Mormon Interpretation Of "he Shall Rule Over Thee".

[Ron Beron]

To be clear, I have not seen evidence that Mormon women are abused because they are Mormon. In fact, I wonder if the opposite is true? It seems to me that in comparison with previous experience, Mormons are particularly egalitarian.

 

Genesis 3:16, the last phrase is really unpopular, though some fundamentalist Christian faiths follow that rigorously.

Interesting passage.  One interpretation takes into account the baser instincts of man when it announces this passage, but version of this shows that it has the modal "want to" as a desire of man.  Rather than a commandment the Lord states that this is the struggle of man not his right or legacy.

In one commentary it states this...

This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (Eph 5:18-32).

NET Bible

Edited December 2, 2013 by Ron Beron

[EllenMaksoud]

Interesting passage.  One interpretation takes into account the baser instincts of man when it announces this passage, but version of this shows that it has the modal "want to" as a desire of man.  Rather than a commandment the Lord states that this is the struggle of man not his right or legacy.

In one commentary it states this...

It has fascinated me that in some periods of human history, women had lots of rights. Then in other periods they had almost no rights. I wonder what drives that? Of course, physically men have an advantage due to greater strength, more lax hygiene requirements, and the fact that pregnancy slows us down.  

 

I won't say the Bible is untrue. I just wonder sometimes if in the pre-Jewish tribes, the men were misogynists?

 

I wonder what Catherine the great would have to say?

[thesometimesaint]

Correlated articles in Church publications have changed the interpretation of how husbands and wives should interrelate--and what it means for the man to "rule" or "preside" in the home. In 1973, the Ensign published this article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng In this article, Professor Barlow compares the husband's role to a bishop or other presiding leader in the home, and the wife as a counselor. He notes that there would be chaos in a ward or quorum if there were two bishops or two presidents with ultimate authority, and therefore there can only be one ultimate leader in the home. He sometimes refers to the notion of equality in decisionmaking as "equalitarian" as if that is a bad thing and a sign of the times. Compare that article to Professor Hudson's earlier this year: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=eng#footnote9-10704_000_013 She quotes Elder Perry: "There is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. … They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” Interestingly, in the talk as given, Elder Perry said the husband and wife were co-presidents, but he deleted that in the Ensign version--but the concept is the same. This piece compares and contrasts the two articles, 40 years apart: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/03/21/truth-for-our-times/

I believe Elder Scott and others have stated that a husband and wife should not make any decision until they are both in uncoerced uncompelled agreement--i.e., that the wife does not defer to the husband in the decisionmaking, but they must both believe it is right. If they are not in agreement, then they do not move forward. Sort of like the way the FP and 12 currently operate.

One further point, Genesis 3:16 is not part of the Garden of Eden story as related in the temple.

 

Husband says turn right, wife says turn left, going straight goes off road. Whom decides?

[daz2]

"Husband says turn right, wife says turn left, going straight goes off road. Whom decides?"  They pull over and stop the car.  If one cannot persuade the other, maybe they toss a coin.   Or go home again until they can decide where they want to go.

[pogi]

Husband says turn right, wife says turn left, going straight goes off road. Whom decides?

 

The chauffeur?

 

The GPS? 

Edited December 2, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

The husband rules over his wife and their family and the man's wife does the same thing.  One doesn't exclude the other.

[katherine the great]

It has fascinated me that in some periods of human history, women had lots of rights. Then in other periods they had almost no rights. I wonder what drives that? Of course, physically men have an advantage due to greater strength, more lax hygiene requirements, and the fact that pregnancy slows us down.

 

I won't say the Bible is untrue. I just wonder sometimes if in the pre-Jewish tribes, the men were misogynists?

 

I wonder what Catherine the great would have to say?

Do you mean me or the real Catherine the great?  Well, since she's not on the board, I will give my thoughts.    I'm not sure I would characterize the men of the Old Testament as misogynists.  I think they treated the women according to the customs of their cultures.  Abraham seemed to love Sarah very much and treated her with respect.  I'm more put off by the way Sarah treated Hagar than the way most of the Biblical women were treated by their husbands!  However, I also know that it's unfair to project my modern sense of justice on ancient people.  Their world was very, very different than ours.  People needed to band together to protect what was theirs and to create a safe environment for their children.

[theplains]

In between cursing the serpent, the ground, and Adam eating of the produce in

sorrow, Eve is also punished with sorrow in childbirth, and "thy desire shall be to

thy husband".  How is this latter part a punishment?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

[katherine the great]

 

In between cursing the serpent, the ground, and Adam eating of the produce in

sorrow, Eve is also punished with sorrow in childbirth, and "thy desire shall be to

thy husband".  How is this latter part a punishment?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Because the desire leads to the childbirth which leads to the sorrow...

[teddyaware]

Yeah because females are completely incapable of figuring such things out by themselves.  (sorry, but that deserves a big eye roll!)  

With regard to the question as to whether or not the husband, as patriarch, should be considered the

family decision maker of last resort, it would seem the scriptures would be an important place to

research in an attempt to find information to help answer this question. As I write, I'm searching my

memory trying to think of scriptural examples where a husband and wife came to a unity of understanding before important family decisions were made. To be honest, as I ponder, I don't know if the scriptures offer even one example where the "unanimity of opinion approach" to marital/family decision making is

modeled. I'm wondering why this is the case?

Mind you, I believe and subscribe to the unanimity of opinion approach to husband and wife decision

making, but I find it strange I can't seem to recall even a single example of this approached

modeled in the scriptures. Perhaps you can recall some scriptural examples of this for me?

The relationship of Lehi and Sariah would seem to be a good place to attempt to find

examples of marital unanimity decision making, but I can't recall the record

indicating that Sariah ever had any input in any of Lehi's important decisions...

I've just come back from reading portions of 1 Nephi that recount Lehi's decision making on important

family matters, but was unable to find examples of Lehi and Sariah discussing things before Lehi made, for example, the decision to take his family out of Jerusalem and into the wilderness. Perhaps

Lehi and and Sariah did discuss important family matters at length and made important decisions in

unity, but it could be that these discussions are simply not recorded.

Edited December 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Perhaps Lehi and and Sariah did discuss important family matters at length and made important decisions in

unity, but it could be that these discussions are simply not recorded.

Along with the idea that woman as the neck can turn the head of a  man in any way that she wants, there is also the idea that when a woman wants a man to do something the best way for her to do that is to get the man think her idea is his own idea.  Or better yet, an idea that he got from God.

 

Women can be sneaky.  Very very sneaky.  I fear you greatly underestimate their sneakiness.

 

... and yes they usually do what they do with the best of intentions.

 

You are going to get yourself removed if you continue to talk about women in this manner.

[teddyaware]

Along with the idea that woman as the neck can turn the head of a  man in any way that she wants, there is also the idea that when a woman wants a man to do something the best way for her to do that is to get the man think her idea is his own idea.  Or better yet, an idea that he got from God.

 

Women can be sneaky.  Very very sneaky.  I fear you greatly underestimate their sneakiness.

 

... and yes they usually do what they do with the best of intentions.

Have no fear that I at all underestimate the expert craftiness of most women. Sociologically speaking, my theory is that because women, generally speaking, lack the upper body strength of the men in their

lives (i.e. potential intimidation factor), they had to learn to compensate for this disadvantage by

the clever employment of brain power.

[katherine the great]

Have no fear that I at all underestimate the expert craftiness of most women. Sociologically speaking, my theory is that because women, generally speaking, lack the upper body strength of the men in their

lives (i.e. potential intimidation factor), they had to learn to compensate for this disadvantage by

the clever employment of brain power.

i hate to say it, but I agree.    I think our physical differences have historically put us at a disadvantage and we've compensated for that in other ways. 

[Calm]

Hmmm...so if I were to say due to their historically underprivileged social positions, blacks, Jews, and other ethnic minority groups developed sneakiness/manipulativeness as a way to get what they want from whites and they continue to use such even now when they are at or approach equality with whites.....though of course mostly with good intentions, is there anyone that would have a problem with that?

Edited December 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[katherine the great]

With regard to the question as to whether or not the husband, as patriarch, should be considered the

family decision maker of last resort, it would seem the scriptures would be an important place to

research in an attempt to find information to help answer this question. As I write, I'm searching my

memory trying to think of scriptural examples where a husband and wife came to a unity of understanding before important family decisions were made. To be honest, as I ponder, I don't know if the scriptures offer even one example where the "unanimity of opinion approach" to marital/family decision making is

modeled. I'm wondering why this is the case?

 

Please keep in mind that the scriptures are very ancient documents written in a culture very different than ours.  They were also always written by men from a man's perspective.  Men were the undisputed head of the home in almost all of the cultures our scriptures record.  Today, we live in an environment were women have almost unmitigated freedom compared to our sisters of the past.  We are educated, can decide when and if to have children, choose our own husbands and can divorce them if we choose.     We are used to be included in public life, we vote, often have careers outside the home, and we basically do what we want.  Most women in ancient cultures did not have those rights and probably would not have wanted them because that was a foreign concept to them.  The prophets of today are not going to put women under the absolute control of their husbands, nor should they.  It wouldn't work.

[katherine the great]

Hmmm...so if I were to say due to their historically underprivileged social positions, blacks, Jews, and other ethnic minority groups developed sneakiness/manipulativeness as a way to get what they want from whites and they continue to use such even now when they are at or approach equality with whites.....though of course mostly with good intentions, is there anyone that would have a problem with that?

I would have a problem with that because the groups you mentioned were not in those environments for long enough for their brains to develop adaptive traits that would pass on for thousands of years.  Women, on the other hand...

[Calm]

So you are comfortable with the "women are sneaky/manipulative" meme? You think in general men are unable to be convinced by a reasonable argument for something or that women are generally unreasonable in their demands so they have to play games instead to get what they want?

Culturally we've moved past for a good part the it's okay for a man to beat a disobedient wife, why wouldn't we also be able to culturally move past women need to be manipulative (more so then men) to survive as well?

Personally I don't think it takes much cultural training for a child or a woman or a black or a Jew to figure out when one is in an oppressive environment where one is at a disadvantage, one should use one's brain to survive....just as it shouldn't be hard to figure out if one has grown up in a non oppressive environment that using reason to convince people to make good choices is more effective in the long run then playing games and misrepresenting the situation to make it appear for them desirable...the blowback when people feel they've been manipulated into doing something they don't want to do can be huge and detrimental to any long term relationship.

Edited December 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Hmmm...so if I were to say due to their historically underprivileged social positions, blacks, Jews, and other ethnic minority groups developed sneakiness/manipulativeness as a way to get what they want from whites and they continue to use such even now when they are at or approach equality with whites.....though of course mostly with good intentions, is there anyone that would have a problem with that?

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that people usually do what they need to do in order to

survive under adverse circumstances. Unless there are violations of one or more of the ten

commandments, it's unlikely they're doing anything so terribly wrong or unethical.

[teddyaware]

Please keep in mind that the scriptures are very ancient documents written in a culture very different than ours.  They were also always written by men from a man's perspective.  Men were the undisputed head of the home in almost all of the cultures our scriptures record.  Today, we live in an environment were women have almost unmitigated freedom compared to our sisters of the past.  We are educated, can decide when and if to have children, choose our own husbands and can divorce them if we choose.     We are used to be included in public life, we vote, often have careers outside the home, and we basically do what we want.  Most women in ancient cultures did not have those rights and probably would not have wanted them because that was a foreign concept to them.  The prophets of today are not going to put women under the absolute control of their husbands, nor should they.  It wouldn't work.

Aw shucks!

[Ron Beron]

It has fascinated me that in some periods of human history, women had lots of rights. Then in other periods they had almost no rights. I wonder what drives that? Of course, physically men have an advantage due to greater strength, more lax hygiene requirements, and the fact that pregnancy slows us down.

 

I won't say the Bible is untrue. I just wonder sometimes if in the pre-Jewish tribes, the men were misogynists?

 

I wonder what Catherine the great would have to say?

There is an interesting novel on this called "The Red Tent".  You might find it useful.

[EllenMaksoud]

There is an interesting novel on this called "The Red Tent".  You might find it useful.

I looked it up on the internet Wiki.  This has some most interesting concepts in it. I will see if I can find it as an e-book. My eyesight is failing.

[Calm]

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that people usually do what they need to do in order tosurvive under adverse circumstances. Unless there are violations of one or more of the tencommandments, it's unlikely they're doing anything so terribly wrong or unethical.

sneakiness by definition is not being honest.

Before arriving..if ever..at some socially powerful position, a man has always had to survive for years as a child, then youth, then socially lower powered individual...surely this would lead to the evolution of any sneakiness potential in men as women.

I have seen plenty of manipulative women in my life, I am not saying they don't exist. However, I've seen tons of manipulative men as well, even when they are socially powerful. If one buys tv and movies as reflective at all of reality, a lot of men achieve power because they are good at manipulation...it would seem our society sees manipulation as a tool of males as much as women.

The idea that men sit around having discussuons about the logical necessities of actions while women go to trickery first and foremost seems to me to be fantasyland.

[katherine the great]

So you are comfortable with the "women are sneaky/manipulative" meme? You think in general men are unable to be convinced by a reasonable argument for something or that women are generally unreasonable in their demands so they have to play games instead to get what they want?

 

I think our brains are different than men's and I think this is a result of our evolution.  I think we tend to be more intuitive and creative in the way we make things happen and historically I think it often had to translate into doing things in a more subtle manner because women generally had to work through their husbands to get the results they wanted.  "Sneaky and manipulative" are kind of insulting terms, but I think I understand what they mean by them.

[katherine the great]

There is an interesting novel on this called "The Red Tent".  You might find it useful.

Excellent book!  It's fiction, of course, but I think it gives us a peak into what women's lives might have been like in their culture.

[teddyaware]

sneakiness by definition is not being honest.

Before arriving..if ever..at some socially powerful position, a man has always had to survive for years as a child, then youth, then socially lower powered individual...surely this would lead to the evolution of any sneakiness potential in men as women.

I have seen plenty of manipulative women in my life, I am not saying they don't exist. However, I've seen tons of manipulative men as well, even when they are socially powerful. If one buys tv and movies as reflective at all of reality, a lot of men achieve power because they are good at manipulation...it would seem our society sees manipulation as a tool of males as much as women.

The idea that men sit around having discussuons about the logical necessities of actions while women go to trickery first and foremost seems to me to be fantasyland.

So we're all one big sneaky and manipulative family... ain't it grand?!?