Dr. Ulrich: A House Full of Females

[Nofear]

I haven't read the book by Dr. Uhlrich " A House Full Of Females: Plural Marriage And Women's Rights In Early Mormonism" but may. The NPR All Things Considered interview was interesting (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510246850/how-mormon-polygamy-in-the-19th-century-fueled-womens-activism) and I'm tempted. From the interview she seemed very careful to avoid presentism.

Anybody read it? Comments (one should probably at least read the interview linked first)?

[Anijen]

I have always thought that a basic course in an undergrad class, one that should be required, should be on presentism. In our college classes I see a huge tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. I feel there would be a less politicized, contentious atmosphere if presentism was, well, less present.

Having said that, the topic of polygamy has always been a commandment I have struggled with. However, I am over that and realize that when the gospel was restored (in increments), polygamy was part of that restoration. I do not have to live it and I live in an era where I can even joke about it.

   

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I haven't read the book by Dr. Uhlrich " A House Full Of Females: Plural Marriage And Women's Rights In Early Mormonism"

Anybody read it?

Book was just released a week ago.
This is the first I've heard of it.  Could be an interesting read.  Hopefully it helps further dispel the myth of the brainwashed cattle-like polygamist woman.
Anyone who has read contemporary materials from that time knows that women had more rights in polygamous Utah than most of the rest of the nation.

Edited January 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Book was just released a week ago.
This is the first I've heard of it.  Could be an interesting read.  Hopefully it helps further dispel the myth of the brainwashed cattle-like polygamist woman.
Anyone who has read contemporary materials from that time knows that women had more rights in polygamous Utah than most of the rest of the nation.

I know you didn't point to directly at me, but I want to make known I've never thought of polygamist women in this regard. I think we both believe they should be applauded for being so faithful and putting up with so much without much recognition.

[juliann]

 I have it. Her methodology is to use only contemporary writings, nothing written years later after people found out what happened. She doesn't seem to be speculating much....which is so common in polygamy treatments. She says in the intro "Some practiced, even if they did not yet preach, forms of "sex radicalism,"  the idea that a woman should choose when and with whom she would bear children."  So far, I haven't found her enlarging upon this. However, I have thought that polyandry was exactly that...it allowed a woman to choose the best father for her children. 

Another gem, Augusta, a neglected wife of Brigham Young, writing him to ask for a proxy so she could have the privilege of bearing children. Now where did she come up with that? 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know you didn't point to directly at me, but I want to make known I've never thought of polygamist women in this regard. I think we both believe they should be applauded for being so faithful and putting up with so much without much recognition.

Certainly wasn't pointing at you.

But it so helps to remember that the first female state senator was a polygamous wife from Utah who also happened to be a medical Doctor.
She also won that senate seat running against her own husband and another polygamous woman who was a suffragist activist in addition to being the 5th Relief Society president.
And in that same state congress two women were elected as congresswomen.

Also Brigham Young taught repeatedly that women had the right of divorce in polygamy whereas men did not, giving them significant power in marriage courtships and relationships.
 

[juliann]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Book was just released a week ago.
This is the first I've heard of it.  Could be an interesting read.  Hopefully it helps further dispel the myth of the brainwashed cattle-like polygamist woman.
Anyone who has read contemporary materials from that time knows that women had more rights in polygamous Utah than most of the rest of the nation.

More rights? Aside from no fault quickie divorces and temporary voting, which she credits for the success of polygamy, what would those rights be? This is such a complex subject with so many variations, the time has gone where we can draw upon the same tropes. She certainly gives these women their due and respects their choices, but she doesn't avoid the reality of their lives either. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I have always thought that a basic course in an undergrad class, one that should be required, should be on presentism. In our college classes I see a huge tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. I feel there would be a less politicized, contentious atmosphere if presentism was, well, less present.

    

The opposite of "presentism" is "moral relativity".

Interestingly, LDS doctrine promotes the idea of the absolute moral truth which is a prerequisite to "presentism", and LDS leaders have warned against the dangers of "moral relativism" on more than one occasion.  So if LDS find themselves falling into a habit of "presentism", it might only be because they were listening at General Conference all these years.

I've also noticed that LDS only express indignation at "presentism" when it is convenient (i.e. a defense for that which is otherwise indefensible).  Hopefully the next time someone expresses a moral judgement about anything from the 19th century (i.e. "Joseph Smith was a good person") we can just as clearly see the "presentism" in their claim and let them know they are veering into areas for which it is impossible to make a judgement.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, juliann said:

Another gem, Augusta, a neglected wife of Brigham Young, writing him to ask for a proxy so she could have the privilege of bearing children. Now where did she come up with that?

Brigham Young:Pioneer Prophet by John G. Turner - page 192 has that story.  I would think that is the source.

It also states she was unhappy being sealed to Brigham Young so he granted her a sealing to Joseph Smith and married her only for time.

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Also Brigham Young taught repeatedly that women had the right of divorce in polygamy whereas men did not, giving them significant power in marriage courtships and relationships.
 

Seriously? What power does a woman have when she has limited resources and unequal opportunities to support herself? If both parties wanted out, the man had the same access to the divorce as the woman. The story of Mary Ann Jackson was instructive. She wanted to remarry and Woodruff said no. 

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham Young:Pioneer Prophet by John G. Turner - page 192 has that story.  I would think that is the source.

It also states she was unhappy being sealed to Brigham Young so he granted her a sealing to Joseph Smith and married her only for time.

Again, her sources are contemporary writings. She is quoting Augusta's letters not a secondary source.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

More rights? Aside from no fault quickie divorces and temporary voting, which she credits for the success of polygamy, what would those rights be? This is such a complex subject with so many variations, the time has gone where we can draw upon the same tropes. She certainly gives these women their due and respects their choices, but she doesn't avoid the reality of their lives either.

I agree with you about the complexity and overcoming these tired tropes.
Not having read this book I do not have an opinion on how she addresses them.  I just dislike the constant claims of brainwashing and abuse, which while they did occur, were not the norm any more than Martha Hughes Cannon as state senator and Doctor was the norm.
As you say, a very complex issue.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Seriously? What power does a woman have when she has limited resources and unequal opportunities to support herself? If both parties wanted out, the man had the same access to the divorce as the woman. The story of Mary Ann Jackson was instructive. She wanted to remarry and Woodruff said no.

While I am unfamiliar with the Mary Ann Jackson case, the principles upon which divorce was granted were well established in 19th century Utah.

Brigham taught clearly that a woman could leave a man for someone holding higher authority.  He also taught that a divorce was meaningless if the man was righteous.
So a woman in polygamy had the right to leave an abusive husband or find a more qualified husband.

However, he also taught that a man in polygamy had no right to a divorce (although I am sure adultery was considered an exception).
 

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Again, her sources are contemporary writings. She is quoting Augusta's letters not a secondary source.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant.

Really Juliann?  Some times I think you just like to argue.
You asked where she got the story of Augusta asking for a proxy husband.  I provided another biography that contained the same story, presumably from the same source.
You don't have to be so disagreeable.

[juliann]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

Really Juliann?  Some times I think you just like to argue.
You asked where she got the story of Augusta asking for a proxy husband.  I provided another biography that contained the same story, presumably from the same source.
You don't have to be so disagreeable.

I asked where Augusta would have gotten that (the idea) from...as in, proxy fathers must not have been unknown. Also known as polyandry.  Ulrich gets things from primary sources for the most part and has provided copious end notes.  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with you about the complexity and overcoming these tired tropes.
Not having read this book I do not have an opinion on how she addresses them.  I just dislike the constant claims of brainwashing and abuse, which while they did occur, were not the norm any more than Martha Hughes Cannon as state senator and Doctor was the norm.
As you say, a very complex issue.

If you would like the biography of Brigham Young by John G. Turner, I have it and am probably never going to read it. I'll give it to you free of charge!  I need to stop buying books, not good at reading them anymore. Or it could be my eyes are getting worse and worse. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[Nofear]

I haven't read the book, but one of the things she mentions in the interview (linked in the op) was:

''For many of us, we think that the women's rights movement is about seizing power over men who appear to be controlling our lives, right to wages, right to divorce, right to enter any profession we would like. In truth, many Mormon women already had those rights.''

She also made several comments on divorce, how Utah's no fault divorce impacted not just polygamous but monogamous unions. Also a reduction in stigma of being divorced.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I asked where Augusta would have gotten that (the idea) from...as in, proxy fathers must not have been unknown. Also known as polyandry.  Ulrich gets things from primary sources for the most part and has provided copious end notes.  

Fair enough.  My apologies for misunderstanding your question and for assuming you were referring to the author.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

I haven't read the book by Dr. Uhlrich " A House Full Of Females: Plural Marriage And Women's Rights In Early Mormonism" but may. The NPR All Things Considered interview was interesting (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510246850/how-mormon-polygamy-in-the-19th-century-fueled-womens-activism) and I'm tempted. From the interview she seemed very careful to avoid presentism.

Anybody read it? Comments (one should probably at least read the interview linked first)?

I listened to the Terry Gross interview of Prof Ulrich on Jan 17 (http://www.npr.org/sections/author-interviews/ , and consider it brilliant and informative.  Far more informative than the presentist book recently published by Carol Lynn Pearson -- who is one of my favorite authors.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm just as glad I don't have to live a polygamous life in this life.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I listened to the Terry Gross interview of Prof Ulrich on Jan 17 (http://www.npr.org/sections/author-interviews/ , and consider it brilliant and informative.  Far more informative than the presentist book recently published by Carol Lynn Pearson -- who is one of my favorite authors.

I went to this presentation by Prof. Ulrich last March...http://unews.utah.edu/pulitzer-prize-winning-womens-historian-to-speak-at-us-marriott-library/ They didn't anticipate the large crowd and had to put several people in another room to watch on a screen. Luckily I arrived early! She is amazing!

And I listened to the interview by Terry Gross just now. I liked what Laurel said! Makes me think that the church needs a reprimand for not speaking more favorably about our polygamist past, or let me rephrase that, speak about it openly at all. By not doing that, it's like they are ashamed. If they had, maybe polygamists today wouldn't have had to go into hiding or keep the LDS church at such an arm's length or even feel the LDS church are apostates. I just wish the church hadn't squelched so much, all in the name of PR. 

I watch the Sister Wives' show, and would hope that the majority of polygamist's families in the early church could be like them, for the most part, but the Brown family are definitely not perfect. The women on that show aren't abused, if anything Kody is, because of having to keep everyone happy.

But do think some leaders like BY did neglect some of his wives. 

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Polygamists are in hiding because it is illegal everywhere in the US.  Why in the world do you believe the Church's attitude has anything to do with that?

The Church fought long and hard for polygamy, to the point of almost destruction.  I can't believe you are now seriously condemning them for not being more positive publicly about polygamy given how critical you have been of polygamy in the past.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

21 hours ago, Nofear said:

I haven't read the book by Dr. Uhlrich " A House Full Of Females: Plural Marriage And Women's Rights In Early Mormonism" but may. The NPR All Things Considered interview was interesting (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510246850/how-mormon-polygamy-in-the-19th-century-fueled-womens-activism) and I'm tempted. From the interview she seemed very careful to avoid presentism.

Anybody read it? Comments (one should probably at least read the interview linked first)?

I think she exemplifies understanding and valuing the mindset and mores of people of an earlier age.

I like that she brought up the question, “How could something be the word of God in one generation and then because of federal action now it be the word of God that it has to end?” and acknowledged both a scholarly and more abstract way of handling it. She said, “…it turns me toward deeply meaningful questions about how human beings manage to live together in the world and to make reasonable lives out of inscrutable suffering,” which in an abstract way of thinking is an early step in advancing from the light of Christ toward greater light.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I watch the Sister Wives' show, and would hope that the majority of polygamist's families in the early church could be like them, for the most part, but the Brown family are definitely not perfect. The women on that show aren't abused, if anything Kody is, because of having to keep everyone happy.

But do think some leaders like BY did neglect some of his wives.

 

You're really not wrong on any of this.
Some wives did get neglected.  Some men were completely henpecked.
Some of the early stories are entertaining, some are sad, and some breed great respect for their faith.

The funny thing is, is that really any different than monogamous marriage today?  Marriage, whether polygamous or monogamous, comes in all personalities.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

.....................................

.................................what Laurel said! Makes me think that the church needs a reprimand for not speaking more favorably about our polygamist past, or let me rephrase that, speak about it openly at all. By not doing that, it's like they are ashamed. If they had, maybe polygamists today wouldn't have had to go into hiding or keep the LDS church at such an arm's length or even feel the LDS church are apostates. I just wish the church hadn't squelched so much, all in the name of PR. 

I..............................................................  

The Brethren are pretty much damned if they do talk about polygamy, and damned if they don't.  Why? Because, if they talk about it, it makes it appear that they are supportive of it, and they are not, and they don't want to encourage the separatists.  Either way they appear to be wrong, and either way the separatists are going to practice some form of plural marriage.  The Brethren cannot control that at all because it is in the hands of secular legal authorities.  Remember, the reason why LDS plural marriage was brought to a close was the effort to prevent the destruction of the LDS Church by the Feds.  In addition, Utah could not become a state until that practice had ceased.  Once that had been done, the LDS Church became part of the apparent mainstream of religious public life in America.  Naturally PR became a major consideration after that -- how else would the LDS missionary program be able to succeed worldwide?  Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ really has  nothing to do with plural marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Polygamists are in hiding because it is illegal everywhere in the US.  Why in the world do you believe the Church's attitude has anything to do with that?

The Church fought long and hard for polygamy, to the point of almost destruction.  I can't believe you are now seriously condemning them for not being more positive publicly about polygamy given how critical you have been of polygamy in the past.

Even in countries where it is legal, doing such is grounds for ex-communication from the Church.