The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Calm]

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 old are you? (not meant to be condescending, just curious as it provides context) It was not that long ago that belief in Jesus as the Christ would have been a given in the vast majority of places missionaries were being sent to. Edited May 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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?

I agree that it is surprising that many have stated they weren't aware of JS's polygamy...I believe them though. My sister was not aware as a teenage of the story of David and Goliath after attending primary and YW for years and I would have assumed, like me, having plenty of children's versions of the scriptures to read from in the family library. If one can get through youth without knowledge of the most common Bible stories, I get that they may miss out on more modern church history even when the story is printed right there in the scriptures that supposedly they are reading (but apparently with so much assumption or lack of attention or comprehension to miss many a point of what they are reading...something I think all of us to when it comes to stuff we are not particularly interested in enough to raise our attention levels).

However, I don't see how they can pick up much beyond the basic fact of plural marriage itself from reading scripture and while the Institute manual on Church History has listed some of his wives, I don't think they did much more than that so additional information would need to come from nonmanuals, perhaps History of the Church or other things that have been put out over the years, but certainly not anything that counts as light reading which is the level that most people under 30 engage in with regard to historical topics in my experience.

Edited May 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[omni]

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

Mostly the age difference and polygamy part of it, but I also find the abuse of the position of trust aspect unsettling.

[Calm]

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

You can read at FAIR comparisons with the norms of the society of the time surrounding Joseph. Nothing that he did was outside of social norms, though it may have ventured into the more uncommon areas....nothing that is save plural marriage (with of course. the two problems that could only take place in a religious plural relationship...his openness with his wife about taking other wives and his claim that the Lord commanded it). Take each relationship on its own and a significant portion of men of his age did the same...but no others did it in the context of plural marriage. Whether that is enough to call into question the other attributes of his plural marriages is subject, for me those things are not at issue. The only thing that concerns me is whether or not he was practicing plural marriage as commanded by the Lord. Edited May 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Glenn101]

The only thing that concerns me is whether or not he was practicing plural marriage as commanded by the Lord.

That is the only real issue. Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

Glenn

[omni]

How old are you? It was not that long ago that belief in Jesus as the Christ would have been a given in the vast majority of places missionaries were being sent to.

Old enough to realize where our priorities were placed. I served in a European mission where a belief in Christ was not to be taken for granted and what little belief did exist was mainly for cultural or tradition reasons.

I'm not saying we shouldn't ask members/investigators to pray about Joseph Smith, but it's a double edged sword. When we place so much emphasis on him and are taught that no one has done as much for the salvation of man save Jesus Christ and then later find out the details of his polygamy; it should come as no surprise the negative reaction of many members.

[Danzo]

Old enough to realize where our priorities were placed. I served in a European mission where a belief in Christ was not to be taken for granted and what little belief did exist was mainly for cultural or tradition reasons.

I'm not saying we shouldn't ask members/investigators to pray about Joseph Smith, but it's a double edged sword. When we place so much emphasis on him and are taught that no one has done as much for the salvation of man save Jesus Christ and then later find out the details of his polygamy; it should come as no surprise the negative reaction of many members.

I agree that sometimes, with all of the emphasis on the good things he did, some can get the impression that Joseph was more than a man.

If you read church history, Joseph the Man was often a stumbling block to those who thought at prophet should be perfect and without sin. Many of the leaders of the church were converted before they knew Joseph Smith, just like all of us today never knew him.

We often don't emphasize the lord calling Joseph to repentance in the D&C. I think we should do this more, not to pull Joseph down, but to emphasis that we all need repentance. Too many youth today view repentance as a burden, rather than an opportunity. I've always said that those who find repentance hard, are not practicing it enough.

[canard78]

Old enough to realize where our priorities were placed. I served in a European mission where a belief in Christ was not to be taken for granted and what little belief did exist was mainly for cultural or tradition reasons.

I'm not saying we shouldn't ask members/investigators to pray about Joseph Smith, but it's a double edged sword. When we place so much emphasis on him and are taught that no one has done as much for the salvation of man save Jesus Christ and then later find out the details of his polygamy; it should come as no surprise the negative reaction of many members.

It's hard to deny that the church (perhaps unintentionally) eulogises Joseph and puts him on a pedestal.

Also, when there are Ensign articles that hold up Emma and Joseph as the exemplars of a wonderful marriage, it sticks in the throat a little. He married other women and didn't tell her. Exemplary!

[Danzo]

It's hard to deny that the church (perhaps unintentionally) eulogises Joseph and puts him on a pedestal.

Also, when there are Ensign articles that hold up Emma and Joseph as the exemplars of a wonderful marriage, it sticks in the throat a little. He married other women and didn't tell her. Exemplary!

Yet, they still seemed to like each other in the end.

If a marriage can go through all of that, and still survive, that says something

[omni]

You can read at FAIR comparisons with the norms of the society of the time surrounding Joseph. Nothing that he did was outside of social norms, though it may have ventured into the more uncommon areas....nothing that is save plural marriage (with of course. the two problems that could only take place in a religious plural relationship...his openness with his wife about taking other wives and his claim that the Lord commanded it). Take each relationship on its own and a significant portion of men of his age did the same...but no others did it in the context of plural marriage. Whether that is enough to call into question the other attributes of his plural marriages is subject, for me those things are not at issue. The only thing that concerns me is whether or not he was practicing plural marriage as commanded by the Lord.

No offense to FAIR, but I have trouble believing that it wasn't abnormal for older men to marry young teenage girls at that time. I find it odd we defend the marriage of a 14 year old girl to JS, but if that same girl were wearing a sleeveless shirt she would be seen as immodest. if there's a principle here that doesn't change with the times then my money is on the one where older men don't marry young teenage girls.

[omni]

We often don't emphasize the lord calling Joseph to repentance in the D&C. I think we should do this more, not to pull Joseph down, but to emphasis that we all need repentance. Too many youth today view repentance as a burden, rather than an opportunity. I've always said that those who find repentance hard, are not practicing it enough.

Completely agree, who doesn't love a story of redemption? Some of the most beloved stories in the scriptures show the failings of prophets and apostles. I believe our modern day prophets are good men who have led Christ centered lives, but it can be difficult for us decidedly less prophetic types to relate to their seemingly perfect lives.

[canard78]

No offense to FAIR, but I have trouble believing that it wasn't abnormal for older men to marry young teenage girls at that time. I find it odd we defend the marriage of a 14 year old girl to JS, but if that same girl were wearing a sleeveless shirt she would be seen as immodest. if there's a principle here that doesn't change with the times then my money is on the one where older men don't marry young teenage girls.

Unusual, but not unnacceptable. Remember that 14yo Helen Marr did it with her parents' encouragement.

I'll have to look up a bit more, but Wikipedia says:

In the U.S., teenage marriages declined significantly after the mid-20th century, but experienced resurgence in the 1990s, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Census data from 2000 show that 4.5% of 15- to 19-year-olds were married, up from 3.4% in 1990. While that was an increase of almost 50%, it was still far below the 9.5% recorded in 1950.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_marriage

This is a topic you could research yourself and relatively easily. You don't need FAIR to look up marriage ages in history.

ETA: Here's some more:

The American colonies followed the English tradition, but the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."[1] Reliable data for when people would actually marry are very difficult to find. In England, for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period come from records which involved only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th- and 21st-century historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding a young age of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Edited May 3, 2013 by canard78

[pogi]

Seriously? after you stated this:

That did come off a bit harsh didn't it. Let me clarify to all. I have been raised in a culture where marital fidelity is most sacred, where polygamy is illegal, and where older men marrying 14 year old girls would be considered pedophiles ( I was not raised in Joseph's time), and where marrying other men's wives while they are away would be considered a home- wrecking, and where marrying other women without telling your wife would be considered cheating and adultery, and where denying all of the above would be considered lying.

Let me make this clear before others accuse me of slandering Joseph or labeling him as an adulterer pedophile etc., I am not claiming any such thing. I am simply stating this is the culture that I was raised in. It is silly that I need to defend myself and my faith because I found these facts unsettling. I do find it difficult to understand how someone raised in todays society would not find it unsettling, especially without knowing much about Joseph's culture at the time. Yet even in his time it was a matter of great controversy, even within the church and among the general authorities.

Should our faith and testimonies be questioned because we find these historical facts unsettling and hard to swallow? Absolutely not! Was Abraham not unsettled about being commanded to kill his own son? Did he not find that hard to swallow? Was Nephi not unsettled about being commanded to kill Laban? Was Joseph Smith himself not unsettled about practicing polygamy? So much so that he said an angel visited him and told him that he would slay him if he did not obey! Needless to say, he was very unsettled about it, probably up until his dying day. Not to mention poor Emma. Does that mean we are placing our faith in man more than God because we are unsettled about how polygamy was practiced? Absolutely not! I think it means the opposite as evidenced by the fact that I am still a faithful later day saint. I am certain of the path I am on and the God I pray to. I find it very distasteful and hurtful to fellowship when others question where we are placing our faith because we find these facts unsettling.

I reacted poorly, and I apologize if anybody here did not find the history surrounding polygamy in the church unsettling. I want to make it clear, I don't question your morals or understanding of marital fidelity. I am sorry for saying so. But I remain very surprised.

Edited May 3, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

The only thing that concerns me is whether or not he was practicing plural marriage as commanded by the Lord.

Amen!

[Nevo]

Seriously? after you stated this:

Good catch. Everybody needs to keep this courteous.

I'm a bit surprised, Cal, that you would take offense at pogi's statement "I personally would question anybody's morals and understanding of marital fidelity who didn't find these fact's unsettling to say the least." I realize a lot a Church members on this board are blasé about the whole polygamy thing but to the neophyte it is actually quite disquieting to learn of the Prophet marrying dozens of women (some barely into their teens, some that were hired help, some that were legal wards, some that were already married) without Emma's knowledge or consent, all the while vehemently denying it (i.e., lying about it) in public. It seems to me that someone with even a modestly developed moral sense, much less someone who adheres closely to LDS values, might find some of that objectionable—at least on its face.

[Nevo]

Unusual, but not unnacceptable. Remember that 14yo Helen Marr did it with her parents' encouragement.

Here's what Spencer Fluhman says about it:

"While marriage proposals at age fourteen were not unheard of in the 1840s, they were unusual. Nineteenth-century women married on average earlier than today; early American legal understandings of youthful marriage might baffle modern readers. Borrowing from English common law traditions, American law during the 1840s set the legal age for marriage at twelve for females and fourteen for males.[6] Similarly, pre–Civil War “age of consent” laws set a low standard; not until the 1880s did states begin raising the age of female consent from ten or twelve to sixteen.[7] In rural communities where marriageable women could be scarce, marriage age could dip well below modern conventions—for instance, Martin Harris married his wife Lucy in 1808 when she was fifteen. These cases notwithstanding, the period’s census data reveal that, generally, age seventeen or eighteen marked the younger end of the typical range of female marital eligibility.[8] So, while the rest of Joseph Smith’s plural wives’ ages more or less met contemporary expectations, Helen stands out as a possible, but not unheard of, exception." (link)

By the way, Fluhman's paper grew out of a seminar called "Joseph Smith and His Critics." This paper models the approach Richard Bushman described in his introduction to the seminar papers:

"We began by agreeing that criticisms of Joseph Smith should not be dismissed as foolish or purely evil. The negative attacks that disturb first-time readers are usually based on facts, not merely prejudiced fabrications. To play down the force of the criticism, we believe, only convinces the seekers that we do not understand. We appear to be sweeping trouble under the rug. They may have been devastated by a criticism; we must show that we understand why. Consequently, the seminar took as its first principle to state the negative argument as fully and accurately as we can. We try not to minimize the difficulty or prejudice the case against the critic. In no other way can we persuade the doubters that we understand the problem..."

Thus, Fluhman's opening paragraph begins: "In the single month of May 1843, Joseph Smith married four brides under the age of twenty. The youngest, Helen Mar Kimball, was fourteen.[1] Of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, in fact, at least nine or ten were what would now be called “teenage” (the term was not widely used until the twentieth century) when they married the Prophet.[2] Since evidence for physical intimacy between Joseph Smith and some of his wives is compelling, the question of sexual contact with the youngest wives ignites controversy in print and across the Internet. Further complicating the picture of Joseph Smith’s relationship with his young wives is the fact that Helen Mar Kimball Whitney experienced considerable pressure to consent to the marriage from both the Prophet and her own father, Elder Heber C. Kimball; she understood that her salvation and that of her family’s depended on her acquiescence. Because the most pertinent documents for the Whitney case were penned by Whitney herself, critics charge on the basis of the Saints’ own documentary record that Joseph Smith used his religious position to impose himself on innocent teens..."

This is how to do effective apologetics, folks. Start where your audience is, and then lead them to where you are. Don't dismiss or downplay their concerns at the outset.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Nevo

[canard78]

Here's what Spencer Fluhman says about it:

"While marriage proposals at age fourteen were not unheard of in the 1840s, they were unusual. Nineteenth-century women married on average earlier than today; early American legal understandings of youthful marriage might baffle modern readers. Borrowing from English common law traditions, American law during the 1840s set the legal age for marriage at twelve for females and fourteen for males.[6] Similarly, pre–Civil War “age of consent” laws set a low standard; not until the 1880s did states begin raising the age of female consent from ten or twelve to sixteen.[7] In rural communities where marriageable women could be scarce, marriage age could dip well below modern conventions—for instance, Martin Harris married his wife Lucy in 1808 when she was fifteen. These cases notwithstanding, the period’s census data reveal that, generally, age seventeen or eighteen marked the younger end of the typical range of female marital eligibility.[8] So, while the rest of Joseph Smith’s plural wives’ ages more or less met contemporary expectations, Helen stands out as a possible, but not unheard of, exception." (link)

By the way, Fluhman's paper grew out of a seminar called "Joseph Smith and His Critics." This paper models the approach Richard Bushman described in his introduction to the seminar papers:

"We began by agreeing that criticisms of Joseph Smith should not be dismissed as foolish or purely evil. The negative attacks that disturb first-time readers are usually based on facts, not merely prejudiced fabrications. To play down the force of the criticism, we believe, only convinces the seekers that we do not understand. We appear to be sweeping trouble under the rug. They may have been devastated by a criticism; we must show that we understand why. Consequently, the seminar took as its first principle to state the negative argument as fully and accurately as we can. We try not to minimize the difficulty or prejudice the case against the critic. In no other way can we persuade the doubters that we understand the problem..."

Thus, Fluhman's opening paragraph begins: "In the single month of May 1843, Joseph Smith married four brides under the age of twenty. The youngest, Helen Mar Kimball, was fourteen.[1] Of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, in fact, at least nine or ten were what would now be called “teenage” (the term was not widely used until the twentieth century) when they married the Prophet.[2] Since evidence for physical intimacy between Joseph Smith and some of his wives is compelling, the question of sexual contact with the youngest wives ignites controversy in print and across the Internet. Further complicating the picture of Joseph Smith’s relationship with his young wives is the fact that Helen Mar Kimball Whitney experienced considerable pressure to consent to the marriage from both the Prophet and her own father, Elder Heber C. Kimball; she understood that her salvation and that of her family’s depended on her acquiescence. Because the most pertinent documents for the Whitney case were penned by Whitney herself, critics charge on the basis of the Saints’ own documentary record that Joseph Smith used his religious position to impose himself on innocent teens..."

This is how to do effective apologetics, folks. Start where your audience is, and then lead them to where you are. Don't dismiss or downplay their concerns at the outset.

Wowsers... I'm impressed. And it reminds me I must get back to reading Rough Stone Rolling.

[canard78]

I'm a bit surprised, Cal, that you would take offense at pogi's statement "I personally would question anybody's morals and understanding of marital fidelity who didn't find these fact's unsettling to say the least." I realize a lot a Church members on this board are blasé about the whole polygamy thing but to the neophyte it is actually quite disquieting to learn of the Prophet marrying dozens of women (some barely into their teens, some that were hired help, some that were legal wards, some that were already married) without Emma's knowledge or consent, all the while vehemently denying it (i.e., lying about it) in public. It seems to me that someone with even a modestly developed moral sense, much less someone who adheres closely to LDS values, might find some of that objectionable—at least on its face.

I would agree. Respectfully of course.

[Danzo]

I wonder if Helen Kimball thought she was being taken advantage of?

She didn't exactly disappear.

[Calm]

I'm a bit surprised, Cal, that you would take offense at pogi's statement "I personally would question anybody's morals and understanding of marital fidelity who didn't find these fact's unsettling to say the least."

I didn't take offense at that statement. It was his judgment of others (see below) after making that statement that I found contradictory (I wasn't offended by it, just found it inappropriate given his personal judgment of others as stated before...he has since commented on his comment).

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.

He wrote this after having stated that he would question anyone's morals, etc. who wasn't bothered by the facts surroundings JS's sealings.

I have never taken offense by people who are troubled by JS's plural marriages. I find it understandable why some are and others aren't. I have challenged some on how they present their issues...ie. if they present speculation or mindreading as factual.

Edited May 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

[Emphasis added]. This is the context in which I asserted that antiMormon claims about what BY actually said about blood atonement were grossly unfair, and that repeating those claims is grossly unfair. And a libel. Here we have bcuzbcuz implying that JSJr (perhaps) and BY (definitely) engaged in ordering hits on people they didn't like. This is a claim that is made hand in glove with claims about what blood atonement meant and means.

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but this kind of libelous assertion is outrageous.

Libel a dead person? Explain that to me.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Abrahamic test???. I have another two words to describe it, mind games. I have an even more forceful two word expression I would use to anybody trying such nonsense on me or my family. But they are two words I won't use here.

But I would love to attend your ward meetings to hear the discussion attached to such an interpretation of section 132. Your favorite story? Wow. It boggles the mind.

Abrahamic test? I'll keep that in mind for our next family meeting. I'll get back to you with the results.

[canard78]

I wonder if Helen Kimball thought she was being taken advantage of?

She didn't exactly disappear.

You can use google right? She wasn't best pleased:

“My father was the first to introduce it to me, which had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for supposed injury) that I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann [Whitney] to me as Joseph's wife"

I feel a little sick at the thought of an upset 14yo expressing displeasure but then receiving it meekly. But then I'm a father in the 21stC and not the 19th. Are you a Dad Danzo? How do you feel?

She found a new husband after Joseph died who she had a family with. She was later sealed for eternity to Joseph with husband Horace as proxy. She then stood in while he was sealed to some other (deceased) woman. They went on to have 11 kids together (each one born under two separate covenants...).

I've no idea what that family will look like in the eternities. Makes Jerry Springer look quite tame.

With the death of Smith in 1844, and by age sixteen, Kimball had formed a relationship with twenty-two-year-old Horace Whitney. After a period of courtship, the two decided to be “married for time” on February 3, 1846 (Compton 1997, pp. 503–504). Shortly before the exodus from Nauvoo, in the Nauvoo Temple, Kimball was married to Whitney for time and again sealed to Joseph Smith, Jr. (deceased) for eternity, with her husband Whitney standing in as proxy for Smith. The following day, Whitney was sealed to Elizabeth Sykes (deceased) for eternity, with Kimball standing in as proxy for Sykes (Brodie 1971, pp. 479–480;Compton 1997, p. 486).

Kimball bore eleven children with Horace Whitney (Brodie 1971, pp. 479–480). Her son Orson F. Whitney became an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mar_Kimball

[canard78]

Abrahamic test???. I have another two words to describe it, mind games. I have an even more forceful two word expression I would use to anybody trying such nonsense on me or my family. But they are two words I won't use here.

But I would love to attend your ward meetings to hear the discussion attached to such an interpretation of section 132. Your favorite story? Wow. It boggles the mind.

Abrahamic test? I'll keep that in mind for our next family meeting. I'll get back to you with the results.

I find Abrahamic test to be among the weakest and most disturbing of the apologetic responses.

Firstly, it justifies a leader's behaviour by comparing it to an old Jewish legend of a man willing to stab his son to death. On that basis almost every other repugnant behaviour is justified if that person thinks God told them to (even if it breaks the 10 commandments or basic moral values). It implies Abraham's supposed behaviour to be acceptable and even implies we should be willing to do the same if we think it is God's will.

"Abrahamic test" also forgets one thing. In the story/metaphor/parable (whatever you consider it to be) his faith is tested but he doesn't have to go through with it.

Where was the ram in the thicket for Emma, Helen Marr, Zina and Henry, the other 10 husbands who gave up wives to the prophet.

If William and Jane Law had said "yes" instead of "no" to the alleged proposal from Joseph would he have still made them go through with it? Was it a true "Abrahamic test" (willing but not required to make the sacrifice) or would there have been no ram in the thicket at the Law's altar, just like the other 30+ women and families involved in Joseph polygamy? And even Joseph himself who was, apparently, unwilling, but still required.

[canard78]

As an "on the other hand..." (As Tevye liked to say) I came across this today while reading about something unrelated:

Patriarch Hyrum Smith commenced by saying that he had some communication to make to the conference on stealing, and he would do it while waiting for President Joseph Smith, and referred to the article in the last number of the Wasp. Said he, I have had an interview with a man who formerly belonged to the Church. He revealed to me that there is a band of men, and some who pretend to be strong in the faith of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints; but they are hypocrites, and some who do not belong to the Church, who are bound together by secret oaths, obligations, and penalties to keep the secret; and they hold that it is right to steal from any one who does not belong to the Church, provided they consecrate one-third of it to the building of the Temple. They are also making bogus money.

[Page 333]

This man says he has become convinced of the error of his ways and has come away from them to escape their fury. I wish to warn you all not to be duped by such men, [these outlaws] for they are the Gadiantons of the last days.

He then read from the Wasp, as republished from the Times and Seasons, his own affidavit and the proceedings of the authorities of the Church generally, dated Nov. 26, 1841. The man who told me said, "this secret band refer to the Bible, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of Mormon to substantiate their doctrines; and if any of them did not remain steadfast, they ripped open their bowels and gave them to the cat-fish." But no such doctrines are taught in those books.

They say that it has been taught from this stand that they are the little foxes that spoil the vines, and the First Presidency are the big foxes; and the big foxes wanted the little foxes to get out of the city and spread abroad, so that the big foxes might have a chance; which everybody knows is false. All these things are used to decoy the foolish and unwary.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/5/18.html

Guts to the catfish? Now that's some real apostates (never mind your quibblers with their podcasts). We can barely conceive, in our modern comforts, what it would have been like to be a 19thC person. Still less a 19thC Mormon.

Having said that as Tevye also said, sometimes, "no, there is no other hand."

Edited May 3, 2013 by canard78