Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

My mission manual - about Polygamy


Ron

Recommended Posts

Quiz-

Missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sent to:

A ) Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.

B ) Get Baptisms by fooling people

C ) Have lengthy apologetic discussions about Polygamy in early Illinois and Utah.

:P

Missionaries are young men who trust that the story they are telling the world is the truth. Many have child like faith that the church would not mislead them about such issues. Thus it is very understandable that when they do discover that the church has lied about the real reasons for polygamy and that they have in turn lied to the people that they preached the gospel to, whom they undoubtedly grew to care a great deal about during the course of their mission, it is very understandable that they would be angry! <_<

If you are not told the truth about the gospel then you are getting baptisms by fooling people because you yourself are fooled, and missionaries do get into discussions about polygamy with investigators. It is better that the church be up front about these issues with missionaries than have the missionaries find out about it through a non-member who has done their homework.

Link to comment

I'm surprised nobody posted this quote that exists in another thread. Hat tip to dillfest. It appears that mission manual is wrong in this matter. Is it a big deal? No. At least to me it's not.

Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church. Families -- father, mother, and children -- have most commonly joined the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many single men.

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence.

-John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 390-391 (in Dillfest's electronic version.)

Link to comment
I'm surprised nobody posted this quote that exists in another thread. Hat tip to dillfest. It appears that mission manual is wrong in this matter. Is it a big deal? No. At least to me it's not.
Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church. Families -- father, mother, and children -- have most commonly joined the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many single men.

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence.

-John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 390-391 (in Dillfest's electronic version.)

Are you joking?

Check the third post on this thread. . .

Link to comment
Are you joking?

Calm down AM.

It was an honest mistake. I was scanning the thread for the full quote. I didn't catch yours.

It just struck me as pretty funny, since a lot of noise had been made about it after I posted it.

Pretty funny is that you're focusing on this point instead of some good points T-Shirt posted earlier that directly relate to the content of the original thread post . . the issue of plural marriage in LDS history is about those worthy of temple sealings in life . . . perhaps the poster who suggested that if the census serves one needs that may be all they look at was right . . but what we all should be looking for is truth rather than whether somebody missed this post or that post.

Link to comment

If you notice, Elder Widtsoe was relying on the census reports. He did not account for the non-Mormons of Utah. I think he made a mistake as I have shown above. If you disagree, please show me how my logic above is flawed.

T-Shirt

Link to comment
If you notice, Elder Widtsoe was relying on the census reports. He did not account for the non-Mormons of Utah. I think he made a mistake as I have shown above. If you disagree, please show me how my logic above is flawed.

T-Shirt

Apostle Widstoe's remarks included the following:

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah

It seems to me that he took Church records into account, and not just census records, in making his statement that the claim was indefensible.

That might be a flaw in your logic, or something you're overlooking.

Link to comment

Nighthawke: No it is not. In the beginning, it was impossible for a single woman to support herself financially. It was the American frontier remember, there were no jobs.

This regarding Hanna Ells, one of Joseph Smith's wives:

"In Nauvoo, Hanna opened a dressmaking business. She advertised her business in the Nauvoo Newspaper, the Times and Seasons:

MILLINERY AND DRESS MAKING

Miss H.S. Ells begs leave to respectively inform the Ladies

of Nauvoo, and its vicinity, that she intends carrying on

the above business, in all its varied branches: and further

states, that she has had several years experience in one of

the most fashionable French establishments in Philadelphia

...Nauvoo, Sept. 30, 1841. "

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/27-HannaElls.htm

Note to moderator: I"m somewhat confused why some of my posts make it through your screening process and some don't. I would really like to become a responsible poster. Any feedback you can give me in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks.

johncorrill@hotmail.com

Link to comment
In the 1980s, Susan Easton Black compiled the records of every individual known to have joined the Church from 1830 to 1848 and published it in 52 volumes in 1984. During that time women in the Church significantly outnumbered men (the most common name in the Church was Mary and most of the members lived in Britain). I do not expect that the ratios remained constant afterwards, but at the time polygyny was instituted women did outnumber men in the Church.

Can you cite an exact reference from her work indicating just that?

Link to comment
Nighthawke: No it is not. In the beginning, it was impossible for a single woman to support herself financially. It was the American frontier remember, there were no jobs.

This regarding Hanna Ells, one of Joseph Smith's wives:

"In Nauvoo, Hanna opened a dressmaking business. She advertised her business in the Nauvoo Newspaper, the Times and Seasons:

MILLINERY AND DRESS MAKING

Miss H.S. Ells begs leave to respectively inform the Ladies

of Nauvoo, and its vicinity, that she intends carrying on

the above business, in all its varied branches: and further

states, that she has had several years experience in one of

the most fashionable French establishments in Philadelphia

...Nauvoo, Sept. 30, 1841. "

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/27-HannaElls.htm

Note to moderator: I"m somewhat confused why some of my posts make it through your screening process and some don't. I would really like to become a responsible poster. Any feedback you can give me in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks.

johncorrill@hotmail.com

I wasn't thinking of Nauvoo when I posted but the Great Salt Lake Valley between 1847 and early 1860s...

Link to comment

For those of you who think it was common that single women and single mothers worked to support themselves in the early days of Utah, here are a few statistics from the 1880 census:

Out of a population of 143,963, there were only 128 single, never married women living away from their parents. Of those 128, things broke down like this:

76 - Keeping House

15 - Clothing related

12 - School Teachers

11 - No Job

3 - Working in a store

2 - Miners

2 - Farm

2 - In School

2 - Waiters

1 - Visiting

1 - Nun

1 - Prisoner

Doesn't look to me like this supports the idea of women being able to easily support themselves.

There were 365 widows with children. Most of them were older and living with family. There were only eighteen widows under fifty with children. None of them had jobs.

T-Shirt

Link to comment
There were 365 widows with children. Most of them were older and living with family. There were only eighteen widows under fifty with children. None of them had jobs.

T-Shirt

But why should married men marry these widows? Widows are mentioned 97 times in the scriptures but no where does it say that they should be married to another womans husband in order to provide for them. Surely it is possible to provide for the widow without marrying them. How did non-mormons provide for the widow?

Link to comment
As was pointed out, raw statistics don't mean very much.

In addition, if there were in fact more marriage age men than women in the Church, you should be able to show that there were substantial numbers of men who never married for lack of available women, and this simply is not the case.

We really need to start demanding some accountability for these endless threads about how awful...just awful, I tell you! :P polygamy was. There is some sort of data for almost all of this. Now why aren't they using it? Makes ya kinda go...hmmmm. It's not that it has not been provided time and time again. Sorta makes you wonder where the real cover-up is...certainly not in the books by LDS authors that can be readily bought. Seems to be right here with those who can never seem to retain a piece of information.

First, stop talking about "polygamy" as if it was a big formless unchanging blob. You must talk about it by decade. Critics, what decade are you claiming there were more women or more men? Why would you think it remained constant? (hint: it didn't). ( p 112-13). Second, Mormon men married at a higher rate than the rest of the nation. (p. 11). And most important, "The ratio of "worthy" [endowed] men to "worthy" women is more important in explaining plural marriage than is the sex ratio in the general population." (p 113). And third, "Dean May has calculated that non-Mormons accounted for 12 percent of Utah's population in 1860 and 21 percent in 1880." (ibid.). Now, for you experts in criticizing my ancestors....these years should pull up all sorts of related data for you. They do mean something besides "Polygamy bad! Me good and real smart!", right? It would sure be nice to hear that data instead....even occasionally.

Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System 1840-1910, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001)

And for those of you who are loosing patches of your hair because of a traditional belief regarding demographics (which was sometimes factual depending on the decade) you had best get some Rograine. The stories have been going on since the beginnings of polygamy. (see Jessie L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (SLC: University of Utah Press, 1987), 47-48.)

Link to comment

Can you cite an exact reference from her work indicating just that?

Why can't you? Does that ever occur to you that you might have some responsibility to have a minimal grasp on the most elementary data if you are going to endlessly treat us to your opinions about our religion?

Link to comment
Nighthawke: No it is not. In the beginning, it was impossible for a single woman to support herself financially. It was the American frontier remember, there were no jobs.

This regarding Hanna Ells, one of Joseph Smith's wives:

"In Nauvoo, Hanna opened a dressmaking business. She advertised her business in the Nauvoo Newspaper, the Times and Seasons:

MILLINERY AND DRESS MAKING

Miss H.S. Ells begs leave to respectively inform the Ladies

of Nauvoo, and its vicinity, that she intends carrying on

the above business, in all its varied branches: and further

states, that she has had several years experience in one of

the most fashionable French establishments in Philadelphia

...Nauvoo, Sept. 30, 1841. "

OK. And what about the other 99% of unskilled females working at what we call minimum wage today? Do you think a woman can support a family by working in a laundromat today? Why was it any different then? What decade were those immigrant women coming in at the highest rate? What were their job opportunities with little or no English?

Link to comment

Hi T-shirt...

76 - Keeping House

15 - Clothing related

12 - School Teachers

11 - No Job

3 - Working in a store

2 - Miners

2 - Farm

2 - In School

2 - Waiters

1 - Visiting

1 - Nun

1 - Prisoner

Doesn't look to me like this supports the idea of women being able to easily support themselves.

Actually, this suggests that the vast majority of single women were working. I don't think anyone would suggest it was easy to live whether married or not. My impression is that life was quite difficult for pretty much everyone.

I wonder what the breakdown of polgymous wives would look like... Just a guess but I doubt they were all stay at home moms... cool.gifcool.gif From my understanding it was difficult enough for a man to support one family let alone five or six or ten or whatever....

But to my point....

Again, in most all the world there are those unable to care for themselves... either the elderly, the mentally or physically handicapped, the poor, sick, and afflicted.... I don't see any scripture in the Bible that suggests one must marry all these people to take care of them.

Many societies find ways to help those in need without even the thought of needing to marry them in order to do so.

:P

~dancer~

Link to comment
Actually, this suggests that the vast majority of single women were working.  I don't think anyone would suggest it was easy to live whether married or not.  My impression is that life was quite difficult for pretty much everyone.

All of the women worked. Obviously. They were building a city. They were fighting famine.

I wonder what the breakdown of polgymous wives would look like

And I wonder why posters continue to come into these overwrought threads that come around every other day without an iota of readily available data...but always a ready made opinion and conclusion. If you wonder...get the stats. Interpret them to your liking. Then speak.

Many societies find ways to help those in need without even the thought of needing to marry them in order to do so.

And? Many "societies" do any number of things. If you have a point make it...with data.

Link to comment
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

Just a thought, but maybe the extra wives in each household were not reported in the census. Note how the reported male/female ratio plummets from 53.1% in 1890 to 51.2 % in 1900 perhaps show less concealment of additional wives.

Or fewer men trying to strike it rich in the mines of the area? I am sure the silver mines around Park City probably added more men than women to the census.

Link to comment

Hi Juliann... <_<

I wrote, "Many societies find ways to help those in need without even the thought of needing to marry them in order to do so."

You responded,

And? Many "societies" do any number of things. If you have a point make it...with data.

Are you asking for documentation that there have been societies that have helped care of the poor, needy, sick, afflicted, handicapped without marrying them? :P

I thought my point was clear ... from a post on page 2...

I'm suggesting that there are people who could not work and support themselves... say the elderly, the sick, the afflicted, the mentally or physically handicapped. I'm thinking that good and decent people did their best to help those who were unable to support themselves without needing to marry them.

All those scriptures about helping the poor and the needy, the elderly and the sick... they didn't say one had to marry them to be of help...

but I will try again.

It is my belief that there have been people throughout this world who have helped the needy, without the need to marry those folks. It is my observation that various societies have given charity to those unable to care for themselves and did not felt a need to marry those in need.

I don't really think this needs documentation (IOW, I don't think anyone would disagree with this observation) but I will give the Bible as an example... it seems to me that there were commandments/teachings to help the poor, afflicted, needy and yet there is no mention of needing to marry those folks in order to help them.

~dancer~

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...