So how exactly does this work with polygamy?

March 24, 2007 | 10 comments
By

Apparently more men are taking their wives last name on marriage (hat tip: Stephen Thurston). And hey, this sounds like a great idea. I’m just wondering how to make it work with polygamy. Pity the poor membership clerk who has to update the records of that new member, Brigham Work Angell Decker Beaman Huntington Partridge Snow Rollins Pierce

10 Responses to So how exactly does this work with polygamy?

  1. Nate W. on March 24, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    The better question may be what this trend means to membership clerks now, since the church automatically changes the last names of women in the membership rolls when they get married. I’ve had a couple of friends that have had to struggle to get their membership record to reflect what they called themselves.

  2. DKL on March 24, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    It’s more accurate to say that the men are taking their father-in-law’s name. It’s just silly to pretend that using a woman’s father’s name effaces her identity less than using one’s own father’s name.

  3. Ardis Parshall on March 24, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    DKL, why is it the father-in-law’s name? If you aren’t going to allow the woman to own her name, but instead claim it belongs to her father, why stop there?

    “It’s more accurate to say that the men are taking their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather-in-law’s name.”

    It’s just silly to efface a woman’s identity by pretending that her name doesn’t belong to her.

  4. DKL on March 24, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    I agree, Ardis. I was just being silly.

    That said, your reminder that we might as well say, “that the men are taking their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather-in-law’s name” is a sad testament of all the chicks throughout history that patriarchy has robbed of their identity. I sob for these chicks.

  5. someone on March 25, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Interesting topic. As a descendent of African slaves who took on the surnames of their massas, all I can say is big deal. This is also why I do not get the big whoop about temple work for the dead, etc.

  6. Ardis Parshall on March 25, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Oh, I know, DKL. You’re giddy over the Bloggernacle Birthday and are reliving your fondest memories, right? (Psst — Please write that you WEEP for these chicks. “DKL” too close to “SOB” tempts me to look for bad jokes.)

    I heart DKL.

  7. Proud Daughter of Eve on March 25, 2007 at 9:06 am

    The church doesn’t necessarily automatically change your name when you marry. My bishop insists I be on the ward lists under my legal name and since I haven’t gotten up the guts to deal with the paperwork yet, my legal name is still my maiden name.

  8. DKL on March 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Ardis, it’s not that I’m reliving the old days. It’s that I need to drum up a bit of animosity in order to retain my position as the most reviled participant in the bloggernacle. I was recently informed that my less-frequent commenting has muted my reputation among the latest wave of those who are new to our fora. It would be a real shame if I ceased to be reviled simply from lack of exposure.

    But I will weep for all those men who lose their names to their father-in-laws. For this mistake of theirs, methinks, is like another fall of man.

  9. Mark Butler on March 26, 2007 at 12:19 am

    Although it is pretty likely that some reports generate listings displaying or sorted by the nominal head of household’s (usually the husband’s) surname, the full name of each member is recorded separately and does not automatically change when someone is married. Someone has to ask the ward clerk to do that.

  10. RSR on March 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Re #1

    My wife’s name was not automatically changed when we were married six months ago. As of yesterday, her church record still has her maiden name (i.e., the way she wants it).