Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Magic Man]

Which only confirms that you prefer to think in dichotomies--you'd make a good scientist. Problem is, life is full of "necessary evils." Apparently God sometimes considers polygamy a necessary abomination.

But, conveniently, homosexuality is the one abomination mentioned there and in Leviticus that is never acceptable. That seems a little weird to me.

Yes, there are necessary evils sometimes, but polygamy isn't in that category. It's not like killing. Killing has a good reason for being wrong in the first place and a good reason for being acceptable in some other cases. Polygamy is one of those things like homosexuality, it's either wrong or it isn't.

 

[DeepShadow]

Polygamy is one of those things like homosexuality, it's either wrong or it isn't.

Do you have a scriptural basis for this statement, or is this more of your loyalty to dichotomies?

If you are willing to get on our side of the issue, start here:
* We see very few commandments as dichotomies
* We see these verses from Jacob as scripture
* These verses explicitly state there are conditions under which polygamy is not an abomination.
* Ergo, we don't see polygamy as a dichotomy.

Any attempt to convince us that polygamy ought to be a dichotomy will be an attempt to refute this scripture from Jacob, and will only have us running in circles again.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I've heard that the mobs in Missouri and earlier preferred to kill men, in part because women weren't allowed to own property at the time, so they could kill the men and take what they wanted. I'll poke around a little. It shouldn't be too hard to confirm this, as many of their boasts were recorded in county registers.

Didn't someone post some census stats?

 

[Autodidact]

But, conveniently, homosexuality is the one abomination mentioned there and in Leviticus that is never acceptable. That seems a little weird to me.

Yes, there are necessary evils sometimes, but polygamy isn't in that category. It's not like killing. Killing has a good reason for being wrong in the first place and a good reason for being acceptable in some other cases. Polygamy is one of those things like homosexuality, it's either wrong or it isn't.

You do know that the OT clearly permits polygamy, and the NT doesn't address it, right? Christianity didn't get around to instituting monogamy until at least the third century.

 

[DeepShadow]

But, conveniently, homosexuality is the one abomination mentioned there and in Leviticus that is never acceptable. That seems a little weird to me.

Homosexuality is not mentioned in Jacob. Jacob is talking about polygamy. I agree that it's odd about the Levitical abominations, but as AD says, this is probably not the same word being translated.

 

[DeepShadow]

Didn't someone post some census stats?

Sure, but those census stats don't record who's Mormon, or even who's male. IIRC back then, many censuses only recorded men.

To really find out the ratio, we'd need to compare the number of worthy Mormon men who could support many children to the number of worthy Mormon women.

 

[Autodidact]

But DeepShadow, don't you explicity NOT need to know why? God said it, and that's good enough for you?

 

[Autodidact]

Sure, but those census stats don't record who's Mormon, or even who's male. IIRC back then, many censuses only recorded men.

To really find out the ratio, we'd need to compare the number of worthy Mormon men who could support many children to the number of worthy Mormon women.

If there was an overabundance of women, don't you think someone would have mentioned it? e.g. After WW I, you see a lot of talk in novels etc. about how there aren't any young men for the women to marry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I've heard that the mobs in Missouri and earlier preferred to kill men, in part because women weren't allowed to own property at the time, so they could kill the men and take what they wanted. I'll poke around a little. It shouldn't be too hard to confirm this, as many of their boasts were recorded in county registers.

But were they killed in enough numbers to make that much of a difference to the demographics?

Also, when you look at the Mormons in Utah while polygamy was practiced, there are other factors. I read that the first expedition of Mormon settlers was overwhelmingly men. I can't find stats on later expeditions or the "Mormon Exodus" as a whole, but I know that in other westward expansions, most of the people to make the trek across the country were men.

As for the other claim made by Watchmen that the number of "proper" Mormon men would be lower than the male population in the census, the number of observant, upstanding Mormon men could probably be gauged by looking at Church records of things like Temple ceremonies or issuances of Temple recommends, though I don't know if that sort of thing is in an easily searchable form... if it's available to the public at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you have a scriptural basis for this statement, or is this more of your loyalty to dichotomies?

If you are willing to get on our side of the issue, start here:
* We see very few commandments as dichotomies
* We see these verses from Jacob as scripture
* These verses explicitly state there are conditions under which polygamy is not an abomination.
* Ergo, we don't see polygamy as a dichotomy.

Any attempt to convince us that polygamy ought to be a dichotomy will be an attempt to refute this scripture from Jacob, and will only have us running in circles again.

I think the problem is that I'm just looking at it from an objective point of view. I'm not trying to get on "your side" or anyone else's. I'm trying to see it from a point of view of logic and reason. Logically, there's nothing wrong with polygamy. Therefore calling it wrong is just because someone said God said so. So, of course, God could then say anything he wants, at least according to that person. I guess the main problem is why make polygamy wrong in the first place? And the next main problem is that making it acceptable at some point involves a rationalization.

 

[DeepShadow]

But DeepShadow, don't you explicity NOT need to know why? God said it, and that's good enough for you?

* I don't need know why, but I'm still curious. It's not like I need to stay ignorant.

* Some of the why is shared with us, in the doctrine. The REAL why--why should raising up seed make a difference--is not shared, and I'm fine with that.

* None of this changes the fact that God told me to join (and remain in) the modern church. If we find no evidence of a disproportionate ratio, then...nothing. It's curiosity.

 

[DeepShadow]

If there was an overabundance of women, don't you think someone would have mentioned it? e.g. After WW I, you see a lot of talk in novels etc. about how there aren't any young men for the women to marry.

This was in a small community. I don't know any Mormons back then who were writing novels.

 

[Watchmen]

Circles.

Amazing shapes, really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To really find out the ratio, we'd need to compare the number of worthy Mormon men who could support many children to the number of worthy Mormon women.

Doesn't the Church keep records that would give an indication of this? Maybe parish (or ward in LDS terminology, right?) membership registries or records of Temple ceremonies?

Also, I seem to recall hearing something about how plural marriages were often almost arranged by bishops or church leaders; is that correct? If so, then there may be some documentation of this... maybe letters that say something like "Jane Doe, since there are no unmarried, upstanding Mormon men of means in this county, we are guided by the Spirit to tell you to marry John Smith. He is a man of good repute with a 400-acre farm, 4 children and 2 wives." Is there anything like that out there?

 

[DeepShadow]

As for the other claim made by Watchmen that the number of "proper" Mormon men would be lower than the male population in the census, the number of observant, upstanding Mormon men could probably be gauged by looking at Church records of things like Temple ceremonies or issuances of Temple recommends, though I don't know if that sort of thing is in an easily searchable form... if it's available to the public at all.

We can certainly poke around--that's the kind of stats we need.

Other things to consider: the prophets lamented about the number of men who can't handle priesthood authority without becoming unrighteous. "Many are called, but few are chosen" may have made it harder to find good men. How many went apostate?

And what about resources? Men were only allowed to be polygamous if they could support extra wives and children. The concentration of wealth may have been an issue, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can certainly poke around--that's the kind of stats we need.

Other things to consider: the prophets lamented about the number of men who can't handle priesthood authority without becoming unrighteous. "Many are called, but few are chosen" may have made it harder to find good men. How many went apostate?

I don't know. Excommunication records are considered private, right? I suppose the only way to tell would be to look at change in ward membership from year to year, add the deaths and people who moved away, and subtract the births and new converts. The remainder should be a negative number that represents the people who left the Church.

And what about resources? Men were only allowed to be polygamous if they could support extra wives and children. The concentration of wealth may have been an issue, too.

Good point, but weren't even poor men allowed to have one wife?

 

[Autodidact]

I think the problem is that I'm just looking at it from an objective point of view. I'm not trying to get on "your side" or anyone else's. I'm trying to see it from a point of view of logic and reason. Logically, there's nothing wrong with polygamy. Therefore calling it wrong is just because someone said God said so. So, of course, God could then say anything he wants, at least according to that person. I guess the main problem is why make polygamy wrong in the first place? And the next main problem is that making it acceptable at some point involves a rationalization.

Logic? Religion? Does not compute, does not compute...bzzzt.

 

[DeepShadow]

Good point, but weren't even poor men allowed to have one wife?

I'd expect so.

 

[Smoke]

Sure, but those census stats don't record who's Mormon, or even who's male. IIRC back then, many censuses only recorded men.

Actually, I gave the numbers of males and females for 1850, 1870, and 1880.

The U.S. federal census has always recorded the numbers of free white males and females in each household, beginning with the first census in 1790. Until 1850, only the heads of households were listed by name, but all the members of each household were numbered, and the numbers for free white persons were broken down into categories by age and sex beginning in 1790. Numbers of slaves and "free colored persons" weren't broken down into such categories until 1820.

In 1850 and 1860, each person whether slave or free was listed by age, sex, and color, but only free persons were listed by name.

In the 1850 population schedules (which don't include slaves) list 3,167 males and 3,085 females in Great Salt Lake County -- which at that date would have been entirely or almost entirely Mormon. Of those, 1,027 men and 921 women were between the ages of 20 and 40. 628 of the men and 564 of the women were between the ages of 20 and 30. Utah County had 320 men and 182 women between the ages of 20 and 30.

In Utah County in 1880, there were 1,471 men between the ages of 20 and 30. Of these, fewer than half (709) were married. There were 1,504 women between the ages of 20 and 30, of whom nearly four-fifths (1,178) were married. This suggests that there were plenty of available men, but that there was, for young men, a shortage of available women, since so many of the women were involved in plural marriages. For example, the first householder listed in Spring Lake Precinct in 1880 is Benjamin F. Johnson, aged 62. Johnson is listed with five wives: Mary (59), Harriet (46), Sarah (44), Susan (38), and Sarah (39).

To really find out the ratio, we'd need to compare the number of worthy Mormon men who could support many children to the number of worthy Mormon women.

"Worthiness" is probably something impossible to determine, especially since the LDS Church had no temple or endowment house in 1850. I assume that sealings took place, but there would have been no point to a system of temple recommends.

The ability to support multiple wives and children is not likely to be a factor, considering that some men took on multiple wives despite financial hardship.

Other things to consider: the prophets lamented about the number of men who can't handle priesthood authority without becoming unrighteous. "Many are called, but few are chosen" may have made it harder to find good men. How many went apostate?

It would be interesting to know. When young men are in competition for wives with older, more powerful men, it is easy to imagine a situation in which disproportionate numbers of young men are deemed "unworthy."

 

[silvermoon383]

Bear in mind that Salt Lake County wasn't the only area with Mormons at the time. It was common practice for the men to be assigned to a colony city as far away as California, Mexico, and even Canada. The practice was so prevalent that it took the Utah War (also known as Buchanon's Blunder) to have everyone recalled to the Salt Lake area, though once it was over "colonization" happened again but at a reduced level.

It was even a somewhat common practice for men to go on a mission, come back home for a little while then go right back out.

Now granted, I wasn't around back then so I can't say for sure just what was going on with marriage practices, ratios, standards, and whatnot. All I can say is that it was a different time and things were quite different.