Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[Calm]

21 hours ago, harfad said:

To “rule over” in that context means to preside, to have the final say

That is the type of ruling that might be best, but is it required by the immediate context?

If it is instead talking about the consequences of their actions, the negative stuff that is going to now happen because they and their posterity will exist in a fallen world, I find it unlikely that it has the positive qualifications you are attaching to it.

I personally think viewing it as a description of a consequence as many scholars have propounded over the years rather than the ideal that God wants us to have  removes the need to justify the language, adjusting it into saying something more than it does (inserting ideas as I think those who push for more idealistic ruling ideas are likely doing) or even going to incorrect translation such as that which started the whole thread (“rule with”).  Isn’t it better with our current revealed and studied (both in the Church and research in sociology and psychology) knowledge of the best forms of couple relationships to reject the idea of ruling completely and presenting it instead as the partnership we are trying to teach, but can never really get there because we have to deal with “rule”?

Posting a link that’s already been posted that supports it as descriptive, not prescriptive:

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

Quote

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]

 

Edited November 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

- but I suspect you already know our teachings on the subject

He is trying to understand your POV on the subject though, not LDS teachings.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

He is trying to understand your POV on the subject though, not LDS teachings.

And I have given it to him, which he either refuses to accept or literally is unable to comprehend. 

Plus, him knowing that I am LDS, should be a major hint that I see ALL human beings being of divine heritage- so why would it even be a question???

You run cover for these guys way too much. 😠

Edited November 21, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You run cover for these guys way too much.

I don’t assume people think of LDS concepts in the same way I do even if LDS, so when someone is okay with it, I would be asking questions getting at what assumptions and definitions people are using, Narrator is asking many of the same questions I would, even if in a different style.

So I am not running cover for narrator here.  I am frustrated because it feels like I am close to understanding your POV, but your refusal to dig a little deeper into your own thought processes for whatever reason prevents me from achieving that (as far as I can tell you are assuming others will understand you without you needing to clarify because we have a shared language of faith, but in my view that is requiring us to engage in mind reading and I really don’t trust that based on how often I see communication based on assumptions good wrong as well as seeing here and elsewhere how differently members can view LDS concepts, thus meaning different things using the same language).

If on my own, I would have given up probably trying to push you to get more detailed when it first appeared you viewed it differently than I do, perhaps as mind games, going for a gotcha, but narrator’s persistence has been keeping my interest in finding out your POV active longer than usual.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[marineland]

On 11/18/2025 at 11:01 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In some contexts, yes. I think that we could discuss the question of blacks and the priesthood - as an example of this. These were what we might call correlated views. However, in this particular discussion, I would suggest that at least on the question of orthodoxy, these speculations were nipped in the bud. This view was popular in the Church because people like to have 'deep' discussions on things that allow for some degree of speculation. But it never rose to the level of orthodoxy at any point.

It is also worth pointing out that correlation - as a process in the LDS Church - had its infancy in 1908, and only reached its maturity around 1960. So only after the early 1960s do we understand that the publications of the Church had been fully vetted through the process we call correlation. You can see also that it's beginnings also match the historical discussion I provide above. You wouldn't get anything about this subject into authoritative sources at this point precisely because of its history - without a push from the First Presidency and potentially some sort of additional revelation.

If it's been fully vetted, why does the seminary manual still teach black skin upon
the Lamanites was the sign or mark of the curse?

"Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was 
separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was only a mark or 
sign of the curse".   (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017).

Its in the latest version too.

"The Lamanites remained in the land and rebelled against the Lord. They “were 
cut off from his presence” (2 Nephi 5:20). The curse mentioned in this chapter 
was separation from God (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24). The changing of the Lamanites’ 
skin was a mark or sign of the curse. The nature of this mark is not fully 
understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. 
Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness 
and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ 
standing before God".  (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2024).

[Benjamin McGuire]

29 minutes ago, marineland said:

If it's been fully vetted, why does the seminary manual still teach black skin upon the Lamanites was the sign or mark of the curse?

I am not sure I understand your question.

Correlation is the process that attempts to make sure that statements can be connected to past authoritative sources. And the Book of Mormon is certainly considered to be an authoritative source. On the other hand, what the manual explains is that the Book of Mormon offers this information. In the current manual (which you link to) there is other material that that provides current understanding and context. First this instruction to the teachers:

Quote

Do not speculate on the curse. If students have questions, more information is available in the “Commentary and Background Information” section.

And then this commentary:

Quote

2 Nephi 5:20–21. What was the curse that came upon the Lamanites?

In Nephi’s day the curse of the Lamanites was that they were “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence … because of their iniquity” (2 Nephi 5:20–21). This meant the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from their lives. When Lamanites later embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).

The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God.

Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing. The Church embraces Nephi’s teaching that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). President Russell M. Nelson declared:

“The Lord has stressed His essential doctrine of equal opportunity for His children. …

“… Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer” (“President Nelson Remarks at Worldwide Priesthood Celebration,” June 1, 2018, newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org).

“I assure you that your standing before God is not determined by the color of your skin. Favor or disfavor with God is dependent upon your devotion to God and His commandments and not the color of your skin” (“Let God Prevail,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2020, 94).

Clearly, the LDS Church wants to make it clear (as your quotes point out) that they don't consider the change in skin color to be the curse. But in any case, what is in the Book of Mormon is generally always going to be correlated - even if we change our interpretations of it from time to time. And finally, when we have lessons for teenagers, there often isn't really much space given for nuance ...

Edited November 21, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[ZealouslyStriving]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t assume people think of LDS concepts in the same way I do even if LDS, so when someone is okay with it, I would be asking questions getting at what assumptions and definitions people are using, Narrator is asking many of the same questions I would, even if in a different style.

So I am not running cover for narrator here.  I am frustrated because it feels like I am close to understanding your POV, but your refusal to dig a little deeper into your own thought processes for whatever reason prevents me from achieving that (as far as I can tell you are assuming others will understand you without you needing to clarify because we have a shared language of faith, but in my view that is requiring us to engage in mind reading and I really don’t trust that based on how often I see communication based on assumptions good wrong as well as seeing here and elsewhere how differently members can view LDS concepts, thus meaning different things using the same language).

If on my own, I would have given up probably trying to push you to get more detailed when it first appeared you viewed it differently than I do, perhaps as mind games, going for a gotcha, but narrator’s persistence has been keeping my interest in finding out your POV active longer than usual.

Well, maybe you could phrase his question better? Because I feel my answer is sufficient, but he keeps asking the same question over and over.

I honestly don't know how my answer doesn't satisfy his inquiry.

[marineland]

On 11/21/2025 at 2:27 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Clearly, the LDS Church wants to make it clear (as your quotes point out) that they don't consider the change in skin color to be the curse.

Agreed.  The teaching is that the change in skin color was only the sign or mark
of the curse, not the curse itself.

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the
Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15).

Edited November 23, 2025 by marineland

[The Nehor]

On 11/21/2025 at 11:54 AM, Calm said:

That is the type of ruling that might be best, but is it required by the immediate context?

If it is instead talking about the consequences of their actions, the negative stuff that is going to now happen because they and their posterity will exist in a fallen world, I find it unlikely that it has the positive qualifications you are attaching to it.

I personally think viewing it as a description of a consequence as many scholars have propounded over the years rather than the ideal that God wants us to have  removes the need to justify the language, adjusting it into saying something more than it does (inserting ideas as I think those who push for more idealistic ruling ideas are likely doing) or even going to incorrect translation such as that which started the whole thread (“rule with”).  Isn’t it better with our current revealed and studied (both in the Church and research in sociology and psychology) knowledge of the best forms of couple relationships to reject the idea of ruling completely and presenting it instead as the partnership we are trying to teach, but can never really get there because we have to deal with “rule”?

Posting a link that’s already been posted that supports it as descriptive, not prescriptive:

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

 

I disagree that this is a communication that this domination is described as something to avoid. It may not be prescriptive but it is what we would call license.

It is hard to even say that God dislikes it. God created the imbalanced conditions in which it flourished.

[the narrator]

On 11/21/2025 at 12:29 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Well, maybe you could phrase his question better? Because I feel my answer is sufficient, but he keeps asking the same question over and over.

Lolz. Please show me where you answered my question:

Quote

What do you mean by this? 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?

You can't show me, because you have never answered it. You've instead thrown out red herrings and answers to questions I've never asked.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

It is hard to even say that God dislikes it. God created the imbalanced conditions in which it flourished.

Do you mean that he created women physically weaker than men, or something else?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do you mean that he created women physically weaker than men, or something else?

That and he made children physically dependent on the mother (breastfeeding) for an extended period and there are a bunch of other factors.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That and he made children physically dependent on the mother (breastfeeding) for an extended period and there are a bunch of other factors.

So you're saying that because God is in charge of our biology (and you believe He theoretically could have put us together differently and achieved the same desired results), the way our biology works could be evidence that God wants women to be subjugated by men.  

Honestly asking, am I understanding you right?

Edited November 24, 2025 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you're saying that because God is in charge of our biology (and you believe He theoretically could have put us together differently and achieved the same desired results), the way our biology works is evidence that God wants women to be subjugated by men.  

Honestly asking, am I understanding you right?

I would probably say that God ‘chose’ to have women be subjugated since we’re dealing with omniscience. I think the subjugation was inevitable based on these biological differences since virtually every human culture includes it. I would add that gender equality seems to have gotten worse following the agricultural revolution. There are of course degrees of inequality that vary by culture. For example the Greek city-states had more gender inequality than ancient Rome. This does not mean Rome was close to what we would call equality. It was not.

In the European world the Early Modern period saw a large curtailing of women’s rights compared to the Medieval period until industrialization and the Enlightenment started to reverse the trend.

I just have a hard time seeing why a good God would go with this setup. It seems setup to oppress. The same way resource scarcity and vast resource inequality between regions seems designed to provoke lots of violent conflict.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

I just have a hard time seeing why a good God would go with this setup. It seems setup to oppress. The same way resource scarcity and vast resource inequality between regions seems designed to provoke lots of violent conflict.

I think from my perspective I would say that it is designed to allow people the option to oppress but not set up so that people will oppress.  I would postulate that it's set up that way because of the fall and the nature of mortal life.  A man isn't honest if he's never had the chance to steal.  Maybe a man isn't a worthy man if he's never had the chance to oppress and instead chose something better?  

(Not saying that's the answer to all those issues or the problem of evil in general.  Just saying that I do think that the option of sin and immorality is designed into earth life but not because God hopes we choose the bad).

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think from my perspective I would say that it is designed to allow people the option to oppress but not set up so that people will oppress.  I would postulate that it's set up that way because of the fall and the nature of mortal life.  A man isn't honest if he's never had the chance to steal.  Maybe a man isn't a worthy man if he's never had the chance to oppress and instead chose something better?  

(Not saying that's the answer to all those issues or the problem of evil in general.  Just saying that I do think that the option of sin and immorality is designed into earth life but not because God hopes we choose the bad).

Problem is I don’t see it as just an option. It is set up so that oppression is almost a necessity. Even if you despise you generally have to go along with a lot of it. And if you don’t resort to violence then violence comes to you. Things have changed to a degree in the last few hundred years where violence is less profitable but other forms of oppression and extraction still thrive.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Problem is I don’t see it as just an option. It is set up so that oppression is almost a necessity. Even if you despise you generally have to go along with a lot of it. And if you don’t resort to violence then violence comes to you. Things have changed to a degree in the last few hundred years where violence is less profitable but other forms of oppression and extraction still thrive.

Hmmm.  How was/is oppression almost a necessity?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Hmmm.  How was/is oppression almost a necessity?

To maintain the species without modern healthcare and maintain positive growth you need each woman to have about 3 children each that make it to adulthood. Just under half of children don’t make it to sexual maturity. So you need to have about six children each. Add in a few miscarriages and stillbirths and you need a woman to get pregnant almost ten times. So societies put rules in place to keep that kind of population growth. Women are seen as valuable/sacred in a way but are also infantilized due to this requirement and to make sure it happens.

Then you have resources. When you are hunter/gatherer tribes you want the best territory so you have a steady food supply. That means driving out or killing the people who have the best land if you don’t or defending it if you do. Hunter/gatherer tribes tend to be xenophobic and insular for a reason. Then the agricultural revolution hits. It starts in floodplain areas where you don’t need as much agricultural knowledge and can get huge yields. This was probably as much a defensive move as anything else. The best farming regions are also mostly the best hunter/gatherer regions. Agriculture lets you increase your population density so you can defend those lands. The first real states are formed primarily to constrain internal violence and inflict external violence. So the floodplains start everything. Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China rise up. Other states form to challenge these states and use agricultural knowledge to increase their own population density. Then everything is about the polity surviving. You get an anarchic international system.

By that I don’t mean that the polities are anarchic. They are usually very authoritarian. It is that there aren’t any rules governing how polities interact and the primary goal of each is survival. Every move to increase your military power is a threat to neighbors who have to react or risk being outmatched. Occasionally you have a hegemonic power rise up to keep the peace (and usually the tribute flowing) but these break down. The quickest way to acquire power and wealth is warfare. Warfare is very profitable as long as you win. Cooperation is rare unless you are cooperating against a common enemy. Everything revolves around this violence. You either play the game or you lose. So people are lashed to the system with generally few rights because freedom would mean less resources thrown at defending or expanding power and that risks the polity failing.

In theory you can opt out of the game but then you get conquered and you are back in. How did God expect anything good to come of this? I don’t get it.

Our current era is very different. For the first time war is generally a losing proposition for both sides. In pre-modern societies you would occupy the land, siege the administrative center and, if you won, occupy it. You will probably enslave some people and the rest just keep doing their thing with a new boss wanting a cut of it and the war doesn’t damage that much so the land is still workable. Industrialized societies rely on so much infrastructure that conquering land means destroying it so you get refugees. You don’t get the people who immediately start producing stuff. This is why there are few state on state wars and most are started by revanchist powers using an old playbook or failing leaders trying to use conflict to stay in power and the like. They would get more wealth and power by putting the stuff into their own economy rather then putting it into a military campaign. So we can finally have a period of peace.

And the Bible is full of this. It doesn’t much question generational grudges and feuds. Nothing in it suggests slavery is evil. At best you get people thinking slavery is bad when it happens to us but not questioning the institution as a whole. Even the Book of Mormon doesn’t question slavery as an institution. Suffering and victory going to those who execute violence most effectively. It is just such a mess. What were the virtuous supposed to do to opt out of the crazy?

Edited November 25, 2025 by The Nehor