This article on marriage—which I have
quoted entire—was presented before a "General Assembly" at Kirtland,
Ohio, August 17, 1835, and by the action of that body became one of the articles
of the church government and as ordered printed as a part of the "Doctrine
and Covenants" of the church.
This article shows that at that early
day the church had been charged with "the crime of fornication and
polygamy." The adoption and publication of this article on marriage was
designed to serve the two-fold purpose of refuting the charges of polygamy, and
at the same time counteract the influence of the charge upon the public mind.
Upon its face, the article, especially that portion which includes the marriage
ceremony, seems absolutely to prohibit polygamy; and yet, strange to say, this
identical ceremony has been employed in every polygamous marriage performed in
the endowment house in Salt Lake City during the palmy days of Brigham Young,
and, in fact, by every other polygamous branch of the Mormon Church.
Upon the surface there seems no
possible loop-hole to admit polygamy, but upon a careful examination it will be
seen that such is not the case. Let us examine the document a little more
carefully.
Why should all marriages be
"solemnized in a public meeting," or a feast prepared for that
purpose, which is also public? Clearly it was for the purpose of creating the
impression that no secret marriages ever had been or ever would be performed
with the approval of the church. All polygamous marriages, up to the time of
the exodus to Utah, were of necessity performed in secret, in order to evade
the punishment which the law of every State prescribed.
Church clerks were to make a record of
every marriage performed in the manner described, but of clandestine marriages
he could make no record, not having legal knowledge that such marriage
had been performed.
Again, you may have observed the
ingenious phraseology of that part of the document which is designed to convey
the impression that the assembly, as well as the entire church, was opposed to
polygamy, but which, as a matter of fact, leaves the way open for its
introduction and practice. The language I refer to is this:
"We believe that one man shall
have one wife; and one woman but one husband." Why use the
restrictive adverb in the case of the woman, and ingeniously omit it with
reference to the man? Why not employ the same form of words in the one case as
in the other? Of the woman it is said she shall have but one husband.
why not say of the man he shall have "but one wife, except in case
of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." We repeat the
question with emphasis, Why not restrict the man to one wife in the same
manner that the woman is restricted to one husband? The reason seems
obvious. (Davis H. Bays, Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined and
Refuted [St. Louis: Christian Publishing, 1897], 326-28)
