Don wrote:
Ah, okay. We're not as far apart here as I thought.
8-)
Don
Don't you hate it when that happens after you've spent a half hour typing?
But at the risk of raising your dander (after all this
is a discussion board)
I wrote:
With all due respect, Don, not it doesn't. The statement is ambiguous and generic, which is precisely why you can claim it is not refering to anything specific. Beyond that it condemns both fornication and polygamy! Curious, isn't it? Why take the time to condemn something that is already condemned in the Bible? It's as though the writers weren't exactly sure which rumors they were responding to or which rumors to believe and which not to believe, so let's just cover all our options here and condemn both polygamy and fornication.
You responded:
Roger, you're misreading the document. The statement doesn't indicate that the authors are not sure whether what has happened is polygamy or fornication. They think both has occurred, which is why they say directly that the church "has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy." While it may not be specific regarding who is at fault,
ambiguous...
it is quite clear on what has been done. And one of those things is "polygamy", plain and simple, which meant then what it means now--having more than one wife. So, the statement certainly indicates that there was a polygamous marriage, because the term polygamous marriage is redundant--polygamy just is multiple marriages of one person, existing at the same time.
Not really. It's generic. It does not say "there was a polygamous marriage and that's why we're writing this." It generically states "fornication and polygamy"
The statement also indicates--without saying it's referring to the same person or persons--
more ambiguity...
that "fornication" had been committed. This could refer to separate actions. But it could also refer to one and the same action, if polygamy itself were seen as a species of sexual sin--as seems to be the case here.
Don
I rest my case! "could refer" "could also refer" "if" ...ambiguous and generic. But then that's exactly what allows you to keep your door open. Fine. We're not really getting anywhere with this, and you're right we're not that far apart--because of the ambiguity.
A public, canonical statement would not have been necessary if the relationship being discussed were known only privately to a few, such as those issuing the statement. And the Article clearly states that the church itself had been reproached because of the misdeeds. This clearly indicates a broad knowledge of something amiss, and not merely knowledge on the part of those writing the statement. Without that broad knowledge, those issuing the statement would not have had cause to do so.
Here you acknowledge that you--like me--can't pinpoint what that "broad knowledge of something amiss" was specifically. I agree. We're both speculating. To me the inclusion of "fornication" is odd because fornication is already condemned Biblically so that I would see no need to clarify--yeah, by the way we do hereby declare that "fornication" is wrong. You argue that a specific case of "fornication" is enough to prompt the statement. I don't think so unless the guilty party is pretty high up. Just my opinion.
I see significance in the coupling of "fornication and polygamy." To me it is saying we're putting this statement together in response to rumors that are circulating. Some of us here (Oliver Cowdery & ?) know
some of the details but we're sure as heck not going to spell it out for the general public. Not only that, we don't even agree among ourselves what exactly is going on, nevertheless "Inasmuch as this church....." Just my take. I could be wrong.
If you think the Article responded to rumors about Joseph and Fanny, what evidence can you produce of rumors of Joseph and Fanny being circulated in 1835? The Article doesn't count as such evidence here, because that would be circular reasoning. So, what evidence can you put forward here?
How's this?
In 1835, at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church." This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although
there then lived with his family a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her character; and
it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her. After this, there was some trouble with Jared Carter, and through Brother Sherman I learned that "as he had built himself a new house, he now wanted another wife",
which Joseph would not permit.
And then there was some trouble with Oliver Cowdery, and whisper said it was relating to a girl then living in his family; and I was afterwards told by Warren Parish, that he himself and Oliver Cowdery did know that Joseph had Fannie Alger as a wife, for they were spied upon and found together. And I can now see that as at Nauvoo, so at Kirtland, that the suspicion or knowledge of the Prophet's plural relation was one of the causes of apostasy and disruption at Kirtland although at the time there was little said publicly on the subject. From, Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life's Review (Independence,
Missouri: Zion's Printing and Publishing Co., 1947), pp. 7-107.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/BFJohnson.html
You're welcome. And I appreciate your politeness.
Your's too.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
