- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m sorry for derailing N’oublie Pas’ thread with temple angst. I wonder if we’ve talked about this before, the idea of “he shall rule over thee” being a predictionabout post-Eden life for Adam and Eve and not a command, like this article discusses: http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/parker-women.shtml Quote:“Nothing at all in Genesis [or Moses?] is intended to teach that God set man over woman as the ideal. Before sin came into the world the subordination of women ontologically* or functionally is never considered. The rule of man and the distortion in the equal and complementary relationship of the sexes is given as one of the sad consequences of the fall. Men dominate women and women acquiesce not because God made things that way in creation, but because sin has disrupted life as it was intended by God. The order of creation depicts man and woman standing side by side: only after the fall does man set himself above the woman.”
I know we’re really big on The Fortunate Fall, but couldn’t we also allow for something like this?
Another thing: I’m like a dog with a bone about what needs to change in the temple, what needs to go away, etc. What if the best way forward is to
add to? We’re kind of stuck with Genesis. But we could take it where it needs to go by adding. Just 60 more seconds of the endowment could heal a world of hurt. *I had to look it up: “Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.”
Ann wrote:I’m sorry for derailing N’oublie Pas’ thread with temple angst. I wonder if we’ve talked about this before, the idea of “he shall rule over thee” being a
predictionabout post-Eden life for Adam and Eve and not a command, like this article discusses: Interesting, I never thought about it like that before.
I remember the storys of Pandora’s Box and Eve’s Apple as having similar themes. 1) is an explanation for why things are so messed up in the world.
2) is a cautionary tale of letting women make decisions unsupervised.
I believe that the originators of these stories really did believe that women were inferior and set about to justify that belief (similar to phrenologists attempting to scientifically justify disparate treatment for African-Americans).
I find the Jewish myth/story of Lilith — Adam’s first wife — very interesting. I have said for a long, long time that the narrative says what inevitably would happen in a fallen, natural, evolution- and biology-driven world (with stronger men and with women who needed protection during pregnancy, childbirth and immediately afterward), not necessarily what God would want to happen in a perfect world where all things really could develop in equality. That view alone has done more to allow me to find peace with the temple than anything else, since it also allows me to see changes as evolutionary in nature and believe those changes will continue.
Check this out:
Quote:Walter Kaiser translates the Hebrew
teshugahas “You are turningaway to your husband and he will rule over you.” He discovered that the Hebrew teshugah, almost universally translated as “desire,” previously was rendered as “ turning,” not desire, in the twelve known ancient versions of the Bible…Thus the Hebrew conveys: “You are turning away (from God) to your husband, and (as a result) he will rule over you (take advantage of you)”… “…and he shall rule over you.” The Hebrew verb is future tense, not imperative. God is describing a future condition, the result of the woman’s rebellion. The implication is not “should” (prescriptive) but “will” (descriptive).
http://whatdoesthismean.net/topic-2/
It’s too bad God and many prophets didn’t care to clarify what Genesis 3:16 means. That verse and Proverbs 13:24 have led to incalculable evil and it sucks.On the other hand, verses that are clear do not always stop people from making mistakes. Brigham Young and his successors for many years couldn’t seem to comprehend that God invites “all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). I think it sucks it was ever taught that a woman should answer to a man and not to God directly. I’m glad we live in a time now when we’ve advanced better ideas, but hopefully there is more change to improve upon it. And it sucks that most of that change doesn’t come from a conservative church that clings to past scriptures that were written in times of inequality in thought and teaching and practice.
I give the church props in trying to teach in Christ-like ways…and many members I know are very equality and loving in theory, even if they hold fast to the rod of outdated wording from prophets of old, the spirit of love helps cover up some inadequacies in scripture wording.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.