My mission manual - about Polygamy

[Mortvola]

Of the 42,000 (assuming this figure is accurate) single women all but 128 lived with their parents...

My point is.... women who were single were not cast out and left to die. They did not have to be married to survive.

I don't think anyone suggested anything of the sort.

Didn't the LDS church suggest such a thing when they distributed this information to their missionaries:

It would have been impossible for a single woman to support herself financially.

[T-Shirt]

Of the 42,000 (assuming this figure is accurate) single women all but 128 lived with their parents...

My point is.... women who were single were not cast out and left to die. They did not have to be married to survive.

I don't think anyone suggested anything of the sort.

Didn't the LDS church suggest such a thing when they distributed this information to their missionaries:

It would have been impossible for a single woman to support herself financially.

No, that is not what was suggested. The point was and is, if women in ninteenth century Utah wanted to live away from home, the only way to really accomplish this, with few exceptions, was to get married. Single women wer not abandoned, as my data shows. Widows with children were taken care of so they didn't have to work. The census data clearly shows that virtually all single women lived with their families until they were married and that virtually all women did not not have wage earning jobs. There were exceptions of course, but they were extremely rare.

T-Shirt

[ave maria]

Are Jon, Ave Maria, Truth Dancer and brackite unwilling to defend their positions on this thread?

T-Shirt

Hi T-shirt--

I don't recall having made a position, other than the one at the beginning of this thread, as follows:

That there were more women than men in the early LDS Church has been completely refuted:

I then provided Apostle Widstoe's comments as supportive evidence, which was disputed by you and others on the thread.

I'm not certain there's that much more to defend, there, as the general consensus appeared to be that Apostle Widstoe's comments were outdated and incorrect.

[Mortvola]

Of the 42,000 (assuming this figure is accurate) single women all but 128 lived with their parents...

My point is.... women who were single were not cast out and left to die. They did not have to be married to survive.

I don't think anyone suggested anything of the sort.

Didn't the LDS church suggest such a thing when they distributed this information to their missionaries:

It would have been impossible for a single woman to support herself financially.

No, that is not what was suggested. The point was and is, if women in ninteenth century Utah wanted to live away from home, the only way to really accomplish this, with few exceptions, was to get married. Single women wer not abandoned, as my data shows. Widows with children were taken care of so they didn't have to work. The census data clearly shows that virtually all single women lived with their families until they were married and that virtually all women did not not have wage earning jobs. There were exceptions of course, but they were extremely rare.

T-Shirt

The church stated that it was impossible for a woman to support herself financially. You stated that there were exceptions to women needing to get married to survive. So, just so I understand your position, would you say the church's position was incorrect?

[Brackite]

Hello T-Shirt,

According to the 1880 census, not including divorced or widowed, there were 39,498 single men over the age of 18 in Utah.

[Mortvola]

Are Jon, Ave Maria, Truth Dancer and brackite unwilling to defend their positions on this thread?

T-Shirt

Hi T-shirt--

I don't recall having made a position, other than the one at the beginning of this thread, as follows:

That there were more women than men in the early LDS Church has been completely refuted:

I then provided Apostle Widstoe's comments as supportive evidence, which was disputed by you and others on the thread.

I'm not certain there's that much more to defend, there, as the general consensus appeared to be that Apostle Widstoe's comments were outdated and incorrect.

I can understand questioning the use of the raw census records alone to draw the conclusion that there was not a disproportionate number of women to men in the church. But Widstoe stated he used membership records in addition to census records to draw his conclusion.

[ave maria]

Are Jon, Ave Maria, Truth Dancer and brackite unwilling to defend their positions on this thread?

T-Shirt

Hi T-shirt--

I don't recall having made a position, other than the one at the beginning of this thread, as follows:

That there were more women than men in the early LDS Church has been completely refuted:

I then provided Apostle Widstoe's comments as supportive evidence, which was disputed by you and others on the thread.

I'm not certain there's that much more to defend, there, as the general consensus appeared to be that Apostle Widstoe's comments were outdated and incorrect.

I can understand questioning the use of the raw census records alone to draw the conclusion that there was not a disproportionate number of women to men in the church. But Widstoe stated he used membership records in addition to census records to draw his conclusion.

Yes, I agree.

Apparently many on this thread still thought that was flawed.

[truth dancer]

Hi T-shirt...

I think I understand your point. You are suggesting that most single women were unable to get a job that paid enough to afford them the opportunity to live on their own without others, such as roomates, family members etc. I'm not arguing this. I think it was a very difficult time for the vast majority of people.

It would have been impossible for a single woman to support herself financially.

No, that is not what was suggested. The point was and is, if women in ninteenth century Utah wanted to live away from home, the only way to really accomplish this, with few exceptions, was to get married. Single women wer not abandoned, as my data shows. Widows with children were taken care of so they didn't have to work. The census data clearly shows that virtually all single women lived with their families until they were married and that virtually all women did not not have wage earning jobs. There were exceptions of course, but they were extremely rare.

When I read the quote in question it sounds to me like the author is stating it is impossible for a single woman to support herself financially.... It doesn't say anything about where she would be living or with whom she would be living. My understanding is that it was common for extended family to live together. My understanding is that everyone in a home basically contributed whether they were working the farm or taking in boarders or caring for the sick and needy or teaching.

Let me try to explain my thoughts again...

So, IF A WOMAN GOT MARRIED polygamously she would most likely still have to work to support herself financially. IF SHE stayed home with her family of origin she would most likely still have to work to help support herself financially. I don't see the argument that if she got married polygamously she would be taken care of.... or if she didn't get married polygamously she would not be able to survive. A single woman would be working to some extent whether she lived with her family of origin and supported herself with the help of her family or if she lived with a man who had several families and worked to some extent to support herself with the possible help of a man.

So in sum....

I just don't agree with the argument that a woman needed to be married to an already married man to survive.

I also don't agree with the assumption that a woman who marries an already married man is somehow going to be provided for financially.

It is my observation that pretty much everyone who could, worked regardless of where and with whom they lived.

Just the way I see it....

~dancer~

[T-Shirt]

The church stated that it was impossible for a woman to support herself financially. You stated that there were exceptions to women needing to get married to survive. So, just so I understand your position, would you say the church's position was incorrect?

I would say that use of the word "impossible" was maybe too strong, but the point being made was valid. I would say, "virtually impossible", would be a better choice of words. The records show that single women supporting themselves or families, by earning a wage, was nearly non-existant.

T-Shirt

[AverageJoeFromSciForums]

We really need to start demanding some accountability for these endless threads about how awful...just awful, I tell you!  polygamy was. 

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? 

Hi Juliann

I was reading your post and I have to ask or comment on two things, since this is forum that welcomes new members, I assume that you as an administrator would know that many will always ask the same questions and if I understand the reason for this site (to answer questions, dialog, debate, etc.), then I would expect you and other administrators to not complain about the endless threads, (unless of course you re-arrange your forums or redirect people to standard answer pages; such as "Polygamy Q&A", "History of the Church"

also this site is not user friendly, it needs topics separated IMO

also, are you implying that your own family practiced polygamy? if so, please don't take this discussion personally, you are not accountable for whatever your ancestors did or didn't do, just understand that it is part of your heritage, I understand that Australians glory in their convict past, my family and ancestors were less than perfect, but I just have to account for my actions, choices and discussions

and since this an anonymous site, I feel that no matter how you feel, let it slide

[T-Shirt]

Brackite's comment promted me to go back and check my numbers and I found an error in the compilation of statistics. Forgive me for the mistakes, I will recalculate and come back with an update.

Thanks,

T-Shirt

[Brackite]

Hello T-Shirt,

Brackite's comment promted me to go back and check my numbers and I found an error in the compilation of statistics.  Forgive me for the mistakes, I will recalculate and come back with an update.

Thanks,

T-Shirt

Apology Accepted.

[beastie]

Well, I think it's just tragic that early LDS wouldn't help take care of widows and orphans.

[Mortvola]

Does any know if there is any data that supports the idea that polygamist settlements faired better than other frontier settlements that did not practice polygamy?

[emaughan]

Does any know if there is any data that supports the idea that polygamist settlements faired better than other frontier settlements that did not practice polygamy?

Good question, but there are many variables that would also have to be weeded out to determine if polygamy alone was good or bad for the prosperity of the settlement.

[1dc]

Does any know if there is any data that supports the idea that polygamist settlements faired better than other frontier settlements that did not practice polygamy?

Good question, but there are many variables that would also have to be weeded out to determine if polygamy alone was good or bad for the prosperity of the settlement.

Besides the point that neither prosperity or "being taken care of financially" would be ideal motivations for a celestial marriage . .