There were more Males than Females.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Boaz & Lidia wrote:Young also was poor. He died a million dollars in debt to the the Mormon church.

Next!


CFR on that one. (Out of interest, I ought to add; not to call you out, or a liar. I have Arrington's BY bio at home I could check later, as well.)
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

rcrocket wrote:For a sociological study that examined ratios and economics, contrary to your opening thread, I recommend Kathryn Daynes, "More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1940-1910 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), chapters 5 - 7. The book concludes that there was a slight surplus of women in the territory but a significant surplus of worthy and endowed women to worthy and endowed men.

The census data does not distinguish between Mormons and non-Mormons.

Widstoe had no sociological data.

I would be interested in any non-anonymous critiques of Daynes' work.


Such seems to be the state of affairs today. There seems to be many more believing and worthy active single women in the church than men. I wonder why we don't do polygamy today.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Boaz & Lidia wrote:Young also was poor. He died a million dollars in debt to the the Mormon church.

Next!


No he did not. His net worth if I recall was about $250,000 when he died.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

No he did not. His net worth if I recall was about $250,000 when he died.


If so, being prophet was financially rewarding, wasn't it?

If I recall correctly, there were some legal difficulties extricating BY's property from the church's property.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

bcspace wrote:
Was there really a surplus of women in the LDS Church at the time some the LDS men were Practicing Polygamy?


Sounds like the wrong question to me. Some better questions might revolve around how many men were worthy and had the means.


It just makes me wonder how Brigham Young had so much time to amass the wealth it would have taken to support such a brothel. Or was he in a round about way obtaining this means from the men who probably paid tithing and didn't have the means for one wife?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

It just makes me wonder how Brigham Young had so much time to amass the wealth it would have taken to support such a brothel. Or was he in a round about way obtaining this means from the men who probably paid tithing and didn't have the means for one wife?


If I recall correctly, he charged money for granting divorces. Maybe that was a lucrative business.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_TygerFang
_Emeritus
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:16 am

Post by _TygerFang »

I think he would've gotten more money if he charged for marriages, a lot more. :)
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

As much as sex is discussed as it relates to polygamy, do you really believe that BY and HCK had the sexual "means" (time,energy) to satisfy all their wives?


This is the only part that I see as working out pretty good, at least for Brother Brigham. It's a part of our evolution to desire multiple sexual partners. I see myself as a normal male and I know my own feelings and experience on what the natural man desires. I can't speak for all men. Heck, some men desire other men, which I'll never understand. But I'm willing to bet that most men have the same desires that I do, even if they won't admit it out of political correctness.

I agree that 50 is a stretch. But given male and female sex drives being the way I see it. I could see a 4:1 female to male ratio working out for a pretty good rotation. But even 4 would get old after a while and you'd just want more and more. My point is that the bodies and minds of modern men (humans for that matter) are not perfectly fit to our environment. Evolution doesn't select for happiness, just viability. This is why we have remained this way for so long, and why I don't see it changing any time soon.

Perhaps Joseph Smith was looking for a solution to this problem, and drew upon the scriptures for guidance. But this is difficult for me to accept given the demand of absolute celibacy for boys and young men. If you can make it through that and not give in, any other self mastery challenges are a breeze. So I don't think it's completely to say it was just dirty old men, especially if these men were able to remain celibate as boys.

Now I fully admit that this is a male problem and a man's desire for happiness tramples a womans rights if she is coerced into a polygamous relationship. But I think women have a similar problem. They've evolved to accept nothing less than the very best man, the alpha man. Women are very picky about who they mate with. If you ranked 50 men in order of desirability and 50 women in order of desirability and then tried to pair them up, #1 with #1, #25 with #25 etc. I contend that it would be the women who would feel like they were getting a bad deal and not the men. This is a consequence of our polygamous ancestry.

Granted, she would also like to have the alpha male all to herself. But this is no more possible than for a man to have an infinite number of wives all to himself. There can only be one "worthy" man, or at least only a few. And don't think that evolution has shaped in women the desire to be loyal to each other in that they would respect that this man belongs to another woman. Granted some women may repress or control this desire, but I've seen enough unscrupulous women to know what the base human desire is. These base desires are always there and we fight against them every day, just like the desire to over eat. No matter how righteous or how noble you think you have become. You're still human.

So men and women could both ask. Why did God give us these desires, if we can never fulfill them? Can we ever be truly happy or is happiness just a momentary sensation? On earth I think happiness is clearly a transitory thing. Perpetual and lasting happiness would have to come in some other world.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Jason Bourne wrote:
rcrocket wrote:For a sociological study that examined ratios and economics, contrary to your opening thread, I recommend Kathryn Daynes, "More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1940-1910 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), chapters 5 - 7. The book concludes that there was a slight surplus of women in the territory but a significant surplus of worthy and endowed women to worthy and endowed men.

The census data does not distinguish between Mormons and non-Mormons.

Widstoe had no sociological data.

I would be interested in any non-anonymous critiques of Daynes' work.


Such seems to be the state of affairs today. There seems to be many more believing and worthy active single women in the church than men. I wonder why we don't do polygamy today.


Because then there wouldn't be very many worthy and active single women, and not because they all married. I'd be interested to take a poll on what active Mormon women actually know and believe about polygamy, especially my generation of women from the 90s.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Ajax - women aren't just wired to want the alpha male, they're also wired - like men - to cheat a little on the side. Getting the "best" of both worlds, so to speak - a successful male to provide, perhaps even for a child conceived by a different male with more attractive physical characteristics.

Just because evolution seems to point us towards a certain behavior does not mean that behavior will bring happiness. In fact, happiness can sometimes result from understanding our urges enough to not give in to them.

o men and women could both ask. Why did God give us these desires, if we can never fulfill them?


the answer is simple: there is no god.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply