foster Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) In Documentary History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 134–35, we can find a statement on Happiness, which is attributed to Joseph Smith circa 1842 - 1843. What is the historical context behind the statement? I am aware of the alleged letter to Nancy Rigdon. The statement has been attributed to Joseph Smith several times during General Conference. Edited September 4, 2013 by foster
Tacenda Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) deleted, off my rocker today. Edited September 4, 2013 by Tacenda
cinepro Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 In Documentary History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 134–35, we can find a statement on Happiness, which is attributed to Joseph Smith circa 1842 - 1843. What is the historical context behind the statement? I am aware of the alleged letter to Nancy Rigdon. The statement has been attributed to Joseph Smith several times during General Conference. As far as I know, no one denies this letter was written to Nancy Rigdon following her objection to the proposed plural marriage with Joseph. We just don't like to mention it.
foster Posted September 4, 2013 Author Posted September 4, 2013 I think it plausible that Joseph did teach the principles of the Happiness quote in the context of plural marriage. At the same time I suspect the letter Bennett claimed a copy of. It is rather unfortunate that it would appear the only source is the letter Bennett claimed to have.
foster Posted September 4, 2013 Author Posted September 4, 2013 As far as I know, no one denies this letter was written to Nancy Rigdon following her objection to the proposed plural marriage with Joseph. We just don't like to mention it.Hmm, I recall reading something about affidavits dening the letter.
David T Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) As far as I know, no one denies this letter was written to Nancy Rigdon following her objection to the proposed plural marriage with Joseph. We just don't like to mention it. The Joseph Smith Papers, without (seriously) doubting its authenticity, holds a possible reservation that it definitely had reference to a proposal, or even potentially Plural Marriage. (see note 71): "The well-known “Happiness” letter Bennett published in the Sangamo Journal in August 1842 from (Bennett claimed) Joseph Smith to Nancy fails, even if taken at face value, to clarify the circumstances behind its genesis. The letter can be read in light of plural marriage without requiring it to refer to a proposal to Nancy and, given its emphasis on the blessings following obedience, may even have its origin in an issue altogether unrelated to plural marriage. " Edited September 4, 2013 by David T 1
Tacenda Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) In Documentary History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 134–35, we can find a statement on Happiness, which is attributed to Joseph Smith circa 1842 - 1843. What is the historical context behind the statement? I am aware of the alleged letter to Nancy Rigdon. The statement has been attributed to Joseph Smith several times during General Conference. http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/inspira/ebooks/history-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-vol-5/ Ok, since I'm getting nothing done today, I read the vol. 5 pages and noticed the footnote on pg. 134 where by it said.... *It is not positively known what occasion the writing of this essay; but when it is borne in mind that at this time the new law of marriage for the church - marriage for eternity - including plurality of the wives under some circumstances - was being introduced to the Prophet, it is very likely that the article was written with a view of applying the principle here expounded to the conditions created by introducing said marriage system. (did not use the c/p method, typed by me) It goes onto say on pg. 135 that JS said God allows certain things to happen even when commanded not to. But you can read it in depth. Maybe the happiness is in following when commanded. ETA: Also, JS said..."That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another circumstance." Sounds like he was speaking about polygamy being wrong and right under certain circumstances. Edited September 4, 2013 by Tacenda
foster Posted September 4, 2013 Author Posted September 4, 2013 As far as I know, no one denies this letter was written to Nancy Rigdon following her objection to the proposed plural marriage with Joseph. We just don't like to mention it. Hmm, I recall reading something about affidavits dening the letter.Nevermind, it looks like per Sidney Rigdon Joseph Smith denied "authorship" of the letter. And per Sidney, Nancy Rigdon claimed the letter was not in Joseph Smith's penmenship.
David T Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 Nevermind, it looks like per Sidney Rigdon Joseph Smith denied "authorship" of the letter. And per Sidney, Nancy Rigdon claimed the letter was not in Joseph Smith's penmenship. The denials were non-denial denials. As Joseph dictated the letter, and didn't personally write it, their carefully worded responses were technically true.
foster Posted September 4, 2013 Author Posted September 4, 2013 The denials were non-denial denials. As Joseph dictated the letter, and didn't personally write it, their carefully worded responses were technically true. I considered this as possibility as well, and consider it very likely to be how things played out.
foster Posted September 4, 2013 Author Posted September 4, 2013 The denials were non-denial denials. As Joseph dictated the letter, and didn't personally write it, their carefully worded responses were technically true.Could such be viewed as deception? I think it would hinge the question asked. "Did you, Joseph, write this letter?" Could be appropriately answered "No" by Joseph Smith as all accounts are he did not pen the letter. "Did you, Joseph, dictate this letter?" Could be "No" as the content of the letter could be something he taught, and the scribe of the letter copied it from or recalled it. It could also be ye.It is all in the question as I see it. Wise but harmless is what we are commanded to be.
Bart Burk Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 Here is another take saying Joseph Smith did not write the letter:http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/bennett6letter.htm
Stone holm Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 Responding to the first part of the title and not to the letter, there are days when I really question if we have an alignment with this design in the Church.
Bart Burk Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 It seems like the letter basically approves of situation ethics and relativism. I don't think I would want to attribute such beliefs to Joseph Smith. Better that we assume he didn't write it.
Stone holm Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 It seems like the letter basically approves of situation ethics and relativism. I don't think I would want to attribute such beliefs to Joseph Smith. Better that we assume he didn't write it. Read the letter you posted, so what is the issue? It doesn't seem to mention polygamy at all?
foster Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) It seems like the letter basically approves of situation ethics and relativism. I don't think I would want to attribute such beliefs to Joseph Smith. Better that we assume he didn't write it.It is my understanding that God inspired situational ethics and moral relativism are part of the Gospel. Nephi killed an unarmed drunk man. Please everyone spare me "it was legal" hokiness. Moses killed a man. The prophet Samuel or Nathan killed a man. The Bible tells us David's polygamy was given to him by God. These demonstrate to me and form my opinion that from a LDS perspective what is wrong is not always black and white. Edited September 9, 2013 by foster
Recommended Posts