Lemmie wrote:Wow, very enticing, MsJack! Your thoughts on subjects like this are consistently so level-headed and well-researched--it's refreshing to read your clear exposition. I look forward to reading the rest. Congratulations on your publication!
Thanks Lemmie! A high compliment coming from you.
And thank you everyone else.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
Philo Sofee wrote:One of the best books I have ever read (not trying to take away from MsJack here) on women and priesthood was by Maxine Hanks ("Maxie" as she calls herself in the personal blurb to me in the signed edition of it) "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism," Signature Books, 1992. It covered an enormous amount of ground on women and the priesthood. It is the book that got her excommunicated as one of the famous September 6 years ago.
It was definitely ground breaking although it is interesting that many historians since have broken with what to me were the two most interesting papers in it: Quinn's paper on women having already had the priesthood and then the paper (forget the name of the author) on seer stones and women seers. I know Stapley doesn't think too much of it, although he's pushing his own model of cosmological versus hierarchal priesthoods. He also has his own models of women healing and so forth.
Not having time to read as much as I'd like nor get into the nuances of the MHA I'd love to know what the current consensus on the book is. (Not whether it was groundbreaking or foundational to further inquiry, but rather the status of the theoretical claims) Juvenile Instructor did a retrospective on Brooke's The Refiner's Fire a year or two ago. While the counterfeiting chapter didn't get discussed (for probably good reasons) the rest was seen as groundbreaking and still stood up. I'd love someone to do the same for Hank's volume.
I would as well Clark. Perhaps it was and could be considered ground breaking from its historic context of having come out in the 1990's... nowadays the many seemingly hostile (?) ideas concerning priesthood's limits have given way to more important things like whether I can call you a Mormon now. Yes, I am funnin with ya amigo!
I'm not even sure how often or how much it was referenced and if it is still used at all for its historic or doctrinal contexts. I haven't been able to keep up with that theme much myself.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
