# Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs/Chapter 12
### Chapter XII.

* Position
* Anti-scriptural
* Adam
* Noah
* Lamech
* Abraham
* Jacob
* David
* Book of Mormon denounces David
* Christ
* Paul
* Christian dispensation
* Anti-natural
* Proportions of the sexes
* Nature confirms Scriptures
* Irrational
* Woman's position the test of progress
* Children's dependence on the mother
* Wife
* Races
* Different laws of marriage
* Single prophets
* Lowest races most prolific
* "Polygamy a preventive of prostitution" examined
* Anti-Mormon
* Revelation
* Utah census.
Practical polygamy results in many evils wherever it exists. As we can only well judge causes by effects, we must conclude it to be practically erroneous. It then becomes an important query, Can a principle be practically false, and yet remain theoretically true? It is certain, say its apologists, that polygamy was practiced, and woman degraded, in the Hebrew nation; it is not evident that God blamed the practice or punished its adopters therefor. Were it so heinous an offense, it is probable that he would have expressed his disapprobation; and, as the Scriptures are silent, we must conclude he favored and intended it. This is all their real argument when stated in brief. It needs but the slightest smattering of logical acumen to discern the sophistry of the whole; as it is merely the argumentum ex silentio, which is the weakest of all proof.
​ As this dogma is made a strong-hold of faith with these deluded people, a brief investigation of its evidences may perhaps be useful and interesting:
I affirm,
* Polygamy is anti-scriptural.
* Polygamy is anti-natural.
* Polygamy is irrational.
* Polygamy is anti-Mormon.
I. Polygamy is anti-scriptural.
1. In investigating this position, it is necessary to view the whole of the Scriptures, neither limiting ourselves to the ante-Abrahamic nor the ante-Christian periods. God's dealings are to be viewed as a whole. In the beginning Adam was created pure and holy, and God bestowed on him one wife. If polygamy had been the Lord's way of "peopling the earth," then, of all other times, polygamy would have been instituted. Why was it not? Malachi, ii. 15, tells us the reason: "And did he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth." God had the residue of the Spirit; had it pleased omniscient wisdom to have created more, omnipotent power would have performed it. He did not do so, "because he sought a godly seed." The only inference that can be deduced from this passage, is, that as the seed of monogamy is godly, because of the monogamy, then the seed of polygamy must be ungodly. History, sacred and profane, will sustain this position. Polygamy produced men like Ishmael, whose first greeting was a curse, "His hand shall be against every man, and every man's ​hand against him;" brothers, like Joseph's brothers, selling him to slavery, and dooming him to death; women, like Rebekah, cheating her husband on his death-bed; wives, like Leah and Rachel, contending disgustingly together about Jacob's bed; sons, like Reuben, committing incest with his father's concubine; or, like Amnon, defiling his sister Tamar; or, like Abraham, threatening his father's life; or, in later times, like the Chinese, the Turk, and the savage; or the neglected children of Mormon parentage. God sought a godly seed, and monogamy was the means he instituted.
2. When Adam and Eve were formed, and God rested from the work of creation, he gazed at the labor of his hands, and pronounced it "very good." The fiat of universal approbation went forth. Monogamy was then instituted and practiced, and that was "very good." To seek to amend that monogamy by polygamy, is for man to attempt to improve the God-approved institution of divine appointment. Until Jehovah just as explicitly declares polygamy to be "very good," we have no right to charge it on his wisdom or design. Two things essentially opposite can not be both true at the same time. Monogamy was "very good;" polygamy must, therefore, be "very bad."
3. When the Lord destroyed the inhabitants of the earth, because of their wickedness, he saved Noah and his three sons, and only one wife each. Peter says, "eight persons were saved in the ark." Any argument as to "more rapid increase of population," will certainly apply to Noah. Any argument as to polygamy "being a peculiar blessing," will apply to Noah too; for, while holy enough to be saved from ​the flood, he was far more holy than many subsequent polygamists. But God destroyed the inhabitants of the earth, because they were ungodly and corrupt. He saved Noah and his family in order to repeople the world with upright and holy descendants. To obtain this end a second time, he a second time instituted monogamy. Had he selected a polygamist, he would have contradicted his prior sanction. and institution of monogamy. To produce the same result, he adopted the same cause. "Therefore gave he one, because he sought a godly seed."
4. God sought a godly seed by means of monogamy. Was it a godly man who first infringed this law of purity? Gen. iv. 19, 23. Lamech had two wives, Adah and Zillah. But we learn from ver. 23, that Lamech was a murderer. The Mormons believe that the "mark" put on Cain by God was a black skin; that he and his descendants, the negroes, are peculiarly and especially cursed; that in fact they can not be saved in the "celestial kingdom." They also contend that a murderer can not be saved "in this life, nor in that which is to come." Lamech, this twice-cursed man; cursed in being a black descendant of Cain, doubly cursed, according to their own faith, in being a murderer, was the first example of polygamy. In adopting the principle, they have accepted a murderer as their model.
4. The Mormons make much capital of Abraham being a polygamist. One important fact must be observed here. There is a great difference between example and precept. To adopt any practice, because a certain good man did so, is often folly. Christ is a model in all things, because "in him ​there was no sin." Before even prophets and patriarchs can be imitated as models, they must be proven infallible and immaculate. "All Scripture is written for our instruction," all Scripture however, is not written for our example. Abraham practiced polygamy; true, but Abraham drove out his wife and child to die in the wilderness. If the mere fact of Abraham's practicing polygamy be a warrant for me to commit it, then, pari passu, his wife and child desertion should be also imitated, for the same reason. The most rabid Mormon will not advocate child-desertion, even though Abraham practiced it; and ought not, therefore, to advocate polygamy, even though practiced by Abraham. To deduce from the apparent silence of God on this polygamy, an approval of it, is fallacious. God did not apparently condemn the driving out Hagar and Ishmael to die in the wilderness. Who will infer from that silence an approval of abandonment and murder! If the taking of Hagar be right, per se, then her desertion is right, per se; but if desertion be wrong, as it is; then polygamy is wrong, as it is.
It is well to remember, too, that all the blessings promised to Abraham were received by Isaac, the son of Sarah, his first. and lawful wife. It should also be remembered that this Isaac was a monogamist, and that his blessings were none the less sure, and none the less glorious.
5. Jacob's polygamy is a "tower of strength" for the Mormons. Especial emphasis is laid on his sons being the heads of the house of Israel. View Jacob's polygamy first as a temporal matter, and let any pure mind read the sacred historian's simple and unsparing account of Jacob's household ​as written in Gen. xxx., and they will not envy Jacob's polygamy. View it as a spiritual matter, and compare the blessings pronounced on the monogamist Joseph, and his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and that on Jacob's own head. "Thy blessing is above the blessing of thy father's, even to the bounds of the everlasting hills," Gen. xlix. Jacob practiced polygamy, doubtless true; but Jacob cheated his father, defrauded his brother, and out-maneuvered his father-in-law. If Jacob's example may be urged as an argument in favor of one, it may in favor of all these practices. If the apparent silence of God be construed into approval of the one, then equal silence may be construed as an approval of all. Noah got intoxicated, therefore, I ought to drink. Jacob was a polygamist, therefore, I ought to take four wives. They are both equally forcible, and both equally fallacious!
6. David's practicing polygamy, while being a man after God's own heart, is another powerful Mormon argument in favor of polygamy. "Have I not given thee thy master's wives?" demands Nathan. David was Saul's son-in-law. For David to have cohabited with his father-in-law's wives, would have been incest. Yet David was certainly a polygamist. To say that "David was a man after God's own heart," to be king over Israel, does not involve divine acquiescence in all David's deeds. So far from this, David was severely rebuked and especially cursed, and the Mormons believe that he is still in hell. Viewing his polygamy in a temporal light, it entailed care and misery upon him; it surrounded his life with pain, and shortened his days. Viewed in a spiritual light, it led his heart from God to the gratification of the lusts of the ​flesh; it brought upon him the full force of the word of Malachi. His "seed was ungodly" because he had more than "one." He had "dealt treacherously with the wife of his youth." He had not "taken heed." To contend that God. approved polygamy because Jacob's sons were offsprings of a polygamist, is fallacious. We know that God disapproved of David's adultery with Bathsheba; and yet Solomon, whom he afterward blessed, was Bathsheba's son. As he pleased to bless the child of one marriage he condemned, he may also have condemned the marriages that produced other men whom he blessed. It is evident that "in the beginning it was not so," and either God must have changed or polygamy must be ungodly.
Mormons, however, above all, should never use this argument. Smith's Book of Mormon, page 118, says, "Behold David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." To. say that God approved the practice, on their own faith, is to say that he approved of what to him was abominable. For them to insist on its practice because of David's example, is to destroy their own book. If this book be correct, it was abominable before God. If it was not abominable before God, their book is false. If their book be false, then Mormonism is a humbug; but if the book be correct, then David's polygamy was abominable, and to urge his example, is only to destroy the force of all the rest, by putting all the rest on the same level with his "abominations." Their book aside, however, it needed God to give the wives of Saul to David, even if we admit the illustration as of force; if, then, ​David be any example, before I can practice polygamy, God must give me the wives: but God's command to all men is, "Take heed and do not treacherously against the wife of thy youth."
7. Whatever be the opinion left on the mind by the Old, the New Testament is explicit on this subject. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery." (Matt. xix. 9.) Here are two actions concerned; 1, the repudiation; 2, the second marriage. In one of these two is involved adultery. It is not in the repudiation, be it just or unjust. It must, therefore, be in the second marriage. Though you put away your first. wife altogether, cease to live with her entirely, unless she has committed fornication, even then, says the Saviour, you can not take a second wife without committing adultery. If marrying a second wife, the first being put away, is adultery, certainly marrying a second, the first being not put away, must be adultery also. Grant that the law of marriage and divorce under Moses permitted polygamy; Jesus, in changing the law of divorce, changed the law of marriage. The practice of the church is the best exponent of their doctrine, and it is certain that the early Christian church did not only not practice polygamy, but many of the apostles did not marry at all.
8. Paul, however, is still more definite on the subject. 1 Cor. vii., 2: "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband." Each man is to "have his own wife" to and for himself. If she infringe that law it is adultery. So likewise, each woman is to "have her own husband," and to herself and for herself also. If he ​infringe that law it is adultery. The fourth verse gives a reason: "For the wife hath no power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath no power over his own body, but the wife." In marriage he just as much becomes hers as she his. Her exclusive right, therefore, to a pure husband is just as stringent as his exclusive right to a pure wife. If it be not adultery for him to have many wives, it is no more adultery for her to have many husbands. She is bound, however, to keep herself solely for her husband, and he is equally bound to keep himself solely for his wife. "The bed undefiled is honorable," Heb. xiii. 4. The husband can defile the bed equally with the wife. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ." That which is the law of Christ for the male, is, therefore, for the female also; equally as much as that which is the law for the Jew is the law for the Greek. Say that the law of Christ accords to the man unlimited choice, it must also to the woman, for "they are both one in Christ." God makes men and women one. Mormonism makes men kings and women slaves, therefore Mormonism is not of God.
9. Christ told the murmuring Jews that "Moses truly said so, for the hardness of your heart, but in the beginning it was not so." If, in the course of man's decadence, woman was degraded, it was the mission of Christ to save those who were lost; to restore them as they were "in the beginning." If, in the course of man's religious education, at the times of man's ignorance, God hath winked, he, in the revelation of a higher law, has elevated humanity to a higher position. As man draws his mental and moral natures more from the ​woman than man, so to elevate mankind God must elevate their mothers. In the beginning men and women were equal and one, "a male and a female." Christ is the "restorer of all things as in the beginning," and, therefore, according to the Scriptures, monogamy must prevail. We can easily grant, and only strengthen our position, that Jacob and David degraded women, for it is only an additional proof of the superiority of Jesus' gospel over Moses' law; in that he lifts up the fallen, and that in him ancient superstition and female slavery is al olished; for "there is neither male nor female, they are all one in Christ Jesus." They were one before the fall, God formed them "one pair," pronounced them "one flesh;" Christ makes them "one" again in the redemption.
II. Polygamy is anti-natural.
Nature in the proportion of male to female births distinctly manifests her will on the subject of marriage. There are more males than females born into the world. In the United States' census of 1850, the whole number of nativities in the United States were stated as 19,553,068 persons. Of these 10,026,377 were males, and only 9,526,691 females; leaving a surplus, in the United States alone, of nearly 500,000 on the male side. Had all these lived, attained the age of maturity, and intermarried, there would still have been nearly half a million of men without wives. By the British census of 1851, it is seen that the increase of the population of England during the then preceding fifty years, was 102 per cent. in the proportions of 105 males to 97-5 females; the increase of Scotland, for the same period, had been 78 per cent.; in the proportions of 84 males to 73 females. Instead, there​fore, of a surplus of females, as the polygamy argument would require, there are, at least, 5 per cent. more males born. These, however, are but the births; the deaths may be unequal. After all the heavy demands of the fifty years ending 1851, on the male population of Great Britain, to supply men for the continental war, by sea and land; the East Indian war, and increase of soldiers after the cessation of the war; the war on the Cape of Good Hope; the many accidents on the ocean, and the draining emigration of an enormous plurality of males to the United States and Australasian colonies; still the population of Great Britain and Ireland was 13,537,052 males to 14,082,814 females, or an actual plurality of females of only three per cent. In Prussia, 1849, there were 8,162,805 males to 8,162,382 females, an actual plurality of males living. In the United States, and Australasian colonies, this is also the fact. As there are more males than females who emigrate, therefore, in all countries to which emigration comes, there is a plurality of males found; and in all countries whence they come, there are more females left. In the Sandwich Islands, in 1853, there were 37,079 males and only 33,940 females; a positive plurality of 3,139 males, or nearly 10 per cent.
While it is true that more males die from accidental, it is also true that more females die from natural, causes. This, also, helps to maintain the constant equilibrium of the sexes, and even leaves a small plurality of males. The works of nature are not, however, to be computed from one people or for one period. A census of the whole world, if taken, by centuries, would prove that the greater liability of males was ​more than compensated by the plurality of births of nearly 5 per cent., or a surplus of 55,000 to every 1,000,000 of nativities. It must be so. Were the plurality of births female instead of male, with a constantly-increasing and excessive mortality of the males, and a constantly-increasing proportion of female births, the relative proportion of the sexes would become frightfully deranged in a few years. Any mathematician can add figures to this formula. Nature, in this respect, proves a very glorious truth; that the God of revelation who created man and woman "one pair," is the God who in nature preserves man and woman in pairs too! and, therefore, polygamy is anti-natural, because, for any one man to take more than his one woman, is a robbery inflicted on the rest of mankind!
III. Polygamy is irrational.
Reason is the faculty that adapts means to ends, and is founded on experience. What are the objects of marriage and how are they best subserved! Paley and others have ably shown, that one object of marriage is not only the procreation, but also the elevation of children. Now the history of the world's progress is traceable by that of women. The nation that degraded women was itself degraded. Those nations who most respected her mission and position, were the most celebrated and powerful. Those nations were always monogamist. The priests of Egypt, the conservators of human knowledge, were monogamists. The Grecians, who have given to every science a name and to many sciences a birth-place and master, were monogamists. Rome, whose very name recalls visions of universal dominion, intellectual pre-eminence, and physical strength, was monogamist. Roman ​matrons, mothers, wives, virgins, would have despised polygamy; they helped to make Rome the thing it was! Woman is the inciter of the artist and the model for the art. Had it not been for being the chosen recipients of God's word, the polygamist Jews might have lived unnoticed and died unknown.
2. The position of children depend on their mothers. Children assimilate more to their mother's than their father's nature. Universal philosophy, confirmed by universal experience, testifies that to make slaves of women they will bear but slaves. The child's earliest and hence strongest education depends on the mother. "If ever I was any thing, or am any thing, or ever shall be any thing, I must attribute it to my mother," said J. Q. Adams. "My mother," said Napoleon, "first inspired me with the wish to be great." Memory loves to linger round the names of such women as Washington's mother; those of Cromwell, Edwards, Wesley, Kossuth, Lamartine and others—mothers and men polygamic countries could never have produced.
3. Woman's influence as a wife is by no means inferior to that of a mother. The caliber of a man's mind is determinable by the female society he prefers; because the man's mind is toned by the female society that he keeps. Those who entertain a low opinion of woman's mission, generally act so as to keep them degraded. Some of the greatest men have had the best wives. She helps to form the character that he exhibits to the world. She is often the real artizan, but whose name is not on the production. Degrade the wife, and consequently you degrade the husband, the possessor of the wife. ​The true glory that a woman adds to a man is not, can not be the mere sensual extension of gratification, nor the material benefit of numerous posterity, but mental and moral. Gems are valueless and unknown if they be not polished. To say that three fifths of the world are polygamists, is to say, therefore, that three fifths of the world are degraded. Polygamy compares with monogamy as Greece with Persia, Assyria with Rome; or, in our own day, as England compares with Turkey; North America with India; France with China. The Anglo-Saxon race who are giving language, laws, literature, commerce, and religion to all the earth; who are filling the world with their steam-engines and printing-presses; directing by their stronger energy, and instructing with their superior wisdom, are the monogamic descendants of monogamic ancestors. Degrade the position of Anglo-Saxon women to that of Circassian slaves, and you degrade Anglo-Saxon men to the level of the Turks, those slaves' masters; for universal experience asserts, that to degrade the woman, is to share her fall.
4. No rational argument can be drawn from the marriage laws of any one people for the peremptory regulation of any other. The laws of marriage have been as various as circumstances of nations. Among the Jews marriage was obligatory. An unmarried youth of eighteen was disgraced. Girls might marry at twelve years and one day; boys at thirteen and one day. The Medes compelled the citizens of one province to take each seven women; while in another, they compelled each woman to take five husbands. In Pegu a woman can be purchased for a certain time; while among the Chinese, ​the wealthy buy their wives, and the poor beg theirs from foundling-hospitals. The good-looking girls were sold among the Assyrians, to furnish dowers for those whose good looks could not win a husband. Some modern reformers advocate the breaking down of all restraints, and let passion roam wild, unchecked by any thing but satiety, and undirected but by caprice. The objects of marriage, however, which are "private happiness, production, best eduction, and establishment of most healthy offspring; peace of society, administration of government, and encouragement of industry," are best subserved by monogamy. Political science repeats the command of revelation, "Let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband!"
5. The Mormons contend that a man's glory will depend on his kingdom, and that kingdom on his family. Hence, it is argued, no family, no kingdom. Many of the greatest prophets were not married men. There is no right to suppose that Enoch or Elijah were married, and whose glory surpasses that of these men? Samuel was not married, and what prophet greater than he? John the Baptist was not. married, and yet "a greater prophet was never born of woman," said Jesus. John the beloved, Peter, and others of the apostles, preferred to be eunuchs for the kingdom of God's sake;" and Paul himself advises the Church, "He that giveth in marriage doth well, but he that giveth not in marriage doth better;" and, himself a bachelor, set an example of celibacy to the Church.
6. Such a principle as the above, would be unworthy of God; because it would favor the gross and animal, to the ​prejudice of those who, by their predominant intellectuality, are far better fitted to govern families. It is a well-known fact that the lower we descend in the scale of animated nature, the more prolific do the races become. Swine are more prolific than horses. This is not only a fixed principle that seems to obtain in the animal, but may also be traced in the human economy. Those races not most famous for mental energy, are often most famous for their numerous families. The men of great genius who have, by the powers of their intellect and mental resources, enlightened and advanced the world, have been remarkable for the smallness of their families. In many cases they have left no children after them, either to disgrace their names or increase their renown." Washington, no son! Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, no sons! Shakspeare, Milton, Byron, no sons! The direct families of Coleridge, Walter Scott, Earl Chatham, and Napoleon, and scores of others, are extinct. It almost seems as though their mental consumed their physical nature; and like the blossom of the giant aloe, could only bloom once in a hundred years.
7. It is however urged that polygamy prevents prostitution. This is a powerful argument in the conviction of women's minds and hearts in its favor; besides giving scope for fervent declamation to their Elders. The fact is gladly admitted that. there are no prostitutes and bawd-houses at Utah. The enunciated penalty on discovered adultery is death! It is far more the dread of this penalty, therefore, than the practice of polygamy, that prevents prostitutions. Even were it otherwise, the remedy is worse than the disease. Appalling though the number of prostitutes may be, they are still comparatively ​few when the whole number of virtuous women is remembered. Happy homes by far exceed the number of degraded unfortunates. To save these degraded few, all womanhood must be degraded according to this strange view. To prevent comparatively few from ruin, all must be sacrificed. The evil is partial, while the remedy is universal; or to use a forcible but common phrase, "the plaster is bigger than the sore!" Besides this, universal polygamy presupposes a plurality of females, when the real fact evinces a plurality of males. Polygamy, as a remedy for prostitution, is therefore unreasonable, because impracticable.
If the superstitious terror of the power of the priesthood—the dread of their supernatural discernment, and the fear of death were removed from the minds of the Mormon women, hundreds would obey the instincts of their natures, and Utah would become a pandemonium of licentiousness. Prostitution has its victims, and they are thousands; were polygamy as universal as monogamy, then polygamy would count its victims by millions.
The practice of polygamy among the Jews did not prevent prostitution. Judah went in unto Tamar; and Solomon needed to give the injunction, "Go not after strange women." Viewing Mormonism as a religion, it is still worse. None but bad men in the world encourage prostitutes; the Mormon best men practice polygamy; grant then for a moment that polygamy is a less evil than prostitution, it only proves that the Mormon best men are only one remove above the world's worst!
Even the Mormon women admit that it would be far better for the world were monogamy instead of polygamy the insti​tution of God. A Mrs. Nixon, at Salt Lake City, told me, "I believe polygamy is an institution of God, Mr. Hyde, and I therefore submit to it; but I have very often wished it were otherwise." This was wrung from the heart of a pure but infatuated woman; and must be echoed by all women's hearts. Let us compare, for a moment, Christianity with Mormonism, in this particular. Christians do not practice prostitution, but monogamy. Mormons do not practice prostitution but polygamy. In the non-practice of prostitution, they are therefore equal; but in as far as monogamy is superior to polygamy, and the Mormon women admit that it is, just so far is Christianity certainly superior to Mormonism. To blame Christianity because bad men encourage prostitutes, is ridiculous; and yet the Mormon Elders are constantly doing this. It is just as unfair as it would be to say Mormonism countenanced indiscriminate thieving, because William Nobody stole a horse. The general practice of the leaders is the exponent of the general principles of the body. Whether viewed, therefore, in the light of the Scriptures, of nature, or of reason, polygamy is untenable and false.
IV. Polygamy is anti-Mormon.
1. There can be but one system called by one name. If one scheme be Mormonism, certainly the contradiction of that scheme can not be Mormonism too. The system first estabished by J. Smith was Mormonism. Polygamy entirely contradicts and opposes that system, and is, therefore, anti-Mornon. Those who received that system ought to reject polygamy. Smith, on p. 118, Book of Mormon, states:
"For behold, thus saith the Lord, this people begin to wax ​in iniquity; they understand not the Scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord; wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord; for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. For, behold, I the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem; yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led. out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me, against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts; for they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people, because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction: for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."
God threatens, according to Smith, "to smite them ​with a sore curse, even to destruction," if they do thus take other wives. They have taken them: they will be cursed.
2. The Mormons try to elude all this by the words, "For if I will raise up seed, I will command you." A. B. does an abominable thing. For C. D. to do the same, it would be abominable too. If God were to command C. D. to do it, he would command an abomination. When God desires to raise up a godly seed, it will be as Malachi has said, "He made one!" If he were to institute any other method, he would contradict himself. There can be no evasion; the Book of Mormon curses them if they do it. Either they must cleave to their book, in spite of polygamy; or to polygamy in spite of their book. If polygamy be right, then the book is wrong, and Mormonism falls in its origin. If the book be right, then polygamy is wrong, and Mormonism falls in its present position. But whether it fell in the beginning, or since, it is equally fallen; and men are mad to adhere to a fallen system.
3. More entirely to enmesh himself, Smith pretended to get a revelation, February, 1831, in which he says that God commanded him, "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her, and none else; and he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not shall be cast out." (Doc. and Cov., p. 124.) This was the pretended word of the Mormon unchangeable Lord in 1831; yet in 1838 Smith was cohabiting with several women!
4. In 1842, it began to be whispered at Nauvoo, that polygamy was a part of the Mormon faith. The Elders ​strenuously denied it; and, in 1845, an appendix was added to the Revelations of Smith, in which the Mormon authorities state, although most of them were polygamists at the time, and they all knew they were lying! "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crimes of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." The writers of this infamous affair knew that Smith had children living, the offspring of polygamy, at the very day that they wrote it.
There existed another and still more forcible reason why the Mormons in Utah should not practice polygamy. By the census returns of 1851, made by the Mormons themselves, it was shown that there were in Utah 6,020 males to only 5,310 females, an excess of males over females of 710 persons. Now, when it is considered that some of those men had over twenty wives, and many from two to six wives each, it was defrauding so many more young men of wives; and, therefore, homes; and, therefore, happiness; and as the Mormon doctrine is "No wife, no glory; no glory, no salvation," it was, according to their own faith, building up their own kingdoms at the expense of the salvation of their own brethren. Damning hundreds to get glory!
Every physical and moral crime carries within it the elements of its own punishment. Polygamy is theoretically incorrect, and should, therefore, exhibit its fallacy when practically adopted. The worst argument against the Mormon polygamy is its practical results, as proven in chap. iii. Polygamy being theoretically erroneous, reasoning men and women should discard it as a principle; being actually debasing, they should reject it as a practice.
The charge of polygamy was invariably denied by the Mormons for fourteen years, although it was true; and it behooves every man to demand, "Are not the other charges made against them equally true, although they may have been equally denied?"