It is a difficult undertaking to address this immense audience. If a
man commences speaking loud, in a short time his voice gives out;
whereas, if he commence rather low, he may raise his voice by degrees,
and be able to sustain himself in speaking some length of time. But
with children crying, a few persons whispering, and some shuffling
their feet, it is indeed a difficult task to make an audience of ten
thousand persons hear. I have listened with pleasure to the
instructions of our brethren from the commencement of our Conference
to the present time. I have rejoiced in their testimonies. I have felt
that the elders are improving in wisdom, in knowledge, in power, and
in understanding; and I rejoice in the privilege, which we have at the
present day, of sending out to our own country a few hundred of the
elders who have had experience—who have lived in Israel long enough to
know, to feel, and to realize the importance of the work in which they
are engaged—to understand its principles and comprehend the way of
life. They can bear testimony to a generation that has nearly grown
from childhood since the death of the Prophet, Joseph Smith.
The Lord said in relation to those who have driven the Saints that He
would visit "judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing and anguish,
and gnashing of teeth upon their heads unto the third and
fourth generation, so long as they repent not and hate me, saith the
Lord your God."
I am a native of Potsdam, St. Lawrence County, New York—a town
somewhat famous for its literary institutions, its learning and the
religion and morality of its inhabitants. I left there in my youth,
with my father's family, because we had received the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, as revealed through Joseph Smith; and followed with the Saints
through their drivings and trials unto the present day.
I have never seen the occasion, nor let the opportunity slip, from the
time when I first came to a knowledge of the truth of the work of the
Lord in the last days, that I understood it was in my power to do good
for the advancement of this work but what I have used my utmost
endeavors to accomplish that good. I have never failed to bear a
faithful testimony to the work of God, or to carry out to all intents
and purposes, the wishes and designs of the Prophet, Joseph Smith. I
was his kinsman; was familiar with him, though several years his
junior; knew his views, his sentiments, his ways, his designs, and
many of the thoughts of his heart, and I do know that the servants of
God, the Twelve Apostles, upon whom he laid the authority to bear off
the Kingdom of God, and fulfil the work which he had commenced, have
done according to his designs, in every particular, up to the present
time and are continuing to do so. And I know, furthermore, that he
rejoiced in the fact that the law of redemption and Celestial Marriage
was revealed unto the Church in such a manner that it would be out of
the power of earth and hell to destroy it; and that he rejoiced in the
fact that the servants of God were ready prepared, having the keys to
bear off the work he had commenced. Previous to my leaving Potsdam,
there was but one man that I ever heard of in that town who did not
believe the Bible. He proclaimed himself an atheist, and he drowned
himself.
The Latter-day Saints believe the Bible. An agent of the American
Bible Society called on me the other day and wanted to know if we
would aid the Society in circulating the Bible in our Territory? I
replied yes, by all means, for it was the book from which we were
enabled to set forth our doctrines, and especially the doctrine of
plural marriage.
There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that
they believe the Bible, that Christ, when he came, did away with
plural marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and
there are certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view
of the subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to
Timothy (3 chap. 2 v.), where Paul says: "A bishop should be
blameless, the husband of one wife." The friends of monogamy render it
in this way: "A bishop should be blameless, the husband of but one
wife." That would imply that anyone but a bishop might have more. But
they will say, "We mean a bishop should be blameless, the husband of
one wife only." Well, that would also admit of the construction that
other people might have more than one. I understand it to mean that a
bishop must be a married man.
A short time ago, the Minister from the King of Greece to the United
States called on President Young. I inquired of him in relation to the
religion of his country, and asked him if the clergy were allowed to
marry. It is generally understood that the Roman Catholic clergy are
not allowed to marry. How is it with the Greek clergy? "Well,"
said he, "all the clergy marry, except the bishop." I replied, "You
render the saying of Paul differently from what we do. We interpret it
to mean—a bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife at
least;" and "we construe it," said he, "directly the
opposite."
Now this passage does not prove that a man should have but one wife.
It only proves that a bishop should be a married man. The same remark
is made of deacons, that they also should have wives. Another passage
is brought up where the Savior speaks of divorce. He tells us that it
is very wrong to divorce, and that Moses permitted it because of the
hardness of their (the children of Israel's) hearts. A man should
leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they
twain should be one flesh. That is the principal argument raised that
a man should have but one wife.
In the New Testament in various places, certain eminent men are
referred to as patterns of faith, purity, righteousness and piety. For
instance, if you read the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, the 11th
chapter, you find therein selected those persons "who through faith
subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped
the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge
of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in
fight, turning to flight the armies of the aliens;" and it is said by
faith Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, and that he conferred upon
them a blessing to the uttermost bounds of the everlasting hills. Who
was Joseph? Why, Joseph was the son of Rachel. And who was Rachel?
Rachel was the second wife of Jacob, a polygamist. Jacob had four
wives, and after he had taken the second (Rachel), she, being barren,
gave a third wife unto her husband that she might bear children unto
him for her; and instead of being displeased with her for giving her
husband another wife, God heard her prayer, blessed her, worked a
miracle in her favor by opening her womb, and she bore a son, and
called his name Joseph, rejoicing in God, whom she testified would
give her another son. The question now arises, were not Rachel and
Jacob one flesh? Yes. Leah and Jacob were also one flesh. Jacob is
selected by the Apostle Paul as a pattern of faith for Christians to
follow; he blessed his twelve sons, whom he had by four wives. The law
of God, as it existed in those days, and as laid down in this book
(the Bible) makes a child born of adultery or of fornication a
bastard; and the same is prohibited from entering into the
congregation of the Lord unto the tenth generation.
Now, instead of God's blessing Rachel and Jacob and their offspring,
as we are told He did, we might have expected something entirely
different, had it not been that God was pleased with and approbated
and sustained a plurality of wives.
While we are considering this subject, we will inquire, did the
Savior in any place that we can read of, in the course of his mission
on the earth, denounce a plurality of wives? He lived in a nation of
Jews; the law of Moses was in force, plurality of wives was the
custom, and thousands upon thousands of people, from the highest to
the lowest in the land, were polygamists. The Savior denounced
adultery; he denounced fornication; he denounced lust; also divorce;
but is there a single sentence asserting that plurality of wives is
wrong? If so, where is it? Who can find it? Why did he not say it was
wrong? "Think not," said he, "that I am come to destroy the law
or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Not one jot
or one tittle shall pass from the law and the Prophets; but all shall
be fulfilled." Of what does the Savior speak when he refers to "the
law?" Why, of the Ten Commandments, and other rules of life commanded
by God and adopted by the ancients, and which Brother Pratt referred
to yesterday, showing you from the sacred book that God legislated and
made laws for the protection of a plurality of wives (Exod. 21:10),
and that He commanded men to take a plurality under some
circumstances. Brother Pratt further showed that the Lord made
arrangements to protect to all intents and purposes the interests of
the first wife; and to shield and protect the children of a wife from
disinheritance who might be unfortunate enough not to have the
affections of her husband (Deut. 21:15). These things were plainly
written in the law—that law of which the Savior says, "Not one jot or
one tittle shall pass away." Continuing our inquiry, we pass on to the
epistles of John the Evangelist, which we find in the Book of
Revelation, written to the seven churches of Asia. In them we find
the Evangelist denounces adultery, fornication, and all manner of
iniquities and abominations of which these churches were guilty.
Anything against a plurality of wives? No, not a syllable. Yet those
churches were in a country in which plurality was the custom. Hundreds
of Saints had more wives than one; and if it had been wrong, what
would have been the result? Why, John would have denounced the
practice, the same as the children of Israel were denounced for
marrying heathen wives, had it not been that the law of plurality was
the commandment of God.
Again, on this point, we can refer to the Prophets of the Old
Testament—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. When God called those
men He warned them that if they did not deliver the message to the
people which He gave them concerning their sins and iniquities that
His vengeance should rest upon their heads. These are His words to
Ezekiel, "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of
Israel, therefore hear the word at my mouth and give them warning from
me. When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die, and thou givest
him not warning nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way to
save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity but his
blood will I require at thine hand; yet if thou warn the wicked and he
turn not from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in
his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezek. 3:17,18,
19.) How do we find these Prophets of the Lord fulfilling the
commandments of the Almighty? We find them pouring out denunciations
upon the heads of the people—against adultery, fornication, and every
species of wickedness. All this, too, in a country in which, from the
King down to the lowest orders of the people, a plurality of wives was
practiced. Do they say anything against plurality of wives? Not one
word. It was only in cases where men and women took improper licence
with each other, in violation of the holy law of marriage, that they
were guilty of sin.
If plurality of wives had been a violation of the seventh commandment
those prophets would have denounced it, otherwise their silence on the
matter would have been dangerous to themselves, inasmuch as the blood
of the people would have been required at their hands. The opposers of
Celestial Marriage sometimes quote a passage in the seventh
chapter of Romans, second and third verses, to show that a plurality
of wives is wrong; but when we come to read the passage it shows that
a plurality of husbands is wrong. You can read that passage for
yourselves. In the forcible parable used by the Savior in relation to
the rich man and Lazarus, we find recorded that the poor man Lazarus
was carried to Abraham's bosom—Abraham the father of the faithful. The
rich man calls unto Father Abraham to send Lazarus, who is afar off.
Who was Abraham? He was a man who had a plurality of wives. And yet
all good Christians, even pious church deacons, expect when they die
to go to Abraham's bosom. I am sorry to say, however, that thousands
of them will be disappointed, from the fact that they cannot and will
not go where anyone has a plurality of wives; and I am convinced that
Abraham will not turn out his own wives to receive such unbelievers in
God's law. One peculiarity of this parable is the answer of Abraham to
the application of the rich man, to send Lazarus to his five brothers
"lest they come into this place of torment," which was—"they have
Moses and the prophets, let them hear them; and if they hear not Moses
and the prophets neither would they be persuaded though one rose from
the dead." Moses' law provided for a plurality of wives, and the
prophets observed that law, and Isaiah predicts its observance even
down to the latter days. Isaiah, in his 4th chap. and 1st and 2nd
verses, says, "Seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will
eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by
thy name to take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of
the Lord be beau tiful and glorious and the fruit of the earth shall be
excellent."
A reference to the Scriptures shows that the reproach of women was to
be barren, Gen. 30 chap. and 23 v.; Luke 1st chap. and 25 v.
We will now refer to John the Baptist. He came as a forerunner of
Christ. He was a lineal descendant of the house of Levi. His father
was a priest. John the Baptist was a child born by miracle, God having
revealed to his father that Elizabeth who had been many years barren
should bear a son. John feared not the world, but went forth preaching
in the wilderness of Judea, declaiming against wickedness and
corruption in the boldest terms. He preached against extortion;
against the cruelty exercised by soldiers and tax gatherers. He even
was so bold as to rebuke the king on his throne, to his face, for
adultery. Did he say anything against a plurality of wives? No; it
cannot be found. Yet thousands were believers in and practiced this
order of marriage, under the law of Moses that God had revealed.
In bringing this subject before you, we cannot help saying that God
knew what was best for His people. Hence He commanded them as He would
have them act. The law regulating marriage previous to Moses,
recognized a plurality of wives. Abraham and Jacob and others had a
plurality. These are the men who are referred to in Scripture as
patterns of piety and purity. David had many wives. The Scripture says
that David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned
not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his
life, save in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, 1 Kings. 15th chap. 5
v. "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart
which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God,
according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." Acts
13th chap. 22nd and 23rd verses. Did David sin in taking so many
wives? No. In what, then, did his sin consist? It was because he took
the wife of Uriah, the Hittite—that is, violated the law of God in
taking her. The Lord had given him the wives of Saul and would have
given him many more; but he had no right to take one who belonged to
another. When he did so the curse of adultery fell upon his head, and
his wives were taken from him and given to another. We will now
inquire in relation to the Savior himself. From whom did he descend?
From the house of David a polygamist; and if you will trace the names
of the families through which he descended you will find that numbers
of them had a plurality of wives. How appropriate it would have been
for Jesus, descending as he did from a race of polygamists, to have
denounced this institution of plural marriage and shown its
sinfulness, had it been a sin! Can we suppose, for one moment, if
Patriarchal marriage were wrong, that He would, under the
circumstances, have been silent concerning it or failed to denounce it
in the most positive manner? Then if plural marriage be adultery and
the offspring spurious, Christ Jesus is not the Christ; and we must
look for another.
All good Christians are flattering themselves with the hope that they
will finally enter the gates of the New Jerusalem. I presume this is
the hope of all denominations—Catho lics, Protestants, Greeks and all
who believe in the Bible. Suppose they go there, what will they find?
They will find at the twelve gates twelve angels, and "names written
thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of
Israel." The names of the twelve sons of Jacob, the polygamist. Can a
monogamist enter there? "And the walls of the city had twelve
foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb;" and at the gates the names of the twelve tribes of Israel—from
the twelve sons of the four wives of Jacob. Those who denounce
Patriarchal Marriage will have to stay without and never walk the
golden streets. And any man or woman that lifts his or her voice to
proclaim against a plurality of wives, under the Government of God,
will have to seek an inheritance outside of that city. For "there
shall in no wise enter into it, anything that defileth, neither
whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie, for without are
sorcerers, whoremongers, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Is
not the man that denounces Celestial Marriage a liar? Does he not work
abomination? "I Jesus have sent mine Angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of (the
polygamist) David, the bright and the morning star."
May God enable us to keep His law, for "blessed are they that do His
commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may
enter in through the gate into the city." Amen.
- George A. Smith