HOLLIS-At Nebraska City, North America. July 27th, of rheumatism, William Holis, formerly a member of the Mansfield Branch, Nottingham shirɔ, ag›d 22 years, 5 months aad 7 days. POETRY. "MY OWN!" TUNE.-"Lang Syne." "My own." "my own" Who has not set I reare them up I piled them high, [What dreamer has not done the same?] Forgetting that the lightest sigh Might waft them to the ground again. I watched the visions fancy wove, She intermingled na ight of dearth, Frien 1ship was min, aid joy and loveI walked, a being not of earth: My home a little Goshen was→ That might o'ercast the prospect there. My garden to my mind outvied The beauties Elen's selt displayed, I gazed upon my beauteous child, But sickness came, no more he smiled- Another and another came, Another and another weut; The light of life began to wan", My spirit like the willow bent. Alas! alas! To me was shown How frail is all of human birth; I scarcely dared to call my own, The remnvut of my jɔys on earth. G. S. L. City. I've seen my air-built castles fall, This mystic boon has oft bestowed A glorious vision bight ad fair, Such rapture in my heart then glowed That chased cach lurking sha low there. I've watched beside the bel of death. And seen the vout'iful sul take wing. Thou Great Bestower, Father, God, 'Twas thus I knelt, an thus I prayed, Father! I lov'd the then as now, But love i the like a wayward child, But thou hast taught my heart to bow Beneath thy haud, both firm and mild Oh! may that hand my index be. In crowds, in cliques, or when a’one; Like "Jared's brother" may I see. And dare to say "My own, my own" HANNAH TAPFIELD KING. CONTENTS. EDITED, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS, 42, ISLINGTON, LONDON: FOR SALE AT THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS' BOOK DEPOT, 30, FLORENCE STREET, ISLINGTON, AND BY ALL BOOKSELLERS. THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS' MILLENNIAL STAR. "ARISE YE, AND LET US GO UP TO ZION, UNTO THE LORD OUR GOD."-Jeremiah. No. 37. Vol. XXIX. Saturday, September 14, 1867. Price One Penny. WHY WE PRACTISE PLURAL MARRIAGE. It is often argued by advocates for monogamy, that the numbers of the two sexes are about equal all over the globe, and that, consequently, nature has shown her design that man and woman should be paired, and that no plural union should be formed by either sex. If this statement were true, and the argument based upon it legitimate, it would follow that no man had a right to marry more than one woman, and that no woman had a right to be united to more than one man, under any circumstances whatever. If nature has provided but one woman for each man, then should a man marry a wife and lose her by death, he must remain in single misery all the rest of his days, and the same sad fate must overtake the woman deprived by death of her husband, unless it could be proved that the numbers of widows and widowers were also equal. But the statement concerning the equality in the numbers of the sexes is incorrect. The census of most nations will show a considerable excess of the female portion of the popula. tion. The census of 1861, in this country, shows that there are 14,097, 208 males, and 14,939,300 females in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, making an excess of 842,092 females. What becomes of the pairing theory, in this country, in view of these statistics? If the proportionate numbers of the sexes are to be the basis of argument on this question, then polygamy stands on more than three quarters of a million at least, while monogamy, having nothing to rest upon, tumbles to the ground. But it is a well known and much deplored fact, that a very great number of men, particularly the young men of what is considered a marriageable age, repudiate matrimony with its cares and responsibilities, preferring what they call the freedom of their bachelor life. This growing and oft-mentioned aversion to marriage, throws a still greater number into the "surplus" female population of the country, and extends still farther the groundwork of the argument in favor of polygamy. If we argue on natural grounds, it is very evident that nature has intended woman for marriage, endowed 578 WHY WE PRACTISE PLURAL MARRIAGE. her with maternal instincts, and so Latter-day Saints in Utah practise organized her that she can never be plural marriage upon far higher completely happy in any position short grounds than mere human reasoning. of that of an honorable wife and mo- They have not adopted that system ther. Opportunity should then be of matrimony through arguments deafforded to every virtuous woman to duced from the disproportion of the reach that position for which nature sexes, nor from any principles of exhas designed her, and all laws and pediency. The platform upon which enactments which prevent her from they stand is revelation from God. doing so, are unnatural and inhuman. On the 12th July 1843, the Almighty The laws which in those countries, revealed, through the Prophet Joseph where the number of females pre- Smith, the law of celestial marriage, ponderates, restrict a man to one wife, which includes the doctrine of plurality are productive of the greatest evils of of wives. It is in consequence of the the age; preventing many pure-mind- commandment of God in that revelaed and conscientious women from tion, that the Saints in Utah practise "filling the measure of their creation," plural marriage, and that the Saints scatcompelling them to a life of loneliness tered through the world believe in it. and discontent, crushing the tender- It makes no difference to our faith wheest and most sacred impulses of their ther that form of marriage appears connature, and drying up the fountains sistent with the condition of mankind of their life and beauty; and at the among the various nations of the earth same time driving thousands of fair or not, God has commanded it, and but less scrupulous of the weaker sex his people obey. If God had not reto the most degrading, filthy, and vealed the law, the Saints would not shameful condition of existence. have attempted to introduce such an A writer in a French newspaper-order of marriage, so opposed to their La Liberte-admits the fact of an ex- own traditions, and to the customs of cess of female population in England, all nations called Christian. but argues that if that forms a reason But it may be asked, what evidence for the practice of polygamy, the fact have you, Latter-day Saints, that this that certain provinces in the east pos- professed revelation is from God? sess a surplus of male population, We answer, the testimony of the Holy makes an equally reasonable case in Ghost, which bears witness of the favor of polyandry. But the answer things of God. In the first place, to this is, that polyandry is contrary through obedience to the Gospel which to nature, that it strikes at the foun- Joseph Smith proclaimed, we obtained dation of the object of marriage-the the gift of that Spirit which the Savior propagation of the race, that, if it be promised should "guide into all truth,” productive of any increase whatever, and bear record of the Father and the paternal identity is destroyed, or the Son." That Spirit witnessed to made so doubtful, as to annihilate us that Joseph Smith was a Prophet those natural sympathies which pro- of God, whom the Lord had selected perly should exist between the father as his mouthpiece to this generation. and his offspring, that it must be pro- This revelation being made known ductive of disease, and that it is totally through him as the Lord's own aprepugnant to the feelings and instincts pointed Revelator, we received as the of the great mass of mankind. On word of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit the other hand, polygamy, properly has borne witness, individually, to us of regulated, violates no law of nature, it its truth. As minor evidences, we tends to life and increase, it produces point to its perfect consistency in itself, the greatest good to the greatest num-its harmony with the ancient revelaber, and it is in accordance with the tions of God to Israel, its adaptability reason and natural impulses of the to the condition of mankind in the great majority of mankind in the pre-present day, and the peculiar and susent day, while it has been a marital institution from time immemorial. But we wish it to be distinctly understood by all the world, that the perlative benefits that have resulted from its practice. The moral and social condition of Utah with its plural marriage relations, when viewed with WHY WE PRACTISE PLURAL MARRIAGE. that of so-called Christian communities under monogamy, is so very far superior as to be incomparable. 579 man, according to the revelation before referred to, who holds the keys of authority to direct in this matter, so important to the well-being of indi conse community. No man living could re- This doctrine of plural marriage when first revealed, was just as repug-viduals, and the welfare of the whole nant to the private views and feelings of the leaders of the Church and its members, as it can be to the most pious member of any sect in Christendom. But when they came to investigate the matter, they found that their objections were not in accordance with nature, reason, or revelation, but only the result of traditions which they had received from their forefathers, and from nations that had departed from the ways of the Lord. They knew that the Lord would not command them to do anything that would not be for their good, and the knowledge of its being from him once established in their minds, their objections vanished, and their eyes were opened to see its beauty, force, and incalculable benefit. The foolish and feeble arguments which the best reasoners in the world have brought against it, have confirmed their faith in it, the vain efforts made to break it up by physical force, have strengthened their determination to stand by it, and the practical workings of the principle having brought forth such excellent results, faith, reason, and ocular demonstration combine to prove to them its divinity and its excellence. Let it be understood, then, that the reason why the Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of plural marriage is, because God Almighty has revealed it to them. The Lord is not only the author of the principle of "plurality,' but he regulates and controls its practice. People are very much mistaken if they suppose that the Saints in Utah have free license to multiply wives to themselves for the mere gratification of sensual passions. Marriage with them is a divine and holy institution, and as it was established by the Lord, they seek for his directions in the practice of it. Neither does each man act upon personal impressions and impulses, which he might call revelations, but the divine sanction is obtained through the divinely appointed medium. The President of the Church, who is the Prophet of the Lord, is the only Writers who oppose polygamy, argue against its adaptability to the world at large. We do not contend for its universal adoption. It is not revealed for the practice of all mankind, but specially for the Latter-day Saints. We do not consider that every man is qualified for the responsibilities of plural marriage; indeed, we believe that many men are not fit to be entrusted with even one wife. A man who violates the laws of virtue, and degrades himself to acts of debauchery and licentiousness, is not worthy of the trust, affection, and sweet companionship of a pure and loving woman. And the husband who breaks his marriage vows, abuses the person or feelings of the woman whom he has sworn to cherish-withering up the blossoms of her love, and trampling upon her dearest and most sacred rights, not only is unfit to be entrusted with another, but should be deprived of the privileges he already possesses but knows not how to appreciate. Plural marriage may not be applicable to some nations and to some individuals, but it is applicable to the Saints in their mountain home, under divine guidance and prudent restrictions. In Utah every virtuous woman has the opportunity of becoming a lawful wife, and of occupying the position for which nature has qualified her. None but the good deserve the fair; and when all marriage relations are under the complete control of the Eternal Father, the parable of "the talents" will have, in this connection, a practical application. The Latter-day Saints do not claim perfection in the workings of this divine institution, but the law is perfect though they are imperfect, and they are striving to conquer every evil, and to overcome every obstacle that stands in the way of their perfection. They are now only introducing and establishing the system, and having but just emerged from the old world with all its corruptions, false civilization, and debasing influences, they have much to learn and much to overcome, but mutual forbearance, love for the truth, and confidence in God, are inspiring them on to victory. Let no one imagine that any circumstances that may arise will induce the Saints to give up the doctrine of plurality of wives. No reasoning, however specious, will have any force with them, for public opinion they care nothing when it is hostile to their duty, and brute force, no matter how powerful, will only have the same effect upon them as it had in their past career, to strengthen their faith, stimulate their exertions, and develop their heroism and fortitude. Let the world say and do what they will, the Latter-day Saints will stand by the divine principle of plural marriage even unto the death, not merely be cause it is pure, necessary, rational, and good, but because they know it has been revealed in this last dispensation by the true and living God. C. W. PENROSE. DOWN TO WHAT? Our contemporary, the Montana Post, as it has asserted that the inhabitants of this Territory must come down from the position of Saints to that of American citizens, would do well to explain a little what it means thereby, and show how it can be done to the public benefit and to the welfare of this community, for both must be compatible. We have always understood that a Saint is the highest type of manhood, and in the fullest sense of the term, perfectly developed humanity, religiously and secularly, intellectually and physically. If we are wrong in that conception of the nature of that character, we should like to be set right, very much like to be corrected. If we are right in our views, then what can be meant by the expressed necessity of Saints coming down to the status of American citizens? Is an American citizen necessarily not a Saint? Can not a man be an American citizen and a Saint too, and at the same time? We really would not like to be authoritatively answered in the negative. We certainly think better things of American citizenship than such an answer would imply. For a man to be a Saint in deed and in truth is for him to be undivorceably wedded to truth, to light, to intelligence, to life, to virtue and integrity, to everything lovely and of really good report, to everything which tends to improve and exalt the race, and to accomplish the evident purpose of its creation. If it be said that American citizenship is incompatible with all these things, then we hear it with sorrow, for we have not anticipated any such thing, and it will take a great deal of argument to convince us that such is the case. We have always presumed that this is a land of freedom and liberty; a land where there is the greatest possible scope for the full and perfect development of humanity, so far as such development is attainable; a land where self-government can be carried out to the utmost possible limits, consistent with the rights of others; a land where men of all creeds, religious or political, can develop and prove their theories, always provided that the rights of others are not infringed upon; a land where the Methodist, the Episcopalian, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the Mormon, the the Tory, the Whig, the Democrat, |