Benjamin F Winchester: Was There Ever Such A Person?

[Wiki Wonka]

Was there a man named Benjamin F Winchester, who is associated with the early history or even beginnings of the Church?

 

Fairmormon provides two references to a Benjamin F Winchester

 

"Another account comes from Benjamin F. Winchester, who was a friend of Joseph Smith’s, an LDS leader in the early 1840s."

 

Another Fairmormon article identifies a Benjamin F Winchester as a excommunicated member who was bitterly opposed to plural marriage; the time frame still appears to be early history of the Church. 

 

Sources not associate with Fairmormon suggest that a Benjamin F Winchester was at the Kirkland Temple dedication.  Is a Benjamin F Winchester a person associated wtih the founding of the Church? Despite later being excommunicated?

 

It looks like the Wikipedia article answers your original question. Winchester used to be a member but later left the Church, so they are the same guy.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Benjamin Winchester (August 6, 1817 – January 25, 1901) was an early leader in the Latter Day Saint movement. Winchester was the youngest adult member of Zion's Camp, an original member of the first Quorum of the Seventy, editor of the first independent Mormon periodical, the The Gospel Reflector, president of a large branch of the church in Philadelphia, a zealous missionary who baptized thousands, a Rigdonite Apostle, and ultimately a dissenter who repudiated Mormonism altogether.

[Bob Crockett]

His name might be "F". Lots of people were named Benjamin Franklin etc at that time.

[ksfisher]

If I remember correctly (I'd have to look it up at home later) Benjamin Winchester was a missionary companion of Erastus Snow in Western Pennsylvania in the late 1830's when my Fisher ancestors who joined the church were converted. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It looks like the Wikipedia article answers your original question. Winchester used to be a member but later left the Church, so they are the same guy.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Benjamin Winchester (August 6, 1817 – January 25, 1901) was an early leader in the Latter Day Saint movement. Winchester was the youngest adult member of Zion's Camp, an original member of the first Quorum of the Seventy, editor of the first independent Mormon periodical, the The Gospel Reflector, president of a large branch of the church in Philadelphia, a zealous missionary who baptized thousands, a Rigdonite Apostle, and ultimately a dissenter who repudiated Mormonism altogether.

 

So if I understand correctly, Van Wagoner correctly summarized the allegations from Benjamin Winchester against Joseph Smith. Van Wagoner incorrectly attributed these allegations to a Benjamin F. Winchester. This incorrect attribution has been repeated both in pro and anti church material. The reason Brian Hales and Greg Smith find this problematic is they view it represents a lack of effort on the part of Grant Palmer to understand what actually happened. That is, Grant is going to secondary sources to dig up material that makes Joseph Smith look bad without critically examining what the actually primary source documentation says.

 

Is that a fair summary?

[Scott Lloyd]

So if I understand correctly, Van Wagoner correctly summarized the allegations from Benjamin Winchester against Joseph Smith. Van Wagoner incorrectly attributed these allegations to a Benjamin F. Winchester. This incorrect attribution has been repeated both in pro and anti church material. The reason Brian Hales and Greg Smith find this problematic is they view it represents a lack of effort on the part of Grant Palmer to understand what actually happened. That is, Grant is going to secondary sources to dig up material that makes Joseph Smith look bad without critically examining what the actually primary source documentation says.

 

Is that a fair summary?

May I recommend going to the Interpreter piece I linked to earlier and seeing for yourself?

 

Here is the link again.

 

And here's the passage I quoted:

 

Throughout Palmer’s essay, several problematic issues can be readily discerned:

1. Factual inaccuracies. For example, on page 8 he speaks of a man, “Benjamin F. Winchester,” but there is no such person. Church history participants included “Benjamin F. Johnson” and “Benjamin Winchester” but no “Benjamin F. Winchester.” This might seem a nitpicky criticism, but it is an example of how poorly Palmer’s essay has been constructed and edited. It also suggests a reliance on secondary sources rather than a consultation of the original documents.

 

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Doctor Steuss]

 This might seem a nitpicky criticism, but it is an example of how poorly Palmer’s essay has been constructed and edited. It also suggests a reliance on secondary sources rather than a consultation of the original documents.

 

 

Footnote from Hales' essay, Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith's Pre-Nauvoo Reputation. Emphasis mine.

"Up to the year 1843 ‘spiritual marriage’ or polygamy had never

been preached or inculcated as a doctrine of the church. Prior to that year

my experience had been that the church was fully as strict and as pure with

respect to virtue and morality as any other religious organization.”

Benjamin F. Winchester, “Primitive Mormonism—Personal Narrative of It,”

Salt Lake Tribune, September 22, 1889, 2.

 

While low hanging fruit, wrapped in the bow of nitpicking, is tempting; sometimes it's best to be charitable.

[Scott Lloyd]

Footnote from Hales' essay, Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith's Pre-Nauvoo Reputation. Emphasis mine.

 

While low hanging fruit, wrapped in the bow of nitpicking, is tempting; sometimes it's best to be charitable.

Dr. Steuss, so nice to "see" you again!

 

You disappeared. I've wondered what happened to you.

[Doctor Steuss]

Dr. Steuss, so nice to "see" you again!

 

You disappeared. I've wondered what happened to you.

Thank you Scott.  Great to "see" you as well.  PM-ing you, so as to not derail the thread.

[The Nehor]

Just wanted tonie to lay all her cards on the table. I suspected she was setting up an ambush. I don't like that sort of thing.

Tonie, try to be less transparent if you want to be tricky. It was pretty obvious.

[Calm]

Thank you Scott.  Great to "see" you as well.  PM-ing you, so as to not derail the thread.

If you don't stick around for at least awhile, I am making a voodoo doll of you and sticking it full of pins.

[Calm]

Greg has clarified why this nitpicky point was originally made in the comments, I will repost the comment here for those who are too lazy to find it themselves, but the links won't work so better to go to the article.  

 

I appreciate the chance to respond. Brian is out of town, but tells me he will draft a response to some portions. I will here address a few issues.

Grindael starts out with two logical fallacies in one paragraph:

What really troubles me though, is Hales and Smith claiming that Grant Palmer is some kind of sloppy or shoddy researcher and that he only uses “secondary” sources because he includes a middle initial in Benjamin Winchester’s name, which was gotten from a very credible historian, Richard S. Van Wagoner.

The Winchester issue is but the first of many such issues. I am surprised that Grindael missed all the other examples. It is not as if that was the “best” evidence for the proposition that we could find, though it is much stronger evidence than Grindael appears to think it is–as I explain below.

The two fallacies are:

a) appeal to authority; and

b) the tu-quoque fallacy ["you've done what you accuse the other of"]

=== Appeal to authority ===

Our research has not shown Van Wagoner to be a particularly reliable guide to matters of plural marriage [see, for example, my examination of just two pages of his work here, which shows some of the same lapses that Palmer’s treatment exhibits [see here, for example]. Even if he were, an appeal to authority does not mean he was right–as we both have cause to know, as you pointed out. We once followed Van Wagoner without checking, and were misled–hence our awareness of the risk.

=== Tu quoque ===

Grindael agreed with our note that this might “seem nitpicky,” and so thinks we should have left it unmentioned. His confusion is understandable, but he is so convinced of our insecurity and incompetence that he doesn’t bother to ask why the matter was handled as it was.

I confess to having hoped to signal Palmer that he should check this matter more closely, since it is not just a matter of a nitpicky error, but actually evidence for plagiarism. I hoped that it was unintended, and that it would be corrected prior to any formal publication. Since you have raised this issue, I will here detail the problem formally.

=== Evidence for plagiarism in Palmer’s essay===

Palmer writes:

Benjamin F. Winchester, a close friend of the prophet said the Kirtland accusations of scandal and “licentious conduct” against him was discussed,“especially among the women. Joseph’s name was connected with scandalous relations with two or three families.”

For this claim, Palmer cites only: Benjamin Winchester, “Primitive Mormonism” The Daily Tribune (Salt Lake City), September 22, 1889. [Note 22]

There is no reference to Van Wagoner–yet, why did Palmer make the same error? I believe the most parsimonious explanation is that Palmer is relying on his secondary source (Van Wagoner), and has not checked the original reference. We did not say so at the time, but it actually appears that this is an instance of plagiarism, unintended or otherwise.

Van Wagoner’s text reads:

Rumors about Smith multiplied. Benjamin F. Winchester, Smith’s close friend and leader of Philadelphia Mormons in the early 1840s, later recalledKirtland accusations of scandal and “licentious conduct” hurled againstSmith, “this more especially among the women. Joseph’s name was connected with scandalous relations with two or three families” (Winchester 1889).

I have here bold-faced the material that is verbatim from Van Wagoner’s treatment. No only does Palmer cite no material from the original source that Van Wagoner did not cite, but he even appears to lift the precise introductory words “Kirtland accusations of scandal and”. (Palmer even duplicates the label of Winchester as a “close friend” of Joseph, thus following Van Wagoner into deception about the true relationship between Winchester and Joseph–See hereto learn how Van Wagoner’s earlier work was more accurate, but the version relied upon by Palmer is less so.)

Unfortunately, then, Palmer appears to have plagiarized Van Wagoner’s account without proper documentation. (It is clear that Palmer has elsewhere relied on Van Wagoner; see his citations for notes 5, 29, 45, 53, 60, 73, 77.)

The point is not that Palmer made a “nitpicky” error of fact. We all make those–Brian and I each made at least one as we were writing, which the other pointed out: we both learned things we had previously gotten wrong. The problem is that Palmer’s method of relying upon secondary sources to gather up critical accounts makes it more likely that he will make such errors, and less likely that he will read what is needed to correct them. His preoccupation with negative accounts likewise means that such things do not seem to be scrutinized very closely.That is the heart of the issue, why the Winchester error bears mentioning.

By contrast, my notes in the wiki are clearly labelled as “Book draft chapters on polygamy.” [See here, 3rd column]. They were uploaded in 2007 [and thus it is inaccurate to claim they reflect my 2014 position or thoughts] to allow FairMormon members to answer questions that were not yet treated elsewhere in the wiki. With the on-going growth of the wiki, they will probably eventually be unnecessary. They are also clearly labelled as “draft essays” [See here].

Rather than citing Winchester’s original statement, as Palmer’s paper does, I make it clear that I am citing Van Wagoner–the name “Van Wagoner” is mentioned four times in that section alone, and there are two direct citations from his work [See here].

 

We knew that Palmer was fallowing Van Wagoner here precisely because I had likewise been misled by that secondary source in 2007…

And, I hope too that this rebuts the hasty (and unfounded) claim that we included the “nitpicky” error about “Benjamin F. Johnson” simply because “It is absolutely trivial and stupid (especially when they did it themselves) and only done because of an obvious agenda to use ANY excuse (no matter how trivial) to make the man look bad.” If we had truly been after anything to make Palmer look bad, then plagiarism would be an excellent place to start, don’t you think? But, we were far more concerned about his errors in analysis and the omission of relevant data. This merely explains why some of those errors and omissions occur. (It is far more important for the reader to realize that they occur, not why.)

Perhaps it was an error in judgment to not point out Palmer’s probable plagiarism more fully. If so, I apologize. I’m the one who added the references to Van Wagoner in the notes; perhaps we should have simply started with evidence of plagiarism, a fairly significant academic no-no. But, as Grindael also says (wiser than he knows):

If his [Palmer's] work is that bad, THAT will speak for itself. The brilliant (if you have any) rebuttals should be enough to take care of his credibility, should they not?

Indeed they should, and do (in my view).

It does not seem necessary to add a long discursion (see above!) regarding the likely plagiarism. My concern is not really about the plagiarism (which can be an honest error). It is what it represents–the fact that Palmer is careless, he apparently relies upon secondary sources for his interpretation, and thus transports their biases along with them when they serve his rhetorical purposes.

Edited October 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

While low hanging fruit, wrapped in the bow of nitpicking, is tempting; sometimes it's best to be charitable.

See Greg's response I cite above.  He was actually trying to be charitable, though it may not be as apparent to those not knowing what was going on or who have poor opinions of Greg and Brian.

 

The point is not that Palmer made a “nitpicky” error of fact. We all make those–Brian and I each made at least one as we were writing, which the other pointed out: we both learned things we had previously gotten wrong. The problem is that Palmer’s method of relying upon secondary sources to gather up critical accounts makes it more likely that he will make such errors, and less likely that he will read what is needed to correct them. His preoccupation with negative accounts likewise means that such things do not seem to be scrutinized very closely.That is the heart of the issue, why the Winchester error bears mentioning…

It does not seem necessary to add a long discursion (see above!) regarding the likely plagiarism. My concern is not really about the plagiarism (which can be an honest error). It is what it represents–the fact that Palmer is careless, he apparently relies upon secondary sources for his interpretation, and thus transports their biases along with them when they serve his rhetorical purposes.

Edited October 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

Footnote from Hales' essay, Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith's Pre-Nauvoo Reputation. Emphasis mine.

While low hanging fruit, wrapped in the bow of nitpicking, is tempting; sometimes it's best to be charitable.

Hales makes the exact same error of citation to the letter that Van Wagoner does. Fails to cite the entire title. Fails to realize that the piece is not really by Winchester but by an unattributed Tribune editor. Sloppy. No editorial control.

[ksfisher]

Please don't move the target; especially when you are trying to suggest that I did not search.

Where is the wikipedia entry on Bejamin F Winchester?

 

For the record; Benjamin F Winchester was born about 1846 and resided in Johnson County, Illinois in 1850, the son of Jesse and Matilda Winchester.

 

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=1&new=1&MSAV=1&gss=angs-g&gsfn=benjamin+f&gsln=winchester&cpxt=0&catBucket=rstp&uidh=esb&cp=0&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=16313405&db=1850usfedcenancestry&indiv=1&ml_rpos=9

 

I'm not sure he ever did anything noteworthy enough to earn a wikipedia article.

Edited October 14, 2014 by ksfisher

[Calm]

For the record; Benjamin F Winchester was born about 1846 and resided in Johnson County, Illinois, the son of Jesse and Matilda Winchester.

 

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=1&new=1&MSAV=1&gss=angs-g&gsfn=benjamin+f&gsln=winchester&cpxt=0&catBucket=rstp&uidh=esb&cp=0&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=16313405&db=1850usfedcenancestry&indiv=1&ml_rpos=9

 

I'm not sure he ever did anything noteworthy enough to earn a wikipedia article.

Not signed up, is that from an original source?

[ksfisher]

Not signed up, is that from an original source?

 

Yes.  Seen the scan of the original with my own two eyes.  You can get a free membership to Ancestry.com with your LDSaccount.

 

(I realize Benjamin F has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but there was a real person by that name.)

[tonie]

The FairMormon articles were citing Van Wagoner, who used "Benjamin F. Winchester." The FairMormon articles have been corrected.

 

I saw the edits, I think that instead of the a clunky edit of "Benjamin ... Winchester", to simply leave Van Wagners as he indicates Benjamin F Winchester; but add a footnote indicator explaining that present understanding is the Benjamin F Winchester is Benjamin Winchester. 

[tonie]

If you were concerned with FM perpetuating an error, all you had to do was write them.

 

What is the purpose of your thread?

 

The fairmormon womanizing article bears a disclaimer that it is a draft from GL Smith. With this disclaimer in mind, I suspect Fairmormon simply - acting in good faith - copied and pasted GL Smith's work.  As for the Kirkland Temple dedication fairmormon article, I do not have an idea why Fairmormon would identify BFW.

 

I do think that any statement attributed to BFW should remain attributed to BFW, with the footnote or other indicator explaining that BFW is presently believed to be BW.   I see no need to edite out the "F" when citing a source that attributes a statement to BFW.

 

I do wonder, when Smith and Hales came to the conclusion that BFW is a factual error.

Edited October 15, 2014 by tonie

[Wiki Wonka]

I saw the edits, I think that instead of the a clunky edit of "Benjamin ... Winchester", to simply leave Van Wagners as he indicates Benjamin F Winchester; but add a footnote indicator explaining that present understanding is the Benjamin F Winchester is Benjamin Winchester. 

 

I checked the wiki and we have a number of other references to Benjamin Winchester, but the only ones that used "F" were apparently those citing Van Wagoner.

 

I didn't like the ellipsis either, so here's how it reads now:

 

Van Wagoner continues to outline Joseph's supposed pattern of problems with women:

Benjamin F. Winchester^[3], Smith's close friend and leader of Philadelphia Mormons in the early 1840s, later recalled Kirtland accusations of scandal and "licentious conduct" hurled against Smith, "this more especially among the women. Joseph's name was connected with scandalous relations with two or three families."

 

The footnote 3 (somehow copies over here as "1") reads:

 

1. ↑ It should be noted that Van Wagoner incorrectly cites "Benjamin F. Winchester." It should be "Benjamin Winchester". See Brian C. Hales and Gregory L. Smith, "A Response to Grant Palmer’s 'Sexual Allegations against Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Polygamy in Nauvoo'," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 183-236 Note 3: "Van Wagoner likewise cites this source as “Benjamin F. Winchester.” Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 4."

Edited October 15, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[Wiki Wonka]

 

I do wonder, when Smith and Hales came to the conclusion that BFW is a factual error.

 

Hales' books are very, very thorough in tracking down the original sources. When Greg wrote the draft articles for the wiki, it was several years before Hales' books were published, so I sure that the identification of the error came from Hales' data.