There were more Males than Females.

Post by **_Brackite** » Thu May 22, 2008 12:08 am

Hello all here,

The LDS Apologist rcrocket wrote in another Post, in another Thread here:

'And, indeed, at least one published sociological study I've seen shows that plural marriage was pursued to care for the extraordinary imbalance of women in the church.'

(Link: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ht=#155782 )

Was there really a surplus of women in the LDS Church at the time some the LDS men 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. )

Post by **_beastie** » Thu May 22, 2008 12:24 am

Even if there were an imbalance of females, (which I've never seen supported) why couldn't the members simply take care of them out of good will and Christian charity? Why did there have to be a marriage, like some kind of trade off?

Post by **_Tarski** » Thu May 22, 2008 12:43 am

The funny thing is that somewhere, sometime, someone just pulled this lie out of their butt.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Thu May 22, 2008 1:24 am

I agree with Elder Widtsoe.

Post by **_Brackite** » Thu May 22, 2008 1:25 am

Hello again,

We also need to remember that the 2nd President of the LDS Church, Brigham Young, also married pretty very young females as wives when he was over the age of 40 years old.
Here are a list of some of the young Wives, of Brigham Young:

Age of Female:_________Age of Brigham Young:_____Date of Marriage:
Clarissa C. Decker 15_______Brigham Young 42_________May 8, 1844
Emmeline Free 19__________Brigham Young 43_________April 30, 1845
Ellen Rockwood 17_________Brigham Young 44_________January, 1846
Mary J. Bigelow 19_________Brigham Young 45_________March 20, 1847
Lucy Bigelow 16___________Brigham Young 45_________March 20, 1847

And Here is another Source, that Proclaims and states that there were more males than females within the Territory of Utah:

“But then the proportion of the sexes in Utah would not, at present, admit of an extensive practice of plural marriage. When the census was taken five years ago, there were 143,963 souls in Utah Territory, not counting untaxed Indians. In this number there was an excess of 5,055 MALES over females. This does not have the appearance of permitting an extensive practice of plural marriage,...”

(The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 20; Page 133: Bold Emphasis Mine. )

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu May 22, 2008 3:32 am

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.

Post by **_the road to hana** » Thu May 22, 2008 3:49 am

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.

Worthy? Or made to feel like they were worthy?

Post by **_Droopy** » Thu May 22, 2008 3:55 am

Worthy.

Post by **_the road to hana** » Thu May 22, 2008 4:00 am

So anyone who didn't get additional wives was unworthy?

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:09 am

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.