Any "legitimate" Children Of Polygamists Still Around?

[Coreyb]

I think that many Mormons consider the days of legitimate LDS plural marriage as something so far away and distant that it is but a faint memory. While that is in many ways true, when you consider the distance in terms of lifetimes and relationships, suddenly its becomes so much more recent.

 

Samuel Taylor, son of John W. Taylor by his third wife Janet was born in 1907. He died in 1997. My great grandfather, though not a polygamist child, was born the year before Taylor in 1906 and died at 104 years in 2011. This has me wondering whether there could be any "legitimate" plural children alive today. If we define a "legitimate" plural marriage as being one authorized by the First Presidency, and Joseph F. Smith authorized some plural marriages at least until 1907 ( possibly later), its seems like a possibility. A couple wed in the first few years of the nineteenth century could easily be having children in the 1910s, 20s, and possibly 30s.

 

I recognize this would be a pretty slim chance since the number of plural marriages authorized after 1904 dropped dramatically, from not a very high number to begin with. Also, giving birth to a child as a plural wife by the 1910s and 20s would have certainly been a big taboo and possibly dangerous to your church standing. I think such concerns would have dropped the number of such births even more. But still, does anyone know of any such children of polygamist that are still alive today, or that just passed recently? 

[JLHPROF]

I think that many Mormons consider the days of legitimate LDS plural marriage as something so far away and distant that it is but a faint memory. While that is in many ways true, when you consider the distance in terms of lifetimes and relationships, suddenly its becomes so much more recent.

 

Samuel Taylor, son of John W. Taylor by his third wife Janet was born in 1907. He died in 1997. My great grandfather, though not a polygamist child, was born the year before Taylor in 1906 and died at 104 years in 2011. This has me wondering whether there could be any "legitimate" plural children alive today. If we define a "legitimate" plural marriage as being one authorized by the First Presidency, and Joseph F. Smith authorized some plural marriages at least until 1907 ( possibly later), its seems like a possibility. A couple wed in the first few years of the nineteenth century could easily be having children in the 1910s, 20s, and possibly 30s.

 

I recognize this would be a pretty slim chance since the number of plural marriages authorized after 1904 dropped dramatically, from not a very high number to begin with. Also, giving birth to a child as a plural wife by the 1910s and 20s would have certainly been a big taboo and possibly dangerous to your church standing. I think such concerns would have dropped the number of such births even more. But still, does anyone know of any such children of polygamist that are still alive today, or that just passed recently? 

 

The last polygamists in the Church passed away in the 1950's.

The last known intact polygamous family is believed to have been the parents and plural wife/stepmother of Camilla Eyring (Mrs Spencer) Kimball. Her father Edward,  mother Caroline, and her other mother Emma all survived into the mid-1950s, living together in Arizona with full church callings and TRs.

 

They were the grandparents of current apostle Henry B. Eyring.

Emma was the aunt of Gaskell Romney (monogamous father of George Romney, grandfather of Mitt) which makes her Mitt's great-great aunt. Therefore, Mitt's great-great aunt was a member of the last surviving polyagmist family. Gaskell was born in Utah in the 1870s and moved to the Mexican colonies with his family. The next generation (George Romney) was born in Mexico.

 

So not sure about children, but President Eyring is a grandchild of polygamy and Mitt Romney isn't that far removed either.

 

https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-last-male-mainstream-Mormon-polygamist-die

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=18325771

[saemo]

I think that many Mormons consider the days of legitimate LDS plural marriage as something so far away and distant that it is but a faint memory. While that is in many ways true, when you consider the distance in terms of lifetimes and relationships, suddenly its becomes so much more recent.

 

Samuel Taylor, son of John W. Taylor by his third wife Janet was born in 1907. He died in 1997. My great grandfather, though not a polygamist child, was born the year before Taylor in 1906 and died at 104 years in 2011. This has me wondering whether there could be any "legitimate" plural children alive today. If we define a "legitimate" plural marriage as being one authorized by the First Presidency, and Joseph F. Smith authorized some plural marriages at least until 1907 ( possibly later), its seems like a possibility. A couple wed in the first few years of the nineteenth century could easily be having children in the 1910s, 20s, and possibly 30s.

 

I recognize this would be a pretty slim chance since the number of plural marriages authorized after 1904 dropped dramatically, from not a very high number to begin with. Also, giving birth to a child as a plural wife by the 1910s and 20s would have certainly been a big taboo and possibly dangerous to your church standing. I think such concerns would have dropped the number of such births even more. But still, does anyone know of any such children of polygamist that are still alive today, or that just passed recently?

It isn't that far removed. My grandmother was a daughter of a legitimate child of polygamy.

[rhythm]

My grandmother. She is the youngest child, born in 1929.  Her father married his second wife in 1906 (in Mexico).

Edited October 20, 2015 by rhythm

[Kenngo1969]

My grandmother. She is the youngest child, born in 1929.  Her father married his second wife in 1906 (in Mexico).

This is what I don't get about people who are squeamish about plural marriage during the period it was legitimately practiced (that is, the period in which the Lord's prophet authorized it) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They're essentially saying that some of us have no right even to be here.  (If I seem somewhat indignant at that idea, it's because ... well ... I am! )

 

To anyone who fits that description, I say, in the immortal words of Don Henley, "Get over it!"

Edited October 20, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Thinking]

They're essentially saying that some of us have no right even to be here.

 

By your reasoning, the birth of any child would justify the manner in which it was conceived.

[KevinG]

By your reasoning, the birth of any child would justify the manner in which it was conceived.

 

I'm cool with that.  I know a lot of great bastards and I'm grateful their mother's chose to give birth to them, and their fathers chose to raise them.  That seems redeeming to me.

[Coreyb]

It isn't that far removed. My grandmother was a daughter of a legitimate child of polygamy.

That's pretty amazing. That's pretty late too. Your Grandmother is a treasure of Mormon heritage.

[saemo]

That's pretty amazing. That's pretty late too. Your Grandmother is a treasure of Mormon heritage.

Indeed, she was a treasure.

[JAHS]

My grandmother. She is the youngest child, born in 1929.  Her father married his second wife in 1906 (in Mexico).

My great great grandfather also had couple wives and also lived in Mexico to avoid being arrested. He was sealed to several other women but not listed as marriages.

[Kenngo1969]

By your reasoning, the birth of any child would justify the manner in which it was conceived.

How so?  I was talking about a specific circumstance in which children have been conceived.  I was not talking about all such circumstances.  And I stand by my statement.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Thinking]

How so?  I was talking about a specific circumstance in which children have been conceived.  I was not talking about all such circumstances.  And I stand by my statement.

 

Your statement

They're essentially saying that some of us have no right even to be here.

suggests that they mean that because they believe plural marriage is wrong, some of you have no right to be here. I understood your response to this idea to mean that because you are here (born), the manner in which you were conceived is justified. If you didn't mean that, please clarify.

 

My position is that whoever is born has a right to be here. There is no correlation between the innocence or value of a child and how it was conceived.

[phaedrus ut]

There are probably a few.  The last mainstream LDS polygamist couple living in open polygamy I know of are Edward Eyring with his wives Emma Romney Eyring and Caroline Cottam Romney Eyring.  Edward is Apostle Henry B. Eyring's grandfather, also they were Spencer Kimball's father-in-law and 2 mothers-in-law.  Also both are cousins of Mitt Romney.  The polygamist marriage lasted until 1954 when one wife died.  Caroline and Edward had 9 children and as of a few years ago two were still alive. 

 

So probably a few still around. 

[PeterPear]

One of my 4 Great Grandfathers had five "legitimate" wives. One of his many Uncles is Joseph Smith Sr. The Family Organization every great while publishes an updated Book/CDs of his (some 100,000 I've heard) descendants - which is out of date before the ink or plastic dries. My Mother is still living-making her a granddaughter of a polygamist.

One of the advantages of this is the Family History and Temple work for this line of the family has long ago been completed.

Edited October 27, 2015 by PeterPear