Elder Taylor's Discussion in
Boulogne took place in the year 1850, seven years after the Prophet Joseph had
received the Revelation on Celestial Marriage, but two years before that
revelation was published to the Church. Elder Taylor, therefore, had no
authority to preach polygamy. He neither preached it, contradicted it,
condemned it, nor publicly denied it. His controversial opponents adverted to
certain absurd stories about seraglios of “spiritual wives,” and sisterhoods of
the “white vail” and “black vail,” and other lying reports propagated by the
apostate Bennett fraternity and republished by Caswell. Our objector, in making
his extract from the Report, gives forth the notion that the speaker was
“stoutly denying polygamy, and stigmatizing it” as “indelicate, obscene, and
disgusting.” But where the said stout denial is to be found, we know not. His
own words are—“We are accused here of polygamy,” (referring to accusations made
even before the doctrine of polygamy was revealed, and which were false
accusations), “and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting
such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.” The idea
of his “stigmatizing” polygamy as “indelicate, obscene, and disgusting,” is an
interpretation of his words which is altogether gratuitous on the objector's
part. We do not so understand them. Such a meaning as that attached to them by
the objector could certainly never have been intended by their author.
Elder Taylor, instead of entering
into a formal refutation of the charges cited by his opponents, which he
considered as “too outrageous to admit of belief,” contented himself with
simply reading a passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants on the existing
marriage-law of the Church. As regards the Church being there spoken of as
“reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy,” we would ask, In what
light could such false charges have been considered but in that of reproach?
Polygamy was not then a revealed doctrine of the Church; and therefore the
Saints, as a matter of course, adhered to the general monogamic law. If they
had practised polygamy without “command” from God, their conduct would have
been in that respect, as censurable as that of the ancient Nephites. It would
have been a “crime” on their part. But polygamy in itself is not a crime; nor
does the Book of Doctrine and Covenants intimate that it is.
Our objector, in his extract
given in “Mormonism Dissected,” makes a false quotation, which is an unfair
act. The original is not “crimes of fornication and polygamy,” but “crime
of fornication, and polygamy;” the word “crime” referring only to
“fornication,” after which a comma is placed, but is left out by the objector
in his extract. If, however, the plural word “crimes” was used, as the
objector would have his readers believe, it would then refer, of course, to
both “fornication” and “polygamy.” But it is not so. Nor, indeed, is the
construction of the next sentence so favourable to the objector's purpose as he
might wish. Even if the word “but” occurred before “one wife,” as it does
before “one husband,” it would prove nothing against the principle of polygamy
itself; for the Saints were then living under the monogamic law. The wording of
the passage, however, is—“We believe that one man should have one wife,
and one woman but one husband.” As far as punctuation is concerned, we
may here observe that the commas after “polygamy,” in the Notice from the Times
and Seasons and in Elder Taylor's remarks from the Report, and after
“fornication,” in the passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, all
prove adverse to the objector's argument. Although those commas are not really
necessary, yet they aid in showing the import of the sentences where they are
used. Their absence would neither be favourable to his position nor
unfavourable to ours; but their presence is certainly fatal to his
interpretation.
The extract from the Millennial
Star Supplement of Dec. 31, 1853, taken from the Deseret News Extra
of Sept. 14, 1852, simply shows that the Prophet Joseph, after having received
the Revelation on Marriage, “had more wives than one.” This fact, we have
neither inclination nor reason to deny. President Young, in making this
statement, did not, of course, in any way “contradict and condemn” polygamy
itself, nor “publicly deny” the fact of Joseph's having “believed and practised
it.”
What, then, do our opponent's
objections amount to? He invites “special attention” to the “facts” adduced,
and pledges himself to “produce” the “books” quoted from, “when required.” We
have given “special attention” to those “facts,” and have ourselves “produced”
and made due reference to the “books” alluded to; and our conclusion is, that
the objector's Dissection of “Mormonism,” instead of causing the honest
observer or the Latter-day Saint to fear his knife, will cause him still more
attentively to study the real “facts” of the case, as well as to more highly
appreciate the value of the “books” which record them. (“Anti-Mormon
Objections Answers,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 20, no.
22 [May 29, 1858]: 395-96)
