The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[ERayR]

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.

It affects some families more because it is like a virus, those in the closest proximity are exposed and often catch the illness.

[Questing Beast]

There was no divorce, Zina simply stopped cohabiting with her legal husband, in preference for BY. That Jacobs was later disciplined for continued attempts to talk Zina into leaving BY, and resuming their marriage, indicates that BY had no patience with the man's moping about, as it were, casting sorrowful eyes upon his estranged wife. I feel sorry for Henry Jacobs. I also feel some scorn for him. I believe the anecdote about BY advising Jacobs to remarry but try to not marry above himself next time (words to that effect); the subsequent disciplinary actions against Jacobs support my belief that BY could be a disagreeable authoritarian at times....

[Danzo]

There was no divorce, Zina simply stopped cohabiting with her legal husband, in preference for BY. That Jacobs was later disciplined for continued attempts to talk Zina into leaving BY, and resuming their marriage, indicates that BY had no patience with the man's moping about, as it were, casting sorrowful eyes upon his estranged wife. I feel sorry for Henry Jacobs. I also feel some scorn for him. I believe the anecdote about BY advising Jacobs to remarry but try to not marry above himself next time (words to that effect); the subsequent disciplinary actions against Jacobs support my belief that BY could be a disagreeable authoritarian at times....

Can you provide a reference for us?

[Questing Beast]

It affects some families more because it is like a virus, those in the closest proximity are exposed and often catch the illness.

Quite possibly, if my brother had never left the Church, I would still be "in" today. Some complex was at work: where I have always respected my brothers' intelligence and education, so if one of them left the Church they would have to have well thought out reasons for doing so, and also I did not want my brother to feel alone in the family, when I was already teetering on the brink so to speak. It was a conscious decision when I got into the topic of JS's polyandry: All right, that is enough for me to accept my suspicion as truth, that "prophet" requires redefining, and all religions are in the same boat. I decided very deliberately to accompany my brother "out" of the Church, and continue to study from the new perspective as long as it presented the rewards of increased understanding and knowledge. That way I could test both options. I am still testing. I believe my brother is testing as well, and could return to association with the Church, but with changes in his approach to limit the Church's affect on his family life.

Or more likely my brother will never associate with the Church again: at first, for a few years he continued to attend sacrament meeting, to appease his wife's wants, and he has never balked at her paying tithing on "her share" of the family income, or being active in the Church in any way, etc. Meanwhile, I have never stopped associating as an active member, even possessing a temple recommend when needed in order to go when my children went on missions or married. Nothing in either my brother's or my life has altered to make us "unworthy".

And speaking for myself, knowledge and understanding seem to have steadily, even dramatically, increased since my decision to no longer accept the exclusive dogmatic claims of the Church. My world religious view is much wider than it ever was before. And I feel closer to "God" than I ever did before. My personal religion has expanded until the Church and its doctrines, especially its theology/cosmology, no longer feel big enough. I hesitate to write that last part, because it reads as prideful, but I am actually very humbled by the infinity of existence, which causes me to see all of us as little more aware than single cell organisms possessing sapience or imagination. We imagine much, we experience far less than we imagine, and "God" continually expands creation. There is nothing in the dogma of any organized religion, that I know of, that accepts such a cosmic pov as has taken hold of my mind since departing from the Church

Edited June 3, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

Can you provide a reference for us?

The chapter on Zina in Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness" covers all there is pertinent to the topic of Henry Jacobs and his relationship to Zina, including the source of BY's asserted dismissal of Jacobs as Zina's husband. The Net has this condensed page, referencing ISL http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/05-ZinaHuntingtonJacobs.htm. The Wikipedia page is more informative with good sources listed....

[Danzo]

The chapter on Zina in Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness" covers all there is pertinent to the topic of Henry Jacobs and his relationship to Zina, including the source of BY's asserted dismissal of Jacobs as Zina's husband. The Net has this condensed page, referencing ISL http://www.wivesofjo...ngtonJacobs.htm. The Wikipedia page is more informative with good sources listed....

Are you referring to " William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, 1852, pp. 43-44"?

[cdowis]

Like Joseph Smith, BY has little guidance from traditional precedence on how to handle polygamous marriage issues.

[bdouglas]

I'm sorry

One brother I can still talk to about it, in fact at least once a month we have lunch or breakfast and talk for 2-3 hours afterward (which is irritating to the the waitresses, so we always leave nice tips). I have hopes of one day reeling him back in. But with my other brother it is a subject we avoid, although I would not classify him as bitter. He says he's very grateful for his Mormon upbringing, also the discipline and foreign language he learned on his misson.

[canard78]

It affects some families more because it is like a virus, those in the closest proximity are exposed and often catch the illness.

One of my greatest fears as I've gone through my questions of faith is the impact I might have on others. I would rather a friend stay unaware of the history than get caught up in it all and potentially go through a similar discomfort.

This is not intended to sound like the patronising 'ignorance is bliss' line. Just that if my friends and family are happy with the information available to them I'll try my darndest to not be the trigger for their own investigations which could potentially lead to angst or pain

[canard78]

Can you provide a reference for us?

Most if QB's points are also supported in the references in the OP and first few pages of the thread. I'd done all my reading about Zina online from either supportive sites or Wikipedia (where you can at least check sources fairly easily, even if the editor has some bias).

[bcuzbcuz]

One of my greatest fears as I've gone through my questions of faith is the impact I might have on others. I would rather a friend stay unaware of the history than get caught up in it all and potentially go through a similar discomfort.

This is not intended to sound like the patronising 'ignorance is bliss' line. Just that if my friends and family are happy with the information available to them I'll try my darndest to not be the trigger for their own investigations which could potentially lead to angst or pain

I understand your sentiments, since I share them. My mother anguished over my inactivity for many years but never heard from me any of the long list of details of conflict between belief and reality. My brother shares some of the same experiences I have had, but we do not talk about them, since some of his children are still deeply involved in the church. My sister and her family and her children, all active, have never heard a word of contrariness from me. It is enough that I know my own path without trying to define theirs.

[Kenngo1969]

... if JS wasn't so imperfect it'd be easier to trust him. ...

Can I please put this, attributed, in my signature line? Pretty, pretty please? (Feel free to PM me if you don't want to respond on the Board).

Do you use that standard with other people in your life? Is your husband perfect? Do you trust him? Are your children perfect? Do you trust them?

The Lord, apparently, isn’t quite as worried about whether His Prophets are perfect as you are. See Doctrine & Covenants 1:25-28.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I understand your sentiments, since I share them. My mother anguished over my inactivity for many years but never heard from me any of the long list of details of conflict between belief and reality. My brother shares some of the same experiences I have had, but we do not talk about them, since some of his children are still deeply involved in the church. My sister and her family and her children, all active, have never heard a word of contrariness from me. It is enough that I know my own path without trying to define theirs.

“Belief and reality” … ? Usually I’m inclined to “live-and-let-live,” especially with those who struggle, but with all due respect … do you have any idea how condescending this looks to many of your readers? My goodness! It’s like Grant Palmer, the Mission President, and the Conveniently Anonymous Seventy, all over again! “The Twelve and the Seventy all know it’s a fraud, but it took poor Brother Dieter awhile longer to catch on because he wasn’t an insider …” Poor, poor Brother Dieter! Please!

“That’s right, folks! I’ve seen Reality, and it’s only a matter of time before you benighted, deluded souls will, too! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?” I’ve got news for you: you’re just like the rest of us. As Steven R. Covey once said, “We don’t see ‘reality’ as it is; we see ‘reality’ as we are.” You and others of your ilk simply can’t imagine anyone looking at the same allegedly-damaging information you’ve seen and coming to a different conclusion, can you? Well, here’s a news flash for you: God doesn’t compel belief! Both belief and doubt are choices! Thank you so much for refraining from damaging our fragile faith, which obviously cannot withstand the TRUTH!

Gimme a break!

Edited June 3, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Stone holm]

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.

Exactly what value is it to try and sort out this history in understanding the behavior? The simple answer is "it's complicated". It is unfortunate if Jacob got slandered in an article and the Church should not have published that error, but the article was dated when? At this point, it probably serves no purpose to even publish a retraction. Zina obviously was considered an important woman for leadership purposes and probably for spiritual purposes, if we weren't so hung up on trying to paint a perfect marital image, it wouldn't matter that we can't otherwise put the jig saw pieces together. Back then they were sealing children to people other than their parents and there was a lot of confusion regarding how sealings should work, not surprising given that much of the doctrine was presented in a hurry just before Joseph and Hyrum died of high velocity lead poisoning. Are we really doing any good whatsoever by reviewing the whole situation by standards that were worked out after that time? A time of intense social instability? I mean this wasn't the 1950's folks no matter how much we want 1950's Middle-Class white families to be projected as the ideal Mormon families -- we clearly weren't dancing to the exact same tune back then. Give it a rest.

[Tacenda]

One of my greatest fears as I've gone through my questions of faith is the impact I might have on others. I would rather a friend stay unaware of the history than get caught up in it all and potentially go through a similar discomfort.

This is not intended to sound like the patronising 'ignorance is bliss' line. Just that if my friends and family are happy with the information available to them I'll try my darndest to not be the trigger for their own investigations which could potentially lead to angst or pain

My husband, ever since finding out certain things about the church like head in the hat, JS polygamy etc. will occasionally bring them up at work. I feel this is a big no- no, his boss was a former bishop and owns the company. I feel he'll get fired if he keeps it up. In fact some employees are non members and my husband says some will look up porn on the internet, imho I think my husband would get fired before they would! ETA: I also agree that we shouldn't bring certain things up to our friends and family, especially after going through so much pain, that's why I feel bad about saying anything at Primary. But my husband brought up JS's wives to our next door neighbor. I got really ticked at him. It's like he's trying to prove to me that it's no big deal, maybe it is no big deal. Edited June 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

My husband, ever since finding out certain things about the church like head in the hat, JS polygamy etc. will occasionally bring them up at work. I feel this is a big no- no, his boss was a former bishop and owns the company. I feel he'll get fired if he keeps it up. In fact some employees are non members and my husband says some will look up porn on the internet, imho I think my husband would get fired before they would! ETA: I also agree that we shouldn't bring certain things up to our friends and family, especially after going through so much pain, that's why I feel bad about saying anything at Primary. But my husband brought up JS's wives to our next door neighbor. I got really ticked at him. It's like he's trying to prove to me that it's no big deal, maybe it is no big deal.

No real reason to be bringing that stuff up.

[Tacenda]

Can I please put this, attributed, in my signature line? Pretty, pretty please? (Feel free to PM me if you don't want to respond on the Board).

Do you use that standard with other people in your life? Is your husband perfect? Do you trust him? Are your children perfect? Do you trust them?

The Lord, apparently, isn’t quite as worried about whether His Prophets are perfect as you are. See Doctrine & Covenants 1:25-28.

Excuse me, but I didn't say that I think you got me confused with someone else!!! Please CFR that I even said this. I'm not mad though. OOPS, went back and saw that I did say it but you kinda took it out of context, if you want to play that game, I'm ready to play. Edited June 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[canard78]

“Belief and reality” … ? Usually I’m inclined to “live-and-let-live,” especially with those who struggle, but with all due respect … do you have any idea how condescending this looks to many of your readers? My goodness! It’s like Grant Palmer, the Mission President, and the Conveniently Anonymous Seventy, all over again! “The Twelve and the Seventy all know it’s a fraud, but it took poor Brother Dieter awhile longer to catch on because he wasn’t an insider …” Poor, poor Brother Dieter! Please!

“That’s right, folks! I’ve seen Reality, and it’s only a matter of time before you benighted, deluded souls will, too! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?” I’ve got news for you: you’re just like the rest of us. As Steven R. Covey once said, “We don’t see ‘reality’ as it is; we see ‘reality’ as we are.” You and others of your ilk simply can’t imagine anyone looking at the same allegedly-damaging information you’ve seen and coming to a different conclusion, can you? Well, here’s a news flash for you: God doesn’t compel belief! Both belief and doubt are choices! Thank you so much for refraining from damaging our fragile faith, which obviously cannot withstand the TRUTH!

Gimme a break!

Bcuzbcuz can speak for himself but given this statement is also implicating as 'others of his ilk' I'll reply. My point was entirely the opposite of what you're implying and I think bcuzbcuz's is too.

He and I have different conclusions from the same information which in turn is different to nearly every individual other person here. Tagriffy and I have agreed on some things but not others.

But... The 'reality' of our history - even the defended FAIR version - can still cause surprise and discomfort. It can sometimes lead to a loss of faith but not always. What both of us, I think, we'e saying is it was not for to impose information on others that had the potential to cause alarm and it some cases a loss of faith.

[Stone holm]

Bcuzbcuz can speak for himself but given this statement is also implicating as 'others of his ilk' I'll reply. My point was entirely the opposite of what you're implying and I think bcuzbcuz's is too.

He and I have different conclusions from the same information which in turn is different to nearly every individual other person here. Tagriffy and I have agreed on some things but not others.

But... The 'reality' of our history - even the defended FAIR version - can still cause surprise and discomfort. It can sometimes lead to a loss of faith but not always. What both of us, I think, we'e saying is it was not for to impose information on others that had the potential to cause alarm and it some cases a loss of faith.

Especially if that information serves no purpose other than to impugn the reputation of a leader. It's one thing to discuss history where the purpose is to understand doctrine, or understand a certain policy or tradition, and perhaps to challenge the doctrine, policy or tradition, however, anti-Mormons frequently are only interested in using history to do a character assassination like is common in political debates. That serves no useful purpose and degrades all of us. I am one of the first to launch an attack where I feel someone is not in my opinion making logical doctrinal sense or where I believe cultural bias is being substituted for sound policy regardless of the hierarchical status of the person quoted. But this stuff is just pitching in the dirt and not particularly recent dirt at that.

[canard78]

Especially if that information serves no purpose other than to impugn the reputation of a leader. It's one thing to discuss history where the purpose is to understand doctrine, or understand a certain policy or tradition, and perhaps to challenge the doctrine, policy or tradition, however, anti-Mormons frequently are only interested in using history to do a character assassination like is common in political debates. That serves no useful purpose and degrades all of us. I am one of the first to launch an attack where I feel someone is not in my opinion making logical doctrinal sense or where I believe cultural bias is being substituted for sound policy regardless of the hierarchical status of the person quoted. But this stuff is just pitching in the dirt and not particularly recent dirt at that.

I suppose 'impugn' is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, as I search for answers I don't want anything kept from me because it might be hard to hear/read.

[Stone holm]

I suppose 'impugn' is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, as I search for answers I don't want anything kept from me because it might be hard to hear/read.

But what doctrinal purpose does this serve other to call into question the integrity of BY or Zina or Jacob or even JS?

[canard78]

But what doctrinal purpose does this serve other to call into question the integrity of BY or Zina or Jacob or even JS?

If two out of that list combine to be the founding fathers of most of that doctrine you talk of then an investigation into their ability to receive, understand and apply that doctrine is entirely relevant to many people. The actions of both of them in their very different and inconsistent applications of the apparent revelation on polygamy suggests to me that at least one of them got it wrong. Which one: Joseph, Brigham, both, neither?

You may say that with 170 years of time passed I'm in no place to pass judgement. I'd say I'm in the only place I can be. 'Here.' So with what else and from where else can I make that appraisal?

I make decisions every day with limited information. It's a natural part of life. I will choose which route to take to work with limited information. I joined the church with limited information. If I moved on to a different faith practice it would be with limited information. There is only one type of perfect knowledge offered: our own experience. The rest is faith and hope based on limited information.

[Kenngo1969]

Excuse me, but I didn't say that I think you got me confused with someone else!!! Please CFR that I even said this. I'm not mad though. OOPS, went back and saw that I did say it but you kinda took it out of context, if you want to play that game, I'm ready to play.

How so?

[canard78]

How so?

I think the point she's making is that quote out of context is unfair.

The point she made, said somewhat in jest, is that yes of course we should make allowances for all leaders based on the principle of fallibility.

But sometimes it gets to the stage where the actions of Joseph or Brigham stretch those boundaries so far that some people find it difficult to retain confidence in them.

It's probably not fair. But life isn't either.

And Tacenda, please don't indulge kenngo in the out of context quote.

[Kenngo1969]

Bcuzbcuz can speak for himself but given this statement is also implicating as 'others of his ilk' I'll reply. My point was entirely the opposite of what you're implying and I think bcuzbcuz's is too.

He and I have different conclusions from the same information which in turn is different to nearly every individual other person here. Tagriffy and I have agreed on some things but not others.

But... The 'reality' of our history - even the defended FAIR version - can still cause surprise and discomfort. It can sometimes lead to a loss of faith but not always. What both of us, I think, we'e saying is it was not for to impose information on others that had the potential to cause alarm and it some cases a loss of faith.

I take umbrage (I don't take umbrage at very many things, so that should tell you something) at the implication that there's only one conclusion possible if one honestly examines Church history. It's not just an incredible ability to stifle cognitive dissonance that allows someone who conducts such an examination to remain a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ. One cannot be a reasonably intelligent member of the Church with a reasonably well-functioning brain and not have questions. Questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith are choices.