Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

”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. 

I'm happy for you to take this up with Kenneth Godfrey if you ever get a chance. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on.

But from an ill-informed position, I don't see these numbers as creating the same implausibility as you do.

Assuming that the sex ratios were steady at 51% female and 49% male (which they weren't since nothing is ever perfectly static), then every man with two wives resulted in one man who would never marry. Every man with three wives created two men who would never marry. From 50% to 25% of the population being involved in polygamy in some way (including as children, which suggests the scale but doesn't provide as much clarity as I would like) is potentially enough to generate the one-third.

In any case, I hope that we can agree that unless something is really screwy with sex ratios, widespread plural marriage is inevitably going to result in reduced marriage opportunities for someone.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The question is would the Church lack leadership without polygamy?  Would more children have been born in the church without polygamy in it's early years?  
The problem is we simply wouldn't know.  Without polygamy would the Church have advanced faster, reaching more people, pulling in more truth?  It's quite possible of course.  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.  Instead of 56 (some of whom weren't raised to the LORD, perhaps) there might be 150 or 250 more of which were raised to the LORD.  

Jacob's claim of the Lord having raised seed up without polygamy seems to argue against the claim of few men having many kids is raising seed unto the Lord.  

 

Good for the whitney family.  This has me thinking though.  With the levelling off of Church growth, with the ever decreasing growth rate of the Church, with the younger generations finding an inability to relate to the Church for the most part, perhaps it's time to install polygamy again, then?  Maybe it will start anew the raising of seed to the Lord moreso than we're doing now?  

Or

we can sit idly by and watch our traditions and religion fade away becoming ever more irrelevant.  

Just playing.  If we brought back polygamy, particularly in the way it was practiced amongst the elites seemingly keeping others down, then the religion would likely revert back to a few thousand members.

Yeah, but there weren’t 54 Brighams, or Newells, or Lorenzos, or Johns, or whatever “elites” there may have been. The 20 I listed were tried and tested in the crucible of fire. And there were a few more. For all the “ifs” we want to fantasize about, the fact remains that during the brief time polygamy was practiced a core of righteous people rapidly came to be, and a huge proportion of the leaders of the Restoration, even today, come from that righteous seed. Is that not precisely what Jacob (God) said? Yes, it is.

Who wants to bring it back? Only one way that can happen. Jacob 2.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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."

I think we are arguing for the same thing. Jacob explains the “why.” D&C 132 conforms with and confirms Jacob 2.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

12 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.

Why would the current leaders?  It's not a current practice.  They haven't spoken about the perpetual immigration fund either.  And they did approve the essays.

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I think we are arguing for the same thing. Jacob explains the “why.” 

The only why needed is in verse 3.  Because it's a law of God.

Any other motivation or reason to live it are benefits, not the reason why.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The only why needed is in verse 3.  Because it's a law of God.

Any other motivation or reason to live it are benefits, not the reason why.

Raising up seed unto God helps me understand it a lot better. And it’s a scripturally supported reason. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm happy for you to take this up with Kenneth Godfrey if you ever get a chance. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on.

But from an ill-informed position, I don't see these numbers as creating the same implausibility as you do.

Assuming that the sex ratios were steady at 51% female and 49% male (which they weren't since nothing is ever perfectly static), then every man with two wives resulted in one man who would never marry. Every man with three wives created two men who would never marry. From 50% to 25% of the population being involved in polygamy in some way (including as children, which suggests the scale but doesn't provide as much clarity as I would like) is potentially enough to generate the one-third.

In any case, I hope that we can agree that unless something is really screwy with sex ratios, widespread plural marriage is inevitably going to result in reduced marriage opportunities for someone.

If 75 percent of the populous was iiving in non-polygamist households, couldn’t that mean that 75 percent of marriageable women were in non-polygamist households? 

But yes, I do agree that plurality of wives could not have continued indefinitely without causing a serious shortage of marriageable women at some point. It has long been my contention that it lasted as long as was necessary to meet the need to create a critical mass of committed Latter-day Saints who could survive in their Great Basin headquarters and fulfill the mission to take the gospel to the nations and peoples of the earth. 

I honor those who obeyed the commandment and sacrificed to fulfill this directive. I believe it does a disservice to them to say their sacrifice was in pursuit of a mistaken or manmade teaching. It saddens me when I see it happening. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I honor those who obeyed the commandment and sacrificed to fulfill this directive. I believe it does a disservice to them to say their sacrifice was in pursuit of a mistaken or manmade teaching. It saddens me when I see it happening. 

Same. Or when people deny their voices or their agency.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The only why needed is in verse 3.  Because it's a law of God.

Any other motivation or reason to live it are benefits, not the reason why.

Well, OK. Jacob 2 clearly states the law of God in his own words.  I'm not sure where or why we are disagreeing, but you've got the last word.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If 75 percent of the populous was iiving in non-polygamist households, couldn’t that mean that 75 percent of marriageable women were in non-polygamist households? 

 

That would depend on how many children there were.  To simplify it, let us ignore the children and say if there were 50 men and 50 women and 10 of the men were polygamous with 2 wives, that would mean 30% of the population were in a polygamous household and 70% not in one...leaving 30 of the women married monogamously or single and up to 30 of the men married, but at least 10 men single.

30 out of 50 equals 60% while 40out of 50 gives 80%,so you can see it isn't a straight across relationship.  If 1 of the ten man had 5 wives and 2 had 4 and 3 had 3, then that would be 4 men with 2 wives giving 30 women in a polygamous household, which would give 60% total nonpolygamous (40 men and 20 women) but only 40% of women in a nonpolygamous (as well as half the remaining men minimum single if all the remaining women married.

----

Throwing in children, let us assume every polygynous wife had 3 kids while every monogamous one had 4 and let us assume that all the women married.

In the first case, that is 10 men(P), 20 women (P), and 60 kids (P), 30 men(M), 30 women(M), 120 kids (M), and 10 men(S), total population 280 with 90 living in polygynous households or 32% which gives 68% in nonpolygamous assuming the single men lived on their own.  If they lived with parents who were polygynous, this would change the numbers to 100 in poly households or 36%.

In the second case you have 10 men(p), 30 women(p), and 90 kids (p), 20 men(m), 20 women(m), and 80 kids(m), and 20 men(s) giving a total of 270 population with 130 in plural households or 48%, 120 in monogamous and 20 single for total of 140 giving 52% in nonpolygamous homes...unless single men lived at home with polygamous parents upping that number to 150 and thus to 56%.

In the first case without children of 10 men married with 2 wives, yields 30% in polyhomes.

In the first case without children of 10 men married with 2 wives with 3 kids each, that gives 32%

In the second case 10 men married total of 30 wives, that is 40%.

In the second case 10 men married total of 30 wives with 3 kids each, you have 48%.

Even if the number of women and men involved is always the same (which could be one way to define "household"...all of the family/families of the husband/man...50 men means 50 households), if women move into plural relationships and have kids, depending number of wives and children you could have any percentages involved...think 10 men with 5 wives each...50 households, 10% are poly and you have 40 single men or 40% of households are nonpolygamous even if every woman is in a plural marriage.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yeah, but there weren’t 54 Brighams, or Newells, or Lorenzos, or Johns, or whatever “elites” there may have been. The 20 I listed were tried and tested in the crucible of fire. And there were a few more. For all the “ifs” we want to fantasize about, the fact remains that during the brief time polygamy was practiced a core of righteous people rapidly came to be, and a huge proportion of the leaders of the Restoration, even today, come from that righteous seed. Is that not precisely what Jacob (God) said? Yes, it is.

Who wants to bring it back? Only one way that can happen. Jacob 2.

As I've shown I don't think Jacob 2 is the saving grace you find it to be.  If it all depends on who a child's dad is about whether one is raised unto the LORD or not, you'd have a point.  But not only was Nephi Lehi's son,  so were Laman and Lemuel--and yet children were said to be raised unto the Lord by Jacob.  Brigham's claimed favorite son also caused the brethren to change the policy of longest ordained apostle to succeed in the presidency all because they didn't like him, didn't find him capable or qualified either.  If the claim is that the brethren who practiced polygamy had the bestest kids to fulfill an interpretation of Jacob 2 that suggests polygamy is how God raises kids unto Him, then it ought to be acknowledged a number of the kids who were born into the elite LDS families of the later 20th century were not any better than other kids who are born to the non elite non polygamy practicing families.  

Yes, I acknowledge that the Church, since it's beginning, has played with nepotism in calling certain elite families' members to position of authority.  I don't see how this fulfills Jacob 2 anymore than the far fewer kids that came from the ladies in polygamy as a result of polygamy as fulfilling God quickly getting a lot of kids raised unto Him.

 

 

[Physics Guy]

The Mormon doctrine still seems to be that God sometimes wants multiple women to share their one husband with each other, but has never wanted men to share their one wife with other men. Is this not so?

If it is, then I think Mormons could cut a deal that would make all anti-Mormon critics agree to shut up completely. Just agree in return to publish, prominently and persistently, the historically important Mormon doctrine about God wanting women to share men and not vice versa. Put that up permanently on the front page of LDS.org, say, with any number of essays to justify it, and I reckon the critics would consent to down tools.

At least they would if they didn't get greedy and hold out for adding the stuff about only men holding the Priesthood.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, I acknowledge that the Church, since it's beginning, has played with nepotism in calling certain elite families' members to position of authority.  I don't see how this fulfills Jacob 2 anymore than the far fewer kids that came from the ladies in polygamy as a result of polygamy as fulfilling God quickly getting a lot of kids raised unto Him.

What’s ironic with the emphasis on who the father was by most, is that the hundreds of women who married these 17 that Bernard continues to post about, were the ones who bore the children and raised them (or at least spent the most time with them.). It would have been physically impossible, for example , for Brigham Young to spend much quality time with each of his 56 children (and also with his 55 wives for that matter).

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

Just now, JulieM said:

What’s ironic with the emphasis on who the father was by most, is that the hundreds of women who married these 17 that Bernard continues to post about, were the ones who bore the children and raised them (or at least spent the most time with them.). It would have been physically impossible, for example , for Brigham Young to spend much quality time with his 56 children (and also with his 55 wives for that matter).

Good point, Julie.  I appreciate it.  If these same women were married monogamously and had more kids perhaps they would have raised more leaders that turned out even better.  But apparently its all about the men and their loins when it comes to defending polygamy.  

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Well, IMO, your absolute statement ignores the historical facts surrounding the actual termination of the practice of polygamy.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

What’s ironic with the emphasis on who the father was by most, is that the hundreds of women who married these 17 that Bernard continues to post about, were the ones who bore the children and raised them (or at least spent the most time with them.). It would have been physically impossible, for example , for Brigham Young to spend much quality time with each of his 56 children (and also with his 55 wives for that matter).

 

It was probably better that they didn't observe BY up close?  Sometimes myth is better than reality?

[MDalby]

13 hours 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)?

JulieM,

Can you give me ONE latter-day apostle/prophet that shares your opinion that plural marriage "is man’s creation, not from God."

If you cannot, and you are the exception, what does this seem to indicate?  Would it seem to indicate that maybe your view and opinion is the outlier?

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, I acknowledge that the Church, since it's beginning, has played with nepotism in calling certain elite families' members to position of authority.

Well, this explains it all.

[Exiled]

10 minutes ago, MDalby said:

JulieM,

Can you give me ONE latter-day apostle/prophet that shares your opinion that plural marriage "is man’s creation, not from God."

If you cannot, and you are the exception, what does this seem to indicate?  Would it seem to indicate that maybe your view and opinion is the outlier?

 

It probably is the outlier on this board.  But in the outside world, it is the majority view by an overwhelming margin.

[MDalby]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It probably is the outlier on this board.  But in the outside world, it is the majority view by an overwhelming margin.

I really don't care what is the outlier from the world perspective.  I care what is the outlier from God's perspective.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, MDalby said:

I really don't care what is the outlier from the world perspective.  I care what is the outlier from God's perspective.

Weren't you trying to say to Julie that she isn't popular as a way to get her to back down when actually it is your position that is not popular?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If the claim is that the brethren who practiced polygamy had the bestest kids to fulfill an interpretation of Jacob 2 that suggests polygamy is how God raises kids unto Him, then it ought to be acknowledged a number of the kids who were born into the elite LDS families of the later 20th century were not any better than other kids who are born to the non elite non polygamy practicing families.

I have never made such a claim. In fact, I have indicated just that several times. It is true, however, that those elitists, as you call them, have had an extremely significant positive impact on the the Church during its formative years and it continues today. I attribute it to Jacob 2, you don’t. So be it.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It was probably better that they didn't observe BY up close?  Sometimes myth is better than reality?

Have you read The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons?

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, MDalby said:

JulieM,

Can you give me ONE latter-day apostle/prophet that shares your opinion that plural marriage "is man’s creation, not from God."

Since our leaders have been silent regarding publicly speaking about polygamy, we have no statements about what they believe.  Do you have one that states they do believe it’s commanded by God?  Have any of them given a talk on this?  

The teaching that polygamy is required for salvation has certainly been softened.

Prophets are also not infallible, so mistakes have been made.  They have been wrong about things in the past.

I think each person has to study and read on their own and pray about it.  You seem to disagree with how I feel and that’s ok.

 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Have you read The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons?

How many of his sons did he write to?  (I have that book and will pull it out to check again too).  My memory is that the letters were mainly to his sons from his legal wife.

Any letters to one of his numerous daughters?