afterwords, he said that he wasn't paying attention, but that he agreed with me.). My wife said, "That makes me not want to come here."

I'm stupefied.

[Mrs. Funk]

:igiveup:

Stuff like this makes me all the more grateful that I'm in the library during the last two hours of church. I'm not sure how I would have reacted. I'm sad that women were also saying all the ways women shouldn't/don't deserve/don't need the priesthood.

I think the priesthood is beside the point in this story. I'm also willing to chalk the story to the fact that the Old Testament is just also full of weird, unexplainable shit.

[RC Vikings]

not even the bishopric member in attendance (I spoke with him afterwords, he said that he wasn't paying attention, but that he agreed with me.).

I thought this was pretty funny. I find myself drifting off during these lesson also.

[DU Ute]

I thought this was pretty funny. I find myself drifting off during these lesson also.

I think of it as a defense mechanism.

[falafel]

:igiveup:

Stuff like this makes me all the more grateful that I'm in the library during the last two hours of church. I'm not sure how I would have reacted. I'm sad that women were also saying all the ways women shouldn't/don't deserve/don't need the priesthood.

I'm just curious - do you think women need/deserve the priesthood? If so, why?

FTR, I don't really have a position on this, just interested.

[Mrs. Funk]

I'm just curious - do you think women need/deserve the priesthood? If so, why?

FTR, I don't really have a position on this, just interested.

I'm off to a family dinner, so I will answer this more fully later. My short answer: Yes.

[Solon]

So, in Sunday School today, in the misleadingly-titled Gospel "Doctrine" class, we were studying the Book of Numbers, chapters 11-14.

In this chapter we find Miriam and Aaron murmuring about Moses for various reasons, including his Ethiopian wife (anyone know whether her being called "Ethiopian" implies that she was dark-skinned?). For those up to speed on the story, Miriam starts grousing to Aaron about it, and then they both start talking to others.

The Lord gets pissed at them and then curses Miriam with leprosy for seven days. The explanation in the lesson manual is that the Lord punished them both, and then it goes on to explain that only people with keys can receive revelation for people besides themselves.

The teacher then says, "So, why did the Lord punish Miriam more than Aaron? Why not give them both leprosy? It's because Aaron had the priesthod and had the right to revelation; Miriam didn't. God punished her more because she didn't have the authority to speak for the Lord.

I waited a couple of seconds, thinking about how to respond so that I didn't sound like a jerk. Then another sister says, "Well, Aaron was the high priest of the temple, so it would've really been difficult for him to have been stricken with leprosy too." (these are the same people who also believe that nothing is impossible for the Lord). Other sisters, including the teacher, said, "Women don't need the priesthood." "Women shouldn't have the priesthood." and so on.

I raised my hand and said something like, "that's not the case. If anything, the Lord punished Miriam for being the instigator, and not because she was a woman and didn't have the priesthood. If anything, Aaron should've been more severely punished because he had the priesthood and still was murmuring."

No one else in there corrected the false doctrine, not even the bishopric member in attendance (I spoke with him afterwords, he said that he wasn't paying attention, but that he agreed with me.). My wife said, "That makes me not want to come here."

I'm stupefied.

Great/horrible story, wuap.

"Ethiopian" definitely implies black-African in any ancient text (as opposed to the lighter-skinned Egyptians)

[Uncle Ted]

So, in Sunday School today, in the misleadingly-titled Gospel "Doctrine" class, we were studying the Book of Numbers, chapters 11-14.

In this chapter we find Miriam and Aaron murmuring about Moses for various reasons, including his Ethiopian wife (anyone know whether her being called "Ethiopian" implies that she was dark-skinned?). For those up to speed on the story, Miriam starts grousing to Aaron about it, and then they both start talking to others.

The Lord gets pissed at them and then curses Miriam with leprosy for seven days. The explanation in the lesson manual is that the Lord punished them both, and then it goes on to explain that only people with keys can receive revelation for people besides themselves.

The teacher then says, "So, why did the Lord punish Miriam more than Aaron? Why not give them both leprosy? It's because Aaron had the priesthod and had the right to revelation; Miriam didn't. God punished her more because she didn't have the authority to speak for the Lord.

I waited a couple of seconds, thinking about how to respond so that I didn't sound like a jerk. Then another sister says, "Well, Aaron was the high priest of the temple, so it would've really been difficult for him to have been stricken with leprosy too." (these are the same people who also believe that nothing is impossible for the Lord). Other sisters, including the teacher, said, "Women don't need the priesthood." "Women shouldn't have the priesthood." and so on.

I raised my hand and said something like, "that's not the case. If anything, the Lord punished Miriam for being the instigator, and not because she was a woman and didn't have the priesthood. If anything, Aaron should've been more severely punished because he had the priesthood and still was murmuring."

No one else in there corrected the false doctrine, not even the bishopric member in attendance (I spoke with him afterwords, he said that he wasn't paying attention, but that he agreed with me.). My wife said, "That makes me not want to come here."

I'm stupefied.

I recall one explanation of the reason that it was perceived that the Lord punished Miriam more than Aaron has to do with all the screwed up traditions of Moses' day. One of these traditions didn't allow Aaron's punishment to be recorded because of his position in the priesthood. Given this high priesthood position the Lord most likely did really let him have it making Miriam's punishment look like a walk in the park as you speculate. Therefore, the lesson manual is most likely correct as usual.

[wuapinmon]

Great/horrible story, wuap.

"Ethiopian" definitely implies black-African in any ancient text (as opposed to the lighter-skinned Egyptians)

The thought just occurred to me that perhaps the Lord rebuked them for being racist! A 3,000+ year old condemnation of racism by the Lord. I know that they went in and slaughtered the Caananites, but we pick and choose what we want from the OT anyway.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I led the discussion on this today and, noting Miriam's severe punishment, threw out a "Women, let this be a lesson to you!", invoking the collective wrath of every woman in the class. Happily, the wrath was more in the nature of mock indignation. The class is satisfyingly sophisticated about such matters.

BTW, for me the important point of that story isn't what Aaron and Miriam did, or why they did it, but how Moses reacted to their unkindness and criticism. Throughout Numbers, Moses finds himself caught between the people and the Lord, or in this case between just Aaron/Miriam and the Lord. Trying to help and protect those beneath him while remaining true to his divine instructions is a great balancing act.

[pellegrino]

Wuap, I feel for you and it makes me think, with all of the spanish positions out there, is this the place you want to spend the rest of your life? I don't know if I could handle that kind of ignorance on a weekly basis.

[wuapinmon]

Wuap, I feel for you and it makes me think, with all of the spanish positions out there, is this the place you want to spend the rest of your life? I don't know if I could handle that kind of ignorance on a weekly basis.

Well, I console myself by thinking that the Lord made me a good teacher, even when I'm not getting paid for it. Even if I don't get to lead the class, I can face down wrongheadedness like this when it springs up with my comments.

But, my calling is with the children of the poor. I want to help bring the Pee Dee out of poverty, ignorance, and backwater status. So, there are many Spanish positions, but I feel the call here. Sometimes, it's maddening, kind of like living in New Orleans, but I'm sure of where I'm supposed to be, and that makes all the difference when stuff starts pushing me <redacted> it button.

[Rosebud]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm on a bit of a correlation kick. When I read wUAp's little anecdote, it hit me that maybe his class ran into difficulties because the lesson was developed in the typical "backwards" (IMO) correlation style. I hope this ends up making sense. I'm trying to articulate thoughts that are pretty new to me.

First, let me explain what I mean when I use the word "backwards." I'd like to be clear that my use of the word does not imply that I think the church is wrong and therefore "backwards," it just means that the correlation department puts lessons together in fashion that is the reversal of how we experience them. Maybe this is all obvious stuff and you'll just roll your eyes at my efforts to clarify it for myself. I dunno.

For example, you and I go to class and experience a one-year sequential course of Old Testament study. However, when writing the course, correlation doesn't start with Genesis and seek to help us understand the book then go on to Exodus and do the same thing. Instead, their process begins with a list of doctrines they'd like to address throughout the calendar year, then goes to the scriptures and the words of the prophets to find passages they can use to explicate them. We therefore experience the lessons in a "forwards" direction while they write them for us in a "backwards" one. Am I making any sense? There has to be an easier way to explain this. Sigh...

In the case of numbers 12, then, it's a mistake to think that correlation first read the chapter, then wrote a lesson about its meaning. What they really did was realize that there was a connection between the chapter and some of the correlated doctrines that were on the agenda for study. In other words, the writers of the course needed to hit certain pre-determined concepts and Numbers 12 gave them the opportunity to do so.

Below is the Numbers 12 discussion from the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual. The dark red words are mine and delineate the doctrines (IMO) correlation used Numbers 12 to explicate.

2. The Lord chastens Miriam and Aaron for speaking against Moses.

Teach and discuss Numbers 12.

Members' rights to receive revelation are limited.

• Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses as their presiding authority, pointing out that they too had received revelation (Numbers 12:2). What was the Lord’s reply to their complaint? (See Numbers 12:5–9.) What are the limits to our right to receive revelation?

The prophets can receive revelation for the world, members can receive revelation for their families.

Elder James E. Faust said: “The prophets, seers, and revelators have had and still have the responsibility and privilege of receiving and declaring the word of God for the world. Individual members, parents, and leaders have the right to receive revelation for their own responsibility but have no duty nor right to declare the word of God beyond the limits of their own responsibility” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1989, 9; or Ensign, Nov. 1989, 8).

It is wrong to criticize church leaders. Criticizing them can hurt people.

• The Lord chastened and punished Miriam and Aaron for complaining about Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1, 9–10). How are we affected when we criticize Church leaders? How can our criticism of Church leaders affect our family and friends?

Prophets are an example of meekness. Priesthood holders should be meek and should not unrighteously preside over others including women.

• Numbers 12:3 says that “Moses was very meek.” What does it mean to be meek?

President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “Meekness implies a spirit of gratitude as opposed to an attitude of self-sufficiency, an acknowledgment of a greater power beyond oneself, a recognition of God, and an acceptance of his commandments” (“With All Thy Getting Get Understanding,” Ensign, Aug. 1988, 3–4).

• How did Moses show his meekness when Miriam was punished for rebelling against him? (See Numbers 12:13–15. Rather than being pleased with his authority to preside over his sister, he pleaded with the Lord to heal her. He and his people postponed their journey until she was healed.) How can we be meek, even when people criticize or turn against us? How does it help us to respond to criticism with meekness?

It seems to me that wUAp's class may have run into difficulties because the doctrines this chapter happen to illustrate sort of step on each others' toes. The ideas that only priesthood key holders have the right to receive revelation and that criticizing them hurts people coincidentally steps on the toes of the idea that priesthood holders should be like Moses and treat others (especially women like Miriam) with meekness. If this one chapter had not been used to simultaneously explicate these distinct ideas, teachers like wUAp's would have been less likely to synthesize them and come up with a crazy question like "Why did the lord punish Miriam more than Aaron?"

Yeah, yeah, you can tell that I'm thinking correlation. Maybe wUAp's teacher would have come up with the question anyway.... I'm not so sure, though.

At the very least, I think it's good to be mindful that when we're in Sunday School, we're not studying the bible ("forwards") as much as we're learning the way the bible is used to support LDS doctrine ("backwards").

[Babs]

There has to be an easier way to explain this. Sigh...

So when you use the word backwards, you don't mean to imply that the church is backward. By backwards you're suggesting that rather than study/instruct the scriptures without preconception, the church is reverse engineering their doctrines to come up with lessons?

[pellegrino]

Well, I console myself by thinking that the Lord made me a good teacher, even when I'm not getting paid for it. Even if I don't get to lead the class, I can face down wrongheadedness like this when it springs up with my comments.

But, my calling is with the children of the poor. I want to help bring the Pee Dee out of poverty, ignorance, and backwater status. So, there are many Spanish positions, but I feel the call here. Sometimes, it's maddening, kind of like living in New Orleans, but I'm sure of where I'm supposed to be, and that makes all the difference when stuff starts pushing me <redacted> it button.

You're a better man than I.

At the very least, I think it's good to be mindful that when we're in Sunday School, we're not studying the bible ("forwards") as much as we're learning the way the bible is used to support LDS doctrine ("backwards").

This is the single most frustrating aspect of correlation. Why can't correlation simply mean that as a church we all study the same passages from whatever text we're covering that year?