My brethren, sisters and friends: The congregation is large, and I
hope to be so directed by the Spirit, that all present who so desire
may be enabled to hear and understand.
The Sabbath is the day provided expressly for the reception of
spiritual food. The speakers, or those who may be called upon to
teach, need all the resources that are within their reach in order to
satisfy a congregation of hungry souls, they need particularly the
faith and prayers of the Saints, the influence and power of the Holy
Ghost, the manifestation of the authority of the Holy Priesthood, so
that there may be instruction upon the important topics and principles
of the Gospel, not the theoretical ones alone, but those that are
interwoven with our daily life.
There is a vast amount of experience in the aggregate among the
people. Individual experience forms one of the treasure houses from
whence a speaker can draw the supplies that are necessary and
advantageous for a sympathetic audience. There is a great deal implied
in a congregation like the present one; there is much more implied in
the aggregation of congregations forming a community, from communities
to nations, from nations to mankind at large. The most narrow as well
as most dense communities are made up of the family organization.
There is found circle within circle, or as the Prophet had it, "wheel
within wheel;" and the homes of a community should be the outgrowth,
not of theories alone, but of the faith, knowledge, and understanding
of those relationships which exist there. When these family
organizations are based upon knowledge they are likely to be more
permanent. If they are only thoughtless or theoretical, or if they
exist without information, circumstances, pressure, opportunities are
very likely to disintegrate them, to break them up, to dissolve them,
and so through indifference for each other substitute an anomalous
condition of selfishness amongst those members who otherwise should
form connected and interwoven circles.
In Christendom the marriage covenant is the foundation of the home.
The ideas which men hold concerning it, lay at the foundation of all
social order, all unity and all government, and even the welfare of
future ages depends upon the theories cherished in regard to home and
family associations. The thoughts held and the practice growing out of
these, are surely higher than could be possible in the families of a
community where the sexual relations remain undetermined, where they
are without restraint and without order, there will inevitably be
chaos, disruption and contention, and the body politic would speedily
and inevitably under loose conditions, degenerate and pass away. But
this marriage organization and institution has existed from the
beginning. It has been the binding and sealing power of the family; it
has perpetuated those families from the time that Eve was given to
Adam to the last marriage that took place in our own immediate
neighborhood. The Lord said that it was not good that man should be
alone. He gave to him as a helpmate one of His daughters by the name
of Eve. This relationship was then, instituted by the Almighty, and
therefore a man and his wife should really become one; their
interests, their labors should be blended; their responsi bilities
should be mutual; and in thus helping and aiding each other they
should train the posterity that God might give them in His fear and in
the practice of righteousness, so that His rule and Kingdom might
exist and prevail upon the earth.
In all nations, from the highest civilized to the lowest tribal
relation, among the wanderers of the earth, there is more or less
semblance of this organization, this family compact, this united
responsibility; garnished in many lands with pomp and ceremony, and
with all the appliances and sanctities of religion. In others with
less, and still less of this, until we come to where with but little
ceremony the dusky Indian captures the maiden of his choice, and takes
her to the tent which he has erected for himself.
The Scriptures give an account simply of the woman Eve; declaring that
this name was given her of Adam, because she was "the mother of all
living;" but outside of biblical record there has been handed down
from time immemorial the idea that Adam had two wives, the narrators
go so far, or rather so near perfecting the tradition so as to give
their names, Lilith being said to be the name of one as Eve was the
name of the other, and while it may be difficult to harmonize all the
Rabbinical and Talmudic versions of this matter, it is said that
Joseph Smith the Prophet taught that Adam had two wives. Without
however, assuming or basing anything upon this theory, or upon this
tradition—which may be mythical in its character—it is nevertheless,
very evident that marriage was ordained of God; and when we take into
our hands the record of the Holy Scriptures that have been handed down
to us by our fathers, that have been cherished in parts by the
ancient people of God, and in latter times consolidated; passing
through various channels under peculiar circumstances, and with an
apparent special providence continuing and protecting the same—we find
throughout the pages thereof that marriage everywhere for four
thousand years, at all events, was recognized as of divine origin. One
of the latest assertions in regard to it, as addressed to the early
Saints by Paul, was, that marriage was honorable in all, and further
that it was typical of that union and headship held by Jesus to the
Church, and from this comes an added force to the Savior's words, who,
when speaking on this topic said: "what God hath joined together let
no man put asunder."
The sanctity of the marriage relation had another feature in ancient
Israel: that great family of promise were divided into tribal
relations, and by these their genealogical tables were kept perfect.
Any marital connection or alliance, outside of that order was visited
with indignation, condemnation and punishment. Those who were guilty
of violating the order of marriage were looked upon as guilty of
something which destroyed the root and foundations of society. They
were held to be guilty of introducing things and practices which
vitiated the value of genealogical record, and which made the
perpetuity of families a comparative impossibility and had it not been
for tribal carefulness in this direction, for this supervision which
controlled and regulated the people of God, it would have been
impossible in the days of the Savior for the Apostles to have traced
His genealogy back to the early Prophets and Patriarchs. That which
men now apply only as a rule, in regard to stock, or to some of the
most ancient families of mankind, by the people of God, was looked
upon as the one perfect chain to demonstrate hereditary descent.
We are told in tracing one of the genealogies from father to son—or
from son to father, in a backward direction to Adam—that finally Adam
was said to be the son of God, and by a close application of the
principles of logic, it may be assumed that all the posterity of Adam
are by direct descent the sons and daughters of the living God. It
will also be found in the prophecies of Isaiah regarding the Savior,
that He should be called the "Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God,
the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." When we come to His own
conversation, where His Apostles asked Him if He would show unto them
the Father, He said: "Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou
not known me? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." This
statement is reiterated time and again in the Book of Mormon, and in
the sacred writings that we have received. Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, the Redeemer of the world, was not the Son only, but the
prophetic declaration was fulfilled in Him—He was verily and indeed
the Everlasting Father. So by the same application of logic and
inferential evidence from holy writ, wherever you find a man he is the
son of somebody, and his existence is perpetual and eternal. Every
Father becomes, by virtue of his position, an everlasting father. He
in this respect represents the same characteristic as that occupied by
the Great Father of us all. And throughout the countless ages of
eternity, any man who has ever assumed or occupied the position and
continues faithful to its respon sibilities, will forever
remain to his posterity "the Everlasting Father."
As far as we can glean from the sacred records, we find that this
relationship was established for the bringing upon this sphere of
action a posterity. The powers and functions which had been conferred
upon man and woman were exemplified in this direction, and when a
man's wife was barren, when any of these daughters of Israel in
ancient times were childless, it was considered to be a reproach to
them, yet in the exercise of faith and by the blessing of the
Almighty, and by obedience to the patriarchal order, many of these
ancient sisters, the progenitors of the Israel of the latter days,
were delivered from barrenness, and became the mothers of a vast and
ever increasing host of posterity. Those who are familiar with the
sacred Scriptures will remember one of the wives of Jacob; they will
remember the case of Hannah, the mother of Samuel the Prophet, and
there are others which are familiar to our minds which need not be
quoted. The desire for offspring among the wives of Israel was a
prevailing feeling, because it was understood that from that lineage
should come the Messiah of the latter days, and every daughter of
Israel was anxious that in a direct line she might be the honored of
God, in being the medium through which should come the Redeemer, the
promised Immanuel.
It ought also to be remarked in connection with this question, that
marriage was at times polygamic as well as monogamic—that is, right
away in the early history of the world there were men who had more
wives than one. Lamech was the first who is mentioned in Scripture.
And here it might be observed, although probably all understand it,
that the Bible does not profess to give a perfect history in detail of
the habits and practices of the ancient people of God, for these are
only secondary to the ever present assertions of divine interest in
and regulation of the human family. There are only revealings or
incidental glimpses here and there in regard to the principles of
social and domestic life, and hintings of some which have been kept
hid from then to now; but that marriage was the heritage of man is
certain, and that while under many circumstances it was monogamic,
there were also many cases in which it was of a polygamic character,
and in both instances it was given by command and then received the
approbation of the heavens. It was regulated and sustained by the
great lawgivers of ancient Israel, who were inspired to point out in
detail the limits of consanguinity, the times and seasons of
privilege, and what should be the method of securing posterity under
such and such circumstances; until the time came when Israel as a
nation enjoyed its highest glory, and then we find that this principle
(polygamy) formed one of the leading features of the household
extension in the kings of that time. David is a noted illustration.
Solomon was another, and in the comments of the Scriptures regarding
these two men, notwithstanding their multiplicity of wives, we find no
condemnation save in the fact that they in other respects violated the
fundamental law of ancient Israel. David, we are told, captured the
wife of another man by stratagem and because he did this he fell under
condemnation. The son that was born to him of that connection died a
premature death; but afterwards when he repented, he married and still
retained that self same woman, Bathsheba; the Lord blessed and
acknowledged David's repentance and her position by giving her for a
son the great Jedediah, or Solomon, and finally in a direct line
through her, came also the Redeemer of Israel. The Scriptures in
commenting upon David's practice say that in "none of these things did
he violate the commandments, save in the case of the wife of Uriah"
[1st. Kings, 15, 5.] We are also told that Solomon multiplied wives
and families unto himself, yet his reign formed an era in the national
life of Israel. It was during his administration as King and Priest
under the order of God, that that wonderful temple was built and
dedicated which received the sanction and approbation of the heavens;
of the resting upon it of the cloud by day so that the Priests could
not minister at the altar, and the descent of fire from heaven, which
consumed the sacrifice presented, were both tokens of divine
acceptance and recognition, and we have not found in reading the
history of Solomon that his conduct was condemned save in the fact
that he took unto himself wives of the outside nations contrary to the
law, which declared that the marriages of Israel should be within
their own immediate families (Deut. 7th, 3rd), and as a result the
record declares that it was these heathen wives which he took, those
women that were captured in war or those that he had from choice or
were given to him for conciliatory alliance from surrounding nations
who led away his heart from the worship of the God of Israel, and
turned him to the practices of idolatry. With this exception the
presumption is from the evidence that his other marriages were
approved, and in them was his posterity perpetuated. It was the direct
result of the blessing of the Almighty, and through him, as he stood
in a representative position, we may surely assume what the feelings
of Israel were in regard to polygamy or the plurality of wives.
It is more than inferential evidence in favor of this principle which
grows from the consideration of the practice of Solomon and David, and
Abraham and Jacob, and Moses and Gideon, and Jehoiada and Abdon, and
Rehoboam and Abijah, and Esau and Lamech, and Jerubbaal and Jair,
though some of these men were not examples in every act of their
lives, yet the facts are no more in favor of monogamists as to this
than in the day and age in which we live.
Unfair advantage has been taken by opponents of this practice,
because of the Adamic era, but the Rabbinical tradition already
mentioned, while not conclusive, shows that no repulsion existed in
the minds of the honored priesthood of Israel; and, as the Rev. Dr.
Newman quoted the words of Lamech, so we may also have our opinion and
that is that his declaration possessed no reference whatever to his
plurality of wives.
However, in the Christian dispensation it has been assumed that this
practice had become almost obsolete; some have said that it died away
because it was deprecated by the Savior and by His Apostles, but there
appears to have been thoughts in the minds of the latter concerning
marriage which open to our minds many things in regard to that
institution. For instance we are told that man is not without the
woman in the Lord, neither the woman without the man. [1 Cor., 11,
11.] It takes the two, at least, to make a complete and rounded man.
When the first pair were created the Bible expressly declares,
"male and female created he them," and called their name Adam. [Gen.
5, 2.] It included the two; it included the man and wife; and the
theory of the Gospel in Apostolic times was, that a man was an
imperfect being without the woman, and that a woman was also an
imperfect being without the man, and this perfect state could not be
realized or wrought out without the institution of marriage.
It is, then, by this marriage relation that men and women were in the
Lord according to the divine order, carrying out the examples of their
great predecessors, and of their Father in heaven. It may safely be
assumed that marriage with them was an eternal principle; that it was
not meant for time only, but for eternity; that it was a relationship
that was perpetuated, and that this not only included the man and
wife, but of necessity the entire family organization. For our God is
not the God of the dead but of the living, "and what he hath joined
together no man shall put asunder." To the older people here, who are
familiar with the facts made manifest in the human organization, it
may be said that there are certain elements of attraction which lead
the one sex towards the other. This attraction is designated by the
name of love. We are sometimes afraid to exhibit this characteristic;
we think it is unworthy of men or women; and that when a man is said
to be in love, or a woman, it is something that should be veiled from
the eyes and knowledge and understanding of everybody but themselves.
But insomuch as love is one of the great attributes of Deity, this
idea does not recommend itself. It is not only a great attribute of
Deity, but it is the greatest and most potent attribute to be found in
man's and woman's organization. To those who have been allured by its
power; to those who understand its force; to those who realize that it
is the parent of all action almost in life; how it leads men to
sacrifice, to labor, to effort, no argument is needed to show that it
is the greatest power of the human heart. For it men will endure any
amount of sacrifice; for it women will endure and submit to almost any
indignity. The fact is, it is the only element that will bind together
in its original purity the family circle: it is that which leads a man
to go forth in the battle of life to earn the bread that perisheth: it
is that which enables him to look upon his wife as paramount to all
else: it is that which enables her to watch by her infant children,
and in the moment of sickness, with sleepless nights and days of
vigilance, await until there is a restoration to health; it is this
that glorifies the family circle and makes it a little heaven upon
earth; and every man and every woman is cognizant of the fact, that
where love has died out from the altar of home, that home has lost its
greatest attraction. A man does not go there and look upon it as his
little resting place from the care and anxiety of the world when that
feeling has died out. No. He finds his pleasure in the club room, on
the race course, at the gaming table, in political life, in business,
or in many other directions, rather than in the little heaven called
home. Ah! Sad indeed is the fate of those families where this
beautiful, this beneficent, this almighty, this glorifying principle
has failed, or finds no resting place therein.
Now, this is the key to marriage in the abstract. It is its
foundation. It constitutes the glories of its architecture. It brings
upon it its capstone, and finishes the edifice that God
Almighty hath ordained. Yet this element which lays at the foundation
and runs through the whole fabric of married life, in and of itself is
not sufficient to produce and perpetuate that perfect happiness which
men and women desire in this relationship. Man is a compound being.
Woman is a compound being. There are other feelings of the heart
beside affection and love, although these will cover a multitude of
sins. But it is necessary for the best interests of the family
relation that the tastes and habits, feelings and thoughts of the high
contracting parties should run pretty much in the same direction—that
is, so far as intelligence is received. Hence we have the apostolic
injunction given to the early Christians which said: "Be not unequally
yoked with unbelievers." This was one of the commands given to the
early Christians; because it was realized that though the fire of love
may burn fiercely in the early years of wedded life, yet unless there
is unity of sentiment, of thought and of action in regard to the
religion that married couples should possess, and that should be
imposed upon the children there will ever be a probability of
disintegration and disruption, and this rule had its counterpart, or
had its origin, in ancient Israel. It was not intended, as already
stated, that the sons of any of the tribes of Israel should take to
themselves wives of the nations that were round about them; they were
commanded strictly to keep with that family, and where they failed in
this, whether as individuals or in a national capacity, it brought
down upon them the blighting curse of the Almighty, and led them
finally to bondage, and to be carried away to the ends of the earth,
and so many families in our Israel, after years of suffering of
counsel and commandment, have become in a measure lost through the
influence of misdirected and disobedient love.
We all realize the influence that a woman exerts over a man. A man, to
be sure, exerts a good deal of influence over a woman. But I think the
bulk of experience will show that if even a good, devoted Latter-day
Saint woman should be foolishly guilty of marrying outside of the
Church, or marrying a man in the Church who is half-hearted, that her
children will retain more of her individual impress than they will of
the father's. I think observation will establish this fact: that where
there is a devoted father, and an indifferent, unbelieving mother, the
probabilities are that disintegration will set into that family, and
that the majority of them will pass away from the influence of the
Church and from the institutions of the Gospel. Not that either of
these conditions is good—that is, they are not the best conditions.
The best conditions are where there is a devoted man and a devoted
woman, or women, all laboring in the interests of the Kingdom of God
upon the earth, and impressing their own individuality, by the powers
of an educational character upon the posterity that God may give them.
But in regard to this objectionable form of marriage called polygamic,
if this marriage is an eternal principle, it follows almost of
necessity that there will be a period in the experience of thousands
when it must be essentially and eternally polygamic. How many young
wives are there who leave this stage of action sometimes without
children, and sometimes leaving a little fam ily? And under
these circumstances a man marries again; he takes another wife and
raises up another family, and for two or three times or more this may
be the experience of some. Now, if marriage is not for time only, but
for eternity; if the marriage relation is continued, there is a
condition of things which demonstrates that in the life to come at all
events, marriage must be in many cases polygamic—that is, a man must
be possessed of several wives.
Now, our theories of heaven are, that there is nothing there save that
which is pure, save that which is ennobling, save that which is
progressive, save that which is according to the order of God. If, He,
then, in the eternities that are beyond the veil can admit of this
relationship by virtue of the fact that marriage is eternal, does it
not appear strange that such an order is decried by His children upon
the face of the earth.
Nor need it be urged, that in some experiences there is a reversal of
this order, that a woman may be the wife of several men while in the
flesh, and that as a consequence, this arrangement must also be
eternal. It has already been said that woman is subordinate to man,
she was given to be his helpmeet, he was to rule over her, to be the
head, as Christ is the head of the Church, that the man was not
created for the woman, but woman for the man. [See 1st Cor., 1 to 12.]
Besides in the keeping of genealogical record, in the tracing of
family or tribal relations, it is evident that a woman must be the
acknowledged wife of some one man, and that to him alone pertains the
eternity of the marriage covenant by the authority of the Holy
Priesthood. This query is however old in history, it is precisely the
one addressed to the Savior by the Sadducees, who did not believe in
the resurrection. He, however, without condescending to explain the
sealing power to them declared that "when they rise from the dead they
neither marry nor are given in marriage," and the darkened inference
of Christendom has been, that all family organizations, all
characteristics of sex, all procreation of the species would be
obliterated as something pertaining only to the shores of time.
This polygamic form of marriage, however, when we come to consider
humanity, is far in excess of the monogamic. Its influence and power
and practice are felt around the globe, and we can judge of its nature
by that which we have seen and heard of in our own experience.
Ishmael, the son of Abraham, was of polygamic lineage. It was
prophesied of him that he should become the father of many nations,
and in the eastern lands of the earth he has multiplied exceedingly;
and today we find that the gigantic power of England with all its
wealth, with all its appliances of science and civilization, is held
in check by this selfsame Ishmael, the son of Abraham, the friend of
God, so that assumed degeneracy consequent on this system is not
established by facts.
In this land of ours, we find that monogamy is the rule; that there
are laws preventing a departure from this order, and that any
departure from that is visited with a good deal of criticism, with
some legislation, with some pains and penalties, and is made to the
nation a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. Yet we might here
pertinently ask the American nation—"From whence did you derive your
monogamy? We might ask Old England the same question. I would
like to ask if it has been accepted as the result of an intelligent
understanding of the two modes of marriage? Rather has it not been
inherited without investigation, without thought, without reflection,
without understanding the marriage covenant? We all know it is the
outgrowth of tradition; that it has been received from the fathers;
and so far from having been an intellectual reception of a principle,
fundamental and eternal, it possesses nothing of that character
whatever. Monogamy was practiced by the fathers, the same as the
religions of mankind were practiced by them, it was received and
accepted unhesitatingly without comment or consideration, without
understanding as to whether it was conclusively the best, or whether
it was the worst, or whether it was of God, or whether it was of man,
or whether anything different today might or might not be of Him.
Now, here is a little community called Latter-day Saints, who believe
in both orders. They have accepted marriage in the abstract. They do
not believe that society should run at loose ends in its sexual
relations. They believe that a violation of those laws is as much a
wrong today as it was in the days of ancient Israel, and they believe
further that all sexual irregularities should be visited by penalties
of divine sanction and appointment; and still more, that that which
was right, that which was commanded, that which was encouraged, that
which was practiced, that which was regulated among ancient Israel,
and that which will be practiced and is inevitable behind the veil,
cannot be an offense in the sight of God, in the day and age in which
we live.
But it may be said, why speak of this matter when there is so much
excitement in regard to it? For the best of all reasons, that this is
a free country, that free speech has never been forbidden, has never
been checked, has never been curtailed. It is the heritage we have
received from our fathers, and we are at liberty to speak of the
institutions that lay at the foundation of society, and to analyze and
understand them. There are thousands of our youth growing up that are
not familiar with the fundamental principles pertaining to marriage;
with the ideas and theories and practices of the nations that have
grown out of this relationship; and it needs that they should
understand why this turmoil exists, and whether there is a good
foundation for the position that men take everywhere in regard to that
principle, and which leads to the persecution of their fathers, and
the ostracism of their community.
When we come to the sacred books that have been received by the Church
we find that, in regard to this dual idea of marriage—marriage in the
monogamic form, and marriage in the polygamic form—the Book of Mormon
expressly declares that it was necessary in the first colonization of
this country that marriage should be monogamic, because the sexes were
equal, and the people realized that marriage was an indispensable
thing to both man and woman; but there is also indication that
necessity would give final enlargement to this practical question.
So it was when Noah came out of the ark, and there are other periods
in the history of mankind when nothing but monogamic marriage could
prevail without doing an injustice to those round about them. But
where there is no chance of this injustice; where every man is
free; where every woman is free; where there are thousands of mankind
that never marry at all, and thousands of women who by law cannot
marry, there is room for the exercise of the polygamic form thereof;
so that, in argument, the sacred books of old Israel, the sacred books
of Christendom, the sacred books of the Mormons, or Latter-day Saints,
all tend to substantiate the idea that marriage in the abstract is of
God; and that it is or has been of Him, both in the monogamic and
polygamic form. Still further, these written revelations are not the
only evidence of the fact that monogamic marriage and polygamic
marriage are both susceptible of practice by the human family. Who is
there that is acquainted with himself or herself—where is the man and
where is the woman who does not realize, if they have attained to
mature years and experience, that all the functions of manhood and
womanhood can be subserved in both forms of marriage, and often better
in the polygamic. If in this ever present revelation of the Almighty,
of the finger of God in man's organization, and in woman's, it had
been decreed that polygamy was an immoral thing, and that it did
violence to either, then that would be evidence to go against the
sacred books that we have received from the past, and from those of
the present; and if Joseph Smith had come forth claiming to be a
Prophet of God, and had given a revelation testifying to the necessity
and advantage of polygamic marriage, and this revelation had come in
contact with the revelation of man's experience, with the revelation
written in his own organization, then it would have nullified itself;
but it is in harmony with such a revelation, and shows the possibility
and susceptibility and natural character of marriage in the polygamic
relation. During a certain debate held in this house in regard to this
very question, Doctor Newman asserted that there were evidences
against this practice in the Bible. I consider that the Bible has been
read by the Latter-day Saints as much as ever it was read by Dr.
Newman, although they may not have done so in the original tongue—they
may not have Leviticus 18:18—as he had it—but yet they have that
great gift of God which is called common sense, to say nothing of the
inspiration of His Spirit, and they are just as well able to
understand the revelations of the past as Doctor Newman with all his
knowledge of the original rendition and meaning of the Hebrew
character.
And if a tree is to be judged by its fruits, what of the whoredoms,
the adultery, the fornication, the prostitution of women in monogamic
nations? What of sexual diseases, of blighted lives, of martyred
women, of little graves dotting every hillside and the resting places
of the dead? What of feticide, infanticide and abortion? What of the
decimated power and numbers of the best society, what of their liaisons
and their divorce courts, and other damning features which cling
closely to the skirts of modern Sodoms, the paragons and promoters of
monogamic marriage?
Dr. Newman also made another remark something like this: that polygamy
was not intended for the poor man, that it was intended for the kings
of the earth, overlooking the fact, however, that Israel is a nation
of kings and priests; so that when he said that polygamy or the
practice of a plurality of wives was intended only for kings,
it brought home a truth pregnant with thought; for God decreed that he
would gather His Israel from the poor of all nations, and so in Rev.
5, 10, they are represented as singing a new song, "Thou hast made us
Kings and Priests to God, and we shall reign on the earth;" and this
principle was to extend not through time only, but through the
countless ages of eternity, so that His people might occupy the
position of eternal fathers and eternal mothers, and be indeed Kings
and Priests forever and forever.
There are also other avenues of information besides those sacred
records, and besides those revelations written in the organization of
man and woman at large, and that is the revelation of individual
experience. There are many men and women who have practiced this
principle in the midst of Israel for thirty years and upwards. I have
heard their testimonies time and time again, and they declare that
their experience corroborated the exhortation, commandments and
practices of Holy Writ, and the revelations written in their own
organization; and they tell me that in this relation they have been
blessed, they have been prospered, they have had around them the
influence of the Spirit of the Almighty; that peace has been upon
their household and habitation, and that they have been enabled
through that principle to multiply their posterity upon the earth.
Where are these? They are everywhere throughout this Territory, and
their experience, corroborating those other revelations which I have
mentioned, forms a threefold cord that cannot by any process or by any
power be broken. I will say as the result of my own experience—for I
have lived in that relationship— that to me and to mine it was
productive of good, although it came in contact with our tradition.
Although it came in contact with the practices of the fathers, and
with our feelings, yet, in its experience it demonstrated itself to be
of God, and no better time have I had in thirty years of married life
than when I had three wives given me of God, and occupying but one
habitation. The power of God was in that home; the spirit of peace was
there, the spirit of intelligence was there; and we had our ever
present testimony that God recognized the patriarchal order, that
which had been practiced by His servants ages and ages ago and
revealed to us in the dispensation of the fullness of times; and
although two of these have gone behind the veil, they went there with
a consciousness of having done their duty in this life, and that they
would meet in the life beyond those who agreed with them in practice
and in faith; from this condition came the discipline of life, the
power of self-restraint, a tender regard for each others feelings, and
a sort of jealousy for each others' rights, all tempered by the
consideration that relations meant to be enduring claimed more love
and interest and soul than did monogamy under its best conditions.
Here, then, are some of the evidences in regard to this married
relation that forms the foundation of civilization and of human life,
and that lays at the foundation of the Government of God upon the
earth; according to our ideas concerning this relationship so will our
society and this community become. If we treat the marriage relation
with levity; if we should believe that it was but a civil contract,
and for time only, we should be weak as others and should not
excel: if it is not part of our religion and of God, then it is not of
value to us. In my experience—and that is not a very lengthy one—I
have marked the change in feeling that has come over the nations in
regard to this marriage question. When I was a lad it was very unusual
for a man to take to himself a wife without the sanction of religion.
All the marriages of Old England had to be celebrated in the
Established Church, and a record was kept of them there, and of the
posterity issuing from that marriage, and when these died, their death
also was recorded, so that there was an unbroken chain of genealogical
evidence in that respect often of immense value for legitimacy and
other purposes. But by and by the spirit of religious liberty, as it
was called, began to spread. It is but a hundred years ago, or a
little over, since Methodism was established—the now dominant, or next
to dominant religious organization of Christendom. It began in a small
way; but it increased and spread abroad; it multiplied its converts,
its ministers and its chapels; it became a potent factor, in a
political sense, in the nation, and it was necessary that political
parties should conciliate and cater to this increasingly wealthy
religious organization; and when the Methodists wanted marriages
performed in their own, instead of going to the Established Churches,
their power and influence, the influence of wealth and numbers, their
power as a political factor of the nation, gave them favor in the eyes
of the ministry and the legislature. By and by they were allowed the
privilege of marrying in their own churches and chapels, and by their
own ministers. And as it was with this body, so it was with the
smaller bodies, the satellites thrown off and revolving around the
great planets of religious organization in that country. And then as
this so-called religious liberty increased in spirit, skepticism began
to grow in the minds of many in regard to religious doctrines. There
were thousands of people that had no more faith in Methodism than in
the Established Church, or in Catholicism. They had more faith in Tom
Paine, and Voltaire, and Rosseau, and such men as Ingersoll, and their
liberty made it appear plausible to them that there was no necessity
to go to any church, or seek the aid of any minister, or have any
religious ceremony in connection with their own marriage or the
marriage of their families. So provision was made for this ever
increasing host of skeptics, and finally it was decreed that marriage
was nothing but a civil contract, not needing the service of a
minister, or the sanction of religion, but requiring simply that it
could be entered into after due notion was given, in a public place
and not before a worshiping assembly. In such cases marriage was
entered into as "a civil contract," and when this stage was reached,
inasmuch as it was but a civil contract, "only this and nothing more,"
the next step of necessity was, that it could be dissolved. Where is
there a contract of this nature that cannot be dissolved? If I am
engaged by an employer we can dissolve the engagement whenever either
of us is dissatisfied. And so this feature was applied to marriage;
the laws of divorce were introduced, and that which was once
considered discreditable, difficult and expensive, and would have been
sounded from one end of the land to the other as such, became common
and unworthy of remark.
Thus the bonds of society are loosened; the sanctity of the
marriage relation is destroyed; and the world is filled with
entanglements that are the product of this civil contract business,
and even where this contract remains intact, there is a spirit made
manifest to avoid the responsibilities of marriage as to offspring,
and to live together in numberless cases without any marriage at all;
so that when the connection is broken it may be swept to the wind with
no results traceable or injurious to any of those concerned.
Now, for the safety of society, for the welfare of the human family,
for the love of order and responsibility upon the earth, for faith in
the revelations of God, and for high regard to the practices of His
anointed, I am in favor of the marriage relation. The Latter-day
Saints are in favor of the marriage relation, and they are utterly
opposed to sexual intercourse outside of that. And they do not believe
that marriage is a civil contract alone. Whatever power there may be
in the courts to enforce the claim of a wife against a husband, or the
husband against the wife as a matter of protection, in the main,
marriage is of God, is of divine origin. Marriage requires the
sanction of the authority of the Holy Priesthood in order to give it
force, in order to make it valid in this life and the life to come,
and marriage—polygamic or monogamic, according to the necessities of
the case and the condition of those who enter therein—is in harmony
with all the laws of life; and despite what the world may say, those
that are of polygamic descent without knowing it are to be found among
the rulers of today—the most exalted and the most prominent in a
national sense—even in repudiating Christendom.
In the carrying out of this relationship the Latter-day Saints are
numerous everywhere throughout this Territory: and it is incumbent
upon the rising generation that they should hold to those sacred views
that are held by their fathers; that they should marry within the
confines of the Church; that they should seek for their husbands or
wives, as the case may be, among those who have been obedient to the
principles of the everlasting Gospel, and who comprehend something of
the nature of the marriage covenant. Those of our posterity should not
depart from the ways of our Father; they should not be willing to take
up with the practices of Christendom. They should be under proper
restraint, proper control and direction in all the relationships of
life, because this parental relation among the faithful is an eternal
authority. Those children of ours, they never can get away from their
father and mother in this life, nor in the life to come. If they
should form connection with those outside of the Church and become
aliens to the Gospel, after a long day of repentance they will have to
return and bow the knee if they would have access within that
organization, if they would enjoy all that belongs to that
relationship, if they would inherit the glory with which that
relationship is identified; they will have to repent, as it were, in
dust and ashes and come back to the family circle, compact and
covenant, wherein the Almighty gave them a being. And in this respect
it may be well to drop a hint in regard to the practices of some of
our sons and daughters in this city—where they step outside of what
some call priestly authority. When they come to get up amusements of
their own, they should see that that only which pertains to
good order and good government are introduced, for those inevitably
tend to consolidation and unity. It would be well if our boys would
listen to their fathers' counsel; would respect the authority of their
fathers and mothers who are good Latter-day Saints; and when they want
enjoyment they should seek to keep within the circumscribed limits of
all reputable authority.
There are a great many thoughts arise in my mind, but I presume that I
have occupied all the time desirable and I do not wish to weary the
congregation. The subject I have touched upon, however, is a very
important one. It lies at the foundation of things, and, as I said
before, as it is comprehended by the human family, by us as Latter-day
Saints, so will be their position among the nations, so will be their
power in renovating society, and so will be their measure of
approbation by the heavens.
May God give us wisdom to so maintain ourselves in this relation
whether it be polygamic or monogamic—that we may gain His smile and
approbation, that we may feel His Spirit in our families, in our
hearts, in our going out and coming in, and may we realize that we
have the approbation of heaven, and the sanction of all the powers of
the eternities past, present and to come, as well as the example of
the Patriarchs and Prophets. And when this life shall come to its end
with us, may we be privileged to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, in the kingdom of our Father and God, and make part of a family
there, a great nation of Kings and Priests, associating with those who
have passed through much tribulation and washed their robes white in
the blood of the Lamb through the ordinances of the Gospel; which I
ask may be the case, through Jesus Christ, Amen.
- Henry W. Naisbitt