Related to the "pants day" topic, a couple TBMs posted an article on Facebook from the Mormon feminist and BYU professor Valerie Hudson Cassler, entitled "I am a Mormon Because I am a Feminist" which appears on the Mormon Scholars Testify web site.
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1718/valerie-hudson-cassler

One of her arguments is that, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a seventy in the LDS Church, says: “Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but… over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over….""

I had not heard of that translation before, and I tried to verify the Hebrew translation at this site which seems to give a good direct and normal translation: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/mtg.pdf

According to that translation, it should be translated as, "and he will regulate in you", which is a far cry from "ruling with you". The NIV and KJV say "rule over".

Can someone with some Hebrew skills shed some light on this Mormon interpretation? Is the Hebrew word "bet" there, and does it change the meaning to "with"? Thanks.

Not a Hebraist, but as far as I can tell the word "bet" is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet and also stands for the number 2. In the Kabbalah the "bet" has certain mystical meanings and you can go crazy trying to figure them out. The English translations of the Tanakh give the phrase "shall rule over" for verse 16. "Bet" can also be a preposition and can mean "house."


Just remember this: Genesis, along with all the other books of the Old Testament or Tanakh were written by men and the history is the history of the world according to men. There is nothing in there that will help feminists who search for Biblical legitimacy.

The 'bet' at Gen 3:16 is not the 'bet' that is the second letter of the alphabet, nor the word meaning "house." It is the preposition 'be' with the feminine pronoun "thee" (-t) added.

The phrase in Hebrew is "w-meshal-be-t" which most translators render as "and [he shall] rule over thee."

Hafen and Cassler dispute the meaning of the 'be' which has several meanings, including "over, above, among, on, against, with" and others.

However, it makes no sense in the context to claim that 'be' means "with" implying equality in rule. God is here meting out a punishment to Eve for having tempted Adam. Would God really be saying to Eve, "I'm going to punish you for tempting Adam (who accused Eve at 3:12) by making you equal in authority to Adam"?

Hafen and Cassler seem to think that this is the only Bible passage which can be interpreted as making women subject to men. What about these:?

1 Cor 11:3011
Eph 5:22-33
1 Peter 3:1-6
1 Tim 2:12

Other anti-women passages are listed at http://packham.n4m.org/bible.htm#WOMEN

Thanks Richard. Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me either, but she also argues that the punishment is actually a blessing, and Eve didn't make a mistake or get deceived. Partaking of the fruit was a wise choice, a gift that she consciously gave.

It seems like calling good evil and evil good to me, but that's what it takes to hold such beliefs. Cassler is great at mental gymnastics, and this is a great example of the Mormon logic process that a "scholar" uses to believe and convince others to believe.

Good point with the New Testament scriptures.

One thing I do remember in my study of Judaism shortly after marrying DH: Jewish husbands are supposed to sexually satisfy their wives. I don't knew where that can be found in the scriptures.

Overall, Jewish religion is patriarchal.

Phantom Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Overall, Jewish religion is patriarchal.


An excellent example is the film "A Price Above Rubies" with a fine performance by Renee Zellweger. A young wife in a strictly religious, male-dominated Jewish community tries to break free.

I have it listed on my suggested "NOT anit-Mormon" materials, so a Mormon woman might be willing to watch it.