| OCR Text |
Show Page 264 "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have borne him children..." The passage actually deals with the problem of promigeniture, but Orson's implication was clear: not only did the laws of God contain no proscription of polygamy, but they regulated the practice as a matter of course. Orson thus set the pattern for the debate - for three days, each speaking for one hour each day, the two quite amicably bantered back and forth about the proper contextual interpretations of numerous Bible passages. The men became quite engrossed in the technical problems of translation; but soon Orson felt he had stymied the chaplain on a critical verse, Leviticus 18:18: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her..." To Orson, the verse implied that plural marriage was sanctioned in ancient Israel so long as the relationship did not involve sisters who would "vex" each other. Newman asserted a marginal reading of the verse; he maintained that the King James Version had it wrong, that the verse actually implied a flat prohibition of polygamy. The debate narrowed to this question; all else became secondary, for Newman's case now hinged on his marginal understanding of Leviticus 18:18. Pulling out his Hebrew Bible, Orson read the original clause to his audience: ve-ishah el ahotah lo tikkah. The grammatic relationships between the words, Orson calmly demonstrated, could by no stretch of the imagination imply a prohibition of taking more than one wife. And furthermore, he pointed out, Reverend Newman was now in a very uncomfortable position - he was disputing the wording of the King James Version, the standard text both had agreed upon. Newman was calling in question his own Bible. The deferential parries ended abruptly as Newman flailed for some substantiation of his reading. But, at least from the Mormon perspective, he had missed the point: historical and exegetical disputes over the Bible |
