Philo Dibble Sr. KWJ5-25V

TF1001

Another patron continually attaches a spouse (Charlotte Cole, LR64-K4X) to this early Church leader. However, I have posted in Philo's collaboration page a discussion about the validity of this spouse. I am needing assistance from FamilySearch in this matter to resolve the issue.

• Charlotte Cole was married to her husband during the time of what appears to be an Endowment House sealing in 1874 to Philo Dibble.
• Because Charlotte was married to her husband when that sealing took place, I have referred to an adoption sealing practice as the explanation -- when the members thought that by "sealing" women to early Church leaders they would be granted Heaven's blessings. See https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/my-ancestor-is-sealed-to-an-unrelated-early-church-leader (there are additional citations in those guidelines)
• The same patron who wishes to attach Charlotte to Philo has stated in a private message to me that Charlotte was briefly separated from her husband (Robert Thomas Mills), due to immigration issues, during the time the Philo sealing took place. Later, says this patron, Charlotte reunited with her husband when Robert immigrated. I was not given evidence about how this patron knew that. This patron uses it as reasoning that Charlotte was a plural wife and should be attached to Philo. However, even if this brief separation were true, I cannot imagine that the Church (even then) would have allowed a regular marriage to happen with a still-married woman who had children with another man and was only briefly separated due to immigration issues.
• Therefore, if I look at the facts and not conjecture or loose storytelling, it makes the most sense that Charlotte was an adoption sealing to Philo, since she was married to her husband Robert to the end of her life.
• If we follow this reasoning, we would detach Charlotte from Philo, which follows the Church guidelines to not attach adoption sealing relationships.

Could I get a response from FamilySearch as to what to do with this case? Philo Dibble Sr. is listed in Church history as an important figure. Most well-known is his help in recording what happened with the revelation found in D&C 76 -- https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1993-05-29/section-76-contains-a-series-of-visions-142401

Thanks!!

CHold

Your question will be forwarded to a specialty team for review and resolution. You may be contacted by that team if they need more information.

TF1001

Thank you CHold.

Bryan54

Charlotte Cole LR64-K4X: Private message sent to guest with an update on the issue.

TF1001

@CHold and @Bryan54 Thank you for your help on this issue. I have updated Philo Dibble's page with a discussion post entitled "Attachment of Charlotte Cole LR64-K4X." I would like to detach Charlotte Cole from Philo because the records indicate this relationship was an adoption sealing, but I need FamilySearch's help.

There is another patron who will immediately attach Charlotte if I detach her. He will likely claim she is a plural wife, but that would not make sense from the research since she was still married to another man. He also refuses to acknowledge law-of-adoption sealings.

I want to avoid a continuous loop of detaching her, even though I have reviewed the facts and Church guidelines.

Do you have any advice about how to resolve this issue for this early Church leader?

TF1001

I am waiting to hear from The Liahona staff as to if they have a Philo Dibble diary in archive -- it was part of a 1970s Ensign article. If not, then all other known sources and repositories do not have a Philo Dibble diary for the 1874 time period that may add further light to this issue.

Unless something more is found (like a first-hand diary), the current analysis is this case is that it is a law-of-adoption sealing. I have recounted the research in a Discussion post on Philo's page.

I would not be able to detach Charlotte Cole, however, because another patron will re-attach her, even with the sources, research, and Church guidelines. Philo's page would need to be locked and taken over by FamilySearch to clean it up.

Scott Charles Sorensen

Hi Terra, just a reminder that Charlotte and Robert were separated for 11 years, not briefly. Marriage laws were not the same in frontier 19th century American as we understand now. This marriage of Philo and Charlotte was approved by the prophet and the Church due to the difficulty of getting a civil divorce when the spouse was a continent away (See the events that lead to the murder of Parley P. Pratt for a similar scenario). The records do not indicate this was an adoption sealing. Law-of-adoption sealings did not occur during the time period of this sealing. They occured briefly during the Nauvoo period and later after the St. George Temple was dedicated. Let’s call this what it really was: a plural marriage that did not work out.

Under FamilySearch policy, we are to attach plural marriages. See my notes and references under the Notes tab on Philo Dibble’s FamilySearch profile.

dontiknowyou

I am an uninvolved observer here. I don't know or know of any parties involved, living or deceased. I just happened to read this Discussion when it began and I am reading it again now 6 months later. So I read the notes and browsed through the sources on the profiles in question, and this is what I see:

1. This is a very ordinary, run of the mill Family Tree content dispute with two sides, that boils down to whether or not to treat LR64-K4X Charlotte Cole and KWJ5-25V Philo Dibble as a couple.
2. Forgetting that Family Tree is based on historical records, advocates on both sides are engaging in synthesis.
3. So long as there are contradictory historical records, or a lack of records, and ambiguity remains---so long as there is an objectively valid content dispute---synthesis is premature.
4. To me this content dispute looks unquestionably valid and perhaps even of historical significance. It makes me wonder what happened and hope that additional historical records will turn up some day and shed light on the curious events that are documented.
5. I have an opinion about which side has the stronger case at this time, but opinion is irrelevant here so I won't share it.
6. To me, what seems relevant---and far more important---is that the content dispute should remain unresolved until such time as new information settles the matter.
7. There is room in Family Tree for much ambiguity.
8. Tincture of time is a great remedy.

So, @terraf and @Scott Charles Sorensen, may I gently suggest you both take a step back? Don't worry so much about whether a couple relationship is instantiated in the tree. Instead, dig deeper. Work on refining and expanding your respective arguments and evidence, and consider writing and publishing an article together. Use the emotional energy of this content dispute to create a scholarly collaboration.

Oh, and I congratulate you both for keeping it civil.

TF1001

I have requested to FamilySearch that this posting be closed. There is no more discussion to be had in this forum, nor outsider comments necessary.

All the known relevant facts without bias and based upon Church guidelines and Genealogy Proof Standard are on the relevant ancestors' pages in the discussion section. Anyone who wishes can review what has been pursued.