New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-28
POLYGAMY.


The Argument to Prove that the jews
Practiced Polygamy-How it was An
.-ercd-Dr. Newmau's Argument
summed Up.
correspondence New York Tribunel
SALT LAKE CITY, August l5-After six
DAYS ofnegotiation, the debate on pOlygamy,
between the Rev. Mr.. Newman and Elder
Orson Pratt. was agreed on at noon OF the
twelfth, the question to be, "DOes the Bible
sanction polygamy!" Elder Pratt to take
the affirmative. Mr. Newman the negative.
Three sessions of two hours each, equally
divided between the disputants, and to take
place on three successive days, commencing
on the twelfth, were agreed on. Elder
Pratt chose Judge Snow as Moderator; MT.
Newman chose Judge Hawley, and they
together chose Marshal Patrick. The pre-
liminaries had been settled only two hours
previous to the opening of the debate, anu
so only about 1000 people were present.
Elder John Taylor opened the session with
PRAYER, and then Elder Pratt commenced,
citing Deut. xxi, Is, Is, IL: III man nave
two wives" etc.; Elk. xxi, Nv III man
sell his daughter" etc; Deut. XIV, ana
onward: .If brethren dwell together etc.'
Numb, XXI, II, IL, concerning saving the
Midianitish virgins; Deut. XXI, lO-l3:
s.When thou goest forth to war" etc, as
sanctioning and commanding polygamy, be,
cause. as he affirmed, the twelve tribes OF
Israel originated in pOlygamy and practlced
it down to the coming of Christ, both mon
ogamous and polygamous marriage being
recognized among them and these texts
were of general and not special Application.
He cited Exodus xii, Is, II, requiring a
a man who should scduce maid to marry
her; and Deuteronomy xxi, Is, ~, re-
curing the same in case OF rape, anu
claimed that there was no exception III these
laws in favor of married persons, forgetting,
apparently, that the cohabitatiOn OF mar
ried man with woman other than his wife
was adultery punishable, not by compulso-
nv marriage of his victim, but by death.
His next point was made IN lid Chronl-
cles, xiv, 3, 3, 10, LIZ, which relates that
Jehoiada, the priest, gave two wives to 10
ash. the king, and then says that Joash did
right all the days of Jehoiada, and that the
latter lived to ripe old age, died and was
among the kings, because he had done right
both toward God and toward His house.
Next we were referred to Hosea, chapters
ii. and Ill, where il is said that God com
manded Hosea to take hariot ana an
adulteress to wife, and it was Claimed
that God commanded poiygamy, ana
also sometimes suspended His own
laws. and even ordered them to be broken,
not for our example and imitation,
said Mr.. Pratt but for special purpose.
His law requiring a man to espouse the
widow of a deceased brother, which Is III
opposition to the law of cOnsangnnlty anu
his command to Abraham to Stay Isaac, III
contfayention of the law against murder.
were other instances of the same KIND,
showing that the Lord has right to change
His law if he so please. And II lie so com
mand us. we must obey. Suppose. said he.
it should be proved that the Bible sanctioned
polygamy9 That would be no reason why
we should practice it. We must have
command of our own. The people III these
valleys do not practice polygamy because
Moses authorized it, nor because the eminent
men of Bible times practiced 1t
MR NEwMAN's REPLY.
Mr.. Newman said he had desired nine
hours for the discussion Of this question. but
having been reduced to three by mutual
consent. he would proceed ut once to define
the question: Does the Bible sanction poly
gamyo does it now, or did it formerly Does
the Bible, in the received English transla-
tiOn in the SeDt;lagent or Greek TRANSACTIONS,
or in the original Hebrew sanction-sanc-
tion-tlat is command. not tolerate, not
suffer or regulate. but command polygamy
Here followed an exposition of the derlva-
ton and meaning of the word, being plr-
raIity of wives or husbands, not OF wives
only The correct word for that was
polygamy. There was another word closely
connected with these-pOly Sandry-a piu-
rality of husbands. 1t seemed to him that
if a man might legally and rightfully have
many wives, woman might have many
husbands. (Applause from the women
'sh-'sh-'sh and Kisses from the men, Mr..
Newman maintained that the Bible, "a 1t
stands. is authentic, the fact that the orlgl-
nal manuscripts had been lost being OF no
consequence: that it was composed OF his
tory, biography, prophecy, law, poetry, IN
struction, etc, and that we should not CON
found historical statements with precept
and Injunction. The New Testament was a
communication on the old. He held further
that if any part of the Bible had in effect
been reDealed, then it is not now OF binding
force.
He then passed to close analyzation OF
the marriage established by Goo III the time
OF mans innOcency-between one man and
one woman in its nature. its elements, ITS
design, its rights and obligations, and Its de
fenses-and maintained that polygamy, IN
vented by man since his apOstacy, struch
down and DESTROYED this Bible marriage i'll
all its essential features. 1t defeated its
| three fold object. by iessening his capacity
| for comDaniOnship and by causing Il pre-
| ponderance in births of one sex, thus tend
| ing to the extinction Of the race, ami de
feating procreation: by giving man more
| license in sexual intercourse, ana thus en-
| cOuraging lasciviOusDess. 1t relieved mai
| of his obligations Of reciprocal love and mll
| tual affection; it augmented his authority
while lessening his power TO protect woman
| In the course of this exposition of the trtt
and exposure of the spurious marriage. h
| drew picture of the homogeneous home
and, sharply contrasting it with that o. th'
| polygamist, compelled an Involuntary DurS
ofapplause.
He next turned his attention to Eide
| Pratt's texts. referring 30 deuteronomy
XIV, 5, and onward; he went back to the an
tedeiuvians after his opponent, and expose'
the absurdity of attacking the assumption
that because God made aud married hut on
woman to the first man, therefore that wa
| the model for all subsequent marriages; b.
| such reasoning as that offered. namely:
| that be so, then, because God gave them Blu
| one garden to till nobody should ever til
two gardens; or because God clothed then
| with skins nobody should ever use anyth,n
else for clothing. In this there was tai
| IRE to distinguish between the essential
and the incidentals of marriage, He mair
I tanned that when Cain murdered Abel he wa
not married, and therefore his crime coul
not have grown out of monogarny; while
| on the other hand, iIamech, the first poly
| pamist. slew man on the assumption tina
he had come to claim his rights. The flrs
marriage in Eden was not hlstorai TAG
merely. for, coming down the stream g
time, we find it referred to by Malachi, b
Jesus, and ST. Paul, as the expression OF
great law. And so the hammer fell.
SECOND DAY-AFFIRMATIVG.
There were about 1000 people .pvesen
After prayer, Mr.. Pratt began by iilslStin
that the original manuscript copy OF To
Bible was lost. He, however, accepted
as it stands. az conclusive evidence {
polygamy. He denied that the Savior sal
that marrying more than one woman COZ
stituted adultery. and challenged the proc