of jurists and ministers that we must solely look, but also to the
action of the church as a body during different periods of its history.
In the year 1846, the question of polygamy came up before the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in the United States.
Through a committee, of which the eminent Chancellor Walworth, of New
York, was chairman, this body reported against instructing missionaries
to exclude polygamists from the church. This report was adopted without
a dissenting voice.[2] This discussion brought out some interesting
facts having especial bearing upon the views of those churches which
numbered polygamists among their communicants. It was shown that the
secretaries of the board appeared to consider the existence of polygamy
in the churches as so entirely a frivolous question that even after it
was especially brought to their notice they forbore to make inquiries
and even when polygamists had actually been admitted into the Mission
churches, no taint of disapproval had been made by the Prudential
Committee.[3] The whole subject was left to the decision of the
missionaries themselves, one of whom published his views in the _Boston
Recorder_. After prevising that the Bible was their rule of faith, he
asks:
Is it not evident from Paul’s instruction respecting the
qualifications of a bishop, viz., that he “should be the
husband of one wife” that polygamy was permitted in the
primitive church under the apostles, and that too in
circumstances precisely similar to those in which churches
are gathered among the heathen at the present day. If so, why
should a different standard be set up than that set up by the
apostles?
That polygamy is not regarded as contrary to the principles of
Christianity was again most forcibly shown in its endorsement by
missionaries located in those countries where this custom prevails.
One of the most notable instances of recent church action in
recognizing polygamy as sustained by Christianity, occurred a few
years since in Calcutta during a Conference upon the question.
This body was convened by the missionaries of England and America
located in India. Its immediate cause was the application of Indian
converts, the husbands of several wives, for admission to the church.
A missionary conference of the several Christian denominations was
therefore called for the purpose of deciding upon this grave request.
It included representatives of the Episcopal, Baptist, Presbyterian
and Congregationalist churches. Taking the Bible as authority full
consideration was given to the subject. Quotations from that “holy
book” proved to the satisfaction of the conference that not alone did
the Bible favor polygamy, but that God himself endorsed, regulated
and sustained the institution. In addition it was declared that these
converted polygamists “had given credible evidence of their personal
piety.” The conference therefore unanimously rendered favorable
decision for retention of the polygamous members within the respective
churches to which they belonged, upon the ground that as both the Jews
and the early Christians had practiced polygamy, it was allowable to
the new converts.
If a convert before becoming a Christian, has married more
wives than one, in accordance with the practice of the Jewish
and primitive Christian churches, he shall be permitted to
keep them all.
Yet apparently as a concession to the somewhat altruistic civilization
of the present age, which outside of the church does not look upon
polygamous marriages with favor, such persons were declared ineligible
to any office in the church. Rev. David O. Allen, D.D., missionary of
the American Board in India for twenty-five years and from whose report
of the action of the missionary conference the above facts were gained,
said:
If polygamy was unlawful, then Leah was the only wife of Jacob
and none but her children were legitimate. Rachel as well as
Bilhah and Zilpah were merely mistresses and their children,
six in number were bastards, the offspring of adulterous
connection. And yet there is no intimation of any such views
and feelings in Laban’s family, or in Jacob’s family or in
Jewish history. Bilhah and Zilpah are called Jacob’s wives
(Genesis xxxvii: 2.). God honored the sons of Rachael, Bilhah
and Zilpah equally with the sons of Leah, made them patriarchs
of seven of the tribes of the nation and gave them equal
inheritances in Canaan.
Thus the endorsement of polygamy as not contrary to the Bible, or to
Christianity, is shown by action of Christian churches both in the
United States and India within the present century; and we can readily
understand why a gentleman from the New England states traveling in
Utah said: “Mormonism seems a very devout sect of the Christian church,
differing but little from the great body of Christian people.”[4] Nor
is this judgment at all strange as we find polygamy endorsed by the
majority of Christian sects. Nor can we be surprised that the Mormons
of Utah and the adjoining states should look upon the opposition of the
United States to their practice of polygamy, as an unjust interference
with an established custom of the Christian church, recognized and
indorsed through the ages, as not alone part of the Jewish and early
christian practice, but permitted as allowable at the present day.
President Eliot of Harvard, speaking in Salt Lake City, compared the
Mormons to the Puritans, thus throwing the weight of his statement as
to the harmony between Mormonism and other Christian sects.
The Rochester, N.Y., _Herald_, in forgetfulness of early puritan
history, says “It would be interesting to know from what point of view
President Eliot took his observation,” and refers to “Mormon Contempt
and debasement of Womanhood; Mormon discouragement of intelligence
and education among its dupes and victims,” etc. The _Herald_ has
apparently forgotten the trial of women for heresy by the Puritans;
their imprisonment, heavily ironed in airless jails, for the crime of
religious free thought; the flogging of naked women on Boston Common
by the Puritans for free speech and their being executed as witches,
in the Puritan colony of Massachusetts. The _Herald_ has apparently
forgotten that although the first money given for the foundation
of Harvard itself was by a woman, her sex, “dupe and victim,” is
still denied the full advantage of education in that institution. It
forgets that although the first plot of ground for a free school in
the Puritan colony of Massachusetts was given by a woman, girls were
denied education even in common schools until it became necessary to
permit their attendance during the summer months while the boys were
engaged in fishing, in order to retain possession of school moneys. The
_Herald_ seems unaware of the vigorous letter of Mrs. Hannah Adams,
wife of the second president of the United States, to her husband,
John Adams, when he was a member of the first Congress, in reference
to the need of education for women. Should the _Herald_ pursue its
investigations still farther, it will find the Puritans connected with
the most serious “crimes” against humanity; it will discover priestly
and governmental “usurpation,” Puritan “fanaticism and bigotry”;
even Puritan “disloyalty.” When President Eliot favorably compared
the Christian Puritans and the Christian Mormons, he spoke both as
a close reader of Puritan history and a close observer of Mormon
history; his declaration of their similarity to each other cannot
be denied by the candid historian. Building upon the same common
foundation, acknowledging the same common origin, the doctrines of
the two systems necessarily bear close resemblance to each other.[5]
Under the Christian theory regarding woman, her origin and her duties,
it should not be regarded as at all strange that polygamy should find
defenders in the christian world. Nor is it to be looked upon as at all
as surprising that the Mormons, the most recent Protestant sect, should
teach polygamy as a divinely organized institution, nor that their
arguments in its favor should be drawn from the Bible and not from the
book of Mormon. That polygamy was not an original Mormon tenet is well
known; it was derived from a professed revelation to Joseph Smith,
sustained by biblical authority. The polygamous Mahommedans regard
Christ as a prophet, the same as the Mormons respect the authority of
the Bible. The Mormon marriage formula directs the man to look to God,
but enjoins the woman to look toward her husband as God, rendering
him the same unquestioning obedience that has been demanded from all
Christian wives through the ages; the priest, as customary with the
hierarchal class, declaring himself endowed with an authority from on
high to bind or to loose on earth, seals the union of the pair for time
and eternity. Although the marriage ceremony of the Mormon church is
more complex, in many respects it parallels that of the Presbyterians
of Scotland during the early day of the Reformation, authority for
woman’s degradation in each case being derived from the Bible, the
language in each instance being unfit for publication.[6]
An epistle of the First Presidency to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints, in General Conference, said:
“The Gospel of the Son of God, brings life and immortality to
light.” We believe in Jerusalems, such as the one which John
saw when banished as a slave to the Isle of Patmos because
of his religion, where promises made to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob are to be fulfilled; “which had a wall great and high,
and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels”—and the
twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was one
pearl.” Its walls were of jasper, its streets and the city
were pure gold. The foundations of the wall were garnished
with all manner of precious stones, and the glory of God did
lighten it, “and the Lamb is the light thereof.” Its pearly
gates had written upon them the names of the twelve tribes
of the children of Israel and the foundations of its walls,
“the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” “The throne
of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall
serve Him; and they shall see His face; and His name shall be
in their foreheads. The porters of its gates were angels and
its light the glory of God.” What was written on those pearly
gates? The names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Who was
Israel? Jacob. From whom did the twelve tribes descend? From
Jacob. What were their names? The names of the sons of Jacob,
which he had by four wives. Jacob, then, was a polygamist?
Yes; he was one of those barbarians of which the Judge of the
Third Judicial District says: “These practices might have been
proper in a barbarous and primitive time—in crude times—but
they won’t do now. Civilization has thrown them away. It won’t
do to gather up these old customs and practices out of the
by-gone barbarism and by-gone ages, and attempt to palm them
upon a free and intelligent and civilized people in these
days.”
How free the people are in Utah today needs no discussion. If
the judge cannot stand these things it would seem God and the
Lamb can, for He is the light of the city, on the gates of
which are written the names of twelve men, the sons of one man
by four women—a polygamist. Had Jacob lived now, the judges
would have sent spies, spotters and deputy marshals after him,
and if caught would have sent him to the penitentiary.
This epistle boldly challenges christian belief in the New Jerusalem
as based upon polygamy; upon its gates the names of twelve polygamous
children are inscribed, sons of one man, children of four mothers,
two wives and two concubines. Of Solomon, this epistle could likewise
have spoken, whom the Bible represents as the wisest man that lived;
his wives numbering three hundred, his concubines seven hundred. Nor
are Jacob and Solomon two isolated instances of Jewish polygamy;
Mormons, in common with the lay and clerical authorities previously
referred to, find abundant proof for their sanction of polygamy both
in the revelations of the Old and the New Testaments. But each human
being entering the world is a revelation to himself, to herself, and
the revelation inherently abiding in all women, declares against such
degradation of herself and her sex.
Brigham Young, the first Mormon president, husband of nineteen wives,
father of forty-two children, possessed great natural fascination; was
a man of wonderful magnetism. Of him a daughter said: “his slightest
touch was a caress.” His seventh wife, an elegant and fashionable
woman, was said by her daughter to worship the ground that he walked
upon and never to have been herself since his death. From this favorite
daughter of Young who after his death apostatized from the Mormon
religion, much has been learned in regard to the real feeling of these
polygamous wives toward each other, which she characterized as “an
outward semblance of good will, but in reality a condition of deadly
hatred.” Such outward semblance of goodwill, such real condition of
deadly hatred is the result of all forms of religion which subjugate
the many to the caprice of the few, even though done under assumption
of divine authority. That envy, jealousy and hatred should be among
the dire results of woman’s religious degradation, cannot be a subject
of surprise to the student of human nature; and it is supreme proof of
the bondage of the human will under fancied authority from God, that
such minds as those of Luther, Milton, Seldon, Beecher, Walworth and
others like them should uphold a system so degrading in character alike
to the men and the women who practice it. Young’s daughter Dora with
five of her sisters, was expelled a few years since from the Mormon
church for having gone to law with certain of the Mormon brethren who
attempted to rob them of their patrimony. The elders realizing the
injury these women might do for the church, sent a couple of teachers
to interview Dora, invoking her father’s name to influence her dropping
the suit[7] and return to the church. Dora had been aroused by a sense
of the iniquity of the church, through hearing its elders declare upon
oath that they knew nothing of polygamous marriage ceremonies being
performed, while the same day of this denial no less than fourteen such
marriages had taken place at the Endowment House. Referring to the
conscientious belief held by many women of the necessity of polygamous
marriage in order to secure the sanctification requisite for their
salvation, Dora said:
Since my eyes have been opened I sometimes ask myself how I
could ever possibly have regarded the horrible and licentious
practices of which I was aware, and the terrible things I have
witnessed with anything but horror? And yet I was brought
up to consider these things right and I thought nothing
about them—just as I suppose children brought up where human
sacrifices are offered, learn to regard such sacrifice as
right and to look upon them with indifference.
Experience taught Dora that the natural character of the human mind
soon accommodates itself to circumstances, becomes in accord with
its environment, and regards as right whatever law or custom teaches
is right. This, called the conservative tendency of the human mind,
is merely the result of habitude of thought induced by authoritative
teaching. Both church and state have availed themselves of the
influence of authoritative custom for the perpetuation of power.
In this way despotism has gained its chief victories. The beliefs
to which persons have been habituated from childhood, are, without
investigation, deemed truths by the majority of the world. No step
so great in its far-reaching results as that of independent thought;
none so greatly feared by priestly and civil power; and among women
during the Christian ages, none has met with such swift rebuke, no sin
has been characterized as its equal in malignancy. Therefore while
the world has possessed full knowledge of man’s opinions regarding
polygamy, not until the present century and in the United States have
the views of women been attainable. Until the present age there has
been no escape from bondage for the polygamous wife, no opportunity
for learning its effects upon her own inner self. From the daughter of
its chief prophet, the man whose fame in connection with polygamy has
gone throughout the world, we have learned something of its evils as
seen and felt by woman. Yet other and still stronger testimony is not
lacking. A private letter written in Salt Lake City a few years since,
published in the _Boston Transcript_ under head of “The Silent Woes of
Mormonism” depicts one phase in its influence upon the unborn.
A few years ago an educated young journalist came to Salt Lake
City from Europe with his young wife. Both became sincere
believers in Mormonism. Then strong pressure was brought to
bear by the priesthood upon the husband to force him into
polygamy. The wife finding opposition in vain, at last gave
her nominal consent. A second bride was brought into the
house. In a short time the first wife became a mother, but the
infant never cried aloud. It came voiceless into the world.
But it wept in secret all the time. Sleeping or waking the
tears flowed from its closed eyes, and in a few weeks it died.
The mother said that it died of a broken heart. Every day
of its life it shed the tears that its mother had repressed
before its birth.
The experience of Caroline Owens, whose suit for bigamy against her
polygamous husband, John D. Miles, appealed from the Supreme Court
of Utah to the Supreme Court of the United States—a suit implicating
Delegate Cannon, of the Congress of the United States, in its tale
of wrong, presents another phase. Miss Owens was an English girl
acquainted with Miles from her childhood. He had emigrated to Utah,
but in England on a visit he urged her to return with him, promising
her marriage when they reached Salt Lake City. She questioned him as
to polygamy. He replied that a few old men were allowed more than one
wife, but that young men like himself had but one, although he spoke
of one Emily Spencer who had expressed affection for him but whom he
had no intention of marrying. Upon reaching Salt Lake City, Miss Owens
staid at the house of United States Delegate George Q. Cannon, where
but one wife resided. When the day of the wedding arrived she went
through the ceremonies of the Endowment House, lasting from ten o’clock
in the morning until three in the afternoon, and had been wedded to
John D. Miles. She says:
I can never tell the horrors of the next few hours. Before
that day was over my love had turned to burning hatred. When
we started to go home, Miles told me that he had invited Emily
Spencer to our wedding reception. I said if she came to the
house I should leave. He replied he was now master. I went
to my room and dressed for the reception, which took place
at Cannon’s other house, where he kept his three wives. When
I went down there was a crowd there, among the rest a plain
looking girl in a calico dress, to whom I was introduced. It
was Emily Spencer. I did not speak to her. After a while they
wanted to dance, and asked me to play. Emily Spencer sat on
a piano stool. I told her to get up. Miles came forward and
said, “Sit still, Emily Spencer, my wife.” I felt as though I
had been shot. I said, “Your wife! then what am I?” He said,
“You are both my wives.” All at once my shame flashed over
me. Here I was dishonored, the polygamous wife of a Mormon.
I ran out of the house, bent only on escape, I did not think
where; I could not do it, though, for Miles and young Cannon,
a son of the delegate, ran after me and dragged me back. We
had been intending to stay in the house all night, but I stole
away and returned to the other house, where I had been living
the three weeks since my arrival from England. I noticed there
was no key in the lock, but shot a little bolt and piled up
chairs against the door. I cried myself to sleep. The next
thing I knew I don’t know what time it was, Miles stood in
the room and was locking the door on the inside. I screamed,
because Mrs. Cannon and Miles’ step-mother had been living in
the house with me. Miles said I need not take on, for brother
Cannon had anticipated that I would make trouble and had had
the house cleared of every one else. I found out that it was
so. He told me that I might as well submit; there was no law
here to control the saints; there was no power on earth that
would save me.
She was subjected to great brutality, again and again beaten and
exhorted to bear her condition patiently as a sister to be exalted;
because of her rebellious spirit she was hectored and threatened,
stoned, jeered at and abused in many ways, all under pretense of
religion, until after three weeks of such matrimonial life she escaped
and among the “Gentiles” found rest and help. She speaks of polygamous
wives as half-clad, poorly fed, toiling like serfs without hope under
the chains of a religious despotism.[8] Mormon polygamy possesses
the peculiar feature of tracing the system of plural marriage to the
gods; a father and mother god and goddess; a grandfather a grandmother
god and goddess, and thus in constantly ascending scale; from these
they claim the origin of their own polygamous system. Every Mormon
man, however depraved, is taught that if he lives up to the plural
marriage system, upon his death he will become a god, holding power and
procreating children to all eternity. But should any Mormon, however
pure his life, die unmarried, he has forever lost his opportunity
of becoming a god, but remains simply an angel, a servant of the
polygamous gods.[9] The belief is inculcated in woman, that to her
marriage is even more necessary than to man. Without marriage there
is no resurrection for her, and thus believing polygamy a requisite
for eternal salvation, thousands silently endure the woes of this
condition. This latest christian sect, this final outgrowth of
centuries of barbarous teaching, is the most determined effort against
the integrity of womanhood since the days of the Jewish patriarchs.
The duty of giving birth to numerous children in order to save waiting
spirits and to swell the glory of the polygamous father in his after
death godship, is as thoroughly taught as when in mediaeval days monk
and priest preached woman’s duty to constantly add numbers to the
church. The late Helen H. Jackson who had thoroughly investigated the
Mormon question, writing of polygamy in the _Century_ said:
The doctrine, to be completely studied, must be considered
both from the man’s point of view and the woman’s, the two
being, for reasons, not identical. But it is the woman’s view
of it, her belief and position in regard to it, which are most
misrepresented and misunderstood by the world. If the truth
were known, there would be few persons in whose minds would be
any sentiment except profound pity for the Mormon woman—pity,
moreover, intensified by admiration. There has never been a
class or sect of women since the world began who have endured
for religion’s sake a tithe of what has been, and is, and
forever must be, endured by the women of the Mormon church. It
has become customary to hold them as disreputable women, light
and loose, unfit to associate with the virtuous, undeserving
of any esteem. Never was greater injustice committed.
The two doctrines which most help the Mormon woman to endure
the suffering of living in plural marriage are the doctrines
of pre-existence and of the eternal continuance of the
patriarchal order. The mere revelation from Joseph Smith,
to the effect that polygamy was to be permitted and was
praiseworthy and desirable, would never, alone, have brought
the Mormon women to hearty acceptance of the institution.