It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:56 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:37 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
MG,

You doubt BY proposed to Martha Brotherton. Why did he quietly seal himself to her after her death; what was his motivation?


To be honest, Doctor CamNC4Me, after our recent interchange on another thread and your continued flagrant use of my words even after 'all that', I am disinclined to communicate with you directly for now.

I will link you to a site, however, that I have been reading this evening. You may find it worthwhile. Even though Martha was duped by JCB, she had ties to BY and the whole situation was rather convoluted/complex.

I'll leave it to you to spend some time reading.

Good riddance, for now.

https://www.millennialstar.org/saul-and ... e-younger/

Don't bother to thank me. I wouldn't expect that you would.

My higher expectations of some folks (did you get that, Lemmie...no(?)...I said, SOME :wink: ) around here have been severely dampened as of late. My expectation of you, Doctor CamNC4Me, to engage in honest/serious discussion is, well, at around 1%. :smile:

WhyMe's comment that I recently posted applies to you. Anyway, happy reading!

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13353
MG,

As per Dr. Shades policy you're not supposed to link and run. So, I didn't click on the link. Please at least copy and paste the relevant point you're you're trying to make.

eta: Also, this is an example of your dishonesty:

Quote:
I will link you to a site, however, that I have been reading this evening. You may find it worthwhile. Even though Martha was duped by JCB, she had ties to BY and the whole situation was rather convoluted/complex.


Bull. ____. You didn't just happen to be reading, miraculously, this relatively unknown blog and it all somehow coincided with Martha Brotherton coming up as a topic yesterday. You ____ ing googled using key words, saw this blog, did your usual scan, and posted the link. You literally couldn't point me to any sort of relevant paragraph. Laughably, the article destroys your assertion she was a dupe.

Additionally, based on your historical posting behavior and linking this google search, I don't believe you've actually read the affidavit I posted on my other thread. It occurs to me that you maintain your testimony because you don't actually read. You've continued this charade for years, and it's been demonstrated over and over again you don't read anything.

This game of trying to convince everyone that you're open to new information, insight, nuance, or enlightenment is complete and utter horse ____. You don't read anything. You don't digest anything. You just scan and post. Maybe picking up on a few words, run it through your confirmation bias, and then inevitably derail a thread because the only thing you're actually interested in doing is getting into assertion-based contrarianism with no basic understanding of what the ____ you're talking about.

Most people would be hot with embarrassment when they're exposed for their idiocy. But you, like some sort of plucky little r*****, you strap on your crash helmet and run into that wall over and over again. All your dumb slashes and winky faces don't hide the fact you're ____ ing dumb. You are the dupe and this board's foil.

In the future if you want a bit of respect at least put in a modicum of effort into your posting.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:57 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
Quote:
My higher expectations of some folks (did you get that, Lemmie...no(?)...I said, SOME :wink: ) around here have been severely dampened as of late.

:rolleyes: Oh yes, it's so, so much better that you only wrote the following filth about some people here:
mentalgymnast wrote:
....The hate (Shulem). The liars (Doc and others). The purveyors of sin (pornography, sodomy, etc.)

And a blindness/open rebellion to a creator/God in who's image we are created. viewtopic.php?p=1077662#p1077662
So..how exactly do you determine which ones of us are purveyors of pornography? How do you come to a decision on who are the purveyors of sodomy? You have literally called every single person I know of on this board a liar at one point or another, so there is no point in asking how you determine that. The hate, however, is just pouring out of you lately. You should just own that one.

But yes, the fact that you only call some people the purveyors of sin (pornography, sodomy, etc.)is apparently an improvement. Over what, I can only imagine.


Last edited by Lemmie on Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:14 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
I had a conversation with Meg Stout and she didn't know as much as you think she does about Martha Brotherton. For example, how could Martha have been Bennett's dupe, when she wrote to England before she met Bennett and wrote up her affidavit? And told her story MONTHS before she wrote up her affidavit, according to Hyrum Smith?

Quote:
At a special conference held on April 7, Hyrum Smith "spoke in contradiction of a report in circulation about Elder Kimball, B. Young, himself, and others of the Twelve, alledging that a sister had been shut in a room for several days, and that they had endeavored to induce her to believe in having two wives." ( Times and Seasons 3 (April 15, 1842):763. )


Of course Hyrum exaggerates the whole thing saying it was two DAYS, trying to make Martha look foolish.

But Hyrum Smith is reporting on what Martha Brotherton was telling IN APRIL, long before she met John C. Bennett. Here is the Millennial Star (Published in ENGLAND) from August, 1842 Published before they could have received word of Martha's affidavit which was published in mid July):

Quote:
Apostacy.—The spirit of apostacy has been quite prevalent of late, principally among those who have emigrated from England to America....

Among the most conspicuous of these apostates, we would notice a young female who emigrated from Manchester in September last [1841], and who, after conducting herself in a manner unworthy the character of one professing godliness, at length conceived the plan of gaining friendship and extraordinary notoriety with the world, or rather with the enemies of truth, by striking a blow at the character of some of its worthiest champions. She well knew that this would be received as a sweet morsel by her old friends, the Methodists, and other enemies of the Saints. She accordingly selected president J. [Joseph] Smith, and elder B. [Brigham] Young for her victims, and wrote to England that these men had been trying to seduce her, by making her believe that God had given a revelation that men might have two wives; by these disreputable means she thought to overthrow the Saints here, or at least to bring a storm of persecution on them, and prevent others from joining them; but in this thing she was completely deceived by Satan....

But, for the information of those who may be assailed by those foolish tales about the two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will; this is well known to all who are acquainted with our books and actions, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; and also all our periodicals are very strict and explicit on that subject, indeed far more so than the bible. (Millennial Star 3 [August 1842]: 73–74;)


All of this was going on LONG BEFORE John C. Bennett became involved with Brotherton. Mental is a moron. He will go and google and find something that satisfies his confirmation bias and claim he happens to be reading it. I also call ____. He knows nothing about this matter, only what he gets from Apologists. He doesn't read any books that don't stroke his confirmation bias and he simply a dishonest troll who has an agenda to disrupt any thread he can. He started his own thread attacking Dr. Cam and Lemmie, but he still had to drag that ____ here. Mental is a buffoon. Once again, we see how much he doesn't know what he's talking about and will search high and low for something... ANYTHING to try and back up his "faithful" narrative about Jo Smith. Smith had to write up this First Presidency Address and have them publish it in England to answer Brotherton's RIGHTFUL claims:

Quote:
Behold this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness; and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light; that is, they are more crafty; and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world. And the man who leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, has his mind overpowered with darkness, and Satan deceives him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware he is disgraced forever: and greater is the danger for the woman that leaves her husband, and there are several instances where women have left their husbands, and [pg. 2] come to this place,& in a few weeks, or months, they have found themselves new husbands, and they are living in adultery; and we are obliged to cut them off from the church. I presume There are men also that are quilty of the same crime, as we are credibly informed. We are KNOWING to their having taken wives HERE and are CREDIBLY informed that they have wives in England. [Words in caps underlined in original] (First Presidency Address, June, 1842)


Smith did just this. Did he cut himself off from the church? Nope. He is here admitting that he himself was LIVING IN ADULTERY.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:34 am 
Regional Representative
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:14 am
Posts: 664
Location: Sweden
Uncle Dale wrote:
KimberlyAnn wrote:
Since BCSpace and other Mormon Sunday School teachers have been inoculating members by teaching about various first vision accounts, Book of Mormon translation methods, etc., I'd like to know when they're going to cover the details of Nauvoo-era polygamy, specifically the cases of women who rebuffed Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I'd suggest starting with Martha Brotherton.

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

I think the Martha Brotherton episode should be covered in Young Women's and Young Men's classes. The young women should realize what happens to girls who don't obey the prophet. Licked cupcakes are nothing compared to "mean harlots." Best to learn that lesson early.

KA

http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UK/miscUK01.htm#080042

Note 2:... Elisabeth Brotherton (1816-1897) was the writer of the two letter extracts published by the Star. Although she testifies that her sister Martha lied about spiritual wifery at Nauvoo, Elisabeth herself become the second plural wife of Apostle Parley P. Pratt in June or July of 1843 at Nauvoo -- this was six months after his arrival back in America, after leaving his editor's post at the Star. Like her parents, Martha H. Brotherton soon returned (reportedly via Boston) to England, where she passed away in 1864. After he heard of her death, Brigham Young quietly had the deceased Martha sealed to him, on August 1, 1870, "for eternity" -- "beyond the veil."

Note 3: In several months that followed, before his departure from England, the Star's editor appears to have overlooked his fellow Apostle's reporting on Martha H. Brotherton, as published in the Aug. 27, 1842 issue of The Wasp. There William Smith reports that "in these United States... John C. Bennett, the pimp and file leader of such mean harlots as Martha H. Brotherton and her predecessors... flourish with impunity!" Apostle Smith neglects to indicate exactly when it was that Sister Brotherton became a prostitute, with John C. Bennett as her pimp, however. In her July 13, 1842 affidavit, Miss Brotherton states "I had been at Nauvoo near three weeks, during which time my father's family received frequent visits from elders Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, two of the Mormon apostles; when early one [Saturday] morning [Young said] ..."brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives." According to the Apr. 15, 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons, on Thursday, Apr. 7, 1842, at the spring conference in Nauvoo, Hyrum Smith "spoke concerning the elders who went forth to preach from Kirtland... [and] then spoke in contradiction of a report in circulation about Elder Kimball, B. Young, himself, and others of the Twelve, alledging that a sister had been shut in a room for several days, and that they had endeavored to induce her to believe in having two wives." It appears likely that the Saturday on which Miss Brotherton places the attempted seduction was Mar. 26, 1842. It must have taken a couple of days for "the report" Hyrum repudiates to have been "in circulation," before William Clayton was inspired to write to the Saints back in England, reporting the apostasy of the Brotherton family on Mar. 30, 1842 -- then Hyrum Smith gave an official public response for the LDS Church on Apr. 7th. Since Miss Brotherton says that the attempted seduction occurred "near three weeks" after the family's advent in Nauvoo, their arrival in that place may have been about the first week of March -- thus, they did not arrive with the Chaos Saints, on the Ariel on Mar. 27, 1842, and probably never were a part of that LDS immigrant group. Thus, the time range during which Martha H. Brotherton could have been a prostitute under the pimping of John C. Bennett seems to have been about early March, 1842 (when she arrived in the region of Nauvoo) and August, 1842, when the Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints so identified ---- that is, unless the Apostle was not telling the truth in this matter.

Note 4: See also the testimony of John McIlwrick, Mary Brotherton McIlwrick, and We Elizabeth Brotherton in the Nauvoo Wasp broadside "extra" of Aug. 31, 1842, where Martha's two LDS sisters and her brother-in-law denounce her as "a deliberate liar;" as "a wilful inventor of lies;" and a circulator of "lies of a base kind, concerning those whom she knew to be innocent." These family members also accuse Martha as acting outside of "common decency," by "lying on the top of a young man when he was in bed," etc.

Note 5: The editors of the Latter Day Saints' Millennial Star were still insisting that there was nothing remotely similar to polygamy, plural marriage, spiritual wifery, or the patriarchal order of marriage being practiced in the LDS Church, nor among its leaders, nor within its priesthood, as late as its issue for Jan. 15, 1850, wherein Elder Thomas Smith professed: "...12th LIE: Joseph Smith taught a system of polygamy... 13th LIE: That Joseph Smith tried to seduce Martha Brotherton... Martha Brotherton's sister sent a letter, stating that Martha was a liar; William Clayton did the same. Both are published in the Millennial Star, Vol. 3, pages 73, 74." The top leadership of the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) still refuse to make any official admission of Joseph Smith's secret polygamy. Neither the LDS Church nor the RLDS Church have ever retracted the officially issued statements of 1842, claiming that Sister Martha H. Brotherton was a liar and a whore.

UD


Thanks for an excellent read, even though the overly flowery language was sometimes difficult to wade through.

_________________
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 17933
Location: Koloburbia
why me wrote:
She didn't help matters much. I think that she was aware just what she was doing and that she was also willingly used by the apostates for their own purposes.

Excellent point. If she had ixnayed on the olygamypay, those Gentiles would have been none the wiser and Nauvoo might now be the capital of Illinois, what with all the families of Smiths, Kimballs, Pratts, and Youngs. Too bad that angel with the drawn sword had not visited her and calmed her female hysteria before that disbelieving rabble became unruly.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:54 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
Hey Moksha,

What I don't understand is why the Angel with the Sword didn't appear to EVERY WOMAN that Smith propositioned, because if the angel could appear to Smith and threaten him with death unless he got some spiritual wives, why didn't the angel appear and threaten every woman who turned Smith down? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:54 pm 
Sunbeam

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:44 am
Posts: 70
Interesting to see a thread resurrected from back in the day when believers besides MG bothered to take the time to respond to the stuff that ye antis post here.

In perusing the first few posts, Martha Brotherton looks like another case of historic he said/she said. More grist for John C. Bennett's mill.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:08 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
Viriatu wrote:
In perusing the first few posts, Martha Brotherton looks like another case of historic he said/she said.


True.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:25 pm 
Savior (resurrected)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:38 am
Posts: 993
In my mind, the fact that Brigham Young sealed himself to Brotherton leaves me convinced that she was telling the truth and that the basic events of the story occurred.

If she was an evil liar who just made all of this up to stir up trouble, Young's sealing to her decades later after her death would make no sense. It also seems like a huge dick move since Young knew that she hated him. The action doesn't paint him in a positive light at all.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:54 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
fetchface wrote:
In my mind, the fact that Brigham Young sealed himself to Brotherton leaves me convinced that she was telling the truth and that the basic events of the story occurred.

If she was an evil liar who just made all of this up to stir up trouble, Young's sealing to her decades later after her death would make no sense. It also seems like a huge dick move since Young knew that she hated him. The action doesn't paint him in a positive light at all.


Quote:
If Brigham had attempted to coerce Martha Brotherton to become his spiritual wife, he had transgressed. And yet Martha fled, preventing Brigham transgressing to the point of engaging in illicit intercourse or spiritual wifery.
https://www.millennialstar.org/give-bri ... g-a-break/




Meg Stout brings up the possibility that Brigham Young and Heber Kimball may have been taken in by John C. Bennett's spiritual wifery system and that Brigham may have been inappropriate with Martha Brotherton.

https://www.millennialstar.org/give-bri ... g-a-break/

Could he have been part of the reason Martha left the church?

Later on in Utah after BY and repented and understood the true doctrine of polygamy and drove out the remnants of spiritual wifery, he may have had himself sealed to Martha out of a sense of guilt for his mess up earlier in Nauvoo? In other words's, he may have played a part in her disaffection and later felt remorse and wanted her to have the eternal opportunities that he felt he had played a part in taking away from her.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:34 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
Meg Stout brings up the possibility that Brigham Young and Heber Kimball may have been taken in by John C. Bennett's spiritual wifery system and that Brigham may have been inappropriate with Martha Brotherton.

https://www.millennialstar.org/give-bri ... g-a-break/

Could he have been part of the reason Martha left the church?

Later on in Utah after BY and repented and understood the true doctrine of polygamy and drove out the remnants of spiritual wifery, he may have had himself sealed to Martha out of a sense of guilt for his mess up earlier in Nauvoo? In other words's, he may have played a part in her disaffection and later felt remorse and wanted her to have the eternal opportunities that he felt he had played a part in taking away from her.

Just some thoughts.


This is pure fantasy with not a shred of evidence to back it up. It's all Meg Stout's fantastical imaginings. Of course Mental would latch on to this tripe and repeat it here, to deflect from the real culprit, Joseph Smith. And Joseph AND Brigham called his System Spiritual Wifeism. That is where Bennett got the idea from, that is where William Smith got the idea from and practiced it with the knowledge and sanction of his brother, who never accused him of doing anything wrong even though multiple women said he slept with them and told them that his brother Joseph sanctioned what he was doing. Joseph in 1844 then testified IN COURT that he did indeed cover up (for a time) what Bennett did, and covered up what his brother, Higbee and others did. Brotherton was disgusted with what was going on, and William Smith (always working hand in hand with his brother Joseph) called her a whore, and Bennett her pimp. But it was Joseph who tried to pimp her to Brigham Young with their adulterous spiritual wife system and they got brother William to slander her good name in the press, and Mental is continuing to do so now.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:23 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13353
Viriatu wrote:
Interesting to see a thread resurrected from back in the day when believers besides MG bothered to take the time to respond to the stuff that ye antis post here.

In perusing the first few posts, Martha Brotherton looks like another case of historic he said/she said. More grist for John C. Bennett's mill.


What did Martha Brotherton say that was false in context of Joseph Smith's & Brigham Young's recorded behavior and the historical record in Nauvoo?

You know they had to actually proposition teens, married women, and women of all sorts of ages in order to practice 'spiritual wifery' or 'celestial marriage'? Stuff like that doesn't happen in a vacuum.

You know people generally can't keep a secret for ____, right? What was going on in Nauvoo was an open secret, so it's no surprise Martha Brotherton figured it out rather quickly.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:29 am 
Savior (resurrected)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:38 am
Posts: 993
mentalgymnast wrote:
Meg Stout brings up the possibility that Brigham Young and Heber Kimball may have been taken in by John C. Bennett's spiritual wifery system and that Brigham may have been inappropriate with Martha Brotherton.

Ummm, Meg Stout is a nut. Joseph Smith was the one doing the coercing with Brigham there present backing him up. This is no Bennett conspiracy. Bennett wasn't even there.

Some people don't like reality so they substitute something else.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13353
I mean, how do Mormons think people were introduced into 'spiritual wifery'? I'd really like some insight into this because I'm not understanding their thinking.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:17 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
And the Mormons have all fled. Imagine that.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:39 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
Viriatu wrote:
Interesting to see a thread resurrected from back in the day when believers besides MG bothered to take the time to respond to the stuff that ye antis post here.

In perusing the first few posts, Martha Brotherton looks like another case of historic he said/she said. More grist for John C. Bennett's mill.


Like I said to Viriatu, yep, that's where I come out at.

This Mormon hasn't fled as much as he just doesn't have anything more to say. Others, such as yourself, will end up having the last word. Looks better for you that way, doesn't it? :wink:

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:44 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
grindael wrote:
Quote:
Meg Stout brings up the possibility that Brigham Young and Heber Kimball may have been taken in by John C. Bennett's spiritual wifery system and that Brigham may have been inappropriate with Martha Brotherton.

https://www.millennialstar.org/give-bri ... g-a-break/

Could he have been part of the reason Martha left the church?

Later on in Utah after BY and repented and understood the true doctrine of polygamy and drove out the remnants of spiritual wifery, he may have had himself sealed to Martha out of a sense of guilt for his mess up earlier in Nauvoo? In other words's, he may have played a part in her disaffection and later felt remorse and wanted her to have the eternal opportunities that he felt he had played a part in taking away from her.

Just some thoughts.


This is pure fantasy with not a shred of evidence to back it up. It's all Meg Stout's fantastical imaginings. Of course Mental would latch on to this tripe and repeat it here, to deflect from the real culprit, Joseph Smith. And Joseph AND Brigham called his System Spiritual Wifeism. That is where Bennett got the idea from, that is where William Smith got the idea from and practiced it with the knowledge and sanction of his brother, who never accused him of doing anything wrong even though multiple women said he slept with them and told them that his brother Joseph sanctioned what he was doing. Joseph in 1844 then testified IN COURT that he did indeed cover up (for a time) what Bennett did, and covered up what his brother, Higbee and others did. Brotherton was disgusted with what was going on, and William Smith (always working hand in hand with his brother Joseph) called her a whore, and Bennett her pimp. But it was Joseph who tried to pimp her to Brigham Young with their adulterous spiritual wife system and they got brother William to slander her good name in the press, and Mental is continuing to do so now.

Thanks, grindael, the above plus your post on Martha's testimony, published and evaluated independently of Bennett's interaction, was extremely helpful.

Thanks for all your research knowledge you are so willing to share--we are very lucky to have you here!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:46 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
This Mormon hasn't fled as much as he just doesn't have anything more to say.


It's not hard for ANYONE to look better than you, who are constantly wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. So couch it any way you like. Fly away little troll.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:48 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
grindael wrote:
Quote:
This Mormon hasn't fled as much as he just doesn't have anything more to say.


It's not hard for ANYONE to look better than you, who are constantly wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. So couch it any way you like. Fly away little troll.


Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:50 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
Lemmie wrote:
Thanks, grindael...for all your research knowledge you are so willing to share--we are very lucky to have you here!


On that, we can agree.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrW, Google [Bot], omni, Philo Sofee, Res Ipsa and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group