All Activity

Jared is the former poster, Log. You wouldn’t have known him since he last posted in 2012. https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/1698-log/

HMD 28. The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is contradicted by child mortality rates of early Mormon polygamists. In addition to polygamy producing fewer children than traditionally claimed, data analysis of early Mormon households has also found that child mortality rates (defined here as children under age 15) were higher within Mormon polygamous families in the 1800s than within monogamous families. It was shown that even children of wealthy polygamist men had a lower survival rate than children of poorer families with less wives (most of the poorer men included in the data had only one wife). The analysts state, "This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men, and the rich men had significantly more total offspring (including those that did not make it to [age] 15)." The researchers speculated these numbers are indicative that fathers with less wives were more family-involved and less neglectful of their wife and children, whereas wealthy men with multiple wives devoted more time, funds, and attention towards adding additional wives. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Sources: Heath K. M., Hadley C. 1998. Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society: mating versus parental effort. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 369–374 10.1086/204748 (doi:10.1086/204748) [DOI] [Google Scholar][Ref list] Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 5;367(1589):657-69. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290. PMID: 22271782; PMCID: PMC3260845.

Hmmm, a Jared Livesey participated in detailed theological debates. For example, he argued about repentance, spiritual perfection, and salvation in a 2019 discussion on the Mormon blog By Common Consent. Other online discussions suggests that his online presence and subsequent absence had already attracted attention years ago. A 2026 Covenant Christian Conference website lists Jared Livesey as a speaker in the Denver Snuffer-associated religious community. He seem to be applying our own standards of repentance and truthfulness to his claims of spiritual knowledge. And uses exceptionally absolute language, "utter and complete ignorance," "I acknowledge I am a fool," and the repeated "if spirits even exist." That intensity makes the post feel like a major rupture rather than an ordinary change of opinion. It may be sincere, performative, or both. Whether it is a sincere confession, a dramatic exit, or a pointed piece of religious criticism remains uncertain.

Considering that the historic monogamy site gives an actual book and page number which is false and that it looks like it originally came from mormonthink, my guess is that it was invented and that historic monogamy site just assumed it was real without doing any checking.

Showing both sides would require more than one webpage? On the internet? Where that amount of space is completely trivial? That is a ridiculous justification for not including it. I don’t necessarily think they need to present the comprehensive case but there is a lot more stuff that needs refutation. I don’t trust answers to prayers as an indicator of truth anymore.

I've had very little success with the Journal of Discourse online search in past years. On more than one occasion I've made a search for a quote that I *know* is in there that either I or others have seen with their own two eyes, but the search came up with nothing.

Great, love this. You specifically mean eternal polygamy only, yes? Specifically for widowers? I imagine you'd find monogamy-affirmers on both sides of that, like I said I have my own opinion on it but I think whichever way you fall is besides the point when talking about denouncing all of Brigham Young's harmful teachings. But no, Joseph letting Hyrum being sealed to two women doesn't automatically in the minds of monogamy-affirmers mean that they believe there will be eternal polygamy for remarried widowers. The LDS church now allows remarried widows to be sealed to more than one husband, does that mean that the LDS church now teaches eternal polyandry? Most LDS members still say "No" about that. As in Joseph only ever taught of eternal polygamy for widowers and then Brigham Young maybe came up with mortal polygamy doctrine as a misinterpretation of what Joseph taught? Supposing that, a "Brigham Young misinterpreted Joseph" argument wouldn't explain why Brigham Young forbid Augusta Cobb from ever meeting with Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain why Brigham claimed that Joseph called Emma the "wickedest woman who ever lived" and that Emma tried to kill Joseph, it wouldn't explain why Brigham Young started openly acquiring wives but only after the Martyrdom, and others that I won't list off as it would make this comment too long, so there would be a lot of plot holes left open for me with such an argument as that.

Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Hosea marrying a prostitute (apparently working, not retired), Israelites to steal Egyptian property (since iirc they say they will bring it back…that could be seen as breaking the commandment about coveting a neighbour’s possessions too), Jesus saying something about hating mothers and father to follow him, commanding to commit genocide… Did some searching to come up with more… Abraham abandoning Hagar and Ishmael Hadn’t heard this one before…Ezekiel was commanded to break some purity commandments, like cooking food over human excrement (Ezekiel 4:12).

I have not read the site in full, but I have read the site. The main reason I haven't read it in full is I keep having to correct it and it just gets too frustrating for me. I don't see the point to read it in full when it is confusing, it doesn't cite sources (I sometimes spend hours tracking down sources), it wanders all over the place, it invents things (the quote from a book that I went to purchase is an example, though that was Historical Monogamy Doctrine). I get that you like it, so it somehow suits you. But copying and pasting it to me isn't going to help since my first inclination is to distrust it. My point is that we have pretty much the same contemporaneous evidence for Nauvoo polygamy for all that are involved. If others had died in Carthage, we would be having the same debate, but around them. The only reason why we accept that Brigham had Nauvoo polygamy is because of later testimonies and statements. So, saying that Joseph was adamant about polygamy while he is alive does not tell me that he wasn't practicing polygamy. Because everyone was doing that. Brigham was accused of polygamy and he wrote out an affidavit denying it. Joseph was a much more public person. So that is why he would have much more public statements. But it is only a difference in scale which doesn't do much for me since the scale makes sense when I look at how much more public he is. That's because no one accused him of teaching polygamy. That's actually an interesting thing because of all of the people (both pro-Joseph and anti-Joseph), in all later testimonies, no one ever said Brigham taught polygamy. It is almost always Joseph. So, the fact that Joseph sued and not Brigham fits perfectly with the story that Joseph was actually teaching and not Brigham. When Brigham was actually accused of something (Martha Brotherton), he wrote out an affidavit. The Nephi killing Laban is going to really go tangential, but MDD section 8 is just wrong. Its rationalization for why Nephi was ok to kill Laban isn't the rationalization that the Spirit gives to Nephi. The Spirit first constraints him (no rationalization at all), then says "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." and then says "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief". The rationalization that MDD 8 writes out is nice and all but not what the Spirit actually said. That is something that you have to add to the story, not what is actually in the story.

As far as I can tell, that quote isn't a real quote. The earliest I've found is 2011 from mormonthink. Searching the entire journal of discourses doesn't find any match for even partial versions of the quote.

In the first thread in which I posted the Monogamy as Divine Design site (it was a recent month, as the site was released earlier this year) I remember you replying that you looked through it and pointed out a few of the sections that you didn't like and so didn't read it all the way through, which is, along with your more recent responses, what gave me the impression that you hadn't read it in full as you now say you have (unless you're thinking of Historical Monogamy Doctrine?) I would argue that going out of his way to canonize scripture explicitly against it, to sue accusers in court, to publish confessions from those guilty (John C Bennet & one of the victimized girls), etc is a lot more than simply being "publicly vocal" against polygamy. That is why I included that section. Joseph Smith didn't just excommunicate men practicing polygamy, he acted to sue one of the same men (lawyer Chauncey Higbee) for defamation for Chauncey having said that Joseph was teaching polygamy himself. Brigham Young certainly never did that. You might not think that to be a relevant enough point to mention, but I do, which is why I included it. You were talking about God, in your view, being inconsistent with His commandments, a view which I don't share myself. I consider MDD sections 7 & 8 to both be relevant to that same topic, which is why I copied them together side-by-side in my response, as they were responding to the same thing. You specifically said that God sometimes commands people to break previous commandments (a view which I do not share) and specifically used Nephi killing Laban as an example. Others have made that argument as well, which is apparently why Monogamy as Divine Design has a section addressing that very point, explaining why "Nephi killing Laban" is not an example of God telling someone to break the commandments at all. If you want to bring up a different scriptural example of God in your view commanding someone to break a commandment then I'm open to hearing it.

Got it. I don’t trust my reading comprehension at times these days, so asking questions that may seem trivial or nit picky even more than usual to others.

The data does appear to separate which husbands are polygamous and non-polygamous. The dissertation does use it in some other areas, but when talking about the impact of father's age on infant mortality, it doesn't mention using it. It does say it controlled for wife order which would be an indication of polygamy. So I said "try" since it wasn't obvious if they actually did control for polygamy vs non-polygamy.

The working paper didn't try to control for migration or devoutness. It did try to control for urbanization, parental age, and certain time windows (early polygamy, early anti-polygamy laws, heavy anti-polygamy laws, post 1890). So the the one that had the odd child mortality rate is mostly just polygamous vs non-polygamous. The dissertation is the one that tried to control for devoutness (using baptism, endowment, and polygamy) and mentioned migration but didn't do anything about migration or callings. It would be interesting to try and control for fathers on missions and other absent fathers (it does talk about separate households for polygamy but no indication that it could control for that). I don't think this information is in the population database both used, though.

Brigham Young claiming his sermons were "as good as scripture" (JD 13:95, 264), things "copied and approved by me," he was referring specifically to sermons that were transcribed from shorthand by his secretaries, like George D. Watt, read back to him, corrected, and then officially published in Church publications like the Deseret News or Millennial Star. The Journal of Discourses was not that. He also acknowledged that he spoke as a man, gave personal opinions, and made mistakes. Hence in 1862, he famously said, "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him." (JD 9:150) The 1873 "Paris, Idaho" Sermon was addressing a specific group of men who explicitly said, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one." Brigham Young in his 1869 School of the Prophets instruction "a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife, and be justified", the defining issue was whether a man rejected God's revelations in his heart, not whether he was physically capable of marrying multiple women. The quote starting with 'Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding...' cited from historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com as Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p. 167 seems incorrect. Volume 16, page 167 of the Journal of Discourses, is the end of a sermon about tithing. Historically, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both entered sealings with older women and widows past childbearing age (Zina D. H. Young, Agnes Coolbrith). If the requirement were strictly young, fertile women for procreation, these older sealings would make no sense. They served to form eternal, family connections across the covenant structure. Brigham Young didn't 'wildly contradict' himself, you can harmonize his statements. In 1866, Brigham says be "polygamists at least in your faith" (Journal of Discourses Vol 11, p 269). In 1869, Brigham says "a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife, and be justified before the Lord" (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Sept 25, 1869). In 1873, he condemned men who actively rejected God's revelations or dodged priesthood callings out of selfish convenience or fear. It seems to align.

So how did they try to split it out? Sorry, may just be misreading, but it seems like they had to guess who was and wasn’t polygamous from the word “try”.

Did. Page 62:

Maybe due, at least in part, to what I speculated…. that more devout families accepted assignments or circumstances that were physically harder for what they saw as spiritual benefits where less devout families based their choices more on their own family’s physical needs first…or didn’t see a spiritual need to follow the LDS community leaders choices? Did they control for where they settled and what time of year they migrated, etc? Or where they migrated from? I wonder if those who fled Nauvoo and headed to Utah eventually had a higher mortality rate or those who came from overseas (how many did that early on?) Could the more devout families have had more fathers out on missions enough to make a difference? I may attempt to read the whole study later…but ain’t happening now

This is the crucial part, correct? So migration was possibly easier for those not invested in the Church at all or even those associated with the Church , but not as heavily is their speculation for the findings? I would love to know the when and how of the families’ migration and resettlement. If someone was able to choose the timing of migration, they may have been better supplied and traveling during better weather. Same thing with resettlement. Non church heavily invested families likely choose most convenient and productive spot for the family, while devoted families might have been sent to settle places for the overall benefit of the community.

Did or did not?

You've brought up how much you hate the 'all men are rapists' issue so much that there's just no way it's believable that you don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not seeing the dispassion from you at all. I'm seeing a lot of passion. Edit to add: I posted these two replies right after I read your replies to me so had no idea that you and Calm had already gone rounds on this topic, sorry as I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse.

I get the feeling that you believe you are being rational and unbiased in this thread but from the outside looking in, I'm not seeing it. You seem to be as passionate as the rest of us are on the topic.

If you don’t want to be targeted for not being dispassionate, then stop holding yourself up as the example of dispassionate discourse while accusing others here of rage based judgment. Over the top labels and accusations do not demonstrate calm, dispassionate discourse. If you can use emotionally baggaged terms without being rage based, surely others can too. If you can call others biased without being raged based based, surely others can too. If you can use language that racist people use without being racist, then surely others can use language that those who respond in rage use without them being raged based based based as well.

Neither have I. I am also not so confident I am going to claim it for myself. Given how biases work, it is a type of blindness to judge ourselves as dispassionate, fair, etc. Our biases prevent us from seeing ourselves fairly as much as they mislead us about others. How would you know you are unbiased if you are? Serious question.

So why doesn't it refer to those sections? I would say it didn't refer to them because they don't exist. You quoted 56. The previous one about Utah polygamy is all the way back in 37 and guess what, it has no sources either about Utah polygamy divorce rates. I then kept going back and there are some that kind of mention Utah polygamy but most are focused on modern polygamy or other cultures. I don't find any source that indicates that Utah polygamy had worse of situations than monogamous relationships in Utah. But, that's ok, because I did go and find some. Here's 2 studies that use the Utah Population Database to examine mortality of infants, children, and adults. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?facet_department_t="Economics"&facet_format_medium_t="application%2Fpdf"&facet_setname_s="ir_etd"&id=1701242&rows=100&sort=sort_date_t+desc is a dissertation from 2019 and https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2026-044.pdf is a working paper from 2026. The dissertation was interesting because it looked at all ages. Page 45 has its hypothesis of adult mortality and points out that it couldn't prove or disprove the idea that polygamy made it worse for men or women. But it did show that if a man was more involved in the church (baptized, endowed, polygamous), his mortality went down. No sign that it affected women. Which is kind of contra what section 56 says. On page 72, it has the hypotheses if infant and child mortality. Two of them I found very interesting. The first one is that the older the father, the better off the infant/child was (discusses this more on page 74). I find it interesting because modern research has shown that the older the father is, the higher mortality of his kids are. But yet, somehow, in Utah polygamy, it was the opposite. And an older man also means he would already have more wives, so it might infer some relationship to polygamy (though the dissertation did try to split that out). The second one is that the more involved a husband or wife was in the church (baptism, endowed, polygamous), the higher the mortality rate. For instance (from page 71), if both parents are baptized and just one is endowed (so no polygamy yet), the infant mortality increased by 83% compared to non-baptized parents (aka non-Mormons). That is an odd result. And also kind of contra what section 56 says. The working paper focus solely on infant and child mortality. And it shows that polygamous relationships had higher infant mortality compared to monogamous relationships. But there is something funny in the data. If you look at Figure 2, it shows that a polygamous first wife has higher infant mortality than a monogamous wife, even in the first few births. Yet, men, on average, didn't enter polygamy till 11 years after first marriage (the dissertation talks about that). So, the first 2-3 infants for a polygamous first wife are in a monogamous relationship. There must either be some extreme outliers, something is coded wrong, or some other thing. And that makes me worry about both this study and the dissertation and any other study that might use the Utah Population Database. I, unfortunately, can't get access to the data (I have to be a real researcher) so I can't play around it with it.