From the First Book on "Christian Doctrine"

Translated from the Latin, by Charles R. Sumner, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester.

by John Milton (1608 - 1674)

The definition which I have given (of marriage), I have not said, in compliance with the common opinion, of one man with one woman, lest I should by implication charge the holy patriarchs and pillars of our faith, Abraham, and the others who had more than one wife at the same time, with habitual fornication and adultery; and lest I should be forced to exclude from the Sanctuary of God as spurious, the holy offspring which sprang from them, yea, the whole of the sons of Israel, for whom the sanctuary itself was made. For it is said, Duet. 23:2, "a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Jehovah, even to his tenth generation." Either, therefore, polygamy is a true marriage, or all children born in that state are spurious; which would include the whole race of Jacob, the Twelve holy tribes chosen by God. But as such an assertion would be absurd in the extreme, not to say impious, and as it is the height of injustice, as well as an example of most dangerous tendency in religion, to account as sin what is not in reality; it appears to me, that, so far from the question respecting the lawfulness of polygamy being trivial, it is the highest importance that it should be decided.

Those who deny its lawfulness, attempt to prove their position from Gen. 2:24, "a man shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh", compared with Matt. 19:5, "they twain shall be one flesh". A man shall cleave, they say to his wife, not his wives, and they twain, and no more, shall be one flesh. This is certainly ingenious; and I therefore subjoin the passage in Exodus 20:17, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass": whence it would follow that no one had more than a single house, a single man-servant, a single maid-servant, a single ox or ass. It would be ridiculous to argue, that it is not said houses, but house; not man-servants, but man-servant; not even neighbors, but neighbor; as if it were not the general custom, in laying down commandments of this kind, to use the singular number, not in the numerical sense, but as designating the species of the thing intended. With regard to the phrase, they twain, and not more, shall be one flesh, it is to be observed first, that the context refers to the husband and that wife only whom he was seeking to divorce without intending any illusion to the number of his wives, whether one or more. Secondly, marriage is in the nature of a relation; and to one relation there can be no more than two parties. In the same sense therefore as if a man has many sons, his paternal relation towards them all is manifold, but toward each individually is single and complete within itself; by parity of reasoning, if a man has many wives, the relation which he bears to each will not be less perfect in itself, nor will the husband be less one flesh with each of them, than if he had only one wife. Thus it might be properly said of Abraham, with regard to Sarah and Hagar respectively, these twain were one flesh. And with good reasons; for whoever consorts with harlots, however many in number, is still said to be one flesh with each; I Cor. 6:16, "what, know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." The expression may therefore be applied as properly to the husband who has many wives, as to him who has only one. Hence it follows that the commandment in question (though in fact it is no commandment at all, as has been shown) contains nothing against polygamy, either in the way of direct prohibition or implied censure; unless we are to suppose that the law of God, as delivered by Moses, was at variance

with his prior declarations; or that, though the passage in question had been frequently looked into by a multitude of priests, and Levites, and prophets, men of all ranks, of holiest lives and most acceptable to God, the fury of their passions was such as to hurry them by a blind impulse into habitual fornication; for to this supposition are we reduced, if there be anything in the present precept which renders polygamy incompatible with lawful marriage.

Another text from which the unlawfulness of polygamy is maintained, is Lev. 18:18, "neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time." Here Junius translates the passage mulierem unam ad alteram, instead of mulierem ad sororem suam, in order that from this forced and inadmissable interpretation he may elicit an argument against polygamy. (One woman to another, instead of a woman to her sister.) In drawing up a law, as in composing a definition, it is necessary that the most exact and appropriate words should be used, and that they should be interpreted not in their metaphorical, but in their proper signification. He says, indeed, that the same words are found in the same sense in other passages. This is true; but it is only where the context precludes the possibility of any ambiguity, as in Gen. 26:31, juraverunt vir fratri suo,that is alteri, they sware one to another. No one would infer from this passage that Isaac was the brother of Abimelech; nor would any one, on the other hand, entertain a doubt that the passage in Leviticus was intended as a prohibition against taking a wife to her sister; particularly as the preceding verses of this chapter treat of the degrees of affinity to which intermarriage is forbidden. Moreover, this would be to uncover her nakedness, the evil against which the law in question was intended to guard; whereas the caution would be unnecessary in the case of taking a wife not related or allied to the former; for no nakedness would be thereby uncovered. Lastly, why is the clause in her lifetime added? For there could be no doubt of its being lawful after her death to marry another who was neither related nor allied to her, though it might be questionable whether it were lawful to marry a wife's sister. It is objected, that marriage with a wife's sister is forbidden by analogy in the sixteenth verse, and that therefore a second prohibition was unnecessary. I answer, first, that there is reality no analogy between the two passages; for that by marrying a brother's wife, the brother's nakedness is uncovered; whereas by marrying a wife's sister, it is not a sister's nakedness, but only that of a kins-woman by marriage, which is uncovered. Besides, if nothing were to be prohibited which had been before prohibited by analogy, why is marriage with a mother forbidden, when marriage with a father had been already declared unlawful? Or why marriage with a mother's sister, when marriage with a father's sister had been prohibited? If this reasoning be allowed, it follows that more than half the laws relating to incest are unnecessary. Lastly, considering that the prevention of enmity is alleged as a principal motive for the law before us, it is obvious, that if the intention had been to condemn polygamy, reasons of a much stronger kind might have been urged from the nature of the original institution, as was done in the ordinance of the Sabbath.

A third passage, which is advanced, Duet. 17:17, is so far from condemning polygamy, either in a king, or in any one else, that it expressly allows it; and only imposes the same restraints upon this condition which are laid upon the multiplication of horses, or the accumulation of treasure; as will appear from the seventeenth and the eighteenth verses.

Except the three passages which are thus irrelevantly adduced, not a trace appears of the interdiction of polygamy throughout the whole law; nor even in any of the prophets, who were at once the rigid interpreters of the law, and the habitual reprovers of the vices of the people. The only shadow of an exception occurs in a passage of Malachi, the last of the prophets, which some

Consider as decisive against polygamy. It would be indeed a late and postliminous enactment, if that were for the first time prohibited after the Babylonish captivity, which ought to have been prohibited many ages before. For if it had been really a sin, how could it have escaped the reprehension of so many prophets who preceded him? We may safely conclude that if polygamy be not forbidden in the law, neither is it forbidden here; for Malachi was not the author of a new law. Let us however see the words themselves as translated by Junius, 2:15, Nonne unum effecit? quamvis reliqui spiritus ipsi essent: quid autem unum? It would be rash and unreasonable, indeed, if, on the authority of so obscure a passage, which has been tortured and twisted by different interpreters into such a variety of meanings, we were to form a conclusion on so momentous a subject, and to impose it upon others as an article of faith. But whatever be the signification of the words nonne unum effecit, what do they prove? Are we, for the sake of drawing an inference against polygamy, to understand the phrase thus --- did he not make one woman? But the gender, and even the case, are at variance with this interpretation; for nearly all the other commentators render the words as follows: annon unus fecit? et residuum spiritus ipsi? et quid ille unus? We ought not thereforeto draw any conclusion from a passage like the present of a doctrine which is either not mentioned elsewhere, or only in doubtful terms; but rather conclude that the prophet's design was to reprove a practice which the whole of Scripture concurs in reproving, and which forms a principle subject of the very chapter in question, 2:11-16, namely, marriage with the daughter of a strange god: a corruption very prevalent among the Jews of that time, as we learn from Ezra and Nehemiah.

With regard to the words of Christ, Matt. 5:32, and 19:5, the passage from Gen. 2:24, is repeated not for the purpose of condemning polygamy, but of reproving the unrestrained liberty of divorce, which is a very different thing; nor can the words be made to apply to any other subject without evident violence to their meaning. For the argument which is deduced from Matt. 5:32, that if a man who marries another after putting away his first wife, committeth adultery, much more must he commit adultery who retains the first and marries another, ought itself to be repudiated as an illegitimate conclusion. For in the first place, it is the divine precepts themselves that are obligatory, not the consequence deduced from them by human reasoning; for what appears a reasonable inference to one individual, may not be equally obvious to another of not inferior discernment. Secondly, he who puts away his wife and marries another, is not said to commit adultery because he marries another, but because in consequence of his marriage with another he does not retain his former wife, to whom also he owed the performance of conjugal duties; when it is expressly said, Mark 10:11, "he committeth adultery against her." That he is in a condition to perform his conjugal duties to the one after having taken another to her, is shown by God Himself, Exod. 21:10, "if he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." It cannot be supposed that the divine forethought intended to provide for adultery.

Nor is it allowable to argue, from I Cor. 7:2, "let every man have his own wife", that therefore none should have more than one; for the meaning of the precept, is, that every man should have his own wife to himself, not that he should have but one wife. That Bishops and Elders should have no more than one wife is explicitly enjoined, Tim. 3:2 and Tit. 1:6, "he must be the husband of one wife", in order probably that they may discharge with greater diligence the ecclesiastical duties which they have undertaken. The command itself, however, is a sufficient proof that polygamy was not forbidden to the rest, and that it was common in the church at that

time.

Lastly, in answer to what is urged from I Cor. 7:4, "likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife", it is easy to reply, as was done above, that the word wife in this passage is used with reference to the species, and not the number. Nor can the power of the wife over the body of her husband be different now from what it was under the law, where it is called . . . , Exod. 21:10, which signifies "her stated times", expressed by St. Paul in the present chapter by the phrase, "her due benevolence". With regard to what is due, the Hebrew word is sufficiently explicit.

On the other hand, the following passages clearly admit the lawfulness of polygamy, Exod. 21:10, "if he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." Duet. 17:17, "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." Would the law have been so loosely worded, if it had not been allowable to take more wives than one at the same time? Who would venture to subjoin as an inference from this language, therefore let him have one only? In such case, since it is said in the preceding verse, "he shall not multiply horses to himself, it would be necessary to subjoin there also, therefore he shall have one horse only. Nor do we want any proof to assure us, that the first institution of marriage was intended to bind the prince equally with the people; if therefore it permits only one wife, it permits no more even to the prince. But the reason given for the law is this, that his heart turn not away; a danger, which would arise if he were to marry many, and especially strange women, as Solomon afterwards did. Now if the present law had been intended merely as a confirmation and vindication of the primary institution of marriage, nothing could have been more appropriate than to have advanced that reason alone which has been mentioned.

Let us hear the words of God Himself, the author of the law, and the best interpreter of his own will, II Sam. 12:8, "I gave thee ... thy master's wives into thy bosom ... and if that had been to little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." Here there can be no subterfuge; God gave him wives, he gave them to the man whom he loved, as one among a number of benefits; he would have given him more, if these had not been enough. Besides, the very argument which God uses towards David, is of more force when applied to the gift of wives, than of any other, - thou oughtest at least to have abstained from the wife of another person, not so much because I had given thee thy master's house, or thy master's kingdom, as because I had given thee the wives of the king. Beza indeed objects, that David here committed incest, namely, with the wives of his father-in-law. But he had forgotten what is indicated by Ester 2:12, 13, that the kings of Israel had two houses for the women, one appointed for the virgins, the other for the concubines, and that it was the former and not the latter which were given to David. This appears also from I Kings 1:4, "the king knew her not." Cantic 6:8, "there are fourscore concubines, and virgins without number." At the same time, it might be said with perfect propriety that God had given him his master's wives, even supposing that he had only given him as many in number and of the same description, though not the very same; even as he gave him, not indeed the identical house and retinue of his master, but one equally magnificent and royal.

Is it not wonderful, therefore, that what the authority of the law and the voice of God Himself has sanctioned, should be alluded to by the holy prophets in their inspired hymns as a thing lawful and honorable. Psalm 45:9, (which is entitled A song of loves) "Kings' daughters were among thy honorable women"; (ancient version reads: "honorable wives"). Verse 14, "the

Virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee." Nay, the words of this very song are quoted by the Apostle to the Hebrews, 1:8, "unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God", etc., as the words wherein God the Father himself addresses the Son. and in which his divinity is asserted more clearly than in any other passage. Would it have been proper for God the Father to speak by the mouth of harlots, and to manifest His holy Son to mankind as God in the amatory songs of adulteresses? Thus also in Cantic. 6:8-10, the queens and concubines are evidently mentioned with honor, and are all without distinction considered worthy of celebrating the praises of the bride; "there are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number ... the daughters saw her and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her." Nor must we omit II Chron. 24:2,3, "Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada, the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives." For the two clauses are not placed in contrast, or disjoined from each other, but it is said in one and the same connection that under the guidance of Jehoiada he did that which was right, and that by the authority of the same individual he married two wives. This is contrary to the usual practice in the eulogies of the kings, where, if anything blamable be subjoined, it is expressly excepted from the present character: I Kings 15:5, "save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." Verse 11,14, "and Asa did that which was right ... but the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect." Since therefore the right conduct of Joash is mentioned in unqualified terms, in conjunction with his double marriage, it is evident that the latter was not considered a matter of censure; for the sacred historian would not have neglected so suitable an opportunity of making the customary exception, if there had really been anything which deserved disapprobation.

Moreover, God himself, in an allegorical fiction, Ezek. 23:4, represents himself as having espoused two wives, Aholah and Aholibah; a mode of speaking which he would by no means have employed, especially at such length, even in a parable, nor indeed have taken on himself such a character at all, if the practice which it implied had been intrinsically dishonorable or shameful.

On what grounds, however, can a practice be considered dishonorable or shameful, which is prohibited to no one even under the Gospel? for that dispensation annuls none of the merely civil regulations which existed previous to its introduction. It is only enjoined that Elders and Deacons should be chosen from such as were husbands of one wife, I Tim. 3:2, and Tit. 1:5-7. This implies, not that to be the husband of more than one wife would be a sin, for then the restriction would have been equally imposed on all; but that, in proportion as they were less entangled in domestic affairs, they would be more at leisure for the business of the Church. Since therefore polygamy in interdicted in this passage to the ministers of the Church alone, and that not on account of any sinfulness in the practice, and since none of the other members are precluded from it either here or elsewhere, it follows that it was permitted, as above said, to all the remaining members of the church, and that it was adopted by many without offense.

Lastly, I argue as follows from Heb. 13:4, Polygamy is either marriage, or fornication, or adultery; the Apostle recognizes no fourth state. Reverence for so many patriarchs who were polygamists will, I trust, deter any one from considering it as fornication or adultery; for "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge"; whereas the patriarchs were the objects of his especial favor, as He Himself testifies. If, then, polygamy be marriage properly so called, it is also lawful and honorable, according to the same apostle: "marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled."

It appears to me sufficiently established by the above arguments that polygamy is allowed

by the law of God; lest however any doubt should remain, I will subjoin abundant examples of men whose holiness renders then fit patterns for imitation, and who are among the lights of our faith. Foremost I place Abraham, the father of all the faithful, and of the holy seed, Gen. 16:1-3, etc.; Jacob, Chapter 30; and, if I mistake not, Moses, Numbers 12:, "for he had married (a Cushite, Marginal Translation, or) an Ethiopian woman." It is not likely that the wife Moses, who had been so often spoken of before by her proper name of Zipporah, should now be called by the new title of Cushite; or that the anger of Aaron and Miriam should at this time be suddenly kindled, because Moses forty years before had married Zipporah; nor would they have acted thus scornfully towards one whom the whole house of Israel had gone out to meet on her arrival with her father Jethro. If then he married the Cushite during the lifetime of Zipporah, his conduct in this particular received the express approbation of God himself, who moreover punished with severity the unnatural opposition of Aaron and his sister. Next I place Gideon, that signal example of faith and piety, Judg. 8:30,31,33; and Elkanah, a rigid Levite, the father of Samuel, I Sam. 1, who was so far from believing himself less acceptable to God on account of his double marriage, that he took with him his two wives every year to the sacrifices and annual worship, into the immediate presence of God; nor was he therefore reproved, but went home blessed with Samuel, a child of excellent promise, I Sam. 2:10,11. Passing over several other examples, though illustrious such as Caleb, I Chron. 2:46,48; 7:1,4, the sons of Issachar, in number "six and thirty thousand men, for they had many wives and sons", contrary to the modern European practice, where in many places the land is suffered to remain uncultivated for want of population; and also Manasseh, the son of Joseph, I Chron. 7:14. I come to the prophet David, whom God loved beyond all men, and who took two wives, besides Michal; and this not in time of pride and prosperity, but when he was almost bowed down by adversity, and when, as we learn from many of the Psalms, he was entirely occupied in the study of the Word of God and in the right regulation of conduct, I Sam. 5:12,13, "David perceived that Jehovah had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake; and David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem." Such were the motives, such the honorable and holy thoughts whereby he was influenced, namely, by the consideration of God's kindness towards him for his people's sake. His heavenly and prophetic understanding saw not in that primitive institution what we in our blindness fancy we discern so clearly; nor did he hesitate to proclaim at the supreme council of the nation the pure and honorable motives to which, as he trusted his children born in polygamy owed their existence. I Chron. 28:5, "of all my sons, for Jehovah hath given me many sons, he hath chosen Solomon", etc. I say nothing of Solomon, notwithstanding his wisdom, because he seems to have exceeded due bounds; although it is not objected to him that he had taken many wives, but that he had married strange women; I Kings 11:1-3, Nehem. 13:26, His son Rehoboam desired many wives, not in the time of his iniquity, but during the three years he is said to have walked in the way of David, II Chron. 11:17,21,23. Of Joash mention has already been made; who was induced to take two wives, not by licentious passion, or the wanton desires incident to a controlled power, but by the sanction and advice of a most wise and holy man, Jehoiada the priest. Who can believe, either that so many men of the highest character should have sinned through ignorance for so many ages; or that their hearts should have been so hardened; or that God should have tolerated such conduct in his people? Let therefore the rule received among theologians have the same weight here as in other cases; "The practice of the saints is the best interpretation of the commandments." ...

SCIENCE AND PLURAL MARRIAGE

An In-depth Study into the Scientific, Genetic and

Eugenic Aspects of Plural Marriage

by Knut J. Knuteson

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that there were certain specific benefits that would come from the living of plural marriage; that these advantages would be realized by individuals, families, and society on a community level. Due to the fact that Joseph Smith scarcely mentioned plural marriage while speaking in public, we must study what others have said relative to his personal teachings on this topic.

"In l842 the Prophet Joseph taught me that through no other medium than plural marriage could the great 'Social Evil' of the present day be put away." (MLR. Benjamin F.

"This doctrine so hateful and annoying to the feelings of many, was revealed from heaven to Joseph Smith, and obedience is required to it by the Latter-day Saints, -- this very principle will work out the moral salvation of the world." (JD l2:26l)

"Plural marriage will be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portion of the world as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people." (JD 6:28l)

"I am satisfied that there is an immense amount of misunderstanding among the people of the world with respect to the Latter-day Saints and their belief in this peculiar doctrine. It is generally believed that we have embraced it for sensual purposes, and that we are a sensual people. What a silly idea! Why, any man with a grain of common sense might know better if he would give a little reflection to the matter! How much easier it would be, if we were licentious, to practice licentiousness according to the popular method! Why go to the trouble and expense and incur the odium of sustaining wives and children merely to gratify licentiousness, when we could do it to the fullest extent, on the popular plan, without incurring odium or assuming responsibility and care...We are solving the problem that is be-fore the world to-day, over which they are pretending to rack their

brains, I mean the 'Social Problem'. We close the door on our side, and say that whoredoms, seductions and adulteries must not be committed amongst us...at the same time we open the door in the other direction and make plural marriage honorable. What is the result? Why, a healthy, pure and virtuous community.

"No other woman in Mormon history, not even Joseph's first wife, Emma, ever played a role comparable to Eliza [R. Snow]'s. She wrote, 'From personal knowledge I bear my testimony that Plural Celestial marriage is a pure and holy principle, not only tending to individual purity and elevation of character, but also instrumental in producing

a more perfect type of manhood mentally and physically, as well as in restoring human life to it's former longevity.' (HCK p. 243)

"I increased in knowledge concerning the principle and ... today esteem it a precious, sacred principle -- necessary in the elevation and salvation of the human family -- in redeeming women from the curse, and the world from corruptions (JSl, p. 352, also ME, p. 223)

Eliza also wrote:

"'Every woman who is worthy of being called such, should defend it; it is truly woman's cause -- a cause which deeply involves, not only her present but her eternal interests -- which will eventually bring her back to the position from which she has fallen through the disobedience of our first parents and crown her with eternal majesty.

"Helen Mar Whitney, also a plural wife of Joseph Smith, indicated that plural marriage would free a woman 'from that bondage and curse which fell upon her through transgression ... the ones who practice and advocate it will be the first to stand as man's equal, as did our first mother, Eve in the garden of Eden.' (JSl, p. 360)."

While President Joseph F. Smith and Apostle Heber J. Grant were visiting at my home in Colonia Juarez, Mexico, a discussion of the colonists of Mexico was precipitated by President Smith in the which he said: 'Heber, the people of these colonies are the salt of the church, the salt of the world. The fact that they have left their comfortable homes of the north and have come down to these desert wastes to be able to live the higher law of the gospel of plural marriage makes them as I have said before the salt of the earth.' Apostle Grant agreed.

Dr. John A. Widtsoe wrote: "Eugenic studies have shown the children of polygamous parents to be above the average, physically and mentally. And the percentage of happy plural households was higher than that of monogamous families." (E & R, p. 393)

Gordon Hinckley, a modern Mormon leader wrote: "Indications point to the fact that as a rule the children of polygamous marriages were superior physically and mentally." (TR, p. l38)

Juanita Brooks, a well known writer on Mormonism, wrote an article called A Close-up of Polygamy, in which she outlined a lot of information about her own family heritage.

"I once overheard a conversation in which a girl from the East told of her acquaintance with a young man from a Mormon polygamous family. Her attitude expressed what appears to be a popular belief. She marveled at the young man's size, because, she said, 'I had always had an idea that in those big families the stock ran out, or something, and the children were undersized and ... anemic. But he certainly wasn't, and he was one of twenty-eight, the youngest son of the third wife.'

"I smiled as I thought of my father, also the youngest son of a third wife, also over six feet tall and, as a young man, perfectly proportioned. His brothers and sisters numbered forty-seven instead of twenty-eight, however, and every one of them was average or above in size, without a single deformity in the group. My mother was the second child of the second wife, and her nineteen brothers and sisters were not only physically sound but were intellectually superior - at least they produced a surprising number of school teachers and professional men."

She comments about the "remarkably low" incidence of infant mortality in her grandfather's family (who had 5 wives and 48 children). In speaking of her two grandfather's families, she said: "It is interesting to study the type of children that each produced. ... They are also much inclined toward education; many of the grandchildren have become teachers, several at least have Master's degrees, and one has a Ph.D. They are all leaders in their various communities, all respected citizens. ... These were a remarkable group physically, all being large and well formed, without a deformity among them. ... Mother's babies came regularly every fifteen months to two and a half years, but she seemed always to enjoy good health. She is today remarkably young looking and vigorous for a woman of sixty. (HMM, Feb. l934, p. 299-305)

We now quote another non-Mormon, yet printed in a Mormon paper: "'I have demonstrated,' says the author of The History and Philosophy of Marriage, 'that our present system of monogamy is a counterfeit, stimulating the most loathsome vices of prostitution and hypocrisy; and I assert that the only effectual manner in which social purity and honesty can be maintained, is by promoting the utmost freedom to marry...in the Holy Bible it teaches the innocence of polygamy, and the sinfulness of every form of sexual indulgence not guard-ed by a life-long marriage.'" (MS, l877, Vol. 39, p. 406)

George Vetter wrote, in l958, concerning polygamy and the Mormons:

"The eugenic consequences of this type of polygamy might well bear scientific investigation. In this field a scientific gold mine is being neglected here in America where the descendants of the Latter Day Saints who had a brief period of polygamous enthusiasm are still available for study. Educators with first-hand acquaintance with this stock are

unanimous in assuring me that the scions of these old polygamous families are at least a cut or two above the run of the mill Saint of monogamous lineage."

J. E. Hickman's Masters Thesis, titled A Critical Study of the Monogamic and Polygamic offspring of the Mormon People, submitted to Columbia University, Department of Philosophy, l907.

"[Plural marriage] has been heralded from pulpit to senate; from press to university halls that plural marriage degenerated womanhood, ushered into the world on an unequal footing - physically, mentally, and morally - besides lowering the moral and religious standard of the people. While a student in the University of Michigan, I was often forced to listen to attacks ... made against plural marriage and its issue; viz.: that the offspring were demented, dwarfed, ill-shapen densely ignorant' and that they were prone to criminal tendencies... With this in view, I began, nearly seven years ago to carefully and critically gather data on this subject until I had weighed and compared nearly twenty-four thousand persons.

"Marshalling the evidence together presented, there is but one conclusion, and that is, plural marriage as practiced by the Mormon people, is an uplift to the human race.

(J. E. Hickman thesis)

Without Compulsory Means

“Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.” (D&C 121: 45-46)

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Although this is oft quoted it seems to be ill understood; many may see our government overstepping its bounds, but how many see themselves? Accepting Family as the basic unit of government, and accepting plural marriage as a valid celestial family unit, let us begin our investigation there.

Should not a Polygamous family function in a similar manner to that of our Constitutional government? Should not men as husbands and fathers be responsible to their wives and children as our Federal government should be responsible to the State governments? Should there not be some kind of “Bill of Rights” to protect women and children from the tyranny of men who like Satan, would, “rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.”

Because of a lack of understanding, or just plain meanness, priesthood is wielded as a despotic power much as a title of nobility, or the “right of kings.” I should know, as I have been guilty of wanting blind unquestioning obedience from my wife. I have found it very difficult to let go of subliminal training that has become so ingrained in me to the point that I am held captive by my false concepts and beliefs; hence the need to know, to come to an understanding, of true priesthood government, that can free me from a tyranny that lies within that has me bound. Nor do I wish to lay the fault solely at the door of men, there are women who, in their struggle to live plural marriage, exercise a cruel despotism over their sister-wives; also women whose children rule over them as they rule over their men and oppress them.

We need to understand the true principles of government and how they apply to our lives, and to the lives of those we love. It seems to me the principles embodied in the inspired Constitution are far more consistent with that of a loving family than the rash of religious dogmas that have become so polluted and perverted as to be the bain of any living thing that finds itself beneath its oppressive hand.

So what are the proper bounds of a federal government, and how do they apply to a man who sincerely wishes to love, care for, and support his family? What is the woman’s place in the home, or outside of it? How is she supposed to fulfill the measure of her creation as a mother, helpmeet, or as a person of infinite worth and ability? What would a “Bill of Rights” have to say in defense of children and their “inalienable rights”, as infants, minors, adolescents, and as the adult children within a patriarchal family order? What “self-evident truths” support your particular family government, and what “self-evident truths” condemn the policies and or actions of any or all within your family government? What “self-evident truths” exist that gives to each one in your family the rights to which he/she is inalienably qualified as an individual to have?

A celestial marriage is not something that one man and several women can attain by simply coming together in a marital relationship. They need to sincerely care for one another, have the wisdom and understanding, and an unfailing desire to be just and right no matter what. How many men could share the woman they love with another man? I think it is an honest question. I believe the only way I could possibly do so would be if I knew and loved the other man as myself, and felt he cared for me in turn. How can anyone get past that overwhelming desire to be #1 in the life of the person they love? Yet that seems to be what some men ask the women in their life to do almost unthinkingly as they embark on their quest to find their Holy Grail. There are women who need to put a stop to their oppression, both in that which they are receiving as well as that which they give out. If children are to be raised up unto the Lord they need to be immersed in the principles of righteous family government; it is as needful to them as food and drink; I believe these things are to be found most clearly defined in the Constitution. It is true that we have the scriptures that can be used to substantiate those self-same principles, but often the scriptures are used instead to captivate and to place others in bondage. I would say most are aware that our government has fallen far from those noble principles bequeathed to us as a people, but how many are aware how far we ourselves have fallen from those “truths” and are failing to protect those who come under our dominion in their “natural rights.” I am sorely afraid we have assimilated that which we have tolerated; that we have been in Babylon so long that it permeates nearly every aspect of our lives.

Question: What are legitimate grounds for a divorce?

Good question, but there is perhaps no satisfactory answer. In divorce we look for justification. I can never truly understand your marriage, your divorce. Nor you mine. I can perhaps tolerate conditions which are totally unacceptable to you, and vice versa. That set of conditions totally unacceptable to you or to me has already ended in divorce, so take care of the paperwork. (O.W.)

It seems to me that our beliefs on divorce as well as other things is a messed up mumbo jumbo of conflicting ideas and assumptions, much like the so called Christian concepts of the gospel. One person considered grounds for divorce to be only if her husband were a murderer, an adulterer, or if he beat her; but felt that re-marriage would be out of the question for one divorced. Another person brought up, as fact, that in ancient Israel the woman was stoned but the man went free in cases of adultery. This was interesting on the basis that adultery means to make impure or to adulterate, and that it is the woman who is adulterated by being with or having children by more than one man; a man not being capable of being adulterated. This appeared logical as this person brought out the issue of children being sealed to a mother and father. How can this be done if one woman has children belonging to different fathers? The order of things as they should be has been adulterated. Another person said that when a woman ceases to have feelings for her husband, becomes alienated from him, or commits fornication against him he is obligated to give her a divorce. She doesn't have the ability to divorce him, he is the one with the authority to divorce her because she belongs to him and not visa versa, but if she wants a divorce he has an obligation to comply with her wishes. To not do so results in the evil of women looking for someone to love them, even though they are still married; and when they find someone who can and will meet their needs it is adultery. Also that actually it is quite hard to commit adultery if marriage is looked on in a biblical sense of a man being capable of marrying multiple wives. (See also D&C 132: 61-62) That a man cannot commit adultery with a woman if she does not belong to someone else. Then going to the Bible: “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9) [Do you think this is a mistranslation? O.W.] [No I don't. L.B.] Looking up Fornication: The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman. 2. Adultery. Matt.v. 3. Incest. 1 Cor. v. 4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chron. xxi. Rev. xix. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) I would have to take 4. as the definition meant by Jesus in the above scripture. But what does it mean? To me, looking at "Ancient Texts and Mormonism" page 71 "Spiritual bonds are therefore of the same nature as the sexual union:" I must conclude that cases of fornication, as spoken of by Jesus, are essentially cases of adultery wherein the marriage covenant has been broken and thus dissolved by one party or the other leaving the other party free and clear of any wrongdoing in continuing their search for truth, and life everlasting, which only comes when there is a completeness, or wholeness, that is only found in a union of the sexes. That is to say to try once more to make a marriage with an honorable man or woman. As was explained to me the Jews of this time had been taught that they had a right to divorce a woman for "every [any] cause". This would mean a man could dump his wife if she got fat, wrinkled, or he just got tired of her. Quite frankly they had legalized adultery, just as Jesus said, the only obstacle to them being completely debauched was the clause that said you couldn't re-marry a woman you had divorced. If not for this clause "righteous" wife swapping would have been the fashion of the day. My conclusions lead me to believe that it is the spiritual arena in which adultery takes place not necessarily the physical, but that in is the sexual arena where the spiritual and the physical tend to meet thus leading us to believe simplistically that it is all wrapped up in sex. I say this because Jesus says they, the man and woman, are to be one. It is only when something impure is added to that which is pure that it is adulterated. Only when the substance is "one" or all of the same stuff is it pure or unadulterated. If such is true then adultery exists whenever a husband and a wife are not one, be it over what's for supper, where to go on vacation, or where all these little things tend to end up ... in the marriage bed. And since this tends to be where the marriage finally ends I can see why adultery is thought of as sexual sin. Again, if these things are true, there must be tremendous long suffering and forgiveness in a marriage if it ever is to become a true and complete marriage, and as O.W. said what one person may be able to put up with another may not. What then are grounds for a divorce, or dissolution of a marriage? It is impossible to say completely, unless you simply want to say a breaking of the marriage covenant. And who is to determine that? Since anyone coming to this point is usually in emotional turmoil I believe the only entity capable of determining righteous grounds for a divorce is the priesthood or righteous men having a right to receive guidance and direction from our Heavenly Father for others, i.e. the only ones who have the ability to truly perform a marriage in the first place, for time and all eternity, which is or are the only true marriages period. Indeed, when a marriage takes place, as we know it, it is only a commitment to make a marriage, which is only capable of being created when two people abide by the marriage covenant, or the "how to" instructions that they get as they begin the most important adventure of their lives.

Unpublished Sermons of Brigham You

President Young in the Tabernacle at the Great Salt Lake City October 8th, 1861, a.m. "...We are continually sealing women to men, and continually giving divorces. ... Can a woman be freed from a man to whom she is sealed? Yes, but a bill of divorce does not free her; there is no such law given by the God of heaven to the children of men. ... I am suffered to give bills of divorcement unto you because of your blindness, ignorance and hardness of heart; otherwise it would be a sin in me. How can a woman be made free from a man to whom she has been sealed for time and all eternity? There are two ways. All the elders in Israel will not magnify their priesthood, that are now in the habit of taking women, not caring how they get them. ... They will actually commit adultery for the sake of getting a woman sealed to them.[Yeah! O.W.] ... Wives obtained in this way will be given to those who are more worthy. This I mean to apply to you elders on my right and left who forfeit your covenants and violate the regulations of this holy order of matrimony that are to live godly in Jesus Christ every hour of our lives. ... If a man magnifies his priesthood, ... all the blessings and honors to him in his ordinations and sealing blessings are immutably and eternally fixed; no power can wrench them from his possession. You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful ... and is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away. ... Could disaffected ones see visions, even of the future glorified state of their husbands, love for them would immediately spring up within you and no circumstance could prevail upon you to forsake them. The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband, while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood, I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with a higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement. To recapitulate: First, a man forfeits his covenant with a wife or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God and his priesthood - that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second, if a woman claims protection at the hands of a man possessing more power in the priesthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife, he can do so without a bill of divorcement." (Pages 1-3) [Glad to see this quoted. O.W.] (G. B.)

You can have a 50/50 Marriage

From Redbook, March, 2001

“We walk down the aisle with great expectations of an equal partnership but without a clue as to how to make it real. So, gradually life happens and we revert. The wives mommy-track and begin to lose their financial footing; the husbands career-track and begin to lose touch with home.

The lesson here is that at every point in their marriage, not just at the beginning, both partners must think about how much equality they want. … So if you’re capable of pursuing a more evolved marriage…

Orenstien found that true 50/50 marriages don’t happen unless the wife contributes half or more of the family’s income.

I found this article interesting because I feel women should feel, and be, equal. But what does that mean? I’m certain about some things, unsure about others, and without a clue in other areas. I found money to be an interesting area. Is it possible for a man to be equal if his wife is making the most money? What besides money creates areas of inequality?

As one person put it to me it is the expectations that we as individuals have that can create the difficulties that we face. What does a woman expect of a husband, or a man of a wife? Perhaps more articles dealing with, “What it means to be…. A wife, a mother, a husband, a father, and etc. would help us see just what some of our own expectations are. I say this because I find so much of what I believe, and whom I am to be buried deep in the subconscious area that I only comprehend as feelings. And feelings are like messages; coded messages that must be broken before a person can even understand what is bothering them, or what they expect.

Continuing with this same mind-set I go to Glamour Magazine June 1999. There is an article about Shania Twain. On page 293, “Asked why she thinks she’s such a monster sales success, Twain says it’s because she sings about male-female relations with a sense of humor. “And so this is what I’ve put into my music.” Perfect example? Her lyrics from “Any Man of Mine”: “Well any man of mine better disagree/When I say another woman’s lookin’ better than me/And when I cook him dinner and I burn it black/He better say, mmmm, I like it like that.”

Is it possible that we speak of Zion and the coming kingdom of God and yet are missing one of the most basic steps in the process? God wishes us to be One with Him, and when we attain Zion we supposedly will be of one heart and mind, yet how can that happen if men and women, husbands and wives are failing to attain this one critical step towards Zion? How can I truly love my wife if I do not love her as myself. Frankly I see the Muslim and Mormon fundamentalist being the furthest from this truth, and in that they may be the furthest from the love of God, and God help me, I do believe at times that I find myself there.