Joseph Smith and Polygamy

[Guest Scott]

It should also be mentioned that the Saints (including the Church leaders) considered polygamy to be a trial rather than a blessing.

A lot of polygamists were jailed, forced out of their homes, or even had to flee the country.   Families were ripped apart.  Children were seperated from their parents.   All Church property was under threat of confisation, including the temples.  Much of the time (probably most of the time), polygamy wasn't exactly a pleasant experience.    Even so, the early Saints still did it because it was commanded.   The early Saints who wrote about polygamy didn't seem to be embarrassed about it.   Why should we be?   (I'm not saying that we are, but I see no reason to try and hide it). 

On the other hand, it is a part of our Church history, but is no longer practiced.  Polygamist marriages on earth haven't been performed in our church for ~129 years now.  It is weird that polygamy is what so many non-members are most interested in or assocate us with.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Scott

[NeedleinA]

On 4/26/2019 at 12:59 PM, Scott said:

It is weird that polygamy is what so many non-members are most interested in or assocate us with.

Perhaps another solid vote why we need to identify ourselves less and less as generic 'Mormons' and rather members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
With the world watching any number of 'Mormon' Polygamy reality tv shows,  confusion abounds with nothing more than the click of the remote now days.

[Guest Mores]

On 4/25/2019 at 7:19 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Absolutely, several were under 18; though I think reasonably informed and fair-minded people don’t get terribly worked up over sixteen-year-olds getting married in the nineteenth-century.  I also agree that as a matter of demographics, assuming equal numbers of men and women, polygamy will drive the marriage age of females down over time; and I’ve seen studies (years ago, and sadly I’ve lost the cites) suggesting that a) this was indeed the case in Utah; and b) higher conversion rates of females versus males made this sustainable for a while, but by the 1880s-1890s the disparity was reducing and that if we hadn’t stopped polygamy when we did we’d have shortly begun facing a major problem with unmarried and unmarriageable males.  You’re probably aware of the Brigham Young quotes where he basically says “for crying out loud, guys, let these girls get through puberty at least!”

I was once challenged on this by an anti-Mormon.  The point made was that the census from that era in Utah indicates rather equal numbers of male and females in the state/territory.  I looked it up. And it was true.  So, it would appear that the idea of "raising up seed unto the Lord" was not the motivation.

BUT!!!

A more detailed look into the census shows a rather different story.  If you look at other demographic information you realize that the overall number doesn't tell the story.

1. There appeared to be a poor distribution by age.  Women were distributed along the age curve as is typical for a population.  But men seemed to be polarized.  Many older men.  Many young men not of marriageable age.  Few in the middle (marriageable age).  

2. Many of the men in the census were of Indian tribes and other races.  Many of them were not members of the Church.  If it truly were about hedonism, then wouldn't it be very tempting for these non-members to join simply for that reason alone?

There really was a mismatch of male/female population in the territory.  And after O.D. #1, the population soon went back to normal. Isn't that interesting?

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, Mores said:

I was once challenged on this by an anti-Mormon.  The point made was that the census from that era in Utah indicates rather equal numbers of male and females in the state/territory.  I looked it up. And it was true.  So, it would appear that the idea of "raising up seed unto the Lord" was not the motivation.

BUT!!!

A more detailed look into the census shows a rather different story.  If you look at other demographic information you realize that the overall number doesn't tell the story.

1. There appeared to be a poor distribution by age.  Women were distributed along the age curve as is typical for a population.  But men seemed to be polarized.  Many older men.  Many young men not of marriageable age.  Few in the middle (marriageable age).  

2. Many of the men in the census were of Indian tribes and other races.  Many of them were not members of the Church.  If it truly were about hedonism, then wouldn't it be very tempting for these non-members to join simply for that reason alone?

There really was a mismatch of male/female population in the territory.  And after O.D. #1, the population soon went back to normal. Isn't that interesting?

Yeah, my impression was that there was more-or-less gender parity within the territory, but not within the Church—single women converted and came to Utah; single men (post-Civil War) came with the Army or for mining opportunities.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Mores said:

So, it would appear that the idea of "raising up seed unto the Lord" was not the motivation.

So forgive me if this has already been mentioned -- I didn't read through everything else... But:

When this concept (raising up seed unto the Lord) is used it's always talked about in terms of numbers.

Why?

Wherein does that phrase suggest numbers?

The idea, in my thinking, is about the "unto the Lord" part.

Plural marriage was as much (probably more) about raising up children "unto the Lord" as it was about raising up lots of children.

That being said, I think there's something to be said about the number too that is related to bringing women into situations where having children would be a priority -- families who were dedicated to serving the Lord. Not only does this mean raising up children "unto the Lord", but those who serve the Lord tend to have larger families.

Edited April 30, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest Mores]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So forgive me if this has already been mentioned -- I didn't read through everything else... But:

When this concept (raising up seed unto the Lord) is used it's always talked about in terms of numbers.

Why?

Wherein does that phrase suggest numbers?

The idea, in my thinking, is about the "unto the Lord" part.

Plural marriage was as much (probably more) about raising up children "unto the Lord" as it was about raising up lots of children.

That being said, I think there's something to be said about the number too that is related to bringing women into situations where having children would be a priority -- families who were dedicated to serving the Lord. Not only does this mean raising up children "unto the Lord", but those who serve the Lord tend to have larger families.

I tend to think it is about both parts of the phrase.  I don't discount one simply because I speak of the other.

Certainly, to raise up children, you have to have children.  So, numbers must be part of it.  Using the model of a quadratic equation, the number of children is the independent variable.  The who is the "a".  The how is the "b".  The parents are the "c".  And the "Raising Children unto the Lord" is the resulting dependent variable.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Mores

[Traveler]

I am not sure that we understand marriage between a man and a woman - especially in our current culture.  I do not believe that current trends (even within the church) are adding to our understanding.  @The Folk Prophet suggested that "raising up children unto the L-rd" is the purpose of marriage (including plural marriage).  Perhaps raising up children applies to everyone under covenant - including the parents and not just the kids.

 

The Traveler