“Brethren, what is it that you love the truth for? Is it because it gives you the power, the authority of the Priesthood? Is it because it makes you rulers, kings, and priests unto our God, and gives you great power? There are men professing to be Saints, even in this congregation, within the sound of my voice, who feel how almighty they have become. They will curse you, if you do not see proper to comply with their wishes. Many men have feelings in their hearts towards their wives, that if they will not do precisely as they wish to perform this or that, they will curse them. What wonderful things they are going to do! "If you do not obey my voice, my counsel, I will send you to hell, and turn the keys upon you, that you may never! no NEVER! be released." Sisters, you might as well heed the crackling of thorns under the pot, the passing idle bird, or the croaking of a crane, so far as their Priesthood is concerned. You are safe, if they will only keep their hands off from you; let them curse. It reminds me of a proverb which the Arabs have, that "cursings are like young chickens, they will still come home to roost."
Is it for this—is it because it gives you such great power and authority, that you love the Truth? That it gives you power to curse your neighbors, your neighbor's children, their cattle, and everything around you? Let all such go away to their own place, to California, by the northern route; not to San Bernardino, at brothers Lyman and Rich's location, for they have devils enough there already; but go into the world entirely away from the Saints, and the sooner the better.
Men should act upon the principle of righteousness, because it is right, and is a principle which they love to cherish and see practiced by all men. They should love mercy, because of its benevolence, charity, love, clemency, and of all of its lovely attributes, and be inspired thereby to deal justly, fairly, honorably, meting out to others their just deservings.
If selfishness prompts you to embrace the truth, if it is merely to exalt yourself and your friends that you covenant to serve your God, and that is your only motive, you had better pass on the northern route, for we can do you no good if you wait, or remain with us; not but that God has regard for all His children; but He loves those who love all the principles of righteousness, because they are righteous, and have a delight in the exercise of pure principles, of virtue, of excellence and truth, of meekness, long-suffering, and self denial, mercy, and charity.
I am aware that my language fails to convey my ideas to you as I could wish. But I will proceed a little further. A great promise was made to Abraham, which was—you shall have seed, and unto your increase there shall be no end. The same promise was made unto the Saviour; and unto every true and faithful man who serves God with all his heart, and whose delight is in keeping the law of the Lord, obeying the behests of Jehovah, and building up His kingdom upon the earth.
The Elders of Israel frequently call upon me—"Brother Brigham, a word in private, if you please." Bless me, this is no secret to me, I know what you want, it is to get a wife! "Yes, brother Brigham, if you are willing."
I tell you here, now, in the presence of the Almighty God; it is not the privilege of any Elder to have even ONE wife before he has honored his Priesthood, before he has magnified his calling. If you obtain one, it is by mere permission, to see what you will do, how you will act, whether you will conduct yourself in righteousness in that holy estate. TAKE CARE! Elders of Israel, be cautious! Or you will lose your wives and your children. If you abuse your wives, turn them out of doors, and treat them in a harsh and cruel manner, you will be left wifeless and childless; you will have no increase in eternity. You will have bartered this blessing, this privilege, away; you will have sold your birthright, as Esau did his blessing, and it can never come to you again, never, NO NEVER!
Look to it, ye Elders! You will awake from your dream, alas! But too soon, and then you will realize the truth of the remarks I am making to-day. Whose privilege is it to have women sealed to him? It is his who has stood the test, whose integrity is unswerving, who loves righteousness because it is right, and the truth because there is no error therein, and virtue because it is a principle that dwells in the bosom of Him who sits enthroned in the highest heavens; for it is a principle which existed with God in all eternities, and is a co-operator, a co-worker betwixt man and his Maker, to exalt man, and bring him into His presence, and make him like unto Himself! It is such a man's privilege to have wives and children, and neighbors, and friends, who wish to be sealed to him. Who else? No one. I tell you nobody else. Do YOU HEAR IT?
Many applications will unquestionably be made to me for wives, and, perhaps, by men too who will steal, or trespass upon me, their neighbors, kill their stock, do wickedly in various ways. Nothing would damn such men sooner than to give them this privilege. I answer the brethren; they have to go upon their own responsibility. I tell you the truth. If you are a first-rate good man, and honor your Priesthood, it is your privilege. The man who has proved himself before God, has been faithful, has gone through and performed everything the Lord has laid upon him to do, for the purpose of building up and sustaining His kingdom, has proved himself before men, angels, and his Father in heaven, he is the only character that will increase, and obtain a Celestial glory. Others may seem to prosper, to increase for a season, but by and by they are left in the shade, their glory is clipped, and their house is left unto them desolate.
Pray the Lord to inspire your hearts. Ask for wisdom and knowledge. It is our duty to seek after it. Let us seek, and we shall find; knock, and it will be opened unto us. But as for His coming down here to pour His Spirit upon you, while you are aiming after the vain and frivolous things of the world; indulging in all the vanity, nonsense, and foolery which surrounds you; drinking in all the filthy abomination which should be spurned from every community on the earth—so long as you continue this course, rest assured He will not come near you.
I will not enter into particulars. You already know enough about them. I ask that you would leave it off; refrain, purify, and sanctify yourselves before your God, and get so much of the Spirit of Truth that you may become filled with it, so that you can shout aloud with all your might to the praise of God, and feel your hearts clear as the noon-day sun. Then you can dance, and glorify God; and as you shall abide in the truth, God will raise you up, and add to your numbers, so that your train will fill the Holy Temple, as it was said of the Lord by one of old.”
(Brigham Young JD 1pg 118-120)
Showing posts with label religious polygyny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious polygyny. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Prophet John Taylor said:
(In his last public address, February 1, 1885. This was almost six years after The Supreme Court overturned the First Amendment by upholding the George Reynolds decision, and three years after the "British Style" Edmunds Act was passed. He was in hiding until he died July 25, 1887)
................
“In relation to this anomalous form of proceeding they are now copying the example of Russia, which is generally considered an arbitrary government, and where despotism has been supposed to reign supreme; they have in that nation a place called Siberia, to which they banish men, under a despotic rule, without much formality of trial. I was hardly prepared to-day to suppose that we needed an American Siberia under the form and in the name of liberty and the rights of men. But this is the fact. We have herein America to-day an American Siberia in Detroit, to which place, upwards of two thousand miles from their homes, men are banished for a term of years; and what for? Because they have the temerity to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, and cannot fall down and worship before the Moloch of an effete Christianity.
“These extraordinary proceedings that have been going on in this Territory, in Arizona and in other places, simply exhibit the very principle that Brother Snow has been speaking of. I need not tell you about affairs that have transpired here. You are quite as well acquainted with them as I am, and ought to be better: for I have been away from here for about four weeks visiting the Saints in our southern settlements, and we have had a most pleasant visit. Outside of these extraordinary proceedings, we found the people prospering very well, with pleasant homes and bright prospects before them. We had with us several of our best brethren, and we visited many of our settlements in that district of country, the residents of which were very much gratified at our appearance in their midst, and for the counsels they received. But I found that such had been the outrages committed that it was impossible almost for any man standing in an honorable position to maintain his position unless he broke the law by resisting the officers, and they thought it not prudent to do so, and so did I. It may suit others to violate the law, to trample upon human rights, and desecrate the sacred term of liberty, and this is frequently done by the arbiters and minions of the law in the name of justice; but we profess to be governed by higher, by nobler and more exalted principles, and to move on a higher plane; and if Jesus could afford to endure the attacks of sinners against Himself, we, if we have the Gospel that we profess to have, ought to be able to endure a little of the same thing. There is nothing new in these affairs, nothing strange in this at all.
"Many of you have had much to do with these matters. Some of these gray-headed men that I see before me know a little more about those matters than some of the younger portion do. Many of you have been driven from your homes, robbed of your property, dispossessed of your possessions and had to flee from your homes to these mountain valleys, and seek an asylum among the red savages which was denied you by your so-called Christian brethren. Before you came here you were banished from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois. What for? Because you had the audacity to worship God according to the dictates of your own consciences. I have had to flee from blood-thirsty bandits time and time again. Brother Snow had to do it, and many of you gray-headed men and women have had to do it. What for? Because of polygamy? No, there was no such thing then alleged. What for? Because you had the hardihood, in this land of freedom, to worship God according to the dictates of your own consciences. For this crime you had to leave your homes, and you were despoiled and robbed and plundered, and had to flee as exiles into another land. I had to do it; you have had to do it. You fled from Missouri to Illinois, and then from Illinois to this land, and why? Why did you leave Illinois and come here? Did you injure anybody? No. They killed your Prophets, and I saw them martyred, and was shot most unmercifully myself, under the pledge of protection from the Governor, and they thought they had killed me; but I am alive yet by the grace of God (sensation). Why had you to leave? Because they murdered your Prophets, and wanted to possess themselves of your property; murder and spoliation generally go together. And because they killed them, they accused you of doing some wrong, said you must leave your homes, and there was nobody found in all that wide land to check the outrages of those red-handed assassins, to administer justice and to preserve you in your rights. I do not know any other reason; I never did know any other, and never expect to be informed of any other.
“The history of these things is quite familiar to you as Latter-day Saints, and you do not think it anything strange. Some of our young people think that the present proceedings are very remarkable. But many of us, gray-headed folks, have seen plenty of such proceedings, and have had many experiences of this kind; they are nothing new to us at all. And did we ever expect them to get better? We have not so understood it. We are told in the Scriptures, and we have kept teaching it all the while, that "the wicked would grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." That is doctrine which I have believed in for the last 50 years and I have had a good deal of testimony and practical confirmation on that point. We expect that these things will transpire. We have been told about secret organizations that should exist, and they are beginning to permeate these United States, and are laying the foundation for disruption, disintegration and destruction. It is not necessary that Congress and the Judiciary should set examples of tyranny and violation of Constitutional law, and attack the fundamental principles of free government and the rights of man; for there is plenty of that kind of spirit abroad; yet men who profess to be the conservators of the peace and the maintainers of law join in these nefarious, unholy, tyrannical and oppressive measures. There are any number who are ready to follow in their footsteps, and the whole nation to-day is standing on a volcano; but they do not seem to comprehend it. Well, are we surprised? I am not. It is strictly in accordance with my faith: it is strictly in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures; and it is strictly in accordance with the Book of Mormon; it is strictly in accordance with the revelations given to us by Joseph Smith, and all these events that have been predicted will most assuredly transpire. But I suppose it is necessary that "judgment should first begin at the house of God," and if it does, "where will the wicked and the ungodly appear," when it comes upon them? We are told that the wicked shall slay the wicked. We need not trouble ourselves about the affairs of the nations, the Lord will manipulate them in His own way. I feel full of sympathy for the nation in which we live, and for other nations, in consequence of the troubles with which they are beset and which are now threatening them; yet they do not seem to comprehend the position. I know a little of some of the things that will transpire among them, and I feel sorry.
"Do you feel sorry for yourself? Not at all, not at all. Do you feel sorry for your people? Not at all, not at all. The Lord God has revealed unto us great and eternal principles which reach beyond this earth into the eternal heavens, and which have put us in possession of light and truth and intelligence, and promises and blessings that the world are ignorant of and do not and cannot comprehend. I feel every day to bless the name of the God of Israel, and feel like shouting, "Hosanna! Hosanna!! Hosanna!!! to the God of Israel, Amen and Amen," Who will rule among the nations of the earth, and manipulate things according to the counsel of His own will. These are my feelings in regard to these matters. But then I feel interested in the welfare of my brethren and sisters, and when I see their rights interfered with and trampled ruthlessly under foot, I feel that there is something at work that ought not to be, and yet that is quite necessary to teach us some of the principles of human nature, that we may be able to discern between the good, the virtuous, the upright and the holy; and the impure, the foolish, the vindictive, the corrupt, the lascivious, and those who are trampling under foot the laws and principles of eternal truth. God has revealed unto us certain principles pertaining to the future which men may take objection to. He has revealed unto us certain principles pertaining to the perpetuity of man and of woman; pertaining to the sacred rights and obligations which existed from the beginning; and He has told us to obey these laws. The nation tells us, "If you do we will persecute you and proscribe you." Which shall we obey? I would like to obey and place myself in subjection to every law of man. What then? Am I to disobey the law of God? Has any man a right to control my conscience, or your conscience, or to tell me I shall believe this or believe the other, or reject this or reject the other? No man has a right to do it. These principles are sacred, and the forefathers of this nation felt so and so proclaimed it in the Constitution of the United States, and said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, I believe they have violated that, and have violated their oaths, those that have engaged in these things and passed that law, and those that are seeking to carry it out. Congress and the President of the United States and the Judiciary, and all administrators of the law are as much bound by that instrument as I am and as you are, and have sworn to maintain it inviolate. It is for them to settle these matters between themselves and their God. That is my faith in relation to this matter. Yet by their action they are interfering with my rights, my liberty and my religion, and with those sacred principles that bind me to my God, to my family, to my wives and my children; and shall I be recreant to all these noble principles that ought to guide and govern men? No, Never! No, NEVER! NO, NEVER! I can endure more than I have done, and all that God will enable me to endure, I can die for the truth; but I cannot as an honorable man disobey my God at their behest, forsake my wives and my children, and trample these holy and eternal obligations under foot, that God has given me to keep, and which reach into the eternities that are to come. I won't do it, so help me, God. [Here the speaker vigorously struck the book on the desk, and the large audience responded with a loud "Amen."]
"The Constitution expressly says that no law shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts. But we have entered into covenants and contracts in our most sacred places, and that, too, in many instances, before there was any law prohibiting the same, and yet the attempt is now being made to give the Edmunds law an ex post facto application and to punish us for these contracts which were not criminal, even from the standpoint of our enemies, at the time they were formed. I myself married my wives long before there was any law upon the subject, and many of you did the same, yet by an ex post facto application of laws since enacted the attempt is now made to punish us as criminals. I have never broken any law of these United States, and I presume that some of you, whom our enemies now seek to incriminate and drag into court as violators of law, can say the same. Under the present system of things in this Territory, harlotry and adultery are vindicated sustained and unblushingly protected, and honorable and virtuous wedlock is trampled upon, condemned and punished. Well, what will you do? I will obey every Constitutional law so far as God gives me ability. What else will you do? I will meet these men as far as I can without violating principle, and I have done it. When this infamous Edmunds law was passed, I saw that there were features in that which were contrary to law, violative of the Constitution, contrary to justice and the rights and the freedom of men. But I said to myself I will let that law take its course; I will place myself in accordance with it, so far as I can. Did I do it? I did. I remember talking to Mr. Pierrepont, who was Attorney-General under President Grant's administration. He with his son called upon me. They dined with me, and perhaps I can explain my views on this subject by repeating our conversation as well as any other way. I have a sister keeping my house for me—the Gardo House. When Mr. Pierrepont came in, I said: "Mr. Pierrepont, permit me to introduce you to my sister, who is my house-keeper. It is not lawful for us to have wives now”. And when the Edmunds law was passed I looked carefully over the document, and saw that if I was to continue to live in the same house with my wives that I should render myself liable to that law. I did not wish—although I considered the law infamous—to be an obstructionist, or act the part of a Fenian, or of a Nihilist, or of a Kuklux, or communist, or Molly Maguire, or any of those secret societies that are set on foot to produce the disintegration of society and disturb the relations that ought to exist between man and man, between man and woman, or man and his God. I desired to place myself in obedience or in as close conformity as practicable to the law, and thought I would wait and see what the result would be; and that if the nation can stand these things I can or we can. These are my feelings.
"Men and nations and legislators often act foolishly, and do things that are unwise, and it is not proper that a nation should be condemned for the unwise actions of some few men. Therefore I have sought to place myself in accord with that law. I said to my wives: "We are living in this building together. We were quite comfortably situated, and we might so have continued, but I said to them that under the circumstances it will be better for me or for you to leave this place; you can take your choice. They had their homes down here which they now inhabit; which were quite comfortable. So I said to them, you can go there and I will stay here, or you can stay at the Gardo House and I will go there or somewhere else; for I wish to conform to this Edmunds law as much as I can. I am always desirous to let everything have its perfect working. We talk sometimes about patience having its perfect work. If we have laws passed against us I like to see them have a fair opportunity to develop and see what the result will be. These were my feelings then, and they are my feelings to-day.
"Well, do you think, then, that the people have been outraged? I most certainly do. The usage has been in all legal trials among all civilized nations to presume that all men are innocent until proven guilty; but we now have test oaths introduced, which is another violation of the Constitution and by which an attempt is being made to hold all men guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Again: there is a usage which has existed among the civilized nations, and in this nation also, that a man must be tried by a jury of his peers, selected from the vicinage, but the juries selected for our courts are composed to-day of our bitter persecutors and our most relentless enemies, and in many instances selected from the lowest and most debased men who can be found or picked up from the gutters. We also have another class of courts improvised for the occasion in the shape of "U. S. Commissioners' courts," which are operated and run after the order of the ancient notorious "Star Chamber." Such institutions provoke the contempt of all honorable men, and the parties assuming such offices place themselves in a position to be despised of their fellows. I might enumerate many other outrages, but time will not permit on this occasion. No man's liberties are safe under such administration. What will be the result? The result will be that those that sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. When men begin to tear down the barriers and tamper with the fundamental principles and institutions of our country, they are playing a very dangerous game, and are severing the bonds which hold society together, and the beginning of these irregularities is like the letting out of water. The next step that followed the Edmunds Act, was the introduction of a test oath. The legislation already provided was not good enough for some of our officials here and another portion of the Constitution must be broken to introduce a test oath without any authority. I think this was introduced by our Governor. Then comes another class of men called Commissioners, rather a new idea in American Government. Yet it was thought necessary that extraordinary operations should be entered into in relation to the Mormons. Why? Because it is necessary that they should be dealt with differently from anybody else.
"Now, I have seen some of my brethren shot to pieces in cold blood and under the protection of the State Government, and the promise of the Governor made to myself and Dr. John M. Bernhisel, who is sometime ago dead. In Missouri a great deal of that thing was done. In Georgia lately, and in Tennessee acts of the same kind have been perpetrated. Now, I want to know if anybody can tell me—here is a large congregation, and many thousands of you acquainted with our history—I want to know if any one of you can tell me of any individual that was ever punished according to law for killing a Mormon. Speak it out, if you know it. I do not know of any such thing. Brother Snow says there is not an instance on record. Well, I would rather be on the side of the Mormons in that case than on the side of those who are their persecutors and murderers, for they have got something to atone for yet, which we have not under those circumstances. We have got through with our part of it. The other is not through with yet. There are eternal principles of justice and equity that exist in the bosom of God, and He, in His own time, will manipulate these things according to the counsel of His own will; and with what measure men mete, as sure as God lives, it will be measured to them again, pressed down and running over.
"Very well, what would you advise us to do? Are we suffering any wrongs? Yes. Well, what would you do? I would do as I said some time ago. If you were out in a storm, pull up the collar of your coat and button yourself up, and keep the cold out until the storm blows past. This storm will blow past as others have done; and you will see that many of the miserable sneaks who are active in those measures, and who are crawling about your doors, and trying to spy into your houses, etc., will be glad to crawl into their holes by-and-by. Well, what will you do? Get angry? No, not at all. Let these men have their day and pursue their own course; we will protect ourselves from them as well as we can.
"Why, some of our folks in the South were actually trying to seek an asylum in another land away from the persecutions of free America, and I do not know but that we shall have a lot of pilgrim Fathers again here in this country, fleeing, not from England by way of Holland, nor from France, nor from any of those countries where they used to persecute people and proscribe them for their religion, but from America, "The land of the free, the home of the brave, and the asylum for the oppressed"—fleeing from there because of their religious sentiments. What an idea! Who could have thought of it? People say that history repeats itself. It is so doing in our day. Well, what would you do? Observe the laws as much as you can. Bear with these indignities as much as you can. But it would not be well for these men to perform their antics anywhere else than among the Saints, or they would dangle to the poles, lots of them, by the neck, if they attempted any such acts. No people would endure these things as the Latter-day Saints do. Will you endure them? Yes, a little longer. Wait a little longer. And after you have borne with a good deal, then endure "as seeing Him that is invisible," and cultivate those principles that Brother Snow has so beautifully set before us, and feel, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you." Well, what would you do? Would you resent these outrages and break the heads of the men engaged in them, and spill their blood? No. Avoid them as much as you possibly can—just as you would wolves, or hyenas, or crocodiles, or snakes, or any of these beasts or reptiles; avoid them as much as you can, and take care they do not bite you. [Laughter.] And get out of the way as much as you can. What? won't you submit to the dignity of the law. Well, I would if the law would only be a little dignified. But when we see the ermine bedraggled in the mud and mire, and every principle of justice violated, it behooves men to take care of themselves as best they may. That is what I have told people while I have been in the south—to take care of their liberties, to put their trust in the living God, to obey every Constitutional law, and to adhere to all correct principles. But when men tamper with your rights and with your liberties, when the cities are full of spies and the lowest and meanest of men are set to watch and dog your footsteps; when little children are set in array against their fathers and mothers, and women and children are badgered before courts, and made to submit, unprotected, to the gibes of libertines and corrupt men; when wives and husbands are pitted against each other and threatened with pains, penalties and imprisonment, if they will not disclose that which among all decent people is considered sacred, and which no man of delicacy, whose sensibilities had not been blunted by low associations, would ever ask; when such a condition of affairs exists, it is no longer a land of liberty, and it is certainly no longer a land of equal rights, and we must take care of ourselves as best we may, and avoid being caught in any of their snares. I cannot think that this crusade is aimed entirely at us; from many circumstances that have transpired, I have been led to believe that whilst we are made the victims, these proceedings are introduced as a political ruse, for the purpose of embarrassing the incoming administration. What would you do? Would you fight them? No. I would take care of myself as best I can, and I would advise my brethren to do the same. Would you resist law? No. As I said before, I can stand it if they can. It is for us to do what is right, to fear God, to observe His laws, and keep His commandments, and the Lord will manage all the rest. But no breaking of heads, no bloodshed, no rendering evil for evil. Let us try and cultivate the spirit of the Gospel, and adhere to the principles of truth. Let us honor our God, and be true to those eternal principles which God has given us to hold sacred. Keep them as sacredly as you would the apple of your eye. And while other men are seeking to trample the Constitution under foot, we will try to maintain it. We have prophecies something like this somewhere; that the time would come when this nation would do as they are now doing—that is, they would trample under foot the Constitution and institutions of the nation, and the Elders of this Church would rally around the standard and maintain those principles which were introduced for the freedom and protection of men. We expect to do that, and to maintain all correct principle. I will tell you what you will see by and by. You will see trouble, trouble, trouble enough in these United States. And as I have said before I say to-day, I tell you in the name of God, Woe! to them that fight against Zion, for God will fight against them. But let us be on the side of human liberty and human rights, and the protection of all correct principles and laws and government, and maintain every principle that is upright and virtuous and honorable, and let the world take the balance if they want, we don't want it. We will cleave to the truth, God being our helper, and try to introduce principles whereby the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And we will obey every institution of man for the Lord's sake so far as we can without violating our consciences and doing things that are wrong and improper."
................
“In relation to this anomalous form of proceeding they are now copying the example of Russia, which is generally considered an arbitrary government, and where despotism has been supposed to reign supreme; they have in that nation a place called Siberia, to which they banish men, under a despotic rule, without much formality of trial. I was hardly prepared to-day to suppose that we needed an American Siberia under the form and in the name of liberty and the rights of men. But this is the fact. We have herein America to-day an American Siberia in Detroit, to which place, upwards of two thousand miles from their homes, men are banished for a term of years; and what for? Because they have the temerity to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, and cannot fall down and worship before the Moloch of an effete Christianity.
“These extraordinary proceedings that have been going on in this Territory, in Arizona and in other places, simply exhibit the very principle that Brother Snow has been speaking of. I need not tell you about affairs that have transpired here. You are quite as well acquainted with them as I am, and ought to be better: for I have been away from here for about four weeks visiting the Saints in our southern settlements, and we have had a most pleasant visit. Outside of these extraordinary proceedings, we found the people prospering very well, with pleasant homes and bright prospects before them. We had with us several of our best brethren, and we visited many of our settlements in that district of country, the residents of which were very much gratified at our appearance in their midst, and for the counsels they received. But I found that such had been the outrages committed that it was impossible almost for any man standing in an honorable position to maintain his position unless he broke the law by resisting the officers, and they thought it not prudent to do so, and so did I. It may suit others to violate the law, to trample upon human rights, and desecrate the sacred term of liberty, and this is frequently done by the arbiters and minions of the law in the name of justice; but we profess to be governed by higher, by nobler and more exalted principles, and to move on a higher plane; and if Jesus could afford to endure the attacks of sinners against Himself, we, if we have the Gospel that we profess to have, ought to be able to endure a little of the same thing. There is nothing new in these affairs, nothing strange in this at all.
"Many of you have had much to do with these matters. Some of these gray-headed men that I see before me know a little more about those matters than some of the younger portion do. Many of you have been driven from your homes, robbed of your property, dispossessed of your possessions and had to flee from your homes to these mountain valleys, and seek an asylum among the red savages which was denied you by your so-called Christian brethren. Before you came here you were banished from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois. What for? Because you had the audacity to worship God according to the dictates of your own consciences. I have had to flee from blood-thirsty bandits time and time again. Brother Snow had to do it, and many of you gray-headed men and women have had to do it. What for? Because of polygamy? No, there was no such thing then alleged. What for? Because you had the hardihood, in this land of freedom, to worship God according to the dictates of your own consciences. For this crime you had to leave your homes, and you were despoiled and robbed and plundered, and had to flee as exiles into another land. I had to do it; you have had to do it. You fled from Missouri to Illinois, and then from Illinois to this land, and why? Why did you leave Illinois and come here? Did you injure anybody? No. They killed your Prophets, and I saw them martyred, and was shot most unmercifully myself, under the pledge of protection from the Governor, and they thought they had killed me; but I am alive yet by the grace of God (sensation). Why had you to leave? Because they murdered your Prophets, and wanted to possess themselves of your property; murder and spoliation generally go together. And because they killed them, they accused you of doing some wrong, said you must leave your homes, and there was nobody found in all that wide land to check the outrages of those red-handed assassins, to administer justice and to preserve you in your rights. I do not know any other reason; I never did know any other, and never expect to be informed of any other.
“The history of these things is quite familiar to you as Latter-day Saints, and you do not think it anything strange. Some of our young people think that the present proceedings are very remarkable. But many of us, gray-headed folks, have seen plenty of such proceedings, and have had many experiences of this kind; they are nothing new to us at all. And did we ever expect them to get better? We have not so understood it. We are told in the Scriptures, and we have kept teaching it all the while, that "the wicked would grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." That is doctrine which I have believed in for the last 50 years and I have had a good deal of testimony and practical confirmation on that point. We expect that these things will transpire. We have been told about secret organizations that should exist, and they are beginning to permeate these United States, and are laying the foundation for disruption, disintegration and destruction. It is not necessary that Congress and the Judiciary should set examples of tyranny and violation of Constitutional law, and attack the fundamental principles of free government and the rights of man; for there is plenty of that kind of spirit abroad; yet men who profess to be the conservators of the peace and the maintainers of law join in these nefarious, unholy, tyrannical and oppressive measures. There are any number who are ready to follow in their footsteps, and the whole nation to-day is standing on a volcano; but they do not seem to comprehend it. Well, are we surprised? I am not. It is strictly in accordance with my faith: it is strictly in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures; and it is strictly in accordance with the Book of Mormon; it is strictly in accordance with the revelations given to us by Joseph Smith, and all these events that have been predicted will most assuredly transpire. But I suppose it is necessary that "judgment should first begin at the house of God," and if it does, "where will the wicked and the ungodly appear," when it comes upon them? We are told that the wicked shall slay the wicked. We need not trouble ourselves about the affairs of the nations, the Lord will manipulate them in His own way. I feel full of sympathy for the nation in which we live, and for other nations, in consequence of the troubles with which they are beset and which are now threatening them; yet they do not seem to comprehend the position. I know a little of some of the things that will transpire among them, and I feel sorry.
"Do you feel sorry for yourself? Not at all, not at all. Do you feel sorry for your people? Not at all, not at all. The Lord God has revealed unto us great and eternal principles which reach beyond this earth into the eternal heavens, and which have put us in possession of light and truth and intelligence, and promises and blessings that the world are ignorant of and do not and cannot comprehend. I feel every day to bless the name of the God of Israel, and feel like shouting, "Hosanna! Hosanna!! Hosanna!!! to the God of Israel, Amen and Amen," Who will rule among the nations of the earth, and manipulate things according to the counsel of His own will. These are my feelings in regard to these matters. But then I feel interested in the welfare of my brethren and sisters, and when I see their rights interfered with and trampled ruthlessly under foot, I feel that there is something at work that ought not to be, and yet that is quite necessary to teach us some of the principles of human nature, that we may be able to discern between the good, the virtuous, the upright and the holy; and the impure, the foolish, the vindictive, the corrupt, the lascivious, and those who are trampling under foot the laws and principles of eternal truth. God has revealed unto us certain principles pertaining to the future which men may take objection to. He has revealed unto us certain principles pertaining to the perpetuity of man and of woman; pertaining to the sacred rights and obligations which existed from the beginning; and He has told us to obey these laws. The nation tells us, "If you do we will persecute you and proscribe you." Which shall we obey? I would like to obey and place myself in subjection to every law of man. What then? Am I to disobey the law of God? Has any man a right to control my conscience, or your conscience, or to tell me I shall believe this or believe the other, or reject this or reject the other? No man has a right to do it. These principles are sacred, and the forefathers of this nation felt so and so proclaimed it in the Constitution of the United States, and said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, I believe they have violated that, and have violated their oaths, those that have engaged in these things and passed that law, and those that are seeking to carry it out. Congress and the President of the United States and the Judiciary, and all administrators of the law are as much bound by that instrument as I am and as you are, and have sworn to maintain it inviolate. It is for them to settle these matters between themselves and their God. That is my faith in relation to this matter. Yet by their action they are interfering with my rights, my liberty and my religion, and with those sacred principles that bind me to my God, to my family, to my wives and my children; and shall I be recreant to all these noble principles that ought to guide and govern men? No, Never! No, NEVER! NO, NEVER! I can endure more than I have done, and all that God will enable me to endure, I can die for the truth; but I cannot as an honorable man disobey my God at their behest, forsake my wives and my children, and trample these holy and eternal obligations under foot, that God has given me to keep, and which reach into the eternities that are to come. I won't do it, so help me, God. [Here the speaker vigorously struck the book on the desk, and the large audience responded with a loud "Amen."]
"The Constitution expressly says that no law shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts. But we have entered into covenants and contracts in our most sacred places, and that, too, in many instances, before there was any law prohibiting the same, and yet the attempt is now being made to give the Edmunds law an ex post facto application and to punish us for these contracts which were not criminal, even from the standpoint of our enemies, at the time they were formed. I myself married my wives long before there was any law upon the subject, and many of you did the same, yet by an ex post facto application of laws since enacted the attempt is now made to punish us as criminals. I have never broken any law of these United States, and I presume that some of you, whom our enemies now seek to incriminate and drag into court as violators of law, can say the same. Under the present system of things in this Territory, harlotry and adultery are vindicated sustained and unblushingly protected, and honorable and virtuous wedlock is trampled upon, condemned and punished. Well, what will you do? I will obey every Constitutional law so far as God gives me ability. What else will you do? I will meet these men as far as I can without violating principle, and I have done it. When this infamous Edmunds law was passed, I saw that there were features in that which were contrary to law, violative of the Constitution, contrary to justice and the rights and the freedom of men. But I said to myself I will let that law take its course; I will place myself in accordance with it, so far as I can. Did I do it? I did. I remember talking to Mr. Pierrepont, who was Attorney-General under President Grant's administration. He with his son called upon me. They dined with me, and perhaps I can explain my views on this subject by repeating our conversation as well as any other way. I have a sister keeping my house for me—the Gardo House. When Mr. Pierrepont came in, I said: "Mr. Pierrepont, permit me to introduce you to my sister, who is my house-keeper. It is not lawful for us to have wives now”. And when the Edmunds law was passed I looked carefully over the document, and saw that if I was to continue to live in the same house with my wives that I should render myself liable to that law. I did not wish—although I considered the law infamous—to be an obstructionist, or act the part of a Fenian, or of a Nihilist, or of a Kuklux, or communist, or Molly Maguire, or any of those secret societies that are set on foot to produce the disintegration of society and disturb the relations that ought to exist between man and man, between man and woman, or man and his God. I desired to place myself in obedience or in as close conformity as practicable to the law, and thought I would wait and see what the result would be; and that if the nation can stand these things I can or we can. These are my feelings.
"Men and nations and legislators often act foolishly, and do things that are unwise, and it is not proper that a nation should be condemned for the unwise actions of some few men. Therefore I have sought to place myself in accord with that law. I said to my wives: "We are living in this building together. We were quite comfortably situated, and we might so have continued, but I said to them that under the circumstances it will be better for me or for you to leave this place; you can take your choice. They had their homes down here which they now inhabit; which were quite comfortable. So I said to them, you can go there and I will stay here, or you can stay at the Gardo House and I will go there or somewhere else; for I wish to conform to this Edmunds law as much as I can. I am always desirous to let everything have its perfect working. We talk sometimes about patience having its perfect work. If we have laws passed against us I like to see them have a fair opportunity to develop and see what the result will be. These were my feelings then, and they are my feelings to-day.
"Well, do you think, then, that the people have been outraged? I most certainly do. The usage has been in all legal trials among all civilized nations to presume that all men are innocent until proven guilty; but we now have test oaths introduced, which is another violation of the Constitution and by which an attempt is being made to hold all men guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Again: there is a usage which has existed among the civilized nations, and in this nation also, that a man must be tried by a jury of his peers, selected from the vicinage, but the juries selected for our courts are composed to-day of our bitter persecutors and our most relentless enemies, and in many instances selected from the lowest and most debased men who can be found or picked up from the gutters. We also have another class of courts improvised for the occasion in the shape of "U. S. Commissioners' courts," which are operated and run after the order of the ancient notorious "Star Chamber." Such institutions provoke the contempt of all honorable men, and the parties assuming such offices place themselves in a position to be despised of their fellows. I might enumerate many other outrages, but time will not permit on this occasion. No man's liberties are safe under such administration. What will be the result? The result will be that those that sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. When men begin to tear down the barriers and tamper with the fundamental principles and institutions of our country, they are playing a very dangerous game, and are severing the bonds which hold society together, and the beginning of these irregularities is like the letting out of water. The next step that followed the Edmunds Act, was the introduction of a test oath. The legislation already provided was not good enough for some of our officials here and another portion of the Constitution must be broken to introduce a test oath without any authority. I think this was introduced by our Governor. Then comes another class of men called Commissioners, rather a new idea in American Government. Yet it was thought necessary that extraordinary operations should be entered into in relation to the Mormons. Why? Because it is necessary that they should be dealt with differently from anybody else.
"Now, I have seen some of my brethren shot to pieces in cold blood and under the protection of the State Government, and the promise of the Governor made to myself and Dr. John M. Bernhisel, who is sometime ago dead. In Missouri a great deal of that thing was done. In Georgia lately, and in Tennessee acts of the same kind have been perpetrated. Now, I want to know if anybody can tell me—here is a large congregation, and many thousands of you acquainted with our history—I want to know if any one of you can tell me of any individual that was ever punished according to law for killing a Mormon. Speak it out, if you know it. I do not know of any such thing. Brother Snow says there is not an instance on record. Well, I would rather be on the side of the Mormons in that case than on the side of those who are their persecutors and murderers, for they have got something to atone for yet, which we have not under those circumstances. We have got through with our part of it. The other is not through with yet. There are eternal principles of justice and equity that exist in the bosom of God, and He, in His own time, will manipulate these things according to the counsel of His own will; and with what measure men mete, as sure as God lives, it will be measured to them again, pressed down and running over.
"Very well, what would you advise us to do? Are we suffering any wrongs? Yes. Well, what would you do? I would do as I said some time ago. If you were out in a storm, pull up the collar of your coat and button yourself up, and keep the cold out until the storm blows past. This storm will blow past as others have done; and you will see that many of the miserable sneaks who are active in those measures, and who are crawling about your doors, and trying to spy into your houses, etc., will be glad to crawl into their holes by-and-by. Well, what will you do? Get angry? No, not at all. Let these men have their day and pursue their own course; we will protect ourselves from them as well as we can.
"Why, some of our folks in the South were actually trying to seek an asylum in another land away from the persecutions of free America, and I do not know but that we shall have a lot of pilgrim Fathers again here in this country, fleeing, not from England by way of Holland, nor from France, nor from any of those countries where they used to persecute people and proscribe them for their religion, but from America, "The land of the free, the home of the brave, and the asylum for the oppressed"—fleeing from there because of their religious sentiments. What an idea! Who could have thought of it? People say that history repeats itself. It is so doing in our day. Well, what would you do? Observe the laws as much as you can. Bear with these indignities as much as you can. But it would not be well for these men to perform their antics anywhere else than among the Saints, or they would dangle to the poles, lots of them, by the neck, if they attempted any such acts. No people would endure these things as the Latter-day Saints do. Will you endure them? Yes, a little longer. Wait a little longer. And after you have borne with a good deal, then endure "as seeing Him that is invisible," and cultivate those principles that Brother Snow has so beautifully set before us, and feel, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you." Well, what would you do? Would you resent these outrages and break the heads of the men engaged in them, and spill their blood? No. Avoid them as much as you possibly can—just as you would wolves, or hyenas, or crocodiles, or snakes, or any of these beasts or reptiles; avoid them as much as you can, and take care they do not bite you. [Laughter.] And get out of the way as much as you can. What? won't you submit to the dignity of the law. Well, I would if the law would only be a little dignified. But when we see the ermine bedraggled in the mud and mire, and every principle of justice violated, it behooves men to take care of themselves as best they may. That is what I have told people while I have been in the south—to take care of their liberties, to put their trust in the living God, to obey every Constitutional law, and to adhere to all correct principles. But when men tamper with your rights and with your liberties, when the cities are full of spies and the lowest and meanest of men are set to watch and dog your footsteps; when little children are set in array against their fathers and mothers, and women and children are badgered before courts, and made to submit, unprotected, to the gibes of libertines and corrupt men; when wives and husbands are pitted against each other and threatened with pains, penalties and imprisonment, if they will not disclose that which among all decent people is considered sacred, and which no man of delicacy, whose sensibilities had not been blunted by low associations, would ever ask; when such a condition of affairs exists, it is no longer a land of liberty, and it is certainly no longer a land of equal rights, and we must take care of ourselves as best we may, and avoid being caught in any of their snares. I cannot think that this crusade is aimed entirely at us; from many circumstances that have transpired, I have been led to believe that whilst we are made the victims, these proceedings are introduced as a political ruse, for the purpose of embarrassing the incoming administration. What would you do? Would you fight them? No. I would take care of myself as best I can, and I would advise my brethren to do the same. Would you resist law? No. As I said before, I can stand it if they can. It is for us to do what is right, to fear God, to observe His laws, and keep His commandments, and the Lord will manage all the rest. But no breaking of heads, no bloodshed, no rendering evil for evil. Let us try and cultivate the spirit of the Gospel, and adhere to the principles of truth. Let us honor our God, and be true to those eternal principles which God has given us to hold sacred. Keep them as sacredly as you would the apple of your eye. And while other men are seeking to trample the Constitution under foot, we will try to maintain it. We have prophecies something like this somewhere; that the time would come when this nation would do as they are now doing—that is, they would trample under foot the Constitution and institutions of the nation, and the Elders of this Church would rally around the standard and maintain those principles which were introduced for the freedom and protection of men. We expect to do that, and to maintain all correct principle. I will tell you what you will see by and by. You will see trouble, trouble, trouble enough in these United States. And as I have said before I say to-day, I tell you in the name of God, Woe! to them that fight against Zion, for God will fight against them. But let us be on the side of human liberty and human rights, and the protection of all correct principles and laws and government, and maintain every principle that is upright and virtuous and honorable, and let the world take the balance if they want, we don't want it. We will cleave to the truth, God being our helper, and try to introduce principles whereby the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And we will obey every institution of man for the Lord's sake so far as we can without violating our consciences and doing things that are wrong and improper."
Friday, December 5, 2008
A word from Brigham Young
"I will now speak a little in regard to people's making themselves happy. We heard something upon that subject to-day and yesterday; and we frequently hear people preaching about heaven, paradise, and Zion; and if there is a comfort, a felicity, and good feeling, I want to say a few words about them; and I shall begin upon the doctrine so much beloved by Saint and sinner, and that is the plurality of women. The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle. Were we to appeal to passions of the people, we should promote the doctrine of a plurality of men and of women. But when we address ourselves to the Saints of the Most High God, it is very different and in a different light. It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women-to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost-to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honour of the God of heaven. But what are the people doing here? "I want another wife," and almost universally passion is exhibited instead of principle.
"If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. "How far would you go in abolishing it?" I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want-the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand to-day, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.
"I know the weaknesses of humanity, and I understand the passions of men and women. I am sorry for them. I wish they had grace according to their day, creating such fortitude in them that they would determine to suffer unto death rather than violate a holy command of the Almighty, or transgress the bounds God has set. "Is that the way you have lived?" It is. It is the example I have set before my family from the day the Lord opened my mind to see the Gospel. Ask these sisters (many of them have known me for years,) what my life has been in private and in public. It has been like the angel Gabriel's, if he had visited you; and I can live so still. But how are we to be made happy? There is one course-love the Giver more than the gift; love Him that has placed passion in me more than my passions. Let passion lie at the feet of judgment, and let every attribute that God has bestowed on me be devoted to the righteous cause he has commenced upon the earth. This, and this alone, produces happiness. He has brought us forth, and we live and see this day that Prophets, kings, and millions of great and good men have prayed to see, but died without the sight. When they looked at it in vision, it cast a halo, around which was like the dawning of heaven to their souls, and they shouted, "Hallelujah!" beholding the spirit and glory of these times that we now live in. And we yield to passion? I say, Shame on the individual that says passion has anything to do with his life. It is crucified. It lies, as it were, at the foot of the cross. That is my faith, and it has been my life.
"How will you be happy? Love the Giver more than the gift. Delight yourselves in your duties, mothers. Here are the middle-aged and the young. I am now almost daily sealing young girls to men of age and experience. Love your duties, sisters. Are you sealed to a good man? Yes, to a man of God. It is for you to bear fruit and bring forth, to the praise of God, the spirits that are born in yonder heavens and are to take tabernacles on the earth. You have the privilege of forming tabernacles for those spirits, instead of their being brought into this wicked world, that God may have a royal Priesthood, a royal people, on the earth. That is what plurality of wives is for, and not to gratify lustful desires. Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children, in the name of the Lord, that are full of faith and the power of God,-to receive, conceive, bear, and bring forth in the name of Israel's God, that you may have the honour of being the mothers of great and good men-of kings, princes, and potentates that shall yet live on the earth and govern and control the nations. Do you look forward to that? or are you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, "I have got a man from the Lord!" "Hallelujah! I am a mother-I have born an image of God!" Let your prayers ascend to God, and that continually, that he will overshadow the child by the power of the Holy Ghost before and after its birth-that the Holy Ghost may attend it continually. The mother should inquire what her duty is. It is to teach her children holiness, prayer to God, and to trust in Him. Teach them the holy religion and the commandments that are calculated to sanctify the people and bring them into the presence of our Father and God. But no; too often it is passion. If my passion is served, I am in heaven. The fire will have to burn them up. We must live by principle; and if we do we shall attain to perfection-to being crowned with crowns of glory, immortality, and eternal lives. I would rather be purified here than to live ten thousand years to attain the same point in another existence. The man that enters into this order by the prompting of passion, and not with a view to honour God and carry out his purposes, the curse of God will rest upon him, and that which he seems to have will be taken from him and given to those that act according to principle. Remember it.
"The world cries out against this obnoxious doctrine, that I should have more wives than one. And what would they do? Destroy the virtue of every woman in this community if they had the power. What do they care about virtue? With comparatively few exceptions, no more than do the devils in hell. Most of the officers who have been sent here would have defiled every bed in this Territory, had they have had the power. Tell about this doctrine's being obnoxious to their delicate feelings! Yes, it is, in one sense. It keeps them at bay; it is hell to them; it is burning them up; and I say they may burn up, and they will.
"Elders of Israel, have you entered into the doctrine that has been revealed, through passion? If you have, you will find that that course will take that which you seem to have, and the Lord will say-"Let this man, that man, or the other man go, for he has acted on passion, and not on principle. Take that which he seems to have, and give it to him that has been faithful with the five, the two, the three, or the one talent." That is the way it will be, by-and-by.
"Sisters, do not ask whether you can make yourselves happy, but whether you can do your husband's will, if he is a good man. Teach your children; for you are their guardians, to act as father and mother to them until they are out of your care. The teachings and examples of our mothers have formed, to a great extent, our characters and directed our lives. This is their right, when they act by the power of the Priesthood, to direct the child until it is of a proper age, and then hand it over to the husband and father, and into the hands of God, with such faith and such love of virtue and truth, and with such love of God and its parents, that that child can never suppose that it is out of the hand and from under the control of the parent. Do not call it "mine." Let your maxim be, "This is not mine," whether you have one child or a dozen. "It is not mine, but the Lord has seen fit to let me bear the souls of the children of men. It is from my Father and God, and I will do my duty and hand it over to him," and have that faith that the child can never wring itself out of the hands of a good father and mother-can never stray away,-no, never. That is the privilege of mothers. It is you who guide the affections and feelings of the child. It is the mothers, after all, that rule the nations of the earth. They form, dictate, and direct the minds of statesmen, and the feelings, course, life, notions, and sentiments of the great and the small, of kings, rulers, governors, and of the people in general.
"Now, mothers, act upon principle, and see whether you can do anything to promote happiness in your families; see whether you can guide the minds of your children, teach them their letters, &c. I thought to speak upon the last-named point, but I will omit it. You can, at least, teach your children faith, and pay attention to knitting their stockings, making their clothing, &c.; see that the chickens are taken care of, that the milk is cleanly milked from the cow, and that the children are made comfortable. And if your husband is here or there, do not fret yourselves, whether he leaves you or not. If he is a good man, he can take of himself, and will safely return to you again. The mother that takes this course will be a happy mother-a happy woman. But where you find women jealous of each other, and "I am watching my husband," I would ask, Where are your children? They are nearly all the time in the mud, or in some mischief. And what are you doing, mother? You are "watching that man." "Who is he?" "He is my husband." I used to tell the sisters in Nauvoo that they did not care where their children were, if they could only keep in sight of their husbands.
"A traveller in the Eastern country overtook an old gentleman walking towards a town, and asked him, "Who is the great man of that little town? Who is your leading man? Who is the governor and controlling spirit of that little place?" The old gentleman replied, "I am the king of that little town." "Really," says the traveller, "are you the leading man?" "Yes, sir, I am king in that place, and reign as king." "How do you make this to appear? Are you in affluent circumstances?" "No, I am poor; but in that little village there are so many children. All those children go to my school; I rule the children, and they rule their parents, and that makes me king." I frequently think of this. Let the children rule the mother, and the mother the father, and that makes the children kings. How frequently you find this. How is it, my brethren? When you call your families together for prayers, where are your children? Were this question asked me, I should say, "I do not know." Mothers, where are your children? "We do not know; it is as much as we can do to be here." Why do you not have your children together? It is your duty to look after them; they should not be running at random in the streets. Some mothers will put a ten-dollar frock on a child and let it go straight into the mud, while they are watching the father and trying to keep him in bounds. Take care of your children, clothe them comfortably, and avoid all extravagance.
.....
"Some mothers try to make father believe that a child five years old knows as much as the father. Another great cause of dissatisfaction is that so many women are such noble women, and know so much more than their husbands. They say, "This man is not capable of leading me." That is a positive proof to me that that man does not know his ability and calling. I will acknowledge that many women are smarter than their husbands. But when people are married, instead of trying to get rid of each other, reflect that you have made your choice, and strive to honour and keep it. Do not manifest that you have acted unwisely, and say that you have made a bad choice, nor let anybody know that you think you have. You made your choice; stick to it, and strive to comfort and assist each other."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
In Defense of Polygyny
Belinda Marden Pratt
Millennial Star, July 29th, 1854
DEAR SISTER,
- Your letter of Oct. 2 was received on yesterday. My joy on its reception was more than I can express. I had waited so long for your answer to our last, that I had almost concluded my friends were offended, and would write to me no more. Judge, then, of my joy when I read the sentiments of friendship and of sisterly affection expressed in your letter.
We are all well here, and are prosperous and happy in our family circle. My children, four in number, are healthy and cheerful, and fast expanding their physical and intellectual faculties. Health, peace, and prosperity have attended us all the day long.
It seems, my dear sister, that we are no nearer together in our religious views than formerly. Why is this? Are we not bound to leave this world, with all we possess therein, and reap the reward of our doings here in a never-ending hereafter? If so, do we not desire to be un-deceived, and to know and to do the truth? Do we not all wish in our very hearts to be sincere with ourselves, and to be honest and frank with each other?
If so, you will bear with me patiently, while I give a few of my reasons for embracing, and holding sacred, that particular point in the doctrine of the Church of the Saints to which you, my dear sister, together with a large majority of Christendom, so decidedly object. I mean, a "plurality of wives."
I have a Bible, which I have been taught from my infancy to hold sacred. In this Bible, I read of a holy man named Abraham, who is represented as the friend of God, a faithful man in all things, a man who kept the commandments of God, and who is called, in the New Testament, "the father of the faithful." See James 2:23; Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:8,9,16,29.
I find this man had a plurality of wives, some of which were called concubines. See Book of Genesis; and for his concubines, see 25:6.
I also find his grandson Jacob possessed of four wives, twelve sons, and a daughter. These wives are spoken very highly of, by the sacred writers, as honourable and virtuous women. "These," say the Scriptures, "did build the house of Israel."
Jacob himself was also a man of God, and the Lord blessed him and his house, and commanded him to be fruitful and multiply. See Gen. 30 to 35 and particularly 35:10,11.
I find also that the twelve sons of Jacob, by these four wives, became princes, heads of tribes, patriarchs, whose names are had in everlasting remembrance to all generations.
Now God talked with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob frequently; and His angels also visited and talked with them, and blessed them and their wives and children. He also reproved the sins of some of the sons of Jacob, for hating and selling their brother, and for adultery. But in all His communications with them, He never condemned their family organisation; but, on the contrary, always approved of it, and blessed them in this respect. He even told Abraham that He would make him the father of many nations, and that in him and his seed all the nations and kindreds of the earth should be blessed. See Genesis 18:17-19; also 12:1-3. In later years I find the plurality of wives perpetuated, sanctioned, and provided for in the law of Moses.
David the Psalmist not only had a plurality of wives, but the Lord Himself spoke by the mouth of Nathan the Prophet, and told David that He (the Lord) had given his master's wives into his bosom; but because he had committed adultery with the wife of Uriah, and had caused his murder, He would take his wives and give them to a neighbour of his, &c. See 2 Samuel 12:7-11.
Here, then, we have the word of the Lord, not only sanctioning polygamy, but actually giving to king David the wives of his master (Saul), and afterward taking the wives of David from him, and giving them to another man. Here we have a sample of severe reproof and punishment for adultery and murder, while polygamy is authorised and approved of God.
But to come to the New Testament. I find Jesus Christ speaks very highly of Abraham and his family. He says, "Many shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God." Luke 13:28,29.
Again he said, "If ye were Abraham's seed, ye would do the works of Abraham."
Paul the Apostle wrote to the saints of his day, and informed them as follows: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ; and if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
He also sets forth Abraham and Sarah as patterns of faith and good works, and as the father and mother of faithful Christians, who should, by faith and good works, aspire to be counted the sons of Abraham and daughters of Sarah.
Now let us look at some of the works of Sarah, for which she is so highly commended by the Apostles, and by them held up as a pattern for Christian ladies to imitate. "Now Sarah, Abram's wife, bare him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarah said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee go in unto my maid: it may be that I may obtain children of her. And Abram harkened unto the voice of Sarah. And Sarah, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband, Abram, to be his wife." See Genesis 16:1-3.
According to Jesus Christ and the Apostles, then, the only way to be saved is to be adopted into the great family of polygamists, by the Gospel, and then strictly follow their examples.
Again, John the Revelator describes the Holy City of the heavenly Jerusalem, with the names of the twelve sons of Jacob inscribed on the gates. Revelation 21:12.
To sum up the whole, then, I find that polygamists were the friends of God; that the family and lineage of a polygamist were selected, in which all nations should be blessed; that a polygamist is named in the New Testament as the father of the faithful Christians of after ages, and cited as a pattern for all generations; that the wife of a polygamist, who encouraged her husband in the practice of the same, and even urged him into it, and officiated in giving him another wife, is named as an honourable and virtuous woman, a pattern for Christian ladies, and the very mother of all holy women in the Christian Church, whose aspiration it should be to be called her daughters; that Jesus Christ has declared that the great fathers of the polygamic family stand at the head in the kingdom of God; in short, that all the saved of after generations should be saved by becoming members of a polygamic family; that all those who do not become members of it are strangers and aliens to the covenant of promise, the commonwealth of Israel, and not heirs according to the promise made to Abraham; that all people from the east, west, north, or south, who enter into the kingdom, enter into the society of polygamists, and under the patriarchal rule and government; indeed, no one can even approach the gates of heaven without beholding the names of twelve polygamists (the sons of four different women by one man) engraven in everlasting glory upon the pearly gates.
My dear sister, with the Scriptures before me, I could never find it in my heart to reject the heavenly vision which has restored to man the fullness of the Gospel, or the Latter Day Prophets and Apostles, merely because in this restoration is included the ancient law of matrimony and of family organisation and government, preparatory to the restoration of all Israel.
But, leaving all Scripture, history, or precedent out of the question, let us come to nature's law. What, then, appears the great object of the marriage relations? I answer, the multiplying of our species, the rearing and training of children.
To accomplish this object, natural law would dictate that a husband should remain apart from his wife at certain seasons, which, in the very constitution of the female, are untimely; or, in other words, indulgence should be not merely for pleasure or wanton desires, but mainly for the purpose of procreation.
The mortality of nature would teach a mother, that, during nature's process in the formation and growth of embryo man, her heart should be pure, her thoughts and affections chaste, her mind calm, her passions without excitement, while her body should be invigorated with very exercise conducive to health and vigour, but by no means subjected to anything calculated to disturb, irritate, weary, or exhaust any of its functions.
And while a kind husband should nourish, sustain, and comfort the wife of his bosom by every kindness and attention consistent with her situation, and with his most tender affection; still he should refrain from all those untimely associations which are forbidden in the great constitutional laws of female nature; which laws we see carried out in almost the entire animal economy, human animals excepted.
Polygamy, then, as practised under the Patriarchal law of God, tends directly to the chastity of women, and to sound health and morals in the constitutions of their offspring.
You can read, in the law of God, in your Bible, the times and circumstances under which a woman should remain apart from her husband, during which times she is considered unclean; and should her husband come to her bed under such circumstances, he would commit a gross sin both against the laws of nature and the wise provisions of God's law, as revealed in His word; in short, he would commit an abomination; he would sin both against his own body, against the body of his wife, and against the laws of procreation, in which the health and morals of the offspring are directly concerned.
The polygamic law of God opens all vigorous, healthy, and virtuous females a door by which they may become honourable wives of virtuous men, and mothers of faithful, virtuous, healthy, and vigorous children.
And here let me ask you, my dear sister, what female in all New Hampshire would marry a drunkard, a man of hereditary disease, a debauchee, an idler, or a spendthrift; or what woman would become a prostitute, or, on the other hand, live and die single, or without forming those inexpressibly dear relationships of wife and mother, if the Abrahamic covenant, or Patriarchal laws of God, were extended over your state, and held sacred and honourable by all?
Dear sister, in your thoughtlessness, you inquire, "Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?" To which I reply: 1st, God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands; 2nd, "Man is the head of the woman," and no woman can serve two lords; 3rd, Such an order of things would work death and not life, or, in plain language, it would multiply disease instead of children. In fact, the experiment of a plurality of husbands, or rather of one woman for many men, is in active operation, and has been, for centuries, in all the principle towns and cities of "Christendom!" It is the genius of "Christian institutions," falsely so called. It is the result of "Mystery Babylon, the great whore of all the earth." Or in other words, it is the result of making void the holy ordinances of God in relation to matrimony, and inducing the laws of Rome, in which the clergy and nuns are forbidden to marry, and other members only permitted to have one wife. This law leaves females exposed to a life of single "blessedness," without husband, child, or friend to provide for or comfort them; or to a life of poverty and loneliness, exposed to temptation, to perverted affections, to unlawful means to gratify them, or to the necessity of selling themselves for lucre. While the man who has abundance of means is tempted to spend it on a mistress in secret, and in a lawless way, the law of God would have given her to him as an honourable wife. These circumstances give rise to murder, infanticide, suicide, disease, remorse, despair, wretchedness, poverty, untimely death, with all the attendant train of jealousies, heart rending miseries, want of confidence in families, contaminating disease, &c; and finally, to the horrible licence system, in which governments called Christian, licence their fair daughters, I will not say to play the beast, but to a degradation far beneath them; for every species of animal creation, except man, refrain from such abominable excess, and observe in a great measure the laws of nature in procreation.
I again repeat, that nature has constituted the female differently from the male; and for a different purpose. The strength of the female constitution is designed to flow in a stream of life, to nourish and sustain the embryo, to bring it forth, and to nurse it on her bosom. When nature is not in operation within her in these particulars, and for these heavenly ends, it has wisely provided relief at regular periods, in order that her system may be kept pure and healthy, without exhausting the fountain of life on the one hand, or drying up its river of life on the other; till mature age, and an approaching change of worlds, render it necessary for her to cease to be fruitful, and give her to rest awhile, and enjoy a tranquil life in the midst of that family circle, endeared to her by so many ties, and which may be supposed, at this period of her life, to be approaching the vigour of manhood, and therefore able to comfort and sustain her.
Not so with man. He has no such drawback upon his strength. It is his to move in a wider sphere. If God shall count him worthy of an hundred fold, in this life, of wives and children, and houses, and lands, and kindreds, he may even aspire to Patriarchal sovereignty, to empire; to be the prince or head of a tribe, or tribes; and like Abraham of old, be able to send forth, for the defence of his country, hundreds and thousands of his own warriors, born in his own house.
A noble man of God, who is full of the Spirit of the Most High, and is counted worthy to converse with Jehovah, or with the Son of God; and to associate with angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect; one who will teach his children, and bring them up in the light of unadulterated and eternal truth; is more worthy of hundred wives and children, than the ignorant slave of passion, or for vice and folly, is to have one wife and one child. Indeed the God of Abraham is so much better pleased with one than with the other, that he would even take away the one talent, which is habitually abused, neglected, or put to an improper use, and give it to him who has ten talents.
In the Patriarchal order of family government, the wife is bound by the law of her husband. She honours, "calls him lord," even as Sarah obeyed and honoured Abraham. She lives for him, and to increase his glory, his greatness, his kingdom, or family. Her affections are centred in her God, her husband, and her children.
The children are also under his government, worlds without end. "While life or thought, or being lasts, or immortality endures," they are bound to obey him as their father and king.
He also has a head, to whom he is responsible. He must keep the commandments of God, and observe His laws. He must not take a wife unless she is given to him by the law and authority of God. He must not commit adultery, not take liberties with any woman except his own, who are secured to him by the holy ordinance of matrimony.
Hence a nation organised under the law of the Gospel, or in other words, the law of Abraham and the Patriarchs, would have no institutions tending to licentiousness; no adulteries, fornications, &c., would be tolerated. No houses or institutions would exist for traffic in shame, or in the life-blood of our fair daughters. Wealthy men would have no inducement to keep a mistress in secret, or unlawfully. Females would have no grounds for temptation in any such lawless life. Neither money nor pleasure could tempt them, nor poverty drive them to any such excess; because the door would be open for every virtuous female to form the honourable and endearing relationships of wife and mother, in some virtuous family, where love, and peace, and plenty would crown her days, and truth and the practice of virtue qualify her to be transplanted with her family circle in that eternal soil, where they might multiply their children, without pain, or sorrow, or death; and go on increasing in numbers, in wealth, in greatness, in glory, might, majesty, power, and dominion, in worlds without end.
O my dear sister! could the dark veil of tradition be rent from your mind! could you gaze for a moment on the resurrection of the just! could you behold Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their wives and children, clad in the bosom, freshness, and beauty of immortal flesh and bones; clothed in robes of fine white linen, bedecked with precious stones and gold; and surrounded with an offspring of immortals as countless as the stars of the firmament, or as the grains of sand upon the sea shore; over which they reign as kings and queens for ever and ever! you would then know something of the weight of those words of the sacred writer which are recorded in relation to the four wives of Jacob, the mothers of the twelve Patriarchs, namely: "These did build the house of Israel."
O that my dear kindred could but realise that they have need to repent of the sins, ignorance, and traditions of those perverted systems which are misnamed "Christianity," and be baptized - buried in the water, in the likeness of the death and burial of Jesus Christ, and rise to newness of life in the likeness of his resurrection; receive his Spirit by the laying on of hands of an Apostle, according to promise, and forsake the world and the pride thereof. They would be adopted into the family of Abraham, become his sons and daughters, see and enjoy for themselves the visions of the Spirit of eternal truth, which bear witness of the family order of heaven, and the beauties and glories of eternal kindred ties; for my pen can never describe them.
Dear, dear kindred: remember, according to the New Testament and the testimony of an ancient Apostle, if you are ever saved in the kingdom of God, it must be by being adopted into the family of polygamists - the family of the great Patriarch Abraham: for in his seed, or family, and not out of it, "shall all the nations and kindreds of the earth be blessed."
You say you believe polygamy is "licentiousness;" that it is "abominable," "beastly," &c; "the practice of only the most barbarous nations, or of dark ages, or of some great or good men who were left to commit gross sins." Yet you are anxious for me to be converted to your faith; and that we may see each other in this life, and be associated in one great family in that life which has no end.
Now in order to comply with your wishes, I must renounce the Old and New Testaments; must count Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their families, as licentious, wicked, beastly, abominable characters; Moses, Nathan, David, and the Prophets, no better. I must look upon the God of Israel as partaker in all these abominations, by holding them in fellowship; and even as a minister of such iniquity, by king Saul's wives into king David's bosom; and afterwards by taking David's wives from him, and giving them to his neighbour. I must consider Jesus Christ, and Paul, and John, as either living in a age, as full of the darkness and ignorance of barbarous climes, or else wilfully abominable and wicked, in fellowshipping polygamists, and representing them as fathers of the faithful, and rulers in heaven. I must doom them all to hell, with adulterers, ignorant persons, who, knowing little, were beaten with few stripes. While, by analogy, I must learn to consider the Roman Popes, clergy, and nuns, who do not marry at all, as foremost in the ranks of glory; and those Catholics and Protestants who have but one wife, as next in order of salvation, glory, immortality, and eternal life.
Now, my dear friends, much as I long to see you, and dear as you are to me, I can never come to these terms. I feel as though the Gospel had introduced me into the right family, into the right lineage, and into good company. And besides all these considerations, should I ever become so beclouded with unbelief of the Scriptures and heavenly institutions, as to agree with my kindred in New Hampshire, in theory, still my practical circumstances are different, and would I fear continue to separate us by a wide and almost impassable gulf.
For instance, I have (as you see, in all good conscience, founded on the word of God) formed a family and kindred ties, which are inexpressibly dear to me, and which I can never bring my feelings to consent to dissolve. I have a good and virtuous husband whom I love. We have four little children which are mutually and inexpressibly dear to us. And besides this my husband has seven other living wives, and one who has departed to a better world. He has in all upwards of twenty-five children. All these mothers and children are endeared to me by kindred ties, by mutual affection, by acquaintance and association; and mothers in particular, by mutual and long-continued exercises of toil, patience, long-suffering, and sisterly kindness. We all have our imperfections in this life; but I know that these are good and worthy women, and that my husband is a good and worthy man; one who keeps the commandments of Jesus Christ, and presides in his family like an Abraham. He seeks to provide for them with all diligence; he loves them all, and seeks to comfort them and make them happy. He teaches them the commandments of Jesus Christ, and gathers them about him in the family circle to call upon his God, both morning and evening. He and his family have the confidence, esteem, good-will, and fellowship of this entire territory, and of a wide circle of acquaintances in Europe and America. He is a practical teacher of morals and religion, a promoter of general education, and at present occupies an honourable seat in the Legislative Council of this territory.
Now, as to visiting my kindred in New Hampshire, I would be pleased to do so, were it the will of God. But first, the laws of that state must be so modified by enlightened legislation, and the customs and consciences of its inhabitants, and of my kindred, so altered, that my husband can accompany me with all his wives and children, and be as much respected and honoured in his family organisation, and in his holy calling, as he is at home; or in the same manner as the Patriarch Jacob is in the ascendency; the house of Israel is about to be restored: while "Mystery Babylon," with all her institutions, awaits her own overthrow. Till this is the case in New Hampshire, my kindred will be under the necessity of coming here to see us, or, on the other hand, we will be mutually compelled to forgo the pleasure of each other's company.
You mention, in your letter, that Paul, the Apostle, recommended that Bishops be the husband of one wife. Why this was the case, I do not know, unless it was, as he says, that while he was among the Romans he did as the Romans did. Rome, at that time, governed the world, as it were; and although gross idolaters, they held to the one wife system. Under these circumstances, no doubt, the Apostle Paul, seeing a great many polygamists in the Church, recommended that they had better choose for this particular temporal office, men of small families, who would not be in disrepute with the government. This is precisely our course in those countries where Roman institutions still bear sway. Our Elders there have but one wife, in order to conform to the laws of men.
You inquire why Elder W., when at your house, denied that the Church of this age held to the doctrine of plurality. I answer, that he might have been ignorant of the fact, as our belief on this point was not published till 1852. And had he known it, he had no right to reveal the same until the full time had arrived. God kindly withheld this doctrine for a time, because of the ignorance and prejudice of the nations of mystic Babylon, that peradventure he might save some of them.
Now, dear sister, I must close. I wish all my kindred and old acquaintances to see this letter, or a copy thereof; and that they will consider it as if written to themselves. I love them dearly, and greatly desire and pray for their salvation, and that we may all meet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God.
Dear sister, do not let your prejudices and traditions keep you from believing the Bible; nor pride, shame, or love of the world keep you from your seat in the kingdom of heaven, among the royal family of polygamists. Write often and freely.
With sentiments of deepest affection and kindred feeling, I remain, dear sister, your affectionate sister.
Belinda Marden Pratt
Millennial Star, July 29th, 1854
DEAR SISTER,
- Your letter of Oct. 2 was received on yesterday. My joy on its reception was more than I can express. I had waited so long for your answer to our last, that I had almost concluded my friends were offended, and would write to me no more. Judge, then, of my joy when I read the sentiments of friendship and of sisterly affection expressed in your letter.
We are all well here, and are prosperous and happy in our family circle. My children, four in number, are healthy and cheerful, and fast expanding their physical and intellectual faculties. Health, peace, and prosperity have attended us all the day long.
It seems, my dear sister, that we are no nearer together in our religious views than formerly. Why is this? Are we not bound to leave this world, with all we possess therein, and reap the reward of our doings here in a never-ending hereafter? If so, do we not desire to be un-deceived, and to know and to do the truth? Do we not all wish in our very hearts to be sincere with ourselves, and to be honest and frank with each other?
If so, you will bear with me patiently, while I give a few of my reasons for embracing, and holding sacred, that particular point in the doctrine of the Church of the Saints to which you, my dear sister, together with a large majority of Christendom, so decidedly object. I mean, a "plurality of wives."
I have a Bible, which I have been taught from my infancy to hold sacred. In this Bible, I read of a holy man named Abraham, who is represented as the friend of God, a faithful man in all things, a man who kept the commandments of God, and who is called, in the New Testament, "the father of the faithful." See James 2:23; Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:8,9,16,29.
I find this man had a plurality of wives, some of which were called concubines. See Book of Genesis; and for his concubines, see 25:6.
I also find his grandson Jacob possessed of four wives, twelve sons, and a daughter. These wives are spoken very highly of, by the sacred writers, as honourable and virtuous women. "These," say the Scriptures, "did build the house of Israel."
Jacob himself was also a man of God, and the Lord blessed him and his house, and commanded him to be fruitful and multiply. See Gen. 30 to 35 and particularly 35:10,11.
I find also that the twelve sons of Jacob, by these four wives, became princes, heads of tribes, patriarchs, whose names are had in everlasting remembrance to all generations.
Now God talked with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob frequently; and His angels also visited and talked with them, and blessed them and their wives and children. He also reproved the sins of some of the sons of Jacob, for hating and selling their brother, and for adultery. But in all His communications with them, He never condemned their family organisation; but, on the contrary, always approved of it, and blessed them in this respect. He even told Abraham that He would make him the father of many nations, and that in him and his seed all the nations and kindreds of the earth should be blessed. See Genesis 18:17-19; also 12:1-3. In later years I find the plurality of wives perpetuated, sanctioned, and provided for in the law of Moses.
David the Psalmist not only had a plurality of wives, but the Lord Himself spoke by the mouth of Nathan the Prophet, and told David that He (the Lord) had given his master's wives into his bosom; but because he had committed adultery with the wife of Uriah, and had caused his murder, He would take his wives and give them to a neighbour of his, &c. See 2 Samuel 12:7-11.
Here, then, we have the word of the Lord, not only sanctioning polygamy, but actually giving to king David the wives of his master (Saul), and afterward taking the wives of David from him, and giving them to another man. Here we have a sample of severe reproof and punishment for adultery and murder, while polygamy is authorised and approved of God.
But to come to the New Testament. I find Jesus Christ speaks very highly of Abraham and his family. He says, "Many shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God." Luke 13:28,29.
Again he said, "If ye were Abraham's seed, ye would do the works of Abraham."
Paul the Apostle wrote to the saints of his day, and informed them as follows: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ; and if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
He also sets forth Abraham and Sarah as patterns of faith and good works, and as the father and mother of faithful Christians, who should, by faith and good works, aspire to be counted the sons of Abraham and daughters of Sarah.
Now let us look at some of the works of Sarah, for which she is so highly commended by the Apostles, and by them held up as a pattern for Christian ladies to imitate. "Now Sarah, Abram's wife, bare him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarah said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee go in unto my maid: it may be that I may obtain children of her. And Abram harkened unto the voice of Sarah. And Sarah, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband, Abram, to be his wife." See Genesis 16:1-3.
According to Jesus Christ and the Apostles, then, the only way to be saved is to be adopted into the great family of polygamists, by the Gospel, and then strictly follow their examples.
Again, John the Revelator describes the Holy City of the heavenly Jerusalem, with the names of the twelve sons of Jacob inscribed on the gates. Revelation 21:12.
To sum up the whole, then, I find that polygamists were the friends of God; that the family and lineage of a polygamist were selected, in which all nations should be blessed; that a polygamist is named in the New Testament as the father of the faithful Christians of after ages, and cited as a pattern for all generations; that the wife of a polygamist, who encouraged her husband in the practice of the same, and even urged him into it, and officiated in giving him another wife, is named as an honourable and virtuous woman, a pattern for Christian ladies, and the very mother of all holy women in the Christian Church, whose aspiration it should be to be called her daughters; that Jesus Christ has declared that the great fathers of the polygamic family stand at the head in the kingdom of God; in short, that all the saved of after generations should be saved by becoming members of a polygamic family; that all those who do not become members of it are strangers and aliens to the covenant of promise, the commonwealth of Israel, and not heirs according to the promise made to Abraham; that all people from the east, west, north, or south, who enter into the kingdom, enter into the society of polygamists, and under the patriarchal rule and government; indeed, no one can even approach the gates of heaven without beholding the names of twelve polygamists (the sons of four different women by one man) engraven in everlasting glory upon the pearly gates.
My dear sister, with the Scriptures before me, I could never find it in my heart to reject the heavenly vision which has restored to man the fullness of the Gospel, or the Latter Day Prophets and Apostles, merely because in this restoration is included the ancient law of matrimony and of family organisation and government, preparatory to the restoration of all Israel.
But, leaving all Scripture, history, or precedent out of the question, let us come to nature's law. What, then, appears the great object of the marriage relations? I answer, the multiplying of our species, the rearing and training of children.
To accomplish this object, natural law would dictate that a husband should remain apart from his wife at certain seasons, which, in the very constitution of the female, are untimely; or, in other words, indulgence should be not merely for pleasure or wanton desires, but mainly for the purpose of procreation.
The mortality of nature would teach a mother, that, during nature's process in the formation and growth of embryo man, her heart should be pure, her thoughts and affections chaste, her mind calm, her passions without excitement, while her body should be invigorated with very exercise conducive to health and vigour, but by no means subjected to anything calculated to disturb, irritate, weary, or exhaust any of its functions.
And while a kind husband should nourish, sustain, and comfort the wife of his bosom by every kindness and attention consistent with her situation, and with his most tender affection; still he should refrain from all those untimely associations which are forbidden in the great constitutional laws of female nature; which laws we see carried out in almost the entire animal economy, human animals excepted.
Polygamy, then, as practised under the Patriarchal law of God, tends directly to the chastity of women, and to sound health and morals in the constitutions of their offspring.
You can read, in the law of God, in your Bible, the times and circumstances under which a woman should remain apart from her husband, during which times she is considered unclean; and should her husband come to her bed under such circumstances, he would commit a gross sin both against the laws of nature and the wise provisions of God's law, as revealed in His word; in short, he would commit an abomination; he would sin both against his own body, against the body of his wife, and against the laws of procreation, in which the health and morals of the offspring are directly concerned.
The polygamic law of God opens all vigorous, healthy, and virtuous females a door by which they may become honourable wives of virtuous men, and mothers of faithful, virtuous, healthy, and vigorous children.
And here let me ask you, my dear sister, what female in all New Hampshire would marry a drunkard, a man of hereditary disease, a debauchee, an idler, or a spendthrift; or what woman would become a prostitute, or, on the other hand, live and die single, or without forming those inexpressibly dear relationships of wife and mother, if the Abrahamic covenant, or Patriarchal laws of God, were extended over your state, and held sacred and honourable by all?
Dear sister, in your thoughtlessness, you inquire, "Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?" To which I reply: 1st, God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands; 2nd, "Man is the head of the woman," and no woman can serve two lords; 3rd, Such an order of things would work death and not life, or, in plain language, it would multiply disease instead of children. In fact, the experiment of a plurality of husbands, or rather of one woman for many men, is in active operation, and has been, for centuries, in all the principle towns and cities of "Christendom!" It is the genius of "Christian institutions," falsely so called. It is the result of "Mystery Babylon, the great whore of all the earth." Or in other words, it is the result of making void the holy ordinances of God in relation to matrimony, and inducing the laws of Rome, in which the clergy and nuns are forbidden to marry, and other members only permitted to have one wife. This law leaves females exposed to a life of single "blessedness," without husband, child, or friend to provide for or comfort them; or to a life of poverty and loneliness, exposed to temptation, to perverted affections, to unlawful means to gratify them, or to the necessity of selling themselves for lucre. While the man who has abundance of means is tempted to spend it on a mistress in secret, and in a lawless way, the law of God would have given her to him as an honourable wife. These circumstances give rise to murder, infanticide, suicide, disease, remorse, despair, wretchedness, poverty, untimely death, with all the attendant train of jealousies, heart rending miseries, want of confidence in families, contaminating disease, &c; and finally, to the horrible licence system, in which governments called Christian, licence their fair daughters, I will not say to play the beast, but to a degradation far beneath them; for every species of animal creation, except man, refrain from such abominable excess, and observe in a great measure the laws of nature in procreation.
I again repeat, that nature has constituted the female differently from the male; and for a different purpose. The strength of the female constitution is designed to flow in a stream of life, to nourish and sustain the embryo, to bring it forth, and to nurse it on her bosom. When nature is not in operation within her in these particulars, and for these heavenly ends, it has wisely provided relief at regular periods, in order that her system may be kept pure and healthy, without exhausting the fountain of life on the one hand, or drying up its river of life on the other; till mature age, and an approaching change of worlds, render it necessary for her to cease to be fruitful, and give her to rest awhile, and enjoy a tranquil life in the midst of that family circle, endeared to her by so many ties, and which may be supposed, at this period of her life, to be approaching the vigour of manhood, and therefore able to comfort and sustain her.
Not so with man. He has no such drawback upon his strength. It is his to move in a wider sphere. If God shall count him worthy of an hundred fold, in this life, of wives and children, and houses, and lands, and kindreds, he may even aspire to Patriarchal sovereignty, to empire; to be the prince or head of a tribe, or tribes; and like Abraham of old, be able to send forth, for the defence of his country, hundreds and thousands of his own warriors, born in his own house.
A noble man of God, who is full of the Spirit of the Most High, and is counted worthy to converse with Jehovah, or with the Son of God; and to associate with angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect; one who will teach his children, and bring them up in the light of unadulterated and eternal truth; is more worthy of hundred wives and children, than the ignorant slave of passion, or for vice and folly, is to have one wife and one child. Indeed the God of Abraham is so much better pleased with one than with the other, that he would even take away the one talent, which is habitually abused, neglected, or put to an improper use, and give it to him who has ten talents.
In the Patriarchal order of family government, the wife is bound by the law of her husband. She honours, "calls him lord," even as Sarah obeyed and honoured Abraham. She lives for him, and to increase his glory, his greatness, his kingdom, or family. Her affections are centred in her God, her husband, and her children.
The children are also under his government, worlds without end. "While life or thought, or being lasts, or immortality endures," they are bound to obey him as their father and king.
He also has a head, to whom he is responsible. He must keep the commandments of God, and observe His laws. He must not take a wife unless she is given to him by the law and authority of God. He must not commit adultery, not take liberties with any woman except his own, who are secured to him by the holy ordinance of matrimony.
Hence a nation organised under the law of the Gospel, or in other words, the law of Abraham and the Patriarchs, would have no institutions tending to licentiousness; no adulteries, fornications, &c., would be tolerated. No houses or institutions would exist for traffic in shame, or in the life-blood of our fair daughters. Wealthy men would have no inducement to keep a mistress in secret, or unlawfully. Females would have no grounds for temptation in any such lawless life. Neither money nor pleasure could tempt them, nor poverty drive them to any such excess; because the door would be open for every virtuous female to form the honourable and endearing relationships of wife and mother, in some virtuous family, where love, and peace, and plenty would crown her days, and truth and the practice of virtue qualify her to be transplanted with her family circle in that eternal soil, where they might multiply their children, without pain, or sorrow, or death; and go on increasing in numbers, in wealth, in greatness, in glory, might, majesty, power, and dominion, in worlds without end.
O my dear sister! could the dark veil of tradition be rent from your mind! could you gaze for a moment on the resurrection of the just! could you behold Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their wives and children, clad in the bosom, freshness, and beauty of immortal flesh and bones; clothed in robes of fine white linen, bedecked with precious stones and gold; and surrounded with an offspring of immortals as countless as the stars of the firmament, or as the grains of sand upon the sea shore; over which they reign as kings and queens for ever and ever! you would then know something of the weight of those words of the sacred writer which are recorded in relation to the four wives of Jacob, the mothers of the twelve Patriarchs, namely: "These did build the house of Israel."
O that my dear kindred could but realise that they have need to repent of the sins, ignorance, and traditions of those perverted systems which are misnamed "Christianity," and be baptized - buried in the water, in the likeness of the death and burial of Jesus Christ, and rise to newness of life in the likeness of his resurrection; receive his Spirit by the laying on of hands of an Apostle, according to promise, and forsake the world and the pride thereof. They would be adopted into the family of Abraham, become his sons and daughters, see and enjoy for themselves the visions of the Spirit of eternal truth, which bear witness of the family order of heaven, and the beauties and glories of eternal kindred ties; for my pen can never describe them.
Dear, dear kindred: remember, according to the New Testament and the testimony of an ancient Apostle, if you are ever saved in the kingdom of God, it must be by being adopted into the family of polygamists - the family of the great Patriarch Abraham: for in his seed, or family, and not out of it, "shall all the nations and kindreds of the earth be blessed."
You say you believe polygamy is "licentiousness;" that it is "abominable," "beastly," &c; "the practice of only the most barbarous nations, or of dark ages, or of some great or good men who were left to commit gross sins." Yet you are anxious for me to be converted to your faith; and that we may see each other in this life, and be associated in one great family in that life which has no end.
Now in order to comply with your wishes, I must renounce the Old and New Testaments; must count Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their families, as licentious, wicked, beastly, abominable characters; Moses, Nathan, David, and the Prophets, no better. I must look upon the God of Israel as partaker in all these abominations, by holding them in fellowship; and even as a minister of such iniquity, by king Saul's wives into king David's bosom; and afterwards by taking David's wives from him, and giving them to his neighbour. I must consider Jesus Christ, and Paul, and John, as either living in a age, as full of the darkness and ignorance of barbarous climes, or else wilfully abominable and wicked, in fellowshipping polygamists, and representing them as fathers of the faithful, and rulers in heaven. I must doom them all to hell, with adulterers, ignorant persons, who, knowing little, were beaten with few stripes. While, by analogy, I must learn to consider the Roman Popes, clergy, and nuns, who do not marry at all, as foremost in the ranks of glory; and those Catholics and Protestants who have but one wife, as next in order of salvation, glory, immortality, and eternal life.
Now, my dear friends, much as I long to see you, and dear as you are to me, I can never come to these terms. I feel as though the Gospel had introduced me into the right family, into the right lineage, and into good company. And besides all these considerations, should I ever become so beclouded with unbelief of the Scriptures and heavenly institutions, as to agree with my kindred in New Hampshire, in theory, still my practical circumstances are different, and would I fear continue to separate us by a wide and almost impassable gulf.
For instance, I have (as you see, in all good conscience, founded on the word of God) formed a family and kindred ties, which are inexpressibly dear to me, and which I can never bring my feelings to consent to dissolve. I have a good and virtuous husband whom I love. We have four little children which are mutually and inexpressibly dear to us. And besides this my husband has seven other living wives, and one who has departed to a better world. He has in all upwards of twenty-five children. All these mothers and children are endeared to me by kindred ties, by mutual affection, by acquaintance and association; and mothers in particular, by mutual and long-continued exercises of toil, patience, long-suffering, and sisterly kindness. We all have our imperfections in this life; but I know that these are good and worthy women, and that my husband is a good and worthy man; one who keeps the commandments of Jesus Christ, and presides in his family like an Abraham. He seeks to provide for them with all diligence; he loves them all, and seeks to comfort them and make them happy. He teaches them the commandments of Jesus Christ, and gathers them about him in the family circle to call upon his God, both morning and evening. He and his family have the confidence, esteem, good-will, and fellowship of this entire territory, and of a wide circle of acquaintances in Europe and America. He is a practical teacher of morals and religion, a promoter of general education, and at present occupies an honourable seat in the Legislative Council of this territory.
Now, as to visiting my kindred in New Hampshire, I would be pleased to do so, were it the will of God. But first, the laws of that state must be so modified by enlightened legislation, and the customs and consciences of its inhabitants, and of my kindred, so altered, that my husband can accompany me with all his wives and children, and be as much respected and honoured in his family organisation, and in his holy calling, as he is at home; or in the same manner as the Patriarch Jacob is in the ascendency; the house of Israel is about to be restored: while "Mystery Babylon," with all her institutions, awaits her own overthrow. Till this is the case in New Hampshire, my kindred will be under the necessity of coming here to see us, or, on the other hand, we will be mutually compelled to forgo the pleasure of each other's company.
You mention, in your letter, that Paul, the Apostle, recommended that Bishops be the husband of one wife. Why this was the case, I do not know, unless it was, as he says, that while he was among the Romans he did as the Romans did. Rome, at that time, governed the world, as it were; and although gross idolaters, they held to the one wife system. Under these circumstances, no doubt, the Apostle Paul, seeing a great many polygamists in the Church, recommended that they had better choose for this particular temporal office, men of small families, who would not be in disrepute with the government. This is precisely our course in those countries where Roman institutions still bear sway. Our Elders there have but one wife, in order to conform to the laws of men.
You inquire why Elder W., when at your house, denied that the Church of this age held to the doctrine of plurality. I answer, that he might have been ignorant of the fact, as our belief on this point was not published till 1852. And had he known it, he had no right to reveal the same until the full time had arrived. God kindly withheld this doctrine for a time, because of the ignorance and prejudice of the nations of mystic Babylon, that peradventure he might save some of them.
Now, dear sister, I must close. I wish all my kindred and old acquaintances to see this letter, or a copy thereof; and that they will consider it as if written to themselves. I love them dearly, and greatly desire and pray for their salvation, and that we may all meet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God.
Dear sister, do not let your prejudices and traditions keep you from believing the Bible; nor pride, shame, or love of the world keep you from your seat in the kingdom of heaven, among the royal family of polygamists. Write often and freely.
With sentiments of deepest affection and kindred feeling, I remain, dear sister, your affectionate sister.
Belinda Marden Pratt
Friday, August 8, 2008
Mormon Women Protest 1886
Jennifer Reeder
The Gilder Leherman Institute of American History
Two thousand Mormon women gathered at the Salt Lake Theatre on Saturday, March 6, 1886, to protest the “indignities and insults heaped upon them as wives and daughters of Mormons” in Utah district courts. Under the direction of Mary Isabella Horne, elected president of the protest meeting, 33 women presented personal statements reacting to the legal and political ramifications of the pending Edmunds-Tucker Bill then before Congress, which included the loss of voting privileges and self-government. These women, motivated by restricted religious rights, were prompted to political action.
Following the March 1886 mass meeting, the women compiled the proceedings into a 91-page pamphlet, “Mormon” Women’s Protest: An Appeal for Freedom, Justice and Equal Rights, to distribute in Washington and elsewhere. Originally printed in the local newspaper and then published in pamphlet form, the text includes the news notices prior to the event, transcripts of speeches, resolutions, and poems composed for the occasion, and undelivered speeches and letters written for the event. Women involved included female doctors, teachers, authors and poets, women’s rights advocates, religious and community leaders, and mothers.
Political and social leaders outside Utah were concerned with the Mormon religious practice of polygamy. Plural marriage was adopted in the LDS Church from 1852 to 1890 in an effort to restore biblical practice and encourage family support. Studies suggest that twenty to twenty-five percent of LDS adults were members of polygamous households during this era. Federal injunctions followed within a decade of the public announcement of plural marriage as an official tenet of Mormon faith in 1852. In 1856 the Republican platform shouldered responsibility for ending "those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy and slavery". Republican politicians sited Utah as an example of what happened when territorial citizens governed themselves. The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act aimed to prosecute polygamists but proved to be impossible to enforce.
Various legislative actions occurred over the next two decades as Congress restricted political and legal rights based on LDS religious practice, suggesting that Utah Territory be prevented from becoming a state until plural marriage was abandoned. The Cragin Bill in 1868 and the Cullom Bill of 1869-70 were passed to remedy the deficiencies of the Morrill Act. Republicans worked to revoke the voting rights of anyone who believed in plural marriage. Women were compelled to testify against their husbands, and all involved were convicted of "concubinage," fined, and sentenced to prison. The 1882 Edmunds Act removed polygamists from jury and public office, and Congress established a Utah commission modeled after post-Civil War reconstruction government to run territorial affairs.
Mormon women responded en masse. While the Latter-day Saints respected the Constitution, promising to honor civic leaders and obey the law of the land, they felt that these congressional acts violated freedom of religion. The 1886 protest meeting ironically prompted patriotism, where Mrs. H.C. Brown stated:
The Gilder Leherman Institute of American History
Two thousand Mormon women gathered at the Salt Lake Theatre on Saturday, March 6, 1886, to protest the “indignities and insults heaped upon them as wives and daughters of Mormons” in Utah district courts. Under the direction of Mary Isabella Horne, elected president of the protest meeting, 33 women presented personal statements reacting to the legal and political ramifications of the pending Edmunds-Tucker Bill then before Congress, which included the loss of voting privileges and self-government. These women, motivated by restricted religious rights, were prompted to political action.
Following the March 1886 mass meeting, the women compiled the proceedings into a 91-page pamphlet, “Mormon” Women’s Protest: An Appeal for Freedom, Justice and Equal Rights, to distribute in Washington and elsewhere. Originally printed in the local newspaper and then published in pamphlet form, the text includes the news notices prior to the event, transcripts of speeches, resolutions, and poems composed for the occasion, and undelivered speeches and letters written for the event. Women involved included female doctors, teachers, authors and poets, women’s rights advocates, religious and community leaders, and mothers.
Political and social leaders outside Utah were concerned with the Mormon religious practice of polygamy. Plural marriage was adopted in the LDS Church from 1852 to 1890 in an effort to restore biblical practice and encourage family support. Studies suggest that twenty to twenty-five percent of LDS adults were members of polygamous households during this era. Federal injunctions followed within a decade of the public announcement of plural marriage as an official tenet of Mormon faith in 1852. In 1856 the Republican platform shouldered responsibility for ending "those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy and slavery". Republican politicians sited Utah as an example of what happened when territorial citizens governed themselves. The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act aimed to prosecute polygamists but proved to be impossible to enforce.
Various legislative actions occurred over the next two decades as Congress restricted political and legal rights based on LDS religious practice, suggesting that Utah Territory be prevented from becoming a state until plural marriage was abandoned. The Cragin Bill in 1868 and the Cullom Bill of 1869-70 were passed to remedy the deficiencies of the Morrill Act. Republicans worked to revoke the voting rights of anyone who believed in plural marriage. Women were compelled to testify against their husbands, and all involved were convicted of "concubinage," fined, and sentenced to prison. The 1882 Edmunds Act removed polygamists from jury and public office, and Congress established a Utah commission modeled after post-Civil War reconstruction government to run territorial affairs.
Mormon women responded en masse. While the Latter-day Saints respected the Constitution, promising to honor civic leaders and obey the law of the land, they felt that these congressional acts violated freedom of religion. The 1886 protest meeting ironically prompted patriotism, where Mrs. H.C. Brown stated:
"We are here, not as Latter-day Saints, but as American citizens—members of that
great commonwealth which our noble grandsires fought and bled to establish—legal heirs to those rights and privileges bequeathed to that heaven-inspired document—the Constitution of the United States. Yes, legal heirs, yet illegally, unconstitutionally deprived of that dearest, most cherished of all."
The public political action of Latter-day Saint women had its roots in the inception of their religious female association, the Relief Society, in 1842. Members delivered petitions to Illinois governor Thomas Carlin in defense of Joseph Smith and his illegal imprisonment. Thirty years later in Utah women reacted to antipolygamy legislation with similar activity. They wrote letters, sent memorials, and urged people to testify before Congress. To show their solidarity and commitment to their beliefs, three thousand women gathered at a "Great Indignation Meeting" in Salt Lake City in January 1870. Throughout the month, the structure of that meeting was repeated in over fifty Utah settlements in their various Relief Society organizations, where countless LDS women publicly defended their right to practice their religion. This public effort led to the pursuit of the vote for women, particularly in conjunction with a popular belief outside the territory that women would then vote to remove polygamy. By February of 1870 acting territorial governor S.A. Mann granted Utah women suffrage, second only to Wyoming. This movement precipitated an 1871 visit of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Utah and created bridges with national women’s organizations.
Meanwhile Utah women of other faiths opposing plural marriage prepared counter memorials to Congress and the President under the auspices of the Utah-based Anti-Polygamy Society, founded in 1878. In 1886 Angie Newman, with the Methodist Episcopal Home Missionary Society and congressional support, built a Salt Lake City home for disenchanted plural wives and their children. They believed their benevolent efforts would arouse sympathy and rescue victimized women. However, the number of applicants seldom reached twenty in any given year, and by 1893 the refuge closed. The eventual passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act nullified already operative civil rights and duties, including woman suffrage. More than 12,000 Mormons in Utah were disfranchised. In 1890 Church president Wilford Woodruff [only publicly, not privately] abolished new plural marriages, and Utah was admitted as a state in 1896, when once again Utah women gained the vote.
Some historians suggest that the principle of plural marriage had unexpected benefits in politicizing Mormon women. Due to shared domestic responsibilities and the combined efforts of "sister wives," women built and managed cooperative stores and a local silk industry, maintained a grain storage program, established welfare and home industry, edited a major women’s newspaper, attended medical school and developed a women’s hospital with community nurse and midwife training, led women’s suffrage efforts, and participated in public education and higher education. Liberal divorce laws in Utah gave women legal rights; property laws allowed women to own land and maintain their own households. Latter-day Saint women found common cause and gained political experience in pursuing their religious freedoms.
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/collection/docs_archive/docs_archive_womenprotest.html
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
A New Law for Texas, an old law for Virgina
An Act for establishing Religious Freedom,
passed in the Assembly of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786.
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind ; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its offices to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
-Thomas Jefferson
passed in the Assembly of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786.
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind ; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its offices to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
-Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Crime of Marriage
Paradigm shifting time! This is indeed the Orwellian era, that is the only way a betrothal,which is an eternal contract of mutual benefit,; and sometimes the eventual sacred procreation, can be twisted into “sexual assault of a child”.
Crime
We all know that coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to do what is wrong should never be tolerated. But what is force, and who decides what is or is not wrong? And who decides who should tolerate what? Countless hours of lawyer-ing and politic-ing have stretched and diluted the definition of “force”, all in attempts to mitigate personal responsibility. Let me save us all some time. Force is physical, or the threat of physical, coercion.
Now stop this “spiritual threat” nonsense!! This is central to the first amendment! This is like saying a man who threatens his wife that she will magically turn into a frog, is responsible for what she does because of it. The only way to prove a “damnation” threat as real, you must prove that the religion is true! Now all you lawyers and judges go write on the chalkboard fifty times: ”Damnation threats are not legitimate unless the church that makes the threat is established as the true church by the state” Although irrelevant to FLDS marriages, as there is never any type of threat over when to marry or a particular match, it is true just the same.
It is in fact a crime to force (as defined above) anyone to do anything against their will after they reach the age of accountability, unless to protect others or themselves from harm. It is not a crime to teach or persuade someone to accept your definition of right and wrong, or else every lawyer who speaks to a jury is a criminal. In fact, the prosecution in the Warren Jeffs case actually convinced the jury that it was RIGHT to believe a lie about the FLDS doctrine.
The police state gives responsibility for the actions of a “child” differently than that of an adult, and also attempts to protect children from adults. In the FLDS age has little relevance to responsibility or protection. All ages are responsible, and all are protected. In secular society “crime” is punished by monetary fines and incarceration via guns. In the FLDS crime is punished by disassociation, “the silent treatment”, or enforced “escape”. Once upon a time in this country, marriages were merely registered with the government for census purposes. But now, civil marriage is a government controlled welfare state function. No wonder it is rare! Religious FLDS eternal marriage is in many instances a “civil crime”. And I could be used as evidence.
A Dult Hood
Adulthood, to most people, is defined as the age to vote, or to buy alcohol, but that is not truly when you enter the dult (neighbor)hood.
The age of accountability is when people have more personal responsibility for what they do than their parents do. In Secular society [The police state] the age of accountability is either the age at which one can civilly [licensed by government] be married, or charged as an adult with a crime, or emancipated from their parents, or turn 18 years old, or 21 years old. In the FLDS, the age of accountability starts at the age of baptism. To the Secular (whiners) society, the age of 18 is when you enter adulthood, if you are not already civilly married or emancipated by a judge, in just about every state, and at age 21 you are officially an adult, and lose most all protection from authority. Most teenagers decide for themselves when they are adults, but it is not “legal” unless the police state says so. If a young man is not yet “legal” but feels he doesn’t need a judge, or his parents, to be responsible for him, he is a “Lost Boy” and needs to get welfare and mental help from Dan Fischer’s Diversity (freeloaders) Foundation. The phenomenon is not exclusively "associated with polygamy".
Fear
Obviously sexual activity is the most fiercely contested topic since The Garden of Eden. Through it humanity begins, and next to murder, rape is the worst possible crime. It is the ultimate oxy-moron. So-called “liberals” (libertines) believe that sexual activity is an act of freedom and has no relevance to law, unless it involves pedophilia (with varying definitions). Marriage, on the other hand is to be pondered and studied for years (sex, no big deal, marriage, noo!) And they are afraid of babies. So-called “conservatives” (hypocrites) believe that sexual activity is sin if outside of civil marriage, and age of civil marriage law should be strictly adhered to, and civil marriage is a religious act that makes it legitimate. And yet they forgive themselves and thier family but others should toe the line. For both liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, marriage is worse (as in much more feared) than sexual activity is. Go look in the mirror, most people are to some degree hypocritical libertines. I have a mirror too.
In reality, intimacy is for babies, naturally. Marriage is a lot more than that, but is the only way in which babies and mothers can truly thrive. Women are “victims” (mothers) of “crimes” (babies), and should be protected “from” (in) that “abuse” (joy). Among other benefits, pregnancy is a Cancer fighter, especially under the age of 20.
In the FLDS, Marriage means commitment through eternity, and creates a haven for mothers and babies; while among libertines and hypocrites, marriage merely legitimizes sexual activity and has tax benefits. Marriage in the FLDS vs Marriage in Secular society is the difference between “the nest and the hive” vs “the birds and the bees”
Coercion
Real men never pressure their wife in any way, the womb is hers and she is master. Even though a natural trait of angelic femininity is submissiveness, a good man will wait for her. Weak men, who are not married, should be punished when they coerce any obviously brainwashed woman into sexual activity. That punishment should be civil marriage. How bout that for polygamy! How bout that for “underage” marriage! If there is anything women and girls should “escape”, it is whoredom. A true women’s rights movement would march on Washington demanding to pass a law giving them the right to be civilly married at consummation, and have the right to half of their husbands estate.
Fear of Marriage
When most women think of their own marriage, they are filled with happiness and life. But they are also afraid of the commitment. A sister of mine (who just so happened to be 21) said, "I don't want a man, I want a baby!" Most men are much more afraid of the commitment than women are, but they do enjoy marriage to gain the commitment of their bride.
Natural law shows that men are responsible for their wives, but women are not responsible for their husbands. The fact that marriage is more feared in society today than sexual activity is blatantly obvious. Out of wedlock pregnancies are very common, teenage mothers and adult fathers are much more common than not, and a majority of children born today are unplanned. Not even to mention the murders of the unborn that occur.
Joy of Slavery
When most people think of polygyny they think of the subjugation of women, and this confuses me. It confuses me because it only proves that most people DO think that women are “less than”, whether they admit it or not; EVEN WOMEN. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with personal freedom, and the basic human right to decide for yourself what you want to do. Marriage and family is no more slavery when there are two women than it is when there is one, in fact it is LESS so. I feel sorry for those who are married and feel that marriage is ever slavery. Perhaps they should understand the gospel better. Divorce, like Marriage, is not fully defined in the Bible, for women can separate from their husband if he is cruel or otherwise not living his religion; but a man can never put away his wife unless she commits adultery. He is responsible for her salvation, but she is not responsible for his.
Age Difference
A sixty year old man marries an eighteen year old girl. Is that a crime? Is that immoral? Is that slavery? If you cringe at the thought, you need to get your mind out of the gutter, and realize that marriage is not anything but a nest, a psychological home to go to. Outside of marriage, sexual activity is immoral and should be decried, yet practically all women seek a man who will be responsible for her, to marry her, whom is a rock for her to lean on. And all great men seek to be a loving father figure to his wives, no matter what his or her age is.
Multiple Love
Polygynous families are not “normal” in today’s society, but perpetual monogamist families are. Obviously in my experience, polygny is much more beneficial to children than monogamy, let alone the very common "visitation rights with step girlfriends". A woman can love her father, her husband, her sons, and her brothers all at the same time. Love, you must remember, is a verb. A man can love more than one wife just as easy as he can love his own two arms and two legs, and any two children. Love is not divided among them, it is complete for each. As my grandfather said “I love you, I love you, from the bottom of my heart, and a few other ladies occupy the upper part” There is not amore perfect dynamic in a home than one with a Magnanimous father, and sweet and independent mothers for each and all of the children. I grew up with over thirty siblings, and my mothers each went to college when they wanted to, and each earned their own money. And yet I (except when I purposefully snuck away) never was without supervision, love, and a nurturing home. I often think of the “Duggar Family”, just multiplied by two.
Raising Children
How many children can one woman handle for hours upon hours of the day? Ask a teacher. I went to the Salt Lake City Unified School district from kindergarten to sixth grade, going to Hawthorne and Lincoln elementary schools. I was never in a class with less than 25 students and one teacher, with aids once in a while. After sixth grade I went to the FLDS private school, and although the classes were smaller, they were similar. Yet at home the children varied much more in age, and the older ones were much more responsible and helpful than any of my classmates were at school. Good heavens! Who would not want my childhood? What wonderful memories! I wouldn’t trade it for all the gold in China (which makes Fort Knox look like a piggy bank) You feel sorry for me? I feel sorry for YOU!
Crime
We all know that coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to do what is wrong should never be tolerated. But what is force, and who decides what is or is not wrong? And who decides who should tolerate what? Countless hours of lawyer-ing and politic-ing have stretched and diluted the definition of “force”, all in attempts to mitigate personal responsibility. Let me save us all some time. Force is physical, or the threat of physical, coercion.
Now stop this “spiritual threat” nonsense!! This is central to the first amendment! This is like saying a man who threatens his wife that she will magically turn into a frog, is responsible for what she does because of it. The only way to prove a “damnation” threat as real, you must prove that the religion is true! Now all you lawyers and judges go write on the chalkboard fifty times: ”Damnation threats are not legitimate unless the church that makes the threat is established as the true church by the state” Although irrelevant to FLDS marriages, as there is never any type of threat over when to marry or a particular match, it is true just the same.
It is in fact a crime to force (as defined above) anyone to do anything against their will after they reach the age of accountability, unless to protect others or themselves from harm. It is not a crime to teach or persuade someone to accept your definition of right and wrong, or else every lawyer who speaks to a jury is a criminal. In fact, the prosecution in the Warren Jeffs case actually convinced the jury that it was RIGHT to believe a lie about the FLDS doctrine.
The police state gives responsibility for the actions of a “child” differently than that of an adult, and also attempts to protect children from adults. In the FLDS age has little relevance to responsibility or protection. All ages are responsible, and all are protected. In secular society “crime” is punished by monetary fines and incarceration via guns. In the FLDS crime is punished by disassociation, “the silent treatment”, or enforced “escape”. Once upon a time in this country, marriages were merely registered with the government for census purposes. But now, civil marriage is a government controlled welfare state function. No wonder it is rare! Religious FLDS eternal marriage is in many instances a “civil crime”. And I could be used as evidence.
A Dult Hood
Adulthood, to most people, is defined as the age to vote, or to buy alcohol, but that is not truly when you enter the dult (neighbor)hood.
The age of accountability is when people have more personal responsibility for what they do than their parents do. In Secular society [The police state] the age of accountability is either the age at which one can civilly [licensed by government] be married, or charged as an adult with a crime, or emancipated from their parents, or turn 18 years old, or 21 years old. In the FLDS, the age of accountability starts at the age of baptism. To the Secular (whiners) society, the age of 18 is when you enter adulthood, if you are not already civilly married or emancipated by a judge, in just about every state, and at age 21 you are officially an adult, and lose most all protection from authority. Most teenagers decide for themselves when they are adults, but it is not “legal” unless the police state says so. If a young man is not yet “legal” but feels he doesn’t need a judge, or his parents, to be responsible for him, he is a “Lost Boy” and needs to get welfare and mental help from Dan Fischer’s Diversity (freeloaders) Foundation. The phenomenon is not exclusively "associated with polygamy".
Fear
Obviously sexual activity is the most fiercely contested topic since The Garden of Eden. Through it humanity begins, and next to murder, rape is the worst possible crime. It is the ultimate oxy-moron. So-called “liberals” (libertines) believe that sexual activity is an act of freedom and has no relevance to law, unless it involves pedophilia (with varying definitions). Marriage, on the other hand is to be pondered and studied for years (sex, no big deal, marriage, noo!) And they are afraid of babies. So-called “conservatives” (hypocrites) believe that sexual activity is sin if outside of civil marriage, and age of civil marriage law should be strictly adhered to, and civil marriage is a religious act that makes it legitimate. And yet they forgive themselves and thier family but others should toe the line. For both liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, marriage is worse (as in much more feared) than sexual activity is. Go look in the mirror, most people are to some degree hypocritical libertines. I have a mirror too.
In reality, intimacy is for babies, naturally. Marriage is a lot more than that, but is the only way in which babies and mothers can truly thrive. Women are “victims” (mothers) of “crimes” (babies), and should be protected “from” (in) that “abuse” (joy). Among other benefits, pregnancy is a Cancer fighter, especially under the age of 20.
In the FLDS, Marriage means commitment through eternity, and creates a haven for mothers and babies; while among libertines and hypocrites, marriage merely legitimizes sexual activity and has tax benefits. Marriage in the FLDS vs Marriage in Secular society is the difference between “the nest and the hive” vs “the birds and the bees”
Coercion
Real men never pressure their wife in any way, the womb is hers and she is master. Even though a natural trait of angelic femininity is submissiveness, a good man will wait for her. Weak men, who are not married, should be punished when they coerce any obviously brainwashed woman into sexual activity. That punishment should be civil marriage. How bout that for polygamy! How bout that for “underage” marriage! If there is anything women and girls should “escape”, it is whoredom. A true women’s rights movement would march on Washington demanding to pass a law giving them the right to be civilly married at consummation, and have the right to half of their husbands estate.
Fear of Marriage
When most women think of their own marriage, they are filled with happiness and life. But they are also afraid of the commitment. A sister of mine (who just so happened to be 21) said, "I don't want a man, I want a baby!" Most men are much more afraid of the commitment than women are, but they do enjoy marriage to gain the commitment of their bride.
Natural law shows that men are responsible for their wives, but women are not responsible for their husbands. The fact that marriage is more feared in society today than sexual activity is blatantly obvious. Out of wedlock pregnancies are very common, teenage mothers and adult fathers are much more common than not, and a majority of children born today are unplanned. Not even to mention the murders of the unborn that occur.
Joy of Slavery
When most people think of polygyny they think of the subjugation of women, and this confuses me. It confuses me because it only proves that most people DO think that women are “less than”, whether they admit it or not; EVEN WOMEN. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with personal freedom, and the basic human right to decide for yourself what you want to do. Marriage and family is no more slavery when there are two women than it is when there is one, in fact it is LESS so. I feel sorry for those who are married and feel that marriage is ever slavery. Perhaps they should understand the gospel better. Divorce, like Marriage, is not fully defined in the Bible, for women can separate from their husband if he is cruel or otherwise not living his religion; but a man can never put away his wife unless she commits adultery. He is responsible for her salvation, but she is not responsible for his.
Age Difference
A sixty year old man marries an eighteen year old girl. Is that a crime? Is that immoral? Is that slavery? If you cringe at the thought, you need to get your mind out of the gutter, and realize that marriage is not anything but a nest, a psychological home to go to. Outside of marriage, sexual activity is immoral and should be decried, yet practically all women seek a man who will be responsible for her, to marry her, whom is a rock for her to lean on. And all great men seek to be a loving father figure to his wives, no matter what his or her age is.
Multiple Love
Polygynous families are not “normal” in today’s society, but perpetual monogamist families are. Obviously in my experience, polygny is much more beneficial to children than monogamy, let alone the very common "visitation rights with step girlfriends". A woman can love her father, her husband, her sons, and her brothers all at the same time. Love, you must remember, is a verb. A man can love more than one wife just as easy as he can love his own two arms and two legs, and any two children. Love is not divided among them, it is complete for each. As my grandfather said “I love you, I love you, from the bottom of my heart, and a few other ladies occupy the upper part” There is not amore perfect dynamic in a home than one with a Magnanimous father, and sweet and independent mothers for each and all of the children. I grew up with over thirty siblings, and my mothers each went to college when they wanted to, and each earned their own money. And yet I (except when I purposefully snuck away) never was without supervision, love, and a nurturing home. I often think of the “Duggar Family”, just multiplied by two.
Raising Children
How many children can one woman handle for hours upon hours of the day? Ask a teacher. I went to the Salt Lake City Unified School district from kindergarten to sixth grade, going to Hawthorne and Lincoln elementary schools. I was never in a class with less than 25 students and one teacher, with aids once in a while. After sixth grade I went to the FLDS private school, and although the classes were smaller, they were similar. Yet at home the children varied much more in age, and the older ones were much more responsible and helpful than any of my classmates were at school. Good heavens! Who would not want my childhood? What wonderful memories! I wouldn’t trade it for all the gold in China (which makes Fort Knox look like a piggy bank) You feel sorry for me? I feel sorry for YOU!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
My Original Post on my previous blog
Ladies, and Ladies, and Ladies, and Gentlemen!!
Step right up and witness to your wonder and amazement. The FLDS polygamists!
Look at that man, doesnt he look sinister? No?
Poor guy has to take orders from.... HOW many women? What is he thinking? There has got to be an easier way to satisfy his urge to...OBEY GOD? What madness!, what insanity!
THERE AUGHT TO BE A LAW! How does he support them? How does he care for them? They have to be abused! WE have to be abused! How dare he have so many children! ISNT THIS AMERICA? Dont we have some guns somewhere? Where is the justice, where is the humanity? Save the children! Save the women!
JUST LOOK AT THOSE POOR WOMEN! Look at their....HAPPY FACES? THERE AUGHT TO BE A LAW! They must be abused into smiling like that! KEEP SWEET? What tyranny! What abuse!, these women must be mad! How can they abuse their bodies into having all of those little....GOURGEOUS CHILDREN? They can't possibly love so many! An army of Fundamentalist! We will be overthrown! We will be bankrupt! Stop the children! Stop the children! AAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH
Step right up and witness to your wonder and amazement. The FLDS polygamists!
Look at that man, doesnt he look sinister? No?
Poor guy has to take orders from.... HOW many women? What is he thinking? There has got to be an easier way to satisfy his urge to...OBEY GOD? What madness!, what insanity!
THERE AUGHT TO BE A LAW! How does he support them? How does he care for them? They have to be abused! WE have to be abused! How dare he have so many children! ISNT THIS AMERICA? Dont we have some guns somewhere? Where is the justice, where is the humanity? Save the children! Save the women!
JUST LOOK AT THOSE POOR WOMEN! Look at their....HAPPY FACES? THERE AUGHT TO BE A LAW! They must be abused into smiling like that! KEEP SWEET? What tyranny! What abuse!, these women must be mad! How can they abuse their bodies into having all of those little....GOURGEOUS CHILDREN? They can't possibly love so many! An army of Fundamentalist! We will be overthrown! We will be bankrupt! Stop the children! Stop the children! AAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Two-Year-Old Wilford, Punished for Being Alive
Wilford Black, Two-Year-Old Criminal of Polygamy
The tiny 20 by 20 foot sandstone colored house with a 6 foot chain link fence around it was a curiosity to me. Not only because of the rare tall fence, but because of the quiet man who walked for hours on end from one corner to the next on the spotless dirt ground. The yards around had a few weeds here and there but not that one. I asked my tour guide, who is that man? “Oh”, she said, “that is Wilford, he never recovered.”
In October 1953 Judge David F. Anderson, Juvenile Court Judge from St George Utah went to the home of FLDS members Leonard and Vera Black in Short Creek Utah. He had previously conversed with the Arizona prosecuting attorneys who 3 months before were involved with a massive raid on the people in the sister town of the same name just over the border. They wrote to him: “…inasmuch as the juvenile order sticks it will be much more effective than any criminal proceedings would ever be. In addition we would not be up against a situation of convincing the jury that young girls in their early twenties are guilty.” Anderson wrote back that he would “take all possible steps to protect the children from growing up to be polygamists”
After the interview with the Black family it was obvious to the judge that:
“These families are extremely opposite of the ordinary family that is broken up by Juvenile court order. It is plainly evident that there would be no hope of getting the cooperation or understanding of either parents or the children in making a foster or adoptive home placement” He goes on:
“Because family ties are so strong, it looks to me that it would be virtually impossible for most of these children to make a satisfactory adjustment in other homes… I can’t escape the feeling that going ahead with these cases will do more harm than good to the children, and will amount to punishing the parents through the children.”
This turned out to be prophetic in the case of one two year old little boy; yet it was never mentioned again.
Anderson was summoned to the Capital in Salt Lake City, Utah where a Public Welfare Commission decided that he would insist that if the parents wanted to keep custody of their children they must “refrain from teaching the children anti-social behavior such as to inculcate the idea that the religious tenants of the organization are more binding than the law of the land”
So in December 1953 Judge Anderson filed twenty separate court petitions alleging that the children were neglected in the sense that their parents had failed to teach them proper moral principles and persisted in teaching the doctrine of plural marriage. Anderson decided to punish two year old Wilford and his mother Vera Black along with her other children, for polygamy.
Juvenile Probation officer Jay R. Huntsman filed a petition that Vera’s eight children were:
“…dependant, neglected children, in three respects: that the parents provided inadequate clothing, food, and medical care; that the parents taught the children that polygamous relationships were proper even though illegal; and that the parents actually lived in a polygamous marriage”
The first one was a straw-man argument they knew was false but Judge Anderson, in the hearing on the case, truly believed that: “The only way that the children of these families can be prevented from going into polygamy is by permanently separating them from their parents at a fairly early age, so that they will not be exposed to the fanatic religious teachings” and he concluded that the Black home was an “immoral environment for the rearing of the children”
Jay Huntsman arrived at Vera Black’s door early in the morning of June 4 1954 to take the children. Petite, yet feisty, Vera refused to let her children go alone and rode with them to Cedar City, 50 miles from home, where she was finally ousted from the vehicle.
Vera and her husband Leonard sued for a writ of habeas corpus and Justice William Stanley Dunforth of the fourth district court soon ruled that Judge Anderson’s initial judgment violated the freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses of the United States Constitution. He ordered the children returned to their home. Little Wilford and his brothers and sisters were returned to their mother within a week.
But life was only good for little Wilford for a few months, for on December 30, 1954 the Utah Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Juvenile court. Justice George M Worthen railing in his report that plural marriage “trapped children in a condition of perpetual immorality and was inexcusable for the parents to hide behind religious cover”
Thus the two year old Wilford, who came into the world to parents who planned for him, wanted him, adored him, and cared dearly for him, but who lived an unpopular religion that gave him his family; was torn from his mother’s arms again.
Famous LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, who was with Vera both times they took her children, encouraging her to fight, wrote to the Utah County welfare office:
“You may remember me as the woman who talked to you in St. George the day the Black children were taken first in 1954. You will recall that my chief concern was for the one child, Wilford, because I had observed him the day before and sensed his mortal terror. Only a mother who has nursed along such a frail, sensitive child, could realize what that experience did to Wilford, and how deeply and irreparably his is being injured by this one… I pray you not separate this child from either his older brother, Orson, or his younger one, Francis, with whom he has slept every night as long as he can remember… To me, no teaching of children under the age of ten can justify tearing them out of a home where they have love and security to scatter them and make them public charges”
No testimony offered in any of the court cases either asserted or established that Vera Black was an unfit mother in any way except for her religious beliefs. The court left room for only one option of negotiation. If the Blacks would only denounce their lifestyle and religion, the court would recognize the gap between legal technicalities and social realities and return the children to their parents.
After the children had been taken away, the Blacks traveled the next day to Salt Lake City to appeal personally to Governor Lee for intervention on their behalf. They failed. Vera Black finally realized that she had absolutely no recourse but sign.
Vera read this statement to the media when they came to take her children for the second time:
“Ours is a nation of equal rights before the law. Why should I be required to sign an Unconstitutional loyalty pledge or any other oath of any kind in order to keep the children I have honorably born unless all mothers in our state are required to do the same?
I will gladly sign an oath to support and sustain the Constitution of the United States, and obey the laws of the state of Utah which conform to the spirit of that great document.
I am ever willing to teach my children the laws of Utah concerning marriage when they grow old enough to understand such laws”
But the Black family had no choice but to surrender, Vera and her children were not reunited until June 1956 after agreeing to sign an oath renouncing her belief in polygamy. She and Leonard appeared before the court and testified that they had not lived together as man and wife since the 1953 raid and that they would teach their children to obey the laws of the land. Vera burst out crying when the court asked her if she would be happy to reunite with her children. “Oh, Of course I would!” The reunion two days later was very emotional.
Vera continued to feel that justice had not been served and she returned to life in plural marriage. To the fundamentalists the case Black vs. State of Utah is proof of the lowness to which the government would go to persecute their religion, and the willingness it had to destroy their families. They have been wary ever since.
Wilford is 55 now, but he never fully recovered from the shock of being torn from his mothers arms not once, but twice. He became severely introverted; not leaving his mothers side for years. He never could communicate with anyone well. Today he does not even feed and dress himself. He just pulls weeds.
With several of the FLDS children in Texas in the hospital, underweight from shock and lethargy this very day, history may be repeating itself.
(Most of the information in this article was taken from the book “Kidnapped From that Land”, by Martha Sonntag Bradley)
The tiny 20 by 20 foot sandstone colored house with a 6 foot chain link fence around it was a curiosity to me. Not only because of the rare tall fence, but because of the quiet man who walked for hours on end from one corner to the next on the spotless dirt ground. The yards around had a few weeds here and there but not that one. I asked my tour guide, who is that man? “Oh”, she said, “that is Wilford, he never recovered.”
In October 1953 Judge David F. Anderson, Juvenile Court Judge from St George Utah went to the home of FLDS members Leonard and Vera Black in Short Creek Utah. He had previously conversed with the Arizona prosecuting attorneys who 3 months before were involved with a massive raid on the people in the sister town of the same name just over the border. They wrote to him: “…inasmuch as the juvenile order sticks it will be much more effective than any criminal proceedings would ever be. In addition we would not be up against a situation of convincing the jury that young girls in their early twenties are guilty.” Anderson wrote back that he would “take all possible steps to protect the children from growing up to be polygamists”
After the interview with the Black family it was obvious to the judge that:
“These families are extremely opposite of the ordinary family that is broken up by Juvenile court order. It is plainly evident that there would be no hope of getting the cooperation or understanding of either parents or the children in making a foster or adoptive home placement” He goes on:
“Because family ties are so strong, it looks to me that it would be virtually impossible for most of these children to make a satisfactory adjustment in other homes… I can’t escape the feeling that going ahead with these cases will do more harm than good to the children, and will amount to punishing the parents through the children.”
This turned out to be prophetic in the case of one two year old little boy; yet it was never mentioned again.
Anderson was summoned to the Capital in Salt Lake City, Utah where a Public Welfare Commission decided that he would insist that if the parents wanted to keep custody of their children they must “refrain from teaching the children anti-social behavior such as to inculcate the idea that the religious tenants of the organization are more binding than the law of the land”
So in December 1953 Judge Anderson filed twenty separate court petitions alleging that the children were neglected in the sense that their parents had failed to teach them proper moral principles and persisted in teaching the doctrine of plural marriage. Anderson decided to punish two year old Wilford and his mother Vera Black along with her other children, for polygamy.
Juvenile Probation officer Jay R. Huntsman filed a petition that Vera’s eight children were:
“…dependant, neglected children, in three respects: that the parents provided inadequate clothing, food, and medical care; that the parents taught the children that polygamous relationships were proper even though illegal; and that the parents actually lived in a polygamous marriage”
The first one was a straw-man argument they knew was false but Judge Anderson, in the hearing on the case, truly believed that: “The only way that the children of these families can be prevented from going into polygamy is by permanently separating them from their parents at a fairly early age, so that they will not be exposed to the fanatic religious teachings” and he concluded that the Black home was an “immoral environment for the rearing of the children”
Jay Huntsman arrived at Vera Black’s door early in the morning of June 4 1954 to take the children. Petite, yet feisty, Vera refused to let her children go alone and rode with them to Cedar City, 50 miles from home, where she was finally ousted from the vehicle.
Vera and her husband Leonard sued for a writ of habeas corpus and Justice William Stanley Dunforth of the fourth district court soon ruled that Judge Anderson’s initial judgment violated the freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses of the United States Constitution. He ordered the children returned to their home. Little Wilford and his brothers and sisters were returned to their mother within a week.
But life was only good for little Wilford for a few months, for on December 30, 1954 the Utah Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Juvenile court. Justice George M Worthen railing in his report that plural marriage “trapped children in a condition of perpetual immorality and was inexcusable for the parents to hide behind religious cover”
Thus the two year old Wilford, who came into the world to parents who planned for him, wanted him, adored him, and cared dearly for him, but who lived an unpopular religion that gave him his family; was torn from his mother’s arms again.
Famous LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, who was with Vera both times they took her children, encouraging her to fight, wrote to the Utah County welfare office:
“You may remember me as the woman who talked to you in St. George the day the Black children were taken first in 1954. You will recall that my chief concern was for the one child, Wilford, because I had observed him the day before and sensed his mortal terror. Only a mother who has nursed along such a frail, sensitive child, could realize what that experience did to Wilford, and how deeply and irreparably his is being injured by this one… I pray you not separate this child from either his older brother, Orson, or his younger one, Francis, with whom he has slept every night as long as he can remember… To me, no teaching of children under the age of ten can justify tearing them out of a home where they have love and security to scatter them and make them public charges”
No testimony offered in any of the court cases either asserted or established that Vera Black was an unfit mother in any way except for her religious beliefs. The court left room for only one option of negotiation. If the Blacks would only denounce their lifestyle and religion, the court would recognize the gap between legal technicalities and social realities and return the children to their parents.
After the children had been taken away, the Blacks traveled the next day to Salt Lake City to appeal personally to Governor Lee for intervention on their behalf. They failed. Vera Black finally realized that she had absolutely no recourse but sign.
Vera read this statement to the media when they came to take her children for the second time:
“Ours is a nation of equal rights before the law. Why should I be required to sign an Unconstitutional loyalty pledge or any other oath of any kind in order to keep the children I have honorably born unless all mothers in our state are required to do the same?
I will gladly sign an oath to support and sustain the Constitution of the United States, and obey the laws of the state of Utah which conform to the spirit of that great document.
I am ever willing to teach my children the laws of Utah concerning marriage when they grow old enough to understand such laws”
But the Black family had no choice but to surrender, Vera and her children were not reunited until June 1956 after agreeing to sign an oath renouncing her belief in polygamy. She and Leonard appeared before the court and testified that they had not lived together as man and wife since the 1953 raid and that they would teach their children to obey the laws of the land. Vera burst out crying when the court asked her if she would be happy to reunite with her children. “Oh, Of course I would!” The reunion two days later was very emotional.
Vera continued to feel that justice had not been served and she returned to life in plural marriage. To the fundamentalists the case Black vs. State of Utah is proof of the lowness to which the government would go to persecute their religion, and the willingness it had to destroy their families. They have been wary ever since.
Wilford is 55 now, but he never fully recovered from the shock of being torn from his mothers arms not once, but twice. He became severely introverted; not leaving his mothers side for years. He never could communicate with anyone well. Today he does not even feed and dress himself. He just pulls weeds.
With several of the FLDS children in Texas in the hospital, underweight from shock and lethargy this very day, history may be repeating itself.
(Most of the information in this article was taken from the book “Kidnapped From that Land”, by Martha Sonntag Bradley)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
