Only one female speaker at General Conference this weekend

[_Chap]

the Twelve Apostles were ordained to be such, whereas the regular disciples were not:

Mark 3:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

You did not need to be “ordained” to be a disciple. But you did need to be ordained to be an Apostle.

Here is the Greek of Mark 3:14 -

14 και εποιησεν δωδεκα ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου και ινα αποστελλη αυτους κηρυσσειν

Which is the verb you translate as 'ordained'? Yup, it's our old friend εποιησεν, aorist form of a common verb that simply means 'make'.

Nowadays the word 'ordained' in an English-speaking Christian context (not just a Mormon context) suggests one has been through a special ceremony with the implication that special powers and rights are thereby conferred - "he was ordained a priest in 2002 in York Minster". In fact the word is not really used in any other sense today.

But there is no suggestion of that in the usage of the word εποιησεν in 1st century Greek. Or can you show otherwise?

[_zerinus]

the Twelve Apostles were ordained to be such, whereas the regular disciples were not:

Mark 3:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

You did not need to be “ordained” to be a disciple. But you did need to be ordained to be an Apostle.

Here is the Greek of Mark 3:14 -

14 και εποιησεν δωδεκα ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου και ινα αποστελλη αυτους κηρυσσειν

Which is the verb you translate as 'ordained'? Yup, it's our old friend εποιησεν, aorist form of a common verb that simply means 'make'.

Nowadays the word 'ordained' in an English-speaking Christian context (not just a Mormon context) suggests one has been through a special ceremony with the implication that special powers and rights are thereby conferred - "he was ordained a priest in 2002 in York Minster". In fact the word is not really used in any other sense today.

But there is no suggestion of that in the usage of the word εποιησεν in 1st century Greek. Or can you show otherwise?

You are nitpicking and playing with words. The fact remains that Jesus makes a clear distinction between the Twelve Apostles and the remainder of his disciples. How precisely you want to define that distinction is beside the point.

[_Chap]

]

14 και εποιησεν δωδεκα ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου και ινα αποστελλη αυτους κηρυσσειν

Which is the verb you translate as 'ordained'? Yup, it's our old friend εποιησεν, aorist form of a common verb that simply means 'make'.

Nowadays the word 'ordained' in an English-speaking Christian context (not just a Mormon context) suggests one has been through a special ceremony with the implication that special powers and rights are thereby conferred - "he was ordained a priest in 2002 in York Minster". In fact the word is not really used in any other sense today.

But there is no suggestion of that in the usage of the word εποιησεν in 1st century Greek. Or can you show otherwise?

You are nitpicking and playing with words. ...

Nope. Just pointing out that quoting the New Testament in English can often bring in a lot of baggage that simply isn't there in the Greek.

You can carry on arguing that Jesus wanted to give some special status to the group of twelve who were named as 'sendees' (αποστολους) in order that they might be sent (αποστελλη). But you can't back up your claim by saying that the New Testament says they were 'ordained' in the ritual power-conferring sense that many Christians including LDS use that term today. That sense is just not there in the Greek word εποιησεν 'he made'.

[You're up very late, by the way. You're not on the eastern side of the Atlantic .... I hope?]

[_Polygamy-Porter]

April 2017 Conference this past weekend, where only one sermon out of 27 was delivered by a woman (Primary General President Joy D. Jones on Sunday morning).

I'm not really sure what to say about that other than it's disappointing.

Why is this disappointing to you?

Do you desire to return to faithful weekly attendance of LDS services?

[_MsJack]

The main one is that the linguistic construct does not necessitate that he/she be an Apostle

As I said earlier, "esteemed by the apostles" is technically grammatically possible, but extremely unlikely. It is unattested in the history of translation for this passage until very late and it is rare for ἐπίσημοι ἐν (+dative) in antiquity. In fact, the entire history of trying to give Junia a penis works against the argument that this passage could just as easily mean a non-apostle or a different kind of apostle, because if that were the case, why did so many later translators and commentators settle instead on the unlikely proposition of insisting an obvious female name was male? Why didn't they just say, "Huh, this could mean 'esteemed by the apostles' or Paul could mean a different kind of apostle, so that must be it" instead of "this name that is a woman's name must be a man's name because women can't be apostles"?

Jesus is called an apostle in the New Testament (Heb. 3:1), but obviously not in the same sense. Barnabas is called an Apostle (Acts 14:14), but not in the same sense.

Apostle was an authoritative calling with a special witness to the resurrection (1 Cor. 9:1). Jesus (Heb 3:1) and Paul (also mentioned in Acts 14:14) certainly fit that bill. What makes you think Barnabas hadn't been made an apostle by Acts 14? "Apostle/Apostles" is overwhelmingly used for the group that includes Peter and Paul in Acts.

Your insistence that Junia is an Apostle is biblically​ and linguistically ridiculous and silly in the extreme.

It wasn't biblically or linguistically ridiculous or silly for John Chrysostom or Theodoret of Cyrrhus. You really think the ten minutes you spent Googling this yesterday to try and support your preconceived notions of women and apostleship makes you more of an expert than them?

The real issue here is that you are in error because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Mt 22:29)

[_MsJack]

Why is this disappointing to you?

Do you desire to return to faithful weekly attendance of LDS services?

Return? I've never been Mormon, and even when I was married to one, I attended monthly, not weekly.

It's disappointing to me because, as Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Churches that silence women's voices reinforce each other and affect the rest of us.

Besides, I still have many friends in the Mormon church who care about this issue, and I empathize with them. There was a good post on this at By Common Consent: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/04/03/ ... the-women/

[_zerinus]

The main one is that the linguistic construct does not necessitate that he/she be an Apostle

As I said earlier, "esteemed by the apostles" is technically grammatically possible, but extremely unlikely. It is unattested in the history of translation for this passage until very late and it is rare for ἐπίσημοι ἐν (+dative) in antiquity. In fact, the entire history of trying to give Junia a penis works against the argument that this passage could just as easily mean a non-apostle or a different kind of apostle, because if that were the case, why did so many later translators and commentators settle instead on the unlikely proposition of insisting an obvious female name was male? Why didn't they just say, "Huh, this could mean 'esteemed by the apostles' or Paul could mean a different kind of apostle, so that must be it" instead of "this name that is a woman's name must be a man's name because women can't be apostles"?

Jesus is called an apostle in the New Testament (Heb. 3:1), but obviously not in the same sense. Barnabas is called an Apostle (Acts 14:14), but not in the same sense.

Apostle was an authoritative calling with a special witness to the resurrection (1 Cor. 9:1). Jesus (Heb 3:1) and Paul (also mentioned in Acts 14:14) certainly fit that bill. What makes you think Barnabas hadn't been made an apostle by Acts 14? "Apostle/Apostles" is overwhelmingly used for the group that includes Peter and Paul in Acts.

Your insistence that Junia is an Apostle is biblically​ and linguistically ridiculous and silly in the extreme.

It wasn't biblically or linguistically ridiculous or silly for John Chrysostom or Theodoret of Cyrrhus. You really think the ten minutes you spent Googling this yesterday to try and support your preconceived notions of women and apostleship makes you more of an expert than them?

The real issue here is that you are in error because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Mt 22:29)

You are just being extremely illogical and irrational. I see no point in continuing with this discussion.

[_MsJack]

You are nitpicking and playing with words. The fact remains that Jesus makes a clear distinction between the Twelve Apostles and the remainder of his disciples. How precisely you want to define that distinction is beside the point.

Eh, not really. Have you actually read the Gospel of Mark? The twelve disciples are constantly screwing up and getting things wrong only to be upstaged by women, invalids, and outsiders. It's one of the major narrative themes of the Gospel of Mark that anyone can be exactly what the Twelve were.

The other synoptic Gospels likely came later and softened the "stupid disciples" narrative a bit.

[_MsJack]

You are just being extremely illogical and irrational. I see no point in continuing with this discussion.

[_Chap]

You are just being extremely illogical and irrational. I see no point in continuing with this discussion.

Yeah ... but there's women for you!

I can quite see why Vice-President Pence doesn't want to be left alone with one. All those words and stuff. it messes with a guy's brain, know what I mean!