John Taylor 1886 Revelation

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't remember any discussion of polygamy in Our Heritage.

This is in the Doctrine and Covenants Teachers Manual:

Ahem.

The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[Jarid in Cedar]

"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 seems always to have been more males than females in the Church...The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah...This theory is not defensible since there was no surplus of women."
- LDS Apostle John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pages 390-392

...

[byu71]

...

It isn't the ratio of males to females, but the ratio of worthy males to worthy females. It is pretty much a fact there are far more worthy females than males.

Just about any conference someone talks about the poor females who are single because of the number of irresponsible males. If we still had polygamy, those single gals could be married.

[Moliere]

Yeah, it sounds great -- too bad it's a complete and utter falsehood.

Of course, I can't think of a more historically faithful way to follow the example of our LDS ancestors than enthusiastically "Lying for the Lord" regarding polygamy.

Hmmm, I wouldn't call it a complete falsehood. I believe it was true in some isolated instances and I have some proof circumstantial evidence. My great-great-great grandfather had two wives. One was his wife he married in Kentucky before joining the church and the other was a widow that he married in Nauvoo. I remember in his journals him being asked to take the widow as his wife. I don't have the whole story but given the fact that she was a widow and he married her in a polygamous way it is assumed that he married her to help care for her.

Apart from this circumstantial evidence, I've never seen anything else to support this claim.

[LA Ute]

Yeah, it sounds great -- too bad it's a complete and utter falsehood.

Of course, I can't think of a more historically faithful way to follow the example of our LDS ancestors than enthusiastically "Lying for the Lord" regarding polygamy.

Now you and ewth8tr have got my argumentative side going. (Don't be too proud of yourself; that is not hard to do. ) I am not the type to dig into these issues, but I will give you the same kinds of reactions I'd give to a client who came to me with a version of the facts:

• Do you really mean "lying?" Who knew this was not true and still stated it as if it were true?

I know it was in Answers to Gospel Questions Volume 3 by Joseph Fielding Smith, though my copy is packed right now. Here is something I found though in a quick search.

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

OK, now I want to examine these stats.

• Do they tell the whole demographic story? Were all the men Mormons?

• Active Mormons? I seem to recall reading once that non-Mormons in Utah at the time were overwhelmingly men. (My great-grandfather was one of those gentiles who moved to Utah in that era and married a Mormon girl.)

• Do we know the distribution here between men and women of prime marrying age?

I am just urging a little less triumphant attitude about numbers and information that support our preconceived notions. I always think of Peggy Fletcher Stack in that context. Back when the Joseph Smith III "patriarchal blessing" was discovered, Peggy (then Sunstone's editor) told the news media that the "discovery" showed why the church cannot try to cover up its history. Whoops.

That's all. Whale away.

[UtahDan]

LA I agree with what you are saying about there not being the intention to deceive there. I think the intentions are good. I also think there is an assumption that church leadership have known all the facts available today all along; I don't think that is true particularly not in the 20th century. In fact, I still believe that a great many of them know very little about the facts and history that have come to light in recent years. JIC's experience seems to confirm this. Just because a lot of us have read Bushman, Compton, Quinn, etc doesn't mean the brethren all have. I'm sure some have, but it seems to me like that has sort of been delegated to FARMS/FAIR for better or worse. I may turn out to be wrong but I do think there is still just a lot of ignorance. Who knows, maybe I am selling them short.

I also agree that without more the statistics could mean a lot of things.

I think that 1850 statistic is probably the best one though. The suggestion was made in this thread that there were eventually miners in Utah who were not Mormon and that this skewed the numbers. That appears true, but not as early as 1850. That population would be nearly all Mormon.

[Jeff Lebowski]

LA Ute, if this was the primary reason for the introduction of polygamy, surely there would be a myriad of recorded statements from JS, BY, Et al. indicating such. Can you point us to some?

[CardiacCoug]

Now you and ewth8tr have got my argumentative side going. (Don't be too proud of yourself; that is not hard to do. ) I am not the type to dig into these issues, but I will give you the same kinds of reactions I'd give to a client who came to me with a version of the facts:

• Do you really mean "lying?" Who knew this was not true and still stated it as if it were true?

OK, now I want to examine these stats.

• Do they tell the whole demographic story? Were all the men Mormons?

• Active Mormons? I seem to recall reading once that non-Mormons in Utah at the time were overwhelmingly men. (My great-grandfather was one of those gentiles who moved to Utah in that era and married a Mormon girl.)

• Do we know the distribution here between men and women of prime marrying age?

I am just urging a little less triumphant attitude about numbers and information that support our preconceived notions. I always think of Peggy Fletcher Stack in that context. Back when the Joseph Smith III "patriarchal blessing" was discovered, Peggy (then Sunstone's editor) told the news media that the "discovery" showed why the church cannot try to cover up its history. Whoops.

That's all. Whale away.

Sure, it's not lying as much as ignorance -- I just wanted to use the "lying for the Lord" phrase. You have to admit, though, that it would be fairly easy for the Church to dispel some of these polygamy myths. But when the truth is embarrassing it's easier to try to keep members ignorant.

I don't think that the overall balance of men versus women in the Church proves anything, so I agree with you there. I even said that I wouldn't completely throw out the argument that polygamy might still have resulted in more Mormon kids being born, even if there were more men than women at the time.

But the bottom line is that polygamy was just a strange religious practice -- it's funny that members want to morph polygamy into something noble and altruistic to the point that they just make stuff up.

[ewth8tr]

Now you and ewth8tr have got my argumentative side going. (Don't be too proud of yourself; that is not hard to do. ) I am not the type to dig into these issues, but I will give you the same kinds of reactions I'd give to a client who came to me with a version of the facts:

• Do you really mean "lying?" Who knew this was not true and still stated it as if it were true?

OK, now I want to examine these stats.

• Do they tell the whole demographic story? Were all the men Mormons?

• Active Mormons? I seem to recall reading once that non-Mormons in Utah at the time were overwhelmingly men. (My great-grandfather was one of those gentiles who moved to Utah in that era and married a Mormon girl.)

• Do we know the distribution here between men and women of prime marrying age?

I am just urging a little less triumphant attitude about numbers and information that support our preconceived notions. I always think of Peggy Fletcher Stack in that context. Back when the Joseph Smith III "patriarchal blessing" was discovered, Peggy (then Sunstone's editor) told the news media that the "discovery" showed why the church cannot try to cover up its history. Whoops.

That's all. Whale away.

I will try to find my copy of Answers to Gospel Questions today to find the exact answer from Joseph Fielding Smith, which goes along the same lines as John Widstoe's quote that I provided.

[scottie]

I will try to find my copy of Answers to Gospel Questions today to find the exact answer from Joseph Fielding Smith, which goes along the same lines as John Widstoe's quote that I provided.

Here's more detail on the Widstoe thing:

66. WHY DID THE CHURCH PRACTICE PLURAL MARRIAGE IN EARLIER DAYS?

Plural marriage was practiced by between two and four percent of the Church membership from 1843 to 1890 (according to the Utah Commission appointed by Congress). In the latter year the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the constitutionality of the congressional laws against the practice. Obedience to constitutional law is a fundamental tenet of the Church. (D. & C. 98:5, 6) Therefore, after Wilford Woodruff had sought guidance from the Lord, the Church suspended the practice. However, it had been declared, long before, that the Church would cease the practice if constitutional laws against it were enacted. For example, "Would it be right for the Latter-day Saints to marry a plurality of wives in any of the states or territories, or nations, where such practices are prohibited by the laws of man? We answer 'No, it would not be right'; for we are commanded to be subject to the powers that be ... unless their laws are unrighteous." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 111, June, 1853) Today any Church member who enters into plural marriage or who teaches its propriety in these days is promptly excommunicated.

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.

Another theory holds that plural marriage resulted from licentiousness of the Church leaders. This is refuted by the evidence at hand. The founders and early leaders of the Church were reared under the strictly monogamic system of New England. Plural marriage seemed to them an unholy and repellent practice. Joseph Smith has told that he hesitated to enter the system until he was warned of his destruction if he did not obey. (Jenson, Historical Record 5:222) Brigham Young said that he felt, when the doctrine was revealed to him, that he would rather die than take plural wives. (Life Story of Brigham Young, Gates and Widtsoe, p. 242) Others of the early Church leaders to whom the principle was first taught have related their feeling of resistance to the practice. Undoubtedly the women felt much the same about the practice. However, numerous plural wives have testified to the high moral tone of their relationship with their husbands. Not only was every wife equal in property rights, but also treated with equal deference, and all children were educated and recognized equally. Mormon plural marriage bore no resemblance to the lewd life of the man to whom woman is but a subject for his lusts. Women were not forced into plural marriage. They entered it voluntarily, with open eyes. The men and women, with very few exceptions, who lived in plural marriage, were clean and high-minded. Their descendants, tens of thousands of whom are living, worthy citizens of the land, are proud of their heritage. The story of the Latter-day Saints, fully available, when read by honest men and women, decries the theory that plural marriage was a product of licentiousness or sensuality.

There is a friendlier, but equally untenable view relative to the origin of plural marriage. It is contended that on the frontier, where the Church spent its earlier years, men were often unlettered, rough in talk and walk, unattractive to refined women. Female converts to the Church, coming into the pioneer wilderness, dreaded the possible life-long association with such men and the rearing of their children under the example and influence of an uncouth father. They would much prefer to share a finer type of man with another woman. To permit this, it is suggested that plural marriage was instituted. The ready answer is that the great majority of men who joined the Church were superior, spiritually inclined seekers after truth and all the better things of life. Only such men would be led to investigate the restored gospel and to face the sacrifices that membership in the Church would require. Under such conditions, since, as has been stated, there was no surplus of women in Mormon pioneer communities, there was no need of mating with the rough element, which admittedly existed outside of the Church.

Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women.

The simple truth, and the only acceptable explanation, is that the principle of plural marriage came as a revelation from the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith for the Church. It was one of many principles so communicated to the Prophet. It was not man-made. It was early submitted to several of his associates, and later, when safety permitted, to the Church as a whole.

The members of the Church had personal testimonies of the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. They had individually accepted the gospel as restored through the Prophet. When he announced a doctrine as revelation coming from above, the people, being already convinced of the reality of Joseph's prophetic calling and power, accepted the new doctrine and attempted to put it into practice. Members of the Church who were permitted to take plural wives, did so because they believed that they were obeying a commandment of God. That faith gave them strength to meet the many problems arising from plurality, and to resist the encroachments of enemies upon their sacred right of freedom of religious belief and practice.

We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage. Some have suggested that it was a means of trying and refining the people through the persecution that followed. Certainly, one must have had faith in the divine origin of the Church to enter it. Another suggested explanation is based upon the doctrine of pre-existence. In the spirit world are countless numbers of spirits waiting for their descent into mortality, to secure earth bodies as a means of further progress. These unborn spirits desired the best possible parentage. Those assuming plural marriage almost invariably were the finest types in the community. Only men who were most worthy in their lives were permitted to take plural wives; and usually only women of great faith and pure lives were willing to become members of a plural household. (It should be remembered that permission to enter the system was granted only by the President of the Church, and after careful examination of the candidate.) However, this is but another attempted explanation by man of a divine action.

It may be mentioned that eugenic studies have shown the children of polygamous parents to be above the average, physically and mentally. And the percentage of happy plural households was higher than that of monogamous families.

The principle of plural marriage came by revelation from the Lord. That is the reason why the Church practiced it. It ceased when the Lord so directed through the then living Prophet. The Church lives, moves, and has its being in revelation.

http://www.cumorah.com/language/evid...iliations.html

[Uncle Ted]

Given that I am of the view that polygamy (which herein means polyandry and all that other stuff too) was a human mistake and not a divinely appointed temporary social construct, I always wondered how the early saints squared the practice with Jacob 2. Jacob 2 always seemed pretty clear to me, and it runs slap in the face of the idea that polygamy is an eternal principle and all of that.

I tend be of this same opinion as well. Another question I have is why it was outlawed (not that I want to be a polygamist but as an advocate of freedom). There are many countries and religions in the world that allow polygamy. In fact, our current President's father was married to more than one woman (although I don't think the President's mother knew about the other wife) and his religion often practiced polygamy. I find it interesting that proponents of same-sex marriage often have a problem with legalizing polygamy (and other forms of marriage) as well. The argument I usually get is that polygamy (polygyny) was/is an oppression of women. I usually like to note that mormon women got the vote in Utah about 50 years before other American women.

[LA Ute]

LA Ute, if this was the primary reason for the introduction of polygamy, surely there would be a myriad of recorded statements from JS, BY, Et al. indicating such. Can you point us to some?

Just to clarify, I am not saying the gender imbalance argument is valid, just urging caution against groupthink. As for polygamy itself, I am no fan. I do think, however, that the institution was more complex, and contemporary views of it were more nuanced, than many modern critics recognize.

For those interested, here's an interesting article someone sent to me:

"Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah" by Kathryn M. Daynes, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 24. No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 89-111.

[pellegrino]

I tend be of this same opinion as well. Another question I have is why it was outlawed (not that I want to be a polygamist but as an advocate of freedom). There are many countries and religions in the world that allow polygamy. In fact, our current President's father was married to more than one woman (although I don't think the President's mother knew about the other wife) and his religion often practiced polygamy. I find it interesting that proponents of same-sex marriage often have a problem with legalizing polygamy (and other forms of marriage) as well. The argument I usually get is that polygamy (polygyny) was/is an oppression of women. I usually like to note that mormon women got the vote in Utah about 50 years before other American women.

How much did that have to do with the advancement of women? There was a Utah suffrage movement started by anti-polygamists who thought (incorrectly) that if Mormon women could vote they would vote polygamy out of existence. I have heard arguments that BY and others advocated women's suffrage as calculated ploy to show that polygamy did not oppress women.

I've also heard that similar motives were behind the church's support of including women's right to vote in the Utah constitution. In short, women were used to show the rest of the nation that they weren't exploited by polygamy. How ironic is that?

[Uncle Ted]

How much did that have to do with the advancement of women? There was a Utah suffrage movement started by anti-polygamists who thought (incorrectly) that if Mormon women could vote they would vote polygamy out of existence. I have heard arguments that BY and others advocated women's suffrage as calculated ploy to show that polygamy did not oppress women.

I've also heard that similar motives were behind the church's support of including women's right to vote in the Utah constitution. In short, women were used to show the rest of the nation that they weren't exploited by polygamy. How ironic is that?

It is ironic that the Edmunds-Tucker Anti-Polygamy Act disfranchised women and, therefore, took away their right to vote in the Utah territory.

[LA Ute]

How much did that have to do with the advancement of women? There was a Utah suffrage movement started by anti-polygamists who thought (incorrectly) that if Mormon women could vote they would vote polygamy out of existence. I have heard arguments that BY and others advocated women's suffrage as calculated ploy to show that polygamy did not oppress women.

I've also heard that similar motives were behind the church's support of including women's right to vote in the Utah constitution. In short, women were used to show the rest of the nation that they weren't exploited by polygamy. How ironic is that?

What you say is superficially plausible, but is there any evidence to support it? Does the existence of the Relief Society argue against that point of view? (I am suggesting a non-presentist view of the RS. It was quite unusual in the 19th century, I understand.)