# The Seer/Volume 1/Number 8/Celestial Marriage

The Seer, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1853
CELESTIAL MARRIAGE
(Continued from page 112)
The object of laws is to prohibit every practice which is calculated to injure individuals or society. But in what respect are individuals or society injured by the practice of a plurality of wives? We answer, in no respect whatever, The objector may say that such a practice is calculated in some instances to produce poverty, and bring distress upon the family, and, therefore, should be considered criminal, and prohibited by law. We reply, that there are many practices which bring poverty and distress, and yet those practices are perfectly lawful. For instance, the slaveholder may reduce himself to poverty, by accumulating slaves, and by a mismanagement of them. Would the southern States consider this a crime? Would they prohibit by law the purchase of slaves, because, in some instance, it reduced the purchaser to poverty, and brought distress upon himself and family? And again; a man may bring poverty and distress upon himself and family by unwisely employing mechanics, clerks, day labourers, &c. Would any of the States or Territories consider this criminal? Would they enact laws to prohibit the hiring of mechanics and labourers, because, in some instances, it reduces to poverty? Another instance; many persons by marrying one wife reduce themselves from a state of wealth to abject poverty, yet no State would, for such a reason, denounce the marriage of one wife as criminal, and prohibit it by law. We might multiply any amount of instances where poverty and distress are brought upon families by the practice of things which are perfectly justifiable by the law. Because a plurality of wives may, in some instances, reduce a family to poverty, is no reason, therefore, why it should be prohibited by law, any more than thousands of other practices which may produce the same results. But in the most of cases, the plurality system would have a contrary tendency; instead of diminishing the wealth of a family it would increase it. A large number, bound together by the strong ties of family affection, and taking hold of business in a united capacity,page 122 will be able, most frequently, to accomplish more than the same number of individuals acting separately, and governed only by individual interest. A union of interest and action is admitted by all to be more powerful in its results, than disunion. A numerous family of children are calculated to accumulate wealth, or to accomplish any other object, by their united energy, more than a small family. Hence, the Psalmist says, “Children are an heritage of the Lord. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them; they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” Ps. 127. Instead of a large family being a disadvantage in point of wealth or strength, they are of great advantage. Therefore, so far as this cause has any bearing, it would be more just for the States to prohibit the one-wife system, than to prohibit the system of plurality.
Sometimes objections are urged against the plurality system, by saying, that it takes away the rights of women and, therefore, it should be prohibited by law. But what rights of women does it take away? If several women voluntarily, and from their own choice, and with the consent of their relative, wish to unite their destinies with one man, what rights have been taken from them in prohibiting them by law to have the man of their choice; they are compelled, by legislative enactments, to relinquish all hopes of marrying a man upon whom their affections are placed, and obliged, if they marry at all, to go contrary to every feeling of their nature—to be united with one for whom they have no love. How many thousands of women there are who would rather remain single all their days, than to accept the offers of many profligate young men for whom they entertain no other feelings but those of disgust. Could these same women have their rights which naturally belong to them, but which our illiberal State governments have deprived them of, they would unite their destinies with good men, and be infinitely more happy under the plurality system, than they would be to remain in a state of celibacy, or to be united with some wicked profligates. Give women their rights; let them marry the man of their choice. Where pure affection exists, there let them consummate that affection by freely uniting themselves in the sacred bonds of matrimony with the man whom they love, and who loves them sufficiently to make them the partners of his bosom for life. Anything short of this is illiberal, and destroys the rights of women.
It is said that plurality destroys the rights of the first wife, and, therefore, should not be tolerate by law. This depends upon circumstances. If a man has been foolish enough to make a contract with a woman previous to their marriage, that he will never marry another while she lives, then it would be taking away her rights to violate that contract without her consent. Such a man, under such a contract, should not be permitted by the laws of the States to break his agreement, for in so doing, he would take away the rights which he has guaranteed to her. But if a man marry a woman without binding himself by such a contract, or if he marry her with an understanding that he can marry others when he things proper so to do, then there are no rights of the first wife taken away, nor no contracts broken. The first wife, under these circumstances, enjoys all the rights that she had any reason to expect. When she gave herself to her husband, it was not by compulsion; she freely and voluntarily consented to be his, with the full understanding that he might marry others, whenever he chose. A woman, under these circumstances is divested of no rights only what she has voluntarily surrendered. She prefers rather to be page 123 united with such a man, though she may share but a measure of his attention, than to live a life of celibacy, or be obliged to marry one whom she loves less. Therefore the objection against plurality upon this ground is wholly without foundation.
Another objection is urged against plurality by pretending that it corrupts the morals of society, and, therefore, it is argued that it should be considered a crime, and be prohibited by law. But we ask what morals of society does it corrupt? Morality is only another name for virtue, goodness, righteousness. Immorality is its opposite—that is, viciousness, evil, unrighteousness. To be moral is to be innocent of crime; to be immoral is to be guilty of crime. It can neither be shown from reason nor the word of God, that plurality is criminal, and hence it cannot be immoral, and therefore the morals of society are not in the least endangered by its practice. On the contrary, plurality is a great and powerful antidote against immorality. How many hundreds of thousands of women there are who in consequence of having no opportunities of marriage, yield themselves up to a life of profligacy, and become notoriously immoral and unvirtuous. If these same females had not been deprived of the rights which all should enjoy under our glorious Constitution they might have united themselves to some virtuous, good men, and been happy as their second or third wives, and thus been saved from the temptations and evils into which they have fallen. Look at the misery and wretchedness of thousands of females in almost every city in America and Europe—inquire into the causes of their shameful and criminal course of life, and it will be found that in nine cases out of ten, they were driven to that state of degradation for the want of a protector—a husband in whom they could centre their affections, and on whom they could rely for a support. Would it not have been far better for these females to have been honourably connected in marriage according to the plurality system, than to have plunged themselves into the vortex of irretrievable ruin? What an immense amount of immorality and consequent suffering would have been prevented, had the State governments not been influenced by the corrupt traditions of Apostate Christianity in prohibiting plurality, and denouncing it criminal! But this order of things would not only prevent females from becoming public prostitutes, but would promote virtue among the males. Because of the vast numbers of unvirtuous females with which the nations are cursed, many young men neglect marriage, and seek to gratify their sexual propensities by unlawful and sinful connections. If no public female prostitutes existed, or if they rarely could be found, the natural consequences would be, that young men, instead of abandoning themselves to prostitution, would seek to unite themselves in honorable marriage with the partners of their choice. Plurality, therefore, not only would be a preventative against female prostitution, but would diminish the causes or means of prostitution on the part of the males. Young men abandon themselves to vice and immorality in proportion to the amount of temptation and evil influences with which they are surrounded. Diminish the causes, and the effects are diminished also; and if the cause be destroyed the effect ceases. Let our State laws permit plurality, and it will seldom be the case that a female will yield to prostitution, preferring lawful marriage to a life of degradation and suffering. The army of degraded females, receiving little or no accession to their numbers, would soon be diminished and eventually destroyed by their own folly and wickedness, and thus, the causes of temptation having, in a great degree, ceased, young men would walk in a more healthy atmosphere, and not be constantly allured, as they are now, from the paths of virtue. Plurality would also diminish greatly the temp-page 125 tations which beset the paths of married men, as well as those who are young; they would no longer be under the temptation to keep a mistress secretly, and to break the marriage covenant, and thus sin against their wives and against God. How many thousands there are who practise this great abomination. And why do they do it? Because they are compelled by our bigoted State laws to confine themselves to one wife. Had they the liberty which four-fifths of the other nations have, and which the Bible and our National Constitution guarantee, they could marry a plurality of wives, and be compelled to support them and their children, instead of having their secret mistresses, and turning them away when they get tired of them. Which, think you, a woman would prefer? Would she rather live in adultery with a man, subject, at any moment, to be turned away, penniless and unprotected, or to be lawfully united with him in honourable wedlock? Would she not infinitely prefer the latter to the former? If plurality existed, it would be very seldom that women would consent to be mistresses. Plurality, therefore, instead of injuring the morals of society, would have an effect directly the reverse; it would greatly purify society from the immoralities which now exist. How long shall the State governments be cursed with such illiberal laws! When will the people awake to a consciousness of their duties, and repeal those acts which have resulted in so much evil! When will they learn to be freemen according to the spirit of the Constitution, and no longer fetter themselves with the chains of superstition, handed down from the dark ages of Popery! Arise! Americans, arise! Break every yoke that tends to bondage! Assume the dignified position of American citizens! Maintain inviolate the choice liberties of your country—the liberties so dearly purchased by your illustrious ancestors! let not the galling chains of priestcraft bind the nation’s conscience! let not the bigoted traditions and customs of Apostate religions influence your legislative departments! let not the judgment and wisdom of your great statesmen be swayed from the important principles of liberty, so dear to every American heart! let no laws be enacted denouncing as a crime, that which reason, morality, and the word of God approve, as a virtue! let no laws prohibit you from the enjoyments arising from domestic relations which are reasonable, moral, virtuous, pure, and good! If your fathers have been in bondage to Romish superstitions, remember that you are free! Yes, free from religious intolerance! free from all nations under heaven! free to enjoy all blessings, unmolested, which God has ordained for man, unless you, yourselves, prefer laws tending to bondage, rather than liberty!
Another objection to plurality is made by pretending that it is calculated to excite jealousies in families, and, therefore, it is argued to be criminal, and should be prohibited by law. If several women mutually agree to be the wives of the same man, and he treats them with impartiality, we see no cause existing for jealousy. Each receives all the attention which she expected to receive, when she entered into the matrimonial contract. If jealousies should arise, they would be of an entirely different nature from those occasioned by unlawful steps taken by a husband. If a husband violate the laws of virtue, by unlawful connexions, the wife loses confidence in him; and when confidence is gone, peace and quietness are gone, and the foundation of happiness is destroyed in the family. Not so, when jealousies arise between members of the same family. Each wife knows that the other wives are as much entitled to the attention of the husband as she herself; she knows that such attentions are not criminal, therefore, she does not lose confidence in him; though she may consider him partial, in some respects, yet she has the consolation to know that his attentions towards them are strictly virtuous. Confidence being retained, the elements of happiness are retained. Jealousies, arising from unvirtuous conduct, are mingled with a consciousness of the guilt of the individual; while those arising from the other cause have no such distressing reflections; the first is cruel as the grave, gnawing, like the worm that never dies, at the very heartstrings of enjoyment and peace, while the latter is only a partial, transitory evil which is speedily dissipated by the kindness and attention of the husband. Plurality, as we have already stated, is a great preventative of unvirtuous connections, and therefore is a remedy against the jealousies arising from such causes. And as for the other kind of jealousy, if it should be stigmatized by that name, it is of trivial importance; like the jealousies which frequently arise between children, it is soon gone. This kind of jealousy is not the result of plurality, but a result of partiality, or supposed page 126 partiality if plurality should be prohibited on account jealousies which may arise, monogamy or the one wife system should be prohibited on account of the still greater jealousies which may arise for fear the husband may keep his secret mistresses, as many thousands do. This kind of jealousies works far greater evils in society, than what the other kind can possibly do. If the great object be to put a stop by law to the evils arising from jealousies, let laws be enacted, requiring man to have a plurality of wives, or else none at all; prohibit the one wife practice, and you will accomplish much more than you do by prohibiting plurality. But we say, let no prohibitory laws be passed in regard to how many wives a man may or may not have; leave every man free in this respect, and, in a very few years, you would see a great reformation in the morals of the country; you would see not one tenth part of the prostitution that is seen now; you would see females fulfilling the noble purpose of their creation, instead of being abandoned prostitutes, houseless, homeless, and childless, going down to the graves in wretchedness and misery, uncared for and unlamented.
Another objection presented against plurality is, that it is contrary to the customs of American and European nations, and for this cause should be considered criminal, and prohibited by legislative enactments. In reply to this objection, we say that there are many things which are entirely contrary to the general customs of the people, which are not criminal, and which would be a violation of the Constitution to prohibit. The Shakers believe in dancing in their religious assemblies on the Sabbath day; this practice is wholly derogatory to the customs of the nation. Would it be lawful and right to enact laws prohibiting this practice of the Shakers, on the ground of its being contrary to custom? Another class of individuals believe in the abominable practice of sprinkling infants, actually practicing this abomination in the name of the Lord. This is entirely contrary to the customs of the great majority of this nation. Must this class be prohibited from this practice, because it is contrary to the custom of the nation? The Shakers, and some other communities, have adopted the ancient practice of having all their property as common stock: this is also entirely different from the general custom of the nation; must it, for this reason, be prohibited by law? The Roman Catholics practice many ceremonies and ordinances which the great majority of the nation do not practise. Must their customs be denounced as criminal, and be prohibited by law, because they are different from those of the nation? Each society in the United States have some practices which agree with the national customs, and some which are peculiar to themselves. Would it accord with the spirit of the Constitution to compel each society to cease all of their peculiar practices, because they were not national customs? The Church of the Latter-day Saints practise in many respects according to the national customs, and in other respects they have their peculiar customs, like all other societies. It matters not how much the peculiar customs of a society may differ from the national ones, providing that they are not immoral, or criminal, or calculated to injure society. The peculiar custom of plurality, practised by some in Utah, in no way interferes with the rights of any one: it is in no way immoral; it in no way injures the parties themselves, or any one else; it is in now way unscriptural; it is in no way conflicting with the Constitution; it is in no way violating any of the laws of Utah, or any other laws to which the citizens of that Territory are amenable. Therefore, there is no reason whatever for calling it a crime, or for passing legislative enactments against it.
It is difficult for us to imagine, why State Governments ever considered it necessary to pass laws confining their citizens to one wife. We can see no causes or necessity whatever for such laws. They are laws founded wholly on custom. Because the European nations, from whom they originate, have been bound down under these illiberal institutions, and have had a yoke placed upon their necks by priestcraft, and by a union of the ecclesiastical with the civil powers, our fathers could not all at once free themselves from these traditionary superstitions. They must follow the customs of their fathers in some respect, however inconsistent they may be. How true is the sentiment that a people who have been long in bondage, or under the influence of erroneous traditions, can only free themselves by degrees. We see this verified in the American nation: they have broken the yoke of tyranny and oppression, and have planted the germs of liberty upon their soil; they call themselves free, but they are only free in part. Their Legislative departments are still tinctured with priestcraft, or with the il-page 127liberal sentiments imbibed by our fathers under the oppressive institutions of the European powers. This is exemplified by their still following those governments in the prohibition of plurality. The States can render no reason why they follow this erroneous tradition, only to say, “it was the custom of our fathers.” Is it not time that legislators and statesmen should begin to inquire into the reason of their laws? It is not sufficient to satisfy the advancing spirit of the age, to tell us that certain laws are enacted, because they are sanctioned by the customs of the dark and tyrannical ages. It is not enough to merely say, we denounce an act as criminal, because the European nations denounce it. If the sons of American freedom are to be prohibited from certain practices which they may consider perfectly innocent, they wish to be informed wherein those practices are criminal: they do not wish to be brought into bondage blind-folded. Neither do they wish to elect legislators to palm upon them the impositions of Popery, because they are customary among other nations. We wish some of our wise statesmen, or some other competent persons, would take up the subject of plurality and show wherein it is immoral, or unscriptural, or criminal. Upon this subject, the people want arguments, not denunciations; reason, not sophistry; evidence, not popular traditions or customs; they want a clear, lucid demonstration that the practice is evil. If there are no persons competent to the task, they will signify it, by continuing to follow the old custom of denunciation, or at least, by their silence.
The States should not only permit plurality, but enact wise and judicious laws regulating the same. The husband should be compelled by law to provide for his different wives and children, the same as if he had but one. The law should make provisions for each of his wives and children upon his decease, to inherit a share of the property. The law should consider him bound for life to each of his wives, the same as if he had married but one; he should not be considered divorced from either, only through due course of law; and adultery should be the only crime, as our Saviour has said, for which a man should be justified in putting away either of his wives. If, instead of abolishing plurality, the States would regulate the same under good and wholesome laws, they would make it far better for the female portion of the community; and thus in time would redeem the nation from the terrible evils of prostitution with which it is now cursed. We have in these arguments set forth what should be tolerated in regard to plurality, so far as the genius of our government and our legislative enactments are concerned. But when we consider marriage in relation to the divine government of Heaven, we say, as we have already expressed ourselves, that no man in this nation, nor any other, has a divine right to marry even one wife, much less a plurality, until he becomes righteous enough to bring up his children according to the law of Heaven; and to save himself and his children in the eternal worlds. There is a broad distinction to be made in relation to this thing, between the divine government and human governments; and they should in no wise be confounded in one. Church and State are with the American nation entirely distinct. By the laws of the Church the wicked should have no right nor title to the divine institution of marriage; by the laws of the State they should have the right of marrying as many wives as they please; it is a privilege which they have a right to claim, according to the spirit and genius of the Constitution; it is a violation of the principles of liberty, contained in that sacred document, to limit them to one, when two or more are just as honourable as one. It is true, God has nothing to do with their marriages while in a state of wickedness. Whether they have one wife or a dozen, it is all illegal so far as God is concerned. But to be consistent with the form of government which the nation has adopted, there should be no restrictions in regard to the number.
There is an entire distinction in the Territory of Utah, as in all other Territories, between the civil government, and the various forms of church governments. The civil government of Utah has not seen proper to abridge the liberties of its citizens in regard to the number of wives that they may have. Therefore, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Latter-day Saints, and all other denominations, or individuals, whether believers in any creed, or unbelievers, who may feel disposed to settle in Utah, have, each and all of them, the liberty of marrying as many wives as they think proper, and the civil government will not interfere with them. But is the Latter-day Saints, or any other denomination in that Territory, feel it their duty to limit the members of their respective churches to one wife, or to none at all, (like the Shakers,) under the pen-page 128alty of disfellowshipment from their churches, they have the most perfect liberty there, as in all other Territories, so to do. If any member of the Latter-day Saints should not be permitted by his Church to marry two wives, he could still, by rebelling against the rules of his Church, go and marry two under the civil law; and the Latter-day Saint Church could do nothing with him, only to expel him from their fellowship. Any denomination in any State or Territory have the most undoubted rights to prohibit marriage altogether, so far as their Church is concerned; but they have no right to interfere with the civil laws regulating marriages.
The denomination called the Latter-day Saints, in Utah, have no more liberties or privileges granted to them by the civil power, than any other denomination who may choose to settle there. If they constitute the majority of the population, they can elect such individuals as they see proper to the legislative departments: this is not oppression, but is precisely according to the practice of all the other Territorial and State governments. The majority rules—the majority elects: this is the very essence of our national institutions. Utah is not an exception: she is governed, in all respects, by the civil power, and not by the ecclesiastical: the latter is confined wholly to the Churches of the different religious societies who have settled or may settle in the Territory, while the former regulates all by the civil laws. The Latter-day Saints in the capacity of a Church have no more voice in the government of Utah, than the Methodists, or any other religious denomination. They, as well as all other societies, are obliged to submit to the civil powers.
It is to be hoped that the legislative department in Utah will never be so trammeled by the customs of the other territories, as to infringe upon the rights of the domestic relations, limiting and abridging them according to the erroneous superstitions handed down to our day by the nations of Apostate Christendom. It is further to be hoped, that they will carefully examine the nature of all customs and practices which have been denounced criminal, and wisely and impartially distinguish between what is in reality criminal, and what is, because of custom, erroneously called so. Such are the kind of legislators that ought to be sought for in every State and Territory.
We have, in the foregoing, answered all the objections against plurality, based on the supposition of its being criminal; and have clearly shown that they are without foundation. We shall next proceed to show that plurality of wives is among the greatest blessings bestowed upon the righteous. It is evidently a great blessing to be entrusted with power and authority to rule and govern according to the law of righteousness. God is the supreme Rule of the universe. He rules all beings and things, by laws through which His wisdom and power are made manifest. He exercises supreme power and authority, because He ahs supreme wisdom and knowledge. It is His glory and happiness to govern all things. If He were deprived of the privilege of governing, He would be deprived of his glory. So it is with all His offspring: they are happy and glorious in proportion to the amount of divine authority and power with which they are entrusted, providing that they exercise the same in righteousness.
(To be continued)page 129