The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Questing Beast]

Maybe you need to simplify your questions. I would go on the good idea and ask another question from there. Not everyone gets the strong spiritual experience. The experience can come in small ways...at times it can even be unnoticed.I would see just what the church has done for the wife and how this translate into your own life and go from there. Also, to assume that only simple questions get the strong spiritual experience is a little problematic. I don't think that Zina asked simple questions. I think that they struggled over the issue and asked in sincerity if the principle was true and got a strong answer that it was.

That looks like asking a simple question to me: "Is the principle of patriarchal marriage from you, God?" In other words, is Joseph Smith asking me to do what is from you?

How is asking a simple question more facile? One answer leads to another question, which requires another answer. If I comprehend a complex of questions, trying as in chess to see "several moves ahead", how is that too complex for God? The bigger picture is itself a complex of questions and assumptions. If religion is man-made, and God operates within each paradigm according to the beliefs and expectations of the members, that makes sense of any answers I seem to be getting. Otherwise, I have to assume I am mistaken (again, or still): God does have ONE faith, baptism, etc., and I just don't get it. The Bible is all about ONE faith; stop at the end of the Jewish Bible and it is Judaism; continue on with the NT and it is Christianity; continue further and it is the "brand name" of your denomination bequeathed to you by your fathers. You know probably as well as I that the divisions within the monolithic segments comprising "Judeo-Christianity" are at odds over the very same issues of exclusivity, the kind that powers Mormonism. Many denominations and sects are not caught up in that distinction war, but many are, and Mormons depend on exclusivity in order to justify the need for their existence. If there was never ONE true faith, then there was no "restoration" required, i.e. no "priesthood authority" lost or taken away, etc. But if Joseph Smith believed in the restoration that does not make him a liar in his religious beliefs. I don't see God disabusing anyone of their religious beliefs. Experience and continual evolution of metaphysical thoughts and perceptions does quite a good enough job of opening anyone's eyes to a wider view of the eternal world....

Edited May 7, 2013 by Questing Beast

[why me]

That looks like asking a simple question to me: "Is the principle of patriarchal marriage from you, God?" In other words, is Joseph Smith asking me to do what is from you?

We don't know the struggle that Zina had before she decided to pray about it. We have no idea what she experienced during the prayer. I don't think that it was a simple prayer at all. I think that it was a prayer of personal struggle. And she received the confirmation that she needed to cause her to accept the principle. Lucy Walker also had a huge spiritual experience after she prayed about it before she accepted.

[Questing Beast]

Nearly all the women who accepted plural marriage to JS experienced powerful confirmation answering their prayers. That seems simple to me. The conflict can be huge and simple at the same time. After all, the women were going up against the sexual mores of their time, and "the prophet of God". That is a straight up, simple conflict; personal habits and beliefs being required to step down in place of a new life. The implications must have felt enormous and even unsupportable without God's help. Each of those who had difficulties, and nearly all of them did, had to overcome their "training". So the question had to be direct: "Am I doing the right thing to marry Joseph Smith?" No matter how they asked it, how many times, it boiled down to that question, and the woman had to have a positive answer one way or the other. That most of the women JS asked said "yes" indicates the powerful position he was in. The women were converted to his prophetic calling, so when that testimony came under fire it had to either die or survive, no third choice possible. The women who refused JS's proposals of marriage did not endure in the church. It was a make or break deal, and they broke with JS and Mormonism. Some took years. Emma went into total denial and the result was a kind of self delusion....

[why me]

Many denominations and sects are not caught up in that distinction war, but many are, and Mormons depend on exclusivity in order to justify the need for their existence. If there was never ONE true faith, then there was no "restoration" required, i.e. no "priesthood authority" lost or taken away, etc.

There are two or three christian faiths that claim to have the complete truth: catholic, orthodox and mormon. The catholic church goes back to peter and the rock. And the mormon faith goes back to the restoration and the first vision and the apostacy. The protestant sects do not claim complete truth. I suppose that if one was going to choose the true church, one can either pick the catholic church or the mormon church.

[why me]

The women who refused JS's proposals of marriage did not endure in the church. It was a make or break deal, and they broke with JS and Mormonism.

I don't know if Nancy Rigdon endured to the end or not. I have no idea what happened to her faith when she refused Joseph. I am sure that someone on this forum does.

[why me]

Nearly all the women who accepted plural marriage to JS experienced powerful confirmation answering their prayers. That seems simple to me.

Not so simple. All of the witnesses experienced some kind of spiritual confirmation about their experience. And this was why they could not leave it alone even after they left the lds church. And why many gave their testimony on their deathbeds. These women were no exception. They also could not deny their spiritual experience. And nor can I regardless if I am not a great obedient member of the church.

[canard78]

If Joseph were perfect I would trust him less only because I would know that since he were human, he must have been imperfect. Joseph himself admitted his imperfections. He was prone to anger and demonstrated this anger often. Did he lie? Yes. But who doesn't. Show me a person who says that they never lied, and I will show you a liar.

So we're fine that Joseph Smith has a proven track record as a liar.

"I saw two personages..." Where does it start? Where does it end?

[canard78]

He might have made up the whole thing just so he could be rich and famous.

Zelph for fame and fortune? I've no idea what you're talking about.

On the other hand he might not have made it up. Now that you are aware of it the real bummer is that you have to choose what you are going to do. Are you going to accept or reject. I guess you could straddle the fence but straddling the fence usually ends in a sore crotch.

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind

For now I'll remember the instruction is to choose this day who I'll serve.

[canard78]

There are two or three christian faiths that claim to have the complete truth: catholic, orthodox and mormon. The catholic church goes back to peter and the rock. And the mormon faith goes back to the restoration and the first vision and the apostacy. The protestant sects do not claim complete truth. I suppose that if one was going to choose the true church, one can either pick the catholic church or the mormon church.

I think this is a false dichotomy often set up because it makes an, apparent, easy choice.

Manyt evangelicals seem 100% certain they are 100% right. Do Jehovah's Witnesses only claim to have a part of the truth?

And why limit to Christians. We're not the only ones who 'could be' right.

I'm fairly sure most Muslims believe they have the whole truth. (I've met several who do).

[canard78]

I might be reluctant to ask if the sword was in the right hand....

He went for several years (4 IIRC) between his first and next attempt at plural marriage, and again IIRC did several quite quickly (of the polyandry variety....perhaps as a way to fulfill the command without having to temporally live with them?) and then in the last two years of his life picked up the pace significantly.

Seems to me something convinced him he better get going on it....

He likely received the revelation in 1831, married Fanny Alger in 33, married Lucinda Harris (married) in 38, married Louisa Beaman (single) in 41, married Zina Jacobs and Presendia Buell (both married) in 41, in 42 married single, married 6 marrieds, one unknown, then around June 42 married 21 singles, 2 unknowns and 2 marrieds (if I have counted them right) by Nov 2, 1843, with 7 wives no significant info on as to timing.

I find the pattern of timing combined with single and polyandrous wives very interesting.

Interesting chronology. Joseph's form of polygamy was certainly very different to Brigham's. Far more sealing/dynastic linking than raising seed. It almost seems experimental.

[changed]

...Why would a woman need to be married/sealed to Joseph when she had a faithful husband already?

I agree with Sr. Holland for why this is:

http://www.lds.org/e...christ?lang=eng

I have never questioned why our mother in heaven seems veiled to us, for I believe the Lord has his reasons for revealing as little as he has on that subject. Furthermore, I believe we know much more about our eternal nature than we think we do; and it is our sacred obligation to express our knowledge, to teach it to our young sisters and daughters...We know he uses metaphors and symbols and parables and allegories to teach us of his eternal ways. We have all recognized the relationship between Abraham and Isaac that so parallels God’s anguish over the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as women, do we stretch ourselves and also ask about Sarah’s travail in this experience as well? We need to search in this manner, and we need always to look for deeper meaning.

I think it's clear - Abraham and Isaac represent Heavenly Father and Jesus, Sarah represents heavenly mother, and explains to us why polygamy and polyandry was needed - what is was a test for. At the last minute, Abraham gets off the hook and does not have to actually kill his son (unlike the atonement, which actually happened), and Sarah at the last minute also gets off the hook (she has a child, and does not have to rely on a handmaid - unlike Jesus again - who was born to a handmaid.) Consider our Savior's family - he had two sets of parents - a heavenly set, and an earthly set - he had two fathers, a Heavenly Father, and an earthly father. He had two mothers, an earthly handmaid, and a heavenly mother - and I believe all parties involved were sealed to one another. Mary had a child by another while married to Joseph - doesn't this sound familiar to what was happeneing within the early church? The point of it all is a test to see who can handle what the plan of salvation requires - and it requires a child of heavenly parents, to be born into mortality.... If you understand the why behind the test, there is no problem.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[canard78]

Interesting. Do you also wonder if Paul saw an angel of light on the road to Damascus, or was a vivid dream. You would suppose that the entire Bible is built on such vivid dreams and campfire stories.

I was mainly being facetious but I do find the "handshake" revelation a little odd. The fact that the best way to tell the difference between the devil appearing and a good spirit being a handshake.

[changed]

I was mainly being facetious but I do find the "handshake" revelation a little odd. The fact that the best way to tell the difference between the devil appearing and a good spirit being a handshake.

I think it's a very simple test - seeing how those who did not keep their first estate are denied physical bodies and all...

[changed]

There are two or three christian faiths that claim to have the complete truth: catholic, orthodox and mormon.

Mormons do not claim to have the complete truth - only part of the truth.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:9)

we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 29:13)

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

That's one of the whole points of Mormonism - an open cannon, ongoing revelation, mysteries to solve, greater light and knowledge to gain.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[Danzo]

So we're fine that Joseph Smith has a proven track record as a liar.

"I saw two personages..." Where does it start? Where does it end?

It Starts and It ends where you go and do the same that Joseph did, and ask.

That is the beauty of the gospel, each of us is entitled to our own revelation.

Joseph Smith said that even he would have had difficulty believing his story if it hadn't happened to him.

[Closet Doubter]

If it helps people -- yes.

CASteinman, do you speak for the Church or are you just an Ark Steadier? Because if you speak for the church and it is official that Brigham Young sending Henry Jacobs on a mission and then having his legal wife move in with him is acceptable to the Church today, than you make me want to distance myself from the Church even more than I have. I may just ask my bishop about this.

[Danzo]

CASteinman, do you speak for the Church or are you just an Ark Steadier? Because if you speak for the church and it is official that Brigham Young sending Henry Jacobs on a mission and then having his legal wife move in with him is acceptable to the Church today, than you make me want to distance myself from the Church even more than I have. I may just ask my bishop about this.

It turns out that he doesn't speak for the church. You can come back to the church.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Danzo

[canard78]

CASteinman, do you speak for the Church or are you just an Ark Steadier? Because if you speak for the church and it is official that Brigham Young sending Henry Jacobs on a mission and then having his legal wife move in with him is acceptable to the Church today, than you make me want to distance myself from the Church even more than I have. I may just ask my bishop about this.

CASteinman does not speak for the church. No-one on this board does. Everyone speaks for themselves. I'm not sure 'ark steadier' suits CASteinman. He certainly speaks his mind, but usually to steady/correct other posters based on his perspectives, rarely the church though.

You'll probably get very little mileage out of your Bishop. Most people have hardly heard the name Zina, let alone her marriage-merry-go-round.

CAS is currently on the hunt for a book that says Henry wanted the sealings to the prophet(s) to happen. We're awaiting his return.

In the meantime. Keep reading. I don't agree with them all, but there are some good replies on here and well-sourced.

[canard78]

It turns out that he doesn't speak for the church. You can come back to the church,

Indeed. One thing I've had to do on this board is remind myself that just because I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with some posters it doesn't mean I disagree with the church or God.

Most of this board is about 20% sources and 80% personal interpretation of them.

[Danzo]

Indeed. One thing I've had to do on this board is remind myself that just because I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with some posters it doesn't mean I disagree with the church or God.

Most of this board is about 20% sources and 80% personal interpretation of them.

LOL!

The biggest compliment I received on this board was when someone accused me of being an amateur apologist.

Never thought I was that important.

My opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it, anyone who doesn't like it can get a full refund.

[ERayR]

Indeed. One thing I've had to do on this board is remind myself that just because I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with some posters it doesn't mean I disagree with the church or God.

Most of this board is about 20% sources and 80% personal interpretation of them.

I would put that at about 5% to 95% but then that is my personal interpretation.

[Questing Beast]

Mormons do not claim to have the complete truth - only part of the truth.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:9)

we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 29:13)

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

That's one of the whole points of Mormonism - an open cannon, ongoing revelation, mysteries to solve, greater light and knowledge to gain.

But Mormonism does assert to have the only priesthood authority, i.e. direct "connection" to God, on the earth. It is an exclusive religious claim and brooks no rivals....

[Calm]

It almost seems experimental.

Exactly.

I believe that God gave him very few instructions to begin with and for some reason he didn't get more (besides the angel and the sword telling him to get going more), but tried to work it out himself. Whether this was because he didn't bother to ask, was too confused and troubled by the idea for the Spirit to speak to him clearly, God wanted to see what he would do on his own or much more likely some other reason, I don't think we can determine for ourselves save through the Spirit.

And since it was his life and challenge and not ours, I don't know if God will give anyone details save to be at peace about it.

Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I would put that at about 5% to 95% but then that is my personal interpretation.

I was thinking the same thing, though some few posters tend to skew the stats the other way, bless their academically oriented souls.

[canard78]

I would put that at about 5% to 95% but then that is my personal interpretation.

CFR

(Joke! Though I am tickled at the idea of going through umpteen million (??) threads and posts to see how many actually do have references)