|
|
 |
Chapter 13, Unholy Matrimony
LDS "Birth Machines"
The Quote
One Nation under Gods, page 289
According to the late BYU scholar Eugene England, Mormon women literally are
to become "birth machines" so Mormon males can continue creating and populating various
worlds without end.51
The Reference
Endnote 51, page 578
51. Jessie L. Embry, "Burden or Pleasure?: A Profile of LDS Polygamous
Husbands," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Winter 1987), vol. 20, no. 4, 148.
The Problems
The author and article name, as cited, are incorrect. As stated on page 289,
Eugene England is being quoted, yet the footnote quotes Jessie L. Embry. The only thing
right in the footnote is the date, volume, issue, and page number. Here is how the corrected
footnote should read:
51. Eugene England, "On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage,"
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Winter 1987), vol. 20, no. 4, 148.
Embry does indeed have an article by the printed name in the issue
of Dialogue cited, but it begins on page 158. However, Embry makes no mention
of Eugene England or "birth machines" in her article.
Understanding the context of the original article by Eugene England is
critical to evaluating if a quote is used properly, particularly when the quote comprises
only two words, as it does in this case. Here is the entire paragraph from England's
article from which the single phrase "birth machines" was taken:
Suppose it would take a woman, bearing a child each nine months, 60
billion years to produce the spirit children for an earth like ours (the 80 billion
or so people demographers compute will have lived on earth by 2000 A.D.). It does not
seem reasonable to me that God would require polygyny, with all its attendant
problems, simply to reduce that time to twenty or even ten billion years by giving
each man four or six wives. If humans can already produce test-tube babies and clones,
God has certainly found more efficient ways to produce spirit children than by turning
celestial partners into mere birth machines. To anticipate such a limited, unequal
role for women in eternity insults and devalues them.
What are the problems with how Richard Abanes chose to use the quote?
The first problem stems from the very first sentence in England's essay. If one reads
the entire essay, one would find the following statement (again, in the very first
sentence): "This is an essay in speculative theology." Yet Abanes presents his two-word
"birth machines" comment as orthodox Mormon doctrine, as if a BYU scholar says it, it
must be doctrine. This is clearly not the intent of England.
Second, Abanes clearly states that England views Mormon women literally
as the birth machines, dominated by males bent on creating and populating worlds without
end. England clearly states that he does not see God making "partners" (not just
women) into birth machines. Nowhere does England say that this is a Mormon teaching. He is
speculating that he cannot see such a future for men and women, which is understandable.
Third, had Abanes read the entire essay by England and fairly represented
what was being said, in context, the reader could have understood that the LDS teaching
of Celestial marriage has room for speculation, as do many LDS teachings. Instead, Abanes
indicated that the teaching was set and that LDS women "literally are to become 'birth
machines,'" thereby misrepresenting to the reader the nature of this particular teaching.
Fourth, Abanes twisted England's conclusion to say something which is
diametrically opposed to his actual conclusion. England is making the unambiguous
statement that he is unable to see a Celestial husband and wife as being "mere birth
machines." Abanes, however, frames a two-word phrase in such a picture that the
reader believes England is teaching that Mormon women are literally to become nothing
more than birth machines. England says he cannot see how a husband and wife could
become mere birth machines. Abanes says that England declares Mormon women will
literally become birth machines. This usage on Abanes' part is an example of blatant
intellectual dishonesty.
Lastly, Abanes then use his twisted and faulty version of the England
quote as a springboard for his next sentence (page 289) where he states that "LDS
scholar Melodie Moench Charles publicly expressed her opposition to such teachings."
What teachings were those? The ones that Abanes misrepresented, or the ones that
England never stated existed?
Written by Allen L. Wyatt
Back to the Index
|
