Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Polygamy

  1. #1

    Polygamy

    I recently reread the Kirtland to Nauvoo and shade on the churches website about polygamy.

    Does anyone have a printed copy of this essay from when it initially was issued?

    The reason I ask is this. My memory is that Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness" was heavily cited by the church in the initial release of this essay. Now it has (if my memory is correct) been replaced with more citations from Brian Hales' more apologetic work on Polygamy.

    Am I remembering this correctly?

    Here is a link to the current issued essay.

    https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-ma...auvoo?lang=eng

    I'm beginning to get back into the study of polygamy and Joseph Smith and wanted a place to come and discuss my studies. So, I have made a new thread. I will likely not post incredibly regularly so this should also be a good thread to discuss the topic generally in an open free for all that explores the topic.
    Last edited by OrangeUte; 01-04-2015 at 09:16 AM.

  2. #2
    I recall looking at the footnotes when it was first released and remember Hales was cited about 7-9 times, while Compton was only cited once. I wonder whether Hales wrote a significant portion of the essays.

    I know there is a website that archived the essays when they were released and has documented numerous changes along the way.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    I recall looking at the footnotes when it was first released and remember Hales was cited about 7-9 times, while Compton was only cited once. I wonder whether Hales wrote a significant portion of the essays.

    I know there is a website that archived the essays when they were released and has documented numerous changes along the way.
    Maybe I'm wrong then.

    Compton is cited only once now.

  4. #4
    NWU, you raise a good point that hales probably wrote a good chunk of the essay. There's a podcast with Hales , Compton and a few others, and he is heavily involved in the comments section below. I was reading it this morning but haven't finished all of the comments.

  5. #5
    Brigham Young had a serious load of kids. IIRC he had 56 and that seems like a lot.

    However he only had those 56 kids with 16 wives, for an average of 3.5 children per mother. This is at a time when the average (non-polygamous) woman had 5 children.

    It is simple biology. A woman is obviously only fertile (statistically speaking) a few days per month. What is less obvious is that while men are technically always fertile, statistically speaking they are far more fecund after several days of buildup. This means they are statistically the most fertile on about 3-5 'arrivals' per month with several days in between.

    The likelihood of a single male with only one partner happening to deliver the photon torpedo into the ventilation duct on a fertile day is significantly higher than it would be for a single man to hit the same target range with multiple partners. Lining up the dates for a single partner is a simple matter, just like targeting womp rats with my T-16 back home.
    Last edited by NorthwestUteFan; 01-04-2015 at 02:07 PM.

  6. #6
    Women outnumbered men in Utah territory, but only by a very small margin. It wasn't the type of 'Three girls for every boy' situation the Beach Boys sang about. Polygamy was not a necessity, but more likely was a 'benefit' to the higher-ranking priesthood leaders.

    And yes, many of my ancestors were polygamists.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    Brigham Young had a serious load of kids. IIRC he had 56 and that seems like a lot.

    However he only had those 56 kids with 16 wives, for an average of 3.5 children per mother. This is at a time when the average (non-polygamous) woman had 5 children.

    It is simple biology. A woman is obviously only fertile (statistically speaking) a few days per month. What is less obvious is that while men are technically always fertile, statistically speaking they are far more fecund after several days of buildup. This means they are statistically the most fertile on about 3-5 'arrivals' per month with several days in between.

    The likelihood of a single male with only one partner happening to deliver the photon torpedo into the ventilation duct on a fertile day is significantly higher than it would be for a single man to hit the same target range with multiple partners. Lining up the dates for a single partner is a simple matter, just like targeting womp rats with my T-16 back home.
    The other thing to take into account is that, depending on the relationship and proximity of the sister wives, it wouldn't take too much for their cycles to align, making it all the more challenging to be all places at once.

    I've mentioned it on CS before, but we're pretty close to the Brown family of Sister Wives fame and have made several cameos on the show. I've been dying to have a sit down with Kody ever since the Nauvoo polygamy essay came out just to pick his brain or get his take on things. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet.

  8. #8
    Here is a good response to the Polygamy essays:

    http://mormonthink.com/essays-plural...and-nauvoo.htm


    This site contains direct links to all of the essays on LDS.org . They can be somewhat difficult to find on the church site.

    mormonessays.com

    Happy reading!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    Here is a good response to the Polygamy essays:

    http://mormonthink.com/essays-plural...and-nauvoo.htm


    This site contains direct links to all of the essays on LDS.org . They can be somewhat difficult to find on the church site.

    mormonessays.com

    Happy reading!
    I kind of feel like this response is as braindead as most Mormon apologist stuff I read out there. I have a hard time reading arguments that jump between positions to make their points (a favorite of apologists at FAIR land of the 'we accept this scientific discovery but don't accept this one..."). For example, don't accept revelation and statements by Joseph Smith as fact and reason for his action (like noting that Joseph Smith wasn't encouraged to take on more wives but claimed an angel with a drawn sword threatened his life) and then dismiss others (like when Joseph Smith claims to have asked God why Abraham, etc got so much action and God told him it was because he commanded it). Then you also aren't faced with the problem of trying to claim that believers don't really believe something. Obviously the writers of the LDS essays are believers, so it isn't a strong position to try to refute that. Instead just say, "You believe stupid stuff..."

    And it isn't that hard, take a position and formulate your arguments from there: "We believe there is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith falsely used his position as a perceived prophet to concoct revelations to manipulate women to have affairs with him and for men to accept it. Therefore, we do not accept any reported revelations on the matter of polygamy as authentically from God. Here is that evidence..."

    Then with that position you can critique the LDS essays effectively without having to continue to make logical jumps to support your critiques. There seems to be plenty of opportunity to refute what the essays say with timelines alone and sticking with the above stated position. Namely:

    1. It is well documented that people close to Joseph Smith viewed polygamy and his affairs as wrong (cite evidence)
    2. Joseph Smith went to great lengths to conceal his polygamous relationships and the extent thereof from Emma (cite evidence)
    3. There is evidence he had sexual relationships with married women, despite claims to the contrary (cite evidence)
    4. Timelines of supposed revelations do not support that all of his purported polygamist relationships fell under these 'revelations' and thus are likely to have been created to justify his misconduct and the misconduct of others who followed in his footsteps. (cite evidence)

    Sheesh, do I have to set up and clean up all the arguments for you non-believers?

    I stopped reading when the unattributed author(s) got tangled up in the math of who had entered into polygamy at the time of JS's death. First the math is wrong, and second its stupidity undermines the validity of other arguments. (The total number of women doesn't have to be at a minimum of 58 because there were 29 men. Since this was a priesthood decision - 29 married men took on at least one additional wife - hence the polygamy - among of 50 accepting women.)

    Clean up the argument so my brain doesn't explode having to make continuous illogical jumps and then I'll read. Mormon Think indeed.
    Last edited by Rocker Ute; 01-10-2015 at 03:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •