Of all the controversial topics I write about, the topic I get the most resistance to is not queer issues, but plural marriage. Generally, Mormon feminists don’t like plural marriage. That might be a bit of an understatement. There have been blog posts, even entire books written by women expressing their disdain for plural marriage. Some of them hate it so much they deem plural marriage entirely immoral and praise monogamy as the one true path for all marriages and relationships.
As a queer woman, I empathize greatly for the distain of an oppressive mandate to enter into or abstain from a marriage based on an authoritarian’s perspective. Telling someone they must enter into plural marriage is just as oppressive as telling me I must enter into a heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Telling Mormon women they must live eternal polygamy is both absurd and often traumatizing. Just as telling me that I must live eternal, heterosexual monogamy is absurd and traumatizing. I empathize greatly with women who do not desire an eternity of forced marital mandates.
If there is one idea I could get people, especially feminists, to understand about fighting oppression, it would be this:
Fight oppression, not modalities.
The key to liberation from oppressive marital mandates will be found in separating oppressions from their modalities. If not, you’ll quickly find there isn’t a single modality which cannot be manipulated into something oppressive.
To better explain what I mean, I’ll start with a simple example.
Let’s imagine we are in a common religion eating fruit together. Some people like to eat oranges, and some people don’t. However, let’s say there is an authoritarian telling everyone they must eat oranges, not just for life, but all eternity! An eternity of oranges! If you are a person who loves oranges, you may not be bothered with the authoritarian’s decree. You like oranges regardless of the authoritarian, so who cares, right? Yet, if you are a person who hates oranges and loves grapefruits, you will likely have a serious problem with what the authoritarian is telling you to eat. However, even though you may hate oranges, the oranges are not oppressive. The oppression is the mandate to eat something you don’t want to eat.
Fight oppression, not oranges.
Its understandable why some people, especially women, would hate oranges. Let’s say she grew up in a religion that told her she must eat oranges and love it for all eternity, but she never liked oranges—not even a little bit. She only wanted grapefruits. Let’s say her religion told her she could eat grapefruits now, but upon her death she will never have grapefruits again and she will be doomed to an eternity of eating oranges. Forever! If this is the case, it’s very understandable why she would hate oranges and want to abolish them from existence. She may see it as her only way out of her oppression. “I must destroy all oranges! That will save me from an eternity of eating oranges!”
There’s a problem though. Even if she destroys all the oranges in the world, that still isn’t going to dismantle oppression. She simply got rid of one modality of oppression that she didn’t like, and in so doing took oranges away from everyone else—even the people who love eating oranges. If she takes away oranges from everyone else, she is adopting the role of the oppressor. Her hatred of oranges distorts her perspective so much so that she cannot see that there are other women who like eating oranges regardless of what the authoritarian told them to do. Yet, because she hates oranges so much everyone must hate oranges too. Furthermore, everyone must now love grapefruits. Grapefruits are the one true path to righteousness. Sadly, she has become the authoritarian that she sought so desperately to liberate herself from. The oppressed became the oppressor.
Fight oppression, not oranges.
As for myself, I don’t hate oranges. I like oranges a lot. I plan on eating them as long as I can, even for all eternity if I get the chance. Telling me I must hate oranges is as silly as me telling her that she must hate grapefruits. True liberation happens when we learn to eat grapefruits and oranges side-by-side without condemning the other as “wrong.” Grapefruits and oranges are only the modality of oppression. What is truly oppressive is the mandate that we can’t eat the various fruits of our liking. In this case, oppression is homogenization. Fighting oppression requires we accept our differences. You can like grapefruits and I can like oranges.
Fight oppression, not oranges.
Now, there are some people who like to tell me that I don’t really like oranges, and I couldn’t possibly like oranges of my own volition because the authoritarian is controlling my will and desires. I’m “brainwashed” or “manipulated” into liking oranges by the all-powerful authoritarian. I am simply the victim that eats oranges without genuine autonomy. She may even tell me that I’ll be much happier eating grapefruits like her. She may even justify that no woman could possibly be happy eating oranges, and all women would be happier eating grapefruits.
There’s a problem though. There is no liberation without trust. We need to trust that people want what they say they want. If I tell her, “No really, I really like oranges” and she doesn’t respect my autonomy, she is not my liberator. Woman will never be free until we respect her autonomy and volition. If you are truly a liberator, you need to accept woman is capable of choosing what to do with her autonomy. Disrespecting her autonomy by telling her she doesn’t really like oranges is another form of oppression.
Fight oppression, not oranges.
Now, others will still contend, “…but women are manipulated into saying they like eating oranges when they truly don’t. She only said that because she was living in fear of the authoritarian.” This is a fair criticism. Can a person have robust liberties if they are in a physically or emotionally violent environment? If women are in an environment where their fruit selection comes with severe, negative retaliation or shunning then she may genuinely be stuck eating oranges forever in fear of her oppressor. If this is the case, the solution is not to get rid of all oranges, but instead create safer environments where people can choose grapefruits or oranges without physical abuse, social isolation, violent retaliation, or religious purgatory. Getting rid of oranges won’t free her. We must assist in creating a safe environment where she can free herself with her own volition and autonomy.
Fight oppression, not oranges.
To review, the fruit is just the modality of the oppression. Neither grapefruits or oranges are inherently liberating or oppressive. Oppression is the mandate from the authoritarian telling everyone what fruit they must prefer and consume. This is what I mean when I say, fight oppression not modalities.
For me, plural marriage is the orange. You can like it or not like it, but that doesn’t make it oppressive or “wrong.” What is oppressive is telling you that you must enter into a plural marriage or telling me that I can’t enter into a plural marriage. Also, as a reminder, plural marriage is defined as multiple marriages to multiple partners. Historical, it has mostly been practiced oppressively under polygyny, but the concept of plural marriage alone is not inherently oppressive. Telling someone they must enter into or abstain from a marriage against their will is what is oppressive, whether that marriage is plural or not.
I mean this sincerely, you do not have to practice or like plural marriage to be a supporter of someone else’s right to plural marriage. You do not have to be homosexual to support same-sex marriage. You do not have to be a person of color to support civil rights. Likewise, you can be monogamous and still support another person’s right to plural marriage. Similarly, a person in a plural marriage should also fight against oppressions from religious institutions that mandate a plural, monogamous, heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual marriages.
I can support your desire for monogamy and you can support my desire for plural marriage without mandating we be the same. Sameness, or congruency, is the enemy of liberation. What is at the root of oppression is lack of options—not having the ability to make one’s own decisions and choices about how they want to live. Monogamy and polygamy can both be a modality of oppression if they are mandated to people against their will. Monogamy and polygamy can both be liberating if they are presented as options which persons can choose from. Most importantly, the modality is not the oppression—the unquestionable, universal, marital mandate is the oppression.
In short, true liberators find ways of supporting multiple desires without mandating their preference as the universal “right way.” I can support your desire to eat grapefruits and you can support my desire to eat oranges. Liberation is the rejection of necessary sameness and recognizing we can support each other while we all eat different fruit.
Fight oppression, not oranges.
For further clarification see:
Year of Polygamy: Queer Polygamy
The Problem is Patriarchy, Not Polygamy
A Feminist Defense of Polygamy
Blaire Ostler
Blaire Ostler is a leading voice at the intersection of Mormonism, feminism, and transhumanism. She is a Board Member and former CEO of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, the world's largest advocacy network for the ethical use of technology and religion to expand human abilities. She is currently pursuing a second degree in philosophy with an emphasis in gender studies. Blaire and husband Drew reside in Utah with their three children.
All posts by Blaire Ostler
Great concept Blair. Your analogies really helped me understand your premise.
Blaire, God is in the mandating business. “If thou lovest me thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments.” (DC 42:29. See also John 14:15 – among many, many others.) The reason for this is to prepare us to live the life that God lives. We obey because we trust God’s love for us and that He knows the path to follow – not us. And our heavenly Mother is not at cross-purposes with Him.
Here is something from Elder Maxwell:
“It is perfectly true that our individual identity is guaranteed, but this truth, when it is torn away from other realities, gives us a very lopsided view of things. Without the ransoming atonement of the Savior, we would be stranded souls without future hope. We do not yet have to acknowledge that reality, though someday we will. Nor are we even forced to follow the conditions Christ has laid down. In that sense, we are quite free to do as we please, just as if we were “our own.” But it is a terrible illusion, an illusion that will be shattered by His second coming and the judgment.
“Neither is obedience a mindless shifting of our personal responsibility. Instead, it is tying ourselves to a living God who will introduce us – as soon as we are ready – to new and heavier responsibilities, involving high adventure. Obedience is, therefore, not evasion; it is an invasion – one that takes us deep into the realms of our possibilities.
“What God says He has in store for us, in literal actuality, requires a peculiar people (as mortals measure peculiarity), a people particularly suited for everlasting chores elsewhere. Therefore, it isn’t that God seeks to shape us capriciously, just to prove that He is in charge; He is fitting us for special chores for which there are rigorous and non-waivable specifications.
“There will be only one recruitment effort among us for any aspirants to such adventure, only one set of standards to be followed, and only one narrow and precise path of development for those so recruited. But when we are safely beyond the narrowness of this mortal passage, we will come upon a scene of such expansiveness that solar systems will seem like backyards and galaxies like neighborhoods!” (All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, 23, 127-128)
God’s commandments are not oppression. In the pre-mortal world, the Savior said to us: Follow me and I will get you home.” I believed Him then, and I believe Him now. He is, in fact, The Way, The Truth and The Life. Every single person who ever lived on Earth will one day acknowledge this.
Really, a big chunk of the Rational Faiths blog comes down to this: Is the Church led by the First Presidency and the Twelve as Christ would have it led, or are these leaders just following their own wisdom and inclinations? (Where did plural marriage come from – God or Joseph Smith?)I believe the first.
God knows the universe, the eternities, as they really are. That’s what He tells us about. That’s where we will be returning to. Any other, alternative “reality” that individuals would prefer will have to be jettisoned.
Blaire, you’re a thoughtful person, but you won’t alter reality as part of a quest for unfettered freedom and individualism.
Tim, it is amazing how much you know for a fact. Oops, that’s right, you have no facts, only your beliefs. When did God or Jesus actually appear to you and say these things?
Tim wrote: “God is in the mandating business. . . . The reason for this is to prepare us to live the life that God lives.”
You seem pretty sure about God and what he has mandated. That leads me to a few questions.
Who is this God you refer to? Are you aware that in most scripture, the term God refers to Christ, in spite of the fact that the term isn’t used that way in the restored church?
Was this God once a sinner who did embarrassing things and lived on an earth? In other words, in spite of what we teach, he hasn’t been God forever, right?
Is this God married? If so, why isn’t there a single verse of scripture telling us this nor a single verse about the Heavenly Mother you mentioned?
If he is married, does he have one wife or many?
Why are some animals and people born gay?
The vast sum of what we don’t know makes it desirable to listen closely to what Blaire and others have to say.
Well said Steve
What I am certain of is the truthfulness of the testimony of the prophets found in the scriptures. Herein is where it is attested that God is omniscient. There is “not anything save he knows it.” (2 Nep 9:20; see also Words of Mormon 1:7, Hel 9:41, Moses 1:6, etc.). There is no more basic truth and it is asserted plainly and without qualifiers.
As for Christ, he has “suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning” (“swallowed up” in the Father’s will is how Abinadi puts it); indeed, Christ’s doctrine is not even his, but the Father’s (3 Nep 11:11; Mosiah 15:7; John 7:16). As Christ’s will, agenda and doctrine are identical to the will, agenda and doctrine of the Father, there is no reason to be confused about “which” God we are talking about. The Godhead is in it together.
As for theological speculation, the best answer will most often be, “We don’t know yet.” This is obviously the case when it comes to speculation on the biography of God. There is no reason to posit an embarrassing past for God. We have an example already where such is unnecessary: Jesus Christ. He lived perfectly throughout pre-morality and mortality. Could not our Father have done the same? Jesus could do it. Perhaps the Father was also a Redeemer earlier. Then, too, there are children who will be born during the Millennium who shall “ grow up without sin unto salvation.” (DC 45:58) In any event, not knowing yet, not having answers to all our questions yet, is not a good reason to leave or discredit the Church. We have enough on which to build a sure foundation. Those clinging to the iron rod in Lehi’s dream were doing so while surrounded by mists of darkness.
The Church already recognizes that we have a Heavenly Mother. Why is this not explicit (or more explicit; Michelle Wiener finds traces of her here and there) in the scriptures? Again, we do not know. My opinion is that this world is too unrighteous to have this truth be common knowledge; it would be perverted abominably. I think it unwise to take the extreme wickedness of this world and extrapolate it across the cosmos as a norm for second estates. I expect this planet is an outlier in this regard.
Finally, anyone who reads the scriptures for five minutes recognizes that God gives commandments – and what they are – and expects obedience. They are given for our good, not to distress us. They are our friends, not enemies; an advantage, not a disadvantage. We have Christ’s spirit be with us when we “keep his commandments which he has given [us].” Indeed, God “doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world.” (2 Nep 26:24)
The vast sum of what we don’t know also makes it desirable to hold fast to the truth that we do have, and not reject it, and be obedient to the commandments we do have, and not reject them.
Re: “What I am certain of is the truthfulness of the testimony of the prophets found in the scriptures.”
Then you are less certain about such basic concepts as Heavenly Mother(s), whether the Father has ever been married, whether he was once a mortal sinner, etc. These teachings are among many that are not in the Scriptures.
What I am certain of is that prophets err in doctrinal matters and that they make false prophecies. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, this makes it desirable to listen closely to what Blaire and others have to say and not be dismissive.
I was limiting my remarks to the scriptures for this post. Gospel truths are not limited to the Standard Works. This is the point of the Restoration; continuing revelation is one of the Articles of Faith. I include the prophets of the Restoration with their fellow prophets in the Standard Works.
Thus, no, I am not less certain about the existence of Heavenly Mother or whether the Father is married. Neither is speculative. That God was once a mortal sinner is nothing but speculation.
@Tim Bone
LDS leaders have taught that the Father lived on an earth and was like us (we are sinners). For example, Joseph Smith said that the Father is an exalted man, and Lorenzo Snow taught that “as man is, God once was.” Elder Bruce R. McConkie observed that the Father “worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given us so that we may do the same.”
However, I agree that their teachings on the subject are speculation. Also, their teachings about Heavenly Mother(s) and whether the Father is married or Christ is married are also uncanonized speculation. Also, they don’t know why people are born gay.
Blaire’s opinions are as valid as yours.
How do you fit a sinless Christ into this picture? Did he work out his salvation in some different way? Was he able to do what we and his Father couldn’t? Is he different than both us and his Father?
Speculation doesn’t exist on an even plane, anything being just as likely as anything else, a theological free-for-all. It’s probably better to think of it as a spectrum running from limited knowledge to unanchored musings and excuse-finding. For instance, as stated on lds.org under Gospel Topics for Heavenly Mother:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women . . . As with many other truths of the gospel, our present knowledge about a Mother in Heaven is limited. Nevertheless, we have been given sufficient knowledge to appreciate the sacredness of this doctrine and to comprehend the divine pattern established for us as children of heavenly parents.”
This isn’t based on wish fulfillment.
The point of the Restored Gospel was to reveal eternal, saving truths, commandments, ordinances and priesthood authority to oversee the Church of Jesus Christ through revelation. Speculation doesn’t trump any of these. I believe that all of them are alive and well. Trying to find workarounds for any or all of these to justify divergence from, or abandonment of, the Church is to leave the path of wisdom.
There is no parallel path to salvation in lieu of Christ’s Church, as accountable souls arriving in the Spirit World will learn; they don’t get a pass from the first principles of the Gospel – or even from ordinances performed in mortality by this Church.
In the end, the Gospel isn’t about theological sophistication anyway, it’s about following God’s will, not ours, trusting not only him but also his design of life, including our portion. As succinctly stated by President Nelson: “The purpose of mortality is to see if we will use our agency to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or follow some other way.” Obedience to someone other than ourselves seems a particularly tough sell in the 21st Century.
You seem to equate God’s will with following whatever prophets or the church say. Christ expects us to follow him always and to follow prophets only when their teachings are correct. It is up to each of us to discern which teachings are correct. In church history, many accepted teachings have been false. Today’s teachings are part of tomorrow’s history.
As far as your questions in the first paragraph above, we don’t know the answer to any of them. We teach that Christ was God even before he possessed a physical body and that, as a spirit, God (i.e., Christ) created the earth as well as the physical bodies of Adam and Eve.
I believe all will be well with those who possess charity. Beyond that, we need to stop saying “I know” so much. That is why I welcome thoughts by Blaire and others.
But what if the oranges are something weird, like …. being oppressed. What if there are women out there who LIKE being oppressed. Who is anyone to tell them they don’t like it and try to save them from something they actually enjoy?
Too far, yeah? Sorry, my brain is on over drive today.
Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit
Summer is ended and we are not yet saved