MAD's Martha Brotherton Thread

[_wenglund]

The evidence that BY had the whore Martha sealed to him after her death:

Wade,

You were participating on the Brotherton thread and hence would have seen this information. If it doesn’t convince you there, it won’t here. But at any rate, Zetaflux asked:

P.S. Where is the evidence that Brigham sealed her to himself?

Don replied:

The original source is the Salt Lake Endowment House record book for 1869-1870. It's cited in various published works, and the date can be found in LDS electronic sealing records as well.

From another thread on the issue:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=22480

In response to Charity repeating that this information was not available in the IGI, T-Shirt stated:

Charity, the record is in the IGI, I found it rather easily. Here is a link, although, you will need to log in to see the LDS ordinance data:

Martha Brotherton

If you can't log in, it shows that Martha was sealed to Brigham Young in the Endowment House on Aug 1, 1870.

His link didn’t work, so he added:

Well, that didn't work, sorry. Try this: Go to the link I gave and type in "Martha Brotherton" in the space for first and last names, then type in "Brigham Young" under "spouse", select, "mariage" in the "event" slot, then select, "North America" as the region and click search. You will find the iformation there.

Charity was then able to find it:

T-Shirt, this is strange. I did the search, AFTER I was logged in yesterday, with Brigham Young in the search box, and spouse as Martha Brotherton, and came up with a list of his other sealed wives, and she wasn't there. And then this morning it was there. ?????? As a single entry. And I can't find out how I got to the entire list of wives! Frustrating.

I didn't see this last exchange. I will accept this correction and will no longer consider the issue of the sealing in dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_cksalmon]

plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute

I didn't see this last exchange. I will accept this correction and will no longer consider the issue of the sealing in dispute.Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade--

What I find frankly just plain weird is the amount of prodding it took to convince you that this fact was not in dispute. You were finally convinced by the fact that Charity found it on IGI, but not by the fact that Van Wagoner cited it in his book?

I guess you mustn't have even searched IGI yourself. You just assumed, for some (apparently-then-but-no-longer-valid) reason that the story was bunk. You mentioned numerous valid reasons to dispute it. But, on the strength of Charity's testimony alone, you've now concluded that the sealing is not in dispute.

What pray tell were these numerous valid reasons to dispute it (there are "plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute")? You mentioned specifically more than one. Yet, now that you've been assured that IGI lists it, you've given over to the fact. What gives? What were the other valid reasons to dispute the assertion in the first place? I mean, you must have more than one, right? You mentioned several. Let's hear them, by all means.

What your acceptance of this sealing (in the light of TBM Charity's finding of it on IGI) demonstrates, if anything, is your utter reticence to believe something suggested by critics of the Church, if it contradicts your own personal view of things.

If an anti-Mormon quotes a reputable source (like Van Wagoner), you maintain that it is merely a secondary source, unconfirmed--I don't have any reason to accept it. But then when you're apprised of the fact that Charity found it on IGI, you immediately acquiesce? Again, what's the deal?

Where are the other "plenty" reasons for which you dismissed the claim in the first place?

Your partisan, "anti-Mormons-are-liars," "I-don't-have-to-believe-it-unless-someone-posts-an-image-file-of-the-original-document" attitude is showing here. And you assured others that you were perfectly willing to accept criticism of the Church. Yet, you can't even admit, until Charity's find, that the BY-Brotherton sealing was legitimate?

I really would like to be privy to the other "plenty" of reasons why you so confidently dismissed this claim in the first place. Consider this, in old FAIRboard style, a call for references.

Goodness.

CKS

[_wenglund]

plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute

I didn't see this last exchange. I will accept this correction and will no longer consider the issue of the sealing in dispute.Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade--

What I find frankly just plain weird is the amount of prodding it took to convince you that this fact was not in dispute. You were finally convinced by the fact that Charity found it on IGI, but not by the fact that Van Wagoner cited it in his book?

I guess you mustn't have even searched IGI yourself. You just assumed, for some (apparently-then-but-no-longer-valid) reason that the story was bunk. You mentioned numerous valid reasons to dispute it. But, on the strength of Charity's testimony alone, you've now concluded that the sealing is not in dispute.

What pray tell were these numerous valid reasons to dispute it (there are "plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute")? You mentioned specifically more than one. Yet, now that you've been assured that IGI lists it, you've given over to the fact. What gives? What were the other valid reasons to dispute the assertion in the first place? I mean, you must have more than one, right? You mentioned several. Let's hear them, by all means.

What your acceptance of this sealing (in the light of TBM Charity's finding of it on IGI) demonstrates, if anything, is your utter reticence to believe something suggested by critics of the Church, if it contradicts your own personal view of things.

If an anti-Mormon quotes a reputable source (like Van Wagoner), you maintain that it is merely a secondary source, unconfirmed--I don't have any reason to accept it. But then when you're apprised of the fact that Charity found it on IGI, you immediately acquiesce? Again, what's the deal?

Where are the other "plenty" reasons for which you dismissed the claim in the first place?

Your partisan, "anti-Mormons-are-liars," "I-don't-have-to-believe-it-unless-someone-posts-an-image-file-of-the-original-document" attitude is showing here. And you assured others that you were perfectly willing to accept criticism of the Church. Yet, you can't even admit, until Charity's find, that the BY-Brotherton sealing was legitimate?

I really would like to be privy to the other "plenty" of reasons why you so confidently dismissed this claim in the first place. Consider this, in old FAIRboard style, a call for references.

Goodness. CKS

Here is how things transpired for me.

1) The claim was made by a non-believer that there was evidence of Martha being sealed to BY. This evidence was from a secondary source (VanWagoner) that made claims regarding a primary source (the Endowment House records). At that point, I accepted that secondary-sourced evidence at face value (contrary to what you suggest now).

2) Later, several people mentioned that they had search current Church records, and found no record of the alleged sealing. I took that counter-claim at face value and at that point reasonably viewed the matter in dispute.

3) This evening Beastie, who happens to be a non-believer, brought to my attention that a believer was able to find the sealing records. I accepted Beastie's statement at face, and at that point no longer considered the matter in dispute.

So, contrary to what you suggested, it took no "prodding" for me to accept this. Rather, it took a reasonable resolution to the dispute.

Contrary to what you suggest, at no time did I think or suggest that the Vanwagoner sitation was "bunk". I mearly thought it in dispute (which means that the question of its verity was still open, and yet to be confirmed one way or the other.)

Contrary to what you suggest, it was not Charity's statement, but T-shirts statement as quoted by Beastie, and unconfirmed by me (I took both Beasties and T-shirt at their word) that I reasonably viewed the disput as no longer a disput.

Contrary to what you suggest, I didn't say there were "many reasons", I said there were "plenty of reasons". In this case, one reason, from multiple sources, was plenty in my mind.

Contrary to what you suggest, my innitially taking Don and VanWagoner at their word, and my later taking Beastie at her word, mitigates against your wild conjecture that I have been reticent to believe what critics say when it it contradicts what i believe (during the disput, I had yet to formulate a belief one way or the other, but was perfectly content to test all the data to see what it all suggests).

My considering VanWagoner to be a secondary source had nothing to do with whether he is a so-called "anti-Mormon" or not (I certainly have yet to call him that, nor would I consider him such--contrary to what you claim). Rather, it has everything to do with his being a secondary source (by definition, if someone cites an original source, the person doing the citing is a secondary source).

Contrary to what you suggest, I intitially considered, and do now consider Vanwagoner's statement as confirmed unless there is evidence that brings it again in dispute.

And, contrary to what you suggest, nothing I said could in any reasonable way be interpreted as me claiming "anti-Mormons-are-liars," or implying an attitude of "I-don't-have-to-believe-it-unless-someone-posts-an-image-file-of-the-original-document", or that I wouldn't accept criticism. The truth is, again, I innitially accepted Don's and VanWagner's criticism, and I now accept their criticism. To think that I have demonstrated otherwise is...well, just "weird".

What I find most interesting about this string of self-righteous and demonstrable falsehoods from you, and your call for citations for comments that you have misconstrued, is that in your openning post on that thread you said: "According to Brotherton, she was barely off the boat from England (her family having made the journey from Manchester, England, to join the Saints at Nauvoo) when she was confronted by Kimball, Young, and Joseph Smith about beginning a polygamous relationship with Young."

The truth of the matter is, Martha made no such claim about "barely off the boat". According to her own affidavit, she had been three weeks in Nauvoo at the time of the alleged incident. And, according to other historical records, we learn that she and her family had landed at Warsaw, Ill. (which is 20 miles from Nauvoo), in November of 1841. settled at that time in nearby Warren, and didn't travel to Nauvoo for at least a month and a half (the January of 1842--if Don's conjecture is to be believed), and if portions of her story are to be believed, they didn't arrive in Nauvoo until some time in February. Hardly "barely off the boat".

So please, before you attempt to lecture me on how I have chosen to do history, you may want to first clean your own house. And, if you are capable of getting so many simple points entierly wrong with what I have said in the here-and-now (see above), it doesn't bode well for your credibility in looking back more than a century and surmizing the verity of contradictory accounts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in
Contrary to what you suggest, I didn't say there were "many reasons", I said there were "plenty of reasons". In this case, one reason, from multiple sources, was plenty in my mind.

Wade--

One reason, from multiple sources, does not equate with "plenty of reasons." Sorry. That's one reason, repeated multiple times. But, to play your game, please enlighten me as to the multiple sources from which you decided to question the sealing. I anxiously await your response.

Contrary to what you suggest, my innitially taking Don and VanWagoner at their word, and my later taking Beastie at her word, mitigates against your wild conjecture that I have been reticent to believe what critics say when it it contradicts what i believe (during the disput, I had yet to formulate a belief one way or the other, but was perfectly content to test all the data to see what it all suggests).

Do you not read your own posts? You did not, apparently take Van Wagoner at his word, because, after being presented with his citation, you continued to assert here on this very thread that the matter was in dispute. That's not a wild conjecture, Wade. That's just called "English." How on earth can you suggest that you took Van Wagoner at his word and then dispute his citation of the relevant document.

My considering VanWagoner to be a secondary source had nothing to do with whether he is a so-called "anti-Mormon" or not (I certainly have yet to call him that, nor would I consider him such--contrary to what you claim). Rather, it has everything to do with his being a secondary source (by definition, if someone cites an original source, the person doing the citing is a secondary source).

I never said that Van Wagoner was an "anti-Mormon." I was referring to your apparent reticence to take "anti-Mormon" citations of Van Wagoner at face value. You claim you did, but really you didn't, apparently, since you questioned that very citation later.

Contrary to what you suggest, I intitially considered, and do now consider Vanwagoner's statement as confirmed unless there is evidence that brings it again in dispute.

You initially considered Van Wagoner's statement as confirmed, but then chose to cite multiple instances of the same singular reason, per your report, for discounting it as legitimate? You have yet to indicate for what legitimate reason you even disputed the claim in the first place. Was it second-hand information on MADB? That's not in keeping with your methodology, is it? Again, I'd like to have you bear record of these multiple instances of the same singular claim that equates with "plenty of reasons" (plural) but does not equate with "several" reasons (plural).

The truth of the matter is, Martha made no such claim about "barely off the boat". According to her own affidavit, she had been three weeks in Nauvoo at the time of the alleged incident. And, according to other historical records, we learn that she and her family had landed at Warsaw, Ill. (which is 20 miles from Nauvoo), in November of 1841. settled at that time in nearby Warren, and didn't travel to Nauvoo for at least a month and a half (the January of 1842--if Don's conjecture is to be believed), and if portions of her story are to be believed, they didn't arrive in Nauvoo until some time in February. Hardly "barely off the boat".

Okay, Wade, you're right: three weeks off boat is not the same as barely off the boat. I mean, three weeks is a lot of time. I meant to say "barely three weeks off the boat." Is that better?

Will you identify your "plenty of reasons" (which does not mean multiple reasons, but really just a singular reason repeated many times) for discounting this claim?

This seems really, truly silly:

I didn't say there were "many reasons", I said there were "plenty of reasons".

But, Wade, you wrote: "and plenty of valid reasons." Any way you slice it, that's a plural. "Plenty of valid reasons" (plural) means, to any native English speaker, more than one reason. Goodness. I would at least expect you to be consistent.

CKS

PS. Does anyone else find this turn of events bizarre?

[_Fortigurn]

Yes, it's bizarre.

[_why me]

Whyme, I stayed out of the Brotherton thread-I only have a little knowledge on it at this point....I'm interested in reading Don's paper if he writes it. All I know is, LDS men did propose marriage to young women. Brigham Young did choose to have Martha sealed to himself later. So for me, the truth is somewhere in the details to both sides of the story. I did take issue with Hammer's comment on a separate thread that Martha was a "liar and a gossip". If she was, why would Brigham Young have wanted her for a wife?

Because Martha was young and pretty and he was a man with large appetites? Because Martha was young and spirited and he wanted to break her spirit? Because she defied him and he wanted to show her that whatever her wishes, he would crush them?

Thanks for putting your slant on the matter. I am sure that it was made without malice or ill-intent, right? It amazes me just how people can put such a spin on it. However, I choose to believe differently from you. I see Brigham having knowledge of god and his ways and wanting Martha to have all the blessings of an eternal marriage. He did it out of love for her humanity and for her soul. And as far as I am concerned perhaps he received a personal revelation about the matter. But it is now between him and martha. Perhaps they are now happy together in the celestial kingdom.

We just don't know, right?

[_beastie]

PS. Does anyone else find this turn of events bizarre?

It depends on what you mean by bizarre. Do I find it illogical and Wade's attempts to explain himself even more illogical? Yes. But I also find it completely predictable, not only for Wade, but quite a few other believers with whom I've had discussions over the years.

Wade -

Now that you are satisfied that BY did, indeed, have Martha sealed to him after his death, do you have any theories as to why BY had a woman who was, apparently, such a whore that she deserved to be labeled a whore from her mother's breast, sealed to him as his wife?

Or are you ready to admit that Martha was slandered viciously in the Mormon press by people who were intent on keeping polygamy a secret, and who had made a habit of smearing anyone who threatened the secret?

[_Alter Idem]

I went back and read the link that CKSalmon provided on the MADB thread. I'm not going to torture myself by reading all 12 pages, so I hope someone here can answer a question. Does anyone know what happened to Martha's family. The information. in the link said that Martha and her parents had left the church during the scandal but that her sisters and brother-in-law remained in the church and even signed affidavits supporting Joseph, Heber and Brigham.

Did Martha and her parents come back? Wade, you suggested Brigham Young might have sealed her to himself in order to bless her family-so I'd thought maybe they returned to the church.

[_cksalmon]

I went back and read the link that CKSalmon provided on the MADB thread. I'm not going to torture myself by reading all 12 pages, so I hope someone here can answer a question. Does anyone know what happened to Martha's family. The information. in the link said that Martha and her parents had left the church during the scandal but that her sisters and brother-in-law remained in the church and even signed affidavits supporting Joseph, Heber and Brigham.

Did Martha and her parents come back? Wade, you suggested Brigham Young might have sealed her to himself in order to bless her family-so I'd thought maybe they returned to the church.

I know of no evidence that Martha's parents (and I believe a brother) ever returned to the Church. I also know of no evidence that the family members who remained left the Church.

Interestingly, though, one of the sisters, Elizabeth (who swore an affidavit against Martha), became Pratt's second polygamous wife the year after she swore that Martha's story of BY's polygamous proposal was bunk.

Best.

CKS

[_Alter Idem]

I know of no evidence that Martha's parents (and I believe a brother) ever returned to the Church. I also know of no evidence that the family members who remained left the Church.

Interestingly, though, one of the sisters, Elizabeth (who swore an affidavit against Martha), became Pratt's second polygamous wife the year after she swore that Martha's story of BY's polygamous proposal was bunk.

Best.

CKS

Hmm...very interesting about Elizabeth. Thanks, Celestial Kingdom.