David Snell’s New Video on Polygamy in Utah

[Devobah]

David Snell recently released this video regarding Polygamy in Utah. It’s a short, 9 minute video that I found very interesting. Despite the clickbait title that David introduces, I have seen across the Metaverse this accusation that Missionaries’s engaged in some amount of trafficking of women. David’s video goes over a few concepts, including immigration statistics from Scandinavia, courtship for marriage and polygamous marriage, and divorce during the height of the plural marriage era of the church. While he likely does skip over some things (I couldn’t tell you what) in favor of getting down to the points raised by one redditor, I still found this pretty informative overall. David is great at what he does and I’m glad to see his success with his own channel. 
 

To promote discussion, I will ask this: what are some aspects of Utah era polygamy that you find the most interesting? 

Personally, I thought the part about divorce proceedings during the polygamy era was interesting. I also think the courtship being relatively fast was interesting as well. As one of my good friends who serves with me on the institute council would say, “It used to be you could make a lot of things work in a relationship with a faith in the Lord and keeping to your covenants. Nowadays, you young people have made things so difficult I’m not sure how anyone is getting married.” (God bless the man)

I know this is a touchy subject and that the feelings about this practice vary, so I will request the very obvious that we keep things civil and try not to downplay each other’s views. 

[Duncan]

I remember reading that during the "reformation" period of the Church in Utah a brother, was married to several women. He got divorced and said that he was "obedient but not very wise"

[blackstrap]

7 hours ago, Devobah said:

I’m not sure how anyone is getting married.”

Fact is , they are not. Trends are way down.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Devobah said:

David Snell recently released this video regarding Polygamy in Utah. It’s a short, 9 minute video that I found very interesting. Despite the clickbait title that David introduces, I have seen across the Metaverse this accusation that Missionaries’s engaged in some amount of trafficking of women. David’s video goes over a few concepts, including immigration statistics from Scandinavia, courtship for marriage and polygamous marriage, and divorce during the height of the plural marriage era of the church. While he likely does skip over some things (I couldn’t tell you what) in favor of getting down to the points raised by one redditor, I still found this pretty informative overall. David is great at what he does and I’m glad to see his success with his own channel. 
 

To promote discussion, I will ask this: what are some aspects of Utah era polygamy that you find the most interesting? 

Personally, I thought the part about divorce proceedings during the polygamy era was interesting. I also think the courtship being relatively fast was interesting as well. As one of my good friends who serves with me on the institute council would say, “It used to be you could make a lot of things work in a relationship with a faith in the Lord and keeping to your covenants. Nowadays, you young people have made things so difficult I’m not sure how anyone is getting married.” (God bless the man)

I know this is a touchy subject and that the feelings about this practice vary, so I will request the very obvious that we keep things civil and try not to downplay each other’s views. 

I will watch the video when I get a chance, it looks interesting.

The quote from David's friend also spiked my interest.  I'm wondering if what era he is from.  Was "used to be" back when wives were more willing to stay in marriages that didn't meet their own needs while meeting the needs of the husband?  We will probably never know since we can't ask for more clarification on that, but I'm curious.

In regards to polygamy, for me the most interesting aspect is that it polygamous marriage is a multiplication for the man and a division for the woman, and understanding why God found benefits in living two different types of marriages for His sons compared to His daughters.  

[webbles]

I've wondered if it is allowed to analyze the information at familysearch and get better marriage statistics or if anyone has ever done that.  I've looked at census data and at several of the books he mentioned but they all seem to be pre familysearch.  I would bet that almost all of the family relationships that existed in early Utah can be found in familysearch and it would have much better data.  It would have marriage dates, age of first children, number of wives, number of husbands, etc.  The initial quote in the clip says that the woman will be given as a "6th wife", but I'm pretty sure that the number of men who had 6 wives is less than 100.

I do think that there might have been some women who might have had a "trafficking-like" experience, though I don't think any are like being herded by cattle to Utah and then married off to the highest bidder.  But I have an ancestor's sister who came to Utah and then was married against her will (her parents forced her) to a man as a second wife.  The man had convinced her parents that it was safer for young women to marry an older, wiser man who already has a wife.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

I do think that there might have been some women who might have had a "trafficking-like" experience, though I don't think any are like being herded by cattle to Utah and then married off to the highest bidder.  But I have an ancestor's sister who came to Utah and then was married against her will (her parents forced her) to a man as a second wife.  The man had convinced her parents that it was safer for young women to marry an older, wiser man who already has a wife.

That would be so hard!  Did she ever write or speak about how the marriage turned out?

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That would be so hard!  Did she ever write or speak about how the marriage turned out?

She hated it.  She doesn't blame her parents as she thinks her husband deceived them.  Had 2 kids and both of them died young.  After that, she left him.  Married another guy, had a kid with with him and that kid died young.  Left the second husband and then married another guy.  This last husband was a more successful marriage and they had more kids (who survived to adulthood) and stayed married for the rest of their lives.  So, the easy ability to get a divorce was a factor in her life.

[Devobah]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The quote from David's friend also spiked my interest.  I'm wondering if what era he is from.  Was "used to be" back when wives were more willing to stay in marriages that didn't meet their own needs while meeting the needs of the husband?  We will probably never know since we can't ask for more clarification on that, but I'm curious.

I should clarify that this is my friend, and not David’s. I think he’s coming from the idea that the most important thing when trying to live a Christian life is to draw close to God, and as you draw close to God you draw close to each other. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, webbles said:

She hated it.  She doesn't blame her parents as she thinks her husband deceived them.  Had 2 kids and both of them died young.  After that, she left him.  Married another guy, had a kid with with him and that kid died young.  Left the second husband and then married another guy.  This last husband was a more successful marriage and they had more kids (who survived to adulthood) and stayed married for the rest of their lives.  So, the easy ability to get a divorce was a factor in her life.

I'm so glad that she was able to find happiness in marriage in the end.  Thank goodness for the ability to divorce.  Her first husband had some explaining to do in heaven I think!

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I should clarify that this is my friend, and not David’s. I think he’s coming from the idea that the most important thing when trying to live a Christian life is to draw close to God, and as you draw close to God you draw close to each other. 

And he thinks that the people who are marrying now aren't trying to live a Christian life or draw close to God? (asking for clarification so I make sure I'm getting his complaint correct)  Can I ask how old this friend is?

Edited August 24, 2025 by bluebell

[Devobah]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And he thinks that the people who are marrying now aren't trying to live a Christian life or draw close to God? (asking for clarification so I make sure I'm getting his complaint correct)  Can I ask how old this friend is?

Well he's in his 50s (hence why he said "you young people"). I don't think he meant that people aren't trying to live a Christian life and draw close to God. I take it to mean that people let too many other things get in the way of a good relationship when the most important thing is that you both love Christ and hold to your covenants. (I'm not saying I agree with him. My parents might because they are both in their 60s.) I believe he's trying to say that we get too bogged down by other things like absolute compatibility (things like soulmates and such), icks, and other things. I'm not saying that people should just get married if they both love God and hold to their covenants, but I do somewhat agree that those things are probably more on the important side of things. People in Utah and through most of the 1900s also probably agreed with this, which is why there's a tiny stereotype that Latter-day Saints don't marry for love but rather obligation to God and make babies. (It's only in a handful of media like "The Santa Clause 2" where Santa has to find a Mrs. Claus as part of the Santa Clause and it says "must marry for love (not valid in the state of Utah)")

Edit to add: looking back at my comments, I see where I was being less clear. It was early in the morning and my mind was fogged up a bit. He was talking about the most important thing when courting and marrying a person.

Edited August 24, 2025 by Devobah

[Calm]

On 8/24/2025 at 10:28 AM, Devobah said:

people let too many other things get in the way of a good relationship when the most important thing is that you both love Christ and hold to your covenants. (I'm not saying I agree with him. My parents might because they are both in their 60s.)

I am in my 60s and I most certainly don’t when it comes to the “you young people have made things so difficult I’m not sure how anyone is getting married”.  I don’t think it’s only the “young people” who have made things so difficult given the current financial situation many young people find themselves in because of the economy and expectations and costs of educational systems that has nothing to do with what young people are doing and everything to do with what the previous generations have done.

Quote

was talking about the most important thing when courting and marrying a person.

I am not certain the most important aspect of courtship and marriage is that both are seeking God in faith (I think attributes are too synergistic to separate out one as most important), but I do believe this aspect is best coupled with other important aspects (open, willing communication would probably be my top requirement if I were to have one as I see less wiggle room for adjusting to each other by trial and error available to young couples these days due to more financial stress and the easy availability of so many distractions from investing and building in an actual relationship).

As far as the soulmate issue, like I said I am in my 60s, 66 to be precise and this was imo a major cultural influence in my youth, both in the general population and in the LDS faith…Saturday’s Warrior was first performed in 1973 (for those unfamiliar with it, two spirits in the preexistence promise they will find each other to marry).  There was also in the general population this idea that being in love with your soulmate would be enough…Love Story was a movie/novel about two very beautiful people—both nominated for Academy awards while the novel was on the NYT’s bestseller list for 41 weeks (can’t tell if this means number one or just on the list)—from ‘opposite sides of the tracks’ with the caption “Love means never having to say you are sorry” (meaning according to AI they have such a deep, unconditional love the other’s needs are so perfectly understood, no apologies are necessary).  Love Story was seen by many of my friends and, as far as I could tell back then (based on ads, magazine, and tv references), also seen by many in the greater population as an example of what would be the ideal relationship, the type of love to wish for where you instinctively knew each other so well and were so compatible actual communication wouldn’t be necessary (though they didn’t usually say it that way).

added:  nowadays I see a lot more criticism of the “you should know what I want without even asking me” or “if I have to ask, then it’s not love” mentality, so I see the current generation as likely better educated in communication skills than previous ones…whether they use those skills or not is another thing.

I just learned (since I never actually saw the movie nor read the companion novel, I looked for a review for the date they were released—1970—and to make sure I was right about the quote) that a crucial part of the story was the doctor telling the husband his wife had terminal leukemia and encouraging him not to tell his wife that she has it, I guess so she can live a happier life in the time she has left.  I think that demonstrates just how antiquated the author’s point of view was (that it would even be semirealistic for the author and not laughable to occur, even if the author presented it as a negative, which seems likely as the wife confronts the doctor eventually according to wiki) and while one can have novel ideas next to very out dated ones, the idea of “soulmates” has been around since Ancient Greece at least…and criticized that long ago as well (Plato has one character in the play, Symposium, tell an absurd myth of humans originally being one soul, one body but as a punishment the gods split their body into two, so they become one soul, two bodies…the other characters approach love in a much less simplistic way, so one shouldn’t blame Plato for promoting the idea.  )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_(Plato)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Story_(novel)

Added:  lol, had to change my “precise” age…I haven’t been keeping very good track of how many years I actually have probably since I hit 50, maybe even 40.

Edited August 26, 2025 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

In my opinion the primary reason people aren't getting married is there's a lack of willingness to sacrifice one's own wants and needs, or to sacrifice in general.

Not everyone of course, but enough that it's reduced the marriage rate. 

Men are less willing to give their all, working long hours to support wife and children and to have little time to please themselves. Women are less willing to prioritize home and family over fulfilling their own needs and wants.

And that is a primary reason why polygamy which would require even greater sacrifices from both just wouldn't fly anymore if God ever expected it again.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, Devobah said:

David Snell recently released this video regarding Polygamy in Utah. It’s a short, 9 minute video that I found very interesting. Despite the clickbait title that David introduces, I have seen across the Metaverse this accusation that Missionaries’s engaged in some amount of trafficking of women. David’s video goes over a few concepts, including immigration statistics from Scandinavia, courtship for marriage and polygamous marriage, and divorce during the height of the plural marriage era of the church. While he likely does skip over some things (I couldn’t tell you what) in favor of getting down to the points raised by one redditor, I still found this pretty informative overall. David is great at what he does and I’m glad to see his success with his own channel. 
 

To promote discussion, I will ask this: what are some aspects of Utah era polygamy that you find the most interesting? 

Personally, I thought the part about divorce proceedings during the polygamy era was interesting. I also think the courtship being relatively fast was interesting as well. As one of my good friends who serves with me on the institute council would say, “It used to be you could make a lot of things work in a relationship with a faith in the Lord and keeping to your covenants. Nowadays, you young people have made things so difficult I’m not sure how anyone is getting married.” (God bless the man)

I know this is a touchy subject and that the feelings about this practice vary, so I will request the very obvious that we keep things civil and try not to downplay each other’s views. 

FWIW, my gg grandparents were from Scandinavia (Denmark). My gg grandpa married two women one after the other. He was 36. They were both 16, however, both arrived with their entire families. I have no idea about how easy divorce was, but the first wife ran away with a traveling salesman along with her four young children. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but the first wife ran away with a traveling salesman along with her four young children. 

Do you know what became of them?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In my opinion the primary reason people aren't getting married is there's a lack of willingness to sacrifice one's own wants and needs, or to sacrifice in general.

Not everyone of course, but enough that it's reduced the marriage rate. 

Men are less willing to give their all, working long hours to support wife and children and to have little time to please themselves. Women are less willing to prioritize home and family over fulfilling their own needs and wants.

And that is a primary reason why polygamy which would require even greater sacrifices from both just wouldn't fly anymore if God ever expected it again.

People aren't big on self sacrifice right now, I think you are right.  It's the top reason that I see people give for not wanting to have kids.  

Edited August 24, 2025 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you know what became of them?

From my Grandpa’s Family history:

 

I don’t know just when this happened, but a man by the name of Elvy came to Bloomington. He took a liking to Anna. One day he took Anna and the children and left Bloomington by team and wagon. Grandfather Krogh didn’t find out about them leaving until the next morning when he went to check on Anna. Grandfather was very angry and hurt. He got his team of oxen and started after them. He went all the way to Evanston, Wyoming but never caught up to them. 

Elvy had a team of horses and grandfather only had oxen. Grandfather never saw them after that. They went to California.

Franklin[one of the children], after he was grown, he came to Bloomington to look up the family. I have a picture taken at this time with him and all of grandmother Krogh’s children.

The only one in the family that I became aquatinted with was Aunt Sarah Page [another of the four children]. She worked in the mining area of northern Idaho. She married Alfred Page. They owned the Page mine in Idaho.

She told us that Elvy was mean to the children and she asked him once why he took the children with Anna. He said the reason was her mother wouldn’t have gone without her children.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She told us that Elvy was mean to the children and she asked him once why he took the children with Anna. He said the reason was her mother wouldn’t have gone without her children.

What a shame.  That was the worry that got triggered when I read that.  While some traveling salesmen were no doubt great family men, it doesn’t seem like a career most men who enjoy being around their children all the time would choose.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

What a shame.  That was the worry that got triggered when I read that.  While some traveling salesmen were no doubt great family men, it doesn’t seem like a career most men who enjoy being around their children all the time would choose.

Just really sad all around 😢

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just really sad all around 😢

Yes, Anna was likely miserable to risk such uncertainty with four young children.  It sounds like it was more than just hurt pride for Brother Keogh trying to get her back as well.  It’s apparently 350 miles from Bloomington to Evanston by car these days, apparently that would have been 3-4 weeks by oxen (AI), 2 weeks by horse.  I was thinking if horses are that much faster, why not just take a horse, but he had to have a way to bring them home, so he just didn’t go to yell at her, he wanted them back.

Edited August 24, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Calm said:

Yes, Anna was likely miserable to risk such uncertainty with four young children.

I’ve tried to find more of her story, but the only descendant I was able to track down (who is very active on ancestry) was very cagey over email but was willing to meet in person. Never was able to make it work out. 

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From my Grandpa’s Family history:

 

I don’t know just when this happened, but a man by the name of Elvy came to Bloomington. He took a liking to Anna. One day he took Anna and the children and left Bloomington by team and wagon. Grandfather Krogh didn’t find out about them leaving until the next morning when he went to check on Anna. Grandfather was very angry and hurt. He got his team of oxen and started after them. He went all the way to Evanston, Wyoming but never caught up to them. 

Elvy had a team of horses and grandfather only had oxen. Grandfather never saw them after that. They went to California.

Franklin[one of the children], after he was grown, he came to Bloomington to look up the family. I have a picture taken at this time with him and all of grandmother Krogh’s children.

The only one in the family that I became aquatinted with was Aunt Sarah Page [another of the four children]. She worked in the mining area of northern Idaho. She married Alfred Page. They owned the Page mine in Idaho.

She told us that Elvy was mean to the children and she asked him once why he took the children with Anna. He said the reason was her mother wouldn’t have gone without her children.

That's sad.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes, Anna was likely miserable to risk such uncertainty with four young children.  It sounds like it was more than just hurt pride for Brother Keogh trying to get her back as well.  It’s apparently 350 miles from Bloomington to Evanston by car these days, apparently that would have been 3-4 weeks by oxen (AI), 2 weeks by horse.  I was thinking if horses are that much faster, why not just take a horse, but he had to have a way to bring them home, so he just didn’t go to yell at her, he wanted them back.

Polygamy was such a sacrifice for the women that lived it. It’s one of the one issues I had with the video in the OP which just came across as a dude explaining it away. In addition to the above, I have a gg grandma on my mother’s side that lived through the manifesto era. From her:

 

Quote

*In October, 1890, I, my husband, and our children left Durango, Colorado, and started for Utah. When we got to Monroe … Mr. Young opened his newspaper to the Conference news and there was the Manifesto which had been given in conference by President Woodruff. We were all greatly astonished and we discussed it for some time. I could not believe that the Authorities of the Church had given up plural marriage, as it had been called the crowning principal of the Gospel, and it had been such a sacrifice on the part of many young women to go into that order of marriage, but they did it because it was taught that it was the only way that a person could get to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of God.

On our arrival at Moab we found several people there who were just returning from Conference. My husband went out and talked with them about the Manifesto. They told him that it was a fact that the principal was dropped by the Church. They said that the first Presidency and the Apostles were all united on it, and it should be practiced no more.

My husband came to our tent and told me about it, and my feelings were past description. I had given into that order of marriage solely for the purpose above mentioned, and because I believe God had commanded His people to do so, and it had been such a sacrifice to enter it and live it as I thought God wanted me to. So I thought about it. It seemed impossible that the Lord would go back on a principal which have caused so much sacrifice, heartache and trial before one could conquer ones cornel self, and live on that higher plane and love ones neighbor as ones self. My husband walked out without saying a word, and as he walked away I thought, Oh yes, it is easy for you, you can go home to your other family and be happy with her, and then while I must be like Hager sent away.

My anguish was inexpressible, and a dense darkness took hold of my mind. I thought that if the Lord and the Church Authorities had gone back on that principal, there was nothing to any part of the Gospel. I fancied I would see myself and my children, and many other splendid women and their children turned adrift, and our only purpose in entering it, had been more fully to serve the Lord. I sank down on our bedding and wished in my anguish that the earth would open and take me and my children in. The darkness seemed imponerable.

All at once I heard a voice and felt a most powerful presence. The voice said, "Why, this is no more unresonable than the requirement the Lord made of Abraham when he commanded him to offer up his son Isaac, and when the Lord sees that you are willing to obey in all things the trial shall be removed."

There was a light whose brightness cannot be described which filled my soul and I was so filled with joy and peace, and happiness that I felt that no matter whatever should come to me in all my future life, I could never feel sad again. If the people of the whole world had been gathered together trying with all their power to comfort me they could not compare with the powerful unseen presence which came to me on that occassion.

As soon as my husband came back I told him what a glorious presence had been there, and what I had heard. He said,

"I knew I couldn't say a word to comfort you, so I went to a patch of willows and asked the Lord to send a comforter."

In the trying years which followed, often a glimmer of that same light came to me again."

She went on to live as a single mother, providing all the support for her eight children  (four born post manifesto). She describes her growing resentment for her husband who lived with his first wife and only came for conjugal visits, but also continued spiritual affirmations that it was what God wanted of her. The sacrifice and hardship that she went through (and she is far from alone I know) is indescribable in a way that the video just fails to capture. 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Polygamy was such a sacrifice for the women that lived it. It’s one of the one issues I had with the video in the OP which just came across as a dude explaining it away. In addition to the above, I have a gg grandma on my mother’s side that lived through the manifesto era. From her:

 

She went on to live as a single mother, providing all the support for her eight children  (four born post manifesto). She describes her growing resentment for her husband who lived with his first wife and only came for conjugal visits, but also continued spiritual affirmations that it was what God wanted of her. The sacrifice and hardship that she went through (and she is far from alone I know) is indescribable in a way that the video just fails to capture. 

Is her story available in church sources?  I feel like I've read it before.  I can imagine how difficult it must have been for her.  This is the aspect of polygamy that I struggle with.  Not so much the sharing of a husband, but the unfairness of how the "sharing" often happened.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is her story available in church sources?  I feel like I've read it before.  I can imagine how difficult it must have been for her.  This is the aspect of polygamy that I struggle with.  Not so much the sharing of a husband, but the unfairness of how the "sharing" often happened.

Yes. Aunt Julia as the first wife was called got to live with the husband while Lorena went into hiding, adopted false names and had to teach her toddler to lie about who her dad was. I pretty much don’t see any redeeming qualities to polygamy, but the state persecution of what consenting adults do makes me really mad. 
 

The woman in question is Lorena Washburn Larsen. I don’t recall ever seeing anything but low and behold a quick google search shows her quoted in one of the polygamy essays:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng
 

Every story is so complex. I see the despair and desperation in her story but also acknowledge the light she felt from her faith which was the defining characteristic of her life.