Truth Never Changes Volume 12, Number 3

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES

A PUBLICATION IN THE SPIRIT AND TRADITON OF TRUTH MAGAZINE

Y VOLUME 12    SEPTEMBER  2009   NUMBER 03 Y

POLYGAMY 

       

Sermon by Elder Orson Pratt, Sen., delivered in the Tabernacle

Great Salt Lake City, July 24, 1859.

REPORTED BY G. D. WATT (J. of D. 6:349-363)

               

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.

                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 Jesus, inasmuch as we have faith and confidence in God.

IN THIS ISSUE Polygamy…………………………………………43 Dedication of the Logan Temple……………..…53 Autobiography of Thomas B. Marsh………..…56 On Seeking a Release From Marriage…………60 Editorial…………………………………………..63

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 sits 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 practise 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.

                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: has to render up his accounts for all these things.

                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.

                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 positively forbidden to be practised by the ancient Nephites.

                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.

                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.

                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.)

                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.)

                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.

                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.

                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 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.

                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."

                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?

                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.

                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, we understand, went from his father's house to sojourn at a distance from the land that was promised to him; and while he sojourned there, be married Leah, one of the daughters of Laban, after having served faithfully seven years.  It was 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.

                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 man 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 he 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.

                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 him for polygamy, if polygamy were a crime.  If he did not intend Jacob to go headlong into 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.)

                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 husband to have two wives, would express herself in such a manner The Lord heard my prayer and gave me the fifth son, because I gave my handmaid to my husband to wife.  This shows to us that Jacob's wife, Leah, 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 Patriarchs 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.

                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.

                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.

                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 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 person 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.

                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 be baptized 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 evidences 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.

                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 practiced among then under the Old 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 what ever in the former case.

                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."

                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."

                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.

                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."

                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.  Spiritually, but one flesh.

                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. 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."

                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.

                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.

                The Father and the Son 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."

                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 did 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.

                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.

                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 have remained to all eternity without a wrinkle of old age overtaking them.

                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?

                When you go up before a magistrate to have marriage solemnized, you hear him saying pronounce you husband and wife, or man and wife, as the case may be, until death.

                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 a few score of years, or when death should come; but it was as 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.

                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.

                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 am a 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.

                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?

                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.

                Again, for instance, here is a man that has married a wife for time and all eternity; and here is a woman that 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?

                Jesus informs us that in the resurrection mankind are neither married nor given in marriage: all these things 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.

                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 practiced it, and prepared themselves here to receive an exceeding weight of glory hereafter.  Do you not understand 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 seashore, 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 she cannot get any lord or husband through 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?

                These are some of the reasons in favour of polygamy.  Many people think it strange that there should be a whole territory of polygamists organized in the midst of Christendom.  It is so 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 some 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 shop, being hungry, and took the amount of five shillings' worth, he must be hung up by the neck.

                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 this 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.

                Now, let me say plainly and boldly without the fear of contradiction, that the citizens of Utah are transgressing no 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 along 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.

                Why have the American nation abolished, not only many of the traditions, customs, and institutions of other 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 his 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 witchcraft in Massachusetts, where 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.

                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.

                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.

                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 o [of] 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.

                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 laws 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.

                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 you 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 fight for,

if our rulers rise up and deprive us of the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

                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 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.

                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 us 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 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.

                May God bless you.  Amen.

THE DEDICATION OF THE LOGAN TEMPLE

Dedicated by President John Taylor, 17 May 1884

                                                                                   

     O God, the Eternal Father, the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, the Author of our existence, the Lord and Giver of life; we approach Thee, as Thou hast directed, in the name of Thy well beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer, and say: "Our Father who art in heaven; hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." We acknowledge Thy power, we bow to Thy authority and reverence Thy holy name.

     We, O God, a few of Thy creatures, according to Thine instructions, and in obedience to Thy law and Thy word, have built this house unto Thee, which was contemplated and designed by Thy servant Brigham; that it may be "a

house of order, a house of prayer," a place acceptable to Thee, and wherein we can worship Thee in accordance with Thy will, Thy law and the principles which Thou hast revealed; and for the manifestation of Thy will, and the teachings and administration of ordinances, and the instruction of Thy people in all principles of science and intelligence pertaining to this life, and the lives that are to come.

     It hath pleased Thee, O Lord God, our Heavenly Father, to reveal Thyself in our days, and to make known unto us through Thy servant Joseph--by the manifestation of Thyself and Thy well beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior

and Redeemer, by Thine appearing unto him, that Thou still livest by the opening of the heavens, by the brightness of Thine appearance, and by Thine own voice Thou hast manifested Thyself unto him, and pointing also to our glorious Redeemer who was present with Thee, declared Him to be Thy well beloved Son in who Thou wast well pleased, and commanded Thy servant Joseph to hear him.

    Thou hast also been pleased through Him and through the Holy Priesthood, which have lived on the earth and still exist in the Heavens, to restore the everlasting Gospel in its fullness, richness, power and glory; with the Holy

Priesthood, and the keys thereof and pertaining thereunto, together with the dispensation of the fullness of times, spoken of by all the holy Prophets since the world was; which our forefathers have waited to be revealed, that we, as well as Thy servant Joseph, might be put in possession of the knowledge of Thyself and of Thy law, through the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the everlasting Gospel which brings life and immortality to light, and opens a communication between the heavens and the earth; and through which, as Thou hast stated, "God shall give you (the Saints) a knowledge by His Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now."

    Thou didst command Thy servant Joseph in the land of Ohio to build a house unto Thee, saying: "Organize yourselves, prepare every needful thing and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house

of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God." And when this house was completed Thou didst manifest Thyself to Thy servant Joseph, to Oliver Cowdery, and to others of the Holy Priesthood and in the brightness of Thy glory didst reveal unto him exceedingly great and precious principles, and Thou didst send also Thine ancient servant Moses, who formerly gathered Thy people Israel from the land of Egypt, to commit the keys of gathering of latter-day Israel; and also Elias, who committed the dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham; and also Elijah the Prophet, to whom was committed the keys of the dispensation spoken of by Malachi, which was to "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers." And Thou didst then introduce a preparatory work associated with the washings and anointings of Thy people. Thou didst also

command Thy servant Joseph to build a house at Nauvoo wherein further development of the Holy Priesthood might be introduced, saying: "For there is not a place found on earth that He may come and restore that which was lost

unto you, or which He hath taken away, even the fullness of the Priesthood, for a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my Saints, may be baptized for those who are dead." And it is written: "Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name." This house was commenced by Thy servant Joseph, and completed by Thy servant Brigham and the Twelve; and in it were revealed many great and precious principles and ordinances which had previously been communicated to a chosen few before Thy servant Joseph's death. And as Thou didst give a standing commandment that Thy people were always to build houses unto Thy holy name, when Thy people came here unto this land, even the land of Zion, Thy servant Brigham, according to this commandment and the manifestations unto him, did build a house in St. George, in this Territory, wherein many precious principles have been developed, and much labor performed according to Thy holy ordinances, in the interests of the living and the dead; so we have now completed this, another house, which we this day dedicate and consecrate unto Thee, that we may be further prepared to carry out Thy will, to administer in Thine ordinances, to purify and instruct Thy Church, and to build up and establish Thy Zion on the earth, which Thou hast decreed should be accomplished in the dispensation of the fullness of times. We feel, O Lord God, our weakness and unworthiness before Thee, and our inability to do anything without Thy guidance and assistance; but as Thou hast given us a commandment, in common with others, we have built this house, and present it to Thee, and pray that Thou wilt accept it in the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer. We dedicate the ground on which it is built, as also by which it is surrounded, known as the Temple Block; we dedicate the foundation upon which it rests, the stones, the mortar, the doors, the stairs, the windows, the floors, the fastenings, the ceilings and roof, the painting and ornamentation, the stands for the Holy Priesthood, the baptismal font and the various rooms associated therewith, and also all the rooms for the performance of ordinances and the various purposes for which they are designed, the heating apparatus, and the furniture and everything therein from the foundation to the towers thereof, unto Thee, the Lord our God, that it may be a place most holy, wherein Thine ordinances may be performed, and Thy Priesthood administered according to Thy holy law, and in accordance with Thy will and purposes pertaining to the human family. For Thou, O God, hast ordained the principles which have been developed for the blessing, salvation and exaltation of the human race, and hast appointed Thy holy ordinances for the endowment of Thy Holy Priesthood and in the interests of the living and the dead; that Thy servants may go forth to the nations of the earth endowed with power from on high, and bear a message of salvation, even as Thy messengers to all the family of Adam, according to Thy word. And that Thy people may be prepared through the ordinances of Thine House to inherit thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations in the eternal worlds. And, also, that Thy purposes pertaining to the redemption of the dead may be carried out strictly in accordance with Thy law, that in this Thy holy house Thine ordinances may be performed in the interest of those who have died without a knowledge of the gospel; and that Thy servants and handmaidens who may officiate in Thy holy ordinances therein may thus become saviors upon Mount Zion, even according to the words of Thine ancient servant Malachi, wherein he stated that it was necessary that the hearts of the fathers should be turned to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, and that according to later revelations, a welding, connecting link might bind together the living and the dead in fraternal and patriarchal

relations, according to the holy order which exists with the Gods; and a bond of union and fellowship be brought about between the heavens and the earth, for Thou hast said that they without us cannot be made perfect, and that

we without them cannot be made perfect; we pray Thee, therefore, O God, that those who officiate here may act prudently, wisely and intelligently, with purity, virtue and honor before Thee, and perform their duties acceptably in

this Thy Temple on earth.

    And we also pray Thee, O Father, that Thy Priesthood may be assisted by Thy Holy Priesthood in the heavens, that Priesthood which is after the order of the Son of God, after the order of Melchizedek, and after the power of an

endless life, which administers in time and eternity, to impart unto us by Thy direction and according to Thy will, a correct knowledge of all laws, rites, and ordinances, and direction how to administer and to whom to administer; that there may be a perfect union and harmony, if we are counted worthy, between the Priesthood on the earth and the Priesthood in the heavens. And that Thou wouldst teach us Thy will and Thy law, and Thine ordinances more fully and completely, and reveal unto us the abundance of truth and intelligence associated with the interests of the living and the dead; that knowing Thy will we may do Thy will on earth as it is done in heaven.

    And as Thou has said, among other things, pertaining to Thine house, that in it we were to seek diligently and teach one another words of wisdom, "Yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning by study and also by faith," and Thou hast further instructed us to "become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues and people," and obtain a knowledge of nations, kingdoms, governments and laws, and Thou hast declared that there is "a time to come in which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many Gods, they shall be manifest."     "All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and also if there be bounds set to the heavens, or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars; all the times of their revolutions; all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months and years, and all their glories, laws and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fullness of times. According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other Gods, before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into His eternal presence, and into His immortal rest." And, as all wisdom dwells with Thee, and, as all light, truth and intelligence flow from Thee, we humbly seek unto Thee for Thy blessing to rest upon this house, that it may be indeed a house of learning under Thy guidance, direction and inspiration, as Thou didst ordain the laws of the universe, and art the Creator and Sustainer

of worlds, and the Regulator of their times and seasons, we ask that in this house a more full knowledge of Thee and Thy laws may be developed, and that those things spoken of by Thy servant Joseph may begin to be made manifest.

We therefore pray Thee to grant that when Thy people draw nigh unto Thee in the holy order that Thou hast appointed and revealed, that Thou will hear their prayers, and look with favor upon their supplications, which are made in accordance with Thy word, and Thy will and Thy law. And if we are accounted worthy, and it is in accordance with Thy will and purposes, and not incompatible with the holy order which exists among the Gods, and that Thou hast ordained, we pray Thee that Thy presence may be with us. We pray also that the presence of Thy Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior, may be here, and that the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, may be our guide and instructor, and that Thine angels may be permitted to visit this holy habitation and communicate with Thy Priesthood in the interests of the living and the dead.

    We also pray Thee, as Thou hast revealed unto us many things, to give us a more clear knowledge of the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial glories, and the laws, regulations and bounds by which they are governed; and the duties and responsibilities connected with each, that we may be enabled more fully to comprehend our duties, responsibilities and obligations, pertaining to all men in the various conditions and associations of life, and connected also with this nation and other nations of the world, that we may be enabled to act justly, prudently, righteously and intelligently in all the various relations of life, pertaining to social, religious, political and other duties devolving upon us, and that we may comprehend always fully the relationship that we sustain to this nation, to other nations, and to the world generally in which we live, and understand more perfectly our responsibilities to the living and the dead, to the wicked and corrupt, to the honorable and upright among men; to Thee, our Heavenly Father, to Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, to the Ancient of Days, and to the different orders, quorums and organizations of the Holy Priesthood, and to our brethren generally, in this the land of Zion.  We ask Thee to bless the nation in which we live and the rulers thereof, for we are persuaded, O Lord, that while great wickedness and corruption abound in all grades of society, that there are hundreds of thousands of honorable men who are desirous to do right and maintain the principles of freedom and the liberty of men, and who do not and cannot acquiesce in the measures taken by the thoughtless and uninformed, who seem to be desirous to injure Thy people, many of whom, however, through the circulation of misrepresentation and falsehood, do not comprehend the position which Thy people occupy, nor the principles by which they are governed. Enlighten their minds, we pray Thee, and lead them in the paths of life. Bless, we pray Thee, all the upright, the pure and virtuous who are seeking to maintain and sustain the glorious principles of freedom enunciated in the Constitution of the United States, and who are opposed to tyranny, misrule and oppression; and save this nation, O God, from the infamy, under guise of law, of being the spoliators and robbers of a virtuous, inoffensive and God-fearing people, in violation of their constitutional rights, and because they fear and reverence Thee and Thy laws but may this house be preserved unto us as a holy place wherein to worship Thee, and to administer Thine ordinances, to learn Thy laws, the laws of the universe-- embracing the world and other worlds; for the instruction of Thy people in the higher branches of education in all true intelligence, scientific, linguistic, natural and theological.

    Bless the honest and upright throughout the world, and lead the erring in the paths of righteousness; and as Thou hast decreed that terrible judgments shall overtake the ungodly, we leave these things, O Lord, in Thy hands, and wish to conform ourselves to Thy will.

    Preserve us, O God, in these valleys of the mountains, and let not our enemies and Thine enemies triumph over Thy people, and suffer them not to bring us into bondage, for Thou, O Lord, knowest that we are seeking to do Thy will and carry out Thy laws; preserve us, therefore, in our immunities, liberties and rights, and save us from the menacing power of tyranny and oppression, for our trust, O God, is in Thee.

    Bless, we pray Thee, the councils and authorities of the Church; the First Presidency, the Twelve with their council, the Patriarchs, the Presidents of Stakes, the High Councils and Bishops thereof, together with the Seventies, High Priests, Elders, Priests, Teachers, Deacons, and all the quorums and authorities of Thy Church, as also all the helps, aids and governments pertaining thereto, the Relief Societies, the Sunday School, the Primary and the Mutual Improvement Associations, and all men and women who are seeking for the welfare of Zion. Bless all our friends who are not of us, who are desirous to maintain the principles of virtue, integrity, honor and freedom. We pray Thee also to bless those who have assisted to build this house, the committee of construction, the architects, the superintendents, the workmen in all their various branches that have contributed by their industry and talent to construct this building as a habitation for Thee, our God; bless the Stakes of this Temple district, as well as all persons who have contributed their means thereunto, or in any wise assisted in the construction thereof. Let the fear of God rest upon all Thy people. Preserve them in the principles of honor, of virtue, of truth, of integrity, and in the love of God, that they may be worthy of Thy blessings. Let the people praise Thee, O God; let all the people praise Thee. O Lord, our God, hear us in the heavens, and answer us upon the earth, that Zion may arise and shine, that the glory of God may rest upon her. That thy people may be preserved from the errors of vanity, the follies and corruptions of the world; that they may progress and excel in every principle of integrity, intelligence, virtue and purity, until Zion shall become the praise and glory of the whole earth, and Thy will be begun to be done on earth as it is in heaven. We ask this at Thy hands, and dedicate this house unto Thee, together with ourselves, our wives, our children, our houses, our lands, our flocks and herds, and our possessions, for time and all eternity, in the name of Thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen      (Millennial Star, Vol. 46, pp. 386-391)

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THOMAS BALDWIN MARSH

HISTORY OF THOMAS BALDWIN MARSH.

(Written by himself in Great Salt Lake City, November, 1857.)

               

I was born in the town of Acton, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, November 1, 1799. My father, James Marsh was born in Douglas, Massachusetts, March 27, 1751. My mother, Mary, daughter of Titus Law, was born in Acton, Massachusetts, March18, 1759.

                I spent my early life in farming at Westmoreland, New Hampshire, until I was fourteen years of age, when I ran away and went to Chester, Vermont, where I worked on a farm three months; then went to Albany, New York and engaged in a public house as a waiter, where I remained eighteen months, when I went to New York and engaged in the city hotel and remained two years; when I returned to my old situation in Albany, and after

serving a year returned to New York City Hotel for two years; then  removed to Long Island, New York, where I engaged as groom to  Edward Griswald, in whose service I remained one and a half-years; during which I became acquainted with Elizabeth Godkin, and married her on the 1st November, 1820.

                Immediately after marrying I commenced in the grocery business, in New York, in which business I remained one and a half years, but did not succeed.  I then engaged in a type foundry in Boston, where I continued seven years.

                While engaged in this business I joined the Methodist Church and tried for two years to be a genuine Methodist, but did not succeed any better in getting Methodist religion than I did in the grocery business.  I compared Methodism with the Bible, but could not make it correspond. I withdrew from all sects, and being about to leave Boston my old class leader wished me to take a good certificate, but I informed him I did not want it.  I had a measure of the spirit of prophecy and told him that I expected a new church would arise, which would have the truth in its purity.  He said to me, you no doubt mean to be a leader in that new sect.  I told him I had no such intentions.  He said, he prayed that the Lord would make me a firebrand in the midst of that new religious body, as reformation was necessary. My wife unknown to me, however, got a certificate for herself and me on one paper.  I informed her

that I never would attend, but I would find a suitable class for her if she wanted to join.

                I remained in Boston several years engaged in the type foundry.  During this period I became acquainted with several friends whose opinions concerning religion were like my own.  We kept aloof from sectarians, and were called by them Quietists, because we resembled so much a sect in France known by that name professing to be led by the Spirit.

                I believed the Spirit of God dictated me to make a journey west.  I started in company with one Benjamin Hall, who was also led by the Spirit.  I went to Lima, Livingston County, New York, where I staid [sic] some three months, and then left for home.  I called on my return at Lyonstown, on a family, whose names I do not recollect.  On leaving there next morning the lady enquired if I had heard of the Golden Book found by a youth named Joseph Smith.  I informed her I never heard anything about it, and became very anxious to know concerning the matter.  On enquiring, she told me I could learn more about it from Martin Harris, in Palmyra.

                I returned back westward and found Martin Harris at the printing office, in Palmyra, where the first sixteen pages of the Book of Mormon had just been struck off, the proof sheet of which I obtained from the printer and took with me.  As soon as Martin Harris found out my intentions he took me to the house of Joseph Smith, Sen., where Joseph Smith, Jun., resided, who could give me any information I might wish.  Here I found Oliver Cowdery, who gave me all the information concerning the book I desired.  After staying there two days I started for Charleston,

Massachusetts, highly pleased with the information I had obtained concerning the new found book.

                After arriving home and finding my family all well, I showed my wife the sixteen pages of the Book of Mormon which I had obtained, with which she was well pleased, believing it to be the work of God.  From this time for about one year I corresponded with Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith, Jun., and prepared myself to move west.

                Learning by letter that the Church of Jesus Christ had been organized on the 6th day of April, 1830, I moved to Palmyra,  Ontario County, in September following, and landed at the house  of Joseph Smith, Sen., with my whole family.  During the month I was baptized by David Whitmer, in Cayuga Lake, and in a few days I was ordained an elder by Oliver Cowdery with six elders, at Father Whitmer's house. Joseph received a revelation appointing me a physician to the Church.

                After remaining in that state, during the fall and winter the Church moved to Ohio.  In the spring of 1831 I journeyed with the main body to Kirtland.

                In June, 1831, I was ordained a high priest at a conference held in Kirtland where I received an appointment to go to Missouri with Ezra Thayer, and preach by the way.  In consequence of Ezra Thayer delaying so long, I went to Joseph, who received the word of the Lord appointing Selah J. Griffin in Thayer's stead, with whom I journeyed to Missouri, preaching by the way; many believed our testimony, but we did not wait to baptize any.  While near the end of our journey I was attacked by chills and fever and arrived very sick.  I staid [sic] at the house of Brother Benjamin Slade till I got well.

                Sometime in January, 1832, Bishop Partridge having furnished me with an Indian pony, I returned to Kirtland, accompanied by Cyrus Daniels.  I labored, preaching through the country around Kirtland until the summer opened, when, in company with Ezra Thayer, I went on a mission through the state of New York and returned home early in the fall; and made preparations to go up to Zion in company with several other families from Kirtland.

                At that time an objection was raised to me being the leader owing to my inexperience, but there was division on this subject as some considered my office entitled me to the presidency.  My opposers [sic] appealed to Joseph, who decided I should lead on account of my office; still, although we started with the understanding that I was to lead the company, my opposers [sic] never became reconciled to my presidency, until we got into difficulties at the Ohio River, where we could not proceed without better order.  Here they yielded to my dictation through

necessity; but when we had got down the Ohio River as far as Louisville a rebellious spirit was again manifested.

                At this point I separated from the company; took my brother-in- law, Lewis Abbot and his wife, and proceeded by boat to St. Louis, where I arrived one day in advance of the company.  On our arrival we found the cholera raging in St. Louis and vicinity.  I went immediately to the outskirts of St. Louis, rented a house, and began my preparations to start overland to the west.

                On the arrival of the other part of the company, I was sent for by them about midnight, to doctor them, but the messenger being unable to pilot me, I had to return to my house until morning, when I was sent for again, and soon found Brother Blackslee, but too late to do him any good.  He died the next day.

                I started for Jackson County, and arrived November 10, having been two weeks on the journey. I located in Jackson County with the brethren who had come from Colesville, where I was invited by Brother Joseph Knight, who was very sick with the bloody flux. I attended him faithfully and my wife nursed him; he succeeded in overcoming the disease and soon got well.

                I had my inheritance, about thirty acres, set off by Bishop Partridge, on the Big Blue River, Jackson County, where, before spring opened, I had a comfortable log house built, into which I moved early in the spring and commenced clearing land to raise a small crop that year.  I succeeded in getting some corn and potatoes planted, which did very well.  Before the year was out the mob combined together and drove us out of the county.  Some

of the Saints moved into Clay County; others with myself removed to Lafayette County, where we wintered, and during which time I kept a common school and taught the children of the brethren.

                In the spring of 1834, having learned that Joseph and a company were coming to relieve the brethren, I moved over with many others into Clay County, where I was living when they arrived. Several of those who came up in Zion's Camp remained in Missouri. I cultivated a small piece of land this summer and succeeded in raising some corn.  I was chosen one of the high council.

                In January, 1835, in company with Bishop Partridge and agreeable to revelation, I proceeded to Kirtland, where we arrived early in the spring, when I learned I had been chosen one of the Twelve Apostles.

                May 4th, 1835, in company with the Twelve I left Kirtland and preached through the eastern states, holding conferences, regulating and organizing the churches, and returned September 25.

                In the winter of 1835-36, I attended school, studied the first English grammar under Sidney Rigdon, and Hebrew under Professor  Seixas (a Hebrew by birth), and in the spring returned to my place on Fishing River, in Clay County, Missouri, where I arrived in the month of April.

                Soon after this, difficulties having occurred between the citizens of Clay County and the Saints, a meeting was held near Liberty, the county seat, for the purpose of amicably arranging matters.  I was appointed a delegate from Fishing River.  At that meeting a committee of twelve were appointed to draft resolutions, which were received by unanimous vote; when a committee of three, --viz., Lyman Wight, myself and Samuel Bent were appointed to meet next day in Liberty for the presentation of these resolutions. I was appointed by said committee, spokesman, and was enabled to speak so feelingly in relation to our previous persecutions and expulsions, that General Atchison

could not refrain from shedding tears.  This meeting passed resolutions to help the Saints to seek out a new location, and appointed committees to collect means to aid the poor Saints to remove.

                The Church, considering the citizens were thus exerting themselves to have us removed, appointed Elisha H. Groves and myself to visit the churches in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee, for the purpose of borrowing money to enter lands in the new settlement at the land office for the convenience of the Saints who were coming on.  We started in July, and succeeded in borrowing upwards of $1400, principally from the brethren in Kentucky and Tennessee, at 10 percent interest.

                September 19, 1836.--We parted with Brother Woodruff and the Saints in Kentucky, Brother D. [David] W. Patten and his wife accompanying us to Missouri. I proceeded immediately to the new city which had been laid out, and called Far West, in our absence.

                On our arrival we delivered the money to those who sent us and received $1 per day and travelling expenses, for our services while gone. We furnished our own horses. I procured a lot immediately, built a house and moved into it.  During the winter I made improvements on my lot; got up my firewood; attended councils and preached to the Saints.

                About the month of June, 1837, I started for Kirtland in company with D. [David] W. Patten and Wm. [William] Smith, to try and reconcile some of the Twelve and others of high standing who had come out in opposition to the Prophet.  On my journey I met Brother P. [Parley] P. Pratt about five miles west of Columbus, Ohio, moving to Far West; I prevailed on him to return with us to Kirtland.  On our arrival I went to Brother Joseph's house, where I remained all the time I was in Kirtland.

                About this time a special meeting was appointed at Joseph's house, by himself, to which several of the brethren who were disaffected were invited. I was chosen moderator, and called upon the aggrieved parties to speak first.  A reconciliation was effected between all parties.

                July 23rd, Joseph Smith, Jun., received a revelation to me concerning the Twelve Apostles; and on the 27th, I started with Joseph and Brother Rigdon for Canada.  During this mission we visited the churches in Canada west, and returned about the last of August.

                September 3.--I attended a conference held in Kirtland, in which Luke Johnson, Lyman E. Johnson and John F. Boynton were rejected. John F. Boynton plead, as an excuse for his course, the failure of the Kirtland Bank. President Brigham Young, in a plain and energetic manner, strongly protested against his course, and was not willing to receive him into fellowship until a hearty repentance and confession were manifested.  I sustained Brother Brigham's remarks and acquiesced in his testimony.

                Soon after, in company with Hyrum Smith, I proceeded to Missouri, where we arrived in October, and in a few weeks, Presidents Joseph and Sidney arrived, and we held a conference which sustained the authorities of the Church.

                Sometime in the winter, George M. Hinkle, John Murdock and some others came to my house, and suggested the importance of calling a meeting to take into consideration the manner that W. [William] W. Phelps and David and John Whitmer had disposed of the money which I had borrowed in the Tennessee and Kentucky Branches in 1836.  Accordingly, a meeting was called February 5th, 1838, and the conduct of the Presidency in Zion investigated.  The Church would not sustain said presidency, but appointed myself and Brother D. [David] W. Patten presidents, pro tem., until Joseph Smith would arrive.  We also reorganized the Church in Zion, placing every officer in his proper place.  Joseph arrived in Far West, March 14th, and approved of the course we had pursued.

                May 18.--In company with Joseph, Sidney and others, I went north in Daviess County.  We met with Oliver Cowdery, Lyman E. Johnson and others encamped, who were also exploring northward on Grand River.  We soon returned to Far West.

                In August the mob recommenced their depredations against the Saints. About this time I got a beam in my eye and thought I could discover a mote in Joseph's eye, though it was nothing but a beam in my eye; I was so completely darkened that I did not think on the Savior's injunction:  "Thou hypocrite, why beholdest thou the mote which is in thy brother's eye, when a beam is in thine own  eye; first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to get the mote out of thy brother's eye."

                Had I seen this I should have discovered myself a hypocrite, but as I had often said while in the Church, if I ever apostatized I would go away quietly; I tried to do so, but the Saints kept  inquiring of me if I was going to leave, and so did Joseph twice. I evaded him both times.  The last time he almost got me into so tight a corner I could hardly evade.  He put the question direct to me, whether I was going to leave?   With an affected look of contempt I answered:  "Joseph when you see me leave the Church, you will see a good fellow leave it."

                After making preparations I started from Far West and moved three miles out of town, ostensibly for the purpose of settling, and soon moved off to Clay County, and from thence to Richmond, Ray County, where I saw David, John and Jacob Whitmer and Oliver  Cowdery, who had all apostatized.

                I enquired seriously of David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to his testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.  He replied as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel according to his testimony in that book.  I asked him, if so, why he did not stand by Joseph?   He answered, in the days when Joseph received the Book of Mormon, and brought it forth, he was a good man and filled with the Holy Ghost, but he considered he had now fallen.  I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered similarly.

(Marsh, Thomas Baldwin, 1799-1866, Autobiography (1799-1838), Source:  "History of Thomas Baldwin

Marsh [by himself]," Millennial Star 26 (1864):359-60, 375-76, 390- 92, 406.)

On Seeking for Release

From a Marriage

I want the Spirit of God to attend me in the few moments I occupy before you.  A considerable disturbance has been felt here upon the ranch and elsewhere because of a question and answer session we had here a couple months ago.  It particularly seems to arise over the fact that a lot of people got the idea from what I said that there was the very strong likelihood that many of you had, because you are governed by the things of the world, chosen the wrong mate.  A considerable number were distraught and upset in their feelings and were beginning to search out if this were not possible in their case and see if they couldn’t find a better man.

I have had two or three of the sisters come to me and ask if they had really chosen the right mate because they had been very much upset with the way things were going, and they would like to be released and have another try at it.

Now, I would like to draw your attention to a number of things tonight that may help you correct that impression.  I had a sister this month come to me who heard that address, or didn’t hear it, and got the message, from perhaps the way I gave it, perhaps somewhat distorted, who was very much concerned about it and was going to make it a matter of prayer.  At that time she decided she had made a mistake and wanted to be released and sealed to somebody else.  I had therefore created a trap for myself, and I want to

sew up all the avenues of escape for you.  I’m not doing it because I don’t want you to be happy.  I’m doing it because there are some things that I want you to remember.

Brigham Young said,

“I’m having sisters come to me and ask for a divorce or a release.  I remind them that their sealing is for time and all eternity, and in the first place, they made the choice, not I.  They said yes, not me.  If they had made a mistake this time, what assurance did I have that somebody who was so foolish as to make a first mistake, wouldn’t make a worse one in the second attempt.  With this thought in mind I try to discourage them from following such a destructive course.  Covenants made for time and all eternity are not to be trifled with.”

Some will not take “no” for an answer, and they insist upon a release.  I tell you, sisters, such a step is backwards and not forward.  My counsel to you is, if you have made a mistake, make the most of it and prove yourself to be such a Saint that if your husband is not worthy of you, when you get on the other side you will have a choice under the direction of God that will be a good one and not another mistake.  Now, I take that message from Brigham Young to hold for all of us.

…Now, I want to tell you dear sisters, I want to repeat to you in relation to this subject, if you feel you have made a mistake, do not trouble your minds about it.  Put the matter in the hands of the Lord, be a good wife and honor your husband, uphold virtue.  Remember the choice you made and the covenant that you have made, no matter what the circumstances are.  If those circumstances are wrong, if you will do your part, God will hear and answer your prayers.  You will be rewarded doubly for your faithfulness.

This is the message I have for you, because, as I say, I have had a number of cases come to my attention since I made that address, wondering if they had not made a mistake and, in some instances, asking for a release.  You will gain a thousand times more by being faithful to the covenants you have made.  Do not forget that the gospel message of salvation has been declared to all the world.  The warning given to the missionaries in their field of labor by the Prophet Joseph was this:

When you go and preach the gospel, do not enter into any man’s home and teach his wife and children contrary to his will.  If they will not receive your message, go out and wash your feet against that house.  God will hold that man accountable for the destruction that came upon his wife and children.  Or the fact that they were not able to receive the gospel at that time, if they love the truth the time will come when he will be removed out of the way, and they will gain the exaltation and the blessings and the salvation that they are entitled to through their prayers and faithfulness.

This has reference to the first principles of the gospel, as well as every other principle of the gospel.  The missionaries, the seventies, the Council, myself, none of us has the right to go and preach the gospel in a man’s family without his permission.  If he denies that permission, then we must not preach that gospel to that woman and children.  If they wish to act independently of the husband, that responsibility must lay solely upon their shoulders and not lay upon the shoulders of the seventies, the Council or the missionaries.  If it does, they will be condemned before God.

I know of many instances, and you will find it recorded in Church history, where women have received a testimony of the gospel, and they have gone by themselves for many miles to attend meetings of the Church missionaries.  They have been converted, they have been baptized without the knowledge of their husbands, they have been faithful and come into this work and have been shining lights in it.  But they did that upon their own responsibility, without seventies or elders or apostles going and inviting their wives out where they could be taught secretly without the knowledge of their husbands.

I am reminded of a brother who lives next door to us in Salt Lake City.  He was forbidden to ever invite missionaries into his father’s home.  Later, he was forbidden to attend any of their meetings.  He was a very persistent young man.  It was during the war days when things were terrible, and they were suffering for food.  Often he would be gone all day looking for food or a bargain where he could bring something back to the family.  Every time he could, he might travel anywhere from two to 50 miles to attend a Latter-day Saint meeting.  He did it upon his own responsibility.  He received the gospel, he was baptized, he entered the Church and came to this land and proved a very faithful man.  That was his responsibility.  The elders could not at any time be blamed for entering into that man’s home and teaching the gospel to him.

This is an example for you, my dear sisters.  Don’t forget it.  Remember that if anyone has made mistakes in relation to this in the past, let the responsibility lay where it will.  But we are called to be Saints; we are not justified in repeating the mistakes that have been made in the past.  We must set our lives in order in regard to these things, because God expects us to be Latter-day Saints, not just ordinary people.

I have made mistakes in relation to the administering of the ordinances.  I have considered men and women better prepared for the blessings that were bestowed upon them.  When I found out that they were not ready, that they were not worthy, that I ought not to have given them that blessing, which was hidden from my sight perhaps because they didn’t think it was necessary to tell me, perhaps because they wouldn’t have told me had I asked, perhaps had I enough of the Spirit of the Lord with me I wouldn’t have done it had I been spiritually inclined enough, whatever the reason may have been, when I found out they were not worthy of the blessing, the responsibility of the ordinance had to be maintained.  It had been done.  The justification for it must be borne by me and by the man and wife in the eternal worlds.

The only course I can follow is as I have done in a number of instances with men and women who have entered into this holy principle unworthy, to say, “Why didn’t you tell me about this in the first place?”

I have gotten varying answers.  When it was understood that I did know, they have said, “Well, we wanted to prove to the Lord that notwithstanding our past mistakes, we could make it.”  My answer to that has been, “Alright, you can prove to the Lord that you can, and you prove to me that you can, and you will take a terrible burden off my shoulders, because I consider you unworthy.  If I had known I would never have let you enter into the principle.  But since you have, since it is never too late to repent, now is the time for you to buckle down and prove that you are a true Latter-day Saint, and never sin again in relation to these matters, lest your former sins come upon you again.”

This is the position that many of us may find ourselves in.  Let us not say that “I have sinned so much I cannot find repentance before the Lord.”  The Prophet Joseph Smith has said it is never too late, never too late, to go onto repentance.

Let us take the position that no matter what mistakes we have made in the past, that we will not make them in the future, and try to live such a godly life that God can sustain us and will not have to remember our past sins and mistakes.  This is the kind of people God wants us to be.  He wants us to maintain our family unity.  He wants husbands to get over their stubbornness, any cruelty that can be in their makeup.  He wants them to stop making mistakes.  He wants us to be husbands that will make their wives happy all the time.  Of course that’s a very big assignment.  Lots of times husbands don’t succeed in the fulfillment of it.  Every once in a while they do fall short.  They cannot live up to such a big assignment.  Sometimes the fault is theirs, sometimes the fault is the wife’s, sometimes the fault lies with both of them.  The fault is never because of the principle.  It lies with the individuals.

The principle is holy, it is beautiful, it is exalting, it is the best opportunity that God can give us as man and wife to sanctify our lives and become perfect before our Father in heaven.  That family order is the perfect family order in heaven, and we should make it heavenly.  Every man should be godlike in his dealings with his wife and his children.  Parents should remember that the principle was not made for their personal satisfaction or gratification or pleasure.  It was, however, made for their personal exaltation and eternal joy and happiness in this life and in the world to come, if their eyes are single to the glory of God and their desire is to serve the Lord and keep His commandments.  If they proceed in living this holy law in such a manner as to sanctify their lives and to rid them of evil thoughts and evil deeds and to enable them, notwithstanding one another’s imperfections, to get along and be happy and to set a good example to the world, to the community and to their children particularly, God will bless them.

Remember, the law was given unto us for one major purpose: That we might raise up a royal seed unto the Lord.  In this matter we are failing miserably, in many areas.  Our children are not being raised up as a royal seed.  Fathers are not home teaching their children as they should be.  Too often, I find they are out wandering the streets or in the poolhalls or in occupations where they ought not to be, where they should be either preaching the gospel at home or abroad.  This is a terrible failure on the part of our menfolk.  Many of them will go back into the presence of an offended God with the knowledge keenly presented before them in the recollection of their lives where they were given a most glorious opportunity in a most glorious dispensation of time to bring up a righteous seed before the Lord, but they utterly failed.  There can be no greater condemnation than that condemnation which comes upon a man who had such great opportunities and failed in them.

But what is true of men is also true of women.  If a woman is a gossiper, if she is a talebearer, if she is filled with the spirit of hate and animosity, if she tears down her husband and the Priesthood, if her example to her children is not holy, if she does not try to govern them by the Spirit of God, then she falls short of her responsibility, and she ought not be in the principle.  She is unworthy of it, and if she is unworthy of it, it is time right now to repent and do better.

…I therefore wish to impress upon you in my closing remarks that it is as impossible to get into the celestial glory without complying with all of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is to get into this world without being born of a mother.  For those laws are irrevocably decreed from before the foundation of this world.  We cannot receive the blessings, unless we obey the laws upon which those blessings are predicated.

Most of us are doing our level best.  But it is our solemn duty from this hour on to get the Spirit of God in our lives and be happy in the family where we reside as far as it is possible to be happy, and if you can’t get along with your husband, then learn to get along without them and be happy.  Don’t be miserable.  The better course, of course, is to get along with them, because you have a foundation.

A man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man.  If there is a rift between us as husband and wife, that rift should be healed as soon as possible and so far as possible, in order that we might be in a position where God’s blessings can be poured out upon us.  No man can hold the Priesthood in its fulness, no man can be exalted in fulness, unless he has a wife or wives. 

If that is true with a man, it is certainly true with a woman.  If you can’t belong to one husband and get along, you might find it about as difficult to get along with another.  If you made a bad mistake in the first, or second or third or fourth place, and you are given a release and divorce now, the odds are that your sense hasn’t much improved by the experience, and that your choice is not going to be so much better the next time.

Keep these things in mind.  Dwell upon them.  Above all, remember that it is God’s desire to have us as perfect in our sphere as He is perfect in His.  None of us can do any better than the very best that we know how. 

(Rulon C. Allred, Treasures of Knowledge II, p.191-192, 194-197, 198; Relief Society, Pinesdale, MT, 10/16/1975) [Bold print added for emphasis]

E    D    I    T    O    R     I     A     L

“…For Time and for all Eternity…”  Doesn’t that phrase have any value to the Saints anymore?  Or should it be amended with the clause, “Unless I change my mind first.”  I am not trying to make light of the marriage covenant.  It seems that divorce impacts many people—not only in the LDS Church, but in the fundamentalist groups, too.  Instances of divorce are replete within the histories and journals of the Church, and sadly, for whimsical reasons.  I cannot comprehend why some Saints trod upon their marriage covenants and treat them so lightly.  Divorce should not permitted to be an option with the Saints, unless there is a covenant that has been broken.

Brigham Young said, “I have said a number of times; and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him.  If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you.  When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me.  I tell the brethren and sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something.  I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce.  For what?  My services?  No, for his foolishness.  If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership.  Do you think you have done so when you have obtained a bill of divorce?  No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made.  It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever.  You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying "We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other," &c.  It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law.  It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this.  There is a law for you to be obedient, and humble and faithful.”  JD 17:115

When I was part of the Allred Group, I witnessed divorce after divorce, except they had a special word for a divorce, “releases.”  I sincerely believe that many have fooled themselves into thinking it is an acceptable practice, for a woman to be released from her husband because they didn’t get along, then go marry another man.  This is unadulterated adultery!

I witnessed this very thing a few years back where an apostle masterminded a plot to “rescue” a sister from a marriage and whisk her and the children away, while the husband was absent, he later gave this sister a “release.”  I was so upset that I wrote an open letter in protest.  I asked, “What assurance does any man now have that this will not happen again?”

Then, in this year, not only did I witness the same felonious atrocities committed by this man—I was the victim  My wife left me and my family, then three days later moved her things out of the house, while I was absent.  Not even thirty days later, she was granted a “release”, all without any investigation as to the reasons why she left, or even a tribunal where I may be permitted to offer any defense.  I again wrote an open letter of the injustices of this man, and several letters to my wife.  In all of this, not one man ever came to investigate any allegation; all protocol and criteria for a court of justice was thrown out—judgment was passed without inquiry and my wife and children wrested from me.  I thought I was Colorado City for a moment.

What I have witnessed is that some Saints believe a man can wiggle his stubby fingers in the air and un-seal a marriage.  The truth is: No man can release a woman from a marriage if the husband has not broken his covenants.  No one.  It is the husband that lawfully has the right to consent to a release.

“Wives are sealed to men by an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken, if the parties live faithfully before God, and perform with a single eye to his glory the duties of that sacred contract.  Jesus Christ said to the Pharisees, when they tempted him upon the subject of a man's putting away his wife, "For the hardness of your heart Moses allowed you to give a bill of divorcement, but from the beginning of the creation it was not so." "What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder."  Heber C. Kimball, JD 4:210-211

No man can put asunder the marriage covenant with my wife—not one!  It is a very dangerous thing to play with the souls of men.  I have left these things in the capable hands of the Lord and was given an assurance by the Holy Ghost that one day, she’ll return and things will be made right.  I also feel comforted knowing there will one day be recompense from the Lord to any who have assisted, or sustained those who wrecked my family.  My wife is still and will always be my wife, and whether in this life or the next, God willing, I will lay claim to her, who has for now forsaken me.

—The Editor—

Holiness

Y

To The   Lord

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES
Volume 12, Number 03
September 2009