The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Calm]

His emotional connection to the subject of polygany/polyandry is dispassionate

I would challenge this as he apparently presented some quotes about hardships that were caused by the environment that everyone had to go through, plural or monogamously married, as quotes about the hardships of plural marriage. From what I've read, he was not a fan of plural marriage and I think it came across in his writing.

Also:

Full reports of the women’s mass meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical documents are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example, in his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884-1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined.

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speech,” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But a speech wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

…to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach.

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor. Notice of the meeting was published in theDeseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

Four other plural wives of Joseph Smith participated in the mass meeting yet Todd Compton does not mention the significant participation and contributions of these women to the 1886 mass meeting in his book In Sacred Loneliness. In addition to Helen Mar Whitney we find Zina D.H. Young, the chaplain at the Great Mass Meeting, who opened the meeting with prayer (p. 7) and gave the closing benediction; Prescindia L. Kimball who delivered the opening address (p. 10); Eliza R. Snow Smith who wrote a brief letter (p. 67); and Mary Ann Pratt who also contributed a letter (p. 59).

http://www.fairlds.o...and-misinformed Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

I would challenge this as he apparently presented some quotes about hardships that were caused by the environment that everyone had to go through, plural or monogamously married, as quotes about the hardships of plural marriage. From what I've read, he was not a fan of plural marriage and I think it came across in his writing.

Also:

http://www.fairlds.o...and-misinformed

So Compton did not mention this mass meeting in In Sacred Loneliness. I am sure he left out a lot of stuff in that book. He admitted that the material was too extensive to treat all of it. His holistic chapter approach was spare, representative and thorough in providing insight into each of JS's many wives. That Compton has a personal disagreement with plural marriage is likely, as I don't know any men personally who prefer the notion of that to monogamous marriage! But as much as humanly possible, Compton kept his feelings and personal views out of his book and stuck to the evidence....

[Calm]

But as much as humanly possible, Compton kept his feelings and personal views out of his book and stuck to the evidence....

He also quoted a woman complaining about hardship in her life (lack of enough food to eat IIRC) and presented it as a result of being a plural life while the reality was that everyone, man, woman and child, were experiencing the same thing because of environmental issues.

That is not just leaving something out or sticking to the evidence.

I don't have the book on my shelf so will try and find the reference elsewhere, my memory says it was Sister Sessions he was quoting.

[Calm]

Here is another problematic quote he uses...or rather a quote he uses in a problematic way:

http://www.mormondia...360#entry433887

Also:

Nighthawke is the one who tracked down other misused quotes in his book, I am hoping there are other mentions in that thread.

Another problem:

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

He also quoted a woman complaining about hardship in her life (lack of enough food to eat IIRC) and presented it as a result of being a plural life while the reality was that everyone, man, woman and child, were experiencing the same thing because of environmental issues.

That is not just leaving something out or sticking to the evidence.

I don't have the book on my shelf so will try and find the reference elsewhere, my memory says it was Sister Sessions he was quoting.

I'm currently rereading In Sacred Loneliness. The comments by the women of hardship are presented by Compton to illustrate both conditions: the general hard times experienced by everybody, and the virtual "single mother" existences of the plural wives, whose husbands often had far more wives than they could possibly look after, especially compared to a monogamous marriage. I do not detect a misapplication of the quotes of the women in this regard....

[USU78]

So Compton did not mention this mass meeting in In Sacred Loneliness. I am sure he left out a lot of stuff in that book. He admitted that the material was too extensive to treat all of it. His holistic chapter approach was spare, representative and thorough in providing insight into each of JS's many wives. That Compton has a personal disagreement with plural marriage is likely, as I don't know any men personally who prefer the notion of that to monogamous marriage! But as much as humanly possible, Compton kept his feelings and personal views out of his book and stuck to the evidence....

One man's haircut is another man's beheading.

Compton, by so editing the material, misrepresents the people.

[Calm]

I'm currently rereading In Sacred Loneliness. The comments by the women of hardship are presented by Compton to illustrate both conditions: the general hard times experienced by everybody, and the virtual "single mother" existences of the plural wives, whose husbands often had far more wives than they could possibly look after, especially compared to a monogamous marriage. I do not detect a misapplication of the quotes of the women in this regard....

Are you taking the quotes back to their original sources to check them?

[Questing Beast]

Are you taking the quotes back to their original sources to check them?

I read the notes in the back. They are rather extensive, but not, of course, like crunching the original sources, which is what Compton did. Do you have any specific examples of taking issue with the way he presents the material on any of JS's wives? I don't, but then then I am not a scholar....

[DonBradley]

My two cents:

After everything Henry Jacobs went through it's utterly tragic to see him maligned as abandoning his wife. I can't help but think that Henry Jacobs will be richly blessed in the eternities.

Don

[Glenn101]

My two cents:

After everything Henry Jacobs went through it's utterly tragic to see him maligned as abandoning his wife. I can't help but think that Henry Jacobs will be richly blessed in the eternities.

Don

I agree on that also. We don't have enough information on that to make any kind of informed judgment.

Glenn

[canard78]

My two cents:

After everything Henry Jacobs went through it's utterly tragic to see him maligned as abandoning his wife. I can't help but think that Henry Jacobs will be richly blessed in the eternities.

Don

Thanks Don. I'd intended to ask your opinion on the topic in the other thread you started.

It's a story of contrasts. Zina goes on to be on the arm of the most powerful man in Utah and the third RS president. Henry gets shunted out and eventually disfellowshipped for unauthorised polygamy (the irony).

[Glenn101]

Thanks Don. I'd intended to ask your opinion on the topic in the other thread you started.

It's a story of contrasts. Zina goes on to be on the arm of the most powerful man in Utah and the third RS president. Henry gets shunted out and eventually disfellowshipped for unauthorised polygamy (the irony).

Again, we do not have enough information to make a righteous judgment in this matter. Let the Lord handle it.

Glenn

[Thinking]

I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been covered.

Was Zina's marriage to Henry a civil marriage or a celestial mariage?

[cdowis]

del

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[bdouglas]

I'm not from Utah

Do you have any information about "The Rescue" from church sources?

I'm not from Utah, so maybe I don't see it. Utah can be a strange place at times.

Church attendance is generally up, I see few people leaving. Most that I see leaving are due to the same things that have always been a problem, mainly sin.

I know more people who have left the church because of homosexual behavior than doubt as to church history.

I know a few who have left the church, but none of these people have any idea of church history, or history in general.

Those in the church that I know that study history, like myself, seem to be the strongest members.

I remember first learning about polygamy from a member of the stake presidency.

To learn that early leaders of the church struggled keeping the commandments just makes me feel that I might have a chance, after all.

Anyone who has served much in the church already knows the fallibility of its leadership.

I come from a very large very active LDS family, a family that goes all the way back to church founders and early members. And in my family alone several have left over historical matters. The ones who left all served missions, were bishops, served in leadership, etc., and were well educated.

[Danzo]

I come from a very large very active LDS family, a family that goes all the way back to church founders and early members. And in my family alone several have left over historical matters. The ones who left all served missions, were bishops, served in leadership, etc., and were well educated.

Can you share how all of these bishops came to leave the church over historical matters?

[canard78]

I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been covered.

Was Zina's marriage to Henry a civil marriage or a celestial mariage?

Zina and Henry were married before the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed. They were not sealed later to each other.

Zina was sealed for eternity in Nauvoo temple to the dead Joseph with Brigham as proxy. Henry was there as a witness (they were still married, she was carrying Henry's second child at the time. I suppose that means his second son was born under the covenant between Zina & Joseph).

The next line on the temple record shows that Zina was then sealed to Brigham for time only and Henry was again a witness. A bit odd.

[canard78]

Again, we do not have enough information to make a righteous judgment in this matter. Let the Lord handle it.

Glenn

You're right. But I do at least want to try to understand the place of it all. I continue to sort through our history to try understand their behaviour.

[Stone holm]

Having read most of the comments on this rather long thread, I could not help but wonder if this is not a boomerang effect of the Church having followed the Christian Right down the path of basically limiting all morality discussions to sexual morality. Surely, the early pioneer era was one of intense social instability where the focus was on literally building the Kingdom of God on Earth. If we were focusing on the group collaborative efforts of these people, we might be less concerned about whether they got all their marriage and sexual activities lined up in perfect order. It might have been sufficient then to say that Zina's marital history was complicated and just moved on without dawdling over the oddities of spirit marriages, etc. But, now having gone nuts over sexuality, we now have to endure this kind of bedroom scrutiny of people long dead who appear to have successfully reached a consensual agreement on the matter. So instead of having a prolonged discussion of policies implemented during her career as RS President, we have a discussion in depth of Zina's marital history. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

[canard78]

Having read most of the comments on this rather long thread, I could not help but wonder if this is not a boomerang effect of the Church having followed the Christian Right down the path of basically limiting all morality discussions to sexual morality. Surely, the early pioneer era was one of intense social instability where the focus was on literally building the Kingdom of God on Earth. If we were focusing on the group collaborative efforts of these people, we might be less concerned about whether they got all their marriage and sexual activities lined up in perfect order. It might have been sufficient then to say that Zina's marital history was complicated and just moved on without dawdling over the oddities of spirit marriages, etc. But, now having gone nuts over sexuality, we now have to endure this kind of bedroom scrutiny of people long dead who appear to have successfully reached a consensual agreement on the matter. So instead of having a prolonged discussion of policies implemented during her career as RS President, we have a discussion in depth of Zina's marital history. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Somewhere buried on page ?? I made the comment that we really have no idea what life was like for them. I'd given an example of Hyrum warning of some members in Nauvoo (or maybe Kirkland, I forget) who were actually bandits. They'd joined the church and had then gone around looting other non-mormon neighbours 'in the name of God' while keeping the spoils for themselves. And we thought a few podcasters were trouble from within...

It still makes for strange reading to a 21st C reader. That's the danger of studying history. Expecting people who effectively lived in another world to behave like us.

[Stone holm]

Somewhere buried on page ?? I made the comment that we really have no idea what life was like for them. I'd given an example of Hyrum warning of some members in Nauvoo (or maybe Kirkland, I forget) who were actually bandits. They'd joined the church and had then gone around looting other non-mormon neighbours 'in the name of God' while keeping the spoils for themselves. And we thought a few podcasters were trouble from within...

It still makes for strange reading to a 21st C reader. That's the danger of studying history. Expecting people who effectively lived in another world to behave like us.

I still think we sometimes get so hung up on this quest for sexual purity, that we ignore other issues and wind up condemning or marginalizing people who could provide needed assistance and leadership. I know nothing about Zina or what she did or did not accomplish for the Church, all I know about her now is that she had a complicated marital history.

[bdouglas]

Can you share how all of these bishops came to leave the church over historical matters?

Two bishops, and no, I can't--for privacy reasons. But two former bishops, five or so returned missionaries...and then a small handful who are still in the church but are NOM-ish. To say that there isn't a problem is like putting our heads in the sand. Some families have been more affected by this than the others. In my family the two former bishops who have left were people you would never have dreamed would one day leave. It is possible one may come back, but the other is long gone. Especially in the case of one of the former bishops, polyandry was a huge stumbling block; for the other, it was one among a number of issues.

[Questing Beast]

My younger brother was serving as a bishopric counselor when he left. He gave one final "testimony" from the pulpit to politely explain that he was leaving, but as far as I know did not get into any of the honesty issues he has with the Church. His stumbling block was the BoA "translation" assertions. Polyandry was another significant issue. He put me onto "In Sacred Loneliness" and said, "read it and weep, brother, I did". I did not weep, but I was already prepared for departure by long study creating a very over-stuffed "shelf" of shelved issues. Another big issue with my brother was the way the Church asserts "family first", yet anyone serving in the church in leadership roles is heavily involved time-wise, and family suffers, which is ironic and sometimes tragic. We all know individuals whose marriages suffer(ed) because of spending too much time and attention on Church callings, while marriage and children get relegated to second and third place, etc. My brother wanted no more of that....

[ERayR]

I come from a very large very active LDS family, a family that goes all the way back to church founders and early members. And in my family alone several have left over historical matters. The ones who left all served missions, were bishops, served in leadership, etc., and were well educated.

I'm sorry

[ERayR]

Zina and Henry were married before the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed. They were not sealed later to each other.

Zina was sealed for eternity in Nauvoo temple to the dead Joseph with Brigham as proxy. Henry was there as a witness (they were still married, she was carrying Henry's second child at the time. I suppose that means his second son was born under the covenant between Zina & Joseph).

The next line on the temple record shows that Zina was then sealed to Brigham for time only and Henry was again a witness. A bit odd.

Sounds like some of the amicable divorces I see now.