Martha Brotherton

[_mentalgymnast]

Have you read it?

Regards,
MG

Yes, now, will you provide us with examples of inaccurate information in the book or are you going to continue to dodge the (multiple) requests?

I've already made it very clear that I haven't read it. You have. You should then be able to carry out the assignment that I gave to you earlier. But I won't hold you to it.

But first of all, again, to you trust the author?

Why or why not?

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

I've already made it very clear that I haven't read it. You have. You should then be able to carry out the assignment that I gave to you earlier. But I won't hold you to it.

But first of all, again, to you trust the author?

Why or why not?

Regards,
MG

Here, just copy and paste this instead of continuing to dodge the question:

"I don't have any examples of inaccuracies from that book and, because of my devotion to the the LDS church and Joseph Smith (in particular), i feel that i need to attack the book and its author even though i have not read it...."

Simple as that....

[_mentalgymnast]

Governor Thomas Ford later wrote of John C. Bennett:

This Bennett was probably the greatest scamp in the western country. I have made particular enquiries concerning him, and have traced him in several places in which he lived before he joined the Mormons, in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and he was everywhere accounted the same debauched, unprincipled, profligate character. He was a man of some little talent, and in 1840-1841 had the confidence of the Mormons, and particularly that of their leaders. (Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois (Chicago, 1854) p. 263) (Flaunders 1966, 49-50)

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Simple as that....

No it's not.

by the way, since you've read Bennett's "expose', supposedly, you'll know that the book is a collection of letters published in the Sangamo Journal when Bennett was exacting his revenge upon Joseph Smith. Let's simply start with the first letter.

"I write you now from the Mormon Zion, the city of the Saints," Bennett began the first letter, "where I am threatened with death by the Holy Joe, and his Danite band of murderers."

Using reliable sources, can you show that this accusation that was made in his very first letter is undeniably true?

You didn't answer, but I'm assuming that you look up to John C. Bennett as being a stellar individual who can be trusted?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Simple as that....

Again, no it's not. First letter to the Sangamo Journal. Bennett makes the accusation that "Holy Joe" and the Danites are out to take care of him and spill his blood. Yet, we have these official records that would seem to point in a different direction with less hostility:

May 17, 1842.
"Bro. JAMES SLOAN, -- You will be so good as to permit Gen. Bennett to withdraw his name from the Church Record, if he desires to do so, and this with the best of feelings towards you and General Bennett.
JOSEPH SMITH."


"In accordance with the above I have permitted General Bennett to withdraw his membership from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, this 17th day of May, 1842, -- the best of feelings subsisting between all parties,
JAMES SLOAN,
General Church Clerk and Recorder."

"New election of Mayor, and Vice Mayor, of the City of Nauvoo, on the resignation of General Bennett.

On the 17th instant, General John C. Bennett, resigned the office of Mayor of the city of Nauvoo, and on the 19th, General Joseph Smith, the former Vice Mayor was duly elected to fill the vacancy; and on the same day General Hyrum Smith was elected Vice Mayor, in place of General Joseph Smith, elected Mayor.

The following vote of thanks was then unanimously voted to the Ex-Mayor, General Bennett, by the city Council, to wit:

Resolved, by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo,
That this Council tender a vote of thanks for General John C. Bennett, for his great zeal in having good and wholesome laws adopted for the government of the city, and for the faithful discharge of his duty while Mayor of the same.

Passed May 19th, 1842.
JOSEPH SMITH, Mayor.
JAMES SLOAN, Recorder."

NOTICE.

The subscribers, members of the first Presidency of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, withdraw the hand of fellowship from Gen. John C. Bennett, as a Christian; he having been labored with from time to time, to persuade him to amend his conduct, apparently to no good effect.

JOSEPH SMITH,
HYRUM SMITH,
Walmart. LAW.

The following members of the Quorum of the Twelve concur in the above sentiments:

Brigham Young, Willard Richards.
Lyman Wight, Heber C. Kimball,
John E. Page, William Smith,,
Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor
George A. Smith,

We concur in the above sentiments:

W. K. WHITNEY,
V. KNIGHT,
GEORGE MILLER.

Bishops of the above mentioned Church.

Nauvoo, May 11th, 1842

Doesn't sound like Holy Joe or the Danites were out to kill Bennett. But in his very first letter in the SJ which, again, Bennett's book was published from, he tells a falsehood. Or is it?

Still waiting to hear otherwise with supporting evidence.

To the best of my knowledge the Danites and/or Joseph Smith did not spill Bennett's blood and made no attempt to do so. I'm willing to be shown otherwise, however.

Can John C. Bennett be trusted?

Can the filtered history of polygamy during the Nauvoo period be fully trusted knowing that Bennett was intimately (pun intended) connected (ahem, in more ways than one) with what was going on?

Regards,
MG

[_GR33N]

John C. Bennett, the pimp and file leader of such mean harlots as Martha H. Brotherton

What did the word pimp mean in 1842 used in this context. I think all to often words get misinterpreted as their meaning change over time.

The word pimp first appeared in English in 1607 in a Thomas Middleton play entitled Your Five Gallants. It is believed to have stemmed from the French infinitive pimper meaning to dress up elegantly and from the present participle pimpant meaning alluring in dress seductive. Pimp used as a verb, meaning to act as a pimp, first appeared in 1636 in Massinger's book, The Bashful Lover.[2] In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term was commonly used to refer to informers.[3] A pimp can also mean "a despicable person".[4] The term can also be applied to a person who is considered a ladies' man.[2]

Either way it's always been my opinion that Bennett's statements have very little credibility.

[_mentalgymnast]

Back to Robert D. Foster (a physician and prominent businessman in Nauvoo):

Alas, none but the seduced join the seducer [Dr. Bennett]; those only who have been arraigned before a just tribunal for the same unhallowed conduct can be found to give countenance to any of his black hearted lies, and they, too, detest him for his seduction, these are the ladies to whom he refers his hearers to substantiate his assertions. Mrs. White, Mrs. Pratt, Niemans, Miller, Brotherton, and others...

What do we make of this?

Regards,
MG

[_just me]

A whole lot a hanky panky goin' on. Sex, lies and letters.

I would like it noted by all that the Brighamites trusted Bennett's book enough to use the claimed letter from Joseph to Nancy Rigdon from it. Hmmm. As far as I know that is the source origin...Bennett's book. That is the one so many apologists love to quote about whatever God commands is right.

Why would the Brighamites trust Bennett that Joseph ever really wrote that letter?

[_mentalgymnast]

I knew nothing of Martha Brotherton until I began closely examining Mormonism. I was appalled by what happened in her case.

Kimberly, are you still appalled? If so, why?

If there is anything that appalls me it is the reliance by critics upon sources that are the remains/carcasses of filtered history that may be tainted because of the source from which it sprang.

Did your source material originate with John C. Bennett? If so, do you trust him to tell the truth?

Here's the thing. I think that much of the controversial history that comes to us from the early days of the church comes to us through a filtration process. We need to look carefully at whether or not our sources can be trusted and also whether other sources may rely upon an undependable primary source or sources.

If you've read my comments on this thread you'll notice (understatement!) that I don't see John C. Bennett as a reliable primary source in regards to the Nauvoo era in church history. I mean, my gosh, there's evidence that this guy was operating a brothel, may have had a number of illicit sexual encounters with men and women, etc.

Regards,
MG

[_why me]

Kimberly, are you still appalled? If so, why?

If there is anything that appalls me it is the reliance by critics upon sources that are the remains/carcasses of filtered history that may be tainted because of the source from which it sprang.

Did your source material originate with John C. Bennett? If so, do you trust him to tell the truth?

Here's the thing. I think that much of the controversial history that comes to us from the early days of the church comes to us through a filtration process. We need to look carefully at whether or not our sources can be trusted and also whether other sources may rely upon an undependable primary source or sources.

If you've read my comments on this thread you'll notice (understatement!) that I don't see John C. Bennett as a reliable primary source in regards to the Nauvoo era in church history. I mean, my gosh, there's evidence that this guy was operating a brothel, may have had a number of illicit sexual encounters with men and women, etc.

Regards,
MG

MG,

People usually go by the source that confirms their bias interpretation of events. In this thread you put a monkey wrench into the belief system that the critics have had about the Brotherton story. And you did a good job. But in the end, her story continues to come up on exmo boards and context is not important. What is important is that the story as painted by Bennet and modern day critics paints the lds church in the negative to lead people out of the church or to convince people not to join. They will not consider your take on it at all because it does not confirm their biasness about Joseph Smith.