LDS Freedom Forum

god commanded eve that her “desire shall be to [her] husband”. it is my understanding that most interpret this as referring to sexual desire. any further thoughts of this phrase’s meaning? why is no similar commandment given to adam and what does that ommission mean?

It means she relies on him in order to raise children. So she wants to please him because she needs his help to do her job which is be a mother. It is an emotional yearning.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body."
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Just as Christ is the head of the Church and our desires are to be to him, so Eve's "desire is to be to her husband."

Maybe this is all Paul's fixation, but maybe it is all Temple "order".

I think there are many ways one could interpret these verses, and perhaps we are to mull over all of the possibilities and gain whatever truth we can from each of them.

I think that Eve’s “desire to her husband” could refer to newly planted sexual desire, but also to emotional connection and communion. I think it may also mean that she would (rightly) desire what is best for him. Also, her newfound role as a mother would place her in his protection, so her needs and desires would be, at least to some degree, fulfilled by him.

Another thing to consider:

Adam and Eve each showed a specific weakness or “error” in the garden scene. Adam was directed to not partake of the fruit prior to Eve being “formed” or presented to Adam in the garden. Clearly, Eve knew of the commandment to not partake; however, the scriptures do not show Eve receiving this direction directly from the Lord. (Please correct me if I am wrong here.) Now, we can speculate as to what may have happened that isn’t recorded in scripture, but perhaps there is something significant that is being shown by the scriptural record.

We could infer that Eve received the commandment from Adam, who himself received it from the Lord. Therefore, Eve disregarded Adam’s direction just as Adam disregarded the Lord’s. Is it possible that in an effort towards correcting each individual's error, part of Eve’s reprimand was to follow Adam’s counsel, and part of Adam’s was to follow the Lord? This new direction may have been given as an attempt to correct what specifically was off balance. Clearly Eve would go forth from this and commune directly with God, not only through Adam. But perhaps she didn't receive correction/direction on following Him because that hadn't been her specific transgression. I think this could easily be a part of what we read in the account, but the scriptures are just too brief (and with difficult wording), to give us the big picture here. I love that we can ponder and think on what we have do have, though.

Anyway, I'm not sure that these few verses adequately lay out the roles of husband and wife and all of what their relationship should be. This may have been largely a specific response to a specific transgression.

I have not heard teaching that this counsel only applies to sexual desire. It seems to me that all of a woman's desires should be toward her husband. This isn't to mean a wife should desire nothing but her husband, but that he should be a central focus of her life.

This counsel is particularly important in today's society where feminine ego is so strong that men are considered nothing more than servants, providers of money, and useful idiots. I'm sorry to say that even in church I hear this attitude to no end with women incessantly complaining about their husbands not earning enough money or not giving them enough of an allowance and wanting her to do anything for him.

what struck me earlier is that God saw fit to give this specific injunction to eve. why not adam? did it just go without saying that his desire be to his wife?

maybe it's because eve catalysed the fall, proving unfaithful in her partaking of the fruit handed her of lucifer? or perhaps it's an allowance for future polygamy, supporting the sound spiritual logic that a man may have multiple wives but a woman only one husband?

abijah wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 8:50 pm what struck me earlier is that God saw fit to give this specific injunction to eve. why not adam? did it just go without saying that his desire be to his wife?

maybe it's because eve catalysed the fall, proving unfaithful in her partaking of the fruit handed her of lucifer? or perhaps it's an allowance for future polygamy, supporting the sound spiritual logic that a man may have multiple wives but a woman only one husband?

I was about to say, "It's polygamy!!! POLYGAMY!!!!!!" ... but you beat me to it. ;P

abijah wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 8:50 pm what struck me earlier is that God saw fit to give this specific injunction to eve. why not adam? did it just go without saying that his desire be to his wife?

maybe it's because eve catalysed the fall, proving unfaithful in her partaking of the fruit handed her of lucifer? or perhaps it's an allowance for future polygamy, supporting the sound spiritual logic that a man may have multiple wives but a woman only one husband?

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic on this relating to polygamy. Also, Eve's partaking of the fruit did not prove her unfaithful. More likely, it proved her ultra faithful as she had to make this difficult decision, which was always THE plan, in faith, unlike Adam who did so in in full knowledge.