Seriously, I tend to think that is more a directive than a commandment. I think that the biggest issue is the issue of the heart. Why does someone (male or female) want to be a leader?

I don't think that men are given a special dispensation whereby they understand theology and/or biblical principles better than women. Sociologically speaking however, men are considered to be the leaders of there homes and I do believe that this is where this issue is coming from. Women should be able to share their beliefs and teach in a mixed setting, but they should still be subservient to their husbands as Christ has commanded (men you must also love your wives as God has commanded [which makes a huge difference in the aforementioned statement]). If this is the case and the woman is in her "proper" role within the family, then her role within the church would also be in its proper place.

Beth Moore may choose that she ministers to women, but many men have read her books and seen her videos and profited in their spiritual lives. In Bible college, I learned many Biblical principles and a theory of missions from a lady professor – does that make what I learned unprofitable? God forbid.

I think that sometimes well meaning Christians get caught up in the sacred cows of Christianity. These issues are often rooted in a belief that has been passed down without as much regard to the Biblical principles that underlay what they believe. Without ever delving into the fact that lies on the bottom, they rely on their unchecked personal belief system or what they have been taught to believe – without searching the scriptures daily to build their own base.

With that being said, can a woman be a teacher or even a pastor? (Husband of one wife) I'm not sure, but I do know that women can be and should be leaders in our churches – maybe they could even pray in public.

I could gather from the context that the group of women (referred to singularly as "woman", possibly to be understood as womankind in general or wife in general) could not be the ones teaching false doctrine because Paul's use of the word to "remain quiet" does not refer to a complete silencing. If it was false doctrine, Paul would have used a common word for complete silencing of false doctrine that is found in these Timothy letters. The other argument is that these woman were those being deceived by false doctrine and they needed to learn the truth before they could teach. I can see this as more of a viable understanding. Then my question remains why Paul focused on the deceived "woman" in general to learn quietly and not "mankind" in general. Is it bigotry to say woman are deceived more easily and they needed the heeding?

Then the issue centers around the word "teach" and "exercise authority." Some have said teach alludes to correct doctrine of the gospel (public speaking), some have said it alludes to correct behavior that follows correct doctrine (correcting, rebuking false doctrine, church discipline = pastoral care), some have said teach directly correlates with exercising authority (church government or elders), and some have alluded that it is tied with the deceived woman and that once they were undeceived, they could teach and exercise authority over man.

One thing that I have a hard time seeing, given the context, that there was this specific situation being spoken of and the exhortation was temporary. Do we understand the modest verse as temporary? Do we understand the previous verse talking to the men to "pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling" to be temporary? Present tense verbs do not necessarily speak of temporary. And even if it was spoken towards a specific person at a specific time, do we not apply messages Jesus spoke directly to the disciples as specific people in a specific time?

It is wrong to understand this passage as a plea to God's created design of male and female distinctive and complimentary roles, a submissive stance of woman to male leadership, like in Ephesians for wives to husbands (and hence the reference to Genesis), therefore claiming Paul's preference to woman submissiveness to male church leadership (which immediately proceeds his qualifications of an elder/pastor)? Or could the references of woman and man be more of wife and husband and have nothing to do with women and men in church leadership as some have alluded to? But then, why do no translations translate it like that?

I have a tendency to also go back to verse 8 when Paul says "I want" or "I desire" to be a charge by Paul of his preferences in how to have people of the church act and conduct themselves. They were descriptions not prescriptions of godly living. A good rule of thumb so to speak. Maybe we should make it a rule that men must raise their hands in prayer in every place. Why not fight about that one?

here's some referencing to articles I found on the web:
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/1-…

http://books.google.com/books?id=zNTr2ez8abcC&amp…

http://books.google.com/books?id=NHPxcYNV0BwC&amp…

http://bible.org/article/paul%E2%80%99s-concept-t…

http://books.google.com/books?id=pHvDAAAACAAJ&amp…

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does…