Eve's sin upon all women?

[richlittell]

This comes from another thread but it was getting off topic, but it was a good question so I thought I'd start a new thread.

the quote was given:

Gen. 3: 16 16 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.

Moses 4: 22 22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, 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.

And Wanderer responded with:

by Wanderer

I have to admit I'm a little confused: original sin/curse of Eve...does it fit into LDS beliefs? Or does it slot into experiencing life and learning what a spiritual body could not tell us...is that a multiplication of sorrow? Should it be? And how does sorrow link up to the decision to have a family and get married? The ruling over seems a specific pointer...did God decide on that plan? And is this the way it will be in celestial heaven? Why is there no sorrow in heaven if this is the case?

I wonder if the sorrowing is over agency...not agency itself...but seeing the consequences and wanting to protect loved ones from them..: both children and partner...

THinking aloud and trying to parse into an LDS framework...but of course....I'm not LDS.

This got me to thinking. We know this:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

So does it stand to reason that women will be punished for their own sins and not for Eve's transgression?

Could it be that Eve might have had the toughest delivery of all womankind and that the Lord was indeed addressing her directly, rather than all of womankind? (Don't get me wrong, I know that giving birth is a painful process, so I don't mean to belittle any woman's delivery experience).

Anyway, some thought?

Edited September 15, 2008 by richlittell

[Dove]

Hello, Rich

I actually think Eve did a wonderful thing in choosing to eat the "forbidden fruit" in the garden of Eden, as there was no other way to bring mankind into mortality. I believe she did well by her choice, as the "Fall of Adam" was so necessary for our growth and development. I think of 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 42, which discuss in detail the necessity of opposition in agency and experiencing the bitter to know the sweet. I am unable to bear children, and would go through oodles of pain just for the experience of bearing and raising children, regardless of their choices growing up. I think sacrifice begets love, especially in raising children! Having pain in the delivery process is a part of our experience of pain in life generally, imo.

Because of Eve's bravery and courage in initiating the process for bringing children and opposition into the world, I believe the patriarchal order to be an eternal and God given order. Although I have struggled with never being able to bear the priesthood myself, and the seeming inequality in this, I cannot deny it's power, and so follow it because I believe it's real. It is mine to fulfill the measure of my creation, as a daughter of God, whatever that may be. :-)

Edited September 15, 2008 by Dove

[HiJolly]

This comes from another thread but it was getting off topic, but it was a good question so I thought I'd start a new thread.

the quote was given:

Gen. 3: 16 16 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.

Moses 4: 22 22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, 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.

This got me to thinking. We know this:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

We also know that the sins of the fathers will be on the heads of the children unto the third and fourth generations. That's scripture. Then again, so is the second article of faith (well, doctrine, if not scripture). As Joseph Smith said, by proving contraries (or apparent contradictions) the truth is made manifest.

I think it has to do with circumstances. The circumstances since the Fall are FAR DIFFERENT than they were in the Garden.

I wouldn't say that these circumstances are sin, or the result of sin, in and of themselves, though.

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

In the Book of Moses we find that when the angel explains the atonement of Christ, both Adam and Eve rejoice. Eve basically states: If it were not for our transgressions, we would not have the atonement, have children, and have a hope for eternal life.

What some consider a curse, is actually a blessing, Without suffering and struggle, none of us could ever become exalted. In Hebrews, Paul taught that even Jesus learned through the sufferings he went through, so that he would know how to succor us all. And Lehi taught in 2 Ne 2 that opposition in all things is necessary. Adam (and Eve) could not have joy without struggle and opposition.

While a woman suffers in child bearing, once the child is placed in the mother's arms, she quickly forgets the hours of pain she had just gone through. It's been said that if men were to have children, there would have only been one child ever born, and then men would have avoided such a difficult experience forevermore. Clearly, we are not as apt as women are to embrace and endure such hardship. And perhaps their spiritual quality is much greater because of it.

I would say that women are blessed because of Eve's fall. It opened the way for the atonement, a period of repentance, and a hope of exaltation.

[rameumptom]

We also know that the sins of the fathers will be on the heads of the children unto the third and fourth generations. That's scripture. Then again, so is the second article of faith (well, doctrine, if not scripture). As Joseph Smith said, by proving contraries (or apparent contradictions) the truth is made manifest.

I think it has to do with circumstances. The circumstances since the Fall are FAR DIFFERENT than they were in the Garden.

I wouldn't say that these circumstances are sin, or the result of sin, in and of themselves, though.

HiJolly

Actually, the curse that goes to the third or fourth generation only applies if they do not repent and turn to God. And it isn't so much a curse, as a reality that sin affects succeeding generations. If a person uses drugs/alcohol, chances are much greater that the children will do so also. If a child is abused, chances are greater that the child will grow up to also abuse.

It isn't easy to break the chain of addiction/habit. But it can be done. The Lamanites are an example of this: the curse of sin and disbelief was upon them until they repented and became righteous. Then, they had all the promises and blessings that the righteous Nephites received from God.

[Traveler]

.....

Gen. 3: 16 16 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.

Moses 4: 22 22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, 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.

And Wanderer responded with:

This got me to thinking. We know this:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

So does it stand to reason that women will be punished for their own sins and not for Eve's transgression?

Could it be that Eve might have had the toughest delivery of all womankind and that the Lord was indeed addressing her directly, rather than all of womankind? (Don't get me wrong, I know that giving birth is a painful process, so I don't mean to belittle any woman's delivery experience).

Anyway, some thought?

The problem in not understanding the Eden doctrine lies with not understanding covenants - especially in relation to covenants of ancient kingdoms. The scriptures are not talking about women and their husbands but about the covenants of women within the kingdom of G-d following the fall of man. Those that think being a wife and mother is belittling to womanhood will not find the covenants of the Kingdom G-d to their liking. Likewise men that find manual labor belittling to their education and standing in the world will not find the covenants of the Kingdom of G-d to their liking.

The Traveler

[richlittell]

The problem in not understanding the Eden doctrine lies with not understanding covenants - especially in relation to covenants of ancient kingdoms. The scriptures are not talking about women and their husbands but about the covenants of women within the kingdom of G-d following the fall of man. Those that think being a wife and mother is belittling to womanhood will not find the covenants of the Kingdom G-d to their liking. Likewise men that find manual labor belittling to their education and standing in the world will not find the covenants of the Kingdom of G-d to their liking.

The Traveler

Everyone has made good and valid points.

I think rameumpton has a point about trying to break away from the weight of the traditions of the fathers, the Lamanites being a good example of that and more particularly how repentance can end that cycle.

I was thinking a little further and realized that although men are not punished by Adams transgression, yet we still all became subject to the fall, that is, separation from God, banishment from the Garden, and the need to suffer a worldly fate. This is a temporal condition we all must go through, but not an eternal punishment. I think the same would hold for Eve, that women are not punished for Eve's transgression, yet they are subject to the temporal conditions of the Fall. If Eve hadn't done her inadvertently "good" thing, no woman would have to suffer the pangs of child birth, in fact, there'd be no other women or men, just as we are taught about the purpose of the fall.

Edited September 17, 2008 by richlittell

[breeb]

I spent weekends with my aunt and uncle growing up. They are second parents to me. (Sometimes they seem like first parents to me.) When I was about 9 yrs old my aunt was in bed sick. Her monthly cycle was always very painful. I wanted her do come out and do stuff with me but she wouldnt. My uncle then decided to tell me his version of Adam and Eve. He told me that because Eve was a wicked woman God punished ALL women with a painful period every month. Needless to say my uncle is very convincing and I asked my aunt about it later. Let's just say he was in a lot of trouble. Now whenever the subject comes up all I can do is laugh.

[WANDERER]

Being a wife and mother is not belittling. Nor is being a husband and father. I wish there was never any need to say this but just a common understanding that everybody held.

I was thinking about this today...

... and I came up more questions... what happened in the pre-existence to cause some to be set under the rulership of others? So if it's not seen as a curse but a natural consequence of sin...how did those in the pre-existence come to deserve this? How did some end up under this covenant and others get another? The only thing I can think of is choice?

If it is such a blessing and people chose to be blessed in this way...why does God consider this blessing a multiplicity of sorrow? And why are then women according to the teachings of Paul...subject to their husbands rather than directly to God? Does God choose those he ordains on the basis of being less worthy or more worthy? Does a perfect God choose less worthy people...that doesn't make sense within the context of the story of the pre-existence and if we can't consider motherhood and priesthood of less value to each other...why is there a degree of separation from God and in activities that are directly related to the affairs of His church on earth? And how is it offensive to God for women to not be subject to the rulership of husbands and why does He choose to separate women from most aspects of direct church involvement? Don't families need their fathers too? So if the role of fatherhood doesn't disclude them...then why the limitation on motherhood?

I'd like to understand what it is that LDS think on this. Please don't interpret this as an attack on personal values or choices...I'm just trying to understand what it is that God has in mind and how this all relates to each other and to try to piece things together for myself.

Edited September 16, 2008 by WANDERER

[Nappaljarri]

From my understanding, it was Adam's transgression, because he was offered the fruit first and declined. It wasn't until his wife took the step and could see the importance of that step, that then Adam realised what the step was and how important is was.

Also, I believe that the whole "suffering" thing is not to punish (not that I had it hard at all, I actually laughed through labor, without gas that is). I believe that "greatly multiplying sorrow and conception has to do with spirits having a mortal experience. And I believe that the point of that scripture is that man and woman had to become one (in marriage and in God) through the covenant that they made to become like him. That covenant therefore involved emulating God in becoming parents. The whole design of the woman bearing the children in the way that all women do, is to increase the love between the husband and wife and therefore cleave them together in a relationship, that in no other way can be so magnificant. Also, sorrows come not just in the bearing but the rearing, which is also a team work effort and cleaves husband and wife together as one (or should do, that is the design, if they do it with their eye single to God's glory).

There is nothing in that scripture that says to me that the man is over the wife, bla bla bla. It is about roles and responsibilities and coming together and being one. Thank you for bringing this scripture to light, I have enjoyed thinking and pondering over it again. :)

[rameumptom]

Being a wife and mother is not belittling. Nor is being a husband and father. I wish there was never any need to say this but just a common understanding that everybody held.

I was thinking about this today...

... and I came up more questions... what happened in the pre-existence to cause some to be set under the rulership of others? So if it's not seen as a curse but a natural consequence of sin...how did those in the pre-existence come to deserve this? How did some end up under this covenant and others get another? The only thing I can think of is choice?

If it is such a blessing and people chose to be blessed in this way...why does God consider this blessing a multiplicity of sorrow? And why are then women according to the teachings of Paul...subject to their husbands rather than directly to God? Does God choose those he ordains on the basis of being less worthy or more worthy? Does a perfect God choose less worthy people...that doesn't make sense within the context of the story of the pre-existence and if we can't consider motherhood and priesthood of less value to each other...why is there a degree of separation from God and in activities that are directly related to the affairs of His church on earth? And how is it offensive to God for women to not be subject to the rulership of husbands and why does He choose to separate women from most aspects of direct church involvement? Don't families need their fathers too? So if the role of fatherhood doesn't disclude them...then why the limitation on motherhood?

I'd like to understand what it is that LDS think on this. Please don't interpret this as an attack on personal values or choices...I'm just trying to understand what it is that God has in mind and how this all relates to each other and to try to piece things together for myself.

God loves all of his children. His "work and glory" is to bring about the "immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). God has given us immortality completely free through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The atonement requires a little more. The Book of Mormon and Bible teach that all men shall, because of the atonement of Christ, stand before God in the judgment. We will all return to His presence. However, those who have sinned and not repented shall wish the rocks would fall upon them and hide them from God's glory (Alma 12). They will choose a lesser kingdom of glory, where they do not have to feel the majesty of his fullness and glory, because it causes them great pain, anguish and sorrow.

To dwell in God's presence means we must fully embrace Christ's atonement. This means we not just accept him with our lips, but our entire being. Heart, might, mind, and soul. Anything less gives us access to a portion of the atonement, but is not sufficient to make us joyful in God's complete presence and glory.

Paul taught that Jesus learned obedience and mercy through the things he suffered. We are to take up his cross and follow him, which means each of us will be given trials of varying forms in this life. The rich will be tried by seeing what they will do with their riches. The poor will be tried by their poverty. The lame by their infirmities.

Why Paul ordered women to be subject to their husbands, we do not know. In the LDS Church, modern prophets have told us that husband and wife are a team, a companionship. The father is considered the presiding officer in the home, but the wife is his counselor whom he would be wise to listen to.

Women are involved directly in Church leadership. We have General Officers of the Church, who are women (9 of them, not including their boards). We have women serving in stakes and wards in many important callings. Women preside over men in the Primary organization and other auxiliaries. Key short term welfare issues are met by the Relief Society presidency. I do not consider them of lesser importance. Rather, their God given responsibilities of wife and mother are ordained of God, and make up the core of what eternal lives are all about.

To God, it doesn't matter that some are born with wealth and opportunities, and others are not. For God, it is a matter of what we do with the things given to us. Are we developing God-like characteristics to bless others, or are we selfishly using up resources around us? I think Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man is specific in this. The rich man was punished in the spirit prison for wasting his life and resources on himself, rather than using them to help people like Lazarus.

For women, the suffering they go through in child-bearing, and later in the teen years, etc., they will be blessed for their humble efforts.

For some reason, people today think that everyone should have a prideful role in order to be "fulfilled." Perhaps all of us would do well to first seek God's will in our lives, to see just what He would consider fulfilling and important. To the extent that we (men and women) seek our own, and not God's will, we will be impoverished in the hereafter. Only through humble repentance and bending our wills to match Christ's will can we gain everlasting exaltation.

[WANDERER]

I don't know that its about pridefulness....just...you know I was looking up things on the net to find out what the whole perspective on that was across different belief systems...and this one page rabbitted on explaining...the whole women are not to teach men thing...wasn't meant for outside the church..and it was okay to be a teacher/a boss/or whatever profession....and you know...the Bible has been used to justify so many things and I kind of felt sorry that someone felt they needed to explain that to anyone or that there was anyone that was so burdened that they needed a lifeline cause they thought they were damned to hell for it. Does that make sense?

[Traveler]

I thought to bring up another point about covenant and the Eden epoch. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were made companions through a covenant with G-d. Because Adam and Eve were also given a commandment about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil most readers of this epoch think that the problem with Adam and Eve was in the partaking of the fruit. I would point out that G-d and always planned for this to happen and Satan knew this as well. This was not the major problem that Adam and Eve had with their covenants.

The major problem as I see this epoch is that Satan with his cleaver twist to things sought to damage the covenant of marriage and companionship between Adam and Eve. The temptation was not just to trick Adam and Eve into taking the fruit but to drive a wedge between their marriage covenant so that they would make the decision on their own, outside of each other’s council. Adam rejected the initial temptation but did not council with Eve – Eve was able to see the wisdom of partaking of the fruit but neglected to consult with her husband.

I believe the scriptures hold great truths but that many are too lazy to look beyond the simple surface (literal meaning) to ponder the deeper meanings and hidden treasures that are only seen and understood through the spirit.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

I believe the scriptures hold great truths but that many are too lazy to look beyond the simple surface (literal meaning) to ponder the deeper meanings and hidden treasures that are only seen and understood through the spirit.

The Traveler

So true! Great comments.

HiJolly

[Dove]

Hello, Wanderer~

I appreciate all your comments and questions. They actually adress some of the questions/concerns I've had over the years. I agree that fatherhood should be given as much of a priority as motherhood. I understand your questioning that the roles are so different from each other, and that women are excluded from so many different positions in the church. These are hard hitting questions/concerns.

As far as I understand, the LDS church teaches that though the roles are very different from each other, they are equal in value. To me, they are very distinct and seperate in the church.

Yes, according to the bible, and to the LDS teachings as I know them, the man is in stewardship over the woman in the bonds of marriage. It is the priesthood holder that leads the household in prayer and worship. I have often heard the phrase, "the man is the head of the house," while growing up in an LDS home/culture. Then there is the phrase coined by one of our leader's years ago, "A woman's place is in the home." I have struggled with these issues, and were it not for the profound testimony I have received concerning the power of the priesthood, I would have left over these issues long ago.

There are some ideas/opinions that have helped me accept the priesthood authority better. First of all, I believe that in it's ideal form, the priesthood is meant for the humble acts of service so often emulated by the Saviour. It is meant to help others, rather than oppress them. If you have access to LDS scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants 121 addresses this beautifully, in a way that I can appreciate and accept.

You also spoke of agency/choice in the pre-existance. I have often wondered/speculated if at some point in time we, as children of God, did choose our own gender. This idea goes far for me in diffusing the feeling that the different gender roles taught by the church are unequal. While many men have abused their given "dominion" in the name of the priesthood, this is not the purpose or meaning of the priesthood.

Lastly, I will just give my testimony of the priesthood. I have had so many blessings given me through priesthood brethren, many times answering private, personal prayers no one but I (and God) knew about~word for word. Those blessings have helped me immensely throughout my life. The priesthood is key to the LDS church. I acknowledge it's authority while I made my baptismal and temple covenants. I feel it's power; it is very real to me.

Anyway, again, I really appreciate your input. It echoes a lot of what I have felt. I would be grateful for your view and perspective concerning this.

Dove

[TheyCallMeMom]

I didnt get to read all the previous comments.. just a few, I will go back and read more later

but I was asking this in class the other day.. I am kind of new to the Church and was raised by a Catholic..

anyhow.. for now, as a mother who has given birth all natural 7 times....I do not believe its punishment for eve's transgressions,

I completly agree with Nappaljarri on this

[HoosierGuy]

No, Eve's sin are upon NO woman or man. And neither is Adams. We are responsible for our own sins beginning at eight years of age.

Eve did not sin anyway. She is a hero. She took that first big step so that all of us could come to this Earth. If she did not take that first step, we would not be here right now. All of us probably jumped up and down in the Pre-life when Eve ate that fruit. She did her job and did it perfectly so that we all may live and experience pleasure and pain and life - and grow in this probationary period.

Adam (and Eve) fell that men might be.

[HoosierGuy]

I don't know that its about pridefulness....just...you know I was looking up things on the net to find out what the whole perspective on that was across different belief systems...

Have you joined the Church yet?

[WANDERER]

Hey Hoosier, as always, glad to see you doing so well....and you always ask...and I always say...no LOL. But hey, I'm happy that it is blessing your life so much : ). Thankyou for your input.

Traveller, that's an interesting point of view...but since we understand that God wasn't cursing her for not consulting Him on taking the apple...it doesn't quite fit. But I'm glad that you shared that point of view because I will think more on it. You have great insights on things.

Dove I'm not sure I want to cross the line. There is no doubt that there are men who are called by God and fulfil that calling and covenant well. I don't think anyone should take away from the value and worth of what they do. It is a blessing to the church.

However, I wonder if some of the traditionalism and cultural aspects and beliefs do need further thought. As nurturing children becomes more of a joint role between fathers and mothers in our society (as it always should have been...it is SO important) I wonder whether nurturing the church should also be more of a joint responsibility and whether some aspects of both roles can be shared within the church. In some cases it may be needed to ensure equal family time for both parents. There may be some guys that are very good at relief society work and vice versa. Okay...that's on a pragmatic viewpoint of what it means to work together as a team and in unity and bless each other. Is this as pragmatic as I think it would be...well, it's not possible in many cases. We do what we can with what we are given and God blesses us according to this.

On a spiritual level: God made both man and woman in His image. One image. Not a half of His image each. The church is the Bride of Christ....one body in unity and wholeness. Are we able to truly comprehend these things and the mind of God....to understand the whole we break it up into parts that make up the whole and is this how we are meant to function or just the best we can do as humans or as many think... a division of things as the end result of the curse? We make man and woman in different images: priesthood, relief society etc. While we are different, in God's perception we are His image. I can't seem to understand how that is or will ever be. We are all so diverse. It would seem not post resurrection either. What does this mean and will we ever know.

There seems to be a bit of a cultural thing in terms of Paul's letters and the differing levels of involvement of women in the early church and in instruction about involvement. Some groups identify this and explain it away as what was needed for the early growth of the church...and that later instruction was given and we should follow this. There is no doubt that there has been some distortations from the Bible regarding the status and treatment of women.

Some studies have shown (as with all social analysis, taken with a grain of salt as locality, purpose and intent and interpretation of the study, and culture and time influences everything) that women identify with their religion in a matrilineal way....they will talk about the women in their family that were and are women of God and have that oral history keeper role. I can see that happening in my own life. Men in these studies have tended to identify with roles and positions played. I have no idea about this. THose that are not religiously practicing: a larger number of women identify as being religious but not part of a religion/a larger number of men will identify with being atheist. Whether this will change with time as women's roles and functions within society continue to change...who knows? How accurate this study is...I haven't decided. But since women's ordination is such a media issue it does help to consider what contexts people may be coming from and the dissention that has happened...Anglican is a majority religion here so I'm curious about the topic.

I have met married couples who have operated in unity on ministry...where one slips into the role as equally as the other...and it is such a wonderful thing to see both supporting each other...there's no need to seek out someone to take on the job if one of them is sick because they do it seamlessly and are one in purpose. Admittedly, not everyone is called to serve and I'm sure that there are husbands and wives who would rather be the background support in a ministry. I can see a parallel in LDS views on how husbands and wives should support each other...but there are limitations on what one can do. I have wondered whether women would wish to be more active in the baptism of their children sometimes and for both parents to rest their hand on their child and dedicate them to God. However, I'm sure some women don't mind not getting wet and are happy to make a digital record for the family. I don't think it's about pride...I think the wish to be involved for those that do is sometimes a supressed calling...you would like to...but it's not your place to do so and you do so with your heart. Although, God chooses whom he will and there are many women within the church who are highly valued whether they are given a title or not...because of the way in which God uses them to bless others...they can't help but minister. I'm sure that it is not easy to be in that position.

Will Eve's curse ever be removed in many people's minds...? I'm glad for this much of a restoration as I find that there is truth in this...if I understand it correctly.

But yes...I think a multiplicity of sorrow exists....imagine a beautiful temple...in which you can enter...but you cannot speak or do anything much...besides clean it or make it pretty. THis is church for many women. I think of the words a dispossessed people...they cannot inherit...at least publicly to a degree... what the Holy Spirit gifts them with as a blessing to the church. They are baptised...but no immersion can ever get rid of Eve's curse.

We talk a good deal about submitting wives to the rulership of their husbands...but when was the last time we gave a good talk about how men should submit to the curse of the ground, food should be brought forth in their sweat and that supermarkets, especially air-conditioned, are evil...laughable really...how did things ever get this way?

[Elphaba]

Hey Hoosier, as always, glad to see you doing so well....and you always ask...and I always say...no LOL. But hey, I'm happy that it is blessing your life so much : ). Thankyou for your input.

Traveller, that's an interesting point of view...but since we understand that God wasn't cursing her for not consulting Him on taking the apple...it doesn't quite fit. But I'm glad that you shared that point of view because I will think more on it. You have great insights on things.

Dove I'm not sure I want to cross the line. There is no doubt that there are men who are called by God and fulfil that calling and covenant well. I don't think anyone should take away from the value and worth of what they do. It is a blessing to the church.

However, I wonder if some of the traditionalism and cultural aspects and beliefs do need further thought. As nurturing children becomes more of a joint role between fathers and mothers in our society (as it always should have been...it is SO important) I wonder whether nurturing the church should also be more of a joint responsibility and whether some aspects of both roles can be shared within the church. In some cases it may be needed to ensure equal family time for both parents. There may be some guys that are very good at relief society work and vice versa. Okay...that's on a pragmatic viewpoint of what it means to work together as a team and in unity and bless each other. Is this as pragmatic as I think it would be...well, it's not possible in many cases. We do what we can with what we are given and God blesses us according to this.

On a spiritual level: God made both man and woman in His image. One image. Not a half of His image each. The church is the Bride of Christ....one body in unity and wholeness. Are we able to truly comprehend these things and the mind of God....to understand the whole we break it up into parts that make up the whole and is this how we are meant to function or just the best we can do as humans or as many think... a division of things as the end result of the curse? We make man and woman in different images: priesthood, relief society etc. While we are different, in God's perception we are His image. I can't seem to understand how that is or will ever be. We are all so diverse. It would seem not post resurrection either. What does this mean and will we ever know.

There seems to be a bit of a cultural thing in terms of Paul's letters and the differing levels of involvement of women in the early church and in instruction about involvement. Some groups identify this and explain it away as what was needed for the early growth of the church...and that later instruction was given and we should follow this. There is no doubt that there has been some distortations from the Bible regarding the status and treatment of women.

Some studies have shown (as with all social analysis, taken with a grain of salt as locality, purpose and intent and interpretation of the study, and culture and time influences everything) that women identify with their religion in a matrilineal way....they will talk about the women in their family that were and are women of God and have that oral history keeper role. I can see that happening in my own life. Men in these studies have tended to identify with roles and positions played. I have no idea about this. THose that are not religiously practicing: a larger number of women identify as being religious but not part of a religion/a larger number of men will identify with being atheist. Whether this will change with time as women's roles and functions within society continue to change...who knows? How accurate this study is...I haven't decided. But since women's ordination is such a media issue it does help to consider what contexts people may be coming from and the dissention that has happened...Anglican is a majority religion here so I'm curious about the topic.

I have met married couples who have operated in unity on ministry...where one slips into the role as equally as the other...and it is such a wonderful thing to see both supporting each other...there's no need to seek out someone to take on the job if one of them is sick because they do it seamlessly and are one in purpose. Admittedly, not everyone is called to serve and I'm sure that there are husbands and wives who would rather be the background support in a ministry. I can see a parallel in LDS views on how husbands and wives should support each other...but there are limitations on what one can do. I have wondered whether women would wish to be more active in the baptism of their children sometimes and for both parents to rest their hand on their child and dedicate them to God. However, I'm sure some women don't mind not getting wet and are happy to make a digital record for the family. I don't think it's about pride...I think the wish to be involved for those that do is sometimes a supressed calling...you would like to...but it's not your place to do so and you do so with your heart. Although, God chooses whom he will and there are many women within the church who are highly valued whether they are given a title or not...because of the way in which God uses them to bless others...they can't help but minister. I'm sure that it is not easy to be in that position.

Will Eve's curse ever be removed in many people's minds...? I'm glad for this much of a restoration as I find that there is truth in this...if I understand it correctly.

But yes...I think a multiplicity of sorrow exists....imagine a beautiful temple...in which you can enter...but you cannot speak or do anything much...besides clean it or make it pretty. THis is church for many women. I think of the words a dispossessed people...they cannot inherit...at least publicly to a degree... what the Holy Spirit gifts them with as a blessing to the church. They are baptised...but no immersion can ever get rid of Eve's curse.

We talk a good deal about submitting wives to the rulership of their husbands...but when was the last time we gave a good talk about how men should submit to the curse of the ground, food should be brought forth in their sweat and that supermarkets, especially air-conditioned, are evil...laughable really...how did things ever get this way?

Wanderer, that was very thought-provoking. I really enjoyed it, and I look forward to seeing how people respond.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I believe the scriptures hold great truths but that many are too lazy to look beyond the simple surface (literal meaning) to ponder the deeper meanings and hidden treasures that are only seen and understood through the spirit.

It is wrong to call someone "lazy" because they haven't done what you have or what you think they should have. You don't know anyone else's situation, or why that is. I'm sure many people never even thought about it, and that doesn't mean they're lazy.

There is nothing wrong with showing someone how to look under the surface, and I suspect many people would like you to do that.

But condemning them for not doing so by calling their actions a pejorative, like "lazy," is not your call.

Elphaba

[Justice]

Eve basically states: If it were not for our transgressions, we would not have the atonement, have children, and have a hope for eternal life.

This has been a serious topic of study of mine for a long time. You might need to read this post a few times, and prayerfully, because I packed it full with years of study and revelation I've received.

I think it's interesting how people interpret Eve's comment. Here's the scripture:

Moses 5:

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

Although Eve is speaking about children, she is referring to more than just children. She said "seed." Let's take a look:

Seed = children

Seed = food

Seed = Word of God

If you are unsure where the scriptures make these ties I'd be glad to post a list for you.

It would have been pointless for Eve to have children if she did not know how to feed them physical food or spiritual food (represented by bread (physical) and water (spiritual)).

1) If they did not have physical food, given to them by God, their mortal lives would not have lasted very long: It seems silly to say, but if they were granted a mortal probation and given time to repent, they needed sufficient time. To have sufficient time, they needed to learn how to get food for themselves, since, because of the fall, it would no longer be provided for them.

Gensis 3:

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Fruit was the real deal. Of all the plants God created, He created seed bearing plants first.

Gen. 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

• • •

29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Have you ever wanted to know how to tell the difference between a fruit and a vegetable? Why look outside the scriptures to people who "think" they know the answer?

Anyway, see how we have "mother earth" and seeds are referred to here as "his?" I don't want to get R rated, but look at the similarities between planting seeds and human reproduction. Adam was to "break the surface" of mother earth and plant seeds, then they were nourished and they grew out from mother earth, each seed after his kind... or offspring. Each new fruit possessing seed within itself after it's kind for another generation of life.

He ordained fruit for man. He was to eat of all the fruit except one. Now, after his transgression, he also had to eat "the herb of the field," and he was to till whatever he grew himself. All of these foods ordained for man grew from seeds, which they now understood their purpose. Knowing their purpose he was able to relate seed and reproduction to the commandment God gave him to multiply and replenish the earth.

If you pretend you know nothing of the birds and the bees it really is a powerful way to teach Adam this.

Also, since God taught Adam that he was "taken from the dust of the earth" and that God planted that seed (His), he understood that he was God's offspring. What a powerful witness for Heavenly Mother and the true interpretation of "God created man in His likeness, after His kind, from the dust of the earth."

2) If they did not have spiritual food, or the Gospel, they would have remained spiritually dead.

I really don't need to quote scripture for this one, I think everyone understands this one already. They now understood what it meant to keep commandments and that there were consequences when they didn't. Unless man understands consequences, it is impossible to judge them for "good and evil."

3) Only after they had physical seeds and spiritual seeds, to "feed" their offspring, were they allowed to have seed of their own.

Now re-read Eve's comments and see how powerful and intelligent her comments were, and how they really bear witness that 1) Adam and Eve did not understand "good and evil" and thereby 2) were not able to have children (seed) before the fall.

Specifically about the fruit: We are to eat the flesh of the fruit to get to the seeds. This comment opens up a world of symbols and types of the Savior and Sacrament. Yes, fruit is the most powerful example of many things God is trying to teach us. This is why it was placed in the Garden of Eden as symbols of "the knowledge of good and evil," and as the symbol of "life" (tree of life). This should also make you think of Jacob's allegory of the olive tree and Lehi and Nephi's vison of the tree of life and the fruit that was white and sweet above all things.

Could the seeds insdie the fruit they tasted of be eternal life? And, we have to "partake" of Christ (which is what the fruit of the tree represents--the representation of the love of God is Christ) in order to get His Spirit (seeds), or Eternal Life?

Hmmmm

You tell me how far you can go with this symbolism.

Look at the covenant:

Gen. 17:

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 ¶ And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Justice

[rameumptom]

However, I wonder if some of the traditionalism and cultural aspects and beliefs do need further thought. As nurturing children becomes more of a joint role between fathers and mothers in our society (as it always should have been...it is SO important) I wonder whether nurturing the church should also be more of a joint responsibility and whether some aspects of both roles can be shared within the church. In some cases it may be needed to ensure equal family time for both parents. There may be some guys that are very good at relief society work and vice versa. Okay...that's on a pragmatic viewpoint of what it means to work together as a team and in unity and bless each other. Is this as pragmatic as I think it would be...well, it's not possible in many cases. We do what we can with what we are given and God blesses us according to this.

On a spiritual level: God made both man and woman in His image. One image. Not a half of His image each. The church is the Bride of Christ....one body in unity and wholeness. Are we able to truly comprehend these things and the mind of God....to understand the whole we break it up into parts that make up the whole and is this how we are meant to function or just the best we can do as humans or as many think... a division of things as the end result of the curse? We make man and woman in different images: priesthood, relief society etc. While we are different, in God's perception we are His image. I can't seem to understand how that is or will ever be. We are all so diverse. It would seem not post resurrection either. What does this mean and will we ever know.

There seems to be a bit of a cultural thing in terms of Paul's letters and the differing levels of involvement of women in the early church and in instruction about involvement. Some groups identify this and explain it away as what was needed for the early growth of the church...and that later instruction was given and we should follow this. There is no doubt that there has been some distortations from the Bible regarding the status and treatment of women.

Some studies have shown (as with all social analysis, taken with a grain of salt as locality, purpose and intent and interpretation of the study, and culture and time influences everything) that women identify with their religion in a matrilineal way....they will talk about the women in their family that were and are women of God and have that oral history keeper role. I can see that happening in my own life. Men in these studies have tended to identify with roles and positions played. I have no idea about this. THose that are not religiously practicing: a larger number of women identify as being religious but not part of a religion/a larger number of men will identify with being atheist. Whether this will change with time as women's roles and functions within society continue to change...who knows? How accurate this study is...I haven't decided. But since women's ordination is such a media issue it does help to consider what contexts people may be coming from and the dissention that has happened...Anglican is a majority religion here so I'm curious about the topic.

I have met married couples who have operated in unity on ministry...where one slips into the role as equally as the other...and it is such a wonderful thing to see both supporting each other...there's no need to seek out someone to take on the job if one of them is sick because they do it seamlessly and are one in purpose.

Will Eve's curse ever be removed in many people's minds...? I'm glad for this much of a restoration as I find that there is truth in this...if I understand it correctly.

Yes, man and woman are made in God's image. The two must be united, even as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united into one Godhead.

I think the Church Is nurtured by both men and women. While the Brethren are more visible, there are many Sisters among the General Officers that are equally as busy and travel everywhere in their work. And their husbands support them. I've seen the spouses of Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidents support their wives in such major callings on ward and stake level.

In our Church, we do not talk much about women submitting to their husbands. We talk about the equal importance of man and woman, and their similar, but unique roles. Women bear children, men baptize children. Both teach and train the child.

Sadly, there is a major tradition in many churches that look at Adam and Eve both as wicked idiots that brought original sin upon us and the curses that come with them. With the Restoration, we revere Adam and Eve, who did what was needed so we can be born, have experiences, and receive the atonement of Christ in our lives.

[Dove]

Dove I'm not sure I want to cross the line. There is no doubt that there are men who are called by God and fulfil that calling and covenant well. I don't think anyone should take away from the value and worth of what they do. It is a blessing to the church.

However, I wonder if some of the traditionalism and cultural aspects and beliefs do need further thought. As nurturing children becomes more of a joint role between fathers and mothers in our society (as it always should have been...it is SO important) I wonder whether nurturing the church should also be more of a joint responsibility and whether some aspects of both roles can be shared within the church. In some cases it may be needed to ensure equal family time for both parents. There may be some guys that are very good at relief society work and vice versa. Okay...that's on a pragmatic viewpoint of what it means to work together as a team and in unity and bless each other. Is this as pragmatic as I think it would be...well, it's not possible in many cases. We do what we can with what we are given and God blesses us according to this.

On a spiritual level: God made both man and woman in His image. One image. Not a half of His image each. The church is the Bride of Christ....one body in unity and wholeness. Are we able to truly comprehend these things and the mind of God....to understand the whole we break it up into parts that make up the whole and is this how we are meant to function or just the best we can do as humans or as many think... a division of things as the end result of the curse? We make man and woman in different images: priesthood, relief society etc. While we are different, in God's perception we are His image. I can't seem to understand how that is or will ever be. We are all so diverse. It would seem not post resurrection either. What does this mean and will we ever know.

There seems to be a bit of a cultural thing in terms of Paul's letters and the differing levels of involvement of women in the early church and in instruction about involvement. Some groups identify this and explain it away as what was needed for the early growth of the church...and that later instruction was given and we should follow this. There is no doubt that there has been some distortations from the Bible regarding the status and treatment of women.

Some studies have shown (as with all social analysis, taken with a grain of salt as locality, purpose and intent and interpretation of the study, and culture and time influences everything) that women identify with their religion in a matrilineal way....they will talk about the women in their family that were and are women of God and have that oral history keeper role. I can see that happening in my own life. Men in these studies have tended to identify with roles and positions played. I have no idea about this. THose that are not religiously practicing: a larger number of women identify as being religious but not part of a religion/a larger number of men will identify with being atheist. Whether this will change with time as women's roles and functions within society continue to change...who knows? How accurate this study is...I haven't decided. But since women's ordination is such a media issue it does help to consider what contexts people may be coming from and the dissention that has happened...Anglican is a majority religion here so I'm curious about the topic.

I have met married couples who have operated in unity on ministry...where one slips into the role as equally as the other...and it is such a wonderful thing to see both supporting each other...there's no need to seek out someone to take on the job if one of them is sick because they do it seamlessly and are one in purpose. Admittedly, not everyone is called to serve and I'm sure that there are husbands and wives who would rather be the background support in a ministry. I can see a parallel in LDS views on how husbands and wives should support each other...but there are limitations on what one can do. I have wondered whether women would wish to be more active in the baptism of their children sometimes and for both parents to rest their hand on their child and dedicate them to God. However, I'm sure some women don't mind not getting wet and are happy to make a digital record for the family. I don't think it's about pride...I think the wish to be involved for those that do is sometimes a supressed calling...you would like to...but it's not your place to do so and you do so with your heart. Although, God chooses whom he will and there are many women within the church who are highly valued whether they are given a title or not...because of the way in which God uses them to bless others...they can't help but minister. I'm sure that it is not easy to be in that position.

Will Eve's curse ever be removed in many people's minds...? I'm glad for this much of a restoration as I find that there is truth in this...if I understand it correctly.

But yes...I think a multiplicity of sorrow exists....imagine a beautiful temple...in which you can enter...but you cannot speak or do anything much...besides clean it or make it pretty. THis is church for many women. I think of the words a dispossessed people...they cannot inherit...at least publicly to a degree... what the Holy Spirit gifts them with as a blessing to the church. They are baptised...but no immersion can ever get rid of Eve's curse.

We talk a good deal about submitting wives to the rulership of their husbands...but when was the last time we gave a good talk about how men should submit to the curse of the ground, food should be brought forth in their sweat and that supermarkets, especially air-conditioned, are evil...laughable really...how did things ever get this way?

Hello, Wanderer

I really appreciate your perspective on the differences in the way men and women are treated, even in spiritual arenas. I have felt frustrated myself by this disparity. The thought that men and women would be able to "minister" with each other on an equal basis seems a fairy tale to me. I am happy to know that you've seen people do it~that would have been a wonderful experience to have witnessed myself. I view my religion as a very patriarchal order, as most christian religions are/have been due to biblical teachings. While it's pure intent is not to have women be demeaned or lessened, I believe the propensity to do so has been rampant throughout history, and still can be and is to some degree.

I apologize, it was not my intent to "cross lines" in my response, or to cause you to do so. I have had a few wonderful bishops, men who were truly inspired of God in their callings. My bishop presently is such a man. I've also had a bishop who wouldn't allow me to ask for prayer in our one on one interviews, because I wasn't the priesthood authority in the room. It still hurts to recall. I acknowledge that forgiveness is essential here. This is quite a tender topic for me~If you read some of my other posts you will be able to see why.

I think part of my problems as an LDS woman, is that I was raised to believe that the priesthood holder's opinion/voice was to be followed as if it came straight from deity~no matter what was said by them in their fallible human condition. This has created quite a conflict for me, because we are all fallible human beings here. I am learning to be more balanced by getting my own witness of the Spirit, and learning to delineate what is said by that Spirit through the mouth of other people and what is not...

My original point for Eve in the Garden of Eden, to remain more to the intent of this thread, is that I don't believe that we are reaping punishment from her choice because labor is painful. I believe pain/opposition is a necessary experience here for everyone in our course of agency.

In reading your thread, you seem very aware of, and concerned for, the woman's place in society. Thank you for your sensitivity to this.

Dove

[WANDERER]

Dove ... I garden. A flowering seed generally gains genetic material through crosspollination...so yes, we can liken them to children. A seed has a complete food source and doesn't need nutrients from the soil...i.e. you can grow one on cotton or on a paper towel...this food store enables it to produce leaves so that it can photosynthesise...and make it's own food, by the time the seed store has run out.

Some of this allegorical type language is historical...it's related to a belief that complete life was provided from the father (a child) and the mother was earth (a container providing nourishment). However there were other views on reproduction throughout history that were not quite as diminishing.

But you know some really absurd things happened...like noting that a female reproductive system had *horns*.

Ummm....plants don't raise their seeds. Apparently mother earth did all that...so I'm not so sure that the allegory has been entirely beneficial to the family throughout history.

But yes...without this transgression or sin...there would be no children. And yes...the ability to produce food and nurture children was needed....that's a neat way of thinking about the roles that both Adam and Eve took on (and they did have to share these roles) as a result of knowledge and how it was a blessing.

Dove I simply see priesthood holders as serving God by serving His people (as we all do in our own capacity) and that discernment should be applied...not all the authority that people *believe or insist* they have comes from God. So the same tests that one applies to any spiritual revelation should operate. If women are capable of being asked is the Church true...then they are capable of personal revelation... one would hope everyone could agree on that.... Ummm, the choice on whether or not to sustain someone in their calling ...well human error is what it is...but if God is not there as their sustanance ...there's not a whole lot to sustain or give authority too. I think you were better off without your last Bishop's prayers.

I think there's a lot of stuff that is tradition and culture...how many generations will it hurt...not sure. But I hope for much.