Woman's Progression

In honor of Women's History Month, I thought I'd publish another interesting piece by Emmeline B. Wells, my favorite suffragist. Some of the more compelling reasons for supporting a woman's right to vote were crafted by her hand. As we enter an election year in the United States, each of us should consider the lessons of the past and how they can school us in difficulties of our present times.

Woman's Progression 

 Published: 15 February 1878

The newspapers of the day among other items of importance bring us good news of the progression of Woman’s Cause. The past year has given strength to the work by many large conventions, calling together the strongest and most powerful minds from different parts of the country, and these women, earnest and zealous, have presented in the most forcible manner the ablest and most direct arguments in favor of woman’s elevation. The right to equal opportunities of education is one of the points in question, and much has been done to give woman opportunities for cultivation in the higher branches of literature recently.

But man of those who do not directly oppose it, (knowing woman has the best side of the argument) sneer, and ridicule and insinuate, and in all sorts of indirect ways use their influence to keep women from pursuing those avocations that are considered the most eligible for man.

The better educated woman is, the more she can accomplish for the good of all; the better she can perform the duties of wife and mother which we consider the highest duty except obedience to God. One plea that many advance against woman’s higher education, and freed, is that it will unfit her for the position nature has assigned her as wife and mother. But we sincerely believe it will only the better qualify her. The mother who has strong characteristics properly developed will transmit them to her children in a marked degree. This is a fact readily conceded by every person of good judgment; then the more highly educated the mothers are, the greater power of intellect the children will inherit.

So long has custom tyrannized over woman to keep her in subjection, that it will only be by small degrees women themselves can comprehend the advantages arising from the progress of independence of thought and action, and a knowledge for themselves.

The fields of usefulness now open to woman are widening every day. And there are some good men—here as elsewhere, who welcome her to the avenues which lead to a higher range of intellectual and spiritual culture. But men cannot walk by faith as women can, it is not so much in their nature; they want facts all the time, and the results of the practice; and it will take a little time to prove whether the condition of society is materially benefitted by woman’s broader expanse of labor in the public, as well as private interests of humanity. Some things have been already proved; that women are capable of mastering, as thoroughly and perfectly as men, the theory and practice of teaching, the science of medicine and anatomy, and many other branches of education and art. The one strong point that opponents use is, that woman will lose her indefinable charm, designated womanliness, when she can discuss knotty questions, has strong opinions, can match herself with man in force of character, and intellectual ability, instead of sweetly assenting to whatever opinions he may hold, smiling all the while he is pitilessly crucifying all the finer feelings of her soul.

Why is it not possible for man and woman to love each other truly, and dwell together in harmony, each according to the other all the freedom of thought, feeling, and expression they would grant to one who was not bound to them by indissoluble ties; instead of the wife giving all—that she may sit by his hearth, bear his children, preside at his table, and merge her into his, to the extinguishing and crushing out of all desires, ambitions, tastes, or capabilities for anything save what he deems proper, or right, his wife should engage in. Let man also prove himself noble enough to share with her such laurels as either may be able to win in the battle field of life, instead of arrogating to himself the right to dictate to her in all things, saying, “thus far shalt thou go and no farther.”

We do not believe in pouring forth grievances, or reiterating wrongs; there are not arguments, and men will not have them; they must be shown the happy side of the future, not the dark annals of the past. That we must leave—and we know there is One, Who would not even suffer a sparrow to fall to the ground without His notice. Jests never turned away form woman in scorn, or loathing; and woman never sued to him in vain. Think of this, you who sit in the courts of the nation, and sneer at the mothers, wives and sisters who entreat you to devise some methods to have from wholesale destruction, by intemperance and other crying evils, their sons, their brothers, their loved once, their fellow-men, or allow THEM a voice in the laws of the land, that will at least give them legal rights to protect themselves and their little ones.

Of what are ye afraid? Has not woman extended to you the hand of sympathy, meted out measure upon measure, pressed down and running over with love and heavenly charity? What more can she do to win your confidence in her desire to improve the condition of all mankind? Has she not unselfishly sought your interest in everything which pertains to home-happiness! Will she slacken her efforts to do you good because she has a wider field to labor in, and greater inducements to stimulate her exertions? No! Woman’s happiness can never be complete without man’s love; but that love molded and tempered by its assimilation to the exalted phase of woman—with all her powers and attributes awakened to a supreme consciousness of her true mission as man’s real help meet, will give you participation in a purer sentiment, where there will be scope for all the love implanted in the breast of man.

There is no doubt but that the concentrated energies and eloquence brought to bear upon Woman’s cause in the National Congress, this present year will be long remembered, and even those who profess to think lightly of it, and treated it with contempt and withering sarcasm, will not be able to forget the sublime enthusiasm, the dignity and grace with which these noble women plead for the rights of which they are unjustly deprived.

There are some valiant workers in the cause of woman’s progression—we have them here in our midst; women who are laboring earnestly in improving and elevating the condition of society, whose efforts are untiring in seeking to promote a higher and more exalted feeling and sentiment in the minds of the young, than to spend their time in frivolity and nonsense. Women who are prepared and fortified to endure the sneers and opprobrium of those who do not yet appreciate the cause they have espoused; who in all humility seek for the “grace” of God to aid them, in their efforts to accomplish their noble purposes.

--Emmeline B. Wells, Woman’s Exponent

"Real Women"

Who and what are they? Not the painted dolls and votaries of fashion, whose sole earthly happiness seems to consist in being elaborately dressed, and daintily perfumed, and who so disfigure themselves, and disarrange and [blank] up their apparel that it is difficult to tell whether they are real or imaginary beings: counterfeits of womanhood; false to nature, false to God who made them perfect. Everything which tends to make them false, hypocritical and untrue, perverts their own real nature; God made woman beautiful, if not in the face and figure, yet the very nature of her mission on the earth, helps to make her “a thing of beauty.” God intended her for a real comforter, a real help-meet, what could be more charming, more satisfying than tis, were it carried out to the very letter as he designed it should be?

How few there are who understand (even in part) the importance of the position they occupy, and for which they were specially created, and strive to preserve their own identity, their own individuality by being real; it is a very simple, common-place word yet it comprises so much.

What man who possesses pure, manly instincts, but in his heart were he left free to choose, untrammeled by worldly traditions and distinction, would prefer a real woman to an artificial one; one who would be content to fill a home-sphere, proud and happy in the consciousness of being really worthy her husband’s love and esteem.

Merle De Vore Johnson, 1909
"Woman's Sphere"

Every day we hear it repeated, “a stylish woman,” “a magnificent woman,” “a superior woman,” “a literary woman,” or “a strong-minded woman.” A hundred and one adjectives are applied to the sex, but whoever stops to think of the Real Woman—the real living help? She who quietly, without ostentation or parade, fulfills the small, home-duties, cheerfully, patiently, heroically and hopefully, unknown save to those who constitute her own immediate circle, and often unappreciated even there: She has not wealth perhaps, or even a superior education, but if she has strong common sense, and an active mind, she is just as capable of filling her mission here, and of standing in her own real place hereafter, as though she was a favorite of fortune or the idol of the people.

One of the popular writers of the present days says “Man is what woman makes him;” and I would kindly beg to add, “women are what men have made them.” A quiet, unpretending domestic woman is a nobody nowadays, in the sight of the world. A woman feels compelled to distinguish herself in some way or other, in order to elicit even the smallest share of attention from these would be “Lords of Creation.” In the estimation of her own husband, (if she happens to be favored with one,) she is simply a necessity in his establishment, to manage his house, to cook his dinner, to attend to his wardrobe, always on hand if she is wanted and always out of sight when not needed. He doesn’t mind kissing her occasionally, when it suits him; but he never thinks she has any thoughts of her own, any ideas which might be developed; she must not have even an opinion, or if she has she mustn’t express it, it is entirely out of place; she is a subject, not a joint-partner in the domestic firm.

If men are really superior to women, let them show themselves so; prove themselves “pre-eminent,” “akin to God.” This is what a real woman craves; something worthy of reverence, or worship even, second only to her Creator. But failing to find this, she betakes herself to other things, finding no superiority in her “Lord and master” nor even acknowledgement of wifely duties, she seeks for happiness through another channel easier of attainment. If a woman is real enough to let her husband know she is devotedly attached to him, in nine cases out of then, he only makes use of it to her disadvantage; consequently it has become general among women to advise each other to disguise their real feelings, afraid to acknowledge them out of policy.

Where can be the real happiness, the one-ness? Is not this teaching women to be false to their own hearts?

Man, with all his boasted knowledge, and practical skill in reading character, is still in comparative ignorance of how women feel, or what they are. He regards them as toys, to be picked up and cast aside at will; very well for pastime playthings, or for housekeepers; but to consider them real, genuine, rational beings, is a novel idea; they are vain, frivolous, fickle deceitful, incapable of performing any important part in life creditably.

I must acknowledge the real genuine article is hard to find, in this enlightened nineteenth century; but shall we succumb to this foul aspersion upon our sex? Shall we or content with a false life, a counterfeit? Shall we be real women? We Latter-day Saints, who profess to aspire to something purer, higher, nobler and better than the world? We are seeking to understand ourselves, our own organization, our own individual life; making a real use of our time, having a real purpose in all that we do, n all that we say, living a real life; laying up real treasures in the kingdom of heaven; not copying the fashions of the world, or their manners, but improving for ourselves, guided and directed by the best talent, judgment and skill we possess. It is very easy to copy, there is nothing real in that, not even a freshness about it, it is only imitation; like the silly school-girl, who, too idle to exercise her own dormant faculties, copies from her class-mate’s slate, forgetting it will be of no benefit to her in future; it serves her purpose for the time being, it is sham, she passes it off for real information.

Let us be more cautious—let us know for ourselves—that will make us real. We shall then be better equaled to accomplish that we are striving to attain to, not following a shadow, or a phantom, but that which is real; a real Gospel, which will elevate, refine and purify, bringing us back into the real presence, of Him whose aim and design, in our creation, was to make us real women.

Emmeline B. Wells, Dec 13th 1873

Published in the Woman's Exponent, 1 January 1874

Understanding Polygamy: A Brief History

In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act--legislation that made polygamy a felony. This act was solely in response to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' practice of plural marriage.

However, to make polygamy illegal would have been ineffective because evidence to prove polygamous marriage wasn't easy to obtain. To prosecute fairly would require testimony and evidence only the Church and its members could give, which obviously wasn't going to happen.

So the U.S. government tried to be clever and pass legislation that would make "bigmous" and "unlawful cohabitation" a felony, which would allow for circumstantial evidence to be enough to prove that polygamy had taken place.

Further disregarding the rule of law, the Edmunds Act provided a cover for arresting people who said they believed in plural marriage, but did not practice it themselves. Men were also arrested ex post facto, or for polygamous marriages that were performed before the law was passed in 1882.

Due process was simply ignored as more than 1300 men were arrested, including many prominent leaders in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency of the Church. Included among these is George Q. Cannon (center) who would serve as First Counselor under 4 Church presidents before the end of his life, including when this picture was taken in 1888.

The mentality behind this legislation was that no woman of her own accord would ever participate in polygamy. Female members of the early church needed to be liberated from their husbands and the pressures of the Church to conform, and the opponents were willing to come at the Mormons with everything in their arsenal.

Yes, including cheesy political cartoons.

These pressures and prejudices inspired what, to me, has always been one of the most powerful pieces of Mormon literature ever published.

And, to no one's surprise, it was written by a woman.

Is it Ignorance?

This is the question that Emmeline B. Wells posed in an article published in The Women's Exponent on July 1, 1883. Speaking to the federal legislators and civilian critics, Wells writes:

It seems a very common thing with people unaquainted with the facts to say, it is the ignorance of "Mormon" women "that keeps them in bondage," that "makes them submit to plural marriage," when in truth the very contrary is the case. It is because of the intelligence they possess on subjects connected with their existence here and hereafter, as well as that of their posterity and kindred, the hopes entertained, and the actual knowledge concerning the future that causes them to embrace a doctrine so unpopular and so objectionable in the eyes of the world. Such paragraphs as the following and similar ones abound in the newspapers and journals of the day: "It was hoped by giving the women of Utah the ballot they would use it for the destruction of the monster, which keeps them under its iron heel, in hopeless misery." These people may be well meaning, but they talk nonsense and folly in the extreme...

If anyone supposes these same women citizens to be ignorant of the rights the ballot gives them, then they know very little about the women of this Territory, and our advice to them is, let the matter rest until you have an opportunity of solving the problem by thorough investigation, and not from one side, and remember the words of the Savior, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." (Source: PBS.org)

For someone on a leash and horribly repressed, she sure does seem to know what she's about.

The first time I read Is it Ignorance? I was in high school. I don't remember if I was baptized yet or not, but Wells' testimony of polygamy impressed me. Her conviction was sincere, and her answer was consistent and full of doctrinal substance. Her question was compelling.

Polygamy--even faith itself--was it ignorance?

I had my faith and my witness from the Holy Ghost. In these I had my answer, my certainty. No, it wasn't ignorance. It was God.

But because polygamy was the only thing the people around me knew about the Mormons, it was the subject that was raised the most to me both before and after I became a member. The issue became an irritant, not to my testimony but to my patience, because the matter seemed so entirely irrelevant to the question they were really asking:

Is the Church true, despite polygamy? Or even simpler than that, is the Church true?

I wasn't the sort of person who could look at Joseph Smith and think, Oh my gosh, he was a polygamist and he kept it a secret, the Church must not be true!

Pardon my French, but that's nonsense.

Unless someone out there has a flux capacitor and a Delorian, the future still has no logical impact on the past. The First Vision had already happened and the Restoration was underway by the time polygamy ever became an issue. That Joseph revealed polygamy in 1831 has no logical impact on whether or not the First Vision took place in 1820. Or the restoration of the priesthood in 1829. Or the formal organization of the Church in 1830.

Unless of course the critics saying Joseph wasn't the prophet of the Restoration want to base that claim on something that hadn't even happened yet. In which case I should probably ask, Does God deny you blessings or punish you for sins that you haven't committed yet?

I hope not. That would suck.

Beyond chronology, it made perfect sense to me that Joseph would be commanded to implement polygamy, and then hesitate to widely publicize the practice.

No one need look any further than the Old Testament to see whether polygamy is allowable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--considering Abraham and Jacob practiced polygamy. Polygamy is as eternal as the gospel itself, seeing as its the gospel that binds it. Its ancient origins are evidence enough of that.

But I can see two simple reasons why Joseph would hesitate to be too public with polygamy. On a personal level, Joseph was well aware that plural marriage would make his enemies want to kill him, not to mention break his wife's heart and cause many of his friends to abandon him. Those prospects are not pleasant to anyone, but especially not to someone who knew the loneliness that Joseph felt from having been mocked and hated from a young age for the destiny God had given him--what he could not deny or escape.

No one who hasn't felt that pain should never discredit it. It is not an easy burden to bear.

What critics must also remember is that Saints past and present, even though we no longer practice polygamy, still view it as a sacred marriage ordinance. We view polygamy with the same respect we view for our standard, monogamous marriage ceremony because we believe both are bound by the same God. To make certain details public would be extremely blasphemous to God and deeply offensive in our eyes. Being too open about polygamy would invite conversations with others about something that is not ours to discuss--something too sacred to profane even with well-intended words.

The Church's reserved approach to polygamy today reflects much of this same caution and reverence.

Is it Choice?

In short, you can look at Joseph Smith and the Church in regards to polygamy (or anything else, for that matter) and see secrecy, or questionable activities of a surreal nature that are too strange to believe. Or you can see a man and an organization that were destined to become much greater than they had the ability to become on their own--requiring transformation and struggle, a deep and abiding reliance on Jesus Christ and obedience to His commandments.

That's the choice. You can make it with God through prayer, with the faith that the Holy Ghost will reveal the answer unto you with clarity you cannot deny. Or you can do what a fair number of members are trying to do right now by trying to find conviction through history. Evidence. "Objectivity."

But expecting history to give you impartial, neutral certainty about anyone or anything is impossible. Relying on a secular approach to history when you're in search of religious conviction, is madness--the equivalent of relying on the understanding of stupid people who have studied the deeds of other stupid people in an attempt to find God.

If there's anything I learned from being a history major, it's that people are stupid. They've been stupid for a very long time. I include myself in this gladly. I'm one of the stupidest people I know, and I can say that with a smile for one reason.

I'm stupid because I'm human. Mortal. Fallible. It means that all of the glorious experiences I've had exist despite me. They have nothing to do with any capability I have. And to my great joy, studying history has revealed something quite amazing to me.

People all over the world are stupid, just like me. And somehow, we all go on living. We live despite our frailties, we endure despite our penchants for things that are self destructive, and we go on experiencing what we can't understand--only to discover there was a design to them all along.

I don't take that as a sign that people somehow manage all of that without God. On the contrary--I think the existence of God is the most self-evident, inescapable reality there is. I don't think our humanity could exist without Him, and in that way it's a gift. Learning relies on that frailty because that frailty allows for change.

So reader. After all this, the choice is yours. What's it going to be?

Emmeline B. Wells: My Favorite Mormon

One of the many, actually.

From the diary of Emmeline B. Wells
Feb. 24. 1845.

"This day like all others is full of trouble sorrow and afflic- tion are my attendants O my God how long wilt thou suffer this once I could have filled this book with expressions of happiness but Alas sorrow is my portion I behold those around me enjoying the society of their dearest friends while I am cut short and why is it is it because of my sin and wickedness or is it a trial of my patience Heavenly Parent is the name of thy Holy Son Jesus do I beseech thee to pity and send comfort and consolation to an afflicted soul have mercy and forgive and grant me the desire of my heart and I will forever praise thee O that I had a mother or sister to advise me but I am cut short of all these blessings I have friends dare I unbosom my heart to them no no I know them not but those I have tried and proved I am not afraid to trust Grat Father of merciest be pleased to grant me the request of my heart."

I discovered Emmeline B. Wells while doing research for my women's history Personal Progress project over the summer. I instantly fell in love with her story because of the parallels that exist between it and the life I am living.

Emmeline Wells joined the Church when she was 14. She left her family on the east coast to join the Saints in Nauvoo, and finally settled in Utah as a plural wife. She blossomed as a writer, and was deeply involved in the woman's suffrage movement, writing articles for The Women's Exponent. She was a proponent of polygamy because she realized that the resulting social structure allowed for women to advance in propriety and spiritual growth. She became a Relief Society general president, one of the oldest women's organizations in the United States. She was also the first woman to graduate from Brigham Young University with an honorary degree.

Emmeline B. Wells did not confine herself to the ordiary life dealt to her at birth. Because she strived for something more, she lived an extraordinary life, and left an inspirational legacy behind her. And its her example that has come to mean so much to my life as a writer and a member of the Church.

Modesty at Seventeen

First period French III was probably the most useless class since my fourth endeavor with computer keyboarding. The one redeeming quality to parlez vous francais-ing with MY class was that we had some pretty candid moments together. One in particular stands out to me that involved a tete-a-tete with the Human Growth and Development teacher and Rachel. The cognitive dissonance that resulted has never settled for me, but that ends today.

Scene: Rachel and Steven are pretending to do their work as usual, just like the rest of us. And by that, I mean blatantly not doing it at all. The teacher, a native speaker, doesn't give us much that could be called work, and we don't care enough about foreign language to do anything about it. So at the start of this scene, Rachel is sitting on Steven's lap, and I can instantly tell you it's not what it looks like. That phrase has never meant anything coming from a teenager, and even less when Mrs. Human Growth Teacher comes into the room.

She takes one look at Rachel and snaps, "Get off of that young man's lap young lady. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior. Come to my class and I'll teach you modesty." And I instantly wanted to start laughing, but we were all respectful. We waited until after Mrs. Human Growth Teacher left the room before we laughed in her face. All I could think at the time was, The Mormons are coming! Lovers of laps and miniskirts beware! And honestly, you have to know more about my hometown before you can understand why that's so funny.

Should I have laughed? Probably not. But I'd be lying to you if I said I would take it back.

I had this scene in mind as I read this editorial from the LA Times. And naturally, I have to come to Modesty's rescue.

Modesty, for me, is about being comfortable. I don't want to yank, pull, tuck, fix, cover, recover, check, double-check, and otherwise be fixated on my appearance all the time. My friends and family will tell you; I'm not full of myself enough to care that much about what I look like. For me, being modest is not only easier, but it's rewarding. I never have to worry about what I look like when I descend to/ascend from chairs. I can stretch without a hassle, and tie my shoes as many times as it takes without have to put a wall behind me to hide peek-a-boo knickers. I don't have to cross my legs if I don't want to, and guys look into my eyes when they talk to me. People see who I am, and hear what I'm saying instead of only seeing what I'm (not) wearing.

Plus, in all honesty, I think I've spent enough time compromising my virtue for one lifetime. My body stays covered these days because I've seen what happens to you when you treat your body like a visitor's center instead of a temple.

I now call your attention to this part of the editorial:

"It's not a lack of female modesty but a sense of male entitlement that leads to sexual violence. And the idea that we women can change men's behavior by changing our clothes is not only disconcerting, it has been debunked. As millions of women know all too well, no one ever avoided a rape by wearing a longer skirt."

Two logical fallacies here: 1. she's wrong and 2. there's no way she can prove her claim either. Even a brief bout with common sense will tell you that if you put a modestly dressed girl and a lover of miniskirts side-by-side, even Average Joe Mormon is going to pick the one in the mini-skirt when all other variables are equal. I do give our Young Men some credit, but the majority of them don't really deserve it, and they know it. Call me wrong if you'd like, but I've watched it happen. If you don't want to come up on a guy's radar, then dressing modestly is a great place to start. Silly you if you think that's ALL you need to do, but modesty is a start. I've faded into the background enough times to know. And if being the object of male fantasy is something that bothers you, I recommend wearing some pants with that belt you call a skirt.

I think people mistake Modesty for things that it isn't too. See here:

"And therein lies the problem with so much of the modesty movement. Scratch the surface, and what's supposed to be good for girls reveals itself to be all about the boys: dressing in a way that doesn't over-excite them, demurring so that their manhood remains intact and holding tight to our sexuality until we find a husband who is worthy of that ultimate 'prize.'

What's lost in this view of the world is the power of female desire: not just sexual and sartorial but professional and intellectual. There is something liberating about a girlhood (and womanhood) that is not lived solely in anticipation of, or in response to, a man. There's something freeing about a world in which women have the right to take risks (and to get mad)."

I remember the warnings we got before we went to Youth Conference; "Young Women, let's please dress responsibly. The Young Men will be there, and we need to be considerate." I'll agree that the fixation on the opposite sex, especially in the young LDS culture, is a bit unnecessary and distracting. I agree with Emmeline Wells, a journalist from early church history that I think every woman should know:

"All honor and reverence to good men; but they and their attentions are not the only source of happiness on the earth and need not fill up every thought of woman. And when men see that women can exist without their being constantly at hand... it will perhaps take a little of the conceit out of some of them."

My modesty isn't about appeasing other people, and it really is nice when they don't have anything to bother me about. My modesty certainly isn't about attracting the right sort of guy, although I'm sure one day it will, if it hasn't already. All of these reasons only reflect what modesty is really supposed to be about; the one thing girls wish could co-exist with miniskirts, but never has.

Safeguarding my virtue behind my clothing is about having peace of mind that only comes when vanity and sex appeal isn't at the forefront of my attention. THAT is a liberation I wish more women would pursue. There's no liberation in being the traditional feminist; standing around in revealing clothing and ranting about your rights and prerogatives as a woman.

But you know what? That kind of revelation gets you crucified in my hometown, as you've seen with Rachel. So I may settle for the silent example, but at least I'm setting one, right?

Right.