Comments on: George Bernard Shaw on Mormon Polygamy

By: Eric Boysen

Eric Boysen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:25:18 +0000

In my dilitantish fashion I can offer no references to support, but Shaws analysis comes mighty close to what I remember as the stated purpose. Polygamy, properly polygyny, was to raise up righteous seed and was contrasted in effect to polyandry as tending to increase population, considered an important matter in a frontier society, while the latter tended toward diminuation. Shaw’s words are balder, but they mean the same thing.

By: Meghan

Meghan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:19:18 +0000

Fascinating Ardis! Shaw’s is an interesting take on polygamy that not many saw or cared to see (or see today for that matter). The fact that Mormons were just as pious as the next man, and polygamy went directly contrary to everything they had been taught to believe regarding morality, yet many embraced it. Very interesting.

By: Chad Too

Chad Too — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:47:55 +0000

Fantastic Ardis! Thank you for this gem.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:50:48 +0000

Actually, I’m not really all that surprised that Shaw’s endorsement of Mormon polygamy got published in a Church publication in 1937. My hunch is that the editorial staff’s decision whether to print it was probably not a difficult one. The glowing approval by an outsider – and a very respected and famous outsider – probably outweighed any concerns about letting our past stay in the past.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:51:39 +0000

No, that quotation doesn’t sound one bit like Joseph. It can’t even be Shaw’s paraphrase of a Joseph Smith statement, as far as I’m concerned, because that wasn’t any part of the purpose of polygamy in the Nauvoo era, according to anything authentic I’ve ever read. I think that Shaw decided that was the purpose of polygamy, perhaps through his own reasoning or even perhaps from reading secondary literature that speculated on polygamy’s purpose, and presented it in conversational style as a rhetorical device, not intending it to be taken as a direct quotation.

That’s the point I would expect to be corrected or at least debated today, if this Shaw piece were ever again reprinted by a Mormon press.

kevinf, although there are revisionists who would dispute me, you are right according to every rational account I’ve ever read concerning the purpose of the Deseret Alphabet. Brigham Young was a terrible book-learner, although he was a brilliant thinker and learner-by-doing. He’d had so much trouble learning to read, and especially trying to spell (he was an utter failure at spelling) that he truly desired a reading/writing system for converts that would make it possible for them to be literate, at least to the extent of reading the Book of Mormon. Brigham and Shaw might well have seen eye to eye about the need for spelling reform.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:53:27 +0000

I’d be interested to know if the quote highlighted by kevinf is attributed to JS. if so, it must be the definitive answer as to why the Church practiced polygamy, but I’ve not come across it before (no reason why I should, but would be interested to know).
thanks!

By: kevinf

kevinf — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:17:47 +0000

Ardis,

It appears that Shaw did not attribute this quote:

He said “Unless we multiply our numbers, we are lost; and we can multiply our numbers rapidly only by polygamy. And, therefore, whatever our prejudices, whatever our feelings may be, if we are to save the Church of the Latter-day Saints from annihilation by the superior numbers of its enemies in this State, we must take to polygamy.”

Is that really a JS quote?

Side note: Given Shaw’s fascination with phonetic spelling, I wonder if he ever ran across the Deseret Alphabet? He gave us the example of how fish could be spelled “ghoti” and be pronounced correctly in English. And if I recall, phonetic spelling may have been one of the motivations behind the Deseret Alphabet.

By: Alison

Alison — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:48:47 +0000

Fantastic stuff, Ardis! I found the comment on the members all rushing to shoot poor Joseph ahead of the mob quite entertaining, for some reason.

By: JimD

JimD — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:42:04 +0000

Thanks for this, Ardis.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:16:45 +0000

I had never heard of this. Thanks for bringing it up. And for the thoughtful and interesting lead-in paragraphs that you wrote.

Shaw’s description of poorly written history as “the most mendacious vulgar journalism” gave me pause. It’s easy for me to jump on the bandwagon when the press gets their hands on some purported malfeasor. Surely much of public opinion against the the “barbaric” Mormons was stoked by such salacious journalism. When I hear a news report of some supposed bad actor, I have to stop and ask myself whether I shouldn’t think it through a little myself and not just rely on someone else’s conclusions. In this respect, I greatly admire Shaw’s independent thinking (and courage for speaking his mind).