MAD's Martha Brotherton Thread

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Even believers on the Martha thread agree that it is documented that BY had martha sealed to him after her death.

What was the documentation they supposedly believed? (Reference was made by Don or somebody to a VanWagoner citation, but from what I recall, there was some uncertainty as to what the citation was in reference to and whether the origanal document could be verified or not, and Don was going to follow up on that.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wenglund, As I said, I haven't read much on this, however, this is what I've determined so far. I want to know whether or not Brigham Young had himself sealed to Martha Brotherton in the Endowment house. If it is proven this is for real and there is additional evidence to prove that it was Brigham Young who took the initiative and sealed her to himself, then I would say Martha's claim that he asked her to marry him is true. I can see no other explanation, can you? If someone has another explanation, I'm happy to hear it.

There a variety of plausable explanations for why he may have done the posthumonous sealing even if he did not propose to her as claimed--not the least of which is as an act of good will on behalf or her and her family (particularly her sister Eliza).

In other words, one cannot legitimately or reasonably use ad hoc hypothesis (speculations about why BY may or may not have done such and such) as evidence in support of the original charge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

That is still in dispute. Not only has it yet to be documented that Martha was sealed to BY, but the claim stands in controvention to existing geneological and sealing records.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, Wade, it's simply not in dispute. You must not have read the relevant posts at MADB. Martha Brotherton was sealed to BY on August 1, 1870 per the Salt Lake Endowment House Records. You can either take Van Wagoner(et al)'s word for it, or you can make the journey and read it for yourself. But, for the sake of your own integrity, you should really stop suggesting that this point is in dispute simply because you haven't laid eyes on the document.

Best. CKS

You are certainly welcome to rest your confidence in this secondary information, and do so in spite of current documentation that suggests otherwise.

But, I see no reason why I should, and plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute (your meaningless and dogmatic declarations and mistaken insinuations about integrity notwithstanding), at least until the primary source can be confirmed, and even then there may be some question because of the conflict with current records.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bryan Inks]

Umm...what's the deal? Is the "F" word allowed in the Terrestrial section now(like the rule in PG-13 movies that it can be used a couple of times and it won't get an "R"rating)? Bryan used it a number of times and now my eyes are burning.

Bryan has stated that respect needs to be earned and not given. However, to get respect from bryan and to earn his respect, seems to be rather difficult. I choose to ignore his use of language and focus on his diatribes against the lds church. This seems to work for me.

Like many disrespectful critics his bark is worse than his bite.

But as you know, the critics do seem to ignore the heavenly manifestations that have been received by women who prayed about the practice. It just doesn't fit into their mental framework or into their new belief system. Such is life, at times.

So Bryan chooses to assault the rest of us with his vulgar choice of words, because we haven't "earned his respect"? I won't hold my breath for that to ever happen.

Take it personally if you want, but to think you mean enough to me to cause me to change my vernacular is hilarious. I use words that convey my meaning.

And since, to be perfectly honest, I don't look to earn respect from people like you, I really have no desire to try and subvert who I am to match something you feel is respectable.

[_wenglund]

Take it personally if you want, but to think you mean enough to me to cause me to change my vernacular is hilarious. I use words that convey my meaning.

And since, to be perfectly honest, I don't look to earn respect from people like you, I really have no desire to try and subvert who I am to match something you feel is respectable.

This notion of "earned respect" seems more than a bit dysfunctional to me. In order for either party to wish to earn the respect of the other party, each would need to respect the other enough to wish to earn the others respect. But, if respect comes only after it is earned, then no one will be motivated to earn it, and thus no respect will or can be earned--the end result being a mass of non-respect, which too often translates into disrespect. That, to me, is anti-social and counterproductive to all parties concerned.

Instead, I prefer the more functional approach of striving to do those things that are respectable and respectful, which increases the likelyhood that others will respond likewise, thus making for more self-satisfying, mutually elavating, and productive interactions.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

You are certainly welcome to rest your confidence in this secondary information, and do so in spite of current documentation that suggests otherwise.

But, I see no reason why I should, and plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute (your meaningless and dogmatic declarations and mistaken insinuations about integrity notwithstanding), at least until the primary source can be confirmed, and even then there may be some question because of the conflict with current records.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade--

Now you're just being ridiculous. I suppose if you haven't seen the document with your own eyes, then it's existence is suspect. Are you serious? I suppose the entire Book of Mormon is suspect, by your logic: you, Wade, haven't seen the Gold Plates. What secondary source are you relying upon in your belief in Book of Mormon? The 1830 paper edition? Or, does Book of Mormon get a pass here?

Then, by all means, make the journey and view it with your own eyes! Then, report back. But, please, please (!), stop saying with a straight face that this event is suspect.

Oh, and please provide those "plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute." No, seriously, I mean the "valid" ones. Please.

Is one of the valid reasons that you can't find it on the LDS family search website? Not everything is on the Internet. My challenge to you, Wade, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate some valid reason (other than the lack of its appearing on the LDS website) for assuming that this issue is in dispute.

CKS

[_cksalmon]

Wade,

Even believers on the Martha thread agree that it is documented that BY had martha sealed to him after her death.

What was the documentation they supposedly believed? (Reference was made by Don or somebody to a VanWagoner citation, but from what I recall, there was some uncertainty as to what the citation was in reference to and whether the origanal document could be verified or not, and Don was going to follow up on that.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, I think (and could be wrong) you've misread whatever post you're summarizing here. That the sealing is in question is not something Don admitted. Nor should he. Take it up with Van Wagoner. Better yet, take it up with the document he cites. You know where to find it. Go look at it.

CKS

[_wenglund]

Wade--

Now you're just being ridiculous. I suppose if you haven't seen the document with your own eyes, then it's existence is suspect. Are you serious?

Then, by all means, make the journey and view it with your own eyes! Then, report back. But, please, please (!), stop saying with a straight face that this event is suspect.

Oh, and please provide those "plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in dispute." No, seriously, I mean the "valid" ones. Please.

Is one of the valid reasons that you can't find it on the LDS family search website? Not everything is on the Internet. My challenge to you, Wade, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate some valid reason (other than the lack of its appearing on the LDS website) for assuming that this issue is in dispute. CKS

Are you suggesting that secondary source data is indisputible, and that it is ridiculous to think otherwise?

Are you suggesting that conficting data is not valid cause for dispute, and that it is ridiculous to think otherwise?

If so, then you may wish to inform the leading experts on historiography to revise their conventions so as to eliminate what you, on your own presumed authority, consider to be ridiculous.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

Umm...what's the deal? Is the "F" word allowed in the Terrestrial section now(like the rule in PG-13 movies that it can be used a couple of times and it won't get an "R"rating)?

Nope. It's still not allowed in the Terrestrial Forum.

Bryan used it a number of times and now my eyes are burning.

My apologies. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to overcome a rather nasty bout of the flu, so I haven't been able to patrol the threads as vigilantly as I'd like.

The words in question are gone now, though.

[_beastie]

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.