Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Calm]

Jlhprof, is the 1843 date for the Contibutor correct?  

[MDalby]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jlhprof, is the 1843 date for the Contibutor correct?  

The Contributor - April 1884 Page 259

https://books.google.com/books?id=LYA4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA259&dq="the+same+god"+"It+is+an+eternal+principle+and+was+given+by+way+of+commandment+and+not+by+way+of+instruction"+contributor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL4NSTs7_YAhUCKGMKHQa0AkoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q="the same god" "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction" contributor&f=false

[JLHPROF]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jlhprof, is the 1843 date for the Contibutor correct?  

 

42 minutes ago, MDalby said:

The Contributor - April 1884 Page 259

https://books.google.com/books?id=LYA4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA259&dq="the+same+god"+"It+is+an+eternal+principle+and+was+given+by+way+of+commandment+and+not+by+way+of+instruction"+contributor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL4NSTs7_YAhUCKGMKHQa0AkoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q="the same god" "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction" contributor&f=false

Someone's faster than I am.  I was doing the same thing.  https://archive.org/details/contributor0507eng
The Contributor quote is from an article called "Conspiracy of Nauvoo" by apparently by someone named Horace Cummings and reprinted in the Millennial Star.

Cummings appears to have based the Contributor article on a verbal statement by one Dennison Lot Harris, Bishop of Monroe.

• Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, Volume 21 (2016) pages 40-45
  https://books.google.com/books?id=a0VPDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq="horace+cummings"+mormon&source=bl&ots=rTeaGt4Hjl&sig=KTNVEEQ_AkfJh3y8Xz11WUGhWNI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVxMPOub_YAhVI7SYKHYbhDesQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q="horace cummings" mormon&f=false

• https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE5377450

• http://www.scottwoodward.org/josephsmith_martyrdom_conspiracy_secretmeetings_17yearolds.html

This story of Dennison Harris was referenced by Elder Oaks, a descendant in General Conference - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/priesthood-blessings?lang=eng

Sorry, that'll teach me to copy a quote from a site without checking.
Either way it speaks to the point - there were many doctrinal beliefs that polygamy was lived under besides just the righteous seed doctrine.

Edited January 4, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Just because these men had many kids on account of their many wives, doesn't mean that the wives if married to other men monogamously, couldn't have afforded the Church more members, with more children raised to the Lord.  Afterall with Brigham only having 56 kids amongst his 55 wives, average a child a wife, it might have been better for all involved and for the raising of children to the Lord if the wives were married to other men and averaged say, 3 or 5 kids per wife.

You are right that polygyny in most circumstances reduces the number of children born overall, but by focussing on numbers alone, you are missing the point that the reduction in the number of births was accompanied by a significant concentration in the number of children born into certain families.

Access to plural marriage (and easy divorce) created a marketplace of potential marriages for women that was, to my knowledge, completely unprecedented in the history of Western civilisation. This in turn fundamentally altered the family culture in households where the principles of plural marriage were successfully implemented. And it was specifically in these homes -- where men had to be kind and personally invested and good at providing -- that a disproportionate number of children were raised.

You really need to read some of the insightful academic studies of the sociology of 19th-century Mormon plural marriage to grasp how thoroughly the practice shifted basic paradigms, including traditional gender roles, over the course of a single generation.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You are right that polygyny in most circumstances reduces the number of children born overall, but by focussing on numbers alone, you are missing the point that the reduction in the number of births was accompanied by a significant concentration in the number of children born into certain families.

By “certain families”, you’re referring to a set group of men (17 in the chart that Bernard has posted a few times).  

I think you’re disregarding the fact that this involved hundreds of women.  

Do you believe these women could not have raised righteous children unless they were married to one of these 17 men?

Do you see how much more importance you’re putting on who the men were rather than on who these children's mother was?

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You are right that polygyny in most circumstances reduces the number of children born overall, but by focussing on numbers alone, you are missing the point that the reduction in the number of births was accompanied by a significant concentration in the number of children born into certain families.

Access to plural marriage (and easy divorce) created a marketplace of potential marriages for women that was, to my knowledge, completely unprecedented in the history of Western civilisation. This in turn fundamentally altered the family culture in households were the principles of plural marriage were successfully implemented. And it was specifically in these homes -- where men had to be kind and personally invested and good at providing -- that a disproportionate number of children were raised.

You really need to read some of the insightful academic studies of the sociology of 19th-century Mormon plural marriage to grasp how thoroughly the practice shifted basic paradigms, including traditional gender roles, over the course of a single generation.

This is very true. Citing raw population figures and birth rate potential lacks relevance. The point of “raising up seed” into God is placing spirits into families where they are best apt to be raised in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

By “certain families”, you’re referring to a set group of men (17 in the chart that Bernard has posted a few times).  

I think you’re disregarding the fact that this involved hundreds of women.  

Do you believe these women could not have raised righteous children unless they were married to one of these 17 men?

They would have been far less apt to do so without a husband who was faithful and stalwart in the Church and gospel. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

By “certain families”, you’re referring to a set group of men (17 in the chart that Bernard has posted a few times).  

I think you’re disregarding the fact that this involved hundreds of women.  

I think you're reading your own concerns into what I wrote. Where did I refer specifically to men? Instead, if you'll go back and read what I wrote, I focussed on families and households ... and specifically on the kinds of families and households that emerged when women were freed from the economic necessity of being dependent on whatever single men were available and willing to take them off their fathers' hands.

Quote

Do you believe these women could not have raised righteous children unless they were married to one of these 17 men?

Do you sincerely not think that the children would have experienced a difference being raised in a home with a father who viewed his wife as his property?

Edited January 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They would have been far less apt to do so without a husband who was faithful and stalwart in the Church and gospel. 

Or they could have married men included in the one third who weren’t able to get married who were members (statistic quoted earlier).  

Or, more men may have joined the church or been converted if there were more single women to marry.  Many more may have been baptized and brought into the gospel.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Or they could have married men included in the one third who weren’t able to get married who were members (statistic quoted earlier).  

Given that this was certainly an option, why do you think that many women were attracted to polygamous households instead?

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you sincerely not think that the children would have experienced a difference being raised in a home with a father who viewed his wife as his property?

I think many polygamists did (the men) think of the women this way (read the actual experiences of some of the women).  Not all thought that way, but some did.

And you have no idea that other men marrying these women would think of them as their “property”.  

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think many polygamists did (the men) think of the women this way (read the actual experiences of some of the women).  Not all thought that way, but some did.

And any woman who was not treated well in a plural marriage had the option of walking away from it without stigma. Some did so ... and as Calm has pointed out, many chose instead to enter another plural marriage with a better man. Do you grasp at all the cultural shift this created in the ways men and women interacted inside families and in society more broadly?

Quote

And you have no idea that other men marrying these women would think of them as their “property”.  

Except that this was the standard paradigm, embedded in laws.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you're reading your own concerns into what I wrote. Where did I refer specifically to men?

Which “certain families” were you referring to if not “specifically to men” who were the husbands and fathers of these families?

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Which “certain families” were you referring to if not “specifically to men” who were the husbands and fathers of these families?

All of the families that were shaped by the practice of plural marriage, including wives, husbands and children.

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And any woman who was not treated well in a plural marriage had the option of walking away from it without stigma.

it wasn’t that simple (especially for those who had children involved).

But believe what you wish.  I’m not going to change your mind and you won’t change mine.

Let’s just agree to disagree here. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And any woman who was not treated well in a plural marriage had the option of walking away from it without stigma.

Yeah, not sure I can swallow a universal statement of this kind.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

All of the families that were shaped by the practice of plural marriage, including wives, husbands and children.

You should at least be up front and honest here.  It’s the men who were thought of as being the important heads of families or patriarchs.  I know a handful of women are revered (such as Eliza R. Snow), but “certain families” are identified by who the man was.

How many wives of Brigham Young do you think member’s know?  Maybe 2 or 3 for most members if even that.

Well, his was one of those “certain families” I’ll bet you were referencing

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

it wasn’t that simple.  

But believe what you wish.  I’m not going to change your mind and you won’t change mine.

Let’s just agree to disagree here. 

I highly recommend you read Kathryn Daynes's research on this subject: More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910. 

I agree with the assessment by the Western Historical Quarterly: 'All subsequent study of this system must now begin with her work'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You should at least be up front and honest here.  It’s the men who were thought of as being the important heads of families or patriarchs.

I very much don't appreciate being accused of dishonesty, thank you. I know what I mean: a family in which the principles of plural marriage were successfully applied required the full participation of all involved: wives, children and the husband.

Some of these families included prophets and other Church leaders. Many thousands of others included ordinary men whose names you don't know either.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I highly recommend you read Kathryn Daynes's research on this subject: More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910. 

I agree with the assessment by the Western Historical Quarterly: 'All subsequent study of this system must now begin with her work'.

I’ve read it. (been doing lots of recommended reading on this).

The truth is that for a woman out in Utah during that time, who’d had children in a polygamous marriage, it was not easy for them to just leave. Especially if we remember many had come over after being converted in other countries and had no family in Utah to turn to.

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Gray]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

It does provide me with a less fallible guide (though still not an infallible one).  If i didn't believe that (or hadn't experienced that in my life) then I wouldn't believe the things I do about God and the Spirit.  

 

Hmm, but either way, in the end it relies on your discernment.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Or they could have married men included in the one third who weren’t able to get married who were members (statistic quoted earlier).  

Or, more men may have joined the church or been converted if there were more single women to marry.  Many more may have been baptized and brought into the gospel.

At what particular period of time was it that one-third of the men were unable to get married? 

My understanding is that such an imbalanced ratio only prevailed in the few years of the Mormon reformation in the 1850s. That the frequency of plural marriage diminished over time until there was only a fraction (I’m thinking 10 percent or less, but I would have to look it up) who were engaged in plural marriage in Utah Territory by the time of the Manifesto. And over time, there was a constant influx of immigrant converts so that ratios were not a static thing at any given time. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah, not sure I can swallow a universal statement of this kind.

I understood Hamba as describing the typical condition. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Yeah, not sure I can swallow a universal statement of this kind.

From Harvard University history professor Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:

Quote

Utah had no fault divorce from the beginning. It was very, very open and pretty common. And particularly, I think that made plural marriage workable. If you didn't like it, you could leave. And there was no real stigma, which is what's interesting. Well, I can't say that. Of course, there must have been. People may have looked down on other people. But people who were high authorities in the church had multiple divorces. Women who were divorced went on to marry somebody higher up in the hierarchy. It's a very different world than we imagine.

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understood Hamba as describing the typical condition. 

 

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From Harvard University history Professor Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:

 

The rest of her statement is more in line with what I suspect, just based on human nature - "Well, I can't say that. Of course, there must have been. People may have looked down on other people."

It is my observation there are very few absolutes in human behavior; especially in large group settings.

Edited January 5, 2018 by ttribe