Post by boraddict on Jun 18, 2019 7:22:12 GMT -6
Sorry about this very off topic item; however, I was recently involved in a conversation, that the other person thought I was being argumentative, and I thought that I was being reasonable in the debate. I mean, for me a debate is not necessarily an argument but an observation. I observe that which is being said and respond to it. So that which was being said was "Joseph Smith did not have more than one wife" to which I responded that "He did have more than one wife." Then I was asked to provide evidence to my claim that Joseph Smith had more than one wife; however, I did not have any such evidence so I responded that my opponent should first show their evidence that Smith did not have more than one wife. With that and the confidence in their evidence they called my attention to the 1835 D&C (Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church) Verse 101:4 to wit:
D&C 101:4, "All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that all persons who exercise control over their fellow beings, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin." www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/260
They, my opponent, emphasized the part of the verse that states "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy" as their proof that Smith was acknowledging God's reproachment against fornication as a crime as well as polygamy. Further, since Smith was taking that position then he (Smith) was against polygamy in 1835.
I was surprised to see this verse as evidence because I could easily show the error in their conclusion. Notice that the verse is not "Thus saith the Lord" but a statement of guidance for the LDS in 1835 as well as a statement of belief. As such, then the reproachment as stated in the verse pertains not to God but to someone else of the time; like their adversaries. Thus, that portion of the verse reads "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached (by our adversaries) with the crime of fornication, and polygamy." That is, Smith was saying that due to the reproachmet of his adversaries that his church is committing the "crime of fornication" in association with polygamy, then he is declaring his belief that one man should marry one woman.
In other words, Smith is not saying that he is against polygamy, but that his adversaries are saying accusations of fornication and he is responding that he believes that one man should be married to one woman. In other words, if he was not reproached then there would be no need for the clarification against the crime. Additionally, notice that the crime in question is fornication and not adultery. Why did he not use the word "adultery" as the reproached crime?
So I explained that Smith had cleverly worded the verse so as to make the reproach appear to be from God to the benefit of his adversaries in 1835. That when they were shown the verse then it could be said that Smith believed that one man should be married to one woman. Yet, he could also say to his people that his adversaries reproached him with the crime of fornication and polygamy to which fornication was not adultery and polygamy was not a crime. That is, the accusation of fornication as a crime did not extend to polygamy since polygamy was not fornication but adultery. Thus, it is like comparing apples and oranges; fornication does not link to polygamy, adultery does. Since the reproacment is against fornication then it does not apply to polygamy since polygamy is a marriage. Thus, these two do not mix. Fornication is not associated with marriage and polygamy is associated with marriage. Thus, the crime is the conduct outside marriage. Since polygamy is conduct inside marriage then the reproachment is invalidated. However, to mitigate the claim then the language of one man to one woman was used.
The bottom line is that in D&C 101:4 Smith does not say that polygamy is a crime but that his reproachers are saying that it is a crime associated with fornication. To which he responds that he believes that one man should be married to one woman but he does not say that one man should not be married to more than one woman. In other words Smith is splitting hairs with the language so that the reader might be convinced to their own belief. It is great writing but not solid evidence in Smith's favor.
Now my opponent will not speak to me. Did I do something wrong?
In Smith's defense I will add that he did try to stop the practice of polygamy (later, after about 1840ish) and that is what got him murdered.
D&C 101:4, "All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that all persons who exercise control over their fellow beings, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin." www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/260
They, my opponent, emphasized the part of the verse that states "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy" as their proof that Smith was acknowledging God's reproachment against fornication as a crime as well as polygamy. Further, since Smith was taking that position then he (Smith) was against polygamy in 1835.
I was surprised to see this verse as evidence because I could easily show the error in their conclusion. Notice that the verse is not "Thus saith the Lord" but a statement of guidance for the LDS in 1835 as well as a statement of belief. As such, then the reproachment as stated in the verse pertains not to God but to someone else of the time; like their adversaries. Thus, that portion of the verse reads "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached (by our adversaries) with the crime of fornication, and polygamy." That is, Smith was saying that due to the reproachmet of his adversaries that his church is committing the "crime of fornication" in association with polygamy, then he is declaring his belief that one man should marry one woman.
In other words, Smith is not saying that he is against polygamy, but that his adversaries are saying accusations of fornication and he is responding that he believes that one man should be married to one woman. In other words, if he was not reproached then there would be no need for the clarification against the crime. Additionally, notice that the crime in question is fornication and not adultery. Why did he not use the word "adultery" as the reproached crime?
So I explained that Smith had cleverly worded the verse so as to make the reproach appear to be from God to the benefit of his adversaries in 1835. That when they were shown the verse then it could be said that Smith believed that one man should be married to one woman. Yet, he could also say to his people that his adversaries reproached him with the crime of fornication and polygamy to which fornication was not adultery and polygamy was not a crime. That is, the accusation of fornication as a crime did not extend to polygamy since polygamy was not fornication but adultery. Thus, it is like comparing apples and oranges; fornication does not link to polygamy, adultery does. Since the reproacment is against fornication then it does not apply to polygamy since polygamy is a marriage. Thus, these two do not mix. Fornication is not associated with marriage and polygamy is associated with marriage. Thus, the crime is the conduct outside marriage. Since polygamy is conduct inside marriage then the reproachment is invalidated. However, to mitigate the claim then the language of one man to one woman was used.
The bottom line is that in D&C 101:4 Smith does not say that polygamy is a crime but that his reproachers are saying that it is a crime associated with fornication. To which he responds that he believes that one man should be married to one woman but he does not say that one man should not be married to more than one woman. In other words Smith is splitting hairs with the language so that the reader might be convinced to their own belief. It is great writing but not solid evidence in Smith's favor.
Now my opponent will not speak to me. Did I do something wrong?
In Smith's defense I will add that he did try to stop the practice of polygamy (later, after about 1840ish) and that is what got him murdered.