The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Tacenda]

I wouldn't say I have high scholarly expectations for the Friend, but I would say I have high truth expectations for any church publications whether it be the Friend or the Ensign.

True that!

[Glenn101]

This marriage is troubling in many ways. Even if you believe the premise that God commanded Joseph to marry 30+ women, he still violated many of the requirements for a polygamous marriage as outlined in D&C 132 61-63

https://www.lds.org/...dc/132?lang=eng

61-And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse ^aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified...

63-But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to ^amultiply and replenish the earth...

The scriptures clearly state that in order to enter into a polygamous marriage the following must occur:

1. The additional wife must be a virgin, which Zina clearly was not.

2. The husband must first attempt to gain the consent of his first wife, which did not happen as Emma was not even aware of Joseph's polygamy until I believe 1843.

3. Once espoused she cannot be with another man or she will be destroyed. Zina still continued to live with William and was never destroyed.

4. The only justification I've seen for polygamy in the scriptures is to "multiply and replenish the earth" or "raise up seed". Clearly Zina needed no help with this as she was pregnant with William's child.

5. It is often stated that the sealings to Joseph were needed to for the wive's (and sometimes all of her family's) salvation. Why when she was already sealed to a righteous husband? Why the polyandrous marriage to BY if she was sealed to Joseph?

I think that you are reading more into that scripture than is actually there. You need to read all of section 132 in context.

Section 132 Verse 39 states, "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

David married at least one woman who was not a virgin at the time. Abigail had been married to Nabal, a Carmelite until this Nabal was smote by the Lord that he died. Upon hearing of this, Davis sent for Abigail and took her to wife. Verse 39 states that all of David's wives and concubines were given to him except Bathsheba. So, being a virgin is not a requirement to becoming a plural wife in the new and everlasting covenant.

Glenn

[canard78]

1) The people who write manuals and online, often haven't done all the research. And as even this thread points out, it is easy to know some of the story and not know all of it.

2) There just isn't any way to figure this all out in today's world. Maybe someday we'll know, but we just don't have the information required to understand this, and it is not appropriate to ignore the fact that we cannot in 2013, impose our view on what happened.

1) I agree that the original misinformation is probably through ignorance and not through intentional receipt. But should this be clarified and corrected when we can? Is it ok to only give part of the truth even when we have all of it?

2) But we can at least state facts. Zina was sealed for eternity to the deceased Joseph Smith and then to Brigham for time only while married to her first husband and expecting her second child with him. The temple records show this. So he had not deserted her when Brigham married her.

What is 'sealed for time' if not a basic 'till death do us part' marriage? There's no meaningful sealing actually happening.

[CASteinman]

The scriptures clearly state that in order to enter into a polygamous marriage the following must occur:

1. The additional wife must be a virgin, which Zina clearly was not.

2. The husband must first attempt to gain the consent of his first wife, which did not happen as Emma was not even aware of Joseph's polygamy until I believe 1843.

3. Once espoused she cannot be with another man or she will be destroyed. Zina still continued to live with William and was never destroyed.

4. The only justification I've seen for polygamy in the scriptures is to "multiply and replenish the earth" or "raise up seed". Clearly Zina needed no help with this as she was pregnant with William's child.

5. It is often stated that the sealings to Joseph were needed to for the wive's (and sometimes all of her family's) salvation. Why when she was already sealed to a righteous husband? Why the polyandrous marriage to BY if she was sealed to Joseph?

1. Where does the word "Must be a virgin" show up in the revelation? When it uses that 'virgin', what does it mean by the term?

2. Why are you ignoring verse 65?

3. Where does the term "live with" appear in 132? Where does it say that people cannot live together?

4. The only justification you have seen for the principle of it. However, that also is the principle behind ordinary monogamous marriage. Yet when people are not able to have children we do not violate the marriage and trade partners. And if a person has already had "enough" children we do not prevent them from remarrying. So your logical concern here ends up having no real logical foundation.

5. What is "often said" is sort of vague. Give attribution and the specific instance may be discussed. However, the marriage to BY has been explained in this thread. Why ignore that?

Edited April 29, 2013 by CASteinman

[canard78]

If it helps people -- yes.

Can you expand a little?

Is this similar morality to slaying Laban? It's ok to be inaccurate with information (even 'lie for the Lord') is the majority have stronger faith because of it. It doesn't matter if a few discover the truth and lose their faith because of it as long as the faith of the majority is maintained. Or "13... It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."(Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, 1 Nephi 4)

Or did you have something else in mind?

[CASteinman]

I wouldn't say I have high scholarly expectations for the Friend, but I would say I have high truth expectations for any church publications whether it be the Friend or the Ensign.

There wasn't anything untruthful in the Friend account.

[CASteinman]

Can you expand a little?

Really? Does it need it? When things help people to do good and to obey Christ they are good. Shall I quote scriptures to you? Scriptures you don't really believe anyway?

Is this similar morality to slaying Laban?

Not really. But the ends may be the same.

It's ok to be inaccurate with information (even 'lie for the Lord') is the majority have stronger faith because of it.

There is no reason to extend things to hypotheticals.

It doesn't matter if a few discover the truth and lose their faith because of it as long as the faith of the majority is maintained.

No one who discovered the truth ever lost their faith. Its impossible. People lose their faith either by basing it on the wrong things, by discovering half truths and lies, becoming shamed and losing their way or by sin.

Or did you have something else in mind?

Well I definitely wasn't talking about killing Laban.

[canard78]

Are you suggesting that the Friend article should have looked more like a Wikipedia or fairmormon article, and that faith crises have occurred because if this?

No, I'm saying that if people search lds.org for information on Zina Huntington today (using google site search), the first three and the mast comprehensive articles the church has published officially on her (that I can find) have misinformation in them. All three of them.

I'm not saying anyone based their testimony on a 1980s friend article about a little known woman in the church and their faith is undermined when the history turns out differently... I'm saying that if someone today has their faith challenged by discovering the real story of Zina it can be further challenged if they go to official sources and if looks like a 'cover-up.'

I'm not even saying the 1980s articles are intentional cover-ups. They might be simple misinformation through ignorance (though that would surprise me in the case of the article by the great grand daughter given the primary sources she had access to).

But I am saying the church sources on Zina + Henry/Joseph/Brigham are inaccurate and could be made 'not so' if they wanted to. That's their choice. As I've mentioned to CASteinman, perhaps the ends justify the means. Maybe those that can't deal with the confusing history+latter-day misinformation are simply collateral damage. If the majority have their faith increased through a limited sharing of the facts (sprinkled with a few 'non-facts') then maybe that's the best option available.

[canard78]

There wasn't anything untruthful in the Friend account.

Simple question. The Friend article states:

"After Henry deserted Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young..."

Please select one answer. The statement above is:

a) True

b) False

Read this article which has the dates of her marriage to Henry, Joseph and Brigham. Henry had not deserted Zina & 2 kids before she married Brigham. I don't even see evidence that he deserted her at all (he was sent on a mission by Brigham).

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There wasn't anything untruthful in the Friend account.

Do you really stand by that? The friend article says "After Henry deserted Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young"

Fair says that Brigham and Zina were married in Nauvoo on 2 Feb 1846. Fair goes on to state that

There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together.

The separation happened at Mt. Pisgah which was several months after her marriage to Brigham. Please help me see what I am missing?

[canard78]

Really? Does it need it? When things help people to do good and to obey Christ they are good. Shall I quote scriptures to you? Scriptures you don't really believe anyway?

Please don't patronise me with assumptions about what I do and don't believe. I do believe the scriptures (but I might have a different perspective to you on their provenance). In fact, an Alma 32 approach to testing the scriptures means I even know principles in the are true.

So what is this scripture that backs up your position?

A "more express to work on the hearts" approach to information (D&C 19:7 style)? Or we're you thinking of something else?

Not really. But the ends may be the same.

There is no reason to extend things to hypotheticals.

No one who discovered the truth ever lost their faith. Its impossible. People lose their faith either by basing it on the wrong things, by discovering half truths and lies, becoming shamed and losing their way or by sin.

Again you're making presumptions on other people's behalf.

What sin/shame/half-truth has undermined MY faith?

What wrong principle have I based my testimony on? The Book of Mormon as the word of God? Joseph Smith a prophet called by divine command? The Jesus as described by LDS doctrine as my Saviour? Which of those were the wrong principle to base my testimony on?

If a person has based their testimony on the above three things but then discovers truths that shake and undermine that confidence, where have they gone wrong?

Well I definitely wasn't talking about killing Laban.

Then please do let me know what you were taking about.

[CASteinman]

I'm saying that if someone today has their faith challenged by discovering the real story of Zina it can be further challenged if they go to official sources and if looks like a 'cover-up.'

Fortunately it does not have that appearance so not to worry, eh?

I'm not even saying the 1980s articles are intentional cover-ups. They might be simple misinformation through ignorance (though that would surprise me in the case of the article by the great grand daughter given the primary sources she had access to).

And her primary sources are not as good as yours I suppose.

[CASteinman]

Please select one answer. The statement above is:

a) True

b) False

Simple answer: True. Don't go asking for a complex answer now that I have complied with your simple one. Because that is an unfair game.

Edited April 29, 2013 by CASteinman

[Nevo]

Simple answer: True. Don't go asking for a complex answer now that I have complied with your simple one.

And this is why it's not worth the trouble to engage CASteinman. He's a troll.

[canard78]

And this is why it's not worth the trouble to engage CASteinman. He's a troll.

I'm inclined to agree. Saying something is 'true' with no willingness or even ability to defend that statement appears to be an exercise in being a wind up merchant.

[CASteinman]

Do you really stand by that? The friend article says "After Henry deserted Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young"

I don't think the article was particularly untruthful. I think it was adapted for small children in a way that is appropriate for them and probably based upon a specific biography. As a result, I don't think any of it was untruthful.

Edited April 29, 2013 by CASteinman

[Calm]

I don't think the article was particularly untruthful. I think it was adapted for small children in a way that is appropriate for them and probably based upon a specific biography. As a result, I don't think any of it was untruthful.

"Deserted" is a negative connotation that does not apply to a mission. Is Brigham ever described as having deserted his family when he went on a mission? It turns Henry into an abusive or neglectful husband when there is no evidence that he was and it would be a false accusation to make without evidence.

Even "left" would have been better.

Edited April 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think the article was particularly untruthful. I think it was adapted for small children in a way that is appropriate for them and probably based upon a specific biography. As a result, I don't think any of it was untruthful.

So do you consider the statement in isolation to be false? You just feel that the author was simplifying for children/mistaken? Hence while the statement is false, it is also true? Please forgive if I am misrepresenting. I'm just trying to understand your position.

[CASteinman]

Please don't patronise me with assumptions about what I do and don't believe.

I didn't think of patronizing you with assumptions. I thought you had said this previously. Maybe I was in error.

So what is this scripture that backs up your position?

Moroni Chapter 7 verses 12 and 13. I am sure that there are more.

A "more express to work on the hearts" approach to information (D&C 19:7 style)? Or we're you thinking of something else?

I firmly believe in that, but I was thinking of something else. Namely: "But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and benticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God"

Again you're making presumptions on other people's behalf.

No, you presented a hypothetical. An offensive one at that. I presume its a hypothetical. I am not supposing it is an assumption -- which would have been worse.

What sin/shame/half-truth has undermined MY faith? What wrong principle have I based my testimony on? The Book of Mormon as the word of God? Joseph Smith a prophet called by divine command? The Jesus as described by LDS doctrine as my Saviour? Which of those were the wrong principle to base my testimony on?

How would I know? I don't know you. I am not a mind reader. Apparently I haven't even read things correctly -- and you are still a believer. In which case, how would I know something that isn't even a matter of fact?

If a person has based their testimony on the above three things but then discovers truths that shake and undermine that confidence, where have they gone wrong?

Perhaps, thinking that they have discovered truths that they understood correctly. Or perhaps thinking that they actually had faith in the work previously. Or perhaps sin that entered and allowed doubts to come in through other means. There are so many ways. and different people are each unique.

Then please do let me know what you were taking about.

Moroni chapter 7.

[CASteinman]

I'm inclined to agree. Saying something is 'true' with no willingness or even ability to defend that statement appears to be an exercise in being a wind up merchant.

I would have been more than willing if you had not been playing "Lets make him say something and then deny it" game. Its not the way to hold an honest conversation. It not a simple answer as you should know. But if you insist on limiting me to one, I can insist on being limited to one.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

"Deserted" is a negative connotation that does not apply to a mission.

Certainly is negative in appearance. Which is fine for children in my opinion. But, she apparently married Brigham Young in his Henry's presence. Apparently not exactly on a mission then.

It turns Henry into an abusive or neglectful husband when there is no evidence that he was and it would be a false accusation to make without evidence.

Well, that would depend.

I agree with you it could have been worded better. And it could have been worded in a way that would have not made anyone to look bad. And that is probably what people would like to see. That does not make what was said untruthful. Just not well said or matching what most people would think of as "the facts as I see it".

I will give an example of how it could have been worded better -- but also, while I do this, I am not sure this would make one bit of difference to children:

"After Henry decided she should be married to one of the Apostles, she chose to be married to Brigham Young." But this is not really any better for children and is possibly more confusing.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

And this is why it's not worth the trouble to engage CASteinman. He's a troll.

Well, at least I don't call people names and invite other people to be unkind to them. Everyone has something to work on.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[canard78]

Thanks Cal. 'Unthruthful' simply means 'inaccurate information.'

It would also be fair to say there is a lot of 'misinformation' about Zina from critics too, and I tried to avoid that in my OP. The accusation that Henry was sent away in some "Uriah and David" style deceit is unfair, given Henry was a witness at the sealing.

This statement is also often wheeled out:

Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men's shoes to step out of them. "Brother Jacobs," he says, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."[11]

William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, 1852, pp. 43-44.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

There is only one source for this. His statement undoes itself. If it was apparently said in the presence of 100s, but only he recorded it (in a book called: The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed!!) then one can reasonably question that validity of the statement. That doesn't prove it false, but at least undermines its credibility. Are there additional sources for this claim?

I don't fully understand why the marriages were performed. But that doesn't have to make them some twisted, hedonistic love triangle.

One thing that did occur to me.

The first 3 RS president were either wife to Joseph (Emma) or to Joseph and later Brigham (Eliza and Zina).

Number 4 was Bathsheba W. Smith, wife of George A. (not the prophet), a 1st Cllr on the Presidency to Brigham.

Number 5 was Emmeline B. Wells, wife of Newel K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop in the church (her second husband, after her first had gone AWOL while travelling looking for work).

Zina was, by all accounts, an exceptionally talented woman. It's clear that in the culture of the early days the female leaders needed some status or profile from their marriage. I know we balk at that today. But that's the way it was. As wife of Henry, she probably would not have been able to be called as RS president. As wife of Joseph then Brigham she was.

Could God have called someone else without creating the messy multiple marriage situation. Yes. But I'm just trying to explore all sides of the story.

[canard78]

Well, at least I don't call people names and invite other people to be unkind to them. Everyone has something to work on.

But you do seem to make presumptions about other people's faith. I notice you've not replied to my response on that yet.

ETA: I've just seen you have a few posts back.

Edited April 30, 2013 by canard78

[CASteinman]

So do you consider the statement in isolation to be false?

Not really. It is not worded the way I would have done it because it makes it sound as though she was left destitute, which is not exactly how it was. But I don't think its fair to take statements in isolation.

You just feel that the author was simplifying for children/mistaken? Hence while the statement is false, it is also true? Please forgive if I am misrepresenting. I'm just trying to understand your position.

I don't think the author was being the least bit untruthful. I think the author got (her?) ideas from reading up on what happened and read an account that made it appear, not through explicit statement but through not saying anything at all, as though there was some sort of dissolving of Henry's attentions toward his wife.

Having said that, I do believe that Henry forsook her.

I do not think for one moment his name should be held in infamy for that -- since it was an heroic thing.