ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/v02.n022

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-09 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (gdm-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: gdm-digest V2 #22
Reply-To: gdm-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


gdm-digest           Friday, March 10 2000           Volume 02 : Number 022




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:39:31 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [none]

Notes from the "Question and Answer" session
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

The National Press Club, Washington D.C., March 8, 2000 (NOTE that these
are notes only - a summary of what was said. The questions were written by

the attendees at the luncheon and asked to Pres. Hinckley by the
oderator.)



The spiritual leader of the Mormon church, the Yes-on-22 campaign's major
source of money and volunteers, showed no inclination Wednesday to seek a
rollback of gay rights in California.

"I don't think it signals a more active political posture" for the church,
Gordon B. Hinckley said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "We
are not anti-gay. We are pro-family."

- ------------------

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Sunday, March 5, 2000
BY DAN EGAN

...
"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

- ------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, February 6, 2000

Mormon Church: The Powerful Force Behind Proposition 22

DON LATTIN

Politics does make strange bedfellows, especially when you add sex,
religion and a little historical perspective.

One of the delicious ironies of the current political campaign concerns
the role of the Mormon church in the California Defense of Marriage
crusade, also known as the "Knight Initiative.'' Proposition 22 states, in
its entirely, that "only marriage between a man and woman is valid or
recognized in California.'' It is on the March 7 ballot as a rear-guard
action against persistent attempts to legitimize same-sex marriage in
church and state.

If one takes a somewhat longer view, the most notorious sexual outlaws in
American history are not today's gay rights' crusaders, but the founding
fathers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the Mormon
church.

Joseph Smith Jr., the original Mormon prophet, was fomenting a radical
revolution in American religion and sexuality when he was imprisoned in an
Illinois jail and assassinated by a mob in the summer of 1844.  He was
also running for president and controlled an armed militia of
approximately 3,500 men.

During his lifetime, Smith publicly denied allegations of widespread
polygamy in his sect.  Today, it's widely acknowledged that Smith took at
least 28 wives, including the spouses and teenage daughters of his Mormon
brethren.  His successor, Brigham Young, brought the persecuted polygamous
sect to the Utah wilderness and for decades continued the practice of
"plural marriage'' in open defiance of Congress.  Officially, the church
ended the practice of polygamy in 1890, as a condition to get Utah
admitted to the union as a state.

- ----

[Commentary, it is interesting that this article takes what Mormons would
consider a negative slat, but ironically accepts the churches whitewashed
and false version of history that sanctioned polygamy ended in 1890!

See a new web page added by permission:

http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/postman.htm

That deals extensively with post 1890 polygamy]

- -------------------

[Commentary, The old excuse of why we do not live section 132 today is
that it is against the law of the land.  Yet the church, instead of
struggling to try to get the laws changed so that we can live our
religions to it's fullest like our ancestors did, the church works to see
that the law does NOT allow marriage of anything but ONE man and ONE
women!!!

How can this match with our history?]

- ---

LDS Representative Tells Vermont Legislature to Amend Constitution
(Opponents testify before Legislature)
Boston Globe (AP) 13Jan00 N1
By Ross Sneyd: Associated Press

MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- In the wake of last month's Vermont Supreme Court
decision that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same benefits
enjoyed by married couples, the Vermont legislature held hearings what
legislation should be enacted to implement the decision. Opponents of
same-sex marriage, including the LDS Church, testified before the
Vermont House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, arguing that the
legislature should either ignore the decision or try to enact a
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The LDS Church was represented by Burlington lawyer Thomas McCormick,
who helped write a brief to the Vermont Supreme Court for its recent
decision, now called the Baker decision. McCormick told the Judiciary
committee that he thinks the best way to respond was to seek an
amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between one
man and one woman.

McCormick told the committee that he thinks permitting same-sex
marriages will lead to other forms of marriage. "What is going to mean
if you redefine marriage today that says, yes, the very attractive
couples in the Baker case can be married? What are you going to say
tomorrow when three or more people want to get married? If you say yes
to same-sex couples, what do you say to two sisters or two brothers who
want to be married?"

http://www.burstnet.com/ads/ad6305a-map.cgi

From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/013/region/Opponents_testify_before_Legis:.
shtml

=============================

Talk about polygamy!  There is no true philosopher on the face of the
earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out
according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the
raising of healthy, robust children!  A person possessing a moderate
knowledge of physiology, or who has paid attention to his own nature and
the nature of the gentler sex, can readily understand this.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.317, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870

=============================

Of all men upon the face of the earth, we are the most favoured; we have
the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, the keys of revelation and
exaltation, the privilege of making our own rules and regulations, and are
not opposed by anybody.  No king, prince, potentate, or dominion, has
rightful authority to crush and oppress us.  We breathe the free air, we
have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy us our
position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed
race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live
all their days under the dominion of one wife.  They ought to be ashamed
of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their
practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who
so much better understand the social relations.  Journal of Discourses,
Vol.3, p.290 - p.291, George Albert Smith, April 6, 1856

======================

We have another example in the three Hebrew children, who refused to bow
down to a golden image that had been set up.  Shall we call it monogamy?
[Laughter.]

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.33 - p.34 - p.35 - p.36, John Taylor,
March 5th, 1882

===========================

The Bible is the foundation of most of the criminal laws of Christendom.
Point out in the Bible where polygamy is a crime, and then you may say we
have no right to embrace it as part of our religious creed, and pretend it
as part of our constitutional rights.  If we embrace murder, stealing,
robbing, cheating our neighbour, as a part of our religious rights, then
the Constitution will condemn us.  Not so with polygamy.  If we should
embrace adultery in our religious creed, then we may be condemned as
criminals by the laws of God and man; but when it comes to polygamy, which
is not condemned by the Bible any more than monogamy, and embrace that as
a part and portion of our creed, the Constitution gives us an undeniable
right of worshipping God in this respect as in all others.  Congress have
no more constitutional right to pass a law against polygamy that they ave
to pass a law against monogamy, or against a man living in celibacy.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.361, Orson Pratt, July 24, 1859

=======================

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of
Heaven among men.  Such a system was commenced by the founders of the
Roman empire.  That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by
wandering brigands.  When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was
evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with
their neighbours, depended upon introducing females into their body
politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbours.
The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one
man.  Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of
monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged.  Thus this monogamic order of
marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine
institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, p.322, Brigham Young, July 6, 1862

============================

Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations
which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the
faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles,
which must so far exceed those of monogamy, as the conditions
responsibilities and power of increase are greater.  This is my view and
testimony in relation to this matter.  I believe it is a doctrine that
should be taught and understood.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

===================

The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of
marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by
the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine
law, but upon physiological and scientific principles.  In the latter
view, the wives are even more benefitted, if possible, than the husband
physically.  But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes,
and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are
immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than
in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage
covenant.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

=====================

I don't often say anything in regard to plural marriage; but there has
been a great deal said about the misery of women in that order.  Well, if
in monogamy women do not have any trouble, if it were all serene in that
order of marriage--no cause of difference of feeling or of jealousy--then
there might be some cause for this hue and cry.  People imagine, you know,
that in a man's family where there are several wives, they must be very
jealous of one another--that they must tear each other's hair and all that
kind of thing.  Well, as I have said, if there was never any jealousy, or
any feelings of unhappiness in monogamic families, then they might say
something.  I have had a little experience both ways, and though not a
woman, yet I am bold to bear my testimony that there is more happiness in
the number of families living in plural marriage, than there is in an
equal number of families in the other condition.  And I speak from my own
experience in regard to these matters.  I think I lived as happily in
monogamy as anybody, and I think, too, that I live as happily in plural
marriage as anybody else.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.24, p.320, Daniel H. Wells, October 28th, 1883

===========================

... and no better time have I had in thirty years of married life than
when I had three wives given me of God, and occupying but one habitation.
The power of God was in that home; the spirit of peace was there, the
spirit of intelligence was there; and we had our ever present testimony
that God recognised the patriarchal order, that which had been practiced
by His servants ages and ages ago and revealed to us in the dispensation
of the fullness of times; and although two of these have gone behind the
veil, they went there with a consciousness of having done their duty in
this life, and that they would meet in the life beyond those who agreed
with them in practice and in faith; from this condition came the
discipline of life, the power of self-restraint, a tender regard for each
others' feelings, and a sort of jealousy for each others' rights, all
tempered by the consideration that relations meant to be enduring claimed
more love and interest and soul than did monogamy under its best
conditions.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.124, Henry W. Naisbitt, March 8, 1885

======================

But it is a most difficult thing to get these Latter-day Saints to
understand the principles that are as plain as the noonday sun--that they
should receive readily, and why?  Because, as I have said, they are heirs
of the traditions of centuries that have come down through the dark ages.
It is a wonderful thing to do what we have done respecting woman.  Look at
what monogamy has done.  Look at its effects; trace its influence from the
death of the Apostles, or soon afterwards, down to this the nineteenth
century, and what do we behold?  Why, in every generation a large
percentage of our sisters has been consigned either to that nameless
condition of which it is a shame to speak, or have died without ever
knowing the joys of maternity.  When I think of it, when I read the
history of the boasted civilization of the Greeks and the Romans, and
think of the boasted civilization of our day, inherited from these
nations, and witness its effects, I wonder how man, standing up in the
face of heaven, dare look at woman and talk about being her protector.
Read the history of the sex and of the frightful evils which have been
brought upon our sitters through man's accursed traditions and evils.  If
it were to be told to another people differently situated to us, with
different traditions to us, they could not believe that intelligent man
would entertain for one moment, or that women themselves, in view of what
their sex has suffered, would cherish and cling to the wretched traditions
that have prevailed in christendom and to a certain extent yet prevail in
our midst.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.197 - p.198 - p.199, George Q. Cannon,
April 6, 1879

======================

Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your
Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for
yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early
impressions that are untrue.  Those who are acquainted with the history of
the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule
and monogamy the exception.  Since the founding of the Roman empire
monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that.
The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and
made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among
them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all
Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and
whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New
World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions
both national and religious.  Polygamy did not have its origin with Joseph
Smith, but it existed from the beginning.  So far as I am concerned as an
individual, I did not ask for it; I never desired it; and if I ever had a
trial of my faith in the world, it was when Joseph Smith revealed that
doctrine to me; and I had to pray incessantly and exercise faith before
the Lord until He revealed to me the truth, and I was satisfied.  I say
this at the present time for the satisfaction of both saint and sinner.
Now, here are the commandments of the Lord, and here are the wishes of
wicked men, which shall we obey?  It is the Lord and them for it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.127 - p.128, Brigham Young, June 18, 1865

==========================

Do you see anything very bad in this?  Just ask yourselves, historians,
when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth?  When those
buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not
steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a
man should have but one woman.  And this started monogamy and the downfall
of the plurality system.  In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over
Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less.  This was the rise,
start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was
there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have
but one wife.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, p.261, Brigham Young, August 9th, 1868

===========================

Some want to destroy "the twin relics--slavery and polygamy"--and
establish monogamy, with a brothel on every corner of each block in this
city.  This reminds me of what I was told the President of the United
States said to a gentleman who is a preacher and a member of Congress.  He
took our President to task for not destroying both "the twins" together,
that is, polygamy as well as slavery.  After he had laid the whole matter
before the President in an elaborate manner, showing him the necessity of
destroying this people who believed in polygamy, the President said "It
makes me think of a little circumstance that happened with me in my
younger days.  I was ploughing a piece of newly cleared land, by and bye I
came to a big log; I could not plow over it, for it was too high, and it
was so heavy I could not move it out of the way, and so wet I could not
burn it; I stood and looked at it and studied it, and finally concluded to
plow around it."  It looks as if they were trying to plow around
Mormonism.  They and the Lord for it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.306, Brigham Young, June 4, 1864

======================

There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that they
believe the Bible, that Christ, when he came, did away with plural
marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there are
certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of the
subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to Timothy (3 chap.
2 v.), where Paul says:  "A bishop should be blameless, the husband of one
wife."  The friends of monogamy render it in this way:  "A bishop should
be blameless, the husband of but one wife."  That would imply that any one
but a bishop might have more.  But they will say, "We mean a bishop should
be blameless, the husband of one wife only."  Well, that would also admit
of the construction that other people might have more than one.  I
understand it to mean that a bishop must be a married man.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.38, George Albert Smith, October 8, 1869

========================

I will say a few words on a subject which has been mentioned here--that
is, celestial marriage.  God has given a revelation to seal for time and
for eternity, just as he did in days of old.  In our own days he has
commanded his people to receive the New and Everlasting Covenant, and he
has said, "If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."  We have
received it.  What is the result of it?  I look at the world, or that
small portion of it which believes in monogamy.  It is only a small
portion of the human family who do believe in it, for from nine to ten of
the twelve hundred millions that live on the earth believe in and practice
polygamy.  Well, what is the result?  Right in our land the doctrine and
practice of plurality of wives tend to the preservation of life.  Do you
know it?  Do you see it?  What is our duty?  To preserve life or destroy
it?  Can any of you answer?  Why yes, it is to perpetuate and preserve
life.  But what principle do we see prevailing in our own land?  What is
that of which, in the East, West, North and South, ministers in their
pulpits complain, and against which both gentlemen and ladies lecture?  It
is against taking life.  They say, "Cease the destruction of pre-natal
life!"  Our doctrine and practice make and preserve life; theirs destroy
it.  Which is the best, saying nothing about revelation, which is the best
in a moral point of view, to preserve or to destroy the life which God
designs to bring upon the earth.  Just look at it and decide for
yourselves.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, p.43, Brigham Young, May 8, 1870

======================

Now, if in this respect a Bishop had proved himself a wise and discreet
father and husband, a man who knew how to rule well his own family, this
was a qualification recommending him as a suitable person to be trusted
with the office of a Bishop.  And how much more suitable would he be for
that position if he were perfectly able to govern two or more wives, and
to rear their children in the fear of God?  The very fact that a Bishop
must be the husband of one wife, it we admit the correctness of the views
of our Christian friends in this regard (which, however, we do not by any
means) the logical inference is, that any other officer or member in the
Church but a Bishop was at liberty to have more than one wife.  For if he
intended it to be a general prohibition, why should he confine it to the
Bishop, why did he not make it general?  It is sheer sophistry on the part
of our sectarian friends and groundless assertion that monogamy, to the
exclusion of polygamy was introduced into Europe by the primitive
Christians; for that system of marriage was introduced prior to the
establishment of Christianity in Europe, by the Roman empire, and became
the form of marriage in early times when, as history alleges, men were
more numerous in Rome than women.  And the earlier settlers of Rome were
political refugees, renegades and scape-graces from surrounding nations,
and were under the necessity of making raids upon their neighbors to
procure wives; and it became a matter of necessity and for mutual
protection, to limit the number to one.  It was the Roman state that
limited the number of a man's wives to one, and not the Christian church;
and this being done, it was perpetuated.  And history teaches us that
under that monogamic system, Rome became the most licentious of all
nations.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.297 - p.298 - p.299 - p.300, Erastus
Snow, October 7, 1882

====================

We were not sent here to manifest the fruits of the flesh but those of the
spirit; and if the hearts of any wives of the elders of Israel are
breaking, by reason of their husbands' conduct, may God have mercy on such
husbands, for knowing better, they sin against light in transgressing
their covenants.  The allegiance of a wife in this Church is not due to an
unfaithful, deceiving or cruel husband.  And he who regards his wife as
the creature of his sinful pleasure, made and given to gratify his fallen
nature is unworthy of a wife or to be the father of children.  Were I to
seek to find happiness in the marriage relation, I should expect to find
it most abundant, perfect and pure in Utah, notwithstanding all that is
said to the contrary.  And this conclusion is reached after years of
observation here and abroad.  Nowhere exists so great confidence between
husbands and wives as in Utah.  Nowhere is sexual impurity regarded with
greater disgust, or chastity esteemed more highly.  Philosophers,
preachers and moralists may insist on the enforcement of Roman instituted
monogamy, but its practice throughout the Christian world is fraught with
all manner of deceivableness, of iniquity and sexual abominations.  Better
practice what we preach and preach what we practice, leaving no room for
distrust; for, as between man and wife, where confidence dies, there you
may dig the grave of love.  Destroy one and the other cannot exist.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.315, Moses Thatcher, August 28, 1885

======================

Now, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its great zeal to
establish and maintain monogamy upon this American continent, and to
strike a blow at the patriarchal order of marriage, believed in by the
Latter-day Saints, in its decision in the Reynolds' case announced the
doctrine that religion consists in thought and matters of faith and
concerning matters of faith, and not actions, and the government is
restrained by the terms of the Constitution from any efforts to curtail
this freedom and liberty.  Wonderful doctrine!  A wonderful strain of
judicial thought to announce to the world, this wonderful doctrine that
the government should not attempt to restrain the exercise of thought, or
the exercise of faith!  I would like somebody, that knows how to defend
this doctrine, to tell me how any one man, or any set of men on the earth
could go to work and catch a thought and chain it up and imprison it, or
stop its flight, or root it out of the heart, or restrain it, or do away
with it.  Let them go to and try to chain the lightning, stop the sun from
shining, stop the rains from descending and the mist from arising from the
ocean, and when they have done this, they may talk about restraining men's
faith, and exercising control over the thoughts and faith of the people.
The fathers who framed our Constitution were not such dunces, I am happy
to say, as Attorney-General Devens, who put that nonsensical language and
doctrine into the mouths of the chief justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States--the fathers who framed our Constitution, I say, were not
such dunces, they did not attempt to place constitutional restrictions
upon the law-making power from any effort at making law for the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  And
the exercise of religion implies something more than mere faith and
thought.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.24, p.74 - p.75, Erastus Snow, April 6, 1883

====================

Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this
subject--that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under the
present circumstances among this people.  If all the inhabitants of the
earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both males and
females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the numbers of the
sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there would be no
necessity for any such institution.  Every righteous man could have his
wife and there would be no overplus of females.  But what are the facts in
relation to this matter?  Since old Pagan Rome and Greece--worshippers of
idols--passed a law confining man to one wife, there has been a great
surplus of females who have had no possible chance of getting married.
You may think this a strange statement, but it is a fact that those
nations were the founders of what is termed monogamy.  All other nations,
with few exceptions, had followed the Scriptural plan of having more wives
than one.  These nations, however, were very powerful and when
Christianity came to them, especially the Roman nation, it had to bow to
their mandates and customs, hence the Christians gradually adopted the
monogamic system.  The consequence was that a great many marriageable
ladies of those days, and of all generations from that time to the
present, have not had the privilege of husbands, as the one-wife system
has been established by law among the nations descended from the great
Roman empire--namely, the nations of modern Europe and the American
States.  This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the
foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most
revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans, for
as God has implanted, for a wise purpose, certain feelings in the breasts
of females as well as the males, the gratification of which is necessary
to health and happiness, and which can only be accomplished legitimately
in the married state, myriads of those who have been deprived of the
privilege of entering that state, rather than be deprived of the
gratification of those feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to
wickedness and licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among
the nations of the earth, where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.194 - p.195, Orson Pratt, October 7, 1869

=========================

It is necessary that this principle should be practiced under the auspices
and control of the Priesthood.  God has placed that Priesthood in the
Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this is a
principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity,
might lead men into great sin, therefore the Priesthood is the more
necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle.
There might be circumstances and situations in which it would not be
wisdom in the mind of God for His people to practice this principle, but
so long as a people are guided by the Priesthood and revelations of God,
there is no danger of evil arising therefrom.  If we, as a people, had
attempted to practice this principle without revelation, it is likely that
we should have been led into grievous sins, and the condemnation of God
would have rested upon us; but the Church waited until the proper time
came, and then the people practiced it according to the mind and will of
God, making a sacrifice of their own feelings in so doing.  But the
history of the world goes to prove that the practice of this principle,
even by nations ignorant of the Gospel, has resulted in greater good to
them than the practice of monogamy or the one-wife system in the so-called
Christian nations.  To-day, Christendom holds itself and its institutions
aloft as a pattern for all men to follow.  If you travel throughout the
United States and through the nations of Europe in which Christianity
prevails, and talk with the people about their institutions, they will
boast of them as being the most permanent, indestructive and progressive
of any institutions existing upon the earth; yet it is a fact well known
to historians, that the Christian nations of Europe are the youngest
nations on the globe.  Where are the nations that have existed from time
immemorial?  They are not to be found in Christian monogamic Europe, but
in Asia, among the polygamic races--China, Japan, Hindostan and the
various races of that vast continent.  Those nations, from the most remote
times, practiced plural marriage handed down to them by their forefathers.
 Although they are looked upon by the nations of Europe as semi-civilized,
you will not find among them woman prostituted, debased and degraded as
she is through Christendom.  She may be treated coldly and degraded, but
among them, except where the Christian element prevails to a large extent,
she is not debased and polluted, as she is among the so-called Christian
nations.  It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of
which we have record have been monogamic.  Rome, with her arts, sciences
and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory
faded.  She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that
system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook
her.  The strongest sayings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament were
levelled against the dreadful corruptions practiced in Rome and wherever
the Romans held sway.  The leaven of their institutions had worked its way
into the Jewish nation, Jewry or Palestine being then a Roman province,
and governed by Roman officers, who brought with them their wicked
institutions, and Jesus denounced the practices which prevailed there.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.201 - p.202, George Q. Cannon, October 9,
1869

=========================

A great amount of this "fuss and feathers" that we have to-day is simply a
political ruse in the interest of party politics.  What for?  Why, the
brethren have told you.  Mormonism is very unpopular, and if they can only
do something that will be in opposition to Mormonism it will satisfy the
howling priests throughout the land, and a great many of their flocks.  As
was remarked by one of the brethren, when Jesus was crucified, Pilate and
Herod could be made friends.  When Mormonism is to be opposed, all men, or
at least a great many men, can unite in opposing it.  And they want to go
before the people and tell them that they have rooted out slavery, and now
they are after Mormonism, and wont you religious fanatics join in?  No,
excuse me, I mean, you pure and holy religious people, who are so humble
and posses so much of the spirit that dwelt in the lowly Jesus, wont you
help us to do this thing--wont you vote for us because we are doing this
thing?  Why, bless your souls, they would not hesitate to sweep us off the
face of the earth to get elected.  That is their feeling.  They care
nothing about human rights, liberty, or life, if they can bring about the
results desired.  They would despoil, destroy and overthrow this people to
accomplish their own end.  Well, the other party, it is true, would not be
very well suited about it, but they would not care to see it politically.
However, it is for us to do the best we can.  We have got to put our trust
in the living God.  We might ask--Will they derive any benefit from any
course taken against the Latter-day Saints?  No!  a thousand times no!!  I
tell you that the hand of God will be upon them for it, and every people,
be it this nation, or any other nation, that shall lift up their hands
against Zion shall be wasted away; and those that want to try it let them
try it, and it is them and their God for it.  But it is for us to fear
God, to keep his commandments; we can afford to do right whether other
people can or not.  Respect all men in their rights, in their position,
and in their privileges, politically and socially, and protect them in the
same; but be not partakers of their evil deeds, of their crimes, nor their
iniquities, that you have heard spoken about here to-day.  We do not want
them to force upon us their drinking saloons, their drunkenness, their
gambling, their debauchery and lasciviousness.  We do not want these
adjuncts of civilization.  We do not want them to force upon us that
institution of monogamy called the social evil.  We will be after them; we
will form ourselves into police and hunt them out and drag them from their
dens of infamy and expose them to the world.  We wont have their meanness,
with their feoticides and infanticides, forced upon us.  And you, sisters,
don't allow yourselves to become contaminated by rusting against their
polluted skirts.  Keep from them!  Let them wallow in their infamy, and
let us protect the right, and be for God and his Christ, for honor, for
truth, for virtue, purity and chastity, and for the building up of the
kingdom of God.  Amen.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.320 - p.321, John Taylor, October 6th,
1879

============================

Of course, this is the general view taken of it by Christian nations, as
shown in their acts and in their laws regulating it.  Although the Roman
Catholic Church prohibits intercourse with the sexes to sacred orders,
they being, according to the rites of the church forbidden to marry.  And
however much some may doubt the iniquity of their holy vows, it is a
matter too well known to call in question.  The more general sentiment of
Christians recognizes the purity and uprightness of marriage of a man to
one woman; and they quote the following words of the Apostle Paul to
testify to it, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but
whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."  But the majority of modern
Christians consider that for a man to marry more than one wife while she
lives and is his wife is sin.  Now I will undertake to say respecting the
two conditions of marriage, single and plural, that where the duties and
obligations are the same, and the husband is equally honorable, just and
virtuous, faithful and true to his wives and children, that there is not
necessarily any greater impurity existing between such a man and his
plural family, than between a man and his single family; that there is not
necessarily a defilement of the marriage bed, that there is not
necessarily defilement of the body or spirit.  When the institution of
marriage is founded in religious sentiment and is confirmed by the
enduring love of husband, wives and children, and the responsibilities
attending that relationship, as we find it in many of the ancient
worthies, there is not necessarily any defilement in plural marriage.
There was not necessarily defilement in father Abraham and other ancient
patriarchs and prophets who took to themselves a second or a third or a
fourth wife, any more than there was in those who confined themselves to
one wife.  Nor have I ever heard from any creature--and I have read and
heard much and reflected much, because our institution of marriage has
invited discussion and reflection upon this subject.  I have never yet
heard an argument that, to my mind, appeared sound against the marriage of
an honorable man to two women any more than to one.  And the only argument
that has ever been presented that has had a semblance of soundness is the
generally admitted fact of the near equality of the sexes which would seem
to foreshadow the general purpose and design of providence that one man
should have only one wife.  I have never heard an argument relating to the
physical effects of the institution, nor as relating to the state of
society that could not be applied just as appropriately to monogamy.  The
opposers of plural marriage make many declarations against us which are
untrue, which they do not understand because they accept the reports of
certain persons who give way to a lying spirit, and misrepresent and belie
people far better than themselves.  The selfishness and weakness of human
nature, the evils which manifest themselves from time to time between
families and between husband and wife, and between wives and children are
quoted as evils greatly to be deplored as growing out of this system.  I
will only say in regard to this, that those best acquainted with the inner
workings of the system among the Latter-day Saints throughout all of their
settlements, if they testify honestly and truthfully as to the result of
their careful observations extending over a period of over thirty
years--the time that this system of plural marriage has been practised by
us in these mountains, they would, in effect, say, that there is less
discontent, less strife and fewer family broils and less divorce, and less
casting off wives and casting upon the community of children without care,
than would be found in the same number of monogamic families.  And I may
here say, that statistics will bear me out in making this assertion.  To
those who are not posted in the matter this may appear incredible; and the
majority of the christian world would think it impossible judging from
their standpoint; and what they see and hear among themselves, and judging
by the spirit by which they are animated, they would, I admit, pronounce
this a thing impossible.  But it is simply because they are not imbued
with the faith of the Latter-day Saints, and this being the case they
cannot understand the motives that prompt us to enter into this
relationship.  They cannot comprehend the spirit that governs us, the
devout God-fearing spirit of self-sacrifice which leads us onward to all
that is noble, forbearing and long-suffering, that teaches us to love one
another and to be charitable to all men, and which teaches us that the
relationships which we make through the marriage covenant are but the
foundation of eternal glory and exaltation in the worlds to come; and it
also teaches us that the glories of the future that open up before us are
greatly dependent upon the faithfulness of our relationships and
associations in this life; and that a man must be found capable to
properly govern and guide his family and preserve in time the wives and
children that are given to him, leading them in the way of life and
salvation, and rearing his children in all that is pure and praiseworthy,
so that he can receive them in the morning of the first resurrection,
there to have the Father confirm upon him his wives and children, the
foundation of his individual kingdom which will exist for ever and ever.
The outside world cannot comprehend this, and simply because they cannot
believe it.  It is this same religious sentiment that prompts women and
the best of women, the most devout women, women of the purest motive and
character to enter into this sacred relationship, and to cause them to
determine in their own minds that they would sooner be associated with a
man who has proven himself a man of integrity, a man of strict virtue and
honor, who can be relied upon by God and man--they would rather trust
themselves with such a man than to be the only wife of a man devoid of
these qualifications, a man who, perhaps, for the want of such high
motives would be the victim of many vices, of whoredom, of concubinage or
illicit intercourse with the sexes, and defile himself and destroy the
confidence of his family in him, or he would perhaps indulge in
drunkenness and other kindred vices which would be the means of producing
the same result.  And such has been the experience of many women in
monogamy.  And I do not say that the weaknesses of mankind do not manifest
themselves in plural families; I do not say that there are not some who
may be urged on by fleshy lust, but if there are it results in their
making shipwreck of their faith and becoming, in time, a lasting disgrace
to themselves.  But where there is one example of this kind, under our
polygamic system, there are at least two under the monogamic order that
might be cited, who make shipwreck of their faith, who sacrifice their
honor, and whose family send forth a wail of grief for the loss of
confidence in husband and father.  Adultery, fornication, whoredom, God
will judge; every form of licentiousness He has condemned in His word from
the beginning of the world to the present.  And if follies are manifested
by some who profess to be Latter-day Saints in this direction, so we may
cite similar weakness manifested by ancient men of God; not, however, to
justify such cases but merely as examples of human weaknesses.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.226 - p.227 - p.228, Erastus Snow,
February 26th, 1882



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

End of gdm-digest V2 #22
************************