Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Davis H. Bays (RLDS Elder) on D&C 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants

  

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)