, 1870-08-19
M0RMO KtSM.
Does the Bible Sanction Po-
tygamy
Debate Between Rev. Eli. Newman
and Orson Pratt.

lFxou orR OWN coRREsroxRrSr.I
SALT LACE ctrv, Ang. IS.
THE NEOor1Ar1oNR.
The ncEotistious for tho debate on nolyc
amr, between Messts. Newman and Pratt
after continuing si1 dase, were brought to ,
sucsersful issue on the l2th, at II o'clock m
1t was agreed that tho question should ba
t+ Docs tho Bible Sanction polys.my:" that
ihcro shonld he sc&aiotls Of tuo hours e,cA
equally divided between the disputautB, OF
tI:ree successive days, III thu BIZ: Tabernacle
Mr. pratt chose Judge T. Snow al umpire. o.
moderator; Mr.. Newman chose Judge c. N
H7wlcy. and they chose Marshal II. r. Pat
mex. Ihc TACT was announced by postera, fo
the debate W1s to begin at once, and til,
Town, which had beea all asos with it for
week. 10 informed that it had really beer
agreed upon, largely rctusad to bc!icv,
ii-esch side seemed to honestly doub
the others sincerity not NOR,
tban two thousand or three Thousand ha,
assembled At the appointed hour, o'clocl
p. m Elder John Taylor opened with
prayer, and tilen
TIE DEBATE !.
Elder ffstt went at his work without An,
nciitish Of t1Empett, rematkiug thu, lie hsd
Eeset taken pas1 III public dr11.c bat tEs
Or three times, the last eosns thirty years ago
IN EalnIurG, bit t4sat he WAS pls.eed 10 ap:
1'far ia tfis, and Should state the texts On
WHICH he restcti his CT G, AID max, such com.
tEents As occurred 10 lin.
EI.ti;-r tEArTs AEJC1ESr.
&c thca ci.cd Dcnt. Xxi, Is, Ii, Il: "If q
n.an i.ay. Two wives, Ac- THIS la~ was given
i,y tl,c great lax-girer, uiliu wlou God a:,okc,
TO regulate au lu.situtsou-the right or III.
Art1taucs-MIncl was III existctcs. l,srors
Moses lived 1t must have fuIerred to both
SUCCESSIVE and contemporary wives, because it
was given to 4 people among Hi,om bo:h
homogeneous and pol.gamuus marriage we're
recognized lu1ssl the heusa or Isfa.l was
founded in pol EzmS, jacobs slns, the heads
Of the ttibea, leing born Of four polsg.uous
Wives. atil u continued froul tlInt tiais till the
Coming ot Christ. Therefore it must ha aye
ed 10th.
Ho next cited E1. XII. 10: t. II = man
soll his osu8tter," &c Ii was objected to
tEis passage that the word wife waa not in
t1.nslAtors n needful according to the con-
text 1t sanctioned tho taking Of auother wife
Nl,se ths Gret Was sill living, ill his Iuds-
m.nt. II the word wife should be woman,
and that betfuthed woman, and 1t could be
proved, 1t might alter tho case l:Qt he didn't
know how il could be proved, seeing there
nero ~ many a. u, COO roadingA OF tho manu-
Ertipte, iron, come Of Which the Bible WAS
tralrlated. and tlat the original manuscripts
w-re net in existence.
er,ae ii If i'll the margin. near kinsmen. :. dwell
together, dc. Ii it could be proved from
tle Original text, OF from, any source, that
ths law w2F not general in iss application.
bit applied Foiely to unmarried nleu, the
point won'd have TO he yielded INT, il it
Commanded it. Ono Euch passage would ss-
1as'lt.h l'olygsny Oh ;he SANG bsz.s ~ mouo.
Ean,y. Also, the Christian religion must
lave admitted them into the church. For, it
would be lncout isteht to cut the vast number
OF pol. Eamistn this law was calculated to
make Oh from the Gospel, becauxa Of their
obedience to Gods Law. A mau-s other
actions had no connection With marriage II
L.meel tho Po'sgauia', was murderer, 10
m,onogamiss, ~, ess 70 % iar As We know, but
or wife and becoms oue fcs.,
uitls ler. Tho fact that God maic him Int
one wife had no beAriug Oh his po.ter1ty.
What would be thought ui onea r3riug ,hat,
because God gave hin but ONO garIen to till,
dtues Or that, llecause God clothed l,ia in
skins. nuhody rhouli ever dresr ,u xus,hin,
rise: Those matters were nDt ths expruss,Du
~ law, simply historical facts. Why at
frmlt then, u hisinla,n that. t,cauee iilcro
~as only oile woinsu in thu wur1l for Asls,n 10
marry, nobody should over marry but ono
Woman, rn matter hos tnany there should hs?
Numb. XXI, II, Is: Relating to the saving
ol the u. Nn MiAiauiti-h virs' LIZ, ui,ler the
direction Of Nores. by the 1+r1rli.es for tuem-
selse" Elder l'ratt held that they we're
ssSed for alrcs, and that, necau-e Moses
commandcd It, it was legal to make
wives Of them. To show that pulycamy va
l:r.et'sed hnaulg tue 1sraelre-. il tskins cap
1ivc wonle''-tlera arc his wuzsts-he Quoted
, psut. FL. lo-l3, commencing, ''wteu thou
lucy should proceed to Kat i.e4utitui captiye
- "ns This law VAS general in its aprlica-
1ton- Mhon thou guest forth to war," could
not hc shown to lucan single men on|T-it
embraced all-thete monoganists ard polyg-
at1'ista. This explains why tue Lord told them
to cave the ~. .Goo Aitiau;iish msiicns. IsraaI
a!ready had great surplus OF females, for
tho males had heen oppressed and DESTROYED
from the birth Of Mo*ea until he lsh thom out
q EEspt-eiEhty .earr. Sill, tho Lori saw
.la' there wero not enough, and PROVIDED for
more in this way. II evidence could b.
brought from the bible, or anv other SOURCE
tAst 'Wlen thou Eosst forth to wsr,~ meAnt
puly unmarried m.n, he would yield the point
NOT otherwise.
God ab4oluiely commanded polygamy in
Ez. xii. lG. II. :. And Il a man entice
5iaid, ttc. LscdHce her he shsll endor hor TO
i,a Lis viIo- Dcut. xii, %, -: t'f a man
lind fiAmBel unbrtro,hcd. aud outrage lar.
lie sla1l l'ar fifty rhckrls 70 her father, snd
make her hls ~ife. Does tllis Las apply ouly
TO unmarried men7 gwen to u natipn ia which
10th forms Of marrisge woro recogtlizcd7 II
70, 6ivc us the proul. Tho Law was general.
u applied to thu married aud unmarried alike.
How about the law Which condemned the adul-
1erfr to deAtA:t Tlsis w4s another command
to ert4. l:aL poly 9amy. Hit cou1d 10 enforced
Among tho Christian nations OF our time, it
MOULD atolith the seci1i evil because tho pets-
H'ntes would al 1e married directly to their
eedu.eru.
sero'ni Chronicles xiv, ., 4, Is, 1S, which
easH that Jt1,oiadA gave two wives u Joash.
and then says thai they were L'th good
Nan tLp next text c1,cd. Jehoiada, Elder
l'ratt cvntent!cd, wa~ tho highest au,hotitr
God had on earth at that time, and that Hs
sanst,c1,ed Il polygamy by 1eusthening Lis life
Ee.t, Ho=cai 9, Z. and ill.,. 1, ,shorcsn i. is
eaat that Hosea wns commanded by tho Lord
10 20 marry a lIariut aII an aduit.cns. tsa
made TO do t!ntv. at ti,uwsng that tho Lord
not o1,y w commanded 7olsgany, but could set
aT1ue BIS own ls~t, 2nd did do 80 for special
Puf7,ooE*, Ihe law requiring \ man to marry
Lin dead ki,ssmahts niuoN, which violated tLs
t.~ VI cossanguinity, WAS i1stAnced as M
dtter proof OF this And the co.nru,ud
n1 tho Lord to Abraham To offer IN
!as son Isaac, in violation Of tho law
aEsl''st murder alr,. These we're not e1atupiea
ior liz to follow, unlsss A;ud commands US to.
Fall'one it slonia h. pruved that tho MLle
"a: ctiene l.ol, salnys Ii would bc uo ren.on
nh: we should practise it. We must laye
command OF our own to justify It. Tlle peo-
lie Oh there valleys pr.ctlse pptygamy moi be-
caIae NbetA authorized it (: not because the
lee: Men of G4t!- ti.uce now III Heaven. ,,rnc-
flst it, ttlt tecAukt they lad Received NJ, az
I,rers command to do 70 themselves. dc
H9ro tho llaunner fell,
lie argument, 70 far, seemed net to meet
the e1:eeiat'unr even of Mr. Traits friends,
and aiAt''sE hA opponents tbs idea s1B that il
LAD only served to show how light and far
ltfeitst the evidence must be, and to leave
Them more convinced that the sanction sought
Tor po!rgan,y in the little is not there.
aE. EEwHAsis HE1tAaEs-
ALI NeElnan said lie h4d desired niue Lours
icr this 1isrnssiun. In: had been compelled to
hc content With ,hrce instead, 80 thst be- must
Proceed at once to analyze the question,
Goes the Bible sanction polygamy? The
Point nsde hy hts opponent, thai tho original
nahuscripts Of the Bible hsd been lost, was 4
LaEatelle. We have the Bible in the original
Hebsew, The Septuagint and the Greek traus.
l.f'one. Did the burning Of the original copy
81 VI. Joseph Stnith's pretended reyefa-
ton authorizing pnlreamy inva1idste it to
his fonoTers9 The Bible was a book Of
lleto1y, OF laws OF biography, Of in
sstnes'on' Of poetry, Of prophecy, OF
AL that ia written in il VA not an
proved by the Attn Ghts, nor vas it written Ior
Our imitation. Aehnn etole \ lIabylonis,a car-
ment, lut God did nut Approrc il, neither
Should we initiate it, Ne read Biblo h;storr
the came as We do Aenopl.on, Hecodotus, 1ac-
this distinction, that while We know not H.
wA3s in reading the latter that the statements
aro true, NC know thcy arc when feAdipx the
Eible. If We read history in the Dibio, OF
biography, or what il recorded for our iuita-
biography, etc In the biography Of tbs Biblc
the kAcrNA HTifeTF WIRE fuOsftiH1 ThAS Ret