Women in the Book of Mormon
Note: I was trying to post this soon after Derek’s post on Women in the Old Testament.
A few nights ago, we were reading the Book of Mormon as a family and discussing Alma the Younger. My husband said something about Alma the Younger being the son of Alma who believed the words of Abinadi. One of my sons asked, “Well, who was his mom? What was her name?” And I (with just a tinge of bitterness) answered, “We don’t know. She was a woman”.
The lack of female representation in the BofM has always been a bit of a sore spot with me. So I was delighted to see a book called Women of the Book of Mormon: Insights and Inspirations by Heather B. Moore published this year. It is an easy read - 93 pages (but with pictures and blank pages, it is only 64 pages of text). Each chapter is about one woman or group of women. For each woman, Moore reviews what we know from the BofM, adds historical and cultural context, and then speculates or theorizes on what it might mean.
After reading it, I know . . . not much more than when I started. To be fair to Moore, there just isn’t that much material to work with. In the preface, she says:
Considering the time and culture, it is suprising that there is so much information about the women.
I’ve read the BofM several times, so I know the stories pretty well. For the purposes of this post, I am going to share some of the interesting things I learned from the book.
To start, there are 12 women (or groups of women) mentioned in the BofM. 6 of those women are mentioned by name, but only 3 are actual BofM women (Sariah, Abish, Isabel). The other 3 are Biblical (Eve, Mary, Sarah). (Interesting thought #1 - did you know that Mary is identified by name in the BofM prophecies but not the Biblical prophecies? It makes sense, though, because if her name had been known among her own people, her life may have been in danger.)
Here are some other interesting thoughts (most of which relate to the culture at the time). I’ll go in the same order as the book and start with Sariah:
Although surrounded by convenience and a measure of luxury, Sariah probably didn’t read or write, sadly. Scholars believe Lehi was a merchant who had an Egyptian education and taught his sons the language, but for Sariah and her daughters, their lives revolved around the home without receiving any education themselves.
My heart hurts reading that. In talking about Sariah entering the wildnerness,
Adapting the nomadic lifestyle was full of responsibilities for women, such as setting up tents and taking them down, loading and unloading supplies onto camels, preparing meals (which included gathering firewood, churning butter, and collecting water), spinning to make clothing, and guarding any flocks.
So what was left for the men to do?
The men, of course, hunted for meat, but everything else was part of the women’s domain.
Humph.
Since ancient times, men and women in Sariah’s culture ate their meals separately. The men were served by the women, then the women disappeared into the cooking room and later ate the leftovers. It was considered a privilege for the women to serve supper to male guests.
Just to warn you, a lot of the quotes I am going to cite are like this (evidence of inequality).
Having children was, of course, the ultimate aim of all the women in ancient Israel. Everyone felt very sorry for any wife who failed to deliver at least one son, if not several. Boys were preferred for the simple reason that girls left home when they married; sons were permanent assets while daughters were temporary.
Ishmael wouldn’t have been wealthy enough to afford camels for all the supplies and everyone to ride. The baggage was loaded onto the camels, and after baggage, the men and the children would have taken precedence on any remaining camels. In a society where women’s social status was just above that of a slave, healthy women would be the least likely to ride.
My heart still just hurts. It was kind of painful for me to read this book and fully understand all that was going on in the background of such wonderful scripture stories that we learn about. But after the chapter about Sariah came the chapter about Eve, with information that was much more palatable.
[T]hroughout history some have taken [the story of Eve being made from Adam’s rib] as an opportunity to state that a woman is less equal than a man because, in comparison, she is merely a “rib” . . . Upon further analysis, we learn that “rib” derives from the biblical word tsela, which more accurately means “side”. The word tsela was used by Jeremiah when he said “keepers of my tsela”, meaning enduring and everlasting companions. This exactly describes Adam and Eve. God was the supreme builder, and after He had completed everthing else, Eve was created. She was not made out of Adam’s rib, but she was the rib, in a figurative sense.
That makes sense. Next I’ll move to Sarai (Sarah).
Barrenness was feared by women in biblical times and among Mesoamericans. One of the primary duties of a woman was to produce an heir for her husband; children were seen as a direct blessing from the Lord. Therefore, when a woman proved barren, society viewed and sometimes condemned her as cursed, unclean, or unwanted. . . As time passed and no conception occurred, Sarai was left with little choice. Her husband’s posterity was important, and if Sarai couldn’t be the vehicle, she must offer her husband a handmaiden. This was an acceptable custom to the Lord during the Biblical and pre-Biblical era. Sarai gave her handmaid, Hagar, to be a wife to Abram. Abram followed his wife’s bidding - which was expected - and Hagar conceived.
There goes that hurt in my heart again. I really hate this part of Biblical culture, but I have to say that understanding this has helped me to put polygamy into perspective. Moore says that this was an “acceptable custom” to the Lord during the Biblical era. I think this means that the culture expected this, so the Lord did not require something different. He “accepted” the culture as-is. To me, this explains a lot of things that don’t make sense (like how the priesthood was denied to men with black skin prior to 1978). It doesn’t, however, say that the Lord condones polygamy or that polygamy is the Lord’s way of doing things.
The next chapter is on the Lamanite Daughters who were kidnapped by King Noah’s wicked priests. In describing what might have motivated the priests to kidnap the Lamanite Daughters, Moore says:
A man who has been living in hiding with only other men in the wilderness for two years and is nearly starved for the company of a woman would likely need little provocation to take the next step - prudent or not. Amulon and his men certainly missed the skills and influence of women in their lives, not to mention companionship. Conceivably it was a combination of temptation and an innate desire for posterity that led these Nephite men to abduct the Lamanite women. Unless the priests were willing to join up with another community that did have women, they would ultimately die out. These men had lived for two years in a harsh wilderness, carving out their lives from scratch, but they were alone . . . In addition to growing a community through bearing children, women would have brought many benefits to the hamlet of Amulon, including taking over the tasks of preparing meals and making clothing . . . Not only was weaving a revered talent, but it was also considered a necessary skill for women. “The life of a woman from birth to death centered around the production of beautiful, well-made textiles.” After two years of rough living, the kidnappers could discard their ragged clothing and benefit from new clothing. Now the men could spend the day planting or harvesting corn, beans and squash, then return home where the women had already ground cornmeal and prepared other food.
Is it obvious to anyone else that a simple solution to the workload predicament for the men would have been for some of the men to weave clothes and grind cornmeal? They could split into groups and share the work that needed to be done. But, no, they needed a second class to delegate that work to. It’s kind of hard to see the purposes of women so succinctly laid out in this paragraph: provide sex, bear children, cook and clean (or weave).
Now on to Isabel the harlot:
What desperation and misery drove a woman to the life of a harlot? Perhaps there was little or no choice in the sense that Isabel may have been born or sold into this diabolical practice. She certainly belonged to a lower class of citizens and didn’t enjoy the benefits of a higher class where proper women were expected to be virtuous.
Interesting. I’ve heard statements like that about other societies, too.
A woman such as Isabel fit near the bottom of the social structure, since her status mirrored that of a slave, unless she was a respected cult prostitute. The social pyramid in Mayan society, which was similar throughout Mesoamerica, held the royalty at the top, including the staff of elders. Next were the magistrates, priests, and administrative assistants. Third came the commoners, traders, female medics, servants and most of the peasantry. At the bottom came the slaves, prisoners of ward, and sacrificial victims. If Isabel was a mere harlot, what was her station in life compared to women who were concubines or wives? In the ancient world, the main reason for having more than one wife was due to the infertility of the first wife. Beyond that, plural wives became a status symbol for a man who could afford to pay for more than one household. Another difference is that a wife maintained the rights of inheritance for her children. A concubine did not. But a harlot was only for decadence. Concubinate may have existed in biblical and Book of Mormon times, yet the addition of harlots was against the law of Moses.
Lots of interesting information in that paragraph.
The women I haven’t touched on are Queen of King Lamoni, Abish, Queen of King Lamoni’s Father, Mothers of the Two Thousand Stripling Warriors, Daughter of Jared, and Wife of Mormon. There is a lot in this book about the faithfulness of most of these women (the daughter of Jared excluded).
To summarize, I have a really hard time with the way women were treated in the Book of Mormon culture. It is hard for me to understand how a society that treated women that way could have possibly been righteous. I have a similar problem with Biblical culture (which is essentially the same).
But, at the same time, these are the people and the prophets who brought us these books of scripture. They were prophets despite the imperfections of their culture.
That really helps me to understand and cope with the remnants of sexist culture in our day and age.
It does leave me with one burning question, though. What about the City of Enoch? If the people were so righteous that it became Zion and was translated, how were the women treated? Were the people perfectly righteous except for typical cultural treatment of women? Or did they already transcend and overcome the mistreatment of women? Is it possible for us to become Zion without correcting unequal treatment of women?
And here’s another, eh, interesting tidbit - none of the women mention in the B of M are Nephite. They area all Israelite, Jaradite or Lamanite. The closest you can get is Nephite’s reference to his ‘wife’, but not sure they were into the ‘-ite’ thing during her lifetime.
And yes, this is another reason to wonder about ‘righteous’ societies vis a vis women … Like my seminary teacher said ‘that’s the way it is and if you don’t like it then there is no place for you in the Celestial Kingdom.’ >.<
Comment by Not Ophelia — June 29, 2010 @ 2:20 am
Yikes, NO. Your seminary teacher and I would probably not be what you’d call “simpatico.” :eye-twitch:
Comment by Lorian — June 29, 2010 @ 2:24 am
I would assume that the City of Enoch, having existed before the flood and before the widespread influence of Egyptian and other cultures (since they didn’t exist) probably had a very celestial style relationship between men and women. If they were that righteous, people would have been ordinarily open to easier and more frequent revelation as to how things are done in heaven….how awesome would that be.
And it’s not necessarily assured that the BofM women were treated in the same manner as were Sariah and the daughter’s of Ishmael. The passing times and the mixing of cultures between the Isrealites and the indigenous people of the Americas probably calmed a little bit of it down (at least I would hope so). Otherwise, why would anybody have listened to Abish? Why would the daughters of Ismael have been able to calm their brothers and convince them away from killing Nephi? Why would the wife of the father of Lamoni have been able to order the Lamanites to kill Aaron when the king fell? It’s too bad that there aren’t more stories about the women in the BofM, but it is, alas, a religious history, and we know, double alas, how patriarchal we men tend to be.
Comment by Keith — June 29, 2010 @ 5:16 am
That is a hard pill to swallow, reading all of that. I am interested in reading the whole book. But the question of Enoch is interesting… I am wondering if the whole “share and bear each others burdens” thing extended to the people becoming vegitarian (thereby being empathetic to animals and negating the “hunting” profession). And from that, sharing the burden of working the land and weaving, etc. for food. That makes sense to me.
As an aside, I kind of hope we don’t have to eat in the eternities- or sleep. Those are things that I imagine an immortable body doesn’t need, and I really, really hate cooking (and eating) at the moment.
Comment by spunky — June 29, 2010 @ 5:21 am
/threadjack
Yeah Lorian, serious eye twitch >.>
The only reason I am still here is because my experiences with the divine (still) outweigh my experiences with the church and many of its members and leaders…
/end threadjack
Comment by Not Ophelia — June 29, 2010 @ 6:04 am
This is great evidence that Joseph Smith didn’t manufacture the Book of Mormon. Women were certainly treated much better in his time than in the past. Note that the Book of Mormon doesn’t even mention any kind of women’s organization within the church. That was truly a revolutionary concept that Joseph created. One does wonder why God would not order Nephi to create that kind of organization in his time. My guess is that the only reason is that Nephi would not have understood the concept that a woman was supposed to be equal to him. Whereas in the 1800s, there has already been a buildup of feminist equality, so the concept was more understood. It’s still a shame that righteous societies in the past would treat their women in such shameful manners, and it does, as you mention, bring up an interesting question of what exactly is righteousness in this life….
Comment by Dan — June 29, 2010 @ 6:06 am
It breaks my heart to hear of the second-class status that these women probably endured. On the other hand, women (like blacks, until recently) still do not have the priesthood.
Instead, women dream of getting married in the temple, and, if they follow [at least a common perception of] the “righteous” path, staying at home with their children and looking after the house: having sex, bearing children, and cooking and cleaning. (Not that I’m crying foul, here; I myself am a happy WAHM.)
Not to threadjack or anything, but you mentioned “acceptable customs” vis-a-vis the blacks (and priesthood). I wonder if the same could be said of gays and marriage? (Though I myself think that marriage should be a basic right for consenting adults.)
Sorry, I’m not trying to be blasphemous: you just struck a nerve with me. Sometimes I still feel like a second class citizen in the church, as much as I love being a part of it.
Comment by Kirsti — June 29, 2010 @ 7:42 am
I think we have to be careful about how we use the term “righteous”, Dan. If a society were treating its women as little better than slaves, how could we deem it righteous? They may have been living the letter of the law, but so did the Pharisees.
I don’t think this is any evidence that the Book of Mormon is not manufactured. It is true that women were not mere slaves in Nauvoo, but for some women being a polygamous wife would be worse than being a slave (assuming that sex was not part of the slavery).
“Whereas in the 1800s, there has already been a buildup of feminist equality, so the concept was more understood.”-Could you please clarify what you mean by this?
Comment by WoahNellie — June 29, 2010 @ 7:54 am
I do not know if the description of the treatment of women in the book was indicative of the treatment of women in a righteous society or by those in the Lehite party. It is a description of general nomadic life and culture.
From your precis of the book, it seems to me that the author made some assumptions not supported by the text. Such as the statement that Ishmael would not have the resources to afford camels. The Book of Mormon gives no indication of Ishmael’s financial status. It is very doubtful Ishmael would have left Jerusalem with his family without his own provisions and transportation. The Book of Mormon tells us nothing about that, but a logical assumption is that he did not start walking off into the wilderness with just a backpack and water skin.
Not being a woman, I have no way of really understanding your angst concerning the dearth of information in the Book of Mormon concerning the roles that women played in the rise and fall of the Nephite and Lamanite cultures. Other than to mention that at least one article published by the Maxwell Institute has written an article on that very subject which you might want to search out and read, I have no answer for you.
Thanks,
Glenn
Comment by Glenn Thigpen — June 29, 2010 @ 8:00 am
A few other sources on Women in the Book of Mormon. Nephite Feminism Revisited.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=288
In researching this essay, we have realized that when women move from the background to the foreground in the Book of Mormon they typically do so for three reasons:
* to highlight profoundly archetypal situations
* to show the mutual dependence and independent agency of men and women
* to emphasize that the promises and obligations of the gospel apply equally to men and women
There is a consistency and deliberation in this on the part of the authors that suggests a positive intent and attitude.
I’ve found that I get a lot more about the stories when I also see where the allusions are pointing. For example, I think Nephi’s story about Sariah’s complaint alludes to the story of the Elijah and the Widow of Zarapeth. Which means that Nephi is telling that story to say that his mother is like an exemplary woman of faith. The Abish and the Lamanite Queen story, of course, has a deep mythic resonance with the role that women always play in the resurrection stories.
We also point out that the only way the Lamanite mothers could have made the famous promise to their sons is because they received revelation on the topic. It is not a general promise to the righteous, but specific to them. They had already offered everything.
Then there is Alyson Von Feldt’s insightful essay on “Instructional Wisdom in the Book of Mormon.”
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=9&chapterID=74
And Daniel Peterson’s earlier “Nephi and His Asherah”
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=13&chapid=94
And for cultural issues, Ariel Bybee here, on A Woman’s Place in Lehi’s Jerusalem.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=24
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Comment by Kevin Christensen — June 29, 2010 @ 8:07 am
Dan - I think that’s an interesting approach to the BoM’s historicity issues. The legal and social status of women in JS’s time wasn’t significantly different from the status of women in the
ancient world, however. And given that many theories of the BoM’s origins assume JS copied large portions of existing documents (including the KJV Bible), I don’t find the BoM’s treatment of women particularly encouraging from an apologetic perspective.
Comment by ECS — June 29, 2010 @ 8:54 am
Glenn - perhaps if you and members of your gender were considered to be property and treated as such, you’d be a bit more motivated to find answers.
Comment by ECS — June 29, 2010 @ 8:57 am
This post makes me so grateful to live in a modern first-world country all over again. When people complain about how wicked the world is now as compared to the past, I’d like to let them spend a day in the OT/BoM times. I’ll pass on the good old days, thank you.
I’ve really been pained at the question of why God didn’t tell these ancient people to clean up their act re: treatment of women as well, but I think the answer (as with all questions about the problem of evil in the world) is agency. Misogynistic cultures evolved, out of human agency, and it is not God’s way to interfere with agency. For all we know the spirit pricked the conscious of lots of ancient men, but God isn’t going to make them listen to it. I wrote a post about how I think God is not omnipotent in this regard here.
Another point of interest is how these things come to change. I’d like to think that God’s church is a conduit for forceful, peaceful, meaningful, and righteous change in the world, but evidence shows that change comes from all kinds of sources, and that the Church is sometimes the last on board with them. It should be a lesson in humility for the priesthood leaders of the church, but I’m afraid they still often see themselves as the leading edge of promoting God’s will in the world.
Comment by Emily U — June 29, 2010 @ 9:00 am
As the wife of a prominent merchant Sariah probably didn’t do all that work herself. She most probably had servants and she simply oversaw what they did. It was also not uncommon in that time for Israelite women to be schooled at home. They did not learn in the places where men did and they did not teach where men did, but many of them were scholars and considered wise nonetheless. Lehi was not a Bedouin and I don’t think they behaved as if they were. They were wanderers between permanent dwelling places.
Comment by Claudia — June 29, 2010 @ 9:12 am
[…] Feminist Mormon Housewives » Women in the Book of Mormon AKPC_IDS += “2352,”;Popularity: unranked [?] […]
Pingback by Our Thoughts » Blog Archive » Women in the Book of Mormon — June 29, 2010 @ 9:16 am
Carol Lynn Pearson’s has a fantastic Sunstone article, “Could Feminism Have Saved the Nephites“. I think it’s relevant to this discussion. Great post, Stephanie!
Comment by mraynes — June 29, 2010 @ 9:37 am
I have to ask, did this book contain a lot of footnotes or other citations? What are the credentials of the writer?
Comment by AllieKay — June 29, 2010 @ 9:40 am
As a student of women’s history, modern culture practices surrounding women, and anthropology, I applaud Moore’s efforts but I also find myself very skeptical of her conclusions. They are not necessarily incorrect, but they are immensely speculative.
In fact, it’s just as easy to speculate a number of other scenarios, some of which might be more or less offensive to our feminist sensibilities (for a nice piece of speculation that reaches an opposite conclusion about Sarah, read “Sarah the Priestess.” And, if you’re just interested in how we misinterpret historical gender roles in light of our own experiences, there’s a fun anthropology book called “The Invisible Sex.” Laurel Ulrich’s “A Midwive’s Tale” also points out that unless you’re working from primary sources written by women, you are going to grossly misinterpret their roles and responsibilities).
One of the upshots of “Sara the Priestess” is that the first part of the Old Testament, which focuses more on women than any other tract of scripture, suggests a more matriarchal society that has since been disguised by later patriarchal norms. We really can’t look that far back in time with so little context and know exactly what was going on, even based on conventional Middle Eastern histories.
We definitely don’t have much insight into how gender roles evolved in Nephite or Lamanite cultures. They were certainly influenced by Israelite, Egyptian, Old Testament and desert culture, but the Lehites probably also met New World natives who had different norms (perhaps that’s why the dark skinned Lamanites seem to give women a much higher status than the Nephites, something for which the Nephites are occasionally chastised).
As for gender relationships in Zion, I think there’s a good chance that what made the City of Enoch so frightening and dangerously subversive to its neighbors was not merely that everyone shared their wealth, but that women and men were radically equal. If God’s work and glory is to bring his little children up as full-fledged intelligent beings, I’d like to think that he doesn’t find joy in establishing hierarchies, but rather, in surrounding himself with peers and equals who can make their own decisions. It wouldn’t make sense for him to deprive his daughters of reaching their full potential, since that would rob him of some measure of joy. I’d guess that for many people in the church, gender roles in Zion will be the most surprising departure from life as we know it.
Comment by Stina — June 29, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Mosiah 8:20
20 O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she should rule over them!
In other words if men offend God through “virtual concubinage” (Jacob2) and the worship of the false goddess Asherah through pornography their priesthood becomes powerless (D&Cov 121).
Women through faith in Christ have great power and can do great things and carry on the work of the Lord.
Also see Julie Beck’s reference to Kimball’s prophetic comments on Joel 2:28-29 Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, Nov. 1979
Comment by sheshouldrule — June 29, 2010 @ 9:57 am
The obvious lack of women in the BoM was something that has always bothered me, even as a child. Even the Old Testament is riddled with stories about women.
I don’t think a people can call themselves Zion without treating women equally. It just can’t be done. If we are really valued as equal in our Heavenly Parent’s sight, then treating us as a step above a slave is not Zion.
Kirsti brought up an interesting point. The purpose of women in the BoM were to provide sex, bear children, and cook and clean. So really, how has the times really changed that much? Except now we can get jobs to contribute to the finances while providing sex, bearing children, and caring for the house. Only now we’re told we’re equal while still being told that is our purpose.
Comment by Risa — June 29, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Wow, Steph, great post. And great questions.
My first thought was, maybe there is such a dearth of women in the BoM because men don’t need any more justification (”look! that’s how Lehi did it! And we all KNOW he was righteous.”) for demeaning the women in their lives.
I’m glad you brought up the women that were captured by King Noah’s priests. If I’m remembering correctly, don’t these same women plead for the priests’ lives to be spared when they get caught? Maybe I’m mixing up stories, but I seem to remember reading that and being blown away that they would do so, rather than seeking to be reunited with their families…
My feeling is an emphatic no. But I think of all the flowery language Mormon uses (they were the most righteous people, blah, blah, blah) to describe some of these societies, and those old doubts creep in. You know the ones: maybe God really did make it this way and I need to suck it up. On the other hand, maybe righteous is relative and these people were improving some areas of their lives, if not all…
Comment by Enna — June 29, 2010 @ 10:26 am
This is a good point, Keith. To answer your questions on other BofM women, here is what Moore says. Re Abish:
Re daughters of Ishmael pleading for Nephi’s life to be spared:
Re Queen of King Lamoni’s father:
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 10:39 am
spunky, I just focused on cultural negatives for this post. There is a lot of positive commentary on the faith of most of these women that is uplifting. They were strong, faithful women. I would encourage you to read the book of you get a chance. It’s a short one night read.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 10:42 am
Emily, this is the same conclusion I have come to. God put us on the earth and gave us our agency. I imagine it is extremely painful for Him to see how we often use that agency to hurt one another.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 10:46 am
mraynes (15), thanks for that link! Fantastic article!
Comment by Enna — June 29, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Claudia, Moore talks about this.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 10:53 am
AllieKay, here is what the book says about the author:
Her website is www.hbmoore.com.
She’s a Book of Mormon scholar and cites her sources with footnotes and Bibliography.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 10:57 am
It doesn’t really bother me to have sex with my husband, bear children or to cook and clean (as long as I don’t do all of it!) It would bother me if DH perceived those to be my only purposes in life, or that I do these things solely to serve him. I don’t believe that is God’s intention, but I think that is the way that most men through history have interpreted things. The idea that a woman exists to serve a man is what I find so bothersome, and that is the impression I got from King Noah’s servants. Of course, they are about as wicked as they come, so it’s not fair to attribute that to God anyways. That is the natural man.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 11:03 am
#7 - Dan
JS didn’t create the women’s organization. The women of the church created their own organization and JS organized them under the priesthood. Important distinction.
Comment by motion de smiths — June 29, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Enna, Moore talks about the Lamanite daughters pleading for their husbands. It is particularly fascinating because they had only been kidnapped for about a year!
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 11:11 am
(1) Hunting for meat can take a long time; the men could possibly have been gone for a few days. Just a perspective.
(2) King Noah’s wicked priest were, after all, wicked and privileged. _Of_course_ they needed other people to do things for them.
(3) Sometimes it seems that God does “accept” certain practices; however, they seem to always favor the men. Other times, God does not accept certain cultural practices at all — God often (even today) seems okay with women in second-class status, but doesn’t want gays to be married, just as a for-instance. Bear in mind how Gordon Hinckley encouraged YM to get an education–he said how bad it would be if their wife was more educated than them. Apparently, God was fine with that.
Think about the example in the first comment: If the woman had caused a stink and argued with the seminary teacher, complained to the bishop, etc., who would be more likely to be “corrected”: the woman, or the teacher?
Why God seems to “accept” the current male-run power structures in Mormon society I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Comment by Goldarn — June 29, 2010 @ 11:17 am
Thank you to Kevin, Stina and mraynes for your contributions to the discussion. I’ll read the links when I get a chance.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 11:17 am
Regarding Abish, I have a different interpretation of her vision. The “vision of her father” may not have been a vision that her father saw, but rather a vision that she saw of her father (or her Father, perhaps). The language is a bit ambiguous, so it’s not clear which one it is.
Comment by Keri Brooks — June 29, 2010 @ 11:20 am
Keri, I have never once heard it read that way, and I LOVE it! Interesting idea, and it gives me something to think about.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — June 29, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Stephanie
Writing historical fiction makes you a scholar?
While the Book of Mormon has been inspiring to millions, maybe it could of been more inspiring if if it hadn’t been ALL men doing the writing, editing, and translating
It’s the golden age of the Nephites and .what get’s recorded—”nothing much happened this year and everyone’s happy.”
Perhaps the rest of the records need to be translated and we can get the rest of the story.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 29, 2010 @ 11:39 am
Suzanne, she says in her Acknowledgements and Forward that she researches women in the Book of Mormon.
I had the same thought - that I wish we knew more about the “happy” times when everyone had everything in common. Maybe it is in the rest of the record.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Has anybody here read the Twilight books? Did you enjoy them?
Comment by sam — June 29, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Re: 29. I like her explanation, I’ve wondered about that too. But what seems most likely to me is that in Lamanite culture, raped or kidnapped girls were “damaged goods.” Going home might have meant that the women became outcasts with few prospects for remarriage, or worse. In that case, it would have been more appealing to be supported by a husband, whatever his faults. Additionally, if marriages tended to be arranged, there’s also no guarantee that a second marriage would offer improvement over a “wicked priest.” After all, the priests were probably fairly young, smart, good-looking guys.
There’s a similar incident in Mosiah 19:13 where King Noah commands everyone to ditch their wives and flee. The “good guys” won’t leave their wives, but they send their daughters to go “charm” the Lamanite invaders. Yuck.
Comment by Stina — June 29, 2010 @ 11:50 am
sam, assuming you are sincere, search on the sidebar for “Twilight” and go comment on one of those posts. Please don’t threadjack this post.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Stina, abducting wives may also have had an element of acceptability. According to Moore,
I almost wonder if there’s an element of “Well, they won” going on.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 11:58 am
“Not being a woman, I have no way of really understanding your angst concerning the dearth of information in the Book of Mormon concerning the roles that women played in the rise and fall of the Nephite and Lamanite cultures.”
Now, do you really have to be a woman to be interested in their roles in the BofM? Or is the corollary how could I possibly be expected to want to engage with any male-centered scripture?
Stephanie, excellent post. I loved your point about duh, didn’t King Noah’s priests think to just weave the darn cloth themselves? Sadly, I know men who would skip meals, etc. just because there wasn’t a woman there to do it for them. Ugh.
“Is it possible for us to become Zion without correcting unequal treatment of women?” No, and I would add most other disenfranchised groups.
Lastly, I’ve been thinking about Eve lately and how we do know who Adam was before he came to Earth. Does anyone know if there is any information about who EVE was? Because, isn’t that just as important (except to men who can’t understand the angst of not knowing more about her pre-mortal role?)
Comment by Lupita — June 29, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
It’s hard to know what culture we should assume is a part of the book of mormon…technically they didn’t intend to be nomadic…they were city people leaving it. What about the culture of Jerusalem? Did Lehi succeed in raising his children in such a way as to completely or even partially escape the worst of the culture?
Obviously the names of women aren’t mentioned…even when their deeds are (like Nephi’s wife who helped nephi when he was tied to the boat…was part of his great gratitutde, and probably led to the inclusion of the information about how the women had plenty of milk even when they were eating raw meat. The bits about the hardship of delivering while traveling indicate sensitivity to their needs and their culture being different from a typical nomadic lifestyle.
I was wondering today about the relationship between the Lamanite kings and their servants…their servants sure talked back a lot! You have the servants correcting the King and telling the queen they think she’s wrong and such. Interesting actions for a “lower class”-then again those were “house servants” wo unto the sheep gaurds.
Yes the daughters were stolen but it was considered wrong enough to break a treaty over. Fighting for their husbands is interesting
The whole role of men and women thing…in those times men were basically hunter gatherers…I doubt my husband would feel fulfilled if that were his end all be all. It is interesting to consider how a man’s role has expanded and in what ways a woman’s role has changed or not…
Comment by britt k — June 29, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
You mean they didn’t have their version of Heidi Fleiss?
A bit of a conundrum here. If JS didn’t copy the KJV version, people could say the BOM is wrong because “it’s not the same, it’s different”, yet if it’s the same it can’t be right, either.
Comment by Mike H. — June 29, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
Yep, it’s tragic that we know so little about the BofM women. So few clues and hints about them.
re: polygamy
Moore’s insights don’t really fly for me. Polygamy in the OT isn’t restricted to a last-resort method for procreation; We have a very clear record that David had multiple wives, and multiple children, while he was still considered righteous. The story of Jacob’s multiple wives isn’t about infertility. There is circumstantial evidence that Moses had at least two wives. Clearly the reason for polygamy in the OT is more complex than fertility issues.
(and to pick a nit, there really isn’t a culture throughtout history in which infertility hasn’t been an item of great concern. It was hardly restricted to the Biblical Middle-East or Mesoamerica).
re: abducted women/pleading for the (ex)priests of Noah
I’ve long thought it interesting the parallels here between the Roman legend of the Rape of the Sabine Women. In that legend, Romulus, founder of Rome, needs women to allow the colony–which at that point was more a gang of men–to propogate. When none of the surrounding communities would marry their daughters to the men of Romulus’ band, he hatches a ruse by which to abduct (the original meaning of the word “rape”) the women from the Sabines. Later, when the Sabines had mustered their forces and mounted an attack on Rome, the Sabines went out onto the battlefield with their children and plead with their fathers to give up. The sense from many of the legends is that the women now had children and homes; however those families had been started, it was better to continue than to experience upheaval and bloodshed and lose them now. And remember; life was frequently brutal in ancient times. “Marriage” by abduction may not have been pleasant, but it probably wasn’t as horrifying as we now see it.
I’ve usually figured that the motive of the women in the BofM went along the same lines.
Comment by Derek — June 29, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Great discussion everyone. I think there was a misnomer somewhere and just for the record, I am NOT a Book of Mormon scholar, and have never claimed to be :). So you will see practically every paragraph in this book backed up by another source. I also reiterate that in the intro of the book. Great food for thought on all accounts. Yes, there is plenty of speculation, and that’s most likely why there has never been a comprehensive book on this subject. Some of the chapters made my alpha readers nervous, but I decided to stick with them. I couldn’t really address the polygamy issue much, because mainstream LDS publishers stay away from that topic for reasons you can probably guess at.
Overall, I’m hoping my collection of essays on various women of the Book of Mormon might become a springboard for another volume–written by a Book of Mormon scholar–that will have infinitely more detail and history.
Comment by Heather Moore — June 29, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
Hmmm, I actually know some Kyrgyz girls who told me that in their home villages being kidnapped is an acceptable way to get married (although the women REALLY do not like it and are very careful to avoid it, especially since it’s generally the creepier, unattractive guys who engage in it). Likewise, I bet that the Lamanite girls would have been extremely cautious about getting into situations where they could be kidnapped: dancing alone (and drunk?) in small numbers in a regular, unchaperoned spot seems surprisingly trusting.
Also, the Lamanites are pretty quick to pin the disappearance of their daughters on the Limhites and provoke a high-risk battle, which might imply that girls didn’t regularly disappear. But it’s hard to say.
Comment by Stina — June 29, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
Hey Heather, thanks for taking the time to comment.
Comment by Lupita — June 29, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
@Heather, I definitely think that this is a great topic for a book! I’m glad you’ve broken the ground and I look forward to reading it.
Comment by Stina — June 29, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
Heather, thank you for commenting! I am sorry for calling you a BofM scholar. You said that you researched women in the BofM, and you sounded so knowledgeable that I just assumed you were. You did cite your sources well, and I enjoyed reading the footnotes.
Thank you for the additional information on the book. It was a great little read. I enjoyed it, and it definitely piqued my curiosity to learn more.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
Stephanie
But what’s to research?
An example of what I’m talking about, consider the Cochin Jews of the Malabar Coast of India. The community dates back over 2500 years. Maybe the Nephites sailed by. (too bad Laman and Lemuel didn’t jump ship) The Apostle Thomas supposedly visited them shortly after the death of Christ.(and some Christian communities trace their origin to this)
Unlike other Jewish communities, women participate in public prayers and song
Now a question of research might be, Did the Jews bring this tradition with them and itwas continued because the surrounding area was matrilineal, or was it a cultural adaption to their current surroundings?
Now when I look at the Book of Mormon, Sariah and her nameless daughters exist in a particular place and time with outside sources, but when you get to Abish or Isabel, there is, at the present, only the Book of Mormon, –so what’s to research?
It seems to me all we have is speculation and guesses. Which maybe is why Moore writes historical fiction.
And since we’re speculating, I say the City of Enoch is a model of egalitarianism and the current mayor is named Janet.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 29, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
Good points, Suzanne.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
Stephanie, I’ll take it as a compliment then
Suzanne, writing historical fiction is way more fun. It takes me about 4 months to write a 350 page novel, and it took me 11 months to put together a 75 page work of non-fiction. I’m definitely more in love with the license to creatively speculate. lol on Mayor Janet.
Comment by Heather Moore — June 29, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
I find it hard to argue with Moore’s conclusions because I work from the premise that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. Her treatment of the subject is no different–in fact it sounds actually better done–than any one doing a piece on any other piece of figurative literature. Like any good literary critic, she offers opinions and speculations that she backs up with research. To her I say good job.
The Book of Mormon is an inspiring book for many people. As a woman, however, it is not inspiring to me. I have read nothing to suggest there was a more egalitarian view or treatment of women in Joseph Smith’s time as opposed to earlier times. In fact, I suspect there have been times throughout history in different cultures where women have been treated better than in Smith’s time, though I don’t have any evidence of this. The Book of Mormon seems to confirm, if anything, that women in Smith’s time were an afterthought.
That wouldn’t be so much of a problem if women in the LDS church weren’t still treated like afterthoughts.
Incidentally, the thought just came to my mind that even though women of the BOM were an afterthought to Smith, in real life he seemed to recognize their value as church members far as giving them the power to perform priesthood blessings. (He still had a ways to go in recognizing their value as humans with that whole polygamy thing.)
Comment by Stef — June 29, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
I.T.A. ( In total agreement). Your point is very well taken.
Comment by Wonderment — June 29, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Glen- maybe you need to ponder why the plight of your helpmeet, your equal, your love is not important to you, and why you can’t empathize with her. Don’t you have a wife? A mother? A sister? A daughter? Granddaughters? Their lives and values don’t matter to you? How would you feel if you grew up being told that God was a woman, prophets were women, women were the head of the household, you have a vague notion that in the afterlife you’d be nothing but a bull in a brood of dispensable men, meant only for procreation, while your Goddess wife created worlds without number and ruled them? How would you feel if disciplinary councils were all women against one man? How would you feel if all bishoprics were run by women, while men cooked, created, and cleaned? How would you feel being the babysitter while women went out in the world to move mountains, and you were told that was your place? If our Bible and Book of Mormon spoke mostly of women, and men were nameless beings barely mentioned. If all the lessons in Priesthood were learning about the lives of our Holy women Prophets, and filled with quotes by women. If conference was dominated by women speakers? If in the temple, all the key players were women? If women held special keys that you were not privy to know about? You can’t think on that for one minute and not understand where women are coming from??? It doesn’t bother you at all that the women in your life have to swallow that?
If someone were describing the typical roles for “righteous” families of today, it would sound much the same: The men are the head of the household, priesthood holders, and working outside of the home during the day. The women are responsible for bearing children, keeping house, cleaning, cooking, shopping, and being ‘crafty’ (weaving).
Look in our modern day Sunday School manuals and you will see lesson after lesson after lesson about men, supplemented with quotes from men. We speak only of a male God, a male Savior, a male Holy Spirit. Our conferences are mostly men speaking. Our church is still run by men.
Our wars are still fought by men. Our workforce is still ruled by men. Our government is still mostly men.
Our children grow up not even realizing they have a Heavenly Mother because no one speaks of it, and it doesn’t even dawn on them as reasonable because women just aren’t a part of the gospel. You can go through an entire year of Relief Society and never once hear mention of our Heavenly Mother. We hardly ever have lessons centered on prominent women in RS and in the church.
Package up all our conference transcripts and lesson manuals and you’d get a very similar book to the Book of Mormon.
Out of curiosity…has anyone ever tallied the lessons focused on women, and the number of quotes by women in the lesson manuals? That’d be interesting.
Comment by Olive — June 29, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Olive, can you hear me applauding? It’s really loud and appreciative. I’m also giving the fist pump and screaming pretty, dang loud. “YOU GO GIRL.”
Comment by IdahoG-ma — June 29, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
So *that’s* where she’s been!
Comment by Reese Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
That pretty much sums it all up right there.
Comment by Carson N — June 29, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
Carson N, what does this mean?
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
Carson N - Meeeeoooowwww….
Comment by Lorian — June 29, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
Simply that that sentence succinctly illustrates the epistemological rigor that I’ve seen applied to church history, doctrine, and the scriptures all throughout my life. Not by everyone, mind you, but the exceptions are rare.
There really isn’t much to work with in the scriptures sometimes, especially if the mission is to apply a particular story to one’s own circumstances or to extract some moral idea from them that fits comfortably within modern societal morals. The idea is that the spiritual knowledge in the scriptures is fractal, that one could dive in at any point and find unlimited insight, or at least enough to spark a revelation. The directive from church leaders to find all of life’s wisdom in these handful of texts is so pressing that people resort to all kinds of strange tricks and wild speculation in order to inject more relevance and meaning, keeping it from getting stale after so many readings. No one cares much what the original writers meant to say. Finding different faith-affirming interpretations of specific phrases becomes more like treasure-hunting than historical analysis. People carry around their favorite interpretation not because they believe it to be the correct one, but because they simply like it better that way. The words take on a life of their own. They fly off of the page and you can circle them and draw lines between the circles and rearrange them however you want, as long as it gives you an uplifting feeling. Count how many times the word “testify” comes up. Isn’t that interesting? I wonder what that says about the importance of testifying? What else can we do? Let’s find all the scriptures that talk about love and see how many terms there are for it! Fascinating!
As a result of all this, the scriptures (and church history) get wrapped in a thick cloud of culture. Speculations get solidified into paintings, poems, and primary songs. Certain facts fade away until they completely disappear and can only be found on forbidden “anti-Mormon” websites. Jesus becomes more and more of a square-jawed, cuddly mammoth. Joseph Smith becomes more and more elegant, enjoying a monogamous relationship with Emma that Disney princesses could only dream about. Now that feminism is finally making some inroads into the church, it seems we’re all excited to “learn more” about the women in the scriptures that, but for one or two sentences, we wouldn’t even have known existed. I can’t wait to see the paintings. I’m going to go ahead and bet that Abish is totally, unfathomably hot. Any takers?
Comment by Carson N — June 29, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Carson, I think you may have a valid point underneath that extremely unpleasant attitude. Maybe instead of attacking an individual lay person reading a book, you could, I don’t know, engage with the actual information present and see if you find flaws. Then try attacking those flaws.
Comment by Reese Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Okay, I retract my meow. You do have some good points, Carson, now that you explained your earlier catty-sounding one-liner.
Comment by Lorian — June 29, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
I hope that Abish is totally, unfathomably hot.. Those stripling warriors are sooo male.
There is the poem the poet wrote, and the poem the reader read. Sometimes I go to the same movie with my spouse and we see very different movies
While I am in very much in favor of learning the original context of the scriptures, perhaps just like there is value in a living constitution, maybe there is also value in living scriptures
I also do not think we should bury the historical Joseph Smith in favor of the mythological Smith. Both, however may have value.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 29, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
I dunno, those movies are crimes against all that is good in the world.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 29, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
I never really thought about the shocking lack of women stories in the Book of Mormon. You’ve given me some good things to think about.
I know why I wasn’t born back in the old days. I was born out of the womb fighting for my right to be treated with equality. I would have kicked any man’s ass that tried to treat me like a second class citizen. I probably would have been stoned to death or beaten a lot for my attitude. Its not because I am a feminist, its because I was born a tom boy and never felt like any man/boy had the right to treat me different simply because I was a girl.
Whoa Nellie..i liked your comment once again. You always say things that get me thinking.
Comment by Emily A. — June 29, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
Hmm yes. That is a good point. In fact I actually find that some songs’ lyrics get in the way of my enjoying a song because I want to project my own meaning onto it thank you very much. However, I am more comfortable when there is a relatively clear line between the subjective and the objective. Can a mythological Smith only have value if he is perceived as not being mythological?
Comment by Carson N — June 29, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
This is an interesting point, Olive. I hadn’t really thought that our church history today (essentially what the BofM was for their time) would probably look similar with regard to the representation of women.
However, I just saw a thread on BCC that a series of books called Women of Faith in the Latter-Days is being put together to record the lives of LDS women from the beginning of the church to today. That’s a good start. They are looking for people to help with the project. It would be a great way to contribute to making sure that LDS women are not forgotten.
Comment by Stephanie — June 29, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
I have often bristled while reading Alma’s complaints to Corianton (Coriantumr? No, I think his son is Corianton, after all) about Isabel. Couldn’t we give Isabel some sympathy, rather than just say she’s a harlot who’s led many men away? It is as Ms. Moore says — prostitutes are almost always the most degraded women in a society, level with slaves, or even lower. If a woman is forced into prostitution by kidnapping, slavery, or whatever, it seems really harsh to me to criticize her for her wickedness, when perhaps she is just trying to avoid being beaten or killed by evil men. Why not criticize Corianton for participating in poor Isabel’s degradation?
Comment by calico1cat — June 30, 2010 @ 2:37 am
Calico, if I remember right, Alma did denounce Corianton for participating in whatever it is he and Isabel did. And though there may be other factors involved that created of Isabel a harlot, it is all mere speculation. This event is hundreds of years after Lehi and his family arrived, and to assume that the culture was the same as it was when they left Jerusalem is quite a stretch. Look how far our culture has advanced and changed over the last 200 years. I think your statement takes Isabel’s agency away from her and attempts to justify her station in life by stating that i was forced upon her. It may have been, but seeing as though Isabel was obviously well known, it seems that she took great delight in her craft, especially when she lived in a city that was portrayed as extremely decadent and corrupt from the “correct” ways of the church (as stated by Alma),
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 2:45 am
“He ‘accepted’ the culture as-is… It doesn’t, however, say that the Lord condones polygamy or that polygamy is the Lord’s way of doing things.”
Considering the Lord reintroduced polygamy into the mix with the Restoration, that idea is fundamentally false.
Whether we like it or not, Heavenly Father does believe in polygamy. As my own observation, polygamy seems like the exception instead of the rule. But when that exception becomes the rule to God’s people, it isn’t our place to argue away the reality of what He asked of them by saying God doesn’t condone His own actions.
Polygamy is eternal because celestial marriage is eternal, and when God reveals and condones polygamy, it is celestial marriage. That means polygamy existed before humanity could even formulate something remotely close to a culture.
Regardless of how we feel about it, polygamy isn’t going away.
Comment by Paradox — June 30, 2010 @ 3:51 am
First, I don’t think this is a book I plan on reading.
Secondly, I wish that when Natalie (i think that’s your name-sorry if I am wrong) was constructing this post that she didn’t refer to the people in the BofM and OT as “characters”. It kinda rubbed me the wrong way. To me “character” brings up a notion of fiction and made up people in stories. To me, the BofM and all the other scriptures I read and learn about, are true history of real people. Everything in the scriptures really happened and if you believe that then using the word “character” is wrong and needs to be changed. Sorry girl, but can you go back and fix it.
Thirdly, I think we need to strop being so “my heart hurt” attitude about women in the BofM/OT/NT were treated. Unfortunately, that is how the ball rolled back then, like it or not. I think our efforts would be better served by focusing on the continual second class status of woman in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and many more countries. Woman are still being raped, sold in slavery and prostitution, etc. We can’t go back and fix any of the problems of the past or how the women in the BofM/OT/NT were treated, but we can change the lives of people in the future and try to work for equality for all human beings in the world.
I’m just saying….
Comment by coxetteinbburg — June 30, 2010 @ 5:23 am
re:#71
I have a really hard time believing that polygamy is sanctioned by the Lord just because it was re-introduced during the restoration. Remember that the Book of Mormon itself condemns polygamy (see Jacob 2:27-28), and that Pres Hinckley claimed that it was not “doctrinal”.
I think that assuming that we all (meaning all of us who read and comment on FMH) believe that it was God who asked this of Joseph Smith is stretching it a bit. Definitely there are some that do, but there are also some that don’t.
I would sort of argue that polygamy IS going away in the church. In the least, it seems to be something that the church is rather embarrassed of seeing as how it is never adressed in a lesson manual and how church leaders always try to dance around the topic when asked (what the heck does “not doctrinal” mean, anyways? It’s in D&C 132 for pity’s sake!)
Comment by WoahNellie — June 30, 2010 @ 7:34 am
#70- prostitution is pretty much always the lower class pursuit- modern society, the societies thousand of years ago. Even Japan’s geisha’s were not all gung ho- often they too were sold into it and had no other options. So, yeah, 200 years may have passed, but all throughout the world, through most time, prostitutes are those without other options.
Comment by Tami — June 30, 2010 @ 8:37 am
re: 70
Relating the pace of change of the ancient world to that of the modern one isn’t very helpful. The last two hundred years have been a period of change unprecedented in the history of the planet. Through most of history, culture has remained remarkably stable, and the pace of change was glacial. Essential cultural elements, such as family structure and relations between the sexes, have remained primarily the same for centuries in traditional cultures. I see no reason to expect things would have been any different in the period of the BofM.
Regarding Isabel generally, I’m not sure I would assume she was a literal prostitute. When a woman is referred to as a whore today, one usually don’t mean she makes money selling sex. It is simply used to accuse her of being sexually licentious. That may be the case with Isabel as well. Not that this would change the essential point, that some compassion could have been shown to Isabel and the possible background which led her to fall victim to that sin.
re: 71
According to some interpretations of LDS doctrine. That interpretation isn’t universally shared, especially here on FMH.
re: 72
Stephanie doesn’t need to go back and fix anything. They are characters in a book, regardless of whether they were or were not actual historical characters. If you want to open a debate about the historicity of the BofM, perhaps you can do so with a less condescending tone.
Learning empathy for women in the scriptures can strengthen our resolve to help women today. Being dismissive and derisive of a woman sharing her feelings about these things would seem to indicate you could develop a little more empathy yourself.
Comment by Derek — June 30, 2010 @ 9:42 am
#72, Coxette — Good sentiments, but I think the broader point of the post is not just angst that bad things happened to women, but the idea that almost all of the examples of righteous people in the scriptures are men who live in apparently sexist societies and seem to buy into that culture. Some of these men walk and talk with God, but correcting gender inequality never comes up as a priority. We obviously have a long way to go if Zion is going to assure women equal treatment… so why is there so little emphasis on gender issues? I think that’s where Stephanie’s heartbreak is coming from.
Comment by Stina — June 30, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Paradox 71, I disagree. I don’t see anything related to polygamy in the temple or in any of the covenants I make. The only evidence of polygamy I see is the fact that it was done in the OT and briefly during the Restoration. I don’t read D&C 132 to mean that polygamy is eternal marriage. In the July Ensign, Elder Ballard wrote an article called “Sharing the Gospel with Confidence” and says:
Granted, I feel sufficiently chastised for making it a point of conversation, but I also don’t get the impression that it is God’s eternal law. As Ballard says, “It was a practice. It ended. We moved on”.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 10:24 am
I am afraid that my post misrepresents the intent of the book. The book is not critical of the BofM or its culture - I just drew out the cultural elements for the purpose of this post (which is that I believe the BofM is a true book of scripture despite my “sadness” at the lack of women represented or the speculated treatment of women in that culture).
Here is what a friend of mine said about my post:
And that’s actually the point of the book and what it accomplishes. Heather’s insights draw parallels between the women of the BofM and us and shows their faithfulness despite some of their circumstances.
So, I apologize to Heather if I misrepresented her book in this post. It is a very faithful, faith-promoting book.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 10:42 am
Sorry to keep harping on polygamy, but I think it’s important to point out: The fact that it occurrs in the Bible and is spoken of neutrally-to-positively as practiced by many famous Biblical people suggests to me, not that we MUST practice polygamy or that it is required for salvation, but merely that it is one (among many) types of marriage open to human beings, and in and of itself is neither right nor wrong. I think it is the manner in which it is practiced that makes it right or wrong.
We are meant by God to treat one another with love, respect, and caring, and to care for our spouse as though he or she were a part of our own physical body. If we treat our spouse with disrespect, meanness, brutality or unfaithfulness, then it doesn’t matter whether we have one spouse or fifty, and whether they are male or female. Our treatment of them is what is wrong with our marriage, not who or how many spouses we have.
Polygamy is wrong ONLY insofar as it breeds an atmosphere of disrespect for wives or husbands, leads to abuse or neglect of spouses or children, or in some other way violates the covenant we make with God and our spouse to care for one another as for our own selves (and by extension, the children of our union, as well).
I think polygamy makes fulfilling ones vows to one’s spouse and children more challenging, and probably doesn’t make much sense, particularly in modern society where infant mortality rates are drastically lower and our manner of life is less agrarian, but not “sinful” or “evil” on its own merits. It is the manner in which it is practiced that has the capacity to make it wrong: the domination and devaluation of women; taking away individuals’ choices, rights and freedoms; subjecting women and children to neglect, servanthood, and being traded between powerful men like pawns. Those sorts of things are not, I am absolutely certain, a part of God’s plan for marriage.
Sorry to continue the threadjack.
Comment by Lorian — June 30, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Lorian, I disagree (but that’s okay). I’m reading the OT right now, and none of the polygamous marriages in there were “happy”. Abraham was okay with Sarah kicking Hagar out. Leah spent her whole life thinking that if she just bore Jacob more children that he would finally love her. David went after Bathsheba and had her husband killed even though he already had plenty of wives and concubines. Polygamy was a sore spot between Joseph and Emma. Some of Brigham Young’s wives divorced him and others were neglected.
Of course there are plenty of examples of monogamous marriages not being happy, so whether or not a marriage is happy isn’t a good indication of whether or not it is of God. But, the idea I often hear for why polygamy will work in heaven even though it doesn’t seem to really work on earth is that “things are different in heaven. We’ll be less selfish, etc. etc.” I guess I just don’t really believe that.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Very good point, Lorian.
Stephanie (#77). I agree with you and Elder Bednar, that polygamy was a practice that we need to move on from. But it is hard to move on when it is still practiced in an eternal sense with temple sealings today. I heard Elder Oaks speak a few years ago, shortly after his marriage to his second wife, and he was very clear that he expected to have both of his wives in the next life. (Interestingly, that part of his talk was edited out when the talk was later published in print form.)
Comment by CatherineWO — June 30, 2010 @ 11:25 am
I had heard that, and I respect Elder Oaks and believe he is a true apostle. I have no doubt that he loves both of his wives very much and would be sad not to be with them in eternity. But, I also don’t think that the fact that he said this means that it is true. I think this is an example of opinion. And it might be true. But I don’t believe it is. That doesn’t threaten my testimony. I think it’s a good example of how every word that comes out of an apostle’s mouth is not scripture.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 11:31 am
Stephanie #80 - I didn’t say that the examples of polygamous marriage in the Bible were happy ones, or were exemplary of how a “righteous” marriage should be carried out. Not by any means. My point was simply that God did countenance such marriages, even for God’s most favored servants, like Jacob/Israel and David. I don’t think God has an “opinion,” per se, on how many people are in a marriage, or their gender, but rather on how they treat one another.
I think that Abraham, David and other polygamous men in the Bible paid a price for their behavior within their marriages — David “cheated” by taking another man’s wife; Abraham lacked faith in God’s promise to provide an heir through Sarah; Abraham treated Hagar unjustly after Sarah bore Isaac. Those types of actions are unrighteous, and brought about consequences. But the polygamous marriages, themselves, were neutral. The same actions taken in a monogamous marriage (cheating on spouse, divorcing one’s infertile wife to marry a fertile one) would have been equally as wrong.
I don’t think polygamy is an ideal family structure, particularly for the women, though I think there are some ways in which it is advantageous, if all members are willing, happy and in agreement. But I don’t think God either demands it of human beings for righteousness, or condemns it out-of-hand as UNrighteous.
Comment by Lorian — June 30, 2010 @ 11:47 am
I hear what you are saying, Lorian, but I disagree that God is completely neutral. I think His opinion is found in Jacob of the BofM when He says:
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
I’m not trying to convince you - just sharing why I don’t agree.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
Actually, come to think of it, those verses I just cited are also good evidence for why the Nephites/Lamanites may not have had as sexist of a culture as the OT, particularly this line:
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Stephanie, I don’t see anything in that passage about polygamous marriage. I see husbands cheating on their wives with prostitutes. That’s a completely different proposition (if you will).
Comment by Lorian — June 30, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Lorian, it’s verse 27:
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
Stephanie # 88 - Missed that. Duh. Sorry.
So, from a Mormon perspective, then, polygamy is wrong. But from the perspective of someone in a strictly Bible-based church, there’s really nothing to contraindicate it.
Which is a little counterintuitive if you stop to think about it.
Comment by Lorian — June 30, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
It is.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
I am just throwing this out there, but to me the lack of women in the scriptures and especially the BofM, says to me, while the basics of the gospel can be learned from the scriptures, they are not an adequate substitute for the relationship we need to build with our personal God. I never feel second class when I walk and talk with Him/Her. I never feel like I am being used for some other person or organizations agenda, or made to feel less than. On the occasions that I have been shown my erroneous ways, I have felt only concern and love from God and the power to change. While God often uses the scriptures to teach these lessons, they are the tool more than the source. By the way if you detect that I am conflicted about exactly what to call our “Heavenly Father” right now, you would be correct. Still decided what I believe on that front.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — June 30, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Idaho-Gma, my mom pointed out something to me that I have been pondering. In marriage, we become one. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are one. So, I believe that a lot of the time when we talk about Heavenly Father, we are really talking about our Heavenly Parents because they are one.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Lorian #89 - just put a big smile on my face. priceless!
Comment by Amanda — June 30, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Thank you, Steph. I have been thinking along those same lines, but still balk when it comes time say Heavenly Parents or Heavenly Father. Sigh - so much left to figure out.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — June 30, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
mraynes #16, thank you so much for linking to that Carol Lynn Pearson article. It is a perfect addition to the discussion. Just a few quotes that I really liked:
She points out that Mormon, who abridged the BofM, was a military man, and this likely affected the abridgement to make it male-biased. That makes sense.
She discusses negative portrayal of female in the BofM (I had never really noticed this, that evil and bad things are usually given the pronoun “she” and good things are given the pronoun “he) and contrasts it (even Christ’s own words) with the NT, which is interesting.
She has three suggestions, which I think are excellent:
1. “that we teach the Book of Mormon in an expanded context, that we teach these stories with an acknowledgment of what they say about women and a clear statement that the message about women is not the message God wants us to have. And, in fact, that the Nephite view of women may have been one of the many things that led to their downfall.”
2. Basically change the wording when we talk so that the negative is not always female.
3. “whatever we do about the past - making alterations or changing the context - is that we realize that the present is the point of greatest power; that now, this moment, we create new and powerful images of women and femaleness, that we create new volumes of history and indeed new scripture that will fill our minds and our hearts with positive female pictures, women serving as full and fully honored partners in our religious life”.
I think those are all excellent, faithful ways to acknowledge the limitations of the BofM with regard to women.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
Lorian and Stephanie, don’t forget this part of the scripture:
I am not arguing about the right or wrong of polygamy. I actually support Lorian’s idea about it being neither right nor wrong. But we have to take the scriptures in their entirety, and this verse implies that if the Lord wants to command multiple spouses or concubines on the precept of “seed unto me” that he will command it, otherwise we are to heed the one spouse principle.
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Keith, I take that to be temporal. If the Lord wants to raise up seed, he will temporarily command polygamy. But, I don’t take it to mean that He supports eternal polygamy.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
97,,,I am unsure of the concept of “eternal polygamy,” but I do agree that the scripture is supposed to be temporal. When my sister was sealed, the sealer explained to her that to be sealed means that we are sealed to the eternal family of Heavenly Father. That gave me a little bit more perspective, and causes me to think that in the hereafter the creation of children and worlds will not be as we think it is. I don’t think that women and men will have such distinct differences in authority. I am sure there will still be a difference between men and women, and that their responsibilities may differ, but I don’t understand the eternal significance of difference of sexes, so it is hard to postulate. But what I have begun to think is that there will probably not be “sex” as we know it to create families in the CK, and that when more than one women is sealed to a man it is merely to connect her in some way to the eternal family of HF. Will she be eternally bonded to the same husband she had here? who knows. But the reality of the relationship, i think, will be entirely different than the one we have here.
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Great Post. NIce to read something that is both sympathetic and thoughtful.
Comment by TrevorM — June 30, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
Keith, I believe there is something about the way that sealings work that we don’t really understand, but I also believe that we will be husbands and wives in eternity - that that relationship is important and eternal.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Stephanie….I believe so too. But I think that too often we try and make sense of the afterlife by what we know here, and that sometimes the two don’t equate.
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Interesting but predictable take as always on women in the scriptures by women.
1. Making assumptions about the culture of Lehi’s family and further into Nephite/Lamanite culture based on historical conjecture about women allegedly only being mere chattel is dangerous and from my perspective non-scriptural. I simply suggest re-reading and re-examining the scriptures for what is there and avoid adding historian based conjecture to understand the women who clearly were very influential.
a. Claiming Lehi and Ishmael did or didn’t have camels and therefore made the women walk is adding much that is simply not there. The scriptures say Lehi took nothing but his family, provisions and tents…Camel is absent. My take is that they all walked.
b. If the mothers of the 2000 stripling warriors “knew” how could anyone reach a conclusion that these righteous women would also have been illiterate? The thought makes reason stare?
c.If Sariah was mere chattel why would Lehi have “comforted” her when she thought her sons were dead? Why would a subservient doormat woman have ever thought she had the right to backtalk to her husband about what he had sent her sons to their death? The alleged “cultural” middle eastern way might have had Sariah buried and Lehi taking a concubine who knew her place.
Consider this example of finding answers to what is there vs. what is not and possible interpretation.
I once had a debate with another fellow seminary teacher about “and my father dwelt in a tent”. The seminary teacher had been “taught” that Nephi’s statement was him being proud of his father’s station in life because of the bedouin lifestyle where they valued their posh mobile tents. Was Lehi who was driven out of his homeland lucky to have his life was suddenly taken from living in a Jerusalem trailer park in poverty to riding high on the proverbial bedouin Camel? I found it an interesting application of a cultural reality (bedouins) that seemed incongruent with clues found in the scriptures about Lehi. Aside from the likelyhood that Bedouins were probably not labeling themselves Jews Lehi does not appear to have commonly been a nomad. Here’s some examples of why I think he was not. (Oh and the “he had tents” argument could also apply to your hometeacher who probably has tents too but doesn’t regularly live in them).
1. Sariah who murmurred at first was not happy about the move which indicates she was probably accustomed to better accomodations and likely food options.
2. There is ZERO mention or hint of service animals let alone Camels - they hunted for food - if they had flocks in the wilderness before the promised land no hunting would have been required. Also since they went in minimal light, no fire, uncooked meat made sweet, to likely avoid detection large groups of animals would have trackable, loud, dirty and require copious amounts of water at some point in 7 years. They were anmazed that in spite of their odd all meat diet their women could still nurse babies.
3. When the boys went back for the Brass plates not only was all of their considerable wealth still there but the boys were at least savvy enough to consider buying or bribing - this indicates a pretty secure home in a pretty nice neighborhood and/or enough caretakers to still be there to secure it
4. The women “BECAME” strong as men, NOT were accustomed to being strong as men doing man’s work.
5. When the boys returned from getting the plates both Lehi and Sariah rejoiced and THEIR joy was full, and THEY offered up burnt offerings…hmmm she joined in making the offerings? How could that be if women then were even less empowered in the church then than now?
And that is just the beginning of the clues about Sariah (we might say the Eve of the Nephite/Lamanite nation) and how unlikely it was that she was just along for her fertility and tent packing skills. I would encourage every latter-day saint woman (and men who act as if the false doctrine is true) to stop listening to the world for scriptural interpretations of how prophets and God treat and think of women.
You are great, powerful and an integral unimpeachable part of the plan of salvation. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise just look at it through spiritual eyes.
Sorry for the bluntness but I both weep and get indignant when sisters in the church apparently accept uninspired interpretations and unfounded historical claims of how prophets of God and righteous men thought of and treated their wives and sisters. It’s as if we are to assume that the brethren inspired to risk life, limb and family to obtain a promised land and whose writings, children and prophecies have become the most powerful book in God’s effort to reclaim his fallen children were given a pass on unrighteous dominion.
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
So we should all just listen to your take on women in the scriptures because you are a man?
Jack, you are completely ignoring the reality that women are a blind spot in the scriptures. It is possible to both believe that “[Women] are great, powerful and an integral unimpeachable part of the plan of salvation” (a given - I am a woman) and wonder why, if this is so, we are such a blind spot in our scriptures.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
Jack, your philosophy is somewhat flawed. You speak of misinterpretation of scripture, yet you declare openly that since the scriptures don’t mention camels or other flocks, they must not have existed. Would not sheep be considered food and provision? Have you ever walked in the desert? Most likely not, since you actually think people would have walked that distance in sand and sun without the common and necessary “provision” of a camel? Let alone, you think that Nephi and his brothers carried the plates once they had them? They would have been heavy. You are making the same sort of assumptions as were made by Ms. Moore, except hers at least were grounded in some historical fact and tradition, whereas your’s are grounded in mere conjecture and a tremendous lack of experience with the terrain and culture.
I do, however, think that you assumptions about Sariah being more than chattel or a servant wife to be refreshing. I have never viewed the women in the BofM as being treated that way, but rather took the book, on the whole, as being a religious book of scripture where women were not always playing a direct role in leadership.
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
Stephanie…I think women are generally overlooked in scripture because:1. the bible was constantly re-translated and interpreted politically and being as women were not generally accepted as authority figures, they are therefore absent. The BofM is a book of religious history, and being that, unless a woman was part of the religious history, she wouldn’t be mentioned. I am not saying that is it correct, and I have wished for the historical records of the Nephite and Lamanite nations so as to understand better the actual role women had. I don’t like being left to conjecture, and attempt to make sense of their world based on our’s and other ancient civilizations. If they were so righteous (especially after the coming of the Savior), I want to see you he organized and treated the women along with the children and men.
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Jack - I think any time one studies a historical document, one MUST consider the historical period in which it was written and everything that is known and understood about that period from concurrent sources and scholarly study. Otherwise, gross misunderstanding may occur based upon ones own anachronistic perspective of what one reads. Cultural, historical and literary context is everything in scriptural study.
Comment by Lorian — June 30, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
Jack
Why is it, that if pressed to come up with the names of Joseph Smiths siblings, members can come up with the names of various brothers but rarely his sisters?
Do you both weep and get indignant when anyone offers inspired interpretations and/or documented historical facts about the treatment of woman by “righteous men”? Or is it when they disagree with your perspective?(that’s when I do it)
I do recall seeing a Book of Mormon that contained the Arnold Friberg painting, “Lehi finds the Liahona” and there was a camel. Now it’s not historical, but it was in the Book of Mormon, so that makes it scriptural.
My conjecture, is if everyone, as you put it, walked, then the women were brought along to carry the heavy tents and provisions. Or perhaps they pulled a handcart, with a camel in it, up a short hill as the men looked on.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 30, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Suzanne, you sarcasm always makes me laugh.
Comment by Keith — June 30, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
I know you’re kidding Suzanne, but it’s actually a pretty good point that something had to carry the tents.
Comment by Stephanie — June 30, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Woah Nellie,
#8,
So I apologize I haven’t gotten back to this. As typical of FMH posts, when I get back to them, comments are already in the hundreds.
Your question is an excellent question. I guess there is only one arbiter of what constitutes a righteous society. My comment was merely to state that it seems from historical evidence that righteousness is not absolute and is tied to many factors. Based on today’s standards, no, that would not be a very righteous society at all. However, I’m guessing God judges us, eventually, based on all evidence, including ignorance of better ways of living and treating each other. If the only righteous society is our current one where women are treated far more equally than at any time in history, then there would only be people from our society today represented in the Celestial Kingdom. Somehow I don’t see that happening.
Comment by Dan — June 30, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
Woah Nellie,
Sure. By the 1800s, women had already asserted themselves far more in society than at previous generations. Just think of Christine De Pizan or the French Suffrage movement in the 1700s.
Comment by Dan — June 30, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
Dan,
It does seem logical that the Lord would use a sliding scale to judge our worthiness, depending on our knowledge and spirituality. That makes sense. We would need to be judged on our dilligence in obeying what we knew, not what we didn’t. The thing I wonder about is how could someone see another human being as less than themselves (whether male or female, bond or free, different race or whatever)? It is really hard for me to even fathom…I realize that culture can do a lot of things to a person. I wonder if it could do it to me or you, even, if the ingredients were right? I do think that we need to be careful about deeming anyone righteous based on their role or calling…I think the scriptures let us see the “heroes” at their best and the “losers” at their worst. We can’t assume that someone is righteous just because they were a prophet. Prophets have been chosen to perform a certain something, and the prerequisite may not be righteousness.
I agree that women are treated better in Western civilization than they have ever been. I don’t know if it is a reflection of our righteousness “level” or not…It seems that equal rights for everyone may be the RESULT of righteousness, not necessarily the breeding grounds for it. Hmmm…Kind of like putting the horse before the buggy? Anyways, I think I’m getting into the realm of philosophical nonsense now…I need to get into something concrete and go and clean my house and mow the lawn…lol!
re:#111-OK, now I see what you are referring to.
Comment by WoahNellie — July 1, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Woah Nellie,
I think it could definitely do it for me and you. I know that if I remained in Romania, that if my father never escaped, and my mother never got us out, that if everything remained as it was supposed to be, I would be a womanizer like my father, because I would not have known any different.
We sometimes take for granted just how profound the whole notion of equality is because now that we have it, it makes such common sense. It’s easy to look back at generations and say, “why didn’t you guys figure this stuff out?” As is clear from some cultures still around, including many in America, males still try and dominate and subjugate women to their control, and that there are women who allow the subjugation to happen.
Comment by Dan — July 1, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Yes, I agree this is still happening. Regardless of how “equal” we have become, we all own prejudices. For example, I was born into a family where my dad had the final say in everything. I have translated that into my own relationships, whether I agree with it or not almost nearing irrevelance until I realize I’m doing it. And, I usually don’t realize I’m doing it until I’m hopping mad. So, I think that in the case of my branch pres, it took him by surprise when I finally stood up to him. So, I almost, in some ways, created the situation that I loathed. *sigh*
I guess the key is recognizing it…but beyond talking about it, what can we DO? Will there ever be a time when we all really feel equal?
Hmm…I don’t know if I followed any logical line of thought here. Ha ha, welcome to the abyss that is my thoughts…
Comment by WoahNellie — July 1, 2010 @ 11:22 am
#10, Kevin, thank you for that link. Very interesting.
Comment by Kimberly — July 1, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Jack,
A few clarifications might help. All are outlined in chapter notes in my historical novels, which of course would be too tedious to pull up again. 95% of my research came from MALE historians and scholars, so it’s not necessarily my “female” perspective about women.
1. No assumption is made that Sariah or any woman in the Book of Mormon era are “chattel”, or are treated as such by their men/prophets/leaders. Comments in my book are made on their social status and their political/financial/property rights, which are historically above a slave status. Challenges which Sariah most definitely rose above. The women may not have had much of a voice in a public sense, but they certainly did in their homes.
a. Historical research based on travels of Doughty and Thesiger suggest that Lehi’s family did have camels or they wouldn’t have been able to transport tents or other supplies. Those bedu goat tents are quite heavy.
b. “Knowing” something may or may not indicate literacy among the mothers of the stripling warriors. I think it’s a spiritual term, not related to whether they could paint words or symbols on vellum.
c. Again, we can very well guess that Lehi didn’t treat his wife like chattel, which is pointed out in my Out of Jerusalem series, as well as “Women”.
1a. Sariah’s murmuring is always a fun debate. Through my research I’ve come across an essay by Camille Fronk (Olsen), which I love, who says that Sariah knew how long it would take her sons to return since she’d just traveled that distance. She feared for their lives, and if her 4 sons were killed, it would be a curse upon her. Not to mention a terrible grief. It would also be her old-age insurance policy gone up in flames. You are right, though, that Sariah’s role as matriarch of the family put tremendous pressure upon to her make sure her children/grandchildren were fed.
2a. There is zero mention of camels, though it’s not too far-fetched to assume they were used by Lehi’s family. The LDS pictures depicting Nephi fleeing with a flock of sheep and donkeys are inaccurate. Sheep and donkeys don’t navigate the High Sands well. But they could have bought them along the way in tribal villages.
3a. Archaeologists claim that the ancient Israelis buried their treasure. So if Laman and his brothers were able to retrieve their goods to bribe Laban, they had to dig it up from their hiding places.
4a. The women in Nephi and Lehi’s family wouldn’t have had prior experience or daily experience doing all of that hard labor. Some scholars (Nibley, et al) suggest Sariah had servants in Jerusalem.
5a. Sariah joined in the burnt offering because her “murmuring” was considered a sin.
Hope this helps. I loved your comments at the end. I believe that’s the message of my “Women” book, as well as the theme that runs throughout. Reflecting on our challenges today, as well as learning about the challenges women faced in the past, we are truly daughters of God. We can be an incredible blessing to our children and those around us as we study the scriptures closely and learn more about the Savior.
Comment by Heather Moore — July 1, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
Kevin #10, thank you so much for those links! I was delighted to read your response to CLP’s paper. Here are some things that stood out to me:
1. That the “remarkable vision of her father” could be interpreted to mean that Abish had a vision of her father, not that her father had a vision and told it to her. Interesting. I wonder how many other cases there are that we read something and assume it means one thing when it might mean something else.
2. The idea of looking for type-scenes
3. The interpretation of 2 Nephi 13:5-7 to mean familial breakdown (I had a hunch, but I wasn’t sure exactly) and the interpretation of 2 Nephi 13:16-26 to mean “Decadent Israel is described as devoid of honorable men,
in that they valued women as decorative sex objects”. That makes perfect sense. And the fact that I perceive women to be becoming more and more like sex objects to men (when I would expect the opposite) is evidence of prophecy coming true to me.
4. That the “whore of all the earth” is a female reference just like the church is a female reference (to the bridegroom) instead of a slam on the feminine.
5. I also realized that I had projected Heather’s speculated motives for why the priests of King Noah kidnapped the daughters of the Lamanites onto the entire culture. But they were wicked and idle, so their motives are likely wicked, too. Therefore, I can’t project any of that on the righteous Nephites - just mourn for the wickedness of Amulon and his band.
5.
This is an excellent point. A lot of times, you find what you are looking for. I wonder how much of that I have done here in my post.
Last, I think you summarized the issue of women in the BofM so well here:
Great, great stuff. Thank you so much for sharing. When I get more time, I will read the rest of the links in your comment.
Comment by Stephanie — July 2, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
I won’t attempt to address each item directly but hit the salient points as best I can. Sorry if my delivery doesn’t inspire introspection as opposed to resistance.
1. Yes I am a man and have the priviledge of history that has borne more mention of our gender weighting the quantity in our favor and that appears to be part of if not the crux of the abrasion overall. I don’t intend to demean women with this next comment but hope my attempt at humor will jog a little introspection about why there is an apparent need for being mentioned. Jan Brady exclaimed “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha” because she erroneously thought her value was diminished by Marsha’s popularity. All I ask: “is the worth of a woman tied to name and gender recognition in the scriptures or the ability for Mormons to recall Sophrinia or Catherine or their own internal knowledge and revealed confirmation of whom they are and what they can become”? I have many more daughters than sons and I pray and teach them to know who they are in spite of what the world says they should be.
2. I certainly never said that not mentioning of animals was evidence of their absence, but based on the lack of mention and traveling with minimal cooking and fires appears that they were going incognito and flocks would have left significant marks even on sand and required somewhat frequent access to water. Since they didn’t cook much and the women still had sufficient milk to nurse babies I also tend to think water was also in short supply and that they didn’t take normal trade routes where they would be seen at watering holes, wells, gathering spots or villages.
3. Yes I have walked in the desert I was born in AZ and have a father who was into survivalism, bow hunted and revels in a 4 man event that proved the Word Of Wisdom in his case, but that is another story altogether…but I can assure you a trip across the desert can be done without camels…, uncommon and non-cultural for the known time period but doable. Keep in mind though that the nature of this trip and departure was under duress, direction and inspiration and guided by the Lord. Again notice the amazement at how they women became strong like the men (an uncommon condition) and their nursing abilities when they lived mostly on raw meat. Then consider how Laman and Lemuel used the uncommon toiling and trials by thier women as a reason they should have never left home and they add it would have been better for them to have died than endure what they had.
4. The BOM cross reference that indicates the name of the Brother of Jared as Moriancumer is from Nephite comments that it was customary to call the name of the land by the leader that landed there. Think of the time frame between Jaredites and Nephites and the tradition is considered the same. Yet the Jaredite exodus account specifically mentions the animals and insects and provisions they brought. The Nephites…no mention of animals on the desert crossing or ship is mentioned but hunting and food gathering at Bountiful is. I don’t say that it means animals are not there, but both records mention the types of things they brought on their respective “caravans”. So even their similarities have differences.
5. The ship(s) the Nephites and Jaredites built were revealed to them in manner of construction and timber type etc…so we glean that much of what they did was specifically revealed and cannot be assumed followed traditional methods as closely as seems to cause such consternation if it included women as pack animals.
6. Sariah’s participation in the sacrifices could also have just as easily fallen under the Peace Offerings that would be offered when all was right with the petitioner and the Lord which condition is clearly referenced as being both Lehi and Sariah’s state of mind before the offerings were made because her fears were fully put to rest and his revelations were confirmed. And I would submit that is as likely a motivation for the sacrifices as repenting for fearing you’ve made a huge mistake and followed your mentally ill husband to your and your childrens death.
7. Nephi states that he was schooled in the learning of the Jews and Language of the Egyptians. Egyptian culture, which obviously was a strong influencer in Lehi’s home as to be the source of their language and writing, was very supportive of women including teaching them to read and write. It is also known that love and tenderness in marriage were both common and considered part of the ultimate destiny of couples in the afterlife. By recalling the Egyptian influence on Lehi we can also use cultural traditions to accept that it was totally possible Sariah and her daughters were literate and loved.
8. I weep not that people don’t see eye to eye with my thoughts but that there are more and more sisters in the church accepting or teaching for doctrine the philosophies of men, and only see themselves as worthy and valued if they are mentioned as often as men in the scriptures as though the scriptures are Ok, People, the Enquirer or some other gossip magazine.
9. flame suit on
Comment by Jack — July 2, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
This is fair.
Comment by Stephanie — July 2, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
But, at the same time, I think you underestimate the amount of hurt from being “invisible” so often. To try to understand why does not make one unfaithful.
Comment by Stephanie — July 2, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Jack
A short jaunt into the desert is somewhat different than 8 effing years(I’d murmur too.) hauling around heavy tents and provisions with, as you put it, water in short supply.
I don’t know what you mean by the philosophies of men, but if it has any relationship to empirical evidence and reality, I’m all for it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 2, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
@Stephanie but I still contend that the invisibility is a perception issue and not a factual issue.
My wife and daughters are so important to me and I love them and their eternal potential. I teach them that they are not objects but intended to be co-equal partners with their husbands, if they have them, in God’s kingdom. Their minds are to be strengthened and filled.
How anyone, male or female thinks that the products and titles of labor and their percieved values in a society exceed the value of character, obedience and fidelity is beyond me. But that is the nature of our society we seem to want station over character.
Comment by Jack — July 2, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Okay, Jack. I disagree. Much of our culture has taught women to be invisible. No, that is not God’s plan, but that has been man’s plan.
Comment by Stephanie — July 2, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
Yeesh, Jack. So what I hear you saying is that women can only be co-equal partners if they accept their “God-ordained role” as homemakers? Or did I misread?
Comment by Lorian — July 2, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
Suzanne, the empirical evidence or reality we argue regarding daily life for Nephites/Lamanites or even Jews has many different views, opinions and conjectures. Just like politics today or like Fox vs. CNN they each have their respective agendas to push by omissions, additions or purposeful manipulation. Even scrolls were edited to push agendas. Viewing their experiences from the most extreme of middle eastern cultures when those were not the likely influences serves only to increase anger and frustration, not enlighten us.
Lorian, where did I say “homemakers”? This is exactly speaking to my point, there is too much interpreting through our own lenses vs. what is actually there. “…co-equal partners with their husbands IF THEY HAVE THEM” was what I said thanks very much. I’m fully aware that they may choose not to or not have the opportunity to marry and regardless I teach them to get educated and be ready to take on the world.
I’ve been reading about female literacy among Egyptians and Jews and even though it is known to have been acceptable, actual and legal. Some writers I’ve been reading are still saying by reason of their conjectures that they still doubt it happened very often, what? If it doesn’t fit the oppression mold disregard? I cannot be any clearer about the tendency to view and recast fact into a state of negativity and oppression where ample evidence to the possible and probable oppposite exists. Attitude does make a difference in how we view things, past, present and future.
1. Jewish and Egyptian women could and did own and inherit property
2. Love and mutual respect were common and considered enshrined into marriages in these societies
3. Polygamy was not as common as is purported in Jewish or Egyptian culture and was usually an outgrowth of desire for posterity circumstances (interesting that I have yet to see many, if any, make the similarity comparisons to the modern practices of surrogates, invitro, fertility treatments etc…we’ve developed non-intimacy based solutions to the same desire to propagate)
4. The non-jewish, non-egyptian societies and nomadic tribe’s lives and cultures while instructive of the times they lived in would not have likely been the culture they suddenly adopted while in the desert. The Jewish/Egytian one would have prevailed. This layering of mens philosophies and misapplying the most extreme possible of middle eastern cultures onto followers of Christ is where I see the philosophies of men blinding people to see what is highly unlikely to be accurate for the people in question as is evidenced on many levels even from a secular historical perspective.
5. Regardless of the length of time in the desert the ability to do it without Camels is completely possible. I never took exception to the murmuring because of that, I simply meant to point out that women treated like chattel would not feel free to talk down about their husband’s decision to flee into the wilderness. Also, these were a people unaccustomed to this type of lifestyle as is clearly indicated by the various responses from different family members. Worry would have attended their every step and murmuring until a testimony was recieved would have been a “natural” result. My view of Sariah is that she had a deep abiding love for her family and hightened sense of what she hoped they could do. Until her fears were quelled and doubts erased her murmuring serves to illustrate her humaness and concern for her posterity’s well being.
Anger and discontent fuel further feelings thereof, thus inviting more of a natural man state which is easy to reach. Contrast that with love, peace and patience which require constant effort to maintain which makes them of a higher state of being.
If your reward, value and meaning must come from an outside state of conditions which also includes the mental state of every person being aligned with a certain belief…all I can say is that will be a long laborious wait.
No one can provide someone else with self worth nor can they take it away it simply exists in the state the individual has created and nurtured it to be. In Lehi’s vision there were still people who reached that blessed tree of life and tasted of the most precious fruit but afterwards some felt shame and embarrassment and slunk away from that place. No one took from them that which they didn’t relinquish voluntarily after listening to the mockers telling them to place a lower value on what they had just recieved.
The bottom line is the discontented and mockers are liars too, no matter how sincerely they believe the prize to be of no worth. The value of self, gender, family, God etc.. are not dependent on outside factors unrelated to He who created them.
Comment by Jack — July 7, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
This is a good point, Jack.
This, too.
Comment by Stephanie — July 7, 2010 @ 6:48 pm