Polygamy' Effect On Population

[saemo]

Are you suggesting that Utah was an anomaly at the time and it was typical for miners rushing to boomtowns and soldiers deployed to the territories to be both married and bring out their families (undoubtedly true for some, but most?)

I never said soldiers brought their families. BTW, one of my ancestors was a soldier in Johnson's army, who converted to Mormonism, stayed in Utah and married a Mormon woman of pioneer heritage. 

 

By 1880 mining communities had been established, miners were arriving with their families, and/or, sending for their families.

 

I was incorrect in my census memory. From 1850 to 1900 there were more men in Utah than women.

 

 

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

1900 total 276,749 male 141,687 female 135,062

 

So, it still comes to providing a factual number for the ratio of LDS/nonLDS men. In 1850 were there 712 non-member males of marriageable age? If not, how many were there?

Edited March 5, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

You are speculating when you assume that raw population growth in Utah Territory was the intent of plural marriage. Or when you insinuate that most non-Mormon men in Utah Territory arrived with their wives.

 

 

I won't dignify this with a response other than to say it is a gross, hostile and cynical distortion of my words.

 

Edited to add:

 

Ascribing unintended meaning to a person's words is the worst kind of speculation.

 

I never said most. I said, let's get the facts. Still waiting.

 

I'm not the one who said the intent of polygamy is "raising up a seed".

[Scott Lloyd]

I never said most. I said, let's get the facts. Still waiting.

It is a quite uncontroversial fact that the single-adult male population in Utah Territory in the 1800s was largely non-Mormons who were soldiers, miners, etc. calmoriah pointed you to a website that bore this out.

 

Are you disputing this? If so, let's see your evidence. If you have none, admit it, and stop wasting our time.

 

 

I'm not the one who said the intent of polygamy is "raising up a seed".

 

 

Please clarify. What do you understand "raising up seed" to mean? And please don't take the phrase out of context. It is raising up seed unto God.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I never said soldiers brought their families. BTW, one of my ancestors was a soldier in Johnson's army, who converted to Mormonism, stayed in Utah and married a Mormon woman of pioneer heritage. 

 

By 1880 mining communities had been established, miners were arriving with their families, and/or, sending for their families.

 

 

 

And by then, Mormon polygamy had greatly waned and was on the verge of being discontinued outright.

 

I was incorrect in my census memory. From 1850 to 1900 there were more men in Utah than women.

 

 

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

1900 total 276,749 male 141,687 female 135,062

 

So, it still comes to providing a factual number for the ratio of LDS/nonLDS men. In 1850 were there 712 non-member males of marriageable age? If not, how many were there?

 

 

You answer that question. If you cannot, you have no valid argument.

 

I will repeat it as often as necessary: Raw census figures are not useful to the discussion.

 

If you could demonstrate that there were more adult Mormons in Utah Territory who were active and committed to their faith than there were women, you might have an argument worthy of consideration. But thus far, you have failed to do so.

 

I don't think you can.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[halconero]

"but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness."

My understanding of that would be reversed, given that polygynous wives would have fewer children and generally speaking plural marriage gave to women who were alone or without financial means access to greater economic stability which would tend to increase fitness.

My memory says Kathryn Daynes' work covers this.

Sorry. I should have made myself clearer. I meant biological fitness, which is defined as the ability to reproduce and raise offspring. A reduced fitness means that a woman would have less children than normal in a polygamous marriage in the 1800's.

[saemo]

You answer that question. If you cannot, you have no valid argument.

 

I will repeat it as often as necessary: Raw census figures are not useful to the discussion.

 

If you could demonstrate that there were more adult Mormons in Utah Territory who were active and committed to their faith than there were women, you might have an argument worthy of consideration. But thus far, you have failed to do so.

 

I don't think you can.

Let's start in 1850. There were not federal troops, miners or railroad workers in Utah.

Edited March 5, 2014 by saemo

[Calm]

Daynes'work definitely demonstrated that. Women involved in plural marriages had 1 less child than those in monogamous ones. Iirc.

[saemo]

It is a quite uncontroversial fact that the single-adult male population in Utah Territory in the 1800s was largely non-Mormons who were soldiers, miners, etc. calmoriah pointed you to a website that bore this out.

 

Are you disputing this? If so, let's see your evidence. If you have none, admit it, and stop wasting our time.

 

 

 

Please clarify. What do you understand "raising up seed" to mean? And please don't take the phrase out of context. It is raising up seed unto God.

The link provided begins with mining history in Utah after the civil war. That leaves 1850 and 1860 to account for.

 

I understand raising up a seed to mean, raise your children to serve God.

 

Put in the context of this thread, the phrase has been used justify polygamy, in the effort of producing as many children as possible. Which, is not my understanding of the phrase, but what I see as being presented as its meaning in this thread.

Edited March 5, 2014 by saemo

[halconero]

Daynes'work definitely demonstrated that. Women involved in plural marriages had 1 less child than those in monogamous ones. Iirc.

Thank you.

I should have made myself clear at the beginning.

I'm not arguing for or against polygamy, its theological implications or reasons, or anything along those lines.

Also, fitness and health are not the same thing when it comes to biology. In fact, there's lots of evidence to support the theory that increased fitness (the ability to produce offspring) is detrimental to individual health.

The purpose of my question was to determine the effects of polygamy on population growth, genetics, and the individual reproductive fitness of women and men in polygamous unions. This is not a positive or negative critique of plural marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's start in 1850. There were not federal troops, miners or railroad workers in Utah.

So there were no non-Mormon men in Utah in 1850? And all the Mormon men were faithful and committed to their religion? Prove it.

 

And why should we start in 1850? Plural marriage had not been officially announced and was not being promulgated Churchwide until 1852.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

That would only make sense, but I believe the reason given for polygamy was to "raise up a righteous seed".

 

That does not necessarily refer to numbers.  If they were committed to God enough to willingly commit to the practice of polygamy they would be more apt to raise children with the same kind of commitment.

[cinepro]

So there were no non-Mormon men in Utah in 1850? And all the Mormon men were faithful and committed to their religion? Prove it.

 

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that women in polygamous marriages before 1890 would not have had faithful Mormon men to marry if monogamy was the rule?  So without polygamy, there would have been an increase in the number of single Mormon women, or inter-fatih marriages?

 

If so, what's the source for that?

[ERayR]

If you have, 5 women married to 5 men, and each woman has 10 children, you have 50 children. If you have 5 women married to one man, and each woman has 10 children, you have 50 children.

 

Your argument either presupposes that there were more women in Utah than men, which is not factual. Or, that among the normal population ratio of men to women, the men were a bunch of unrighteous louts, which, I have never seen evidence provided for this assertion.

 

He is not arguing that there would be more children.  See my post above.

[Scott Lloyd]

The link provided begins with mining history in Utah after the civil war. That leaves 1850 and 1860 to account for.

So you're saying there were no non-Mormon, single adult males in Utah in the 1850s and 1860s and that all single-adult Mormon men were active Church members, committed to the faith and temple-ordinance worthy? Prove it

 

I understand raising up a seed to mean, raise your children to serve God.

 

Put in the context of this thread, the phrase has been used justify polygamy, in the effort of producing as many children as possible. Which, is not my understanding of the phrase, but what I see as being presented as its meaning in this thread.

 

When you're attributing the phrase to Mormons and Mormonism, you don't get to apply your own custom-made definition, nor do you get to ascribe a distorted or garbled definition to Mormons and Mormonism.

 

The phrase comes from Jacob 2:30:

 

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

 

The context of this and preceding verses is plural marriage. The Lord is saying here that if He intends to raise up seed unto Himself, he will command his people to practice plural marriage; otherwise, they must obey his commandment to have only one wife.

 

Boosting the raw population -- non-Mormons as well as Mormons -- is not a way to go about raising seed unto God.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that women in polygamous marriages before 1890 would not have had faithful Mormon men to marry if monogamy was the rule?  So without polygamy, there would have been an increase in the number of single Mormon women, or inter-fatih marriages?

 

If so, what's the source for that?

It stands to reason.

 

With plural marriage, a righteous woman has more options open to her. She can choose to be married to a faithful man who has other wives. She does not have to settle for a non-Mormon or for a man who is not faithful to his religion.

[cinepro]

It stands to reason.

 

With plural marriage, a righteous woman has more options open to her. She can choose to be married to a faithful man who has other wives. She does not have to settle for a non-Mormon or for a man who is not faithful to his religion.

 

So, looking at the state of the Church today, why wouldn't this be even more valid now than when the Church was centralized and isolated in the inter-mountain west?

[Scott Lloyd]

So, looking at the state of the Church today, why wouldn't this be even more valid now than when the Church was centralized and isolated in the inter-mountain west?

Sorry, I gave you an unintended rep point.

 

(I hate when I do that.)

 

It's because plural marriage has served its purpose. As a Church we long ago reached critical mass where we have the strength to withstand societal and governmental oppression while vigorously pursuing the mission to take the gospel of Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. Plural marriage lasted just as long as it needed to last for us to reach this state without incurring costs that were too great to bear.

 

Also, because of what sometimesaint pointed out: that polygamy cannot be sustained within a society forever. Eventually you start to get an overabundance of men.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Posted in error

Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

But arguably a righteous woman in a marriage to a righteous man, though he has other wives, is more apt to produce progeny who are faithful in the gospel than if she were stuck with an unbelieving husband because she lacked options.

 

Hasn't the Lord asked all the members of his church to be sealed.  Polygamy disproportionately rewards church leaders and the wealthy, while making it impossible for a significant portion of men to enjoy the blessings of being sealed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hasn't the Lord asked all the members of his church to be sealed.  Polygamy disproportionately rewards church leaders and the wealthy, while making it impossible for a significant portion of men to enjoy the blessings of being sealed.

Why are you speaking in the present tense? There hasn't been polygamy in the Church for well over a century.

 

And other than a relatively brief period the during the reformation of the 1850s, what evidence do you have that a significant population of worthy Mormon men were being denied the blessings of being sealed?

[thesometimesaint]

Hasn't the Lord asked all the members of his church to be sealed.  Polygamy disproportionately rewards church leaders and the wealthy, while making it impossible for a significant portion of men to enjoy the blessings of being sealed.

 

I have never considered having more than one wife a reward. Actually the way it is nominally practiced now of only one living spouse at a time. There is at least in theory that any man in the Church can be Sealed to more than one wife in the eternities. However I see no need or desire on the part of married men in the Church to see their wife die just so they can be Sealed to another.

[omni]

Why are you speaking in the present tense? There hasn't been polygamy in the Church for well over a century.

 

 

 

Present tense?  So when the prophet says, "the Lord has commanded us to not commit murder" do you infer this to apply only to those in the present or would you understand he was including previous generations?  Doesn't the Lord command the saints to be sealed in D&C 132?  This of course can only happen if both husband and wife are worthy members of the church. 

 

And other than a relatively brief period the during the reformation of the 1850s, what evidence do you have that a significant population of worthy Mormon men were being denied the blessings of being sealed?

 

 

It stands to reason.  If you have an isolated population of roughly equal proportions of males and females and a significant portion of the males are marrying multiple women then it would be impossible for all worthy men to be sealed.  Unless you have reason to believe there was a dearth of worthy men while at the same time an overabundance of worthy eligible women.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Present tense?  So when the prophet says, "the Lord has commanded us to not commit murder" do you infer this to apply only to those in the present or would you understand he was including previous generations?  Doesn't the Lord command the saints to be sealed in D&C 132?  This of course can only happen if both husband and wife are worthy members of the church. 

You alleged:

 

Polygamy disproportionately rewards church leaders and the wealthy, while making it impossible for a significant portion of men to enjoy the blessings of being sealed.

 

Where, when and to whom is that happening today?

 

Where, when and to whom has that happened within the past century?

 

Where and when did it ever happen other than a very brief period during the reformation of the 1850s when there was such a rush to obey counsel that by some accounts, there may have been a  brief shortage of women in some parts of the territory? And even regarding that period, do you have anything definitive?

 

 

It stands to reason.  If you have an isolated population of roughly equal proportions of males and females and a significant portion of the males are marrying multiple women then it would be impossible for all worthy men to be sealed.  Unless you have reason to believe there was a dearth of worthy men while at the same time an overabundance of worthy eligible women.

 

 

 

I have not disputed this. In fact, I agreed with the sometimesaint when he said it, and I added that, for this reason, polygamy could not have continued in the Church permanently.

 

But you are oversimplifying the reality. Utah Territory was not isolated. There was a constant influx of immigrant converts to the Church until after plural marriage had waned and ultimately was discontinued.

 

Other than reacting to my last couple of posts, have you been following this thread at all?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

I have never considered having more than one wife a reward. 

 

 

I would agree with you, unfortunately many of our early prophets and apostles would not.

 

 

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business... I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece.”

 

- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, April 22, 1857

 

 

“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 128

 

 

 

“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow minded, pinch-backed race of man, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They aught to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices.”

- Prophet George A. Smith, Apostle, Deseret News, April 16, 1856

 

[thesometimesaint]

Present tense?  So when the prophet says, "the Lord has commanded us to not commit murder" do you infer this to apply only to those in the present or would you understand he was including previous generations?  Doesn't the Lord command the saints to be sealed in D&C 132?  This of course can only happen if both husband and wife are worthy members of the church. 

 

 

It stands to reason.  If you have an isolated population of roughly equal proportions of males and females and a significant portion of the males are marrying multiple women then it would be impossible for all worthy men to be sealed.  Unless you have reason to believe there was a dearth of worthy men while at the same time an overabundance of worthy eligible women.  

 

Do you eat ham and cheese sandwiches? In the OT that would get you stoned to death.

 

For a limited time God told a limited number of Saints to practice polygamous marriage. There has never been a rule requiring it of all Saints. Polygamy is the law of diminishing returns, acceptable for limited numbers for a limited time for a specific purpose.