<p>Orson Pratt, Sen., July 24, 1859 Polygamy Sermon by Elder Orson Pratt, Sen., delivered in the Tabernacle Great Salt Lake City, July 24, 1859. Reported By G. D. Watt Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.349 I came to this Tabernacle this morning without any expectation of being called upon to address the congregation; but as I have been requested to preach, I cheerfully yield to the solicitations of my brethren, praying that the Holy Ghost may impart to me something for your edification. The office of the Spirit, when given in ancient times, was to make manifest truth—to quicken the memory of the man of God, that he might communicate clearly things which he had once learned, but partially forgotten. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.349 For instance, the Apostles heard, during three years and a half, many sermons and a vast amount of conversation and private teaching. The office of the Spirit of truth was to bring to their remembrance the things that Jesus had formerly taught them. So it is the office of the same Spirit in these days to bring to our remembrance the words of the ancient Prophets and Apostles, and the words of [p.350] Jesus, inasmuch as we have faith and confidence in God. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.350 Our traditions inform us that if a man has two wives, it is a great sin and transgression against the laws of heaven and the laws of man. The congregation that now sit before me both male and female, imbibed these traditions before they embraced the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. We were taught strictly, by our parents, by works on theology, by our neighbours, by our ministers from the pulpit, by the press, and by the laws of Christendom, that plurality of wives is a great crime. Many of us, perhaps, never thought of questioning the correctness of the tradition, to know whether it was in reality a crime or not. That which is generally condemned by our nation, by our parents and kindred, by our public teachers, and by the laws of Christendom generally as a crime, is considered criminal by us. If asked why polygamy is considered a crime, our only answer is, Because false tradition says so—popular opinion says it is a crime. Now if it be a crime—if it can be proved to be a crime by the law of God, then the inhabitants of this Territory, so far as this one institution is concerned, are in an awful condition; for it is well known that this practice is general throughout this Territory, with but a few exceptions. A great many families, not only in Salt Lake City, but throughout the settlements, have practically embraced this doctrine, believing it to be a Divine institution, approbated of God and the Bible. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.350 We shall inquire a little into this principle for the information of the strangers who are present. Let us inquire whether, indeed, plurality of wives ever was sanctioned by the God of heaven,— whether he himself is the Author of it, or whether he barely permitted it as a crime, the same as he permits many known crimes to exist. The Lord permits a man to get drunk; he permits him to lie, steal, murder, to take his name in vain, and suffers with him a long time, and at last he will bring him to judgment: he has to render up his accounts for all these things. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.350 If the Lord permits what is termed polygamy to exist as a crime among the Latter-day Saints, he will bring us into judgment and condemn us for that thing. It is necessary that we, as Latter-day Saints, should certainly understand this matter, and understand it, too, beforehand, and not wait until we are brought to an account. If a man were in the midst of a nation where he was not thoroughly acquainted with their laws, he would be thankful to obtain such information as would guard him from committing crime ignorantly: he would not wish to remain in ignorance until the strong arm of the law laid hold of him and brought him before the bar of justice, where he would be forced to enter into a public investigation of his deeds, and be punished for them. Neither do we, as Latter-day Saints, wish to wait in ignorance until we are brought before the great tribunal, not of man, but of God. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.350 Let us, therefore, carefully investigate the important question—Is polygamy a crime? Is it condemned in the Bible, either by the Old or New Testament? Has God ever condemned it by his own voice? Have his angels ever been sent forth to inform the nations who have practised this thing that they were in transgression? Has he ever spoken against it by any inspired writer? Has any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, angel, or even the Son of God himself, ever condemned polygamy? We may give a general answer, without investigating this subject, and say to the world, We have no information of that kind on record, except what we find in the Book of Mormon. There it was [p.351] positively forbidden to be practised by the ancient Nephites. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows—"Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood—"Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 For instance, God gave to Moses express commandments in relation to killing. "Thou shalt not kill." And this is not one of those commandments which was done away by the introduction of the Gospel; but it is a command that was to continue as long as man should continue on the earth. It was named by the Apostles as one that was binding on the Christian as well as on the Jew. "Thou shalt not kill." Every one who reads this sacred command of God would presume at once that any individual found killing and destroying his fellow creature would be in disobedience to the command of God, and would be committing a great crime. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 The same God that gave that commandment unto the children of Israel, saying, "Thou shalt not kill," afterwards gave a commandment to them, that when they went to war against a foreign city, or a city not included in the land of Canaan, "When thou shalt go to war against it, and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women and little ones shalt thou take unto thyself." (Deut. xx. 13, 14.) Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 Again, when Israel took the Midianites captive, they were commanded to "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 man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (See Numbers xxxi. 17, 18.) Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 The question is, Was it a sin before the Most High God for the children of Israel to obey the law concerning their captives, notwithstanding the former law, "Thou shalt not kill?" Most certainly not. Thus we see that it was a law given by the same God and to the same people that they should kill their captives, that they should kill the married women, their husbands, and their male children,—that they should save alive none but those who had never been married and who had never known man. "Save them alive for yourselves," says the law of God. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 Here, then, we perceive that there are things which God forbids, and which it would be abominable for his people to do, unless he should revoke that commandment in certain cases. Because certain individuals among the Nephites, in ancient days, were expressly forbidden to take two wives, that did not prohibit the Lord from giving them a commandment, and making an exception, when he should see proper to raise up seed unto himself. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.351 The substance of the idea in that book is that—When I the Lord shall command you to raise up seed unto myself, then it shall be right; but otherwise thou shalt hearken unto these things— namely, the law against polygamy. But when we go to the [p.352] Jewish record, we find nothing that forbids the children of Israel from taking as many wives as they thought proper. God gave laws regulating the descent of property in polygamic families. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.352 Turn to the 21st chap. of Deuteronomy, and the 15th verse, and you have there recorded that "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated, then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn; but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his strength: the right of the firstborn is his." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.352 In this law the Lord does not disapprobate the principle. Here would have been a grand occasion for him to do it, if it had been contrary to his will. Instead of saying, If you find a man that has two wives, he shall be excluded from the congregation of Israel, or shall divorce one and retain the other, or shall be put to death, because he presumed to marry two wives, he considers both women his lawful wives, and gives a law that the son of the hated wife, if the firstborn, shall actually inherit the double portion of his property. This becomes a standing law in Israel. Does not this clearly prove that the Lord did not condemn polygamy, but that he considered it legal?— that he did not consider one of these wives to be a harlot or a bad woman? Does it not prove that he counted the hated one as much a wife as the beloved one, and her children just as legitimate in the eyes of the law? Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.352 Again, let us go back to the days of the Patriarchs before the law of Moses was introduced among the people, and we find the same principle still existed and approbated by the God of heaven. I have heard many of our opponents argue that the law of Moses approbated a plurality of wives; but it was not to be under other dispensations,—as much as to say, it was merely given because of the hardness of their hearts. But such a saying is not to be found in the Bible. I can find a declaration of our Lord and Saviour that the divorcing of a wife was permitted in the days of Moses because of the hardness of the hearts of the people; but I cannot find any passage in the sayings of the Saviour, or the Apostles and Prophets, or in the law, that the taking of another wife was because of the hardness of their hearts. There is quite a difference between taking wives and putting them away. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.352 This law of plurality, as I am going to prove, did not only exist under the law of Moses, but existed before that law, under the Patriarchal dispensation. And what kind of a dispensation was that? It has been proved before the people in this Territory, time after time, that the dispensation in which the Patriarchs lived was the dispensation of the Gospel—that the Gospel was preached to Abraham as well as unto the people in the days of the Apostles; so says Paul; and the same Gospel too that was preached in the days of the Apostles was preached to Abraham. "The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham," &c. The same Gospel that the heathen would be justified by was the same Gospel that Jesus and his Apostles preached, and which was before preached to Abraham. If we can find out that, under the Gospel preached to Abraham, polygamy was allowed, the Gospel preached by Jesus, being the same, of course, would not condemn it. Jacob, [p.353] we understand, went from his lathers; house to sojourn at a distance from the land that was promised to him; and while he sojourned there, he married Leah, one of the daughters of Laban, after having served faithfully seven years. It was a custom to buy wives in those days: they were more expensive than now-a-days. It is true he got cheated: he expected to have married Rachel; but as, I presume, the old Eastern custom of wearing veils deceived Jacob, he could not exactly understand whether it was Leah or Rachel until after he was married. Then he served seven years more to get Rachel. Here was a plurality of wives. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.353 Did the Lord appear to Jacob after this? Yes. Did he chasten him? No. Did he send his angels to him after this? Yes: hosts of them came to him. He was a men of such powerful faith, and his heart so pure before. God, that he could take hold of one of them and wrestle all night with him, the same as people wrestle in the streets here, only they did not swear; and, I presume, they had not been drinking whisky; and they wrestled with all their might. I do not suppose the angel, at first, exercised any peculiar faith, but merely a physical strength. He was unable to throw Jacob; and Jacob, like a prince, prevailed with God; but be began to mistrust that he was something more than a man that was wrestling with him, and began to inquire after his name: and by-and-by the angel, determined not to be worsted, put forth one of his fingers, and touched one of Jacob's sinews, and down he came. Did this angel inform Jacob that he was a wretched polygamist—an offscouring of the earth, not worthy to dwell in the society of men? No. He was recommended as a great prince, and one that had power to prevail with an angel all night, until the angel put forth his miraculous power on him. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.353 This same Jacob conversed with God, heard his voice, and saw him; and in all those visions and glorious manifestations made to him, we find no reproof for polygamy. Certainly, if the Lord did not intend to approbate a crime, he would have reproved his for polygamy, if polygamy were a crime. If he did no; intend Jacob to go headlong to destruction, he would have told him he had taken two wives, and it was not right; but, instead of this, he blessed these wives of Jacob exceedingly, and poured out his Spirit upon them. Leah bore him four sons, and then she became for awhile barren. Finding she had left off bearing children, she gave Zilpah—a woman that was dwelling with them to Jacob to wife although he already had two; and Zilpah raised up children to Jacob. Leah had borne several children, and had left off bearing. She had been more backward about giving her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to wife than Rachel had been in giving Bilhah. Seeing the Lord was about to curse her with barrenness, because she did not do according to the example of her younger sister, she gave Zilpah to Jacob. Then the Lord hearkened to her prayer, and Leah said—"God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband." (See Genesis xxx. 18.) Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.353 Who ever heard of the Lord's hearing one's prayer, because a person was doing an evil? If polygamy were a crime, God would have condemned her, because she gave up her handmaiden to her husband. We cannot suppose that any woman not acquainted with the law and commandment of the Most High, and believing it to be sinful for her has band to have two wives, would express herself in such a manners—The Lord heard my prayer and gave me the fifth son, because I gave my hand maid to my husband to wife. This shows to us that Jacob's wife, Leah, [p.354] did really consider it something pleasing in the sight of God. It was something that God and all his angels that appeared to Jacob approbated, and, instead of cursing him, blessed him more and more. By these four wives the whole twelve sons of Jacob were born, and they became the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. And when the day comes that the Holy City, the Old Jerusalem shall descend from God out of heaven, crowned with glory, there will be found upon the wall which is erected around it the names of the twelve Patriachs of Israel, beautifully engraved upon the walls. I suppose the people of this day would call the most of these sons of Jacob bastards; but they are to be honoured of God, not for a few years, but an honour that is to exist for ever and ever, while their names will be found emblazoned upon the walls of the Holy City, to remain throughout eternity. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.354 Now, recollect, this is under the Gospel dispensation, and not under the law of Moses, which was given several hundred years afterwards. The Lord made great and precious promises to the seed of Jacob, through these wives, saying they should inherit the land of Palestine, and they should be blessed above all people. We find this blessing fulfilled upon their heads, according to the righteousness of their descendants, until they were scattered because of iniquity. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.354 Moses, one of the greatest Prophets that ever arose, with the exception of Jesus, not only approbated polygamy but actually practised it himself. We find, on a certain occasion, that the brother of Moses (Aaron) and the prophetess Miriam began to upbraid him, in consequence of a certain Ethiopian wife he had taken. (See Numbers xii. 1.) He had already one wife, the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian. Did the Lord join in with them? Did he say, You are right to make light of Moses second wife? It is polygamy! It is a great crime! It is sinful! Was this the way the Lord talked? No. But he was angry that they should make light of a thing which he himself esteemed as very sacred; and, as a consequence, he smote Miriam with leprosy, and she became as white as snow; and although she was a prophetess, she had to be put out of the camp, and stay out seven days, because of speaking against one of Moses' wives. Did this look like the Lord's considering it an illegal marriage? It proves that the Lord did consider the marriage legal. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.354 I have only demonstrated to you that the Lord approbated polygamy, and gave laws regulating the descent of property to the polygamic children. But I will now repeat to you an express command of God to certain persons to marry more than one wife; and they could not get rid of it without breaking the law of God. The Lord said, "Cursed be every man that continueth not in all things written in this book of the law." However righteous and moral a man might have been in many other respects, yet, if he did not continue in all things written in that book of the law, he was to be cursed. "Cursed be that man, and all the people shall say, Amen." Now, among the things written in that book of the law, we find these words—"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. And it shall be that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel." (See Deuteronomy xxv. 5, 6.) Must his brother do this, if he has a family of his own? Yes. It does not matter [p.355] whether he has a family or not, that command is given to him: it is the law of God, and the reason is given in order that the name of the dead might not perish and be cut off from Israel. The living brother had to preserve the inheritance in his deceased brother's family. Now, if the widow of the deceased brother married a stranger—a import that did not belong to that particular tribe, the inheritance would go to a stranger, and would be shifting from tribe to tribe, or even might become the inheritance of one that did not belong to the tribes of Israel. In order to prevent this, the first-born male of the living brother was to be considered the son of the dead brother, and was to receive the inheritance and perpetuate the same in the family; and this was to continue from generation to generation. Now, suppose that there were seven brothers, as there often were families of that size in Israel; suppose they married them wives, and six of them should die without leaving male issue to bear up their name, but the seventh brother was still living; do you not see that this law and commandment would be binding on that seventh, still living, to take the six widows? This he would be compelled to do; and yet this generation say polygamy is a crime, while here is the sanction of Divine authority. Here a man is brought under obligation to take these six widows, and raise up seed to his dead brothers. How long was this to continue? Is there any evidence in the Bible that it was to cease when Christianity should be introduced by our Saviour and his Apostles? What was the condition of the Jewish nation at the time Jesus went forth preaching repentance and baptism and admitting members into his Church? I will tell you, there were thousands and thousands that were polygamists and were obliged by the command of God to be so. They could not get rid of it, if they obeyed the law of Moses; and if they did not obey, they were to be cursed. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.355 These polygamists, then, that took their deceased brothers' wives; according to the notions of Christendom in the nineteenth century, would be prohibited from baptism. The Son of God and the Apostles that went forth 1,800 years ago, were so holy that they must not permit any of these polygamists to enter the Christian Church, though they were only obeying the command given by the God of heaven through Moses; yet they must not bebaptized—they must be rejected. This would be the argument of Christianity in the nineteenth century. But can we suppose that Jesus would be so inconsistent that he would actually command a thing a few thousand years before, (for Jesus was the one that gave the law to Moses,) and then come two or three thousand years afterwards, and not permit the people to enter his Church because they had obeyed that former command? Such is the foolish argument of Christendom in these days. Say they, Polygamy is not to be sanctioned under the Christian dispensation. I would like to know where their evidence is. What part of the New Testament, or where, in the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles, do we find such evidence recorded, that a man should not have more than one wife? It cannot be found. But says one, "I have read the New Testament, and I do not recollect that the term wives is used by the eight writers of that book; but they always used the term "wife," in the singular number. And from this it is presumed that they did not have more than one. Let us examine the strength of this presumption. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.355 I find eighteen or twenty writers of the Old Testament who use "wife," and not wives. Will you, therefore, draw the conclusion that plurality was not practised among them under the Old [p.356] Testament? If the presumption is of any weight in relation to the eight writers of the New Testament, it certainly is of greater weight in relation to twenty writers of the Old Testament. But it is known that in the latter case the presumption is false; therefore it is of no strength or force whatever in the former case. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.356 Now let us examine some other objections urged against polygamy. The objector has often referred to the saying of Jesus, when commanding the people that they should not put away their wives, saving it should be for the cause of fornication. Jesus says Moses suffered a divorce to be given because of the hardness of the hearts of the people; and further says it was not so from the beginning; that God made man, male and female, and they were joined together by Divine authority, and they twain became one flesh." Now, says the objector, it does not say that three or that four shall become one flesh, &c.; and consequently, this is an argument against plurality. Let us examine this, and see if there is any force in it. It was not so in the beginning, before the days of Moses. What was not so? This putting away of wives —this divorcing of wives for every little nonsensical purpose. Jesus was showing that it was contrary to his mind and will; that Moses only suffered it because of the hardness of their hearts; but that in the beginning it was not, so; as much as to say, "If you give divorces, you practise something given through the wickedness of the people. If you put away your wives for any other cause than that of fornication, you cause your wives to commit adultery; and if any man marry her that is put away, he committeth adultery." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.356 Then, again, he says, "If a woman put away her husband, she committeth adultery." A man has no right to put away his wife, nor a woman her husband. "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder; for in the beginning it was not so, but they twain became one flesh." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.356 Is this an argument against having more than one wife? For instance, Jacob and Leah were one flesh, Leah being his first wife. Jacob and Rachel were one flesh. Jacob and Bilhah were one flesh. Jacob and Zilpah were one flesh; and if he had had a thousand more, it would have been the same: each wife would have been a legitimate wife, and one flesh with Jacob; and their children would have been legitimate. This was no argument against plurality. If so, Jacob would have been found a transgressor. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.356 In the second chapter of Genesis, it is stated that the Lord took a rib from Adam, and, by adding other materials, formed a woman, and brought her to the man, and gave her to him as an helpmeet—as a wife. "And Adam said, This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore, shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.356 This is the saying which Jesus quoted. Now, Jacob, in taking four wives, became one flesh with each one of them; but how and in what respect? Perhaps it may be said that they became one in mind, one in understanding, one in intellect, one in judgment, &c. Their minds are to be one. But it does not say one in mind, one spiritually, but one flesh. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.356 How are we to understand this? Paul. (Eph. v. 28—31) says, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [p.357] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.357 Paul makes this quotation from the second chapter of Genesis, to prove that the woman was one flesh with the man, because she was taken out of man's body, and made out of his flesh and bones. She was one flesh in this respect—not in identity: they were two distinct persons, as much so as the Father and the Son are two distinct personages. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.357 And again, the wife becomes one flesh with her husband in another respect: when she presents herself to the man, and gives herself to him with an everlasting covenant, one that is not to be broken, she becomes his flesh, his property, his wife, as much so as the flesh and bone of his own body. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.357 The Father and the Soft are represented to be one. "I and my Father are one," said Jesus. Would any person pretend to say, because Jesus and his Father were one, that he could not receive a third person into the communion?—a fourth, or a fifth? If we examine the arguments of modern Christendom, nobody but Jesus could be admitted into the union; or, in other words, they twain —that is, the Father and the Son—were to be one, and no others. But Jesus says, "Father, I pray not for these alone which thou hast given me out of the world; but I pray for all them that shall believe on me through their words, (the Twelve,) that they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee; that they may be made perfect in one." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.357 The disciples of Jesus were not to lose their identity, because Jesus was one with the Father. The identity of Jesus was not destroyed, but he remained a distinct person, and so did all the disciples, and yet they became one; and so is every man and his wives. Because they twain—that is, Jesus and his Father—were one, it diet not hinder the disciples from attaining to the same oneness. And so likewise with regard to the man and his first wife: because they twain are one flesh, it does not prevent him from being one flesh with each of his other wives which he may legally take. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.357 Again, there is a principle which I will now relate more particularly for the benefit of strangers. There is such a principle as marriage for eternity, which may imply one wife or many. The marriage covenant is indissoluble; it is everlasting; it is not limited to time; but it is a covenant to exist while eternity exists: it pertains to immortality as well as mortality. I will prove this. The first example we have on record of a marriage was that of our first parents. Adam and Eve. Were they married as people marry now-a-days? Were they married as the world of Christendom marry at the present day? No: they married as immortal beings. They knew nothing about death; they never had seen any such thing as death. When Eve was brought to Adam, she was brought to him an immortal being. When Adam received her as his wife, he was an immortal being: his flesh and bones were not subject to sickness and decay; he was not subject to pain and suffering: there was no death working in his system—no plague that could prostrate him in the dust. They were intended to endure for ever and ever. So far as their bodies were concerned, they brought death on themselves. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.357 Paul says that sin entered into the world by transgression, and death by sin. Notice that expression. Death entered into the world by sin. If there had been no sin, there would have been no death. If Adam and Eve never had sinned, they would have been alive on the earth at this time, just as fresh and pure as in the morning of creation: they would [p.358] have remained to all eternity without a wrinkle of old age overtaking them. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 These were the personages first married. Question—Were they married for a certain period of time, as persons are married by the world of Christendom at this day? Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 When you go up before a magistrate to have marriage solemnized, you hear him saying—I pronounce you husband and wife, or man and wife, as the case may be, until death. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 Adam knew nothing about that monster: it was not in his creed. Such an idea never entered into his mind as they have at the present day—I bind you together as husband and wife until death, which shall separate you. If I were married by the laws of Christendom, I should consider the woman I had taken was my wife until death. I should consider this marriage covenant the same as if I had a piece of property promised to me for a certain period of time—say for the space of twenty. years; after which, I have no claim upon it. When death comes, I have no claim upon the woman married to me by those who pretend to administer the sacred ordinance. But not so with our first parents. When Eve was presented to Adam as an helpmeet to him—as a wife, it was not intended that that relation should cease after s few score of years, or when death should come; but it was sis everlasting as Adam and Eve themselves. When they went down to their graves, they could go down with a sure and certain knowledge that they still were husband and wife, and that this sacred relationship would continue after the resurrection. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 This is the great and first example for marriage. The Latter-day Saints have adopted this example, not by our own wisdom,—for I do not know that we should ever have thought of it; but by new revelation. The same God that originated marriage for all eternity, in relation to the first pair, has again spoken from the heavens and told us something about this sacred ceremony. He has informed us that if we are married and expect to have claim on our wives, and wives on their husbands, in the eternal worlds, that this ordinance of marriage must be, not till death, but for ever and ever, reaching forward through all our future state of existence. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 Having established this principle of marriage for eternity, let us examine the results flowing from it. Let me suppose that here is my neighbour; he has a wife, and she is married to him for all eternity. By-and-by, he dies and leaves his widow. I area young unmarried man, and pay my attentions to her; and she, being still young, accepts my attentions and wishes to be married to me; yet she has been married to a man for all eternity. Can she be married to me for all eternity? No. I accept of her as a wife for time only, yielding her up with all her posterity in the morning of the first resurrection to her legal and lawful husband. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 But now what shall become of me? I have got to give up this wife to her legal and lawful husband in the morning of the first resurrection; and I must not, according to the laws of Christendom, marry another so long as she lives; and she might live as long as I. Am I to be deprived of a wife for eternity, because I married this widow for time? or would plurality come in and supply me also with a wife? Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 This is one of the results necessarily arising, when marriage for eternity is admitted. There is just as much reason for it as for any other principle God has ever revealed to the human family. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.358 Again, for instance, here is a ham that has married a wife for time and all eternity; and here is a woman that [p.359] has not had a privilege of being married, like thousands and tens of thousands that are abroad in the States and in all the world among the nations of Christendom: they have to live contrary to their own will, and die old maids, without a husband for time or eternity either. If one of this class, who had not had an opportunity of marriage with a righteous man, and who was unwilling to trust herself with those whom she considered unworthy of marriage for time or eternity either, should come to the Territory of Utah, and, still having no offer of marriage from a single young man here, she sees a good man that has a family; he proposes marriage to her; she voluntarily offers to become one of his wives; he accepts the offer; the ceremony is celebrated. What harm is done? Who is injured? What law is broken? None. I ask, Would it be right, with a view that marriage is to exist, not only in time, but in eternity, that this woman, who is a good, moral, virtuous woman, should remain without a husband through all eternity, because she did not have an opportunity of being married? If marriage be of any benefit in the eternal world, would it not be far more consistent with the law of God that she should have the privilege, by her own free, voluntary consent, to marry a good man, though he might have a family, and claim him for her husband, not only through time, but eternity? Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.359 Jesus informs us that in the resurrection mankind are neither married nor given in marriage: all these tilings have to be attended to here. In the resurrection, a man is not to be baptized. Here is the place to attend to these things. If we are to become the promised seed, and heirs according to the promise, we must be baptized into Christ and put him on, and do it before the resurrection; for if I put it off beyond this life, in the resurrection there will be no such thing as putting on Christ by being baptized. Just so, in the resurrection there will be no such thing as attending to the ceremony of marriage, so far as we are informed. But Jesus further says, concerning those persons who have not attended to those matters here, that in the resurrection they are as the angels of God: and some of the angels are a little lower than men. In what respect? They have not the power to increase their kingdom by the multiplication of their species, and this because they have not lawful and legal wives. They are probably among that class who have put off marriage for eternity, and die without attending to it; and after the resurrection, they find themselves wifeless, without any family or kingdoms of their own offspring. In this single and undesirable condition they are to remain, because they cannot hunt up a wife after the resurrection. Such, instead of receiving crowns, will merely become ministers or messengers for the crown, being sent forth by those who have attained to a higher glory, who have the power of receiving kingdoms, and increasing the same, through their own offspring that are begotten after the resurrection by the wives given to them while here in this world. These angels have forfeited this privilege; consequently, they are lower than the man who keeps a celestial law; and if these angels lived on the earth, they would be called old bachelors. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.359 Do you not see the difference between the glory of those who claim their privileges and those who do not? I am not speaking to the class who pay no attention to the law of God or to the nature of marriage; but I am speaking of those ancient Patriarchs, and Prophets, and holy men that understood the law of God, and practised it, and prepared themselves here to receive an exceeding weight of glory hereafter. Do you not understand [p.360] that such men arise above angels?—that they have kingdoms, while angels have none?—that they are crowned kings and princes over their own descendants, which will become as numerous as the sands on the sea above, while the angels have neither wives, sons, nor daughters to be crowned over? Shall a young, moral, virtuous woman, because she does not find a young man that is suitable to her nature, or worthy of her,—shall she be deprived of this exaltation in the eternal world, because of the Gentile laws of modern Christendom? No. The Latter-day Saints believe otherwise. We believe that woman is just as good as man, if she does as well. If a good man is entitled to a kingdom of glory—to a reward and crown, and has the privilege of swaying a sceptre in the eternal world, a good woman is entitled to the same, and should be placed by his side, and have the privilege of enjoying all the glory, honour, and blessings that are bestowed upon her lord and husband. If also cannot get any lord or husband though whom she can trust herself for exaltation to that glory, who can blame her for going into a family where she thinks she will be secure? Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.360 These are some of the reasons in favour of polygamy. Many people that it strange that there should be awhile territory of polygamists organized in the midst of Christendom. it is contrary, say they, to our institutions, and to the traditions of our society and nation, and to the practice of our forefathers that have lived for many generations past. But did you never reflect that it is possible for same of the institutions, traditions, and practices of our forefathers to be incorrect? Look at the vast number of traditions that have had their place upon the earth, and that, too, among the most enlightened generations, which are now entirely discarded. Look at the laws which existed but; a few years ago in enlightened England, where a man, if he went into a shop, being hungry, end took the amount of five shillings' worth, he must be hung up by the neck. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.360 If a man was almost ready to perish with starvation, as thousands and millions often are in Great Britain, and should go into a neighbouring park and take a sheep to preserve his life and the life of his family, he must be hung up by the neck. The people thought these were wholesome laws, when they existed. They were just as sincere in supposing these laws to be good as the people of the United States are in supposing there should be a severe law against polygamy. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.360 Now, let me say, plainly and boldly, without the fear of contradiction, that the citizens of Utah are transgressing fie law of man by taking a plurality of wives. But it is asserted by some that we are transgressing the traditions and institutions that are established among civilized nations. We admit this freely; and the people of the United States are transgressing that law that was in force in old England about sheep-stealing; for they suffer many of their sheep-stealers to go unhung; and if a man steals five shillings worth of provisions, they do not hang him up. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.360 Why have the American nation abolished, not only many of the traditions, customs, and institutions of ether civilized nations which have been handed down for so many ages, but have even abolished and discarded. many of their criminal laws? Why have they made these innovations upon civilized society? Is it not as possible that the sovereign States of this enlightened nation may be misguided in regard to their strict laws which they have passed against polygamy as it was for our forefathers to be misguided in their strict laws against witchgraft in Massachusetts, where [p.361] every man and woman must be put to death for a witch, if somebody became prejudiced against them? This was a law among our forefathers in enlightened America but a short period back. They thought they were right, and were as sincere in it as the States are in these strict and rigid laws against polygamy. But, thank the Lord, Utah is not in bondage to such bigoted State laws. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.361 The form of the American Government makes each State and Territory independent of the laws of all the others. Have the laws' of Missouri any bearing upon the people of Kansas, any further than what the people of Kansas voluntarily, by their Legislature, re-enact? No. The laws of one State or Territory have no more to do with the laws 'of any other State or Territory than they have with the laws of China. Utah is just as much under the laws of China as under the laws of Missouri, or the laws of any other State of the American Union. There is a difference between these local State laws and the laws of the United States passed by Congress in Washington. The laws of the United States are applicable all over the nation. Has the American Congress seen proper, since its first organization, to pass a law against polygamy? No So far as the national law is concerned, it has no more bearing upon the subject of polygamy than it has upon the subject of monogamy, or something that never existed. Let us go still higher, above the laws of Congress, to that great instrument—the American Constitution, which we, as a people, have always held as one of the most perfect and glorious instruments that was ever framed by any nation, through their own wisdom, since the world began. It guarantees to us the liberty of the press, freedom of speech, liberty to seek for one's happiness, and to emigrate from State to State, and to enjoy all the privileges and rights that any man could in conscience ask for. Is there anything in that glorious Constitution that forbids polygamy? There is not. Have the citizens of the Territory of Utah transgressed that instrument so far as this thing is concerned? No. Have they transgressed the laws of any Territory or State of the Union so far as they have any bearing upon this Territory? No. Again, has the Territory of Utah ever passed a law against polygamy? If they have, then as many as have received this doctrine are transgressors of the law. You may search our laws from beginning to end, but you will find nothing in them against polygamy. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.361 The wise legislators of Utah have been actuated by more liberal principles than those who have deprived American citizens of the dearest and most sacred rights granted in the Constitution. What is the result, then? It is, that any people whatsoever who feel disposed to marry more than one wife in this Territory have the privilege to do so. What! the Methodists? Yes. Have the Baptists a right to come into Utah and marry two wives? Yes, so far as the civil law is concerned. Have those who make no profession of religion whatever a right to marry a score or a hundred wives in this Territory? Yes: so far as civil law is concerned, all have equal privileges. Have the Chinese a right to come to this Territory and bring more wives than one, or the Mahometans? Yes. Every nation under heaven have a right to come and enjoy perfect liberty so far as this thing is concerned; and I have already shown that there is no law in the Bible to bear against them. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.361 You cannot condemn us temporally, or spiritually, or by the civil law; neither can you condemn us by the Bible. There is no law that condemns us, unless the law in the Book of [p.362] Mormon does so; and I have already shown that the Book of Mormon does not, provided the Lord has commanded it. But if we have not been commanded in regard to this matter, then there is one thing that will condemn us, and that is the Book of Mormon. This is a little more strict than any other Divine revelation, in regard to polygamy. Thirteen years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the same Prophet that translated the Book of Mormon received a revelation upon marriage, which commanded certain individuals in this Church to take unto themselves a plurality of wives for time and all eternity, declaring that it is a righteous principle, and was practised by inspired men in times of old. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.362 In obedience to this commandment, many have gone forth and taken upon themselves a plurality of wives; consequently, they are not condemned in this thing, so far as the Book of Mormon is concerned; and we consider this book to be a part and portion of our religious creed; and the Constitution of America gives people a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. But our opponents say no person has a right to commit crime under that saying. I admit it. But prove that polygamy is a crime. You can prove that murder, stealing, and cheating your neighbour are crimes. You can prove a great many things to be criminal, from the Bible and from reason. If you search the great commentaries on law, they will inform you that all criminal law is founded on Divine revelation. When Divine revelation points out a crime, they generally adopt it as such, and attach penalties. The Bible is the foundation of most of the criminal Jaws of Christendom. Point out in the Bible where polygamy is a crime, and then you may say we have no right to embrace it as a part of our religious creed, and pretend it as a part of our constitutional rights. If we embrace murder, stealing, robbing, cheating our neighbour, as a part of our religious rights, then the Constitution will condemn us. Not so with polygamy. If we should embrace adultery in our religious creed, then we may be condemned as criminals by the laws of God and man; but when it comes to polygamy, which is not condemned by the Bible any more than monogamy, and embrace that as a part and portion of our creed, the Constitution gives us an undeniable right of Worshipping God in this respect as in all others: Congress have no more constitutional right to pass a law against polygamy than they have to pass a law against monogamy, or against a man living in celibacy. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.362 A portion of the Shaker's creed is that they are living in the resurrection, and that they should not marry; and you will find whole communities of them living without husbands and wives. The Government of the United States has no right to say yea shall not live in celibacy, but you shall comply with American institutions; neither have they a right to say that sprinkling infants or worshipping a Chinese idol is criminal. A great variety of peculiarities are embraced by different sects and societies in our nation; and they have a right to hold their creeds, however much they may differ from their neighbours, so long as those creeds are not criminal. We ask no rights that are not guaranteed unto us by the American Constitution. We do not claim, beg, or petition for any other. These rights are guaranteed to us as American citizens. We are entitled to the right of voting as we please, and in doing as we please in religious matters, so long as we do not infringe upon the criminal laws of the nation, neither of this Territory. This is all we claim; and this is what every true. hearted American citizen should be willing to [p.363] fight for, if our rulers rise up and deprive us of the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.363 Do you suppose, because we are few in numbers, that we must tamely submit to see our constitutional rights wrested from us by unprincipled rulers? If you suppose this, you have formed an erroneous opinion of the patriotism of American citizens. There are certain rights belonging to every religious sect that inhabits these United States; and every sect has a right to claim them, if they should have to do it at the point of the sword. I have no hesitancy in saying before the whole world that the rights guaranteed by the great Constitution of this country and its national laws are the rights I will claim while I have a being, even if it is necessary to claim them by force; and if the Chief Executive, or the American Congress send their armies to Utah to trample upon these rights, and take from American citizens that which is more dear to them than life, I shall esteem it no treason to resist them. The majority may undertake to trample upon the minority, because they have the power to do so; but this will not hinder the minority from patriotically defending their rights. Liberty or death should be the motto of every true American. These are my views, and I presume that these are the views of all the people in this great Republic who have tasted and realize the sweets of liberty. When we speak against the acts of a President of the United States, is that treason? No. Do all the newspapers published in the American nation speak well of the Presidents? Is there no man in the American nation that tries his best to influence the public against the public acts of President Buchanan? You find them by hundreds. They are denouncing the President continually in the most bitter manner. They do not denounce the particular form of Government, or the Constitution, or laws; but they do denounce the acts of public men when they please; and this right is guaranteed to them, and they are responsible for it. If they do it unjustly, in a slanderous manner, they are accountable to the laws, and may be heavily fined. We claim the same privilege. There are many acts of this Government we dislike, and so do many of the political parties in the nation. Many people throughout the American nation are dissatisfied, not only with the acts of Congress, but with the Chief Magistrate of the nation; and they are not afraid of committing treason by bringing these acts before the public, and commenting upon them. We claim this right in connection with other American citizens. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.363 I have already detained the congregation sufficiently long upon various subjects as they occurred to my mind. I recommend the strangers present to appeal to our works and read them. We have nothing we are ashamed of. All our writings are free and open to the public, and have been for years: hundreds and thousands of copies of pamphlets on polygamy, and books on various subjects have been sent abroad, not only throughout the American nation, but throughout the civilized nations of Europe, published in many languages, which contain our views in relation to the Book of Mormon, to the Gospel of salvation, and to our rights as a people. They all are before the public. There are none of our publications which we wish to hide up in a corner. You can learn and investigate for yourselves. And let those prejudices that have been instilled into your minds, as well as into mine, be set aside for a short time, to inform yourselves concerning these matters. Do not be so much bound down by the creeds of men and public opinion as not to be free enough to investigate [p.364] for yourselves; and when you find a true principle, embrace it, However you may be condemned by mankind, lay hold of it; it will do you good, and no harm. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.364 May God bless you. Amen. ------</p><p>Orson Pratt, October 7, 1869 Celestial Marriage Discourse By Elder Orson Pratt, Delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, October 7, 1869. (Reported by David W. Evans) Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.183 It was announced at the close of the forenoon meeting that I would address the congregation this afternoon upon the subject of Celestial [p.184] Marriage; I do so with the greatest pleasure. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.184 In the first place, let us inquire whether it is lawful and right, according to the Constitution of our country, to examine and practice this Bible doctrine? Our fathers, who framed the Constitution of our country devised it so as to give freedom of religions worship of the Almighty God; so that all people under our Government should have the inalienable right—a right by virtue of the Constitution—to believe in any Bible principle which the Almighty has revealed in any age of the world to the human family. I do not think, however, that our forefathhers, in framing that instrument, intended to embrace all the religions of the world. I mean the idolatrous and Pagan religions. They say nothing about those religions in the Constitution; but they give the express privilege in that instrument to all people dwelling under this Government and under the institutions of our country, to believe in all things which the Almighty has revealed to the human family. There is no restriction nor limitation so far as Bible religion is concerned, or any principle or form of religion believed to have emanated from the Almighty; yet they would not admit idolatrous nations to come here and practice their religion, because it is not included in the Bible; it is not the religion of the Almighty. Those people worship idols, the work of their own hands, they have instituted rights and ceremonies pertaining to those idols, in the observance of which they, no doubt, suppose they are worshipping correctly and sincerely, yet some of them are of the most revolting and barbarous character. Such, for instance, as the offering up of a widow on a funeral pile, as a burnt sacrifice, in order to follow her husband into the eternal worlds. That is no part of the religion mentioned in the Constitution of our country, it is no part of the religion of Almighty God. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.184 But confining ourselves within the limits of the Constitution, and coming back to the religion of the Bible, we have the privilege to believe in the Patriarchal, in the Mosaic, or in the Christian order of things; for the God of the patriarchal, and the God of Moses is also the Christians' God. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.184 It is true that many laws were given under the Patriarchal or Mosaic dispensations, against certain crimes, the penalties for violating which, religious bodies, under our Constitution, have not the right to inflict. The Government has reserved, in its own hands, the power, so far as affixing the penalties of certain crimes is concerned. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.184 In ancient times there was a law strictly enforcing the observance of the Sabbath day, and the man or woman who violated that law was subjected to the punishment of death. Ecclesiastical bodies have the right, under our Government and Constitution, to observe the Sabbath day or to disregard it, but they have not the right to inflict corporeal punishment for its non-observance. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.184 The subject proposed to be investigated this afternoon is that of Celestial Marriage, as believed in by the Latter-day Saints, and which they claim is strictly a Bible doctrine and part of the revealed religion of the Almighty. It is well known by all the Latter-day Saints that we have not derived all our knowledge concerning God, heaven, angels, this life and the life to come entirely from the books of the Bible; yet we believe that all of our religious principles and notions are in accordance with and are sustained by the Bible; consequently, though we believe in new revelation, and believe that God [p.185] has revealed many things pertaining to our religion, we also believe that He has revealed none that are inconsistent with the worship of Almighty God, a sacred right guaranteed to all religious denominations by the Constitution of our country. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.185 God created man, male and female. He is the Author of our existence He placed us on this creation. He ordained laws to govern us. He gave to man, whom He created, a help-meet—a woman, a wife to be one with him, to be a joy and a comfort to him; and also for another very great and wise purpose—namely, that the human species might be propagated on this creation, that the earth might teem with population according to the decree of God before the foundation of the world, that the intelligent spirits whom He had formed and created, before this world was rolled into existence, might have their probation, might have an existence in fleshly bodies on this planet, and be governed by laws emanating from their great Creator. In the breast of male and female He establisbed certain qualities and attributes that never will be eradicated—namely, love towards each other. Love comes from God. The love which man possesses for the opposite sex came from God. The same God who created the two sexes implanted in the hearts of each love towards the other. What was the object of placing this passion or affection within the hearts of male and female? It was in order to carry out, so far as this world was concerned, His great and eternal purposes pertaining to the future. But He not only did establish this principle in the heart of man and woman, but gave divine laws to regulate them in relation to this passion or affection, that they might be limited and prescribed in the exercise of it towards each other. He therefore ordained the Marriage Institution. The marriage that was instituted in the first place was between two immortal beings, hence it was marriage for eternity in the very first case which we have recorded for an example. Marriage for eternity was the order God instituted on our globe; as early as the Garden of Eden; as early as the day when our first parents were placed in the garden to keep it and till it, they, as two immortal beings, were united in the bonds of the new and everlasting covenant. This was before man fell, before the forbidden fruit was eaten, and before the penalty of death was pronounced upon the heads of our first parents and all their posterity, hence, when God gave to Adam his wife Eve, He gave her to him as an immortal wife, and there was no end contemplated of the relation they held to each other as husband and wife. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.185 By and by, after this marriage had taken place, they transgressed the law of God, and by reason of that transgression the penalty of death came, not only upon them, but also upon all their posterity. Death, in its operations, tore asunder, as it were, these two beings who had hitherto been immortal, and if God had not, before the foundation of the world, provided a plan of redemption, they would, perhaps, have been torn asunder for ever; but inasmuch as a plan of redemption had been provided, by which man could be rescued from the effects of the fall, Adam and Eve were restored to that condition of union, in respect to immortality, from which they had been separated for a short season of time by death. The Atonement reached after them and brought forth their bodies from the dust, and restored them as husband and wife, to all the privileges that were pronounced upon them before the Fall.[p.186] Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.186 That was eternal marriage; that was lawful marriage ordained by God That was the divine institution which was revealed and practiced in the early period of our globe. How has it been since that day? Mankind have strayed from that order of things, or, at least, they have done so in latter times. We hear nothing among the religious societies of the world which profess to believe in the Bible about this marriage for eternity. It is among the things that are obsolete. Now all marriages are consummated until death only; they do not believe in that great pattern and prototype established in the beginning; hence we never hear of their official characters, whether civil or religious, uniting men and women in the capacity of husband and wife as immortal beings. No, they marry as mortal beings only, and until death does them part. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.186 What is to become of them after death? What will take place among all those nations who have been marrying for centuries for time only? Do both men and women receive a resurrection? Do they come forth with all the various affections, attributes and passions that God gave them in the beginning? Does the male come forth from the grave with all the attributes of a man? Does the female come forth from her grave with all the attributes of a woman? If so, what is their future destiny? Is there no object or purpose in this new creation, save to give them life, a state of existence? or is there a more important object in view, in the mind of God, in thus creating them anew? Will that principle of love which exists now, and which has existed from the beginning, exist after the resurrection? I mean this sexual love. If that existed before the Fall, and if it has existed since then, will it exist in the eternal worlds after the resurrection? This is a very important question to be decided. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.186 We read in the revelations of God that there are various classes of beings in the eternal worlds. There are some who are kings, priests, and Gods, others that are angels; and also among them are the orders denominated celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. God, however, according to the faith of the Latter-day Saints, has ordained that the highest order and class of beings that should exist in the eternal worlds should exist in the capacity of husbands and wives, and that they alone should have the privilege of propagating their species—intelligent immortal beings. Now it is wise, no doubt, in the Great Creator to thus limit this great and heavenly principle to those who have arrived or come to the highest state of exaltation, excellency, wisdom, knowledge, power, glory, and faithfulness, to dwell in His presence, that they by this means shall be prepared to bring up their spirit offspring in all pure and holy principles in the eternal worlds, in order that they may be made happy. Consequently, He does not entrust this privilege of multiplying spirits with the terrestrial or telestial, or the lower order of beings there, nor with angels. But why not? Because they have not proved themselves worthy of this great privilege. We might reason, of the eternal worlds, as some of the enemies of polygamy may reason of this state of existence, and say that there are just as many males as females there, some celestial, some terrestrial, and some telestial; and why not have all these paired off, two by two? Because God administers His gifts and His blessings to those who are most faithful, giving them more bountifully to the faithful, and taking away from the unfaithful that with [p.187] which they had been entrusted, and which they had not improved upon. That is the order of God in the eternal worlds, and if such an order exists there, it may in a degree exist here Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.187 When the sons and daughters of the Most High God come forth in the morning of the resurrection, this principle of love will exist in their bosoms just as it exists here, only intensified according to the increased knowledge and understanding which they possess; hence they will be capacitated to enjoy the relationships of husband and wife, of parents and children, in a hundred fold degree greater, than they could in mortality. We are not capable, while surrounded with the weaknesses of our flesh, to enjoy these eternal principles in the same degree that will then exist. Shall these principles of conjugal and parental love and affection be thwarted in the eternal worlds? Shall they be rooted out and overcome? No, most decidedly not. According to the religious notions of the world these principles will not exist after the resurrection; but our religion teaches the fallacy of such notions. It is true that we read in the New Testament that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. These are the words of our Savior when he was addressing himself to a very wicked class of people, the Sadducees, a portion of the Jewish nation, who rejected Jesus, and the counsel of God against their own souls. They had not attained to the blessings and privileges of their fathers, but had apostatized; and Jesus, in speaking to them, says that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.187 Now, how are the angels of God after the resurrection? According to the revelations which God has given, there are different classes of angels. Some angels are Gods, and still possess the lower office called angels. Adam is called an Archangel, yet he is a God. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, no doubt, have the right to officiate in the capacity of angels if they choose, but still they have ascended to their exaltation, to a higher state than that of angels—namely, to thrones, kingdoms, principalities and powers, to reign over kingdoms and to hold the everlasting Priesthood. Then there is another order of angels who never have ascended to these powers and dignities, to this greatness and exaltation in the presence of God. Who are they? Those who never received the everlasting covenant of marriage for eternity; those who have not continued in nor received that law with all their hearts, or who, perhaps, have fought against it. They become angels. They have no power to increase and extend forth to kingdoms. They have no wives, no husbands, and they are servants to those that sit upon thrones and rule over kingdoms, and are counted worthy of a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. These, no doubt, were the kind of angels Jesus had reference to when speaking to those ungodly classes of beings called Sadducees and Pharisees, one of which denied the doctrine of the resurrection altogether. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.187 There is a difference between the classes of angels called celestial, terrestrial and telestial. The celestial angels have not attained to all of the power and greatness and exaltation of kings and priests in the presence of God; they are blessed with glory, happiness, peace and joy; but they are not blessed with the privilege of increasing their posterity to all ages [p.188] of eternity, neither have they thrones and kingdoms, but they are servants to those of the highest order. The angels of the terrestrial and telestial orders, while possessing a degree of happiness and glory, are lower than those of the celestial order. We might inquire, have angels not also these affections which belong to the higher class of beings, inasmuch as they are resurrected beings? Yes, but herein they have lost, through disobedience, the privilege of attaining to the higher glory and exaltation. They have affections and desires that never can be gratified, and in this respect their glory is not full. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.188 I am talking, to-day, to Latter-day Saints; I am not reasoning with unbelievers. If I were, I should appeal more fully to the Old Testament Scriptures to bring in arguments and testimonies to prove the divine authenticity of polygamic marriages. Pehaps I may touch upon this for a few moments, for the benefit of strangers, should there be any in our midst. Let me say, then, that God's people, under every dispensation since the creation of the world, have, generally, been polygamists. I say this for the benefit of strangers. According to the good old book called the Bible, when God saw proper to call out Abraham from all the heathen nations, and made him a great man in the world, He saw proper, also, to make him a polygamist, and approbated him in taking unto himself more wives than one. Was it wrong in Abraham to do this thing? If it were, when did God reprove him for so doing? When did He ever reproach Jacob for doing the same thing? Who can find the record in the lids of the Bible of God reproving Abraham, as being a sinner, and having committed a crime, in taking to himself two living wives? No such thing is recorded. He was just as much blessed after doing this thing as before, and more so, for God promised blessings upon the issue of Abraham by his second wife the same as that of the first wife, providing he was equally faithful. This was a proviso in every case. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.188 When we come down to Jacob, the Lord permitted him to take four wives. They are so called in Holy Writ. They are not denominated prostitutes, neither are they called concubines, but they are called wives, legal wives; and to show that God approved of the course of Jacob in taking these wives, He blessed them abundantly, and hearkened to the prayer of the second wife just the same as the first. Rachel was the second wife of Jacob, and our great mother; for you know that many of the Latter-day Saints by revelation know themselves to be the descendants of Joseph, and he was the son of Rachel, the second wife of Jacob. God in a peculiar manner blessed the posterity of this second wife. Instead of condemning the old patriarch, He ordained that Joseph, the first- born of this second wife, should be considered the first-born of all the twelve tribes, and into his hands was given the double birthright, according to the laws of the ancients. And yet he was the offspring of plurality—of the second wife of Jacob. Of course, if Reuben, who was indeed the first-born unto Jacob, had conducted himself properly, he might have retained the birthright and the greater inheritance; but he lost that through his transgression, and it was given to a polygamic child, who had the privilege of inheriting the blessing to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills—the great continent of North and South America was conferred upon him. Another proof that God did not disapprove of a man having more wives than one, is to be found [p.189] in the fact that Rachel, after she had been a long time barren, prayed to the Lord to give her seed. The Lord hearkened to her cry and granted her prayer; and when she received seed from the Lord by her polygamic husband, she exclaimed, "The Lord hath hearkened unto me and hath answered my prayer." Now do you think the Lord would have done this if he had considered polygamy a crime? Would He have hearkened to the prayer of this woman if Jacob had been living with her in adultery? and he certainly was doing so if the ideas of this generation are correct. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.189 Again, what says the Lord in the days of Moses, under another dispensation? We have seen that in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He approved of polygamy and blessed His servants who practised it, and also their wives and children. Now, let us come down to the days of Moses. We read that, on a certain occasion the sister of Moses, Miriam, and certain others in the great congregation of Israel, got very jealous. What were they jealous about? About the Ethiopian woman that Moses had taken to wife, in addition to the daughter of Jethro, whom he had taken before in the land of Midian. How dare the great law-giver, after having committed, according to the ideas of the present generation, a great crime, show his face on Mount Sinai when it was clothed with the glory of the God of Israel? But what did the Lord do in the case of Miriam, for finding fault with her brother Moses? Instead of saying, "You are right, Miriam, he has committed a great crime, and no matter how much you speak against him," He smote her with a leprosy the very moment she began to complain, and she was considered unclean for a certain number of days. Here the Lord manifested by the display of a signal judgment, that He disapproved of any one speaking against His servants for taking more wives than one, because it may not happen to suit their notions of things. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.189 I make these remarks and wish to apply them to fault-finders against plural marriages in our day. Are there any Miriams in our congregation to-day, any of those who, professing to belong to the Israel of the latter days, sometimes find fault with the man of God standing at their head, because he not only believes in but practices this divine institution of the ancients? If there be such in our midst, I say, remember Miriam the very next time you begin to talk with your neighboring women, or anybody else against this holy principle. Remember the awful curse and judgment that fell on the sister of Moses when she did the same thing, and then fear and tremble before God, lest He, in His wrath, may swear that; you shall not enjoy the blessings ordained for those who inherit the highest degree of glory. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.189 Let us pass along to another instance under the dispensation of Moses. The Lord says, on a certain occasion, if a man have married two wives, and he should happen to hate one and love the other, is he to be punished—cast out and stoned to death as an adulterer? No; instead of the Lord denouncing him as an adulterer because of having two wives, He gave a commandment regulating the matter, so that this principle of hate in the mind of the man towards one of his wives should not control him in the important question of the division of his inheritance among his children, compelling him to give just as much to the son of the hated wife as to the son of the one beloved; and, if the [p.190] son of the hated woman happened to be the first-born, he should actually inherit the double portion. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.190 Consequently, the Lord approved, not only the two wives, but their posterity also. Now, if the women had not been considered wives by the Lord, their children would have been bastards, and you know that He has said that bastards shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, until the tenth generation, hence you see there is a great distinction between those whom the Lord calls legitimate or legal, and those who were bastards—begotten in adultery and whoredom. The latter, with their posterity, were shut out of the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation, while the former were exalted to all the privileges of legitimate birthright. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.190 Again, under that same law and dispensation, we find that the law provided for another contingency among the hosts of Israel. In order that the inheritances of the families of Israel might not run into the hands of strangers, the Lord, in the book of Deuteronomy, gives a command that if a man die, leaving a wife, but no issue, his brother shall marry his widow and take possession of the inheritance; and to prevent this inheritance going out of the family a strict command was given that the widow should marry the brother or nearest living kinsman of her deceased husband. The law was in full force st the time of the introduction of Christianity—a great many centuries after it was given. The reasoning of the Sadducees on one occasion when conversing with Jesus proves that the law was then observed. Said they, "There were seven brethren who took a certain woman, each one taking her in succession after the death of the other." and they inquired of Jesus which of the seven would have her for a wife in the resurrection. The Sadducees, no doubt, used this figure to prove, as they thought, the fallacy of the doctrine of the resurrection, but it also proves that this law, given by the Creator while Israel walked acceptably before Him, was acknowledged by their wicked descendants in the days of the Savior. I merely quote the passage to show that the law was not considered obsolete at that time. A case like this, when six of the brethren had died, leaving the widow without issue, the seventh, whether married or unmarried, must fulfill this law and take the widow to wife, or lay himself liable to a severe penalty. What was that penalty? According to the testimony of the law of Moses he would be cursed, for Moses says, "Cursed be he that doth not all things according as it is written in this book of the law, and let all the people say Amen." There can be no doubt that many men in those days were compelled to be polygamists in the fulfilment of this law, for any man who would not take the childless wife of a deceased brother and marry her, would come under the tremendous curse recorded in the book of Deuteronomy, and all the people would be obliged to sanction the curse, because he would not obey the law of God and become a polygamist. They were not all Congressmen in those days, nor Presidents, nor Presbyterians, nor Methodists, nor Roman Catholics; but they were the people of God, governed by divine law, and were commanded to be polygamists; not merely suffered to be so, but actually commanded to be. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.190 There are some Latter-day Saints who, perhaps, have not searched these things as they ought, hence we occasionally find some who will say that God suffered these things to be. I will go further, and say that He [p.191] commanded them, and He pronounced a curse, to which all the people had to say amen, if they did not fulfil the commandment. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.191 Coming down to the days of the prophets we find that they were polygamists; also to the days of the kings of Israel, whom God appointed Himself, and approbated and blessed. This was especially the case with one of them, named David, who, the Lord said, was a man after His own heart. David was called when yet a youth to reign over the whole twelve tribes of Israel; but Saul, the reigning king of Israel, persecuted him, and sought to take away his life. David fled from city to city throughout all the coasts of Judea in order to get beyond the reach of the relentless persecutions of Saul. While thus fleeing, the Lord was with him, hearing his prayers, answering his petitions, giving him line upon line, precept upon precept; permitting him to look into the Urim and Thummim and receive revelations, which enabled him to escape from his enemies. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.191 In addition to all these blessings that God bestowed upon him in his youth, before he was exalted to the throne, the Lord gave him eight wives; and after exalting him to the throne, instead of denouncing him for having many wives, and pronouncing him worthy of fourteen or twenty-one years of imprisonment, the Lord was with His servant David, and, thinking he had not wives enough He gave to him all the wives of his master Saul, in addition to the eight he had previously given him. Was the Lord to be considered a criminal, and worthy of being tried in a court of justice and sent to prison for thus increasing the polygamic relations of David? No, certainly not; it was in accordance with His own righteous laws, and He was with His servant, David the King, and blessed him. By and by, when David transgressed, not in taking other wives, but in taking the wife of another man, the anger of the Lord was kindled against him and He chastened him and took away all the blessings He had given him. All the wives David had received from the hand of God were taken from him. Why? Because he had committed adultery. Here then is a great distinction between adultery and plurality of wives. One brings honor and blessing to those who engage in it, the other degradation and death. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.191 After David had repented with all his heart of his crime with the wife of Uriah, he, notwithstanding the number of wives he had previously taken, took Bathsheba legally, and by that legal marriage Solomon was born; the child born of her unto David, begotten illegally, being a bastard, displeased the Lord and He struck it with death; but with Solomon, a legal issue from the same woman, the Lord was so pleased that He ordained Solomon and set him on the throne of his father David. This shows the difference between the two classes of posterity, the one begotten illegally, the other in the order of marriage. If Solomon had been a bastard, as this pious generation would have us suppose, instead of being blessed of the Lord and raised to the throne of his father, he would have been banished from the congregation of Israel and his seed after him for ten generations. But, notwithstanding that he was so highly blessed and honored of the Lord, there was room for him to transgress and fall, and in the end he did so. For a long time the Lord blessed Solomon, but eventually he violated that law which the Lord had given forbidding Israel to take wives from the idolatrous nations, and some of [p.192] these wives succeeded in turning his heart from the Lord, and induced him to worship the heathen gods, and the Lord was angry with him and, as it is recorded in the Book of Mormon, considered the acts of Solomon an abomination in His sight. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.192 Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon, when the Lord led forth Lehi and Nephi, and Ishmael and his two sons and five daughters out of the land of Jerusalem to the land of America, the males and females were about equal in number. There were Nephi, Sam, Laman and Lemuel, the four sons of Lehi, and Zoram, brought out of Jerusalem. How many daughters of Ishmael were unmarried? Just five. Would it have been just under these circumstances to ordain plurality among them? No. Why? Because the males and females were equal in number and they were all under the guidance of the Almighty, hence it would have been unjust, and the Lord gave a revelation—the only one on record I believe—in which a command was ever given to any branch of Israel to be confined to the monogamic system. In this case the Lord through His servant Levi, gave a command that they should have but one wife. The Lord had a perfect right to vary His commands in this respect according to circumstances as He did in others, as recorded in the Bible. There we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as he thought proper. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.192 By and by, after the death of Lehi, some of his posterity began to disregard the strict law that God had given to their father, and took more wives than one, and the Lord put them in mind, through His servant Jacob, one of the sons of Lehi, of this law, and told them that they were transgressing it, and then referred to David and Solomon, as having committed abomination in His sight. The Bible also tells us that they sinned in the sight of God; not in taking wives legally, but only in those they took illegally, in doing which they brought wrath and condemnation upon their heads. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.192 But because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relataions. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, "For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I give unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.192 In the early rise of this Church, February, 183l, God gave a commandment to its members, recorded [p.193] in the Book of Covenants, wherein He says, "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and to none else;" and then He gives a strict law against adultery. This you have, no doubt, all read; but let me ask whether the Lord had the privilege and the right to vary from this law. It was given in 1831, when the one-wife system alone prevailed among this people. I will tell you what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to this matter in 1831, also in 1832, the year in which the law commanding the members of this Church to cleave to one wife only was given. Joseph was then living in Portage county, in the town of Hiram, at the house of Father John Johnson. Joseph was very intimate with that family, and they were good people at that time, and enjoyed much of the Spirit of the Lord. In the fore part of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, then in the Church, that he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practised. That was before the Church was two years old. The Lord has His own time to do all things pertaining to His purposes in the last dispensation; His own time for restoring all things that have been predicted by the ancient prophets. If they have predicted that the day would come when seven women would take hold of one man, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach;" and that, in that day the branch of the Lord should be beautiful and glorious and the fruits of the earth should be excellent and comely, the Lord has the right to say when that time shall be. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.193 Now supposing the members of this Church had undertaken to vary from that law given in 1831, to love their one wife with all their hearts and to cleave to none other, they would have come under the curse and condemnation of God's holy law. Some twelve years after that time the revelation on Celestial Marriage was revealed. This is just republished at the Deseret News office, in a pamphlet entitled, "Answers to Questions," by President George A. Smith, and heretofore has been published in pamphlet form and in the Millennial Star, and sent throughout the length and breadth of our country, being included in our works and published in the works of our enemies. Then came the Lord's time for this holy and ennobling principle to be practised again among His people. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.193 We have not time to read the revelation this afternoon; suffice it to say that God revealed the principle through His servant Joseph in 1843. It was known by many individuals while the Church was yet in Illinois; and though it was not then printed, it was a familiar thing through all the streets of Nauvoo, and indeed throughout all Hancock county. Did I hear about it? I verily did. Did my brethren of the Twelve know about it? They certainly did. Were there any females who knew about it? There certainly were, for some received the revelation and entered into the practice of the principle. Some may say, "Why was it not printed, and made known to the people generally, if it was of such importance?" I reply by asking another question. Why did not the revelations in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants come to us in print years before they did? Why were they shut up in Joseph's cupboard years and years without being suffered to be printed and sent broadcast [p.194] throughout the land? Because the Lord had His own time again to accomplish His purposes, and He suffered the revelations to be printed just when He saw proper. He did not suffer the revelation on the great American war to be published until some time after it was given. So in regard to the revelation on plurality; it was only a short time after Joseph's death that we published it, having a copy thereof. But what became of the original? An apostate destroyed it; you have heard her name. That same woman, in destroying the original, thought she had destroyed the revelation from the face of the earth. She was embittered against Joseph, her husband, and at times fought against him with all her heart; and then again she would break down in her feelings, and humble herself before God and call upon His holy name, and would then lead forth ladies and place their hands in the hands of Joseph, and they were married to him according to the law of God. That same woman has brought up her children to believe that no such thing as plurality of wives existed in the days of Joseph, and has instilled the bitterest principles of apostacy into their minds, to fight against the Church that has come to these mountains according to the predictions of Joseph. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.194 In the year 1854, before his death, a large company was organized to come and search out a location, west of the Rocky Mountains. We have been fulfilling and carrying out his predictions in coming here and since our arrival. The course pursued by this woman shows what apostates can do, and how wicked they can become in their hearts. When they apostatize from the truth they can come out and swear before God and the heavens that such and such things never existed, when they know, as well as they know they exist themselves, that they are swearing falsely. Why do they do this? Because they have no fear of God before their eyes; because they have apostatized from the truth; because they have taken it upon themselves to destroy the revelations of the Most High, and to banish them from the face of the earth, and the Spirit of God withdraws from them. We have come here to these mountains, and have continued to practice the principle of Celestial Marriage from the day the revelation was given until the present time; and we are a polygamic people, and a great people, comparatively speaking, considering the difficult circumstances under which we came to this land. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.194 Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this subject—that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under the present circumstances among this people. If all the inhabitants of the earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both males and females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the numbers of the sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there would be no necessity for any such institution. Every righteous man could have his wife and there would be no overplus of females. But what are the facts in relation to this matter? Since old Pagan Rome and Greece—worshippers of idols— passed a law confining man to one wife, there has been a great surplus of females who have had no possible chance of getting married. You may think this a strange statement, but it is a fact that those nations were the founders of what is termed monogamy. All other nations, with few exceptions, bad followed the Scriptural plan of having more wives than one. These nations, however, were very powerful [p.195] and when Christianity came to them, especially the Roman nation, it had to bow to their mandates and customs, hence the Christians gradually adopted the monogamic system. The consequence was that a great many marriageable ladies of those days, and of all generations from that time to the present, have not had the privilege of husbands, as the one-wife system has been established by law among the nations descended from the great Roman empire—namely, the nations of modern Europe and the American States. This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans, for as God has implanted, for a wise purpose, certain feelings in the breasts of females as well as males, the gratification of which is necessary to health and happiness, and which can only be accomplished legitimately in the married state, myriads of those who have been deprived of the privilege of entering that state, rather than be deprived of the gratification of those feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to wickedness and licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among the nations of the earth, where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.195 When the religious Reformers came out, some two or three centuries ago, they neglected to reform the marriage system—a subject demanding their urgent attention But leaving these Reformers and their doings, let us come down to our own times and see whether, as has been often said by many, the numbers of the sexes are equal; and let us take as a basis for our investigations on this part of our subject the censuses taken by several of the States in the American Union. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.195 Many will tell us that the number of males and the number of females born are just about equal, and because they are so it is not reasonable to suppose that God ever intended the nations to practice plurality of wives. Let me say a few words on that. Supposing we should admit, for the sake of argument, that the sexes are born in equal numbers, does that prove that the same equality exists when they come to a marriageable age? By no means. There may be about equal numbers born, but what do the statistics of our country show in regard to the deaths? Do as many females as males die during the first year of their existence? If you go to the published statistics you will find, almost without exception, that in every State a greater number of males die the first year of their existence than females. The same holds good from one year to five years, from five years to ten, from ten to fifteen, and from fifteen to twenty. This shows that the number of females is greatly in excess of the males when they come to a marriageable age. Let us elucidate still further, in proof of the position here assumed. Let us take, for instance, the census of the State of Pennsylvania in the year 1860, and we shall find that there were 17,588 more females than males between the ages of twenty and thirty years, which may strictly be termed a marriageable age. Says one, "Probably the great war made that difference." No, this was before the war. Now let us go to the statistics of the State of New York, before the war, and we find according to the official tables of the census taken in 1860, that there were 45,104 more females than males in that one State, between [p.196] the ages of twenty and thirty years—a marriageable age, recollect! Now let us go to the State of Massachusetts, and look at the statistics there. In the year 1865, there were 33,452 more females than males between the age of twenty and thirty. We might go on from State to State and then to the census taken by the United States, and a vast surplus would be shown of females over males of a marriageable age. What is to be done with them? I will tell you what Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York say. They say, virtually, "We will pass a law so strict, that if these females undertake to marry a man who has another wife, both they and the men they marry shall be subject to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary." Indeed! Then what are you going to do with these hundreds of thousands of females of a marriageable age? "We are going to make them either old maids or prostitutes, and we would a little rather have them prostitutes, then we men would have no need to marry." That is the conclusion many of these marriageable males, between twenty and thirty years of age, have come to. They will not marry because the laws of the land have a tendency to make prostitutes, and they can purchase all the animal gratification they desire without being bound to any woman; hence many of them have mistresses, by whom they raise children, and, when they get tired of them, turn both mother and children into the street, with nothing to support them, the law allowing them to do so, because the women are not wives. Thus the poor creatures are plunged into the depths of misery, wretchedness and degradation, because at all risks they have followed the instincts implanted within them by their Creator, and not having the opportunity to do so legally have done so unlawfully. There are hundreds and thousands of [unmarried] females in this boasted land of liberty, through the narrow, contracted, bigoted State laws, preventing them from ever getting husbands. That is what the Lord is fighting against; we, also, are fighting against it, and for the re-establishment of the Bible religion and the celestial or patriarchal order of marriage. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.196 It is no matter according to the Constitution whether we believe in the patriarchal part of the Bible, in the Mosaic or in the Christian part; whether we believe in one-half, two-thirds, or in the whole of it; that is nobody's business. The Constitution never granted power to Congress to prescribe what part of the Bible any people should believe in or reject; it never intended any such thing. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.196 Much more might be said, but the congregation is large, and a speaker, of course, will weary. Though my voice is tolerably good, I feel weary in attempting to make a congregation of from eight to ten thousand people hear me, I have tried to do so. May God bless you, and may He pour out His Spirit upon the rising generation among us, and upon the missionaries who are about to be sent to the United States and elsewhere, that the great principles, political, religious and domestic, that God has ordained and established, may be made known to all people. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.196 In this land of liberty in religious worship, let us boldly proclaim our rights to believe in and practice any Bible precept, command or doctrine, whether in the Old or New Testament, whether relating to ceremonies, ordinances, domestic relations, or any thing else, not incompatible with the rights of others, and the great revelations of Almighty God manifested in ancient and modern times. Amen.[p.197] </p><p>------Orson Pratt, August 31, 1873 Marriage Discourse By Elder Orson Pratt, Delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, August 31, 1873. (Reported by David W. Evans) Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.171 I will read a portion of the Word of God found in the 19th chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, commencing at the 3rd verse:— Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.171 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.171 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.171 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.171 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.171 That portion of these sayings of Jesus to which I wish more especially to call your attention, is contained in the 6th verse—"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined' together, let no man put asunder." There are some few things which transpire in our world in which the hand of God is specially manifest. We might name some things ordained of God, and which he himself has given to the children of men for their observance. Such are the ordinance of baptism, the Lord's Supper, now being administered to the Saints in this congregation, and the ordinance of confirmation by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. These ordinances have been ordained of God; he is their Author, and he confers authority upon his servants to officiate therein, and without authority from God to do so, all such administrations are illegal. In addition to these we might name a variety of other ordinances, such as ordinations to the ministry—ordaining a person to officiate in the office and calling of an Apostle, and in the offices and callings of Elders, Priests, Teachers, &c., without which no man can perform the duties of these several offices so as to be acceptable in the sight of God. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.172 But, to be brief, we will come to [p.172] the point more fully. God has appointed marriage, and it is as much a sacred and religious ordinance as baptism for the remission of sins, confirmation, ordination to the ministry, or the administration of the Lord's Supper. There is no distinction with regard to the divinity of these ordinances—one is just as much divine as the other, one is a religious ordinance as much as the other, and, therefore, people of all sects and parties in this great Republic, should be left free to administer them according to the dictates of their own consciences. In other words, Congress should not assume to be the dictator of my conscience nor of yours. What I mean by this is, that if I am a minister, Congress, or the President of the United States, has no right, by virtue of the Constitution, to say how I shall administer the ordinance of marriage to any couple who may come to me for that purpose; because I have a conscience in regard to this matter. It is an ordinance appointed of God; it is a religious ordinance; hence Congress should not enact a law prescribing, for the people in any part of the Republic, a certain form in which the ordinance of marriage shall be administered. Why should they not do this? Because it is a violation of religious principles, and of that, great fundamental principle in the Constitution of our country which provides that Congress shall make no law in regard to religious matters that would, in the least degree, infringe upon the rights of any man or woman in this Republic in regard to the form of their religion. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.172 Perhaps some may make the inquiry—"What shall we do with those who make no profession of religion, some of whom are infidels, or what may be termed 'nothingarians,' believing in no particular religious principle or creed? They want to enter the state of matrimony, and, in addition to religious authority, should there not be a civil authority for the solemnization of marriage among these non-religionists?" Yes; we will admit that, inasmuch as marriage is an important institution, it is the right and privilege of the Legislatures of States and Territories to frame certain laws, so that all people may have the privillege of selecting civil or religious authority, according to the dictates of their consciences. If a Methodist wishes to be married according to the Methodist creed and institutions, Congress should make no law infringing upon the rights of that body of religionists, but they should have the privilege of officiating just as their consciences dictate. The same argument will apply to the Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, and every religious denomination to be found in this Republic, not excepting the Latter-day Saints. Then, as regards the non-religionist, if he wishes to become a married person, and does not wish to have his marriage solemnized according to the form used by any religious denomination, it should be left open to him to comply with such forms as the Legislature may prescribe. This is leaving it to the choice of the individual, and this is as it ought to be, and as it is guaranteed to us, so far as other ordinances are concerned. For instance, Congress would never think of making a law in regard to the form of baptism, or of appointing a Federal officer to go into one of the Territories of this Union, and decree that he only should be authorized to administer the ordinance of baptism. Do we not know that the whole people of this Republic would cry out against such an infringement of the Constitution of our country? Every man and every [p.173] woman who knows the least about the great principles of religious liberty would at once say, "Let the Various religious bodies of the Territory choose for themselves in regard to the mode of baptism; a Federal officer is not the person to prescribe the mode or to administer the ordinance of baptism." Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.173 Why not this reasoning apply to marriage as well as to baptism? Can you make a distinction so far as the divinity of the two ordinances is concerned? I can not. I read here in the last verse Of my text "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." It will be perceived from this sentence, that God has something to do in the joining together of male and female; that is, when it is done according to His mind and will: we will make that a condition. But we will say that, in all cases under the whole heavens, where a couple are joined together, and God has anything to do with it, he does not ask Congress to make a law, nor the President of the United States to appoint a form, and he will sanction it. No, he claims the right, and his children claim that God has the privilege, to prescribe the form or ceremony, and the words to be used; and when that ceremony is performed by divine authority, we may then say, in the fullest sense of the term, that they are joined together divinely, and not by some civil law. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.173 The union of male and female I consider to be one of the most important ordinances which God has established; and if its solemnization had been left entirely to the whims and notions of men, we might have had as many different ways of performing the matrimonial rite, as we have of administering the ordinance of baptism. You know that in the performance of the baptismal rite, some believe in sprinkling, and some in pouring; some societies believe in immersion after they have obtained the remission of sins; others, like Alexander Campbell and his followers, believe that immersion is to be administered for the remission of sins. Another class believe in being immersed face foremost; others, again, believe in being immersed three times—once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Ghost. Taking all these classes as churches, they are no doubt sincere; they have been instructed by their teachers, until they sincerely believe in these several forms of baptism. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.173 Now, if Congress, or the legislative assemblies in the different States and Territories, were permitted to make laws regulating this they would perhaps have many other forms besides those I have named, which they would force the people under heavy penalties to comply with. And so in regard to marriage. If Congress should undertake to make a law to govern the Methodists, for instance, in the solemnization of marriage, they would not like it, neither would the Presbyterians, nor Baptists. A man belonging to either of these denominations would say," Here is a law which prohibits me from exercising my religious faith, and compels me to be married by a justice of the peace, or a federal officer, or some person who, perhaps, does not believe in God, and who has no respect for the ordinances of heaven. I am compelled by the laws of the land to have him officiate and pronounce me and my 'intended,' husband and wife, or to remain unmarried." The Constitution does not contemplate this forcing of the human mind in regard to that which is ordained of God. If I, believing in [p.174] God and in the ordinances which he has instituted, am forced to be married by an unbeliever, perhaps a drunkard and an immoral man, or I do not care if he is a believer in some kind of a creed, if I am satisfied that he has not authority to officiate in the union of the sexes, and I am compelled to be married by him, would it answer my conscience? Could I consider myself joined together by the Lord? It is inconsistent to suppose that I could feel so, and in the very nature of things the solemnization of the marriage ceremony, as well as all other religious ordinances, are matters which should be left for all persons to act in as they feel disposed. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.174 But we will pass on; we must not dwell too long on this subject. My reason, however, for making these few remarks is to prove that the ordinance of marriage is divine—that God has ordained it. I want it particularly understood by this congregation that, in order to be joined together of the Lord, so that no man has the right to put you asunder, the Lord must have a hand in relation to the marriage, the same as he has in relation to baptism. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.174 Now I inquire if any of the religious societies on the earth, with the exception of the Latter-day Saints, have received any special form in relation to the marriage ceremony? If they have, from what source have they received it? Did they invent it themselves? Did a learned body of priests get together in conference and, by their own wisdom, without any revelation from heaven, make up a certain form by which the male and the female should be joined in marriage? Or how they have come in possession of it? They have invented it themselves, as you can find by reading the disciplines, creeds and articles of faith, which almost every religious society possesses, and which some of them have possessed for a long period of time. If we go back for several hundred years, we shall find some of these forms in existence. In the Roman Catholic church the ritual of marriage has existed for many generations. The same is true with the Greek church, a numerous branch of the Catholics who broke off from the church established at Rome, a few centuries after Christ. Martin Luther also had his Views in relation to the marriage ordinance. He was a polygamist in principle, as you will find in his published writings. We have an account of him, in connection with six or seven others, ministers of his faith, advising a certain prince in Europe to take unto himself a second wife, his first wife being still alive, Luther and these ministers saying that it was not contrary. to the Scriptures. John Calvin had his notions on the subject, but each and all of the ceremonies of marriage in use among the various Christian churches, the Catholics as well as Protestants, from the days of the first Reformation, several hundred in number, down to our own day, are the inventions of men; for, amongst them all, where can you find one which claims that God has said anything to them about marriage, or anything else pertaining to their officiations as ministers in his cause? Not one; the whole of them claim that the Bible contains the last revelation that was ever given from heaven. Hence, if their claim be true, God never said a word to Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, or any other reformer, about their ministry, the order of marriage, baptism, or anything else. If their [p.175] claim be true—that the last revelation God ever gave was to John on the Isle of Patmos, what conclusion must we come to in regard to them? We must conclude that all their administrations are illegal. If I have been baptized by the Presbyterians, Church of England, Roman Catholics, Greek church, Wesleyans, or by any other religious denomination which denies any later revelation than the Bible my baptism is good for nothing, God has had nothing to do with it, never having spoken to or called the minister who officiated, as Aaron was called, that is, by new revelation. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.175 "Well," says one, "that is un-christianizing the world." I know, according to the views contained in the Bible, that it is unchristianizing it in one of the most fundamental points—it shows that all flue ordinances and ceremonies of the Christian world, being administered in the name of the Trinity, without new revelation, are illegal and of none effect, and that God does not record them in the heavens, though they may be recorded by man on the earth. But when a man is called by new revelation, it alters the case. When God speaks or sends an angel, and a man is called and ordained, not by uninspired men who deny new revelation, but by divine authority, when he administers baptism, or any other ordinance of the Gospel, it is legal, and what is legal and sealed on earth is legal and sealed in heaven, and when such an administration is recorded here on the earth, it is also recorded in the archives of heaven: and in the great judgment day, when mankind are brought before the bar of Jehovah, the Great Judge of the quick and dead, to give an account of the deeds done in the body, it will then be known whether an individual has officiated in or received ordinances by divine appointment: and if not, such administration being illegal, will be rejected of God. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.175 "Oh but," says one, "such a person, officiating or being administered to, may have been sincere." Yes, I admit that. Sincerity is a good thing, and without it there can be no real Christians; but sincerity does not make a person a true child of God; it requires something more than that. If sincerity alone where sufficient to make a person a child of God, then the heathens, when they wash in the Ganges, worship crocodiles, the sun, moon, stars, or graven images, or when they fall down and are crushed beneath the cars of Juggernaut, would be children of God; for in these various acts, they certainly give proof of their sincerity, and if, according to the ideas of some persons, that only were necessary to make them God's children, they would certainly be right. But it is not so. Sincerity undoubtedly shows the existence of a good principle in the heart of either heathen or sectarian, but it does not show that its possessor is right, or that he has received the true doctrine; it only shows that he is sincere. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.175 Let us come back again to the subject of the administration of ordinances by divine appointment. I said their baptisms are illegal. Now let me go a little farther, and say that the ordinance of marriage is illegal among all people, nations and tongues, unless administered by a man appointed by new revelation from God to join the male and female as husband and wife. Says one—"You do not mean to say that all our marriages are also illegal, as well as our baptisms?" Yes, I do, so far as God is concerned. That is taking a very broad standpoint; but I am telling you that which is my belief; and I presume, so far as I am [p.176] acquainted, it is the belief of the Latter-day Saints throughout the world, that all the marriages of our forefathers, for many long generations past, have been illegal in the sight of God. They have been legal in the sight of men; for men have framed the laws regulating marriage, not by revelation, but by their own judgment; and our progenitors were married according to these laws, and hence their marriages were legal, and their children were legitimate, so far as the civil law was concerned; and this is as true of our own day as of the past; but in the sight of heaven these marriages are illegal, and the children illegitimate. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.176 "Well," says one, "how are you going to make these marriages legal? Here are a man and woman, who were married, according to the civil law, before they ever heard of your doctrines; but they have come to an understanding of them, and now is there any possible way to make their marriage legitimate, in the sight of heaven?" Yes, How? By having them re-married by a man who has authority from God, to do it. This has been done in almost numberless instances; and it is the same with baptism. Has any person, baptized by the Methodists, Church of England, Baptists or Presbyterians, been admitted into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on his old baptism? Never. Not one among the hundreds of thousands who have joined this Church, since its rise in 1830, has been admitted on his or her old baptism. Why not? Because we do not believe in their old baptisms. The Lord has commanded his servants to go forth and preach the Gospel, and to baptize all who come unto them for baptism. If we find a sincere man, who has gone through a correct form of baptism—and many have, such as the Campbellites and the Baptists—we tell him that, if he believes in our doctrine, he must he baptized over again, because his former baptism was administered by a man who denied new revelation, and who did not believe that any had been given, later than that contained in the New Testament. It is the same in regard to marriages. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.176 The people are very anxious that their children should be legitimate, and that their marriages should be so solemnized that God will recognize them in the eternal worlds; and hence we say to all the thousands and scores of thousands who coma here from foreign lands—"Come forward and be married according to divine appointment, that you may be legally husband and wife in the sight of heaven." Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.176 Now let us go a little further. Having explained to you the authority necessary to join men and women in the Lord, we will now explain the nature of marriage it-self—whether it is a limited condition, to terminate with what we call "time;" or whether it is a union which will exist throughout all the ages of eternity. This is an important question. So far as the ordinance of baptism is concerned, we know that does not relate to time alone. It must be administered in time, or during our existence in mortal life; but its results reach beyond death, and the burial in, and coming forth out of, the water are typical of the death and resurrection of our Savior. When we come forth out of the water, we rise to a newness of life, and it is declared to all people who witness the performance of the ordinance, that the candidates thus receiving baptism, expect to come forth from the tomb, that their bodies will be resurrected, bone coming to its bone, [p.177] flesh and skin coming upon them, and the skin covering them; that if they are faithful to the end they will come forth immortal beings, and will inherit celestial glory. Thus you see that baptism points forward to eternity, its effects reaching beyond the grave. So in regard to marriage. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.177 Marriage, when God has a hand in it, extends to all the future ages of eternity. The Latter-day Saints never marry a man and a woman for time alone, unless under certain circumstances. Certain circumstances would permit this, as in a case where a woman, for instance, is married to all eternity to a husband, a good faithful man, and he dies. After his death, she may be married to a living man, for time alone, that is until death shall separate her from her second husband. Under such circumstances, marriage for time is legal. But when it comes to marriage pertaining to a couple, neither of whom has ever been married before, the Lord has ordained that that marriage, if performed according to his law, by divine authority and appointment, shall have effect after the resurrection from the dead, and shall continue in force from that time throughout all the ages of eternity. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.177 Says one—"What are you going to do with that Scripture which says that in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage?" I am going to let it stand precisely as it is, without the least alteration. A man who is so foolish as to neglect the divine ordinance of marriage for eternity, here in this world, and does not secure to himself a wife for all eternity, will not have the opportunity of doing so in the resurrection; for Jesus says, that after the resurrection there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. It is an ordinance that pertains to this world, and here it must be attended to; and parties neglecting it wilfully, here in this life, deprive themselves of the blessings of that union for ever in the world to come. It is so with regard to baptism. We are bringing up these two divine ordinances to show you how they harmonize. A man who, in this life, hears the Gospel and knows that it is his duty to be baptized in order that he may come forth in the morning of the resurrection with a celestial, glorified body, like unto that of our Lord Jesus Christ, and neglects baptism and dies without attending to the ordinance, can not be baptized himself after the resurrection of the dead, any more than he call be married after the resurrection of the dead. Why not? Because God has appointed that both marriage and baptism shall be attended to in the flesh, and if neglected here, the blessings are forfeited. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.177 We read, in our text, something about the first marriage which took place on our earth. Much has been said in relation to this event, and inasmuch as God ordained this sacred rite, I feel disposed to bring it up as a type of all future marriages. The first pair of whose marriage we have any account, on this earth, were immortal beings. "What! you do not mean to say that immortal beings marry, do you?" Yes, that is the first example we have on record. Inquires one—"Do you mean to say that Adam was an immortal being?" What is the nature of an immortal being? It is one who has not had the curse of death pronounced upon him. Had Adam the curse of death pronounced upon him, when the Lord brought Eye—the woman—and gave her to him? No, he had not. Had the Lord pronounced the curse of death upon Eve at the [p.178] time he brought her to Adam? He had not. Why not? Because neither of them had transgressed. It is said in the New Testament that death entered into this world by transgression, and in no other way. If Adam and Eve had never transgressed the law of God, would they not be living now? They certainly would; and they would continue to live on millions of years hence. Can you, by stretching your thoughts into the ages of futurity, imagine a point of time, wherein Adam and Eve would havre been mortal and subject to death if it had not been for their transgression? No, you can not. Well, then, were they not immortal? They were to all intents and purposes two immortal beings, male and female, joined together in marriage in the beginning. Was that marriage for eternity, or until death should separate them? I remember attending some weddings when I was a youth, and this sentence has generally been incorporated in all the marriage ceremonies I have seen performed by civil authority—"I pronounce you husband and wife, until death shall you separate." A very short contract, is it not? Only lasts for a little time, perhaps death might come to-morrow or next day, and that would be a very short period to be married, very different From the marriage instituted in the beginning; between the two immortal beings. Death was not taken into consideration in their case; it had never been pronounced. The Lord had said nothing about death, but he had united them together, with the intention of that union continuing through all the ages of eternity. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.178 Inquires one, "Did they not forfeit this by eating the forbidden fruit?" We have no account that they did; but supposing they did, can you show me one thing that our first parents forfeited by the Fall that was not restored by the atonement of Jesus? Not a thing. If they forfeited the life of their bodies, the atonement of Christ and his victory over the grave by the resurrection restored to Adam and Eve that immortality they possessed before they transgressed; and whatever they lost or forfeited by the Fall was restored by Jesus Christ. But we have no account that Adam and Eve forfeited the privilege of their eternal union by their transgression; hence, when they, by virtue of the atonement of Christ, come forth from the grave (if they did not come forth at the resurrection of Christ), they will have immortal bodies, and they will have all the characteristics, so far as their bodies are concerned, that they possessed before the Fall. They will rise from the grave male and female, immortal in their natures, and the union which was instituted between them before they became mortal will be restored, and, as they were married when immortal beings, they will continue to be husband and wife throughout all the future ages of eternity. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.178 It may be inquired, "What is the object of that? Marriage, we supposed, was instituted principally, that this world might be filled with inhabitants, and if that was the object, when the earth has received its full measure of creation, what is the use of this eternal union in marriage, continuing after the resurrection?" Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.178 Have you never read the first great commandment given in the Bible? God said, "Be fruitful and multiply." Did he give this commandment to mortal beings? No, he gave it to two immortal beings. 'What! do you mean to say that immortal beings can multiply, as [p.179] well as be married for all eternity?" I do. God gave the command to these two immortal personages, before the Fall, Showing clearly and plainly that immortal beings had that capacity, or else God would never have given it to them. I will admit that they had no power to beget children of mortality; it required a fall to enable them to do that, and without that no mortal beings could have been produced. But we see what has been entailed upon the children of Adam, by the Fall. Instead of his offspring being immortal, they come forth into this world and partake of all that fallen nature that Adam and Eve had after they fell; and they have also inherited the death of the body. If we are to be restored to immortality with them, we must be restored to that heavenly union of marriage, or else we lose something. If they had the power to multiply children of immortality, and if the command was given to them to do so before they became mortal, if their children are ever restored to what was lost by the Fall, they must be restored to that also. Here then is a sufficient object why multiplication should continue after the resurrection. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.179 "But," inquires some one, "will not this world be sufficiently full, without resurrected beings bringing forth children through all ages of eternity?" We must recollect that this world is not the only one that God has made. He has been engaged from all eternity in the formation of worlds; that is, there have been worlds upon worlds created by those who have held the power, and authority, and the right to create; and an endless chain of worlds, has thus been created, and there never was a period in past duration, but what there were worlds. The idea of a first world is out of the question, just as much as the idea of a first foot of space, or the first foot in endless line. Take an endless line and undertake to find the first foot, yard or mile of it,. It can not be done, any more than you can find out, the first minute, hour or year of endless duration. There is no first minute, hour or year in endless duration, and there is no first in an endless chain of worlds, and God has been at work from all eternity in their formation. What for? Is it merely to see his power exercised? No: it is that they might be peopled. Peopled by whom? By those who have the power to multiply their species. There never will be a time that there will be a final stop to the making of worlds; their increase will continue from this time henceforth and for ever; and as the number of worlds will be endless, so will be the number of the offspring of each faithful pair. They will be like the stars in the sky or the sands upon the sea shore; and worlds will be filled up by the posterity of those who are counted worthy to come forth, united with that heavenly and eternal form of marriage which was administered to Adam and Eve in the beginning. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.179 "But you told us a little while ago, that our marriages were illegal, and now how can our species be multiplied utter the resurrection? It cannot be, there is no marrying nor giving in marriage then. What then will become of the people, unless there is some provision, ordained by the Lord, whereby the living can act for the dead?" Take away that principle, and amen to all those who have not been married for eternity, as well as time, so far as the multiplication of their species is concerned; for you cannot get married there. But if there is a provision, [p.180] by which those who are living here in the flesh, may officiate in sacred and holy ordinances, for and in behalf of the dead, then the question will arise, How far do these ordinances extend? Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.180 Some may say, "perhaps they only extend to baptism. We believe that baptism for the dead is true, because the Scriptures speak very plainly about that in the 15th chapter of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, in which, in arguing about the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle says —'Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? if the dead rise not at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?'" Sure enough, it would have been useless for those Corinthians to have been baptized for the dead, if there had been no resurrection: But Paul very well knew that the Corinthians understood that they should be baptized for their dead; and that they were actually practicing that ordinance, that their ancestors. Who had been dead for generations, might have the privilege of coming forth in the resurrection. Baptism was typical of their burial and resurrection, and hence Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, used it as an argument in support of the principle of the resurrection. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.180 But is there any inconsistency, in supposing that other ordinances amy be officiated in, for, and in behalf of the dead? Or shall we say, that God has merely selected the one ordinance of baptism, and told the living to officiate in that for the dead, and to neglect all others? If, however, we believe that God is a God of order and of justice, it is reasonable to suppose that if, by his permission and ordination, the living can do anything for the dead, they can do everything for them, so far as ordinances are concerned. That is, if they can be baptized for and in behalf of the dead, they can be confirmed, and can also officiate in the ordinance of marriage for them. Why he so inconsistent, as to suppose that God should ordain a law by which the living can be baptized for the dead, and do no more for them? God is more merciful and consistent than that; and when he spoke in our day and revealed the plan of salvation, he, as far as we were ready to receive it, gave us a system, by which the dead who have died without the opportunity of hearing and obeying the Gospel, may be officiated for in all respects, and redeemed to the uttermost and saved with a full salvation; and hence, Latter-day Saints, there is hope for our generations who have lived on the earth, from our day back to the falling away of the church—some sixteen or seventeen centuries ago. You can reach back to that day and pick up all your generations—the hearts of the Children searching after the fathers from generation to generation; and the ancient fathers looking down to their children, to do something for them, just as the Lord promised in the last chapter of Malachi. There is a promise that before the great day of the Lord should come, it should burn as an oven, and all the proud and they that do wickedly should become as stubble. But before that terrible day should come God would send Elijah the Prophet to turn the hearts of the children to the fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children, lest the Lord should come and smite the earth with a curse. As much as to say, that the children would perish as well its the fathers, if this turning of their hearts towards each other did not take place. Paul, in speaking about their forefathers, to those who lived in his day, said—"They without us can not be [p.181] made perfect, neither can we be made perfect without them." There must be a union between ancient and modern generations, between us and our ancestry. To say that God would be kind and merciful to a certain generation, and reveal his Gospel through a holy angel for their special benefit, and leave all other generations without hope, is inconsistent. When God begins a work, it is worthy of himself—God-like in its nature, Bearing into high heaven, and penetrating the regions of darkness, for those who are shut up in their prison house, that liberty may be proclaimed to the captives; a plan that not only pertains to the present, but reaches back into the past, and saves to the uttermost all who are entitled to, and are willing to receive his preferred mercy. But these ordinances must be attended to here, in this world and probation. This is the law of the Great Jehovah. In the resurrection these things can not be done. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.181 Having explained marriage for laterally, let me explain another portion of my text—"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.181 There seems to have been, in the beginning, so far as we have any account in the Bible, two personages, one man and one woman—Adam and Eve, united for all eternity. They had power to multiply their species, and their posterity will become so numerous that, in the coming ages of eternity, they will be innumerable. Some, perhaps, may argue that, inasmuch as in the beginning of this creation God saw proper to place only one pair to begin the work of peopling the world, there could not be such a thing, divinely ordained and appointed, as a man having two wives living at the same time. in answer to this let me ask, Was there no man of God in ancient days, to whom the Lord revealed himself, who had two or more wives living with him at the same time? Without devoting much time to the discussion of this subject, I will refer to the special instance, recorded in the Book of Genesis, of Jacob, afterwards surnamed Israel, because of his mighty faith in, and power with God. He had four living wives. Was his practice in this respect sanctioned by the Almighty? Read about Jacob, when he was a youth, before he was married at all, and see what peculiar favors the Lord bestowed upon him. He, upon one occasion, fled from the country where his forefathers, Abraham and Isaac, had sojourned, to escape from his brother Esau, and he laid himself down on the earth, having a rock for his pillow. He prayed to the Lord, and the Lord heard his prayer, and the visions of heaven were opened to his mind. He saw a ladder ascending from the place where he was sleeping, that reached into the heavens; he saw the angels of God ascending and descending upon that ladder; he heard the voice of the Lord proclaiming to him what a great and powerful man he should become, that the Lord would multiply him, &c., and his seed should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, and Jacob worshiped the Lord from that time forth. He went down into Syria, and there he entered the service of one Laban, as a herder of sheep. In process of time he married one of the daughters of Laban, whose name was Leah. Shortly afterwards he married a second daughter of this Laban, whose name was Rachel. In a very short period of time he married another woman, who lived in the household of Laban, named Bilhah, and in a little time after that he married a fourth woman, [p.182] whose name was Zilpah. Here were four women married to Jacob, and in the book of Genesis they are called his wives. Now, did the Lord sanction, or did he not sanction the marriage of Jacob with these four wives? And did he, after Jacob had married them, condescend to hear Jacob's prayers? We find Jacob continually receiving revelation after this, and that is pretty conclusive proof that he was not rejected of the Lord because of his having more than one wife. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.182 When the children of Jacob and his four wives became numerous, he resolved to leave that foreign country, and returned to the land where Abraham, and his father, Isaac, had lived. He reached the brook Jabbok, and then sent his company on before him, and he began to wrestle in prayer with God. He felt some alarm in consequence of the enmity of his brother Esau, who lived in the country to which he was going, and he wrestled and plead with the Lord. The Lord sent an angel down in order to try the faith of Jacob, and to see whether he would give up wrestling and praying or not. The angel undertook to get away from him, but Jacob caught hold of him and said, "I will not let thee go until thou bless me." The angel, of course, did not exercise supernatural power all at once, but he continued to wrestle with Jacob as though he desired to get away from him, and they struggled there all night long, and at last, finding that the only way he could overpower him was to perform a miracle, the angel touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh, and caused the sinew to shrink, producing lameness. Here, then, was a man with mighty faith. He wrestled all night with one whom he had reason to believe was a divine personage, and he would not let him go without receiving a blessing from him. The Lord finally blessed him, and said that, as a man who would take no denial, as a prince, he had prevailed with God, and received blessings at his hands. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.182 Some people suppose that this was Jacob's first conversion, and that he got his wives before his conversion. But we will trace the history of Jacob a little further. The day after he had wrestled with the angel, he went across the brook, and expecting Esau to meet him with a great army of men, he felt a little fearful. So he took one wife with her children, and sent them ahead; behind her he set another wife with her children; still behind her he set the third wife and her children, and, last of all, the fourth wife and her children. By and by Esau came along, having passed by the flocks and herds which Jacob had sent ahead as a present to him, and he meets the wife and children placed first in the row Probably he looked at them, and wondered who they could all be. He passed the second and third company, and finally he came to Jacob and the fourth company, and, said he, "Jacob, who are all these?" The answer was—"These are they whom the Lord my God has graciously given to thy servant." What! a man who, according to Dr. Newman, was converted only the night previous, telling his brother that the Lord had given him four wives and a great many children? Yes, and it was all right, too. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.182 "But," says one, "How are you going to reconcile this with that portion of your text, also a quotation from the forepart of Genesis, which says—'and they twain shall be one flesh?'" Are they one flesh, or at least are they one personage? No, the Lord did not say that they should be, but they twain should be one [p.183] flesh. In what respect? Says one, "I suppose in respect to their children, as the flesh of both man and wife is incorporated in their children, and they thus become one flesh." Let us look at it in this light. When the first child of Jacob's first wife was born, if it had reference to the children, they twain were one flesh, then. By and by Rachel brings forth a son, and if the "one flesh" had reference to the children, Jacob and Rachel were one flesh in that child. By and by Jacob and Bilhah become parents, and they are also one flesh in the child born unto them; and lastly Zilpah has a child, and she and Jacob are also one flesh therein." Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.183 "Well," says one," If it does not refer to the children, perhaps it may refer to that oneness of mind which should exist between husband and wire." Very well, let us look at it in this light. Can there be a union between two individuals so far as the mind is concerned? Let us see what Jesus said. "Father, I pray not for these alone"—meaning the Twelve Apostles—"whom thou hast given me out of the world, but I pray for all them that shall believe on me through their words, that they all may be one as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may be one in us." What! more than two be in one? Yes. It matters not if there were two thousand that believed on Jesus through the Apostles' words, they were to be one in their affections, desires, &c., and it might include and would include all the members of the Church of God that ever did live in any dispensation, and remained faithful to the end, for they all will be one as Jesus and the Father are one. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.183 "They twain shall be one flesh." If it means in regard to mental qualities and faculties it may incorporate the four wives of Jacob, as well as one. Take it any way you please and we find that God did acknowledge it, for he blessed these four wives and all their children. Look at their posterity, for instance. God so honored the twelve sons of Jacob's four wives, that he made them the heads, the patriarchs of the whole twelve tribes of Israel. The land was named after them— the land Reuben, the land Simeon, the land Judah, etc.; and these tribes acknowledged these polygamist children as their fathers and patriarchs. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.183 We may go beyond this life, to the next, and we shall find that the honors conferred by God upon these twelve sons are continued there. Christians believe that there will be a holy Jerusalem come down from God out of heaven, which will be prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. This holy city which will descend from God out of heaven, will have a wall round it, and in this wall there will be a certain number of the most beautiful gates—three on the north, three on the south, three on the east and three on the west. Each of these gates will be made of one pearl—a precious stone most beautiful to look upon. On each of these gates there will be a certain name—one will have inscribed upon it the name of Judah, another Levi, another Simeon, and so on until the whole twelve gates will be named after the twelve sons of Jacob and his four polygamic wives; thus we see that, instead of the Lord calling them bastards; and forbidding them to enter the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation, he honors them above all people, making them the most conspicuous in the holy city, having their names written on its very gates. Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.184 Of course, everybody who enters therein must be very holy, or the city [p.184] could not be holy, for without the city, we are told, there will be dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, adulterers, murderers and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie, but all within will be holy and righteous— such men as Abraham and a great many others, who have had more than one wife. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are to be saved in the kingdom of God in that holy city, will not monogamists, who only believe in having one wife, be honored if they have the privilege of entering there? We are told that many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, ancient polygamists, the latter with his four wives, and will be counted worthy to be saved therein; while many who profess to be the children of the kingdom, will be cast into outer darkness, where there is weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth. This is what Jesus says, consequently I do not think that those who have formed the idea that only the monogamic system of marriage is accepted of the Almighty, will feel in those days as they do now. I do not think that class of persons will be ashamed, if they have the privilege of coming forth in the morning of the first resurrection, of entering into that holy city, even if they see the names of Jacob's polygamic children upon its gates. There may be some so delicate in their feelings as to say—"O, no, Lord, I don't want to go in at that gate, the people are polygamists, I would like you to take me to some other place." They go to the next gate, and the next, until they have been to each one, and they all are polygamic. Then the inquiry may be—"Is there not some other city where the people are not polygamists?" "Oh yes, there are plenty of places, but outside of this city there are dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, adulterers, and whosever loveth and maketh a lie. Do you want to associate with them?" "Well, I think their society will be a little more pleasant than that of those old polygamists?" Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.184 Will this be the way people will reason, when they come before this holy city? No, I think they will be very glad to get into Abraham's bosom if he has more than one wife. You remember poor Lazarus the beggar, who died seeking a crumb from the rich man's table. After his death he was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom. By and by the rich man died, and he, being in torment, lifted up his eyes and saw Lazarus afar off in Abraham's bosom, that is, associating with the polygamist Abraham. How this rich man did plead! "Oh, father Abraham, send Lazarus to me!" "What do you want?" "Let him come and dip the tip of his finger in water and touch my burning tongue, for I am tormented in this flame." "Oh, no," says Ahraham, "there is a great gulf between you and me, you must stay where you are. Lazarus is in my bosom, and he can't be sent on such an errand as that." 'Well, then, father Abraham, if you cannot send Lazarus to perform this act of mercy on my behalf, do send him to my brethren who are living on the earth, and warn them, that they come not to this place." He did not want anybody else to go there, he was so tormented himself. "No," said Abraham, "they have Moses and the Prophets; they have the revelations of God before them; if they will not believe them, they would not though Lazarus or anybody else should be sent to them from the dead." Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.184 That is the case with this generation also. If they will not believe What is testified to and spoken of in the Bible, in regard to marriage, the [p.185] holy ordinance ordained of God, they would not believe though Lazarus or anybody else were sent from the eternal worlds to preach these things unto them. They would ridicule then as they do now, and their cry, then as now, would be, "Congress, oh Congress, can't you do something to stop that awful corruption with which we are afflicted away up in the mountains? Can't you pass sallie laws that shall restrict those 'Mormons' and compel them to be married by some Federal officer who shall be sent into their Territory, and do away with that part of their religion? Oh Congress, do something to destroy this corruption out of our and, There is a people up in yonder mountains, who profess to believe just as the Bible teaches in many places, and we can't endure it. They believe in the Old Testament as well as the New, and it must be blasphemy." Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.185 Who said so? Did our forefathers, when they framed the Constitution, say that all who believed in the New Testament should have religious liberty, and that all who undertook to believe in the Old Testament should be turned out of this government, and be afflicted with some terrible penalty and law that should be passed by Congress? I think we have the privilege of believing in the Old Testament as well as the New. Amen.</p><p>------</p><p>Orson Pratt, October 7, 1874 God's Ancient People Polygamists—Marriage Relations Are to Continue Forever—No Power Binding in Marriage But that of the Holy Priesthood Possessed By the Latter-Day Saints Discourse By Elder Orson Pratt, Delivered at the Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Wednesday, October 7, 1874. (Reported by David W. Evans) Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.214 I have been requested, this afternoon, to preach upon the subject of marriage. It is a subject which has been often laid before the Latter-day Saints, and it is certainly one of great importance to the Saints as well as to the Inhabitants of the earth, for I presume that no person, who believes in divine revelation, will pretend to say that marriage is not a divine institution; and if this be the case, it is one which affects all the human family. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.214 I will select a passage of scripture in relation to this divine institution as it existed in the days of Moses. In selecting, however, this passage, I do not wish the congregation to suppose that we are under the law of Moses particularly. There are many great principles inculcated in that law which the Lord never did intend to come to an end or be done away—eternal principles, moral principles, then there are others that were done away at the coming of our Savior, he having fulfilled the law. Because we find certain declarations, contained in the law given to Moses, that does not prove that the Latter-day Saints are under that law; that same God that gave the law of Moses—the being that we worship—is just as capable of giving laws in our day as in Moses' day; and if he sees proper to alter the code given to Moses, and to give something varying from it, we have no right to say that he shall not do so. Therefore, in selecting the passage which I am about to read, it is merely to show what God did in ancient times, and that he may do something similar in modern times. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.214 In the 21st chapter of Exodus, speaking of a man who already had one wife, Moses, says—"If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." It will be recollected that this law was given to a polygamic nation. When I speak of a polygamic nation, I mean a nation that practised both plural and single [p.215] marriage, and believed one form to be jest as sacred as the other. Their progenitors or ancestors were polygamists; and they were considered patterns for all future generations. Their piety, holiness, purity of heart, their great faith in God, their communion with him, the great blessings to which they attained, the visions that were made manifest to them, the conversation that God himself, as well as his angels, had with them, entitled them to be called the friends of God, not only in their day, but they were considered by all future generations to be his friends. They were not only examples to the Jewish nation, but in their seed, the seed of these polygamists, all the nations and kingdoms of the earth were to be blessed. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.215 I hope that pious Christians in this congregation will not find fault this afternoon with their Bible, and with the Prophets and inspired men who wrote it. I hope that they will not find fault with God for selecting polygamists to be his friends. I hope that they will not find fault with Jesus because he said, some two thousand years or upwards after the days of these polygamists, that they were in the kingdom of God, and were not condemned because of polygamy. Jesus says, speaking of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—"Many shall come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God." Do not find fault with Jesus, you Christians, because he has these polygamists in his kingdom, and because he has said that the Gentiles will be blessed through the seed of these polygamists; neither find fault with him because he has taken these polygamists into his kingdom, and that many will come from the four quarters of the earth and have the privilege of sitting down with them therein. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.215 Jacob married four wives, and may be considered the founder of that great nation of polygamists. He set the example before them. His twelve sons, who were the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel, were the children of the four wives of the prophet or patriarch Jacob. So sacred did the Lord hold these polygamists that he said, many hundred years after their death—"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and this shall be my memorial unto all generations." Now, Christians, do not find fault if God chose these polygamists and, at the same time, wished to make them a sample, a memorial to all generations, Christians as well as Jews. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.215 Several hundred years after God raised up these, his friends, and founded or began to found the twelve tribes of Israel, he saw proper to raise up a mighty man called Moses to deliver the children of Israel from the bondage in which they had bees oppressed and afflicted by the Egyptian nation. So great had this affliction become that the King of Egypt issued a decree commanding the Israelitish midwives to put to death all the male children, born among the Israelites. This murderous law was carried out. This was about eighty years before Moses was sent down from the land of Midian to deliver the children of Israel from this cruel bondage. How long this great affliction of putting to death the male children existed, is not given in the Bible; but it seems to have waxed worse and worse during the following eighty years, after which Moses was sent to deliver them. We may reasonably suppose that the oppressive hand of Pharoah was not altogether eased up, but continued on for scores of years, destroying many of the male children, making a great [p.216] surplus of females in that nation. A great multitude of females over and above that of males, will account for the peculiar passage of Scripture to which I will now refer you. It will be found in the 3rd chapter of Numbers. I have not time to turn to it and read it, but I will quote you the substance thereof. Moses and Aaron were commanded to number all the males in Israel from a month old and upward that were called the firstborn among the various tribes. Now the firstborn does not mean the oldest male child of the first wife, for sometimes the first wife has no children, but it means the first born son that is horn to the father whether by the first wife, or second, or third, or any number of wives that he may have; the terra firstborn pertains to the first male child that is horn to the father. So it Was accounted to Jacob's family of twelve sons. Reuben only was called the firstborn of Israel until he lost his birthright, through transgression, which, we are told in the 5th chapter of first Chronicles, was taken from him and given to one of the sons of Joseph. But so far as age or birth was concerned, Reuben was the firstborn; and had it not been for his transgression, he would have inherited a double portion of his father's substance, for that was the law in ancient times. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.216 Now how many of the firstborn could be found in the midst of Israel? We are told that there were twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three firstborn males among the eleven tribes: the tribe of Levi was not reckoned at that time, but all the male members of the tribe of Levi, from a month old and upwards was twenty-two thousand souls. Now if the tribe of Levi numbered in proportion to the other eleven tribes, the number of firstborn males in all the twelve tribes would probably amount to between twenty-four and twenty-five thousand souls, it could not have run over that. There might have been some of the firstborn who were dead, which would make a few more families: then there might have been other families who never had any male children, which would increase the families still more. Supposing then, in order to give all the advantages possible, and to make as many families as we possibly can consistently, that we say, instead of twenty-five thousand firstborn in the midst of all Israel, that there were thirty thousand; that is allowing for all these contingencies I have named, where families have no males, and those families that have male children under a month old which were not reckoned, and those families which might have had firstborn male children who died and the number might possibly be increased to four or five thousand more, making the total number of families about thirty- thousand. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.216 Thus we see that the number of firstborn males from a month old or upwards give us a clue to the number of families; we may not be able to determine the number exactly, but these data will enable us to approximate very closely. It is generally admitted, that Israel, at that time, numbered twenty-five hundred thousand souls. There might have been a variation from this of a few thousand souls, but according to the Scriptural and all other evidences that can be gleaned, the number above referred to is about the number of souls that existed in Israel at that time. Among that twenty-five hundred thousand souls then, there were thirty-thousand families. How many were there in a family? All that you have to do to tell how many there were in a family, is to divide twenty-five hundred thousand by [p.217] thirty thousand and you will find that the quotient is eighty-three, showing that number of souls on an average in each family. Now if these families were all monogamic, how many children must have been born to each wife? Eighty-one. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.217 This argument is founded on Scripture, and it shows plainly, even if you should double the number of families or of the firstborn, that they could not be all monogamic families, for if we suppose there were sixty thousand families, it would make every married woman the mother of forty odd children, and if such a supposition could be entertained it would go to show that women in those days were more fruitful than they are now. These declarations are given in your Bible, which is also my Bible; that is, in King James' translation. We all believe, or profess to be Bible believers or Christians. Do not he startled my hearers at these declarations of your Bible. No wonder then that this passage which I have taken for my text was given to that people, because they were a people who needed to be guided in relation to their duty. "If a man take another wife," that is, after he has got one, if he take another one, "her food"—whose food? the food of the first wife;—her raiment," that is the raiment of the first wife, "her duty of marriage, he shall not diminish." Now this is plain, pointed and positive language in regard to polygamy as it existed among the house of Israel in ancient times. Why did not, the Lord say, if polygamy were a crime or a sin—"If a man take another wife let all the congregation take him without the camp and stone him and put him to death?" or if that was too severe let them incarcerate him in a prison or dungeon for several years? If it be a crime why did he not say so? It is just as easy to say that, as to give directions as to what course a man shall pursue with regard to his first wife, if he take another one. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.217 This is Bible doctrine as it existed in those days. I know that it has been argued that the first woman, here spoken of, was merely a betrothed woman, and not married. But if this be so, what a curious saying this in our text—that her duty of marriage shall he not diminish if he take another wife. This and other expressions show clearly that they were both wives, and that there was a certain duty to be attended to by the husband, besides providing them with food and raiment. It, was argued here in this tabernacle before some eight or ten thousand people, on a certain occasion, that the Hebrew word translated "duty of marriage," ought to have been translated "dwelling"—"Her food, her raiment and her dwelling he shall not diminish." I recollect asking the learned gentleman, Rev. Dr. Newman, why he translated it dwelling, instead of translating it as all other Hebraists have done? I asked him to produce one passage in all the Bible where that word translated "duty of marriage," meant a "dwelling," but he could not do it. The Hebrew word for "dwelling," and the Hebrew word for "duty of marriage," are two entirely distinct words. I referred him to the learned professors in Yale College, and to many others who have translated this Hebrew word "duty of marriage." These professors and other earned translators, have referred to this special passage, and have translated it in two ways—one is "duty of marriage," and the other is cohabitation. Now, if this latter be correct—her food, her raiment and her cohabitation, shall not be diminished. I asked him why he varied [p.218] in his translation of the Hebrew, from all these translators and lexicographers? His only answer was that he found a certain Jew in Washington who told him that it meant "dwelling," or rather that its original root referred to a "dwelling." I thought that was a very poor argument against all the translators of the Christian world, who are mostly monogamists. But we will pass on. I do not intend to dwell too long on these subjects. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.218 So far as the law of Moses is concerned, to prove that the house of Israel kept up their polygamous institution from generation to generation, let me refer you to another law to show that they were compelled to do this, or else to come out in open rebellion against the law of Moses. In the 25th chapter of Deuteronomy, we read something like this—"When brethren dwell together, and one of them die, the living brother shall take the widow of the deceased brother, and it shall come to pass that the firstborn that is raised up shall succeed in the name of his brother." This was a positive command given to all Israel. Now was this command confined to young men who were unmarried, or was it an unlimited command so far as living brothers were in existence? This is a question to be decided. There is nothing in all the Scriptures that makes any distinction between a married brother who survives and an unmarried brother; the law was just as binding upon a living brother, if he had already a wife living, as it was upon a living brother if he had no wife, it being a universal law, with no limits in its application, so far as the house was concerned. This law, then, compelled the children of Israel to be polygamists; for in many instances the living brother might be a married man, and in many instances there might be two or three brothers who would take wives and die without leaving seed, and in that case it would devolve upon the surviving brother to take all the widows. This law was not given for that generation alone, but for all future generations. Some may say, that when Jesus came, he came to do away that law. I doubt it. He came to do away the law of sacrifices and of burnt offerings, and many of those ordinances and institutions, rites and ceremonies which pertained to their tabernacle and temple, because they all pointed forward to him as the great and last sacrifice. But did he come to do away all these laws that were given in the five books of Moses? No. There are many of these laws that were retained under the Christian dispensation. One of the laws thus retained was repentance. The children of Israel were commanded to repent, and no person will pretend to say that Jesus came to do away the law of repentance. Another was the law of honesty, upright dealing between man and man; no one will pretend to say that that law ceased when Jesus came. The laws concerning families and the regulation of the domestic institutions were not intended to cease when Jesus came, and they did not cease only as they were disregarded through the wickedness of the children of men. The laws concerning monogamy, and the laws concerning polygamy were just as binding after Jesus had come, as they were before he came. There were some laws which Ezekiel says were not good. Jesus denounced them, and said they were given because of the hardness of the hearts of the children of Israel. Ezekiel says that God gave them statutes and judgments by which they should not live. Why did he do it? Because of their [p.219] wickedness and hardness of heart. I will tell you how this law became done away and ceased to exist among the children of Israel—it was in consequence of their rejection of the Messiah. In consequence of this their city was overthrown, and their nation destroyed, except a miserable remnant, which were scattered abroad among the Gentile nations, where they could not keep the law in regard to their brothers' widows. When John the Baptist was raised up to that nation, he must nave found thousands on thousands of polygamists, who were made so, and obliged to be so, by the law which I have just quoted. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.219 Some of you may enquire—"Had not a surviving brother the right to reject that law of God?" He had, if he was willing to place himself under its penalty. I will quote you the penalty, and then you can see whether he could get away from polygamy or not. One penalty was that he should be brought before the Elders and that the widow whom he refused to marry, according to the law of God, should pluck his shoe from off his foot, and should then spit in his face, and from that time forth the house of that man should be denounced as the house of him that hath his shoe loosed, a reproach among all Israel. Instead of being a man of God, and a man to be favored by the people of God; instead of being a man such as the Christian world would now extol to the heavens because he rejected polygamy, he was a man to be scorned by all israel. That was the penalty. Was that the only penalty? I think not. Read along a little further, and it says—"Cursed be he that continues not in all things written in this book of the law." Oh, what a dreadful penalty that was, compared with being reproached by the whole people! Oh, what a fearful curse upon a man that refused to become a polygamist, and would not attend to the law of God! A curse pronounced by the Almighty upon him, also the anathemas of all the people as well as from God! The word of the Lord was that all the people should say amen to this curse. Now, if I had lived in those days, I should not have considered it very desirable to bring myself under the curse of heaven, and then have the curse of all the twelve tribes of Israel upon my head. I should not have liked it at all. I would rather have gone into polygamy according to the command, even if it had subjected me to a term of five years in a penitentiary. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.219 We find many other passages, touching upon this subject. I will quote one, which will be found in the 21st chapter of Deuteronomy. It reads as follows: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated, then it shall be when he makes his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved, flrstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn."</p><p>Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.219 Now this applies to two classes of polygamists. First, to those who may have two wives living at the same time, and then to those who may have married two wives in succession. It applies to both classes, for both classes existed in those days, and the Lord gave this, not to condemn polygamy, not to do away with it, but to show that the individual who had two wives should be impartial in regard to his children. Did he approbate this man that might have two wives in his hatred of one, and in loving the other? No, he did not, but inasmuch as man is weak and may sin against God, and [p.220] suffer himself to be overcome with prejudice and hatred to one person, and feel in his heart to love and respect another, the Lord gave laws in case any such crime should exist among them as a husband's hating one wife and loving another; he gave laws to regulate it, not that he approbated the hating part. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.220 As I have already proved to you that there were great and valet numbers of polygamic families in Israel, and that there were thousands of firstborn from these plural wives, these firstborn persons, whatever might be the conduct of their mothers, were entitled to their inheritance, namely a double portion of all that the father had to bestow. That was the law in ancient times. We might close here so far as the law of Moses is concerned, but I wish to call your attention to a peculiar saying in this law. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.220 This law has got to be restored again. Says one—"You astonish me beyond measure, I thought it was done away for ever." Well, listen to what the Lord said to Israel in the closing of this book of Deuteronomy. When the children of Israel shall be scattered in consequence of their iniquities to the uttermost parts of the earth among all the nations, and their plagues shall be of long continuance, and they shall be cursed in their basket and in their store, and with numerous curses which he mentioned should come upon them; after these things had been of long continuance, the Lord says—"After they shall return unto me and hearken unto all the words contained in this book of the law, then I, the Lord God, will gather them out from all the nations whither they are scattered, and will bring them back into their own land." Oh, indeed! Then when they do absolutely return and hearken to all the words of the book of this law God has promised to gather them again; that is, they must enter into polygamy, they must believe when their brother dies and leaves no seed, that the surviving brother, though he has one, two, or a half a dozen wives living, shall take that widow. That is part of the law, and they must fulfill all the words of this law, and then God has promised to gather them again. Says one, "When that is fulfilled it will be in the days of Christianity." We can't help it; polygamy belongs to Christianity, as well as to the law of Moses. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.220 Says one—"The children of Israel have been scattered now some 1800 years among all the nations and kindreds of the earth, in fulfillment of this curse, but if we believe that saying which you have just quoted, we are obliged to believe that the children of Israel are yet to return to attend to all these institutions, and that too while the Christian religion is in vogue, and that they are to regulate their households according to the law of God, whether those families are monogamic or polygamic." What will the good Christians think when that is fulfilled? They cannot help themselves, for God will not gather Israel until they do return with all their hearts unto him, and hearken to and obey all the words of this law, written in this book. This is the word of the Lord, and how can you help yourselves? Says one "We will pass laws against them." That will not hinder, when God sets his hand to carry out his purposes, laws that may be passed by England, Denmark, Norway or any other Christian community will not hinder the Israelites from attending to all the words contained in the book of his law; for they will want to get back again to their own land.[p.221] Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.221 Inasmuch then as the Lord has promised to restore all things spoken of by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began, supposing that ha should begin this great work of restoration in our day, how are we going to help ourselves? I can't help it. Brigham Young, our President, can't help it; Joseph Smith could not help it. If God sees proper to accomplish this great work of restoration—the restitution of all things, it will include what the Prophet Moses has said, and it will bring back with it a plurality of wives. The 4th chapter of Isaiah could never be fulfilled without this restoration. The passage to which I refer is familiar to all the Latter-day Saints—"In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely; and in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach." Now will this prophecy ever be fulfilled, unless this great restoration or restitution shall take place? It cannot. If this great restitution does not take place, Jesus will never come, for it is written in the New Testamant, in the 3rd chapter of the Acts of the apostles, that "the heavens must receive Jesus Christ, until the times of the restitution of all things which God has spoken by the mouths of his holy Prophets, since the world began." Jesus will have to stay a long time in the heavens providing that monogamist principles are the only principles that will be introduced, in fact he never can come, for the Scriptures say the heavens must retain him until all things are restored. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.221 God has said that seven women shall take hold of one man for the purpose of having their reproach taken away, that they may be called by his name, not cast off as harlots or prostitutes; not to take away the name of the father from the children, and east them into the streets, as the Christain nations have been doing for many long centuries that are past. But these seven women will be desirous of having the name of their husband for themselves and their children. Isaiah says it shall be so, and it will have to be under the Christian dispensation. How are the Christians going to get rid of this? Can you devise any way? Is them any possible way or means that you can think of that will put a stop to the Lord's fulfilling his word? I will tell you one way—if you will all turn infidels and burn up the Bible, and then begin to persecute, the devil will tell you that you can successfully overcome, and that God will never fulfill and accomplish his word; but if you profess to believe the Bible, by the Bible you shall be judged, for, edith the Lord, "My words shall judge you at the last day." The hooks will be opened, God's word will be the standard by which the nations will be judged; hence if you wish a righteous judgment I would say—Forbear, do not destroy the Bible because it advocates polygamy; but remember that every word of God is pure, so it is declared; and he has nowhere in this book, condemned plural marriage, even in one instance. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.221 I know that it has been argued that there is a law against polygamy; but in order to make the law the Scripture had to be altered. It is in that famous passage which has become a byword in the mouth of every schoolboy in our streets, Leviticus xviii. ch., 18 v. Now let us examine for a few moments that passage and see what it says. You will find that the fore part of this chapter forbids marriage between certain [p.222] blood relations. Prior to this time it had been lawful for a man to marry two sisters. Jacob, for instance, married Rachel and Leah, and there was no law against it prior to this time. It had also been lawful for a man to marry his own sister, as in the days of Adam, for you know there were no other ladies on the face of the earth for the sons of Adam except their own sisters, and they were obliged to marry them or to live bachelors. But the Lord saw proper when he brought the children of Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness, to regulate the law of marriage, so far as certain blood relations were concerned, called the law of consanguinity, which speaks of a great many relationships, and finally comes to a wife and her sister. This law was given to regulate the marriage relations of the children of Israel in the wilderness. It was not to regulate those who lived before that day who had married sisters; not to regulate those who might live in the latter days, but to regulate the children of Israel in that day. It reads thus: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness besides the other in her lifetime." Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.222 This passage has been altered by certain monogamists in order to sustain their ideas of marriage, and we find in some large Bibles what are called marginal readings that these monogamists have put in, and instead of taking this in connection with all other blood relationships, they have altered it—Neither shalt thou take one wife to another. The men who translated King James' Bible were monogamists, yet they had sense enough to know that the original Hebrew would not bear that construction which has been given by later monogamists. The original Hebrew, when translated word for word, makes it just as King James' translators have made it. The Hebrew words are—Ve-ishaw elahotah-lo takkah. These are the original Hebrew words, and if they are translated literally, word for word, the translation stands just as it is in the text. But this is not saying but what the words, El-ahotah, under certain circumstances, are translated in another form, namely, "one to another," "one sister to another," and I am willing that it should be translated that way. Then it would read—"Thou shalt not take one sister to another to vex her in her life time." So you may take it either way, and it bears out King James' translation, or the meaning given by him. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.222 I do not profess to be a Hebraist to any very great extent, although I studied it sufficiently many years ago, to understand its grammatical construction, and to translate any passage in the Bible; but then, having lacked practice for many years, of course a person may become a little rusty in regard to these matters. But I have searched out all the passages that can be found in the Old Testament, either singular or plural, masculine or feminine, pertaining to the words contained in this text, and I find a far greater number rendered according to the words that are here given, literally, in this text than what are translated—"one sister to another." But I am willing that this translation should be allowed. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.222 Now, if we thought the congregation would like to hear the translation of all this, and the reasons why, we could give it; but I presume that there are but few Hebrew scholars present, and if the translation were given, the great majority of the congregation would not understand whether it was translated correctly or not, and for that reason I shall not take up your time by referring to [p.223] these technicalities. But I will make the broad statement, that there is not a Hebrew scholar living on this earth who can translate that passage from the words contained in the original Hebrew, without adding words of his own, not contained in the original text, if he translates it, as Dr. Newman did,—"one wife to another." If the first word—Ve ishaw means one, as he would try to have us understand, it does not mean wife also: but if it means wife, it cannot be translated as he has it, and therefore it cannot bear out that construction. But I see that I am dwelling too long on the subject of the law of Moses. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.223 Now I wish to come directly to the point in regard to polygamy as it exists at the present time among the Latter-day Saints. I stated in the beginning of my remarks, that polygamy, or any other institution that was given at one age, might not be binding upon another, without a fresh revelation from God. I made that, statement when I was discussing that subject in this house. I still say, that we are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times. Why then do the Latter-day Saints practice polygamy? That is a plain question. I will answer it just as plainly. It is because we believe, with all the sincerity of our hearts, as has been stated by former speakers from this stand, that the Lord God who gave revelations to Moses approbating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, not only approbating it, but commanding it, as he commanded Israel in ancient times. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.223 Now let us reason on this point. If God did do such things in former ages of the world, why not the same Being, if he sees proper, perform the same or similar things in another age of the world? Can any one answer this? If God saw proper to give certain laws in ancient times, and then to revoke them; or if he saw proper to give laws that were not revoked, but done away by the transgressions of the children of men, has he not a right, and is it not just as consistent for that same Divine Being to give laws, for instance, in the 19th century, concerning our domestic relations, as it was for him to do it in the days of Moses? And if he has that right, as we Latter- day Saints believe that he has, are not the people's consciences just as sacred in regard to such laws in these days, as the consciences of ancient Israel? or must there be some power to regulate our religious consciences? Here is a grand question. Shall our religious consciences be regulated by civil government or civil laws, or shall we have the privilege of regulating them according to the divine law of the Bible, or any divine law that may be given in accordance with the ancient Bible? I answer that, when I was a boy, I thought I lived in a country in which I could believe in anything that agreed with, or that could be proved by the Bible, whether it was in the law of Moses or in the doctrines of the New Testament. I really thought the Jews had a right to reject Christ, or, in other words, if they had not the right to do it morally, they had the right, so far as civil law is concerned, to reject this Messiah, and to believe in and practice the law of Moses in our land; but I am told, that such liberty of conscience is not to be tolerated in our Republican government. If the Jews should collect in any great numbers, and should say one to another —"Come brethren, we are the descendants of Abraham, let us now begin to practice according to the laws that were [p.224] given to our ancient fathers, and if a brother dies and leaves a widow, but no children, let his living brother, though a married man, marry the widow, according to our law," it is doubtful whether they would be permitted to associate together and practice those laws now, if they were so disposed. Why? Because the prejudice of the people is so great that they are not willing others should believe, in the whole Bible, but only in such portions as agree with their ideas. If we were instituting a practice that the Lord God never approbated, but for the punishment of which he had prescribed penalties, or if we were introducing something foreign and contrary to the Bible, then there would be some excuse for the people in saying that such a thing should not be practiced in the name of religion. But when we take the Bible as a standard in relation to crime, it is altogether another thing; and I do think that every American citizen who professes to believe in any part or portion of that sacred record, on which all the laws of Christendom pretend to be founded, has the right to do so, and to practice it, and that, too, without being molested. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.224 Now, after having said so much in relation to the reason why we practice polygamy, I want to say a few words in regard to the revelation on polygamy. God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then (I am very glad to say that only a low such instances have come under my notice,) a brother or a sister say, "I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy." Oh, what an absurd expression! what an absurd idea! A person might as well say, "I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him." One is just as consistent as the other. Or a person might as well say, "I believe in Mormonism, and in the revelations given through Joseph Smith, but I am not a polygamist, and do not believe in polygamy," What an absurdity! If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme; it is an absurdity that exists because of the ignorance of some people. I have been astonished at it. I did hope there was more intelligence among the Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle than to suppose that any one can be a member of this Church in good standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. Now here comes in our consciences. We have either to renounce Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Covenants, and the whole system of things as taught by the Latter-day Saints, and say that God has not raised up a Church, has not raised up a prophet, has not begun to restore all things as he promised, we are obliged to do this, or else to say, with all our hearts, "Yes, we are polygamists, we believe in the principle, and we are willing to practice it, [p.225] because God has spoken from the heavens." Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.225 Now I want to prophecy a little. It is not very often that I prophecy, though I was commanded to do so, when I was a boy. I want to prophecy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent. That is just as true as it is that all the nations and kingdoms of the earth, when they hear this Gospel which God has restored in these last days, will be damned if they do not receive it; for the Lord has said so. One is just as true as the other. I will quote this latter saying, as recorded in the Book of Covenants. The Lord said to the Elders of this Church, in the very commencement as it were, "Go ye forth and preach the Gospel to every creature, and as I said unto mine ancient Apostles, even so I say unto you, that every soul who believes in your words, and will repent of his sins and be baptized in water shall receive a remission of his sins, and shall be filled with the Holy Ghost; and every soul in all the world who will not believe in your words, neither repent of his sins, shall be damned; and this revelation or commandment is in force from this very hour, upon all the world," as fast as they hear it. That is what the Lord has said. Just so, in regard to polygamy, or any other great principle which the Lord oar God reveals to the inhabitants of the earth. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.225 Now, if you want to get into darkness, brethren and sisters, begin to oppose this revelation. Sisters, you begin to say before your husbands, or husbands you begin to say before your wives, "I do not believe in the principle of polygamy, and I intend to instruct my children against it." Oppose it in this way, and teach your children to do the same, and if you do not become as dark as midnight there is no truth in Mormonism. I am taking up too much time. I would like to dwell on another more pleasing part of this subject, if there were time. (President G. A. Smith—"There is plenty of time, brother Pratt.") Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.225 I will go on and tell the people why polygamy was instituted in this dispensation. So far as a future state is concerned, God has revealed to us that marriage as instituted by him, is to benefit the people, not in this world only, but to all eternity. That is what the Lord has revealed. Do not misunderstand me; do not suppose that I mean, that marriage and giving in marriage are to be performed after the resurrection; I have not stated any such thing, and there will be no such thing after the resurrection. Marriage is an ordinance pertaining to this mortal life—to this world—this probation, just the same as baptism and the laying on of hands; it reaches forth into eternity, and has a bearing upon our future state; so does baptism; so does the ordinance of the laying on of hands; so does every ordinance which the Lord our God has revealed to us. If we attend to these things here in this life, they secure something beyond this life—for eternity. They neither baptize, nor receive baptism, after the resurrection. Why? Because neither was intended to be administered after the resurrection. After the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Why? Because this is the world where these ceremonies are to be attended to. That which is secured here, will be [p.226] secured hereafter, if it be secured upon the principles of law which God has revealed. Marriage, then for eternity, is the great principle of marriage with the Latter-day Saints; and yet, I am sorry to say, that there are some of our young people who will suffer themselves to be married by the civil law; not for eternity, but just like the old Gentile custom—the way our forefathers were married. A justice of the peace, a judge, or some one having the right by the civil laws, will pronounce them husband and wife for a short space, called time; perhaps to last only about three score years, and then it is all over with the marriage contract; it is run out; they are husband and wife until death shall separate them, and then they are fully divorced. We do not believe in any such nonsense; it is one of the ideas of the Gentile world in regard to marriage. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.226 The first great marriage celebrated in this world of ours—that of our first parents—is a sample of marriage that should be introduced and practiced by and among all generations and nations, so far as the eternity of its duration is concerned. Our first parents were immortal beings; they knew nothing about death; it was a word that had never been spoken in their ears. The forbidden fruit had never been laid before them; no law in respect to that was yet given. But Eve was brought to our father Adam as an immortal woman, whose body could not die to all ages of eternity; she was given to an immortal husband, whose body could not die to all future periods of duration, unless they brought death upon themselves. Sin entered into the world, and death by sin; death is one of the consequences of sin; and they brought it upon themselves. But before that, they were married—the immortal Adam had the immortal Eve given to him. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.226 Now if it had been possible for them to have resisted that temptation, they would have been living now, just as fresh, and as full of vigor, life and animation, after six thousand years, as they were on the morning in which this ceremony of marriage took place; and if you should reflect upon millions and millions of ages in the future, they would still be considered husband and wife, while eternity should last. You could not set a time—you could not point your finger at a moment or hour, when they would be separated, and the union be dissolved. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.226 That is the kind of marriage that we Latter-day Saints believe in; and yet some of our young people, professing to be members of the Church, and who say they wish to keep the commandments of God, go and get married by a justice of the peace, or some person authorized to perform that ceremony by the civil law. Ask parties who are guilty of such folly, why they were married by these officers of the law until death should part them? and they will say, "We did it inconsiderately, and without reflection," or perhaps they will say that their parents did not teach them on that point. Do you not know that such marriages are not sealed by him that is appointed by divine authority? that they are not of God and are illegal in his sight, and your children are illegitimate in the sight of God? If you expect to have any benefits in eternity arising from your children, they must be yours legally, according to divine appointment, under a divine marriage. "What God has joined together let not man put asunder." But what has God to do with it, when a magistrate, who, perhaps, is an infidel, and does not believe in a God at all, says to a man [p.227] and woman, "Join your hands together," and then, when they have done so, he says, "I pronounce you husband and wife?" What has God to do with such a marriage as that? Has God joined them together? No, a civil magistrate has done it; and it is legal so far as the laws of the country are concerned, and the children are legal and heirs to their parents property so far as the civil law is concerned, but what has God to do with it? Has he joined them together? No, and the marriage is illegal, and, in the sight of heaven, the children springing from such a marriage are bastards. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.227 How are we going to legalize these matters? There are many who are very sorry for the Latter- day Saints; so sorry that they would favor the passing of a law which would legalize all the children who have been born in polygamy, and thus prevent them from being what they consider bastards. Now we are just as anxious, on the other hand, to get all our fathers and mothers, who have been married by these Gentile institutions, joined together by divine authority, in order that they may become legal in the sight of God. We do not want their children to be bastardized; and hence, we get them adopted, or we shall do so when the Temple is built; I mean all those who have been born of parents that have never been joined together of the Lord or by his authority. All such children, as well as men and women, married only by the civil law, have got to have ordinances performed for them in the Temple. The men and women will have to be legally married there; and the children born before their parents were thus legally married, will have to pass through ordinances in order that they may become the legal sons and daughters of their parents; they will have to be adopted according to the law of God. You young men and women, who are married in a manner that the Lord does not authorize or own, put yourselves to a great deal of trouble, because you will have a great deal of work to do hereafter in temples in order to get things legalized. How much better it would be for you to come to those whom God has appointed, and have your marriages solemnized as immortal beings, who have to live to all eternity. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.227 It is true that we have all to die by and by, and we shall be separated for a little season; but this separation is a good deal like a man's leaving his family to go on a mission: he returns after a while to his wives and children, and he has not lost the one nor has he been divorced from the other, because they have been separated. And if death separates, for a little season, those who are married according to God's law, they expect to return, to each other's embraces by virtue of their former union; for it is as eternal as God himself. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.227 "Do you mean to say," says one, "that people in the immortal state, will be united in the capacity of husbands and wives, with their children around them?" Yes, we do believe that all persons who have these blessings sealed upon them here, by the authority of the Most High, will find that they reach forward into the eternal world, and they can hold fast to that which God has placed upon them. "Whatsoever you seal on earth," said the Lord to the ancient Apostles, "shall be sealed in the heavens." What could be of more importance than the relationship of families—the solemn and sacred relationship of marriage? Nothing that we can conceive of. It affects us here and if; affects us hereafter in the eternal world; therefore, if we can have these blessings pronounced upon us [p.228] by divine authority and we, when we wake up in the morning of the first resurrection, find that we are not under the necessity of either marrying or giving in marriage, having attended to our duty beforehand, how happy we shall be to gather our wives and our children around us! How happy old Jacob will be, for instance, when in the resurrection, if he has not, already been raised—a great many Saints were raised when Jesus arose and appeared to many—if Jacob did not rise then, and his four wives, and his children, how happy he will be, when he does come forth from the grave, to embrace his family, and to rejoice with them in a fulness of joy, knowing that, by virtue of that which was sealed upon him here in time, be will reign upon the earth! Will it not be a glorious thing, when that polygamist, by virtue of promises made to him here, comes forth to reign as king and priest over his seed upon the earth? I think that in those days polygamy will not be hated as it is now. I think that all things that have been prophesied by the ancient prophets will be fulfilled, and that Jacob will get, his wives, by virtue of the covenant of marriage; and that he will have them here on the earth, and he will dwell with them here a thousand years, in spite of all the laws that may be passed to the contrary. And they will be immortal personages, full of glory and happiness. And Jesus will also be here, and the Twelve Apostles will also sit on the twelve thrones here on the earth, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and during a whole thousand years, they will eat and drink at the table of the Lord, according to the promise that was made to them. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.228 Old Father Abraham will come up with his several wives, namely Sarah, Hagar and Keturah and some others mentioned in Genesis; and besides these all the holy prophets will be here on the earth. I do not think there will be any legislation against polygamy.</p><p>Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.228 By and by they will build a polygamous city, and it will have twelve gates, and in order to place as much honor upon these gates as possible, they will name them after the twelve polygamist children that were born to the tour polygamous wives of Jacob; and these good old polygamists will he assembled together in this beautiful city, the most beautiful that ever had place on the earth. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.228 By and by some Christian will come along, and he will look at these gates and admire their beauty, for each gate is to be constructed of one immense splendid pearl. The gates are closed fast and very high, and while admiring their beauty he observes the inscriptions upon them. Being a Christian he of course expects to enter, but looking at the gates, he finds the name of Reuben inscribed on one of them. Says he—"Reuben was a polygamous child; I will go on to the next, and see if there is the name of a monogamous child anywhere." He accordingly visits all the twelve gates, three on each side of the city, and finds inscribed on each gate the name of a polygamous child, and this because it is the greatest honor that could be conferred on their father Jacob, who is in their midst, for he is to sit down with all the honest and upright in heart who come from all nations to partake of the blessings of that kingdom. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.228 "But," says this Christian, "I really do not like this; I see this is a polygamous city. I wonder if there is not some other place for me! I do not like the company of polygamists. They were hated very badly back yonder. Congress hated them, [p.229] the President hated them, the cabinet hated them, the Priests hated them, and everybody hated them, and I engendered the same hatred, and I have not got rid of it yet. I wonder if there is not some other place for me?" Oh yes, there is another place for you. Without the gates of the city there are dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, adulterers and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Now take your choice, Amen.</p>