Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[bluebell]

Calling all bible scholars!

Genesis 3:16 says in part that Adam would rule over Eve.  

In an article for the Ensign in 2013 Valerie M. Hudson (Professor of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) and Richard B. Miller "Professor of Family Life at Brigham Young University" stated about this verse:

“Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. … Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ …

Can anyone confirm that statement about the Hebrew word they claim is being used, and what it means?

[PacMan]

While I wish it was otherwise, there is virtually no way that "with" was intended in the case in Genesis 3:16.  That sense is only when using it to mean how or by some means.  It's not used in the cooperative sense:

Reference	Hebrew Phrase	Transliteration	Literal Meaning	Context / Relationship
Exod 14:25	בָּרִכבוֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו	bārikhbô û·bĕfārāšāyw	“with his chariots and horsemen”	Military accompaniment / equipment
Judg 5:15	וְשָׂרֵי יִשָּׂשכָר בְּדְבוֹרָה	wĕśārê yiśśāḵār bĕ·Dĕvōrāh	“the princes of Issachar were with Deborah”	Alliance / cooperation in battle
2 Sam 6:12	בְּשִׂמְחָה	bĕ·śimḥāh	“with joy”	Manner of celebration
Ps 33:3	בִּתְרוּעָה	bi·terûʿāh	“with a shout of joy”	Manner / instrument (musical shout)
Ps 44:6	בְּחַרְבִּי	bĕ·ḥarbî	“with my sword”	Instrument used in action
Ps 89:26	אַף־יָדִי תִּכּוֹן עִמּוֹ… אַף־זְרוֹעִי תְאַמְּצֶנּוּ	(parallel use)	“My hand shall be established with him”	Cooperative strengthening (parallel to ʿim)
Prov 3:19	יְהוָה בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ	bĕ·ḥokmāh	“The Lord founded the earth with wisdom”	Means / instrumentality
Isa 11:4	בְּשֵׁבֶט פִּיו	bĕ·šēḇeṭ pîw	“with the rod of his mouth”	Instrumental metaphor (speech as weapon)

This present use is a dominative sense:

Reference	Hebrew Phrase	Literal Transliteration	English Meaning	Context
Gen 3:16	יִמְשָׁל בָּךְ	yimšāl bākh	“he shall rule over you”	Husband’s dominion post-Fall
Gen 4:7	תִּמְשָׁל בּוֹ	timšāl bō	“you must rule over it”	Cain urged to rule over sin
Gen 37:8	מָשֹׁל תִּמְשָׁל בָּנוּ	māšōl timšāl bānû	“will you indeed rule over us?”	Joseph’s brothers protest his dreams
Ps 8:7 (8:6 Eng.)	תַּמְשִׁילֵהוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂי יָדֶיךָ	tamšīlēhû bĕ-maʿăsê yādeyḵā	“You made him rule over the works of Your hands”	Humanity’s dominion in creation
Ps 19:14 (19:13 Eng.)	אַל יִמְשְׁלוּ בִי	ʾal yimšĕlû bî	“let them not rule over me”	Prayer against sin’s mastery
Ps 22:29 (22:28 Eng.)	וְהוּא מֹשֵׁל בַּגּוֹיִם	wĕhûʾ mōšēl ba-gôyim	“He rules over the nations”	God’s kingship
Ps 59:14 (59:13 Eng.)	יִמְשְׁלוּ בְיַעֲקֹב	yimšĕlû bĕ-yaʿăqōb	“they rule over Jacob”	Enemies oppressing Israel
Ps 66:7	מֹשֵׁל בִּגְבוּרָתוֹ	mōšēl bi-gĕvūrātō	“He rules by His power”	Instrumental sense (“by means of”)
Ps 89:10 (8

If Adam were to have been said to rule "with" Even, 'im' would have been used:

Reference	Hebrew Phrase	Transliteration	Literal Meaning	Context / Relationship
Gen 5:22	הִתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ עִם־הָאֱלֹהִים	hithallēkh Ḥănōkh ʿim hāʾĕlōhîm	“Enoch walked with God”	Fellowship / partnership
Gen 6:9	אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים הִתְהַלֶּךְ נֹחַ	(ʾet + ʿim nuance)	“Noah walked with God”	Moral companionship
Gen 13:5	וְגַם לְלוֹט הַהֹלֵךְ אֶת־אַבְרָם	(ʾet + ʿim nuance)	“Lot, who went with Abram”	Physical companionship
Gen 18:16	וַיֵּלְכוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים... וְאַבְרָהָם הֹלֵךְ עִמָּם	ʾAvrāhām hōlēkh ʿimmām	“Abraham went with them”	Cooperative action
Exod 18:23	וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ	wĕ-nāśʾû ʾittāḵ	“They will bear [the burden] with you”	Shared labor
Lev 26:12	וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בְּתוֹכְכֶם	ve-hithallaktî bĕtōḵĕḵem (related)	“I will walk among / with you”	Divine fellowship
Deut 31:6	כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ עִמָּךְ	hûʾ ha-hōlēkh ʿimmāḵ	“For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you”	Support, accompaniment
Ruth 1:14	וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ	(ʿim understood)	“Ruth clung to her [Naomi]”	Loyal companionship
1 Sam 10:26	וַיֵּלְכוּ עִם־שָׁאוּל	wayyēlĕḵû ʿim Šāʾûl	“They went with Saul”	Political allegiance

[Pyreaux]

Well, that interpretation seems theologically motivated to promote equal partnership in marriage. The phrase "he shall rule over you" in uses the Hebrew verb "masal" ("to rule") followed by the prepositional prefix "bet" which does have a range of possible meanings, including: "in" "at" "by means of" and "with" (often in the sense of "in the company of").

However, when masal is used with the bet preposition it gets interpretated throughout the Hebrew Bible as "to rule over," indicating governance or authority over a thing in virtually every other instance of masal + bet, Joseph ruling over Egypt in Genesis 45:8, or a king ruling over his people.

The meaning should be one of subordination and authority exercised over someone or something, not with them as an equal partner. Because if the original text had intended "rule with" in the sense of partnership, typically clearer Hebrew words for "with" or "in the company of," such as im or et, would have been used.

A Parnership of Sorts

I think the verse is typically thought of as describing a fallen state of marriage rather than a prescriptive, divine ideal of hierarchy. The corrupted relationship will now be where the woman will struggle for control ("your desire shall be to/for your husband") and the man will respond with domination ("he shall rule over you"). This is what happens in a sinful world, not what God commands to happen.

The rare Hebrew word for "desire" (tesuqah), used in Genesis 3:16 in light of its immediate next use in Genesis 4:7, creates a crucial alternative context. God warns Cain: "Sin is crouching at the door; its desire (tesuqah) is for you, but you must master (or rule) it."

The woman's desire in 3:16 is not a lust, but a desire to control her husband, or usurp the man. His rule is then interpreted as a necessary corrective or struggle against her attempt to dominate him, paralleling Cain's need to "master" Sin so it doesn't dominate him. The verse describes a "battle of the sexes" introduced by the Fall, where the wife seeks control, and the husband must rule to prevent their relationship from descending into chaos.

It's a balance, "rule" is a form of protection, preventing the total collapse of the family or relationship into a power struggle where one partner (the woman) is consumed by the drive for control. If the man rules justly (not tyrannically) and the woman finds contentment within those boundaries, a sort of functional, albeit hierarchical, partnership can emerge. They operate in balance, with the man acting as the decisive authority, which prevents the relationship from getting dominated by the woman's disruptive desires.

Hudson and Miller's "rule with" argument asserting that the word "bet" means God intended them to rule together at this juncture there appears to be a wishful re-reading of the word.

Edited November 9, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

Neither of them are scriptorians or Hebrew scholars.  Do they mention where they learned this?

https://fhssfaculty.byu.edu/directory/rick-miller

https://vmrhudson.org

I like Hudson’s stuff I have read, but I see this as likening the scriptures to us rather than explaining original intent.

Hopefully we are ready as a culture and a people to for both the husband and the wife lead our families together.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=eng

Their source is Brother Bruce Hafen, another good writer:

Quote

Eve’s choice was momentous: because of her choice, sin and death afflicted her and Adam and their posterity. However, by entering mortality, she and Adam gained the opportunity to have children and to strive toward exaltation. God also provided that Adam and Eve would rule together, as Elder Bruce C. Hafen, formerly of the Seventy, and his wife, Marie, explained:

“Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. … Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ … The concept of interdependent, equal partners is well-grounded in the doctrine of the restored gospel. Eve was Adam’s ‘help meet’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew for meet means that Eve was adequate for, or equal to, Adam. She wasn’t his servant or his subordinate.”

In the plan of happiness, man and woman play equally powerful and equally important roles. For the plan to work, each must hearken to the other. Before God, they stand as equals.

He may be a Hebrew scholar amid his other efforts, but not seeing any credentials documenting that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_C._Hafen

Edited November 9, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

This is the original source for them, I believe:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/08/crossing-thresholds-and-becoming-equal-partners?lang=eng

There is just the claim, no footnote unfortunately.

[Calm]

https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-otl04b-was-adam-meant-to-rule-over-or-rule-with-eve

 

Quote

Question: After the Fall, God told Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”^[2]However, some say that the words “rule over” should be translated “rule with.” Which translation is correct?

Summary: A modern English translation makes the meaning of this difficult phrase clear: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”^[3] Looking at the verse in context, it is evident that the Lord is not telling the couple how they should treat each other, but rather describing a tragic tendency in mortal marriages that they must avoid. As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.”^[4] In an honest effort to make sense of the troubling English translation of “rule over” in the King James Version, some have suggested that it should be read instead as “rule with.”^[5] Unfortunately, the “rule with” translation does not hold up under scholarly scrutiny. For example, in her BYU Masters Thesis, RoseAnn Benson argued conclusively that the “rule with” translation should be abandoned. In every occurrence of the underlying Hebrew she examined the phrase is best understood as “rule over,” as when a king rules over his subjects.^[6] This further confirms the idea that the verse is describing broken marriage relationships that would become a common tendency in the fallen world, with each spouse contending to “rule over” the other. It’s obvious that God did not intend Adam and Eve’s marriage to work that way. Instead, as the Proclamation on the Family explains, “fathers and mothers” — both then and now — “are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”^[7]

Quote

Some scripture readers are misled when they read this verse, assuming that the woman’s “desire” and the man’s “rule” should be read prescriptively as a biblical marriage model to be followed rather than descriptively as a tragic condition to be reversed.

However, when the Lord tells Eve “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” the word Hebrew word for “desire” does not refer to a romantic attraction, but rather a contentious wish to “overcome or defeat another.”^[9] In addition, the “rule” of the husband depicted in Hebrew version of the phrase is not benevolent but controlling.^[10] The sense of this terrible situation is well captured in a modern Bible translation: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”^[11] As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.”^[12]

Bible scholar Victor Hamilton sees God’s words as a warning to Adam and Eve. Unless they are careful, the conditions of a fallen world may lead them “to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination. … Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God’s creation, the relationship [would then become] a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule the other. The two who once reigned as one [would] attempt to rule each other.”^[13]

This is a war that can never be “won,” since God’s intent was not for one party to dominate the other. The Hebrew word for “help meet”^[14] means “a helper or strength corresponding to him” — or, in other words, a completing counterpart. “This term cannot be taken as demeaning because Hebrew ‘ezer, employed here to describe the intended role of the woman, is often used of God in His relation to man.”^[15]  President Howard W. Hunter said: “The Lord intended that the wife be … a companion equal and necessary in full partnership.”^[16]  Thus, in Moses 2, both man and woman are created in the image of God, and in Moses 3, they are described as corresponding strengths.^[17]

 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Neither of them are scriptorians or Hebrew scholars.  Do they mention where they learned this?

It is highly likely that Hudson and Miller used a resource like a Strong's Concordance that would clearly show "with" as a potential translation for "bet" (H9003) and then selected that meaning to support a modern theological view. Neglecting the collocation (how words are used together) in an advanced lexicon like the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) or Koehler-Baumgartner (HALOT), they would see that the entry for the verb masal specifically directs the reader to the context of dominion when used with the bet preposition.

This, Hebrew students, would be considered a case of eisegesis (reading a desired meaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text).

[CV75]

I am not a scholar.

In my brief search, I found two Hebrew texts for this phrase in Genesis 3:16:

וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־ב (yimshal-bakh) is a direct translation of the Hebrew. "shall rule over you". Yimshal  is an imperfect form of the root word mashal (מָשַׁל), often meaning "to rule," "govern," or "have mastery" HOWEVER! The most common translation of mashal is “parable” or “proverb” – a similitude (e.g., Job 30:19 says, "I have become a proverb [wa-et-mashel] like dust and ashes". A parable is "over " in that it "covers" the literal reality it represents so that those who choose to see will see.

So, while these meanings are contextual, could it be that this is a multi-layered textual riddle suitable for our testing in a fallen condition? Could it mean that Adam is to rule over Eve as a parable, or in similitude, of the Son of God (the Word, the Parable), following His pattern for all attributes in context of expressing divine power through the administration of priesthood covenants and ordinances? Could our interpreted context be part of the test?

Edited November 9, 2025 by CV75

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-otl04b-was-adam-meant-to-rule-over-or-rule-with-eve

 

 

This reading makes the most sense to me.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This reading makes the most sense to me.

The lens of the restored gospel certainly helps us understand the way things should be.

Two questions I have about the article is (1) the relationship between the Hebrew word for "rule over" and "parable," which is the most common translation of the root. The translation "shall parable over" doesn't make sense except as a riddle or a pun, so why is the root of rule over "parable"? Is it because we are taught in parables (literal and virtual) instead of in God's direct presence? This gets into language (which is beyond the scope of the article). (2) Similarly, the Hebrew word for "desire" in Genesis 3:16 ("teshuqah"), meaning a complex dynamic of tension, needn't only be taken as contentious, but also in a sense of more positive, complimentary tension such as "ying-yang."

The article doesn't get into it, but Genesis 3:16 (and surrounding text and story) could be simultaneously read as both the way Fallen and Redeemed relationships can be, and maybe both principles are being taught, leaving the choice of application to the reader/hearer. The article does admit to confirming an idea, so perhaps the author might someday explore and research additional ideas. 

 

Edited November 9, 2025 by CV75

[longview]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

The lens of the restored gospel certainly helps us understand the way things should be.

Two questions I have about the article is (1) the relationship between the Hebrew word for "rule over" and "parable," which is the most common translation of the root. The translation "shall parable over" doesn't make sense except as a riddle or a pun, so why is the root of rule over "parable"? Is it because we are taught in parables (literal and virtual) instead of in God's direct presence? This gets into language (which is beyond the scope of the article). (2) Similarly, the Hebrew word for "desire" in Genesis 3:16 ("teshuqah"), meaning a complex dynamic of tension, needn't only be taken as contentious, but also in a sense of more positive, complimentary tension such as "ying-yang."

The article doesn't get into it, but Genesis 3:16 (and surrounding text and story) could be simultaneously read as both the way Fallen and Redeemed relationships can be, and maybe both principles are being taught, leaving the choice of application to the reader/hearer. The article does admit to confirming an idea, so perhaps the author might someday explore and research additional ideas. 

 

How about:

Puzzle over gospel challenges with yearnings in holy matrimony for the highest blessings in the Celestial Kingdom.

-------------parable-----------------desire---------with------------

[teddyaware]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Calling all bible scholars!

Genesis 3:16 says in part that Adam would rule over Eve.  

In an article for the Ensign in 2013 Valerie M. Hudson (Professor of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) and Richard B. Miller "Professor of Family Life at Brigham Young University" stated about this verse:

“Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. … Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ …

Can anyone confirm that statement about the Hebrew word they claim is being used, and what it means?

 

Modernist members of the church can parse out Genesis 3:16 anyway which way they want in order to make it comfortably conform with their spiritual frame of reference, but, like it or not, the following very clear declaration of gospel truth from the Apostle Paul settles the issue once and for all. And I must say that I confidently believe one of the main reasons the world is in an ever accelerating downward spiral toward oblivion is that the institution of the traditional family, presided over by a righteous, manly father, is rapidly going the way of the dodo. People may shriek in horror at what I’m saying, but I’m also supremely confident that the day is going to come when even the most ardent feminists are going to be so humbled by the obvious monumental failures of their ideas that they’re going to contritely admit that Paul had it right all along. Flame away!

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5) 

[bluebell]

Just now, teddyaware said:

 

Modernist members of the church can parse out Genesis 3:16 anyway which way they want in order to make it comfortably conform with their spiritual frame of reference, but, like it or not, the following very clear declaration of gospel truth from the Apostle Paul settles the issue once and for all. And I must say that I confidently believe one of the main reasons the world is in an ever accelerating downward spiral toward oblivion is that the institution of the traditional family, presided over by a righteous, manly father, is rapidly going the way of the dodo. People may shriek in horror at what I’m saying, but I’m also supremely confident that the day is going to come when even the most ardent feminists are going to be so humbled by the obvious monumental failures of their ideas that they’re going to contritely admit that Paul had it right all along. Flame away!

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5) 

How do you feel about Paul's very clear declaration that women should be silent at church?

"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.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Do you believe the church and our prophets are under condemnation for not following Paul in those verses?

[Benjamin McGuire]

The "rule over" part, at least in the language, is pretty clear. It is the word translated as "desire" that is problematic. The underlying Hebrew word is unique. It is the only occurrence of that word in that form (there are highly similar words in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10). Part of the challenge is that the Genes 4:7 text shows a relationship: "7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." It is another difficult text. The other problem is that the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) is also very different from the Hebrew, and seems based on an original Hebrew word with a single letter difference from the Hebrew - leading a lot of readers to believe that there was a copyist error in the Genesis text. The Greek word means to turn back. And this could be understood in a couple of different ways. It could mean a turn back to the husband (either as a refuge or as a turning away from everyone else to focus on the husband), or it could mean to turn back on the husband - to have a difficult relationship. The text remains ambiguous on what this should mean in any case.

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Modernist members of the church can parse out Genesis 3:16 anyway which way they want in order to make it comfortably conform with their spiritual frame of reference, but, like it or not, the following very clear declaration of gospel truth from the Apostle Paul settles the issue once and for all. And I must say that I confidently believe one of the main reasons the world is in an ever accelerating downward spiral toward oblivion is that the institution of the traditional family, presided over by a righteous, manly father, is rapidly going the way of the dodo. People may shriek in horror at what I’m saying, but I’m also supremely confident that the day is going to come when even the most ardent feminists are going to be so humbled by the obvious monumental failures of their ideas that they’re going to contritely admit that Paul had it right all along. Flame away!

I will take up your offer.

/flame on

The real problem is that we have to recognize that scriptural texts are cultural in nature. Certain things in the scriptures were both highly progressive at the time they were written and also completely misguided with respect to the new light and knowledge that has come into the world since they were written. We are told in the Book of Mormon to recontextualize scripture by likening it unto ourselves - by reflecting on it in light of the greater understanding that we have today. This idea that you put forward, that we should ignore that light and understanding in favor of a literalist interpretation is really what lies at the heart of biblical fundamentalism. It is particularly un-Christian (and contrary to the gospel as understood by LDS) to use this sort of interpretative guideline to promote sexist interpretations and understandings. Paul himself gives lots of other advice. Some of that advice is also very questionable. And, after all, Paul also comments in 1 Cor. 7: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." If the man rules over the wife, so to does the wife rule over the husband. 

One thing stands out to me. In 1978, Elder McConkie quoted 2 Nephi 26:33 -

Quote

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. 

And then he says this:

Quote

These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations. Since the Lord gave this revelation on the priesthood, our understanding of many passages has expanded. Many of us never imagined or supposed that they had the extensive and broad meaning that they do have.

Men and women are equal and should be understood as equal in the Gospel. And the reality is that any time that we argue that someone should rule over someone else (and of course Paul has more to say about this in terms of slavery), we are moving away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and in that last day, if we use the scriptures to justify inequality, we will be found on the left hand of God - claiming that all we did, we did in God's name (and justified by His scriptures), and yet, completely missing the point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This includes those who have these kinds of misogynist attitudes - who think that their role is to be the one in charge, to make the decisions, to put women (and feminists) in their place. You are an absolutely poor example of a follower of Jesus Christ @teddyaware.

/flame off

[Senator]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The "rule over" part, at least in the language, is pretty clear. It is the word translated as "desire" that is problematic. The underlying Hebrew word is unique. It is the only occurrence of that word in that form (there are highly similar words in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10). Part of the challenge is that the Genes 4:7 text shows a relationship: "7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." It is another difficult text. The other problem is that the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) is also very different from the Hebrew, and seems based on an original Hebrew word with a single letter difference from the Hebrew - leading a lot of readers to believe that there was a copyist error in the Genesis text. The Greek word means to turn back. And this could be understood in a couple of different ways. It could mean a turn back to the husband (either as a refuge or as a turning away from everyone else to focus on the husband), or it could mean to turn back on the husband - to have a difficult relationship. The text remains ambiguous on what this should mean in any case.

I will take up your offer.

/flame on

The real problem is that we have to recognize that scriptural texts are cultural in nature. Certain things in the scriptures were both highly progressive at the time they were written and also completely misguided with respect to the new light and knowledge that has come into the world since they were written. We are told in the Book of Mormon to recontextualize scripture by likening it unto ourselves - by reflecting on it in light of the greater understanding that we have today. This idea that you put forward, that we should ignore that light and understanding in favor of a literalist interpretation is really what lies at the heart of biblical fundamentalism. It is particularly un-Christian (and contrary to the gospel as understood by LDS) to use this sort of interpretative guideline to promote sexist interpretations and understandings. Paul himself gives lots of other advice. Some of that advice is also very questionable. And, after all, Paul also comments in 1 Cor. 7: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." If the man rules over the wife, so to does the wife rule over the husband. 

One thing stands out to me. In 1978, Elder McConkie quoted 2 Nephi 26:33 -

And then he says this:

Men and women are equal and should be understood as equal in the Gospel. And the reality is that any time that we argue that someone should rule over someone else (and of course Paul has more to say about this in terms of slavery), we are moving away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and in that last day, if we use the scriptures to justify inequality, we will be found on the left hand of God - claiming that all we did, we did in God's name (and justified by His scriptures), and yet, completely missing the point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This includes those who have these kinds of misogynist attitudes - who think that their role is to be the one in charge, to make the decisions, to put women (and feminists) in their place. You are an absolutely poor example of a follower of Jesus Christ @teddyaware.

/flame off

Well, you absolutely smashed it.....until the end when you judged his discipleship.  Then you failed.

[Benjamin McGuire]

38 minutes ago, Senator said:

Well, you absolutely smashed it.....until the end when you judged his discipleship.  Then you failed.

He asked to be flamed.

Regardless, don't you have the same problem with someone who is declaring that the intention of scripture (and the gospel) is to assert that the subjection of women is a part of the Christian gospel?

[Senator]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

He asked to be flamed.

Regardless, don't you have the same problem with someone who is declaring that the intention of scripture (and the gospel) is to assert that the subjection of women is a part of the Christian gospel?

Absolutely!  The near entirety of your post demonstrated the error in his doctrinal interpretation.  Then you took it personal.

[Ryan Dahle]

 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are an absolutely poor example of a follower of Jesus Christ @teddyaware

I also disagree with the position of teddyaware, for several of the same reasons you expressed. But this is entirely inappropriate. 

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

He asked to be flamed.

Regardless, don't you have the same problem with someone who is declaring that the intention of scripture (and the gospel) is to assert that the subjection of women is a part of the Christian gospel?

I suspect he was inviting people to disagree, even vehemently, with his stated position or claim, not attack his personal discipleship. 

Also, I think that there is enough inherent moral tension and paradoxical ethical dilemmas in the scriptures that we can have grace for those who take a different stance on these types of issues. The idea that men should preside in the home has been taught be numerous prophets and apostles, many of whom undoubtedly had assumptions or views about this matter that you would disagree with. They probably held these views for some of the same reasons that teddyaware holds them (scriptural interpretations that you see as fundamentally flawed). If so, would that also make them poor examples of followers of Jesus Christ? 

You also might consider that, at least in ecclesiastical matters, the Church still has a system of governing keys held exclusively by male priesthood holders. Precisely why this ancient pattern has been maintained in modern revelations has never been fully explained. My point isn't to validate teddyaware's specific view on men presiding in the family, but simply to point out that modern Church leaders who continue to uphold this system, which can seem very patriarchal and oppressive to women by many observers today, does not make those Church leaders poor examples of followers of Christ. I assume the current leadership of the Church feels bound to follow that pattern because God has never revealed or directed any prophet to do otherwise.

The simple fact is that God does not always behave in ways that align with our moral intuitions. Sometimes our understanding of the scriptures are wrong. In other circumstances, we may not fully understand God's plan. And in those circumstances, it is our limited perspective and uninformed moral intuitions that may need to change. I think we need to have more grace for one another as we try to navigate these types of complex moral quandaries.   

Edited November 10, 2025 by Ryan Dahle

[longview]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Men and women are equal and should be understood as equal in the Gospel.

They can be equal in terms of partnering. But they are NOT always the "SAME" in terms of biological attributes, of physical and mental prowess, and so forth. I made a query on chatGPT:

Quote

men and women have somewhat different brain features. men have singular brain connection between brain hemispheres. women have multiple connections. how does that result in the variety of attributes and capabilities of men and women?

 

Excellent question — and it touches on one of the most interesting areas of neuroscience and psychology: how sex-based brain connectivity patterns influence cognition, emotion, and behavior.

Let’s unpack this carefully and accurately.

---

🧠 1. The Brain Connectivity Differences

Broadly speaking — and with much overlap between individuals — studies using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) (notably a 2013 University of Pennsylvania study by Ingalhalikar et al.) have found that:

• Male brains tend to have stronger connections within each hemisphere, especially front-to-back (anterior–posterior) connections.

• Female brains tend to have stronger connections between the two hemispheres, especially left–right (interhemispheric) linkages through the corpus callosum and other commissures.

---

⚙️ 2. Functional Implications (Generalized Trends)

Men: Intra-Hemispheric Specialization

Because of stronger within-hemisphere wiring:

• They often excel in focused, goal-directed, spatial, and motor tasks.

• The right hemisphere (often dominant for spatial reasoning) and left (often dominant for analytical and verbal processing) can operate more independently, allowing single-task focus and rapid execution once a system or rule is established.

• This contributes to systemizing tendencies — analyzing mechanical or abstract systems.

Typical strengths (statistically, not universally):

• Spatial navigation and mechanical reasoning

• Targeted problem solving

• Motor coordination

• Rapid decision-making under constraint

---

Women: Inter-Hemispheric Integration

Because of stronger cross-hemispheric wiring:

• They tend to integrate analytical and intuitive processes more fluidly.

• This supports multitasking, language–emotion coupling, and social cognition.

• Emotional and contextual cues are often processed simultaneously with language and memory networks.

Typical strengths:

• Verbal fluency and social communication

• Empathy and emotional recognition

• Multitasking and contextual awareness

• Memory of relational and sensory detail

---

💡 3. Complementarity in Attributes

Rather than superiority or inferiority, these are complementary modes of processing:

Function	Tends to be Emphasized in Men	Tends to be Emphasized in Women
Focus	Singular, task-oriented	Distributed, context-oriented
Cognition	Systemizing, analytical	Integrative, relational
Emotion	Compartmentalized	Interconnected with cognition
Stress Response	Fight/flight	Tend/befriend (social bonding)
Communication	Information delivery	Connection and empathy

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And the reality is that any time that we argue that someone should rule over someone else . . .

The partnership between man and woman is more powerful than the sum of the parts. Meshing/knitting together provides greater ability to develop better solutions.

[Benjamin McGuire]

29 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Also, I think that there is enough inherent moral tension and paradoxical ethical dilemmas in the scriptures that we can have grace for those who take a different stance on these types of issues. The idea that men should preside in the home has been taught be numerous prophets and apostles, many of whom undoubtedly had assumptions or views about this matter that you would disagree with. They probably held these views for some of the same reasons that teddyaware holds them (scriptural interpretations that you see as fundamentally flawed). If so, would that also make them poor examples of followers of Jesus Christ? 

Look, I really don't care if you agree with the way that I said things. You and I have had a lot of disagreements in the past, and I have generally been (I think) quite reasonable about it. However, @teddyaware regularly posts comments that are dripping with disdain for those he disagrees with. So, why don't you start calling him out on it as well ...

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

30 minutes ago, longview said:

They can be equal in terms of partnering. But they are NOT always the "SAME" in terms of biological attributes, of physical and mental prowess, and so forth. I made a query on chatGPT:

And then:

43 minutes ago, longview said:

The partnership between man and woman is more powerful than the sum of the parts. Meshing/knitting together provides greater ability to develop better solutions.

These things are irrelevancies to the topic. It's almost as if you have this prepared pattern of deflection away from the real question here. Which isn't, after all, about feminist ideas, but about whether or not women need to be ruled? About whether they have some sort of divinely ordained role as being subservient to their husbands?

Somehow, of course, it is the men who believe this that are baffled that women generally don't want to marry them ...

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

He asked to be flamed.

Regardless, don't you have the same problem with someone who is declaring that the intention of scripture (and the gospel) is to assert that the subjection of women is a part of the Christian gospel?

Ben, I love your posts for the most part…always feel like I am learning something that is based in solid research and experience in almost every case, but every persuasion technique analysis I have seen says making it personal in the way you did is more likely to lead that person to dig in AND possibly more important to you, lead to those who lean towards Teddy’s understanding (or even just identify more with him than you for whatever reason) to dismiss you because you paint him as extreme and they don’t see him as that extreme, if at all, so they lose trust in your ability to judge, see your agenda as driving the info, etc.. 

People are complex and while Teddy might come across as uncharitable in his ideas online where it’s a more abstract discussion, he could be the first one helping his neighbours move, taking ward members to doctors’ appointments, paying the largest percentage of his income to fast offerings in his ward, willing to stop on the road to help a stranger, etc.. If he is this type of person in his face to face relationship, a great example of a disciple of Christ, anyone who knows this side of him will roll their eyes and think you are the extreme one, the poor example because your comment is unreasonable to them based on their own experIence.  And maybe some don’t know Teddy himself, but they know someone like Teddy and that person is very charitable in their actions (I knew someone like this and he was at every service project, volunteered for more and could always be relied upon as could his wife as well, they were neighbours around the corner; I do admit I would at times phase out when he was speaking, but he didn’t talk that much, was more a doer…but definitely felt more like he would better fit in Brigham’s time rather than Gordon’s).

Judge people’s words that are written, sure….condemn the words as unkindly, wrong, etc….but given there is only so much that on screen interaction like this can actually show us of a person, it is better imo not to judge someone’s discipleship in this way, imo.

Quote

why don't you start calling him out on it as well ...

I think I have in the past and nothing happened so I gave up.  At this point I care much more about readers being persuaded by your ideas than I care about readers being persuaded by Teddy’s….in fact I would prefer for many of his ideas that they do not see them as appropriate interpretations.

Edited November 10, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Ben, I love your posts for the most part…always feel like I am learning something that is based in solid research and experience in almost every case, but every persuasion technique analysis I have seen says making it personal in the way you did is more likely to lead that person to dig in AND possibly more important to you, lead to those who lean towards Teddy’s understanding (or even just identify more with him than you for whatever reason) to dismiss you because you paint him as extreme and they don’t see him as that extreme, if at all, so they lose trust in your ability to judge, see your agenda as driving the info, etc.. 

The problem here, Calm, is that we have a mixed audience. If this were entirely an LDS audience, I think I would accept this critique. But it isn't a purely LDS audience. In another thread right now, we have this discussion in which it is being asserted (on the basis of the King Follett Discourse) that all intelligences were uncreated, and were in some way equal with God. Consider this statement:

On 11/7/2025 at 12:20 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

First, we need to establish with you the Latter-day Saint idea that they/we have always been gods- we are just here to determine if we will qualify for exaltation and further progress within that native godhood.

This isn't LDS doctrine. It comes from an interpretation of the King Follett Discourse, but the King Follett Discourse isn't an authoritative source. If you challenge ZealouslyStriving on this, you get mocked. I have absolutely no expectation of convincing our borderline (and even not so borderline) fundamentalists here that their perspective is wrong. They are not my audience - even when I am responding to them. And because they are not my audience, I don't particularly feel the need to try and persuade them of the error of their thinking. In fact, I am not sure that there is anything that I could write that would convince them. I think that these posters are convinced that I am on my way to hell. I mean, look at @teddyaware's comments earlier about "Modernist members of the church ..." Modernism begins in the late 1800s. I am not a modernist member of the Church. I am a post-modernist member of the Church. But this is part of the core notion that we attribute to religious fundamentalism: a push towards a literalist understanding of scripture that wants to recontextualize it back into the pre-modern era. And in part of this is the idea that somehow there was a moment in time when the early LDS had some perfect understanding that has since been corrupted by all of us modernist (and perhaps post-modernist) Mormons. The reality is that the LDS Gospel is, in my view, a post-modernist religion (something I have argued about for decades now). It cannot be a living gospel if it is still rooted in outdated beliefs and ethics of the past. And often (as I find in the discussions here lately) it isn't even a real reflection of those early LDS beliefs but a strange mix of stuff that represents neither the religion that was practiced in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young or the religion that is practiced today.

So that's where I am coming from. The challenge is that in the moments where my own discipleship is being challenged, I feel that it is appropriate to push back. But, as I pointed out earlier, I also think that there is an issue here - and you are contributing to it. You want me to hold the higher standard than these other contributors. But, why? Should these other be allowed to make personal attacks in an uncontested way? I don't often take this route - but I think that sometimes it can be helpful to express what I think rather than simply bottling it up. The fact that you have given up doesn't meant that we shouldn't actually keep addressing the issue from time to time ...

[CV75]

22 hours ago, longview said:

How about:

Puzzle over gospel challenges with yearnings in holy matrimony for the highest blessings in the Celestial Kingdom.

-------------parable-----------------desire---------with------------

I thunk and thunk and thunk and I cannot answer this riddle -- please divulge the answer before I sic Delilah on you  

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You want me to hold the higher standard than these other contributors. But, why?

Yes.  And the why should be self evident…blessed are the peacemakers. 
Shalom.