<p>
</p>
<p>I actually did not know that. It’s kind of funny how many people think all Mormon’s are polygamists. My grandmother died a few months ago (on my dad’s side) and when I told some of my friends my dad (and my grandmother) were Mormon, about 75% said, “Wait, does your dad have more than one wife.”</p>
<p>Made me laugh.</p>
<h2>“So, because of the religious battles in New York, the Mormons decided to move to Utah in the late 1850s. For about two years the ratio steadily increased, but then the US Civil War began, and many of the men went off to battle. It was still important to have as many kids as possible in order to make more soldiers for the union (in case the war lasted a lot longer than it did).”</h2>
<p>I’m sorry but this sounds a little bit like propoganda. History tells us that Joseph Smith had an antagonistic relationship with the US Government and the Church was reluctant to support the Union in the Civil War. In fact, J. Smith insisted the Civil War was the beginning of the downfall of the US Gov’t which he had claimed was ‘revealed’ to him by God. I don’t think the Mormons of the 1800s were making babies to supply the Union with soldiers.</p>
<p>They certainly wouldn’t have been supportive of an effort to end slavery…since J.Smith wrote in 1836 that slavery was God’s will and spoke harshly against abolitionists.</p>
<p>^^Ha, and that is why I don’t go to church.</p>
<p>coureur:</p>
<p>Young man - old wife, old man - young wife:</p>
<p>Seems counter-reproductive.:)</p>
<p>It is an interesting history and the fact it is so confused and not talked about much is in itself interesting</p>
<p>there are other sides of American history where the myths are seen as fact, ie the racial cleansing of some towns and how the residents weren’t really kicked out, but left of their own akward and were paid for their property</p>
<p>you had lots of babies made back in the day, it wasn’t like it was a dying community, but it is almost like there is no record of what happened to the males that didn’t marry</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m not sure about this when it comes to the Mormons. I thought they basically sat out the Civil War.</p>
<p>As for Marite’s question about rich polygamist families, certainly Brigham Young was wealthy and other church officials may have been also. But most polygamous families had smaller numbers of wives and were not wealthy.</p>
<p>LMNOP:
I was thinking of some of the men who have been in the news for polygamy in the last few years. Some are millionnaires. News reports also suggested that oter men were able to fend off investigation/arrest thanks to their wealth.</p>
<p>still, such a pretty word, polygamy. has the visual ring of the kaleidescope. bigamy not so much with its mr.big and pig resonance. but polygamy, has a bit of the enlivening dinner table carousel marathon about it.</p>
<p>The idea that Mormon polygyny of the 1800s was needed to support an excess of women simply isn’t borne out by the historical record.</p>
<p>11 of Joseph Smith’s wives already had husbands to support them. Smith simply appropriated the women for himself.</p>
<p>Others were well below the marrying age for the time (19-23), even below the age at which females typically got their first periods. So were they orphans with no fathers to support them, so they had to be married off to a powerful man instead of adopted by another family? Not so much. Some of them were given by their fathers to Smith as a sign of loyalty. </p>
<p>In general, Mormon polygynous wives who were not previously married were under the age that they would have to support themselves.</p>
<p>Additionally, Smith’s first proposal was that his followers acquire multiple Native American wives, so that their descendants could lay claim to Native American lands.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The historical period in which the Mormons (LDS) were practicing polygamy (which ended when Utah entered the Union in the 1896) was also the period when the West was being “opened” (as in “Go West, young man”). So quite possibly young Mormon men left the church and went west, as disaffected young men have been known to do. (I’ve always assumed that the link between ADHD and the American culture in genetic, in that ADHD has been suggested as a possible cause of human migrations. <a href=“http://www.genome.uci.edu/News/pnas99_1_08_2002.pdf[/url]”>http://www.genome.uci.edu/News/pnas99_1_08_2002.pdf</a>) </p>
<p>However, I will admit that I’ve always assumed that allowing polygamy for certain Mormon elders was perhaps a bit self-serving on the part of the Mormon elders and not actually for the benefit for the young women.</p>
<p>There definitely was no shortage of Mormon women. Missionaries were exhorted to bring more women to Utah for the men to marry:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen”
<p>
</p>
<p>cgm, I just have to say that I agree with your curiousity and the fact you KNEW someone here would know! I find alot of misinformation when I google, and there have been oodles written about the incorrect information on wiki. I think there was a spot on the news recently about an IVY class. The prof was reading papers or test essays, and kept finding a similar but very incorrect fact coming from different students. It was clear that the written material was all independant, and was not the result of a group effort (which was not allowed.) Turns out the kids who had the similar misinformation all got it from wikpedia. </p>
<p>On this board, there is always someone who knows the answer, or who knows where to get the correct details from a source that may be other than google/wiki!! </p>
<p>And I learn something from cc every day. Today, it is about the mormons and the lost boys.</p>
<p>Interesting stuff. I’ll have to ask my brother, who is LDS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It always amazes me that people trust Wikipedia so much. It’s as though if it’s on Wiki, it must be true.</p>
<p>“It always amazes me that people trust Wikipedia so much. It’s as though if it’s on Wiki, it must be true.”</p>
<p>I have the same feeling aout the NY Times, PBS, and the BBC.</p>
<p>Well, they do say that journalism is the first draft of history :)</p>
<p>so, who do your trust higherlead?</p>
<p>“so, who do your trust higherlead?”</p>
<p>Well I don’t trust people with an obvious and documented axe to grind. That is especially true when they claim vociferously not to have one. I put way more trust in anyone who admits his bias than I do in someone who insists he has none. When the NY Times changes their masthead from “All the news that is fit to print” to “Edited by a Bunch of Raving Moonbats” they will improve their credibility with me (and probably their circulation as well). Luckily for PBS and the BBC they get to feed at the pulic trough or they would both be going the route of Air America.</p>
<p>So in other words, Fox News.</p>
<p>you mean FAUX News?</p>
<p>because HL didnt answer, that is what probably right</p>
<p>but back to topic thanks so much for the smart people here, its nice to get different takes on history and what we are taught</p>