The Curse On Women

[Coreyb]

When you read the garden story in Genesis, and by extension Moses and the Endowment narrative, with 21st century eyes and sensibilities one theological aspect of the tale stands out above the others I think, the curse God placed on Eve.

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. ~Genesis 3:16

I think that the sexual inequality in this scripture is obvious (but correct me if I'm wrong), and it raises some questions:

If in the text God only places the curse upon the single woman, Eve, why is it so often extended to all women? Or does that extension go without saying in the Hebrew? If this curse does extend to all women, why? Does this mean that men are not accountable for Adams transgression, but women are for Eve's? What purpose does the sexual inequity possibly serve?

On the other hand, if you reject this curse, what theological reason could there be for the natural sexual inequity that seems to exist. By natural I mean, women are more likely to experience pain and physical damage during sexual intercourse than men. Female sexual satisfaction tends to be "trickier" than male satisfaction. Women experience stress and pain during pregnancy that men do not experience. Women experience immense pain, physical damage, and sometimes death during childbirth that men do not experience. Women often carry the physical and sometimes emotional scars of these experiences the rest of their lives. I call these natural because no matter how careful, loving, and egalitarian a sexual relationship is, these inequalities are going to occur and so they cannot be blamed on "The Patriarchy" boogeyman.

Edit: Yes I am aware that the Endowment narrative extends Eve's curse upon her daughters who take upon those covenants

Your thought please...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Coreyb

[blooit]

I'm not sure we are talking about a curse here.  I think our Heavenly Father is outlining the natural consequences of mortality - and saying "I warned you."  I just don't see this as a curse.

[JLHPROF]

If in the text God only places the curse upon the single woman, Eve, why is it so often extended to all women?

Because Eve is also representative of all women - just as in the temple we are commanded to consider ourselves Adam and Eve.

 

If this curse does extend to all women, why?

Because the curse is part of the fall.  Adam had a specific curse that extended to all men.  Eve had  a specific curse that extended to all women.  Heck, even the serpent had a curse of his own.  Just as all men are under the curse of Adam, so all women are under the curse of Eve.  You will have to ask God why he curse each differently.

 

Does this mean that men are not accountable for Adams transgression, but women are for Eve's?

No, it means men are under the same curse as Adam, and women are under the same curse as Eve.   Sin is not the issue.  The results of the fall are.

 

What purpose does the sexual inequity possibly serve?

I still don't consider this "inequity", but I totally understand that others do and why.  There is always someone who is our head and always someone to whom we are the head.  That is the nature of eternity.

 

ETA: Also, exactly what Blooit said. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Uncle Dale]

 

...There is always someone who is our head and always someone to whom we are the head.  ...

 

 

 

That brings up a new question in my mind.

 

In the case of a Mormon woman, whose father and brothers

are no longer living, who is the "head" of her family if her

priesthood-holding husband dies?

 

I do not mean for eternity, but for time -- for her life without a

living mate here on earth?

 

If she has a son who has been ordained a deacon, should

that son be honored with the title and responsibilities of

"head of the household?" -- Or, if he is a minor and has an

even older "of age" brother, who is an LDS priest -- should

that brother assume his father's vacated position as head

of the household for time.

 

UD

[Coreyb]

If in the text God only places the curse upon the single woman, Eve, why is it so often extended to all women?

Because Eve is also representative of all women - just as in the temple we are commanded to consider ourselves Adam and Eve.

 

If this curse does extend to all women, why?

Because the curse is part of the fall.  Adam had a specific curse that extended to all men.  Eve had  a specific curse that extended to all women.  Heck, even the serpent had a curse of his own.  Just as all men are under the curse of Adam, so all women are under the curse of Eve.  You will have to ask God why he curse each differently.

 

Does this mean that men are not accountable for Adams transgression, but women are for Eve's?

No, it means men are under the same curse as Adam, and women are under the same curse as Eve.   Sin is not the issue.  The results of the fall are.

 

What purpose does the sexual inequity possibly serve?

I still don't consider this "inequity", but I totally understand that others do and why.  There is always someone who is our head and always someone to whom we are the head.  That is the nature of eternity.

 

ETA: Also, exactly what Blooit said. 

The problem is that Adam's curse extends to men and women, but Eve's only applies to women. Thus the inequality.

[JLHPROF]

The problem is that Adam's curse extends to men and women, but Eve's only applies to women. Thus the inequality.

 

Does it really?  Adam was cursed concerning the land and the soil and to work until he dropped dead.  Eve was cursed to suffer in childbirth and desire her husband.

The curses are different.

Edited March 6, 2015 by JLHPROF

[strappinglad]

The only 'curse' I read is that of the ground being cursed. I have read several bible versions to see if there is any clarity offered. The King James  says the God will greatly multiply Eve's 'sorrow' AND her 'conception' . Other versions seem to conflate the sorrow with conception. The greater curse , if that is what you want to call it, is upon Adam and by extension Eve that they will have to work hard all their days to survive.

 

   I have wondered what would have been the result had Adam been the one to be mislead by Satan.

[JLHPROF]

That brings up a new question in my mind.

 

In the case of a Mormon woman, whose father and brothers

are no longer living, who is the "head" of her family if her

priesthood-holding husband dies?

 

I do not mean for eternity, but for time -- for her life without a

living mate here on earth?

 

If she has a son who has been ordained a deacon, should

that son be honored with the title and responsibilities of

"head of the household?" -- Or, if he is a minor and has an

even older "of age" brother, who is an LDS priest -- should

that brother assume his father's vacated position as head

of the household for time.

 

UD

 

Personal opinion - if the woman is endowed she is the head of her husbandless family regardless of what Aaronic priesthood her sons may hold.  She has more access to revelation for her family than they do.

[Coreyb]

Women must toil for food with their husbands, or alone if they have none. Men cannot have the same trials the woman has, by nature.

[thesometimesaint]

That brings up a new question in my mind.

 

In the case of a Mormon woman, whose father and brothers

are no longer living, who is the "head" of her family if her

priesthood-holding husband dies?

 

I do not mean for eternity, but for time -- for her life without a

living mate here on earth?

 

If she has a son who has been ordained a deacon, should

that son be honored with the title and responsibilities of

"head of the household?" -- Or, if he is a minor and has an

even older "of age" brother, who is an LDS priest -- should

that brother assume his father's vacated position as head

of the household for time.

 

UD

 

Upon the husband death the wife becomes the head of the household. She receives her Priesthood blessings through her Bishop. Her son holds no Priesthood authority over her unless he is her Bishop.

[williamsmith]

The problem is that Adam's curse extends to men and women, but Eve's only applies to women. Thus the inequality.

 

Not exactly.....  Men "suffer" when they have to till the ground, fight war, protect his family, watch their wife give child birth (men who are connected to their wife and child go through things also during birth).

 

Men suffer when women belittle them and nag them, and likewise women suffer when men are abusive.  Men suffer when they "bleed" also through the hard and heavy work they do, the fights they engage in.

Men die sooner than women.

 

This idea of "inequality" or "curse" simply because men and women are different is nothing more than a lie.

Men and women have different talents and gifts they contribute to the whole, one is not without the other, one is not better than the other, one is not more "cursed" than the other.

Each has strengths and weaknesses, as well every person is different, some having more similarity's as the other or vica versa.

[Tacenda]

The only 'curse' I read is that of the ground being cursed. I have read several bible versions to see if there is any clarity offered. The King James says the God will greatly multiply Eve's 'sorrow' AND her 'conception' . Other versions seem to conflate the sorrow with conception. The greater curse , if that is what you want to call it, is upon Adam and by extension Eve that they will have to work hard all their days to survive.

I have wondered what would have been the result had Adam been the one to be mislead by Satan.

Did I miss something? I thought the GoE was all symbolism according to some on this board. But for all of my life I thought it literal. Now we're changing it back to literal again? Which leads me to believe if it's symbolism, and if man made it up, it was so women were subservient. I know that sounds like I'm an Atheist but I struggle to know what comes from man and what comes from God.

Sorry if I chose your quote to reply to Strappinglad, I did because it seems as if you believe it literally happened.

[CV75]

Your thought please...

We are all as Adam and Eve, so their curses are our curses. In opposition, we can choose to be reborn in Christ and His victory can be our blessing.

 

With the idea that we are all as Adam and Eve, Adam’s sorrow and conception were multiplied with Eve’s. As husband and wife, there was a priesthood order (“rule”) that could only function if “desire” worked both ways. Eve’s sweat, toil and return to the dust were as authentic as Adam’s. Whatever one was “cursed” with, the other was also, just as in marriage, whatever one is blessed with, the spouse is also. I think the inequity is entirely in one’s attitude toward marriage and family in Christ.

 

A “natural” explanation would have to do with evolution or the developed brain’s resistance of it that increases negative outcomes—neither of which really makes sense outside the context of the Fall and Atonement.

[Kevin Christensen]

For a much clearer perspective, see The Redemption of Eve, by Jolene Edmunds Rockwood:

http://www.mormonmonastery.org/PDF/TheRedemptionofEve.pdf

And of course, Nibley's Patriarchy and Matriarchy.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1065

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

I'm not sure we are talking about a curse here. I think our Heavenly Father is outlining the natural consequences of mortality - and saying "I warned you." I just don't see this as a curse.

I agree.

God does not call this a curse (I certainly don't view desiring my husband, for example, in that way). I believe that pain in childbirth is a natural part of mortality and not a punishment.

Also, having born four children, child birth can be very empowering. I believe it is a gift that God has given women to teach us how you incredibly strong and capable we are when society so often teaches us the opposite.

However, I know in the early church that many believed that polygamy was a way that God provided to help women rise above this curse (because they seemed to believe it was one as the OP does). According to many, by sharing a husband women were to learn not to care so much about their husbands and thus no longer were bound by their desire to him.

It's a very interesting perspective.

[bluebell]

Women must toil for food with their husbands, or alone if they have none. Men cannot have the same trials the woman has, by nature.

This is true.

[Avatar4321]

Am I the only one who sees the "curses" as blessings?

We only read curse because of the translation. If my understanding is correct, bless and curse are the same word in Hebrew.

Men are blesed by hard work for their families and women blessed in their struggle to have offspring. A struggle that brings a closer connection and deeper love.

The Fall was a blessing for us.

[Nofear]

Since Nibley's talk is long, here is one excerpt:

Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.1, Ch.5, p.89 - p.91
Now a curse was placed on Eve, and it looked as if she would have to pay a high price for taking the initiative in the search for knowledge. To our surprise the identical curse was placed on Adam also. For Eve, God "will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." (Genesis 3:16.) The key is the word for sorrow, atsav, meaning to labor, to toil, to sweat, to do something very hard. To multiply does not mean to add or increase but to repeat over and over again; the word in the Septuagint is plethynomai, as in the multiplying of words in the repetitious prayers of the ancients. Both the conception and the labor of Eve will be multiple; she will have many children. Then the Lord says to Adam, "In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" (that is, the bread that his labor must bring forth from the earth). The identical word is used in both cases; the root meaning is to work hard at cutting or digging; both the man and the woman must sorrow and both must labor. (The Septuagint word is lype, meaning bodily or mental strain, discomfort, or affliction.) It means not to be sorry, but to have a hard time. If Eve must labor to bring forth, so too must Adam labor (Genesis 3:17; Moses 4:23) to quicken the earth so it shall bring forth. Both of them bring forth life with sweat and tears, and Adam is not the favored party. If his labor is not as severe as hers, it is more protracted. For Eve's life will be spared long after her childbearing--"nevertheless thy life shall be spared"--while Adam's toil must go on to the end of his days: "In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life!" Even retirement is no escape from that sorrow. The thing to notice is that Adam is not let off lightly as a privileged character; he is as bound to Mother Eve as she is to the law of her husband. And why not? If he was willing to follow her, he was also willing to suffer with her, for this affliction was imposed on Adam expressly "because thou hast hearkened unto. . . thy wife and, hast eaten of the fruit."

 

And both their names mean the same thing. For one thing they are both called Adam: "And [he] called their name Adam" (Genesis 5:2; italics added). We are told in the book of Moses that Adam means "many," a claim confirmed by recent studies of the Egyptian name of Atum, Tem, Adamu. The same applies to Eve, whose epithet is "the mother of all living."

 

In other words, society has generally misunderstood the Bible about the idea of a "Curse of Eve" is a taint from apostate Christianity* that continues to corrupt LDS thought.

 

* Though it is being recognized there as well.

[strappinglad]

Did I miss something? I thought the GoE was all symbolism according to some on this board. But for all of my life I thought it literal. Now we're changing it back to literal again? Which leads me to believe if it's symbolism, and if man made it up, it was so women were subservient. I know that sounds like I'm an Atheist but I struggle to know what comes from man and what comes from God.

Sorry if I chose your quote to reply to Strappinglad, I did because it seems as if you believe it literally happened.

Well, Tacenda, I have read all the creation stories available in our scriptures and I see that the creation days were all about the spiritual creation. It says God PLANTED a garden and placed man in it. Then He formed the animals and brought them to Adam etc. I don't have a problem with all that being literal as that would be exactly what humans would do if they were to establish a colony on some other planet. We would establish a " base camp " and create an little protected space and bring all that we needed into it.

I can also see the metaphorical in the conversations between God and Adam and Eve and Satan so I don't have to accept that part as literal. I'm fine either way.

On a side note, some species of snake have vestigial limbs showing on their skeletons. Could they have once walked on legs as the scriptures say? Quite likely, even evolutionists can agree.

[DJBrown]

When you read the garden story in Genesis, and by extension Moses and the Endowment narrative, with 21st century eyes and sensibilities one theological aspect of the tale stands out above the others I think, the curse God placed on Eve.

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. ~Genesis 3:16

I think that the sexual inequality in this scripture is obvious (but correct me if I'm wrong), and it raises some questions:

If in the text God only places the curse upon the single woman, Eve, why is it so often extended to all women? Or does that extension go without saying in the Hebrew? If this curse does extend to all women, why? Does this mean that men are not accountable for Adams transgression, but women are for Eve's? What purpose does the sexual inequity possibly serve?

On the other hand, if you reject this curse, what theological reason could there be for the natural sexual inequity that seems to exist. By natural I mean, women are more likely to experience pain and physical damage during sexual intercourse than men. Female sexual satisfaction tends to be "trickier" than male satisfaction. Women experience stress and pain during pregnancy that men do not experience. Women experience immense pain, physical damage, and sometimes death during childbirth that men do not experience. Women often carry the physical and sometimes emotional scars of these experiences the rest of their lives. I call these natural because no matter how careful, loving, and egalitarian a sexual relationship is, these inequalities are going to occur and so they cannot be blamed on "The Patriarchy" boogeyman.

Edit: Yes I am aware that the Endowment narrative extends Eve's curse upon her daughters who take upon those covenants

Your thought please...

 

This is a very interesting topic.  

 

Adam and all men have an additional responsibility and accountability relating to their respective generations.  This is very clear in the endowment.  Women are not responsible in the same way.  

 

And this makes sense.  If you consider the world's history- specifically the history of wars and bloodshed as well as the all too common broken family- who or which gender is by far most often responsible for such realities?  Without doubt, men are responsible for the wars throughout history.  And they are also most often the one's whose behavior leads to broken families- infidelity, etc.  (Of course there are exceptions, especially in modern times).

 

So the endowment and respective curses make complete sense if you consider the natures and responsibilities of men and women.  

 

I believe that the "curses" are not so much punishments for specific acts by Adam and Eve, but conditions set up by God to promote the development of the genders according to their eternal natures.  If you consider the responses of Adam and Eve to the temptation to partake of the fruit- they are very different and very representative of the genders.  The new endowment films represent this very well, in my opinion.  And neither response is necessarily wrong or superior to the other.  Eve responds with typical personal, emotional interest in him doing the tempting (Satan).  She sees the bigger picture and makes a decision based on deep wisdom.  Adam is almost knee-jerk in his response, but is responding out of duty and loyalty and obedience.  They are both actually very beautiful in their behavior.

 

The decision by Eve to partake of the fruit first came, in my opinion, as a result of her nature as a caring, wise woman.  It is that very wisdom and caring that makes her so capable of nurturing children and keeping the home centered in love.  Adam ultimately followed Eve- first he was loyal to the Father, then, he was loyal to Eve in his decision and leaving the garden.  His role as protector and provider comes as a natural fit for his nature.  And the negative consequence of some men not being faithful in that duty can be seen throughout history in their ultimate consequence- war, etc.  The same can be said about women who do not fulfill their duty, but the worst consequences are different.

 

In essence, we ought to just as readily look in the mirror in assigning blame for our respective curses as we do to God.  Maybe even more so.

[BlueDreams]

On the other hand, if you reject this curse, what theological reason could there be for the natural sexual inequity that seems to exist. By natural I mean, women are more likely to experience pain and physical damage during sexual intercourse than men. Female sexual satisfaction tends to be "trickier" than male satisfaction. Women experience stress and pain during pregnancy that men do not experience. Women experience immense pain, physical damage, and sometimes death during childbirth that men do not experience. Women often carry the physical and sometimes emotional scars of these experiences the rest of their lives. I call these natural because no matter how careful, loving, and egalitarian a sexual relationship is, these inequalities are going to occur and so they cannot be blamed on "The Patriarchy" boogeyman. 

 

No offense, but this feels like a very male-oriented perspective. I don't have enough time right now to talk about a lot of this (20 minutes to be exact). But I did want to point out one thing.....You most certainly can blame a bit of what you mentioned in this paragraph on "The patriarchy" problems. I'm basing this on my understanding of international development and my current work in sex therapy. For example, women's experience of childbirth vary drastically from society and personal expectation. These expectations are based on messages about women's bodies, the sense of control of power over one's body that women feel they have in the process. The experiences are ingrained in social contexts. Where gender disparity is worse, the likelihood of terrible birthing experiences and death are drastically increased....because women are given the shaft for maternal health care, food availability, and gender constructs that leave women undereducated, socially marginalized, and in poorer health. Childbirth isn't a walk in the park....But the interprative dance in a hot-tub in Hawaii giving a peaceful birth is in no way comparable to the mother who's blood pressure spikes in Liberia due to overworking, unplanned pregnancy, and poor health conditions.

 

Female sexuality is also a taboo topic. I'm still amazed by how many women simply don't know their bodies. The reason, I place firmly on a culture (one of many) that emphasizes female purity and an inability to explore or understand the gift that God has given all of us. Women may experience pain in sexual relationships. But much of that has to do with socialized factors, not just natural circumstances. A number of the women I've met feel unable to verbalize their sexual desires or discomfort for fear of hurting their husbands, a number often haven't viewed or experienced themselves as sexual beings, because they learned that sexuality was only for marriage and experiencing any form before marriage was either taboo or risky at the very least. They literally do not know their own anatomies, because their anatomy for many reasons are taboo. Other issues such as sexual abuse, also impede female sexuality and I definitely describe that as part of the gender problems we experience today. Male-centric perspectives of sexuality often take presedense and because of this, female sexuality and physical experiences often are detrimentally effected.

 

And just as women may experience pain in sexual experience. Women can experience more profound pleasures when one's sexuality is understood, respected, and cultivated in a health manner. The power of the female body and female experience are often understood, from a male-dominated inheritance of a culture, as painful, nigh martyrdom, and and being acted upon moreso than anything else. I think their experiences, when taken from a female perspective are powerful, potent, a power to act, and often paralleled to Christ's experience in scripture.

 

I would discuss more, but time's up.

With luv,

BD

[Ahab]

That brings up a new question in my mind.

In the case of a Mormon woman, whose father and brothers

are no longer living, who is the "head" of her family if her

priesthood-holding husband dies?

I do not mean for eternity, but for time -- for her life without a

living mate here on earth?

If she has a son who has been ordained a deacon, should

that son be honored with the title and responsibilities of

"head of the household?" -- Or, if he is a minor and has an

even older "of age" brother, who is an LDS priest -- should

that brother assume his father's vacated position as head

of the household for time.

UD

I realize there are some advantages to raising an issue in question format but sometimes I would prefer that you just boldly tell us what YOU think.

[Buckeye]

Silly me. I saw the title "The Curse On Women" and immediately thought "that's easy: Men."

[Nofear]

Silly me. I saw the title "The Curse On Women" and immediately thought "that's easy: Men."

 

Pffft. If every woman on earth died right now, all the world's problems would be solved in only a single generation.

[Buckeye]

Pffft. If every woman on earth died right now, all the world's problems would be solved in only a single generation.

 

Now let's give men more credit than that. I'm sure that, without the meddling of women, we could solve all of the world's problems in much less time than an entire generation.