Please consider supporting this podcast:

In God’s eyes are women people or property? Section 132 repeatedly refers to women as property. Is that consistent with the rest of scripture? What can we learn from Eve and other women in scripture? Is there a way to reconcile these two perspectives? Why does it matter?

Scriptures

D&C 132:34-65
2 Nephi 2:14-16, 22-26
Genesis 2:21-24
Genesis 3:16 / Moses 4:22
D&C 121:34-42
1 Nephi 5:1-6
1 Nephi 17:20
Alma 19:10, 16-18
Mosiah 19:13
Mosiah 21:17
Alma 14:10
Alma 46:12
Jacob 2:31-35

Links

1835 D&C 101:2

Brigham Young Quote

Brigham Young Quote

Summary

In this episode, Michelle Stone explores one of the most controversial aspects of Doctrine & Covenants 132—the treatment of women as property. She critically examines whether God views women as people or possessions, using scriptural comparisons, historical context, and theological analysis. The discussion focuses heavily on Eve, biblical women, and LDS teachings on marriage to contrast divine intent with the language of ownership found in D&C 132.

Key Themes:

  1. Comparing the Book of Mormon to Doctrine & Covenants 132
    • Stone argues that the Book of Mormon consistently portrays women with respect and agency, while D&C 132 reduces them to property.
    • Jacob 2-3 condemns polygamy because it hurts women, demonstrating compassion and divine concern—in stark contrast to D&C 132’s transactional language.
  2. Women as Possessions in D&C 132
    • Several verses describe women being “given,” “taken,” “received,” and “possessed” by men (e.g., verses 34, 37, 38, 41, 61-63).
    • Stone breaks down specific phrases that reinforce male ownership of women, arguing that such language is absent in other LDS scriptures.
    • She highlights the hypocrisy of D&C 132, which demands women’s obedience to polygamy without regard for their feelings or personal agency.
  3. Eve’s Role in Creation & Theological Implications
    • Stone contrasts Eve’s creation in Genesis with D&C 132’s framework, arguing that God never intended women to be subordinate or owned.
    • She explores the symbolism of Eve’s rib, emphasizing partnership rather than hierarchy.
    • She argues that Adam followed Eve’s wisdom in partaking of the fruit, showcasing co-leadership rather than dominance.
  4. The “Curse” of Eve: Misinterpretations of Genesis 3
    • Many have mistakenly interpreted God’s words to Eve (“he shall rule over thee”) as divine approval of male dominance.
    • Stone clarifies that these were warnings about the fallen world, not eternal commandments.
    • She critiques historical justifications for female subjugation, including Brigham Young’s rhetoric on polygamy and status.
  5. Brigham Young & Women as Status Symbols
    • Young boasted about his ability to attract more young wives than younger men, reinforcing a toxic culture where women were trophies.
    • He preached that men would receive wives in the afterlife as part of their eternal reward, treating women as assets rather than individuals.
    • Stone compares this status-based polygamy to modern elite culture, where wealthy men use women as social markers.
  6. The Erosion of Section 132 in Modern LDS Teachings
    • Stone expresses relief that modern LDS temple ceremonies have removed many harmful elements influenced by D&C 132.
    • She sees these changes as a positive step away from the polygamous mindset, but also wonders why it took so long to correct the doctrine.
    • She encourages further rethinking of past teachings, particularly regarding women’s role in LDS theology.
  7. Final Thoughts: Women Are People, Not Property
    • Stone concludes by reaffirming that God does not see women as possessions—a belief that contradicts the heart of D&C 132.
    • She warns against religious traditions that reduce women to obedience-based roles, urging listeners to seek personal revelation on the matter.
    • The episode ends with a preview of the next discussion, which will focus on “threats of destruction” in D&C 132.

Transcript

[00:00:01] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. If you feel so inclined, please listen to each of these episodes since they each cover different aspects and elements of the of the theology of polygamy, and we’ll each address different questions or objections. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 6. The first of two parts diving into the most difficult problems of Section 132, namely women as property and threats of destruction. Today will be an investigation of women as people or property focusing heavily on Eve and other scriptures. Thank you for joining us as we take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. I distinctly remember having the realization, the sudden burst of intelligence that the Book of Mormon and at least portions of Section 132 did not have the same author. I know that might seem like an audacious claim, but for me, It was the inspiration I had to compare the treatment of women in the two documents that just brought complete clarity. Throughout the Book of Mormon, it is very clear how God values women. Jacob’s sermon in chapters 2 and 3 is just one, but one very profound example of this, where the very reason that God condemns polygamy and forbids it is because it hurts women. And so clearly, the author of Jacob 2 cares deeply about the feelings and experiences of women. This is sadly in stark contrast to section 132, where women are literally viewed as property and treated with an extreme lack of care and an intense, just intense harshness and hypocrisy. And so the two, these two episodes today and the next one are diving straight into the belly of the beast, to what I see as the worst part of section 132. So, um, we’ve already talked about the problems that show up in the very first verse of 132. That was episode 11 called Preconceptions of Concubines, along with the others, if you haven’t watched that one, please do so. But today, we are getting into the verses that I like, I think probably most of us prefer just to pretend don’t exist. I they’re, they’re rarely focused on in any of our lessons or manuals. I think most of them, most of us just like to put them in a box and not see them. And if we ever happen to read them, try to forget them. I, maybe some of you can relate when I, when I go through and study them and read them, I actually feel an like a physical repulsion. It is just like, ah, they just feel awful to read and That’s really interesting. And so, um, today we’re going to, to do these episodes. I had to get in and read them and read them many times, and I stuck with it and did it. I haven’t, I have fasted and prayed about 132. I’ve read all of 132 several times, but usually I take these parts. I need to take breaks. So this was, this was a hard work to get into these today. I think that, um, If, if anybody wants to read these, I’m going to be starting on verse 34 and going from there, the verses I’m focusing on, and I want to keep in mind as we get into these, the main question we’re considering. The question I think is the important one to consider in this episode today is, does God view women as people or possessions? I think it’s important because if people

[00:03:41] genuinely believe that all of section 132 is of God as pure revelation. And on the one hand, well, it’s easy to understand how on the one hand. They treat women with a lack of care, right? Throughout, sadly throughout history throughout church history, there are just really difficult stories of how women were treated. That seems to be justified by 132. On the other hand, if people believe that 132 is of God. I can understand why they choose not to believe in God, because if that’s God, then no thank you. And so I think it’s important to really get in and see where is God in this? What is God? So we’re going to compare these portions of 132 with the rest of scripture and with what we know of God. So, take a deep breath. Let’s dive in. OK. The following verses of 132 either imply or refer directly to women as possessions, verses 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 48, 51, 52, 55, possibly 57, 61, 62, 63, and 65. So it’s, it’s a, it’s quite a chunk. Now, I’m just, what I have done is just taken out the specific phrases in each of these verses that refer to the giving or taking or owning of women. And strangely, for me, when they’re just paired down just to Just the over the uh little phrases, it’s a lot easier to take. And so I’m going to read those and um I’ll be curious to see how they affect you, but if you want the full experience, go ahead and read the scriptures, read section 132 starting in verse 34. But um please do remember as I go through these, that these aren’t just talking about blessings or gifts from God. These are talking specifically about women. So starting with verse 34, Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham. Remember, Hagar was a slave who was literally owned. She could be bought and sold, given and received. So that sets the context that we right that we’re talking about. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham. Abraham received concubines. They were given unto him. David also received many wives and concubines. Wives and concubines were given unto him. He shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another. A man receiveth a wife. You have power by the power of my holy priesthood to take her and give her unto him. Whatsoever you give on earth and to whomever and whomever you give any one on earth. Whom I have given unto you, receive all those that I have given. I will give unto him hundredfold his property. He cannot commit adultery, for they are given unto him. He cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him, for they are given unto him. And verse 65, for him to receive all things whatsoever, I, the Lord his God will give unto him. So recall, these are all talking about women. When I’m, I’m not going to get into right now to the problematic,

[00:06:44] um, verse that often is referred to of Nathan saying that God gave David, his wives and concubines. We’ll get into that on the episode of, uh, David. So I’m going to forego that for now. But, um, I want to point out also, I’m aware that too many people, these, these phrases might not seem problematic. And that’s something I want to think about. They might just seem harm. or natural, because after all, the temple uses, or did use the words give and receive. And I think that that’s a good thing to recognize. As Alma would say, if that, if it doesn’t sound at all problematic to you, it’s a good time to awake and arouse your faculty, faculties and consider more deeply. If it’s good that we’re accustomed, that we might be accustomed to women being referred to as property and possessions to be given, received, taken, used as blessings. So. That’s where, like, like, please consider that. I, I also consider men are never spoken about in this way in 132. It never talks about God giving a man or a woman receiving a husband in the same way in these verses that I’m talking about. It’s very much just women given and belonging to men and used as rewards of righteousness, right? So that’s what we’re gonna talk about. OK. So, um, I want to first, the first question that comes to mind for me, um, is from Lehi’s teaching to his son Jacob, found in 2 Nephi chapter 2, starting in verse 14. And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning, for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. So comparing Lehi’s teachings to 132, I can’t help but ask if women are included of the Included in the group of things to act or the group of things to be acted upon, I think that’s a valuable question to ask. Um, to continue verse 15 and to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man after he hath created our first parent, skipping to 16, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. So if women are commodities or prizes or rewards that can just be taken from one husband and given to another willy-nilly with apparently no concern for their hearts, their relationships, their desires, or even any thought that they might have any feelings or opinions, that definitely to me puts women in the group of things to be acted upon, not children of God empowered with agency to act. I think that’s an important question to consider where You know, this, this God gave unto man that he should act for himself. We’re always taught in the scriptures and when it refers to man, it’s talking about mankind, that includes women. And so why would it be that only man is only males are empowered to act and not women,

[00:09:45] not females. And I hope that we can agree that if women can be used this way, just taken and given as commodities, that that. That doesn’t treat them as children of God empowered to act. So I hope you can see what I’m saying. If you have thoughts on that, agree or disagree, let me know. I love discussion. So if you ever disagree with something I said, then I might have something to learn. So please let me know and um help me think more deeply. So. OK, so talking about women as possessions is somewhat problematic because from a broader perspective, it’s a thorny and complicated problem that has been somewhat present throughout human history. So, um, so it makes it a little more complicated to just talk about 132. I want to just talk about that for a minute, the idea of women being treated as possessions because it is a common criticism. That I have seen leveled often by others too, but definitely from some, um, feminists and atheists, and many proponents of various kinds of critical theory that they say that marriage is a relic of the past of, um, you know, of, of from the patriarchal, the patriarchy with women being treated as possessions. And, um, and sometimes traditions like the father giving away the bride or the groom asking permission of the father is used as evidence of that. And I just want to share my perspective on that cause I think that that is definitely an oversimplification and also too cynical to be true. I think that in general throughout history for most of humankind. Marriage has been a partnership. Women and men have needed each other to assume that the average man had some kind of cushy life where, you know, he had a woman as a possession rather than that the two of them worked together to try to survive and to try to keep their children alive. I think, I think that’s a more accurate understanding of it. And so, um. So let’s see, what was it I wanted to say? Oh, so, um, as far as marriage, I think it’s more a partnership and has been throughout time than ownership, particularly where women are free to choose their own, their own spouse. I think that under arranged marriage. As you may have a stronger argument to say that. But also, as far as a father giving away a bride, I don’t see that. I know that that can be seen as transactional by the skeptics or the cynics of marriage, saying that the father is transferring ownership of his daughter to the husband. I don’t see it that way. I see it as a transfer of responsibility. The father who is responsible for protecting and providing his daughter is saying, I am trusting her into your care, so that I will trust you to protect and provide. And now I know that this is still coming from a traditional perspective, from the proclamation on the family. And, um, so if anybody disagrees with that, I apologize. This is my perspective. I also am only talking about traditional marriage between a man and a woman,

[00:12:41] not same-sex marriage. I’m because I’m going from the scriptures and talking about this specific form. I don’t know how or if any of these things apply to same-sex marriage. That’s for somebody else to, to figure out. So acknowledging I am just coming from the traditional. Perspective that is talked about, um, in the scriptures and we’re really delving into Adam and Eve. So that is what I’m going to focus on today. So anyway, I understand this perspective and why people have it. I just wanted to lay out that I don’t think it’s completely fair. I think that women and men are generally partners, not ownership, and I think that that’s what marriage reflects. And maybe it would be better. For the, um, groom to ask permission of both parents and for both parents to give the bride away. I don’t have a problem with that. I, I don’t even have a say we have to do these traditions. I’m just trying to clarify that I think that we shouldn’t just say marriage is just a relic of the patriarchy and of and women have always been considered possessions. I really don’t think that that’s accurate. I think that 132 in many ways. Is worse than what has been throughout time and so because I don’t think women have always been viewed as possessions. I will clarify that women have been dependent on their husbands, um, not having the right to vote and many times and periods not being able to own property, not being empowered. In many different ways. So that is a different subject and one that definitely needs to be looked at. I’m glad that society has come, has come better so that women women could be more independent now, but still, um. Being dependent is very different than being owned. Even when woman was considered dependent, a dependent on her husband, she still couldn’t be bought, sold, traded, given, owned and possessed, right? And so, um, anyway, we’re gonna, we’re gonna go on a little. A little bit more. I just wanted to clarify that. And then, um, also, whatever, let me just say this one last part, whatever the, you know, it has existed in different cultures because I also think different cultures have had, you know, there have been so many different cultures through history that it’s a mistake to just lump them all into one. But whatever there might have been in the past, in 19th century America where the 132 emerged, that was not the culture. Arranged marriages were not considered acceptable. They were not the cultural norm in many locations there were laws forbidding them and laws that are still on the books. And so thankfully, that wasn’t the culture that America had, especially, yeah, there were no arrange there weren’t arranged marriages and so. Often we can take something that seems problematic to us now and look at how, well, it grew out of its culture, right? We have to consider it in the culture that it came from. But that’s actually not the case with 132 because in so many ways it was far worse than the culture it came from because women. In 19th century America weren’t considered property.

[00:15:37] They weren’t right. And so, um, in the 1800s that was not, that was not an acceptable viewpoint, which is why, you know, Protestant America fought so much against what they, what they saw and were appalled by that came from 132, so. OK. We’re going to go on now and look at the scriptural record at the idea of women as possessions. And like Maria in The Sound of Music, we’re going to start at the very beginning, a very good place to start looking at Adam and Eve and the creation. And so Genesis Genesis 2:21, and the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and and he slept, and he took one of the ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, he made a woman, and he brought her unto Adam, unto the man, and Adam said, This is now bones of bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Wherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. OK, I want to get into these scriptures and the story of Adam Eve because I happen to think that there is so much beauty here. And I think that throughout so much of history, it has been terribly, terribly misunderstood. Um, and so we’re gonna talk quite a bit about out of need because that’s where we can really get to the heart of what God established and how God views the relationship between man and woman, right? And so first of all, just really quickly, we, I, I know that I hope that everyone has, you know, researched a little bit about the symboli symbolism of the rib, right? It really does symbolize side to side, that there is an equality there. And, um, also, I just think it’s interesting and beautiful. If you look at the purpose of the rib cage, right? It protects the fight the vital organs, the lungs, and mainly the heart. And the fact that God removed a rib from Adam. In order to create Eve implies to me this, this idea that Adam doesn’t have to be guarded against Eve. Eve has the ability to get right into the heart of Adam. And it just, you know, ideally godly men that what they do, they do because they’re inspired by their wife, right? Their love for their wife encourages them to act and to strive and to sacrifice to provide for their wife and their children because of the love that they have for her. And I think that that’s also a. Beautiful symbolism of the rib cage. Also, right, like if we understand this, Adam was created in the image of God, male and female, and then separated. So it’s not that Adam was supreme and Eve was kind of an afterthought. Not, not at all. I know that Paul teaches some difficult things in the Bible that I think. We shouldn’t cling to it too tightly cause they’re not great, but, but the idea that

[00:18:33] Eve is only a supplement to Adam or Eve is just an appendage of Adam and I think is a big, big mistake to focus on it that way. I don’t like focusing at all on a superiority of either one. But if people want to claim a superiority of Adam, I have a really good response. And, um, like I said, this isn’t my focus. But if you want to look at it that way, you can look at creation that it goes in order of, I guess we could say intelligence. I, I don’t mean IQ. I mean, you know, like we start with rocks, like, like light and dark and then rocks, and then plants and then animals, and then man and then woman. So, you know, if you want to look, if you wanna Argue that we can have an argument about it. I think it’s better to just see Adam and Eve as perfect complementary creation, that one is not complete without the other. And that’s the point it makes, that they shall cleave unto his wife and be one flesh. They were one flesh, they were separated, they become one flesh again. That’s, that’s one way that I like to, that’s the way I like to interpret the creation, not with any superiority. Now, the thing that I really wanted to focus on that I think is important here is that it says, God brought Her unto the man. God brought not gave, and that’s an important distinction. God brought them together. God didn’t give one to the other. There is no implication of ownership here. That’s an important thing to realize. Um, I, I know that after, um, Adam has taken of the fruit and God is saying, what did you do? Um, Adam in the Genesis version says the woman that you gave to be with me. And so that’s a different implication. It’s like, you told us to stay together, and that’s what is implied in Moses as well in the Moses, um, account. In that it says, um, Adam says, the woman you gave to me and commanded that I should stay with her. But I want to point out it was Adam that said that, not God, and it was after having partaken of the fruit. And so, Um, it was only when Adam possibly felt defensive and aware of his own feelings that any even wording or language of any kind of possession entered in. So, um, that’s, that’s important to realize that God never implied any sense of ownership, even if Adam, to some extent mistakenly did. So, um, that’s an important thing that I think we need to pay attention to. OK. Now, let’s talk about the story of Adam and Eve, because one thing I love about the Book of Mormon and the restored Gospel is the way that it restores Eve to, I think her proper status as the mother of all living rather than the cause of all sin, pain and death through her foolishness or hubris, whatever it might be. And so.

[00:21:13] Um, I think that it’s just this story to me is so beautiful. So if we want to claim in any way that woman is a possession, looking at Eve shows us that is not true because Eve was empowered to act, to lead out. It was her still imperfect, yet very. Very inspired wisdom and foresight that enabled her to see the wisdom of what this earth was created for and to step into that. And Adam, in such love and humility, was willing to follow her lead. I love this story because It’s, it’s like how we talked about how Abraham and Jacob were never guilty in any degree of unrighteous dominion. Adam is the same way. He saw the wisdom of what his wife was had done. He knew that they were to stay together. He was able to see that this was what must be. This was the perfect purpose of the entire creation. So he was willing to sacrifice to follow Eve’s lead, and that’s a beautiful, beautiful thing and shows us the relationship between them and what God established and why they both needed to be there and both needed to be partners. This viewpoint. We have of the fall and of Adam and Eve as partners is, it’s taught well continuing Lehi’s teaching in 2 Nephi 2, verse 22. And now behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but would have remained in the Garden of Eden, and all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created, and they must have remained forever and had no end. And they would have had no children. Wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery, doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of Him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy, and the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time. That he may redeem the children of men from the fall, and it goes on from there to discuss why this is so important and the central importance of agency and how that was given to us through this beautiful plan. And this really is just one of my favorite elements of LDS doctrine and of the book of the Book of Mormon is I love our understanding of the wisdom of Eve and of Adam and the. Four ordained divine reciprocity between the fall and the atonement that both were needed and both were necessary. They were symbiotic. They went together and um I, I, I just love that seeing Eve as the inspired mother of all living is. Is a beautiful thing and so also I just wanna talk about this quickly because we’re talking about how God views women and this understanding this helped me to see better how God I think views women and how mothers well parents but in some ways women in particular are. Partners with Christ and His work of the atonement. I, why, why it is that birth is Christ’s chosen metaphor for his work of salvation. I think it’s, it’s profound that nobody can be born again unless they are first born. And it’s, it’s really a beautiful thing. Not, you know, I know that there are also the criticisms of that woman’s only purposes as Mothers, I don’t, I don’t think that that first of all, is a diminishment, and I also don’t think it’s true. I think it is symbolically profound what men and women both bring to this world. So, um,

[00:24:45] but moving on, another thing I think is deeply misunderstood about Eve, which is extremely important to our topic, is the idea that God cursed her. And that God did so as a punishment for her actions, and that God wants her to remain cursed. So we’re gonna talk about this because I think that is completely wrong. So let’s see. Genesis, um, is it 3? I think it’s 3 verse 16. I didn’t write it down, so I’m just trying to remember. Unto the woman, he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow, thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. OK, we’re gonna get into all of these things because it’s critical to understand them. First of all, the thing I think we have to understand is the these are warnings, not cursings. If you read the language, and, um, Moses 4:22 is another account of this, and it’s almost exactly the same. Um, never anywhere is the word cursed used in any way regarding Eve. God does curse the serpent, and God curses the earth for Adam’s sake, but there is no implication of cursing anywhere, dealing with Eve. God is lovingly preparing Adam and Eve for the realities of the following fallen world they are about to encounter. He is teaching them about The conditions of the fall. And, um, it’s so interesting because when polygamists, when, when anyone who wants to kind of support the subservience of women, but polygamists are the ones I most often have encountered are those who support polygamy, when they have quoted this, it just strikes me as so odd that they don’t seem to realize that these are temporal conditions of a fallen world that will be not continued into Heaven or exaltation or paradise in any way, right? Like they never think that in Adam’s in in paradise or in exaltation that Adam will be fighting against thorns and thistles and working by the sweat of his brow, right? And, and they don’t think that death and pain and sin will be conditions of that existence. And yet for Eve, they assume that she will always be Uh, you know, that these, that these things that God tells Eve are eternal, are part of her exalted state and and existence. I cannot make sense of that at all. When we realize, when you really look at it and think, OK, these are for this fallen world, it should tell us quite a bit about the eternal nature and destiny of man and woman, because those cursings will not exist. We will all be reversed. And I think the more that we can do to make them not exist in our world, the better off we are, right? We are trying to elevate to a, to a better state than just the temporal fallen world. So that’s the first thing that I think is really important to understand. And then,

[00:27:48] let’s look at the specifics of each part of the warnings that God gives to Eve. Um, because they are sadly still some still used sometimes to justify things that I I don’t think should ever be justified. So first is, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow, thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. OK, sorry, that was all of it. So now we’re going to break it down, but I guess I read it all again cause I first wanted to point out that even in these warnings, nowhere is it implied in any way that there is ownership or possession. God doesn’t ever say you will belong. To the man or man will have possession of you. So we’ve already discussed the critical difference between being brought, being versus being given. So even when people misunderstand these, there’s still no excuse to imply any kind of male ownership of, of woman. It’s, it just doesn’t hold it all. So, with that aside, now we’re gonna get into the specifics. So the first part of it is, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow, thou shalt bring forth children. So, This has been badly misunderstood throughout much of history. Too often this curse, they’re not curses, they’re warnings, but too often this has been equated with the pain of childbirth. Even at times, if you, if you get into studying birth, as I have done, you can read many sermons that have been given throughout time. Um, in early America, there were a lot of them of the preachers talking about how God wants childbirth to be painful. There are just some horrible quotes, and they even use this as justification sometimes to make childbirth as awful as possible, which is just, these have been, these are horrible ideas that have been horribly applied. So, I want to talk about what, you know, of course I have all wisdom. I’m not saying that. I’m sorry. I’m just sharing my perspective as I really dug on into these. And I think that most experienced mothers in particular will understand what I’m saying. I think that it is a massive misunderstanding to think that this is primarily talking about the difficulty and pain of pregnancy and childbirth. I think what God is warning Eva, and what I actually think the difficulty of pregnancy and childbirth is designed to warn women of is that Being a mother in a fallen world can be very hard, right? I think that Eve, God was not, Eve was not the, the, the pain of motherhood in a fallen world was not about Eve giving birth to Cain and Abel. It was about her losing Cain and Abel, one because he was murdered and one because he was the murderer, right? It wasn’t, it wasn’t the sorrow for Mary wasn’t giving birth to Jesus. It was watching him be beaten and tortured and crucified. Um, I think that no physical pain a woman ever could endure can compare with the pain she can watch, watching her children grow and experience this fallen world. God is not cursing woman. He is not causing her suffering. God is lovingly and compassionately warning woman that bringing forth children in a fallen world would sometimes break her heart. That is something that I think many mothers can relate to. So that’s the first piece of it.

[00:31:18] And also, you know, I just love that Eve, while her. In the Garden of Eden, her wisdom was imperfect. Primortally, she, and I think she represents all of us. All of us knew what we were here for, what we were coming to do. We’re all strong enough to do it and to take it because we are like Eve. We are representations of her. She’s a representation of us. So anyway, I think it’s good to see how much God loves us and how much God cares and how much God understands. Um, the next part is, and thy desire shall be to thy husband. Again, here I believe God is warning women that in a fallen world, especially as mothers, they will be dependent on men. I know we already talked about the history of women’s dependence on men. And, um, you know, we’ve done a lot to make this, to make women more independent, which in many ways is good. But the fact is, I don’t think we’ll ever get completely away with this, away from Woman’s need to rely on man, um, when we really are facing facing a fallen world, like when there’s danger. I want, I want to go take care of the children and I want my husband to figure out what that noise was to take care of that, right? And the fact still remains that if a husband and father doesn’t live up to his obligations and responsibilities, his wife and his children suffer. So that is the conditions that we are in, in this world that God was trying to tell us would be the case. And the last part of the warning, he shall rule over thee. Again, too many men and women throughout history have taken this warning to mean that God wants men to rule over women. That could not be further from the truth. This again is being given as a warning of the painful conditions of the fall. That woman, that man is bigger and stronger and can do a lot of things to hurt woman and to dominate her and to be domineering and that throughout history this would be the course of history which we can see has too often been the case. It does not mean that that’s what God wants or that that’s what God justifies. It’s a warning to, it’s a warning to Eve of unrighteous dominion, and I think one of Another thing I love about our gospel, one of my favorite sections of doctrine and Covenants is section 121, which teaches us what God does want and what God does expect from righteous men. Ah, so starting in verse 34, behold, there are many called but few are chosen, and why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world and aspire to the honors of men that they do not learn this one lesson, that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins or to gratify our pride or vain ambition or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men. In any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves. The spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience this scripture like. Ah,

[00:34:47] we have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men. As soon as they get a little authority as they pose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence, many are called but few are chosen. No. Power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile. What I, what amazes me is how these have been included in our doctrine and covenants since before polygamy, and yet they were just ignored. I can’t understand that. I can’t understand how anyone can think that. Section 121 and Section 132 can coexist in harmony. They are just so contrary to one another and One of them, the spirit is just overwhelming. It’s so beautiful, and the other one is not. So anyway, focusing back on section 121, the very best way to lose your calling and fail to be chosen is to exert authority over another. And I think this most directly applies to husbands and wives. I, I think it’s really important to consider every amount of pain. That is endured through unrighteous dominion is pain that the savior has to include in the atonement that so it just doesn’t make sense and OK, so the proof of this also that this is God’s perspective, that opposition to unrighteous dominion, not a desire for man to rule over woman, is also seen in the, it’s it’s, it’s proven in the lives of the greatest men in scripture. As we’ve talked about, they all exemplified the exact opposite of any form of unrighteous dominion in their marriages and their relationships with women, with women. Adam deferred to Eve, and never in the story between them did he ever dominate her in any way. Abraham and Jacob, they were not condemned for their polygamy. I strongly believe because they never dominated any of their wives. They were never guilty of unrighteous dominion, and the same is true of Jesus. In Jesus’s relationships with women, he was so loving and careful and gentle, and I can’t find any example of where he asserted authority over a woman in any way. Jesus, like his most faithful faithful servants throughout the scriptures, did his best to hearken to women. He did his best to serve them based on their needs and desires and requests, and we’ll get into this a little bit more. On the in the next episode. But now I want to transition and look at LDS scripture and tradition. It’s interesting to me that never in LDS tradition was there the, we just haven’t had the tradition of walking the bride down the aisle and giving her away. That’s interesting to me. Um. Let’s see, it’s, it’s not part of the temple now. It wasn’t part of the original, um, marriage ceremony that was given in Section 101 of the 1835 Doctrine of Covenants. We’ll go ahead and read that again because I do think it’s interesting to read again. So this is what it says, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right and the woman on the left, and shortening a little, and the person officiating shall say, calling each by name. You both mutually agree to each other’s to Be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition, that is keeping yourselves holy for each other and from all others during your lives.

[00:38:26] And when they have answered yes, it’s interesting to me that we kept that part, the, the yes, we kept that. I find that interesting. He shall pronounce them husband and wife in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then say, may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen. Again, the equality in this original wedding ceremony just gets me every time. This is what we had before Section 132. This is the pre-section 132 ceremony, and I love it, and it makes me honestly sad that Section 132 had so much influence on subsequent temple endowment and ceiling ceremonies. I am thankful. That they are continuing to be changed, especially recently, to just continue to purge the bad ideas from Section 132 and better reflect the equality present from the creation of man and demonstrated in the original LDS wedding ceremony and demonstrated by. God’s profits throughout time. It is, it’s hard that the bad ideas have been so deeply ingrained and that their removal has been so gradual and bit by bit. But at least they are continuing to be expelled. That actually gives me great hope. I think it’s a very, very good thing. So, but seeing how different, how LDS, um, tradition didn’t have the bride being walked down the. and given away. It made me curious about that tradition when that came to America, where it was from, like, did, was it part of American culture and the Mormons went away from it? Or did it come at a different time? And anyway, I haven’t yet studied that as much as I want to. So if anybody has any resources, resources or suggestions of where I can learn more about the traditions of marriage, I would be very interested because I think it’s very interesting. But I also want to, um, talk about These, how we’re, how things are being changed now and I think improved and corrected from the mistakes of 132 that had too much influence. I think these changes are also much more in line with restored scripture, with the Book of Mormon. So again, I welcome your input if I have missed any. Anything. But I haven’t yet found anything in the Book of Mormon that treats women as possessions or implies that that’s God’s perspective or that God is OK with that. So let me know if I’ve missed something, because I haven’t done a, you know, I haven’t read the entire Book of Mormon just looking for this one thing. But I’ve done quite a bit, and I haven’t found anything. So, while I acknowledge that women are drastically underrepresented in the Book of Mormon, and I have my thoughts about why that might be, which we may go into in the future. Um, so while few too few. of their stories are told, women in the Book of Mormon are pretty universally honored, respected, and treated as equals. And where they are not, for example, Kings Noah’s priests or the other polygamists in the Book of Mormon, the men are strongly condemned. So I want to go through just a few of the examples that I thought of and go ahead and share any others.

[00:41:42] So first in First Nephi 5. When, uh, I’m sorry, I love Soraya. I’ve, I’ve given some presentations on her and I just, I love her story, but when Soraya, who is filled with faith, finally breaks under the pain of losing her sons on top of everything else that she has lost. Lehi’s reaction is important. Le Lehi mourned with her and very kindly and gently offered comfort the best that he could. He didn’t rebuke her. She was so angry at him, but he didn’t return with anger. He just returned love and understanding and compassion and sorrow for her suffering. He seems to me to be a man similar to Abraham. That’s how Abraham reacted out of love with Sarah. With, with, um, with both of them with Sarah, all of a sudden I got the name confused because Sarah and Soraya, but both of them met their wives pain with meekness, compassion and understanding, and with such love and comfort. I think that’s a beautiful way that starts out the Book of Mormon teaching us about women. And then even layman and Lemuel cared deeply about the experience and suffering of their wives. Um, First Nephi 17:20, and we have wandered in the wilderness for these many years, and our women have toiled being big with child, and they have borne children in the wilderness and suffered all things save it were death. And it would have been better that they had died before they came out of Jerusalem than to have suffered these afflictions. So even in their murmuring, one of their main complaints about against Nephi and against Lehi is what they’ve had to watch their wives go through, and I find that so fascinating because as we go forward in the Book of Mormon. The Lamanites love their wives. We’re told that again and again. So for all of Layman and Lemu’s failings and shortcomings, they loved their wives. They cared about their wives and they taught that to their children. I think that’s a beautiful thing. Um, moving forward, I’m sorry, I don’t know why I’m so emotional about this. I just think it matters so much. Um, the queen, the queen of King Limona, Queen Limona, is that what we should call her? Um, she is inspired and filled with faith. This is Alma 1910, and Ammon said unto her, Blessed art thou because of thy exceeding faith. I say unto thee, woman, there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites. Um, Aish, her servant, was empowered to spread the word and to be listened to. She has given high praise as a powerful missionary and woman of God. Um, the Lamanites, this is interesting that so much of this is from layman and Lamu and their, their descendants. The Lamanites spared the lives of the Nephite men who quote tarried with their wives and their children. This is, um, under King under King Noah when the Lamanites are coming to destroy the people and King Noah told them all to leave their wives and their children. And the ones that stayed with their children, the Lamanites didn’t kill them. They, they spared them and their families for this, they spared those families for the sake of their fair daughters who stood forth and pled with the Lamanites that they would not slay them. There was so much honor and respect to women that it even caused them to stop. Their

[00:44:58] act of destruction, um, going forward, Amulek is overcome by the suffering of the women and children and Aminaha. A lot of focus is given to that. King Limha, he gives such great care to see that the widows and their children were cared for after all of the men had been. Killed in in multiple wars. And he did that without requiring them to become plural wives. Captain Moroni’s title of liberty elevated women along with God, religion, freedom and peace as precious and sacred and worth sacrificing and fighting to protect. And then at the end of the Book of Mormon, the worst atrocities in the final stages of destruction were the evil things that the men did to women. It goes into. Like that’s, that’s how it makes it tells us the level of evil is how they treated and abused and tortured the women. And so, uh, there are so many more examples, but throughout the entire book of Mormon, women are valued and respected, and so much care is given to their feelings and their experiences and their hearts, their hearts are protected in the Book of Mormon. And of course, you know, the capstone of all of it in some ways, the sermon of Jacob. So let’s again read Jacob 2 verses 31-32. For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem. Yeah, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, sayeth the Lord of hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem. Shall come up unto me against the men of my people, sayeth the Lord of hosts, skipping the 35. Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives and lost the confidence of your children because of your bad examples before them, and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you, and it goes on from there. So throughout the Book of Mormon it is clear that God and righteous men care deeply about the feelings and experiences of women, and this cannot be reconciled with Section 132’s treatment of women as possessions with. They’re they’re considered as having no thoughts, no feelings, no, no opinions, no desires, they’re just taken, given, used in whatever way men see fit to reward men. It, they can’t, they can’t go together, they can’t both be true. The Book of Mormon makes it crystal clear I’m repeating myself, but that nowhere are women treated as commodities. Nowhere are their feelings or experiences ignored, minimized, or considered irrelevant or unimportant, which is exactly the opposite of 132 and is exactly like the teachings of polygamy, teaching women to keep sweet, teaching them that their feelings, their desires, their needs are just temptations and sins to be overcome. Right, like those don’t belong together. They’re not both true. So to sum up what what we’ve covered so far, on the one hand, we have God, the God we know who created Adam and Eve in perfect equality,

[00:48:15] who inspired the Book of Mormon with it with its universal care for women, who we as women each experience with such infinite love, wisdom, goodness, and care. Is it possible that this God is also the author of these parts of section 132, where women are seen as nothing more than property, as we said, to be given, taken, received, possessed. Ah, or destroyed as we’ll get into next time without thought or care or even acknowledgment of their thoughts, feelings, and desires. I think that as we investigate this, we should see that there really is no room for doubt that in God’s eyes women who like men were made in the image of God. And endowed with agency and power and feelings that women are people and not property and to ever discuss, view, think about or treat women as property is contrary to the creation of God and to God’s intention and plan. And so, OK, so that’s what we’ve gone over so far. For those who don’t want to get deep now into get deeper into difficult church history, this might be a good place to stop because we’ve covered the main meat of the topic, um, but I wanted to go in a little bit to kind of see the implications of what happens when women are viewed as property. But this can be a little bit harder and more controversial. So, um, so there you go, fair warning. It’s not the end of the world, but there you go. Um, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems of viewing women as possessions, things to be given as rewards or symbols of righteousness and glory. Is that it turns women into status symbols, which I believe the adversary loves. David’s and Solomon’s wives and concubines were listed along with the rest of their wealth to prove what great and glorious and wealthy kings they were. Sadly, Brigham Young also fell into this perspective. So I’m going to read just a few excerpts of his sermon when Thomas Thomas B. Marsh returned. It’s a little bit troubling. This is found in Journal of Discourses 5, page 210, and of course all of, all of the resources will be linked in the notes below. But here are some things, here are some of the things that Britney Yang said. Brother Thomas considers himself very aged and infirm, firm, and you can see that he is brethren and sisters. What is the cause of it? He left the gospel of salvation. What do you think the difference is between his age and mine? 1 year and 7 months to a day, and he is 1 year 7 months and 14 days older than. And He brother Hebrew C. Kimball, he also says, when Brother Thomas thought of returning to the church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not, for I doubt whether he could get one wife. Why it should have troubled an an infirm old man like him is not for me to say. He, um, another spot, he has told you that I, that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young, for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men. Brigham Young was 56 at the time and so just. How this perspective of woman being allowed and supported in the culture,

[00:51:33] what that does and how that manifests itself can be really negative. We have a man who, because of his position had more wealth and power and prestige than anybody else, so he’s bragging that he could get more young girls than any of the young men could, which was probably true and which is really unfortunate. Um, here’s another troubling statement from a few years later. This is Brigham Young. He says, Brother Canyon remarked that people have wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the millions and glory and riches and power and dominion and kingdom after kingdom and reign triumphantly again. That was right after he had said, and let me tell you that you will see the day when you will wish that you were Mormon elders. By and by elders of Israel will have gold and silver for plates, cups, saucers, etc. And when we have adorned and furnished our houses, we will have gold and silver to pave our streets, and the enemies will be in hell, unable to rise a decent fiddler, unable to raise a decent fiddler there or any liquor, for it will all burn up. I, it was funny. The liquor will burn up in hell, and every decent fiddler will go into a decent kingdom. We will have them. We are going to have the kingdom of God and the fullness thereof and all the heights and depths and glory, power, and knowledge. Man, reading some of these, when the Book of Mormon warns us of pride, I think that we should take, pay attention, right? Is that the gospel we were given? And is that what God, how God wants us to perceive it? It’s, it’s challenging because it’s saying we will have everything and women are included in that. I will have all of the women and. Oh, it’s just really troubling because, you know, what will the women have if you’re even in that arrogant, very prideful perspective, you’re not seeing women as people. So some, what I’m gonna say now, some may disagree or think it is too harsh or unfair, but honestly, it’s hard for me to see how the idea of viewing women as status symbols then was all that different from the status culture of today and throughout time. It’s been this way throughout time. Old men with wealth and power viewing women as symbols to show their superiority. I’m sorry if this is offensive. I agree that it’s gross and it’s not exactly the same. I think it is. I think it is good to that most of us view this with utter abhorrence when it happens today. And yes, there are certainly differences between today’s culture and the religion and the religious cultures of the past. But I don’t think viewing women as symbols of status, either with David and Solomon, or with Brigham Young, or with whatever other men throughout the culture has ever been acceptable to God. I think it is all abhorrent. So, um, some who oppose polygamy think that polygamy was mainly about lust. But I disagree. Obviously, it was very complex and saying it was about any one thing is an oversimplification, but I think with all of its complexity, it was mainly about status for a few men at the very top. Just as it is today, when you feel chosen and then gain a follow and then have a following and some degree of wealth and power, it becomes easier for temptation to enter in and whisper that you shouldn’t be limited to one wife. That, you know, you, you aren’t limited by these other things.

[00:55:06] You shouldn’t need to be limited to that, and it can get in in all different kinds of ways. And sadly, this is not all that uncommon. The commandments, when the commandments, when that happens, that the commandments become an obstacle that you need to work through either by or by ignoring or rejecting them as the men I just showed you have done, or by twisting them, as I believe unfortunately early church leaders did. It started secretly with the church elites, whichever, which um whichever version you believe of how this started, it did start secretly with church elites. And then when it was brought out publicly, it was inflicted on the rest of the church, and putting it in religious terms, made Having one more than one wife morally acceptable and even superior. And so they preached it to the other men and forced men of middle status into it, which was a hardship more than a blessing for many of them. For the very elite men, it was part of their glory and status, and it became that for all men, but it was, it was a hardship for many men as well. And for the women, just as Jacob warned. The women bore the brunt of it. And, um, when women are viewed as possessions instead of as people, bad things happen. It leads to bad places, and it unfortunately exists today, but at least among godly men, it is less likely to exist today than it was in early church history. And I’m so thankful for that, so thankful that it is continuing to be cleansed from the temple. Polygamy theology, it took the use of women as status symbols to an entirely new level where it would extend beyond this world into the realms of eternal glory. So it takes women as possessions so far that it doesn’t even recognize that, you know, in heaven women will never be viewed as possessions or status symbols, and yet polygamy allowed people to think that. That’s just so strange. So I think it’s important for us to all recognize and acknowledge that this attitude as seeing women as possessions instead of as people was never inspired by God. It is not representative of the heart, mind, or will or truth of God. Quite the opposite, and I hope that as we all strive to continue to come to know God, we will see more and more clearly how God views, loves, values, and cares about women as people, not as property. Thank you so much. for sticking with me today. Next time will also be a difficult one in these difficult chapters, but in these difficult verses, but I’m looking forward to it because I think that these topics are so important. So again, thank you for joining me on my investigation. My name is Michelle Stone, and I will see you next time.