I haven’t forgotten about your question and I plan to try to answer it as best I can but I’ve been very depressed over 2 deaths in the family so I haven’t been able to concentrate well enough to put all the factors together in any kind of logical, understandable way.
There are many factors that were “in play” at the time that have to be included in looking at what was going on in the Church’s history at the time the practice of taking another wife was introduced.
It did end in the gay 90s but it started before so just looking at the raw census numbers for the state of Utah in 1890 does not provide an accurate picture. Those numbers represent the situation when the practice was being outlawed, not when it was being established.
Also, those are raw numbers. Not everyone living in Utah at the time were members of the LDS church (although the majority certainly were) and there were also members who had become inactive.
There were factors such as the number of men who had lost their lives making the trip to Utah whether it be because of the hardships of the trip, illness, Indian attacks, etc., or because of the people who attacked them in various cities along the way, in some cases they shot or hung them, other times they did literally tar and feather them and countless other ways.
I’ve always heard the part about there not being enough men to take care of the women too. But once I got into doing family history and church history, I found out there are tons of factors that need to be considered to truly give an accurate picture of the situation at the time.
Ideas such as:
although that certainly is a logical viewpoint, it never has been officially expressed from the Church leadership as a reason.
And you know, I’ve done my best to keep the information contained in this thread as factual as possible mixed with the healthy exchange of viewpoints, so I feel the need to tell you that that may well have been part of the consideration in some peoples minds, even in the Church leadership, but it’s never been an official statement as to the reason.
I’ve also heard that same premise used to explain away why homosexuality can’t be an accepted position from a church “because the church would die off”.
There were factors like the Mormon Battalion being formed and sent to California and also men being sent to fight in the Mexican-American war.
I can’t even remember when the Edmunds-Tucker act went into effect. I can’t remember how many men were called … yes, CALLED, as in a Church calling, by the First Presidency of the church to take another wife. It was some small percentage of the membership, but my mind fails me on the numbers so badly… once side of my head thinks I remember 2-5% of the male members of the church and the other side of my head thinks it was more like 20-25% of the male members.
The point there is you couldn’t just do it for the fun/heck of it. It was a church calling and you had to prove you could provide for the other wife/wives. I don’t remember all of the requirements, but it was more then squeezing over and making room for another woman in your home/bed.
The first wife had to give her consent. If she wasn’t comfortable with the idea, it was dropped. Many of the men built separate housing for the additional wife/wives.
Ow, my head’s hurting trying to make it think so much. 
If you want more specific information then what I’ve just provided, let me know and as soon as I can pull myself out of this depression, I’ll hit the books and internet again and get it all together for you.
If this answers your question well enough, pls let me know that too so I won’t keep stressing over it.
If anyone still has questions, please ask them. It would do me good to focus on something…
But maybe something more simple like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That’s controversial enough and certainly not a pretty picture of the Church, but not the most difficult thing to answer like polygamy. 
Kathy
