Joseph Smith, multiple wives

[bytor2112]

If six women were married to one man, I would not expect those women to have more children as a group than if each woman were married to a different man. If anything, the latter arrangement (one woman per man) seems like it would, on average, have a better chance of producing more children.

 

How so? If I were married to six women, each could be pregnant at the same time during multiple years. (bull-heifer post)

Edited January 29, 2015 by bytor2112

[Vort]

That is like suggesting that a cattle rancher would produce more cows with one bull and one heifer, when the reality is that one bull and multiple heifers would produce more cows. Much more opportunity to make cows...

 

No, it's more like suggesting that six heifers and six bulls will produce at least as many calves as six heifers and one bull.

[Vort]

How so? If I were married to six women, each could be pregnant at the same time during multiple years. (bull-heifer post)

 

Sure, they could. It's possible that six women all married to the same man might produce as many children as if each had her own husband. But six husbands have six times the money-earning and homestead-building capacity of one man, and that's a big influence on how many children a woman can (or is willing to) have.

 

On the whole, I see no reason to suppose that a man with six wives will produce more children than six men with one wife each.

[bytor2112]

No, it's more like suggesting that six heifers and six bulls will produce at least as many calves as six heifers and one bull.

 

Don't think it works like that in nature. Cattle farmers have more heifers in order to produce more cows with their bull. If you are suggesting that one man married to multiple women might be content with a normal size family...I guess that is possible. But, obviously, having multiple wives can create more children. Or am I missing something?

[Vort]

To my sense of logic, this idea seems to seriously underestimate the prowess of a "man's seed".

 

I learned that men produce on the order of 400 million viable sperm per, um, incident. So producing sufficient sperm is not the issue. Having the ability to provide sufficiently for multiple wives and (we assume) a higher child-to-wife ratio than a one-wife man would have is the issue.

[bytor2112]

Now your discriminating against welfare polygamists....that is rich.

[The Folk Prophet]

Don't think it works like that in nature. Cattle farmers have more heifers in order to produce more cows with their bull. If you are suggesting that one man married to multiple women might be content with a normal size family...I guess that is possible. But, obviously, having multiple wives can create more children. Or am I missing something?

 

The question is, if the farmer had 10 heifers and 10 bulls, would he have more or less success than with 10 heifers and 1 bull. The result, ultimately, would likely be the same (edit: or just as likely less offspring overall with only 1 bull). Therefore, multiple heifers per bull does not create more children unless there is a shortage of bulls. The logic of raising up seed being related to a numbers game, therefore, is contingent on there being more women than men.

Edited January 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

Don't think it works like that in nature. Cattle farmers have more heifers in order to produce more cows with their bull. If you are suggesting that one man married to multiple women might be content with a normal size family...I guess that is possible. But, obviously, having multiple wives can create more children. Or am I missing something?

 

Bulls don't produce meat, and they don't produce milk. They aren't as big or strong as castrated bovine (usually called "oxen", though this term technically refers to any bovine used as draft animals), and their testosterone gives them a nasty temper, so they are not valuable for plowing fields or pulling carts. They consume resources and don't produce a darn thing except bull piss and manure. In fact, from a rancher's viewpoint, bulls are good for exactly one thing: To impregnate cows. So ranchers keep only one bull because only one bull is needed to do the job, and they don't have to pay for all the other useless bulls hanging around eating the hay, charging at ranchhands, and fighing each other.

 

We may assume that human males, unlike a rancher's view of bulls, have actual intrinsic value. So the comparison is not valid. Nevertheless, the point remains: One bull with twenty cows is unlikely to produce more calves than two (or five, or twenty) bulls with twenty cows. I see absolutely no reason to suppose that, on average, one husband with multiple wives will produce more children than multiple husbands with one wife each.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Vort

[Jane_Doe]

That is like suggesting that a cattle rancher would produce more cows with one bull and one heifer, when the reality is that one bull and multiple heifers would produce more cows. Much more opportunity to make cows...

 

Comparing humans are not like cattle ranching.  Limitations of your analogy:

1)  Cattle ranchers have a higher female to male ratio (of cows).  This is the ranchers get rid of the bulls.  I don't think you're suggesting we get rid of male humans .

2)  The breeding cycle of cows is different vs humans.  A lady cow makes it very obvious when she's fertile.  Human ladies not so much.

3)  Having excess bulls makes the bulls fight each other for mating privileges (another reason ranchers don't keep them around).  I'd like to think human males are bit more civil

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[bytor2112]

The question is, if the farmer had 10 heifers and 10 bulls, would he have more or less success than with 10 heifers and 1 bull. The result, ultimately, would likely be the same (edit: or just as likely less offspring overall with only 1 bull). Therefore, multiple heifers per bull does not create more children unless there is a shortage of bulls. The logic of raising up seed being related to a numbers game, therefore, is contingent on there being more women than men.

 

You just described monogamy and left out any comparison with polygamy. It is an absolute that I can create more children over the course of my lifetime if I have multiple wives than if I had only one wife. A farmer who wished to have more cows would invariably have more heifers than bulls....

 

 

 

If u inject the condition of providing for them, then, perhaps Vort is correct. 

[bytor2112]

Brigham Young had over 50 children....I have two. (unless you count my two dachshunds) 

[The Folk Prophet]

You just described monogamy and left out any comparison with polygamy. It is an absolute that I can create more children over the course of my lifetime if I have multiple wives than if I had only one wife. A farmer who wished to have more cows would invariably have more heifers than bulls....

 

No...what you and I were missing is the society at large. It's true that you can produce more offspring with multiple wives. Yes.

 

But take 200 people, 100 men and 100 women. If you marry 1 woman to 1 man across the board, the resulting offspring does not diminish as compared to marrying 10 women each to 10 of the men and leaving the other 90 men womenless. The end result cannot possibly produce more offspring because 100 women pregnant over any given amount of time can only produce so much offspring, whether they are impregnated by 100 men or 10 men.

[Vort]

Now your discriminating against welfare polygamists....that is rich.

 

LOL. Now you know what kind of a man I truly am.

 

The question is, if the farmer had 10 heifers and 10 bulls, would he have more or less success than with 10 heifers and 1 bull. The result, ultimately, would likely be the same (edit: or just as likely less offspring overall with only 1 bull). Therefore, multiple heifers per bull does not create more children unless there is a shortage of bulls. The logic of raising up seed being related to a numbers game, therefore, is contingent on there being more women than men.

 

^^ This. ^^

[Vort]

Brigham Young had over 50 children....I have two. (unless you count my two dachshunds) 

 

Brigham Young also had 55 wives, so he produced about one child per wife on average. With your two children, you're doubling his rate.

[Vort]

bytor, the point is that women are the limiting factor when it comes to producing children. As long as there is at least one man to impregnate them, the number of women decides how many children are born. The number of men is irrelevant (as long as each woman can be impregnated).

 

So to say that polygamous couples produce more children on average than monogamous couples is counterintuitive and almost certainly wrong. Your own example proves it: The fifty-five couples consisting of Brigham Young and each of his wives produced, on average, one child. The couple consisting of you and your wife has produced two children, double Brother Brigham's average output.

 

Sure, each polygamous man will have more children if he's making them with multiple women. But those women will not produce more children overall than they would if each had her very own husband instead of all being married to the same guy. So the "higher fertility rate" argument leaves me deeply unconvinced. When you couple in the serious loss of genetic diversity by having fewer fathers in the population, I understand the logic of polygamy even less.

 

But that doesn't mean I don't believe it's necessary and commanded of God on occasion. I do. I just don't understand it, and I don't accept counterintuitive and undemonstrable arguments in its favor, like that there were waaaaay more women than men or that the average polygamous wife bore more children than her monogamous sister.

[SpiritDragon]

So moving back to the human practice of polygamy and not the animalistic breeding habits of domesticated cattle...

 

I found this excerpt (non LDS) interesting:

 

 

 

Why Polygamy is a sin

The reason that polygamy is no longer allowed by the church is because it's no longer allowed by society and is, therefore, against the law.

We Christians are told to uphold the law and subject ourselves to the law

Romans 13:1-2 (NIV)

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Because of this, polygamy is a sin if (and only if) it breaks the law. Similarly, it is a sin in the same manner and degree that breaking a speed limit is a sin: it's something not forbidden by God and solely forbidden by the law.

Why it's illegal

Polygamy was not uncommon among the Jews in biblical times. It wasn't until the the Romans came in that polygamy became outlawed. Even then, it was still allowed; Josephus made notes explaining that polygamy was permitted to Herod because it was permitted by Jewish custom.

Polygamy modelled by Jesus's parable

We can see that polygamy was commonly accepted in the New Testament from the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13). In this parable, Jesus tells of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women. This parable was used by Jesus to describes himself. The polygamous bridegroom in the parable is a reference to Jesus.

Fall of polygamy

It was, in fact, the Greek and Roman rules against polygamy that spread (along with the Grecian and Roman empires) and became the culture, forcing out the practice of polygamy.

Monogomy and polygyny by Walter Scheidel, Stanford University (2009)

Thus, even though Greeks and Romans need not have been the first cultures to prescribe monogamy, these are the earliest securely attested cases and, moreover, established a paradigm for subsequent periods that eventually attained global dominance.

...

The true historical significance of Greco-Roman [monogamy] may well lie in its impact on the Christian tradition.
It was these two huge historical forces that established monogamy in our society--not something born of God, but something born of Pagan societies.

Modern Society and Law

Christianity tied itself to the banner of the Roman empire 300 years after Christ (when Constantine established what would become the Roman Catholic church). This organization spread Christianity by using the power and authority of the Roman empire. It was this Roman concept of monogamy (predating Christianity) that carried over from its paganistic roots into the Christian society. It was at that time (and not before) that Christianity became intertwined with the idea of monogamy.

This pagan idea of monogamy from Rome slowly infused into the Christian culture (source); and it was because association with Christianity (and the Roman Catholic Church) that the paganistic, Roman practice remains today.

This Roman practice has tangled itself into the Christian culture (via the early Roman Catholic church) and therefore all "Christian" nations since (founded under Western culture) have adopted the laws prohibiting polygamy from their outset.

Because of this, polygamy is illegal in most parts of the world. Because it's illegal, it is a sin.

Catholicism Today

It should be noted that Catholicism today still carries over this idea from ancient Rome. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states "However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law."

Because of this, polygamy is solidly outlawed within Catholicism. Granted, if you read the last section, this should not surprise anyone.

 

Food for thought.

[bytor2112]

 

No...what you and I were missing is the society at large. It's true that you can produce more offspring with multiple wives. Yes.

 

 

Yes....exactly!!

 

But take 200 people, 100 men and 100 women. If you marry 1 woman to 1 man across the board, the resulting offspring does not diminish as compared to marrying 10 women each to 10 of the men and leaving the other 90 men womenless. The end result cannot possibly produce more offspring because 100 women pregnant over any given amount of time can only produce so much offspring, whether they are impregnated by 100 men or 10 men.

 

 

Err.....  Ok.

[bytor2112]

Brigham Young also had 55 wives, so he produced about one child per wife on average. With your two children, you're doubling his rate.

Yet...he still had over 50 children, while I have two.

[Vort]

Yet...he still had over 50 children, while I have two.

 

True, but irrelevant. If you think it's relevant, you are misunderstanding the entire discussion.

[bytor2112]

True, but irrelevant. If you think it's relevant, you are misunderstanding the entire discussion.

Haha...I admit, the light bulb didn't come on till just a couple of posts ago....

[Jane_Doe]

Now can we actually talk about the OP?

[Vort]

Now can we actually talk about the OP?

 

By all means. I don't think the OP was neglected; almost the entire first page was responses to and discussions about it. We just got off on a short but related tangent.

[bytor2112]

Just remember that when selecting cattle for breeding that you don't want any of those po skinny cows....big ankles are in.

[The Folk Prophet]

...like that there were waaaaay more women than men....

 

What about the waaaay more righteous women than men theory? :)

[Vort]

What about the waaaay more righteous women than men theory? :)

Yeah, well, I've never been partial to that theory, and I have never personally found lots of reason to believe it's true.