Polygamy hurt 19th century Mormon wives' evolutionary fitness

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Polygamy practiced by some 19th century Mormon men had the curious effect of suppressing the overall offspring numbers of Mormon women in plural marriages, say scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions in the March 2011 issue of Evolution and Human Behavior.

Simply put, the more sister-wives a Mormon woman had, the fewer children she was likely to produce.

"Although it's great in terms of number of children for successful males to have harems, the data show that for every new woman added to a male's household, the number each wife produced goes down by one child or so," said IU Bloomington evolutionary biologist Michael Wade...

The researchers' survey of birth, marriage and death records from the Utah Population Database covers nearly 186,000 Utah adults and their 630,000 children who lived or died between 1830 and 1894. This period marked an important transition for the nascent Mormon Church, as polygamy began to be phased out in deference to U.S. laws banning the practice but also via internal pressure from the Mormons themselves.

The scientists' study confirmed their expectation that a moratorium on Mormon polygamy would have the effect of decreasing the intensity of sexual selection among males...With fewer polygamous marriages, more males had access to wives...The scientists estimate that ending polygamy reduced the strength of sexual selection on males by 58 percent.

"When the ratio of sexes is about equal, for every male that has three mates, there must be two males that have none," Wade said. "If a male has even more mates, then the disparity among male 'reproductive' haves and have-nots can become quite great."

So all those mormon men who only have on wife are in complete violation of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's commandments.

Good point...note how late 19th -century Mormon "prophets" -- like Joseph F. Smith (Joseph Smith's Jr.'s nephew) pressured others...like in this 1878 message:

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I WANT HERE TO ENTER MY SOLEMN PROTEST AGAINST THIS IDEA, FOR I KNOW IT IS FALSE. There is no blessing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and NO BLESSING CAN BE OBTAINED BY MANKIND EXCEPT BY FAITHFUL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS, OR LAW, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 28 1878)

Lds “prophet” Smith made it quite clear that Mormons who duck polygamy are...
...out of compliance with the full measure of the law...
...therefore ineligible to obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law...
...and he "protests the idea" that it is considered by some "saints" to a "non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind."

Now this is a GREAT example of what I was saying 10 Things Every Mormon Needs to Know written by an anonymous Mormon @ Mormon Matters.org! [See post #18].

If what this 6th "prophet" of the Mormon church taught was a false teaching -- that indeed you don't have to be a polygamist or else you'll miss out on this "essential to the ...exaltation of manking" [becoming a Mormon god] -- then why don't we have Mormon leaders correcting this false prophet?

In another quote from that same year, Joseph F. Smith even invited such correction when he said: "It is an additional privilege for that same man and WIFE to re-enter the Temple of God to receive ANOTHER WIFE in like manner if THEY are worthy...If this is not correct doctrine than I am in error, and if I am in error I want to be corrected. I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that EVERY MAN in this church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, SHALL BE DAMNED, I say I understand it to mean this AND NOTHING LESS, AND I TESTIFY IN THE NAME OF JESUS THAT IT DOES MEAN THAT. (Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878, Journal of Discourses 20:30-31)

Wow! A LOT to unpack there. Even though Joseph F. Smith comes across a little as "humble" and willingness to be corrected, he goes on to testify that Mormon men are to be polygamists or be damned!...and that "celestial marriage" means NOTHING less than that...and to top it off, he "testif[ies] in the Name of Jesus that it does mean that."

I guess contemporary Mormons have a few choices:
(1) They can stop beating around the bush and PUBLICLY call Joseph F. Smith, son of Hyrum Smith and nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr., a false prophet who was forcing men in 1878 to become polygamists or be damned and miss out on the highest level of the Mormon Kingdom.
(2) Or, they can say Smith was correct, and if they want to go for the highest part of the Mormon kingdom, then they better find a second wife!

Sadly, most Mormons will choose Option 3: They will stick with their current "prophet" and say that polygamy for the time being is wrong (on earth) and is ex-communication worthy. They will publicly NOT say a thing about these words from Joseph F. Smith; they'll just ignore these words as if they were never spoken.

BUT...and I say...BUT...Option #3 comes at a cost: If...
...they won't either publicly condemn Joseph F. Smith's doctrinal teaching on polygamy --
--or they won't become a polygamist...
THEN...the closing words of this 6th Mormon "prophet" become a curse on every Mormon who starts off a sentence with "I testify..." Because Joseph F. Smith closed out those words with "I TESTIFY IN THE NAME OF JESUS THAT IT DOES MEAN THAT."

And if they don't call that testimony a false one;
and they won't enter into living that testimony...then NO TESTIMONY OF ANY Mormon can ever be believable since that day!!!

I find the evolutionary angle interesting. I wonder what the researchers would say about the evolutionary fitness of homosexuals. Sorry about an off-topic reply.

Actually not totally off-topic.

Now, I'd like for you to read this quote from the nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr. -- Joseph F. Smith -- who was the 6th "prophet" of the Mormon church.

Tell me if you do not also read like I do -- especially the beginning portion of this quote -- that a Mormon WIFE would re-enter the temple -- and along with her husband -- join her husband as joint-recipients of the additional wife?

Lds "prophet" Joseph F. Smith, 1878: "It is an additional privilege for that same man and WIFE to re-enter the Temple of God to receive ANOTHER WIFE in like manner if THEY are worthy...If this is not correct doctrine than I am in error, and if I am in error I want to be corrected. I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that EVERY MAN in this church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, SHALL BE DAMNED, I say I understand it to mean this AND NOTHING LESS, AND I TESTIFY IN THE NAME OF JESUS THAT IT DOES MEAN THAT. (Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878, Journal of Discourses 20:30-31)

Looks to me like this Mormon "prophet" was promoting group marriage...which would be, in part, same-sex marriage! Note that "THEY" (plural) -- need to be "worthy" -- and the BOTH re-enter the temple to receive that wife!

So much for both Genesis & Jesus (Matthew 19) saying that the TWO would become one flesh!!!

Mormons violate Jesus' description of marriage (& Genesis' description) by saying the 3 or 4 or more become one flesh! Eewww

>> all things being equal, the more attractive you are to women the more mating opportunities and offspring you will have <<

Agreed. But then let’s go to the next stage:

Specifically, which children are most likely to survive and then go on to mate successfully?

I submit that the answer isn’t so simple. The monogamous geek’s children, who may benefit from better health and education, eventually may go on to out-survive and out-breed the more numerous children of the promiscuous or polygamous brute.

>> More kids have a better chance of surviving and procreating than fewer kids. <<

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t think the answer is intuitively obvious for every culture and for every level of civilization. The answer may be different for “primitive” and “advanced” societies. Can’t be settled purely by logic and theory. In other words, it’s probably the sort of question that needs to be investigated empirically.

“Specifically, which children are most likely to survive and then go on to mate successfully? I submit that the answer isn’t so simple. The monogamous geek’s children, who may benefit from better health and education, eventually may go on to out-survive and out-breed the more numerous children of the promiscuous or polygamous brute.”

My original answer refered to mormons in the 19th century so lets go back to that context. Having multiple wives and a big household is expensive so it is likely that a mormon who can afford multiple wives (and can get them to marry him) is successful. He was probably considered rich or at least well off. His children are likely to be better fed, educated and have better living conditions than a dirt poor mormon. Members of his houshold probably also have access to better medical care since they can afford a doctor. Better medical care means fewer wives die in childbirth and more children live to procreate.

“In other words, it’s probably the sort of question that needs to be investigated empirically.”

I agree. They kept pretty good records back then so it should be no problem to compare the number of born and surviving children between polygamous and monogomous households.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.