Was Jesus truly born of a virgin in LDS theology?

[Bill the Cat]

Is that exactly what Paul is saying here too?
1 Corinthians 2:7-11
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (Compare Isaiah 64:4)

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God..

Once again, things are not the object of honor or shame, so this little rabbit trail isn't going to work. Not mentioning the wife of Jesus would be the ultimate shame to both Him and her.

[OtherCheek]

Once again, things are not the object of honor or shame, so this little rabbit trail isn't going to work. Not mentioning the wife of Jesus would be the ultimate shame to both Him and her.

I don't buy into that as the only reason to omit a name from a record, in the Hebrew culture. Why not omit the name Lucifer, then? Or Cain? or Herod?

[OtherCheek]

In fact the rest of the article gives more examples of Hebrew culture doing this.

I don't know if I buy into the commentary that Jesus was silent before Pilate for the purpose to shame him. Now Herod, yes.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't buy into that as the only reason to omit a name from a record, in the Hebrew culture. Why not omit the name Lucifer, then? Or Cain? or Herod?

Because there was no need to shame those who had shamed themselves.

[Cerebrum123]

I don't know if I buy into the commentary that Jesus was silent before Pilate for the purpose to shame him. Now Herod, yes.

Jesus being silent in front of Pilate, wasn't the only example of Hebrew culture engaging in this tactic according to the article. Besides, why wouldn't Jesus want to shame Pilate in this scenario? Pilate KNOWS that Jesus is completely innocent, but he still throws Jesus over to His accusers. Plus Pilate was a ROMAN, and was considered pretty much an enemy of the Jews, and then you have the fact of who has REAL authority over whom in that situation.

[OtherCheek]

Because there was no need to shame those who had shamed themselves.

So, under no circumstances would a name be determined too sacred to mention or utter in the Hebrew tradition? And the only reason to omit a name is to declare shame?

And 2Cor 12:4 "was caught up into paradise and heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak."

It is impossible that the" things" mentioned in 2Cor 12:4 could include information about a name of someone not mentioned in the Bible?

[Cerebrum123]

So, under no circumstances would a name be determined too sacred to mention or utter in the Hebrew tradition? And the only reason to omit a name is to declare shame?

And 2Cor 12:4 "was caught up into paradise and heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak."

It is impossible that the" things" mentioned in 2Cor 12:4 could include information about a name of someone not mentioned in the Bible?

I doubt that it is the ONLY reason to omit a name, but if it's an IMPORTANT name, then omitting it is most likely a way of shaming. Also, there's nothing in the passage you quoted to suggest that the "things too sacred to put into words" have anything to do with any person.

[Bill the Cat]

So, under no circumstances would a name be determined too sacred to mention or utter in the Hebrew tradition?

The only name considered too holy was YHWH, but alternative names were used, like el and adonai.

And the only reason to omit a name is to declare shame?

No. Completely relegating them to silence is though.

And 2Cor 12:4 "was caught up into paradise and heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak."

It is impossible that the" things" mentioned in 2Cor 12:4 could include information about a name of someone not mentioned in the Bible?

About as possible as some of it being the cheat codes for Yar's Revenge.

[Bill the Cat]

So, under no circumstances would a name be determined too sacred to mention or utter in the Hebrew tradition?

The only name considered too holy was YHWH, but alternative names were used, like el and adonai.

And the only reason to omit a name is to declare shame?

No. Completely relegating them to silence is though.

And 2Cor 12:4 "was caught up into paradise and heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak."

It is impossible that the" things" mentioned in 2Cor 12:4 could include information about a name of someone not mentioned in the Bible?

About as possible as some of it being the cheat codes for Yar's Revenge.

[OtherCheek]

The only name considered too holy was YHWH, but alternative names were used, like el and adonai.

No. Completely relegating them to silence is though.

Did Paul intend to shame women in the early church?

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

[Bill the Cat]

Did Paul intend to shame women in the early church?

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

[Cerebrum123]

Did Paul intend to shame women in the early church?

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

You DO know that Paul was stating a position that he went on to refute, right? Also the time that he says that women need to be silent, and then ask questions at home, has to do with the fact that even MEN had to learn in silence. Asking a question like this one will almost certainly get you lumped in with the "fundy" atheists. I even had a Muslim recently try and use this passage to say that the Bible views women as inferior compared to men, and he was thoroughly refuted by lpot, and myself. The thread is called "Is it ok to beat women" (maybe with "in Islam"). You could read that thread for a list of answers to similar verses as well.