Oops, She Did It Again

[Damien the Leper]

This is the most recent article on the Worlds Without End blog. I thought that Bridget Jack Jeffries did an amazing job with this article. Definitely well worth the read.

Valerie Hudson is the subject of the article.

[urroner]

I know Jack and she is awesome. The article is awesome.

The article revolves around the use of the scripture Gen. 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire

shall be

to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There is some debate that been ongoing for many years, I remember hearing the same argument that this scripture doesn't mean that the husband will rule over the wife, but that it means the husband and wife will rule together. Valerie Hudson, in her Ensign article Equal Partnership in Marriage said :

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.

Jack, in her Worlds Without End article says the Hebrew didn't say in Genesis 3:16 anything about ruling together, that, in fact, the Hebrew does state that the husband will rule over her.

Let’s go back to “desire” in v. 16 though, because I think Nitsav fails to mention a very important occurrence of mashal b-. The Hebrew word for “desire” in v. 16, tĕshuwqah, is uncommon, appearing only 3 times in the entire Hebrew Bible (Gen. 3:16, Gen. 4:7, and SoS 7:10). Its proximity to Gen. 4:7 is not accidental. Let’s compare the two:

Gen. 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire (tĕshuwqah) shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (mashal b-).” (NRSV)

Gen. 4:7 “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire (tĕshuwqah) is for you, but you must master it (mashal b-).” (NRSV)

The two verses are intentionally parallel, similar in meaning. So if Gen. 3:16 means that Adam and Eve are supposed to rule jointly in egalitarian partnership, what does Gen. 4:7 mean? That Cain is supposed to have egalitarian partnership with his sin? The only thing that makes any sense for either of these verses is “rule over,” not “rule with.” The verses predict a struggle for power between the two parties in question (woman and man, sin and Cain).

In the comment section, it was said that the Lord was commanding Adam to rule over Eve, rather He was just stating what was going to happen.

Several members of this board have written in the comment section and have stated some very insightful comments, both supporting or disapproving the article.

Good stuff people.

[Stone holm]

Well regardless of what was in fact said thousands of years ago in the Garden when supposedly Adam first threw Eve under the bus, and then Eve through the serpent under the bus ( a fairly despicable series of statements that certainly should not continue to be ascribed to the two supposedly finest examples of humanity save Christ Himself. What is clear is that those manuscripts were in the hands of Jewish scribes for thousands of years and their culture was and still is predominantly patriarchal. Heck, the have a legend that Adams first intended was Lilith and she said, "Forget that!" When confronted with the subordination covenant. I have sincere doubts about our being able to maintain our somewhat sexist tradition indefinitely based upon a story which Brigham Young in large part dismissed as fable.

[urroner]

In either case, neither woman was saying that the Lord was commanding Adam to be a dictator over Eve. Valerie Hudson said that the scripture had been mistranslated and should say "rule with," while Jack said that the Lord said "rule over" because that was what was going to happen in the world at that time.

Ir'a kins of like when one of my older sons was a teenager, a friend of his, and I went to a movie in the middle of December here in Florida. Being typical Florida teenagers, they decided to wear t-shirts, flip flops, and short to go to the movie. I told them to go put some pants on and get their jackets, but they knew better than me, after all, they were teenagers and they lived in Florida. I warned then "You will get cold." I wasn't commanding them to get cold, I was just warning them the consequences of their actions.

After reading Jack's article, I had a minor paradigm shift. I now believe the Lord wasn't commanding Eve to let her husband rule over her, he was telling her the natural consequences of her actions.

I don't know Valerie, but I know Jack, non-Mormon, and she is the type of woman who will not let her husband, a Mormon, rule over her unless he tells her exactly what she wants him to tell her to do and she is not into ruling over her husband.

This whole hubbub is about translating a scripture in a way the could retch the scripture completely out of context.

It's been some time since I've talked with Jack and her husband and I would love to see and talk with them again. I will not argue scriptures with her because all she would do is smile, give me a loving pat on the head before lovingly tearing me apart with my own words and logic. Then after beating me up and putting down the cast iron frying pan which will fit nicely into a dent in the side of my head, she would ask me into to her house for cookies and milk with the rest of her family and I would beam a huge smile and say "Only if they're chocolate chip and the milk is not refrigerator cold." I was raised on a farm and love warm moo juice straight from the cow.

I hear the leaders of the Church tell the priesthood holders to love their wife, that just because they hold the priesthood and/or are men doesn't give them the right or privilege to lord over and dictate to their wives and daughters, not even as a benevolent dictator.

Edited March 24, 2013 by urroner

[Glenn101]

I posted the following on the "Worlds Without End" site, so I may as well disclose ignorance to yet another venue.

This has been an interesting discussion. I have absolutely no training in Hebrew so I cannot comment (informedly) on the nuances of translation. However, the Adam and Eve story from the Book of Moses does seem to support a patriarchal interpretation (thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Moses 4:24).

Yet, there are images projected forth from the Old Testament that seem to indicate a more egalitarian system than is commonly supposed. Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah is such an example. She reigned as queen for about six years before she was dethroned, evidently not because she was a woman, but because she had usurped the throne.

But perhaps a much more prominant story is that of Deborah, the Prophetess. There have been several prophetesses mentioned in the Bible, but in addition to being a prophetess, Deborah was also a judge in Israel. (Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.)

Now, would one or more of the Hebrew scholars care to comment on the Bet in Beth-el. I have heard the full term commonly is translated as house of the Lord.

Thanks,

Glenn

[BlueDreams]

It's been some time since I've talked with Jack and her husband and I would love to see and talk with them again. I will not argue scriptures with her because all she would do is smile, give me a loving pat on the head before lovingly tearing me apart with my own words and logic. Then after beating me up and putting down the cast iron frying pan which will fit nicely into a dent in the side of my head, she would ask me into to her house for cookies and milk with the rest of her family and I would beam a huge smile and say "Only if they're chocolate chip and the milk is not refrigerator cold." I was raised on a farm and love warm moo juice straight from the cow.

Knowing Valerie (she was my professor for one of my favorite and most grueling College courses) it probably wouldn't phase her much. She's not exactly an intellectual push over. Hebrew is not her forte, but she'll most likely make a reasonable argument for what she said/quoted.

I know basically nothing about hebrew....but just out of curiosity, I googled the term. Rule with does appear to be an LDS-specific interpretation. The closest non-LDS interpretation to this idea was of One man I found, translated it to mean "to be like" or to be similar to" based on the lexicon. Personally, based on the underlying assumptions and odd rabbit trails people took with this verse, I am perfectly content keeping with the LDS version of things.

For one, the implications would still apply in the LDS version. The problem with the other (more common) interpretation is that the curse seems to be overcome by sheer will power of people nowadays. Though women as still subjugated/discriminated in every society....there are still societies that have reached a pretty high egalitarian practice and outlook and there are families (apparently, like Jack's) that individually don't fit the mold. That's problematic that the curse from God would be so whimpy that we could just overcome it by changing our minds as to how things should run.

Another problem is the underlying assumption that what happened was a curse. Doesn't fly in the LDS context where we see these things not as a curse but really a net gain and part of God's plan. So Jack's interpretation works well in the general Christian view of the fall.....but it falls apart (excuse the pun) in an LDS view of the matter.

Basically what I'm saying is I'm sticking with Hudson on this. Whether it's technical correctness is apt is minimized by the implications of adopting said interpretation. It's contextual meaning (of rule with) seems far more suited for LDS theology and avoids some of the major pitfalls that have plagued Theological ideas that LDS view as wrong and gender relations which on any scale are often wrong.

Edit: After reading through some of the comments....I take that back, I probably agree most with Erin on this stuff I know basically nothing about. That woman's one smart cookie.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 24, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Damien the Leper]

I think David Bokovoy and Jack responded well to Erin's remarks.

[The Nehor]

Well regardless of what was in fact said thousands of years ago in the Garden when supposedly Adam first threw Eve under the bus, and then Eve through the serpent under the bus ( a fairly despicable series of statements that certainly should not continue to be ascribed to the two supposedly finest examples of humanity save Christ Himself.

I imagine that this was an example of guileless reporting on their parts (as they had about five minutes to learn guile) and not an attempt to chuck people under the bus. Straightforward reporting without malice. What did you do? She gave me the fruit and I ate. What happened. The serpent tricked me and I ate. Both true and both do not necessarily blame so much as explain.

[BlueDreams]

I think David Bokovoy and Jack responded well to Erin's remarks.

Yes I'd agree with that as well. I just agree more with Erin (Though I don't agree with any of them entirely....I just don't have the knowledge base to flesh out my ideas like they do).

With luv,

BD

Edited March 24, 2013 by BlueDreams

[why me]

The problem with some scriptures is that they can be interpreted in various ways until the end of time. And in the end, all will just be matters of opinion. And then the discussion will start again. It was Karl Marx who said that philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change the world. And I agree with him. I think that it is fine to interpret scriptures and debate verses. But much more important is to change the world, especially if the world needs changing. By putting the gospel into active practice, we can begin to change the world.

Edited March 25, 2013 by why me

[wenglund]

I imagine that this was an example of guileless reporting on their parts (as they had about five minutes to learn guile) and not an attempt to chuck people under the bus. Straightforward reporting without malice. What did you do? She gave me the fruit and I ate. What happened. The serpent tricked me and I ate. Both true and both do not necessarily blame so much as explain.

How dare you rob Stone of his self-righteous indignation with your reasonable reading of that seminal event. That wasn't very politically correct of you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

I imagine that this was an example of guileless reporting on their parts (as they had about five minutes to learn guile) and not an attempt to chuck people under the bus. Straightforward reporting without malice. What did you do? She gave me the fruit and I ate. What happened. The serpent tricked me and I ate. Both true and both do not necessarily blame so much as explain.

Certainly sounds like a blame game to me, "the woman thou didn't give, brought me..."

[wenglund]

Certainly sounds like a blame game to me, "the woman thou didn't give, brought me..."

The notion of "accepting personal responsibility" would have to be rather foreign to a person if they didn't clearly see it in the statement: "and I did eat."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Freedom]

I am unclear why some feel the need to reinterpret the old testament when we are guided by modern revelation. it comes off as an attempt to justify our beliefs. There are teachings in the bible that are simply not consistent with modern and official interpretations of the scriptures. We do not condone slavery, we do not forbid women to speak, and we do not tolerate men who rule over their wives. 100 years from now, we will look at the teachings of 2013 the same way we look at some of the teachings of 1930. Our values will continue to shift, but the saving ordinances and principles will remain the same.

[volgadon]

The notion of "accepting personal responsibility" would have to be rather foreign to a person if they didn't clearly see it in the statement: "and I did eat."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The notion expressed as "accepting personal responsibility" would have been better accomplished without drawing attention to the actions of others. This is, after all, a literary account, not a transcript, so we must pay sentence structure particular attention. In Adam's case, his confession comes third and last in the sequence of giving, beginning with God who gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. In other words, I did eat, but only because the woman gave me the fruit, and YOU were the one who gave her to me in the first place. Adam is softening his own guilt and responsibility by portraying himself as the recipient of actions others have initiated. Eve's chain of guilt is shorter, and leaves out God, her confession, too, only comes after describing someone else's actions.

I am well aware of the temple portraying things differently, which needn't surprise any, as they are different narratives.

[Calm]

I am unclear why some feel the need to reinterpret the old testament when we are guided by modern revelation.

Can't modern revelation work in part by reinterpretation of ancient scripture?

[Damien the Leper]

I was never under the impression that modern revelation trumped scripture. I don't know who it was that used the Stick of Judah/Joseph verses in Ezekiel to justify the Book of Mormon. Whoever started that rash of reasoning obviously had no training in Biblical Hebrew. There are times that I still have to correct other members when they cite that scripture.

[Freedom]

Can't modern revelation work in part by reinterpretation of ancient scripture?

Unless modern revelation specifically states that is presenting a reinterpretation I don't believe this to be the case. What was taught to the ancient hebrews does not always apply to us and since we have access to a living oracle, there is no need for a reinterpretation. We accept that scripture can contain error, and we specifically qualify the bible as containing errors in translation.

I find it more reasonable to consider that what is found in Genesis is not what was originally written. Appealing to an ancient document that is highly suspect to find truth is the wrong approach.

[wenglund]

The notion expressed as "accepting personal responsibility" would have been better accomplished without drawing attention to the actions of others. This is, after all, a literary account, not a transcript, so we must pay sentence structure particular attention. In Adam's case, his confession comes third and last in the sequence of giving, beginning with God who gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. In other words, I did eat, but only because the woman gave me the fruit, and YOU were the one who gave her to me in the first place. Adam is softening his own guilt and responsibility by portraying himself as the recipient of actions others have initiated. Eve's chain of guilt is shorter, and leaves out God, her confession, too, only comes after describing someone else's actions.

I can see how you may reasonably view it that way.

However, to me, Adam and Eve weren't attempting to softening guilt or responsibility, or shift blame, but were providing a context and rationale for their actions. They were simply explaining what happened and, in a way, why they each did what they did. Regardless of their reasons, both Adam and Eve admitted to partaking of the forbidden fruit. They took personal responsibility. And, God held each personally responsible for what they personally did, and cursed them respectively.

The notion of "personal responsibility" was further reinforced in what God said to Adam: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy ^awife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it...(Gen. 3:17--emphasis mine.)

I believe that far from blaming each other, I think both Adam and Eve quickly came to understand the wisdom of their actions (Eve figuring things out first, and then Adam was brought to his senses by Eve), and if anything, Adam's response to God may have been an attempt to give Eve credit for helping him see the sense in partaking of the forbidden fruit--though I may be borrowing somewhat from another narrative to get this impression.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 24, 2013 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Certainly sounds like a blame game to me, "the woman thou didn't give, brought me..."

Of course it does because to people who have lived fallen lives for so long the explanation would be, "Eve gave me the fruit. Let me be clear that I am not blaming her. It was my choice to eat it. I might have even if she had not offered it to me."

Same content but includes a defensiveness of others I suspect they both lacked at that point. I just cannot imagine a person five minutes into discovering evil and in the presence of God already coming up with shifting blame and what would amount to passive-aggressive complaints.

[volgadon]

Can't modern revelation work in part by reinterpretation of ancient scripture?

It certainly can.

[volgadon]

Exodus 32:21-24 provides an instructive parallel to Adam and Eve's confessions.

And Moses said unto Aaron: 'What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought a great sin upon them?'

And Aaron said: 'Let not the anger of my lord wax hot; thou knowest the people, that they are set on evil. So they said unto me: Make us a god, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.'

Is Aaron really assuming personal responsibility, or is he relating the actions of others before he confesses his own actions, thus attempting to soften his own guilt?

[volgadon]

I can see how you may reasonably view it that way.

Thank you. I don't mean to come across as saying that our traditiional LDS understanding is unreasonable, I simply don't feel that it accurately reflects the intended meaning of the Genesis narrative.

The notion of "personal responsibility" was further reinforced in what God said to Adam: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy ^awife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it...(Gen. 3:17--emphasis mine.)

While God certainly held Adam accountable, this doesn't mean that the Adam of the Genesis narrative held himself so.

Regardless of their reasons, both Adam and Eve admitted to partaking of the forbidden fruit. They took personal responsibility.

I'm not sure that a confession is always the same as assuming personal responsibility. There is a point when someone cannot lie without it being entirely obvious, thus making things worse for themselves, so they seek to find other ways to rationalise and justify their behaviour.

[wenglund]

Exodus 32:21-24 provides an instructive parallel to Adam and Eve's confessions.

And Moses said unto Aaron: 'What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought a great sin upon them?'

And Aaron said: 'Let not the anger of my lord wax hot; thou knowest the people, that they are set on evil. So they said unto me: Make us a god, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.'

Is Aaron really assuming personal responsibility, or is he relating the actions of others before he confesses his own actions, thus attempting to soften his own guilt?

I see Aaron as answering Moses' specific question. Moses asked what the people did unto Aaron. And Aaron told him what the people did. Again, I don't see this as shifting blame or softening guilt or responsibility, but as a way of providing context and rationale for Aaron's decision.

However, I can also see how others may reasonably view it as you have.

I tend not to see the Old Testament people's as blame-shifters or unaccountable (unlike many people are today), with the exception of Cain, who when confronted about his brother's fatal disappearance, evasively, and without taking any responsibility, said: "Am I my brothers keeper?" In fact, I sense a tendency among the chosen people, and the tribe of Judah in particularly, of taking too much guilt upon themselves--a tradition that seems to extend even until modern times such that it has become a stereotype of Jews (Jewish Guilt).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 25, 2013 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

I tend not to see the Old Testament people's as blame-shifters or unaccountable (unlike many people are today), with the exception of Cain, who when confronted about his brother's fatal disappearance, evasively, and without taking any responsibility, said: "Am I my brothers keeper?"

The irony is that keeper in this verse basically means legal guardian in the sense of having to make decisions on their behalf like a parent. Our songs and talks about being our brother's keeper are off the mark unless divested of some of the scriptural meaning.