When Pondering Polygamy.... Do You Feel

[No Touch]

The women in the 19th century didn't have the same rights that they do now. They couldn't even vote until 1920. The men had control, especially in Utah where there were no checks and balances. BY was both prophet and governer, like when JS was both mayor of Nauvoo and prophet.

Actually, women in Utah got the right to vote in 1870 - and they voted to protect polygamy. They were later disenfranchised on the basis of their religion by the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker act.

Freedom of religion...

[No Touch]

Let me put it a different way:

Get out of your head the idea that polygamy is inherently evil and oppressive to women simply because, and think about what is wrong with consenting grown women agreeing to marry the same man, and share him as husband among them, especially under the sanction of God, which has clearly been given in the past.

[oats]

Thinking: Read the above post by No Touch, just in case you skipped over it. Then go read about woman's suffrage in Utah. Then go another step and read about the lives of women in Utah in the 19 hundreds. You are apparently very ignorant on the way women were treated in Utah.

[T-Bone]

Embarrassment.

It got to the point where I stopped telling people I was from Utah when I moved to the Midwest. Polygamy in the LDS church are way too ingrained in the minds of people, and the manhunt for Warren Jeffs and Big Love didn't help much. Trying explaining to people that Warren Jeffs and Gordon B. Hinckley to not lead the same church and that Big Love is a TV show.

T-Bone

[No Touch]

It got to the point where I stopped telling people I was from Utah when I moved to the Midwest. Polygamy in the LDS church are way too ingrained in the minds of people, and the manhunt for Warren Jeffs and Big Love didn't help much. Trying explaining to people that Warren Jeffs and Gordon B. Hinckley to not lead the same church and that Big Love is a TV show.

The people who can't grasp that aren't worth talking to.

And Big Love is actually a good show, and even though I think their portrayal of the mainstream LDS church is sometimes off base, it is clear on the show (I think) that they aren't part of the Mormon mainstream.

[Scott Lloyd]

But,... I can't help but notice that the numbers don't work out. Don't give me that old "women are more righteous" junk please.

Tarski — and he is not alone in this — appears dismissive of the likelihood that at any given time, righteous women outnumber righteous men.

Some critics of the Church are fond of citing census figures in territorial Utah to bolster their claim that polygamy effectively took away the opportunity of marriage from many male members of the Church.

However, raw population figures provide little or no illumination in the discussion.

Since only highly faithful and dedicated Church members were considered eligible to enter into plural marriage, we must eliminate from consideration all non-member males in the territory. Next, we must rule out male Church members who, for whatever reason, could not qualify for a temple marriage. No census figures I have seen provide such a breakdown.

If I may be so bold as to suggest it, in a system of God-ordained plural marriage, for women of righteousness, wisdom and maturity, their options are actually expanded. Such a woman is not limited to a field of single males in her selection of a marriage partner. She may, if she chooses, enter into plural marriage with a good man. Some may not consider it a very appealing choice, but the option is, in any case, present, and it may be preferable to yoking oneself to a scoundrel and trying to reform him. The oft-heard excuse that "all the good men are taken" is thus obviated.

[TAK]

Scott:

Since only highly faithful and dedicated Church members were considered eligible to enter into plural marriage, we must eliminate from consideration all non-member males in the territory.

Only 3% of the males participated in polygamy w/ 25% of the females, not only were the non members but nearly all LDS males as well..

[SlackTime]

...She may, if she chooses, enter into plural marriage with a good man. Some may not consider it a very appealing choice, but the option is, in any case, present, and it may be preferable to yoking oneself to a scoundrel and trying to reform him. The oft-heard excuse that "all the good men are taken" is thus obviated.

Of course there is the other excuse; The "That good man's first wife is a shrew and I will NOT spend eternity being HER sister-wife!"

-SlackTime

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott:

Only 3% of the males participated in polygamy w/ 25% of the females, not only were the non members but nearly all LDS males as well..

Call for references.

And what period of time are you talking about? The entire period from 1847 to the Manifesto in 1890, or some portion thereof?

Of course there is the other excuse; The "That good man's first wife is a shrew and I will NOT spend eternity being HER sister-wife!"

-SlackTime

Yeah. I'm envisioning an ideal situation, of course.

And I firmly believe there will be no shrews in the celestial kingdom.

[SlackTime]

Yeah. I'm envisioning an ideal situation, of course.

And I firmly believe there will be no shrews in the celestial kingdom.

Or judgemental people that would call another sister a shrew either I guess

- SlackTime

[Scott Lloyd]

Or judgemental people that would call another sister a shrew either I guess

- SlackTime

I think it has been taught by some that as we lay our bodies down, they will so rise again in the resurrection with all the impediments and imperfections that they had here, and that if a wife does not love her husband in this state she cannot love him in the next. This is not so. Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God.... Those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10:24

[TAK]

Scott:

Call for references.

LOL!

This very discussion has been had many times before. If I go track down the information and confirm the fact, in what way will it change your opinion or outlook?

BTW..

The Utah Historical Society includes population statistics in their library. The source for these statistics is the United States Bureau of Census.

Utah population:

1850 total 11,380 male 6,046 female 5,334

1860 total 40,273 male 20,255 female 20,018

1870 total 86,786 male 44,121 female 42,665

1880 total 143,963 male 74,509 female 68,454

1890 total 210,779 male 111,975 female 98,804

edited to add:

"The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church...The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah...This theory is not defensible since there was no surplus of women."

- LDS Apostle John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pages 390-392

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott:

LOL!

This very discussion has been had many times before. If I go track down the information and confirm the fact, in what way will it change your opinion or outlook?

BTW..

The Utah Historical Society includes population statistics in their library. The source for these statistics is the United States Bureau of Census.

Utah population:

1850 total 11,380 male 6,046 female 5,334

1860 total 40,273 male 20,255 female 20,018

1870 total 86,786 male 44,121 female 42,665

1880 total 143,963 male 74,509 female 68,454

1890 total 210,779 male 111,975 female 98,804

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring what I have said?

Again, raw census figures mean nothing in this debate, because they provide no breakdown of Mormon vs. non-Mormon population, nor do they give any information regarding the segment of the population that was temple worthy and thus eligible to enter into plural marriage.

And your reply is unresponsive. What references do you have to back up the figures you gave about percentage of male members and female members of the Church involved in plural marriage, and what portion of the 1847-1890 period do those figures cover?

[SlackTime]

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring what I have said?

Again, raw census figures mean nothing in this debate, because they provide no breakdown of Mormon vs. non-Mormon population, nor do they give any information regarding the segment of the population that was temple worthy and thus eligible to enter into plural marriage.

I suppose it would be reasonable to propose that the percentage of LDS males who were in fact deemed temple worthy, who participated in polygamy, would be pretty high? Possibly as high as 80-90%? And yet the percentage that this represents of the general population could be very low?

I suppose it would also be reasonable to propose that there was a segment of the male population that, being the opposite of the above, non-mormon (or jack-mormon), not temple worthy, were often eschewed by the LDS, temple-worthy females? And yet this could represent a large portion of the male population?

Kind of hard to document these in terms of raw census numbers.

-SlackTime

[TAK]

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring what I have said?

Again, raw census figures mean nothing in this debate, because they provide no breakdown of Mormon vs. non-Mormon population, nor do they give any information regarding the segment of the population that was temple worthy and thus eligible to enter into plural marriage.

And your reply is unresponsive. What references do you have to back up the figures you gave about percentage of male members and female members of the Church involved in plural marriage, and what portion of the 1847-1890 period do those figures cover?

Answer my question...

If I go track down the information and confirm the fact, in what way will it change your opinion or outlook?

Otherwise you can prove me wrong..

[Scott Lloyd]

Answer my question...

If I go track down the information and confirm the fact, in what way will it change your opinion or outlook?

Confirm what fact? You haven't given any indication whether the statistics you gave out are documentable or if you invented them out of whole cloth, and you haven't identified whether you have reference to the entire pre-Manifesto Utah period of Church history or just a portion thereof.

Otherwise you can prove me wrong..

I don't have to prove you wrong. You haven't substantiated your point. I don't think you can.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose it would be reasonable to propose that the percentage of LDS males who were in fact deemed temple worthy, who participated in polygamy, would be pretty high? Possibly as high as 80-90%? And yet the percentage that this represents of the general population could be very low?

I suppose it would also be reasonable to propose that there was a segment of the male population that, being the opposite of the above, non-mormon (or jack-mormon), not temple worthy, were often eschewed by the LDS, temple-worthy females? And yet this could represent a large portion of the male population?

Kind of hard to document these in terms of raw census numbers.

-SlackTime

What TAK and others don't seem to grasp is that non-Mormon males in Utah Territory (of which there must have been quite a number, given the population segments of U.S. Army personnel, miners, railroad workers, federal employees, and possibly immigrants passing through) had no business marrying LDS women anyway. And it could be argued that a male Church member unwilling to make and keep temple covenants was undeserving of a righteous LDS woman, and she would be right to reject him.

[RedSox]

I am ashamed that I ever defended polygamy. When I read D&C 132, I don't hear God's voice.

"But if [Emma] will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed...(verse 54)

"I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy [Emma] if she abide not in my law." (verse 54)

The women in the 19th century didn't have the same rights that they do now. They couldn't even vote until 1920. The men had control, especially in Utah where there were no checks and balances. BY was both prophet and governer, like when JS was both mayor of Nauvoo and prophet.

"And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her..." (verse 64)

The women were commanded to "believe and administer" or "be destroyed." They really didn't have much of a choice.

Thinking,

I respect your right to an opinion, but your analysis of women's roles and rights in UT is not precisely accurate. Considering the fact that Utah women were enfranchised (and subsequently disenfranchised by Congress) before the women of other states/territories (besides Wyoming, I believe), I'd say that the women of Utah enjoyed certain rights that other women were deprived of, as you mentoned, until the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Your "checks and balances" theory seems misguided to me.

[TAK]

I don't have to prove you wrong. You haven't substantiated your point. I don't think you can.

Well certainly as a writer of Churchnews you should know better than I, but on Larry King, President Hinckley said: "The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it [polygamy]. It was a very limited practice..."

Is that a true statement? Only 2-5%

[jkfrost]

Right now I'm doing research on Mormon fundamentalism. It has been eye-opening to read quotes from Heber J. Grant about the evils of polygamy ("new" polygamy), while he himself was a polygamist. Although I've not read the records from the Smoot hearings, I think that JFS probably struggled to both live and decry polygamy.

Today, many of us are the descendant's of Mormon polygamists. Regardless of that fact, when you think of pre-1904 polygamy, are you disgusted? enthralled? intrigued? ashamed?

For me, I'm somewhat fascinated by the whole idea. It's hard to imagine men and women willingly entering polygamy. In a way, I'm proud of the great amounts of faith that my forebearers had in the principle, but I'm also somewhat horrified by some of the hardships a polygamist life exacted upon plural wives (and sometimes husbands...especially when they were on the lam).

What are your reaction to the practice?

God provides for his people - this is one way he has done it - to take away the reproach of women after a big war etc.

It was instituted in the Mosaic law. Isa 3- 4

Perhaps a lot more women then men accept the exalted ways of God therefore who do they marry?

when compared with the sitcom "Three's Company" it is heaven.

[MorningStar]

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring what I have said?

Again, raw census figures mean nothing in this debate, because they provide no breakdown of Mormon vs. non-Mormon population, nor do they give any information regarding the segment of the population that was temple worthy and thus eligible to enter into plural marriage.

And your reply is unresponsive. What references do you have to back up the figures you gave about percentage of male members and female members of the Church involved in plural marriage, and what portion of the 1847-1890 period do those figures cover?

Good points, Scott. I've thought about this a bit and if my choices were limited, I could see how polygamy would start to look somewhat attractive. I would more likely choose not to marry, but let's say these ten men were the only men available to marry:

1. Fred - has a history of violence towards women

2. Don - member who has a drinking problem

3. Al - verbally abusive

4. Alex - stares at women's chests when talking to them and if they fall down, he helps them up by grabbing their butt (I actually knew a guy like this in my FHE group in Provo - He was #1 on my list of guys I wouldn't date to save my life)

5. Nick - thinks everything he doesn't want to do is "women's work"

6. Rob - Has "revelations" on my behalf (went on one date with a guy like that - He was #1 on my list of guys I would never date again to save my life)

7. Ryan - A habitual liar

8. Peter - happily married man, a good dad, is temple worthy, and has tolerable imperfections

9. James - same

10. John - same

If I lived in those conditions, the last three guys would probably start to look pretty good! I would prefer to remain unmarried, but I can see why some women would've chosen that life if there were a shortage of worthy men. Statistics showing more men than women does not mean the majority of those men were marriage material.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good points, Scott. I've thought about this a bit and if my choices were limited, I could see how polygamy would start to look somewhat attractive. I would more likely choose not to marry, but let's say these ten men were the only men available to marry:

1. Fred - has a history of violence towards women

2. Don - member who has a drinking problem

3. Al - verbally abusive

4. Alex - stares at women's chests when talking to them and if they fall down, he helps them up by grabbing their butt (I actually knew a guy like this in my FHE group in Provo - He was #1 on my list of guys I wouldn't date to save my life)

5. Nick - thinks everything he doesn't want to do is "women's work"

6. Rob - Has "revelations" on my behalf (went on one date with a guy like that - He was #1 on my list of guys I would never date again to save my life)

7. Ryan - A habitual liar

8. Peter - happily married man, a good dad, is temple worthy, and has tolerable imperfections

9. James - same

10. John - same

If I lived in those conditions, the last three guys would probably start to look pretty good! I would prefer to remain unmarried, but I can see why some women would've chosen that life if there were a shortage of worthy men. Statistics showing more men than women does not mean the majority of those men were marriage material.

I'm glad you are discriminating, at least.

In a perfect world, good women would uniformly reject scoundrels and creeps and only marry good men. Alas, that is not the case nearly as often as it should be!

[Scott Lloyd]

Well certainly as a writer of Churchnews you should know better than I, but on Larry King, President Hinckley said: "The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it [polygamy]. It was a very limited practice..."

Is that a true statement? Only 2-5%

I'm not certain his figures represented the lastest scholarship on the matter. And again, he didn't specify whether this was true throughout the pre-Manifesto Utah period of Church history. I understand plural marriage was very frequent during the reformation of the 1850s but declined significantly in the territory as time went on.

[SolarPowered]

I have a very high level of apathy for the subject.

[RedSox]

"High level of apathy" is that an oxymoron?? J/K.

T-Bone,

I'm a law student in the midwest as well. I've had to explain polygamy to a lot of people. All it takes is, "He's from a differenct sect," or "But, we don't practice it anymore" (or my personal favorite), "Don't rip on it too hard, if it weren't for polygamy, I wouldn't be here" followed by a pause, while they consider the possible ramifications of my statement for a moment, and then let them know it was great-great-great grandpa. I wonder if your issue isn't about polygamy, but Mormonism in general (which wouldn't shock me).