 |
|
|
This is not a complete theological background of our Church, but hopefully enough to understand somewhat our beliefs about marriage.
We believe in the restoration theology preached by the Prophet Joseph Smith (1805-1844). We believe that this theology is, was, and should be the same every time that God has established his doctrine through direct revelation to holy men and prophets over the history of the earth. At various times, certain practices may vary somewhat based on circumstances, for example, the very strict "Law of Moses" was given to the Israelites in Sinai because of their weakness and disbelief. However, in its purest form, the theology God reveals through prophets is and has been unchangeable. The Bible records only in part this doctrine and the related history. While we love and revere the Bible, we consider it to be incomplete, also with some errors induced by the many recopyings and translations. We also believe in other volumes of scripture that may accompany the Bible in our religious studies, such as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
Sadly, as has happened every time God has restored his pure truth to the earth, men, for their own purposes, weaknesses, personal opinions, selfishness, etc, have changed and altered the divine doctrines, principles, and ordinances that God originally revealed: we call this apostasy. This repeating cycle, caused by the weakness and pride of men has happened over and over through history. Often then when people see the changes that have occurred in religious organizations from their roots, they become disillusioned because of this hypocrisy, abandon religion altogether, and then worship their own selves, and their material surroundings, making up their own minds about what is right and wrong instead of relying on God's revealed word, and then judging the world around them based on their own personal standards, instead of the absolute truths from God which at this point would seem foolish to their own worldly understandings.
We believe that this cycle of apostasy has again happened to the "Mormon" Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). I'm sure you are aware, but our Church is not associated with the "Mormon" Church--they really don't like us very much. While they claim belief in Joseph Smith and the same scriptures we do, they have largely abandoned most of Joseph's true teachings, being mostly ignorant of certain of his essential teachings. One of the principles abandoned by the Mormon Church is that of plural marriage. Today, the Mormon church is one of the greatest enemies of this principle. However, most of my ancestors (all of whom were early Mormons) practiced plural marriage in Utah, believed that it was a principle of God, and strived to practice it righteously. We do not have any "horror stories" that have come down over time to our family today from any of their abuses of this principle.
To continue with the background, one of these essential beliefs of Joseph Smith's restoration theology is the belief that God is an exalted man. He is a man similar in appearance to us, except that his physical person is perfected, immortal, and glorified. He also resides on a perfected and glorious sphere. He became a God through learning and then living the principles that permitted him to become such. And just as on this earth where tiny children grow up to be like their parents and continue the holy process of procreation and raising righteous children, we all have the possibility to become exalted beings like our Father in Heaven, and then provide opportunity for our children to achieve the same exaltation, and so forth. Our Father in Heaven also has his "Father in Heaven" before him, and so forth. One of the "gems" of traditional Mormon restoration theology was "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." (By the way, "Mormon" Church President Gordon B. Hinckley recently has publicly denied this "couplet" as he calls it---even though it has been a staple among our doctrinal gems since the beginnings of Mormonism [San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 1997. Interview of Gordon B Hinckley by Mr Don Lattin].)
We believe that God, our Father in Heaven, is an exalted, glorified man, who lives in his perfected world in a family situation. He has brothers, sisters, Father, Mother, friends and relations who all have likewise achieved this Godhood status. He also has wives. We believe that the marital system of the heavens is indeed plural marriage. Whether anyone believes it or likes it or not, this was what the foundations of Mormonism taught. I was taught this as a youth in the Mormon Church, but they don't teach it any more. I realize this background raises many more questions, but that is not the point of this letter.
We believe that the marriage covenant between a man and a woman was never originally intended to be "until death do you part," but was supposed to be eternal in nature, if sealed by God's priesthood authority. Plural marriage was an integral part of this doctrine, as taught in the "Mormon" Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Our belief and practice of this principle is therefore doctrinal, and not for any wanton or selfish desires. We believe that since it is the marriage order of the Heavens, it is a requirement to become like our Father in Heaven.
Over the history of the world, we find that plural marriage was a very common institution. We believe that since God placed man upon the earth, there has been oft-times a progressive "degeneration" rather than an "evolution" of man. We consider it very prideful for the world today to consider themselves so much more "aware," "educated," or "socially capable" than some ancient societies. Technologically speaking, perhaps; but with regards to righteousness, we feel that today's society is not more righteous than many ancient societies.
Virtually all of the ancient cultures practiced plural marriage, and especially, I would point out, Judaism. Abraham, the great patriarch of Judeo-Christianity as well as of Islam, had multiple wives, as well as concubines. Jacob, the revered father of the twelve tribal heads of Israel, bore these twelve sons through four women. The great prophet Samuel was the son of Hanah, a plural wife. The Law of Moses specifically gave provision for plural marriage. The biblical prophet Nathan tells King David in his chastisement that God had given him his wives. In no place in the Bible does it speak negatively of this principle, only of man's abuses and sins.
We believe very strongly in chastity. Sexual relations between a man and a woman are to be permitted only within the bonds of marriage. We also decry any of the forms of intimate, sexual contact between men and women outside of marriage (that doesn't include holding hands or a simple kiss). We also declare that homosexuality is an abomination. The whole purpose of God in providing us with sexual desires and abilities is for the propagation of our kind. As stated above, the idea of men and women creating children on this earth and raising them up to become like them is representative of the larger idea that our Father in Heaven is trying to raise up his sons and daughters to become like Him in the heavens. Any practice which would deviate from the intended purpose for sexual union therefore detracts from this divine purpose.
The present-day "Western" practice of monogamy stemmed largely from the Roman culture about 2000 years ago. Monogamy has never stopped many men from having relations with several women, but it does relieve them of the responsibility of maintaining accountability over time for these women other than their "legal" wife. Since another woman might be an "affair," or a mistress for a limited time, a man takes no responsibility for these actions, and certainly wouldn't make such relations public. We feel this is great hypocrisy, particularly when they consider the righteous practice of plural marriage to be base or lurid. If a man is true and faithful to his one wife, then that is good. But many, many men do indeed have extra-marital affairs without accountability.
For example, several years ago, a national television program in the United States which interviewed interesting people in strange situations, did a spot on polygamy. The host of the show interviewed a polygamist man and two of his four wives. They were not from our church, but their practice of this principle was also based on religious motives, and not for the fleshly attractions, which was evident from the very polite and sober responses coming from this man and his wives. This irritated tremendously the talk-show host, as he was only looking for the lurid. He would cut the man off in the middle of his responses, and not let him answer fully. He would attempt to put words into the mouth of his guest, and try to make him out to be a whoremonger because he was a polygamist even though he honorably loved and took care of his wives. Later in the same week, I found some unbelievable headlines on one of the tabloids which exposed the secret mistresses of this same talk-show host. What a hypocrite, if what the tabloid reported was true (I suspect it was).
In a truly righteous plural marriage household, all women are honorable wives, and the husband takes responsibility for them and loves them, as well as for the children that issue from these relationships.
I will admit that the principle of plural marriage, if abused, can lead to great unhappiness and misery. It may be likened to a sophisticated power tool as an analogy. In woodworking (my trade), how much more efficient, clean work I am able to do with a good quality power saw, than with an old fashioned hand-operated device. However, if I were to abuse this power saw, and indiscriminately seek to destroy things, how much more destructive I could be than with a hand device! So it is with the highest principles of God. We can participate in them righteously, and reap happiness and blessings, or we can misuse them and bring about unhappiness, terror, and scandal.
I speak of this abuse because there are some (mostly in Utah) who practice the principle of plural marriage while engaging in several forms of abuse. This is what is responsible for the present wave [1998] of very negative publicity that has even reached to Europe. We do not condone these abuses. I would also mention, as I'm sure you are aware, that various forms of abuse occur also in many monogamous marriages the world over. In the world today, plural marriage has become automatically associated in the minds of many self-righteous people with incest, repression of personal liberty, domestic violence, the "unfortunate" habits of primitive cultures, and so forth. We feel these associations are unjust and inaccurate, and are not the results of the righteous participation of this principle, but from simple weakness and wickedness. Referring to these abuses is a very inaccurate way to characterize participation in righteous plural marriage in general. Abuse in marriage and in families is the product of weakness and impurity of mind and heart, regardless of whether this might occur in a plural marriage or in a monogamous marriage.
In our own community, no woman is forced or coerced into any marital union. An important law in God's kingdom is the right to choose for one's self. All may choose on their own to obey or to disobey laws, or to marry whom they desire. Marital unions require genuine feelings of love and affection, as well as acceptable compatibility. In fact, women in our society generally have more of the choice than do the men regarding marital unions. But certainly, the decision must be mutual. We have no marriages that are performed through "arrangement," either by parents or by religious leaders.
When contemplating plural marriage, the decision to marry a second or a third wife is generally a family decision, and the issue of compatibility between "sister wives" and their personalities is definitely a consideration, but the marriage is between the husband and a wife, not between wives. However ultimately, the most important consideration is the expected relationship between the husband and the prospective wife.
We perform our marriages by religious ceremony at an altar in our endowment house. Once married, no person or especially no woman is forced to stay in the marriage against her wishes. She is free to leave the union whenever she wishes, but this is not a light thing. We believe that while we have our agency to choose, there will be accompanying spiritual consequences, good or bad, resulting from our decisions and actions. We enter into marriage relationships most solemnly, and believe in hard work, principles of righteousness, and selflessness to achieve our goals. If any man, polygamist or monogamist were to abuse a wife or a child either physically or emotionally, we would deal with this promptly and wholly, and we would support local law enforcement agencies in the prosecution of any violence. A man can lose his wife or even his family through mistreatment.
Our whole reason for participating in our religion is for the building up of the Kingdom of God, and not because we think that "this seems fun." There is a lot more to our society than plural marriage. Presently, less than the majority of our men have plural wives. If a man were to come here wishing to become a member of our society merely for the opportunity to be married to two or more women simultaneously, he will be sorely disappointed, and he will never last. A man might also not expect to enter quickly into plural marriage upon being baptized into the TLC.
The husbands in our society who have plural wives invariably speak of the tremendous responsibility and difficult task it is to deal with each wife's varying temporal and emotional needs. Every woman's personality is different, and a husband must learn to deal with this. Any physical "benefit" so to speak resulting from a husband having multiple wives is wholly overcome by the tremendous responsibility from maintaining a plural family, temporally and emotionally. Sometimes these families have many children, either born into the family, or from a previous marriage of a wife. I can assure you that fleshly benefits are not the reason for our participation in this principle. However, the intimate relationship between a man and his wife is an important element for their mutual happiness. Our husbands do love their wives, and are interested in and seek their happiness. Wives are human beings with personality and feelings, and are not objects to collect.
Many people unfamiliar with plural marriage are invariably curious about some arrangement details. Most of our plural families live in a single home, but a few men have their wives in separate dwellings (no, we are not rich). For those all in the same home, arrangements vary according to circumstances and desires. Some men have their own bedroom, with each wife having her own bedroom or a bedroom she might share with a child or two. Other men have no bedroom of their own, but will spend nights in the different rooms of the wives (with no children present, of course)--whatever seems to work for the family. As far as "schedule," some husbands have a rotating schedule (with some flexibility) to be with each wife at night time, and others do not. All depends on individual desires and circumstances.
Conjugal relations are only the business of a husband and his wife. This occurs in privacy (no "three-somes" and the like at all), and wives are not to discuss intimate details with each other. Why? Because each woman has different needs and desires, and a husband will deal with each wife differently, both physically and emotionally, according to her needs and desires, some of which are very private. "Fairness" does not always mean the same thing for each wife, just as a parent deals differently with children of differing needs and personalities. Husbands are not to discuss intimate physical or emotional details of one wife with another. A husband is to do his best to see that each wife is secure in her knowledge of his love for her.
Plural marriages are performed openly among us, and previous wives are never kept in the dark if a husband marries a new wife. Generally the decision to marry a new wife is a family decision. A previous wife or previous wives have a role in the plural marriage ceremony, as they make covenant to abide in unity, and stand near the husband and new wife when they are married.
Most of our members have grown up in a monogamist society, so there has had to be an adaptation of some of our social expectations when entering into plural marriage. Yes, women have to learn to abandon jealousy, and to participate harmoniously with other wives in the household, but this is not at all any less difficult than for a man to learn how to righteously govern this family, to see to the needs of each child and wife, and to show sensitivity for the greatly varying personalities and needs of the family members.
Sometimes it is difficult for a first wife on the day of the plural marriage ceremony. But she wouldn't be here participating in this if, on her own, she didn't have the witness of this work and of the true nature of this principle. I repeat that no one is forced either into a relationship, or to remain in one. It is also difficult for the husband if it is hard for a wife. However, invariably things are better when the first wife or the previous wives find that even though the husband has taken a new wife, she or they may still be secure in the love and affection of the husband for her. We have discovered that the issue for a woman is generally not as much regarding jealousy, as it is about her assurance that her husband still maintains his affectionate feelings for her. This is a concept totally foreign to the world in general, but it is true. Just as a woman can love each new child as it comes along, without diminishing her love for a previous child or children, a man can righteously love each new wife, without losing his love for a previous wife.
I've heard some of the women here in our society say that they would never go back to monogamy, because of the built-in companionship and support this arrangement provides for the family. Each family may be governed according to somewhat different fashion, but generally women help each other raising their children, and in the performance of domestic responsibilities.
As far as family government, we believe that the husband is the patriarch and leader in his home. His covenant is to obey the Law of God. This covenant of obedience is through the organization of the priesthood in the church. A wife is likewise under a covenant of obedience, but to her husband, which is the continuation of the priesthood organization in the home. All of us have a responsibility to obey God's word, as Christ said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." As the Apostle Paul declared in the Epistle to the Ephesians, husbands are to love their wives, and wives are to be obedient to their husbands. This is also the word contained in Peter's General Epistle. This was also formerly the doctrine in the LDS Church. None of us are "forced" to obey. We obey because we have covenanted to do so, and because we wish to follow God's order. We may certainly choose to not obey, but the consequences of this will be disruption of this order, and frustration of the plan of God.
When I speak of obedience, I am not speaking of dictatorial tyranny, feeding the ego of he who gives the law, often with arbitrary, pointless little commands. We believe that leadership is through kindness and purpose, and in God's way, not the dictatorial terrorizing way of Hitler or of a Stalin. A man who may practice what we call "unrighteous dominion" will not be permitted to continue; this is not the method of God.
But a man must certainly lead in his home. He will love his wives, but a wife's job is not to "steady the ark" so to speak if she sees (or thinks she sees) his imperfections (as he will certainly have those) or "erroneous" decisions. A man needs to have an avenue whereby a wife can communicate her feelings on matters, but she is not to dictate to him. A man who does not lead in his plural marriage home will have more difficulties than if he does not lead in a monogamist home. Through lack of leadership, he might unintentionally permit one wife to control another wife through manipulation of the husband. This is not the correct order.
This subject of family government, and roles of husbands and wives could occupy much discussion time. Getting this part right, is probably the crux of the whole matter of proper family government. A husband's wives have intelligence and abilities for good reasons, and it is a sorry man who would ignore those abilities and not permit them to be put to good use as he governs in his home. For example, a good political leader will employ counselors to good use in his efforts to govern. Likewise, a wise husband will employ the knowledge and abilities of all his family members as he governs, to help him make decisions, but the responsibility for family government is his. His wives are not "slaves" to him any more than he is a slave to a superior in the priesthood. Recently, I was in the home of one of our polygamist members, and he and one of his wives were the ones doing the dishes after dinner, and believe me, there were a lot of dishes to do. A husband needs great sensitivity in his efforts to govern, but he must not relinquish the responsibility to do so, or chaos will begin to reign in his home. We all, men and women here, are extremely busy with many tasks related to our temporal and spiritual efforts.
To assist you in having a more "female" perspective on our practice of plural marriage and the proper order of the family, I will include here several comments from some of the ladies in our Church: first, from the Maudsley women. Recently, they all helped their husband Randy respond to a curious woman who asked many questions of them about plural marriage and our Church. I will include some of their comments below that pertain to plural marriage. A few of the comments do not pertain to plural marriage, but they may give you some insight into understanding us as a people, and the efforts and sacrifices that most all of us have made to be where we are.
Question: "Who among you have left family behind when you joined your church? Is there any foreseeable hope of them coming there later?"
|
(Gladel) I am one who has experienced this. My first husband and I studied Mormon Fundamentalism while living in Idaho in the late 70's and early 80's. When I found out about the TLC two years ago, it was an answer to my prayers and years of longing. I had hopes that my husband would have a desire to join also, but it soon became plain that he had no intentions of doing so. I originally came to Manti with my 6 youngest (of 11) children, and never considered for an instant leaving them; but after being here for a week my husband showed up with my two oldest sons and kidnapped us (hijacked actually), and returned us back to La Crescenta, California. A few days later he took me against my will to Mexico, I got away while he was in a store, and drove to my brother's in Indio. It's a long story, but in summary, I was afraid to go back to my home, instead I got a ride to Manti, and shortly thereafter my ex-husband got a restraining order against me. He has custody of our children, and they have not been allowed to leave the state. As you can imagine, this has been a very great trial for me. At that time, my youngest was about 17 months old. |
But I want you to know that I have assurance from God and from His Servant that those of my children who want to be here will be returned to me through God's grace and power. And I know that ultimately, I can do more good for my children by being here that I would ever be able to do by choosing to remain there. For one thing, my marriage to their father was very dysfunctional. He did not lead our family in righteousness, and I did not have the love and respect for him that a wife should have for her husband.To me, it was more like he was one of my children. I cared about his welfare, but he was not a strength to me spiritually. That's a very poor example for children. But even more importantly, I have obeyed God's command to gather with the Saints, to help establish Zion, and I know that God has accepted my sacrifice. I could never go back to the LDS Church after experiencing the great blessings that I have since being here. Besides, I am in a safe place, a designated City of Zion, and my children can come here if things start getting bad enough in southern California. Some of them may think they don't want to come here because of the lies they've been told, but they may change their minds. --- Gladel.
(Patti) I too have had to leave my family to come to the Gathering of the Saints. Actually, I didn't leave them, they wouldn't come and they had the choice to come or stay, so they chose to stay with their dad in Arizona. I too had a dysfunctional marriage of twenty four years and I divorced my ex-husband eight years ago. I knew the LDS Church was not teaching things the way they should be, and I was very dissatisfied with the way things were going. My sister, Gale Harmston, found out about the Gathering through some friends of hers, and she taught me the things I had been longing to learn about while I was still in Arizona. I came to the models three years [ago] and didn't want to leave. I knew what I wanted was right here in Manti. The Lord let me know that this was where I belonged and I have not regretted my decision to stay and marry Randy and be taught the gospel of Jesus Christ. I told my children what I believe and why I came here and they didn't accept my way of life and still don't. Their traditions of the LDS Church are so deeply rooted within them that they won't listen and let the Spirit bear witness of the truth because they think they have the truth by being in the LDS Church. I had to put my children on the alter and let God take care of them. It was the hardest thing I have ever had to do but the most rewarding by far. Since I have done that, I have had such great peace within my heart. Knowing that I did the right thing is what keeps me going each day and knowing that someday they or at least some of them will come here. --- Patti.
Question: "Do you have a bathroom schedule?"
(Sam) No, we don't have a schedule. However, learning to share one bathroom between four women is a good example of learning to live plural marriage. When I was Randy's only wife, I had the bathroom all to myself. I loved to take long hot baths and pamper myself. I did my hair and my makeup, plucked my eyebrows, checked out my wrinkles, etc. in the bathroom. Then along came Patti. She wanted to do all the same stuff I did in the bathroom. At first I didn't like all the time she took, and she changed the smell of the bathroom with all her powders and perfumes. After all I was there first. I had more right to the bathroom by seniority, didn't I? Then I began to notice that Patti was very self conscience of the time she took and the things that she did. I began to think about what it must be like to move into "someone else's" home and not have your own bathroom. I began to try to be more considerate and not pluck my eyebrows or put on my makeup in the bathroom. As I began to consider her feelings, I noticed that she was being just as considerate of me. We began to share the mirror, then our makeup and hair stuff. Then next came Gladel. We had to start all over again. I thought it would be just like learning to share the bathroom with Patti, but Gladel was different. She didn't like hair spray, and she did things differently than us. I wasn't sure that I could get used to sharing with her. But then one day I went in to the bathroom and she had put a bouquet of flowers in there. I liked that. I decided that I could probably get used to her after all. Then Randy up and married Angel. She took 45 minute showers! How dare she take that liberty when we were all waiting! The nerve of her! Then I found out that she has eczema and must take extra care of her skin to keep it healthy. Well O.K. I can live with that. And she learned to shorten her bathroom routine for our convenience. We all learned to sacrifice. No one takes long bubble baths anymore. I still miss them occasionally. But now you might find us all out on the patio in our robes on a Sunday morning putting on our makeup, laughing with one another, swapping stories and enjoying one another's company. And that can be a lot more fun than having your own bathroom. --- Sam
Question: "Do you really feel like you're all married to each other and all equal? Is it fun?"
(Gladel) We're not married to each other, but we are each married to Randy. We feel like sisters and best friends. Yes, it is fun, but it's more than that--we have a common goal of being good helpmeets to our husband, and we help each other. As for feeling equal, we don't believe in a "pecking order" as Randy puts it, and no one [wife] is charge of any of the others. Because Sam has been with Randy the longest (23 years), and the rest of us have only been married to him 3 yrs or less, she has shared with us things about him, what he likes and dislikes for example. I have learned much from my sister-wives, which has deepened my appreciation and love for them. And I have had more FUN since being here than I've had for years and years. --- Gladel
Question: "Do you gang up on Randy? Is it fun?"
(Sam) The closest we get to ganging up on Randy is our Sunday afternoon chats on his bed. We "gang up" on him then. One of us rubs his feet, one his forehead, and the other two his hands. Boy do we make him suffer! Then we force him to talk to us and tell us interesting things, usually about doctrine. And we fire question after question at him. That's a lot of fun. We also tease him a lot. That's how we gang up on him. Actually, we all absolutely adore him, and respect him as the head of our family. We would never think of coming together as wives to try and manipulate him into doing anything. We believe that there is an order to a Godly family. And that order is that the man is the head of the women. We follow that order and you can not imagine the peace that it brings to our home. We can follow that order because we each know that Randy loves God more than anything and that whatever he does is because that is what God would have him do. When you have that kind of trust in your husband it is easy to follow him. Of course he makes mistakes sometimes, but so do we, and he is very quick to show us mercy and kindness, so how can we do any different for him? --- Sam
Next, I offer part of the conversion story of Joanne Hanks, one of the wives of Jeff Hanks, also one of our leaders along with Randy Maudsley. In this excerpt Joanne talks about her perspectives and feelings about plural marriage.
|
Joanne Hanks: "I learned back then, over 6 years ago, that plural marriage was one of those requirements. That is just one of them, but one that seems to be most difficult for a wife to get used to. And it did take me a while to get used to the idea. Not just the shock and disapproval from family and community, but the fear of my husband loving someone else more than me. My first reactions were indeed selfish. I said, 'I can see that my husband will benefit from the added love and relationships, but WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?’ " "It took awhile before I figured that out. It did not come immediately through prayer. It took time to study, gain a testimony, and most of all go through the experience myself. A year or so after we gathered to Manti, Jeff met the oldest daughter of a family that was moving up to Manti from New Mexico. After they moved, Jeff and Amandah decided to marry." "At that time, there were only a few other families in the church that had began living plural marriage. It was difficult at first. But I can say that it was only as difficult as I made it. Once I learned how to overcome my fears and as you said, selfishness, it became easier and easier and I learned what was in it for me." |
"First, the knowledge that I was living the fullness of the gospel. That the Lord was well pleased with me and that He was constantly blessing me because of my righteousness. Second, I was setting a righteous example to my children. They are truly blessed to be growing up in a family that is "in order," with a wise and loving King at the head, two wives that love and respect their husband, and children that are obedient to their parents. That's the order a family must be in to become Christ-like!! I have definitely been blessed. I have a friend and "sister" in my husband's other wife. Jeff is busy and gone from home a lot. Amandah and I are like sisters that get along with each other. We talk a lot, go shopping together, pray together, take care of the home and children, and get along quite well. Of course, there are times when we get tired of each other. There are times when we are jealous, defensive, selfish, manipulative, etc. But those are the exact things that we are overcoming because of our willingness to live in plural marriage! What a blessing. Isn't that why we come to earth? To overcome our weaknesses and grow into worthy saints that can re-enter the presence of the Lord? That's what will make it all worthwhile. Seeing my Savior again, in person, in my lifetime. I have that promise. I have that hope and assurance that He will come to us, even here in Manti."
The following is an excerpt from a letter from Joanne Hanks about Family Order (about 1996):
"Hello [Name withheld], how about a response from an 'intelligent woman within a polygamous community?' I'd be pleased to share my story with you, if interested, but first I'd like to respond to your recent posting. *** 'Co-equal partnership?’ This description sounds like a business, not the Celestial Order of Marriage. I plan on being exalted because of my role in plural marriage. I have seen the lack of fruits of clamoring for "equality" in any role, man or woman. As far as "one who leads and one who serves," leadership is serving. For that matter, priesthood is serving. My husband serves me by leading me to our exaltation. "Is there no other way?" "There is no other way." Please don't confuse authority with value. My value is not lessened because my husband has "authority" over me. It's quite basic and simple. A righteous, worthy man covenants with God to OBEY Him. Righteous, worthy women (plural) covenant to OBEY their husband. When that man then is as obedient as he possibly can be to God then his wives should have no trouble being as obedient to their husband as they can possibly be. The line of authority works. Is a man of little value to God because he is "just a servant to be ruled over in kindness and love?" There is hierarchy. Patriarchy is the order of heaven. To say otherwise is blasphemy. I believe it is women who are confused about their roles that allow themselves to feel less than important. God's authority over His children does not involve "control." I was always taught that it was Satan who came up with the plan of control. God's authority or "priesthood" involves agency.
Excerpts from another letter of Joanne Hanks on this subject (23 May 1998):
"Jeff has asked if I'd write you. He feels a female perspective would be helpful on this subject, of course. The letter he just sent you was one I had written at least two years ago to a woman who had made many "feminist" comments in some e-mails to Jeff. She was quite arrogant and so my response was on that level. However, I have just re-read that response and I feel it is still right on. I have gained a "fuller" understanding of these concepts and doctrines since then. I should say there are many women here within our church who are very well versed and experienced in these matters. I'm not an expert or spokeswoman, but I'll give my testimony whenever appropriate."
"We have discussed, studied, and prayed about the true role of women for many years now. Much of what we have learned has been through our experiences or "trial and error" so to speak. I have learned the role of a "Helpmeet" by being one. We have implemented the fullness of the gospel into our definition of helpmeet as well. And there are some major differences from the way I was raised in the LDS church as to how a wife and mother behaves."
"I am following the order and law of obedience also taught in the proper and true endowment. I am helping him [my husband] to have a righteous posterity without which he cannot be a King and I cannot be a Queen. You mentioned Sarah and Eve. They as well as Mary, the mother of Christ and many such women throughout time have set the example of what a woman's priesthood and role really is. To put it simply, I believe it is to teach and bless my posterity that they, along with us their parents, obey our God and live the fullness of His gospel. The man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man, and both cannot be without their posterity."
"Some believe that men and women have "equal" or "same" roles within the priesthood order of the family. I believe that we use our priesthood in our different stewardships. This idea of 50/50 equality is so misleading. There is no need for competition between men and women. God has set up His order. He requires obedience from His sons and requires His sons' wives to be obedient to their husbands, (therefore making them obedient to Him) and requires their children to be obedient to them, therefore making their children obedient to Him."
"Specifically, I have acted within my female priesthood role by bearing children with my husband. I have obeyed my covenants of obedience by learning the fullness of the gospel from my husband, receiving my own testimony and witness, and gathering with him to this place where God has appointed, to live the fullness and establish Zion. (I could have disagreed and listened to my other family and friends and stayed in "Babylon" and mainstream Mormondom.)"
"I have followed the righteous example of Abraham and Sarah and covenanted to live in unity with my husband (Patriarch) in the principle of plural marriage. (I could have disagreed and been rebellious and selfish and refused to participate.)"
"I have acted within my role as a mother and taught my children by example and word what the fullness of the gospel is all about. (I could have given up this responsibility to the public school or primary teacher or T.V. or any number of other 'babysitters')"
"I have blessed the life of my 'sister-wife,' my husband's other wife, by living together in unity and serving her by blessing her life with friendship, service, sisterhood, etc. (I could have selfishly manipulated my husband to create a lifestyle where I would not have to deal with a sister-wife.’)"
"A woman cannot be totally fulfilling her true role unless she is connected to a righteous patriarch who is implementing the proper priesthood order of the family in his home which includes the correct living of the law of obedience. A woman cannot fulfill her role unless she, along with her husband lives those laws that God requires to build Zion."
As I hope that you can see, in order to gain an adequate understanding, the question of our practicing plural marriage cannot be reduced to questions and answers of what it is like to have several women in one household. This principle cannot at all be considered or understood outside of the religious understanding of which it is an integral part. It also cannot be discussed without discussing the proper relationship between husbands and wives, and the proper order of things in family government. These same principles apply to monogamist homes as well as plural marriage homes.
In closing, I emphasize that plural marriage cannot be understood or properly practiced except in a religious context. We believe that it is the marriage order of the Heavens, and not for selfish gratification. The difficulties encountered by both women and men are for the refinement and purification of our character. We believe in kindness and sensitivity, and abhor any abuse of either wife or child. We believe that the righteous family order is with the husband at the head, and the wives in righteous obedience to him, as the husband is submissive and obedient to his priesthood head. We do not force, but value the principle of personal agency. All must also be done with a mind to build the Kingdom of God, or it is in vain and will lead to failure. J.W.P
