# Extreme polygamy **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 13, 2023, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020 "2023-09-13T00:35:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2023, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/101 "2023-09-21T00:47:33Z")
Actually, some of the Natives on the Northwest Coast (Northern California up into Canada) were _sedentary_ hunter-gatherers - they lived in areas so fertile and productive that HG’s didn’t have to move around all the time, they could settle in place, build large structures, and develop all sorts of things requiring abundant free time for artisans. There is archeological evidence that in pre-history parts of the Middle East were fertile and productive enough that HG’s could remain in a permanent village. Also some evidence that in pre-history Japan there might also have been HG’s in permanent villages. Note that does not eliminate hunting and gathering trips away from home which might last weeks, only that these people had permanent “base camps”, often with extensive wooden, stone, or brick buildings. It’s not whether you’re nomadic or sedentary that marks you as HG or not, it’s how you get your food. HG’s get their food by - surprise! - hunting and gathering. Farmers and pastoralists raise plant crops and animals to eat. Either one could be nomadic, semi-nomadic, or settled. And of course, because real life is messy, there were also groups that blurred the borders between those two categories. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2023, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/102 "2023-09-21T01:20:51Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Back more to the original topic - the reasons why Bronze Age pastoralists or farmers had multiple wives are probably somewhat different than the reasons men in the 21st Century have multiple wives. In the Bronze age women might have been more willing to be a 3rd or 4th wife rather than starving or ostracized. IIRC there was a scene in _Man Called Horse_ or _Little Big Man_ (Can’t remember which, I think it was LBM) where when the woman’s husband is killed in a raid, the other women simply attack her tent and take everything, and as a woman with no husband she is left to starve. (Just as in AMCH the slave captives were worked all summer and booted out of the tent to freeze when winter came and food was scarce) I’m guessing the point is many societies, especially older traditonal ones, did not allow for independent women. A woman without a male protector was always at risk of sexual assault. They typically went from father’s house to spouse’s - this patriarchal bias is even evident in the Bible laws and stories. Men held all the property and called the shots. Patriarchal societies are/were reluctant to condemn a man based on a woman’s say-so. (When I was in grade school, the teacher joked that polygamy was forbidden by the Bible quote “no man can serve two masters…”) ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2023, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/103 "2023-09-21T01:27:52Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Actually, some of the Natives on the Northwest Coast (Northern California up into Canada) were _sedentary_ hunter-gatherers - they lived in areas so fertile and productive that HG’s didn’t have to move around all the time, they could settle in place, build large structures, and develop all sorts of things requiring abundant free time for artisans. > > There is archeological evidence that in pre-history parts of the Middle East were fertile and productive enough that HG’s could remain in a permanent village. Also some evidence that in pre-history Japan there might also have been HG’s in permanent villages. You’re right that perhaps I was a bit sloppy using “sedentary” too interchangeably with “agricultural”. Overall your example is precisely what I was talking about. I think if you go far enough back, before any agriculture at all, you’d find that most _Homo sapiens_ lived like this - as hunter gatherers in a place that’s extremely fertile. I’m sure there were _Homo sapiens_ in less optimal places too, but the densest populations would naturally be in the places that had the most available resources. As agriculture spread, the even higher population density of agricultural societies allowed them to drive the HGs away from anywhere they could farm. Early farmers had lives that were harder than contemporary HGs, they spent more hours producing food and ended up with fewer calories and a less varied diets than HGs. Genetic evidence suggests that it was pretty rare for HGs to adopt farming from their neighbors for this reason - agriculture sprang up independently in a few different places and then spread through migration of agriculturalists. As farming societies expanded, they eventually spread into every available arable area; and as technology developed, more and more of the world became arable. I think if you went back far enough there’d have been similar HG groups in places like the East Coast/Great Lakes region, or the Mississippi Basin; and the common perception among most Americans is that this is what early European explorers would have found - unspoiled HG cultures living off the land. But in fact, most of North America had been taken over by expansive agricultural cultures like the Mississipians, Puebloans, or Iriquous (and many, many more). You’re right that the PNW is an exception where there were still pre-Columbian HG cultures when Europeans arrived. But I still wouldn’t use them as an example of a HG culture that was recorded by Europeans - by the time European explorers reached these places, the locals had been decimated by smallpox and similar diseases. I don’t think any Europeans ever experienced these cultures as they existed before they were struck by an apicalyptic disaster. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2023, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/104 "2023-09-21T03:00:55Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > You’re right that the PNW is an exception where there were still pre-Columbian HG cultures when Europeans arrived. But I still wouldn’t use them as an example of a HG culture that was recorded by Europeans - by the time European explorers reached these places, the locals had been decimated by smallpox and similar diseases. I don’t think any Europeans ever experienced these cultures as they existed before they were struck by an apicalyptic disaster. The Museum in Victoria had an extensive display on the smallpox epidemic, which struck after the towns of Victoria and Vacouver were settled, in the late 1800’s. I recall a review of a book about the epidemic in the northwest and Alsaska - the author made the point the natives were not more susceptible than Europeans, despite myths about immune systems. The problem was previously unexposed entire villages succumbed at once, resulting in deaths by exposure, starvation and dehydration. The author went through records, and found where there was even one immune person, survival rates were very good - enough unaffected immune people, missionaries or locals previously exposed - and the fatality rate was about 10%, same as for Europeans. when there was nobody to tend to the sick - as much as 100% fatalities. The major disruption to the lifestyle of the PNW happened in the century before smallpox - basically, traded iron tools. With wood-working tools instead of stones and charring, the locals could produce the necessities far faster. A canoe from a large single log could be hollowed out much faster than by charring and scraping with hot rocks from a fire. Felling the large trees - even faster. Building canoes easier meant more time for fishing. The massive totem totem poles we associate with PNW natives, and all the associated ornate carvings, were a side effect of the new ease of carving. Rich sources of food - the salmon harvest especially - were even easier. The PNW tribes included tiers of people - chiefs (“noble families”), commoners, and slaves. Contrary to popular condemnation, there is no evidence from their oral tradition that the Iroquois or other tribes in the area experinced that level of decimation. The Iroquois are an interesting example too. Natives in the northeast were hunters and farmers, they were probably in the transition toward fully agricultural society. So it seems locals would find out about growing food from their neghbours, but not dive fully into sedenary agriculture. Presumably it was a transition toward full setlement. The Iroquois still suffered from soil depletion and moved their fields with slash-and-burn agriculture every few years. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2023, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/105 "2023-09-21T03:11:27Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > The Museum in Victoria had an extensive display on the smallpox epidemic, which struck after the towns of Victoria and Vacouver were settled, in the late 1800’s. I recall a review of a book about the epidemic in the northwest and Alsaska - the author made the point the natives were not more susceptible than Europeans, despite myths about immune systems. That might have been true in the 1800s. You’re forgetting that Smallpox ravaged most parts of North America long before European contact. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2023, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/106 "2023-09-22T02:53:34Z")
There’s also a bit in MacKenzie’s diary from when he was first to explore the… wait for it… Mackenzie River in northern Canada. He had a group of native guides, including a chief. They ran across a local native woman who had been captured and made a slave by another tribe, then escaped and was living by herself hiding out. The natives were arguing over what to do with her, now that they’d caught her. The chief said since he was chief, he should make her his wife. One of his existing nine wives asked why should he, since he couldn’t satisfy the wives he already had. Apparently, then the chief to exception to that and beat that wife so badly that she died. ---
**Author:** ![Mama\_Zappa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@Mama\_Zappa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mama_Zappa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2023, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/107 "2023-09-24T18:31:58Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > The late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had, according to Wikipedia, 36 children from ‘about’ 30 wives. How does this mesh with Islam’s limit on 4 wives? Did these kings divorce some of their wives before taking others? Or is this a misreporting of the king having 4 wives and a number of concubines? The “not all at the same time” for Salman and Fahd suggests that the divorce thing is the appropriate explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2023, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/108 "2023-09-24T20:43:03Z")
I’m sure it varies with the Muslim/Middle-Eastern ruler. I have some recollection of the Emir of Kuwait never having more than 4 wives at a time, but having a propensity to divorce one of them when a new woman caught his fancy. Which is one “solution”. Others just don’t seem to care about the limit. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2023, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/109 "2023-09-24T21:06:10Z")
The traditional rule was that you could only have 4 wives, but you could have as many “captives of your right hand” (i.e., slave concubines) as you wanted. The Ottoman sultans’ harems consisted entirely of slaves. People could be enslaved or freed at the sultan’s whim, so being the child of a slave was no impediment to inheriting the throne. Suleiman the Magnificent broke with tradition by marrying one of his concubines. In most Muslim countries, marriage and divorce are secular, civil matters. While a man is limited to 4 wives at any given time, there is no religious impediment to serial marriages and divorces. ---
**Author:** ![gkster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gkster/32/14107_2.png) [@gkster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gkster)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2023, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/110 "2023-09-25T01:07:25Z")
Re. the “Lost Boys” of FLDS mentioned earlier by @Broomstick and @TokyoBayer , the NY Times has a great photo essay on them, which I’m sharing with a gift link: [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/opinion/flds-church.html?unlocked\_article\_code=WHt5PoIv9dOCYy3Rs1voASATqWArhUcq2LSAnVTpLjY5LyjKv-R\_OwSpBzjf2rOJ57ByBpWNc\_HX9QZQ992T9\_AM4v5EGb\_dzBi9uuivty8wc6uPg6kH0vi0VIEMjSe5j81f6VoXCx5riaq4PAYXQsakWFk18F\_16xDcuoyT43pdK0zR408EOdiInFAcFlWsgCEwqkPLFdsbtwuJS8-RsO7cWWmOAVTEWQ35LEUUF9GRs-vpsw0i60qP2VDFyR1ZQEpFmkSn7-wPriOtZe8Ywro5iQExgj5LRo2lNtkW\_iJDtVUKEXA-HBCJl7brwuDmoXTbYA&smid=wa-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/opinion/flds-church.html?unlocked_article_code=WHt5PoIv9dOCYy3Rs1voASATqWArhUcq2LSAnVTpLjY5LyjKv-R_OwSpBzjf2rOJ57ByBpWNc_HX9QZQ992T9_AM4v5EGb_dzBi9uuivty8wc6uPg6kH0vi0VIEMjSe5j81f6VoXCx5riaq4PAYXQsakWFk18F_16xDcuoyT43pdK0zR408EOdiInFAcFlWsgCEwqkPLFdsbtwuJS8-RsO7cWWmOAVTEWQ35LEUUF9GRs-vpsw0i60qP2VDFyR1ZQEpFmkSn7-wPriOtZe8Ywro5iQExgj5LRo2lNtkW_iJDtVUKEXA-HBCJl7brwuDmoXTbYA&smid=wa-share) ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2023, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/111 "2023-09-25T12:04:36Z")
That’s a great photo essay, thank you and well worth people clicking it. [rant] I hate it when even the _NY Times_ is factually incorrect when it takes shortcuts. The article says: > [@](#): > > For decades, the community was a refuge for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a polygamist sect that broke away from the Mormon Church in 1890. I know it’s unnecessary to go through the entire convoluted history of Mormon fundamentalism, but please _NY Times_, don’t write factually incorrect statements. The FLDS Church is one of the fundamentalists sects which eventually emerged after the main Mormon church finally gave up polygamy, but this was well after 1890. As it’s wondering off from the main topic, I’ll hide the details > **Summary** > > From wiki > > > [@](#): > > > > The FLDS traces its claim to spiritual authority to accounts, starting with a statement published in 1912 by Lorin C. Woolley, of a purported 1886 divine revelation to then-LDS Church President John Taylor. They see the 1886 Revelation as precluding validity of the 1890 Manifesto against new plural marriages by church members, issued by Wilford Woodruff, whom the LDS Church recognizes as Taylor’s successor.[15] After the formal abandonment of plural marriage by the LDS Church, many members around Short Creek and elsewhere continued, and even solemnized, plural marriages. In 1904 the LDS Church issued the Second Manifesto, and eventually excommunicated those who continued to solemnize or enter into new plural marriages. > > > > (shortened) > > > > Short Creek soon became a gathering place for polygamist former members of the LDS Church.[16] In 1935, the LDS Church excommunicated the Mormon residents of Short Creek who refused to sign an oath renouncing polygamy. > > > > Some of the locally prominent men in Short Creek, after being excommunicated by the LDS Church,[16] later became leaders of the Mormon fundamentalist movement, including Lorin C. Woolley, J. Leslie Broadbent, John Y. Barlow, Charles Zitting, Joseph White Musser, LeGrand Woolley, and Louis A. Kelsch. In 1932, these men created the organization known as the Council of Friends, a group of seven high priests that was said to be the governing priesthood body on Earth.[19] The Council of Friends became the governing ecclesiastical body over the Mormon fundamentalists at Short Creek. > > > > The early years of the movement were contentious and saw many differing interpretations and opinions among leaders as to how plural marriage should be practiced. These contentions eventually led to the subsequent schisms that created the multiple Mormon fundamentalist organizations that now exist, including the FLDS Church, the Apostolic United Brethren, and the Latter-day Church of Christ or Kingston group.[20][21] It is commonly believed by all of these sects that the early leaders of the fundamentalist movement claimed to receive revelations from God commanding that plural marriage should not cease.[20] > > > > One researcher has suggested that the concept of the FLDS as a separate church entity did not fully arise until a 1987 lawsuit when the full name of the church first appears. According to this interpretation, the original authority conferred by Lorin C. Woolley was only for the purpose of initiating plural marriages, not for the establishment of a new church, and many early Short Creek polygamists continued to regard the LDS Church as authoritative but “out of order” on the matter of polygamy. Such members held hope that the LDS Church would one day come back “into order” and re-establish the practice of polygamy. > > Given that a google search on the FLDS Church takes seconds and reading the history takes a few minutes, then there really isn’t any excuse for repeating statements which aren’t factually correct. > > The FLDS Church simply does not date back to 1890 and the many of the leaders of the branches of the fundamentalist movements weren’t even excommunicated from the Mormon Church until the early 1930s The LDS Church has tried to distance itself from its roots in polygamy, and has tried to create a fiction that when they published a single letter in 1890 which then instantly eliminated polygamy then and there, when in fact the top leadership of the church was still actively participating in the practice for more than a decade. [/rant] ---
**Author:** ![gkster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gkster/32/14107_2.png) [@gkster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gkster)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2023, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/112 "2023-09-25T16:07:18Z")
Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy; I’m not familiar enough with LDS history to have noted it. I did find it interesting that it focused on the effect and aftermath of Warren Jeffs on the boys. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2023, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/113 "2023-09-25T18:48:32Z")
It brings to mind something I saw once suggesting that the appeal of ISIS and similar militant groups was not 72 virgins in paradise, but your own captive “wife” (sex slave) here on earth. It suggested that with polygamy being accepted in the Middle East, there was a contingent (not unliks the LDS “lost boys”) who had no chance of getting a wife the normal way. They joined not out of religious zeal, but from general male horiness. Contrary comments pointed out polygamy is not that prevalent and so not likely a significant factor. However, with most girls controlled by their families, someone without a decent income and good prospects is unlikely to get her family’s approval to marry - so the same issue arises. ---
**Author:** ![raspberry\_hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@raspberry\_hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raspberry_hunter)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2023, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/114 "2023-09-25T19:14:32Z")
Huh, ignorance fought! Thanks. (Just found this thread today!) ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2023, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/115 "2023-09-26T02:55:55Z")
> [@gkster](#): > > Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy; I’m not familiar enough with LDS history to have noted it. I did find it interesting that it focused on the effect and aftermath of Warren Jeffs on the boys. I think a lot of people forget that some males suffer in patriarchal societies as well. It’s not to take away from the injustice done to the women, but as an acknowledgement of the complicities involved. > [@raspberry\_hunter](#): > > Huh, ignorance fought! Thanks. (Just found this thread today!) Hi!! I was hoping you would show up. I think it’s unfortunate that the LDS Church isn’t open with its history. I am curious what a typical member from a convert family (ISTR that your parents were converts) knows about polygamy. I’m no longer paying attention to the ex-Mormon site, podcasts and such, but it was interesting finding out extensive the church was going to scrub as many references as possible to polygamy. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2023, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/116 "2023-09-26T03:04:11Z")
Given the defiant determination of so many ex-LDS members to retain polygamy, I wonder why the mainstream church chose to refute it. My first guess would be legal and political pressure from non-LDS authorities; but if the LDS church could be pressured that successfully, why didn’t this apply to the splinter groups? ---
**Author:** ![SunUp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SunUp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SunUp)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2023, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/117 "2023-09-26T03:43:04Z")
The LDS church held a great deal of property in Utah. An anti-bigamy law had been passed in the 1860s to outlaw the practice of polygamy as well as nonprofit possession of more than $50,000 in property (intended to strike at institutions that could shelter the practice). While it wasn’t enforced until the 1880s or thereabouts, the church hierarchy was eventually forced underground and was losing control of the civil government. It would be possible for Utah to gain home rule if it was granted statehood, but tthere was no way statehood would be granted if polygamy were still church doctrine. The price for statehood would be to eliminate polygamy in the LDS church. In 1890, the head of the LDS church proclaimed a revelation that the church should cease plural marriage, and statehood came six years later. The splinter groups, such as the FLDS church, did not own large amounts of fixed property that the federal government, and later the state, could confiscate to enforce the prohibition. Many plural marriages continued to exist (and some more were contracted) and those practicing polygamy were often not bothered or were protected by their neighboring communities. With a lower profile, they could “slip between the cracks” and maintain their practices, though without approval from the civil authorities and without fully contracted marital status. ---
**Author:** ![raspberry\_hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@raspberry\_hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raspberry_hunter)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2023, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/118 "2023-09-26T16:08:10Z")
Yeah, my parents were converts AND I was a pretty un-aware child (for example, I knew my parents’ underwear was different from other people’s, but I had not the faintest idea that it was church related until high school! – I think my parents assumed I knew that and never bothered to explain) and I grew up knowing very little about the, er, negative side of the church. I’m pretty sure it got brought up once in a while at church (mostly by people going “yeah I think it would be hard to live polygamy on earth, but presumably it will be easy to do in the celestial kingdom,” that kind of thing), it wasn’t really covered up, so I knew there was polygamy, but I think I just thought of it as a Brigham Young/creepy-old-man-church-president kind of thing?? and everyone knows BY was weird?? In high school I read Orson Scott Card’s _Saints_, which I credit with introducing me to the concepts of a) Joseph Smith being married to a whole bunch of random women and Emma not knowing about it (wtf), and b) the church whitewashing and covering up stuff, which is actually brought up explicitly. It’s obviously written from an apologetics point of view, but also it’s pretty clear that Card had spent some time wrestling with these questions and wasn’t just covering them up himself. From the point of view of the Church, it was lucky for them that Card wrote it and that I found it as a teenager – if I’d come across this stuff for the first time when I went through my faith crisis in my mid-20’s, I would definitely not be in the church today. (And I’ve seen that very thing happen to a convert friend.) When I went through my faith crisis I read a lot more about church history and at one point was reasonably informed (I’ve forgotten a lot about it now), but I think I never really went into what happened after 1890. On polygamy references: I don’t keep track of this kind of thing anymore (I suppose I’ll need to in a couple of years when we do the D&C, now that I’m a Sunday School teacher again) – looks like I can still see the relevant Gospel Topics essay on the webpage and I’d be surprised if they took those out, but I can imagine them scrubbing the manuals – I’ve heard that next year there’s going to be a single manual that’s used for every class, which is gonna be… exciting. Can you imagine using the _same_ manual for Young Women and Gospel Doctrine?? We’ll see, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2023, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/119 "2023-09-26T16:28:18Z")
> [@raspberry\_hunter](#): > > (for example, I knew my parents’ underwear was different from other people’s, but I had not the faintest idea that it was church related until high school! – I think my parents assumed I knew that and never bothered to explain) 😳 Now you have to tell me: what’s the difference between Mormon underwear and regular one? I know there are all kinds of underwear from mere strings to circus tents, but what does Mormon underwear look like? ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2023, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020/120 "2023-09-26T16:34:29Z")
> **[Temple garment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment)** > > A temple garment, also referred to as garments, the garment of the holy priesthood, or Mormon underwear, is a type of underwear worn by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement after they have taken part in the endowment ceremony. Garments are required for any individual who previously participated in the endowment ceremony to enter a temple. The undergarments are viewed as a symbolic reminder of the covenants made in temple ceremonies and are seen as a symbolic and/or literal so The garment is... The wiki page has pictures (of mannequins wearing them). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extreme-polygamy/990020.md?page=7)