Wrestling With Polyandry

[Sleeper Cell]

I wish Bro Godfrey were around to answer these questions. It was his clearly stated conclusion that polygamy was the cause of 1/3 of men going their entire lives without marriage -- which makes perfect mathematical sense, as you've already demonstrated. I remember for certain that he told us that at no point during the practise of plural marriage was there an abundance of extra women in the Church's records. That meant, simply, that every man who had one extra wife resulted in a man who would never marry. A man who had three extra wives created three lifelong bachelors. And so on. There's just no other way around it.

Of course, as I once read in a brilliant PhD on how the practice of plural marriage impacted gender relations in LDS communities, it's also entirely possible that many of these poor never-married men were amongst those least desirable to women. What polygamy seems to have done -- quite radically -- is allow women access to the social and economic benefits of marriage without having to settle for men who weren't, for example, very nice to women. But I still feel sorry for many of these men.

There is no real-world demographic situation in which the longterm, widespread practice of polygyny could be maintained for very long without coming up with some mechanism for dealing with the social disruption that always occurs with large numbers of unmarried (and hopeless) males.

I don't know what per cent of women never married during this time, and I don't remember Bro Godfrey addressing the issue, but I think I vaguely remember reading somewhere (maybe in the same PhD thesis) that they were very few. Sorry I can't be more clear or sure.

I appreciate your information and the rebuttal’s cited by Calmoriah. It looks like I will have to do more reading. Presumably, a copy of Godfrey’s dissertation is available at his school.. Do you recall the school and the date? Is it available elsewhere?

If there were unusually large numbers of unmarried LDS men, surely it would be reflected in the extensive LDS family genealogies. Given the widespread interest in genealogy (including large family organizations largely devoted to researching the family history of their LDS ancestors, and making the results widely available to the extended family), it is surprising to me that this phenomenon, if it exists, would not have been noticed before.

Then when we consider the great LDS emphasis on the eternal significance of marriage and the duty of the living to be sure that every deceased family member is sealed to their spouses, it is even more surprising that nobody would have noticed that (for several generations) that a third of the males in these extended families were never married.

Of course, that is no reason to ignore Godfrey’s research (or the cited rebuttals).

There is no real-world demographic situation in which the longterm, widespread practice of polygyny could be maintained for very long without coming up with some mechanism for dealing with the social disruption that always occurs with large numbers of unmarried (and hopeless) males.

That may be one of the reasons that we are strictly forbidden to practice polygamy, except on rare occasions and, even then, only when specifically commanded to do

Edited June 15, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[bcuzbcuz]

If it is true that some live in polygamy, then just the fact (men even say women are better or more righteous than men) that more women than men will end up in the CK, will take care of the problem. Now these righteous sisters will have a husband and family in the hereafter when they don't have it here on earth. I know one lady, my friend, who is counting on it! She doesn't go so far as to say she'll marry in polygamy though.

My mother was one of these women who also counted on finding a good man in the afterlife. Yes, she was married and mother already but my father was absolutely not interested in religion, in general, nor Mormonism, in specifics and they got divorced. She resigned herself to being wife number two or three in the afterlife. She was counting on finding contentment in the afterlife, while accepting unhappiness in this life.

[thesometimesaint]

105 males are born for every 100 females. But females quickly catch up in numbers. Would your assumption then mandate that women will predominate in the CK?

The evidence suggests that.

Single righteous men have exactly the same promise as single righteous women. Single righteous men whom get told No are in the same position as single righteous women who are never asked.

I will have to look up the reference, but in this society it is not the place of the woman to initiate a dating situation -- hunt down a mate, ask him on a date, etc. That is the responsibility of the heathy male, and if he fails in his righteous duty in this regard, he has no promise.

I find it not so significant righteously as a cultural expectation.

There is no excuse for inactivity. The female participation is not only in our church, but for other churches as well.

Very good evidence.

A man chases a woman until she catches him.

We're pretty generous when it comes to getting the label "active". Generally being active is someone whom does show up to at least one Sacrament Meeting at least one in four weeks. But in reality its anyone whom wants to be considered active is.

[omni]

This counteracts others' findings such as Daynes and Keller who went through the available census as well as local records. I'd like to see his data.

I believe I have found Godfrey's dissertation. It is titled: Causes of Mormon Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839-1846 and was published in 1967. Hancock County is in Illinois. Perhaps his research on marriage rates was not done for the same time period as Keller's and Dayne's thus leading to different conclusions.

http://books.google....id=yjbiNQAACAAJ

I would agree with Godfrey's research as it is exactly what the data would predict. Unless women were being converted or men leaving the church at significantly disproportionate levels then you simply cannot expect a community to live polygamy and not have a significant portion of the male population married.

It's funny I've heard it mentioned several times as a way to sort of down play the polygamy in our history that only a small portion of the early saints actually practiced it. Well of course only a small portion did, based simply on numbers it would have been impossible for all or most of them to.

[canard78]

Except I was not trying to prove that polygamy would exist in the eternities. I was simply pointing out that your proof (that it wouldn’t) rested on non-doctrinal assumptions that may or may not be true.

Do you believe that , in the eternities, there will only be a finite number of people, or do you believe there will be an infinite number of people? Your mathematical model simply does not apply. when there are an infinite number of people.

Perhaps we can agree that we know very little about our pre-moral life and even less about the eternities.

Frankly, I do not know whether polygamy will exist in the eternities, or, if so, in what form, or, for that matter, if it will be restricted to a very few special cases. But the existence of polygamy in the eternities seems to be currently doctrinal. Any mathematical proof to disprove a doctrine about the eternities (especially if it is based on a finite population and the way things work in mortality) could be called a “non-doctrinal mental contortion.”

If polygamy is needed in the eternities then yes there could very well be a way of making it happen by those who participate having additional wives from some other pool of females. Other as in, not one who shared this earthly experience. Perhaps somewhere in another galaxy there is an abundance of righteous females who are sat waiting for the privilege of being wife #23 to some Mormon polygamist.

[canard78]

My mother was one of these women who also counted on finding a good man in the afterlife. Yes, she was married and mother already but my father was absolutely not interested in religion, in general, nor Mormonism, in specifics and they got divorced. She resigned herself to being wife number two or three in the afterlife. She was counting on finding contentment in the afterlife, while accepting unhappiness in this life.

My mother on the other hand says she would rather be a ministering angel than someone's second wife.

Instead she's holding out for a nice young man who died in the trenches of WW1

[Stargazer]

My mother on the other hand says she would rather be a ministering angel than someone's second wife.

Instead she's holding out for a nice young man who died in the trenches of WW1

On my mission in Germany many years ago, an elderly member of the Wuppertal Ward had been engaged to marry a very nice young man, but he died in the trenches of WW1. She never married. But when the missionaries came to her in the 60's she recognized immediately that they were from the true church (the story she told was quite inspiring), and she was baptized just about immediately. She was in her 80's and her health did not permit her to go the Temple (she was houseridden), so she was patiently waiting for death when she would be able to receive those ordinances and be sealed to her fiancee. She was amazingly close to the Spirit.

[ERayR]

If polygamy is needed in the eternities then yes there could very well be a way of making it happen by those who participate having additional wives from some other pool of females. Other as in, not one who shared this earthly experience. Perhaps somewhere in another galaxy there is an abundance of righteous females who are sat waiting for the privilege of being wife #23 to some Mormon polygamist.

Who said anything about being needed. It may be that it just is without any needs. Its when we get to thinking that way that we begin to assign out own understanding and motives.

Edited June 16, 2013 by ERayR

[Glenn101]

Who said anything about being needed. It may be that it just is without any needs. Its when we get to thinking that way that we begin to assign out own understanding and motives.

The main thing that is needed for a marriage to be effected in eternity is for it to be according to the New and Everlasting Covenant. There may well be people in eternity with only one wife. I don't know. Right now, I don't really care because it has no relevance to my current mortal life.

Polygamy was established because it was a part of the restitution of all things, as was the United Order. There has been no other explanation given for polygamy in these latter days.

I don't wrestle with any of it because I have not been commanded to be a concurrent polygamist. I don't wrestle with what happened 180 or so years ago because I was not in a mortal state then. I have my testimony that the LDS church is the restored Church of CHrist and that Joseph Smith was the person chosen by God to be the main instrument for that restoration. Whatever questions may pop up, it really does not matter, because of that testimony. God will handle it.

Glenn

[Questing Beast]

Plurality of wives doctrine was centered on the size/glory of one's eternal "kingdom". So of course "raising up seed" was a central aspect to the anticipated exponential growth of that "kingdom". It was tied to "so much more the advantage in the life to come" doctrine. At the same time, "higher priesthood" was a doctrine of the Church; BY's priesthood was the "highest", his counselors' priesthoods were second-highest, the apostles' priesthoods came next, in descending order of eminence in the quorum: then came all the hierarchy of priesthoods down through the Church org. The lowliest "only an elder" had infinitely more priesthood than any non member, no matter what his earthly status, because "only an elder" was going into eternity with an "increasing of the lives" in his destiny, all other lesser beings only had a set glory with no increase forever. But the doctrine of priesthood eminence, along with the doctrine of personal "kingdoms" being more glorious based on size, rendered plurality of wives doctrine "core" to the Church. Many statements prior to 1890 indicate that without it the Church would cease to be. Men who expected to have very glorious "kingdoms" in the afterlife had to engage in the practice of plurality of wives and bear as many children as possible by them.

Anyone who does not see this as an accurate historical overview of polygamy in early Mormonism may now chime in....

Edited June 16, 2013 by Questing Beast

[thesometimesaint]

I would agree with Godfrey's research as it is exactly what the data would predict. Unless women were being converted or men leaving the church at significantly disproportionate levels then you simply cannot expect a community to live polygamy and not have a significant portion of the male population married.

It's funny I've heard it mentioned several times as a way to sort of down play the polygamy in our history that only a small portion of the early saints actually practiced it. Well of course only a small portion did, based simply on numbers it would have been impossible for all or most of them to.

I don't believe polygamy can support itself over the long haul, but for a limited amount of time it, and numbers can/does work. Polygamy amongst the Saints lasted less than 70 years, and constituted only about 10% of the Saints whom actually practiced it.

Only a small portion did practice it.

That can't be substantiated.

[ERayR]

The main thing that is needed for a marriage to be effected in eternity is for it to be according to the New and Everlasting Covenant. There may well be people in eternity with only one wife. I don't know. Right now, I don't really care because it has no relevance to my current mortal life.

Polygamy was established because it was a part of the restitution of all things, as was the United Order. There has been no other explanation given for polygamy in these latter days.

I don't wrestle with any of it because I have not been commanded to be a concurrent polygamist. I don't wrestle with what happened 180 or so years ago because I was not in a mortal state then. I have my testimony that the LDS church is the restored Church of CHrist and that Joseph Smith was the person chosen by God to be the main instrument for that restoration. Whatever questions may pop up, it really does not matter, because of that testimony. God will handle it.

Glenn

I agree completely.

[Thinking]

Polygamy was established because it was a part of the restitution of all things, as was the United Order. There has been no other explanation given for polygamy in these latter days.

Orson Pratt, Celestial Marriage, JoD Vol. 1 p.58-65

Whoredom, adultery, and fornication, have cursed the nations of the earth for many generations, and are increasing fearfully upon the community; but they must be entirely done away from those who call themselves the people of God; if they are not, woe! woe! be unto them, also; for "thus saith the Lord God Almighty," in the Book of Mormon, "Woe unto them that commit whoredoms, for they shall be thrust down to hell!" There is no getting away from it. Such things will not be allowed in this community; and such characters will find, that the time will come, that God, whose eyes are upon all the children of men, and who discerneth the things that are done in secret, will bring their acts to light; and they will be made an example before the people; and shame and infamy will cleave to their posterity after them, unto the third and fourth generation of them that repent not. How is this to be prevented? for we have got a fallen nature to grapple with. It is to be prevented in the way the Lord devised in ancient times; that is, by giving to His faithful servants a plurality of wives, by which a numerous and faithful posterity can be raised up, and taught in the principles of righteousness and truth: and then, after they fully understand those principles that were given to the ancient Patriarchs, if they keep not the law of God, but commit adultery, and transgressions of this kind, let their names be blotted out from under heaven, that they may have no place among the people of God.

But again, there is another reason why this plurality should exist among the Latter-day Saints. I have already given you one reason, and that is, that you might inherit the blessings and promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and receive a continuation of your posterity, that they may become as numerous as the sand upon the sea-shore.

There is another reason, and a good one, too. What do you suppose it is? I will tell you; and it will appear reasonable to every man and woman of a reflecting mind. Do we not believe, as the Scriptures have told us, that the wicked nations of the earth are doomed to destruction? Yes, we believe it. Do we not also believe, as the Prophets have foretold, concerning the last days, as well as what the new revelations have said upon the subject, that darkness prevails upon the earth, and gross darkness upon the minds of the people; and not only this, but that all flesh has corrupted its way upon the face of the earth; that is, that all nations, speaking of them as nations, have corrupted themselves before the Most High God, by their wickedness, whoredoms, idolatries, abominations, adulteries, and all other kinds of wickedness? And we furthermore believe, that according to the Jewish Prophets, as well as the Book of Mormon, and modern revelations given in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, that the sword of the vengeance of the Almighty is already unsheathed, and stretched out, and will no more be put back into the scabbard until it falls upon the head of the nations until they are destroyed, except they repent. What else do we believe? We believe that God is gathering out from among these nations those who will hearken to His voice, and receive the proclamation of the Gospel, to establish them as a people alone by themselves, where they can be instructed in the right way, and brought to the knowledge of the truth. Very well; if this be the case, that the righteous are gathering out, and are still being gathered from among the nations, and being planted by themselves, one thing is certain--that that people are better calculated to bring up children in the right way, than any other under the whole heavens. O yes, says one, if that is the case--if you are the people the ancient Prophets have spoken of, if you are the people that are guided by the Lord, if you are under the influence, power, and guidance of the Almighty, you must be the best people under heaven, to dictate the young mind: but what has that to do with the plurality of wives? I will tell you. I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God. Do you believe, says one, that they are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born. This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous. The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations that dwell upon the face of this earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being; His justice, goodness, and mercy will be magnified towards those who were chosen before they were born; and they long to come, and they will come among the Saints of the living God; this would be their highest pleasure and joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage. Then is it not reasonable, and consistent that the Lord should say unto His faithful and chosen servants, that had proved themselves before Him all the day long; that had been ready and willing to do whatsoever His will required them to perform--take unto yourselves more wives, like unto the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of old--like those who lived in ancient times, who walked in my footsteps, and kept my commands? Why should they not do this? Suppose the Lord should answer this question, would He not say, I have here in reserve, noble spirits, that have been waiting for thousands of years, to come forth in the fulness of times, and which I designed should come forth through these my faithful and chosen servants, for I know they will do my will, and they will teach their children after them to do it. Would not this be the substance of the language, if the Lord should give us an answer upon this subject?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is this page out of date? http://rsc.byu.edu/authors/godfrey-kenneth-w or do you mean 'not around' as in 'not on the board'.

I meant 'not on the board'.

Considering how later research directly contradicts his findings, I think it is important to try and clarify what he meant, exactly what time period and geographical area and how he came up with his numbers.

I agree. I'm going off pure memory here, though I probably would have paper-and-pencil notes filed away somewhere.

One can get his phone number through white pages...I could even pm it to trustworthy people (Humba, hint, hint)

I'm not in America to take you up on this offer, but maybe someone there might know him and feel comfortable contacting him?

I believe I have found Godfrey's dissertation. It is titled: Causes of Mormon Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839-1846 and was published in 1967. Hancock County is in Illinois. Perhaps his research on marriage rates was not done for the same time period as Keller's and Dayne's thus leading to different conclusions.

The research didn't come from his PhD thesis, just from the access to Church records that he had had as a consequence of his research.

http://www.fairblog....e-lost-boys-go/

Thanks for sharing this. Keller seems to carefully support Godfrey's assertion that missions served as one outlet for all the extra men: 'Clearly men are not being invited to leave Utah to ease tension in the marriage market, outside of serving temporary missions, of course'. Since this statement is based on the above chart of census data, it would appear that missionaries were not counted in the census. One should also remember that these 'temporary' missions sometimes lasted many years in the 19th century -- until a missionary might be called home. It would be interesting to have data on how many missionaries were serving from Utah in 1880 and how long the average mission term was at the time.

Even excluding missionaries, the census data still show that men were far more likely to be single than women: 2.75 to 5.12 times more likely in their 20s, 8.9 to 11.8 times more likely in their 30s, and 10.7 times more likely in their early forties.

Lastly, the idea that polygyny could be sustained by men constantly pushing down the age of brides has a natural limit.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[iamse7en]

Seems this debate has been resurrected with Quinn getting his Expanded response to Hales out in public.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j8nrcwwtmoyltg6/Quinn--JOSEPH-SMITH%25S-SEXUAL-POLYGAMY.pdf?n=61107409

 

Find good arguments on both sides of the debate. In my eyes, there isn't enough incontrovertible evidence to really discover in each case. It's no matter to me anyhow. 

 

The doctrine he [Joseph Smith] teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else[,] I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. (BY, JD 4:78, 1856)

Edited September 5, 2013 by iamse7en

[rpn]

 

Seems this debate has been resurrected with Quinn getting his Expanded response to Hales out in public.

Actually Quinn says in a first page footnote that he hasn't responded to the Hales trilogy in that paper.

[David T]

Actually Quinn says in a first page footnote that he hasn't responded to the Hales trilogy in that paper.

 

Yup. "Nonetheless, this response excludes the three-volume study of polygamy that Brian Hales published in early 2013. I have not read it (and don't plan to), but its readers can decide whether he simply repeated the approaches that I criticize here."

 

It's unfortunate, because Hales presents some new documents in this series that appear to have not been known or utilized before, that in his view are incredibly important, especially in the Polyandry discussions, eternity only sealings, etc, the case of Sylvia Sessions Lyons, etc

 

Doesn't mean there isn't substantial value in Quinn's response, only that it won't be complete, or be using all of the information available, some of which is key.

 

I am very interested in seeing Hales' likely eventual response. This is a great dialogue, and its unfortunate that Quinn will not likely reply to Hales' response.  Hales has certainly done groundbreaking work, and I love having his set on my bookshelf, but there are certainly some weaknesses. 

Edited September 5, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

I have not read it (and don't plan to)

 

Strange attitude for a historian if he wants to stay relevant to the continuing discussion, imo.

[David T]

Strange attitude for a historian if he wants to stay relevant to the continuing discussion, imo.

 

Don't think he does. He appears to have made his mind up on this issue, isn't interested in re-visiting it, and wants to move on. I understand his latest book is a massive tome on Church finances, business, etc.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[David T]

I would be very surprised if there is any "key" evidence relating to polyandry in the book that has not already been presented in Hales's numerous articles, his 2012 MHA presentation, his various podcast appearances, and his earlier response to Quinn.

 

I believe his book was the first place he presented some of the information (such as with the material concerning Sylvia Sessions), although he has used it in the podcasts since then. All post-dating anything Quinn is responding to.

Edited September 5, 2013 by David T

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[USU78]

Don't think he does. He appears to have made his mind up on this issue, isn't interested in re-visiting it, and wants to move on. I understand his latest book is a massive tome on Church finances, business, etc.

 

"Don't confuse me with facts.  I've made up my mind!"

[David T]

If Hales has offered significant new information regarding Sylvia Sessions since his 2008 MHS article, "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?," his Persistence of Polygamy article, his 2012 FAIR conference paper, and his 2012 MHA paper, then I haven't heard of it.

 

Looks like I may be conflating the concept of new first-time documents in the 3 volume set along with Hales' assertion (up through the recent podcasts) that no one yet has addressed the additional Sessions affidavit (which potentially substantially changes the timeline) in their examination of her, re: sexual polyandry. Looks like I was mistaken.  

[cjp]

I’m new to this forum and hope that people are still responding as I have a few questions regarding this topic.  I appreciate Don’s comments on helping us see Joseph Smith as a human who faced the same feelings and desires that all people do.  While it can be difficult and at times disturbing to confront the mortal frailties and foibles of our religious leaders, it is only fair and honest to acknowledge them.  And should in some ways gives us hope that we can still receive spiritual blessings and experiences even though we often make mistakes.

 

In regards to the original question about sexual polyandry, I have a hard time accepting it. And after my own attempts to examine the historical evidence, I am not convinced that it actually occurred with Joseph.  I was very interested to see Don’s comments regarding the DNA studies by Ugo Perego, as Ugo presented it as if he had tested the children people thought the most likely to be Joseph’s.  Can you post the list of children you think are more likely that he didn’t test? And were any of these from non-polyandrous relationships?  I have to admit that it seems a little too convenient if all the supposed children by Joseph were from women we know were already involved with another man.

 

I don’t’ know if this is the appropriate thread to ask these questions, but to me it seems hard to believe that the Utah saints had actual children of Joseph Smith by his polygamous wives and never identified them  publicly.  They obviously made such an effort to prove that Joseph had not only had polygamous wives but also had sex with them, I don’t really see why they wouldn’t have tried to use this as further evidence.  Also, at various times the church leadership seems to have been heavily invested in getting the direct offspring of Joseph by Emma into the church to strengthen their succession claims and the Utah church as Joseph’s rightful heirs, so again, I wonder why they wouldn’t have made these children public?  Clearly it wouldn’t have been embarrassing or shameful to be identified as a child of Joseph by a polygamous wife as that was a common thing occurring in Utah, and people seem to have been proud to identify themselves as Joseph’s wives.  I haven’t ever found anyone giving any reasons why they would have kept Joseph’s children a secret if they existed, so if anyone has any information on this, I would love to hear it.

 

I know that Josephine claims that her mother identified her as Joseph’s daughter and that there is some historical evidence seeming to validating this.  I think it’s interesting that Syliva had children with her husband before and after the supposed liaison with Joseph. I know that some people have argued that when she and Joseph were sealed, it cancelled out her previous marriage and gave her a kind of de-facto divorce in order to prove that she wasn’t having any sexual relations with Windsor at the same time as Joseph, so I’m just wondering if there is any evidence that she and Windsor got remarried or had any kind of ceremony before they started having children together again? And in regards to the DNA testing of this claim, last I heard was that in 2008 they were close (predicting within a year) to getting the results relating to Josephine but then nothing else was ever said.  Has anyone heard anything else about this, whether it was inconclusive or they ever determined anything?

 

Thanks for the help. I’m excited to be a part of this forum and hear everyone's opinions.