Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canard78

The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

Recommended Posts

Its weird to me that this is so important and that what I have said is so offensive that it requires a formal CFR.

It is new (to me) or inaccurate (as I believe it to be) information that I ask CFRs for, offensive level has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post

An idiosyncratic definition -- or at least only partial. Dictionaries describe it thusly: "not truthful; wanting in veracity; diverging from or contrary to the truth; not corresponding with fact or reality."

ac·cu·ra·cy......

1.

the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precisionor exactness; correctness.

2.

Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value forthat measurement. Compare precision ( def 6 ) .

3.

Mathematics . the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision ( def 5) .

http://dictionary.re...se/accuracy?s=t Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted duplicate. My phone's got gremlins.

Edited by canard78

Share this post


Link to post

If you take definitions of definitions of definitions it can get really weird. But by the standard you have set, it does get to intent:

false·hood

noun \ˈfȯls-ˌhu̇d\

Definition of FALSEHOOD

1 : an untrue statement : lie

2 : absence of truth or accuracy

3 : the practice of lying : mendacity

I would like to be sure to point out though --- I do not believe this standard that you have established is valid.

Edited by CASteinman

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted duplicate. My phone's got gremlins.

Try not to get it wet or feed it after midnight....though I guess if it already has gremlins and not mogwais, it is too late.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to be sure to point out though --- I do not believe this standard that you have established is valid.

And yet you were the one who appealed to the dictionary to support your claim it was not "untruthful".

Share this post


Link to post

The case of Zina and her husbands are ones we are going to have to leave to God. I wish that we had better information than we do. Maybe the information we do have is not presented as well as we would wish. But we have to look at the target audience. The milk or meat audience.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

And yet you were the one who appealed to the dictionary to support your claim it was not "untruthful".

Its not the dictionary that's a problem. Its how it is used. You will note that I only looked up the word "untruthful". I did not go looking up other words and then relate them to untruthful. It was THAT which I consider to be invalid.

You should also note that I objected to looking up "definitions of definitions" which should have been a clue to this.

Edited by CASteinman

Share this post


Link to post

The case of Zina and her husbands are ones we are going to have to leave to God. I wish that we had better information than we do. Maybe the information we do have is not presented as well as we would wish. But we have to look at the target audience. The milk or meat audience.

And I understand that many who write such articles aren't historians and didn't have the resources we have now to easily find out details so they don't make mistakes.

I am looking forward to a more accurate presentation as people work harder at getting historical information out there and available. It may take some time, but I see it happening overall.

Share this post


Link to post

A quick look around at what I think might be the sources for the CFR indicates to me that I have to purchase one or two books and I have to write to a couple of people. This may take me a week or so.

Share this post


Link to post

A quick look around at what I think might be the sources for the CFR indicates to me that I have to purchase one or two books and I have to write to a couple of people. This may take me a week or so.

Thank you for making the effort.

Share this post


Link to post

It is new (to me) or inaccurate (as I believe it to be) information that I ask CFRs for, offensive level has nothing to do with it.

Exactly, sometimes a CFR is simply 'where did you read that, I'd like to read it too.'

Share this post


Link to post

The case of Zina and her husbands are ones we are going to have to leave to God. I wish that we had better information than we do. Maybe the information we do have is not presented as well as we would wish. But we have to look at the target audience. The milk or meat audience.

Glenn

I agree that these three articles I've cited are probably a mixture of mostly ignorance coupled with some well-intentioned 'for milk drinkers' summary.

I don't believe there is some big conspiracy cover up. But I do consider it a problem that the church offers very few official sources for those who are ready for meat. Can you show me one official LDS source that gives the meat of Zina and polyandry?

I think the whole milk/meat line is also a little overused to justify inaccuracies. If milk can only be achieved by being inaccurate (as opposed to selective) surely this isn't justified? This was the same conversation I was having with about Moroni 7 with CASteinman, at would point are the ends NOT justified by the means?

Is it good or of God to be inaccurate (the means) if the end is promoting the faith of milk drinkers?

"12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually."(Book of Mormon, Moroni, Moroni 7)

Share this post


Link to post

A quick look around at what I think might be the sources for the CFR indicates to me that I have to purchase one or two books and I have to write to a couple of people. This may take me a week or so.

Thanks. It would be an interesting addition to the 'story' if this was initiated/suggested by Henry. I'll happily wait.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks. It would be an interesting addition to the 'story' if this was initiated/suggested by Henry. I'll happily wait.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly, sometimes a CFR is simply 'where did you read that, I'd like to read it too.'

May I suggest in that case that you simply state your wish and save the CFR for really tough ones. Just a though, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post

Henry didn't leave Zina for "another woman." He had already submitted to priesthood authority and given up Zina to Brigham Young before he left on his mission. Furthermore, Zina's biographers note that by the time of Henry's engagement to Asenath Babcock, "Zina considered herself part of Brigham Young’s family" (see Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, 4 Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000], 153).

Thank you for setting the record straight. Henry did take another wife only after BY took Zina from him.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks. It would be an interesting addition to the 'story' if this was initiated/suggested by Henry. I'll happily wait.

I didn't say it was initiated by him.

In fact, since she was not so happy in the marriage with him it COULD have been initiated by her. But I don't think so.

I think he was told of Joseph Smiths desires to have her sealed to an Apostle. He had already agreed with Joseph that she was Joseph's eternal wife and he relinquished claims upon her. Nevertheless, he would have had to have decided to follow Joseph's wishes after Joseph died. Whether this was a hard or easy decision I do not know but he did decide to turn her over to someone else. Perhaps her unhappiness made it easier. Brigham Young reminded him of his duty but he still had to decide.

Edited by CASteinman

Share this post


Link to post

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

1000+

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for setting the record straight. Henry did take another wife only after BY took Zina from him.

I have to write to do some research as I said because the only source I can find for some if this is not on the Internet

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I see is that you are looking for definitive, simple answers to complex relationships. Look about you even in our monogamous relationships couples sometimes separate for reasons that they often can not explain to themselves and their families. The opportunities of polygamy just adds another layer of complexity. Even with what is written we will never get inside their heads for definitive answers. Things like the upheaval of the expulsion, the uncertainty of whether they were going to starve all played into the dynamics of Zina's decisions. I really caution you in your attempts to find simple solutions from our modern position of ease and comfort.

Share this post


Link to post

May I suggest in that case that you simply state your wish and save the CFR for really tough ones. Just a though, carry on.

Good advice. Though this actually is a tough one.

Unfortunately it's value is not nearly in line with the toughness of the effort. I have to think the main reason people care so much is that this is a big hang up for them. I don't understand that but everyone is different and it seems its more than one person who is troubled

Edited by CASteinman

Share this post


Link to post

May I suggest in that case that you simply state your wish and save the CFR for really tough ones. Just a though, carry on.

Thanks, will bare that (bear that?) in mind.

I guess 'CFR' starts as a call for references (which is a neutral statement) but often has the implication of 'I don't believe you, prove it' so for some may be taken as a confrontation.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By canard78
      On another thread, cdowis, in his inimitable style, called for a CFR for Joseph Smith's Polyandry, specifically that he had intimate relations with three married women. I had briefly referenced Brian Hales.
       
      I'll answer this CFR in more detail in my second post. For starters, here's a reference to Joseph's polyandry on LDS.org (search results linking to josephsmithpapers.org):
       
      (emphasis added)
       
      As such I'm a little surprised by cdowis' suggesting I'm "peddling nonsense" when I'm basing my conclusions of Joseph being in polyandrous relationships on the work of Brian Hales, Richard Bushman and josephsmithpapers.org. Perhaps his specific concern was my suggestion that Joseph appeared to have had intimate relations with three of his polyandrous wives (while they were legally married to another living man). As mentioned, I'll answer that in a second post.
       
      What also interests me is whether this practice has scriptural precedent. In the same thread, 'lvjd66' referenced Ruth as a scriptural precedent for polyandry.That seems an odd example, given her first husband was dead before she even met Boaz. As such, I've asked him whether he still claims polyandry has scriptural precedent. At his request I've moved the question out of his SSM thread.
       
      In a different thread, stargazer said (in reference to Helen Marr Kimball's marriage 'for life only' to Horrace K. Whitney while being sealed to Joseph):
       
       
      I'm not actually sure this does justify polyandry but would be interested in more information to consider it.
       
      So here's the question:
       
      Based on your understanding and conclusions about Joseph's polyandry, is there scriptural precedent?
       
      If not (and this isn't a 'sola scriptura' argument), is this practice instead an unprecedented revelation to Joseph, rather than a (short lived) restoration of old doctrines? As President Uchtdorf said, "the Restoration is an ongoing process we are living in it right now. It includes “all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,” and the “many great and important things” that “He will yet reveal.”
       
      Does the ongoing restoration always need precedent or could there be things we are taught as part of God's ongoing revelations that have no precedent at all?
    • By Stone holm
      In several of the threads discussing what was said in the recent Church essay on polygamy, Commenters have made the argument that the Church allows the sealing of deceased women to more than one man, that there is some evidence that Joseph Smith may have been sealed to married women, and personal knowledge of special exceptions having been granted allowing living women to be sealed to a living man when they have been previously sealed to a deceased man.  This evidence is usually used in an attempt to discredit the idea that polygamy is doctrinal or to assert that it is "unjust".  Sometimes with the further argument that it has been disavowed as doctrine.
       
      My personal feeling is that these arguments may perhaps provide the evidentiary basis for acceptance of polyandry, but are not evidence that polygamy was never doctrine, or that it is disavowed doctrine.  While I am of the firm belief that polygamy has not been disavowed as a doctrine that only applies when the Lord says it should, and while I am doubtful that the Church by its actions ever intended to sanction polyandry -- I do not know what to think of the arguments that several Sisters have made that suggest otherwise.  So this is not strictly a rhetorical question.  What is the likelihood that the Church would in the future, or has it in the past, acknowledged polyandry as a possible state for eternal couples in the Celestial Kingdom?  By asking this question, I do not want to be mistaken as asserting that this is what the Sisters were intending by their arguments, they were intending to promote something more like monogamy -- it is simply my understanding of where their arguments actual lead, which is not to overthrowing polygamy, but supporting polyandry.  Your comments please.
    • By DonBradley
      Hi All,
      Most of you are aware of Brian Hales's new books on Joseph Smith and polygamy.
      Brian documents Joseph Smith's polygamy in some detail, including Joseph's several sealings to women legally married to other men. Brian marshals evidence that these marriages, while "ceremonially polyandrous," were not sexually polyandrous: a wife was not having sexual relations with more than one husband during the same time period. In other words, she effectively went from being one man's wife to being another man's wife, rather than having two true husbands at the same time.
      Brian finds none of the evidence for sexual polyandry incontrovertible or persuasive, and presents evidence against it (e.g., D&C 132's apparent condemnation of multiple husbands).
      Not everyone is convinced by his arguments, and this is perhaps the primary basis on which some have dismissed him as an apologist.
      As Brian's primary researcher and good friend, I helped craft some of the arguments he presents on this subject, and I think the case he can present on this is quite substantive.
      But given that not everyone is persuaded by these arguments, and given that we never know what could pop up in further sources, I wonder how other believing Latter-day Saints might react if they became convinced some of Joseph's marriages were sexually polyandrous.
      Suppose hypothetically that a source were to turn up which established Joseph's participation in sexual polyandry beyond doubt (and, by the way, while I have materials not in Brian's books, I am aware of no such source). What would you make of it?
      One could lose faith over it.
      Or one could believe it justified because, as Joseph once wrote, "whatever the Lord requires is right"?
      Or one could theologize it--e.g., understanding polyandry as not necessarily evil, just as polygyny isn't, and might perhaps exist in the celestial kingdom.
      Or one could explain it based on the needs of the time--that it served some temporary function in the 1840s that was no longer needed later and won't be needed after this life either.
      Or...what? I'm sure this doesn't exhaust the options
      I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?
      Thoughts?
      Don
×
×
  • Create New...