BREAKING NEWS: Major Article Exposing Churches "Prop 8" Activity in the Works

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

You are welcome to your opinion.  I just personally don't think it has much of a constitutional ground to stand on when all these other courts and judges have ruled completely opposite of your belief.  I am sure that doesn't matter one bit to you.  So carry on.

You are standing on what mortal judges have said and seemingly think that is the end all.  These same courts and these same judges declared that homosexual activity was against the law until just a few years ago.  Are you saying that as long as we get judges to declare what is and what is not in the US Constituion you will go along with it?  

Roe v Wade remains a controversial piece of judicial overreach simply becuase it appears to be created out of whole cloth, yet the majority declared it.  Obviously, I don't trust the judges near as much as you do or, at least, choose to do when the judgment is in your favor.  

Don't look now, Cal, but that piece of ground you are standing on is made entirely out of sand.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Not woman...but women.  So it's acceptable that the family unit can look like what BY practiced below (polygamy and polyandry), but two gay people who love each other and want to be together and married is unacceptable?  There are way more gay people in the world than members of the church -- and IMO -- it's a pointless fight the church will never win.  

After the passing of Prop 8, I attended a protest rally in front of city hall in San Francisco.  There were thousands of protesters there, protesting the taking away of their civil right to marry.  I made a sign that said "Brigham Young had 54 spouses. we only want one"  Everyone got the point.  The church that had once been persecuted for redefining the definition of marriage in this country was now the persecutors of gays who were redefining the definition of marriage in this country.  Many came up to me and asked if I was Mormon.  What was amazing to me is how many of them that asked told me they also used to be Mormon.

My sign caught the attention of a reporter, working for the AP.  He interviewed me about my feelings on what the church had done.  The article ended up getting picked up by several major newspapers across the country.

It seems like only Mormons do not see the irony of their own crusade.  I get it.  When you believe God has ordered you to take away the civil rights of gays, nothing else matters.  And if you have to somehow slice and dice your own beliefs to make it fit, then there is really no problem in doing that.  There are people on this board who have literally said that someone living polygamy is really only married to one woman.  People like Nephi have murdered because they believed God told him to.  Wars have been fought because someone thought it was the will of God.  Teenage girls have married men who were already married that were old enough to be their grandfather because they believe God was supporting their cause.  Not allowing gays to marry seems like an easy thing to justify by those that believe God is leading their cause.  Calling gay couples apostates seems like an easy thing to justify when you believe God supports your cause.  Forbidding their children to be baptized seems like an easy thing to justify when you believe God supports your cause.  What would church members not do to gay couples when they believe God supports their cause?

 

 

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You are standing on what mortal judges have said and seemingly think that is the end all.  These same courts and these same judges declared that homosexual activity was against the law until just a few years ago.  Are you saying that as long as we get judges to declare what is and what is not in the US Constituion you will go along with it?  

Roe v Wade a controversial piece of judicial overreach simply becuase it appears to be created out of whole cloth, yet the majority declared it.  Obviously, I don't trust the judges near as much as you do or, at least, choose to do when the judgment is in your favor.  

Don't look now, Cal, but that piece of ground you are standing on is made entirely out of sand.

'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' 

- Martin Luther King.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

After the passing of Prop 8, I attended a protest rally in front of city hall in San Francisco.  There were thousands of protesters there, protesting the taking away of their civil right to marry.  I made a sign that said "Brigham Young had 54 spouses. we only want one"  Everyone got the point.  The church that had once been persecuted for redefining the definition of marriage in this country was now the persecutors of gays who were redefining the definition of marriage in this country.  Many came up to me and asked if I was Mormon.  What was amazing to me is how many of them that asked told me they also used to be Mormon.

My sign caught the attention of a reporter, working for the AP.  He interviewed me about my feelings on what the church had done.  The article ended up getting picked up by several major newspapers across the country.

It seems like only Mormons do not see the irony of their own crusade.  I get it.  When you believe God has ordered you to take away the civil rights of gays, nothing else matters.  And if you have to somehow slice and dice your own beliefs to make it fit, then there is really no problem in doing that.  There are people on this board who have literally said that someone living polygamy is really only married to one woman.  People like Nephi have murdered because they believed God told him to.  Wars have been fought because someone thought it was the will of God.  Teenage girls have married men who were already married that were old enough to be their grandfather because they believe God was supporting their cause.  Not allowing gays to marry seems like an easy thing to justify by those that believe God is leading their cause.  Calling gay couples apostates seems like an easy thing to justify when you believe God supports your cause.  Forbidding their children to be baptized seems like an easy thing to justify when you believe God supports your cause.  What would church members not do to gay couples when they believe God supports their cause?

 

 

You stated it better than I ever could!  It's also important to make note that the church practiced polygamy even after BY, so numerous early prophets/leaders engaged in this practice for many years.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[JAHS]

So I believe here are the actual "leaked" documents the original OP is about. Sorry if they have already been posted.

Proposition 8 Proposition 8 Grassroots Program Grassroots Program

Proposition 8 Volunteer Outline

[Darren10]

18 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Zina Huntington Jacobs

Wrong. She was quite divorced from her first husbsnd and her second husbsnd in the polygsmous marriage was quite deadwhen she moved in with Brigham as his wife.

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

This is why I have grown tired of these threads.  As if the only marriages allowed are those that promise to bear children.  Darren has heard this before, yet still thinks it is a good argument.  Is anyone going to change their mind about gay marriage at the end of this thread?  With arguments like this, I would guess no.  Those that oppose gay marriage evidently think these are legitimate reasons to deny gays from marrying.  Those that support gay marriage see this argument as down right silly since we don't judge any other marriage by whether can or even want to procreate.  

What is the point?  Gay marriage is legal.  The Mormon church does not support it.  End of story.

That is the primary purpose of marriage so far as society's interests are concerned. By and large society is moving past that and including the romantic notion of marriage. I find thst dangerous. It harms society and spirituality. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

You are welcome to your opinion.  I just personally don't think it has much of a constitutional ground to stand on when all these other courts and judges have ruled completely opposite of your belief.  I am sure that doesn't matter one bit to you.  So carry on.

200 + years, yo...200 + years. 

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So I believe here are the actual "leaked" documents the original OP is about. Sorry if they have already been posted.

Proposition 8 Proposition 8 Grassroots Program Grassroots Program

Proposition 8 Volunteer Outline

This stuff just makes me sick all over again.  The lies and distortions coming from a church that claims to be the church of Christ. Unbelievable 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

That is the primary purpose of marriage so far as society's interests are concerned. By and large society is moving past that and including the romantic notion of marriage. I find thst dangerous. It harms society and spirituality. 

Rolling my eyes.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So I believe here are the actual "leaked" documents the original OP is about. Sorry if they have already been posted.

Proposition 8 Proposition 8 Grassroots Program Grassroots Program

Proposition 8 Volunteer Outline

I looked at the links and I'm not seeing much that's very exciting or surprising.  Am I missing something (sincere question)?

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Rolling my eyes.

In the outline, (Paraphrasing) it seems to say that righteousness should precede tolerance.  That really bothers me coming from any church.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

In the outline, (Paraphrasing) it seems to say that righteousness should precede tolerance.  That really bothers me coming from any church.

Given the first two great commandments are Love God and Love One Another, why?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Given the first two great commandments are Love God and Love One Another, why?

There is a way to establish righteousness with tolerance..how else would missionary work..work?

[JAHS]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

This stuff just makes me sick all over again.  The lies and distortions coming from a church that claims to be the church of Christ. Unbelievable 

I don't see any lies or distortions, just a plan on how to get members involved to help get the proposition passed. 

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I don't see any lies or distortions, just a plan on how to get members involved to help get the proposition passed. 

I seem to keep being suckered into this thread.  I really have tried to put Prop 8 behind me.  As I wish church members would also.  Prop 8 and the ban on blacks is probably the most egregious things the church has done in my lifetime.  The things they told people both within the church and outside the church in order to get their agenda passed is in my opinion so difficult to still have respect for the church.  I think that is what makes this so hard for me.  I really want to maintain respect for the church and it's leaders.  But this stuff brings up all the reasons why that makes it so difficult to do.

Not sure if I want to go through all of the distortions and issues I have with this presentation.  And if I did, would it change anyone's mind or would they just get defensive.  These threads usually don't end well.  

Can you really not see any issues with some of their claims?  How about this line for starters

• Quote

  The passage of Proposition 8 will in no way affect Civil Rights 

   

Edited March 27, 2017 by california boy

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you really not see any issues with some of their claims?  How about this line for starters

• Quote

  The passage of Proposition 8 will in no way affect Civil Rights 

Yea, we have had this discussion before on what the definition of civil rights is and it doesn't get anywhere.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Rolling my eyes.

Like this?

Thanks for the chat. I agree it's very circular and needs not continue.

Take care and God bless.

[Darren10]

52 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

There is a way to establish righteousness with tolerance..how else would missionary work..work?

Tolerance does not mean to condone.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Tolerance does not mean to condone.

Of course not.  It means to show patience and understanding.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Wrong. She was quite divorced from her first husbsnd and her second husbsnd in the polygsmous marriage was quite deadwhen she moved in with Brigham as his wife.

Zina was pregnant with Henry Jacobs' second son when she was resealed to JS and then sealed to BY.   When the Saints reached Iowa, BY allegedly said the following to Bro Jacobs:

“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.”

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_69.pdf

Jacobs still loved his wife even after that by many accounts...

 

So you have a woman (Zina) who was already married legally (to Henry Jacobs), who then marries or is sealed to JS because an armed angel told him so; JS dies, and then she is sealed to BY.  IMO, this one story about Zina Huntington Jacobs is a complete mess/fiasco and just illustrates that polygamy was not how the family unit should be comprised (with polyandry to add on top of that as well).  

Edited March 27, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Wrong. She was quite divorced from her first husbsnd and her second husbsnd in the polygsmous marriage was quite deadwhen she moved in with Brigham as his wife.

You can have your own beliefs.  That is your right.  What you don't get is your own facts.  And the fact is she was not divorced.  Brigham Young took her after he sent Henry Jacobs (her real husband) off on a mission.  A real class act.

This is common and undisputed knowledge.  A simple Google search will give you all the details you need:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

 

 

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Zina was pregnant with Henry Jacobs' second son when she was resealed to JS and then sealed to BY.   When the Saints reached Iowa, BY allegedly said the following to Bro Jacobs:

“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.”

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_69.pdf

Jacobs still loved his wife even after that by many accounts...

 

So you have a woman (Zina) who was already married legally (to Henry Jacobs), who then marries or is sealed to JS because an armed angel told him so; JS dies, and then she is sealed to BY.  IMO, this one story about Zina Huntington Jacobs is a complete mess/fiasco and just illustrates that polygamy was not how the family unit should be comprised (with polyandry to add on top of that as well).  

"Zina was pregnant with Henry Jacobs' second son when she was resealed to JS and then sealed to BY. " - That's a long pregnancy.

EDITED TO AD: Ah, "resealed". That is different than when sealed to Joseph Smith and puts it in the right timeframe of Zina's pregnancy.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Darren10

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Wrong. She was quite divorced from her first husbsnd and her second husbsnd in the polygsmous marriage was quite deadwhen she moved in with Brigham as his wife.

Zina was still married to Henry when she married Brigham.  He also had other polyandrous marriages.  Here's a list:

Lucy Ann Decker - Marriage: June 14, 1842 -- abandoned by non-Mormon husband William Seeley - not divorced

Augusta Adams - Marriage: November 2, 1843 -- married to non-mormon Henry Cobb, not divorced until 1847

Clarissa Blake (Morse) - Marriage: October 8, 1844 - widow of ? Morse - married to Lyman Homiston, not divorced

Mary Elizabeth Rollins - Marriage: May 22, 1845 - polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith, married to Adam Lightner, not divorced

Zina Diantha Huntington - Marriage: February 2, 1846 - polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith, married to Henry Bailey Jacobs, not divorced

Amy Cecelia Cooper - Marriage: February 3, 1846 - married to non-Mormon Joseph Aldrich and separated after marriage to B. Young

Lydia Farnsworth - Marriage: May 8, 1870 - married to Elijah Mayhew and remained with him

Hannah Tapfield - Marriage: December 8, 1872 - married to non-Mormon Thomas O. King and remained with him

Edited March 27, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

39 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You can have your own beliefs.  That is your right.  What you don't get is your own facts.  And the fact is she was not divorced.  Brigham Young took her after he sent Henry Jacobs (her real husband) off on a mission.  A real class act.

This is common and undisputed knowledge.  A simple Google search will give you all the details you need:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

 

 

 

"You can have your own beliefs.  That is your right.  What you don't get is your own facts." - Blahblahblahblahblah.

I did make a significant error though. She was married to Henry when sealed to Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was dead at the time of the resealing. 

As for Brigham young shewing Henry away:

Quote

At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, 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.”³⁷

The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).

For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the “hundreds” referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either “Zina Jacobs” or “sister Jacobs” as late as June 3, 1847,³⁸ which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.

(Bold mine) http://www.fairmormon.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

Your statement that Brigham Young sent Henry away and took his wife all to himself is common but hardly "disputed".

Now...for the divorce...

Quote

Fulfilling Zina’s expectations, in late September Brigham sent his son-in-law, Charlie Decker, to bring Zina to Winter Quarters.⁵⁴ Sometime between the death of her father in mid August and her first weeks in Winter Quarters, it appears that Zina considered herself fully divorced from Henry and married to Brigham. This is evidenced by well-known facts, such as Zina moving into the tent row that Brigham provided for his wives at Winter Quarters. Sometime after arriving in Winter Quarters Zina wrote a letter to her step-sister, Emily Dow Partridge, and step-mother, Lydia Partridge Huntington, who were still in Mt. Pisgah. In the normal course of the letter Zina expressed Brigham’s love for Emily and signed the letter as “your affectionate sister Zina D. Huntington” instead of as Zina Jacobs.⁵⁵

^(snip)

Oliver’s diary records that Henry left Cambria, in the company of W.W. Phelps, on September 14, 1847.⁶⁰ Henry arrived in Winter Quarters near the middle of November. Mary Haskin Parker Richards records in her diary for November 16 that she “took supper and spent the Eve with Bro [Henry B.] Jacobs folks.”⁶¹ Henry spent the evening telling Mary about the Saints in her native England and her family. Mary also referenced the evening’s festivities in a letter to her husband, Samuel Richards, who was on a mission in England. She indicated that “last Tuesday eve I had a first rate visit with Bro H B Jacobs and his wife.”⁶²

Henry’s wife–the one that Mary refers to–is not Zina. Even though Zina was living in Winter Quarters at the time, the wife appears to be one that Henry married sometime between Oliver Huntington’s letter of August 27 and Henry’s arrival in Winter Quarters. Henry’s new wife was Aseneth Babcock,⁶³ a twenty-two year old widow and mother of a five-year-old son.⁶⁴

This presents an interesting situation, and more evidence that both Henry and Zina now considered Zina to be Brigham’s wife. Henry arrived in Winter Quarters with his new wife and stepson in November 1847. Zina didn’t leave to go to the Salt Lake Valley until May 1848. Brigham was away during much of this six-month period, and yet Henry and Zina did not live as husband and wife. In fact, there are no contemporary records that show the two even talked with each other.

(snip)

There are two points at which a divorce could reasonably have taken place: In Nauvoo, at about the time that Zina and Brigham were married, or in Iowa, after Henry left for England. There is no record of any divorce in Hancock County, Illinois.⁶⁸ This is not surprising; for the nineteen months from the martyrdom in June 1844 until the Saints were driven from Nauvoo in February 1846, the relationship between the Saints and the various levels of government was tenuous, at best. The Saints did not trust the state or federal governments, having felt betrayed at every turn over the years. There is evidence that the Nauvoo municipal government was very dysfunctional during this period, and then entirely non-existent after the revocation of the Nauvoo Charter in January 1845. A year later, when Zina and Brigham were sealed, it is doubtful that the Saints would have turned to those they viewed as hostile enemies to request divorces.

The situation is even more unclear as the Saints migrated westward through frontier Iowa. According to Iowa territorial law in 1846, divorces were granted by district courts.⁶⁹ At the time there were only three district courts established in the Iowa Territory, and these covered only the eastern-most counties of the state. ⁷⁰ There were no District Courts that covered the unincorporated areas (the “Indian lands” where Mt. Pisgah was located), nor were there any in 1846 in any of the counties bordering the unincorporated areas.

Critics who complain of Henry and Zina not having a “legal and lawful” divorce fail to point out what constitutes “legal and lawful” when it comes to a frontier where there is no established government. Who, exactly, should Henry and Zina have gone to in order to satisfy our modern sensibilities of what constitutes a “legal and lawful” dissolution of marriage?

The inaccessibility of government and the hostility of the trail may not be the only reasons why a formal divorce was not sought by Henry and Zina. Many people during the era, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, particularly those who were poor and transient (conditions that certainly applied to this couple), would engage in self-divorce. Rather than seek out the approbation of authority that was often seen as meddlesome, distant, and aloof, couples would simply agree to dissolve their marriage, and then each go their separate ways. This seemed, to those predisposed to distrust a hostile government, a practical and pragmatic solution to ending a marriage, and appears to be the path chosen by Henry and Zina.

(Same link as above)

Henry himself remarried before Zina went to Winter Quarters to be housed among Brigham's plural wives. A solid argument is made inthis article that there was no functioning government which could provide a legal divorce to Zina and Henry, or a court which would be trusted by the Saints.