Tuesday, December 16, 2008
She wrote such a huge book, stuffed with facts, loaded with opinions, and drenched in detail. Why?
Well, let me show you what she said in the beginning of her book:
"I have taken the liberty of describing your* characters and situations. I was not prompted by the slightest animosity toward you, but because the public are interested in you, and curious concerning you, and I felt that I could give to the world a true story of your lives, and, at the same time, do you justice, and let you be seen as you are in my eyes, which are not dimmed by prejudice. I was driven to the course I am pursuing by sheer desperation, as some of you, with whom I have exchanged confidences, well know."
*(your, you, etc.) The wives of Brigham Young
From this passage, she tells us her motive for writing this book was for the education of the public and the eye-opening of polygamous wives about which she said, "I look upon your lives with pity." However, because of some of the sarcastic rants she runs away on in her book, I believe that her intent was not solely "for the people."
A.E. Young explains the aspects of Mormonism and how they relate to her much like a very miffed person would explain a situation when you ask them, "What's wrong?" No doubt there is bias in her explanation, as there would be in any argument, so in some parts it can't be seen as a very fair depiction of Mormonism for "the public." However, I think this is a good thing, not only by giving us a strong point of view, but for her conscious as well. I beieve she started out writing this book in the interest of the non-Mormon public and on the behalf of the Mormon women still enslaved in polygamy, but it eventually evolved into an outlet for years of repressed anger, hate, depression, and regret. I think of it as a therapy of sorts for a socially appropriate lady who had a solid education, quick wit, and a sharp tongue that she couldn't use in public, but was able to hide in a book for the unsuspecting reader to encounter.
I will admit, she makes a slight reference to this "therapy" in her explanation of why she wrote the book, and how she did it out of "sheer desperation." But, as she clearly states in the same line, only those "with whom [she] exchanged confidences" truly knew of her deep despair. While I believe she exposed much of her hurt and heartbreak in this book, I think she carried her most troubling trials and burdens to her grave.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
"Marrying Pa"
Posted by rjhmoore at 4:56 PM 0 comments
A.E. Young has added yet another disturbing fact to her tale. Apparently it eventually became the common custom for a man to marry his wife and then marry his daughter(s) once they became of age. A.E. talks about two schoolmates of hers and how they discussed their future relationship with their father. She says, "The little girls knew of the arrangement, and used to talk very openly of 'marrying Pa,' and in very much the same way they would speak of their intention to take tea with a friend." I must say this: disgusting. Of all the things, what could have possibly led these people to believe that incest was a divine practice?
These are my thoughts broken down and organized so that someone besides myself can understand them. First I think, those poor girls. I imagine marrying my dad and I shudder. It is just so wrong and unnatural. To see that they approached it openly and casually makes me wonder what was said to them to make them believe this was an okay, even good, thing. What could someone say to me to make me think that marrying my dad was the right thing to do? I cannot possibly imagine anything could make me think that because of the age I am and the knowledge that I've come to possess. However, perhaps because the girls were so "little," they were more impressionable, and therefore grew up believing that this was a societal norm.
Second, I think, what do the parents of these children think about doing this their offspring? Offspring are simply that; they do not double as spouses. A.E. Young tells us that many men and women married with the sole goal of eventually sealing all their daughters to the husband so that he would have plenty of wives in heaven. How did this prospect settle in young couples' minds? Imagine being a wife and having a daughter knowing that someday she would have to lay with your husband just as he lays with you. Imagine being a husband know that your daughter will be the mother of your grandchildren/children or whatever title on the family tree those kids are given. It is unbelievably sick. How were these parents and daughters at peace with this arrangement?
I have been surprised by many of the things that the early Mormons did, but this shocked me. I'm baffled by what pain these incestuous acts surely caused.
A.E. Young has added yet another disturbing fact to her tale. Apparently it eventually became the common custom for a man to marry his wife and then marry his daughter(s) once they became of age. A.E. talks about two schoolmates of hers and how they discussed their future relationship with their father. She says, "The little girls knew of the arrangement, and used to talk very openly of 'marrying Pa,' and in very much the same way they would speak of their intention to take tea with a friend." I must say this: disgusting. Of all the things, what could have possibly led these people to believe that incest was a divine practice?
These are my thoughts broken down and organized so that someone besides myself can understand them. First I think, those poor girls. I imagine marrying my dad and I shudder. It is just so wrong and unnatural. To see that they approached it openly and casually makes me wonder what was said to them to make them believe this was an okay, even good, thing. What could someone say to me to make me think that marrying my dad was the right thing to do? I cannot possibly imagine anything could make me think that because of the age I am and the knowledge that I've come to possess. However, perhaps because the girls were so "little," they were more impressionable, and therefore grew up believing that this was a societal norm.
Second, I think, what do the parents of these children think about doing this their offspring? Offspring are simply that; they do not double as spouses. A.E. Young tells us that many men and women married with the sole goal of eventually sealing all their daughters to the husband so that he would have plenty of wives in heaven. How did this prospect settle in young couples' minds? Imagine being a wife and having a daughter knowing that someday she would have to lay with your husband just as he lays with you. Imagine being a husband know that your daughter will be the mother of your grandchildren/children or whatever title on the family tree those kids are given. It is unbelievably sick. How were these parents and daughters at peace with this arrangement?
I have been surprised by many of the things that the early Mormons did, but this shocked me. I'm baffled by what pain these incestuous acts surely caused.
Sent on a Mission... "Thus Saith the Lord."
Posted by rjhmoore at 2:55 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
As it turns out, Brigham Young had a nasty little habit for doing things that only benefited his well-being and perhaps, if he's lucky, that of the Church's too. As leader of all of these people, the Mormons, he was expected to be intelligent, wise, and profitable. Not only did he have to fulfill these titles, but he had to be the best at them. So when a person or two came along with a promising future as a rising star, he "put a stop to their growing prosperity," (Young). A.E. Young, the wonderful spiller of truths, tells us, "His usual method of doing this [was] by sending them on a mission." That doesn't sound to bad you say. Listen as A.E. Young tells you a story of two men who were treated to such a "mission."
"For a number of years, two men -- named Badley and Hugh Moon -- worked a whiskey distillery in Salt Lake City, and appeared to be becoming rapidly wealthy. They were good Mormons, staunch defenders of Brigham Young, ready in every good work with open purses and generous deeds, and they were highly respected by the entire body of Saints.
What was the consternation of the Church, when, during the delivery of a temperance sermon on Sunday, the President, waxing more personal, more eloquent, and consequently more abusive, "cursed, in the name of the Lord," the men that ran the distillery!
They knew very well that these men paid their tithing promptly, -- the greatest virtue a Mormon can possess, by the way, -- and that they were foremost in all charitable works, and they marvelled very much that the Prophet should deal so hardly with them. His language was so abusive that Badley, who was especially attached to the President Young, shed tears during the denunciation. He finally finished his anathemas by ordering them to take their families and go on a mission to an unsettled portion of the Territory, leaving their homes to "the Church," which, of course, meant Brigham Young.
As soon as they had gone, the Prophet removed the apparatus for distilling a few miles from the city, and commenced making whiskey for the Church. But, unfortunately, the Church whiskey did not prove to be so good as that made by Moon and Badley, and the Church distillery was short-lived.
The men who were thus heartlessly ruined and unjustly exiled never returned. Their homes were broken up, their property taken from them, and themselves and their families banished to the wilderness, to gratify the covetousness and grasping of an avaricious tyrant, who committed this outrage, as he had all others, with a 'Thus saith the Lord.' "
Not such a harmless mission after all. The men and their families weren't even allowed to return; they were banished. This passage just got me thinking, what if the circumstances were the same today? You're sent on a mission trip, by your church, out to Kenya. After the work you've done is completed, your pastor says, "Well, you can do more, in the name of the Lord." So you do, but the pastor keeps telling you to do more and just stay over there. Essentially, he won't let you come home. If you did come home somehow, you'd find that all of you stuff is gone, your house has been torn down, and your property has been sold. What would that be like? It's hard to imagine, but I have a feeling, it must be similar to what victims of natural disasters feel when they return home after escaping a storm, only to find that a few boards and a couple of windows are all that remain of their past life.
Is being banished by a storm just another way of being banished by "God" (or in this case Brigham Young)?
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
As it turns out, Brigham Young had a nasty little habit for doing things that only benefited his well-being and perhaps, if he's lucky, that of the Church's too. As leader of all of these people, the Mormons, he was expected to be intelligent, wise, and profitable. Not only did he have to fulfill these titles, but he had to be the best at them. So when a person or two came along with a promising future as a rising star, he "put a stop to their growing prosperity," (Young). A.E. Young, the wonderful spiller of truths, tells us, "His usual method of doing this [was] by sending them on a mission." That doesn't sound to bad you say. Listen as A.E. Young tells you a story of two men who were treated to such a "mission."
"For a number of years, two men -- named Badley and Hugh Moon -- worked a whiskey distillery in Salt Lake City, and appeared to be becoming rapidly wealthy. They were good Mormons, staunch defenders of Brigham Young, ready in every good work with open purses and generous deeds, and they were highly respected by the entire body of Saints.
What was the consternation of the Church, when, during the delivery of a temperance sermon on Sunday, the President, waxing more personal, more eloquent, and consequently more abusive, "cursed, in the name of the Lord," the men that ran the distillery!
They knew very well that these men paid their tithing promptly, -- the greatest virtue a Mormon can possess, by the way, -- and that they were foremost in all charitable works, and they marvelled very much that the Prophet should deal so hardly with them. His language was so abusive that Badley, who was especially attached to the President Young, shed tears during the denunciation. He finally finished his anathemas by ordering them to take their families and go on a mission to an unsettled portion of the Territory, leaving their homes to "the Church," which, of course, meant Brigham Young.
As soon as they had gone, the Prophet removed the apparatus for distilling a few miles from the city, and commenced making whiskey for the Church. But, unfortunately, the Church whiskey did not prove to be so good as that made by Moon and Badley, and the Church distillery was short-lived.
The men who were thus heartlessly ruined and unjustly exiled never returned. Their homes were broken up, their property taken from them, and themselves and their families banished to the wilderness, to gratify the covetousness and grasping of an avaricious tyrant, who committed this outrage, as he had all others, with a 'Thus saith the Lord.' "
Not such a harmless mission after all. The men and their families weren't even allowed to return; they were banished. This passage just got me thinking, what if the circumstances were the same today? You're sent on a mission trip, by your church, out to Kenya. After the work you've done is completed, your pastor says, "Well, you can do more, in the name of the Lord." So you do, but the pastor keeps telling you to do more and just stay over there. Essentially, he won't let you come home. If you did come home somehow, you'd find that all of you stuff is gone, your house has been torn down, and your property has been sold. What would that be like? It's hard to imagine, but I have a feeling, it must be similar to what victims of natural disasters feel when they return home after escaping a storm, only to find that a few boards and a couple of windows are all that remain of their past life.
Is being banished by a storm just another way of being banished by "God" (or in this case Brigham Young)?
Vocab. 7 W.N. 19
Posted by rjhmoore at 6:17 PM 1 comments
You know the drill:
* Benighted - intellectually or morally ignorant; unenlightened; overtaken by darkness
* Pastorate - the office or term of office of a pastor; a body of pastors
* Scion - a descendant or heir
* Inebriety - drunkenness; intoxication
* Mulcted - to be penalized by fining or demanding forfeiture; to defraud or swindle
* Retrench - to cut down, reduce, or diminish; to cut off or remove
* Mite - a very small contribution or amount of money
* Avaricious - greedy; covetous
Use often!
You know the drill:
* Benighted - intellectually or morally ignorant; unenlightened; overtaken by darkness
* Pastorate - the office or term of office of a pastor; a body of pastors
* Scion - a descendant or heir
* Inebriety - drunkenness; intoxication
* Mulcted - to be penalized by fining or demanding forfeiture; to defraud or swindle
* Retrench - to cut down, reduce, or diminish; to cut off or remove
* Mite - a very small contribution or amount of money
* Avaricious - greedy; covetous
Use often!
An Amusing Story...
Posted by rjhmoore at 6:04 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Well, see for yourself:
"A very amusing story was told me of Brigham, by a lady who vouches for its truth; and although I cannot, of course, corroborate it, I am quite ready to give it credence enough to publish it. Brigham met a lady in the streets of Salt Lake City, several years since, who recognized him, and addressed him as Brother Young, greeting him quite cordially. He scrutinized her closely, with a puzzled expression.
"I know I have seen you somewhere," he said; "your face is very familiar, but I cannot recall you."
"You are right," replied she; "you have most certainly seen me before; I was married to you ten years ago. I have never seen you since," she continued, " but my memory is more retentive than yours, for I knew you the moment I saw you."
I give this to you to show how ridiculous this whole (and I have no other word for it) thing was and in some cases, still is. A.E Young gives us this "amusing" story to show us how not amusing it is. I have found A.E. Young to be a very sarcastic person, partly because of her anger and her pity that these people actually believe this stuff and believe in a man so corrupted and selfish, from her point of view. This "amusing story" is completely sarcastic. We are not meant to read it and go, "Ha, ha! So funny! He had a wife he didn't even care about enough to remember over the last ten years! I wonder how many other wives he's left in the gutter! Ha, ha!" No, the story is true as far as we know, but the fact that it is an amusing story it utterly false.
It really makes you question the validity of the Mormon Church. How could something so helpful and good today come from something that in the past was so degraded and spiteful? It's no wonder so many people walk away from and slam doors on Mormon missionaries. It's not that they don't respect what they believe in, it's just that it's too difficult to listen to somebody who wholly believes in something so preposterous-sounding and something that could be completely untrue.
The fact that Brigham Young had this encounter with this woman on the street and, from what it sounds like, didn't even turn a hair really bothers me. What do these people see in this Church and this religion that makes them so attached and faithful?
"If [Mormonism is] false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true." - Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the Mormon Church
Mull over this, and I challenge you to give me at least a comment on your thoughts.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Well, see for yourself:
"A very amusing story was told me of Brigham, by a lady who vouches for its truth; and although I cannot, of course, corroborate it, I am quite ready to give it credence enough to publish it. Brigham met a lady in the streets of Salt Lake City, several years since, who recognized him, and addressed him as Brother Young, greeting him quite cordially. He scrutinized her closely, with a puzzled expression.
"I know I have seen you somewhere," he said; "your face is very familiar, but I cannot recall you."
"You are right," replied she; "you have most certainly seen me before; I was married to you ten years ago. I have never seen you since," she continued, " but my memory is more retentive than yours, for I knew you the moment I saw you."
I give this to you to show how ridiculous this whole (and I have no other word for it) thing was and in some cases, still is. A.E Young gives us this "amusing" story to show us how not amusing it is. I have found A.E. Young to be a very sarcastic person, partly because of her anger and her pity that these people actually believe this stuff and believe in a man so corrupted and selfish, from her point of view. This "amusing story" is completely sarcastic. We are not meant to read it and go, "Ha, ha! So funny! He had a wife he didn't even care about enough to remember over the last ten years! I wonder how many other wives he's left in the gutter! Ha, ha!" No, the story is true as far as we know, but the fact that it is an amusing story it utterly false.
It really makes you question the validity of the Mormon Church. How could something so helpful and good today come from something that in the past was so degraded and spiteful? It's no wonder so many people walk away from and slam doors on Mormon missionaries. It's not that they don't respect what they believe in, it's just that it's too difficult to listen to somebody who wholly believes in something so preposterous-sounding and something that could be completely untrue.
The fact that Brigham Young had this encounter with this woman on the street and, from what it sounds like, didn't even turn a hair really bothers me. What do these people see in this Church and this religion that makes them so attached and faithful?
"If [Mormonism is] false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true." - Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the Mormon Church
Mull over this, and I challenge you to give me at least a comment on your thoughts.
Vocab. 6 W.N. 19
Posted by rjhmoore at 6:49 PM 0 comments
Surprisingly only three words this week despite how much I've read. Well, here they are:
* Perilling - to expose to danger or the chance of injury; imperil
* Termagant - a violent, turbulent, or brawling woman
* Disapprobation - disapproval; condemnation
I really like the word termagant. I'll probably find some practical use for it someday... :)
Surprisingly only three words this week despite how much I've read. Well, here they are:
* Perilling - to expose to danger or the chance of injury; imperil
* Termagant - a violent, turbulent, or brawling woman
* Disapprobation - disapproval; condemnation
I really like the word termagant. I'll probably find some practical use for it someday... :)
Delicacies
Posted by rjhmoore at 6:42 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Mmm... what comes to mind when you hear the word "delicacies?" Warm, fruit pastries, chocolate eclairs, just-out-of-the-oven, moist red velvet cake with cream cheese frosting dribbled over the top, pure dark chocolate... but don't just think of desserts. The things on menus in high-class restaurants (such as Gnocchi bouillabaisse with foie gras and ceviche served on morels in arugula) that you can't pronounce and don't even know the edible substances they relate to that are served in small portions in the middle of huge, sparkling, white plates and are more for decoration than eating: this is a delicacy.
A.E. Young briefly gives her view on delicacies after explaining the food situation in among the Mormons shortly after arriving in Utah. This except is lengthy, so hold on:
"When we arrived at "the Valley" we found the people practising (that's how she spells it) the most rigid economy. The crickets had been very numerous, and had almost entirely destroyed the crops, devastating whole fields, until they looked as though they had been scorched by fire. A few had managed, by most desperate exertions, to save some of their wheat; but as there was only an apology for a mill with no bolting apparatus, this wheat was obliged to be eaten without being sifted. When I have seen persons eating cracked wheat as a delicacy, and heard them speaking of it with the subdued enthusiasm which some people manifest when talking of food, I have thought of the time when this delicacy was the only thing that was seen on the tables at Utah for breakfast, dinner, or supper, and I have come to the conclusion that "delicacies" may, in time, grow monotonous."
She is right, of course. Someday that Gnocchi bouillabaisse with foie gras and ceviche served on morels in arugula may be a common dish for Sunday afternoon lunch, but thankfully not in the near future. However, she gives an example of a common food growing into a fine side dish instead of the opposite. Such is the case of ratatouille, essentially just a vegetable stew. It once was all that the poorest of the poor could afford since they could grow the ingredients themselves. In present times, this food has been recreated by Julia Child and the like and prepared under the label of fine cuisine.
Naturally, the order of progression can be flip-flopped and great things can become common. Provisions sold at the Farmer's Market today were once considered "delicacies" so rich that they could only grace a king's table. My dad goes there every week and buys fresh bread, turkey, countless types of fruit, cheeses, etc. This is what makes up my Sunday afternoon lunch, which is quite the unbreakable habit. It is because this food is so easy to get nowadays that it has ceased to be a dainty treat.
Cracked wheat bread is also easy to come by today, but it is seen as the food of choice for health nuts (or 'aficionados' is much more polite :) and the general public. It seems that either relative ease by which a food is produced or the demand of it by the people affect its "delicacy rating," which means that a food can't be a delicacy for long. Eventually, like A.E. Young said, delicacies will become monotonous because we will have tried all the food there is to have, raised and lowered it on the delicacy scale, and sooner or later, it will just be... food, the stuff that gives us energy.
So, I ask, what is the point of delicacies in the first place? Your thought to think about...
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Mmm... what comes to mind when you hear the word "delicacies?" Warm, fruit pastries, chocolate eclairs, just-out-of-the-oven, moist red velvet cake with cream cheese frosting dribbled over the top, pure dark chocolate... but don't just think of desserts. The things on menus in high-class restaurants (such as Gnocchi bouillabaisse with foie gras and ceviche served on morels in arugula) that you can't pronounce and don't even know the edible substances they relate to that are served in small portions in the middle of huge, sparkling, white plates and are more for decoration than eating: this is a delicacy.
A.E. Young briefly gives her view on delicacies after explaining the food situation in among the Mormons shortly after arriving in Utah. This except is lengthy, so hold on:
"When we arrived at "the Valley" we found the people practising (that's how she spells it) the most rigid economy. The crickets had been very numerous, and had almost entirely destroyed the crops, devastating whole fields, until they looked as though they had been scorched by fire. A few had managed, by most desperate exertions, to save some of their wheat; but as there was only an apology for a mill with no bolting apparatus, this wheat was obliged to be eaten without being sifted. When I have seen persons eating cracked wheat as a delicacy, and heard them speaking of it with the subdued enthusiasm which some people manifest when talking of food, I have thought of the time when this delicacy was the only thing that was seen on the tables at Utah for breakfast, dinner, or supper, and I have come to the conclusion that "delicacies" may, in time, grow monotonous."
She is right, of course. Someday that Gnocchi bouillabaisse with foie gras and ceviche served on morels in arugula may be a common dish for Sunday afternoon lunch, but thankfully not in the near future. However, she gives an example of a common food growing into a fine side dish instead of the opposite. Such is the case of ratatouille, essentially just a vegetable stew. It once was all that the poorest of the poor could afford since they could grow the ingredients themselves. In present times, this food has been recreated by Julia Child and the like and prepared under the label of fine cuisine.
Naturally, the order of progression can be flip-flopped and great things can become common. Provisions sold at the Farmer's Market today were once considered "delicacies" so rich that they could only grace a king's table. My dad goes there every week and buys fresh bread, turkey, countless types of fruit, cheeses, etc. This is what makes up my Sunday afternoon lunch, which is quite the unbreakable habit. It is because this food is so easy to get nowadays that it has ceased to be a dainty treat.
Cracked wheat bread is also easy to come by today, but it is seen as the food of choice for health nuts (or 'aficionados' is much more polite :) and the general public. It seems that either relative ease by which a food is produced or the demand of it by the people affect its "delicacy rating," which means that a food can't be a delicacy for long. Eventually, like A.E. Young said, delicacies will become monotonous because we will have tried all the food there is to have, raised and lowered it on the delicacy scale, and sooner or later, it will just be... food, the stuff that gives us energy.
So, I ask, what is the point of delicacies in the first place? Your thought to think about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
