Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I don't remember the exact years that Godfrey took this statistic from, but my memory (it was from one of his classes) is that it pertained across the roughly 30 years that plural marriage was openly practised. Hopefully someone can pin it down further.

I'm assuming that many men who missed out on marriage opportunities when they were younger would have contributed to the persistence of the problem over forward years.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't remember the exact years that Godfrey took this statistic from, but my memory (it was from one of his classes) is that it pertained across the roughly 30 years that plural marriage was openly practised. Hopefully someone can pin it down further.

I'm assuming that many men who missed out on marriage opportunities when they were younger would have contributed to the persistence of the problem over forward years.

It was closer to 40 years (the 1850s to the latter 1890s). 

And yes, I’d like to see that one-third figure explained a bit. If, by the end, there were only about 10 percent of men practicing it, and most of them only took one additional wife, I don’t see how the one-third would prevail over time. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And yes, I’d like to see that one-third figure explained a bit. If, by the end, there were only about 10 percent of men practicing it, and most of them only took one additional wife, I don’t see how the one-third would prevail over time. 

Happy to be corrected. Maybe it would be safe to say, based on memory, that, at the height of the practice of plural marriage, about one-third of all men in the Church never married?

The one stat that I remember clearly from Godfrey's class is that at no point did the sex ratio in the Church diverge significantly from the population at large.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

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.

I took that to be Hamba’s implied meaning. You obviously didn’t. 

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. 

But I would point out that Hamba did “like” my post, indicating I understood him correctly.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Happy to be corrected. Maybe it would be safe to say, based on memory, that, at the height of the practice of plural marriage, about one-third of all men in the Church never married?

The one stat that I remember clearly from Godfrey's class is that at no point did the sex ratio in the Church diverge significantly from the population at large.

And the height of the practice would have been in the early years, the period of the reformation, when the population in the territory was relatively small. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I took that to be Hamba’s implied meaning. You obviously didn’t. 

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. 

But I would point out that Hamba did “like” my post, indicating I understood him correctly.

 

Nifty.

[MDalby]

56 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.

 

The foolishness of God is wiser than men...
 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, MDalby said:

 

The foolishness of God is wiser than men...
 

Well, I believe living polygamy had nothing to do with God.  I believe it was man’s creation, not from God.

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Well, I believe living polygamy had nothing to do with God.  I believe it was man’s creation, not from God.

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.
(Neil L. Andersen, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign, November 2012)

JulieM, Please share your consensus supporting evidence from the latter-day prophets that plural marriage is not of God?

 

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, MDalby said:

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk.  True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.
(Neil L. Andersen, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign, November 2012)

JulieM, Please share your consensus supporting evidence from the latter-day prophets that plural marriage is not of God?

 

Has any of the current 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve spoken frequently about plural marriage being of God?

What principle was Elder Andersen referring to (iirc, he doesn’t mention polygamy in his talk you quoted)?

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

3 hours 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?

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

These women are the ones who chose these men to be the father of their children.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

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.

I think the point being made is that in Utah, polygyny made it easier and less socially destructive to divorce and move on to a man one saw as more desirable as a husband/father than it was for the typical American married woman at the time.

The costs still may have been substantial even though less than for nonMormon women and it was likely better to move into a marriage than to be single unless one had a well off parental family to return to, but assuming the same set and status of men were available as would have been available if monogamy was the only option, polygamy gave women an additional number of men to choose from.  It didn't narrow their choices, but widen them.

This would have therefore given women in general greater personal control over their own lives on the condition they were willing to share a husband.

If they were not willing, there was still a greater pool of single men to choose from than there would have been if all women were required to marry monogamously.

Overall in terms of choice of mate, it was single men who were more limited than women in general.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Has any of the current 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve spoken frequently about plural marriage being of God?

What principle was Elder Andersen referring to (iirc, he doesn’t mention polygamy in his talk you quoted)?

Even if they hadn’t, this would be an argument from silence. 

And no authoritative, Church-published source supports your assertion that pre-Mamifesto plural marriage in the Church was a mistake. 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

These women are the ones who chose these men to be the father of their children.

Some of them did, yes.  But I wonder how many would have chosen (if left on their own) to marry a single (younger or closer their age) man rather than enter polygamy and many times marry a much older man who already had other plural wives.  I know some of my ancestors suffered greatly in plural marriages and so did their children.  Some lived it valiantly and dealt with heartbreaking conditions much of their lives and I admire them.  I don’t think anyone can claim all women who entered polygamy chose that life or even the men they married.  They said “yes” when approached or called to live it, but how many sought it out?  

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Some of them did, yes.  But I wonder how many would have chosen (if left on their own) to marry a single (younger or closer their age) man rather than enter polygamy and many times marry a much older man who already had other plural wives.  I know some of my ancestors suffered greatly in plural marriages and so did their children.  Some lived it valiantly and dealt with heartbreaking conditions much of their lives and I admire them.  I don’t think anyone can claim all women who entered polygamy chose that life or even the men they married.  They said “yes” when approached or called to live it, but how many sought it out?  

What do you mean left on their own?

Were not the same single men available and in fact more of them for monogamous marriage?  What was stopping any woman from saying no and turning to a single man just as she would have in the absence of polygyny?

( First wives who might have expected their husbands to remain monogamous would be in a unique group)

" I don’t think anyone can claim all women who entered polygamy chose that life or even the men they married."

But you can't claim that for monogamous married women either.  The culture was not a great one for women in general.  Pointing to difficult polygynous marriages without having stats on the rate of difficult monogamous marriages is rather meaningless.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Happy to be corrected. Maybe it would be safe to say, based on memory, that, at the height of the practice of plural marriage, about one-third of all men in the Church never married?

The one stat that I remember clearly from Godfrey's class is that at no point did the sex ratio in the Church diverge significantly from the population at large.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And the height of the practice would have been in the early years, the period of the reformation, when the population in the territory was relatively small. 

Hamba, I found this in the Church’s Gospel Topics essay on plural marriage and families in early Utah:

”Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives.21 By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years.22”

So it would seem that, by 1870, anyway, there were far fewer people in the territory who were living in polygamous households than not, and the number would continue to decrease by the time of the Manifesto. So the assertion that one-third of men in the territory throughout the 40 years could not find marriage partners due to plural marriage strikes me as implausible. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even if they hadn’t, this would be an argument from silence. 

Mdalton asked for statements from the current church leaders that polygamy was not from God.   So, I agree.  Leaders haven’t made statements either way.

I honestly can’t remember any leaders speaking on polygamy other than Pres. Hinckley stating it wasn’t currently lived by church members and that they could be excommunicated if they did.

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am aware of what the scriptures say about polygamy and raising a righteous seed.
I do think you are overemphasizing that as the only doctrinal reason for polygamy.  The early polygamists rarely named raising a righteous seed as a primary justification.
 

• Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men.
  Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?' It is the only popular religion there...
  BY DN August 6, 1862

• “... [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory.” - William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary, Historical Record, v. 6, p. 226

• The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on Celestial and plural marriage (D&C 132) and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. O, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”  JS - Contributor, v. 5, p. 259, 1843

Limiting the reason to raising up seed is no more complete than those who previously limited it to caring for widows.  There were numerous reasons, including caring for widows, raising seed, obeying commandment, following eternal order, and a belief that it connected to exaltation.
There was no one solitary purpose for living polygamy.

All true, but there remains only one scriptural justification, Jacob 2,  and given the grave tone of that scripture which contains the words of God himself, the only one that really counts.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, I believe living polygamy had nothing to do with God.  I believe it was man’s creation, not from God.

Who was Jacob quoting in Jacob 2?

hint: it wasn’t Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

This would have therefore given women in general greater personal control over their own lives on the condition they were willing to share a husband.

If they were not willing, there was still a greater pool of single men to choose from than there would have been if all women were required to marry monogamously.

Overall in terms of choice of mate, it was single men who were more limited than women in general.

This is the point, amply supported by academic research, that people repeatedly seem to want to skip right over.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

What do you mean left on their own?

To mature and get older (early 20’s or later), date boys their age, have a normal courtship, engagement and marriage.

My ancestors (and many accounts by women who lived polygamy that I’ve read) never had the chance to experience that because they were approached by men (many times much older men) and convinced or converted to enter into polygamy.  Some were influenced by their parents too.

I suspect that many (possibly most) women would not have chosen polygamy over marrying a single man of their own choosing.

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Mdalton asked for statements from the current church leaders that polygamy was not from God.   So, I agree.  Leaders haven’t made statements either way.

I honestly can’t remember any leaders speaking on polygamy other than Pres. Hinckley stating it wasn’t currently lived by church members and that they could be excommunicated if they did.

 

Can you cite <even one> statement from an authoritative, Church-published source to the effect that plural marriage in the early Church was not approved of God or that Joseph Smith made “a mistake” in teaching or implementing it, or that it was “man’s creation” and not God’s?

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

That's not entirely accurate; let's not create false impressions here.

It’s not a false impression. It’s what happened,

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

All true, but there is only one scriptural justification, and given the grave tone of that scripture which contains the words of God himself, the only one that really counts.

Actually the justification in D&C 132 is the only one that really counts.

"1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
            2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
            3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

To mature and get older (early 20’s or later), date boys their age, have a normal courtship, engagement and marriage.

All of my ancestors (and many accounts by women who lived polygamy that I’ve read) never had the chance to experience that because they were approached by men (many times much older men) and convinced or converted to enter ring into polygamy.  Some were influenced by their parents too.

I suspect that many (possibly most) women would not have chosen polygamy over marrying a single man of their own choosing.

 So you believe they were indoctrinated to the idea when they were young and if they had come to it as adults they would not have done so?

How do you explain the high rate of immigrant women choosing to enter polygynous marriages, marrying sooner than their similar monogamous counterparts (Iow, they weren't waiting until they were sure they weren't going to be picked for a monogamous marriage, but actively seeking to join a marriage that they were aware was polygamous)?

(mentioned this earlier and linked to Daynes' work) 

PS:  I am not arguing for polygyny, I just think it should be represented accurately and that requires in the context of what monogamous marriage was like at the time in the greater US (Elizabeth Cady Stanton called the current status of marriage "legalized prostitution", for example).

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm