The Seer/Volume 1/Number 5/Celestial Marriage

CELESTIAL MARRIAGE

(Continued from page 64)

That this divine institution was practised under the Christian dispensation, is still further evident, not only from the foregoing reasons, but from the instructions which Paul gave to Timothy and Titus, concerning Bishops and Deacons. He says: “A bishop, then, must be blameless; the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” (1 Tim. Iii. 2.) “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” (Verse xii.) “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” (Titus i. 6, 7.) There are two different meanings frequently attached to these passages:—First, it is supposed that Paul intended to prohibit all single or unmarried men from being entrusted with the offices of bishop and deacon; that he required that they should be married, at least, to one wife, as a prerequisite to ordination. By those who take this view of the subject, it is believed that a man must, as Paul says, “first be proved,” by marrying at least one wife, ruling “well his own house, having his children in subjection; (“for if a man know not how to rule his own house,” say Paul, “how shall he take care of the Church of God?”) If this view of the subject be correct, then Paul did not intend to limit the bishop or deacon to one wife, but merely intended to show that he must, as a qualification, be married, or must be the husband of one wife, before he could be ordained to either of those offices. Second, it is supposed by many that these offices were not to be conferred upon those who had more than one wife. If this view of the subject be correct, (and it evidently appears to be the true meaning of the passages) then it is very certain that there were many in the Church who had more than one; for, if the private members and all the Church were limited to one, Paul’s instruction for the bishops and deacons to be the husbands of one wife would have been altogether unnecessary. If there were no such practice prevailing in the Christian Church, instead of confining these officers to one wife, he would have required them to receive no person into the Church who had more than one. The very expression, “The bishop must be the husband of one wife,” is a strong indication that there were many in the Church who were the husbands of more than one; and on this account it was necessary that Timothy and Titus should receive instructions in regard to their selections for ordination. Any person can see, that if there were no such practice allowed in the Church. Paul never would have mentioned this particular qualification to be observed in the selections to be made from the members of the Church. If there were no members who had a plurality, there wouldhave been no danger of Timothy’s selecting a polygamist for a bishop; hence the instruction would have been entirely useless. Suppose a minister in England were to write to his brother minister in London concerning ordinations, and should instruct him to select such persons from his congregation for the office of deacon as were not slaveholders, or that the deacons must be the owners of one slave only. Would not such instruction in England be entirely uncalled for? And would not the individual who wrote such instruction be considered deranged? Where slaves do not exist, such instruction never would be given. So, likewise, if the plurality of wives did not exist in the Christian Church, Paul never would have been so foolish as to have cautioned Timothy in regard to the selections which he made from the members of that church. This, therefore, is another corroborative testimony that the plurality doctrine was allowed under the Christian dispensation.

But if the private members in the Christian Church were permitted to have more than one wife, why not also the bishops and deacons? Paul has not given us the reason. It is quite probable that the principal reason was, that the important duties devolving upon these officers required them to be as free from other cares as possible. Or as Paul says, in another place, “I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world how he may please his wife.”—(1 Cor. vii. 32,33.) Paul knew this to be the general disposition of mankind, and he knew that there were but a very few men to be found who would sacrifice houses and lands, wives and children, and everything else of an earthly nature for the sake of the Gospel, therefore, he no doubt wrote his instructions to Timothy to select those among the Church members who had but one wife, as they would be much more free from care than those who had several wives and children depending on them for their support. Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles has ever represented the plurality of wives to be sinful or evil in the sight of God. We do not find the principle condemned either in the Old or in the New Testament. When Paul recommended Timothy to select from among the Saints those that had but one wife, he does not give the most distant intimation that those officers were thus limited, because to have more than one would be sinful. It was only a matter of expediency that they might be free from the cares of a large family. There were many practices that circumstances required the servants of God to dispense with, not because they were sinful in themselves, but merely to comply with the surrounding customs. For instance, it was not sinful to eat meat offered to idols, and yet for fear that some weak brother should be emboldened to follow the example and eat with conscience to the idol, and thus offend God, it became a matter of wisdom to dispense with the practice; hence, Paul says, “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”—1 Cor. viii, 13. Paul gave instructions in many things, suited to circumstances: hence, we find him in one epistle saying, “to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.” And again, “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.”—(1. Cor. vii, 8, 27.) And in another epistle he writes thus: “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”—(1 Tim. v, 14). The cause of these apparently opposite instructions, arose from surrounding circumstances. The Corinthians had fallen into many evils. Divisions, contentions, fornications, brother going to law with brother, and various other evils existed among them.Under these influences, Paul was fearful to have those in that Church who were faithful, marry, lest they should get wicked companions that would lead them away to destruction. Therefore, he gave the instructions above quoted. But in other Churches where such evils did not exist, it was his will that they should marry. Teachings were varied to different Churches as existing conditions required. Circumstances required Timothy to select from among the Saints those that had but one wife, to perform the important duties of Bishop and Deacon. If the Saints had been less covetous, and willing to sacrifice all things as the Apostles did at first, there would have been no necessity for this instruction. Bishops and Deacons might have been taken of those Saints who had many wives, and they would have freely left all for the Gospel’s sake; but for the want of such whole-hearted men, Paul had to suit his instructions accordingly. Among the various qualifications which Timothy was required to observe in selecting men for Bishops, Paul says, “Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach.”—1 Tim., iii, 7. Did Paul give these instructions because he considered it a sin to be reproached by those who were without? Did he consider it a sin to have an evil report from them who were not in the church? These were certainly not the views of Paul; for he, himself, had been spoken evil of and reproached wherever he went. Jesus says, “Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.” “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets.”—Luke vi, 22, 23, 26. “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”—Matt. X, 25. Peter says, “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye.”—1 Peter, iv, 14. But why was Timothy instructed to select for the office of Bishop such as had “a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach?” Was it because all others in the church were sinners? Was it because none who were reproached and spoken evil of for Christ’s sake, were qualified for the office of Bishop? Was it because God condemned all those whom the world condemned? No: it was for none of these causes that Paul gave this instruction; it was merely as a matter of expediency: there were others, no doubt, who were more righteous in the sight of God, and better qualified for the office of Bishop, whom the world hated and reproached and spoke all manner of evil against. Yet Paul, for some reason, considered it best to select such as the world spake well of. His object might have been to allay the spirit of persecution which was then raging among those who were without. His instructions were suited to surrounding circumstances in regard to this, as in relation to their being the husbands of one wife. It was no more sinful to be the husband of a plurality of wives, than it was to be reproached and have an evil report from them who were without. In the first his object was to have the Bishops free from the multiplied cares of a large family, and in the second to allay the hostilities of the enemy, by selecting those who were of good report among them.

We should be pleased to have some of the wise theologians of our day bring forward even one passage from either the Old or New Testament to prove that the plurality of wives is an evil. Let them produce some passage, if they can, to show that such a practice was sinful either under the Patriarchal, Mosaic, or Christian dispensations. Let them show that the practice was not continued under the Christian dis-pensation. Where and when did our Saviour ever condemn it? Where and when did any of his Apostles ever condemn it? Here, then, ye ministers of Christendom, are some grave questions for you to settle. Would you convert the “Mormons” of Utah Territory, from this practice—show them that it is sinful or unscriptural. No sooner was it sounded abroad through the columns of the Seer that the Saints in Utah believed in and practised the plurality of wives, than the whole army of editors and ministers throughout Christendom formed themselves in battle array; the thunder of their artillery is heard reverberating from nation to nation, as though they would annihilate the poor citizens of Utah, with one tremendous onslaught. Curses, denunciations, and ridicule, are poured out like a flood upon their heads. The whole English vocabulary is exhausted to find epithets and reproaches sufficiently expressive of their holy horror. But in this holy war, where is the editor or minister that can brandish the sword of truth against that which he condemns? Where is the theological Goliath of modern Christendom, that can stand before the sling stones of truth as they are hurled by the power of Israel’s God into the midst of the enemy’s camp? Denunciations are not arguments—curses and vile reproaches will not convince the judgment nor enlighten mankind. Editors and ministers will find some wise men yet left on the earth, who are not afraid of the Bible nor of Bible truths; by that sacred volume they will form their judgment, and not upon popular traditions nor the denunciations of the bigoted. Wise men of Babylon wonder—editors are astonished—ministers are amazed—priestcraft trembles to its very centre—and the Devil and his angels are mad to think that after all their united exertions to put a stop to the spread of this “awful delusion” as it is denounced, it still prospers with unparalleled success among every nation to which it has been published. How is it, inquires the wise statesman, that such a bare-faced imposition converts its tens of thousands annually among the most civilized nations of the earth? What is the secret of its prosperity? We will tell you, Mr. Statesman. There are many tens of thousands of honest, upright men who, in despite of priestcraft, will investigate for themselves, and in so doing, they find that “Mormonism,” which is called by editors and ministers a “bare-faced imposition,” has never as yet been proved to be such—they find that the cry of delusion is one thing, and the proof of delusion is another—they reason within themselves, that if “Mormonism” is such a “base imposition,” why has not some giant theologian been able, after a score of years, to prove it to be such? They find the world flooded with books, pamphlets, periodicals, editors, ministers, mobs, and murderers, all crying “Beware of Mormonism!” “Beware of that soul-destroying imposition!” “Beware of the wicked, beastly, licentious Mormons!!” “Beware of Mormon Polygamy!!!” “The Mormons of Utah are Polygamists!!!” “O awful!” “O horrible!” “O abominable!” “Who could have believed it!” “Cannot Gen. Pierce do something to put a stop to this dreadful evil!” “To avert the calamities of a civil war the Mormons should be made to obey the laws!” Such are the arguments, Mr. Statesman, that wise and candid men hear against the so-called delusion. They again reflect, if “Mormonism” is really such a dreadful delusion, and if a plurality of wives is, indeed so sinful and unscriptural, why are not some candid arguments—some scriptural evidences forthcoming to convince the judgment and enlighten the mind, and to show the nature of the delusion, and why, and wherein it is a delusion? Why, say they, are all these denunciations heaped upon the Latter-day Saints, without one logical argument, or scriptural evidence to sustain them.

If editors and ministers wish to puta stop to the rolling of the great wheels of “Mormonism,” we advise them to try another plan. You have found that evil epithets and the cry of imposture have been tried in vain. Such empty trash is becoming stale; it is not received as evidence by a thinking public. They do not greedily swallow it down; they want something more substantial. Let theologians back up their cry of delusion, by good, sound reasoning—by evidences from the Word of God. Let editors and authors, for once, show themselves men of sense; let them, for once, appeal to the law and testimony, and expose “Mormonism” scripturally; let them, for once, prove to the world that the doctrines of the Latter Day Saints are false; let them show from the Word of God that a plurality of wives is sinful or unscriptural. If they will, for once, adopt this plan, they will find that it will have more weight in the minds of an intelligent, thinking public, than all the ridicule, vile reproaches, and popular denunciations, that the devil can invent. Try it and see. If you will prove “Mormonism” to be a delusion; if you will show by the Word of God that a plurality of wives is not sanctioned under the Gospel as it was under former dispensations, you will greatly enlighten the minds of the people of Utah. Think not that the descendants of the pilgrim fathers—the intelligent sons and daughters of the New England States—the citizens of this great Republic, educated under the salutary influence of American institutions, who now dwell in exile in the Mountain Territory, are so lost in the depts. Of barbarism—so engulphed in the fatal vortex of delusion—so impenetrable to sound arguments and logical reasoning—so blind to the great truths contained in the Word of God, that they are beyond all hopes of recovery. At least make the exertion once; convince them of their errors of doctrine or errors of practice. Let missionaries be sent among them; they shall be treated with the highest respect; meeting houses shall be opened to them free of all expense; the people will turn out by tens of thousands to hear their strong reasonings, and if they are able to prove “Mormonism” a delusion, they will convert the great majority of the Territory. Here, then, is a splendid field for missionary enterprize. But let us notify you to send men who are not afraid of the Word of God. Let men be sent who will make no denunciations, only such as they are able to prove; for the inhabitants of Utah have too much sense to be thus gulled and duped; they have too much experience to believe all that missionaries and editors say without proof; they have too much honesty and desire for the truth, to believe a thing to be true or untrue because long-established customs and popularity sanction it. The people of Utah hear and then judge; they think for themselves, and do not hire ministers and editors to think for them. Come, then, you missionary societies whose bosoms yearn over the dark and benighted heathen in foreign climes, awake to the awful condition of the poor and outcast Latter Day Saints in your own land; send forth your master spirits—your Calvins—your Luthers—your Wesleys; let the thunder of their eloquence be heard upon the mountain tops; let the vales of Utah be refreshed by their sublime effusions; let the hills and mountain gorges re-echo the glad tidings, till every ear shall hear, and every heart be penetrated. A voice is heard form Utah, saying, Come over and help us; teach us of our errors; convince us of our delusions, if we have any; set us in the good old paths of ancient Christianity, if we are not already walking therein; take us by the hand and lead us into the light, if you consider us in darkness; prove to us that the Book of Mormon is an imposition, that we may be justified in rejecting it; convince us that a plurality of wives is contrary to the Gospel; let you light shine upon the mountains and upon the highest places of the earth, that Utah may, per-{page break|77}}adventure, become enlightened—at least, that she may be able to see some of the beauties of civilized society. The inhabitants of that dark and benighted land are so far sunk in the depts. Of barbarism, that they will not suffer a public prostitute to live in the Territory: an adulterer or seducer is not considered fit to live in that barbarous land. These ornaments of civilized and Christian nations, do not yet adorn the cities and towns of Utah. Cursing, swearing, gambling, drunkenness, stealing, brother going to law with brother, fighting, quarrelling, and such like specimens of civilized society, have not yet been introduced to polish and refine the manners of that deluded, benighted people. Missionaries, therefore, will have a great work to perform to reclaim the “Mormons” from all their barbarous and degrading customs, and polish and adorn them with all the beauties of civilization. But let them not be discouraged; if they can prove that they have greater light than the Saints, they may be assured of success, and that the people en masse will be converted.

But “the people of Utah should be made to obey the laws, in order to avert the calamities of civil war.” We hope that priests and editors will not marshal the whole nation against them. At least, show them some little mercy, by first informing them what laws of God or man they have broken. Before you blot their names out from under Heaven, give them one chance of repentance and reformation, by sending wise men, and judges, and lawyers, to point out to them what law of the United States they have violated, or what law of Utah territory they have transgressed. If it be contrary to the laws of the United States, for the citizens of Utah to have a plurality of wives, they are certainly ignorant of the existence of such laws. None of the lawyers or judges who have been sent among them have ever pretended that the United States have passed any laws upon that subject. And as for the laws of the individual states and other territories, Utah is not aware that she is amenable to them. Each state and territory passes its own laws to regulate its own domestic relations and internal affairs, and is not under the jurisdiction of any other. If Utah has become a transgressor of any laws to which she is amenable, let the judges of the Supreme Court appointed for that territory take cognizance of the same, and punish her citizens by law. This will “avert the calamities of civil war” which editors and religious bigots are so fearful of. We ask the citizens of the Northern states, if their State laws authorize them to regulate the policy of the Southern States in regard to slavery? Have they the right to say that the Southern States must and shall abolish slavery? The State laws of the North have nothing to do with the domestic relations of the South. So it is in regard to Utah; she asks not the interference of any state of the Union to dictate to her what kind of policy she must adopt in her legislative enactments; if she choose to adopt slavery in her midst, the organic law of the Territory give her the privilege; if she choose to practise a pluarility of wives, she has the most unbounded right to do so, until prohibited by law; if she choose to pass laws authorizing her citizens to marry a hundred or seven hundred wives, it would be a violation of now law or Constitution of the General Government. If enthusiasts and religious bigots are not pleased with the liberties guaranteed in the great Constitution of this country, let them petition Congress for a different kind of government—one that shall combine the ecclesiastical with the civil power—one that shall incorporate the holy inquisition for the punishment of all heretics who dare think or act for themselves—one that shall issue a bloody edict for the extermination of the Latter-day Saints wherever they can be found: such a government would be much better adapted to their wants: such a govern-ment would enable them to rule over the consciences of men by the sword, the faggot, and the fire; such a government would enable them to effectually demolish all delusions and heretical opinions, by physical arguments, instead of mental. O, how beautiful! How logical! How powerful in its applications would such an order of things be! Before such irresistible logic the poor “Mormons” would stand no chance at all; they would be overpowered, butchered, roasted alive, and an unequivocal testimony of their gross delusions!

But to return again to our subject. If the plurality of wives once existed in the Christian Church, why has not the practice been kept up unto the present day? Is it not an evidence that it never existed under the Gospel, from the fact that it has not been transferred down to our time? We reply, that the non-existence of the practice among Christian nations now, is not evidence at all against its existence in the early age of Christianity. There is scarcely one feature of ancient Christianity, that has struggled through the long night of darkness, and reached our day. Where now are the inspired Apostles, such as characterized ancient Christianity? Where now are the abundance of Christian Prophets, such as once flourished in the Christian Church? Where now are the visions, revelations, prophecies, ministry of angels, the healings, the miracles, and the power of god that distinguished the Christian Church while it was on the earth? Where has been even the Christian Church, itself, for centuries and ages past? It has been nowhere upon the earth. If all the great, and glorious, and grand characteristics of Christianity have ceased—if the Christian Church, itself, has not been transferred to our day, how could it be expected that the plurality of wives, as practised in that Church, should survive the general wreck? If the most important offices, gifts, and blessings of the Gospel perished in the general apostacy, it would be nothing strange if some of the customs of the early Christians should perish also.

After the church of Christ became extinct from the earth, the apostates who were left still continued a form under the name of a Christian Church; these changed and altered customs to suit their own imaginations; forbidding their priests to marry, and introducing celibacy, and nunneries, and thousands of other foolish whims and habits that the Christian Church, while it was on the earth, never thought of. From these unauthorized apostates, sprang all the churches of modern Christendom; all being as destitute of divine authority as the idolatrous Hindoos. And, through their traditions, customs, and foolish imaginations, they have almost entirely eradicated every feature and custom of ancient Christianity from the earth.

This great apostacy began to manifest itself in the Christian Church while the Apostles were yet living. Paul, in speaking of the coming of Christ, says, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.” (2 Thess. V. 3.) And again, he says, “for the mystery of iniquity doth already work.” (Verse 7.) The apostate churches of latter times were to be “without natural affection,” “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry;” “waxing worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived; “through covetousness, with feigned words, making merchandise of the people,” “turning their ears away from the truth, and turning them unto fables.” “Forbidding to marry” was one of the grand evils of the apostacy; it was classified with the “doctrines of devils; it was one of the most effectual doctrines that the devil could invent to uproot the foundations of society; to deprive the people of God of their promised heritage of children; to thwart the purposes of the Almighty in people the earth with its full measure of inhabitants; to cut off the glory promised to the faithful through the continuance of their posterity; to reduce mankind to the same wo[e]ful condition as the fallen angels themselves, who have no power to increase their dominions by a multiplication of their species.

The devil and his angels, having forfeited, in their first estate, all right to enter a second with bodies of flesh and bones, and having lost the privilege of marrying and propagating their species, feel maliciously wicked and envious against the sons of men who kept their first estate and are now in the enjoyment of the second, marrying and increasing their families or kingdoms. These arch seducers know full well the blessings which theyhave lost, and which they see mankind in possession of, namely, the blessings of wives and children. Could they seduce mankind and forbid them to marry, it would greatly gratify their hellish revenge; for they know that all such would lost their promised glory, being left wifeless and childless like themselves, without any possible means of reigning over an endless increase of posterity.

The devils, knowing the eternal ruin which would necessarily come upon mankind, could they be persuaded to abolish marriage, used every art of seduction to accomplish their evil designs. When they could not succeed in one way they would try another; if they could not persuade all the church to forsake the practice of marriage, they would then try their skill upon the apostate priesthood, endeavouring to enforce them into a life of perpetual celibacy. The devils soon succeeded in getting laws enacted, forbidding the priests to marry. Nunneries were also built in which females were immured for life, and thus prevented from fulfilling the great and first command to multiply their species. The next great object with the Devil was, to unite this apostate Church and priesthood with the civil power; this he soon accomplished. He now found himself armed with double facilities. What he could not before fully accomplish with the ecclesiastical tribunals, he could now perform through the enactments of the civil powers. He had already succeeded in abolishing marriage among priests and nuns, and the next step was to forbid the plurality of wives—that divine institution which had, in all previous ages of the world, been so successful among holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and righteous men, in greatly multiplying the people of God, and spreading them abroad like the sands of the seashore. Could he persuade the ecclesiastical and civil powers to unitedly attack this holy institution, and utterly abolish it in Church and State, it would greatly satiate his revengeful feelings; for he recollected well how much harm Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Elkanah, David, and numerous other old Polygamists had done to his kingdom. God had declared himself to be the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and had promised to bless the children of their numerous wives and multiply them like the dust of the earth. And Christ too, the greatest enemy which the Devil had, was so well pleased with this divine institution, that he chose to come into the world through the lineage of a long list of Jewish and Patriarchal Polygamists. The Devil, therefore, thought to vent his spite at this holy order, and if possible entirely eradicate it from the earth. Through the influence of Apostate Christendom several nations have actually been persuaded to assist the Devil in his malicious warfare against this divine system; they have actually passed laws prohibiting it in their midst. Thus that order of plurality by which the twelve tribes of Israel were founded, and from which the Messiah, according to the flesh, came; that order which multiplied the chosen seed as the stars of heaven, and in which all nations shall be blessed; that order by which the childless dead could have his name perpetuated to endless generations; that holy, divine order has been overturned and abolished by human enactments and by human authority. Let Apostate Christendom blush at her sacrilegious deeds! Let her be ashamed of her narrow, contracted, bigoted laws!

(To be continued)