MORMOXS
642
MORMONS
ehonld not be considered irrelis^ious for the faithfal, who fire called his children, to walk in the steps of their fa- ther Abraham. Indeed, if the Lord himself, through his holy prophets, should give more wives unto his servants, as he <;ave them nnto the prophet David, it would be a great sin for them to refuse that which he gives. In such a case it would become a matter of conscience with them and a part of their religion, and they would be bound to exercise their faith in this doctrine, and practice it, or be condemned ; therefore Congress would have no power lo prc)hil)it Uie free exercise of this part of their religion ; neither would the states or territories have power, con- stitutionally, to pass a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Now a certain religious society, called Siiakers, believe it to be wrong for them to marry even one wife; it certainly wonld be unconstitutional for either the Con- gress or the states to pass a law compelling,' all peoi)le to marry at a certain age, because it wonld infringe upon the rights of conscience among the Shakers, and they would be prohibited the free exercise of their religion.
"From the foregoing revelation, given through Joseph the seer, it will be seen that God has actually commanded some of his servants to take more wives, and has pointed out certain duties in regard to the marriage ceremony, showing that they must be married for time and for a"ll eternity, and showing the advantages to be derived in a future state by this eternal union, and showing still fur- ther that if they refused to obey this command, after hav- ing the law revealed to them, they should be damned. This revelation, then, makes it a matter of conscience among all the Latter-day Saints; and they embrace it as a part and portion of their reliurion, and verily believe that they cannot be saved and reject it. Has Congress
Sower, then, to pass laws 'prohibiting' the Church of esus Christ of Latter-day .Saints ' the free exercine' of this article of their reliuion? Have any of the states or terri- tories a constitutional ri'_'lit to pass laws 'prohibiting the free exercise of the religion' which the Church of the Saints conscientiously and sincerely believe to be essen- tial to their salvation ? No; they have no such rii.'ht.
"The Latter-day Saints have the most implicit con- fidence in all the revelations given thr.uijli Joseph the Prophet ; and they would much sooner lav down their lives and sufter martyrdom than to deny the least revelation that was ever given to him. In one of the revelations through him we read that God raised up wise men and inspired them to write the Constitution of our country, that the freedom of the jieople miudit be maintained, ac- cording to the free agency which he had given to them; that every man might be accountable to God and not to man, so far as religious doctrines and conscience are con- cerned. And the more we examine that sacred instru- ment framed by the wisdom of our illustrious fathers, the more we are compelled to believe that an invincible power controlled, dictated, and guided them in laying the foundation of liberty and freedom upon this great west- ern hemisphere. To this land the Mohammedan, the Hindu, the Chinese can emigrate, and each bring with him his score of wives and his hundred children, and the glorious Constitution of our country will not interfere with his domestic relations. Lender the broad banner of the Constitution, he is protected in all his family associa- tions; none have a right to tear any of his wives or his children from him. So, likewise, uiider the broad folds of the Constitution, the legislative assembly of the terri- tory of Utah have the right to pass laws regulating their matrimonial relations, and protecting each of their citizens in the right of marrying ^)ne or many wives, as the case may be. If Congress should repeal those laws, they could not do so on the ground of their being unconstitutional. And even if Congress should repeal them, there still would be no law in L'lah proliihiiing the free exercise of that religicnis right; neither do the citizens of Utah feel disiiosi'd to pass such an unconstitntional act which would infringe upon the most sacred rights of conscience. '•Tradition and custom have great nitiuence over na- tions. Long-established customs, whether right or wrong, become sacied in the estimation of mankind. Those na- tions who have been accustomed from time immemorial to the practice of what is called poly-amv would consider a law abolishing it as the verv hei'jit of injustice and op- pression; the very idea of beimr limited to the one-wife system wonld be considered not onlv oppressive and un- just, but absolutely absurd and ridiculons; it wonld be considered an innovation upon the long-established usages, customs, and laws of inimerous and i)owerrul nations; an innovation of the most dan^'crous character, calculated to destroy the most sacied ri-hts and privi- leges of family associations— to np<et the very founda- tions of individual rights, rendered dear and sacred by being handed down to them from the most remote ages of antiqnity.
"On the other hand, the Enronean nations who have been for centuries restricted by law to the one-wife theory would consider it a shocking innovation upon the cus- toms of their fathers to abolish their restrictive laws, ami to give freedom and liberty, accordini; to the plurality system. It is custom, thcn,'in a ■,Mi'al degree, that forms the conscience of nations and indiviiluals in reuMrd to the marriage relationships. Custom causes four tifihs of the