very much whether any State or Territory has the constitutional right to make laws prohibiting the plurality doctrine in cases where it is practiced by religious societies as a matter of conscience or as a doctrine of their religious faith. The first Article of the Amendments to the Constitution says expressly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, if even Congress itself has no power to pass a law "prohibiting the free exercise of religion," much less has any State or Territory power to pass such an act.
The doctrine of a plurality of wives was believed and practiced by Abraham, the father of the faithful; and we find that, while in this practice, the angels of God frequently ministered to him, and at one time dined with him; and God manifested himself to him, and entered into familiar conversation with him. Neither God nor his angels reproved Abraham for being a polygamist, but, on the contrary, the Almighty greatly blessed him, and made promises unto him, concerning both Isaac and Ishmael, clearly showing that Abraham practiced what is called polygamy under the sanction of the Almighty. Now if the father of the faithful was thus blessed, certainly it should not be considered irreligious for the faithful, who are called his children, to walk in the steps of their father Abraham. Indeed, if the Lord himself, through his holy prophets, should give more wives unto his servants, as he gave them unto 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 to prohibit the free exercise of this part of their religion, neither would the States or Territories have power constitutionally to pass a law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now a certain religious society, called Shakers, believe it to be wrong for them to marry even one wife; it certainly would be unconstitutional for either the Congress or the States to pass a law compelling all people to marry at a certain age, because it would 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 all eternity, and showing the advantages to be derived in a future state by this eternal union; and showing still farther that, if they refused to obey this command, after having 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 religion, and verily believe that they can not be saved and reject it. Has Congress power, then, to pass laws "prohibiting" the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "the free exercise" of this article of their religion? Have any of the States or Territories a constitutional right to pass laws "prohibiting the free exercise of the religion" which the Church of the Saints con-
