Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Are you implying that EVERY discussion has to be conducted using the exact same format, rules, premises, assumptions, etc? How to account for differences in perspectives, life experiences, training, preferences, maturity, education, etc?

No, quite the opposite.

I am suggesting that complex, in depth discussions are most effective when we are clear on the definitions we are using because no discussion uses the exact same format, premises, assumptions, etc. because we all come to a discussion with a different background and thought process.  We can try to improve communication by taking the time to set up an appropriate format (which will vary based on context and purpose of the discussion), talk about premises and assumptions at the beginning of a discussion to hopefully prevent too much separation of interpretation.  If we wait until we have already discussed much of the content and then one person suddenly comments “oh by the way, you understand that I use the term “_____” in this way” and the other has not understood the term in that way, do you think it’s wise to just continue on like it wouldn’t make a difference when the conversation might have taken a very different direction and now the one person is wondering where their misunderstanding led to misinterpretation of what was said.

This is going to happen in any complex discussion and often simple ones no matter what you do, but it can be limited to more inconvenience than massive misunderstandings with effort in discussing definitions, expectations, etc.

That you seem to think that is what I am implying is everything should to be conducted on the same setup is a great example of how our unspoken assumptions can drastically mislead us.

Instead, my view is we can expand the variety of how we discuss things safely, without creating unnecessary misunderstanding by trying to account for differences by actually discussing what those differences are rather than just assuming we all are aware of them and can tell what the other is thinking….which is the result of treating definitions (which hopefully when discussed up front get assumptions unburied and discussed) as unnecessary, trivial, etc.  One very basic way we use all the time in discussion is agreement on what language we use.  It is easily recognized that one person talking English and another talking Chinese is likely to lead to misunderstanding even if there is some fluency in both languages for both participants.  I am simply applying this basic principle of communication (shared language increases understanding) in a more thorough application.

We will never be completely successful as mortals given our incomplete modes of communication, but we can do much better with some effort.

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

He leaves no room for good natured, and well thought out, speculation. He's like a dark academic rain cloud sometimes.

There is no room in using speculation when you are answering questions from non-LDS. If you were to clearly label your speculations as speculations (and not as LDS theology) there wouldn't be a problem here.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no room in using speculation when you are answering questions from non-LDS. If you were to clearly label your speculations as speculations (and not as LDS theology) there wouldn't be a problem here.

I clarified a supposition, you shot me down, then about an hour ago agreed with the idea behind clarification that you had shot down.

😵‍💫

[Calm]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

And it's not just about mistaken interpretations, but as longview has repeatedly shown, it's about whole theologies and ideas being built on slogans and words that themselves have never been made clear.

Yes, I see it as similar to someone trying to learn and speak a new language without having a dictionary available in a language they already understand or at least using a simplified form (like A Child’s First Dictionary with lots of pictures and basic words) of the new language and the person they are talking with refuses to tell them the meaning of a new word to them because that person thinks it’s unnecessary because they themselves are quite familiar with the term and therefore assume it’s easy to understand.

Trying to discuss with clarity unusual words tied to  cultural ideas and practices is extremely difficult with someone who lacks a basic understanding to begin with.

I am reminded of when the missionaries taught a Chinese mainland woman at our home (her husband wasn’t interested) and they started out on the reason we needed a savior with the idea of  Adam and Eve’s transgression and she asked “who is Adam?”  She had a purely secular background and was as far as I could tell completely unaware of the story.  Trying to explain it to someone who thought of mankind purely in terms of evolution, etc was problematic.  Why would they be considered the first humans?  Why would God have them name animals, what was the purpose of that?   They sort of got through that, but mostly just said ‘we will come back to them later’.  Sometime in the conversation Noah got brought up….

Then the missionaries decided to focus on the point of the lesson….Jesus and his resurrection….she was familiar with the name, but not too familiar with the story.

We ran out of time before we got very far.

Each time a new name was mentioned, it felt we were back at square one. Her English was decent, certainly the level of a Primary child’s though I doubt she had the associations to the words a child just naturally makes while learning, but she lacked all the cultural religious background knowledge that even a child raised by atheist parents would likely pick up in our society. 

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Ahhh. I see the question for what I should have read. My concern is really over whether or not they are accurately portraying official Church doctrine as it is taught today (and a little more than that, whether or not they are accurately portraying Church doctrine in their historical claims). But I can also address your second question.

Truth is something that is difficult to define. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have had so many people for so long arguing about it. Even I have made my small contributions (here and here for example), it just isn't a simple topic.

I think that I draw a distinction between Truth (with the capital T) and LDS doctrine. Doctrine is true to the extent that it represents something as it really is (this is your "the state of things"). But I think that it can also be true for us individually when it reflects our personal perception of "the state of things". I discuss this to some extent at that first link. For a "true and living Church" to exist, there has to be some wandering - as it moves from where it is towards that absolute truth (that it may never reach). Sometimes that truth comes in a little at a time, sometimes a lot. What Bruce R. McConkie said in 1978 relative to the priesthood ban being lifted was this: 

So things are true in that absolute sense only to the extent that they represent what really is. At the same time, our ability to understand what really is is limited by our human condition and by our experience. We can, from time to time, receive more light and knowledge - and when we do, we have the opportunity to move towards that absolute truth (and we don't always move in straight lines).

I think that what we can take from Elder McConkie's statement is simply that the Church has light and knowledge - but we shouldn't assume that we won't get additional light and knowledge that will change or even reverse what we have believed in the past - with a different set of experiences and understanding that guided us.

In that first link of mine, I repurposed someone else's comment to apply to Mormonism:

At the same time, in a dicussion like this, we have to recognize that there is a doctrine that the Church presents - there is a truth that it offers (even if it isn't an absolute truth). The Church, and its leadership, remain the arbiters of the formal understanding of the Church. For ourselves, in our own individual search for truth, that comes through our personal search. In the second link, I use the narrative in the Book of Mormon - of two men who receive a vision of the tree of life (Nephi and Lehi) and their interactions with Laman and Lemuel. Here is that discussion (and its a bit long):

My view is that the search for truth is an inherently personal experience. And because we are all at different places - because we all necessary experience changes in light and knowledge in different ways - the way that we move towards that absolute truth will be different from the path that anyone else takes. If we were to experience a vision of the tree of life, it would be radically different from what Lehi and Nephi saw. Just as important, in the LDS lesson manual that covers that part of the Book of Mormon, we get these various Church leaders describing what the symbolic representations in the vision are supposed to mean. In a way, they become the authoritative sources of interpretation, and the members of the Church, in our classes, are turned into Laman and Lemuel - forced to experience this only through interpretation because "The Lord maketh no such thing known unto us." The real message of the text is not to become like Laman and Lemuel forced to rely on the interpretations of others, but to receive the vision for ourselves and to use that light and knowledge to move towards the truth - even if our experience doesn't quite match up with the experience of others. Visions are an interesting application of truth. They are sharable (even if the experience is not). And I don't think that they are limited to this sort of religious experience. When I first understood calculus, it was for me a visual experience. I think that there are places where scripture provides for us a glimpse of what happens when truth is provided and because the experience of certain kinds of truth is transcendent - there is a moment when it transcends our experience and our language, and so, cannot be re-expressed or shared. I see this in 3 Nephi 17:15 - "and the things which he prayed cannot be written". Some like to suggest there is something like the temple ceremony going on - that it was material that should not be written. I would suggest that it was something which language simply failed to express. In any case, I hope you get my point. For us to know something is true it requires a personal knowledge and experience. 

There is one more point to add - 

Too often we like to (because of the nature of how our minds work) find ways to make something true in our experience and our understanding. So much energy has been wasted on trying to explain the question from the OP in this thread - how Genesis 3:16 can be made to be true. There is so little effort spent on trying to get the new light and knowledge so that we can (to use McConkie's phrase) forget what Genesis 3:16 says.

Now having said all of that, the LDS Church has a need to define orthodoxy. It has a need to limit what is official doctrine. This doesn't mean that members can't believe a whole range of other things. It also doesn't mean that those other things can't be true (at least at that individual level). However, speculation (whether it ends of being true in any absolute sense or not) doesn't represent the doctrine of the Church. And part of the point of not endorsing a specific line of thinking in these kinds of areas is to allow members of the Church to disagree in their personal beliefs. We don't have to question McConkie's credentials as a member of the Church because he does not believe in an autonomous self-aware existence that precedes the spirit body of man, just as we don't have to question B.H. Roberts for his belief that it does. My understanding allows me to accept that both have found truth on their way to finding Truth.

Nicely explained. Resonated quite a bit with me. Thanks for taking the time.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I clarified a supposition, you shot me down, then about an hour ago agreed with the idea behind clarification that you had shot down.

😵‍💫

It would be easier to understand your objection if you would identify the specific instance as the specifics don’t stay in my head from hour to hour, let along day to day…plus there have been times where you have explained what Ben says in ways that contradicted my interpretation… which means I need specifics to be sure I understand what you see as wrong here.

Could it be possible you saw disagreement or agreement where it wasn’t or even that you misinterpreted what Ben said because you didn’t understand at that time his purpose for saying it?

It is also possible Ben saw something as a claim of doctrine when you meant it as speculation and you were clear, but he missed something as we all do from time to time, even the closest readers.

You quoting your comment, what you see as his disagreement and then his agreement would make it clearer whatever happened.

As a side note, I find misinterpretations interesting because they sometimes expose underlying assumptions which helps me better understand others’ world views.  Maybe that helps explains why I want people to take extra effort in conversations where I believe I see misinterpretations here and there (and am assuming I am making quite a few myself and would like them exposed so I can reorganize my thoughts better).

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Name another species that has built civilizations, established laws, unlocked the mysteries of science, etc...

We are different and that difference is our divine heritage.

Intelligence across species on this planet exists on a spectrum, with homo sapiens being at the top after billions of years of evolution. While neanderthals may not have had civilization, they had intelligence that was not too different from their homo sapien relatives. And those homo sapien relatives took several thousands of years to first develop civilization and several more thousands of years after that to "unlock the mysteries of science." Is it your contention than that pre-civilization homosapiens were not the same species as God?

But you're still avoiding the question I've been repeatedly asking, so let me try again:

What do you mean by "ability to choose to act"? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

What, though, does it mean to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more?

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But I can also address your second question.

Thx!

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am reminded of when the missionaries taught a Chinese woman at our home (her husband wasn’t interested) and they started out on the reason we needed a savior with the idea of  Adam and Eve’s transgression and she asked “who is Adam?”

This reminds me of early Christianity in Japan, which was largely just a form of Buddhism wrapped in Christian iconography, and this was largely because they did not have a concept of sin to which they understood they could be saved by Jesus from.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no room in using speculation when you are answering questions from non-LDS.

And sometimes for LDS depending on the purpose of the conversation.  How many members have misunderstood their teacher’s speculation as church doctrine?  With sometimes tragic results as I find it tragic for someone to lose faith over a misunderstanding; actual disagreement over actual doctrine and history and therefore leaving because one believes there is greater truth elsewhere is part of a worthwhile spiritual journey, imo, just as seeking greater truth within the Restored Gospel is.  Though I personally believe the Restored Gospel is the most efficient and effective faith path if one disregards any baggage someone has attached to their lives, good or bad, since everyone has baggage, I can’t judge if it’s the most effective or efficient path for any specific individual.

 When answering questions for FAIR, I try to use Church references as much as possible and try to limit my paraphrasing (as hard as that might be to imagine given my behaviour on the board).  There are some topics that people ask that do not have an official position or even any mention at all in official publications and ones that are more about personal reactions that statements of facts, so some emails do get a lot of personal ideas from me….but I try to make that very clear in my responses, especially that my own ideas are not  authoritative in any way but for me personally.

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Intelligence across species on this planet exists on a spectrum, with homo sapiens being at the top after billions of years of evolution. While neanderthals may not have had civilization, they had intelligence that was not too different from their homo sapien relatives. And those homo sapien relatives took several thousands of years to first develop civilization and several more thousands of years after that to "unlock the mysteries of science." Is it your contention than that pre-civilization homosapiens were not the same species as God?

But you're still avoiding the question I've been repeatedly asking, so let me try again:

What do you mean by "ability to choose to act"? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

What, though, does it mean to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more?

So the newest species (according to evolutionary theories) is the only one to accomplish civilization building?

I'm not avoiding the question - you are avoiding the obvious difference between man and beast.

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So the newest species (according to evolutionary theories) is the only one to accomplish civilization building?

I'm not avoiding the question - you are avoiding the obvious difference between man and beast.

I've acknowledged there are many differences between humans and other animals 

It is clear though that you are incapable of telling me what you mean by "ability to choose to act" and what it means to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more.

Since that's too difficult for you, there is no point in continuing this.

[Stargazer]

On 11/18/2025 at 4:30 PM, the narrator said:

Which is precisely why the "literal children of God" makes little sense.

As I may have indicated already, just because a child doesn't understand how that baby got into mommy's tummy doesn't make that baby any less a "literal child of Mommy and Daddy". 

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I may have indicated already, just because a child doesn't understand how that baby got into mommy's tummy doesn't make that baby any less a "literal child of Mommy and Daddy". 

As I have already indicated, it's pretty clear what someone means when they say that a baby is a "literal child of Mommy and Daddy." It's not at all clear what someone means when they say that someone is a "literal child of Heavenly Parents." In your example, the baby might not know precisely what it means, but every English-speaking adult in the room knows what it means. The problem isn't about knowing the mechanics of celestial reproduction; it's about using language in one way that has a clear understanding of what is being communicated (child of Mommy and Daddy) and applying that to something that NOBODY using the phrase understands what it is being communicated. Now, I would argue that the phrase is simply a religious declaration of the value of individual persons, which is generally what is actually being communicated when someone testifies (aka religious communication) using the phrase. The mistake occurs when someone thinks they are instead talking about celestial intercourse, divine sperm, heavenly eggs, glorious conception, and eternal labor.

[the narrator]

12 hours ago, the narrator said:

The mistake occurs when someone thinks they are instead talking about celestial intercourse, divine sperm, heavenly eggs, glorious conception, and eternal labor.

The point here is that being a "literal child of Mommy and Daddy" means being a product of sexual reproduction--a material biological process that most visible material life forms on the earth participate in so that genetic material composed of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine from each parent can materially combine to produce biological material instructions that biological cells materially read through a complex material processes to produce the biological material form of that lifeform. It does not make sense to say that divine material bodies free from biological processes used the same means to produce non-biological and non-material (in any way that talk about materiality) spirits.

[harfad]

On 11/9/2025 at 2:26 AM, 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?

I don’t agree with that interpretation. To “rule over” in that context means to preside, to have the final say; but it doesn’t mean to rule like a dictator. It means to rule with compassion, kindness, love; and also with intelligence and wisdom. If your partner has made a right decision, then you acknowledge that, and give her the credit that is due. And if you disagree with her, then you express that with kindness and love, and provide the necessary explanation so she understands.

[The Nehor]

On 11/18/2025 at 5:24 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

So the newest species (according to evolutionary theories) is the only one to accomplish civilization building?

There are many species that are newer than homo sapiens.

[The Nehor]

On 11/18/2025 at 10:07 AM, longview said:

This is why I am NOT interested in an extended dialogue with you. You seem to enjoy behaving in a bizarre manner. A Nehor wannabe?

That is a very unkind and unfair thing to say. What kind of monster compares people to that Nehor cretin?

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, harfad said:

To “rule over” in that context means to preside, to have the final say; but it doesn’t mean to rule like a dictator.

This is wrong. Understand that language like this isn't contextual. The same Hebrew is used, for example, in Judges 14:4, where the KJV reads:

Quote

But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

The Philistines ruled as dictators. All of this other stuff is brought to the text as a way of altering what the language clearly says - the "to preside," "to have the final say," aren't ever considered a part of the Hebrew text - where the language can be easily read as "to rule like a dictator." The Hebrew also does not mean "to rule with compassion, kindness, love; and also with intelligence and wisdom." There is a Hebrew word, which while not matching this language you offer exactly, is much closer: "to shepherd" as in 2 Sam 5:2 (NIV):

Quote

In the past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel on their military campaigns. And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler.’”

In a similar way, we get that well known line at the beginning of Psalm 23: The Lord is my Shepherd. That is the same word that we see in 2 Sam. 5:2 - and it has those connotations - but, that isn't what we find in Genesis 3:16. And further, Genesis 3:16 is describing the outcome of the curse. Which means these aren't good things being described but negatives. So, this sort of interpretation doesn't make sense in the context of the Genesis narrative. It only makes sense when we try to make the text relevant in a completely different context.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, harfad said:

I don’t agree with that interpretation. To “rule over” in that context means to preside, to have the final say; but it doesn’t mean to rule like a dictator. It means to rule with compassion, kindness, love; and also with intelligence and wisdom. If your partner has made a right decision, then you acknowledge that, and give her the credit that is due. And if you disagree with her, then you express that with kindness and love, and provide the necessary explanation so she understands.

Respectfully asking, are you fundamentalist or evangelical? Because those are typically the denominations that  espouse the belief that marriage should be a parent/child relationship between the husband and wife.  It’s interesting that you refer to a wife as a partner, but then go on to describe a hierarchical relationship where the wife is actually a subordinate.

I don’t mean that in a snarky way, I mean in a confused way. 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2025 by bluebell

[the narrator]

On 11/18/2025 at 10:59 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Name another species that has built civilizations, established laws, unlocked the mysteries of science, etc...

We are different and that difference is our divine heritage.

@ZealouslyStriving hate to come back to this, but something has been bothering me. There are uncontacted peoples/tribes today who are essentially living the same life for millennia. They have not developed "civilization," large-scale agriculture, codified laws (they don't even have writing), science, etc. Is it your view that these people are animals and not part of God's divine heritage?

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

@ZealouslyStriving hate to come back to this, but something has been bothering me. There are uncontacted peoples/tribes today who are essentially living the same life for millennia. They have not developed "civilization," large-scale agriculture, codified laws (they don't even have writing), science, etc. Is it your view that these people are animals and not part of God's divine heritage?

In case I wasn't clear: ALL human beings have a divine heritage- but I suspect you already know our teachings on the subject.

"Uncontacted" tribes have the potential to learn and grow intellectually when coming into contact with information. 

When you can teach a group of apes or monkeys to build a civil society, build buildings, discover the mysteries of science... Come and we will talk.

[the narrator]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In case I wasn't clear: ALL human beings have a divine heritage- but I suspect you already know our teachings on the subject.

"Uncontacted" tribes have the potential to learn and grow intellectually when coming into contact with information. 

When you can teach a group of apes or monkeys to build a civil society, build buildings, discover the mysteries of science... Come and we will talk.

Keep changing them goalposts I guess.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Keep changing them goalposts I guess.

What I posted has be my clear position from the outset of this fiasco masquerading as a conversation that we are having.

I'm walking away now- I believe you to be disingenuous.

 

[the narrator]

19 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm walking away now- I believe you to be disingenuous.

 

That's fine, since you aren't capable of answering basic questions anyways.