THE
BIBLE & POLYGAMY.
DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY?
A DISCUSSION
BETWEEN
PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT,
One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints,
AND
REV. DOCTOR J. P. NEWMAN,
Chaplain of the United States Senate,
IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY,
August 12, 13, and 14, 1870.
TO WHICH IS ADDED
THREE SERMONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT,
BY
PREST. GEORGE A. SMITH,
AND
ELDERS ORSON PRATT AND GEORGE Q. CANNON,
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,
1874.
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
REVEREND DR. J. P. NEWMAN,
Pastor of the Metropolitan Methodist Church, Washington, D. C.,
AND
BRIGHAM YOUNG,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 6th, 1870.
TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG:
Sir:--In acceptance of the challenge given in your journal, "The Salt
Lake Daily Telegraph," of the 3rd of May last, to discuss the question,
"Does the Bible sanction polygamy?" I have hereby to inform you that I
am now ready to hold a public debate with you as the head of the Mormon
Church upon the above question, under such regulations as may be agreed
upon for said discussion; and I suggest for our mutual convenience
that, either by yourself or by two gentlemen whom you shall designate,
you may meet two gentlemen whom I will select for the purpose of making
all necessary arrangements for the debate, with as little delay as
possible. May I hope for a reply at your earliest convenience, and at
least not later than 3 o'clock to-day?
Respectfully, etc.,
J. P. NEWMAN.
-----
Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 6th, 1870.
REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN:
Sir:--Yours of even date has just been received, in answer to which I
have to inform you that no challenge was ever given by me to any person
through the columns of the "Salt Lake Daily Telegraph," and this is the
first information I have received that any such challenge ever appeared.
You have been mis-informed with regard to the "Salt Lake Daily
Telegraph;" it was not my journal, but was owned and edited by Dr.
Fuller, of Chicago, who was not a member of our church, and I was not
acquainted with its columns.
Respectfully,
BRIGHAM YOUNG.
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870.
TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG:
Sir:--I confess my disappointment at the contents of your note in reply
to mine of this date. In the far East it is impossible to distinguish
the local relations between yourself and those papers which advocate
the interests of your Church; and when the copy of the "Telegraph"
containing the article of the 3rd of May last, reached Washington, the
only construction put upon it by my friends was that it was a challenge
to me to come to your city and discuss the Bible doctrine of polygamy.
Had I chosen to put a different construction on that article, and
to take no further notice of it, you could then have adopted the
"Telegraph" as your organ and the said article as a challenge, which
I either could not or dared not accept. That I am justified in this
construction is clear from the following facts:
1. The article in the "Telegraph," of May 3rd, contains these
expressions, alluding to my sermon as reported in the N. Y. "Herald,"
it says: "The discourse was a lengthened argument to prove that the
Bible does not sustain polygamy. * * * * * * * * The sermon should have
been delivered in the New Tabernacle in this city, with ten thousand
Mormons to listen to it, and then Elder Orson Pratt, or some prominent
Mormon, should have had a hearing on the other side and the people been
allowed to decide. * * * * * Dr. Newman, by his very sermon, recognizes
the religious element of the question. * * * * Let us have a fair
contest of peaceful argument and let the best side win. * * * We will
publish their notices in the "Telegraph," report their discourses as
far as possible, use every influence in our power, if any is needed,
to secure them the biggest halls and crowded congregations, and we
are satisfied that every opportunity will be given them to conduct a
campaign. We base this last remark on a statement made last Sunday week
in the Tabernacle by President Geo. A. Smith, that the public halls
throughout the Territory have been and would be open to clergymen of
other denominations coming to Utah to preach. * * * Come on and convert
them by the peaceful influences of the Bible instead of using the means
now proposed. Convince them by reason and Scriptural argument and no
Cullom Bill will be required."
2. I understand the article containing the above expressions, was
written by Elder Sloan, of the Mormon Church, and at that time
associate editor of the "Telegraph;" and that he was, and has since
been, in constant intercourse with yourself. The expressions of the
said article, as above cited, were the foundation of the impression
throughout the country, that a challenge had thus been given
through the columns of the "Telegraph," and as such, I myself, had
no alternative but so to regard and accept it. I may add that I am
informed that an impression prevailed here in Utah, that a challenge
had been given and accepted. Under this impression I have acted from
that day to this, having myself both spoken of and seen allusions to
the anticipated discussion in several prominent papers of the country.
3. It was not till after my arrival in your city last evening, in
pursuance of this impression, that I learned the fact that the same
Elder Sloan, in the issue of the "Salt Lake Herald," of Aug. 3rd,
attempts for the first time to disabuse the public of the idea so
generally prevalent. Still acting in good faith and knowing that
you had never denied or recalled the challenge of the 3rd of May, I
informed you of my presence in your city and of the object of my visit
here.
My note this morning with your reply, will serve to put the matter
before the public in its true light and dispel the impression of very
many in all parts of the country, that such a challenge had been given
and that such a discussion would be held.
Feeling that I have now fully discharged my share of the responsibility
in the case, it only remains for me to subscribe myself, as before,
Respectfully,
J. P. NEWMAN.
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870.
REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN:
Sir:--It will be a pleasure to us, if you will address our congregation
to-morrow morning, the 7th inst., in the small Tabernacle at 10 a. m.,
or, should you prefer it, in the New Tabernacle at 2 p. m., same inst.,
or both morning and evening.
Respectfully,
BRIGHAM YOUNG.
P. S. I hope to hear from you immediately.
B. Y.
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870, Eight o'clock, P.M.
TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG:
Sir:--In reply to your note just received to preach in the Tabernacle
to-morrow, I have to say that after disclaiming and declining, as you
have done to-day, the discussion which I came here to hold, other
arrangements to speak in the city were accepted by me, which will
preclude my compliance with your invitation.
Respectfully,
J. P. NEWMAN.
-----
Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 6, 1870.
REV. DR. NEWMAN:
Sir:--In accordance with our usual custom of tendering clergymen of
every denomination, passing through our city, the opportunity of
preaching in our tabernacles of worship, I sent you, this afternoon,
an invitation tendering you the use of the small Tabernacle in the
morning, or the New Tabernacle in the afternoon, or both, at your
pleasure, which you have seen proper to decline.
You charge me with "disclaiming and declining the discussion" which
you came here to hold. I ask you, sir, what right have you to charge
me with declining a challenge which I never gave you, or, to assume
as a challenge from me, the writing of any unauthorized newspaper
editor? Admitting that you could distort the article in question to
be a challenge from me, (which I do not believe you conscientiously
could) was it not the duty of a gentleman to ascertain whether I was
responsible for the so-called challenge before your assumption of such
a thing? And certainly much more so before making your false charges.
Your assertion that if you had not chosen to construe the article
in question as a challenge from me, I "could then have adopted the
'Telegraph' as your [my] organ and the said article as a challenge,"
is an insinuation, in my judgment, very discreditable to yourself, and
ungentlemanly in the extreme, and forces the conclusion that the author
of it would not scruple to make use of such a subterfuge himself.
You say that Mr. Sloan is the author of the article; if so, he is
perfectly capable of defending it, and I have no doubt you will find
him equally willing to do so; or Professor Orson Pratt, whose name, it
appears, is the only one suggested in the article. I am confident he
would be willing to meet you, as would hundreds of our elders, whose
fitness and respectability I would consider beyond question.
In conclusion I will ask, What must be the opinion of every candid,
reflecting mind, who views the facts as they appear? Will they
not conclude that this distortion of the truth in accusing me of
disclaiming and declining a challenge, which I never even contemplated,
is unfair and ungentlemanly in the extreme and must have been invented
with some sinister motive? Will they not consider it a paltry and
insignificant attempt, on your part, to gain notoriety, regardless of
the truth? This you may succeed in obtaining; but I am free to confess,
as my opinion, that you will find such notoriety more unenviable
than profitable, and as disgraceful, too, as it is unworthy of your
profession.
If you think you are capable of proving the doctrine of "Plurality of
Wives" unscriptural, tarry here as a missionary; we will furnish you
the suitable place, the congregation, and plenty of our elders, any of
whom will discuss with you on that or any other scriptural doctrine.
Respectfully,
BRIGHAM YOUNG.
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 8th, 1870.
TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG.
Sir:--Your last note, delivered to me on Sunday morning, and to which,
of course, I would not on that day reply, does not at all surprise me.
It will be, however, impossible for you to conceal from the public
the truth, that with the full knowledge of my being present in your
city for the purpose of debating with you or your representative the
question of polygamy, you declined to enter into any arrangements for
such a discussion; and after this fact was ascertained, I felt at
liberty to comply with a subsequent request from other parties, which
had been fully arranged before the reception of your note of invitation
to preach in your Tabernacles.
I must frankly say that I regard your professed courtesy, extended
under the circumstances, as it was, a mere device to cover, if
possible, your unwillingness to have a fair discussion of the matter in
question in the hearing of your people.
Your comments upon "disclaiming and declining the discussion" are
simply a reiteration of the disclaimer; while, in regard to your notice
of my construction of the article in the Telegraph of May last, I
have only to leave the representations you have seen fit to make to
the judgment of a candid public sure to discover who it is that has
been resorting to "subterfuge" in this affair. Your intimation that
Elder Sloan, Prof. Pratt, or hundreds of other Mormon elders, would
be willing to discuss the question of Polygamy with me from a Bible
standpoint, and your impertinent suggestion that I tarry here as a
missionary for that purpose, I am compelled to regard as cheap and safe
attempts to avoid the appearance of shrinking from such a discussion by
seeming to invite it after it had, by your own action, been rendered
impossible. As to the elders you speak of, including yourself, being
ready to meet me in public debate, I have to say that I came here
with that understanding and expectation, but it was rudely dispelled,
on being definitely tested. Were it possible to reduce these vague
suggestions of yours to something like a distinct proposition for a
debate, there is still nothing in your action, so far, to assure me
of your sincerity, but, on the contrary, every thing to cause me to
distrust it.
I have one more point of remark. You have insinuated that my motive is
a thirst for "notoriety." I can assure you that if I had been animated
by such a motive, you give me small credit for good sense by supposing
that I would employ such means. Neither you, nor the system of which
you are the head, could afford me any "notoriety" to be desired.
But, to show how far I have been governed by merely personal
aspirations, let the simple history of the case be recalled.
You send your Delegate to Congress who, in the House of
Representatives, and in sight and hearing of the whole Nation, throws
down the gauntlet upon the subject of Polygamy as treated in the Bible.
Being Chaplain of the American Senate, and having been consulted by
several public men, I deemed it my duty to preach upon the subject. The
discourse was published in tho New York "Herald," and on this reaching
your city one of your Elders published an article which is generally
construed as a challenge to me to debate the question with you, or
some one whom you should appoint, here in your tabernacle. Acting upon
this presumption, I visit your city, taking the earliest opportunity
to inform you, as the head of the Mormon Church, of my purpose, and
suggesting the steps usual in such cases. You then reply, ignoring the
whole subject, but without a hint of your "pleasure" about my preaching
in the Tabernacle.
Subsequently other arrangements were made which precluded my accepting
any invitation to speak in your places of worship. The day passed away,
and after sunset I received your note of invitation, my reply to which
will answer for itself. And this can intimate is an attempt on my part
to obtain an "unenviable notoriety."
Sir, I have done with you--make what representation of the matter you
think proper you will not succeed in misleading the discriminating
people either of this Territory or of the country generally by any
amount of verbiage you may choose to employ.
Respectfully, etc.,
J. P. NEWMAN.
-----
[The communication referred to in the letter below was addressed to Dr.
Newman by five persons, who asked him whether it was a fact that he
was unwilling to debate the question of polygamy now and here, as that
was the impression, they say, the Deseret Evening News and _Salt Lake
Herald_, conveyed.]
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1870.
TO MR. BRIGHAM YOUNG:
Sir:--In view of the inclosed communications, received from several
citizens of this place asking whether I am ready now and here to debate
the question "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" with you, as the Chief
of the Church of Latter-day Saints, and in view of the defiant tone
of your Church journals of last evening and this morning; and in view
of the fact that I have been here now four days waiting to have you
inform me of your willingness to meet me in public discussion on the
above question, but having received no such intimation up to this time
of writing, therefore, I do now and here challenge you to meet me in
personal and public debate on the aforesaid question. I respectfully
suggest that you appoint two gentlemen to meet Rev. Dr. Sunderland and
Dr. J. P. Taggart, who represent me, to make all necessary arrangements
for the discussion.
Be kind enough to favor me with an immediate reply.
Respectfully,
J. P. NEWMAN.
Residence of Rev. Mr. Pierce.
-----
Salt Lake City, U. T., August 9th, 1870.
REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN:
Sir:--Your communication of to-day's date, with accompanying enclosure,
was handed to me a few moments since by Mr. Black.
In reply, I will say that I accept the challenge to debate the question
"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" Professor Orson Pratt or Hon. John
Taylor acting as my representative, and in my stead in the discussion.
I will furnish the place of holding the meetings, and appoint two
gentlemen to meet Messrs. Sunderland and Taggart, to whom you refer as
your representatives, to make the necessary arrangements.
I wish the discussion to be conducted in a mild, peaceable, quiet
spirit, that the people may receive light and intelligence and all be
benefitted; and then let the congregation decide for themselves.
Respectfully,
BRIGHAM YOUNG.
-----
City, Aug. 9th, 1870
REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN:
Sir:--I have appointed Messrs A. Carrington and Jos. W. Young to meet
with Messrs Sunderland and Taggart, to arrange preliminaries for the
discussion.
Respectfully,
BRIGHAM YOUNG.
-----
Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1870.
TO MR. BRIGHAM YOUNG:
Sir:--I challenged you to a discussion and not Orson Pratt or John
Taylor. You have declined to debate personally with me. Let the public
distinctly understand this fact, whatever may have been your reasons
for so declining. Here I think I might reasonably rest the case.
However, if Orson Pratt is prepared to take the affirmative of the
question, "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" I am prepared to take
the negative, and Messrs. Sunderland and Taggart will meet Messrs.
Carrington and Young to-night at 8 o'clock at the office of Mr. Taggart
to make the necessary arrangements.
Respectfully, etc.,
J. P. NEWMAN.
-----
Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 10th, 1870.
REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN:
Sir:--I am informed by Messrs. Carrington and Young that at their
meeting last evening with Drs. Sunderland and Taggart they were unable
to come to a decision with regard to the wording of the subject of
debate.
Bearing in mind the following facts: Firstly, that you are the
challenging party. Secondly, That in a sermon delivered by you in the
city of Washington, before President Grant and his Cabinet, Members of
Congress and many other prominent gentlemen, you assumed to prove that
"God's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons," it
certainly seems strange that your representatives should persistently
refuse to have any other question discussed than the one "Does the
Bible sanction Polygamy?" It appears to the representatives of Mr.
Pratt that if Dr. Newman could undertake to prove in Washington that
"God's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons,"
he ought not to refuse to make the same affirmation in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Pratt, I discover, entertains the same opinion, but rather than
permit the discussion to fall, he will not press for your original
proposition, but will accept the question as you now state it: "Does
the Bible sanction Polygamy?"
I sincerely trust that none of the gentlemen forming the committee will
encumber the discussion with unnecessary regulations, which will be
irksome to both parties and unproductive of good, and that no obstacles
will be thrown in the way of having a free and fair discussion.
Respectfully,
BRIGHAM YOUNG.
THE
BIBLE AND POLYGAMY.
DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY?
DISCUSSION BETWEEN PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT AND DR. J. P. NEWMAN, CHAPLAIN
OF THE U. S. SENATE, IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, AUGUST 12,
13 AND 14, 1870.
FIRST DAY.
At two o'clock yesterday afternoon Professor Pratt and Dr. Newman, with
their friends and the umpires, met in the stand of the New Tabernacle:
the two former gentlemen prepared for the discussion of the question,
"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" An audience of three or four
thousand--at least half of which was of the gentler sex--assembled
to hear the discussion. At a few minutes past two, the audience was
called to order by Judge C. M. Hawley, the umpire of Dr. Newman, on the
negative, he (fortunately we presume) being absent from his district
at this juncture--and Elder John Taylor offered the opening prayer.
The same umpire, who somehow or other had got the idea that he was the
master of ceremonies on the occasion, and that he would relieve the
umpire of the affirmative side from all his duties, then introduced
Professor Pratt to the audience, which, as the professor was so well
known and the umpire almost unknown, created a slight titter, which,
however, speedily subsided, and the assemblage listened quietly to the
ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT.
I appear before this audience to discuss a subject that is certainly
important to us, and no doubt is interesting to the country at large,
namely: the subject of plurality of wives, or, as the question is
stated: "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" I would state, by way of
apology to the audience, that I have been unaccustomed, nearly all
my life, to debate. It is something new to me. I do not recollect of
ever having held more than one or two debates, in the course of my
life, on any subject. I think the last one was some thirty years ago,
in the city of Edinburgh. But I feel great pleasure this afternoon
in appearing before this audience for the purpose of examining the
question under discussion. I shall simply read what is stated in the
Bible, and make such remarks as I may consider proper upon the occasion.
I will call your attention to a passage which will be found in
Deuteronomy, the 21st Chapter, from the 15th to the 17th verse:
If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they
have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the
first-born be hers that was hated: Then it shall be when, he maketh
his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son
of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed
the first-born: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the
first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he
is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
Here is a law, in the words of the Great Law-giver himself, the Lord,
who spake to Moses; and it certainly must be a sanction of a plurality
of wives, for it is given to regulate inheritances in families of
that description, as well as in families wherein the first wife may
have been divorced, or may be dead; wives contemporary and wives that
are successive. It refers to both classes; and inasmuch as plurality
of wives is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we have a right to
believe from this law that plurality of wives is just as legal and
proper as that of the marriage of a single wife. This is the ground
we are forced to take until we can find some law, some evidence, some
testimony to the contrary. They are acknowledged as wives in this
passage, at least--"If a man have two wives." It is well known that
the House of Israel at that time practised both monogamy and polygamy.
They were not exclusively monogamists; neither were they exclusively
polygamists. There were monogamic families existing in Israel in those
days, and therefore in the Lord giving this He referred not only to
successive wives, where a man had married after the death of his first
wife, or if the first wife had been divorced for some legal cause, but
to wives who were contemporary, as there were many families in Israel,
which can be proved if necessary, that were polygamists. I might here
refer to the existence of this principle concerning the rights of the
first-born in monogamic and polygamic families prior to the date of
this law. This seems to have been given to regulate a question that had
a prior existence. I will refer, before I proceed from this passage,
to the monogamic family of Isaac, wherein we have the declaration that
Esau and Jacob, being twins, had a dispute, or at least there was
an ill feeling on the part of Esau, because Jacob at a certain time
had purchased the right of the first-born--that is, his birth-right.
The first-born, though twins, and perhaps a few moments intervening
between the first and second, or only a short time, had rights, and
those rights were respected and honored centuries before the days of
Moses. This was a monogamic family, so far as we are informed; for if
Isaac had more than one wife, the Bible does not inform us. We come
to Jacob, who was a polygamist, and whose first-born son pertained to
the father and not to the mother. There were not four first-born sons
to Jacob who were entitled to the rights of the first-born, but only
one. The first-born to Jacob was Reuben, and he would have retained
the birth-right had he not transgressed the law of heaven. Because
of transgression he lost that privilege. It was taken from him and
given to Joseph, or rather to the two sons of Joseph, as you will find
recorded in the fifth chapter of 1st Chronicles. Here then the rights
of the first-born were acknowledged, in both polygamic and monogamic
families, before the law under consideration was given. The House of
Israel was not only founded in polygamy, but the two wives of Jacob,
and the two handmaidens, that were also called his wives, were the
women with whom he begat the twelve sons from whom the twelve tribes of
Israel sprang; and polygamy having existed and originated as it were
with Israel or Jacob, in that nation, was continued among them from
generation to generation down until the coming of Christ; and these
laws therefore were intended to regulate an institution already in
existence. If the law is limited to monogamic families only, it will
devolve upon my learned opponent to bring forth evidence to establish
this point.
We will next refer to a passage which will be found in Exodus 21st
chapter, 10th verse. It may be well to read the three preceding
verses, commencing with the 7th: "And if a man sell his daughter to be
a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men servants do. If she
please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he
let her be redeemed; to sell her into a strange nation he shall have
no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he hath
betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner
of daughters. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment and
her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." Also the following verse,
the 11th: "And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go
out free without money." I think from the nature of this passage that
it certainly does have reference to two lawful wives. It may be that
objection will be taken to the word "wife"--"another wife"--from the
fact that it is in Italics, and was so placed by the translators of
King James, according to the best judgment they could form, taking
into consideration the text. I do not intend at present to dwell at
any great length upon this passage, merely declaring that this does
sanction plurality of wives, so far as my judgment and opinion are
concerned, and so far as the literal reading of the Scripture exhibits
it does sanction the taking of another wife, while the first is still
living. If this word "wife" could be translated "woman," that perhaps
might alter the case, providing it can be proved that it should be so
from the original, which may be referred to on this point, and it may
not. We have the privilege, I believe, of taking the Bible according
to King James' translation, or of referring to the original, providing
we can find any original. But so far as the original is concerned,
from which this was translated, it is not in existence. The last
information we have of the original manuscripts from which this was
translated, is that they were made into the form of kites and used for
amusement, instead of being preserved. With regard to a great many
other manuscripts, they may perhaps agree with the original of King
James' translation, or they may not. We have testimony and evidence in
the Encyclopedia Metropolitana that the original manuscripts contained
a vast number of readings, differing materially one from the other. We
have this statement from some of the best informed men, and in several
instances it has been stated that there are 30,000 different readings
of these old original manuscripts from which the Bible was translated.
Men might dispute over these readings all the days of their lives and
there would be a difference of opinion, there were so many of them.
This, then, is another law, regulating, in my estimation, polygamy.
I will now refer to another law on the subject of polygamy, in the
25th chapter of Deuteronomy--I do not recollect the verse, but I
will soon find it--it commences at the 5th verse. "If brethren dwell
together"--Now, it is well enough in reading this, to refer to the
margin, as we have the privilege of appealing to it, so you will find
in the margin the words "next kinsmen," or "brethren." "If brethren--or
next kinsmen--dwell together:"
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child,
the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her
husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife,
and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed
in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out
of Israel.
And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My
husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in
Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if
he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the
elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face,
and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will
not build up his brother's house.
And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his
shoe loosed.
It may be asked, What has this to do with polygamy? I answer that as
the law is general, it is binding upon brethren and upon all near
kinsmen dwelling together. Not unmarried brethren or unmarried kinsmen,
but the married and unmarried. The law is general. If it can be proved
from the original, or from any source whatever, that the law is not
general, then the point will have to be given up. But if that cannot
be proven, then here is a law that not only sanctions polygamy, but
commands it; and if we can find one law where a command is given,
then plurality of wives would be established on a permanent footing,
equal in legality to that of monogamy. This law of God absolutely
does command all persons, whether married or unmarried, it makes no
difference--brethren dwelling together, or near kinsmen dwelling
together--which shows that it is not unmarried persons living in the
same house that are meant, but persons living together in the same
neighborhood, in the same country in Israel, as it is well known that
Israel in ancient days did so dwell together; and the law was binding
upon them. This was calculated to make a vast number of polygamists
in Israel from that day until the coming of Christ. And the Christian
religion must have admitted these polygamists into the Church, because
they would have been condemned if they had not observed this law.
There was a penalty attached to it, and they could not be justified
and refuse to obey it. Hence there must have been hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of polygamists in Israel, when Jesus came, who were living
in obedience to this law and who would have been condemned if they had
disobeyed it. When the gospel was preached to them, if they could not
have been admitted into the Christian Church without divorcing their
wives God would have been unjust to them, for if they, through their
obedience to God's law, should have been cut off from the gospel, would
it not have been both inconsistent and unjust? But as there is no law
either in the Old or New Testament against polygamy, and as we here
find polygamy commanded, we must come to the conclusion that it is a
legal form of marriage. We cannot come to any other conclusion, for
it stands on a par with the monogamic form of marriage; consequently,
wherever we find either righteous men or wicked men, whatever may be
their practices in the course of their lives, it does not affect the
legality of their marriage with one wife or with two wives.
We may refer you to Cain, who had but one wife, so far as we are
informed. He was a monogamist. He was also a very wicked man, having
killed his own brother. We find he was driven out into the land of
Nod. Of course, as the Lord had not created any females in the land of
Nod, Cain must have taken his wife with him, and there was born a son
to him in that land. Shall we condemn monogamy and say it was sinful
because Cain was a murderer? No; that will never do. We can bring no
argument of this kind to destroy monogamy, or the one-wife system, and
make it illegal. We come down to the days of Lamech. He was another
murderer. He happened to be a polygamist; but he did not commit his
murder in connection with polygamy, so far as the Scriptures give any
information. There is no connection between the law of polygamy and
the murder he committed in slaying a young man. Does that, therefore,
invalidate the marriage of two persons to Lamech? No; it stands on just
as good ground as the case of Cain, who was a monogamist and a murderer
also.
Adam was a monogamist. But was there any law given to Adam to prevent
him taking another wife? If there was such a law, it is not recorded in
King James' translation. If there be such a law recorded, perhaps it is
in some of the originals that differed so much from each other. It may
be argued, in the case of Adam, that the Lord created but one woman to
begin the peopling of this earth. If the Lord saw proper to create but
one woman for that purpose, he had a perfect right to do so.
The idea that that has any bearing upon the posterity of Adam because
the Lord did not create two women would be a very strange idea indeed.
There are a great many historical facts recorded concerning the days
of Adam that were not to be examples to his posterity. For instance,
he was ordered to cultivate the garden of Eden--one garden. Was that
any reason why his posterity should not cultivate two gardens? Would
any one draw the conclusion that, because God gave a command to Adam
to cultivate the garden of Eden, to dress it and keep it, that his
posterity to the latest time should all have one garden each, and
no more? There is no expression of a law in these matters; they are
simply historical facts. Again, God gave him clothing on a certain
occasion, the Lord himself being the tailor--clothing to cover the
nakedness of Adam and of Eve his wife; and this clothing was made from
the skins of beasts. This is a historical fact. Will any one say that
all the posterity of Adam shall confine their practice in accordance
with this historical fact? Or that it was an expression of law from
which they must not deviate? By no means. If the posterity of Adam see
fit to manufacture clothing out of wool, or flax, or cotton, or any
other material whatever, would any one argue in this day that they
were acting in violation of the law of the Divine Creator, of a law
expressed and commanded in the early ages? Why, no. We should think
a man had lost all powers of reason who would argue this way. As our
delegate remarked in his speech, Adam had taken all the women in the
world, or that were made for him. If there had been more, he might have
taken them: there was nothing in the law to limit him.
I would like to dwell upon this longer, but I have many other passages
to which I wish to draw your attention. The next passage to which I
will refer, you will find in Numbers, 31st chapter, 17th and 18th
verses. This chapter gives us a history of the proceedings of this
mixed race of polygamists and monogamists called Israel. At a certain
time they went out to battle against the nation of Midianites; and
having smote the men, they took all the women captives, as you will
find in the 9th verse. Commencing at the 15th verse, we read:
And Moses said unto them have ye saved all the women alive? Behold
these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to
commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was
a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
You will recollect the case of some Midianitish women being brought
into the camp of Israel contrary to the law of God, not being wives;
and Israel with them sinned and transgressed the law of heaven, and the
Lord sent an awful plague into their midst for this transgression. Now,
here was a large number of women saved, and Moses, finding they were
brought into camp, said these had caused the children of Israel to sin;
and he gave command: "Now, therefore, kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But
all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourselves." How many were there of this great company
that they were to keep alive for themselves? There was something very
strange in this. If they had caused Israel to sin why spare them? Or
why keep them alive for themselves? That they might have them lawfully.
Some may say to have them as servants, not as wives. Some might have
been kept as servants and not as wives, but would there not have been
great danger of Israel sinning again with so many thousand servants,
as they were the same women who had brought the plague into the camp
of Israel before? How many were there of these women? Thirty-two
thousand, as you will find in another verse of the same chapter. And
these were divided up as you will also find, in the latter part of the
same chapter, among the children of Israel. Those who stayed at home
from the war took a certain portion--sixteen thousand in number; those
who went to the war, including the Levites, took the remaining sixteen
thousand.
Now to show that polygamy was practised among the children of Israel in
taking captive women, let me refer you to another passage of Scripture,
in Deuteronomy, 21st chapter, commencing at the 10th verse.
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy
God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
captive;
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto
her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her
head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall
remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full
month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband,
and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be. If thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let
her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money,
thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Now, this law was given to a nation, as I have already shown, which
practised polygamy as well as monogamy; and consequently if a
polygamist saw a woman, a beautiful woman, among the captives; or if a
monogamist saw a beautiful woman among the captives; or if an unmarried
man saw a beautiful woman among the captives, the law being general,
they had an equal right to take them as wives. This will explain the
reason why the Lord told Israel to save thirty-two thousand Midianitish
women alive for themselves. It will be recollected that the Israelites
had a surplus of women. I have no need to refer to the destruction
of the males that had been going on for a long period of time--about
eighty years, until Moses went to deliver Israel from Egypt. During
this time females were spared alive, making a surplus of them in the
midst of Israel; but the Lord saw there was not enough, and He made
provision for more by commanding them to spare these captive women and
keep them alive for themselves. If my opponent, who will follow me,
can bring forth any evidence from the law of God, or from the passage
under consideration, to prove that this law was limited to unmarried
men, all right; we will yield the point, if there can be evidence
brought forward to that effect. "When you go forth to war if you see a
beautiful woman"--not you unmarried men alone, but all that go forth to
war.
The next passage to which I will refer you, where God absolutely
commands polygamy, will be found in Exodus, 22nd chapter, 16th and 17th
verses:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he
shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money
according to the dowry of virgins.
There is the law of Exodus; now let us turn to the law of Deuteronomy,
22nd chapter, 28th and 29th verses, on the same subject:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and
lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father
fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath
humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Does this mean an unmarried man? The law was given to a nation wherein
both forms of marriage were recognized, and wherein single men existed.
If it does mean single men alone, we would like to hear the proof. The
law is general. Whether married or unmarried, whether a monogamist
or polygamist, if he committed this crime, if he found a maid and
committed the crime there specified, of seduction, there is the law;
he shall marry her, and shall not only marry her, but shall pay a fine
of fifty shekels of silver to the father. This was the penalty; not
that they were justified in the act. It mattered not whether he was a
polygamist, a monogamist, or an unmarried man, he must comply with the
law as a penalty. That was another command establishing and sanctioning
polygamy, sanctioning it by Divine command. If this law could have
been put in force in modern times, among modern Christian nations,
what a vast amount of evil would have been avoided in the earth. It
is proverbial that among all the nations of modern Europe, as well as
in our own great nation--Christian nations--there is a vast amount of
prostitution, houses of ill-lame, and prostitutes of various forms;
now, if this law, which God gave to Israel, had been re-enacted by the
law-makers and legislatures and parliaments of these various nations,
what would have been the consequence? In a very short time there would
not have been a house of ill-fame in existence. Their inmates would
have all been married off to their seducers, or their patrons; for who
does not know that females would far rather be married than prostitute
themselves as they do at the present time? And they would lie in wait
to entrap this man and that man, and the other man, to get out of these
brothels, and, as the law is general, if the same law had existed in
our day, it would soon have broken up houses of ill-fame. There might
have been some secret evils; but it would have broken up the "social
evil."
The next passage to which I will refer you is in 2nd Chronicles, 24th
chapter, 2nd, 3rd, 15th and 18th verses:
And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the
days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives, and
he begat sons and daughters.
According to the ideas of monogamists, Jehoiada must have been a very
wicked man, and Joash "a beastly polygamist" for taking two wives. We
will take the man who received the wives first. Joash, who received the
wives from the highest authority God had on the earth, did "right in
the sight of the Lord, all the days of Jehoiada the priest." What! Did
he do right when Jehoiada took two wives for him and gave them to him?
Yes; so says the word of God, the Bible, and you know the question is
"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" But what a dreadful priest that man
must have been, according to the arguments of monogamists! Let us see
what kind of a character he appears. In this same chapter, 28th verse,
if I recollect aright: (looking). No, in the 15th and 16th verses we
read:
But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; a hundred
and thirty years old was he when he died. And they buried him in the
city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel,
both toward God, and toward his house.
"Because he had done good in Israel, both toward God and towards his
house," they buried him among the kings, honored him in that manner;
and the reason why they did bestow this great honor upon him was
because he had done good. In the first place he had given two wives
to Joash, which was a very good act, for he was the highest authority
God had upon the earth at that time; and God sanctioned polygamy by
lengthening out the age of this man to 130 years, a very long age in
those days.
But I shall have to hasten on, although there are many passages which I
have not time to quote. The next will be found in Hosea, 1st chapter,
2nd and 3rd verses: "The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea."
This was the introduction of Hosea as a prophet. No doubt he brought
the evidence as a prophet; and in the beginning of the word of God
through Hosea, to the world, he must have come with great proof. The
first thing the Lord said to him, was "Go take unto thee a wife of
whoredoms." In the 3rd verse it says: "So he went and took Gomer, the
daughter of Diblain." If such a thing had occurred in our day; if a
man had come forth, professing to be a prophet, and the first thing he
said as a prophet was that the Lord had revealed to him that he was
to go and take a wife of such a character, what would be thought of
him? Yet he was a true prophet. Was this the only wife God commanded
Hosea to take? No. The Lord said--"Go yet, love a woman beloved of
her friends, yet an adulteress"--See chapter 3rd. What, love a woman,
an adulteress, when he already had a wife of very bad character! Take
wives of such disgraceful reputation! Yet God commanded this, and he
must be obeyed. This did not justify any other prophet in doing so.
Jeremiah would not have been justified in doing the same. But this was
a command of God, given to Hosea alone. It was not given as a pattern
for any other man to follow after, or for the people of this generation
to observe. Yet it was given in this instance. "But," inquires one,
"does not the Lord require such characters to be put to death?" Yes;
but in this instance, it seems, the Lord deviated from this law; for
He commanded a holy prophet to go and marry two women. This recalls
to my mind the law given to Israel, recorded in Deuteronomy, where
the Lord commanded the law of consanguinity to be broken. You will
recollect that in two different chapters the Lord pointed out who
should not marry within certain degrees of consanguinity; yet in the
25th chapter of Deuteronomy he commanded brethren, who dwell together,
and near kinsmen, to break that law, which was a justification in
part to not regard the law of consanguinity. God has the right to
alter his commands as he pleases. Go back to the days of Noah, and
the command was given: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his
blood be shed;" yet the same God commanded Abraham, that good man who
is up yonder in the kingdom of God, according to the New Testament, to
take his son Isaac and slay him and offer him up as a burnt offering.
Here is one command in opposition to another. Consequently, God does
sometimes give a command in opposition to another, but they are not
examples for you or me to follow. Supposing I should prove by ten
thousand examples from the Bible that polygamy was practised in ancient
Israel, is that a reason why you and I should practise it. No; we must
have a command for ourselves. God sometimes repeats a command. The
Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy; not because God
commanded it in ancient times, not because Moses gave laws to regulate
it; not because it was practised by good men of ancient times--
(At this point the umpires said the time was up.)
Judge C. M. Hawley then introduced Dr. J. P. Newman, who proceeded to
deliver the following
ARGUMENT.
Honorable Umpires and
Ladies and Gentlemen: