Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

[Bernard Gui]

I have a purple tie I like to wear occasionally, but I didn't wear it yesterday. I wore a red one that had green and Christmas-tree patterned stripes. Festive in an understated sort of way.

 

No pants on women that I noticed. And, in addition to our block, I attended a stake event with performances by the ward choirs in our stake. I thought our ward choir did rather well, considering who the choir director is. (The bishopric really must have been thinking outside the box when they made that call.)

A woman wore pants in our sacrament meeting yesterday. The whole Relief Society was clucking behind her back. She and her husband were investigators attending for the 

first time. He was in jeans and a work shirt. A member of the bishopric was designated by the High Priests to take him aside and ask him not to come back if he wouldn't wear

gray Dockers, white shirt, and conservative tie. Last night I played in the orchestra for a local stake's sing-along Messiah. It was a good performance, but unfortunately marred by

several insensitive women in the audience who chose to wear pants. Something about there not being enough sisters in the viola section.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Eve's punishment was, according to the bible, that God would multiply the sorrow in conception.

While women also share in every punishment that Adam is given (they work for their daily bread, experience the thorns of mortal life, and will die eventually) men do not share in Eve's punishment.

That's what Kline was talking about.

No, she was upset that Adam got off free while the woman was punished. We should note the penalty of work, thorns, thistles, whatever, were directed to Adam.

[bluebell]

No, she was upset that Adam got off free while the woman was punished. We should note the penalty of work, thorns, thistles, whatever, were directed to Adam.

 

Directed at Adam or not, they were suffered by both Adam and Eve, obviously.

 

Eve's punishment was suffered by Eve alone, however.

 

I haven't listened to the interview, so i can't speak to the accuracy of your claim that Kline believes Adam received no punishment for the Fall.  She's not much of a scriptorian if she does believe that, as even little kids understand both he and eve were punished, but it definitely could be possible.

Edited December 17, 2013 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

Directed at Adam or not, they were suffered by both Adam and Eve, obviously.

 

Eve's punishment was suffered by Eve alone, however.

 

I haven't listened to the interview, so i can't speak to the accuracy of your claim that Kline believes Adam received no punishment for the Fall.  She's not much of a scriptorian if she does believe that, as even little kids understand both he and eve were punished, but it definitely could be possible.

Given that it's father Adam and mother Eve we're talking about here, I don't look upon the experiences of either as a punishments, per se. I see them more as challenges to be surmounted with the promise of exaltation on high if they are met well.

[bluebell]

Given that it's father Adam and mother Eve we're talking about here, I don't look upon the experiences of either as a punishments, per se. I see them more as challenges to be surmounted with the promise of exaltation on high if they are met well.

 

I agree that calling them punishments is not completely accurate.  How about if we call them consequences.

 

Women suffer more consequences as a result of the fall, then men do.

[juliann]

Ah, but somewhere, some place, in some ward in this vast Church of ours today, a sister wore pants because she wants to be ordained to the Priesthood.

She is down for the struggle! Viva la revolucion!

I don't agree with the pants thing, mostly because I do wear pants to church on occasion and don't want it associated with an unrelated cause that has no logical connection to clothing.  It also annoys me that they are constantly talking about how hard it is and how mean people are to them when I haven't seen any real life bad experiences expressed (not that I have read every remark from them).  The experiences they shared about the pants were uniformly glowing.  But they still want to see themselves as being attacked.

 

But here you are doing exactly that for no good reason.   It demeans us all as Mormons and followers of Christ.

 

As for Adam and Eve's punishments, Eve had two that Adam didn't.  So I think it is fair to say she got the raw end of the deal.

[juliann]

Given that it's father Adam and mother Eve we're talking about here, I don't look upon the experiences of either as a punishments, per se. I see them more as challenges to be surmounted with the promise of exaltation on high if they are met well.

Husbands "ruling over" wives is a challenge to be surmounted?   I can get on board with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that calling them punishments is not completely accurate.  How about if we call them consequences.

 

Women suffer more consequences as a result of the fall, then men do.

Works for me. (Calling them consequences, that is. I'm not certain who suffers more consequences, as I've never been a woman.)

Edited December 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Husbands "ruling over" wives is a challenge to be surmounted?   I can get on board with that.

I wonder how literally most faithful Mormon men take the "ruling over" phrase these days.

[juliann]

I wonder how literally most faithful Mormon men take the "ruling over" phrase these days.

The church has done a wonderful job in virtually erasing this from scripture, despite its authenticity.   That is what makes living prophets such an awesome concept. But meanwhile, women have suffered horribly for thousands of years because of this verse and still do.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

. But meanwhile, women have suffered horribly for thousands of years because of this verse and still do.

I am curious if women viewed themsleves as suffering. Mainly thinking of some one living 500 ad. I mean it was a cultrual thing and probably seemed normal to them. From a modern lense it would seem that there must have been suffering. Oh well carry on.

[bluebell]

Works for me. (Calling them consequences, that is. I'm not certain who suffers more consequences, as I've never been a woman.)

 

I'm not meaning that in a subjective way, but am just relating what it says in the scriptures.

 

Eve's sorrow in conception was multiplied.  While every consequence that the scriptures give to Adam also applies to Eve, the consequence given to Eve does not apply to Adam.

 

Therefore, Eve (and all women) have more consequences due to the fall than Adam (and all men) do.

[Stone holm]

A woman wore pants in our sacrament meeting yesterday. The whole Relief Society was clucking behind her back. She and her husband were investigators attending for the 

first time. He was in jeans and a work shirt. A member of the bishopric was designated by the High Priests to take him aside and ask him not to come back if he wouldn't wear

gray Dockers, white shirt, and conservative tie. Last night I played in the orchestra for a local stake's sing-along Messiah. It was a good performance, but unfortunately marred by

several insensitive women in the audience who chose to wear pants. Something about there not being enough sisters in the viola section.

Surely you are joking. A child of God was turned away because of his apparel? This is sarcasm right?

[Tacenda]

Surely you are joking. A child of God was turned away because of his apparel? This is sarcasm right?

I know, and Bernard turns around and judges those women at the program that night. Something doesn't sound right, Bernard?

[Scott Lloyd]

I know, and Bernard turns around and judges those women at the program that night. Something doesn't sound right, Bernard?

Stone Holm and Tacenda, really! Bernard was engaging in satire.

 

You honestly didn't grasp that? It was quite obvious to me.

 

Or are you putting me on?

 

Think about it: Women wearing pants to the stake music devotional because there are not enough females in the viola section?

 

Didn't it dawn on you even for a fleeting moment that this is a tad too absurd to be real and that maybe, just maybe, Bernard is creating a fictional scenario to poke fun at the wear-pants-to-church protest?

 

Sheesh!

Edited December 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Stone Holm and Tacenda, really! Bernard was engaging in satire.

You honestly didn't grasp that? It was quite obvious to me.

Or are you putting me on?

Think about it: Women wearing pants to the stake music devotional because there are not enough females in the viola section?

Didn't it dawn on you even for a fleeting moment that this is a tad too absurd to be real and that maybe, just maybe, Bernard is creating a fictional scenario to poke fun at the wear-pants-to-church protest?

Sheesh!

Oh my, that last sentence should have clued me in. Bernards a character!

[Bernard Gui]

Directed at Adam or not, they were suffered by both Adam and Eve, obviously.

 

Eve's punishment was suffered by Eve alone, however.

 

I haven't listened to the interview, so i can't speak to the accuracy of your claim that Kline believes Adam received no punishment for the Fall.  She's not much of a scriptorian if she does believe that, as even little kids understand both he and eve were punished, but it definitely could be possible.

Please listen and see if I misunderstood. I try to be as accurate as possible, and in situations like this words are important.

It would appear by the comments that I am the only person here who actually listened to the interview.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Given that it's father Adam and mother Eve we're talking about here, I don't look upon the experiences of either as a punishments, per se. I see them more as challenges to be surmounted with the promise of exaltation on high if they are met well.

Indeed. That's why we are here on earth.

[Bernard Gui]

I agree that calling them punishments is not completely accurate.  How about if we call them consequences.

 

Women suffer more consequences as a result of the fall, then men do.

I disagree. Women bear children, but by divine decree men are obligated to protect and provide for them,

however chauvinistic and Neandrathal that may sound to modern ears.

 

 

• 1 Timothy 5:8

  8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

 

 

•  

  Doctrine and Covenants 75:28

  28 And again, verily I say unto you, that every man who is obliged to provide for his own family, let him provide, and he shall in nowise lose his crown; and let him labor in the church.

   

   

D&C 83:  1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, in addition to the laws of the church concerning women and children, those who belong to the church, who have lost their husbands or fathers:

 2 Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken; and if they are not found transgressors they shall have fellowship in the church.

 3 And if they are not faithful they shall not have fellowship in the church; yet they may remain upon their inheritances according to the laws of the land.

 4 All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I don't agree with the pants thing, mostly because I do wear pants to church on occasion and don't want it associated with an unrelated cause that has no logical connection to clothing.  It also annoys me that they are constantly talking about how hard it is and how mean people are to them when I haven't seen any real life bad experiences expressed (not that I have read every remark from them).  The experiences they shared about the pants were uniformly glowing.  But they still want to see themselves as being attacked.

 

But here you are doing exactly that for no good reason.   It demeans us all as Mormons and followers of Christ.

 

As for Adam and Eve's punishments, Eve had two that Adam didn't.  So I think it is fair to say she got the raw end of the deal.

Adam and his manly progeny are obligated to provide for women and children, despite modern sensibilities.

That is made perfectly clear to Adam in the garden and to the rest of us through revelation. I don't think she

got the raw end of the deal. Dedicated men waste their lives away (in the good sense) providing for their

families. As one flesh, man and woman experience it together.

[Bernard Gui]

I wonder how literally most faithful Mormon men take the "ruling over" phrase these days.

Depends on what the definition of "ruling over" is. 

[Bernard Gui]

I'm not meaning that in a subjective way, but am just relating what it says in the scriptures.

 

Eve's sorrow in conception was multiplied.  While every consequence that the scriptures give to Adam also applies to Eve, the consequence given to Eve does not apply to Adam.

 

Therefore, Eve (and all women) have more consequences due to the fall than Adam (and all men) do.

 Again, I don't agree. Scripture clearly indicates Adam (man) must toil to support wife and children. And if he

is unable to do so, the responsibility falls on the Church. We have eliminated that both clauses and now women

have both obligations: to bear the children and to provide for their sustenance.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Oh my, that last sentence should have clued me in. Bernards a character!

You are too kind; however, I am a skilled satirist, highly trained in satire and derision. 

I take my inspiration from an old newspaper cartoon in which a geeky guy sitting at a bar

confronts two angry and manly thugs with the warning, "Be careful. I am highly trained in ridicule and

derision." Some might call it passive aggression. Perhaps it is.

 

Unfortunately, as Sister Gui says, people can't tell when I am indulging my

warped sense of humor, especially when it is in written form, and when I am serious. 

I try to make it as outrageous as possible so there is no question, but it does not always

come through. Behind this mask, however, is a sincere desire to obtain the truth.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

The church has done a wonderful job in virtually erasing this from scripture, despite its authenticity.   That is what makes living prophets such an awesome concept. But meanwhile, women have suffered horribly for thousands of years because of this verse and still do.

I look at it this way: Men are to "rule over" their families as God rules over his family, with righteous dominion. Any deviation for God or man....amen to his authority. Jesus gave his life for his children, and that's what he expects his sons to do for theirs. The church has done a wonderful job teaching men what "rule over" really means. Unfortunately, men are no longer expected to do this, so they are relieved of the burden...both meanings of the word relieve. This casts men adrift with no real purpose in life other than the usufruct of God's creations, including His daughters. This casts both consequences of the Garden disobedience on the women: bear the children and provide for them. Sweet deal for the men.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

 

Or are you putting me on?

 

Think about it: Women wearing pants to the stake music devotional because there are not enough females in the viola section?

 

Didn't it dawn on you even for a fleeting moment that this is a tad too absurd to be real and that maybe, just maybe, Bernard is creating a fictional scenario to poke fun at the wear-pants-to-church protest?

 

Sheesh!

Scott, I was mistaken. What actually occurred was the audience was filled with men wearing purple ties because I was the

only man in a viola section of 7 women. I was the odd man out. Well, any man who plays viola is odd and out.