why me wrote:I suppose that the Brotherton thread was interesting but at the end of the day, I am not sure just what it proved. And I am sure that if such a story would run today, it would make the front page of the National Enquirer. But so what? Throughout a life, there are many interesting happenings and understandings and Martha and Brigham are no exception, neither are other human beings who were a part of church history back in the good old days.
Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the Book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven. And I might add that some of those polygamous wives received devine revelation of the truthfulness of the practice. Martha missed out on something special during her life. And such is life....we all make choices.
What exactly did she miss out on?
Maybe when we are all dead, we will see the blessings that these women now have.
Also, lucy walker (among others) understood the blessings because they received a heavenly celestial understanding of its devine nature. Do you wish to challenge that vision that she received? ( do you wish to challenge the other witnesses the other women received?)
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.
Alter Idem wrote: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.
Alter Idem wrote: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.
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?
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?
Alter Idem wrote: 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.
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?
Your question presupposes the very issue in disput. Brigham Young, along with five other people mentioned principly in Martha's affidavit, explicitly challenge the veracity of her charges. In other words, there is serious question whether BY proposed to her or not. Until that question is reasonably answered (we will have to wait to see what Don is able to produce in his pending article, because from where I sit, he failed to counterbalance the evidence in favor of Martha and against the six counter-claims), your question is premature.
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.
Alter Idem wrote: 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
Richard S. Van Wagoner, M.S., Brigham Young University, is a clinical audiologist and Lehi city historian. He is the author of Lehi: Portraits of a Utah Town, Mormon Polygamy: A History, and Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess; and the co-author of A Book of Mormons. He has been published in Brigham Young University Studies, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Sunstone, Utah Historical Quarterly, and Utah Holiday, and has won awards from the Dialogue Foundation, John Whitmer Historical Association, and the Mormon History Association. He is a contributor to The Prophet Puzzle: Interpretive Essays on Joseph Smith.
P.S. Alternatively, I suppose you could email him and tell he's putting out unsubstantiated information about the sealing.
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?
But we are talking about his sealing her to him in the next life. Everyone should be young and pretty there--she'd be a dime a dozen. Your other explanations for why he'd do it don't fit with my perception of the man. You obviously have a low opinion of his character and may see it as a control issue and general creepiness on his part.
My reason for asking the question was to point out the absurdity of it. I believe that if Brigham Young DID actually seal her to him, it was because he thought she was "celestial material", worthy to be his wife--not so that he could make the afterlife hell for her or to pay her back for having spurned his advances. He knew that the spouse had to be willing or it was to no effect and sealing her to himself would not be a way to control her or make her do something she was unwilling to do.