The Nehor Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I'm just as glad I don't have to live a polygamous life in this life. Ha, I do not even have to live monogamy. Does that mean I win or lose?
juliann Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Nofear said: 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. Listening to podcasts helps me go to sleep, so keep that in mind. It can take me a week to get through one and I'm not exactly focusing. I was surprised to hear a couple of things she said that were much more positive towards polygamy than in the book. Not that the book was negative. But in the book she sets it up as almost a paradox, some positive things were the byproduct of a painful situation kind of thing. She does that in tandem, however, without elevating either. She seems to be elevating the "positive" in these interviews. I liked her book approach because most scholars, until recently, have traditionally tiptoed past the negatives, which is why we are stuck with these "it made women more independent and gave them babysitters!" tropes. Edited January 20, 2017 by juliann 1
juliann Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I'm just as glad I don't have to live a polygamous life in this life. Cause you will be overrun by amorous women in the next life and will have to oblige all of them? Do you spend a lot of time thinking about these women? How many do you think you will have to accommodate? 1
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 25 minutes ago, juliann said: Listening to podcasts helps me go to sleep, so keep that in mind. It can take me a week to get through one and I'm not exactly focusing. I was surprised to hear a couple of things she said that were much more positive towards polygamy than in the book. Not that the book was negative. But in the book she sets it up as almost a paradox, some positive things were the byproduct of a painful situation kind of thing. She does that in tandem, however, without elevating either. She seems to be elevating the "positive" in these interviews. I liked her book approach because most scholars, until recently, have traditionally tiptoed past the negatives, which is why we are stuck with these "it made women more independent and gave them babysitters!" tropes. I do the same thing, listening to podcasts help me sleep too!
Nofear Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 Thank you again for your comments, juliann. Actually reading or having read the book gives your comments a lot more weight. That, and being juliann. 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 19 hours ago, The Nehor said: Ha, I do not even have to live monogamy. Does that mean I win or lose? Don't worry, if righteous you'll get a mate, either in this life or the next.
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Don't worry, if righteous you'll get a mate, either in this life or the next. Well, probably not then.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Don't worry, if righteous you'll get a mate, either in this life or the next. 12 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Well, probably not then. If really righteous you may get several. Isaiah 4:1 ***ducks head and runs
thesometimesaint Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 18 hours ago, juliann said: Cause you will be overrun by amorous women in the next life and will have to oblige all of them? Do you spend a lot of time thinking about these women? How many do you think you will have to accommodate? I have my hands full with just one.
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 20 hours ago, juliann said: Cause you will be overrun by amorous women in the next life and will have to oblige all of them? Do you spend a lot of time thinking about these women? How many do you think you will have to accommodate? I would like to think we are all past that juvenile fantasy. I really would like to. 3
juliann Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 On 1/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, juliann said: 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? The more I think about this, the more I am wondering if the easy divorce for women (but not men) was Brigham's compromise for his removal of polyandry. He took away women's choice while in marriage, so gave them the ability to step out of a marriage. A consolation prize of sorts.
rodheadlee Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 On 1/19/2017 at 4:12 PM, juliann said: Cause you will be overrun by amorous women in the next life and will have to oblige all of them? Do you spend a lot of time thinking about these women? How many do you think you will have to accommodate? Zero.
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 2 hours ago, juliann said: The more I think about this, the more I am wondering if the easy divorce for women (but not men) was Brigham's compromise for his removal of polyandry. He took away women's choice while in marriage, so gave them the ability to step out of a marriage. A consolation prize of sorts. Interesting theory. I may not agree with you on polyandry, but the divorce rules under polygamy are fascinating. They also directly connect to the second anointing which was practiced at the same time as polygamy.
juliann Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 22 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Interesting theory. I may not agree with you on polyandry, but the divorce rules under polygamy are fascinating. They also directly connect to the second anointing which was practiced at the same time as polygamy. Can you explain the connection?
strappinglad Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) On 1/20/2017 at 11:34 AM, The Nehor said: Well, probably not then. In preparation may I suggest getting a pet, something alone the lines of a Bengal tiger. Edited January 24, 2017 by strappinglad 1
JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 26 minutes ago, juliann said: Can you explain the connection? Without going into too much detail (as I am sure you are familiar with the ordinance), the final ordinance I mentioned that can be performed by mortals involves the wife claiming her husband as Mary did Christ. Basically, no man gets to rule and reign over a kingdom unless his queen is willing to accept him. A man cannot get all his ordinances without his wife giving the final one to him of her own free will. Gives her some power don't you think?
Calm Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Without going into too much detail (as I am sure you are familiar with the ordinance), the final ordinance I mentioned that can be performed by mortals involves the wife claiming her husband as Mary did Christ. Basically, no man gets to rule and reign over a kingdom unless his queen is willing to accept him. A man cannot get all his ordinances without his wife giving the final one to him of her own free will. Gives her some power don't you think? Not really if he can just go out and get another wife who is willing. 1
juliann Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 4:44 PM, JLHPROF said: Without going into too much detail (as I am sure you are familiar with the ordinance), the final ordinance I mentioned that can be performed by mortals involves the wife claiming her husband as Mary did Christ. Basically, no man gets to rule and reign over a kingdom unless his queen is willing to accept him. A man cannot get all his ordinances without his wife giving the final one to him of her own free will. Gives her some power don't you think? First, he will be a co-"ruler" assuming that is what goes on, which I doubt. Second, Calm is right. There is a difference between being needed and being necessary, the gender is necessary but the individual herself may or may not be needed. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Calm said: Not really if he can just go out and get another wife who is willing. 24 minutes ago, juliann said: First, he will be a co-"ruler" assuming that is what goes on, which I doubt. Second, Calm is right. There is a difference between being needed and being necessary, the gender is necessary but the individual herself may or may not be needed. A fair point. But the wife can also get a different husband. He is necessary, but not needed as an individual, just as President Young taught. Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man. The man cannot receive his final ordinance from anyone other than his wife, nor will he have her as eternal companion without it. As the sealing ceremony says, the wife gives and receives, the husband receives. The wife has the choice of husband she chooses. He is hopeless without her. She can just as easily choose a different companion as he can.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 6:43 PM, strappinglad said: In preparation may I suggest getting a pet, something alone the lines of a Bengal tiger. No need. I had some 'special' missionary companions. I know that being bound to someone can be a living hell.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 8:56 PM, Calm said: Not really if he can just go out and get another wife who is willing. Where is this band of amorous women people keep referencing all desperately seeking a companion. Asking for a friend. 3
Gray Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/19/2017 at 2:27 PM, The Nehor said: Ha, I do not even have to live monogamy. Does that mean I win or lose? Yes.
Recommended Posts