The “rule” part, though, gets so many people hung up. We all are jealous of our agency. We bristle at the thought of anyone else “commanding” us. But, if we are, as the Book of Mormon suggests, “easy to be entreated”, then ’submitting’ to the request of another is not necessarily taken as one overlording the other, if we comply happily, willingly, cheerfully.

In other words, as long as we’re happy with our subordination, we’ll be happy with our subordination?

As Eve has pointed out to me, the Book of Mormon also says “because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you” (Mosiah 29:16). I’m not sure why that doesn’t apply to women and their husbands. It’s easy to exult in the necessity of making sacrifices that you yourself aren’t actually asked to make.

And, on the Mother in Heaven thing, I believe that we have to deal with our Father in Heaven for several reasons. One of them being “sexual”. That is, if we talked of a ‘mother in heaven’, the lust aspect would sooner or later, i believe, enter in.

That’s why I had to stop praying to Heavenly Father and switch to Heavenly Mother. Just feeling too much cosmic lust!

You’re right that I disagree with much of what you’ve said, Dave. But I actually agree with you that the Church is changing on gender issues (we just seem to have different attitudes to those changes). In any case, I hope you and your family are enjoying a peaceful holiday season.

However, I still wanted to comment on several points.

One is that the account in Genesis does not have to be just literal or just symbolic. It can be, and much of it is, both, I believe.

For example, Adam and Eve had navels (meaning, when it says that Adam was made from the earth and Eve from Adam’s rib, the first means that Adam’s body is made from the elements of the earth, and that Eve was born of man. Both came out of “a mother” who had a physical body as they did. I will not venture further on that line, because, frankly, that is all I know, and going further is impossible, besides being likely to be unfruitful in finding details more than that (in this mortal sphere, anyway)!

When it says that “man” is lord over the whole earth, I think that applies to “both” ‘men’. ‘Men. and ‘Wo-Men’ (the latter, supposedly coming from the concept that a woman is a ‘man with a ‘womb”!

Next, I think that the idea that “the woman was made for the man” is not necessarily that she was/is an afterthought, nor that man is more important. But rather he has the role to preside, or, in a ‘gentle’ way, to ‘lead’, or to ‘rule’.

The “rule” part, though, gets so many people hung up. We all are jealous of our agency. We bristle at the thought of anyone else “commanding” us. But, if we are, as the Book of Mormon suggests, “easy to be entreated”, then ‘submitting’ to the request of another is not necessarily taken as one overlording the other, if we comply happily, willingly, cheerfully. (When it says, “The Lord liketh a ‘cheerful giver’”, I have a sneaking suspicion its not just talking about paying tithes and offerings. Getting people do DO needed stuff, is sometimes like pulling teeth!

As the husband of a very good woman, and also of nine children, I have found that the problem becomes one of others even taking suggestions, hints, requests, or otherwise. Since, unlike LucySophia’s ex-husband, I do not try (anymore, at least) to demand anything. I want to keep my wife. I want to keep my children.

However, what I have found is, that, unless I make a lot of money, no one will listen to me much at all (“remember, you CAN have EVERYTHING in this world for/with MONEY, at least according to ONE voice)!

The economy being what it is, it is tough to both get enough business to always make ends meet (without going further into debt), and to get anyone in my large family to help. I use to try to impress some into service here and there (like my Dad made me & my older brother do, in helping to do surveying on Saturdays) when we were growing up (we had no choice, we had to work).

But, my wonderful wife, who grew up on a farm in the Midwest, bristles at anyone trying to make others help, like her father did with members of their large family on the farm.

The world should be like what we see on TV, right? Ward works, comes home to June, Wally and ‘the Beav” (Leave it to Beaver) The house is nice and clean. Ward makes ample money, working 8-5 or so. And Ward and June deal with two boys, which is an extremely light load (compared to some of us).

Just this morning, I read a 1973 Ensign article on supporting the patriarchal order in the home. Something that was brought up in the first of that article was the diminishing authority of husbands and fathers in the home, and how that is not how things are suppose to be! I am betting that wouldn’t appear in the Ensign TODAY!

In a way, its a lot like home teaching. For years, home teachers have been badgered about how they could be better, should be better! But no one talked about ‘Home TeachEES’!?! Ever try to get an appointment to see even a family active in Church? So many say, “oh, we’re fine, go ahead and count us”!

Of course, the reason is, I believe, is because “June” works outside the home, and the double duty on evenings and weekends is too much to fuss with someone coming over to the house!

As a Church, we ignored Presidents Kimball & Benson. When Sister Beck hinted at us doing similar things a couple of years ago, there was essential mutiny! Women of the Church work outside the home in droves. Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law professor, co-authored a book a few years ago about how two income families are ruining America.

Of course, now almost no one has usually any more than four children, five at the outside. (And, THOSE are considered LARGE families)!

Last night, I attended ‘Evening of Excellence’. Some of the Young Women got up and told, among other things, what they were worknig towards. Interestingly, NONE of them, as one might guess, said they were working towards “getting married and having children”. They use to, many, many, MANY years ago!

And, on the Mother in Heaven thing, I believe that we have to deal with our Father in Heaven for several reasons. One of them being “sexual”. That is, if we talked of a ‘mother in heaven’, the lust aspect would sooner or later, i believe, enter in (which it has for millennia in religions that have a goddess or goddesses in their pantheons).

The other reason is because of the difference in the nature of men and women. Eve was deceived in the garden, though that was part of Heavenly Father’s plan. He knew it would happen, and allowed it ot happen. But while men can be and are gullible (I have been and still am too often). We are, generally speaking, less guliible or likely to be fooled in many things than women are, I believe.

I’ve never held a position higher than a counselor in a HP group, or one in a Stake Sunday School presidency. I sometimes have my issues with “priesthood” (at the ward, stake & higher levels). However, I also value my membership in the Church. And will not jeopardize it. I will submit to their authority.

I am sure that most of you will likely disagree strongly with some things I’ve said. But I am telling you the way I see it. I am seeking the truth, and trying to convey it best I can.

After reading through the daunting 60 replies here and having carefully considered the initial post, I have provided in response my own interpretation of the Adam and Eve creation story.

You’ll find on my blog (in September articles 2 and 3):

Respectfully yours, Laura

She allegedly possesses both, so she defies the very categories on which the structure is based.

Interesting perspective.

That’s a nice way of framing it, Brian. I think I see what you’re getting at.

One of the arguments I made in my Sunstone paper was that we’ve taken what in Genesis is a two-tiered structure–Adam-Eve–and integrated it into an eternal, divine system including everyone–the chain of command now goes Elohim-Jehovah-Adam-Eve. One effect of doing this is to give the entire system a divine imprimatur suggesting it is far from merely a temporal state of affairs. Another is to exclude female divinity entirely as a category of thought. As my sister Eve has pointed out to me, Heavenly Mother doesn’t appear in the temple perhaps because she can’t be slotted into this system: divinity is supposed to be at the top where femaleness puts one at the bottom. She allegedly possesses both, so she defies the very categories on which the structure is based.

A number of creation stories from around the world suggest male and female unite to bring the universe into being together. Not Mormonism! We have not just one, but multiple males fashioning the cosmos on their own.

It’s not Mormonism, it’s Christianity. Every Christian religion believes/follows this story as the creation story. Just sayin’.