Did Mary give consent? Did Eve?

[Anonymous]

Husband wanted to read some of the chapters of Jesus the Christ that talk about Christ’s birth, since Christmas is just around the corner. One thing that stuck out to me is that Talmage mentioned, Mary’s family might have cut off contact with her since she had ‘shamed’ them by getting pregnant out of wedlock. Whether they did or not, being pregnant before marriage was not a socially acceptable thing, and the Lord knew it. Seems like rather harsh treatment for the chosen vessel who was worthy to bear the mortal body of the Savior.

Do you think Mary had an opportunity to give consent – in the premortal existence and/or in the mortal existence? The Biblical account makes it seem like the angel Gabriel presented the situation to her as a done deal, though I’m willing to accept that that may not be an accurate depiction. But the thing that has really been getting under my skin lately is how very much we women seem to be secondary to Heavenly Father’s plan – it seems like he created us simply to be accessories to the men around whom the Plan of Salvtion revolves. (I have a whole list of bullet points talking about this but I’ll save it for another time.) It really bothers me how, when the earth was created, they created it for a man and then created a woman for a man and handed her over to him like a birthday present. “Here’s your woman, Adam, enjoy!” If either Eve or Mary had any opportunity to give consent, I’d love to know it. The way the stories are told now, they were simply a means to an end. And doesn’t that deprive us of our agency if the Lord uses us in that way?

As an LDS woman, it kind of stinks that Mary and Eve are the two women most often held up to us as archetypes. And yet, what little we know about them tells me that they were no more than a means to an end. In both cases, the most important function of these women was their posession of a workinhg reproductive system. And unfortunately, the more time that I spend in the temple, the more I feel like all the women that the Lord has created exist simply to act as accessories to the men. And I have to wonder, much like Mary and Eve, did I agree to this?

[Anonymous]

Then don’t believe it.

I don’t.

There’s nothing in the story that makes it sound like either was coerced, and Mary explicitly gives consent in the actual story. Thus, I don’t think the “accessory” conclusion is anywhere near the only logical conclusion to the way the stories are told. In fact, I think it is one of the weaker ones.

I know I am a man, so it’s easier for me to say that – but, in the end, choose not to believe it. It absolutely isn’t the only option.

[Anonymous]

I have wondered the same things. The temple in particular has been a source of pain for me. On darker days I agree with your outlook in total. On more hope filled days I remember that lds women actually have a better representation of Eve than most religions. I hope with all my heart that God does not view women as simply support staff and that things will change within the church.I worry though about my daughter trying to live in two worlds. One in which she can be the CEO, the other in which she can’t even control the type or design of her underwear.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s just the by product of living in a society ran by patriarchy for thousands of years.

Simply, women were deemed as less valuable until relatively recently. And were valued mostly as property and the ability to bear children…specifically boys. We should not be surprised that our myths and religions have a sexist tone.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Dax wrote:

I have wondered the same things. The temple in particular has been a source of pain for me. On darker days I agree with your outlook in total. On more hope filled days I remember that lds women actually have a better representation of Eve than most religions.

It bothers me that at no point in the temple video does anyone point out that it was right and good and necessary what Eve did. That if it wasn’t for her, mankind would never have progressed past infancy. Granted, the last time I went to the temple was just before they switched the video, so that may have changed. But I’m also thoroughly unimpressed with Adam’s response when God calls him out on the carpet for eating the fruit: “The woman you gave me, Lord, she made me do it.” Wow dude, way to hang your wife out to dry. I guess all that unity stuff we talk about between married couples doesn’t apply here.

And really? I know that we don’t believe in the original sin of Adam, but I feel like there is an original sin of Eve and it appliles to all women. That’s one possible explanation for why we women seem to be lesser in the Lord’s eyes. (On the other hand, I keep asking myself, why did He even bother to create us in the first place? He could have created an all-male world where the soecies reproduces asexually.)

Quote:

I hope with all my heart that God does not view women as simply support staff and that things will change within the church.I worry though about my daughter trying to live in two worlds. One in which she can be the CEO, the other in which she can’t even control the type or design of her underwear.

Good point about that. It certainly is a chilling future we present to our daughters. And I’m saying this as a woman who has no desire to hold the priesthood. But we’ve done a really bad job seprating the actual duties and responsibilities of the priesthood from what my father calls the “administrivia.” Controlling women’s underwear design isn’t mentioned anywhere in the D&C that I am aware of.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“The woman you gave me, Lord, she made me do it.”

Joni, it’s really important to make sure we don’t quote things (anything) differently than they actually are worded and, in the process, change the meaning radically. The quote above is a great example of why.

The actual quote is:

Quote:

“The woman thou gavest me, and commanded that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit, and I did eat.”

If we look at those actual words, the meaning is very different than, “It’s her fault” – WAY different. The following is how I explain it to my children and in church – and I’ve never gotten any negative push back when I’ve shared it:

God made a woman as a “helpmeet” – which means someone who is suitable for someone else. Thus, Adam said to God, “You made the right woman for me.” Then he said, “You commanded us to stay together.” That was the first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve – to stay together. He then said, “I ate the fruit she gave me.”

In that order, the only meaning that makes sense is that Adam told God he was following the first, primary commandment in eating the fruit. He wasn’t saying, “She did it. It’s her fault.” He was saying:

Quote:

“Your primary commandment wasn’t to stay here with you, God, it was to stay with my wife. I’m choosing to stay with my wife, because she’s the most important thing in my life.”

Now, I see the whole story mythologically, so I take that message and believe it is a statement that staying with a spouse you love is part of “the Plan” and is more important than being by yourself with God. That puts a wife (and husband) in the position of being THE most important thing in a married person’s life – as “equal partners”, as the Proclamation to the World says.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

“The woman you gave me, Lord, she made me do it.”

Joni, it’s really important to make sure we don’t quote things (anything) differently than they actually are worded and, in the process, change the meaning radically. The quote above is a great example of why.

The actual quote is:

Quote:

“The woman thou gavest me, and commanded that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit, and I did eat.”

Only in as far as it’s translated correctly. Those probably aren’t the words Adam actually spoke – we will never know what he actually said. However, Adam did make the decision to eat the fruit after his wife had done it, yet he had no problem shucking the blame off onto her when they were both called before the Lord.

Quote:

God made a woman as a “helpmeet” – which means someone who is suitable for someone else. Thus, Adam said to God, “You made the right woman for me.” Then he said, “You commanded us to stay together.” That was the first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve – to stay together. He then said, “I ate the fruit she gave me.”

In that order, the only meaning that makes sense is that Adam told God he was following the first, primary commandment in eating the fruit. He wasn’t saying, “She did it. It’s her fault.” He was saying:

Quote:

“Your primary commandment wasn’t to stay here with you, God, it was to stay with my wife. I’m choosing to stay with my wife, because she’s the most important thing in my life.”

Now, I see the whole story mythologically, so I take that message and believe it is a statement that staying with a spouse you love is part of “the Plan” and is more important than being by yourself with God. That puts a wife (and husband) in the position of being THE most important thing in a married person’s life – as “equal partners”, as the Proclamation to the World says.

I’m really uncomfortable with Eve being given to Adam. You give someone a loaf of bread or a book or maybe a goat, but not an actual, living, breathing human being with God-given agency. Eve being created as a helpmeet still puts her in the position of being created as a tool to help Adam achieve his eternal potential – not her own. In this case she was the tool for introducing sin into the world – so that Adam, the all-important male, wouldn’t have to get his hands dirty.

The Family Proclamation does state that spouses are equal partners, but the endowment ceremony suggests that we are not, and I tend to believe the temple as we are actually placed under covenant there. I do think it’s harder to understand if you are coming from the position of, well, being male.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

He could have created an all-male world where the soecies reproduces asexually….

Yeah, and what a boring, unfulfilling, and empty planet that would have been.

Intimacy is one of the most glorious aspects of human evolution/creation, and obviously sex is a huge part of that.

I understand your frustration. I simply think men/patriarchy has ruled and defined society for to long, sometimes at the expense of the female gender.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

So an alternate reading of Adams words could have been “Sorry God, I’m sticking to my wife on this one.”

cwald wrote:

I think it’s just the byproduct of living in a society ran by patriarchy for thousands of years.

Simply, women were deemed as less valuable until relatively recently. And were valued mostly as property and the ability to bear children…specifically boys. We should not be surprised that our myths and religions have a sexist tone.

What cwald said is how I explain the mythology. What bothers me more is not ancient history but current reality.

Joni does have some very valid points about the “support” staff nature of women in the church. As it stands, we know relatively little about the history of women in the church. We study the words of the prophets. The women are known as wives or mothers to great men. Sure you might be a general president of a woman’s organization – but even that is somewhat of a supporting role.

Just last week the lesson manual in SS talked about how the entire Relief Society Presidency in the time of Heber J. Grant decided to withdraw from a national women’s organization. They wrote out their reasons for their decision and submitted it to President Grant. President Grant chided them for not getting anything out of it saying, “What are you putting into it?” He then overruled their decision and that was that. I saw it as the women leadership acting in unison about a relatively small administrative decision affecting only their limited stewardship and STILL, they were denied.

Sister Okazaki mentioned that she had been working on a new RS manual that better met the needs of the sisters when the directive came out to do the “Presidents of the church” manuals. She was not particularly happy that the RS presidency hadn’t even been consulted.

I don’t think that President Hinckley or Grant were misogynistic. I just think that the system is set up so that men make all the big decisions…even for the women.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Just last week the lesson manual in SS talked about how the entire Relief Society Presidency in the time of Heber J. Grant decided to withdraw from a national women’s organization. They wrote out their reasons for their decision and submitted it to President Grant. President Grant chided them for not getting anything out of it saying, “What are you putting into it?” He then overruled their decision and that was that. I saw it as the women leadership acting in unison about a relatively small administrative decision affecting only their limited stewardship and STILL, they were denied.

I know the story you are talking about. It came up in a RS lesson a few years ago, and it made me want to throw things. And you really have to wonder what the committee in charge of that book was thinking by including that story. I don’t know a single woman who felt uplifted or edified by its inclusion. Rather, there were some displeased murmurs going around the back of the RS room where the rebels like me sit. 👿

Roy wrote:

I don’t think that President Hinckley or Grant were misogynistic. I just think that the system is set up so that men make all the big decisions…even for the women.

I agree – I don’t think President Monson is a jerk either. I don’t think my bishop is a jerk. And yet we have a system where, if I want to enter the house of the Lord and symbolically stand in His presence, I have to answer to a man I’m not married to about my underwear habits.

I suppose at the end of the day, the biggest reason I am frustrated is that I don’t feel like a full participant in the Plan of Salvation. I feel like the Lord didn’t create me to pilot my own vessel, but to be a passenger in my husband’s. The very few stories we get about women in the scriptures don’t do a lot to dispel that feeling.

[Anonymous]

Joni,

I don’t think the mythology or the current church system is a reflection of God. God allowed our most inspired leaders to keep black people out of the temple for over 100 years. That tells me that there can be a huge disconnect between the mind and will of God and the implementation on the ground. Maybe God should be a better micromanager but for whatever reason He seems to be fairly “hands off.”

Joni wrote:

I don’t think my bishop is a jerk. And yet we have a system where, if I want to enter the house of the Lord and symbolically stand in His presence, I have to answer to a man I’m not married to about my underwear habits.

I suppose at the end of the day, the biggest reason I am frustrated is that I don’t feel like a full participant in the Plan of Salvation. I feel like the Lord didn’t create me to pilot my own vessel, but to be a passenger in my husband’s. The very few stories we get about women in the scriptures don’t do a lot to dispel that feeling.

If I want to “symbolically” stand in the Lord’s presence – I can do so on a mountaintop or my living room. My relationship with God has been completely divorced from my standing within the church. Now, having said that I still need to go through men to baptize my child in the church, give my son the priesthood, or witness their temple sealing. Those things are still important to me as important milestone moments in the lives of my children. I just don’t attribute that stuff to God.

I get to own my beliefs. I believe that you were created to be magnificent (complete and whole/perfect) as an individual and ALSO to find fulfillment in relationships with others and I really am not concerned if you could quote a dozen scripture verses that say otherwise. Those scriptures are just wrong… at least for me.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

I’m really uncomfortable with Eve being given to Adam. You give someone a loaf of bread or a book or maybe a goat, but not an actual, living, breathing human being with God-given agency. Eve being created as a helpmeet still puts her in the position of being created as a tool to help Adam achieve his eternal potential – not her own. In this case she was the tool for introducing sin into the world – so that Adam, the all-important male, wouldn’t have to get his hands dirty.

The Family Proclamation does state that spouses are equal partners, but the endowment ceremony suggests that we are not, and I tend to believe the temple as we are actually placed under covenant there. I do think it’s harder to understand if you are coming from the position of, well, being male.

I think some women wonder how the most important ceremony in the most important place can feel so demoralizing. They wonder why it can’t change. I wonder why they made a gargantuan effort to create a new film, but didn’t otherwise change a word. You said you “tend to believe the temple,” but for sanity’s sake, my suggestion is – don’t. Instead I trust the Spirit, my own gut, and the good men and women around me who model love and respect between the sexes. I try with limited success to put the image of Brigham Young-era endowment and sealing ceremonies out of my mind.

Same with the scriptures and church teachings of any denomination or era regarding Mary, Eve, or women in general. Alma 32 – “Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart…” If the seed is the idea that women were created as a baby-making accessories for men, plant it in your heart and and see if it grows. It’s terrifying because initially it feels like it just might. Women carry a lot of psychic baggage. But, for me, the seed does not ultimately thrive. Doing the experiment helped me learn what I believe.

[Anonymous]

Joni, then don’t accept it. Believe differently. View both stories as cultural / mythological accounts that actually didn’t happen as recorded – or, as I do in the case of the Garden of Eden, as completely figurative stories that didn’t happen at all.

You don’t have to believe what others believed and believe. Choose to see it differently.

I still stand by my statement, however, that there is nothing in the two accounts that say Eve and Mary didn’t consent. In both cases, in fact, there are statements that say they did consent. That is my answer to the question(s) in the title.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the idea of choosing to see the scriptures as myths, told from the view of the men who put women below them for pretty much all of human existence. However, if God had a hand in writing or inspiring the scriptures, couldn’t he at any time added a bit about valuing women equally? He got them to sacrifice animals and circumcise themselves, seems like a smaller thing than those.

In modern times, would it have been much harder to get men to see women as equals compared to getting them to go against their natural moral tendencies to practice polygamy or crossing most of the US?

Today, when they just made a new temple video, would it have been too hard to say, “by the way, take out that part of women harkening to their husbands, that’s not really how its suppose to go.” Either the prophets have always refused to listen to God when he tried to make things right, or God really does agree that women are lower than men, or God has no dealings with earth at all. But this is why the question remains for some women about their standing with God. He himself doesn’t seem to have removed reason to question it.

Personally, I’ve decided not to attend the temple again until those parts that make women appear less than men are changed. I’m certain they will, but I don’t know why it always takes the church so long to catch up to the world on these kinds of issues.

[Anonymous]

Yes Journeygirl I agree that the temple video could have easily been changed. Also why could the family proclamation not be inspired to say co-preside vs husbands only preside over the family?

[Author]

Posts