Vol. XXXI. JANUARY, 1928 No. 3
Complete Marriage—Righteousness: Mutilated Marriage—Sin
BY ELDER B. H. ROBERTS
Editors Improvement Era:
RESPONDING to your request to write you an article on Marriage, I have concluded to write under the above caption—Complete Marriage and Mutilated Marriage; the first righteousness, the second sin. It is chiefly with the second phase of the dual-titled subject that I shall deal, because at the present there seems to be an organized effort against Complete Marriage to the enlargement and justification of sensual, sex indulgence, under a proposed pseudo-marriage system.
Two things enter into Complete Marriage: companionship and offspring—perpetuation of family—of race; and these arise from God's law in the creation. After creation had proceeded up to the point of bringing forth vegetable and animal life to its fulness, and every such thing had been created and was commanded to reproduce "after its kind," then God said to those Intelligences associated with him in the creation: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," that is to say, "after our kind;" and dominion was to be given them over the rest of the creation. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion—over every living thing. * * * * And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good." (Gen. 1).
In the second account of the creation, or in the carrying out of the plan in material form of what in the first account was the spiritual creation, the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed, and gave him the law respecting the forbidden fruit. But the Lord God saw that it was not good that man should be alone, and therefore he made an help meet for him; and so woman was created for Adam and brought to him, and man gave to her royal welcome, saying: "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," and Adam called her "Woman!" And therefore was it written in the law of God; "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." (Gen. 2). Then came temptation, the so-called fall, and its influx of earth life's experiences.
The things that we are now concerned to note, however, in all this are the two things involved in the relationship of man and woman: companionship designed in the union; and second the commandment given to them to be fruitful, to multiply, and replenish (refill) the earth. These are the two things that enter into the marriage of man and woman to make it complete and perfect—companionship and offspring—the two parts of the one law. This is the marriage institution blessed of God, and well described by Jeremy Taylor, when he said:
"Marriage is the mother of the world and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Like the useful bee, it builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labors and unites into societies and republics, and sends out colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys and keeps order, and exercises many virtues, and promotes the interest of mankind; and is that state of good to which God hath designed the present constitution of the world.
Marriage—complete marriage—is all this, and more. It forms the first group-unit of communities and of nations and of civilization itself; and all these are equally dependent upon it for their stability, for their perpetuity. From the family comes the home; and it has become something of an aphorism, with thoughtful statesmen and others who give serious attention to the welfare of society and of nations, that no state can rise higher than its homes, and no church can be more righteous or influential than the firesides from which its members come.
The marriage relation is associated with the tenderest sentiments, the strongest passions, the deepest interests of human life. For it has to do with love, and sex, and offspring—the perpetuation of life, the family, and the race. It is the chief corner stone in the temple of human existence. It is impossible to exaggerate its importance.
In the scriptures marriage is said to be "honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4). Children also are declared to be "an heritage from the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them; they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate" (Ps. 127).
In every way the scriptures sustain the sanctity of the marriage state and the family; and every defilement of honorable wedlock or the family is met with anathema and dire punishments, present and future. But not only in scripture is marriage and the sanctity of family upheld, but by the experience of men and of nations—and this quite apart from revelation—the institution of marriage and the family growing out of it, is held to be by human wisdom expressed in law, the best regulation that can be made for the association of the sexes, for their personal peace and happiness; the best arrangements for the propagation of the race, for securing the welfare of children, and the permanency and peace and prosperity of the state.
In view of this we may say that the law of scripture, the word of God, is confirmed by the wisdom of our ancestors, arising out of the knowledge born of long experience.
I have said all this in order that I may with more force point out the dangers that threaten in the assaults that are now being made upon this major institution of human life.
In the first place the passion of love (I use "passion" in its best sense, i. e. its sentimental sense) is the incentive to mate-seeking and marriage (barring of course those occasional sordid motives where wealth or position or perhaps both become the objectives of marriage); and this, while essentially necessary, does nevertheless—so easy is it for the best to be changed into the worst by perversion—brings men and women to the danger zone of sex relations. In the period of courtship, if too great familiarity in physical contact is indulged, it may lead to temptation, and temptation to sin—sin against the obligation to maintain chastity, a sin that would turn love to lust and poison the life of both man and woman.
Such is human nature in relation to sex affinity, that inordinate desire may easily be awakened and lead to promiscuity, fornication, adulteries from all which ultimately comes settled, hateful prostitution with all its train of evils, the deadliest foe to marriage and the sanctity of family, leading to its disruption in the divorce courts.
Divorce, inexpensive and easily obtained, and for many causes, sometimes trivial, and often with children as the innocent, helpless victims of its chief woes, has long been recognized as a most dangerous menace to the family as an institution. In our modern day this rapidly increasing evil has become a commonplace. The facility with which divorce can be obtained, its frequence of recurrence, cheapens marriage and threatens the integrity of the whole social fabric.
Another evil portent to the marriage institution, including of course the family, is the refusal of an ever-increasing number of young men to enter into the marriage relation. Recently it was stated in a public lecture delivered in the Salt Lake Theatre, by one who ought to know whereof he speaks, Judge Ben Lindsey, of Denver, Colorado, Judge of the Juvenile Court of that city for many years, that there were six million of the ten million young men in the United States between twenty-one and thirty years of age, who avoided marriage—rejected its responsibilities! As it would be unreasonable to suppose that this large body of the youthful manhood of the country abstain from sexual pleasure, such a condition proves, even by itself, how widespread promiscuous and unlawful intercourse between the sexes must be, and what the extent of prostitution.
This, however, is but one phase of the social evil; there are others, and these among those who have already entered into the marriage state, notably the increasing love of pleasure, by indulgence in the sensual delight of sex without incurring the risks, the pains and the responsibilities of parenthood. Or, if a concession must be made to the convention of family under marriage, then offspring among such people, it is thought, must be limited to one or at most two children. This among the wealthier and educated classes, where wealth creates opportunity for leisure and artificially stimulates desire for greater variety of entertainment with diminishing effort, and an increasing sense of luxury and freedom of responsibility. As large families would be a hindrance to all this self indulgence, large families are cancelled out of the reckoning by that class of the population best qualified, in a material way, to meet the obligation of large families.
This practice of limiting families by so-called birth-control leads to many evils physical and moral and spiritual. It endangers and wrecks the health of women, since it involves them in methods for prevention of conception, and foetus destruction, leading frequently to abortions and to infanticide—which is murder. Prevention, both by mechanical and chemical means endangers the health of women who indulge it, impairs vitality, shatters nervous energy and deteriorates the race. The moral effect of such methods of living is nothing less than disastrous. It brutalizes and makes a shame of sexual pleasure itself, and kills the sentiment of love which alone refines the act to endearment. It ministers to the gross desire for sexual promiscuity; for with a felt security, through knowledge of a preventative nature, from consequences that would expose infidelities to the marriage covenant, temptations to fornications and adulteries are greatly multiplied, and the moral tone of a community greatly lowered if not destroyed.
The baneful effects of all this frequently appears in the divorce courts. It is the divorce record of England (where divorce is growing tremendously since divorce procedure by recent laws has been made practically secret) that in forty per cent of the divorce cases the couples seeking separation were childless, and in thirty per cent of the cases they had but one child! These facts tell their own story. A thoughtful writer, commenting upon the above state of facts declares—"Children create a bond which influences parents to think many times before they give way to divorce, and this may develop the tolerance of each other's faults and characteristics without which no marriage can be happy. But the bond being absent there is no incentive to overcome the obstacles to a satisfactory union of a man and a woman, and divorce results." ("The New Age," December, 1927).
A recent summary of a report of the U. S. Government through the Department of Commerce, states that, "Divorce is increasing faster than marriage in the United States." The report shows that the increase in marriages amounted to 1.2 per cent during 1926, as compared with 1925; while divorces increased 3.1 per cent in the same period. In other words. the marriages performed in 1926 numbered 1,020,000, an increase of 13,745 over the number for 1925; and the divorces for 1926 numbered 180,868, an increase of 5,419, over the divorces for 1925.
It will be said perhaps that in all this there is nothing new; that these several recognized evils constituting menaces to the marriage institution, to the family, to the integrity of community life, to national life, and to civilization itself, have of a long time now been trumpeted by prophets of evil, and yet the marriage institution persists, the family survives, children are regularly born in constantly increasing numbers in most nations; and while it is recognized that many evils and dangers abound, they always have existed more or less, yet there seems to be no real cause of alarm, human nature is essentially sound, and it seems likely that our cherished institutions will somehow be preserved. A comforting line of comment, doubtless; but shallow and inadequate to the world's present needs, and not at all reassuring in face of the conditions that now obtain and the changing mental attitude of the present generation toward the aforesaid cherished institutions. In that changed mental attitude lies the immediate danger to marriage and all that it concerns.
This changed mental attitude is observed and affected first by the substitution of other and larger groups than the family, around which the interests of life now center. This is stated by Rev. Henry H. Lewis, Rector of St. Andrew's Protestant Episcopal Church, Ann Arbor, Michigan, in a paper read at the Episcopal Church Congress held at San Francisco last July; and which occasioned wide and sometimes bitter comment throughout the East:
"A generation ago, the home, the children, the cousins, the neighbors made the all important nucleus around which life was built and maintained. There was a sound honor, a simple goodness, a charm about it all. Today that scene is seldom repeated. The emphasis has shifted. We have other groups which form the center around which life revolves; for older brother and sister in colleges, the fraternity and sorority; for mother her reading or social clubs or health culture group; for father, the Rotary or Kiwanis, or lodge-clubs of all kinds—not to mention hotels for men, and hotels for women. In any discussion of the present moral situation such new groupings which often have usurped the central place of family life, should be recognized."
Today that picture of the family given above, as having about it a "sacred honor," "a simple goodness," "a charm"—and then "today that scene is seldom repeated!" And that was only yesterday! Now the picture is fading! The pity of it!
Second, the development of individualism, creating a sense of personal independence beyond anything known in the world's yesterdays, and this especially in the case of women. Entering the industrial field, as never before known, modern young womanhood competes with men in many fields, with the result that she crowds men from many fields of employment, gets even better pay than many workmen, establishes a better standard of living than men following the ordinary industrial pursuits can offer them, which renders marriage less desirable and more remote, but creating an independence for women beyond all precedence and "unthought of in the past." "In view of all this," Rev. Lewis asks, "Is it any wonder that the philosophy of many is to live for the moment and get the most out of life? Is it any wonder that we have a behavioristic psychology which tells us that the main thing in life is to express ourselves, or get the greatest thrill we can?" "All very well," says Rev. Lewis, commenting on this, "and yet with such a philosophy it is hard to find a definite purpose toward which one is going." True, it can readily be seen that all sense of direction may be lost; but there can scarcely be any doubt as to where it will end if unchecked.
Third. A new outlook upon life and the relation of the sexes occasioned by science affording security from consequences of sexual relations, both within the marriage relations and outside of marriage. To quote Rev. Lewis's paper again:
"The introduction of science is the outstanding fact of our time, and in morals science has created an entirely new moral situation. For when you have introduced contra-ceptions you have changed your moral situation. You have done away with that old but very effective weapon which has deterred many a person from going beyond the accepted moral code—the fear of consequences! That fear no longer rests in the breast of any scientifically educated man or woman, and along with the passing of that fear is also going a vast amount of ignorance and misinformation upon the whole sexual relationship. The results are only partially manifest. To many young people what used to be considered lapses from the moral code are now considered to be acts which are as natural as eating and drinking. * * * Youth often decides on the basis of expediency or worthwhileness whether sexual intercourse should be indulged in, never thinking of any after effects, because they believe there will be none. They see no harm in it—science will protect them, and science usually does!"
"Even with those who do not go so far, the idea that many of us had, that such things as petting or over familiarity with the opposite sex, should be saved at least until the times of engagement, if not until after marriage, on the basis that married life would be the sweeter if one did—has disappeared! The youth of today we know are not appealed to by any such idea. "Petting is," as they put it "all in the days work." Whatever we may think of such conduct, the thing for us to notice is that it does exist; and that largely because of scientific knowledge many people are finding reasonable justification [?] for doing things they never would have thought of a generation ago."
Fourth; Lack of Leadership: Then comes to this Reverend gentleman the consciousness of a lack of leadership for the people in the presence of the above set forth facts:
"We notice," he remarks, "a feeling that seems to accompany them (i.e., modern youth)—the feeling of being leaderless, a questioning attitude which says, 'What's it all about?' 'What's the use?' 'What's the good?' Our fathers were very sure of themselves. They were sure of what was right and what was wrong. They had it all worked out into a system, and there was a certain comfort in their assurance. The vast majority today, however, both young and old, are drifting, seeking security (simply another word for the old fashioned one of salvation) and seeking in their deeper moments always wistfully, Quo vadis—whither bound?" In view of that attitude and in the light of the existing moral facts as we have noted them, What should be the answer of the church?"
Let it be understood that the confession of "exisiting moral facts" above set forth, constituting, as they do, a confession of the breaking down of so-called Christianity and modern civilization in relation to marriage and the family, and constituting, as they do, a challenge to both—is not the work of my hands; it is not my indictment of the Christian world. It is a confession coming from within that Christian world, and the civilization supposed to be built upon it—and the foregoing is the deplorable picture of it!"
And what is the answer? "The Church" has not yet formulated her answer; meaning here by "The Church" an institution inclusive of all divisions and sub-divisions of Christendom—a truly catholic church, the church universal, and this for the very good reason that there is no such church. Hopelessly divided Christendom can speak with no united, authoritative voice upon these questions; and answering separately the result would only be confusion worse confounded. Because of no unity of view, there can be no concert of action.
Meantime both within the churches and outside of them, comes a clamor for "reform," not so much for the correction of these evils by reducing them to a minimum, at least, but by sanctifying what is recognized as evil, by legalizing it! Or, to deal more precisely perhaps with these would-be "reformers," they declare the sex freedom and irregularities pictured in the quoted paragraphs of the foregoing pages, as representing no sin at all—accepting the alleged view of modern youth in that—and therefore such relations from the viewpoint of the "reformers" may very properly be legalized.
Of course, if you grant their premises, there could be no subsequent falling out with their conclusions. But there's the rub!
Can sin by mere decree be sanctified? Can that which is unholy be purified by mere proclamation? And this is no begging of the question when we assume the sinfulness of sex irregularities considered above to be sin. They are declared to be so, specifically, and by the whole trend of Jewish and Christian revelation. Not only so, but civil governments, at least among Christian nations, recognizing the moral value of those things which tend to personal restraints, and which make for the preservation of the marriage institution and the sanctity and perpetuity of the home, have enacted laws to safeguard those moral values. They have attempted by such laws to act in harmony with what human experience decides to be in the best interests of society.
Sin is the transgression of law, and that the sex irregularities sought now to be sanctified by legalizing them are unlawful, both at the bar of the law of God and under the civil law, is witnessed by the very effort to legalize those relations. It is an effort to legalize them by making so-called "companionate marriages" lawful; and to make companionate marriage possible and practical by using "scientific" means for the prevention of conception; by birth-control; and when the relationship formed by "companionate marriage" becomes for any reason irksome or undesirable, terminate the relationship by easy, inexpensive (and sans reproach) divorce! It is a close parallel to the notion that you can cure the spendthrift by supplying him plentifully with money; or reform the roue by supplying him with victims to his lust; or finding fraud and dishonesty practiced in trade, commerce and industry, by the use of short measure in weights and lengths, propose to correct the evil of injustice and violation of the rules of trade—not by demanding that the cheating practices shall be stopped, but by changing the standards of weights and measures to conform to the violations of the rules of trade!
What is there in this "companionate marriage" proposition but the yesterday-talked-of "trial marriage system?" And what is in either of them but legalized promiscuity? In other words "free love?"
When the marriage institution is mutilated by halfing it, taking the companionate feature of it, permitting sex association but eliminating offspring and family, there is destroyed the sanctifying element in marriage, the most important element, and to destroy that element that is sin. It is a violation not only of God's law, but an act of treason against an institution resulting from God's law, and seriously affecting the welfare of mankind!
Again: when there is eliminated from sex association the consequences of offspring, with the duties and responsibilities of family banished, then "marriage" becomes merely an institution under which companionship with sex sensual pleasures and liberties may be safely indulged—and "respectability" assured!
But suppose this soft-worded scheme of things be viewed in the light of its effects? You have first of all sex-sensual pleasures arranged for without responsibility attendent upon such relations, and not even the responsibility of keeping them somewhat permanent. Indeed from the commencement understanding is had that the relationship may be terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties to the separation, and always the separation is to be easy and readily obtained, by inexpensive, and sans reproach, divorce. Under these principles what is likely to be the course of things? Not difficult to forecast, one would think. When the state of marriage is entered into as it is still usually entered into—marriage contemplating offspring and family—the parties to the engagement give what is regarded as a moral pledge to society that the mating period with them is ended. Their family life has begun. Neither the man nor the woman in such a marriage may seek or be sought for by others. They are sacred to each other and should be to society. Their contract is permanent, usually, at least, until death shall part them. All which makes for permanency; but with this marriage in lighter mood—this "companionate marriage"—how stands it? Sex relations provided without offspring, without nature's full realization of sex-purpose; like a battle with no antagonist; a race without objective; and when self-contrived and imposed—becomes self-disgusting and mutually deteriorating to the finer qualities of human nature and of life.
The contract of the "companionate marriage" held lightly from the first and easily dissolved, will stand little or no strain; will leave the parties to it free to contemplate other possible associations, free to seek them, constituting mate-hunting a continuous performance, wrecking all continence, and inevitably resulting in the destruction of chastity both of mind and conduct; and instituting practically a free love regime to the confusion of all family life, and the destruction of civilization.
Meantime, however, is nothing to be said of the real difficulties attendant upon the economic and industrial changes that have come over the world on recent years, making for many the ideal family mariage more difficult of realization? Nothing of the childless marriages, or the very, very limited offspring in the marriage life of the highly educated and the wealthy classes on the one hand; and of the over prolific poor and ignorant and even criminal classes on the other hand? Undoubtedly something needs to be said upon all these problems; but surely nothing like what is being presented by these ultra would-be "reformers" should be said. There scheme is no panacea for these recognized ills of modern social life.
Briefly, for the really criminal classes, of both sexes, marriage and family should be prohibited, they should be barred the progagation of their kind!
What should be said to the highly educated and wealthy classes who are shirking their responsibilities, and duties to life and to society should be in the way of admonition to repentance; and to acceptance of the law of God as the measure of their moral obligations in the married state, an appeal to sound reason and to conscience, that they become lovers of God and duty more than lovers of pleasure and of ease and of luxury. Would such an appeal only be met with quiet smiles of contempt, or perhaps with shouts of derision from their gilded, childless palaces—mis-called homes; or by shouts of derision from their pillowed divans, or the banquet-laden tables of their club houses? Then be it so. Nothing more may be done than to make this appeal to plain duty. Let them perish with their luxury and love of it, as they will so perish, if they repent not, unloved, unhonored, and unsung—leaving naught but a wrack behind.
Of the over-prolific poor and ignorant, multiplying beyond all reason of hope to provide for bare necessities, to say nothing of opportunities for good prospects in life, wholesome nourishment, decent clothing and education—for these, enlightenment and patient instruction, education; and such improvement in economic policies as will lead to betterment of industrial conditions. Mere generalities these, I know, but I may not go beyond generalities on this head in this writing. In the instruction to this class would fall proper sex information, by competent and conscientious teachers; not for the introduction of knowledge of mechanical and chemical means for prevention of conception, foetus destruction, or abortions, much less infanticide; but instructions in sex-cleanliness and health; in prudential self-restraint, that shall not be Onanism either, but based upon such regard for the health of mothers and welfare of offspring that there shall be periods of continence self-imposed—out of loving consideration for the wife and mother—that shall make for respect of wifehood and motherhood, and keep the family within hailing distance of rugged well being. This too much to expect of the classes to which such an appeal is to be made? Again be it so; but this is the only appeal which in safety to the marriage institution may be made; adjustment by slow but persistent and patient methods of instruction against merely brutal self-indulgence. What is it Paul says of the mutual duties of man and wife in their intimate relations? "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency" (I Cor. 7:5). If such admonition can be given in the interests of religious observances, why not invoke it in the interests of the well-being of wife-hood and motherhood, and in the interests of the family and the home, and the church and the state? And why not hope for its achievement in the one case as in the other? In any event the processes of permanent reform will necessarily be by the slow process of enlightenment and not by the race-destructive methods proposed by the ultra "reformers." Already it is deplored that the highly educated and wealthy classes are so limiting their offspring that they are not perpetuating their class. What may be hoped for from a method likely to result in producing the same status in what we consent to call for convenience the "lower classes," which would also here include the great "middle class"—the rank and file of the people?
Meantime, and fortunately, one may believe sufficiently in the soundness of human nature as to be confident that the program of the ultra "reformers" will not be projected into our modern life to any great extent; for humanity's sake let us hope not; out of respect for the wisdom and the striving of our ancestors who sought for better things, and wrought into fabric of church and state better things than these proposed by the ultra "reformers" of our times—for their sake, and their honor, let us hope the "reformers" will not get far with their program to legalize vice; and especially for the sake of posterity let us hope not.
If one may hope for the failure of this evil program on the score of belief in the essential soundness of human nature generally, I feel an increase of confidence in its failure when thinking of what influence the appeal will have upon the membership of the Church of the Latter-day Saints. For while I know this Church membership are not immune from the invasion of this pestiferous program, and there may be those among them who would give welcome to such cannonization of vice, yet that number can never be large nor influential. Members of the Church of the Latter-day Saints have been taught to accept their moral duties as rising from the Divine Law through revelations from God; and so long as they adhere to that principle and the application of it, they will never be inclined to follow after the false leadership of the new ethic—if ethic it can be called—of "companionate marriage," with its attendant evil of mutilation of complete marriage by the prevention of offspring, birth control, (as advocated by the "reformers") easy divorce, without reproach—and therefore frequent exchanges of partners in the matrimonial dance, to the breaking down of the moral of society, and the destruction of all that is pure, highest and best in life. No, this will never be an attractive marriage system, or rather anti-marriage system, among Latter-day Saints. As a Church they stand committed to quite an opposite program from this. Their religion and their Church stand for the purity and the permanence of the home. For full and complete marriage, celebrated in their temples, open to all the membership in good standing, celebrated by a covenant not only "until death doth them part," but for time and all eternity, extending into and holding good in the immortal life brought to pass by the resurrection from the dead, of which the Christ was the first fruits.
Marriage to the Latter-day Saints also means completed or perfect marriage—companionship and offspring—family. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is God's commandment to them; and this, under the law of God, may only be legitimately carried out in wedlock. As for all the rest, their ideal is pure minds and clean lives, for only such can "see," that is, realize, God. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Lust of the eyes, and of the mind, and of the heart, is forbidden by the law of God to them, either inside or outside of the marriage state. (Matt. 5:27, 28; D. and C. 42:22, 23.)
Such in brief the marriage institution for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does it not, more than any other conception of marriage among men, stand for the permanence of marriage, the family and the home? Does not one thrill with pride of it as he contemplates it? Youth of Israel, priesthood of Almighty God! What a priceless heritage has been bequeathed to you, in this matchless marriage institution! What a pride of place in world leadership is given you to champion the cause of Complete Marriage as against Mutilated Marriage, companionship and offspring; refined and endearing association, safeguarded by fidelity and integrity, culminating in family and in all the inspiration, joy and glory that goes with the thought of eternal increase in pure and fond association. Will you, oh, youth of Israel, priesthood of Almighty God, accept and magnify your potential leadership, or like weaklings and recreants to a responsibility, and cowards all, abandon such an opportunity of leadership and thus proclaim your own unfitness and unworthiness of it?
I believe you will be guilty of no such craven conduct.
================================================================
