Log Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://news.yahoo.co...-154735300.htmlWords fail me.Clearly we have agents provocateurs in our midst. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
Log Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 BB, I'm not sure that tone matters, given the subject matter. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
Log Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
Log Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
rongo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
Log Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
rongo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://news.yahoo.co...-154735300.htmlWords 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.familysearch.org/kb/UserGuide/en/policy/r_wws_policy_sealing_to_spouse_undocumented_marriage.htmlOf course, the lack of definite evidence that her children were his is also grounds for invalidating the ordinance. Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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! Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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! Link to comment
Log Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 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? Link to comment
Log Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 Never mind. I concede from the outset that both positions are reasonable and it is, as you say, a distraction from the OP. Link to comment
noel00 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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? Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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). Link to comment
Calm Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Why did she not take advantage of the situation?How would she have been able to support herself? Link to comment
juliann Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 This would be like sealing Jacie Duggar to the father of her children. And I'm sure there is some wingnut who would do it. I think we have a breed of Mormon who truly thinks that they will be beloved by dead famous people for doing their work and that it makes them very special. I don't see how this would be considered a valid ordinance anyway when they weren't married and there was no acknowledgment of a common law marriage. I wonder who found this one. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I believe I found the original article and if it is accurate, I am wondering why they report the baptismal date of Sally Hemings (1991), but not the sealing date.http://www.slate.com...ds_church_.htmlWhat is surprising is that the LDS Church, according to its Family Search registry, considers Hemings to be Thomas Jefferson’s wife.....This means that the LDS Church recognizes Jefferson’s paternity of a sizable number of his own slavesThis is obviously wrong in that doctrine or official position is not established by what shows up on the FS registry. Considering the rest of the post's tone, I find this comment rather disappointing, he could have easily checked this, should have checked this considering the controversy lately and it just shows laziness not to have done so. Especially since he asked them to confirm if the sealing had taken place.I have no problem with the rest of the article. It could have gone into the fact that even today divorced couples remained sealed on paper to each other when it is recognized the marriage is not longer intact because there is another involved in the sealing whose covenant with the individuals is intact and that is God.However, I don't think it should be automatic to seal anyone together who has had children together. And I believe the sealing instructions are clear enough on this that at least a common law marriage should be in existence. Man and Concubine/Slave or Man and Mistress are not the same thing as Husband and Wife. There are all sorts of adulterous relationships, for example, that result in children, including slave relationships. And simply because LDS recognize authorized polygamous relationships, there seems little reason to assume that all sexual relationships are somehow sanctified by the individuals' death.Bottomline...in the vast majority of cases, if people were following the policies, these types of sealings wouldn't be happening. Link to comment
juliann Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I mean who found the sealing. I know of a guy who announced that his sister had been told to seal Hemmings and Jefferson in a dream. So I wouldn't be surprised if the sister is the culprit. But I wonder who discovered it and took it to the press. I'm sure there are a lot more like this woman out there chasing celebrities so this can go on forever, name by name, expose by expose. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I'm sure there are a lot more like this woman out there chasing celebrities so this can go on forever, name by name.Yep, I pity the poor family history reps who have to deal with this attitude. Hopefully at least among those who aren't like the sister you describe above, most will get the message from the recent policy change where people will start getting locked out. Enough rumours of this happening should discourage some. However, the diehards will only be discovered by either being locked out if they happen to be unlucky enough to choose someone who has been marked off limits already or by contributing to the problem by coming up with new celebrities to process and thus new ones to be discovered... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.