DiscussMormonism.com

WhyMe,

The early 19th century is not known for its loose women. And if a single 18-ish year old girl got involved with a 30-ish year old married man, it's crystal clear which would bear the brunt of the responsibility.

Don

In the first place, there is no evidence I have ever seen that there was an appreciable “underclass of unmarried men” in 19th century Mormondom. Plural marriage was simply not practiced widely enough to produce such a state of affairs. Anyone who wanted to get married could and did. There was no discernible shortage of females at any point in 19th century Utah.

First, I am arguing your general point, which is that you seemingly approve of polygyny while disapproving of polyandry due to the negative social affects of polyandry (ie, reduced birth rate). So I’m not specifically addressing nineteenth century polygyny in particular, but the general practice. Societies that engage in polygyny end up with a shortage of women. It’s simple math, and it’s inevitable, save for societies that, perhaps due to war, already had a shortage of men. Due to the fact that the male/female ratio is roughly equal, if men marry more than one woman there will be a class of males who do not have access to a female partner. This isn’t rocket science.

Besides from that issue, I provided evidence that there was a shortage of females which was dealt with by “importing” female converts. That is not a long-term solution to the problem. FLDS deal with it by getting rid of their young males, the Lost Boys. Any culture that has widespread polygyny is going to have this negative social affect, so if you’re disapproving of polyandry due to the negative social effect of reduced birth rate, then logically you should also disapprove of polygyny due to its negative effect on the male population.

Or, of course, there is a different reason for why you approve of polygyny but not polyandry.

Besides, we all understood that your question was rhetorical in nature. Just as your repeated implication that polygyny decreased the birthrate in frontier Utah. It didn’t. And your example of Brigham Young’s number of wives and offspring does very little to shed light on the topic. Many of his wives became such when they were no longer fecund, or they were apparently barren (e.g. Amelia Folsom). The only logical way to examine the effect of polygyny on birthrate would be to study only those cases where a man married young women and remained married to them throughout their window of fecundity.

Of course, you are quite notorious for manipulating or misusing “evidence” to serve your agenda, so I was not surprised to see you do so in this instance.

Nonsense. I did not manipulate or misuse evidence. I specifically limited the birthrate to Brigham Young’s wives who bore him children, hence the number of 16. Besides, any issues of fecundity would also apply to the larger monogamous population.

Why don't you just save yourself some time and admit the reason you oppose polyandry has nothing to do with a depressed birth rate?

why me wrote:
That is not the point. Back then, young women were sexually active. They wanted some action.

OK. So if I follow your logic, in the 1830s there was a surplus of hot and horny young female sluts prancing around frontier america looking for some action. Apparently there were not enough men available to satisfy all the hoes. This is where Joseph Smith comes in, and this is why Polygamy was needed.

beastlie:

Why don't you just save yourself some time and admit the reason you oppose polyandry has nothing to do with a depressed birth rate?

First of all, I never said I opposed polyandry. I am not conscious, per se, of any such opposition. I merely stated that it generated a definite social ill in that it inevitably results in a lower birth rate.

You assert, with scant evidence, that polygyny will also result in a lower birth rate.

I submit that the parameters of fecundity in any given population are subject to many factors beyond the dominant form of marriage. Still, it may very well be that, given sufficient prevalence and time, polygyny would produce fewer progeny than monogamy. I would reply by simply noting that, if my observations of the cycles of humanity are any indication, I discern some logic in the notion of deliberately creating, as warranted, circumstances that result in increased progeny for some men at the expense of others.

Perhaps, from time to time, God sees things similarly.

Jason:

I am highly dubious you would be tolerant about polygamy from any other source but Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

Will’s response

You’d be wrong, then. Quite frankly, I can discern no particular social ill arising from the practice of polygyny. (I deliberately make the distincition between polygyny and polyandry. I believe a definite social ill would arise from the widespread practice of polyandry; specifically that the birthrate would plummet.)

How else are we supposed to interpret your words but to mean that you are tolerant of polygyny but not tolerant of polyandry?

You make a distinction between the two based on a “definite social ill” that would arise. There is a “definite social ill” that arises from polygyny, as well. The same justification - that there may be times when circumstances warrant this social ill - that you used to excuse this social ill could be applied to polyandry, as well.

Face it, Will. It’s a lot easier to be tolerant of a system that would allow you multiple partners than to be equally tolerant of a system that would allow your wife multiple partners.

We do agree on one point, though. The point of LDS polygyny was specifically to increase the reproductive rate of certain males, at the expense of others. There is no reason to postulate that it would be any different in the next life. Hence my statement – you should imagine yourself as Henry Jacobs instead of Brigham Young.

William Schryver wrote:
Perhaps, from time to time, God sees things similarly.

And perhaps, from time to time, God gets so pissed off, he sends an angry mob to kill the man who has single-handedly screwed up what God wants done. God will not be mocked.

... you should imagine yourself as Henry Jacobs instead of Brigham Young.

If it's all the same to you, I'll imagine myself consistent with my personal desires. After all, my religion teaches me that God rewards men according to their desires.

That said, I can certainly envision the necessity, in the great beyond, of a considerable host of eunuchs to keep company with snarly women like you.

Was there really a surplus of Females within the LDS Church, at the time some of the LDS Males were Practicing Polygamy? The Answer to that Question is No. The Following information here, is from LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe:

"Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many nonmembers, 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 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, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States...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...

Another conjecture is that the people were few in numbers 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."

( LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe, 'Evidences and Reconciliations', 1960: Pages 390-392. )




Here are the approximate Percentages of males compares to females from the Utah Territory, From 1850 to 1890, (Caucasian only):

Year_________________Males__________________Females

1850___________________53.0%___________________47.0%

1860___________________50.2%___________________49.8%

1870___________________50.5%___________________49.5%

1880___________________51.5%___________________48.5%

1890___________________52.7%___________________47.3%

( Link And Source: Utah Census Figures. )

11 Sep, 1871 - Counselor Daniel H. Wells tells Grantsville School of the Prophets that "a great many of our young men are abusing themselves by the habit of self-pollution: or self abuse, or as the Bible terms it, Onanism," which he regards as "one great cause why so many of our young men were not married, and it was a great sin, and would lead to insanity and a premature grave." Polygamy is likelier cause for prevalence of bachelorhood in nineteenth-century Utah. First, every national census lists more males than females in Mormon population. Second, 10 to 40 percent of Mormon men marry polygamously which demographically requires bachelorhood in Utah's majority population of males.

( LDS Mormon Sex Marriage History: )

The exact percentage of Latter-day Saints who participated in the practice is not known, but studies suggest a maximum of from 20 to 25 percent of LDS adults were members of polygamous households. At its height, plural marriage probably involved only a third of the women reaching marriageable age—though among Church leadership plural marriage was the norm for a time.

( History of Plural Marriage / Polygamy: )




Now, Here is The Following important information, From About.com:

How many boys are born for every 100 girls?

There are 105 boy babies born for ever[y] 100 girl babies worldwide but scientists haven't determined why this sex ratio is so.

( http://geography.about.com/library/faq/ ... eratio.htm )

harmony wrote:

William Schryver wrote:
Perhaps, from time to time, God sees things similarly.

And perhaps, from time to time, God gets so pissed off, he sends an angry mob to kill the man who has single-handedly screwed up what God wants done. God will not be mocked.

I've also heard that, from time to time, stray meteorites fall through roofs of houses in the American northwest, smacking insolent old women upside the head on their way to the ground.

I also recently read that this is a banner year for lightning strikes ...

If it's all the same to you, I'll imagine myself consistent with my personal desires. After all, my religion teaches me that God rewards men according to their desires.

I don't recall Henry Jacobs desiring to lose his wife.

But maybe you're right, and women who desire more than one husband will get rewarded according to their desires, as well. Given the high male infant mortality rate, it appears certain men will outnumber women in the Celestial Kingdom, so that's probably far more likely than polygyny.

That said, I can certainly envision the necessity, in the great beyond, of a considerable host of eunuchs to keep company with snarly women like you.

Why, of course. I disagree with you and challenge you, so I'm a snarly woman who only deserves eunuchs. And Harmony is an insolent old woman.