78 replies to this topic

[Log]

http://news.yahoo.co...-154735300.html

Words fail me.

Clearly we have agents provocateurs in our midst.

Edited by Log, 31 March 2012 - 10:15 AM.

[bluebell]

As much as the title of the article is sensational, the aritcle itself is actually one of the better one's i've read.  It's fair and actually attempts to explain the practices in regards to the dead rather than to condemn them.

[Log]

BB, I'm not sure that tone matters, given the subject matter.

[bluebell]

I thought the subject matter was really good.  I could really find anything in the article (other than the title) that i thought was unfair.

[Log]

Are you unaware of whom Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings are?  This is the equivalent of "John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe Baptized, Married By Mormon Church."  Only worse, since the race card is being played also, to say nothing of the fact that the claim that Hemmings was Jefferson's lover is extremely controversial.

The article also mentions "the [LDS] membership ban on African-Americans [which ended in 1978]."  Who knew?

The article also implies that Mormons believe only Mormons gain salvation.

Edited by Log, 31 March 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[bluebell]

Log, on 31 March 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Are you unaware of whom Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings are?  This is the equivalent of "John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe Baptized, Married By Mormon Church."  Only worse, since the race card is being played also, to say nothing of the fact that the claim that Hemmings was Jefferson's lover is extremely controversial.

I'm three weeks from getting a BA in history:  Yes, i know who Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings are.  I know that all the evidence so far suggests they had children together, to the point that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.  While i think it's sensational to title the article after them, i think what the article actually says about them and the larger practice of temple sealings and baptisms is fair and balanced.

[Log]

bluebell, on 31 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

I'm three weeks from getting a BA in history:  Yes, i know who Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings are.  I know that all the evidence so far suggests they had children together, to the point that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.  While i think it's sensational to title the article after them, i think what the article actually says about them and the larger practice of temple sealings and baptisms is fair and balanced.

We part ways on both points, then.

[bluebell]

Log, on 31 March 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

We part ways on both points, then.

This is a complete aside, but how do you deal with the DNA studies which show that descendants of sally's children are genetically related to Thomas Jefferson's genetic line?  (not to argue, i'm sincerely interested in your thoughts on it since you seem to reject the possibility).

As for the article, yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[rongo]

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings were never married in life. That this has apparetnly occurred "in the system" (according to this yahoo article) would seem to prove that the recent mischief (complete with regular articles with the recently uncovered "finds" in "the system") is the work of people trying to turn people against the Church, not members seriously submitting the information for temple work who believe in that work.

[Log]

bluebell, on 31 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

This is a complete aside, but how do you deal with the DNA studies which show that descendants of sally's children are genetically related to Thomas Jefferson's genetic line?  (not to argue, i'm sincerely interested in your thoughts on it since you seem to reject the possibility).

Insufficient to establish a clear link to Thomas Jefferson, as opposed to his brother, or any other male relative, really, which is why "the paternity of these children remains a matter of debate among historians."

Also of interest is the initial source of the speculation that Hemmings was Jefferson's lover.

[rongo]

bluebell, on 31 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

This is a complete aside, but how do you deal with the DNA studies which show that descendants of sally's children are genetically related to Thomas Jefferson's genetic line? (not to argue, i'm sincerely interested in your thoughts on it since you seem to reject the possibility). As for the article, yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've read that it is very possible (and cannot be ruled out) that the genetic evidence could stem from Jefferson's uncle, a known rake with several illegitimate children.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 31 March 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

http://news.yahoo.co...-154735300.html

Words fail me.

Clearly we have agents provocateurs in our midst.

There is no date I saw given for the time when this work was done.

I would suspect with the requirement of marriage (even common law marriages) for sealings that this work will be invalidated since even if one assumes that Thomas was the father, there is definitely no possible claim that he was considered married to her.

https://help.familys...d_marriage.html

Of course, the lack of definite evidence that her children were his is also grounds for invalidating the ordinance.

Edited by calmoriah, 31 March 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Kenngo1969]

bluebell, on 31 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

I'm three weeks from getting a BA in history ...

Sorry, but I just have to interrupt to say:

Hooray For Bluebell!

Pardon the interruption.  Carry on!

[bluebell]

Log, on 31 March 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Insufficient to establish a clear link to Thomas Jefferson, as opposed to his brother, or any other male relative, really, which is why "the paternity of these children remains a matter of debate among historians."

Also of interest is the initial source of the speculation that Hemmings was Jefferson's lover.

Everything is a matter of debate among historians (it appears to be part of the fun of being a historian, if i understand most historians accurately.   )  There certainly isn't any proof, so there is room for doubt either way.

I do find it interesting that no one ever claimed anyone other than Thomas Jefferson or his nephew Carr (who has been completely absolved through DNA testing) was the father of Hemings children.  In other words, for 200 years the only 'gossip' which existed on the matter named either Jefferson or carr as the father.  No one, during the actual time the events were happening, ever believed anyone else could have been involved.

That these other Jefferson men are being accused now, 200 years after the fact and without any 'word of mouth' history coming down from that time period to support the accusations, is odd.  Since none of these men were ever accused of fathering Hemings children before DNA proved it had to be someone, other than Carr, from Jefferson's line, the accusations do kind of come across as a 'grasping at straws' attempt to keep Jefferson's name clear.

Certainly DNA does not prove that Jefferson himself is the father, but when you add it with all the other evidence, i think the case is quite strong for it.

However, this topic is completely beside the point of the thread and though i find it fascinating, i'll lay off so as not to hijack the OP.  

[bluebell]

rongo, on 31 March 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings were never married in life. That this has apparetnly occurred "in the system" (according to this yahoo article) would seem to prove that the recent mischief (complete with regular articles with the recently uncovered "finds" in "the system") is the work of people trying to turn people against the Church, not members seriously submitting the information for temple work who believe in that work.

This was my concern as well Rongo.  I'm not sure how the sealing would have been allowed to proceed knowing that the two were never married in life.

[bluebell]

Kenngo1969, on 31 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Sorry, but I just have to interrupt to say:

Hooray For Bluebell!

Pardon the interruption.  Carry on!

Thank you.  If i survive the next three weeks it will be a very happy day!

[Log]

bluebell, on 31 March 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Certainly DNA does not prove that Jefferson himself is the father, but when you add it with all the other evidence, i think the case is quite strong for it.

What other evidence, besides Fawn Brodie's ... interesting... interpretation of Jefferson's letters?

Edited by Log, 31 March 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[Log]

Never mind.  I concede from the outset that both positions are reasonable and it is, as you say, a distraction from the OP.

[noel00]

Annette Gordon-Reed's book The Hemmingses of Monticello is a good read on the matter. We know you guys go ballistic over Brodie's writings. We know other candidates have been mentioned as fathering Sally's children, but isn't is interesting that she only fell pregnant when Jeffeson was home at Monticello. Sally's son Madison said that his mother was Jefferson's "concubine". Sally went to France with Jefferson. There she could have been free under French law.  Why did she not take advantage of the situation?

[bluebell]

Log, on 31 March 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

What other evidence, besides Fawn Brodie's ... interesting... interpretation of Jefferson's letters?

The accusations don't stem from Fawn Brodie's book.  They have been around since Thomas Jefferson was still alive and many, many, historians have studied the topic.  The problem was, as i understand it, that until the DNA testing, all it was was innuendo, word of mouth, and the like.  Other than that, the evidence was sketchy because it's nature was such that there could be no real corroboration of it.

Once the DNA testing was done though, that changed everything for many historians (even ones that had previous denied the probability).  Taken on it's own the DNA evidence also isn't proof, but when you add it to what has come down to us through history, then together, they make a very strong case-mostly because the DNA finally corroborates the previous evidence.

That's why the idea that someone uncle or something of Jefferson's might have been the culprit doesn't come off real well (in mine and other people's opinions).  The accusations didn't exist until the last 2 decades or so when the DNA evidence put Jefferson right in the cross hairs.  

If that's true (and i haven't seen anything to suggest it's not) it means that the accusations themselves are modern inventions.  That doesn't, of course, mean that those men can't be responsible for Hemings kids, but it does greatly lessen the validity of the accusations against them (again, in my and other people's opinions).