Sunday Musings: Reuben and the Lost Birthright

The scriptures are filled with imperfect people. Even the prophets had family problems. Anytime a parent is feeling like a failure because of the things their children do, all they need do is look at the scriptures and see that even God's chosen has had problems. Few have had the problems that Jacob has faced. Most horrific is the story of his sons Simeon and Levi who went into a city that they had made a covenent with and murdered the men, stole the women and children and spoiled the city. There may have even been rape involved although the scriptures aren't clear. It's a small footnote and it's not dwelt on much nor do we see much of the outcome. It's hard to think that that these two could ever gain celestial kingdom status after such a horrendous and uncalled for massacre.

There is also a small note about Reuben, Jacob's eldest son.

And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Genesis 35:22

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled
his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel : I Chronicles 5:1

So it seems pretty straightforward. Reuben slept with one of his father's wives and the consequences were that he lost his birthright. We are shocked that Reuben would do such a thing. You simply don't sleep with your father's wife. It's adultery. Within the church we tend to focus on homosexuality and paint it as the worst sexual sin, but it seems to me there are far worse sexual sins - rape, pedophelia and yes adultery come to my mind. Adultery is a devestating thing for the spouse who has been cheated on.

But is it really that simple?

It is not clear if Bilhah consented. Was she a part of it or was she raped? There is nothing in the scriptures that says that she was, so for the sake of argument, lets say that Bilhah agreed to sleep with Reuben therefore making her as guilty as he.

Before we condemn her though, lets look at her history.
 
1 AND when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.



2 And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?


3 And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees that I may also have children by her.


4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.


5 And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.


6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.


7 And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.


8 And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali. Genesis 30:1-8

Bilhah was a slave. Rachel owned her and Rachel also owned any children she had. Based on what we have from the scriptures it appears that Bilhah had no say in the joining to Jacob. There was no opportunity for Bilhah to find her own husband, and she was denied the rights of motherhood to the children she bore. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that Jacob loved her. Jacob loved Rachel. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah (a pretty suspicous set-up if you ask me), and Jacob agreed to marry the handmaids because his primary wives wanted it. There seems to be levels of marriage here. Bilhah was married to Jacob who already had other wives, and it seems clear that this was not a decision that she made, but it was forced upon her.

Is it possible that Bilhah and Reuben fell in love with each other? If that is the case, is their sin that horrendous then? If she is tied to Jacob through no fault of her own and not free to marry Reuben is it any wonder that they might commit adultery?

Some will say it doesn't matter. It's still adultery.

But she wasn't married in the true sense of the word. Eve was given to Adam as a helpmeet. Not as a slave. Marriage is about equal power. Bilhah was not equal to Jacob.

Can someone be held to a covenant that they did not willingly make? As LDS people we try and assure non-members who are upset about our baptizing the dead that the dead have the choice to accept the covenant. We know that if we grabbed someone dunked them against their will and even had the priesthood say all the right things, it doesn't count because they didn't choose to take upon them the covenents.

So is Bilhah accountable for covenents that she did not willingly make? Even if she said the words does it count since it appears she had no other options. She was owned by Rachel and given to Jacob by Rachel and had her children claimed by Rachel.

And is Reuben wrong for falling in love with a woman who from all appearences is not loved by her husband in the way a woman should be? Even if Jacob did love Bilhah he wasn't devoted exclusively to her (can you tell how I hate the double standard of polygamy).

Is it not tragic that Bilhah should be denied the love that all women yearn for and not even be allowed to hope for? Yes, it was a different time, but are we not all the same down at the core, no matter what time we live in or what station in life we are assigned.

Perhaps Reuben and Bilhah did not do such a horrible thing. Maybe, possibly, it was a grasp at some kind of happiness.

Thoughts?

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

We spent a bit of time today talking in Sunday School about a passage in JSM 8 “ And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.” We looked at the word “offended” and talked about what that meant.

I took issue with some of it. Did I say anything? No. Because Gospel Doctrine class is not a safe place to say anything that doesn't go along with the consensus of the group.

Basically it was stated that when someone is offended then they are the ones at fault.

In some cases I think this is true. We have all been in situations of innocently offending someone. Or been in situations where we disagree with someone and our disagreement causes offense even though we have no intention to offend. We know or may have heard of members who have left the church over something someone has said. And yet I think there is a bit of shirking of responsibility going on with this belief. One person stated something to the effect (I don't dare try to exactly quote someone), “no one can make us feel anything. We choose what we feel. If we're offended we choose to be so.”

Really? If someone comes up to you and calls you stupid or ugly and you're instantly hurt, are you choosing that emotion? Isn't that a natural reaction?

And aren't we creating a “blame the victim” attitude.

Because believe it or not, there are people within the church who are cruel and mean. People who will tell you that you're stupid (yes, it's happened to me), accuse you of being a bad parent (yep, happened to me again), question your faith (yes to me again) go behind your back to the bishop making false accusations while they keep in the shadows not allowing me to know who they are (the me is a give-away) tell you that you're worthless (yep, again), call you a liar (yes it has happened) and blame you for what ever had gone wrong (all this and more has happened to me.)

None of this was accidental. It was not me misinterpreting things. It happened.

A lot of this was done by a leader.

But we're not supposed to speak out against the leaders. We can say they're not perfect, but we still have to accept whatever garbage, punishments, and misjudgegments (withholding of temple blessings, church callings, etc. etc.) that comes from them. We are warned not to say anything or else we are in danger of being an apostate – yep, I've been accused of that one too. Note - I am not saying that we shouldn't be held accountable for our actions and in some cases its necessary to take away church priviledges, but there should be proof or confession, not because a leader doesn't like you or believe you or because its a case of he said/she said and they always believe the priesthood holder because he has the priesthood.

So if we can't speak against the leaders the answer is to suffer alone in silence.

I wonder how many suffer alone in silence and would feel much better if they knew they were not alone. I wonder how many bad things happen that are kept quiet and continue to happen because we are not supposed to speak out against our leaders.

All the leaders are men. If there's a problem between a sister and a leader, then its the leader (the man) who is to be upheld and believed. The sister must at all costs be kept quiet and disbelieved. It is her reputation and standing in the church that is threatened, never his, because he is a leader and therefore innocent of any wrong doing. There might be some who take offense to this - yes I used the word offense - but it stands to reason that if the leaders cannot be questioned and must be followed and all leaders are men, then the sister cannot be supported.

I think this whole thing of saying “if you're offended then it's your own fault” stance is a nice way to let everyone else off the hook. It allows us to say or do anything to each other and not suffer the consequences. “I can tell that sister that she should take better care of her children and if she's offended then oh well, it's her problem.”

And then we wonder why people leave the church and blame them for leaving. "They don't have enough faith. They are not righteous enough. They shouldn't feel hurt when someone says hurtful things."

Why would you stick around if you do not feel loved? If you are not loved? If people chase you away?

I have chosen to stick around. Yes I have been offended. I admit it. I have an off/on switch when it comes to my emotions. Either all my emotions are on and accessible, or none of them are. When I was a teenager my switch was off. I shut everyone out. I had no friends. I didn't care about my family. I chose not to feel emotion. It was an experience that I don't recommend to anyone. Consequently, with my on switch on, I feel things. So when people are mean to me, I get hurt. I get offended. I feel those things strongly just like I feel joy, humor and love. If someone comes up and tells me I'm a bad mother then it hurts and I get offended. If someone comes up and gives me a compliment, then I feel good. Having my on switch on, enables me to love my children and makes me a better mother. It enables me to feel the spirit. It allows me to forgive and understand others. It also causes me pain. The pain I feel is worth the joy I get to have. It's the price. I do not want to give it up in order to not be "offended". It is not that my emotions rely too much on other people, but it is the result of not being an island. I do not live in this world alone and consequently I am affected by other people and other people are affected by me.

So why have I stuck around when I have experienced so much pain within the church? Because it's where the Lord wants me to be. That I know, and I will follow the Lord, not some leader that would lead me off a cliff. Do I expect others who have left over becoming “offended” to understand this? Nope. Instead I understand them and feel compassion for them. Not because I have great spiritual insight – I don't, frankly I'm not a leader in anything and I'm constantly struggling, and no one is looking to me as an example – but because I came so close to leaving myself and only my stubbornness (he is not going to chase me away) and knowing that the Lord wants me there, as well as the example I feel I need to set for my children, has kept me within the church. There were many times I wished I had the money to move away to get distance between myself and a bad leader who told me that I was not spiritual and could not received revelation for my own life, but alas, I was not able to just pick up and go to another stake, another ward, or else I would have. I do not perceive that as running away from problems, but merely as going to a place where I can be better loved and understood.

People can be offended and leave the church over little things. In that case, they are probably on the edge anyway and just looking for an excuse. But sometimes there are big things and big reasons. It is arrogant of us to point fingers at those who have been “offended” and blame them for sorrows that have been heaped upon them by others. It is unfair to ask that people not feel anything when others are being cruel. “We choose how we feel.” Really? If someone punches you in the face with his fist would you not feel physical pain? If they punch you in the face with their words, would you not feel emotional pain? If you are punched in the face with a fist you can go to someone and complain about it and no one would condemn you for it or tell you that you shouldn't feel sore or you shouldn't be damaged. But we are to suffer word punches silently. I feel tremendous empathy and understanding towards those who have left. For now, I have chosen a different path, but I completely understand why they have chosen the other one.

Abuse happens when we keep silent. Leaders have lead people astray. The scriptures are full of examples both ancient and modern. History has shown us, both in and out of the church, examples of leaders who have done atrocities while victims have kept quiet, out of fear, out of respect for the office of the leader, of knowing they will not be believed. The result is that the leader continues to do his misdeeds. What do you do when a leader denies you blessings, for instance the blessings of the temple, because they have misjudged you? What do you do when a leader says “I have the priesthood and you have to abide by me”, again a statement that makes women powerless.

It was also said something to the effect that if we are offended then perhaps there is truth in what was said. Again, really? If someone says something, makes an accusation, then it's true? So if someone comes up to you and says “you're stupid,” then that makes it true? Frankly, I didn't know I had that kind of power that I could run around pointing fingers making all kinds of statements and magically that means they are instantly true.

I have been offended because people have deliberately hurt me. I have chosen not to be offended when I recognize that there was no malicious intent involved and we all say things that can be taken two ways. In this case I choose to look at it in a more positive light and give them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes deliberate hurt is unmistakable. There are those who would not believe that others in the church would be hurtful. They have led lives where they haven't experienced it and so they believe it doesn't happen. It's like the atheists who haven't experienced God so they come to the conclusion that there is no God because they haven't experienced it.

I have chosen to stay in the church. Fortunately for me there are kind people in my ward as well, who have been there for me and often have a nice thing to say to me. If there are those who disbelieve me, it is perhaps because they themselves are kind and can't imagine why anyone would say those things to a sister.

There is the parable of the lost sheep. We are to search out the lost sheep and bring them home. Perhaps we wouldn't have so many lost sheep if we didn't chase them away. So lets not chase the sheep away. Let's not be wolves in sheep's clothing. Let's not be the mean sheep that turn our backs on others, keeping to our own little cliques and saying nasty things. Then we wouldn't have to search for so many lost sheep.

There is also the story of the prodigal son. I have always felt empathy for the son who stayed home. I think we judge him unfairly yet I think he has a point when he tells his father “ Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment (admittedly an overstatement but lets look at the spirit of it and recognize that he was hurt when he said it): and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends."

Basically I think he's saying “Hold it. I'm here. I've always been here. Why don't you celebrate me? Don't you love me?” If you look at the scripture, he wasn't even invited to the party. No one came and told him that his brother was home. He was left out in the field, working hard, and he was forgotten. Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.


Are we doing that? Are we forgetting the ones that are here? Are we not inviting them to the party? Do we fail to celebrate them? Are we failing to love them? Or are we instead blaming them after they leave and saying “well, if they're offended then it is their own fault.”

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

When we look at this scripture it's natural to assume that it is the ones who are offended that will do the betrayal and the hating. And certainly there is a case for that. But we can look at this scripture another way. Perhaps there are those who are offended because they have been betrayed and hated.

And maybe that's what she should be focusing on. Not betraying, and not hating, and loving instead, so that people won't be offended and can come to us and solve differences and misunderstandings instead of going away to suffer alone in silence.