The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Calm]

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

And there is the problem that the more references a thread has the more likely it will have been saved during one of the updates because of the preference of the mods and those of us (this is supposed to be me not trying to draw too much attention to myself) who helped out on occasion towards saving threads that would be useful for referencing in the future for information. One would have to take a snapshot rather than study the whole existence still available....

Can you tell I am bored and looking for stuff to think about?

Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[changed]

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....

I thought you could also have the priesthood if you were a direct decendant of Aaron -

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 68:15 - 16)

15 Wherefore they shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.

16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron...

I'm sure there are a few descendants of Aaron running around who aren't Mormon who have the priesthood.

Edited May 9, 2013 by changed

[changed]

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

and a good thing too, you wouldn't want anyone to think Mormons aren't able to think for themselves would you? That would be a horrible thing if all we could do was regurgitate - word for word - what our cult has brainwashed us to say, wouldn't it?

[canard78]

And there is the problem that the more references a thread has the more likely it will have been saved during one of the updates because of the preference of the mods and those of us (this is supposed to be me not trying to draw too much attention to myself) who helped out on occasion towards saving threads that would be useful for referencing in the future for information. One would have to take a snapshot rather than study the whole existence still available....

Can you tell I am bored and looking for stuff to think about?

I spend a large part of my life worrying about step changes in data due to sampling error. So I love the fact that you've given an impossible task like this the practical considerations of actually doing it

[canard78]

and a good thing too, you wouldn't want anyone to think Mormons aren't able to think for themselves would you? That would be a horrible thing if all we could do was regurgitate - word for word - what our cult has brainwashed us to say, wouldn't it?

Absolutely, I agree. But I enjoy the fact that this board, better than most others in the bloggernacle, insists on backing up assertions about the church or other statements of fact.

Of course the same sources generate very different interpretations, and that's where the fun starts, but at least there are references in the first place.

[Calm]

I spend a large part of my life worrying about step changes in data due to sampling error. So I love the fact that you've given an impossible task like this the practical considerations of actually doing it

I am glad someone likes it that I tend to be obsessive about stuff like this, my family tends to laugh at me when I start breaking down the various issues of certain sci fi claims or try to create scenarios where bizarre plot twists in movies and TV actually make sense....hey, it tends to make the watching of such more interesting, so why not? (unless I am in a bad mood and then I tend to point out problems to dismiss the program as trash, etc. ).

[ERayR]

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)

It was noted that it was my personal interpretation. No CFR.

[canard78]

It was noted that it was my personal interpretation. No CFR.

For the record (in case these things are logged or something) no CFR needed. No 'strike against you.' I was joking and I know you were making a guess. I was laughing at the idea of trying to prove it in the first place (which is why I put 'joke' at the end).

Peace to you ERayR

[cdowis]

Once again, after asking for a response to my questions on the witnesses, Dan Vogel has disappeared. I have been asking for a response for over a year now -- this is the fourth time, but I am patient. It is very tiring that he continues to pretend that he has answered them.

I guess he is very busy.

[canard78]

Once again, after asking for a response to my questions on the witnesses, Dan Vogel has disappeared. I have been asking for a response for over a year now -- this is the fourth time, but I am patient. It is very tiring that he continues to pretend that he has answered them.

I guess he is very busy.

I'm sure he's off making his next video. Maybe you'll catch him next time.

[Calm]

Once again, after asking for a response to my questions on the witnesses, Dan Vogel has disappeared. I have been asking for a response for over a year now -- this is the fourth time, but I am patient. It is very tiring that he continues to pretend that he has answered them.

I guess he is very busy.

And you are posting this in this thread why...?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hi canard,

Good post. I believe that the whole Zina Huntington "case" is troublesome to many when they learn about it. I have to admit that it does still bother me and it's difficult to understand why Jacob was treated like he was. One has to wonder why he stayed with Zina as long as he did. I just have to believe and hope there is information and some details we don't know.

Also, some of the reasons given for Joseph Smith living polyandry don't seem to apply to this case (ie. Jacob was an active member of the church).

But the most troubling question I have is related to why Brigham Young entered into a polyandrous marriage with her when she'd already been sealed to Joseph and she was still with her legal husband (who was still an active member of the church). I do know that Zina had a say in all of this, but why would Brigham Young choose to marry her when he could only be sealed to her for time? This polyandrous marriage leaves me shaking my head (others do too actually....but this one makes no sense to me).

So far, no one has been able to give me a good answer as to why Brigham married her (when he couldn't be sealed to her).

What is interesting is that Joseph got Emma pregnant 11 times in their marriage, but fathered no other children with anyone else...what are the odds? Edited May 9, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[ERayR]

For the record (in case these things are logged or something) no CFR needed. No 'strike against you.' I was joking and I know you were making a guess. I was laughing at the idea of trying to prove it in the first place (which is why I put 'joke' at the end).

Peace to you ERayR

I know I just wanted to get it on the record. Peace !!

Edited May 9, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Once again, after asking for a response to my questions on the witnesses, Dan Vogel has disappeared. I have been asking for a response for over a year now -- this is the fourth time, but I am patient. It is very tiring that he continues to pretend that he has answered them.

I guess he is very busy.

Vogal has spoken. The thinking has been done. No need for answers.

[ERayR]

And you are posting this in this thread why...?

Simple. You catch him where you can.

[cdowis]

And you are posting this in this thread why...?

And you are asking, because......?

Read the thread and you will find out for yourself.

[Calm]

And you are asking, because......?

I am asking because he hasn't posted in this thread that I can see--though perhaps I have missed it---and considering his limited involvement, in my opinion he probably wouldn't be reading it.

And I have read the thread and I still don't understand why you would post such a comment in a thread where he is not likely reading and definitely not commenting. It seems counterproductive unless all you want to do is make him look bad for not responding to another thread.

Edited May 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am asking because he hasn't posted in this thread that I can see--though perhaps I have missed it---and considering his limited involvement, in my opinion he probably wouldn't be reading it.

And I have read the thread and I still don't understand why you would post such a comment in a thread where he is not likely reading and definitely not commenting. It seems counterproductive unless all you want to do is make him look bad for not responding to another thread.

His last post was here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/user/1071-dan-vogel/page__tab__posts

[Calm]

His last post was here: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209256234

http://www.mormondia...age__tab__posts

Also when you click on someone's profile, the "find content" pulls up more than just the most recent comments, but goes back for a year or so. There was no sign of any posting in this thread. Edited May 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

Oops.

You're right. Got my threads mixed up.

[Calm]

No problem, it was just a curious action given the circumstances...I was wondering if you had done just that but I didn't want to assume. I thought perhaps there was some subtle connection I was missing. I can see you calling him to account in a conversation he took part in, but a random thread didn't seem like something you would do.

[canard78]

What is interesting is that Joseph got Emma pregnant 11 times in their marriage, but fathered no other children with anyone else...what are the odds?

Although there are a couple of 'possible' kids, the fact they remain only possibles and there aren't others from the 'one husband' set is as strong an evidence as you could want that, for Joseph, polygamy wasn't 'all about the sex.'

Having said that, 30 wives provides its own inbuilt contraception. Imperfect, but actually less probable to result in kids than being married to one wife.

I won't get too technical!

[ERayR]

Although there are a couple of 'possible' kids, the fact they remain only possibles and there aren't others from the 'one husband' set is as strong an evidence as you could want that, for Joseph, polygamy wasn't 'all about the sex.'

I have made this point more than once in other threads. it usually gets ignored because it doesn't fit with the concept of Joseph being dirty old man.

[Questing Beast]

Once again, Todd Compton's approach is the best I have seen so far. His emotional connection to the subject of polygany/polyandry is dispassionate, the seeking of the historian for the truth. He allows the evidence to speak only as far as it actually can, not as far as he wishes it to go. He gives both sides constantly. In his opinion the evidence is clear enough to support a belief that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with one or more other women than his legal, first wife, Emma Hale. But Compton allows that the evidence is not conclusive enough to force agreement from those who disbelieve that sex ever occurred between JS and other women than Emma....

[ERayR]

Once again, Todd Compton's approach is the best I have seen so far. His emotional connection to the subject of polygany/polyandry is dispassionate, the seeking of the historian for the truth. He allows the evidence to speak only as far as it actually can, not as far as he wishes it to go. He gives both sides constantly. In his opinion the evidence is clear enough to support a belief that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with one or more other women than his legal, first wife, Emma Hale. But Compton allows that the evidence is not conclusive enough to force agreement from those who disbelieve that sex ever occurred between JS and other women than Emma....

I would not be surprised if he did. After all sex is a part of marriage. For the voyeuristic amongst us would you mind listing which ones he had sex with and which ones he didn't?