Despite what my children claim, I am not that old, yet I remember my mother’s exasperated delight when women were once again allowed to offer the opening prayer in LDS sacrament meetings. I may have been five or six years old at the time but her frustration with such an obviously stupid rule did not go unnoticed. Such a rule does indeed seem incredibly backward, but to pile on, it wasn’t until 2013 (!) that a woman offered a prayer in General Conference.
The LDS Church has a long history of institutionally marginalizing women; however, I don’t want to rehash all of that. Instead, I’d like to share a remark from the Nauvoo journal of Joseph Fielding, who was the brother of Mary Fielding, who married Hyrum Smith. The entry is dated June 12, 1844 and says:
June 12 – 44 As to myself I seem to have but little to write I am employed in cultivating my little Farm for the Support of myself and Family, have had nearly half of it to plant twice with Indian Corn owing to the wetness of the Season, much of the first Planting was destroyed I have labored hard to keep the Land dry, Now and then I go and lay my hands on the Sick, in which I take Pleasure and I mostly get a Blessing I often preach to my Wife and endeavor to inspire her with Faith her Mind has been troubled at some things in the Church the subject of Spiritual Wives so much talked about at this time, and other things, an Expression of Elder Lyman Wites that if a Woman complained of being insulted by any Man she ought to be set down as a Strumpet [a “strumpet” is a term for a female prostitute or promiscuous woman] on the ground that no Man would do it unless she gave him some liberty, This she knew to be a false Notion from her own Experience, in this she is correct the Expression of Bro. Wite was spoken publicly in our hearing and she thinks it hard if a Female is to be insulted as she has been and to have no redress I take it as an instance of Mans Weakness to hold forth such a Sentiment, and for the Elders to smile at it, is no proof of their approval of it, but I see nothing in all that is going on that troubles me at all;
Ehat, Andrew, “‘They Might Have Known That He Was Not a Fallen Prophet’ – The Nauvoo Journal of Joseph Fielding”, page 149
Joseph Fielding’s wife, Hannah, must have had some serious misgivings with polygamy because he makes mention of it several times in his journal, but here she expresses concern with the treatment of women, especially the pass sentiments like that expressed by Lyman Wight received from Church leaders. While Joseph Fielding is surely trying to be charitable to Church leaders, I wonder what the result would have been had there been push-back against such disgusting views. When I, with the help of history, am aware of what was to befall most women as a result of polygamy and the views expressed by Lyman Wight, it is clear that those views were not an aberration, but were going to be the root of the marginalization of women in the Church for decades to come.
I know we’ve improved a great deal since Hannah Fielding expressed these concerns to her husband, but imagine if Hannah’s grievances would have been heard and seriously considered at that time. What would have been different?
It is my hope that, unlike Joseph Fielding, we will not allow a notion that marginalizes women to go unchallenged. Sometimes being quiet to keep the peace can be damaging to those being marginalized, and I would hope we would do better.
- What do you think about how Joseph Fielding handled the situation?
- How might you have handled it differently?
- What can we do to help the Hannahs of the Church have the space to safely express their concerns?
Wheat & Tares 
For the time period, I commend Joseph Fielding for agreeing with his wife and suggesting other men thought the statement was stupid as well, even if they laughed at it. Hannah Greenwood Fielding was stuck, not because of that comment (the risk of being called a strumpet), but because her official advocate was her husband. The problem was that Joseph saw no reason to make a fuss. In that time, his decision would’ve held significant weight for the family.
Depending on where you are in the church, the situation has improved. In many wards, women feel free to take concerns to local church leaders themselves, regardless of whether the leaders are men or women. However, there are some places (like my current ward), where it is more effective to have your husband advocate for you.
The problem is not avenues to send complaints (all women can go through a RS president if they don’t feel comfortable going to a male church leader). At every level there is a judgment call for whether something is serious enough to move up the chain. In the case of Hannah Greenwood Fielding, the complaint stopped at Joseph Fielding. In other cases, they can maybe get through the RS Pres, but the complaint stops at the bishop. It’s more a matter of taking a woman’s complaint *seriously.* In my experience, women often have to earn the right to be taken seriously, where men are typically handed that privilege without effort.
Mary Ann, it was indeed pretty commendable that Joseph Fielding validated Hannah’s concern. Honestly, judging from other areas of his journal as well, he seems like he was a pretty good guy.
You also touch on the troubling aspect of that exchange to me: that she had no outlet, no way of redress. That was a real problem back then and still can be today. Frankly, the power dynamic hasn’t changed that much in the institutional Church, where women don’t fully control their own destiny. Like you mentioned, at some point, even at a local level, they are subject to the decisions of men. And that’s the rub: there still is not an effective method of redress for women, and the priesthood-as-old-boy’s-club, as it often was back then (and can be today), wasn’t checked, resulting in a continuing disparity within the community.
My apologies, Cody Hatch. My fat thumb inadvertently hit the thumbs down.
Heh. No problem, Anon. I’m just happy someone is reading it. 🙂
I know there was a concerted effort to improve it at least a little 5 or 6 years ago in my area. I was on the ward council and a 70 instructed us that activities and plans within the ward would be made by the ward council (not Priesthood Executive Council, which effectively ceased to exist) and that all members were to have an equal voice. The bishop was not to conduct the meeting (ExSec did) and was to primarily participate when he needed to make a decision, because when he voiced opinions, people would defer to him and their voices wouldn’t be heard. The sisters seemed to participate as equal members of the council and were certainly heard (though there were only three of them to what, 10 men?) Is that just local to SoCal, or is that how things are elsewhere?
Lyman Wight was quite the interesting character, from what i understand, I don’t know how I would have handled the situation back then. It seems like another planet. The date of the journal entry is curious–just 2 weeks before Joseph Smith was killed (June 27, 1844.) This had to be an explosive time in church history.
Given that polygamy was a poorly kept secret, and obviously Hannah was complaining about it, I think I would have joined William Marks out of the church. I have such an aversion to polygamy today, I probably would have joined with Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, or the RLDS Church.
Fascinating post. I too remember the change when women were allowed to pray in sacrament meeting. also not very old at the time. I don’t recall much in the way of commentary though, either at home or church.
“but I see nothing in all that is going on that troubles me at all” (from the diary excerpt above)
Really! Nothing that troubles him at all, even though he knows it troubles his wife etc. No empathy or imagination there then. No, the remedy is to preach at her, rather than to take her concerns seriously. And he’s one of the good guys… I guess it’s a good thing that at least he doesn’t believe she behaved like a strumpet!
Love your comment Mary Ann.
“there are some places (like my current ward), where it is more effective to have your husband advocate for you.”
I’ve been in wards like that too.
There’s a certain arrogance of attitude I’ve noticed in some men in the church which can be seen in the following. We recently had a fireside relating to family history presented by a stake officer. Overall it was very well done. However, in the section in which sealing policies were outlined, there was some very distasteful, self-congratulatory, even jubilant, expression at the point where he described that living men could be sealed to all women to whom they had been married, whilst the same did not apply for living women. I did speak up and say that this was grossly unfair, and in later discussion he said women were often complaining to him that it wasn’t fair, but that this was not his fault. Not his fault maybe, but toning down the self-congratulation and exhibiting some measure of understanding that this is a problem for people would go a long way I’m sure!
Your comment of, “marginalization of women in the Church for decades to come.” brought back to a comment made repeatedly by Lindsey Hanson Park in her “year of polygamy” podcast. She claims that polygamy has had huge ramifications all over the church. At first I thought she was overreaching, but as I kept thinking about it over and over I have come to agree with the statement. Look no further than Carol Lynn Pearson’s “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.” I really appreciate that she added “and Men” in the title. Like Hedgehog I have run across men that “boast” about being able to marry multiple women. I am also sure I have run across many women that are hurt by that, but they usually keep that deep inside. I know that even when I was a teenager and hearing about polygamy I felt bad because I felt I was more important to God than women were. I couldn’t understand that and it caused me lots of cognitive dissonance.
In my “mission field” ward, there have been attempts to make ward council more inclusive to women. I suspect we are neither the worst nor the best in this area, but it still seems slow progress.
My last Institute teacher always started class with a sexist chain-email joke or anecdote, like the one that shows how restricted women were in marriage back in the 1950’s and then points out that the divorce rate was much lower back then. This was during Prop 8, and he also sermonized at least once about how gay people just wanted to get married “for the money.”
I was on my way out then. Sometimes I would challenge him, and sometimes I would just go out to the foyer and try to calm down. (Doing so was always a better experience for me than being in class.)
One time someone else questioned him about plural marriage, and he was like “well you know there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. Just look at who comes to Institute!” Women outnumbered men in our class.
I think what’s most oppressive is not so much that he got to “teach” everyone, and more that I was usually the only one who stood up to him. Sometimes people would come up to me afterwards and thank me for speaking up in favour of inclusion, even if it was as simple as asking if there would be lactose-free ice cream at a social thing. But most people, it seemed, were too intimidated to do so themselves.
The church culture enables jerks like him, and makes everyone else doubt their self-worth.
The recent Sunday School lesson on Sections 131 &132 of the Doctrine and Covenants saw the male teacher explaining that in the Celestial kingdom there would be virtually unlimited sexual experiences for those in the highest kingdom. I pointed out that no information has been given to us about how spirits are created so perhaps his expectations did not match reality. It seems out of line to me to
Imagine that the two times I gave birth are the only important points in life and that my education and work are meaningless in an eternal sense. The teacher told me later that a lot of LDS men believe that so….Well group belief does not make something true.
Another angle on the use of the term “insult” that you didn’t note, but feels quite pertinent to the original context. One archaic use of the term “insult” also specifically referred to a man making an unwanted sexual advance toward a woman. Read this again with that in mind: “if a Woman complained of being insulted by any Man she ought to be set down as a Strumpet [a “strumpet” is a term for a female prostitute or promiscuous woman] on the ground that no Man would do it unless she gave him some liberty, This she knew to be a false Notion from her own Experience.” He’s literally saying that if a man made a pass at (or attempting sexual assault even) a woman–any woman–she was asking for it! In the context of polygamy that just makes it even worse. For a woman, being approached about polygamy, and objecting to the offer, meant that you were a temptress, a tease, wantonly enticing those poor unwitting men with your attractiveness.
Consider this passage from E.M. Forster’s novel A Room with a View. Lucy Honeychurch has been kissed unexpectedly by George Emerson on a tourist outing, and discovered by her prudish cousin and chaperone Charlotte Bartlett who wants to help her avoid an imprudent match, so she frames his actions in the worst possible light, as one in a series of “exploits” that needs to be silenced.
“You are so young and inexperienced, you have lived among such nice people, that you cannot realize what men can be–how they can take a brutal pleasure in insulting a woman whom her sex does not protect and rally round. This afternoon, for example, if I had not arrived, what would have happened?”
“I can’t think,” said Lucy gravely.
Something in her voice made Miss Bartlett repeat her question, intoning it more vigorously.
“What would have happened if I hadn’t arrived?”
“I can’t think,” said Lucy again.
“When he insulted you, how would you have replied?”
Polygamy and the marginalization of women. How I was told this worked by a cranky uncle as an impressionable lad.
How serious should I have taken this perspective?
Stage 1. The patriarch marries several women.
Stage 2. The growing number of wives if not the discord between them forces them to establish several houses and not live under one roof.
Stage 3. The young sons have to grow up fast and get physically strong from doing an adult man’s share of the hard farm work when their father is too busy with other younger wives to take care of their farm or ranch..
Stage 4. The young sons become far more loyal to their mother than to their mostly absent father and get tired of their father constantly bossing them around whenever he visits. The visits become rare by the time the sons are nearing adulthood.
Stage 5. At some point the father realizes he has no control over the strappling boys who can or may actually kick his ass physically and ignore his authority over them. He has no control over his daughters either.
Stage 6. The mother has become completely independent and does as she pleases although she is essentially a widow with neither the dominion nor the companionship of her husband.
Stage 7. Only the most obedient sons of the first or the favored wife have any chance at church leadership which is necessary to marry many wives. The rest of the sons and daughters are disgusted with their father and with plural marriage. They marry only one spouse or may leave the faith completely.
****
One conclusion I drew is that the current marginalization of women was more a result of some other development aside from polygamy. Not that polygamy didn’t plow the ground. The correlation movement comes to mind as a reaction and retrenchment from the growing women’s movement to which the availability of effective contraception gave a huge boost. This also made it much easier for women to prepare and function in high level careers outside the home. Even into the late 1980’s we were hearing from bishops privately that any use of birth control was extremely displeasing to the Lord. Two, four and perhaps even six children were not enough. And rape without contraception often leads to pregnancy and either ruination or coersive marriage to the rapist.
I believe that the LDS church sans a paid clergy cannot function without the flexibility that stay-at-home women have in contrast to women with a full-time job. The wives of key local leaders bear the heaviest burden supporting a husband with a paying career of 40-60 hours a week and a church job of 30-40 hours a week Subservient,marginalized women are crucial to the survival of the religion under the correlation model.
Lyman Whites: If a woman complains about being insulted by a man, then she must have been asking for it and she should be called promiscuous.
Sounds like the fable that if you throw a woman in a lake and she doesn’t drown, then she must be a witch. If she drowns, she wasn’t a witch.
All losing situations for the ladies, devoid of logic.
I recently received a survey from the church. I wish I could remember the questions, but in the spot for comment (and it wasn’t out of line to do this in the context of the questions asked) said that I think it’s imperative that the church revise the polygamy essays and change the temple ceremony. That’s how I “helped.” Or did I? I don’t know.
I went to the temple this week in desperate need of comfort and guidance. I will go again. But the words do come down hard on my heart.
Ruth, I can’t tell you how happy it makes me that the church is at least surveying people on these issues. A small step, but it is at least awareness.
Ruth, if I could hug you I would. Consider yourself “internet-hugged.”
Ruth- Make that two internet hugs!
As a descendant of the Mr Fielding in question, I’m sad to report that I’m only semi confident whether I am descended from Hannah or a later, polygamous wife. That says a lot, doesn’t it? I’m his descendant through my mother and her mother and her mother, but these strong LDS women in my life have only ever shared the stories and extolled the virtues of the male progenitor. I’ve tried to bring the stories of my foremothers more into family discussions of late, but things rapidly become contentious because polygamy discussions aren’t pleasant. I can’t tell you how much I wish Hannah’s concerns had been taken seriously.
Elizabeth, that’s funny. My maternal grandmother and mother wore that Joseph Fielding connection like a badge of honor, so it was drilled into me which wife and daughter we came through. Near as I can tell, all his descendants come through daughters (three from Hannah, who all married the same man, and two from his only plural wife, Mary Ann Peake). It seems like anytime I say something critical of polygamy, people react like I’ve spat on the graves of my ancestors.
Mary Ann – I have wondered for decades how/why so many people, especially women, in the church would stand in support of polygamy. I have never lived anywhere near Utah and both of my parents are converts. It wasn’t until in my faith crisis that I finally realized that for many it was their ancestors that practiced it. I had one of those DOH forehead slaps and realized, “of course there is some family pride and I probably would have some of that also.” I am embarrassed that it took me so long to figure that out.