Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-07-17
RELIGIOUS ERROR IN LAW


The recent rejection by the British
Parliament OF the oft-reviyed bin TO
permit mans marriage with his De-
ceased wife's sister, Is a sign OF the
prejudice and ignorance with which
this question has been treated. Time
and again bill to abolish the senseless
restriction IN the marriage laws OF
Great Britain has been introduced, only
10 receive defeat at the hands OF the
dignitaries Of the Church Of England
as by law established and their FOL-
lowers, Thoses ecolesiasts have direct
votes In the House OF Lords, and inGl-
rect influence IN the House OF Com
mons,
We place the blame with the church
men, because the question, though a
matter Of civil law, arises from a dog
ma OF religion Singular to say too II
IS traceable directly to the Old Tesla
ment II is not found anywhere In the
New. II cannot be fairly construed rs
q part OF Christianity, as promulgated
by Christ or His Apostles or any New
Testament writer II springs from a
strange perversion Of provision in the
Mosaic code. The text is that which
became proyerbal in this region
through the famous debate ketween
Rev. Dr. J. p. Newman Of Washington,
D. c.. and Elder Orson Pratt OF Salt
Lake city Utah; namely, "Leyitcus
xviii. 49,"
How this can be nationally construed
10 prohibit a man from marrying his
widows sister seems past ordinary
comprehension, Whatever Of restriction
the command contains relates only 10
the 'life time Of the wife. That even
then il was permissible, under the law
OF Moses for man 10 marry his wife's
sister with the consent of both, can
not be dsproyed by the scripture. IT II
aid not "yex her" it was not forbidden
At all. Jacobs marriage of sisters Is
not denounced True, Il occurred before
the Mosaic code was revealed, but II Is
evident that the example was followed
subsequently In Israel and the inhibi-
ton In the text was clearly to prevent
trouble between blood sisters, likely 10
arise in some instances, il married to
the same man..
Whatever differences Of opinion may
be entertained on this one point, 1t Is
clear that there is nothing ia the text
considered that forbds man marrying
his wlfe's sister, after the wife's death.
II Is only lin her life time that he
must not do that, ITO yex her. Turn Il
and twist It as theologians and lin
gusts may. that is all that can be fair
ly made out Of It's wording and evident
meaning
II will be remembered by people who
heard or have read the discussion here
In mentioned, that Dr. Newman made
a strenuous effort TO attach to the text
the meaning gIyen In a marginal refer
ence TO be found In some Bibles; that
Is. Neither shall thou take one wife
20 another to vex her" etc. But FL
der Pratt presented the Hebrew words
with such clearness and force that
every scholar saw the fallacy Of the
Newman plagiarism, and the twister
was laughed at for HIS pains.
But II we take the Interpretation the
pulpit orator adopted, that will not help
IL the least the opponents Of the mar
rage Of a man TO his dead wlte's Sis
ter, Neither the text as Il stands In
she regular version, nor as 1t is con-
strued In the marginal reference,
bears In the least against such a mar
rlage Indeed, the latter Interpretation
actually knocks out all reference TO a
sister" and II construed as desired by
the fighters OF the bill would make It
improper for a wldower to marry AZ
al.
The whole contention shows the power
Of prejudice, and the determination Of
eccleslssts to force their notions upon
society and infuse them into the civil
law. They win gather money by the
millions to print and publish the Bible
10 all nations, and then vehemently
tight against many things that Book
contains, and place themselves in direct
hostility TO IL plain precepts or turn
them completely away from their evil
dent import. No wonder that infdeli-
~ increases 50 much In educated cir
olcs, and that skeptIcism permeates
even the atmosphere OF the churches.
These remarks are not Intended 10
apply as argument in favor OF Mosaic
customs. OF the revival Of ancient
rules or obseryances. They are sim
ply advanced TO show the error on
which stupid provision Of Engllsh law
IL founded and the endeavors Of preju-
diced expounders to foist their Eotlons
upon the world and even GROVE then
into the civll law, in place Of the pis'n
declarations OF the Book from which
they profess to take all their doctrines
and instructions and authority The
laws OF nations are to be observed b.
those who live under their power and
protection. but though, IL free and the
liberty OF expressing IL should prevail
within the limits Of proprlety and Of
decency. even though Il may come into
violent contact with prevalent opinions
and established theories.