Monday, April 14, 2014

CTNAHM-Obey Indeed? Part 2 (Eve and Her Gullible Female Nature)

p 174-175
 
   Lase section, Michael engaged in some mental gymnastics. We were taught that women are supposed to obey their husbands, but their husbands aren't supposed to remind them of this. I guess that's what Debi's book is for. Today,we are talking about WHY women are meant to be in subjugation to their husbands. The answer is: Eve, of course.
Text is in purple

Not Created to Obey?
Though it is none of our business what God says to wives, it will serve us well to examine all the Scripture carefully so as to adjust our misconceptions.
   I have a hard time buying that men in this culture think what God says to their wives is none of their business. Especially considering that Michael has made it clear that men are like Gods in their house. And I would pay money to see Michael examine ALL the scripture, not just the ones that agree with him. Who's with me-we can take up a collection!
In the creation account neither God nor Adam said anything about Eve being created to obey. God made her so Adam would not be alone, so she could complete him and help him in soul and spirit, not so he would have a servant.
Genesis 2:18-And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him.
   Okay...that's interesting. I guess somewhere between Eve's creation and Debi's book, the rules have changed. I'm a bit amused that Michael seems to think that EVERY conversation God had with Adam and Eve was recorded in the Bible. Because, really, how can we know that God never said anything about Eve being created to obey?
After Eve's creation Adam responds prophetically, defining the historical significance of the moment. Notice he makes no allusion to her obeying him.
Genesis 2:23-24-And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
   I'm curious about a few things. First, if Adam hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge yet, and was on speaking terms with God, how could he speak prophetically? Isn't prophecy interpreting God's will for others? The only other was Eve, and, at least the way I was taught, she could hear God just as well as Adam could.
   Second, how would Adam know that a man leaves his father and mother? The only frame of reference he had was himself and Eve. After all, he was created from dust, and Eve from his rib.
   One thing I agree with, is that nowhere in this verse it talks about serving. Yes, there's the one flesh bit, but it doesn't say "And by one flesh, I mean the woman should do what the man says." Even though that's kind of what Michael teaches.
But after Eve initiated the first sin and then lured her husband into disobedience, God placed a curse upon Satan, nature, Adam, and upon Eve.
Genesis 3:16-Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
   Ah, there it is. Eve screwed up and now women will forever have to pay for it. Sounds like a real loving God....This philosophy is interesting to me. In the Mormon church, I was taught that Eve didn't screw up, didn't make a mistake, and didn't "lure' Adam into disobedience. She understood that there was no other way for her to fulfill God's first commandment (Be fruitful and multiply) unless she had some knowledge. Then she pretty much told Adam that, and added "I already ate the fruit. I'm going to die. Do you want to be alone?" In Mormondom, there is no concept of "original sin", because it wasn't a sin at all. It was a necessary course of action to insure that other people would be created.
   To me, that sounds a lot better than "Gullible woman! Now you're all cursed!" Oh, and I think it's interesting that Michael seems to have jumped from "he shall rule over" to "women are not capable of making their own decisions or choices because of ladyparts". I haven't studied the Bible for 60 years like he claims to have, but I'm pretty sure that part isn't in there.
Paul's letter to Timothy reveals further consequences of the curse, describing why women are not allowed to hold the highest office in the church or to gain ascendance over men in a church setting and why their husbands are to rule over them.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
11-Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12-But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13-For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14-And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.
15-Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
   If these verses were really what God meant when he handed A&E the consequences, then why did he wait 4000 years to specify this? Shouldn't they be in Genesis 3:16 instead? But no, the only thing that is listed that God actually said was that the man shall rule over the wife. Not that I agree with this, but it's a bit less demeaning than "Women learn in silence and subjection and don't usurp authority from the man. Oh, and be quiet, in case you missed that."
   I wasn't sure what "saved in childbearing" meant, so I Googled it. This is what I've learned: people really have no clue. There's a lot of interpretations, with a lot of different meanings. However this page seemed to sum up most of the arguments, and gives an answer that is-more or less-supported by other scripture. (Not that I agree with this at all).
Since Adam was "not deceived" by Satan's lies and Eve was, no doubt due to her female nature which rendered her more gullible than Adam, God has commanded men to not again put themselves in the place of granting leadership to women. They are the first to be swept away with cultish dogma.
   Oh yes. Here we are again. Women are gullible because of their female natures. The condescension Michael seemingly has for women is upsetting. He truly cannot go a full 2 pages without some snide comment towards women, or Debi. It's interesting that he sees Adam as the victim in all this. Satan convinced the woman who convinced Adam...poor guy, just got caught up in listening to the eye candy talk. Ick.
   I'm amused at the line about women being swept away with cultish dogma. It seems to be true-in a sense. From what I've noticed, women tend to do the "leading" when it comes to spiritual things. In the church I grew up in, it was common for women to lament that their husbands weren't living "up to their preisthood potential", and had to be reminded often to things like be in charge of prayer and scripture reading, and doing their church callings. I ran across an interesting article on No Longer Quivering awhile back that goes with this, as well. It's amusing, because many people think the Pearl's teachings are cultish dogma, yet Michael either fails to realise this, or fails to acknowledge it.
But don't get haughty, men; just because God "busted" the woman down in rank due to her being deceived into listening to the enemy, that does not leave the man as her slave owner. Rather it places a responsibility upon man to now bear the full burden of leadership-leadership, not ownership.
   I thought Michael made it clear that women were always secondary. I mean, God created Eve from Adam's rib! Created her to help him. How could she possibly "go down in rank" from that? I'm also curious how Michael differentiates 'slave owner' from 'leader'. Because this entire book has been about molding, sanctifying, cleansing, and perfecting one's wife-to present a "perfect" wife to the husband! I've had a few leadership roles in my life, and they weren't anything how Michael defines his leadership. Good leadership is about bringing out people's best-their skills, hopes, dreams, etc. Not nitpicking on faults until they go away, or deciding what to change to be most convenient for the leader. Honestly, that sounds a lot more like slave ownership to me.
   I wonder how much of a burden being the leader of the household is, in PearlWorld. After all, it's the woman who raises the kids, feeds everyone, cooks, cleans, gives sex on demand, obeys/honors/reverences her husband, doesn't usurp authority or try to lead...where's the burden in having EVERYONE in your household dancing to your tune? Oh, sure, the man may make mistakes, but there is a whole houseful of people waiting to be scapegoats-starting with the wife.

Overall, this section irritated me. Michael assumes that because Eve screwed up, then all women are gullible. There's no mention of Adam's part in this-he was capable of saying "NO!" when Eve came a-sellin' that fruit. Yet Eve gets demoted and Adam has to deal with the burden of being a leader. Ugh. I'm both totally confused why people choose to believe this, and irritated that this type of stuff is still taught in 2014.

6 comments:

  1. Seems to me if Eve was deceived, but Adam was not, his sin would have been greater, therefore his punishment should have been more severe than hers. Which is worse from a blame perspective, to do wrong in ignorance, or to do it in full knowledge that it's wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! But I guess that flies in the face of PearlWorld's "Blame the Woman" philosophy.

      Delete
  2. Nothing like taking those verses completely and totally out of the context of not only time and place, but also the passages where they appear....My biggest problem with evangelicalism has always been cherry-picking Bible verses. I lost it, finally, when a pastor in a sermon literally pulled two words out of context in some random verse to prove a point that did not actually make sense. Never went back to an evangelical church after that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's ridiculous. I wonder why more people don't catch or call leaders on this?

      Delete
    2. I think so many people are raised with it and it seems to make sense. You are taught to memorize verses by themselves. Sermons jump here and there and all over the Bible to come up with some point that isn't there...and it probably just seems to make sense because you've always heard it. I was raised in it to some degree, but also sent to Catholic school and Catholics read whole passages at a time--never one verse at a time. In religion classes, I learned about context--how the whole passage mattered and how the time, place, type of writing it was (the Bible has allegory, myth, poetry, etc...it is not a history book) all mattered, too. So when I went back to evangelicalism in college, it started to not make sense to me anymore.

      Delete