I have been requested, this afternoon, to preach upon the subject of
marriage. It is a subject which has been often laid before the
Latter-day Saints, and it is certainly one of great importance to the
Saints as well as to the inhabitants of the earth, for I presume that
no person, who believes in divine revelation, will pretend to say that
marriage is not a divine institution; and if this be the case, it is
one which affects all the human family.
I will select a passage of scripture in relation to this divine
institution as it existed in the days of Moses. In selecting, however,
this passage, I do not wish the congregation to suppose that we are
under the law of Moses particularly. There are many great principles
inculcated in that law which the Lord never did intend to come to an
end or be done away—eternal principles, moral principles, then there
are others that were done away at the coming of our Savior, he having
fulfilled the law. Because we find certain declarations, contained in
the law given to Moses, that does not prove that the Latter-day Saints
are under that law; that same God that gave the law of Moses—the being
that we worship—is just as capable of giving laws in our day as in
Moses' day; and if he sees proper to alter the code given to Moses,
and to give something varying from it, we have no right to say that he
shall not do so. Therefore, in selecting the passage which I am about
to read, it is merely to show what God did in ancient times, and that
he may do something similar in modern times.
In the 21st chapter of Exodus, speaking of a man who already had one
wife, Moses, says—"If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment
and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." It will be
recollected that this law was given to a polygamic nation. When I
speak of a polygamic nation, I mean a nation that practiced both
plural and single marriage, and believed one form to be just
as sacred as the other. Their progenitors or ancestors were
polygamists; and they were considered patterns for all future
generations. Their piety, holiness, purity of heart, their great faith
in God, their communion with him, the great blessings to which they
attained, the visions that were made manifest to them, the
conversation that God himself, as well as his angels, had with them,
entitled them to be called the friends of God, not only in their day,
but they were considered by all future generations to be his friends.
They were not only examples to the Jewish nation, but in their seed,
the seed of these polygamists, all the nations and kingdoms of the
earth were to be blessed.
I hope that pious Christians in this congregation will not find fault
this afternoon with their Bible, and with the Prophets and inspired
men who wrote it. I hope that they will not find fault with God for
selecting polygamists to be his friends. I hope that they will not
find fault with Jesus because he said, some two thousand years or
upwards after the days of these polygamists, that they were in the
kingdom of God, and were not condemned because of polygamy. Jesus
says, speaking of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—"Many shall come from the
east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and shall
sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God." Do not
find fault with Jesus, you Christians, because he has these
polygamists in his kingdom, and because he has said that the Gentiles
will be blessed through the seed of these polygamists; neither find
fault with him because he has taken these polygamists into his
kingdom, and that many will come from the four quarters of the earth
and have the privilege of sitting down with them therein.
Jacob married four wives, and may be considered the founder of that
great nation of polygamists. He set the example before them. His
twelve sons, who were the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel,
were the children of the four wives of the prophet or patriarch Jacob.
So sacred did the Lord hold these polygamists that he said, many
hundred years after their death—"I am the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob, and this shall be my memorial unto all
generations." Now, Christians, do not find fault if God chose these
polygamists and, at the same time, wished to make them a sample, a
memorial to all generations, Christians as well as Jews.
Several hundred years after God raised up these, his friends, and
founded or began to found the twelve tribes of Israel, he saw proper
to raise up a mighty man called Moses to deliver the children of
Israel from the bondage in which they had been oppressed and afflicted
by the Egyptian nation. So great had this affliction become that the
King of Egypt issued a decree commanding the Israelitish midwives to
put to death all the male children, born among the Israelites. This
murderous law was carried out. This was about eighty years before
Moses was sent down from the land of Midian to deliver the children of
Israel from this cruel bondage. How long this great affliction of
putting to death the male children existed, is not given in the Bible;
but it seems to have waxed worse and worse during the following eighty
years, after which Moses was sent to deliver them. We may reasonably
suppose that the oppressive hand of Pharaoh was not altogether eased
up, but continued on for scores of years, destroying many of the male
children, making a great surplus of females in that nation. A
great multitude of females over and above that of males, will account
for the peculiar passage of Scripture to which I will now refer you.
It will be found in the 3rd chapter of Numbers. I have not time to
turn to it and read it, but I will quote you the substance thereof.
Moses and Aaron were commanded to number all the males in Israel from
a month old and upward that were called the firstborn among the
various tribes. Now the firstborn does not mean the oldest male child
of the first wife, for sometimes the first wife has no children, but
it means the firstborn son that is born to the father whether by the
first wife, or second, or third, or any number of wives that he may
have; the term firstborn pertains to the first male child that is
born to the father. So it was accounted to Jacob's family of twelve
sons. Reuben only was called the firstborn of Israel until he lost his
birthright, through transgression, which, we are told in the 5th
chapter of first Chronicles, was taken from him and given to one of
the sons of Joseph. But so far as age or birth was concerned, Reuben
was the firstborn; and had it not been for his transgression, he would
have inherited a double portion of his father's substance, for that
was the law in ancient times.
Now how many of the firstborn could be found in the midst of Israel?
We are told that there were twenty-two thousand two hundred and
seventy-three firstborn males among the eleven tribes: the tribe of
Levi was not reckoned at that time, but all the male members of the
tribe of Levi, from a month old and upwards was twenty-two thousand
souls. Now if the tribe of Levi numbered in proportion to the other
eleven tribes, the number of firstborn males in all the twelve tribes
would probably amount to between twenty-four and twenty-five thousand
souls, it could not have run over that. There might have been some of
the firstborn who were dead, which would make a few more families:
then there might have been other families who never had any male
children, which would increase the families still more. Supposing
then, in order to give all the advantages possible, and to make as
many families as we possibly can consistently, that we say, instead of
twenty-five thousand firstborn in the midst of all Israel, that there
were thirty thousand; that is allowing for all these contingencies I
have named, where families have no males, and those families that have
male children under a month old which were not reckoned, and those
families which might have had firstborn male children who died and the
number might possibly be increased to four or five thousand more,
making the total number of families about thirty-thousand.
Thus we see that the number of firstborn males from a month old or
upwards give us a clue to the number of families; we may not be able
to determine the number exactly, but these data will enable us to
approximate very closely. It is generally admitted, that Israel, at
that time, numbered twenty-five hundred thousand souls. There might
have been a variation from this of a few thousand souls, but according
to the Scriptural and all other evidences that can be gleaned, the
number above referred to is about the number of souls that existed in
Israel at that time. Among that twenty-five hundred thousand souls
then, there were thirty-thousand families. How many were there in a
family? All that you have to do to tell how many there were in a
family, is to divide twenty-five hundred thousand by thirty thousand and you will find that the quotient is eighty-three, showing
that number of souls on an average in each family. Now if these
families were all monogamic, how many children must have been born to
each wife? Eighty-one.
This argument is founded on Scripture, and it shows plainly, even if
you should double the number of families or of the firstborn, that
they could not be all monogamic families, for if we suppose there were
sixty thousand families, it would make every married woman the mother
of forty odd children, and if such a supposition could be entertained
it would go to show that women in those days were more fruitful than
they are now. These declarations are given in your Bible, which is
also my Bible; that is, in King James' translation. We all believe, or
profess to be Bible believers or Christians. Do not be startled my
hearers at these declarations of your Bible. No wonder then that this
passage which I have taken for my text was given to that people,
because they were a people who needed to be guided in relation to
their duty. "If a man take another wife;" that is, after he has got
one, if he take another one, "her food" —whose food? The food of the
first wife—"her raiment," that is the raiment of the first wife, "her
duty of marriage, he shall not diminish." Now this is plain, pointed
and positive language in regard to polygamy as it existed among the
house of Israel in ancient times. Why did not the Lord say, if
polygamy were a crime or a sin—"If a man take another wife let all the
congregation take him without the camp and stone him and put him to
death?" Or if that was too severe let them incarcerate him in a prison
or dungeon for several years? If it be a crime why did he not say so?
It is just as easy to say that, as to give directions as to what
course a man shall pursue with regard to his first wife, if he takes
another one.
This is Bible doctrine as it existed in those days. I know that it has
been argued that the first woman, here spoken of, was merely a
betrothed woman, and not married. But if this be so, what a curious
saying this in our text—that her duty of marriage shall he not
diminish if he take another wife. This and other expressions show
clearly that they were both wives, and that there was a certain duty
to be attended to by the husband, besides providing them with food and
raiment. It was argued here in this tabernacle before some eight or
ten thousand people, on a certain occasion, that the Hebrew word
translated "duty of marriage," ought to have been translated
"dwelling" —"Her food, her raiment and her dwelling
he shall not
diminish." I recollect asking the learned gentleman, Rev. Dr. Newman,
why he translated it dwelling, instead of translating it as all other
Hebraists have done? I asked him to produce one passage in all the
Bible where that word translated "duty of marriage," meant a
"dwelling," but he could not do it. The Hebrew word for
"dwelling,"
and the Hebrew word for "duty of marriage," are two entirely distinct
words. I referred him to the learned professors in Yale College, and
to many others who have translated this Hebrew word "duty of
marriage." These professors and other learned translators, have
referred to this special passage, and have translated it in two
ways—one is "duty of marriage," and the other is cohabitation. Now, if
this latter be correct—her food, her raiment and her cohabitation,
shall not be diminished. I asked him why he varied in his translation of the Hebrew, from all these translators and
lexicographers? His only answer was that he found a certain Jew in
Washington who told him that it meant "dwelling," or rather that its
original root referred to a "dwelling." I thought that was a very poor
argument against all the translators of the Christian world, who are
mostly monogamists. But we will pass on. I do not intend to dwell too
long on these subjects.
So far as the law of Moses is concerned, to prove that the house of
Israel kept up their polygamous institution from generation to
generation, let me refer you to another law to show that they were
compelled to do this, or else to come out in open rebellion against
the law of Moses. In the 25th chapter of Deuteronomy, we read
something like this—"When brethren dwell together, and one of them
die, the living brother shall take the widow of the deceased brother,
and it shall come to pass that the firstborn that is raised up shall
succeed in the name of his brother." This was a positive command given
to all Israel. Now was this command confined to young men who were
unmarried, or was it an unlimited command so far as living brothers
were in existence? This is a question to be decided. There is nothing
in all the Scriptures that makes any distinction between a married
brother who survives and an unmarried brother; the law was just as
binding upon a living brother, if he had already a wife living, as it
was upon a living brother if he had no wife, it being a universal law,
with no limits in its application, so far as the house was concerned.
This law, then, compelled the children of Israel to be polygamists;
for in many instances the living brother might be a married man, and
in many instan ces there might be two or three brothers who would take
wives and die without leaving seed, and in that case it would devolve
upon the surviving brother to take all the widows. This law was not
given for that generation alone, but for all future generations. Some
may say, that when Jesus came, he came to do away that law. I doubt
it. He came to do away the law of sacrifices and of burnt offerings,
and many of those ordinances and institutions, rites and ceremonies
which pertained to their tabernacle and temple, because they all
pointed forward to him as the great and last sacrifice. But did he
come to do away all these laws that were given in the five books of
Moses? No. There are many of these laws that were retained under the
Christian dispensation. One of the laws thus retained was repentance.
The children of Israel were commanded to repent, and no person will
pretend to say that Jesus came to do away the law of repentance.
Another was the law of honesty, upright dealing between man and man;
no one will pretend to say that that law ceased when Jesus came. The
laws concerning families and the regulation of the domestic
institutions were not intended to cease when Jesus came, and they did
not cease only as they were disregarded through the wickedness of the
children of men. The laws concerning monogamy, and the laws concerning
polygamy were just as binding after Jesus had come, as they were
before he came. There were some laws which Ezekiel says were not good.
Jesus denounced them, and said they were given because of the hardness
of the hearts of the children of Israel. Ezekiel says that God gave
them statutes and judgments by which they should not live. Why did he
do it? Because of their wickedness and hardness of heart. I
will tell you how this law became done away and ceased to exist among
the children of Israel—it was in consequence of their rejection of the
Messiah. In consequence of this their city was overthrown, and their
nation destroyed, except a miserable remnant, which were scattered
abroad among the Gentile nations, where they could not keep the law in
regard to their brothers' widows. When John the Baptist was raised up
to that nation, he must have found thousands on thousands of
polygamists, who were made so, and obliged to be so, by the law which
I have just quoted.
Some of you may enquire—"Had not a surviving brother the right to
reject that law of God?" He had, if he was willing to place himself
under its penalty. I will quote you the penalty, and then you can see
whether he could get away from polygamy or not. One penalty was that
he should be brought before the Elders and that the widow whom he
refused to marry, according to the law of God, should pluck his shoe
from off his foot, and should then spit in his face, and from that
time forth the house of that man should be denounced as the house of
him that hath his shoe loosed, a reproach among all Israel. Instead of
being a man of God, and a man to be favored by the people of God;
instead of being a man such as the Christian world would now extol to
the heavens because he rejected polygamy, he was a man to be scorned
by all Israel. That was the penalty. Was that the only penalty? I
think not. Read along a little further, and it says—"Cursed be he that
continues not in all things written in this book of the law." Oh, what
a dreadful penalty that was, compared with being reproached by the
whole people! Oh, what a fearful curse upon a man that refused to
become a polygamist, and would not attend to the law of God! A curse
pronounced by the Almighty upon him, also the anathemas of all the
people as well as from God! The word of the Lord was that all the
people should say amen to this curse. Now, if I had lived in those
days, I should not have considered it very desirable to bring myself
under the curse of heaven, and then have the curse of all the twelve
tribes of Israel upon my head. I should not have liked it at all. I
would rather have gone into polygamy according to the command, even if
it had subjected me to a term of five years in a penitentiary.
We find many other passages, touching upon this subject. I will quote
one, which will be found in the 21st chapter of Deuteronomy. It reads
as follows: "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated,
and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and
if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he
makes his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the
son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is
indeed the firstborn."
Now this applies to two classes of polygamists. First, to those who
may have two wives living at the same time, and then to those who may
have married two wives in succession. It applies to both classes, for
both classes existed in those days, and the Lord gave this, not to
condemn polygamy, not to do away with it, but to show that the
individual who had two wives should be impartial in regard to his
children. Did he approbate this man that might have two wives in his
hatred of one, and in loving the other? No, he did not, but inasmuch
as man is weak and may sin against God, and suffer himself to
be overcome with prejudice and hatred to one person, and feel in his
heart to love and respect another, the Lord gave laws in case any such
crime should exist among them as a husband's hating one wife and
loving another; he gave laws to regulate it, not that he approbated
the hating part.
As I have already proved to you that there were great and vast
numbers of polygamic families in Israel, and that there were thousands
of firstborn from these plural wives, these firstborn persons,
whatever might be the conduct of their mothers, were entitled to their
inheritance, namely a double portion of all that the father had to
bestow. That was the law in ancient times. We might close here so far
as the law of Moses is concerned, but I wish to call your attention to
a peculiar saying in this law.
This law has got to be restored again. Says one—"You astonish me
beyond measure, I thought it was done away forever." Well, listen to
what the Lord said to Israel in the closing of this book of
Deuteronomy. When the children of Israel shall be scattered in
consequence of their iniquities to the uttermost parts of the earth
among all the nations, and their plagues shall be of long continuance,
and they shall be cursed in their basket and in their store, and with
numerous curses which he mentioned should come upon them; after these
things had been of long continuance, the Lord says—"After they shall
return unto me and hearken unto all the words contained in this book
of the law, then I, the Lord God, will gather them out from all the
nations whither they are scattered, and will bring them back into
their own land." Oh, indeed! Then when they do absolutely return and
hearken to all the words of the book of this law, God has promised to
gather them again; that is, they must enter into polygamy, they must
believe when their brother dies and leaves no seed, that the surviving
brother, though he has one, two, or a half a dozen wives living, shall
take that widow. That is part of the law, and they must fulfill all
the words of this law, and then God has promised to gather them again.
Says one, "When that is fulfilled it will be in the days of
Christianity." We can't help it; polygamy belongs to Christianity, as
well as to the law of Moses.
Says one—"The children of Israel have been scattered now some 1,800
years among all the nations and kindreds of the earth, in fulfillment
of this curse, but if we believe that saying which you have just
quoted, we are obliged to believe that the children of Israel are yet
to return to attend to all these institutions, and that too while the
Christian religion is in vogue, and that they are to regulate their
households according to the law of God, whether those families are
monogamic or polygamic." What will the good Christians think when that
is fulfilled? They cannot help themselves, for God will not gather
Israel until they do return with all their hearts unto him, and
hearken to and obey all the words of this law, written in this book.
This is the word of the Lord, and how can you help yourselves? Says
one, "We will pass laws against them." That will not hinder, when God
sets his hand to carry out his purposes, laws that may be passed by
England, Denmark, Norway or any other Christian community will not
hinder the Israelites from attending to all the words contained in the
book of his law; for they will want to get back again to their own land.
Inasmuch then as the Lord has promised to restore all things spoken of
by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began, supposing
that he should begin this great work of restoration in our day, how
are we going to help ourselves? I can't help it. Brigham Young, our
President, can't help it; Joseph Smith could not help it. If God sees
proper to accomplish this great work of restoration—the restitution of
all things, it will include what the Prophet Moses has said, and it
will bring back with it a plurality of wives. The 4th chapter of
Isaiah could never be fulfilled without this restoration. The passage
to which I refer is familiar to all the Latter-day Saints—"In that day
the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit
of the earth shall be excellent and comely; and in that day 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." Now will this prophecy ever be fulfilled, unless
this great restoration or restitution shall take place? It cannot. If
this great restitution does not take place, Jesus will never come, for
it is written in the New Testament, in the 3rd chapter of the Acts of
the apostles, that "the heavens must receive Jesus Christ, until the
times of the restitution of all things which God has spoken by the
mouths of his holy Prophets, since the world began." Jesus will have
to stay a long time in the heavens providing that monogamist
principles are the only principles that will be introduced, in fact he
never can come, for the Scriptures say the heavens must retain him
until all things are restored.
God has said that seven women shall take hold of one man for the
purpose of having their reproach taken away, that they may be called
by his name, not cast off as harlots or prostitutes; not to take away
the name of the father from the children, and cast them into the
streets, as the Christian nations have been doing for many long
centuries that are past. But these seven women will be desirous of
having the name of their husband for themselves and their children.
Isaiah says it shall be so, and it will have to be under the Christian
dispensation. How are the Christians going to get rid of this? Can you
devise any way? Is there any possible way or means that you can think
of that will put a stop to the Lord's fulfilling his word? I will tell
you one way—if you will all turn infidels and burn up the Bible, and
then begin to persecute, the devil will tell you that you can
successfully overcome, and that God will never fulfill and accomplish
his word; but if you profess to believe the Bible, by the Bible you
shall be judged, for, saith the Lord, "My words shall judge you at the
last day." The books will be opened, God's word will be the standard
by which the nations will be judged; hence if you wish a righteous
judgment I would say—Forbear, do not destroy the Bible because it
advocates polygamy; but remember that every word of God is pure, so it
is declared; and he has nowhere in this book, condemned plural
marriage, even in one instance.
I know that it has been argued that there is a law against polygamy;
but in order to make the law, the Scripture had to be altered. It is in
that famous passage which has become a byword in the mouth of every
schoolboy in our streets, Leviticus xviii. ch., 18 v. Now let us
examine for a few moments that passage and see what it says. You will
find that the fore part of this chapter forbids marriage between certain blood relations. Prior to this time it had been lawful
for a man to marry two sisters. Jacob, for instance, married Rachel
and Leah, and there was no law against it prior to this time. It had
also been lawful for a man to marry his own sister, as in the days of
Adam, for you know there were no other ladies on the face of the earth
for the sons of Adam except their own sisters, and they were obliged
to marry them or to live bachelors. But the Lord saw proper when he
brought the children of Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness, to
regulate the law of marriage, so far as certain blood relations were
concerned, called the law of consanguinity, which speaks of a great
many relationships, and finally comes to a wife and her sister. This
law was given to regulate the marriage relations of the children of
Israel in the wilderness. It was not to regulate those who lived
before that day who had married sisters; not to regulate those who
might live in the latter days, but to regulate the children of Israel
in that day. It reads thus: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness besides the other in her
lifetime."
This passage has been altered by certain monogamists in order to
sustain their ideas of marriage, and we find in some large Bibles what
are called marginal readings that these monogamists have put in, and
instead of taking this in connection with all other blood
relationships, they have altered it—Neither shalt thou take one wife
to another. The men who translated King James' Bible were monogamists,
yet they had sense enough to know that the original Hebrew would not
bear that construction which has been given by later monogamists. The
original Hebrew, when translated word for word, makes it just as King
James' translators have made it. The Hebrew words are—Ve-ishaw
elahotah-lo takkah. These are the original Hebrew words, and if they
are translated literally, word for word, the translation stands just
as it is in the text. But this is not saying but what the words,
El-ahotah, under certain circumstances, are translated in another
form, namely, "one to another," "one sister to another," and I am
willing that it should be translated that way. Then it would
read—"Thou shalt not take one sister to another to vex her in her life
time." So you may take it either way, and it bears out King James'
translation, or the meaning given by him.
I do not profess to be a Hebraist to any very great extent, although I
studied it sufficiently many years ago, to understand its grammatical
construction, and to translate any passage in the Bible; but then,
having lacked practice for many years, of course a person may become a
little rusty in regard to these matters. But I have searched out all
the passages that can be found in the Old Testament, either singular
or plural, masculine or feminine, pertaining to the words contained in
this text, and I find a far greater number rendered according to the
words that are here given, literally, in this text than what are
translated—"one sister to another." But I am willing that this
translation should be allowed.
Now, if we thought the congregation would like to hear the translation
of all this, and the reasons why, we could give it; but I presume that
there are but few Hebrew scholars present, and if the translation were
given, the great majority of the congregation would not understand
whether it was translated correctly or not, and for that reason I
shall not take up your time by referring to these technicalities. But I will make the broad statement, that there is not
a Hebrew scholar living on this earth who can translate that passage
from the words contained in the original Hebrew, without adding words
of his own, not contained in the original text, if he translates it,
as Dr. Newman did—"one wife to another." If the first
word—Ve-ishaw
means one, as he would try to have us understand, it does not mean
wife also: but if it means wife, it cannot be translated as he has it,
and therefore it cannot bear out that construction. But I see that I
am dwelling too long on the subject of the law of Moses.
Now I wish to come directly to the point in regard to polygamy as it
exists at the present time among the Latter-day Saints. I stated in
the beginning of my remarks, that polygamy, or any other institution
that was given at one age, might not be binding upon another, without
a fresh revelation from God. I made that statement when I was
discussing that subject in this house. I still say, that we are not
under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and
commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times. Why
then do the Latter-day Saints practice polygamy? That is a plain
question. I will answer it just as plainly. It is because we believe,
with all the sincerity of our hearts, as has been stated by former
speakers from this stand, that the Lord God who gave revelations to
Moses approbating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day
Saints, not only approbating it, but commanding it, as he commanded
Israel in ancient times.
Now let us reason on this point. If God did do such things in former
ages of the world, why not the same Being, if he sees proper, perform
the same or similar things in another age of the world? Can anyone
answer this? If God saw proper to give certain laws in ancient times,
and then to revoke them; or if he saw proper to give laws that were
not revoked, but done away by the transgressions of the children of
men, has he not a right, and is it not just as consistent for that
same Divine Being to give laws, for instance, in the 19th century,
concerning our domestic relations, as it was for him to do it in the
days of Moses? And if he has that right, as we Latter-day Saints
believe that he has, are not the people's consciences just as sacred
in regard to such laws in these days, as the consciences of ancient
Israel? Or must there be some power to regulate our religious
consciences? Here is a grand question. Shall our religious consciences
be regulated by civil government or civil laws, or shall we have the
privilege of regulating them according to the divine law of the Bible,
or any divine law that may be given in accordance with the ancient
Bible? I answer that, when I was a boy, I thought I lived in a country
in which I could believe in anything that agreed with, or that could
be proved by the Bible, whether it was in the law of Moses or in the
doctrines of the New Testament. I really thought the Jews had a right
to reject Christ, or, in other words, if they had not the right to do
it morally, they had the right, so far as civil law is concerned, to
reject this Messiah, and to believe in and practice the law of Moses
in our land; but I am told that such liberty of conscience is not to
be tolerated in our Republican government. If the Jews should collect
in any great numbers, and should say one to another—"Come brethren, we
are the descendants of Abraham, let us now begin to practice according
to the laws that were given to our ancient fathers, and if a
brother dies and leaves a widow, but no children, let his living
brother, though a married man, marry the widow, according to our law,"
it is doubtful whether they would be permitted to associate together
and practice those laws now, if they were so disposed. Why? Because
the prejudice of the people is so great that they are not willing
others should believe in the whole Bible, but only in such portions
as agree with their ideas. If we were instituting a practice that the
Lord God never approbated, but for the punishment of which he had
prescribed penalties, or if we were introducing something foreign and
contrary to the Bible, then there would be some excuse for the people
in saying that such a thing should not be practiced in the name of
religion. But when we take the Bible as a standard in relation to
crime, it is altogether another thing; and I do think that every
American citizen who professes to believe in any part or portion of
that sacred record, on which all the laws of Christendom pretend to be
founded, has the right to do so, and to practice it, and that, too,
without being molested.
Now, after having said so much in relation to the reason why we
practice polygamy, I want to say a few words in regard to the
revelation on polygamy. God has told us Latter-day Saints that we
shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I
have heard now and then (I am very glad to say that only a few such
instances have come under my notice), a brother or a sister say, "I am
a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy." Oh, what an
absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, "I
am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not be lieve in him."
One is just as consistent as the other. Or a person might as well say,
"I believe in Mormonism, and in the revelations given through Joseph
Smith, but I am not a polygamist, and do not believe in polygamy,"
What an absurdity! If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is
true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as
revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig
for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the
Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly
impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these
books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of
them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme; it is
an absurdity that exists because of the ignorance of some people. I
have been astonished at it. I did hope there was more intelligence
among the Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle
than to suppose that anyone can be a member of this Church in good
standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who
reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned,
saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not
receive it, shall be damned. Now here comes in our consciences. We
have either to renounce Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book
of Covenants, and the whole system of things as taught by the
Latter-day Saints, and say that God has not raised up a Church, has
not raised up a prophet, has not begun to restore all things as he
promised, we are obliged to do this, or else to say, with all our
hearts, "Yes, we are polygamists, we believe in the principle, and we
are willing to practice it, because God has spoken from the heavens."
Now I want to prophesy a little. It is not very often that I prophesy,
though I was commanded to do so, when I was a boy. I want to prophesy
that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given
in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit
of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their
opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell
and be damned, if they do not repent. That is just as true as it is
that all the nations and kingdoms of the earth, when they hear this
Gospel which God has restored in these last days, will be damned if
they do not receive it; for the Lord has said so. One is just as true
as the other. I will quote this latter saying, as recorded in the Book
of Covenants. The Lord said to the Elders of this Church, in the very
commencement as it were, "Go ye forth and preach the Gospel to every
creature, and as I said unto mine ancient Apostles, even so I say unto
you, that every soul who believes in your words, and will repent of
his sins and be baptized in water shall receive a remission of his
sins, and shall be filled with the Holy Ghost; and every soul in all
the world who will not believe in your words, neither repent of his
sins, shall be damned; and this revelation or commandment is in force
from this very hour, upon all the world," as fast as they hear it.
That is what the Lord has said. Just so, in regard to polygamy, or any
other great principle which the Lord our God reveals to the
inhabitants of the earth.
Now, if you want to get into darkness, brethren and sisters, begin to
oppose this revelation. Sisters, you begin to say before your
husbands, or husbands you begin to say before your wives, "I do not
believe in the principle of polygamy, and I intend to instruct my
children against it." Oppose it in this way, and teach your children
to do the same, and if you do not become as dark as midnight there is
no truth in Mormonism. I am taking up too much time. I would like to
dwell on another more pleasing part of this subject, if there were
time. (President G. A. Smith—"There is plenty of time, brother
Pratt." )
I will go on and tell the people why polygamy was instituted in this
dispensation. So far as a future state is concerned, God has revealed
to us that marriage as instituted by him, is to benefit the people,
not in this world only, but to all eternity. That is what the Lord has
revealed. Do not misunderstand me; do not suppose that I mean that
marriage and giving in marriage are to be performed after the
resurrection; I have not stated any such thing, and there will be no
such thing after the resurrection. Marriage is an ordinance pertaining
to this mortal life—to this world—this probation, just the same as
baptism and the laying on of hands; it reaches forth into eternity,
and has a bearing upon our future state; so does baptism; so does the
ordinance of the laying on of hands; so does every ordinance which the
Lord our God has revealed to us. If we attend to these things here in
this life, they secure something beyond this life—for eternity. They
neither baptize, nor receive baptism, after the resurrection. Why?
Because neither was intended to be administered after the
resurrection. After the resurrection they neither marry nor are given
in marriage. Why? Because this is the world where these ceremonies are
to be attended to. That which is secured here, will be secured hereafter, if it be secured upon the principles of law which God has
revealed. Marriage, then for eternity, is the great principle of
marriage with the Latter-day Saints; and yet, I am sorry to say, that
there are some of our young people who will suffer themselves to be
married by the civil law; not for eternity, but just like the old
Gentile custom—the way our forefathers were married. A justice of the
peace, a judge, or someone having the right by the civil laws, will
pronounce them husband and wife for a short space, called time;
perhaps to last only about three score years, and then it is all over
with the marriage contract; it is run out; they are husband and wife
until death shall separate them, and then they are fully divorced. We
do not believe in any such nonsense; it is one of the ideas of the
Gentile world in regard to marriage.
The first great marriage celebrated in this world of ours—that of our
first parents—is a sample of marriage that should be introduced and
practiced by and among all generations and nations, so far as the
eternity of its duration is concerned. Our first parents were immortal
beings; they knew nothing about death; it was a word that had never
been spoken in their ears. The forbidden fruit had never been laid
before them; no law in respect to that was yet given. But Eve was
brought to our father Adam as an immortal woman, whose body could not
die to all ages of eternity; she was given to an immortal husband,
whose body could not die to all future periods of duration, unless
they brought death upon themselves. Sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; death is one of the consequences of sin; and they
brought it upon themselves. But before that, they were married—the
immortal Adam had the immortal Eve given to him.
Now if it had been possible for them to have resisted that temptation,
they would have been living now, just as fresh, and as full of vigor,
life and animation, after six thousand years, as they were on the
morning in which this ceremony of marriage took place; and if you
should reflect upon millions and millions of ages in the future, they
would still be considered husband and wife, while eternity should
last. You could not set a time—you could not point your finger at a
moment or hour, when they would be separated, and the union be
dissolved.
That is the kind of marriage that we Latter-day Saints believe in; and
yet some of our young people, professing to be members of the Church,
and who say they wish to keep the commandments of God, go and get
married by a justice of the peace, or some person authorized to
perform that ceremony by the civil law. Ask parties who are guilty of
such folly, why they were married by these officers of the law until
death should part them? and they will say, "We did it inconsiderately,
and without reflection," or perhaps they will say that their parents
did not teach them on that point. Do you not know that such marriages
are not sealed by him that is appointed by divine authority? That they
are not of God and are illegal in his sight, and your children are
illegitimate in the sight of God? If you expect to have any benefits
in eternity arising from your children, they must be yours legally,
according to divine appointment, under a divine marriage. "What God
has joined together let not man put asunder." But what has God to do
with it, when a magistrate, who, perhaps, is an infidel, and does not
believe in a God at all, says to a man and woman, "Join your
hands together," and then, when they have done so, he says, "I
pronounce you husband and wife?" What has God to do with such a
marriage as that? Has God joined them together? No, a civil magistrate
has done it; and it is legal so far as the laws of the country are
concerned, and the children are legal and heirs to their parents
property so far as the civil law is concerned, but what has God to do
with it? Has he joined them together? No, and the marriage is illegal,
and, in the sight of heaven, the children springing from such a
marriage are bastards.
How are we going to legalize these matters? There are many who are
very sorry for the Latter-day Saints; so sorry that they would favor
the passing of a law which would legalize all the children who have
been born in polygamy, and thus prevent them from being what they
consider bastards. Now we are just as anxious, on the other hand, to
get all our fathers and mothers, who have been married by these
Gentile institutions, joined together by divine authority, in order
that they may become legal in the sight of God. We do not want their
children to be bastardized; and hence, we get them adopted, or we
shall do so when the Temple is built; I mean all those who have been
born of parents that have never been joined together of the Lord or by
his authority. All such children, as well as men and women, married
only by the civil law, have got to have ordinances performed for them
in the Temple. The men and women will have to be legally married
there; and the children born before their parents were thus legally
married, will have to pass through ordinances in order that they may
become the legal sons and daughters of their parents; they will have
to be adopted according to the law of God. You young men and women,
who are married in a manner that the Lord does not authorize or own,
put yourselves to a great deal of trouble, because you will have a
great deal of work to do hereafter in temples in order to get things
legalized. How much better it would be for you to come to those whom
God has appointed, and have your marriages solemnized as immortal
beings, who have to live to all eternity.
It is true that we have all to die by and by, and we shall be
separated for a little season; but this separation is a good deal like
a man's leaving his family to go on a mission: he returns after a
while to his wives and children, and he has not lost the one nor has
he been divorced from the other, because they have been separated. And
if death separates, for a little season, those who are married
according to God's law, they expect to return, to each other's
embraces by virtue of their former union; for it is as eternal as God
himself.
"Do you mean to say," says one, "that people in the immortal state,
will be united in the capacity of husbands and wives, with their
children around them?" Yes, we do believe that all persons who have
these blessings sealed upon them here, by the authority of the Most
High, will find that they reach forward into the eternal world, and
they can hold fast to that which God has placed upon them. "Whatsoever
you seal on earth," said the Lord to the ancient Apostles, "shall be
sealed in the heavens." What could be of more importance than the
relationship of families—the solemn and sacred relationship of
marriage? Nothing that we can conceive of. It affects us here and it
affects us hereafter in the eternal world; therefore, if we can have
these blessings pronounced upon us by divine authority and we,
when we wake up in the morning of the first resurrection, find that we
are not under the necessity of either marrying or giving in marriage,
having attended to our duty beforehand, how happy we shall be to
gather our wives and our children around us! How happy old Jacob will
be, for instance, when in the resurrection, if he has not already
been raised—a great many Saints were raised when Jesus arose and
appeared to many—if Jacob did not rise then, and his four wives, and
his children, how happy he will be, when he does come forth from the
grave, to embrace his family, and to rejoice with them in a fulness of
joy, knowing that, by virtue of that which was sealed upon him here in
time, he will reign upon the earth! Will it not be a glorious thing,
when that polygamist, by virtue of promises made to him here, comes
forth to reign as king and priest over his seed upon the earth? I
think that in those days polygamy will not be hated as it is now. I
think that all things that have been prophesied by the ancient
prophets will be fulfilled, and that Jacob will get his wives, by
virtue of the covenant of marriage; and that he will have them here on
the earth, and he will dwell with them here a thousand years, in spite
of all the laws that may be passed to the contrary. And they will be
immortal personages, full of glory and happiness. And Jesus will also
be here, and the Twelve Apostles will also sit on the twelve thrones
here on the earth, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and during a
whole thousand years, they will eat and drink at the table of the
Lord, according to the promise that was made to them.
Old Father Abraham will come up with his several wives, namely Sarah,
Hagar and Keturah and some others mentioned in Genesis; and besides
these all the holy prophets will be here on the earth. I do not think
there will be any legislation against polygamy.
By and by they will build a polygamous city, and it will have twelve
gates, and in order to place as much honor upon these gates as
possible, they will name them after the twelve polygamist children
that were born to the four polygamous wives of Jacob; and these good
old polygamists will be assembled together in this beautiful city, the
most beautiful that ever had place on the earth.
By and by some Christian will come along, and he will look at these
gates and admire their beauty, for each gate is to be constructed of
one immense splendid pearl. The gates are closed fast and very high,
and while admiring their beauty he observes the inscriptions upon
them. Being a Christian he of course expects to enter, but looking at
the gates, he finds the name of Reuben inscribed on one of them. Says
he—"Reuben was a polygamous child; I will go on to the next, and see
if there is the name of a monogamous child anywhere." He accordingly
visits all the twelve gates, three on each side of the city, and finds
inscribed on each gate the name of a polygamous child, and this
because it is the greatest honor that could be conferred on their
father Jacob, who is in their midst, for he is to sit down with all
the honest and upright in heart who come from all nations to partake
of the blessings of that kingdom.
"But," says this Christian, "I really do not like this; I see this is
a polygamous city. I wonder if there is not some other place for me! I
do not like the company of polygamists. They were hated very badly
back yonder. Congress hated them, the President hated them,
the cabinet hated them, the Priests hated them, and everybody hated
them, and I engendered the same hatred, and I have not gotten rid of it
yet. I wonder if there is not some other place for me?" Oh yes, there
is another place for you. Without the gates of the city there are
dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, adulterers and whosoever loveth and
maketh a lie. Now take your choice, Amen.