"POLYGAMY."
I shall be told, however, that the "Mormons" believe in and some of them practise a plurality of wives, and therefore they must be a bad people. But not so fast. Before such a conclusion is drawn it will be necessary to prove that a plurality of wives as practised by the Mormons is in and of itself evil. That principle is as much a part of the religious faith of the women as of the men, and is practised by and with the consent of all parties concerned. It is practised because the people believe that God has commanded it by revelation direct to the Church, for the accomplishment of His own wise purposes—the rearing of a purer and better race of people. Their faith in that revelation is considerably strengthened by reading in the Holy Scriptures how God favored and blessed with His approval that form of marriage among the worthy patriarchs of old; nay, how even God Himself gave to David, according to His own Word (2 Sam. xii., 7, 8), a plurality of wives; thus becoming a party to the evil, if evil it was. But that which God sanctions and approbates can never be said to be evil. And that God did sanction the plural wife system of marriage and approve it is evident from the lives of nearly all the patriarchs and prophets spoken of in the Bible.
I know it is said by Christians that this was in very ancient times, when people lived under the Mosaic Law, and that the law of carnal commandments was superceded by the new dispensation under Christ. Very well, then, shifting the controversy to what is known as the Christian dispensation, we challenge the whole world to produce a single passage from the New Testament directly condemning the plural marriage system of the old patriarchs, or a passage which, by fair interpretation, even by implication condemns it. Such a passage cannot be found. And yet the writers of the New Testament did not hesitate to condemn in the most direct and positive manner every species of sin;—strange, is it not, that they failed to condemn plural marriage, if it was by them or their Master considered sinful? The fact becomes more strange when it is understood that they lived in a country and among a people who practised it. Furthermore, Abraham, Jacob, and the prophets were frequently the theme of conversation and discourse with the writers of the New Testament, and if the plural wife system practised by them was sinful, is it not singular that no condemnation of it should creep into the pages of the New Testament somewhere?
I apprehend that much of the prejudice existing against the marriage system of the Latter-day Saints arises from confounding it with the polygamy of the East—with the harems of Turkey, or the bigamy occasionally practiced in Christian communities; yet we hope to show, so far as may be shown in a few brief sentences, that there is not and cannot be, from the very nature of society in Utah, anything that resembles the Eastern harem, nor do the evils exist which grow out of the ordinary case of bigamy.
In the first place, women in Utah are as free to marry whom they please as they are in any part of the world. Mr. Phil. Robinson says:—
"It is a mistake to suppose there are no educated women in Utah: . . . the young ladies appear as free and independent as in other parts of the United States. . . . if the women of Utah are slaves, their bonds are loving ones and dearly prized. They are today in the free and unrestricted exercise of more political and social rights than are the women of any other part of the United States."—"Saints and Sinners."
To this add the testimony of Mr. Barclay, in the article from the Nineteenth Century, before quoted:—
"The young ladies appear as free and independent as in other parts of the United States; and, if I might hazard an opinion, the young men of Mormondom will find considerable difficulty in persuading them to be content with the share of a husband."
The women of Mormondom are as free to bestow or withhold their hands in marriage as they are in England, and there has not been a day since 1862—the year in which the first law of Congress was passed against polygamy—but what it has been within the power of the wife or wives of a man to send him to the penitentiary, the United States Courts being only too glad to entertain her suit, and break up the polygamous family associations. Yet, in all these years, there have not been half-a-dozen such cases. This entire freedom of women among the "Mormons" robs their plural marriage system of every feature of resemblance to the polygamy of the East; and what is here set down proves that whatever of plural marriage exists in Utah, does so by the mutual consent of all the parties concerned.
In common bigamy the first marriage is studiously concealed by the party contemplating the second marriage. A man represents himself to a lady as a bachelor, and under false pretences and fraud obtains possession of her person. Soon she discovers that she has been betrayed, deceived, degraded,—the sense of shame and sorrow following producing indescribable misery. Nor has it been less productive of evil to the first wife. Her happiness, too, has been wrecked by the perfidy of the wretch she called husband. She has been neglected, abandoned, made an outcast. Where she looked for loyalty, she found treason; where she implicitly trusted, she has been deceived, and her misery and shame is as great as the other victim's.
Now, none of these evils grow out of the plural marriage system of the Mormons. In the first place, a plurality of wives, under certain conditions and restraints, is one of the social institutions of the Society of Utah, and has been for more than a generation. As before remarked, it is practised because the "Mormon" people believe it is commanded of God; it is therefore accepted by both man and woman as part of their religious faith, and is regarded as such by the whole population,—as well by those who do not practise it as by those who do. Consequently it breeds no scandal; it brings no reproach. The position of the plural wife is just as honorable, in every sense of the word, as that of the first wife. She is, in fact, a wife, with all the holy associations growing out of that relationship, and is honored everywhere as such. The same ceremony which unites a man to his first wife is employed to unite him to his second or third, and the same authority—the authority of God—performs it.
As with the plural wife, so with the plural wife's children; they are equally honorable with the children of the first wife,—society makes no distinction between them. When a man takes a plural wife no concealment is made of his first marriage, nor is his first family deserted; all is open and honest. There is no deceit, no fraud practiced, nor can there be. The sanction of the first wife, and the sanction of parents must be obtained, together with the sanction and recommendation of the Bishop who presides over the branch of the Church where the parties live, and who has to be able to state in his recommendation that the parties are members of the Church in good standing; that means that they are honest before God and man, virtuous, faithful in discharging every religious and moral duty, and temperate withal. And unless such a recommendation can be given, the relationship cannot be contracted.
Such, in brief, is an outline of the conditions hedging about the practice of this principle of plural marriage, against which Christians can find no law, either in the Old or New Testament, which even so much as bears the complexion of condemnation, but very much which will bear witness of God's approval of it, even allowing His only-begotten Son, so far as His earthly parentage is concerned, to come through such a lineage, a number of his earthly progenitors being the offspring of plural wives, and themselves practising it. Surely our Christian friends, who look forward to reclining upon Abraham's bosom as one of the highest privileges to be enjoyed in heaven, ought not to criticise too severely the system of marriage which he practised.