Joseph and Fanny-Asking for Will's Opinion in Particular

[_truth dancer]

Hey Beastie,

And that is one of the most common and serious social ills of polygyny – it creates an underclass of males who do not have access to females. This creates social unrest and potential violence, which is why cultures that engage in polygyny tend to have governments that are based on one powerful leader who is willing and able to use force to quell the unrest that will result in the unmated male population.

When I was studying ancient polygamy several years ago I was surprised to learn, (although I should not have been, ), that the Romans made polygamy illegal not because they wanted women to have rights or equality, and not because they particularly were concerned for the welfare of women, but because it was harmful to society to have unpartnered men.

Jared Diamond also discusses the fact that in spite of what some men may assert, polygyny is rather rare in human history, due to the fact that only the wealthy and powerful men would have the ability to own multiple women and dozens of children. And, of course the result of a society that engages in polygyny is higher rates of virtually every crime as men lower on the mating scale work to gain access.

Aside from this, my personal opinion is that it is an "ill" of society for men to be given rights and privileges and opportunities not afforded to women.

~td~

[Tator]

You're wrong. And I think you know it, but if you disagree, then I invite you to prove your assertion.

I do know that there are folks in Russia right now calling for the legalization of polygyny in order to boost their sagging birth rates. Do they know something you don't?

Perhaps they're laboring under the same misconceptions that you are.

"Obviously?"

Are you serious?

How much "access" is required?

I guarantee you that a man with three wives would not find it difficult to impregnate all three of them in the course of any given year.

A motivated man could probably impregnate all three in the course of any given day.

The question isn’t whether or not the man could conceivably impregnate them all within the course of any given year. The question is whether or not the female is more likely to conceive with a man who is also partner to other women versus conceiving with a man who is partner to her alone. Are you seriously suggesting that the women who are sharing their husbands will have as much access to her mate as the monogamous woman? There are some people who are quite fertile and would have no problem conceiving in a situation wherein they are sharing their mate. However, there are other people for whom fertility isn’t so easy, and having constant sexual access to one’s partner will help determine the success of conception. In addition, the other factor to be considered is not only conception, but the survival rate of the subsequent offspring.

There are mixed reports regarding this issue, by the way, but it certainly isn’t clear-cut as you suggest. There is a lot of research out there to access. I know you dislike it when I actually quote sources that have studied the issue, but for the benefit of others, here are just a few:

Human Mating Systems: Polygyny (Robert Quinlan, ANTH 468, Washington State U.)

There was not a big difference in the fertility (number of births per woman) of polygynous versus monogamous Dogon women. Polygynous women tended to have more lives births than did monogamous women (figure 2). This finding might support the polygyny threshold model. Recall, however, that there are two determinants of fitness: survival and reproduction.

In contrast to fertility, there was a huge difference between polygynous and monogamous mothers in their child mortality rates (figure 3). Polygynous mothers could expect to lose about 1 in 3 of their children in the first five years after birth. Imagine that! If you had three children you would be almost certain to lose one of them. Monogamous mothers only lost about 9% of their offspring in the first five years. So, the fertility data support the polygyny threshold model, but the child mortality data support the male coercion model. From a quality of life standpoint monogamous women are better off – they have fewer pregnancies over their life (I hear that pregnancy is not that much fun) and they fewer of their children die. But what about fitness (genetic representation in future generations)? Reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) is one of the most common measures of fitness available. Number of surviving grand-children would be a better measure of fitness, but you can imagine how hard it would be study that among living women.

http://www.wsu.edu/~rquinlan/polygyny.htm


Title: Differentials of fertility between polygynous and monogamous marriages in rural Bangladesh.

This paper discusses polygynous marriages in rural Bangladesh, using marital status and birth registration data from the Demographic Surveillance System (DSS) of the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research, for the period 1975-79. Of all the marriages recorded during this period about 5% were polygynous. To identify the women polygynously married, 1974 census data of the DSS area were used. The difference in age at marriage between the polygynous groom and his subsequent wife was 15 years on average. The socioeconomic indicators studied were education, occupation and area of dwelling space. In general, these indicators between women in monogamous marriages were significantly higher than between the women in polygynous unions. During the period 1976-79, 863 polygynous marriages were recorded (4.9% of all marriages in the study area). Polygynous marriages were found to be less frequent among men with 2ndary and higher levels of education. The highest proportion of polygynous marriages occurred among husbands with no schooling or Koranic education. The general fertility rate of women in monogamous marriages was significantly higher than for women in polygynous marriages, overall and in all age groups except 20-24. During the period 1975-79, the mean number of liveborn children for monogamous women was higher than that of polygynous women.

http://www.popline.org/docs/0026/041950.html


Title: Fertility of women in polygynous unions in rural eastern Nigeria.

Findings, based on a retrospective fertility survey of 531 women in polygynous marriages and 1141 women in monogamous unions conducted in 16 traditional Ngwa Ibo villages in eastern Nigeria, supported the contention that polygyny reduces fertility; for polygynous wives, both the age specific fertility rates and the mean parity for all age categories was lower than for monogamous wives. Since the mean parity for women, aged 45-49, was 6 for polygynous women and 8 for monogamous women, it is apparent that the two groups differed widely in completed family size. When the mean parity of all wives was compared to the mean parity for successive polygynous wives, there was a 15% reduction in fertility for 1st wives, a 37% reduction for 2nd wives, and a 46% reduction for all succeeding wives. The association between reduced fertility and polygyny was attributed to the wide age differential between polygynists and their wives; for all types of marriages, husbands were on the average 11 years older than their wives, but for polygynous men the age differential ranged form 13 to 18 years, and 78% of the polygynous men were over 50 years of age. In comparison to other African regions the incidence of polygyny for the Ngwa Ibo was low, but the intensity was high; only 16% of all married men were polygynists, but each polygynist had an average of 2.8 wives. The low incidence of polygyny in this population may indicate that the practice of polygyny is dying out; therefore, increased birth control efforts may be needed to offset the loss of polygyny as a fertility depressant. Tables included 1) age specific fertility rates and mean parity by marriage type and by age; 2) mean parity by marriage pattern, marriage duration, age, and by wife order; 3) ideal number of children by wife order; 4) % distribution of spouses by marriage pattern and age; 5) % distribution of polygynous wives, aged 15-44, by husband's age; and 6) incidence, intensity, and ratio of married women/100 married men for Ngwaland and several African regions.

Now if a society was suffering a serious shortage of males, then polygyny would increase the birth rate in general. But as long as the society was not suffering from a server male shortage, and females who were interested in marrying could generally do so, then polygyny would not increase the over-all birth rate. And if it did increase the overall birth rate, the higher mortality rate in those offspring negate the effect.

Think about it, Will. This is common sense as well as research. Women are more likely to conceive if they have frequent sex with their partner. Women who are sharing their partner will have less frequent sex than they would in a monogamous setting. In addition, there will be less material/physical/emotional support of the subsequent offspring when the male is dividing his means between more than one household. Less material/physical/emotional support results in a higher mortality rate.

So are you just going to ignore the real cost of polygyny, which is the disaffected underclass of males with no hope of mating?

[_DarkHelmet]

And that is one of the most common and serious social ills of polygyny – it creates an underclass of males who do not have access to females. This creates social unrest and potential violence, which is why cultures that engage in polygyny tend to have governments that are based on one powerful leader who is willing and able to use force to quell the unrest that will result in the unmated male population.

This is what the polygamy supporters fail to grasp. The math doesn't work for polygamy. If god really wanted men to practice polygamy he would've made it so females were born at a much higher rate then males. With a roughly 50/50 birthrate, there is no advantage to polygamy.

Polygamy can't be about increasing the birthrate of a community because 10 women can have just as many babies if they were married to different husbands then if they are married to one husband. Polygamy is simply about the most powerful men collecting the most property. With a finite supply of women, the most powerful men build the biggest harems, and as you say, it creates an underclass of single men. I suppose these single men are the ones that Brigham young referred to as a "menace to society."

[_beastie]

When I was studying ancient polygamy several years ago I was surprised to learn, (although I should not have been, ), that the Romans made polygamy illegal not because they wanted women to have rights or equality, and not because they particularly were concerned for the welfare of women, but because it was harmful to society to have unpartnered men.

Jared Diamond also discusses the fact that in spite of what some men may assert, polygyny is rather rare in human history, due to the fact that only the wealthy and powerful men would have the ability to own multiple women and dozens of children. And, of course the result of a society that engages in polygyny is higher rates of virtually every crime as men lower on the mating scale work to gain access.

Aside from this, my personal opinion is that it is an "ill" of society for men to be given rights and privileges and opportunities not afforded to women.

This is a very serious negative effect that easily offsets any possible benefit in increased birth rate, even if that could be shown.

We know how FLDS deal with this problem – they cast out the younger males that would compete for the younger women, ie, “the Lost Boys”. Early LDS dealt with the problem by continually trying to import women from other, monogamous, cultures. That may work for a while, but sooner or later will not be able to continue providing enough females.

LDS men who seem almost enthusiastic about the idea of polygyny ought to keep in mind that polygyny did not benefit the majority of LDS men, and placed them at higher risk of either not finding a wife at all, or even at risk of losing the one wife they were able to find. In other words, LDS men ought to imagine being asked to “give” their one wife to a man with a higher degree of glory rather than imagine them being the recipient of other men’s wives. This is particularly true once one considers that the likelihood of there being more females than males in the CK is almost nonexistent, due to the higher mortality rate of male infants throughout the history of the world.

In other words, most men won’t be playing the part of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, but rather will play the part of Henry Jacobs, or even worse.

[_karl61]

beastie wrote:

"We know how FLDS deal with this problem – they cast out the younger males that would compete for the younger women, ie, “the Lost Boys”. Early LDS dealt with the problem by continually trying to import women from other, monogamous, cultures. That may work for a while, but sooner or later will not be able to continue providing enough females."

BINGO

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

Now if a society was suffering a serious shortage of males, then polygyny would increase the birth rate in general. But as long as the society was not suffering from a server male shortage, and females who were interested in marrying could generally do so, then polygyny would not increase the over-all birth rate.

That’s all fine and well, but I never suggested that polygyny increased the birth rate. I was merely contradicting your claim that polygyny decreases the birth rate. And nothing you wrote (or cited) in your post above supports your assertion in that respect.

Am I to conclude then, that other than your assertion that polygyny decreases a woman’s sexual access to a man, there is no other reason for which births would decrease under such a system? You’ve certainly provided no evidence of the fact. And I might argue that citing any evidence deriving from studies done in impoverished, fourth-world locales in Africa or Asia is irrelevant to our discussion, which presupposes a western cultural and economic paradigm.

I assert that, under polygyny, the husband will be more sexually active (what with "variety" being the spice of life, and all), and thus compensate for the fact that each individual woman has marginally less access to him. I certainly have as much evidence for my assertion as you presented for yours.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

LDS men ought to imagine being asked to “give” their one wife to a man with a higher degree of glory rather than imagine them being the recipient of other men’s wives.

Why don't you provide a list of all the men you know of in Mormon history who had to give their wife "to a man with a higher degree of glory."

I'll be here waiting ...

[Guest]

Many of Joseph Smith's wives lived in his home. They were either servants, or Joseph Smith was their guardian. So obviously this practice was occurring before the Utah period, and it seems equally obvious to me that the select group of men that were aware of Joseph Smith's marital practices would understand that a female living in his home was probably going to become his wife.

Hi Beastie!

You're very right that several of Joseph Smith's wives lived in his home. We know this because we, like Mosiah Hancock writing in 1896, live after Joseph Smith's polygamy and have the benefit of being able to look back at the later history of Joseph Smith's polygamy to see what happened.

However, Mosiah's future parents, in early 1833, would not have had the benefit of knowing "history" that was yet future.

In 1833, there was no polygamous culture among the Saints, and it would not have been understood by anyone that a woman living in Joseph Smith's home would naturally be his wife, and Joseph Smith did not, in any reports that we have, claim authority to perform or authorize marriages.

So, however much sense the following narrative--which assumes an established practice of polygamy, a culture in which polygamous marriages were matter of fact, and that Joseph Smith was quick to authorize marriages--may have made to Mosiah Hancock in his context of writing, it makes no sense in its alleged original context:

At that time Clarissa Reed — was working at the Prophets. She loved brother Levi Hancock. The Prophet had the highest respect for her feelings. She had thought that perhaps she might be one of the Prophet’s wives as herself and Sister Emma were on the best of terms. My Father and Mother understanding each other were inspired by the Spirit of the Lord to respect his word through the Prophet. — Therefore Brother Joseph said “Brother Levi, I want to make a bargain with you. If you will get Fanny Alger for me for a wife, you may have Clarissa Reed. I love Fanny.” “I will” said Father. “Go brother Levi and the Lord will prosper you” said Joseph. — Father goes to the [undeciphered] Samuel Alger. — his [his crossed out?] Father’s Brother in Law and [said] “Samuel, the Prophet Joseph loves your daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife, what say you?” — Uncle Sam says — “Go and talk to the old woman about it, t’will be as she says” Father goes to his sister and said “Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife, what say you?” Said she “Go and talk to Fanny, it will be all right with me.” — Father goes to Fanny and said “Fanny, Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife, will you be his wife?” “I will, Levi,” said she. — Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said “Brother Joseph, I have been successful in my mission.” Father gave her to Joseph repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him.

The foundation of the claim for an 1833 marriage is this "swap" story that assumes it was expected for Clarissa Reed to marry Joseph since she lived in his home. Without that expectation--which simply would not have existed at the time--the whole rationale for a "bargain" or "swap" collapses, and with it the primary reason to tie the Fanny Alger marriage to 1833 or to believe it was performed by Levi Hancock.

Perhaps a marriage was later performed by Levi Hancock, and this, in his son's memory, became part of a larger, imagined narrative. But Mosiah's very dubious story gives the historian only weak evidence for this and gives still less to believe that Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger married in early 1833.

It far easier to imagine this story coming out of a faulty 1896 memory and imagination in long-polygamous Utah than an actual 1833 sequence of events in monogamous early Kirtland.

Don

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

Women are more likely to conceive if they have frequent sex with their partner.

This might be true with some women.

In my experience, with my wife, the mere thought of sex got her pregnant.

Or at least it seemed that way for the first two or three ... <grin>

By the way, you're absolutely correct in saying that what polygyny is designed to do is dramatically increase the offspring of certain individuals. I agree with you entirely. That was its specific purpose in early Mormonism, in my judgment. Once that purpose was achieved, it was time to set aside the practice for the time being--a decision I also agree with.

[_karl61]

someones thoughts on polygamy:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... y1139.html