theay which He hath opened, and this

is the way marked out by the word of the Lord.

As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood. Children will be enthroned in the presence of God and the Lamb with bodies of the same stature that they had on earth, having been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; they will there enjoy the fulness of that light, glory and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom. "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, for they rest from their labors and their works do follow them."

The speaker, before closing, called upon the assembly before him to humble themselves in faith before God, and in mighty prayer and fasting to call upon the name of the Lord, until the elements

were

purified over our heads, and the earth sanctified under our feet, that the inhabitants of this city may escape the power of disease and pestilence, and the destroyer that rideth upon the face of the earth, and that the Holy Spirit of God may rest upon this vast multitude. At the close of the meeting, President

99

Smith said he should attend to the ordinance of baptism in the river, near his house, at two o'clock, and at the appointed hour, the bank of the Mississippi was lined with a multitude of people, and President Joseph Smith went into the river and baptized eighty persons, for the remission of their sins, and what added joy to the scene was, that the first person baptized was Mr. L. D. Wasson, a nephew of Mrs. Emma Smith-the first of her kindred that embraced the fulness of the Gospel.

At the close of this interesting scene, the administrator lifted up his hands towards heaven, and implored the blessing of God to rest upon the people; and truly the Spirit of God did rest upon the multitude, to the joy and consolation of our hearts.

After baptism, the congregation again repaired to the grove, near the Temple, to attend to the ordinance of confirmation, and, notwithstanding President Smith had spoken in the open air to the people, and stood in the water and baptized about eighty persons, about fifty of those baptized received their confirmation under his hands in the after part of the day.

While this was progressing, great numbers were baptized in the font.

After this, I baptized a large number in the font myself.

I.

THE writer of these articles was aware that he had undertaken no small task in attempting to treat, in a few brief pages, a subject, not only delicate in the extreme, but of great magnitude, and, to this generation, of vital importance. We assumed the responsibility, however,

This series was first issued in Spanish, being published by the author, in pamphlet form, in the City of Mexico, June, 1881. It will continue through the present volume.

with less reluctance, because of the eminent authorities at hand from which to make extracts, than otherwise we possibly could have done.

The subject itself, and the treatment of it, was suggested by a short article published in El Abogado Cristiano, a Mexican journal, in February, 1881, wherein the message of President Hayes to the Congress of the United States was referred to by the Christian Methodist editor, with particular reference to that

portion regarding the "Mormon” citizens of the Territory of Utah.

Our editorial friend not only misrepresented the contents of the Presidential message, as we took the liberty of showing at the time through the columns of La Tribuna, but referred to plural marriage, or polygamy, as an "abominable practice," and endeavored to make it appear that the President had declared it to be a "national dishonor," which ought to be "blotted out without delay."

In the March issue of the same organ, the editor admitted, in an article entitled "The Mormons again," a small part of the errors, or misrepresentations, made in the former article. Had he frankly admitted the whole, as he reluctantly did a part, we would have received the concession with thanks, believing it to have emanated from a spirit of justice and a sense of right. Because of the nature of his calling as a professed minister of Christ, in whom there is no guile, we had reason to hope he would do this. However, as he chose, instead of repairing the wrong, to re-affirm his former position, by assuming personally that "Mormonism" is a "national dishonor," we leave the responsibility where it belongs. The reader, after having read these pages, will, without any suggestion from us, form his own conclusions.

now

Without referring further to the misstatements of these articles, we come to the direct issue. The statements of our opponent were, first, that polygamy, or having a plurality of wives, was an "abominable practice;" and, secondly, that "Mormonism"(doubtless because it includes in its doctrines patriarchal, or plural marriage) "is a national dishonor."

This is the position assumed by the editor of El Abogado Cristiano, and is that of most opponents of the Mormon system. We cheerfully and unhesitatingly take the opposite, viz: that the practice of patriarchal marriage, or having a plurality of wives, among the Latter-day Saints in Utah is neither an "abominable practice" nor a "national dishonor." Our tests are the laws of God, His moral code, and the "fruits" of polygamous marriages. The assertion that they are

so amounts to nothing whatever outside the immediate circle wherein the persons who make it move, or perhaps with parties over whom they wield a personal influence. We candidly admit that our denial stands upon a similar basis. The extent to which an unproved assertion may safely be taken depends much upon the character of the person making it, particularly as to soundness of judgment, inaptness to jump at conclusions, lack of prejudice, and veracity. Aside from

these personal considerations, a truth is a truth, though spoken or written by a person who may previously have been known to have stooped to twist, garble or falsify other matters. Coming from such a source, however, it would be likely to carry less conviction than when uttered or written by one whose integrity had never been impeached, and whose honor was above reproach.

Aside from these considerations, we live, thanks to the enlightening agencies of steam and electricity; to the freedom of the pulpit and the press, in an age of reason, when assertions, unsupported by evidence, are not considered effective arguments, nor do they weigh heavily upon intelligent and reflecting minds.

Before entering fully into the details of our subject, we desire briefly to test, by the rules of logic, the only attempt which our editorial friend made at argument. He said: "An immoral act or custom, although practiced as a religious duty, is not a sufficient excuse to those whose obligations are to guard the interests of society. Pagan mothers along the banks of the Ganges threw their tender children to the alligators, being impressed by a religious belief and sentiment. The same impulse caused the widow to cast herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband. But all the civilized world applauded the British Government when it interposed the law and power which abolished these atrocities. Society has the same right to defend itself against polygamy."

Yes, the British Government did a commendable thing in enacting and enforcing laws for the abolishment of such horrid crimes within Her Majesty's do

minions. Murder is a crime against which all nature cries out in abhorrence; it is a crime against all humanity, civilized or savage; but it did not require human enactment to make it so; it is, and always has been a crime of the deepest dye. Its perpetration brought a curse upon Cain, when his brother's blood cried from the earth as a witness against him. This first murderer knew, in every fibre of his nature, that he had committed, in depriving his brother of life, a most heinous crime; and he knew it before God had passed sentence and inflicted upon him the curse. Thus murder always has been and always will be a crime. It is so because it destroys life, taking away by violence that which man cannot

restore.

"But he who asserts that, because murder, under the plea of religious motives, or otherwise, cannot be permitted under the law, that plural marriage, though sanctioned by God as a religious ordinance, must therefore be prohibited or interfered with by the law; or, because the burning of widows upon the funeral pyre cannot be permitted in the United States, even though the victim might claim her religious right to make a sacrifice of herself, that two women shall not, therefore, be at liberty to marry one man according to the requirement of their religion, is surely a very illogical reasoner. In the name of common sense, to say nothing about logical reasoning, what possible analogy can there be between the destruction of life, which God has forbidden, and marriage, which He has approved: between practices which extinguish life and an honorable and holy relation of the sexes which perpetuates it?" The practices prohibited in India by the British Government, if fully carried out, would blot man out of existence, desolate the world and convert the earth into a howling wilderness.

"But marriage," as the Rev. Jeremy Taylor truly says, "is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches and heaven itself." In view of these facts, men cannot, as intelligent beings upon whom the Creator has bestowed discriminating and reason

ΙΟΙ

ing faculties, say that, because society has the right to protect itself by the enactment and enforcement of laws against murder, it has the same right to enact and enforce laws to prohibit the patriarchal system of marriage, or punish those who practice it from a sense of religious duty. Christians may advocate such ideas, and while doing so profess adoration of the God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon, and continue to cast reflections on the lineage of the Redeemer of the world, who declared himself to be the root and the offspring of David; yet every honest believer in and supporter of the Bible can detect the insincerity which prompts the display of such illogical, heaven-defying absurdities. Such logic will never do! Better renounce openly, as they do covertly, belief in the doctrines of the Bible, and then we will meet them and compare the fruits of "Mormon" polygamy with those of Christian monogamy from a scientific or physiological standpoint. For we have excellent reasons for believing that everything which God has ordained, approved, requested and blest is competent to stand, not only the test of logic, but that of science. True science, recognizing the laws of moral and physical health, condemns lewdness and urges the punishment of vice; approves virtue and praises purity; but it does not confound as analogous the means of producing life and of causing death. It was scientific statesmanship which prevented the English law-makers from criminalizing by enactment the Biblical doctrine of polygamy when they passed laws to abolish murder, on the banks of the Ganges. That government had an excellent chance, when legislating for India, to place itself squarely, as these Christian opponents of the "Mormons" have done, in opposition to God. But, unlike them, whatever its prejudices may have been, it did not do it.

The British Government did suppress

the Suttee, but, at the same time, tolerated eighty-three millions of polygamists

in India. If our Christian friends desire to praise the statesmanship of our "transAtlantic cousin" regarding the treat

ment of Indian affairs, let them be consistent and acknowledge, as it did, that the suppression of the Suttee and that of polygamy are two very different things. If the British Government is to be our guide, let us wait until it suppresses the latter, as it did the former, before we talk about the "rights of society" to protect itself against a religious practice that never injured or had anything to do with that society.

The British Government left the doctrine of polygamy as practiced in India to be solved by the teachings and examples of the various Christian sects who might seek their conversion. To show how they have managed the matter we quote the following extract from the decision of the Calcutta Missionary Society, composed of missionaries from the various orthodox sects of England and America:

"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 all of them, but such a person is not eligible to any

office in the church."

The arguments these learned divines advanced in justification of this decision were very elaborate and conclusive, see "Answers to Questions" by Prest. Geo. A. Smith. The following is one of them:

"While this system of a plurality of wives was reverenced and observed, we read of no adultery, whoredom and common prostitution of women among the daughters of Israel; no brothels, street walking, venereal disease; no child murder, and those other appendages of female ruin, which are too horrid to particularize. Nor were these things possible, which, since the revocation of the divine system and the establishment of human systems are becoming inevita ble. The supposing our blessed Savior came to destroy the divine law, or alter it with respect to marriage, is to suppose Him laying a foundation for the misery and destruction of the weaker sex."

Moses Thatcher.

There is nothing by which life is more profited than by the just observations, the good opinion and the sincere and gentle encouragement of amiable and sensible women.-Romilly.

III.

THE army for Utah began its march from Fort Leavenworth July 18, 1857. The Tenth Infantry, numbering five hundred men, under the command of Col. E. B. Alexander, was the first to start. These were dispatched by General Harney, but on the 28th of August he was relieved of the command of the Utah expedition, and Colonel Albert S. Johnston appointed to succeed him. By the 20th of September the entire force had taken the road, including the commander and the escort of the newly appointed governor, Col. Cumming, and other civil officers. It was expected by Col. Johnston that he would overtake the advance, and by forced marches enter Salt Lake City by October 20th. And that the rear, with the Federal officials,

would arrive by the middle of November.

These various officers started the upon overland journey with flying colors, buoyant spirits and sanguine expectations. They never doubted but that their auspi cious advent, overaweing presence and distinguished bearing among the barbarians of Utah would have the most salutary influence in civilizing and Americanizing the inhabitants. They were a glorious band of reformers, sent out as examples of American citizenship, to teach the rebellious Mormons how to honor and support the great Government of the United States. Of course, the troops but obeyed the instructions of the administration, and became to the people of Utah, before the campaign was over, objects of commiseration and pity,