Religion of a Different Color - Interview

I just finished listening to a two part interview (#22 & #23 of the Maxwell Institute podcasts) with Paul Reeve and Ardis Parshall about Reeve's book, Religion of a Different Color. This was absolutely fascinating!  Namely,

1. The author shares a primary source Mormon view of WHY some considered polygamy to be good, in that because men had greater sex drives, it allowed them to stay faithful to their wife(s) during times when it was not considered proper to have intercourse (nursing, menstruation) because they had other acceptable outlets.

2. People tried to define Mormons as a race so they could discriminate against them like they did with other races. The US was meant for white people, so white people who practiced polygamy (Mormons) didn't fit the paradigm, and they needed a way to marginalize Mormons.

3. Reeve and Parshall could not find evidence that the ban on the priesthood for blacks came from God, yet He allowed it to happen (and allows us all to reap the consequences), just like He allowed Joseph to lose the 116 pages, etc.

I loved Reeve's and Parshall's testimonies at the end. Parshall basically said there is still safety in following the prophets as they are at the helm, even if they may sometimes make mistakes.

Little Gems in the Original Woman's Exponent

Oh you guys, I have so much to write about and too little time. I'd like to expound on this, but for now will just leave some primary sources for later use.

When Joseph Smith originally organized the Relief Society, he said "that he would ordain them to preside over the Society..." (note: not to a priesthood office) but there's strong evidence that he used that word for lack of a better term. If you go to the Women's Exponent from September 1, 1880 vol. 9 no. 7 (I think page 53-54; it's in the Relief Society Reports section, just search for "reports"), it states:

"President Taylor having arrived and being invited to address the sisters … I understand that one of the objects of this meeting is the ordination of officers of the Relief Society who Were elected at our Conference held on Saturday June 19, 1880 at the Salt Lake Assembly Hall.

"On the occasion of the organization of the Relief Society by the Prophet Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, I was present. Sister Emma Smith was elected president and sisters Elizabeth Ann Whitney and Sarah M. Cleveland her Counselors. The Prophet Joseph then said that Sister Emma was named in the revelation recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants concerning the Elect Lady and furthermore that she had been ordained to expound the Scriptures. By my request my Secretary Elder L. John Nuttall read to you relative to this meeting from the “Book of the Law of the Lord” at your Conference held June 19th, ult., which explained what was then done.

"The ordination then given did not mean the conferring of the Priesthood upon those sisters yet the sisters hold a portion of thq Priesthood in connection with their husbands. (Sisters Eliza R. Snow and Bathsheba W. Smith, stated that they so understood it in Nauvoo and have looked upon it always in that light.)

"As I stated, at that meeting, that I was called upon by the Prophet Joseph and I did then ordain Sisters Whitney and Cleveland, and blessed Sister Emma and set her apart. I could not ordain these sisters to anything more or to greater powers than had been conferred upon Sister Emma who had previously been ordained to expound the Scriptures, and that Joseph said at that time, that being an elect lady had its significance, and that the revelation was then fulfilled in Sister Emma being thus elected to preside of the Relief Society."

***

After reading that interesting part, I learned about how Emma actually felt about polygamy and later why the RS was discontinued for a time. These are always things I've wondered, but didn't have a primary source! Well, here they are! Right in The Woman's Exponent.  Perhaps in a few years I can go read all the old issues. Maybe.

"However after this organization at Nauvoo, much disturbance arose among the sisters. I do not wish to be personal especially as Sister Emma is now dead, but think that some of those circumstances should be known. Sister Emma got severely tried in her mind about the doctrine of Plural Marriage and she made use of the position she held to try to pervert the minds of the sisters in relation to that doctrine. She tried to influence my first wife and to make her believe that the revelation was not correct. Sister Taylor was very much troubled thereat and asked me what it meant. Soon after, the prophet Joseph was in my house and I spoke to him in my wife's presence, in relation to what sister Emma had said, and Joseph replied, "Sister Emma would dethrone Jehovah to accomplish her purpose if she could." Some of you sisters are acquainted with what I refer to and of the prejudice that then existed.

"After the death of the Prophet Joseph, in consequence of the confusion then introduced, President B. Young thought it best to defer the operations of this organization---and the labors of the Society ceased, until he organized the sisters again here in this City.

"Those influences then introduced and then operating were not right, for the sisters in the various organization since have accomplished much good and should not be deprived of their rights and privileges because others have done wrong."

***

For more on the organization of the RS check out this Des News article by Eliza R. Snow.

Women of Faith in the Latter Days, Vol. 1

I finally borrowed a copy of Women of Faith in the Latter Days edited by Turley & Chapman.  I knew it would be good, but I didn't know it would be this good!  I like it so much that I'm getting my own copy for Christmas -- and around here, that's a big thing.  We don't really buy books; there's no place to put them!  I'm not done with the book, but I need to get it back to its owner.

One of my favorite things so far in the book is learning about how women in pioneer days actually felt about polygamy.  I had several ancestors enter into the practice, and I wondered what they thought. In college I read A Mormon Mother, and if I remember right, Annie Tanner didn't like it all that much.  But, how did other Mormon women feel?

I've been writing down what women said about polygamy in Volume 1.  Rather than saving my paper notes, I'll type them here:

73:  "Tis rather trying to a womans feelings not to be acknowledged by the man she has given herself to, and desires to love with all her heart."  Martha Heywood
74:  "My husband had a long conversation with me last night counselling me to if possible to assist in the housework sufficient [Martha was expecting] to avoid the hiring of a girl during Mrs. Heywood's [the other wife] expected confinement."  Martha Heywood (I'm glad to know that even in polygamy with more women around, they still needed help with the housework!)
78: "After my husband and his wife Sarepta left me, I felt a spirit of peace. . ."  Martha Heywood
79:  "Joseph came as far as Provo [close to where Martha was living] and did not send me one single word which hurt my feelings and taught me to think that I was not much cared for."  Martha Heywood
98:  "Plural marriage destroys the oneness of course. . . .  'no one can feel the full weight of the curse till she enters into polygamy; it is a great trial of feelings, but not of faith.'  It is a great trial, no one would deny that; but she was willing because it was a duty her religion demanded.  For years, she says, she was so bound and so united to her husband that she could do nothing without him. . . ."  Mary Isabella Horne
99:  "Mary Isabella lived the law of plural marriage without complaint.  In looking back, she also later recognized the benefits of plurality, at least for her own development and independent growth. . . . 'Since his plural marriage, she could see some advantages, now she feels better; she is freer and can do herself individually things she never could have attempted before; and work out her individual character as separate from her husband."  Mary Isabella Horne
153: "'Well, after living in Plurality and getting the experience you desired how do you like it and what is your belief now?'  I will say I like it first rate. . . .  I do believe it is a principle that if not abused will purify and exalt those that enter in to it with purity and purpose and abide there in."  Lydia Knight

I really enjoyed the first hand experiences of Amanda Barnes Smith (327) at Haun's Mill.  She's the one whose little boy had his hip blown out in the massacre.  I've heard the story so many times, it was just more powerful to read it in the first person.

This was also interesting from Amanda Smith (342):  "I have borne six children since receiving the Gospel, and of these five were born without pain through the power of the priesthood. . . ."  Wow. I think I need to exercise more faith.

I also LOVED reading about Emma Smith (p. 343).  She's got to be one of the most wonderful, charitable, forgiving women EVER.  The chapter identified how Emma assisted in the translation of the first 116 pages of The Book of Mormon while she was expecting, and how her knowledge was so important in explaining things, like geography, to Joseph.  In time, she had the baby, but it was stillborn, and then she got really sick, and then the pages were lost!  I had so many questions about this experience.

If her knowledge was so important, why did she even have to be pregnant?  Why didn't God just prevent the pregnancy?  It would have made her life a lot easier. She wouldn't have been so sick and tired while she was trying to assist.  She could have possibly had more impact.  Then, after that, to lose the baby?  That seems so unfair!  Then, to know that the 116 pages of translation were LOST?  How devastating.  It must have been a labor of love for her to serve and then have it lost.  No baby, no pages, and sick?  Life is so unfair.  I also wondered, maybe her knowledge wasn't as important as her pregnancy.  But maybe it was, maybe biology reigns over knowledge.  Maybe that pregnancy was an answer to her prayers.

I'd love to know why things did turn out the way they did, and surely she grew from her loss and her trial of sickness afterward.  Emma is a woman I do want to meet someday.  I DO recommend this book!

Daughters in My Kingdom: Chapter 4

In chapter 4 of Daughters in My Kingdom, "A Wide and Extensive Sphere of Action," the Relief Society is somewhat reorganized after 20 years (p. 41) of no formal organization.  Brigham Young encourages bishops to seek out those in need and to enlist the help of the sisters in this effort.  Fourteen years later (p. 44), Eliza R. Snow is officially called as general Relief Society President. 

Organization
I've often wondered why approximately 34 years went by with no formal Relief Society!  All I can see on the matter is on page 41 when Brigham Young says, "Some may think this is a trifling thing, but it is not. . . . "  It is unclear as to is this trifling to the women or to the men.  If it's in reference to the women, that would indicate they were somewhat indifferent on being organized.  However, Brigham Young also states, ". . .you will find that the sisters will be the mainspring of the movement," which indicates to me that the women were pretty excited about their reorganization.  Again, this is a topic I'd like to learn more about.

Another indicator that the women were happy about this is expressed in something Eliza R. Snow said on page 44:  "If any of the daughters and mothers in Israel are feeling in the least [limited] in their present spheres, they will now find ample scope for every power and capability for doing good with which they are most liberally endowed."  That tells me that women were excited for a bit of work to do outside their homes, just as most of us all feel a bit of relief with being useful outside the home (not that we don't want to be useful inside the home, but it's nice to have access to a bigger sphere sometimes).

Polygamy
I'm always impressed by the women who married into polygamy and defended it (p. 46).  It was the standard they were tied to and the commitment they made.  It's good they upheld their covenants.  I'm glad we don't have to uphold what they did! 

I liked that these women spoke up for themselves: "It was high time [to] rise up in the dignity of our calling and speak for ourselves. . . .  The world does not know us, and truth and justice to our brethren and to ourselves demands us to speak. . . .   We are not inferior to the ladies of the world, and we do not want to appear so" (p. 47).  Now contrast that to the "fundamental Mormons" who practice polygamy today (if you are unfamiliar with them and us, they are NOT members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/LDS Mormons).  You sadly don't see the fundamentalist ladies being able to speak up for themselves and their husbands, and you hear many stories where they are considered inferior.  (I'm sorry, I usually try and keep my posts positive, but the contrast is just so obvious here.)

Speaking Up
I loved the story on page 49 about Emily Richards learning to speak in a meeting:  "The first time [Eliza R. Snow] asked me to speak in meeting, I could not, and she said, 'Never mind, but when you are asked to speak again, try and have something to say,' and I did."  She "continued to improve her ability as a public speaker, and in 1889 she spoke at the National Woman Suffrage Association convention in Washington, D.C."  WOW, that's progress!

I also liked the quote by President Kimball (p. 50) that "Relief Society sisters will become a powerful influence for good upon the 'good women of the world.'"  I hope we are, and I'm grateful for the good women out there that I look up to that are not of my LDS faith.


The Balance
The balance of chapter 4 is mainly about temporal self-reliance and projects the women were involved in such as sewing, wheat storage, health care and medical education, and suffrage.  On page 58, Eliza R. Snow is quoted as saying: "Our sphere of action will continually widen, and no woman in Zion need[s] to mourn because her sphere is too narrow. . . .  Let your first business be to perform your duties at home.  But inasmuch as you are wise stewards, you will find time for social duties. . . .    . . . You will find that your capacity will increase, and you will be astonished at what you can accomplish."  Those women had the same balancing act we do today.

Polygamy

After one day short of 2 months, I finished reading "Polygamy" by VH Cassler.  Yes, I'd fail college at this rate.  I've said before that I try and leave the polygamy topic alone, especially on this blog, but it is a fascinating subject as I have several polygamous ancestors and the topic has been in the news a lot lately with the Warren Jeffs trial.  If you've wondered about polygamy in the past as well as its potential in the future, this article is for you.  Although this is not official LDS doctrine, Cassler's interpretations of the scriptures and examples do make a lot of sense.

A commenter stated well (Kathryn):  "I'll have to wait for this to be taught as 'official' doctrine in some future General Conference.  Maybe it will be shouted from the roof tops in great rejoicing and relief by those who think it makes more sense and clarifies the apparent conflicts between various scriptures in which the Lord either condemns or commands multiplicity of wives.  It has always seemed inconsistant [sic] and difficult to understand or explain. . . ." 

The premise is that the basic marriage law is monogamy, but under certain circumstances, some people may be asked by God to have plural wives. She compares this diversion from monogamy to the great sacrifices of Abraham with Issac as well as Christ with his death.  She points out that in the end, there was always a "ram in the thicket," or rather, an escape, a way out.  She suggests that just as there was an end to Christ's suffering as well as an end to Abraham's fear in sacrificing his son, there will also be an end/way out of polygamy (if one desires it).

I'll share a couple of my most favorite parts --  Cassler brings up a few points, perhaps rumors/traditions, that have been floating around in LDS culture regarding polygamy and suggests that they very well may just wrong -- we really can't prove them (so we should stop perpetuating them!)

Some in LDS culture assume that polygamy is not merely a doctrinal necessity but a circumstantial necessity in the hereafter.  Generally this assumption takes one of two forms.  In the first form of the assumption, some assert that there will be more women who inherit the celestial fullness than men, and since everyone in the highest level of the celestial kingdom is married, polygamy then must follow as a natural consequence of the sex ratio there. This “folkways” is unsound both doctrinally and demographically.  There is simply no basis for assuming a celestial sex ratio highly skewed in favor of women.

           First, how could God be no respecter of persons and create a system where one spirit, because of gender, has a much better chance of reaching the celestial kingdom than the other gender?  If God is the author of all fairness and if gender equality is a foundational principle of the gospel, he could not have authored such a system.  Even if this system were somehow fair, for such an outcome to ensue would mean that the male gender was disproportionately assigned to or an attribute of weaker spirits.  There is no doctrinal or scriptural basis for such a belief. 

            For those who feel polygamy is ubiquitous in the celestial kingdom, this belief demands that, at a minimum, twice as many women make it to the celestial kingdom as men.  But human demographics argues against such a conclusion.  Approximately 106 male babies are born on earth for every 100 female babies born. [20]  More males have existed on earth than females.  Yet by age five, the sex ratio is about 1:1, for male babies are more susceptible to genetic disorders.  Therefore, a large number of males die before the age of accountability and are automatically saved in the celestial kingdom.  Also, male deaths through such mechanisms as the wholesale killing of male children by an enemy power (e.g., in Moses’ time and in Jesus’ time), or males laying down their lives in righteous defense of family and homeland also increases the pool of males eligible for the celestial kingdom.  Using established demographic procedures, several  BYU sociologists declare in perhaps only a partially tongue-in-cheek essay that they can demonstrate there will be more males in the celestial kingdom than females! [21]

            All the foregoing serves to make the point that it is by no means clear that females will outnumber males in the celestial kingdom.  There is absolutely no scriptural or empirical basis upon which to assert the sex ratio of the celestial kingdom.  If we cannot confidently assume that there will be more exalted women than exalted men, then one cannot conclude that polygamy must then follow.

            The second form of the assumption that polygamy is a circumstantial necessity in the celestial kingdom is the notion that one Heavenly Mother is incapable of producing and nurturing the vast numbers of spirit children that Heavenly Father appears to have fathered.  After Christ comes, “time is no longer” (D&C 84:100; D&C 88:110).  With God, past, present, and future are continually before his eyes (D&C 130:7).  What this means, no one knows in this life.  But clearly it means that the same temporal constraints do not exist for Gods.  What, then, does it mean to say that something “would take too long” for a God?  Additionally, it does not appear that God is in some great hurry to do his work.  It may have taken billions of years to produce the universe and, eventually, our solar system.  Why does he need to rush the production of spirit children?  Furthermore, we do not know anything about how spirit children are organized or how long it takes to organize them.

            But how could one Heavenly Mother take care of so many children?  This question takes on its true character if we change it to ask: How could one Heavenly Father take care of so many children?  We believe Heavenly Father is capable of loving each one of us completely.  If a single he has such abilities, why do we doubt that a single She has the same? [22]  In addition, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother do not exist as a typically modern nuclear family unit--they have an entire and very large eternal family organization to help them.  Think of all that Christ, Their Son, accomplished in creating numberless worlds at a time when he did not yet possess a body and had not yet entered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.  We must suppose that our divine parents have plenty of help in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Additionally, I really enjoyed learning about who was sealed to whom in the early days of the early LDS Church and how confusing it all got.  It seemed most important then just to be sealed, but it didn't quite matter to whom.

Thus it appears that choosing to enter sacred covenants of sealing and remaining worthy of those covenants is all that matters from the standpoint of the individual’s exaltation as a member of God’s eternal family--the actual people to whom one is sealed might or might not change in the re-forging of the great family link of all God’s exalted children.  Even if you are sealed to an unworthy person, it is as if that person is a stand-in for one who is worthy--whom you may not even meet in this life.  This explains why the Church does not cancel the sealing of a wife in a divorce situation unless another marriage sealing is to take place; because what matters is that the wife chose and presumably remains worthy to be sealed to a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder--even though she will most likely end up having that sealing transferred to someone else.  Her first husband remains, as it were, a “stand-in” until a transfer can take place. [26]             

Such stand-in, or “proxy,” marriages were common in the early Church, because in the first several decades of the restored Church, one could not be sealed to loved ones who had not been baptized into the Church before they died.  Surviving family members were sealed to General Authorities to assure their exaltation.  Widows whose husbands had died before hearing the Gospel were sealed to a general authority as the authority’s wife in order to assure their exaltation, and then typically had their husbands sealed to the same General Authority as a child so as “to keep him in the family”! [27] This resulted in many women becoming plural wives because of the mistaken understanding that they could not be sealed to their dead husbands and could not gain their exaltation unless sealed to someone as a wife.  For example, women who had never even met Joseph Smith while he was alive were sealed to him after his death; also, one woman had her aged mother sealed to her (the daughter’s) husband shortly before the mother died so that the mother could receive her exaltation.  Wilford Woodruff had over 400 of his dead female ancestors sealed to him as wives.  These practices seem to indicate that the parties involved understood that the man in question was more of a stand-in or proxy so that the woman could receive the marriage ordinance and thus her exaltation, than an understanding that these women were married in some meaningful sense to these particular men for all eternity.  For example, what can it mean to have a dead woman sealed to you, whom you have never met in this life, whose will on the matter you cannot possibly know, and who is in fact one of your great-great grandmothers?  Or to have your own mother-in-law sealed to you as a wife?  Or, in the case of a woman, to be sealed to a dead man whom you have never met, and whose will on the matter you cannot possibly know? These marriages make sense best as proxy marriages.  Indeed, when President Wilford Woodruff announced in 1894 that women could be sealed to their dead husbands (and children to their dead parents) even if the deceased had not been baptized before their deaths, many thousands of sealing transfers took place to rightfully reorganize family lines. [28]

I wonder if there was a differentiation between the word "sealing" and the word "marriage" in the past.  Today, we tend to group them together as though they are one, but if you separate the two, it sure would explain a lot of things.  Women could be sealed to a man, yet not really be "married" to him in the full sense of the word.

One question I had was regarding the very strong statements by people in Church history regarding the practice of polygamy, such as (taken from The Juvenile Instructor blog):

[Polygamy] was at the center of LDS theology, it was emphasized within Mormon practice, and it was exemplified by all ecclesiastical leaders. The fact that it was at the center of the Mormon ideal image transcends demographics. A few examples help provide a glimpse:

• Plural wife Esther Romania Bunnell Penrose proclaimed polygamy as “the platform on which is built Endless Kingdoms and lives and no other or all combined principles revealed can be substituted as a compensation.”[6] 

• Brigham Young’s counselor Daniel W. Wells, when under oath in the Reynolds Trial, explained that if Mormons “failed to obey it [polygamy] they would be under condemnation, and would be clipped in their glory in the world to come.”[7] 

• Joseph F. Smith in 1878 protested against the “false idea” that monogomy was enough for the highest glory, and that “whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.”[8] 

• As late as 1884, Apostle Moses Thatcher declared polygamy was “the chief corner stone in the hands of [God].”[9] 

• That same year, George Q. Cannon emphasized that he “did not feel like holding up his hand to sustain anyone as a presiding officer over any portion of the people who had not entered into the Patriarchal order of Marriage,” and that everyone who is capable “must have more than one wife at a time in order to obey that Law.”[10]

Regarding statements like these, Cassler states:

Last, nonscriptural statements by early Saints indicate that they believed polygamy to be the mode of married life in the celestial kingdom and that quantity of wives in the hereafter is a sign of a man’s degree of righteousness, which statements seem to support the “reward” interpretation. [30] However, we must remember that these statements were made in that period of time where some confusion existed about the sealing order of heaven.  It was thought that one could not be sealed to dead relatives who had passed away without being baptized.  Widows felt they had to be sealed to a general authority to assure their exaltation; remember that men thought they had to be sealed to General Authorities as their children, and that all must eventually be sealed directly or indirectly to the head of the dispensation (Joseph Smith) and that is where their sealing duties ended.  Thus, many early General Authorities had many wives and many children because of the confluence of these ideas about sealing and the God-given commandment to practice polygamy.   In a sense, then, the actual practice of polygamy in the early Church was profoundly affected by some confusion over the sealing order.  It is conceivable that this situation affected the understandings of these early Saints on the topic of husband-wife sealing in marriage, as well. [31]  We note that this confusion was cleared up by the same prophet in whose tenure God rescinded the exceptional commandment to practice polygamy: Wilford Woodruff.  Indeed, we believe it is no coincidence that this was the case.  In rescinding polygamy in 1890 in the context of the constrained views of the time about sealing, Wilford Woodruff, acting as the Lord’s mouthpiece, was seemingly placing exaltation out of the reach of many persons whose immediate family had not received the Gospel before death.  The sorrow of this situation could only have been rectified by removing the confusion over sealing.  Thus, resolving the confusion over sealing in 1894 was a necessary appendage to the rescindment of the commandment to practice polygamy in 1890.

I also always consider that those people were commanded to live polygamy, so if they were going against a commandment, wouldn't they be condemned?  Wouldn't you think they'd try and support it the best they could?


So, again, this isn't Church doctrine, but it gives me some good pondering.




(bold emphasis added)

More "light" reading

I have a few more quotes/links I wanted to jot down that I've found since my last post.

1.  I loved Stephanie's post at Diapers and Divinity entitled I am evolving.  No one is more shocked than I am.  Goes to show we can really develop that mother heart if we desire it.  There is a light at the end of the tunnel! :)

2.  I also enjoyed the post by Delia on the MMB Community site regarding the concept of holding on to your kids.  She does this by home-schooling her kids.  She stated:

It's hard enough to hang on to your kids, sending them off to  school may be easier and parents may think it is good for kids to learn to deal with the real world. But the teenage brain is not that well  developed as scientists are beginning to find out. Hold on To Your Kids is not a home-schooling book, it's about parenting.

She also shares a few quotes from the book (or maybe it's a review of the book from somewhere), Hold on To Your Kids:

This books helps support the need to be more involved. It comes at a time when more parents are working outside the home. I think we need to take care and  pay attention, it passes all too quickly.

Like countless other parents, Canadian doctors Neufeld and  Maté woke up one day to find that their children had become secretive  and unreachable. Pining for time with friends, they recoiled or grew  hostile around adults. Why? The problem, Neufeld and co-writer Maté  suggest, lies in a long-established, though questionable, belief that  the earliest possible mastery of the rules of social acceptance leads to  success. In a society that values its economy over culture, the book  states, the building of strong adult/child attachments gets lost in the  shuffle. Multiple play dates, day care, preschool and after school  activities groom children to transfer their attachment needs from adults  to their peers. They become what the authors call "peer oriented." The  result is that they squelch their individuality, curiosity and  intelligence to become part of a group whose members attend school less  to learn than to socialize. And these same children are bullying,  shunning and murdering each other, as well as committing suicide, at  increasing rates. The authors' meticulous exploration of the problem can  be profoundly troubling. However, their candidness and exposition lead  to numerous solutions for reestablishing a caring adult hierarchy.  Beautifully written, this terrific, poignant book is already a  bestseller in Canada.

That whole concept of kids connecting with peers rather than adults reminded me of my student teaching experience in Western Samoa.  Sadly, at least when I was there (and I'd guess it's still true today), fa'a Samoa (the Samoan way) was often to beat one's children.  I noticed that this caused a much stronger bond between siblings than between parents and their children.

So, although we're talking different reasons for children to connect with peers, there still seems to be a huge importance to connecting with adults.

This whole scenario reminds me of the article The Dangerous Digital Vortex:

If you have a teenage daughter, for example, and she’s off in a corner texting her friends during a family gathering, then she is emotionally withdrawing from her family.

3/30/11 Update:  After I jotted this all down, I went up to bed and started reading Larry Lawrence's Courageous Parenting again.  Wow that article totally relates!

• ... we are reminded in the family proclamation, parents are responsible for the protection of their children. ¹ That means spiritually as well as physically.
• The story of Eli teaches us that parents who love their children cannot afford to be intimidated by them. (1 Sam 3)
• ... Robert D. Hales has observed, “Sometimes we are afraid of our children—afraid to counsel with them for fear of offending them.” 
• By listening closely, we can discover the desires of their hearts, help them set righteous goals, and also share with them the spiritual impressions that we have received about them. Counseling requires courage.

Lastly (I think), I'm also reminded of Protecting is a Part of Good Parenting by Kelly.  Good post and thought provoking comments on that one.

3.   Lastly, I subscribe to the Juvenile Instructor blog.  It's full of very interesting historical stuff.  I don't usually read the posts, though, because they're too long and they're written at a college level.  1 - I don't have the attention span to read anything really long these days, and 2 - my ability to read college level stuff ended about 8 years ago.

Anyway, there was a short post regarding the impact of losing a child by Todd Compton, particularly in Mormon polygamy days.  I was so touched by the trials of those women.  My heart ached for them.

Well, here's a long post for anyone who wants it!

The Women's Movement in Early Utah

A week ago I listened to a radio program on Eliza R. Snow.  In it, the commentator and Jill Derr were speaking of Eliza R. Snow and Emeline B. Wells in the late 1880s, and quoted Emeline as saying "Relief Society will help women's emancipation from error, superstition, and darkenss, etc., will bring educational and economic opportunities to women." The program host then asked, "Where did [Emeline] come up with these particular concepts?  Was it the [original Relief Society] minutes or something more along the lines of women's rights?" (minute 44:46).

Jill Derr answers that she believes it was, at least in part, a result of Emeline's life:  Emeline was married at 15, a mother at 16 and deserted by her husband, later married two more times, and during her life had to support herself.  You can understand why Emeline was a supporter of women's rights and suffrage because she saw that women needed the ability to care for themselves when life gave them lemons.

After that part in the program, the commentators talked about how women in Utah had the vote in 1870, lost it when the government felt Utah had too much voting power, then received it again in 1896 when Utah became a state.  They suggest that it was easily acceptable for women to have the vote in early Utah because women naturally voted in church affairs, so why shouldn't they in civic?

Women in early Utah are so fascinating to me.  They had a different culture than the rest of the United Sates; they were quite liberated in many ways.  I'd continue to like to learn more about:

• how did women's rights affect the women in Utah
• how did Utah women influence women's rights, and who
• how much did polygamy enable women to participate more in the community and politics

Any suggestions on where I can learn more?

I've found
http://www.ldswomenoffaith.org/
http://www.ldswomenofgod.com/blog/
http://scholaristas.wordpress.com/women-in-american-religious-history-a-research-guide/

The Lion and the Lioness

I just finished listening to The Lion and the Lioness regarding Brigham Young and Eliza R. Snow.  With my love of history, I just loved hearing about women in Nauvoo, the Relief Society, and early Salt Lake City.  I love to hear how women were involved in society and how the interactions between men and women were.  As I listened, the thought crossed my mind, and it may be completely absurd and the details out of context, but that some of the LDS polygamous women back then (1800s) were getting out into society the way feminists of the 1960s also wanted women to get involved in society.  One example was women getting involved in medicine.  How's that for an idea?

(Now I'm not promoting polygamy here, nor am I promoting liberal feminist causes, but I thought it was an interesting observation.)