Tweet
Have you ever heard LDS folk claim that polygamy was necessary/justified for (A) caring for the higher number of women in the Church than men, and (B) increasing the LDS population? We had a couple of MTC teachers give us that reasoning and I ate it up and even used it in the mission field a couple of times. This is some pretty interesting info from Apostle John A. Widtsoe's 1943 book "Evidences and Reconciliations":
(See question #66, near the bottom of the page -- a CTRL+F search for "why did the church" will take you right to it)
http://www.cumorah.com/language/evid...iliations.html
Some background on the book:
(See question #66, near the bottom of the page -- a CTRL+F search for "why did the church" will take you right to it)
http://www.cumorah.com/language/evid...iliations.html
66. WHY DID THE CHURCH PRACTICE PLURAL MARRIAGE IN EARLIER DAYS?
...
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 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.
...
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 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.
Throughout his professional life as scientist, educator, public servant, and churchman—a distinguished and almost unbelievably varied career going back nearly half a century—Dr. John A. Widtsoe has been receiving questions from confused and alert and honest and eager students—students of life, students of the gospel, and students engaged in formal academic pursuits. These questions have come by letter, in Church gatherings, from the mission field, in the classroom, and on informal occasions.
Some years ago Dr. Widtsoe began to make permanent record of such questions as they came to him and, beginning nearly five years ago, to answer in print in the pages of the Improvement Era those most persistently and most frequently asked. "Evidences and Reconciliations" was the general title adopted, with a subtitle "Aids to Faith in a Modern Day"; and that the series filled an urgent need is attested by the fact that requests for permanent compilation began to increase as the writings progressed through the months—thus repeating the experience of other writers who, by reason of demand, have been obliged to publish their serial efforts in book form.
Some years ago Dr. Widtsoe began to make permanent record of such questions as they came to him and, beginning nearly five years ago, to answer in print in the pages of the Improvement Era those most persistently and most frequently asked. "Evidences and Reconciliations" was the general title adopted, with a subtitle "Aids to Faith in a Modern Day"; and that the series filled an urgent need is attested by the fact that requests for permanent compilation began to increase as the writings progressed through the months—thus repeating the experience of other writers who, by reason of demand, have been obliged to publish their serial efforts in book form.
Comment