Eve's transgression

A couple of days ago, I was having a phone conversation with Heather (TopHat in internet circles) and we were talking about Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eve. I kind of went off-topic and ended up thinking and speaking out loud about why Eve then is commanded to be obedient her husband's counsel (which then is still expected of women today). I know that some women in the church struggle with that expectation. Their question is along the lines of: If men and women are supposedly equal partners in marriage (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World), why does a woman need to be subordinate to her husband?

In our conversation with each other, we discussed how the fact that EVE ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is actually celebrated in our church. She made a wise and courageous decision to experience mortality and to know good from evil. As Sheri L. Dew said, "In addition to bearing children, she mothered all of mankind when she made the most courageous decision any woman has ever made and with Adam opened the way for us to progress."

But there has always been something that bothers me about her decision. She obviously saw the virtue of experiencing mortality and saw that the knowledge gained from it was necessary for her and Adam to progress and that becoming like God was a good thing and not a prideful motivation like Satan implied. But, she made a decision that forced Adam to choose a certain path and she did not consult with him first.

I am sensitive to this sort of injustice. I don't appreciate people speaking for me, or compelling me to make choices that I otherwise might not have chosen for myself. I most certainly would not appreciate it if it was my husband who forced me into that situation.

And, that, is what I think Eve did to Adam. Though she made a good decision, and perhaps the right decision, she did not consult with Adam, come to an agreement and act together in unity.

I feel badly for Adam to be in a place where he was stuck between obeying commandments: staying with his wife and fulfilling the command to multiply and replenish the earth or to not partake of the fruit of that tree. It was Eve that put him in that situation by hastily rushing forward and partaking of the fruit without consulting with Adam and taking into account the implications.

What if Adam had said, "I'm not going to partake of that fruit and I'm going to stay here while you are banished from the garden and we will both be alone?" What if he had gotten mad at her for limiting his choices instead of seeing the situation with the clarity of knowing that he needed to stay by his wife? Her choice and his compulsion to choose along with her had long lasting effects on him. He learned what suffering was as a result of her choice, and while he did freely choose it, it should have been a decision they made together.

I wonder if its for this reason Eve and in extension her daughters have the obligation to counsel with their husbands and to listen to their counsel. This begs the question however, if "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression (Second Article of Faith), then are women being punished for Eve's transgression by being compelled to a subordinate status under their husbands?

I would also add its likely that women who are disturbed by the hearken counsel would comforted if men were also counseled to hearken to their wives and both husband and wife communicated with God with equal footing where both go through their spouse when making decisions, instead of one going through the other and it not being reciprocated.

Reincarnation in LDS Doctrine?

In a book group, I am discussing the book "What Dreams May Come" by Richard Matheson. The members of the book group are mainly LDS so there has been a lot of discussion regarding the ending which portrays reincarnation. Pretty much everything up until that point is pretty analogous to LDS doctrine. I figured I was doing due diligence to read about what has been taught regarding reincarnation too. It seems auspicious that I was introduced to the group Mormon Mystics at the same time, as learning about Joseph Smith's investigation into Kabbalah led me to know that he discussed and taught about the idea of reincarnation.

I know that the term wasn't used until after his death so he never said the word "reincarnation" but he did use terminology synonymous to it. My confusion comes from being unclear in LDS terms what he was referring to. The only sources I've found for this discussion are from Sunstone and this presentation entitled "Reincarnation and The Restoration: Does Joseph Smith's Last Teaching Help Explain Pre-Mortality and Eternal Progression?" offers the clearest explanation, yet the concept is still very unclear to me.

It seems there are two proposals for how reincarnation works in LDS theology:

1) Resurrection and eternal progression means that the same spirit inhabits different bodies though the same personality is present and the bodies resemble the physical body from this life. I heard it proposed that as we progress to perfection, we will live on different planets and fulfill different roles in the plan of salvation for others: as a Holy Ghost, as a Savior, as a God the Father, etc.

2) There are some things in life that require a new body (e.g. grievous sin that cannot be repented of in this life or the world to come--murder is an example or through infant mortality, spontaneous abortion where a spirit does not get a "fair chance" to inhabit mortality). When one of these things occur it becomes expedient for a spirit to enter into a new body to either repent and do better with the new life given them or to get the opportunity to live a full life and the complete experience of mortality.

Both of them could be true simultaneously because they are not mutually exclusive of one another.

There also seemed like there was a choice that could be made, that a person could opt to enter into a new body and earth to improve upon their probation which could be considered an addendum to #2 above.

On to the personal reaction to those ideas: I'm open to accepting them as true but like historical reactions to polygamy, I don't like the sound of it. The plan I like the sound of is (without reincarnation): you live, you die, you spend your time in the spirit world learning and working, you live in the Millennium finishing the work on the earth, you are judged according to your work on earth and in the spirit world, you repent in some area of the spirit world if needed and then you enter into your final abode, get your resurrected body and live in the kingdom you have earned, and while you live there, you learn more and progress to become a god of your own world. If I'm sounding whiny, I am because the idea of reincarnation to me sounds like a lot more work and a harder plan to accomplish. I also have a sense of attachment to who I consider my self. I want to be me through out eternity. I also have reservations on how a doctrine of reincarnation affects eternal families. It seems to me that instead of a chain linking generations together, it becomes a web of links; more like chain mail than a cord.

Even as I wrote about the plan of how I want and how have interpreted it in my understanding, I see multiple opportunities for gaining another body and experiencing mortality again. Perhaps the repenting done after the judgment is done in a mortal probation. Or, like what is portrayed in "What Dreams May Come" while waiting in the spirit world, opportunities to learn come from returning to the earth from which you have departed and going into a new body learn more about mortality (this would solve feeling like there are not enough hours in the day to learn everything there is to learn in this life). Or, yet another opportunity, comes after resurrection when you can lay aside your resurrected body and in preparation to becoming God one again inhabit a mortal body to "rise above and descend below all things" as Christ did (D&C 88:6).

A part of my frustration in understanding this concept is not having text resources to work with. I much prefer to read text and be able to stop and ponder and read the idea over and over again to understand it. I feel limited by the audio presentations. I'll be looking for transcripts of the presentations and hope that I can dig deeper into sources and ideas that way.