# The Seer/Volume 1/Number 7/Celestial Marriage

The Seer, Vol. 1, No. 7, July 1853
CELESTIAL MARRIAGE
(Continued from page 96)
The multiplication of human beings is not the only object of marriage, but connected with this is the righteous government of those beings. If increase alone were the design, then it could be accomplished through the wicked, as well as the righteous; but we have already proved that God is not pleased with the increase of the wicked: the cause of this displeasure arises from the unrighteous government exercised in their families. A wicked man is totally unqualified to govern a family according to the law of righteousness; for though he deliver righteous precepts, his wicked examples preach louder in the ears of his family than his precepts. If precepts have no influence in regulating the conduct of the parents, how can it be expected that they shall regulate the acts of the children? If parents will not repent of their sins, and call upon the Lord, and be baptized into the Church of Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost, and be diligent in obeying every requirement of Heaven, the children will be very likely to harden their hears also. Children are susceptible of influences; those whom they esteem most they will be the most likely to imitate. And as children generally suppose their parents to be superior to all others, they are very apt to be controlled by their influence, either for good or for bad. Hence, the wise man says, “Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Parents cannot train children in the proper path, unless they walk therein themselves. Therefore no individuals or nations are divinely authorized to marry, and multiply their species, unless they are qualified to govern them according to the law of God, and to teach them both by example and precept the way that leads to eternal life and happiness.
The salvation or damnation of a family depends, in a very great degree, upon the nature of the government exercised in that family. If the head of a family be a righteous man, his influence is continually exercised in every department of his house; his wife or wives are continually instructed in every good and useful and upright principle; his children are taught in the law of God according to their age, experience, and capacities: his examples are imitated; his whole household love, revere, and obey him: he leads them unto God, and teaches them how to be happy here and hereafter; he obtains promises from the Almighty for them and their generations after them; he blesses them by the spirit of prophecy, according to the power and inspiration of the Holy Ghost that is in him: and in fine, he is a prophet, patriarch, prince, and saviour to all that God has given him. Such a man is worthy of a family; he has a divine right to marry, and multiply his offspring; for he thus, in training up a family, glorifies God; he prepares them to associate with a higher order of beings in the Heavens; through his instrumentality they are made partakers of eternal life. Contrast such an order of family government with the unrighteousness and disorder in the families of the wicked; and then tell me, if such a man is not more worthy of a hundred wives and a thousand children, than the wicked are to be entrusted with one? Tell me if such a man would not glorify God more, in the salvation of a large and numerous family, than the wicked man who is the instrument of bringing damnation upon his family? Hear what ispage 105said concerning Abraham. “And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.”—(Gen. xviii, 17-19.) The Lord and two angels had just taken dinner with Abraham, and as they started on their journey towards Sodom, “Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.” The Lord concluded to reveal to Abraham a secret concerning the destruction of Sodom. The reason assigned for revealing this secret to him, was because he would “command his children and his household;” and because of this He would bring upon him all that he had promised. Thus we see that in consequence of the good order and righteous government which this Polygamist exercised in his family, he was counted worthy to have the Lord and his angels to dine with him, to receive a revelation concerning the fate of the neighbouring cities, and to learn that the Lord would actually make him a great nation, and that all nations should be blessed in him. All these great blessings were bestowed as a reward for commanding his children and household according to the law of God. On the other hand, great and terrible were the judgments which came upon Sodom and the surrounding cities, because they would not command their children in righteousness, nor give heed themselves to the law of God.
And even among the people of God there is a distinction, arising from the faithfulness of some and the unfaithfulness of others. Those who are the most upright are better qualified to govern families than those who are unfaithful. Though the Lord had made promises to Jacob concerning the posterity of his twelve sons, yet because of their wickedness while in the wilderness He came very near destroying them. The Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under Heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.”—Duet. ix. 13-14. Why did the Lord wish to destroy them, and make the posterity of Moses into a nation greater than they? Because Moses was more righteous than they, and consequently was much better qualified to instruct and teach his children, than all Israel; and the Lord had a great desire to bless those who were the most faithful, with a numerous posterity, while those among his people who transgressed were considered unworthy of standing at the head of a numerous offspring. Had not Moses plead before the Lord in behalf of Israel, and referred to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, the Lord might have destroyed them, and raised up a mighty nation by Moses, in their stead. But the Lord hearkened unto Moses, and “repented of the evil which He thought to do unto his people.”—Ex. xxxiii.
Abraham had a numerous household, before Sarah gave Hagar to him for a wife. We read of three hundred and eighteen trained servants “born in his own house.”—Gen. xiv. 14. Now it is altogether likely that Abraham was more righteous and faithful than all the church in his house; hence, he was the only one among them that we have any account of having more than one wife. His faithfulness and his qualifications to instruct and govern in righteousness, entitled him to greater privileges.
The Lord blessed Gideon, because he was a mighty man of God, with upwards of seventy sons, and chose him to deliver Israel.
David, being a man after God’s own heart, took seven wives before he ascended the throne to reign over all Israel. He, being a prophet, was well qualified to govern and instruct a family in righteousness. He had more wives and children committed to him, than manypage 106of his brethren, because he was better qualified to lead them to salvation. After David had taken seven wives, the Lord, thinking that he had not yet a sufficient number, gave into his bosom all of Saul’s wives.—2 Sam. xii. 8. What is the secret of the Lord’s being so anxious for David to have so many wives? Because he, being a man after God’s own heart, was more likely to save his wives and children, than many others of Israel who were less faithful.
But when David turned from his righteousness, and took Uriah’s wife, the Lord now considered him no longer worthy of his wives, and He gave them to his neighbour. He was informed by the Lord through Nathan, the Prophet, that if Saul’s wives and that which He had already given to him “had been too little,” “I would moreover,” he says, “have given unto thee such and such things;”—(2 Sam. xii. 8.) clearly intimating that He, the Lord, would have given him more, lawfully, if he had been faithful. But now he had forfeited all that he had got. Saul, through he had been a prophet, afterwards transgressed, and rendered himself unworthy of his kingdom—unworthy of his wives—and unworthy of even life itself. Wives and children are among the greatest blessings bestowed upon the righteous. He, therefore, that receives these blessings, and continues faithful, will be counted worthy to receive more; but he that is unfaithful will have taken from him even that which he has. This was the case with Saul and David; their wives were taken from them. David, by taking that which did not belong to him, lost all his own.
God raised up Solomon to sit upon the throne of Israel; and He appeared unto him twice, and gave him great wisdom above all others, and the Lord was with him, and magnified him exceedingly before all Israel, and hearkened unto his prayer, and filled the temple which he built, with a could of glory, and caused fire to descend from Heaven to consume the sacrifice. This great man was much better calculated to train up children in the way that they should go, than any other man living, for God had given him greater wisdom; hence he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.—1 Kings, xi. But even this wise man turned away from the Lord, by taking wives from among surrounding nations who were idolaters, which thing the Lord had expressly forbidden. (See verses 1,2.) Solomon was not condemned for marrying many wives of his own nation; but having transgressed the strict commandment of God, in marrying out of his nation, he was left unto himself, and was turned away after the idolatrous gods of his wives; and God rent the kingdom in twain in the days of his son, and gave ten tribes to another not of his seed.
Thus it will be seen that even among the people of God there were some who were more worthy than others, consequently God gave such more wives and children than He did to others. These blessings were dispensed, like all other blessings, according to the righteousness, wisdom, faith, holiness, and qualifications of those who professed to be the people of God. Some receiving more, some less, some none at all, and some having taken from them even those they had received.
Therefore, though the males and females had been of equal number in Israel, yet God would have confer[r]ed upon some more than upon others, according to their worthiness. As it was among Israel, so it is among the people of Utah. Some are entitled to a greater number of wives, than others, because of their righteousness. Though the census should show an equal number of the sexes in that Territory, that does not prove that all the men are equally qualified to instruct, counsel, govern, and lead wives and children in the paths of righteousness. A father would not confer upon his children equal blessings, authority, and power, unless they were equally faithful. A wise king having many sons would confer authority and power upon such only as would use the same for the benefit of the people.page 107Those who would not be subject to good laws themselves, he would not entrust to govern others. Our Heavenly Father acts upon the same principle. He is willing that all should enjoy equal rights and privileges, upon the ground of equal obedience. We have this illustrated in the parable of the talents; one having one, another two, and another five. Those who made a proper use of what was entrusted to them, gained more: those who made an improper use of their blessings, lost all they had: their blessings were taken from them and given to others, who had more abundantly. This explains the mystery why the Lord in ancient times gave more wives to one than what he did to another, when to all appearance the numbers of males and females were about equal.
And when the most of his people were righteous, and worthy to be entrusted with numerous families, and there were not a sufficient number of females to supply them with a plurality of wives, the Lord provided for them, by commanding them to spare the female captives of certain nations taken in war. Hence when the Israelites made war against Midian they slew all the men, and took the women and children captives. Moses afterwards commanded them as follows: “Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”—Num. xxxi. 17-18.
This was made a law among Israel in all their wars against foreign cities and nations. Moses said concerning the city that would not make peace with Israel, “Thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hand, then shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of thee nations.”—Duet. xx. 12-15. If Israel kept the law which was given them, they must have accumulated hundreds of thousands of female captives for themselves. But why were they commanded to preserve the females and not the males? Because the Lord was very anxious that His people should have a plurality of wives, for they were the only people qualified on the face of the whole earth to raise up children in righteousness; therefore the Lord took particular care to make such provisions as would constitute Israel a nation of polygamists.
The male is appointed by the authority of God to be at the head of his family—to be a patriarch and Saviour unto them. If the male children of these nations had been spared alive, they would have remembered their fathers, and as they grew up they would have turned away to the idolatry and abominations of their fathers; and if they had married wives among Israel, they would have been instruments not only in ruining themselves, but their families also. But not so with the females who were spared alive. They would be connected in marriage with good men, to whom they would be subject, and their children also; and the man being at the head of the family, would, by his good examples and precepts, save all his wives and children. Hence we see the wisdom of God in destroying the males, and saving the women for his people, that they, by having a great number of wives, might multiply the chosen seed as the stars of Heaven.
The number of the children of Israel compared with the number of families, shows that polygamy must have been practised to a very great extent while they were in the wilderness. Moses was commanded to take the number of all the males from twenty years old and upwards that were able to go forth to war.—Num. i. 2-3. The number was found to be six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty, (verse 46.)page 108It is very likely that the number of males under twenty years would, when added to the others, increase the same to about one million. The number of females, it is most likely, was far greater, as the Egyptians, upwards of forty years before, had commenced destroying the male children. The whole nation of Israel, therefore, must have been something near two and one-half millions. Now, how many first born males were there in this numerous host? Answer: only twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three. (See Num. iii. 43.) Hence there was among the whole number of males only an average of one out of thirty-nine that was the first-born. How can that be possible? It could not be possible only upon the principle of a plurality of wives existing in almost every family; for each woman could not have had thirty-nine sons; and it must be recollected that only one out of this number could be the first-born. Now, a man that had four wives might possibly have thirty-nine sons; in this case there would be only one out of the number who could be the first-born. The first-born has relation only to the man who is the head of the family, and not to the woman. Though Jacob had four wives and twelve sons, yet Reuben only was called the first-born. It may be said that there were many families whose first-born were daughters: of this there is no doubt. Admit that the two classes of families were equal, still there would be only forty-four thousand five hundred and forty-six families having children in all Israel; taking into consideration those families that had no children, the whole number of families in Israel could not have exceeded fifty thousand. Now, two and one-half millions of people must have all been included in fifty thousand families, which would be an average of just fifty to a family. As one wife could not be the mother of forty-eight children, it shows most conclusively that nearly every family in Israel must have practised polygamy. As each man’s family consisted, at least, of fifty persons, and if five children be allowed as an average to each wife, then each man’s family must have consisted of about eight wives and forty children. There is no getting away from these Scriptural proofs in favour of polygamy. No person can explain upon any other principle, how there could be only twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three first born males in a nation whose population , at a very low estimate, must have numbered two and one-half millions.
At the highest estimate, there could not have been over fifty thousand married men in Israel at that time, and yet there must have been something like three or four hundred thousand married women. The number of married men is approximately estimated from the number of first born males. And the number of married women is approximately estimated from the whole number of Israel.
At the above estimate the number of males remaining unmarried would amount to about nine hundred and fifty thousand; of this number there would be upwards of five hundred and fifty thousand over twenty years of age, not married; while the number of unmarried females would be about eleven or twelve hundred thousand.
Of those males who were old enough to marry, as an average, only one out of twelve had a family. There must have been some cause for this. Can any one give a reasonable cause? Can any one tell why only about one-twelfth part of the men at that time had families? Have we not reason to believe that only this small proportion of the men were worthy of wives or children? Why were fifty thousand men blessed with some three or four hundred thousand wives, while upwards of five hundred and fifty thousand had none at all? We cannot answer this question, only upon the principle that God gives wives and children in great abundance to his faithful servants, and withholds them from the unfaithful, for fear that they would increase an unrighteous posteritypage 109upon the earth. Should God deal with the Saints in Utah upon the same principle now, that He did in ancient times, it would be nothing strange if He should give to many of His faithful servants a hundred fold of wives and children; while others, less faithful, would be limited to one, and others still have none at all, like the great majority of Israel in the wilderness.
If any one should say that the manner in which God dispensed His blessings under the Mosaic dispensations, is not applicable under the Gospel, in reply, we ask, Is it any more pleasing in the sight of God for a wicked man to bring up a family in wickedness under the Gospel dispensation, than it was under former dispensations? Are not the evil consequences the same under every dispensation? Is there not just as much danger of a wicked man’s bringing ruin and eternal misery upon his family under the Gospel, as under the law? If, then, God is now just as much displeased with a family reared in wickedness, and if there is the same danger of destroying the immortal souls of the offspring now, as under the Mosaic dispensation, then why should it be through strange that God should use the same preventatives now that He did anciently, to check the increase of the wicked, and the same facilities to greatly increase the families of the righteous? Why should it be considered unreasonable that God should give many wives and children to those who would in righteousness command their households, as Abraham did, and withhold these blessings from others who are unworthy.
These testimonies and arguments effectually demolish the great objection to a plurality of wives, founded upon the equality of the numbers of males and females in Utah. It will be seen, that if the males in that territory were five times more numerous than the females, still the foregoing arguments would show the necessity of a plurality of wives; unless it can be proved that all the males in that territory are equally faithful, and consequently equally worthy to be entrusted with these great blessings. But the question may be asked, Who is to decide upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the people? We answer, the same Being who always decided all matters of importance among His people. But is there not great danger of being deceived? Yes; there is very great danger, indeed, of being deceived, unless you believe in a God who gives revelation now as He did in ancient times. All the nations of the earth have always been deceived when they got so far from God that He would not speak to them; they are then left to follow their own imaginations, which are sure to deceive them. But when God speaks there is no chance of deception. His sheep know His voice and will follow Him; hence it is not possible for the elect to be deceived; because they converse with God, and He never deceives any one. If the people of Utah are the people of God, then there is no possible chance of their being deceived upon any subject of as great importance as that of the plurality of wives; for no man has a right to these blessings unless God shall give them to him through His servant the prophet. But, on the other hand, if the people of Utah have no prophet, then they are not the people of god, but are deceived like all the rest of Christendom who are without prophets. In the latter case, we would not be worthy of even one wife, much less a plurality. A people that have no prophets or inspired men among them, never were worthy of wives or children in any age of the world. Hence if the people of Utah cannot inquire of God, and receive revelations from Him, they are no more entitled to wives and children than Apostate Christendom are. The righteousness or unrighteousness of having a plurality of wives, or even one wife, all hangs upon the simple question, Whether the people who presume to marry, are, or are not, the people of God? If they are not, they have no di-page 110vine right to even one wife; if they are His people He has the undoubted right to show, through His Prophet, how many wives, if any, each may have.
But would it be right for the Latter-day Saints to marry a plurality of wives in any of the states, or territories, or nations, where such practices are prohibited by the laws of man? We answer no: it would not be right; for we are commanded to be subject to the powers that be. So long as we live under their jurisdiction, we are commanded to keep their laws, unless their laws are unrighteous, like those given by Nebuchadnezzar, commanding all people to fall down and worship a golden image which he had caused to be set up; we then should, no doubt, rebel as the three Hebrews did. But all laws which we could keep without violating our consciences, it is our duty to obey so long as we live under them. The laws enacted by the different states and territories, against the plurality of wives, we believe to be unconstitutional, growing out of the narrow-contracted, bigoted customs of Apostate Christianity, nevertheless it is the duty of the Saints, so long as they remain under such illiberal laws, to strictly comply with them. But if they wish to enjoy the privileges granted by the word of God, and by the glorious Constitution of our National Republic, let them depart from under the jurisdiction of these illiberal State laws, and go to Utah where religious liberty is tolerated, and where every people and sect have the right to worship as they please, and marry as many wives as they please, and be accountable to God and not to man.
Laws are intended to prevent crime, and the revealed law of God, and the light of conscience, are abundantly sufficient to determine what is crime. A well instructed conscience will not determine anything to be crime which is not inconsistent with the revealed law. As plurality of wives is perfectly consistent with the revealed law, it is not a crime; and therefore no human laws should denounce it as such; but every man should be left perfectly free in regard to this thing, so far as human laws are concerned.
Every enlightened conscience, as well as the word of God, will tell us that lying, stealing, robbing, false swearing, committing adultery, trespassing, murdering, and many other similar acts, are crimes; and therefore the legislative departments should enact wise and judicious laws for their punishment. But where in the word of God is the plurality of wives denounced as a crime? Nowhere; but on the contrary, it is approbated of God. Shall human wisdom, then, presume to enact laws against that which is nowhere in the divine oracles condemned as a crime? Must we under the broad folds of the American Constitution, be compelled to bow down to the narrow-contracted notions of Apostate Christianity? Must we shut up our consciences in a nut shell, and be compelled to submit to the bigoted notions, and whims, and customs of the dark ages of popery, transferred to us through the superstitions of our fathers. Must we be slaves to custom, and render homage to the soul-destroying, sickening influences of modern Christianity? No: American freedom was never instituted for such servile purposes; the constitution of our country was never framed to crush the conscience of man, and put upon him the iron yoke of Romish superstition; our illustrious fathers never fought and bled to bequeath to their children the heritage of freedom mingled with despotism; the proud American eagle was never made to stretch forth its wings and soar aloft to mock the sons of freedom’s soil. Liberty—unbounded liberty of conscience should characterize the laws of each of the States of this great and extended Union. Here the Hindoo or the Chinese should be permitted to bow down and worship the idolatrous Gods of their fathers, unmolested and unharmed, so long as they are guilty of no crimes, and do nothing calculated to injure society. Under a theocratical form of government an idolater would be punished with death; for idolatry is a great crime in the sight of God. A theocracy would consider all religions, except one, criminal, and would limit and circumscribe all but one. But the government of this nation is not a theocracy; it is intended to give religious freedom to all; to carry out these views, the various religions among pagan nations should be tolerated here, and their followers receive the same protection by law as the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, or any other society. If any religion which does not conflict with the Constitution of the country is to be prohibited, the same rule will prohibit all others. So long, therefore, as the present form of this Republican Government is our standard, let the religions of all nations be equally protected. And if any among the nations of Asia or{{page break|111}Africa, or of the islands of the sea, consider it right to have a plurality of wives, and wish to emigrate with their numerous families, and become citizens of this great Republic, they ought to have that privilege, without being compelled by the unconstitutional State laws, to break up their families, and divorce all their wives but one. The present illiberal State laws virtually forbid immigration from about four-fifths of the nations of the earth, and yet it is pretended that our country is an asylum for all nations. But let them try it once, and they will soon find our prisons filled with sincere but unfortunate polygamists; they will soon find that, with the exception of one, all their wives, however dear to their hearts, will be torn from their embrace. Is this freedom and liberty! Is this the kind asylum held out to the oppressed of all nations!! Must they relinquish the dearest and most sacred rights ever enjoyed by man, and break asunder the family ties of conjugal affection and love, in order to be made partakers of our hospitality? Boast not, O proud America, of the liberality of thy institutions, when such illiberal laws as these curse they soil! After having been subjected to the loss of his family, well might the honest patriarchal orientalist exclaim, “Give me my wives and my children, and let America keep her proffered liberty for others whose minds are already tramelled under the whims and superstitions of Papist and Protestant religions! Give me my wives and my children, and I will return to my native country, where the sacred rights of the domestic circle are not invaded and torn asunder by legislative enactments! Give me my wives and my children, for without them the sound of liberty has lost its sweetness in my ear! Give me my wives and my children, and I am willing to endure the hardships of the Old World, in order to escape from the restrictive, superstitious, oppressive laws of the New!” These would be the feelings of millions of the inhabitants of the Old World, should they emigrate to our country and have their families broken up, and they be imprisoned for polygamy by our unconstitutional State laws. Why will not American citizens, then, rise up with one accord and repeal those illiberal, oppressive laws, and let the liberties bequeathed to us by the choice blood of our illustrious ancestors be enjoyed to their fullest extent? Why will not America welcome the oppressed, down-trodden sons of the Old World to enjoy the luxuries of our soil, and the great privileges of our sacred Constitution, without tearing from their embrace that which is dearer than life, the moment that they set foot upon our shores?
(To be continued)page 112