Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

For Helen and whomever

48 views
Skip to first unread message

newguy

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 9:32:51 PM12/22/01
to
Helen, I have been interested in some of the statements in your posts that
would indicate you are not completely happy with the teachings of Mormonism.
I would be curious what you think of the following which show that Brigham
Young taught that Christ was married and most likely a polygamist I neither
condemn nor accept the following, but was just curious as to your feelings.
newguy

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259 & 260

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana
of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be
discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that
occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and
the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and
improper to say the best of it.

I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most
pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow
him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious
ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of
their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed tarred and
feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old Prophet
mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “He shall see His seed, prolong his
days, etc”?


--
.


Diana

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 11:50:28 PM12/22/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2ag6rd...@corp.supernews.com...

I don't know about Helen, but Brigham Young could speculate with the best of
'em. Sometimes he was right. Sometimes he wasn't. He himself made it quite
clear that he was human and wrong from time to time. ;-)

However, as to his opinion that Jesus may have been married.......that's
hardly news. Nor, though the idea may be controversial in eclesiastical
circles, is it considered heinous, heresy or incredibly radical. Jesus could
very well have been married, y'know. Nothing in the bible says He
wasn't...and the customs of the time dictating what a man could and could
not do indicated that He probably was. For instance, it was customary to
allow only married men to preach in the synagogues. Jesus preached in the
synagogues. Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time would
have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?

There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether there
were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His wife
and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
matter?

As to whether He was a polygamist. Well, there is no mention of one wife,
let alone more, but polygamy was allowed in that culture. He was the foster
son of a general contractor sort of person, not exactly dirt poor...but we
have no evidence either way.

Me...I think He was probably married. (shrug) So do many, MANY other
Christians who aren't LDS. ;-)


Helen

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 3:03:37 AM12/23/01
to

"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c25...@news.antelecom.net...

I agree, he may have very well been married. It is
my personal opinion that back in that time women were of
little importance. Their spiritual and intellectual worth was
not valued by even the most enlightened men.
Those who wrote about Christ would have seen the fact that he was
married as an insignificant one.I am
of course just hazarding a guess here.I am sure that ther
are other members of the LDS faith who will disagree with me.
So my guess is that he may very well have been married.
We do not know for sure. As far as him being a polygamist,
I really don't know about that one , Brigham Young
was merely speculating. Prophets"opinions "are not necessarily correct.
We have no evidence to support that he was married nor as to
whether he was a polygamist or not. I guess there are those in
the LDS faith whom would like to believe that he was the latter
as it could justify their own aspirations.
Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
being married and all.
Helen


Mids

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:14:45 AM12/23/01
to
Helen, I would venture to think sometimes that in the LDS religion, the
impression is that women still ARE of very little importance, unless they are
pregnant.

Mids
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

helen wrote:I agree, he may have very well been married. It is

Diana

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 9:39:10 AM12/23/01
to

"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip to>

> Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
> Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> being married and all.

Especially when the scriptures DO mention that Jesus had siblings....


Diana

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 9:47:16 AM12/23/01
to

"Mids" <mido...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20011223061445...@mb-ft.aol.com...

> Helen, I would venture to think sometimes that in the LDS religion, the
> impression is that women still ARE of very little importance, unless they
are
> pregnant.
>
> Mids

I've been LDS for 52 years, and have never felt 'of little importance' as a
woman. To those who think that we are, why? Because we do not hold the
priesthood? So what?

That there is a cultural problem with women in the US is true, but that is
true throughout the society. On the other hand, Mormon women were not only
the first women in the United States to gain the right to vote, but were
also actively incouraged to become physicians, etc. during a time when
everybody ELSE denied women the right to do so.

So stop with the "Mormon women are oppressed" bit. We aren't. I'm not. I was
even the principle wage earner for my family for a significant portion of my
marriage, and HE stayed home with the kids. We certainly never were given
any grief over that. So, if YOU feel "oppressed", get off your butt and do
something about it. Go to school. Get a job.......or better yet, stop
letting people tell you that what you do, because you are a woman, is
somehow less admirable or useful or valuable than anything a man can do.


Mids

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 1:03:52 PM12/23/01
to
Oppressed, I don't feel. I love myself too much. I speak of it in the context
of...I see no other women doing anything. I could give a rat's a** if they do
or don't, I know what *I* do and that is what is important.

////////* * * * */////////
Mids
~~Be good to others~~

R. L. Measures

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 2:08:18 PM12/23/01
to
In article <20011223130352...@mb-ce.aol.com>,
mido...@aol.comnospam (Mids) wrote:

€ being good to mormonites means avoiding unauthorized history.

--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.

newguy

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 5:49:48 PM12/23/01
to

--
.


"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c25...@news.antelecom.net...
>

I think Brigham also made the statement that his teachings were scripture.


>
> However, as to his opinion that Jesus may have been married.......that's
> hardly news. Nor, though the idea may be controversial in eclesiastical
> circles, is it considered heinous, heresy or incredibly radical. Jesus
could
> very well have been married, y'know. Nothing in the bible says He
> wasn't...and the customs of the time dictating what a man could and could
> not do indicated that He probably was. For instance, it was customary to
> allow only married men to preach in the synagogues. Jesus preached in the
> synagogues. Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time
would
> have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?

I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably a
polygamist.


>
> There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether there
> were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His
wife
> and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
> matter?

It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
School classes.


>
> As to whether He was a polygamist. Well, there is no mention of one wife,
> let alone more, but polygamy was allowed in that culture. He was the
foster
> son of a general contractor sort of person, not exactly dirt poor...but we
> have no evidence either way.
>
> Me...I think He was probably married. (shrug) So do many, MANY other
> Christians who aren't LDS. ;-)

Thank you for your opinions. newguy
>
>


newguy

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 5:57:32 PM12/23/01
to

--
.


"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>

Prophets are correct when they are speaking of something we believe. When
they are speaking of something we do not believe or cannot accept; then
there teachings are merely speculations and opinions.

> We have no evidence to support that he was married nor as to
> whether he was a polygamist or not. I guess there are those in
> the LDS faith whom would like to believe that he was the latter
> as it could justify their own aspirations.

If it was the custom of the time, why should He not have been a polygamist?
Either it was a custom or it was not. In Sunday School class today, the
lesson was on families and Temples. The claim was made that there are three
degrees in the Celestial Kingdom. The very highest degree requires that one
be married. This concludes that Christ had to be married. Is this a LDS
concept? I asked the question and was told it was a LDS concept.

> Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
> Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> being married and all.

I agree. Why would anyone think that. Is sex such a terrible thing?
newguy

> Helen
>
>


newguy

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:00:48 PM12/23/01
to

--
.


"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message

news:3c25efdf$1...@news.antelecom.net...

Yes Diana, "I am woman hear me roar." For whatever it is worth, I do not
feel that women are second class citizens. newguy
>
>
>
>


Diana

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:49:26 PM12/23/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2co5k1...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>

> Yes Diana, "I am woman hear me roar." For whatever it is worth, I do not
> feel that women are second class citizens. newguy

(Grin) I'm quite certain that you don't, newguy. I was taking aim at those
people who insist that Mormons DO think this.


Diana

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:56:41 PM12/23/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2cngl6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
<snip>

> I think Brigham also made the statement that his teachings were scripture.

Yes, he did...with the caveat that he needed to be able to go over
everything he said, pray about it and correct it if it was
incorrect......which he never had the chance to do with anything in the
Journal of Discourses. There is also the small matter of having to have
anything considered scripture actually canonized....

<snip to>


>> Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> > made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time
> would
> > have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
>
> I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably a
> polygamist.

Me either, but frankly, there is no concrete evidence either way, and only
circumstantial (though rather strong) evidence to say that He was. There is
NOTHING to say that He was not.

> > There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether
there
> > were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His
> wife
> > and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
> > matter?
>
> It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
> School classes.

That's because there isn't anything in the scriptures one way or the other.
It isn't His possible, or even probable, marriage that concerns us, but His
teachings, His life, His death and His resurrection.


newguy

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 8:23:12 PM12/23/01
to

--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message

news:3c26...@news.antelecom.net...


>
> "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> news:u2cngl6...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> <snip>
> > I think Brigham also made the statement that his teachings were
scripture.
>
> Yes, he did...with the caveat that he needed to be able to go over
> everything he said, pray about it and correct it if it was
> incorrect......which he never had the chance to do with anything in the
> Journal of Discourses. There is also the small matter of having to have
> anything considered scripture actually canonized....

The church used the Journal of Discourses in some of their lesson books.


>
> <snip to>
> >> Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> > > made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time
> > would
> > > have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
> >
> > I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably a
> > polygamist.
>
> Me either, but frankly, there is no concrete evidence either way, and only
> circumstantial (though rather strong) evidence to say that He was. There
is
> NOTHING to say that He was not.

According to what I hear from the LDS church, if He was not married then He
could not enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

> > > There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether
> there
> > > were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His
> > wife
> > > and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does
it
> > > matter?
> >
> > It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
> > School classes.
>
> That's because there isn't anything in the scriptures one way or the
other.
> It isn't His possible, or even probable, marriage that concerns us, but
His
> teachings, His life, His death and His resurrection.

Not if the church uses Him as an example and then asked that we try to be
like Him. newguy
>
>
>
>


newguy

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 8:25:47 PM12/23/01
to

--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message

news:3c266eef$1...@news.antelecom.net...

I know, I know; I just wanted to make sure you knew I was one them old goats
that believe that, given the same opportunities, we are all 1st class
citizens. ;-))) newguy
>
>


Diana

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 9:23:33 PM12/23/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2d0ga...@corp.supernews.com...

....
>
> The church used the Journal of Discourses in some of their lesson books.

Yep. Sure did. However, I have also seen quotes from "Mere Christianity" in
'em. '-) the Journal of Discourses has a great deal of valuable information
in 'em, and a great deal of truth.......and a great deal of speculation and
outright rhapsodizing. The thing about the Journal of Discourses is (and
this is important) that they were speeches transcribed by listeners and
published in England without the speakers ever having a chance to go over
them.

So...scripture they ain't, and should be considered secondary, if not
tertiary and definitely not primary, sources of doctrine.

> > <snip to>
> > >> Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> > > > made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His
time
> > > would
> > > > have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
> > >
> > > I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably
a
> > > polygamist.
> >
> > Me either, but frankly, there is no concrete evidence either way, and
only
> > circumstantial (though rather strong) evidence to say that He was. There
> is
> > NOTHING to say that He was not.
>
> According to what I hear from the LDS church, if He was not married then
He
> could not enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

This is true. However, that doesn't mean that he had to marry HERE. We
simply don't know. However, as I have said, it is my personal belief that He
did. I will not, however, lose my faith if it turns out that He was not.

> > > > There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether
> > there
> > > > were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about
His
> > > wife
> > > > and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know.
Does
> it
> > > > matter?
> > >
> > > It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
> > > School classes.
> >
> > That's because there isn't anything in the scriptures one way or the
> other.
> > It isn't His possible, or even probable, marriage that concerns us, but
> His
> > teachings, His life, His death and His resurrection.
>
> Not if the church uses Him as an example and then asked that we try to be
> like Him. newguy

Newguy, HE asked us to be perfect even as His Father in Heaven is perfect.
(Grin) considering the impossibility of this one, don't you think that we
have enough on our plates to worry about who He married or if He did? It's
enough to know that WE are commanded to marry, if we can. ;-) Of course,
since I do happen to lean toward the idea that He was indeed married, how
can I disagree with your argument?


Helen

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 12:14:34 AM12/24/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2cnv5n...@corp.supernews.com...


To some catholics it is..it is perceived as a sin. H/W I know many catholics
who are
not this way....
>


newguy

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 1:12:46 AM12/24/01
to

--
.
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message

news:3c26b9ba$0$16784$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...


>
> "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> news:u2cnv5n...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > --
> > .
> > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
> > > news:3c25...@news.antelecom.net...
> > > >
> > > > "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:u2ag6rd...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >

> > If it was the custom of the time, why should He not have been a
> polygamist?
> > Either it was a custom or it was not. In Sunday School class today, the
> > lesson was on families and Temples. The claim was made that there are
> three
> > degrees in the Celestial Kingdom. The very highest degree requires that
> one
> > be married. This concludes that Christ had to be married. Is this a
LDS
> > concept? I asked the question and was told it was a LDS concept.
> >
> > > Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is
that
> > > Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> > > did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> > > being married and all.
> >
> > I agree. Why would anyone think that. Is sex such a terrible thing?
> > newguy
> >
> > > Helen
> > >
> > >
>
>
> To some catholics it is..it is perceived as a sin. H/W I know many
catholics
> who are
> not this way....

I know a couple of Catholic Priests in our neighborhood that were not this
way either........ They go to trial in about 6 months, something about a
few boys....... newguy
> >
>
>


Helen

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 2:13:24 AM12/24/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2dhf6h...@corp.supernews.com...
Oh dear...


Fool Speck

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 6:25:54 PM12/24/01
to
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<3c26d594$0$16782$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...

To give Catholics their due, I have to say I read some statistics one
time that showed Catholics generally have a very playful attitude
towards sex. And I was a bit amused when I heard a priest
ecstatically citing these statistics. But this is only anecdotal as I
cannot cite these stats for you.

Steve Lowther

newguy

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 6:53:15 PM12/24/01
to

--
.
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01122...@posting.google.com...

Playful as opposed to ......? newguy


Fool Speck

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 11:54:20 PM12/24/01
to
"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message news:<u2ffjjq...@corp.supernews.com>...

Unplayful? Prudish? Mechanical? Inhibited? ... steve lowther

Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 26, 2001, 10:54:19 AM12/26/01
to
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message news:<3c25efdf$1...@news.antelecom.net>...

> "Mids" <mido...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20011223061445...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> > Helen, I would venture to think sometimes that in the LDS religion, the
> > impression is that women still ARE of very little importance, unless they
> are
> > pregnant.
> >
> > Mids
>
> I've been LDS for 52 years, and have never felt 'of little importance' as a
> woman. To those who think that we are, why? Because we do not hold the
> priesthood? So what?
>
> That there is a cultural problem with women in the US is true, but that is
> true throughout the society. On the other hand, Mormon women were not only
> the first women in the United States to gain the right to vote, but were
> also actively incouraged to become physicians, etc. during a time when
> everybody ELSE denied women the right to do so.
>

Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.

> So stop with the "Mormon women are oppressed" bit. We aren't. I'm not. I was
> even the principle wage earner for my family for a significant portion of my
> marriage, and HE stayed home with the kids. We certainly never were given
> any grief over that. So, if YOU feel "oppressed", get off your butt and do
> something about it. Go to school. Get a job.......or better yet, stop
> letting people tell you that what you do, because you are a woman, is
> somehow less admirable or useful or valuable than anything a man can do.


Indeed, that is not a concept to be restricted to LDS women. However,
I think it's not the role in society that people are referring to, but
specifically the role of women within the church. And of course, the
LDS church is not the only church people claim oppress women.

Lee

Diana

unread,
Dec 26, 2001, 2:43:41 PM12/26/01
to

"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>

> Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.

True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
for the women involved, personally...but I digress..

......and I didn't say that Mormon women were the first physicians. I said
they were encouraged to become so when women elsewhere in the nation were
discouraged from doing so. Brigham Young personally sent women back East to
medical school to study medicine. However, I thank you for your factlet.

> > So stop with the "Mormon women are oppressed" bit. We aren't. I'm not. I
was
> > even the principle wage earner for my family for a significant portion
of my
> > marriage, and HE stayed home with the kids. We certainly never were
given
> > any grief over that. So, if YOU feel "oppressed", get off your butt and
do
> > something about it. Go to school. Get a job.......or better yet, stop
> > letting people tell you that what you do, because you are a woman, is
> > somehow less admirable or useful or valuable than anything a man can do.
>
>
> Indeed, that is not a concept to be restricted to LDS women. However,
> I think it's not the role in society that people are referring to, but
> specifically the role of women within the church. And of course, the
> LDS church is not the only church people claim oppress women.

They can claim all they want to.....and when they do I will rebut it.

Diana


James Hughes

unread,
Dec 26, 2001, 3:42:16 PM12/26/01
to
Diana,

Your statement that BY sent women back east to medical school, can you back
that up? Take a read in Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell it all' and you will
hear of a much different BY. In fact it tells about the... Oh I don't want
to spoil it for you. Well let's just suffice to say that BY wanted to keep
everyone (and I'm sure that included the women) uneducated.

James

Diana

unread,
Dec 27, 2001, 4:23:56 PM12/27/01
to

"James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:B84F7627.5349%jam...@uia.net...

> Diana,
>
> Your statement that BY sent women back east to medical school, can you
back
> that up? Take a read in Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell it all' and you will
> hear of a much different BY. In fact it tells about the... Oh I don't want
> to spoil it for you. Well let's just suffice to say that BY wanted to keep
> everyone (and I'm sure that included the women) uneducated.

Yes. In 1873 Brigham Young sent women back east to study medicine so that
they could come back to Utah and serve as physicians. The first woman sent
was Romania Pratt, who enrolled in Womens Medical College of Pennsylvania in
Philadelphia. Next, Margaret Curtis went, but she came home early because
she was homesick. She later went back and completed her degree, but in the
meantime, her sister-wife Ellis Curtis took her place. these were the first
few..and these women all became very respected physicians and leaders of
their field and their communities.

You can read about Ellis Curtis-Ship here:
http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/s/SHIPP,ELLIS.html


Helen

unread,
Dec 27, 2001, 7:47:07 PM12/27/01
to

"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2a...@news.antelecom.net...
Good post Dianna. And I agree with most of what you have
written..
H/w, have you not found the culture in our faith encourages women to
focus on marriage and mother hood more so that the pursuit of a good
career? While I do appreciate the churches family values it has been very
obvious to me that
most people in the church believe that a woman should forget her career
once she has married.
I do understand the importance of mothers being at home with their
children, and one can still do this
while working part time. My husband and I married while we were both in our
second year of university.
I was pregnant wit hour fist child in my final year..I had plenty of
people(in the church) ask me if I was going to give up Uni and
my career aspirations now that I was pregnant.Many were surprised when I
said that I intended to
stay home for a year and return to the work force part time.I have had my
fair share of negative reactions from
members of the church when they hear that I have children and still work
part time
While I do think that women are quite valued within the LDS faith I do
personally feel that
many members are very narrow minded concerning women's roles within the work
force.
It does however depend on what work we do. As a Nurse I am very fortunate
that
my roster is a part time one and does give me plenty of time to be home with
my children.
I think mothers working part time is also beneficial to the fathers who get
to spend some
time taking care of the children and developing a bond with them.
I believe that women should feel free to make their own choices and not
feel guilty if they
still yearn a career and and mother hood. Society has often criticised
working mothers for
"wanting it all" Ie..happy marriage, careers and children H/w, when a man
has all of these things
no one ever begrudges him for having or desiring them.....
.


Diana

unread,
Dec 27, 2001, 8:17:58 PM12/27/01
to

"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c2bc107$0$30290$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip>

> Society has often criticised
> working mothers for
> "wanting it all" Ie..happy marriage, careers and children H/w, when a man
> has all of these things
> no one ever begrudges him for having or desiring them.....

I've been a stay at home mother, and I've been a full time career principle
wage earner with my husband at home, AND I've been a full time wage earner
with my husband also earning and both of us attempting to raise our children
right.

Believe me, I know which I prefer, and which was better for the kids. I
prefer to be home. Didn't matter to the kids which of us was home, as long
as one of us was...and I really do believe our children are more important
to the future than our office skills are...or our nursing/sales/research/you
name it skills are. Whether we are male OR female.

It is true that Society hasn't condemned men for 'wanting it all', career
and family....but Helen, they DON'T have it all, do they? They have
traditionally had a career, a family, AND A WIFE. Without the wife they
can't 'have it all' any more than we can. They have the same stresses and
problems we face in attempting to do so.

Until the industrial revolution, families worked together; farmers and their
wives and their kids ALL worked the farm, there was no such thing as a 'stay
at home' spouse. The 'stay at home' bit only came about when food gathering
(jobs) were found outside the family unit..and that is pretty recent in
human history for most people. In fact, just a little over two hundred
years. We don't know how to deal with it yet.

One thing we DO know by now though is that if we can't include the children
in our income gathering anymore (and we can't) because they require a LOT
more education to make them ready for the world than they did a few
centuries ago, then one of us has to stay home and take care of
that.......and the work done by 'that one' must be given the respect it
deserves, not avoided as somehow 'lesser' work. I can't think of one thing
any person can do that is more important that raising good kids, not one. I
didn't feel like a second class citizen when I got to stay home, and I
certainly didn't consider Jim any less admirable when he stayed home and I
earned the money.

I wonder how many women would be so anxious to 'find fulfillment' in a
career outside the home if what was done INSIDE it was given it's proper
due?

Anyway, now my kids are grown and I'm in school again. I'm lucky. I DO get
to have it all, I just didn't get to have it all at once.


Helen

unread,
Dec 27, 2001, 9:16:56 PM12/27/01
to

"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2b...@news.antelecom.net...


Another good post. You obviously have a very supportive husband as do I .
The most influential factor is that both partners have shared goals and
values. It works if you children/family come first.
In my case, two incomes is the only way to pay the mortgage and bills. I
also am a happier person because
I still feel like the woman I was ten years ago and have my own identity.
Because I am a happier person I am a better mother.
I guess it is also great because I work only thirty hours a fortnight. I
am here most of the time
with my kids and working night shifts means that the kids are in bed on
some of the occasions that
I am work. Not all Jobs allow for that.
When the kids are older I will possibly increase my hours...and study
more...that's the beauty of having them young...
I never did feel like a second citizen, I do not support Midi's notion of
the LDS attitude towards women.
I have always felt respected and valued within the LDS community.But it also
has alot to do with
our own self esteem too, you can only feel like a second class citizen if
you have been conditioned to think so (and the church does not do that) or
you allow your self to be treated like one.
I do think that women and men are uniquely different and have different
roles..but we
are equal in spiritual and intellectual worth. And I know that this is the
churches beleif too.
Cheers
Helen


Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 12:15:31 AM12/28/01
to

"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c2bd615$0$30290$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip>

> Another good post. You obviously have a very supportive husband as do I .

Yes. He was very supportive, during all our life together.

> The most influential factor is that both partners have shared goals and
> values. It works if you children/family come first.
> In my case, two incomes is the only way to pay the mortgage and bills.

Unfortunately, that is true of more families that it should be true of; it's
an all too common fact of life!

>I
> also am a happier person because
> I still feel like the woman I was ten years ago and have my own identity.
> Because I am a happier person I am a better mother.
> I guess it is also great because I work only thirty hours a fortnight. I
> am here most of the time
> with my kids and working night shifts means that the kids are in bed on
> some of the occasions that
> I am work. Not all Jobs allow for that.

You are VERY lucky; fifteen hours a week is a very, very nice deal!

> When the kids are older I will possibly increase my hours...and study
> more...that's the beauty of having them young...
> I never did feel like a second citizen, I do not support Midi's notion of
> the LDS attitude towards women.
> I have always felt respected and valued within the LDS community.But it
also
> has alot to do with
> our own self esteem too, you can only feel like a second class citizen if
> you have been conditioned to think so (and the church does not do that)
or
> you allow your self to be treated like one.

...and THERE'S the biggie. If we don't allow others to treat us that way, if
we don't think of ourselves that way, then it's amazing how little of the
time we are viewed that way. ;-)

> I do think that women and men are uniquely different and have different
> roles..but we
> are equal in spiritual and intellectual worth. And I know that this is the
> churches beleif too.

Indeed it is!!! At least, I have always believed so, and found it to be true
in my life; I've done the married bit and the single mother bit, the stay at
home and the career high earning professional; I prefer married and stay at
home. (grin) MUCH prefer married......but I didn't get a vote there. Still,
I've had a chance to see a few different sides of the issue!


Helen

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 6:20:23 AM12/28/01
to

"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2c...@news.antelecom.net...


You must have been married for a while and it sounded like a good one
too
Sorry to hear that the marriage did not last ..
Yes..I am very lucky to have such practical hours, it works in well with my
kids and
they don't miss me too much. I am pretty busy and often tired.
It is amazing that I find time to sit on the net.h/w...
Helen


Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 8:12:11 AM12/28/01
to
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message news:<3c2a...@news.antelecom.net>...

> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> > Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> > grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> > female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> > College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
>
> True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
> communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
> you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
> from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
> become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
> for the women involved, personally...but I digress..
>
> ......and I didn't say that Mormon women were the first physicians. I said
> they were encouraged to become so when women elsewhere in the nation were
> discouraged from doing so. Brigham Young personally sent women back East to
> medical school to study medicine. However, I thank you for your factlet.
>
>

Ah, Diana, I did not mean to antagonize you. I do know a bit about
Wyoming, largely because I spend an enormous amount of my life there
(like now). I am unaware of the alleged Mormon connection to suffrage
in Wyoming, and have been unable to document that at all. There were
some humdinger women involved in suffrage in Wyoming though, and
nowhere can I find their religious affiliation. Can you give me some
sources?

I know you didn't say the first female physicians were LDS. I didn't
claim you did. Can you also find some info on BY and female
physicians?

Thanks.

Lee

Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 8:44:36 AM12/28/01
to
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message news:<3c2a...@news.antelecom.net>...

> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> > Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> > grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> > female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> > College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
>
> True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
> communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
> you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
> from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
> become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
> for the women involved, personally...but I digress..

Diana, you snipped the part where you said Utah was the first state,
which prompted my Wyoming comment, but that's okay. I'll look into
the busines about the US requiring the removal of voting privileges
for women in Utah.

A friend just directed me to the Women of the West Museum's website.
This is their verbiage:

"The Western suffrage story began when Wyoming transformed a dream
into reality in 1869. That year, the twenty-member Territorial
Legislature approved a revolutionary measure stating: "That every
woman of the age of twenty-one years, residing in this Territory, may
at every election to be holden under the law thereof, cast her vote."
William Bright, the bill's sponsor, had come to share his wife,
Julia's, belief that suffrage was a basic right of American
citizenship.

There was no organized suffrage campaign, and not a single parade,
debate or public display. But women kept vigil outside Governor John
A. Campbell's office until he signed the bill into law. Eliza A.
"Grandma" Swain of Laramie claimed the honor of casting Wyoming's
first female ballot in 1870. Esther Morris of South Park City and
Caroline Neil gained fame as the nation's first female justices of the
peace. The next year Wyoming's women sat on juries, another simple but
revolutionary inroad for women's rights."

Note there was no organized movement, either LDS or no according to
the museum. Ester Hobart Morris is widely acclaimed as the "Mother
of Western Suffrage" around these parts. She was an amazing lobbyist,
but was not LDS. Campbell, the governor who signed the bill including
the suffrage language, was not LDS.

Diana, I think it's great that you are proud to be an LDS woman. But
I think accuracy is nice too.

Lee

Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 8:51:03 AM12/28/01
to
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message news:<3c2a...@news.antelecom.net>...

> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> > Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> > grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> > female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> > College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
>
> True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
> communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
> you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
> from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
> become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
> for the women involved, personally...but I digress..

Amazing how an old horse can learn new tricks. I did a brief review
of Utah history. You are correct about Congress rescinding suffrage
in the Utah Territory, but not for particularly nefarious purposes,
evidently. This was all tied into the issue of polygamy and
statehood.

See http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/w/WOMANSUFFERAGE.html

Note that like the Women of the West Museum information, this article
does not indicate that suffrage was an LDS concept, but a civil rights
concept.

Lee

Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 11:27:01 AM12/28/01
to

"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c2c5574$0$30287$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

<snip to>


>
> You must have been married for a while and it sounded like a good one
> too
> Sorry to hear that the marriage did not last ..

Twenty years, and it was good, and it did last. Helen, I was attempting to
gently hint about the truth rather than baldly stating it because I wanted
to avoid blurting out 'I'm a widow' because doing this in response to a post
like yours tends to result in discomfort on the part of the person to whom
I"m responding, and makes me look like I'm digging for sympathy. I've been a
widow for seven years now, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. (Grin)

I've been thinking about using "Well, before my hubbie kicked the bucket
seven years ago, he..(fill in the blank)" do you think that would take some
of the wierdness out of it? (Grin)

> Yes..I am very lucky to have such practical hours, it works in well with
my
> kids and
> they don't miss me too much. I am pretty busy and often tired.
> It is amazing that I find time to sit on the net.h/w...

Not so amazing...sometimes 'sitting on the net' is more relaxing than a nap.
;-)


Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 11:37:15 AM12/28/01
to

"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>

> Ah, Diana, I did not mean to antagonize you. I do know a bit about
> Wyoming, largely because I spend an enormous amount of my life there
> (like now). I am unaware of the alleged Mormon connection to suffrage
> in Wyoming, and have been unable to document that at all. There were
> some humdinger women involved in suffrage in Wyoming though, and
> nowhere can I find their religious affiliation. Can you give me some
> sources?

I'm sorry, Lee.....I over reacted. Not your fault. I have also done a lot of
research about this regarding both Utah and Wyoming; the two, in regard to
womens suffrage, are very closely linked politically, if not always
theologically. ;-) However, in Wyoming the most influential women and the
most outspoken were NOT Mormon; the first women elected to office were in
Wyoming and most definitely not Mormon...but the communities that supported
them and actually voted for them were as likely to be Mormon as not.
According to what I have been able to find out, the Mormon communities were
the reason those outspoken non Mormon women got anywhere at all, because
they were the swing votes; they all voted FOR suffrage. There were (and
still are) a LOT of Mormon communities in Wyoming.

> I know you didn't say the first female physicians were LDS. I didn't
> claim you did. Can you also find some info on BY and female
> physicians?

He announced his intention to send women to medical school in October of
1873, and sent them every year for several years. I posted one link in
response to one post about one of the women involved:

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/s/SHIPP,ELLIS.html

This is a biography of Ellis Shipp, one of two sister-wives who went back as
a part of this program. It wasn't easy for any of 'em, but when is anything
ever easy?


Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 11:59:31 AM12/28/01
to

"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>

> Diana, you snipped the part where you said Utah was the first state,


> which prompted my Wyoming comment, but that's okay.

Not intentionally!! I'm sorry about that. ;-)

> I'll look into
> the busines about the US requiring the removal of voting privileges
> for women in Utah.

Please do. I've always been amused by the fact that one territory was the
first to give the women the vote, but the other state was the first state in
which women actually voted. ;-) People keep getting the two things
confused.

<snip website and quotes for brevity>

Here is a link for the following information:
http://www.utahhistorytogo.org/suffrage.html

Wyoming was the first territory in which women recieved the right to vote.
Utah was the second, following in months. Utah women were the first to
actually be able to excercise that privilege.

The vote was taken away from Utah women in 1887, by federal anti-polygamy
laws, laws that the federal government required Utah to abide by in order to
become a state. However, when Utah agreed to these laws, the US congress
approved statehood.....and the Utah womens suffrage movement (none was
needed the first time..) went into action. Here is a quote from the above
link:

"Despite a move to put the matter to a separate vote, supporters of women's
suffrage managed to get it written into the new Utah Constitution by a
comfortable majority. The new document was adopted on 5 November 1895 with a
provision that "the rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold
office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and
female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political and
religious rights and privileges."

Utah women probably succeeded in 1895 where women elsewhere had failed
because their efforts were approved by leaders of the main political force
in the state-the Mormon church. Leading suffragists, in addition to Margaret
Caine and Emily Richards, included relatives and friends of church leaders:
Emmeline B. Wells, editor of the Exponent; Zina D. H. Young, wife of Brigham
Young; Jane Richards, wife of Apostle Franklin D. Richards; and Sarah M.
Kimball, among many others. They could not be dismissed as fire-eating
radicals."

> Diana, I think it's great that you are proud to be an LDS woman. But
> I think accuracy is nice too.

Yes. It is, isn't it?

Wyoming women recieved the vote in 1869. Utah women FIRST got it in Feb. of
1870, had it taken away by the Federal government, and then got it back in
1895 when Utah became a state. Y'know, sometimes I wonder, considering what
the United States Government kept DOING to us, why we wanted so badly to be
a part of it, and why we still love it and support it..but we do and we did.

Forgiving group of idiots, we, I suppose. (grin)

diana


Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 12:11:56 PM12/28/01
to

"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c7358b7.01122...@posting.google.com...

Well, the issue has been that Mormons are/were supposed to be so anti-women,
male dominated and Mormon women were downtrodden. In this light then, the
idea that Utah women were given the right to vote the first time without any
campaigning on their part at all, no demonstrations, no candle light
vigils....just as a matter of course would seem important.

After all, the thing that started this conversation was the accusation that
Mormons considered women to be second class citizens and unworthy of
rights..and no, I am aware that this accusation did NOT come from you,
Lee!!!

It's just that when I get these cockamamie accusations that Mormons consider
women to be something less than men, I get angry.....and can't help pointing
out that unlike the rest of the nation, which had to do some heavy duty
sacrificing/campaigning/convincing to get women the right to vote, OUR fight
was not to GET it, but to KEEP it...and the fight wasn't against the Mormon
men, but against all those holier than thou non-Mormon politicians who were
bound and determined to control the way we sorshiped (anti polygamy laws
were precisely that...laws against the way we worshiped..) We didn't have
any problems with MORMON men.

(grump)

...as an aside, are you aware that Utah is the only state in the union where
it is unconstitutional to be polygamous, not just against a legal statute?
It was a requirement of the Federal government that this be included, or
Utah would not have been allowed to become a state. No other state in the
entire union was required to do this. I would call that 'nefarious'.

Diana


newguy

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 4:26:25 PM12/28/01
to

--
.


"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2c...@news.antelecom.net...
>

With or without the garments. ;-)) newguy
>
>


Helen

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 6:23:04 PM12/28/01
to

"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2c...@news.antelecom.net...
>
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3c2c5574$0$30287$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> <snip to>
> >
> > You must have been married for a while and it sounded like a good
one
> > too
> > Sorry to hear that the marriage did not last ..
>
> Twenty years, and it was good, and it did last. Helen, I was attempting
to
> gently hint about the truth rather than baldly stating it because I wanted
> to avoid blurting out 'I'm a widow' because doing this in response to a
post
> like yours tends to result in discomfort on the part of the person to whom
> I"m responding, and makes me look like I'm digging for sympathy. I've been
a
> widow for seven years now, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. (Grin)
>
> I've been thinking about using "Well, before my hubbie kicked the bucket
> seven years ago, he..(fill in the blank)" do you think that would take
some
> of the wierdness out of it? (Grin)

no
not really...

> > Yes..I am very lucky to have such practical hours, it works in well with
> my
> > kids and
> > they don't miss me too much. I am pretty busy and often tired.
> > It is amazing that I find time to sit on the net.h/w...
>
> Not so amazing...sometimes 'sitting on the net' is more relaxing than a
nap.
> ;-)
>


Oh God...I'm such a clusz. I am very sorry Diana.
I initially wondered about weather your husband had passed on on.
I am sorry to hear that he has gone.Please excuse my huge lack of finesse.

Yes sitting on the net is more relaxing than a nap...but I felt a bit
horrible the other day when my seven year old said to me
"Gee, you give Dad a hard time...but you are always on the computer Mum"
He was a bit cross with me I think , so I joined him in the sunshine for a
while.....
I think he was sick of seeing the back of my head.....


Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 7:28:43 PM12/28/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2pogg4...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip to>

> With or without the garments. ;-)) newguy

Newguy?

THWAP.

Diana
> >
> >
>
>


Diana

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 7:33:18 PM12/28/01
to

"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c2cfed4$0$32705$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip to> Oh God...I'm such a clusz. I am very sorry Diana.

> I initially wondered about weather your husband had passed on on.
> I am sorry to hear that he has gone.Please excuse my huge lack of finesse.

(grin) See what I mean? Don't worry, Helen, it's ok. really!! I was
actually just thinking how sad a comment it is about society today that the
automatic assumption when a woman says 'was' married is that it is divorce
that is the only option. It happens all the time.

> Yes sitting on the net is more relaxing than a nap...but I felt a bit
> horrible the other day when my seven year old said to me
> "Gee, you give Dad a hard time...but you are always on the computer Mum"
> He was a bit cross with me I think , so I joined him in the sunshine for a
> while.....
> I think he was sick of seeing the back of my head.....

Seven? Well, yeah, better to play with the kidlet...but my youngest is
seventeen and a half, and wouldn't be caught dead in a playground with me.
;-)


newguy

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 7:56:30 PM12/28/01
to

--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message

news:3c2d0fac$1...@news.antelecom.net...

Whoops, I think I got out of line again. ;-))) newguy

James Hughes

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 8:20:26 PM12/28/01
to

> From: "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon

> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:11:56 -0800


> Subject: Re: For Helen and whomever
>
>

In my dealings with the LDS church I've noticed that the church has
'opinions' on most legal issues. Case in point, the recent issue on the
ballot in CA which would have allowed same sex marriages. I'm not sure how
it was relayed to the members, but a friend of mine and I had a discussion
on the matter. She stated that 'The Church' was against the issue. She
further stated that some of the members in her ward (who were considered
very liberal) had been talking about voting for it.

That is a modern day example. So would it be too much of a stretch to say
that the church did what they did just to have more political power?

newguy

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 11:44:29 PM12/28/01
to

--
.


"James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message

news:B8525A5A.6056%jam...@uia.net...

In my wife's ward it was relayed to the members over the pulpit by reading a
letter from the GA's. newguy


newguy

unread,
Dec 28, 2001, 11:50:13 PM12/28/01
to

--
.
"James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:B8525A5A.6056%jam...@uia.net...
>
>

For your info. newguy

By Bob Egelko
Associated Press Writer


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- As the March 7th vote on California's
Proposition 22, the so-called Knight Initiative which would prohibit the
state from recognizing same-sex marriages, both supporters and opponents of
the measure are ratcheting up their efforts.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the LDS Church's North America West Area
had a letter to members read in sacrament meeting last Sunday urging members
to support the initiative. Last year the Church urged members to support the
proposition with financial donations. Supporters of the proposition have
donated twice the amount raised by opponents of the measure. (there was
more to this article, but this covers the main part).

Diana

unread,
Dec 29, 2001, 12:23:55 AM12/29/01
to

"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2q4q4t...@corp.supernews.com...

....and don't you EVER forget it.

(grin)