Parallels - Part 2 My Marriage - Emma's and Joseph's

Stage 5. Dehumanization -- Elect Lady-Goddess -- Denial/Silence

My Marriage
In one of my husband's lucid moments, as the "Shepherd," during the last main meeting we had before I filed for a divorce, he said to me, "I didn't know you were human." His "Shepherd" self, had wanted me to be his (dehumanized) "Elect Lady". His "Wolf" personality, wanted me to be "human." That's another double-bind. If I was "human," his "Shepherd" self was offended because I wasn't his "Elect Lady-goddess." If I was the "Elect Lady," his "Wolf" self complained that I wasn't "human" ... impeding his "humanness." It was impossible for me to please either of them, without a sense of guilt. As a Binder, he also felt guilty either way, but that disappeared for him under his Double-Standard (which further tightens the bond between the Binder and the Bound). As the Bound, I reflected and "accepted" the "guilt" from both personalities as he alternately projected them to me. (The double-standard has been described in the Introduction to "My Journey Through The Pattern.")

During our marriage, he would occasionally present gifts to me, after specific times of pronounced absences, or rare feelings of guilt. Gifts, "things," were occasional substitutes for gifts of self, which were "given" by the "Shepherd," to make up for the treatment I had received from the "Wolf." That's the tragedy ... The Pattern robs both the husband and the wife of Self; neither one can truly give. The Binder robs the Bound, then "gives" back what he has stolen (but still feels he "owns"), as a "gift" to the wife; in this circular pattern, in "giving" to her, he merely gives to himself, in that as soon as he "gives" it, he steals it back again.

Each time, she is left feeling as empty after, as before, his "gift" was "given." She then is blamed for not being grateful for the "gifts" that he has "given" her. (Stage 5 and 6; this has been dealt with above, and in previous articles, namely, "Emma and Joseph.")

Eventually, this repetition turns to apathy, and numbness on the wife's part. Then, not being allowed to speak up concerning her emptiness, and being continually depleted of Self (Stage 7), she is punished with further abandonment which is "justified" as being caused by her lack of responsiveness ... for not being able to "receive," nor to "give." The Binder beats a "dead horse" (the Law of "Diminishing Returns"); it results in the Binder's compulsion to punish, stemming from his dual personality frustrations, and expressed as, "I'll make you love me." He kills what he loves, then asks "Where is love for me?"

Again, The Pattern kills the possibility of real love, for both the Binder and the Bound. Mormonism, which uses The Pattern in its pure form, kills what it professes to love ... love and understanding in marriage, and family relationships. Personal relationships in the church, do not exist; individuals do not face each other, they face "one way" looking towards leaders to tell them what to think and what to feel, with their backs to the Real World. They are actors and actresses playing assigned parts ... waiting in the wings, in anticipation of their turn to go on stage.

My husband's work, being a doctor, required that he be "on call" during the day, and would sometimes include being gone all night. I was the obedient Mormon wife that held down the fort and never complained (the flip side of that is the accusation that "you chose to be a martyr"). I knew the consequences for complaining, so I never complained again; life was "simpler" that way. I played the role of what the "perfect" Mormon mother was supposed to be. As in Emma's case, I was given the sole responsibility of raising the children and making sure they attended all their church meetings and activities, as well as getting them to school and school activities. A mother, in Mormonism, essentially raises her children alone. I was to be the model super-mother. Our family had the facade of a "happy" family. How much my children guessed, I don't know. Our family life, however, didn't seem to be any different from other Mormon families. Mostly, the women congregated together in meetings, while the men had their separate meetings. My memories and feelings associated with those "get-to-gethers" I can now identify. We fit the saying, that "misery loves company." We couldn't speak of our felt misery, because we couldn't identify it; plus, we were admonished not to "speak ill of the Lord's leaders or the "anointed" ("carping"). We kept trying to follow the advice from Priesthood leaders to read more scriptures, and pray more; do good works for others and forget self. We were asked to do all of the things that were causing our problems in the first place, i.e., obeying the rules of The Pattern embedded in the "scriptures" which produced guilt at every turn, making our need for "repentance" even greater. This unearned "guilt" was taken to be a spiritual "humility," and expressed mostly by the women in Testimony meetings ... against their own inadequate selves.

Because I couldn't speak of anything that might upset my husband, conversations were mundane. As a result, these painful silences were filled with games, jokes ... anything that could be a distraction that would replace the need to speak of meaningful things, anything that would cover up what we couldn't voice. Yet, what could we say ... about what we were not allowed to know? We went through the motions, and spoke the words in the Mormon script-ture, of a "happy" family, full of "fun" and "games," ... all programmed by the church. We were given "cake" instead of bread, and if we got sick of "cake," we were then given the stone of silence to eat. It was all an empty facade, and in that, we were not alone. Our church "fun" activities were a larger version of the same; don't think, just have "fun." The Pattern was consistent in both the personal, and the political environment, each reinforcing the other. My mind-set at that time was, "This is the way the world is." I hadn't experienced anything outside Mormonism. I hadn't experienced the rational world of the mind.

Stage 5. Dehumanization -- Elect Lady-goddess -- Denial/Silence

Emma's Marriage
In Emma's double-bind, she "chose" against herself, as I did. She "chose" to agree with her husband and stayed the strong, "non-human," obedient, "Elect Lady." In Emma's case, she was given another "choice" to choose her husband's other wives by activating Joseph's new "Law of Sarah." Emma selected Emily and Eliza Partridge (ages 19, and 23). "Emma had no idea that these girls had already been married to Joseph some two months earlier. Joseph's entry in his journal for the date of these marriages indicates that he bought Emma a new carriage. But it was small solace to her." ( No Man Knows My History, Fawn M. Brodie)

She had been dehumanized as a human, sexual woman. "Things" were to take the place of intimate companionship with her husband.

Stage 6. Threats of Abandonment - Intimidation - "It is YOU, not I," - Paranoia

My Marriage - Six incidences that preceded my separation and divorce.

Personal Incident #1 "It is you, not I..."
During the last years of our marriage, as I was waking up, I had tried to get my husband to go to a counselor, or psychologist with me to try to find out what our problem was, he refused, saying, "You can go to hell, it is you, who needs to change, not I." Besides, he said, "psychology is not a proven science." I believed him ... that it was I who needed to change. From that moment on, I starting reading everything I could find that might help me to discover what was wrong with me. The more I learned, the more I began to wake up and the more he felt threatened.

Part of the Pattern in our marriage included the shooting down of my ideas, as not being possible, for some reason or another, which I could not understand. I took this as his being more intelligent than I. He had had 15 years of advanced education to my 1 year at BYU, plus my extra music classes later, at a local University. At this time, we had 4 children attending the BYU. To pay for their board and room separately would have driven the cost of their education beyond what we could really afford. I suggested that we buy a small home in Provo for them to live in, and then sell it when it was no longer needed. Property would probably go up in value, and we could get our money back ... and maybe more when it was sold. I couldn't follow his reasoning, but he found so many things wrong with my idea, that I gave it up. Then, after a few weeks had passed, he had decided that we should buy a house in Provo, without mentioning that it had been my idea in the first place, nor commenting on the reasons why it was now a good idea.

When the Binder is wrong, the projection is, "It is you, not I, who are wrong." When there is any success, the implication is "It was my idea, not yours." In both cases, it is a case of theft. There is always silence regarding any discussion of facts concerning the judgments. In The Pattern, a Binder is always "right;" the Bound is always "wrong." The Binder-"Wolf" is essentially a thief, and therefore, he weakens his own creative powers. He lives by manipulating, and living off others, as a parasite. Because The Pattern "works," and he has found the keys (the stages) to this "Knowledge" (The Pattern), he claims it as his power. But, it is always "power" over others. Without The Pattern, he, like the Wizard of Oz, has no power of his own.

Personal Incident #2: Threat - Intimidation - "You, not I ..."
This is related to Incident #1. By this time, I was speaking up more and more. I had another idea, in regards to paying for our children's education at the BYU. Since, by now, I no longer considered myself an active member of the church, and having assumed that I was basically considered an equal to my husband (Mormon women are told, and led to believe that they are "equals," in that the words, "men," and "mankind" includes them, as well), I happily suggested that my portion of our monthly income not be tithed, that that money could go towards the children's education. He was not happy about that. As the "Shepherd" he said, "That's the Lord's money, not yours." He went further, as the "Wolf," threatening to turn the children against me should I pursue the idea. I was surprised and shocked that he would do such a thing and asked "You would really do that?" All of a sudden he looked guilty, and said again, this time, as the "Shepherd," that he couldn't allow that kind of money to be used for the children. I could have my portion, he said, but it couldn't be used for the children's education. In other words, it was now "filthy lucre." He, and his portion of the money, was now "pure," and I, and mine, was "impure." ("It is you, not I," who are guilty.)

The irony of it all was that the tithing money and his vehement defense of it, was the only defense I remember hearing him voice for the church, at any time, and in this case, he was really saying what a "good" man he was, because he insisted on paying his tithing. Money (tithing) was being equated with moral "goodness." (See: "The Painting," above.) In my growing "apostasy" from the church, he could not speak for, or against, any reasons why I should stay in, or leave, the church. Church moral values and meanings were tabooed subjects, not to be discussed. (However, there were rare moments of lucidity in our marriage, for both of us, when an insight would be expressed in a passing comment, but having no resources in our minds to feed them, they quickly disappeared.) As a result of my being labeled "guilty" again, he magnanimously allowed me to claim my half of the tithing money, which labeled me a "mercenary," and him, "a good Mormon." This created a further loosening of the bonds between us.

Later Church Related Incidences
The following incidents happened during a temporary stay of about three years in an Arab country where my husband was working as a physician. "Our" decision to go there was anticipated by his declaration, "I am going with or without you" (Intimidation). My personal decision to go was based on a last chance to save our marriage, if that were possible. His decision to go was based on the influence of a close friend who was working there, and who was also from our home Stake. There were many other Mormons already there, who had formed a branch of the church (illegally).

#3. Force. I attended some of the meetings for the sisters with the wife of my husband's friend. Our children had grown up together. On this particular Sunday, in our Relief Society meeting, we had a guest speaker. A Priesthood holder came in to speak to us about preparing our sons to go on missions. In his talk, he said, ".... and, if they don't want to go, what does that matter?" I could not remain silent; I said quite loudly, "a lot!!" (What this "spiritual" man was saying, was, "If they don't want to go, force them to go.") I could no longer tolerate the dismissal of choice. I was, at this time, now awakening more fully to my own right to choose.

#4. Intimidation - Force through Fear. Another incident happened during a morning service in this branch. Everyone was there; the small children sat on the floor in a semi-circle in front of those seated in chairs. I was seated off to the right of the speaker. It was a small meeting place, so he was standing just a few feet from the children. My husband's friend, who had been a former counselor, and close friend to our Stake President back home (the same Stake President who considered me sinful for being depressed enough to want to commit suicide) was speaking that day on the merits of paying tithing. In his summary he smilingly concluded, "So, if you pay your tithing, you won't burn in hell!! And, to be on the safe side, why don't you pay TWICE as much!" It was so painful to see the children looking so intently on this "spiritual" leader and to see the fear in their eyes. To these children, who believed every word he was saying, it was, "God will burn you up if you don't pay your tithing." Also, if you have money, God will accept a bribe. This tactic also belongs to Stage 7. "Don't see this as extortion, see it as a happy game of being safe, by avoiding punishment." (Again, this is a repeat of Joseph's intimidation of Emma; if she is obedient, she will NOT be destroyed.) Children take things literally. Adult members of the church are told to be "as little children," to believe the leaders of the church; we receive these "admonitions" in like manner. How many nightmares and images did this one talk create, especially in the minds of small, innocent children, as well as reminders for the adult "children" attending that day.

#5. a) Dehumanization - On another occasion, where these doctors who held the Priesthood had gathered with their wives, I overheard them talking about the women that some of them had examined in this Arab country. They were making humorous, tasteless comments about having noticed that many of the women had had clitorectomies. Rather than having realized what a dehumanizing, and tragic thing it was for these women to have been deprived of their human rights to sexual pleasure, without choice, ... they were amused by it. They were even more amused that the mothers were encouraged to stimulate a male baby's penis to pacify him. These Mormon leaders were saying, by their telling facial expressions and vocal inflections, "Wow, look what we missed!" Their masks of being caring, mature physicians had been dropped, exposing faces of adolescents, which was also a tragedy. They wore masks of the "Shepherd," counseling others, that, "Yes," masturbation is a sin; on the other hand, as the "Wolf," they were saying to themselves, "I can't masturbate myself (it's a sin) "But," it's okay to let others do it to me ... or for me to do it to others," ... a form of "mental masturbation;" it points to the fact that masturbation was forbidden them, by the church, when they were adolescents. This dual, contradictory attitude, and the repression of natural sexual needs to relieve sexual tension, could very well be the germ of adult male molestation of adolescent boys; a sexual aberration which is not a minor issue within the Mormon church. (See: Story # 89, "Recovery From Mormonism;"

These Priesthood leaders had turned a tragedy, and a travesty against women, into an amusing anecdote ... a "comedy." These women had literally been turned into female eunuchs. The double-standard here is that when a man is castrated and becomes a eunuch, it then becomes a "tragedy." The Binder, in this case, is claiming that he is human, and that the Bound woman is not human. However, the male Binder, as the "Shepherd," psychologically "castrates" himself, keeping himself "pure" ... then the "Wolf" steps in with a "But" and "gives" him back his very human desires and physical genitals

#5. b) Dehumanization - Humiliation. One of the other social occasions I remember was a get-together for husbands and wives. Each couple was to get up and tell of some "humorous" incident in their marriage. Each story was a reflection, in some way, of the humor above, in that there was generally some kind of a put-down of the wife, after which she was expected to join in with the laughter, against herself. ("Don't see this as "humiliating," see it as "funny." "Can't you take a joke?" -- Stage 7.)

The attitude of the men towards their wives in this country was very macho. The women in this country were isolated and dominated almost totally, with very little freedom. These Mormon men tended to get the spirit of their strange environment and lost inhibitions that they would normally have in a more civilized country, namely, the United States. When it was my husband's turn he told of the first breakfast, after our honeymoon, that I had prepared for him while he was attending Priesthood meeting. I had prepared waffles, as the main course. He was late coming home, so I put the waffles into a new, never used, bun warmer. I was proud of what I had prepared, and was looking forward to our first breakfast at home together. When he finally arrived, he sat down at the table, lifted the lid of the bun warmer, pick up one of the waffles, and without any comment, rolled it into a ball, and threw it against the wall. (The waffles had been kept warm, but moisture had formed within the warmer; the waffles were no longer crisp, and had become soft.) I was wounded, as a new bride would be when trying to please and impress her new husband. He never recognized my hurt, or the insensitivity of his actions; he still hadn't recognized it when he retold the incident 29 years later at this "social." When he finished his "story," there was laughter by the men; none of the women were amused.

As long as I can remember, in Mormonism, women have always been the butt of jokes, and "amusing" anecdotes. Usually, it is, "You'd better be good, or you won't be the first wife when we get to the Celestial Kingdom," ... again, a reflection of Joseph's "admonition" to Emma ... obey, or be abandoned (See "Emma and Joseph" article). This must have been humiliatingly cruel for wives in polygamous marriages. Incidents #4, and #5, show a thinly veiled misogyny on the part of these Priesthood holders. The Pattern in Mormonism fosters this attitude towards women.

My husband had a more than distant relationship with his mother during our marriage. He very seldom spoke of, nor visited her, and had once told me that he had told her, as a young boy, that she was "ugly." However, in a book compiled for "posterity," by this polygamous ancestry, he included a paragraph in which he eulogized her. The "image" of the perfect, happy, homelife must not be broken by anyone in a Mormon family. I blame Mormonism for this love/hate syndrome. I think now that this love/hate relationship with his mother was transferred to me, through his cultural inheritance.

His grandfather (his mother's father), lived for 20 years under the rule of Brigham Young; his great-grandfather was part of the Mormon militia, and probably was a Danite. Their family reflected the teachings of Brigham Young, for whom the personal did not exist. They lived during hard times, in a small polygamous Mormon community. My husband was not raised solely by his mother; older sisters helped to raise him; he had been born late in his mother's life, when she was 41. In many ways, he was an orphan, shuttled between alternate "mothers." The personal was not the rule; they lived under the laws of Brigham Young's political church; these laws are still part of the mind-set of Mormons, today. Brigham Young was a misogynist. It makes me wonder about the men he had sealed to him in the temple. He said that he had not married his wives for love, but only for the offspring they could provide him. The Brotherhood was more important to him; he was a Mason, a.k.a., "Mormon."

#6. "Ownership" of Others, Mind and Body - "Not you, but I, have rights..." -Accusation.
The next incident was when my husband's friend (in incident #4: "Pay tithing and you won't burn in hell.") came to our home as a home-teacher. He knew how far I had traveled away from Mormonism. Nevertheless, he, as usual, spoke as if he were the voice of authority. When he spoke of anything, it was always expected to be the last authoritative word. (He even made decisions for patients while they were under an anesthetic, informing them, after the fact, that he had pulled some extra teeth for them. He was nicknamed doctor "Yank 'em'.") On this evening, he chose to speak on inspiration and revelation, about how we should obey our leaders (him) and lean on their inspired words for our lives. I took as much as I could, then said, "I believe I have a right to receive inspiration and revelation for my own life." He said, "No, you don't." He would not allow that I had that right, and I would not allow that I didn't. ("Not you, but, I ... have the right.") The evening ended with my husband being furious with me, for contradicting his friend. His friend, as usual, left with a smile on his face, knowing that my husband would agree with him. In the mind of this leader, he was always right, and others were always wrong. However, as an adolescent might do, he broke all the driving rules in this country that was hosting him, then talked about the citizens of this country, who were being exposed to these rules for the first time, as "those crazy Arabs." They were unknowingly breaking rules, which he was breaking knowingly. It was all an adolescent game to him. He was a Binder-thief; he claimed rights for himself that he condemned for others. He was above the rules ... a "spiritual" man; all others below him were expected to obey the rules.

After he had left our home, my husband confronted me with my effrontery towards his friend. He was angry with me for having offended a valued friend. I was angry because his friend had come into our home, and had, in so many words, said I was not an individual, with any rights, when he already knew how I felt about the issue. It was a direct insult and an effrontery to me. My husband had nothing to say in my defense. I was left out of any considerations, except those that found me "guilty" for speaking against his friend, and for myself. He valued the good opinion of his "friend" ... of what his friend would think of him, ... more than he valued me, or what I thought. Many words were spoken at this time; many things were brought out into the open. It was the beginning of the full descent of our marriage into a separation and eventual divorce.

In Mormonism, male friends are Priesthood comrades in a "brotherhood." There are direct parallels in the Mormon Priesthood with Masonry's "Brotherhood" which stems from Joseph Smith, a Mason. Right or wrong, the Brotherhood pledges to uphold one another.

Paranoia: Intermittent negative comments during this time, and shortly after, made by my husband about himself and others, showed veiled signs of paranoiac projections. "They are out to get me." "Are you trying to decapitate me?" "Come on, "Stupid." An inappropriate, "Are your sheets clean?" ... to a Swiss (who are known for cleanliness), a man he had never met before. This is closely aligned with Stage 7; "Don't see this as "humiliating," see it as a "joke." If not paranoia, these kind of comments "kill" what the Binder professes to love, with a negative accusation and a smile, both at the same time. The person humiliated is then expected to laugh at himself or herself; if they don't, "they are "guilty" of not being able to take a joke ("I was only kidding"). This is another double-bind: you are damned if you don't laugh at yourself, and you are damned if you do! If the Bound complains, the Binder then accuses the Bound of being "paranoid" to think that he might be attacking her. He reverses his insult to the Bound to become an insult against himself, a refection of his own paranoia. Again, the Bound is punished for being punished. This is the "Wolf" and the "Shepherd" fused together as one. (Stage 7)

* * *

Stage 6. Threat of Abandonment - "Not I, but You ..." - Demonized

Emma's Marriage
As mentioned before, some incidences contain many stages. In Emma's double-bind (in Stage 4, above), if Emma did not agree for Joseph to take many wives ( against their original agreement), she would be the "transgressor," not Joseph. Joseph, the "Wolf" says, "It is you, not I," who will be the transgressor."

Joseph, in the D&C 25:15, told Emma, "Keep my commandments continually, and a crown of righteousness thou shalt receive. And except thou do this where I am you cannot come." Emma was threatened with abandonment, if she didn't obey him.

Paranoia -- Accusation -- Demonization
Joseph got sick after eating a meal and accused Emma of poisoning him. "Brigham Young described a 'secret council,' ... at which he said Joseph accused Emma of the poisoning and 'called upon her to deny it if she could ... He (Joseph) told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told her where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he, 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.'" (Newell and Avery, "Emma Hale Smith," Chapter 11, p.164. Also, Note: Diary of JS, 5 November 1843.) Paranoia is a form of "Not I, but You ..."; it is a projection of self guilt to another, as a denial, and an accusation, "I am not out to get you, You are out to get me." This incident happened around the time of Emma's discovery of Joseph's secret liaisons. The "Wolf-Shepherd" IS out to "get" the Bound, by dehumanizing her, in order to "justify" the actions of the adulterous "Wolf;" and the "Shepherd," fearing exposure, projects the "Wolf's" guilt onto the Bound. At all times, the "right hand must not see what the left hand is doing."

The symptoms of Joseph's illness were very much like ulcers which "raised fresh blood." Joseph's double life, ... living with Emma as the "Shepherd" who had pledged himself to "one wife only," and, at the same time, as the "Wolf," living with his secret "wives," ... would cause sufficient emotional and mental conflicts to incite his ulcers. (He was, however, well enough to attend a meeting that night.)

* * *

Next Page: The Core of the Problem

bookmark this page