MAD's Martha Brotherton Thread

[_harmony]

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.

Which part didn't you get the first time around? The part about how Brigham was pissed enough to call her a whore? Or the part where, after she died, he felt compelled to reach out beyond the grave and shackle her to him? What I find most hilarious is that there is no way she would have had to accept him. He seems to have forgotten that.

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?

Well, there's people who believed drinking poison koolaid was a good idea too.

[Gadianton]

Hi CKS,

I am not sure why you are making such a fus over this trite issue. Changing one's mind based on changing information doesn't seem to me to be all that controversial, let alone "weird" or "bizarre". In fact, I view it as quite reasonable and in line with common sense.

Anyway, to answer each of the gnats you keep straining:

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.

I view it differently. To me, since the word "reasons" wasn't qualified, it may reasonably apply to either the number of secondary sources (people saying that they checked the Church records) as it does the number of primary sources (the Church records). In other words, as a rule of thumb, the more people there are who attest to a certain thing, the more believable that thing may be--i.e. the more valid reasons one has to beleive a certain thing. And, I can see no valid reason which would prevent me from legitimately viewing it this way (your baseless and dogmatic assertion notwithstanding)

Whatever the case may be, that is what I meant when I said "I have valid reasons". Take it or leave it.

By way of clarifying this menial point for you, though, when I read the statements on the thread in question about the sealing not showing up in the Church records, I didn't mentally note exactly who said them and how many people said them because my thoughts were more focused on the main issue--as one may see from my comments on that thread. All I remembered was that there had been multiple people attesting to the sealing not being in the church records. However, for your benefit, and because this appears to be so vital to you, I went back and checked, and found that Zeta-Flux and Charity had made those claims on that thread--I can't be certain what was said on other threads because I didn't pay attention to them.

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.

Aside from you presuming to know what I have said and meant better than me (the ultimate authority on what I say and think), you evidently have a problem comprehending sequences of events--i.e. you mistakenly assume that what I may have thought at one point in the conversation, is what I must have thought all along, and this in spite of me explicitly setting forth a sequence of events that reasonably demonstrate otherwise.

But, since you are unwilling to accept my word for what I thought and when I thought it, and have preferred instead to rely on your own baseless mind-reading skills in pressing this insignificant issue, let's look at the empirical evidence. You will note that you first mentioned the sealing in your OP on March 4th. Don then repeats the claim on the same page (post #12) and then again on page 5 (post #83), and others elsewhere in the thread went on to discuss it as though it were true (see Beasties claim to that affect above). I didn't enter the fray until March 6th (post #100). And, of the 15 posts from me on that thread, there was not a single one claiming the sealings were in dispute, and in fact I explicitly referred to your's and Don's claims as "evidence" (specifically "circumstancial evidence--see my first post on page 9). So, again, contrary to what you innitially suggested, and contrary to what you have persisted in asserting in spite of my authoritative correction, there is empirical evidence that I had accepted the sealings prior to comments from Zeta-flux and Charity that brought the issue into disput.

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.

Whether you were refering to Van Wagoner or not, in your previous post, and in reference to what I have said on this matter, you did call me a "partisan" and claimed that I had an "'anti-Mormons-are-liars' and 'I-don't-have-to-believe-it-unless-someone-posts-an-image-file-of-the-original-document' attitude." And, as intimated, I have said nothing that could in any reasonable way be interpreted as suggesting anything of the sort. You have falsely accusing me.

You are also incorrect again. I did innitially accept your's and Don's claim about the sealings at face value (see above), and I have since accepted it at face value now that the disput has been resolved to my satisfaction.

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?

Yes, I accepted, at face value, what you and Don had claimed about the sealings (i.e. I accepted multiple third-party claims from critics about a then unnamed secondary source for the sealings), and I did not consider the claims to be in dispute until it was disputed by Zeta-flux and Charity (who were multiple second-party sources regarding current Church records). I later viewed the sealings as no longer in disput when Beastie mentioned that T-Shirt had located the sealings in the Church records (i.e. I accepted, at face value, a third-party claim from a critic regarding a secondary source about the sealings showing up in the current Church records). I see nothing even remotely controversial in all of this, and I think my actions were rather liberal in what evidence I was willing to accept at face value from either side. Certainly, I see nothing "weird" or "bizarre" in what I did.

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).

See above.

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?

Again, you seem to be having a problem comprehending sequences of events. Martha said she had been in NAUVOO for three weeks prior to the incident in question taking place. However, her boat didn't land in NAUVOO, but in WARSAW. She landed in WARSAW in the middle of November of 1841, and settled with her family in nearby WARREN. Her father sent a letter from WARREN around the middle of December indicating that he and his family had not been to NAUVOO, but that they planned to go in the next day or so. In other words, if the Brothertons had gone ahead as planned and left for NAUVOO the next day, then the math would make it at the very least seven weeks off the boat until the time of the alleged incident (4 weeks in Warren and 3 weeks in Nauvoo). However, in order for all of the elements of Martha's story to hold up empirically, the incident couldn't have happened until the middle of February (after Clayton had become Joseph Smith's clerk), which would add an additional 4 weeks to the mix, making a total of 11 weeks (nearly three months)--which, again, is hardly "just off the boat" as you said.

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?

Again, see above.

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.

Yet again, see above.

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

I find your view of this "turn of events" to be petty, counter-reasonable, and mistaken on a number of levels (likely a product of your evident prejudices manifest in the form of stereotyping that demonstrably doesn't apply to me). But, I wouldn't call it "bizarre".

And, by the way, your PM apologies are accepted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

I would be interested to hear what you suppose was "illigical" about what I did and my explanation for what I did, and have you at least attempt to demonstrate the alleged illogic.

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?

First of all, I don't know that BY thought of Martha that way. Secondly, besides the Endowment House record and the highly disputed affidavits written decades prior to the sealing, we have no other information that would inform us as to why BY may have been sealed to her. In fact, while we know who the sealings were for, I am not sure the record indicates who performed the sealings (couldn't Elizabeth and Parley have performed the sealing by proxy for BY and Martha?). So, with such a paucity of information, I am disinclined to look back 130 or so years and try to read BY's mind--even assuming it was his wish to have the sealing performed. And, third, I see no reason to do so even were I inclined, since it is immaterial to determining who was telling the truth about the original incident in question.

But, that may just be me.

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?

I am disinclined to get into counter-productive finger-pointing. My interest in this rather insignificant case isn't whether either one or both sides slandered each other. My interest is in determining as best as possible who is telling the truth regarding the alleged event. And, as I see things, I believe the word of the six people principly named, over the word of Martha.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

Wade,

Perhaps we could formulate the analysis using Bayesian logic.

First, let’s assume for the moment that Martha was telling the truth (i.e. Young proposed). Under that assumption, what would have Brigham Young et. al. said about her allegations?

Now, let’s assume that for whatever reason, Martha was lying (i.e. Young didn’t propose). Under this assumption, what would have Brigham Young et. al. said about her allegations?

If you’ll concede that Brigham Young and the other insiders would have denied the allegation regardless of whether or not they were true, then it follows that their testimony is absolutely useless in helping us know what actually happened.

So, after their collective statements are disregarded, we have Martha’s statement to consider, as well as our a priori opinion of the likelihood that Brigham Young would have found Martha to be suitable for a plural wife.

So what about Martha? If she was proposed to, there is a distinct possibility that she’d blow the whistle about it. If she wasn’t proposed to, maybe she’d make up this bizarre story, but that seems unlikely to me.

Finally, the fact Brigham Young was in fact later sealed to her indicates that the a priori possibility is relatively high that Brigham Young would have proposed to her in Nauvoo—the later sealing indicates that the powers believed that she’d be a good plural wife for him.

Appropriately weighing all of this, it is very likely that the alleged even actually happened.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Perhaps we could formulate the analysis using Bayesian logic.

First, let’s assume for the moment that Martha was telling the truth (i.e. Young proposed). Under that assumption, what would have Brigham Young et. al. said about her allegations?

Now, let’s assume that for whatever reason, Martha was lying (i.e. Young didn’t propose). Under this assumption, what would have Brigham Young et. al. said about her allegations?

If you’ll concede that Brigham Young and the other insiders would have denied the allegation regardless of whether or not they were true, then it follows that their testimony is absolutely useless in helping us know what actually happened.

So, after their collective statements are disregarded, we have Martha’s statement to consider, as well as our a priori opinion of the likelihood that Brigham Young would have found Martha to be suitable for a plural wife.

So what about Martha? If she was proposed to, there is a distinct possibility that she’d blow the whistle about it. If she wasn’t proposed to, maybe she’d make up this bizarre story, but that seems unlikely to me.

Finally, the fact Brigham Young was in fact later sealed to her indicates that the a priori possibility is relatively high that Brigham Young would have proposed to her in Nauvoo—the later sealing indicates that the powers believed that she’d be a good plural wife for him.

Appropriately weighing all of this, it is very likely that the alleged even actually happened.

As I see things, there are several problems with your reasoning:

1) It is overly selective in terms of the probabilities it considers. For example, at the very least it failed to consider what to me is the most striking probability: the likelyhood that one person would be telling the truth and six people would be lying.

2) You seem to be arbitrarily applying a single probability to six separate individuals, whereas I see them as quite different people and cicumstances, and thus different probabilities for each. I believe it is less likely for Martha's sister to say what she did even if her sister was telling the truth, than it would be for BY to say what he did under the same circustances.

3) It is uncertain what factors you used to figure your probabilities, so there is no way to test your probabilities to see if they are valid and sound, or whether one may agree with them or not.

4) Your reasoning requires the respective concessions. Whereas, as I view things, I wouldn't conceed to either. I have not found sufficient cause to believe that any one of the six, let alone all six, would say what they did even if what Martha said were true--and this even in light of the presumed desire of some to keep the practice of polygamy secret and also some having on rare occasions played semantics when addressing questions about the practice. I see those things as quite different from proactively lying about and discrediting what someone else said. I think it more likely that were Martha's allegations true, the six would have remained silent (particularly the McIIwricks, who weren't practicing polygamy at the time, nor to my knowledge ever did). And, I am not certain that Martha wouldn't lie in some or all of what she said.

5) As indicated previously, I don't see the sealing, which took place 30 years after the alleged incident, as material (probability or otherwise) to determining who was telling the truth. Much could have happened in the interim that we don't know about, and precious little information to enable us to read BY's mind on this case.

In short, I see your reasoning as falling prey to the fallacy of A Priorism (attempting to deduce facts from abstractions and principles rather than inducing from facts).

And, probabilities are not a valid indicator of truth (the probability of a broken clock not telling the right time, will be incorrect at least twice a day). Probabilities, or Bayesian Logic, may be a useful tool when formulating a hypothesis, but not
in testing or verifying the hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade,

Perhaps we could formulate the analysis using Bayesian logic.

First, let’s assume for the moment that Martha was telling the truth (i.e. Young proposed). Under that assumption, what would have Brigham Young et. al. said about her allegations?

Now, let’s assume that for whatever reason, Martha was lying (i.e. Young didn’t propose). Under this assumption, what would have Brigham Young et. al. said about her allegations?

If you’ll concede that Brigham Young and the other insiders would have denied the allegation regardless of whether or not they were true, then it follows that their testimony is absolutely useless in helping us know what actually happened.

So, after their collective statements are disregarded, we have Martha’s statement to consider, as well as our a priori opinion of the likelihood that Brigham Young would have found Martha to be suitable for a plural wife.

So what about Martha? If she was proposed to, there is a distinct possibility that she’d blow the whistle about it. If she wasn’t proposed to, maybe she’d make up this bizarre story, but that seems unlikely to me.

Finally, the fact Brigham Young was in fact later sealed to her indicates that the a priori possibility is relatively high that Brigham Young would have proposed to her in Nauvoo—the later sealing indicates that the powers believed that she’d be a good plural wife for him.

Appropriately weighing all of this, it is very likely that the alleged even actually happened.

As I see things, there are several problems with your reasoning:

1) It is overly selective in terms of the probabilities it considers. For example, at the very least it failed to consider what to me is the most striking probability: the likelyhood that one person would be telling the truth and six people would be lying.

Wade, I know you are familiar with the Logical Fallacies, which makes me wonder why you keep humping away on this point. Simply because there are greater numbers on this side of the Church and Joseph Smith does not mean that that side is correct. You will no doubt recall that many people testified against the women in the Salem Witch Trials. Does their greater number mean they were correct? Likewise, you surely know that the many people once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Does this mean that Copernicus was therefore wrong? Time to drop the numbers argument, my friend.

[_beastie]

Wade, for heaven's sake!!! Even you have already admitted that the LDS church leaders engaged in a bit of "semantics" in order to mislead the public, as well as the larger church membership in regards to the practice of polygamy. So this "oh, but more people denied Martha's account" is the most patently silly argument I have ever seen. (or rather, one of the most patently silly arguments I have ever seen)

[_wenglund]

Wade, for heaven's sake!!! Even you have already admitted that the LDS church leaders engaged in a bit of "semantics" in order to mislead the public, as well as the larger church membership in regards to the practice of polygamy. So this "oh, but more people denied Martha's account" is the most patently silly argument I have ever seen. (or rather, one of the most patently silly arguments I have ever seen)

I harbored no hope that you would be able to sufficiently grasp my argument, let alone see it as reasonable (whether you agreed with it or not). In part, your black/white thinking prevents you from rationally recognizing the broad expanse in varied shades of grey between semantics played by some regarding their participation in polygamy, and the statements by all six (including some who were not practicing polygamy, and had no demonstrable history of semantics on this issue) discrediting the statements of another person who had her own shades of grey to contend with. In otherwords, the fact that some people may have played semantics on occasion, doesn't mean they all blatantly lied on another occasion.

It is inane and binary thinking of people like you that could lead some (not me) to conclude that since you have used various screen names to keep your identify secret, then anything you say on these boards may be deemed a lie, and thus rejected as evidence or otherwise.

To each there own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I harbored no hope that you would be able to sufficiently grasp my argument, let alone see it as reasonable (whether you agreed with it or not). In part, your black/white thinking prevents you from rationally recognizing the broad expanse in varied shades of grey between semantics played by some regarding their participation in polygamy, and the statements by all six (including some who were not practicing polygamy, and had no demonstrable history of semantics on this issue) discrediting the statements of another person who had her own shades of grey to contend with. In otherwords, the fact that some people may have played semantics on occasion, doesn't mean they all blatantly lied on another occasion.

It is inane and binary thinking of people like you that could lead some (not me) to conclude that since you have used various screen names to keep your identify secret, then anything you say on these boards may be deemed a lie, and thus rejected as evidence or otherwise.

I give that a 9.0 for mental gymnastics!

[_beastie]

See, Wade, this is an analogy that would work. If I have a history of signing on to internet discussion boards using screen names that are not my real name, and sign onto a new internet board with a screen name, then some people would conclude that I'm still not using my real name.

They lied about polygamy - spare me your "semantics" game. People who use semantics to mislead others are lying. So the fact that they previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy makes their denials this time absolutely useless as evidence.

Of course, this has already been repeatedly explained to you, and you still don't grasp it, so I just wasted two minutes of my life typing this.