Tradition and custom have great influence over nations. Long-established customs, whether right or wrong, become sacred in the estimation of mankind. Those nations who have been accustomed from time immemorial to the practice of what is called polygamy would consider a law abolishing it as the very height of injustice and oppression; the very idea of being limited to the one-wife system would be considered not only oppressive and unjust, but absolutely absurd and ridiculous; it would be considered an innovation upon the long-established usages, customs, and laws of numerous and powerful nations; an innovation of the most dangerous character, calculated to destroy the most sacred rights and privileges of family associations—to upset the very foundations of individual rights, rendered dear and sacred by being handed down to them from the most remote ages of antiquity.
On the other hand, the European nations who have been for centuries restricted by law to the one-wife theory would consider it a shocking innovation upon the customs of their fathers to abolish their restrictive laws, and to give freedom and liberty according to the plurality system. It is custom, then, in a great degree, that forms the conscience of nations and individuals in regard to the marriage relationships. Custom causes four fifths of the population of the globe to decide that polygamy, as it is called, is a good, and not an evil practice; custom causes the balance, or the remaining fifth, to decide in opposition to the great majority.
Those individuals who have strength of mind sufficient to divest themselves entirely from the influence of custom, and examine the doctrine of a plurality of wives under the light of reason and revelation, will be forced to the conclusion that it is a doctrine of divine origin; that it was embraced and practiced under the divine sanction by the most righteous men who ever lived on the earth: holy prophets and patriarchs, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost—who were enrapt in the visions of the Almighty—who conversed with holy angels—who saw God face to face, and talked with him as a man talks with his friend—were “polygamists,” that is, they had many wives—raised up many children by them—and were never reproved by the Holy Ghost, nor by angels, nor by the Almighty, for believing in and practicing such a doctrine; on the contrary, each one of these “polygamists” received by revelation promises and blessings for himself, for his wives, and for his numerous children born unto him by his numerous wives. Moreover, the Lord himself gave revelation to different wives belonging to the same man, revealing to them the great blessings which should rest upon their posterity; angels also were sent to comfort and bless them; and in no instance do we find them reproved for having joined themselves in marriage to a “polygamist.” Indeed, the Lord himself gave laws not to prohibit “polygamy,” but showing his will in relation to the children raised up by the different wives of the same man; and, furthermore, the Lord himself actually officiated in giving David all the wives of Saul; this occurred, too, when David already had several wives which he had previously taken: therefore, as the Lord did actually give into David’s own bosom all the wives of Saul, he must not only have sanctioned “polygamy,” but established and instituted it upon a sure foundation, by giving the wives himself, the same as he gave Eve to Adam. Therefore those who are completely divested from the influence of national customs, and who judge concerning this matter by the Word of God, are compelled to believe that the plurality of wives was once sanctioned for many ages by the Almighty; and by a still farther research of the divine oracles they find no intimations that this divine institution was ever repealed. It was an institution, not originated under the law of Moses, but of a far more ancient date; and instead of being abolished by that law, it was sanctioned and perpetuated; and when Christ came to fulfill that law, and to do it away by the introduction of a better covenant, he did not abolish the plurality system: not being originated under that law, it was not made null and void when that law was done away. Indeed, there were many things in connection with the law that were not abolished when the law was fulfilled; as, for instance, the Ten Commandments, which the people under the Gospel covenant were still obliged to obey; and until we can find some law of God abolishing and prohibiting a plurality of wives, we are compelled to believe it a divine institution; and we are furthermore compelled to believe, that if this institution be entered into now, under the same principles which governed the holy prophets and patriarchs, that God will approbate it now as much as he did then; and that the persons who do thus practice it conscientiously and sincerely are just as honorable in the sight of God as those who have but one wife. And that which is honorable before God should be honorable before men; and no one should be despised when he acts in all good conscience upon any principle of doctrine; neither should there be laws in any of these States or Territories to compel any individual to act in violation to the dictates of his own conscience; but every one should be left in all matters of religion to his own choice, and thus become accountable to God, and not to his fellow-man.
If the people of this country have generally formed different conclusions from us upon this subject, and if they have embraced religions which are more congenial to their minds than the religion of the Saints, we say to them that they are welcome to their own religious views; the laws should not interfere with the exercise of their religious rights. If we can not convince you by reason nor by the Word of God that your religion is wrong, we will not persecute you, but will sustain you in the privileges guaranteed in the great Charter of American Liberty: we ask from you the same generosity—protect us in the exercise of our religious rights—convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been the instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow-beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds. Come, then, let us reason together, and try to discover the true light upon all subjects connected with our temporal or eternal happiness; and if we disagree in our judgments, let us impute it to the weakness and imperfections of our fallen natures, and let us pity each other, and endeavor with patience and meekness to reclaim from error, and save the immortal soul from an endless death.
Mormonism, it will be observed, claims at once to be, like Christianity, a progressive faith, with that development of spiritualism which the “Tracts for the Times” exemplified, and, like El Islam, to be a restoration by revelation of the pure and primeval religion of the world. Convinced that plurality was unforbidden by the founders of the former faiths, the Mormons, as well as the followers of the Arabian Prophet, have obeyed the command of their God to restore it, and that, too, although the Anglo-Scandinavian race every where agrees, after the fashion of pagan and monogamic Rome, to make it a common-law crime. Politically considered, the Mormons deem it necessary to their existence as a people. Contrary to the scientific modern economist, from Mr. Malthus to Mr. Mill, they hold population, not wealth, learning, civilization, nor virtue, to be the strength of a nation; they believe that numbers decide the rise and fall of empires, and that, as Nature works the extinction of her doomed races by infecundity, and as the decline of a people’s destiny is first detected in the diminution of its census, so they look upon the celestial promises of prolificity made to the patriarchs of old as the highest temporal blessing. They admit in the lawgiver only a right to legislate for the good of those who are to obey his laws, not to gratify his “whimsy whamsies,” and that the liberty which man claims by the dignity of his nature permits him to choose the tie, whether polyandric, monogamic, or polygamic, that connects him with the opposite sex. Mr. Parley P. Pratt (“Marriage and Morals in Utah,” p. 3) is explicit upon this subject:
“If we find laws, statutes, covenants, and precedents emanating from God; sworn to by himself to be everlasting; as a blessing to all nations—if we find these have to do with exceeding multiplicity of race, and with family and national organization and increase—if such institutions are older than Moses, and are found perpetuated and unimpaired by Moses and the prophets, Jesus and the apostles, then it will appear evident that no merely human legislation or authority, whether proceeding from emperor, king, or people, has a right to change, alter, or pervert them.”
MORMON MATERIALISM.The third epoch is that of Materialism. In this the Mormons are preceded, to quote but a few schools, by the classic Academics—by the Jews, who believed in a material and personal Demiurgus, and by many fathers of the Christian Church, who held the soul of man, while immortal, to be material. Matter with them, as with Newton, is an aggregate of “solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, and movable particles.” Respecting the intelligence of its units and molecules—the test of true materialism—they are somewhat hazy; they deride the peripatetic dogma of perception by species or phantasms, and at the same time ignore the doctrine of Hobbes, Spinoza, Priestley, and others, who recognize no separate existence for the mind or spirit[206] except as a union of atoms or particles, which, unorganized, have neither feeling nor thought. They define matter as a something that exists in and occupies space between any two instants, and is susceptible of division, and of being removed from one portion of space to another. Unlike other metaphysicians, who confess ignorance as to the substratum of mind and matter, they boast acquaintance with the essence of all substances, solidity, which with them is not a mere property. Although the ultimate atoms of matter can not come under the cognizance of the senses, they are none the less assured of their solidity, viz., that they fill a certain amount of space, and are unable ever to fill a greater or a lesser—in fact, to believe otherwise would be impossible. They hold to different kinds of matter, for instance, the fleshly body and the spiritual body, which differ in quality as iron and oxygen. Mind and spirit, therefore, are real, objective, positive substances, which, like the astral spirit of the old alchymists, exists in close connection with the component parts of the porous, material body. Immaterialism is, with them, simply absurd; it is a belief which requires a man to put faith in a negation of time, space, and matter; in fact, in the zero of existence, in an entity whose ens admits no proof, and which can be described only by negative conditions and qualities, by saying what it is not. They contend that the materiality of spirit once taken away would negative its existence; that an “immaterial being” is a contradiction in terms; and that immateriality is another name for nothing; therefore, that the spirituality of spirit “is an unphilosophical, unscriptural, and atheistical doctrine.” The theses supported by Mr. Orson Pratt, the apostle of materialism, are the following:
[206] “If man,” says Dr. Priestley, “be a material being, and the power of thinking the result of a certain organization of the brain, does it not follow that all his functions must be regulated by the laws of mechanism, and that, of consequence, all his actions proceed from an irresistible necessity?” It is the glory of the present age, the highest result of our nineteenth century physiological and statistic studies, brought to bear by a master-mind of the age upon the History of Civilization—to establish the fact that mankind progresses by investigating the laws of phenomena; in fact, to prove, not to conjecture, that such mechanism really exists. I need hardly name Mr. Buckle.
I. That Immaterialism is irrational opposed to true philosophy.
II. That an Immaterial substance (i.e., a something existing which is not matter and is distinct from matter, which is not dependent upon matter for its existence, which possesses no properties nor qualities in common with matter, and which possesses properties and qualities all entirely different from those of matter) can not exist.