Talk:Mormonism and polygamy/Archive 2

Revisiting name change
This article was recently renamed from plural marriage to Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement. I want to revisit that, because it seems like a very cumbersome new title. Do we really need to invoke the Latter Day Saint movement here? That term mainly applies when referring to the totality of Latter Day Saint organizations including the Community of Christ--which never practiced polygamy. A better term for "Brighamite" churches practicing polygamy is Mormonism. Moreover, what exactly is wrong with plural marriage? I say, lets either change it back to plural marriage or change it to Mormonism and polygamy. CO GDEN  20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there were no opposing comments, I have changed the article to Mormonism and polygamy. CO GDEN  00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree (retroactively) with the change. I also saw nothing wrong with "plural marriage", though I suppose this name might be somewhat clearer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have you know
I have not read the whole article, but I'll have you know that, if the article says that Mormons are polygamists, it is incorrect. I am a Mormon, so I know that it is not true. Sorry, I 'm just angry at the fact that people will actually believe that Mormons are polygamists, because it isn't true. &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk @Jun/02/09 01:16


 * Read the article, then you'll know! - Why make such a comment if you haven't read the article. Few would disagree that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lattter-day Saints cannot be concurrent polygamists and members in good standing.  However, members of the LDS Church in times past have been polygamists, and some polygamists today consider themselves Mormon.  The LDS Church does not own the word Mormon, and it began as a nickname for believes in the Book of Mormon, which many polygamists certainly are.

Salt Lake City polygamy
Why no description of modern day polygamy in small towns as well as the rare cases still going on in metropolitan Salt Lake? Seems to me that such material would be a good addition. This article has a lot of good history but is short on the current state of affairs (was that a pun?) Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * do you have reliable sources? I think you are describing more of an urban myth, since Fundamentalists are covered in the article. Bytebear (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have no reliable sources. I thought there would be some, but I haven't found any. All I have are the observations of a Salt Lake City friend of mine who sees evidence of polygamous householding in one or two large homes that he passes regularly while walking his dog. I just figured some reporter would have written a piece on it. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and ! I was reading through the talk page and saw your comments. I found some recently published articles about polygamy in Utah (particularly the legal battles regarding polygamy.) I will be happy to add these in if wanted. Do you have a suggestion of where on the page this would fit best? Cheers! NatalieEmma.BYU (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Group sex
The article currently says:


 * Mormon plural marriages did not include group sex under this practice.

This sounds like it means one of the following:


 * 1) This sentence suggests that plural marriage never included group sex.
 * 2) Group sex was prohibited in plural marriage.

Proving 1 is impossible. If 2 is true, I would like a reference. Alternatively, we could say:


 * There are no documented cases of group sex in plural marriage.

A comment about group sex should be included, because a lot of people wonder about sex. Nereocystis 15:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am posting here the dialogue that led to the edit named:


 * Hey - noticed your comments at Plural Marriage. You stated in your edit summary "no documented occurances of group sex" and changed "Most plural marriages did not involve group sex" to "There are no known occurances of group sex under this practice."


 * This is true. Somewhat. This depends on you definition of "evidence."


 * There is evidence of that Young placed a family on the Mormon trail where the husband and two wives slept in the same bed. Whether or not this was done to discourage non-Mormon settlement near Mormon communities or not is a matter of some dispute. As it was a waystation, all pioneering companies had to stop there and likely would witness the set up. This is where the claim of "evidence" comes from. Obviously, one bed, two women and a man, would lead people to believe that sexual relations occured in the bed, which by definition is group sex. Stupid reasoning, but it is enough to provide "evidence" although not very reliable.


 * I think a more accurate reflection of the statement would be "Mormon plural marriages did not include group sex."


 * Would you like to make the change? -Visorstuff 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - used your correction. --Tobey 04:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Part of the marriage covenants in Mormonism as you know, is the instruction that there should be no sexual relations except with one's husband or wife (the temple statement is given in the singular - even historically). This is good enough to qualify as "one at a time." In addition, the early "polygamous" brethren were instructed to provide equally for their wives - seperate homes, or at the least, seperate entrances, seperate beds, etc. The above example was a unusual instruction, and the reasons are unknown. If couples did do group sex, it was outside of the instructions given.

Here are some other instructions given on Polygamous marriages that are relevant:

In a meeting with stake presidents on 9 Oct, 1883, the First Presidency instructed against "self-pollution of both sexes and excessive sexual indulgence in the married relation"

Apostle John Henry Smith taught on 8 Sep, 1890 that "married people who indulge their passions for any other purpose than to beget children, really committed adultery." This was clarified later.

"Mormons are known to be a virtuous people, are known to condemn in strong terms and by every influence in their power every form of sexual sin, and that they do not indulge in intercourse with the sexes to any extent only in the marriage relation. This was the well known and established character of the Mormon people, and was the result of their teachings and practice for a generation past." -Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.221 - p.226, Erastus Snow, May 31st, 1885

"There is no law in this territory punishing polygamy, but there is one, however, for the punishment of adultery; and all illegal intercourse between the sexes, if either party have a husband or wife living at the time, is adulterous and punishable by indictment." B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.110, p.357 (the law did prohibit multiple sexual partners)

That said, I think the teaching of church leaders on the matter was pretty clear. I'll modify shortly. -Visorstuff 19:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The wording in the article is still unclear to me.

You're right that sharing a bed does not prove sexual relations. Quinn covers this issue in Same-Sex Dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons. Extra warmth at night is a plus even if sex is excluded.

None of the quotes listed above explicitly prohibit group sex. The one at a time quote is marginal for this purpose. If the 2 wives never touch each other, but only the jointly shared husband, the letter of the law is followed, but still, it counts as group sex. Throw in wife-to-wife contact, and the violation is still unclear. The Old Testament does not prohibit lesbianism, and many sources are less historical references are less concerned about lesbians than gay men.

Even if group sex were prohibited, it may have taken place, and is impossible to disprove. Here are some references which are suggestive of non-straight sex among the Mormons.

The first American community study of lesbians took place in the United States (http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/lesbian_mormon_history.asp). Louie B. Felt (primary president) fell in love with a couple of women and encouraged her husband to marry them. See http://home.earthlink.net/~lgbtmormons/abom.html for details. This doesn't group sex, of course, but suggests that love between some of the wives.

I don't know how to improve the wording for the article, but I'll take a stab. I don't like any of the options yet.


 * Group sex was not mentioned in Mormon discussions of plural marriage.


 * Group sex was not explicitly encouraged by Mormon leaders.

Nereocystis 22:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I am aware of one or two anamolies, but for the most part, they did have seperate beds and were encouraged to have seperate, but equal in all things. Quinn discusses every available source that even remotely points toward this. There are no others that I am aware of. I think that as the teaching of plural marriage or the doctrine of plural marriage did not include any teaching of group sex, then the current wording works: "Group sex was not part of Mormon Plural marriage." This allows for people to believe what they will. However, to satiate your argument, I will further clarify "Group sex was not part of the teachings of Mormon plural marriage." It has been mentioned in discussions of plural marriage (Quinn discusses it for example) and of course it woundn't be encouraged or discouraged, as most would consider it an "unholy and impure practice." I'll make the change. It also seems that the anomolies - such as the one referenced earlier - that result in strict instructions to co-habitate in the same household. These were exceptions and usually direct instructions to do so. Quinn, however, only slightly points to this in his work, which I think is  a disservice to the reader. But that is my opinion and not his. -Visorstuff 23:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right. However, if we judged marriage by Joseph Smith's published writings, we would think that he was monogamous. Of course, polygamy itself was considered immoral by most Americans. The Supreme Court called it odious.

Many practices which were considered unholy and impure have been preached against, from murder to adultery. If the hierarchy were concerned about group sex among polygamists, they would have preached against it. Maybe it didn't cross their minds. Perhaps it was only discussed in private. Perhaps it was too odious to mention.

Of course, separate beds, or even houses, don't completely prevent group sex, just as sleeping in one bed doesn't prove sex.

That's why I don't like "Group sex was not part of Mormon Plural marriage." We can guess, but we don't know. One example of group sex among plural marriages would make the sentence untrue.

I prefer "Group sex was not part of the teachings of Mormon plural marriage." It states exactly what it means, and doesn't say anything about areas which we don't have information about. I wouldn't mind quoting historians who express an opinion on the subject. Nereocystis 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thought. How many of the journals mention sex at all? The existence of children suggest that sex happened among polygamous households. The lack of discussion of sex in journals did not change this conclusion. If 2-person sex is not mentioned in journals, the lack of mention of group sex does not prove that group sex did not happen. Nereocystis 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have about a half-dozen accounts of sexual relations on hand. Most discuss how hard it is to share yourself with two women, or knowing that your husband is with another woman. One case discusses how awkward the sexual relations are because she feels she is compared to other wives. Another that she wishes she could spend more intimate time with her husband. Another states simply that it was a good thing that he had other wives, as she didn't enjoy it much and that he basically only showed up to her home to procreate more children to raise up for her former, deceased husband (or to pay the bills/take care of the home). There are more than the few I have on hand, but they are similar - always talking about intercourse as it relates to having children, awkwardness about being compared, wondering and wishing that they could have intimate moments more often. Realizing how intercourse makes a couple "one," the emotional bond of sexual relations and of course, abstaining from sex while fasting. In every case I've read, discussion of sexual relations deals with a husband and wife, not wives. But that's my research. I don't think that anyone else has done more than quinn and compton on the subject, but many have done as much as they have, as there is not a lot of data available. I like how the para reads now. Shall we leave it for now? -Visorstuff 05:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The current wording looks good.

Your other comments brings up the issue of jealousy, which probably was a big issue for the polygamists. Stories in my family suggest that the wives didn't really get along all that well. Perhaps this can be added when time permits. Nereocystis 16:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that outward jealously was the exeption, not the norm. It would be impossible to find a consensus of their true feelings on the matter. For them, it was likely, "just the way things were." My family and my research has mixed statements on the matter. Only one seemed to have issues, the rest were either sisters or became best friends. -Visorstuff 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

24.8.19.184 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of you are overlooking some core beliefs of LDS doctrine. As cited above, Mormons were expected to live lives of sexual purity, including no sexual relations outside of marriage. Within polygamy, the men are married to each of the women, but the women are not necessarily married to each other (as stated above, in the discussion on "spiritual wivery"). As implied with the term "group sex" there would have to be multiple women actively involved. However, should they be abiding by the strict moral code, they could not be involved with each other in a group setting without being immoral (even committing adultery, technically). Not to mention the issue of homosexuality.

24.8.19.184 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriages ending in divorce
The article currently says: ''A man who is sealed to a woman but later divorced must apply for a "sealing clearance" from the First Presidency in order to be sealed to another woman. This does not void or invalidate the first sealing. It merely establishes that he is indeed divorced from her or that she is deceased.''

I dispute the last sentence in the above. From the time the "sealing clearance" requirement was first announced (in February 1994), it had been my clear understanding that the new requirement was not a mere fact-finding exercise, but that the main issue was whether a divorced man was really living appropriately to be sealed (again) in the temple. Richwales (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sentence in question. If anyone believes this sentence was correct and should be reinstated, please supply a source.  Richwales (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage Age
19th century marriage ages/statistics are often bandied about, but I'm looking for good documentation. I'm trying to track down a recent publication: A Population History of the United States. By Herbert S. Klein. Cambridge University Press, 2004. Any other sources on editor's shelves? WBardwin (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Widows in the LDS Church?
It seems to me that some material should be added to this article on the subject of customs / practices / policies involving widows in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My understanding has always been (and still is) that if an LDS woman is married (in the temple, for time and eternity), and her husband dies, it is generally assumed that she will keep her sealing in effect and will either remain unmarried in this life, or — in the event she does remarry — her second marriage will be "for time only", and preferably to a widowed man whose first (deceased) wife has been sealed to him. And assuming the woman and her first (deceased) husband have been faithful, it is (as far as I've ever known) settled LDS doctrine that they will be reunited for eternity after this life.

This could (and, I assume, does) create complications if a woman ends up being widowed at a young age. Unless she happens to pair off with a young widower (not too many of those), or cultivates a May-December romance with an older widowed man (a potentially creepy idea for many), a young LDS widow could easily end up remaining single for a long time, perhaps till she dies. Given the LDS Church's extremely strong belief in eternal marriage, most believing / practising single, never-married LDS men are not likely to be willing to shut the door on the possibility of an eternal marriage by marrying (for time only) a widow who remains sealed to her first husband. And the other conceivable option — for a young widow to have her first sealing cancelled in order to be free to be sealed to someone else — is, while theoretically possible, very strongly discouraged as far as I'm aware (since, in many people's view, doing such a thing would challenge or even defy the underlying fundamental concept of marriage for eternity).

As far as I understand the policy changes (last 20 years or so) regarding sealing a woman to multiple husbands, those changes don't affect the situation (in this life) of a sealed widow, since the multiple sealings can only be done by proxy, after everyone involved has died. If we were still practising plural marriage, of course, it would be reasonable for a sealed widow to marry a man for time only whose first wife (sealed to him) was still living … but, of course, that's not an option any more (at least, not for devout members of the mainline LDS Church).

If anyone knows of citable source material on this subject — either official policy statements or verifiable anecdotes within the LDS Church — I think it would constitute a useful addition to this article. Richwales (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Richwales (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a practical solution: she should marry a young, single non-Mormon who is willing to allow any children to be raised LDS. But seriously, this is a quandry. I know some women in that situation, and have remained single. CO GDEN  18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Plural Marriage
Why not call the article Polygamy plural marriage seems like a weasel word.--Margrave1206 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because we have an article on polygamy in general already, and plural marriage is a specific doctrine justifying it. --Alynna (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Polygamy is not exclusive to the culture within the LDS movement. People may have more than one wife, and other more involved family arrangements, in other cultures as well, i.e. Muslims and traditional people in Africa and Indonesia.  The polygamy article covers the more widespread social practice while this Plural Marriage article covers both the LDS doctrine and the subsequent practice and social issues unique to followers of Joseph Smith, Jr.  WBardwin (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Plural marriage is not unique to Mormonism. Christian plural marriage also exists. If there is a doctrine of plural marriage within LDS, it should be labeled something like "Mormon plural marriage" to distinguish between them. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are wrong - the specific term "Plural Marriage" has a specific definition in Mormonism, whereas in other religions and cultures it is just another generic term for polygyny, polyandry, or polygamy. If you disagree, I would like to see a reference, and if so, then lets create a disambig page for the different types of "plural marriage". --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Inventing New Words. LDS plurality has several intriguing modes, which can be gleaned piece by piece from analyzing and reconstructing the family history records which LDS families themselves publish on the Internet. Working from the Ancestral File, the IGI/Ordinance Index, the Pedigree Resource File, and various submissions to Ancestry.com and Rootsweb.com, it is possible to discover seven styles or modes. Sociologists don't necessarily have words for all the fine distinctions. So I'll toss some Latin-root words to the discussion and see if they make sense for encyclopedic use.

(1) polygyny, the marriage of a man to more than one wife at the same time (from ca 1835 to 1890, sometimes beyond);

(2) polyandry, the marriage of a woman to more than one husband at the same time (rare, but there, especially in the Nauvoo era);

(3) necrogyny, the marriage or sealing of a living man to a woman then deceased with whom he was never associated while she was living (occurred with increasing frequency after the passage of the Edmunds Act, peaked in LDS culture following dedication of Saint George, Logan, and Manti temples);

(4) necrandry, the marriage or sealing of a living woman to a man then deceased with whom she was never associated while he was living (many instances from the opening of the Endowment House, a few recent);

(5) sororgyny, the marriage of a man with two or more living women at the same time who were blood sisters (see, as an example, John Doyle Lee's association with three sisters and their mother);

(6) fraterandry, the marriage of a woman with two or more living men, either sequentially as in levirate marriage or at the same time, who were blood brothers (extremely rare, one post-Manifesto case has come to my attention);

(7) matergyny, the marriage of a living man with his own mother-in-law by affinity (see Lee again).

Genehisthome (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculation regarding future polygamy
It is very weaselly to entitle a section of this article "Possibility that the LDS Church may re-introduce polygamy". The LDS Church has not made any such official statement nor made this possibility clear in any official manual. Mormon Doctrine, despite the title, is not, in fact, official doctrine of the church; citing it does not equate to the "many modern LDS adherents believe" currently attached to it. Statements relating to the church "possibly" re-introducing polygamy either need a good source, need adequate rewording, or need to be removed, a la WP:OR. I'll be happy to get started soon, but I wanted to hear from other editors before doing so. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 08:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining Characteristic
In the first sentence it describes polygamy as a defining characteristic of early mormonism, which isn't entirely true and could be rephrased. It was a temporarily instituted principle but not a basis of worship. It was never included in any credo or articles of faith, and it is condemned by both the book of mormon and doctrine and covenants as mentioned later in the article - it is not a defining characteristic of the true church of jesus christ of latter day saints. --freshmaniac (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we should be particularly careful about the intro. I have been a member all of my life.  When I was younger, I was always taught about Jesus Christ, living prophets, plan of salvation, etc.  It wasn't until I was much older that everybody from other religions started blasting me with their polygamy obsession.  The church never characterized itself by its practice of polygamy any more than the 100's of religions that practice polygamy today do, nor the dozens of prophets and apostles from biblical times characterize their theology by polygamy.  People who are obsessed with sexual deviants will characterize the church by its polygamy, but for an academic website, this seems irresponsible.--Pepwaves (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If not a self-defining characteristic, polygamy was certainly a characteristic that outsiders used to categorize the faith. Pepwaves, you haven't been a member long enough for your personal memories to have any bearing on the early development of the religion. We go by reliable sources, not by personal memories. Reliable sources show that outsiders, gentiles if you will, across the board, believed that Mormonism was set apart from other religions by its polygamy. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The recently reverted material had some relevant sourced content that we may want to consider working back into the article, as appropriate. The changes to the intro, including the dismissal of mormon fundamentalism, should probably not be kept. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not objective
I have only read the first 5 paragraphs of this article and I cannot begin to address the multitude of falsehoods that where contained in there. Whoever wrote this article was biased and gathered all of their information ONLY to make their point. This article is not at all objective. I can only hope that the reader will pursue further study of this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.14.213 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 June 2010

Request for change in wording
One of the paragraphs in the article has a sentence that says, "Sidney Rigdon, during a period when he was apostate from the Church . . . " Could you please change the word "apostate" to a more specific description of Rigdon's relationship to the church at this stage in his life to clarify this sentence? Apostate is a word that would only be readily understood by someone who is a Mormon or acquainted with culture and not as readily by someone outside of the movement. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.222.109 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Main Photo on Page
Hello, I am new here and hope I am putting this in the right place. My comment is related to the photo under “Mormonism and polygamy” to the right, with the following caption: “The wives and children of Joseph F. Smith, Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, circa 1900.” I think the photo is actually of Brigham Young and his family. The man in the middle of the photo has the exact same beard, looks like him, and also Joseph Smith was quite young when he died.Nrg1998 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There was more than 1 Joseph Smith. I am very sorry, please disregard my above comment.Nrg1998 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Too "Mainstream" Mormon Centric...
There is but a brief mention of Mormon Fundamentalism here, but the majority of the current firestorm on polygamy in the media etc. doesn't necessarily regard past polygamy but CURRENT polygamy. There are many articles on the break-away sects from the "Mainstream" Mormon church, but there should be a universal perspective...polygamy in the eyes of Community of Christ, in the FLDS, The AUB, The Kingstons, etc. There is an ongoing viewpoint, albeit a minority one that views the LDS Church as the apostates, and that they (pick your group) are keeping the principle alive until the Mormon church comes around again, or worse. So in order for this article to be correct in the scope of the "latter day saint movement" all viewpoints should be rounded out. Twunchy (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a tough call. The LDS Church is vastly more prominent than any other group, including the CoC, so to include minority views may violate WP:WEIGHT by giving undue weight to fringe groups.  Other than the CoC, all other groups are fringe, and even the FLDS are only prominent because they are the ones still practicing plural marriage. Bytebear (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats true. However, I think it should be noted more obviously that Mormon Fundamentalism is NOT the LDS church. You wouldnt have to name specific other churches, but make a clear point that the LDS Church in SLC does not endorse or approve of the actions of any Fundamentalist group. Jhigh2010 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would go the other way and say that the weight on Mormon Fundamentalism is WP:UNDUE. The lead paragraph makes a point of mentioning that the practice is continued by "tens of thousands" of fundamentalists, but completely ignores the 14 million Mormons not practicing polygamy. Adjwilley (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Major changes to introductory section
I believe the changes I made in the introductory paragraphs speak for themselves, but let me state why I've made them.

1) It is categorically inaccurate to assert that polygamy was a "defining" aspect of "early Mormonism," when most converts between 1830 and 1850 were unaware of both the doctrine and practice. It might have been considered a defining aspect of Mormonism to the world outside Mormonism, but it was anything but defining for the Mormons themselves. I have replaced that contentious and unsupported assertion with factual representations which explain the practice from the Mormon perspective and lend clarity to its radical and controversial nature.

2) Given the general confusion extant over this issue, it is important to establish the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in relation to the reason for the origins of the practice and the reason for its suspension. I've provided both.

3) I expanded on the history in order to lend additional insight into why some continue to practice polygamy today, while the Church in general does not.

4) In referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have deferred to their style guide, using "the Church" in subsequent references. In referring to splinter groups or modern practitioners, I have not referred to them as "Mormons" to avoid confusion, per the AP style guide.

Davidwhittle (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" section
The "Criticism of Plural Marriage" section seems strange. First, is it intended to list objections to plural marriage in the 19th century, or objections in general? Since the article also discusses contemporary Mormon attitudes towards plural marriage (both in and out of the LDS Church), it seems like it should be more clear.

It also lists a very narrow set of objections and doesn't quite get at the full picture. Mormon plural marriage was a complete horror for most 19th century Americans. Indeed, polygamy was listed up there with slavery as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" in the founding platform of the Republican Party. It seems strange not to mention that the practice flew in the face of pretty much every sexual / family norm of the time, right in the time period when Victorians were putting exclusive romantic love and marriage on a pedestal. Went way beyond the relatively narrow objections listed now - the bachelor problem, etc. It also doesn't list the objection that polygyny by its very nature devalues women. This was a major Victorian criticism of 19th century plural marriage, and it's also a criticism of contemporary fundamentalist plural marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.189.36  (talk • contribs)  02:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Polygamy, or polyandry, are hardly unique to Mormonism; the objections you mention seem targeted at these practices in general, rather than polygamy specifically practiced by Mormons. Perhaps we should add a "criticism" section to those articles? Or do you have sources that mention these criticisms in direct relation to Mormonism? ...comments? ~B F izz 03:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about specifically American / Western objections to Mormon plural marriage in the 19th century (and beyond). While it's true that polygamy has existed (and been criticized) elsewhere, I'm not sure how that's relevant here. My point is simply that  Mormon polygamy was criticized for many more reasons than those listed here. The practice was notorious in the 19th century not just because there were examples of unhappy plural marriages, or it created excess bachelors, or it seemed to encourage sexual lechery among men -- although these were objections, too. It was criticized because it was a completely atypical marriage practice in the 19th century United States. Anti-polygamy was its own social movement, and importantly politically for many reasons in the late 19th century. There are plenty of references documenting broad American objections, including, as I said, the 1856 Republican platform, which equated the practice of polygamy in Utah with slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote the best-selling novel of the nineteenth century, also wrote a preface to an anti-polygamy book in which she called polygamy "a slavery which debases and degrades womanhood, motherhood and the family." See: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ant6396.0001.001/8?page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image

Just to take a few more snippets of primary sources quickly from the files near me: (1) "SALT LAKS CITY M. E. CHURCH," by G.M. PIerce Zion's Herald (1868-1910) (a Methodist church periodical); Feb 16, 1871; 48, 7; American Periodicals Series Online pg. 81 "It is woman in Utah that has been especially enslaved, oppressed, degraded, and made wretched. It is in the training, by Mormon mothers, of their children, to abominate polygamy, that there is much of the hope of the future elevation of the women of Utah, and with the elevation of women, the elevation of the entire population."

(2) "Polygamy." Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1922); Feb 25, 1882; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1987) pg. 15 "It will be a good day for the country when believers in the higher system of monogamy no longer constitute a minority in Utah; when a right social condition shall overwhelm a wrong sociology, instead of standing helpless and awe-stricken before it.

As for secondary sources, I know this is covered in this well-known piece by historian David Brion Davis: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1891707

Also I'd point to: http://books.google.com/books?id=FeVJKzGp_1sC&pg=PA133&dq=anti-polygamy&hl=en&ei=Ss0-Tpr0LIfKgQe558T7Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anti-polygamy&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.189.36 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2011

Polygamy = Polygyny
The word Polygamy is used multiple times in all of the articles relating to these concepts - when what is actually happening is Polygyny. Polygamy suggests that there is a option of either Polygyny and Polyandry, when in fact there is no vagueness about the type of Polygamy discussed in the article. Should not most references to polygamy be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.243.31 (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, you are correct. However, here in Utah, polygamy is the preferred term.  News media also take their cue from Utah and use the term polygamy.  The article does, in two places, identify the type of polygamy most commonly practiced as polygyny.  The polyandrous aspects are discussed as well.


 * No change required.


 * --Trappist the monk (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are using the same sort of vague language though. You're suggesting that there is even a hint of suggestion that some sects of Mormonism participate in Polyandrous practices, when there absolutely is not. Using vague language is confusing - I had assumed until recently that Polygamy only referred to multiple wives because of this sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.243.31 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not vague when I reported how the practice is described in Utah. I was not vague when I noted that the article identifies polygyny as the predominant type of plural marriage.  I was not vague when I noted that the article discusses polyandry.  Nowhere did I write anything about what forms of polygamy are practiced.  My previous post was completely constrained to the term you questioned and to the article.


 * I was not vague when I wrote: No change required.


 * --Trappist the monk (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not bite the newcomer. The IP editor raised a valid question. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right, IP editor did raise a valid question. I provided a reasonable and unambiguous answer. But IP editor, in a new post, inaccurately asserts that I made claims that I clearly did not make.  This, and the accusation of "vagueness", deserved an answer.  Gauche American that I am, I said it louder.


 * --Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sealings when marriages end in divorce Section
This section is unreferenced and I think problematic. From a strictly Wikipedia standpoint it need References. It seems to go against what Mormons say, not that that is good enough to delete the section. I don't think it needs to be deleted, just backed up.

However, while it is not usable on Wikipedia, within my extended family, which has extensive Mormonism in it, I have divorced family members. Once I had the chance to read a "Sealing Clearance Letter". I remember that it clearly said that the Sealing was Void between the Husband and Wife, but not the kids. However, not being a Mormon I have no way of understanding everything about there Marriage systems.

Additionally, after I did some a basic "Sealing Clearance Letter" search on Google, I found a number of Forum posts, one from an ex-Mormon ex-wife, what seem to believe the same thing. That a "Sealing Clearance Letter" voids the first sealing completely.

Again, the issue I see here is that it is no sources. Only secondary is the issue that it seems to go against what is commonly believe. If it can be sources, it definitely needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems associated with plural marriage
A lot of problems in this section that I can see. Plural marriage used to justify immoral behavior with young girls Shortage of wives caused by plural marriage Plural marriage and incest
 * 1) Stanley Hirshon's biography is not a good source to cite. It was universally panned by Mormon scholars and critics alike (Leonard Arrington, George Ellsworth, and Dale Morgan). The main reason is that Hirshon consulted none of the the primary sources on Brigham Young. Instead he draws from Eastern newspapers. On the specific issue of underage marriage he cites the NYT of May 19, 1857 link. The article is highly gossipy and full of unsubstantiated rumors. It can hardly be said to document the occurrence of a sealing of 10 and 11 year old girls. I recommend the reference be removed.
 * 2) As I understand Compton there were at most two girls aged 14 that were married to Joseph Smith: Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester. No 13 year olds as the article states and definitely not "several".
 * 3) Statistically speaking, Utah (~79% Mormon in 1880) were 3 to 4 times less likely to marry 13 and 14 olds than the US as a whole in 1880. See easily reproducible Census data here link.
 * 4) Using George D. Smith's numbers is problematic. 1) They are biased towards elite polygamists, those who first became polygamist before 1847. How elite? At 5.5 wives each compared to a total average of closer to 2 per polygamist. 2) The sample includes 1st wives (initially monogamous) married before polygamy was introduced. I counted 3 of the 13 14 year olds this applies to. 3) There is no sense of comparison of those numbers and national statistics. George Smith has a sample of 459 wives with known age at marriage (128 are unknown by my count). So compare to the 1850 census elite Mormon polygamists only married 13-15 year olds at a rate 2-4 times higher than the national average (.44 2.83 4.6)% compared to (.2 .72 2.2)%  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonfool (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The sub-section is badly written. A few isolated quotes say nothing about whether there was a shortage of women or a surplus of unmarried men in practice.
 * 2) Statistically, every age range of Mormon males from 15-35 were married off at higher rates than the 1880 national average (see link above.)
 * 3) No informed Mormon apologist uses the 2-5% number for polygamist rates. That sentence should be deleted.
 * 4) The failure to cite Kathryn Daynes, the leading scholar of 19th century Mormon polygamy demographics is a major shortcoming.
 * 1) My opinion is that this whole section should be dropped. The citation about Lorenzo Snow is wrong on many levels. 1) In 1886 he was not Church president. 2) the source is second hand and clearly indicates that it is speculative. 3) No public discourse that advocates brother-sister marriage has been found. 4) Uncle-niece marriage laws were in flux from 1850 to 1900. The later isolated case was prosecuted. 5) There has been no evidence presented that polygamist Mormons were more likely to be incestuous relationships than their nation contemporaries.Mormonfool (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have dropped the section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In academic fairness it should be noted that the Joseph Smith journal entry for 1843 on the "marriage" of John Milton Bernhisel with his blood sister Maria identified this union as one of the 10 "sealing ordinances" he conducted on 26 October 1843 between Bernhisel and women who were then deceased. This qualifies the relationship not as incest, but as necrogyny, an entirely different element in the tableau of LDS plurality. The women to whom "sealed" on that date may have also included Fanny Spafford, Catherine Paine, Dolly Ransom, and Catherine Burgess; Bernhisel's diary also mentions his sister in law Catherine Bremer Bernhisel and aunt Mary Shatto as deceased "celestial" brides. These diaries are primary source documents which should be acceptable to all parties to the discussion and are available in edited versions in print and in the Church Historian's office. Genehisthome (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Child abuse

It should be noted that in the fundamentalist sects often (old) men marry underaged women who are forced into the relationship. So celestial marriage turns into rape of minors.

Source: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (2003) ISBN 0-385-50951-0.T. Mehr (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)