April Ensign Article about Marriage and Spousal Roles

[Anonymous]

Over at BCC, MMiles highlighted an article in the April Ensign by Sister Valerie Hudson entitled, “Equal Partnership in Marriage“. She showed how the rhetoric surrounding marriage and spousal roles is different now than in a related article from the Ensign 40 years ago. I love the differences – the changes, to be more precise, and the fact that the article was written by a woman – and am excerpting the quotes from the April Ensign here (bolding and [bracketing] is mine). I’m ignoring the quotes from the older article, since I don’t care to rehash what used to be taught – given that we all are well aware of that content:

Quote:

As Elder Earl C. Tingey, formerly of the Presidency of the Seventy, has said: “You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to (the other). (They) walk side by side … not one before or behind the other. A helpmeet results in an absolute equal partnership between a husband and a wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other.” … 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.’ [meaning the Biblical translation to English is inaccurate.] … 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.”

Quote:

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims the doctrine of equal partnership between men and women, here and in the eternities. Latter-day Saint theology teaches that gender difference does not superimpose a hierarchy between men and women.

Quote:

Social science research supports the prophetic instruction that couples who have an equal partnership have happier relationships, more effective parenting practices, and better-functioning children. Scholars have consistently found that equal partners are more satisfied and have better overall marital quality than couples where one spouse dominates. Equal-partner relationships have less negative interaction and more positive interaction. Moreover, there is evidence that equal partners are more satisfied with the quality of the physical intimacy in their relationship.

I’ve said for a few years that the top LDS leadership is trying to change the way the members view marriage roles and the concept of presiding, and it’s good to see an article like this in the Ensign that addresses this effort so directly and explicitly – written by a woman, with the implicit stamp of approval provided to women’s voices by that fact alone.

[Anonymous]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/03/21/truth-for-our-times/

Definitely worth a read.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Hawk. I can’t believe I forgot to provide the link.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve said for a few years that the top LDS leadership is trying to change the way the members view marriage roles and the concept of presiding…

I don’t see how this will happen until the temple changes.

[Anonymous]

+1 Ann. It is a very good article though!

[Anonymous]

It is a great article! Refreshing to see the church say that equal partners make for a better marriage. One thing that I didn’t get though, was the paragraph about presiding. It said there was a misconception of the word, then described it in the traditional sense as far as church goes and then said husband and wife are equal. Am I missing something or did they not define what it actually means? I agree with Ann, but they are definitely heading in a good direction!

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand this. Since when did this apply: “Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’” I am not able to find any bible translation that supports that. Genesis 3:16 is about sorrow in pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children. Eve is told “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” which means she will defer to his will. It makes sense that the next part of the verse would mean Adam was to have dominion over her. There is no happy news in that verse.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want that verse to mean Adam is to have dominion over Eve. It’s just confusing to see the meaning of scriptures totally change, which is what I see happening here.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, one of the difficulties of translating ancient records is that the original meaning is impossible to know, in many cases. Just like English has multiple meanings for the the same word (and multiple “synonyms” that actually have slightly different connotations), the way many Hebrew words were written allows for multiple possible intended words and meanings.

I don’t know enough to know if her interpretation is a reasonable one, but I like the attempt to redefine the passage. I would prefer a simple statement that it’s ancient scripture and, therefore, can be discarded as out-dated, but I’ll take this for now as a first step.

Frankly, I think the Church is trying to change the meaning of preside in marriage without gutting the word entirely, since it has been used so much in our history. I think they want to continue to use it in church settings but not use it anymore in marriages. I have seen a move to “co-preside” in marriage and using “preside” in situations with one parent, even when that parent is a woman. I really like that movement – especially since there have been multiple statements saying explicitly that a single mother presides in her home even when there are AP holding sons in the home.

[Anonymous]

This is laughable, honestly. If a GA wants to get up and announce that it has been revealed that women are now to be considered equal, then that is one thing. But to go on and say that the doctrine has always said that and we just misunderstood is somewhat insulting.

I wonder how this plays out with Plural marriage? Does each spouse get an equal vote or is it 1 vote for the man and 1/x vote for each woman where x= number of wives.

[Anonymous]

Brown wrote:

This is laughable, honestly. If a GA wants to get up and announce that it has been revealed that women are now to be considered equal, then that is one thing. But to go on and say that the doctrine has always said that and we just misunderstood is somewhat insulting.

I wonder how this plays out with Plural marriage? Does each spouse get an equal vote or is it 1 vote for the man and 1/x vote for each woman where x= number of wives.

I agree…and still ask where are the statues of the other wives on Temple Square with Joseph and Emma if wive/s are equal and valued. Still, I really liked the article and saw it as progressive.

[Anonymous]

I’m also concerned about the article speaking as if things were always this way. It’s a little 1984ish. Are there any Hebrew scholars here who can clarify the Hebrew word bet? Ruling with is quite different from ruling over. I now wonder about Moses 4:22.

But I do believe in continuing revelation. It would be cool if an official revelation were published in the D&C saying something like:

Quote:

Moses misunderstood God or the text text was changed over the years. In the Garden of Eden, Eve was actually told “You will now multiply and replenish the earth. There will be sorrow but also joy in your posterity. Thy desire shall be with thy husband, and he shall rule with thee.”

[Anonymous]

The scriptures were written by men. We have this thing about “as far as it is translated correctly” and “continuing revelation” (which means, literally, making things known that were not known previously). Those principles alone can take care of this, since they allow for radical change.

I wish we as a people actually believed what I see as fundamental aspects of the Restoration – but, regardless of how something is reinterpreted, I’m glad this is being reinterpreted. It is an important first step.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The scriptures were written by men. We have this thing about “as far as it is translated correctly” and “continuing revelation” (which means, literally, making things known that were not known previously). Those principles alone can take care of this, since they allow for radical change.

Wow, that’s a very good point. I really don’t want to be negative about this, but I’m working this out in my mind. I am going to look for the positive stuff in the article. Thanks, Ray.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I’m also concerned about the article speaking as if things were always this way. It’s a little 1984ish.

It reminds me of the term Retroactive Continuity. Mormons didn’t come up with it but it does seem to be one of our strengths. The idea that our Gospel is fundamentally the same as the one Adam and Eve and all the OT Patriarchs had is a great example. In a way, being able to reinvent meanings for old words is a really cool way of tying the past and the present together. Another example is how the scriptures say we believe in the office of evangelists and we interpret that word to mean Stake Patriarch. :crazy:

Old-Timer wrote:

it’s ancient scripture and, therefore, can be discarded as out-dated

:clap: :clap: :clap: If I ever hear that in GC, I’m going to learn how to cross stitch and put it on a throw pillow! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Anonymous]

M. R. Ballard, April, 2012 GC:

Quote:

“Husbands and wives, you should be equal partners in your marriage. Read often and understand the proclamation on the family and follow it. Avoid unrighteous dominion in any form. No one owns a spouse or children; God is the Father of us all and has extended to us the privilege of our own family, which was previously only His, to help us become more like Him. As His children we should learn at home to love God and to know that we can ask Him for the help we need. Everyone, married or single, can be happy and supportive within whatever family you may have.”

[Author]

Posts