The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[ERayR]

Can you explain to me how you view this post as slanderous (so slanderous that you said "what else can you do" but call it slanderous) when you see no libel in the church's published statement on Henry Jacobs?

My apologies in advance if I am misreading you. I really would like to understand why it is so wrong to say that Brigham Young is prejudiced and taught blood atonement, while it is perfectly okay to say that Henry Jacob's deserted his kids.

Please note that while I personally view many of Brigham's views as very very flawed, I also hold him in high esteem and truly worthy of the title prophet.

I was simply applying the same criteria to Pogi's statement about BY as he and others have applied to the statement that Henry Jacobs deserted Zina and the boys. Both statements are made through the lens of modern day interpretations of events without adequate actual knowledge of what actually happened. My evaluation of what is said about BY blood atonement teachings is that they are expressing opinions on something they haven't a clue about.

To sum up I think that neither is slanderous or they both are. Take your pick. I think that there are many who like to make a lot of noise over trivia.

[pogi]

I would direct your reading to doctrine and covenants section 132.

There should be no doubt to anyone who has read this that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

I know, the church deliberately hid this information in the back, knowing no one would find it.

That teens were married should not bother anyone who has read any history. As I said above, my mother in law was married at age 14. Those were different times.

I'll admit the polyandry is the harder to understand, since it was not generally practiced later, and not very well documented at the time, but what is there to talk about other than speculation?

Don't tell others what should and should not bother them, and quit making light of other peoples honest concerns. It is very disrespectful and demeaning.

[canard78]

I'm surprised you didn't know about polygamy until you were 18, did it take you that long to get to the back of the D&C?

-snip-

Anyone who has a strong testimony of the church does not place their faith in Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young. Any elementary study of church history will show you that the ones who placed their faith in Joseph Smith as a person were the ones who fell away the quickest.

So... D&C 132 is enough to teach people about Joseph's polygamy? It doesn't even say in that passage that Joseph practiced any form of polygamy at all. It only states the principles governing the law of the priesthood (I.e. polygamy). It's all third person, not talking about Joseph Smith.

So please point out where this wealth of information on Joseph's wives are.

Please show an LDS source on Joseph marrying other men's wives. The LDS sources on Zina do not mention it. Please show me where else the church teaches this.

As for faith in Joseph. Agreed, not faith in the person. But we are taught to have faith in the prophet. And when he displays behaviour that appears to even go against the revealed section on polygamy it can undermine confidence in that testimony. And I agree 'it seems' is perception based on incomplete information. But when the church provides none of that information the chance for misperception is greater.

[Nevo]

Danzo's obfuscating, minimizing, misdirecting, and generally sneering condescension on this issue is about the worst display of amateur LDS apologetics I've seen in some time (although there's some other distinguished competition on this thread). No wonder FAIR disavowed this board years ago.

[pogi]

I was simply applying the same criteria to Pogi's statement about BY as he and others have applied to the statement that Henry Jacobs deserted Zina and the boys. Both statements are made through the lens of modern day interpretations of events without adequate actual knowledge of what actually happened. My evaluation of what is said about BY blood atonement teachings is that they are expressing opinions on something they haven't a clue about.

To sum up I think that neither is slanderous or they both are. Take your pick. I think that there are many who like to make a lot of noise over trivia.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I never commented about Jacob's deserting Zina and the boys.

All I know about BY's blood atonement is that he taught it, I have read his disturbing quotes about it, and I have read how the church denounces it as doctrine. What more do I need to conclude that he taught a false doctrine, and how that may be disturbing to many members?

[omni]

Anyone who has a strong testimony of the church does not place their faith in Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young. Any elementary study of church history will show you that the ones who placed their faith in Joseph Smith as a person were the ones who fell away the quickest.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865579297/Come-listen-to-a-prophets-voice.html

It's ironic that you mention this as an article published in today's Deseret News by our very own Daniel Peterson discusses the first recording of a church president. So what does President Woodruff bare his testimony about knowing it may be the only one he gives on a "talking machine"? Jesus Christ, service, the scriptures...nope it's a five minute testimony of Joseph Smith.

In the MTC we were taught that the two most important things to gain our testimonies on were the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. We never told our investigators to ask God if Jesus was the Christ, but we asked every one of them to pray to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet.

How many testimonies do you hear on fast Sunday that don't mention the phrase, "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God"? Instead of blaming those who are struggling because they placed their faith in Joseph Smith, maybe you start by finding out why they placed said faith in Joseph.

Edited May 2, 2013 by omni

[canard78]

Everybody pretty much knows about this everywhere I've lived. I don't get these claims.

Really? Forgive my incredulity but I don't believe that 'everybody pretty much knows' - else you must have been in some unusual wards. Where did they find out about polyandry?

[USU78]

Here is some interesting information from the actual scriptures, establishing that, in significant part, section 132 was specific to JSJr:

45 For I have conferred upon you the ^akeys and power of the priesthood, wherein I ^brestore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.

46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you ^aseal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you ^bbind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you ^cremit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will ^acurse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.

48 And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you ^agive any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven.

49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be ^awith thee even unto the ^bend of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I ^cseal upon you your ^dexaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your ^efather.

50 Behold, I have seen your ^asacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your ^bsacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I ^caccepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

I don't know what this "way for your escape" is that Joseph was promised . . . he died before he was relieved of the commandment to engage in polygynous marriages . . . it may have been his death. Who knows?

Verse 1 also addresses JSJr directly.

I don't see how one can claim this is all 3rd party stuff.

[Danzo]

So... D&C 132 is enough to teach people about Joseph's polygamy? It doesn't even say in that passage that Joseph practiced any form of polygamy at all. It only states the principles governing the law of the priesthood (I.e. polygamy). It's all third person, not talking about Joseph Smith.

I think, if you read the whole section, it out to at least put the probability of Josephs practice of the principle in your mind, I can't see how you could get any other idea.

You might be forgiven for not understanding all of it, but after studying the section, how can Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy be a surprise?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Danzo's obfuscating, minimizing, misdirecting, and generally sneering condescension on this issue is about the worst display of amateur LDS apologetics I've seen in some time (although there's some other distinguished competition on this thread). No wonder FAIR disavowed this board years ago.

Care to elaborate?

[canard78]

I would direct your reading to doctrine and covenants section 132.

There should be no doubt to anyone who has read this that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

I know, the church deliberately hid this information in the back, knowing no one would find it.

That teens were married should not bother anyone who has read any history. As I said above, my mother in law was married at age 14. Those were different times.

I'll admit the polyandry is the harder to understand, since it was not generally practiced later, and not very well documented at the time, but what is there to talk about other than speculation?

Is D&C 132 the best you can do? A vague reference to the doctrine of the practice. Nothing in that discusses polyandry. You keep dodging this. Where, I repeat, does the church discuss this? It does not.

Speculation? We have a Salt Lake temple record of Zina being sealed for eternity to Joseph Smith, then for time to Brigham Young all while her legal husband and father of her children stands looking on.

[canard78]

I think, if you read the whole section, it out to at least put the probability of Josephs practice of the principle in your mind, I can't see how you could get any other idea

Probability. That's different to what you were saying earlier about being clear and easy for members to know.

Earlier you said:

"There should be no doubt to anyone who has read this that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy"

Edited May 2, 2013 by canard78

[USU78]

Really? Forgive my incredulity but I don't believe that 'everybody pretty much knows' - else you must have been in some unusual wards. Where did they find out about polyandry?

In every ward in Farmington and Sandy I've ever attended as an adult for the last 30 years. Nearly every time section 132 is the gospel doctrine lesson, the issue of both JSJr's polygamy and polyandry come up (the latter, indirectly), since it's a favorite story to show how JSJr tested a certain couple, telling them that the wife is to be his, JSJr's, wife . . . and when they finally relent and agree, he tells them it was an Abrahamic test, and they passed, and there was no need to follow through . . . as in section 132, polygyny is revealed as an Abrahamic test.

[omni]

That teens were married should not bother anyone who has read any history. As I said above, my mother in law was married at age 14. Those were different times.

Oh I see, it's kind of like our facial hair policy...you know different times and all.

Edited May 3, 2013 by omni

[Danzo]

http://www.deseretne...hets-voice.html

It's ironic that you mention this as an article published in today's Deseret News by our very own Daniel Peterson discusses the first recording of a church president. So what does President Woodruff bare his testimony about knowing it may be the only one he gives on a "talking machine"? Jesus Christ, service, the scriptures...nope it's a five minute testimony of Joseph Smith.

In the MTC we were taught that the two most important things to gain our testimonies on were the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. We never told our investigators to ask God if Jesus was the Christ, but we asked every one of them to pray to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet.

How many testimonies do you hear on fast Sunday that don't mention the phrase, "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God"? Instead of blaming those who are struggling because they placed their faith in Joseph Smith, maybe you start by finding out why they placed said faith in Joseph.

Of course we taught them to gain a testimony of the calling of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon, but only of the lord's words speaking through these prophets.

I hope you weren't teaching them to worship Joseph, or to place their faith in him.

If the missionaries are teaching faith in Joseph Smith, that would explain why people are shocked to hear he was human.

[canard78]

Here is some interesting information from the actual scriptures, establishing that, in significant part, section 132 was specific to JSJr:

I don't know what this "way for your escape" is that Joseph was promised . . . he died before he was relieved of the commandment to engage in polygynous marriages . . . it may have been his death. Who knows?

Verse 1 also addresses JSJr directly.

I don't see how one can claim this is all 3rd party stuff.

So section 132 starts like this:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 132)

We then have a long section on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Doctrine we still teach today and that has no clear instruction on plural marriage.

We then have the warnings to poor Emma.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

And then it wraps up with the 'rules' of plural marriage.

So a few question... Verse 52, do we take this as a vague reference to the wives he has already taken? If so, which are the ones who claimed to be pure but are not pure and will be destroyed? Were any of his wives destroyed?

So Emma was offered something as a test (what?) but now has to cleave to Joseph and none else? Why didn't that rule also apply to Zina and her husband? And all the other 11 pre-married women?

To expect members to have only D&C 132 as an LDS source is crazy. It's just not doing the job properly.

[Danzo]

Probability. That's different to what you were saying earlier about being clear and easy for members to know.

Earlier you said:

"There should be no doubt to anyone who has read this that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy"

I have never met anyone, who has carefully read the entire section who did not come away believing that Joseph smith practiced polygamy.

I have never been in any gospel discussion where the entire section was read where the subject of Joseph smith's polygamy did not come up.

[Danzo]

Oh I see, it's kind of like our facial hair policy...you know different times and all.

Are you disturbed when you read about a teenager getting married?

[canard78]

In every ward in Farmington and Sandy I've ever attended as an adult for the last 30 years. Nearly every time section 132 is the gospel doctrine lesson, the issue of both JSJr's polygamy and polyandry come up (the latter, indirectly), since it's a favorite story to show how JSJr tested a certain couple, telling them that the wife is to be his, JSJr's, wife . . . and when they finally relent and agree, he tells them it was an Abrahamic test, and they passed, and there was no need to follow through . . . as in section 132, polygyny is revealed as an Abrahamic test.

And everybody knew that before it was given as an example, or did some sit in quiet shock? And everybody knew that for 11 other couples it wasn't an Abrahamic test?

[Danzo]

So section 132 starts like this:

We then have a long section on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Doctrine we still teach today and that has no clear instruction on plural marriage.

We then have the warnings to poor Emma.

And then it wraps up with the 'rules' of plural marriage.

So a few question... Verse 52, do we take this as a vague reference to the wives he has already taken? If so, which are the ones who claimed to be pure but are not pure and will be destroyed? Were any of his wives destroyed?

So Emma was offered something as a test (what?) but now has to cleave to Joseph and none else? Why didn't that rule also apply to Zina and her husband? And all the other 11 pre-married women?

To expect members to have only D&C 132 as an LDS source is crazy. It's just not doing the job properly.

The details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy are not in D&C 132.

The Idea of the practice, the fact, that it was practiced, and that Joseph smith was involved in it are hard to miss.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Danzo

[omni]

Are you disturbed when you read about a teenager getting married?

If that teenager is 14 and marrying an already married thirty-something year old man who claims to be a prophet of God...absolutely!

[Danzo]

If that teenager is 14 and marrying an already married thirty-something year old man who claims to be a prophet of God...absolutely!

So is it the age difference, or the prophet of god part (or the combination) that disturbs you?

[Calm]

Was your mother in-in-law married to her legal guardian

You need to read some romance literature...it was not uncommon for the young girl to fall in love with her protector and marry her when she grew up. Happens in science fiction and fantasy too, both male and female writers. I can think of two very popular modern writers (one in sci fi, the other fantasy) who have young girls (tenish) declaring they are going to marry their protector as soon as they are of age....and they do and it is supposed to be the height of romance.

[Calm]

We never read from the D&C in family scripture study.

It was the first book I read with my son as it was the easiest for him to understand.

[Calm]

Don't tell others what should and should not bother them, and quit making light of other peoples honest concerns. It is very disrespectful and demeaning.

Seriously? after you stated this:

I personally would question anybody's morals and understanding of marital fidelity who didn't find these fact's unsettling to say the least.

Good catch. Everybody needs to keep this courteous.