The Dichotomy of Eve

*This is a compilation of a few posts from earlier in this month, so if some of it sounds familiar, that's why. This is also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Also, I may or may not have time to respond to comments. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Winter Solstice, etc. etc. etc. Hope you have a good one.

One of the doctrines that appealed most to me as an investigator of the Church was the Second Article of Faith: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

This varied greatly from my Protestant and fleeting Catholic teachings I’d grown up with that we are all sinners because of Adam and Eve, and lest we never accept Christ into our hearts we are doomed to eternal damnation because of something some guy did millions of years ago (or however long you believe it to be).

I loved this. And my heart pitter-pattered even more when I heard this tidbit: Eve wasn’t taken from Adam’s head as to be at his head, nor from his feet as to insinuate she would be at his feet, but rather from his rib, his side. Equals. Yay! I loved telling family and friends this.

Then there’s Moses 5:10-11:

“And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

“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.”

Eve. Without Eve, we wouldn’t know good. We revere Eve for her foresight. For her transgression. For knowing that it would be better to know good from evil than remain in such an innocent state wherein they could never progress. President Faust states in What It Means to Be a Daughter of God in the 1999 November Ensign,

“We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Eve. In the Garden of Eden, she and Adam were instructed not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, they were also reminded, ‘Thou mayest choose for thyself.’ The choice was really between a continuation of their comfortable existence in Eden, where they would never progress, or a momentous exit into mortality with its opposites: pain, trials, and physical death in contrast to joy, growth, and the potential for eternal life. In contemplating this choice, we are told, ‘And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, … and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.’ And thus began their earthly probation and parenthood.

“After the choice was made, Adam voiced this grateful expression: ‘Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.’ “Eve made an even greater statement of visionary wisdom after leaving the Garden of Eden: ‘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.’ If it hadn’t been for Eve, none of us would be here.”
Sounds great, right? There’s a problem though, and it starts with scriptures such as “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”

Erm…where’d Eve go?

The problem is furthered in the Bible: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Anyone who has been to the temple understands that the teaching of subjection still exists. Some of you will say that a righteous priesthood holder would never put his foot down and proclaim his God given authority, but the fact remains that he has it. The man is the head. The priesthood holder gets the revelation. His wife can pray and discuss issues with him, but ultimately he makes the decision. That isn’t a partnership. It’s not even compromise. It’s a parent-child relationship, and Adam and Eve set the pattern. It all seems to stem from Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy.

By initially being more obedient to God, Adam is given greater access to God. No matter what Eve thinks now, she has to listen to Adam who would have counseled her to reject the fruit. Apparently she’s only allowed to be right in that one thing. Lucky for her she wasn’t taught beforehand to listen to her husband. Lucky for her she didn’t even ask. She didn’t have to. No covenants had been made yet.

Ahhhh, innocence.

Does anyone else see a disconnect here?

I don’t covet the priesthood, just a place at the table; a chance and the right to have just as much access to God as my husband. Real equality. Not something that resembles it, but something that is equal despite what Eve did. I don’t want to pay for what she did.

Spin it as you will, in the end it is a patriarchal order which, by definition, puts the man at the head of the family – read: in charge. Last say. An understood clearer connection with God all by virtue of a Y chromosome.

And yet we go on and on about how holy women are despite these teachings. The more I hear about our inherent holiness the more condescended to I feel. The more we insist there is no distinction is to bring more attention to the actual distinction. I understand that men are generally stronger, taller, etc. than women. I get that women are generally physically weaker, more nurturing, shorter than men. I’m not speaking of physical inequalities: I’m speaking to mental and spiritual equalities, equalities that we should understand to fundamentally exist.
I have a hard time believing my God would make me inferior to men, and this makes the Bible and scripture sometimes incredibly difficult to read. I am His daughter. I am to feel loved and in peace. Like I matter. Sometimes I don’t feel like I really do.

Is the patriarchal pattern a consequence of Eve?

Scripture would tell us yes; the Church would say no - but as my scriptural notes attest we are still rationalizing, still insisting the priesthood trumps all, and as men hold the priesthood and not women (except for the temple), I am somehow inferior. And no, I’m not looking for inversion of roles. If the priesthood is not complete without the woman in marriage, if neither man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord, than I say these things ought to be reflected in the family order.

I have felt respected in our church, but I’ve also felt very much like I don’t matter. I am not the only one, and so we need to address this rather than dismiss it as silly feminism that seeks to destroy not only gender roles but the basic foundation of God’s plan. That just adds salt to an already open wound.

Silly girls. Revelation is for boys!

I don’t mind that men hold the priesthood. I just went through a whole tirade on a private level and I get it. I don’t want the priesthood. I get it. I get why men have it. I’ve been going to church long enough to understand the reasoning behind it all.

Here’s my problem:

What I mind is that it is the end-all-be-all. Worthy members receive revelation. Worthy members receive revelation over our own stewardship. While counsel and discussion should be made, that person who has stewardship should have the final say. If those above that person feel the one with their “final say” is off their rocker, than there should be a process by which to deal with it. Period.

My problem lies in the idea that men have clearer revelation than their women do, in the idea that God speaks more truth to his sons than He does the girls. The girls are either misguided or just getting partial truth. Silly, silly girls.

We can talk about it all we want, but in the end it’s his decision. And we do emphasize that guy being worthy in his position – there’s no room for unrighteous dominion – but Father Knows Best. He’s got that really awesome Y chromosome and all. Should I have picked one up? Naaaaaah. I like being a girl despite all the crap.

I don’t want to be a guy. I don’t want the priesthood. I don’t want to be bishop, I don’t want any of that. But if as Relief Society President (which I’m not) I truly feel that my Relief Society needs to go in a certain direction and my bishop comes and puts on the breaks despite my very strong revelation, than what? I am to defer to him and just let whatever happens to happen.

Why? Because he’s the man. We can say “because he’s the priesthood holder” but the real, fundamental thing is because he’s the guy. We can be equal in spiritual strength and knowledge, but according to church structure, I am inferior to my priesthood (male) leaders.

We are left back to an earlier question: If I pray with real intent and get an answer contrary to that of my leaders, what then? The Church would say my answer is wrong. If we are one in purpose, after all, than we should be getting the same answer from the Lord.

But it does not work that way all the time. You cannot dismiss me so easily. Call it pride, call it a gateway to the road to apostasy, whatever. I was told when I joined that I should know everything for myself and go according to that. I’m taught that through the years…until I think differently from my leaders. Until I think differently from my husband. I’m certain my leaders would absolutely counsel us to talk about it, pray about it, etc. The fact is that doctrinally and what is taught in the temple is that I am to defer to him if he decides differently than what I think. Period.

This is not a strictly LDS issue, either. Like I mentioned before, it happens in other churches. It’s not even a matter of Pauline politics. It is in the scriptures; it is canonized. It is doctrine. We teach and practice a doctrinal patriarchy. I’m beyond talking about in-house ward matters here like who is bishop and who is not. This is more fundamental than that.

I don’t want the priesthood. I understand that there are priesthood holders who have to go through other priesthood holders to get permission, too. I’m not necessarily pissed about the priesthood. (annoyed at my repetition yet? it's only because I've learned some have selective "hearing" and I want to make myself clear despite the stereotypes about women who speak like this)

Here's the crux of it all: I just want to have the right as much access to God as my bishop or even my husband. I want the right to unique revelation that may go against what the Church teaches because I am unique and only God knows me and my situation nearly well enough. I want to still be in good standing if this happens.

But we don’t teach that. It’s too hairy, it’s too itchy, and it leaves far too much wiggle room. It goes against the whole “one in purpose” thing. We are to teach the doctrine and leave the exceptions up to the individual…except for in larger matters where the Church has authority and have taken an official stand. They know better despite it all – even though history proves they did not always know better despite it all.

We are not to criticize our leaders, even if it is justified.

And as a person who, doctrinally, biblically (as taught), has less authority than all but my own children, I have to sit back and let it all happen because I wouldn’t want to create confusion or contention. And I don’t.

It goes back to Adam. Eve, justified or not, took the fruit and was punished for it. Adam just did what he had to do, damn that woman. He initially told the serpent no, but since his wife went, he had to follow since he was commanded to always be with her. If she goes to hell, he should follow.
That is the inference. Hell, the men today joke about this. The girls complain, and the guys just placate them. Give them the 9 o’clock church instead of the 8:30, what does it matter. It’ll keep the girls happy, and as everyone knows: if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

Ha. ha.

This original act of disobedience slash obedience also suggests that Adam recognized Eve’s greater insight. She saw what he could not, despite the fact that God forbade it. She was able to look past that. But by initially being more obedient to God, he is now given greater access to God. No matter what she thinks now, though we teach she was right, she has to listen to Adam who would have counseled her to reject the fruit. Apparently she’s only allowed to be right in that one thing. Lucky for her she wasn’t taught beforehand to listen to her husband. Lucky for her she didn’t even ask. She didn’t have to. No covenants had been made yet.

Ahhhh, innocence.

Though Eve did what had to be done, she was punished anyway – and not just by exile from Eden, either. Now she has to follow Adam because he was apparently more righteous in refusing the serpent’s temptation. The idea that he knew better is inferred and is passed down to every man since. Since Adam knew better, all men know better. Eve just did what had to be done.

Is anyone else following?

That’s all. I don’t care about having the priesthood. I love my man, I love him being the man – he is absolutely everything I am not. I love taking care of him and our children – but he takes care of me and our kids, too. We complement each other rather nicely. Nothing we decide is ever because “I said so” – we talk about it until a conclusion is made between the two of us. Our lives are not separate, they are one and, to him, I’ve just as much right and access to God as he does.

And that’s how it should be anywhere.

Shhh!

We talk often and refer to the scriptures and places within our doctrine to attest to the fact that we admire, revere, and respect women. What of doctrine and scripture that says otherwise? I want to explore this today - there's just too much that makes me feel like crap.

First, the good stuff.

1. The following is paraphrased: "Woman was made from Adam's rib - not from his head to infer she should be at his head; not from his feet to infer she should be at his feet, but from his side to imply they are equal."

I liked this a lot when I first heard it. Still do.

2. We are often told about the Relief Society being the largest women's organization in the world, how it is headed by women.

The deal with the Relief Society is that it is ultimately headed by the Priesthood. The guys. Even the General Relief Society Presidency has to get approval from the Prophet. This goes for any of the organizations within the church, sure, but to say we head something is...somewhat misleading. The General RS Presidency is given loads of authority, but in the end they aren't the end-all-be-all.

3. Women don't hold the priesthood - they give life.

This seems more an effort to placate than anything else. It seems to infer that motherhood is equal to the priesthood. Not "fatherhood" - Priesthood. Beyond that, though, what of those faithful women who are infertile or never give birth due to lack of opportunity to marry? Every faithful man can hold the priesthood.

4. We have a Heavenly Mother, but we assume she is rarely spoken of only because Heavenly Father wants us to keep hush-hush about her for she is woman, she is sacred.

Eh. Sounds a little condescending, but whatever. Personally, as logic would insist that I am a woman who would then be "Heavenly Mother's" daughter, I'd like to know more about her. Yet, I am taught to be more like Heavenly Father and Christ. Not that I have issue necessarily with that, but does anyone else see the slight discrepancy here? Gender roles, people!

We often allude to family life on Earth being parallel to that of our relationship with God, our Heavenly Father. If we are so adamant about children on Earth having a parent of their same gender as well as that of the opposite, why don't we talk more about Heavenly Mother so their sons and daughters have something with which to learn from?

I don't mean to blaspheme - this is sincere.

5. The men of our church are among the most chivalrous because of the teachings of the Church stating that women are to be revered - I can attest to this one. It's fabulous. I've always appreciated this teaching of manners and...well, most girls I know like a man deferring to her in this way.

I love this. Women take care of their men, men take care of their women. Yay!

And on and on and on. But what about this:

- Women perform priesthood ordinances in the temple. I imagine this is a matter of modesty for the other women, especially given past intiatory methods, but this doesn't hold now.

- 1 Timothy 2:11: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

My head spins and my stomach lurches every time I read that. Our second article of faith states that we are responsible for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Is it mere convenience, then, that we don't mention we're not responsible for Eve's transgression? This scripture here states that Adam didn't transgress - the temple teaches us the same. Eve listened to the serpent, took the fruit, and ate it. We teach she heard the truth in the serpent's lie, that without knowing the evil we cannot know the good.

That much, needing opposition in all things, is true.

But it all just makes my head hurt. And no, there really is no Joseph Smith Translation to this bit of scripture other than "Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing" which lends question again to infertile couples. And all this stuff about women having to be silent and in subjection because of Eve goes against what our church says.

Trust me, I like what we say lots more - but our actions speak against this at times, that men teach us and not necessarily the other way around. We answer to them ultimately.

Then there's Titus 2:2-6:

"That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things."

(so far so good)

"That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

I'm fine until we get to that last bit: Obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed.

*screeeech*

This whole idea of obedience to the man of the house drives me up the wall. Those of protestant and evangelical churches also teach this: be in subjection to your husband. We teach it in the temple.

I can't stop scratching my head.

So we're not paying for what Adam did - just what Eve did? And because Adam was made first and insisted on listening to God's commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that makes us immediately inferior? *twirls hair*

The Bible was written by men for men at the time. To my knowledge, this is back when women weren't educated. They didn't know how to read. If they knew anything, it was because their husbands taught them. That offers a little context, but we don't teach this, we don't talk about this. I haven't heard it, at least.

In my scripture notes, I have 1 Timothy 2:11 marked, the word "authority" underlined with the words "priesthood authority" and "silence" attributed to "tranquility and quietness." I also have the words "Father --> Husband --> Wife" written.

What is up with this?

We've been talking a lot about separate but equal with the whole gay marriage thing, but the same applies here. Women and men are separate in their roles but equal. Eh, I can see it I guess. Men hunt, women nest. There is a lot of biology there - but neither is inferior. Why do we insist on perpetuating this? We say we don't, but we do.

Why don't we teach about the prophetesses of the Old Testament (Huldah)? Of the New? (Anna).

In researching prophetesses, I came upon Miriam (referred to as a prophetess in Exodus 15:20) and an interesting and somewhat unnerving piece of OT Scripture in Numbers chapter 12. To avoid typing out sixteen verses, I'll just give you the summary.

Aaron and Miriam are a little miffed at their brother Moses and speak out against him: "And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it." (v.2) God calls the three of them out and declares Moses the main, relevant prophet.

"With him I will speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (v. 8)

God then strikes Miriam with leprosy. Aaron was left untouched, though he, too, took part in the "murmuring."

What the hell is going on here?

Then there's the prophetess Huldah. I'd never heard of her before today. In the interest of space, I'll just refer you to 2 Kings 22:14-17.

Yes, we can say we allow for women to have revelation for themselves and the things/organizations they care for, such as the Young Women, Primary, or Relief Society. However, the structure of the Church states that if a governing Priesthood body (either of the ward, stake or general church) received revelation otherwise, than it trumps what the women say. It's a system of checks and balances. We're all taught this. But Huldah was a prophetess, speaking for God. It's right there.

Perhaps prophetesses are not mentioned very often, though I'm glad they're mentioned at all. I'd just like to know more about it out of curiosity.

Yet we go off on feminists, how they're destroying very cozy and tidy gender roles. Damn them! But how can we ignore these scriptures? How can we ignore doctrine and that which goes on? Why do men and women sit separate in the temple? Why the veils? WHY.

And don't you dare tell me it's because we're somehow more holy or something. The more I hear about our inherent holiness the more condescended to I feel. The more we insist there is no distinction is to bring more attention to the actual distinction, if that makes sense.

I have a hard time believing my God would make me inferior to men, and this makes the Bible and scripture sometimes incredibly difficult to read. I am His daughter. I am to feel loved and in peace. Like I matter. Sometimes I don't feel like I really do. Want to know why?

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This is still taught, it's just quiet and subtle. We still learn of our husbands. No longer at home, and women are now able to speak in the church (is it true that up until recently women didn't give talks in church? Anyone?), but our authority is rather limited - and for what reason?

I am to be taken care of just like I care for others. My husband works his butt off for his family and receives more adulation for it. Because he's worked so hard, I've had to as well. Three young, young children. I've made sure he got the classes he needed. Helped him type his papers because he's a poke of a typist. I've sacrificed for this traditional family stuff, and I don't mind doing it because I love our family and I do believe it's best for my kids to have someone at home with them.

But the conversation when we go out as it pertains to me is relegated to "How are the kids? How's the hubby?" and less about what I think and what I do beyond changing nasty diapers and reveling in that which is my kids and Eric. I love all four of them - but aren't I something deeper than this? Is this service of which I am taught to only do as a consequence of Eve?

Scripture would tell us yes. The Church would say no - but as my scriptural notes attest we are still rationalizing, still insisting that the Priesthood trumps all, and as men hold the priesthood and not women (except for the temple), I am somehow inferior.

In this way there is no separate but equal. We can pay lip service to such bullshit, but our actions speak louder than that.

I have felt respected in our church, but enough times I've also felt very much like I don't matter. I am not the only one, and so we need to address this rather than dismiss it as silly feminism that seeks to destroy the basic foundation of God's plan. That just adds salt to an already open wound.

Oh HELL no.

I know I've been on a kick lately, and perhaps it's welcome because Prop 8 = *groan* right now, but...I'm on a kick. It might not be a very attractive kick, as I seem to be throwing a tantrum about a lot of things, but that's kinda what this blog is for. It's not meant to be purely political. It's a place to vent because there aren't many safe places to vent about these things.

First of all, I don't necessarily consider myself a "feminist." I have feminist ideals, but I wouldn't go so far as to call myself one yet.

But this really pisses me off. I had no idea until just now. I just finished reading a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives called Am I a bad priesthood holder, or am I a bad husband?

Apparently it's modus operandi for a member of the bishopric or stake presidency to ask for the husband's permission before he can call his wife to any position?

I had no idea. Even when I was just called to the Relief Society teaching board (or whatever it is), I knew the bishopric member spoke with my husband about it, but I figured that was mostly because I was taking a much needed nap when he called.

I had no idea this happened so often. I just spoke with Eric about it, and he said "Yep, it's an authority thing. It's like informing the bishop of something first before informing the rest of the ward."

"But I'm not your child."

"I know."

"We're supposed to be equals."

"I know."

"How do you feel about this? Really?"

He shrugged. "I grew up with it. I really never thought about it before. But you're right."

I mean, what the hell, girls? Does this bother anyone else?

I had no idea. When Eric was called to be the Elder's Quorum Secretary to a rather active Elder's Quorum a few years ago, I about had a coronary and worked for weeks to get him to say no-no-no! Eric felt strongly that he should accept whatever calling comes his way, but I wouldn't relent. Again, he worked nights full time and went to school taking a full load of upper-level mathematics courses. He would sleep maybe 6 hours on Saturday, leave for work, come home at 6:30, be in bed by 6:45, and then wake up at 8:00 to get ready for church.

And they wanted him to be what? It wasn't so much the secretary thing as much as it was the meetings that would occur before church and at other random times.

It wasn't that I didn't have faith in Eric, I just knew he and the rest of us were wrecks to begin with and this calling was ridiculous. He wanted to try, though, so he did. I think he lasted a few months. I don't remember exactly what brought him to his senses, but one night the EQ president called and said "Hey, we're having a meeting right now." Eric told him he couldn't do it anymore.

It was a revelation to him. Sometimes you just can't.

But you know what? I was never asked how I felt. Nobody ever said, "So, Lisa, I want to call your husband to a rather demanding calling." It's not that I even want that. Eric doesn't need me giving permission anymore than I need him giving me permission. If it's a demanding calling, I would expect either of us to say "I want to talk with Eric/Lisa first."

I only knew Eric would be getting the EQ calling because the old secretary had just been released, and the president was picking at me for information, asking about Eric's schedule, etc.

This whole thing also reminds me, and forgive me if I've mentioned this before, a Sunday School lesson where the teacher recounted a story of a stake president calling a husband and wife in. After extending the calling of bishop to the husband, the SP turned to the wife and said, "So, can you support him in his calling? What do you think?"

"I think it sucks," she said.

She was told to basically get over it.

And people wonder why some women hate their standing in the Church. They point at the Relief Society, what a wonderful institution it is, that it is run by women...

...who have to answer to the men.

You know, that part doesn't even bother me so much. Fine. I get that we have a pyramid type organization where we all have someone to answer to. Fine. I get that the priesthood hold the big authority positions such as bishop, stake president, prophet, etc. I've never wanted the priesthood. While it is a wedge issue for some, it's never been one for me.

Just don't condescend to me.

I'm so effing tired of being condescended to. Ask my husband for permission? Screw off! I'm a big girl. If I feel I need to "counsel" with Eric about it, I'll do just that. My husband is not my father.

Again, I don't mind some of this role playing stuff. I like that he's stronger than me, taller than me, and I've always liked that he had the Priesthood, but when you start relegating me to a position akin to our children, that's when I've gotta get pissed off.

Did anyone else know about this? I'm under the impression that some members don't.


(And, by the way, I won't be posting tomorrow, so Happy Thanksgiving. Hope y'all have a really awesome, laid back, stuffed kind of day. I hope to be back by Friday)

Feminist Mormons

I know. We're not supposed to be. Our leaders speak out against feminism all the time. And while, for awhile, I thought "Ugh, the more those feminists talk the more they sound like they're projecting. There's no gender inequality. They don't see the value in being women so they have to fight for men's positions - they're just supporting the opposite view!"

Make sense?

I thought these women were only making womanhood seem that much less because they coveted traditionally male positions to prove a point. It's a fair assessment.

It wasn't until just a few years ago, though, that I started to see why some women feel shortchanged.

I've already talked about it a little bit. We're expected to pop out a dozen or so kids, and if we don't, we're considered selfish.

The words may not say "selfish" but the looks and tones say it.

We are to be good at keeping our home clean, teaching our children, cooking good and nutritious food. If we're extra good Mormon girls, we can even sew homemade clothing.

I am not a good Mormon girl. I admit it.

I wanted to be for so long. I loved the idea of taking care of my man, making him dinners and keeping the house just right and ensuring all was well in Zion, but after a while...a few things had gnawed at me just enough to start hurting:

"And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law...

"And again, verily, verily I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her..." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:54, 64)

Destroy her because she didn't necessarily like her husband taking on new girls. I don't know about you, but the tone in this just eats me up. For what is being asked of Emma, I'd expect something more compassionate. I'd hope for it, at least.

We say it's because the Lord wanted to raise up seed, but verse 51 says:

"Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

I know I'm really pushing the lines here, and I know some of you have expressed a comfort level with such a situation. I even get the "well, if you can't give up absolutely everything for God..." argument. But I can't read these verses and feel comfort. I'm not feeling the love. I don't see God threatening to destroy Joseph. The language concerning Joseph's part in all of this is comparatively soft.

It just adds to me feeling like nothing more than a baby machine.

Oh I know. We're always told about the divinity of motherhood, how women are vastly more spiritual than most men, that without us, men couldn't achieve the Celestial Kingdom anyway...

But really?

I understand that the Scriptures were written by men for men. But it bothers me, even still, even after hearing many attempts at explaining this:

"Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

(the Joseph Smith Translation does save itself a smidge in the final verse):

"Notwithstanding, they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness with sobriety."

- 1 Timothy 2:11-15

It just stings. Am I missing something? It's not as if teachers haven't tried to dull the pain - I have the notes in my scriptures right here, but I still don't understand it. And aren't we supposed to not pay for Adam's transgression, or is that a clever Article of Faith loophole because it didn't mention Eve?

Maybe my inability to understand is part my fault, maybe it's partly because...well, I won't say it.

I get that we're good for making sure our guys remember to do stuff. I get that we're good for making things look pretty (at least some of us). I even get that we're good at the service stuff. Hell, how often do we hear how the women VT stats are leaps and bounds better than the HT?

But mostly I've been feeling as if we're mere baby machines, husband/priesthood supporters who are expected to give up everything the minute we marry.

I didn't stop going to school just because I got married. There were other reasons for that. My problem lies in the fact that I'm getting the quizzical raised eyebrows when I say I'm planning on taking a few classes next semester.

I know the logic behind waiting until the kids are older. It's a lot like the logic that comes in waiting to graduate from school before marrying - but we're not exactly encouraged to do that.

I want my kids to know I'm more than just their mom. I want them to know I'm a person with hobbies and interests. I want them to know that I love me, too. I want them to grow up knowing they're more than just a husband or wife or mom. I want my daughter to know she's not just a mother-in-training, but a person, and that to be a good person she doesn't have to scrapbook, make cards, or know how to make damn good chocolate chip cookies (it's what I call them, haha). It's okay for her to want to be something when she grows up, and not just as a backup to "in case I don't get married," but because it's just good to know things, to be educated. It's important.

Yes, I think it's best to stay at home with the kids, but you won't see me judging a girl who doesn't. I honestly believe some women do better for their children when they can work a little (or a lot).

No, I don't think it's best to give up everything for them. Some sacrifice should be made; a girl ought to be able to have something to offer her children beyond the crafty Martha Stewart stuff.

Women Martyrs

So I'm really not sure how my lesson went on Sunday. I did offer a caveat that the only classes I'd ever taught in my almost-nine years in the church was the Sunbeams...still. I'm not sure.

The fact that I didn't remember it until Thursday and realized Saturday I'd lost the paper I'd written the assigned General Conference talks didn't help either.

I need more time to organize myself. I really don't have a problem giving talks in church - I revel in the opportunity to give a talk like I enjoy hearing. It's different. I've never ever tried to be weird or anything, but I base my talks off my own life. I never recycle old, tired stories and rarely use stories from the Scriptures unless it's to support or set up a real life story I have.

I've only given a handful of talks, and all but one have been well-received. I still wince when I think of the talk I gave on tithing that one time...My soapbox was rather high that Sunday. I try to never get on soapboxes for talks.

I might've gotten on a bit of a soapbox for my lesson on Sunday. Most of it was just my being unprepared for the day. I tried to think of it like a talk, but even then I was screwed. I wasn't prepared enough.

It worked, though. I had some sincere girls come tell me they enjoyed the lesson.

You should've heard the crickets when I told them they needed to consider themselves every now and again, though. That they need to think about themselves, because if they saturate their schedules with service, service, service, they risk wearing themselves thin. My basic point was that if we don't simplify and prioritize, we'll end up sacrificing the most important things with the added stress. We can't think we don't matter, because we do.

Crickets.

Why don't we think we matter? It's ridiculous. I understand that we're supposed to serve God, others, and then ourselves, but come on!

We scrapbook, make cards, cookies, etc. I'd be interested to know how many of us actually enjoy these activities. There's a woman who I used to consider my "church mom" who told me the Church goes through little cultural phases of what is considered a "must" activity. It used to be crocheting, and other things that're evading me now.

Today it's scrapbooking. We feel we must do this. WHY? I thought for years I should scrapbook. It made sense, after all. All those pictures sitting in a box; may as well do something pretty with them, right?

It took me about five years to realize three things:

1) I didn't want to scrapbook.
2) I wouldn't like scrapbooking.
3) I didn't have to scrapbook.

It was a true revelation. I'd been freed (and so had my wallet. that stuff ain't cheap!)

Same goes for the card making. I'll go buy one. I often look for the funniest cards, anyway. I don't really care about aesthetics.

Anyway, back to the point. We *kill* ourselves in competitions to see who's the most churchy, and a lot of the time this means we have an immaculate house, immaculate kids, trendy hobbies, and happy husbands.

Then we put on a fake smile, go to church, and pretend it's all good.

I like to play sports. I write. I do a lot of things on the computer. While I can bake damn good chocolate chip cookies, I don't necessarily enjoy cooking. I read books - books that aren't Church based or written by Church members. Scriptures don't often solve my problems. I love my husband more than life itself. I love my kids, but they drive me absolutely insane most days. They've also done so much for me.

You'd be surpr--well, maybe some of you would be surprised to see the looks on my fellow mom's faces when I tell them just how often I need time alone. I may be a special case - it wouldn't surprise me, but I do need a break. For the entire duration of our marriage, Eric has worked and gone to school full time, leaving me a sometimes-single mom. I'm not wired to do this with grace, and I hate that so many other women think they have to be June Cleaver. We're not all June Cleaver.

Seriously.

I will not have any more kids. Three is, most days, more than enough. I love my kids, but I'm glad I came to my senses enough to realize our original plan of five would have been the equivalent to suicide.

You should see the looks on people's faces when I tell them we're done with kids.

"Oh you never know. You're young. You could change your mind."

My health absolutely plummeted after my youngest. We will be having no more. My bishop couldn't understand that (it escapes me why I even told him), other mom's can't understand it.

People outside the church understand it.

The problem is that it took me about a year or two to finally get past the guilt I felt when I thought "I'm done." Three kids. How is that "replenishing the Earth"? I know a family with twelve kids. Eric comes from a family of six. Am I selfish?

Selfish!

Why do we feel we must do so much, even at the expense of our health and sanity?

I'd love to know how many women scrapbook, bake, have children, etc., due to mormon cultural pressures. Because they think it's what they're "supposed" to do.

There's too much of an "understanding" that we are to serve others and serve others only.

What about me? What about you?

Why the silence and deadpanned faces when I say we need to consider ourselves, too? I don't necessarily just speak of women, here, but let's face it: guys find it easier to take time for themselves. They don't worry nearly as much.

Why do I worry that I said the wrong thing or stepped out of bounds?

We're not martyrs, after all. God wants his daughters to be happy as well.