The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[ERayR]

You want me to cite that there is no evidence for what the Church claims?

From your post: The problem is this publication didn't present it as "speculation." It presented it as fact. It dragged this man's good name through the mud for no good reason.

cite please

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . After Henry deserted Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young and crossed the plains to the Salt Lake Valley with his family. A few years later a daughter, Zina Presendia Young, was born. . . . . . this was in 1989 and written by Janet Peterson. I also know that this article is used by critics of the lds church to stress that he church lies about it. What I find amazing is when a writer writes an article and it is printed in a church magazine which has editors, etc, and this article has a 'mistake' suddenly it becomes a church leadership issue. Now of course, one can blame the writer and the editor but can one blame the church leadership? A possible mistake could not have been made by the writer with an oversight by the editor?

So where is the retraction or clarification? I'm sure that if the Church felt there was a major error caused by the oversight of the writer or editor then they would have printed a clarification or retraction. Absent this, the Church is responsible for this glaring misinformation.

Here is a very simple version about her on the lds.org website.

Marriage and Family

Zina married Henry Bailey Jacobs on March 7, 1841. They had two sons but did not remain together. As a plural wife of Brigham Young, Zina had one daughter, and she raised four other children as her own after their mother died. Blessed with the gift of healing and limited medical training, Zina helped the sick and delivered countless babies. She died August 28, 1901, in Salt Lake City.

"They did not remain together" - this statement leaves so much out that it gives a different impression of what happened than the reality. The Church's websight clarifies that intentionally leaving out information in order to make something appear other than it really is, is a lie.

[Stone holm]

So where is the retraction or clarification? I'm sure that if the Church felt there was a major error caused by the oversight of the writer or editor then they would have printed a clarification or retraction. Absent this, the Church is responsible for this glaring misinformation.

"They did not remain together" - this statement leaves so much out that it gives a different impression of what happened than the reality. The Church's websight clarifies that intentionally leaving out information in order to make something appear other than it really is, is a lie.

Oh I don't think so, leaving out statements for which there may be controversy and taking a more neutral stance that does not convey an opinion is perfectly proper and in this case highly appropriate. Whether the Friend should or should not have printed a retraction is another matter depending on the amount of time that had gone by whether the retraction would have actually done more harm than good, whether a retraction would have just kept threads like this churning providing no benefit to the deceased's memory, etc.

[ERayR]

"They did not remain together" - this statement leaves so much out that it gives a different impression of what happened than the reality. The Church's websight clarifies that intentionally leaving out information in order to make something appear other than it really is, is a lie.

We don't have any idea what the "reality" is. The "reality" is they did not remain together. Anything else you may imagine is just that, your imagination.

[Calm]

The Church's websight clarifies that intentionally leaving out information in order to make something appear other than it really is, is a lie.

Have you personally or do you know of someone who has informed them of the problem? If not, how do you know for sure that there is an awareness by those who have the ability and responsibility to make the change of the need for the change?

Even if one were to agree that there is no way to interpret Henry's relationship to Zina as abandoning her and his family, that we have enough information to conclude this for sure, that doesn't mean that not only do others that make this decision agree with that or that others that would make this decision remember that there was that error made in the past.

Unless there is a conscious decision to misrepresent what one knows is a fact I think calling it a lie is wrong and inflammatory. If you want to call it false, go ahead, but the use of "lie" signals an intent that isn't proven, imo. And may be seen as defaming by some as an accusation of abandoning one's family.

Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Oh I don't think so, leaving out statements for which there may be controversy and taking a more neutral stance that does not convey an opinion is perfectly proper and in this case highly appropriate. Whether the Friend should or should not have printed a retraction is another matter depending on the amount of time that had gone by whether the retraction would have actually done more harm than good, whether a retraction would have just kept threads like this churning providing no benefit to the deceased's memory, etc.

I will look for the info later, but I believe there have been studies that have demonstrated that correction of misinformation may actually lead to a strengthening of that belief in an individual depending on the timing of the correction simply due to the way the memory works.

something similar: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/realtimecorr.htm

Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I will look for the info later, but I believe there have been studies that have demonstrated that correction of misinformation may actually lead to a strengthening of that belief in an individual depending on the timing of the correction simply due to the way the memory works.

something similar: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/realtimecorr.htm

If I understand what you are saying, that sometimes a retraction does more harm than good, I agree.

[Calm]

If I understand what you are saying, that sometimes a retraction does more harm than good, I agree.

Yes, I am attempting to give a reason for why sometimes it can do more harm. If one is going to correct information, sometimes it is better to wait until the right time when enough context as well as information can be provided in order to persuade the mind to give up a habit of thought rather than just attempting to correct one limited fact (limited in the sense of the amount of info it carries). Otherwise, retractions---even though they are saying the complete opposite thing---just may end up reinforcing a false belief. Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Yes, I am attempting to give a reason for why sometimes it can do more harm. If one is going to correct information, sometimes it is better to wait until the right time when enough context as well as information can be provided in order to persuade the mind to give up a habit of thought rather than just attempting to correct one limited fact (limited in the sense of the amount of info it carries). Otherwise, retractions---even though they are saying the complete opposite thing---just may end up reinforcing a false belief.

To add to the problem in this day and age a retraction may be perceived as capitulation to political correctness.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You want me to cite that there is no evidence for what the Church claims?

We have a new comic in the house guys. Watch out. He is a real elbow bender.

[why me]

So where is the retraction or clarification? I'm sure that if the Church felt there was a major error caused by the oversight of the writer or editor then they would have printed a clarification or retraction. Absent this, the Church is responsible for this glaring misinformation.

The article was written in 1989. It would have to have been made then. But now...it is rather late and one cannot change the article. They can however remove the article. But are we sure that they know of the problem? The point that I tried to make was that the church leadership is not responsible for every article in church publications. Such publications are left up to editors and assistant editors. To assume that a group get together is called so that the committee decides what to lie about...would be outrageous and impossible.

[Stone holm]

The article was written in 1989. It would have to have been made then. But now...it is rather late and one cannot change the article. They can however remove the article. But are we sure that they know of the problem? The point that I tried to make was that the church leadership is not responsible for every article in church publications. Such publications are left up to editors and assistant editors. To assume that a group get together is called so that the committee decides what to lie about...would be outrageous and impossible.

While I think the word "lie" is a bit harsh, I am not sure that we can absolve Church Leadership from what gets published in Church Magazines. Its kind of the buck does fall in their laps...for not checking on the truthfulness of what is being written especially when it involves Church History. Responsible yes -- intentional in the sense required for "lying" no. Too many Mormons rely on the Church Magazines to be correct to allow Church Leadership off the hook. On the other hand, if a retraction was appropriate, (and I am not saying it was), it should have been made back in 1989 -- to do it now just stirs the pot to the credit of none of the potentially injured parties.

[canard78]

And how does Zina and Henry and Joseph and Brigham have any bearing on the above.

You took it to the question of polygamy today when you said:

"There is no practice of polygamy today."

I was simply pointing out that there is.

[canard78]

The article was written in 1989. It would have to have been made then. But now...it is rather late and one cannot change the article. They can however remove the article. But are we sure that they know of the problem? The point that I tried to make was that the church leadership is not responsible for every article in church publications. Such publications are left up to editors and assistant editors. To assume that a group get together is called so that the committee decides what to lie about...would be outrageous and impossible.

If someone were teaching a lesson or giving a talk on the RS Presidents of the church and included Zina in their list, they might search LDS.org for information. 3 main articles come up. Including the one cited in the OP with the misinformation on Henry.

It would be incredibly easy to fix the 1989 article with no need for an official retraction. HTML code is fairly easy to edit. The statement could be corrected with a simple explanatory footnote.

I've never stated that there was 'lying' - far more likely there was ignorance of selectiveness with facts.

[Kenngo1969]

May I add my perspective? These problems will be ironed out between them and has no relevancy to anyone else.

Especially since we (1) don't have all the facts, (2) see through a glass, darkly, (3) don't see things (especially the past) as they are, but rather see them as we are, et cetera.

[ERayR]

You took it to the question of polygamy today when you said:

"There is no practice of polygamy today."

I was simply pointing out that there is.

I don't think your assessment is valid. Polygamy is being married and living with two or more living women simultaneously. What you are describing may very well become polygamy at a future time but isn't now.

[canard78]

I don't think your assessment is valid. Polygamy is being married and living with two or more living women simultaneously. What you are describing may very well become polygamy at a future time but isn't now.

But they're not dead. Not in our theology. Just waiting to meet up again.

And the definition doesn't specify 'living':

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy

"marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time"

In other faiths people are married 'til death do us part.' In other words the marriage contract ends at death. We don't have that break so remain married even after physical death parts us.

Edited June 6, 2013 by canard78

[Stone holm]

But they're not dead. Not in our theology. Just waiting to meet up again.

And the definition doesn't specify 'living':

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy

"marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time"

In other faiths people are married 'til death do us part.' In other words the marriage contract ends at death. We don't have that break so remain married even after physical death parts us.

I agree, and actually though a man is divorced his sealing may not actually have been canceled before he remarries in the Temple.

[canard78]

I agree, and actually though a man is divorced his sealing may not actually have been canceled before he remarries in the Temple.

Correct. I personally know someone in this situation.

[why me]

If someone were teaching a lesson or giving a talk on the RS Presidents of the church and included Zina in their list, they might search LDS.org for information. 3 main articles come up. Including the one cited in the OP with the misinformation on Henry.

It would be incredibly easy to fix the 1989 article with no need for an official retraction. HTML code is fairly easy to edit. The statement could be corrected with a simple explanatory footnote.

I've never stated that there was 'lying' - far more likely there was ignorance of selectiveness with facts.

They would need to know that there is a mistake. Let me put it this way. I am sure that there are more mistakes in various articles throughout the years. The editors can not catch all the mistakes. To go through the articles now would be a problem and it is not easy to do. Of course we can have a footnote here and there but it would be difficult. I guess the point is that we should never tire of research and accept nothing at face value. This is what leads to a critical life: questioning so we are lead to the truth and we can modify our truths according to new information.

However, the foundation of the lds truth claims such as the book of mormon and the 11 witnesses have not been disproven. The witnesses have withstood the test and by them giving deathbed testimonies, supports a strong case for their experience with the book of mormon.

[why me]

While I think the word "lie" is a bit harsh, I am not sure that we can absolve Church Leadership from what gets published in Church Magazines. Its kind of the buck does fall in their laps...for not checking on the truthfulness of what is being written especially when it involves Church History.

Who are the leadership? If you mean the editors of the magazines, then, yes, they should have caught it. But if they also believed that Henry abandoned his wife based on their own information, then what?

[why me]

If someone were teaching a lesson or giving a talk on the RS Presidents of the church and included Zina in their list, they might search LDS.org for information. 3 main articles come up. Including the one cited in the OP with the misinformation on Henry.

It would be incredibly easy to fix the 1989 article with no need for an official retraction. HTML code is fairly easy to edit. The statement could be corrected with a simple explanatory footnote.

I've never stated that there was 'lying' - far more likely there was ignorance of selectiveness with facts.

And yet, we also have this:

With all that openness, there is still enough restraint to keep a careful covering around the intimate Zina. Her relationship to Henry Bailey Jacobs, the husband who stood approving as her earlier sealing to Joseph Smith was confirmed by proxy in the Nauvoo Temple and who witnessed her sealing "for time" to Brigham Young, seems not uncordial here. That first marriage, described in later biographical studies as an unhappy one, is not overtly so in these accounts. Zina shows pride in Henry's calling as seventies president; she accepts as dear friends the Saints who were kind to him on his missions; she cares for him in sickness and notes his progress on their house. There is little of the intimate view of their lives, but one cannot expect that, considering the times and the mores of Victorian America. On the whole, if she is not an enthusiastic bride, Zina does seem a contented wife.

http://lds-mormon.com/zina.shtml

So, could the writer have read such accounts that give an unhappy account? The link is not exactly a faith promoting site but at least it does mention that there have been accounts which describe the marriage as unhappy.

Edited June 9, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

And yet, we also have this:

With all that openness, there is still enough restraint to keep a careful covering around the intimate Zina. Her relationship to Henry Bailey Jacobs, the husband who stood approving as her earlier sealing to Joseph Smith was confirmed by proxy in the Nauvoo Temple and who witnessed her sealing "for time" to Brigham Young, seems not uncordial here. That first marriage, described in later biographical studies as an unhappy one, is not overtly so in these accounts. Zina shows pride in Henry's calling as seventies president; she accepts as dear friends the Saints who were kind to him on his missions; she cares for him in sickness and notes his progress on their house. There is little of the intimate view of their lives, but one cannot expect that, considering the times and the mores of Victorian America. On the whole, if she is not an enthusiastic bride, Zina does seem a contented wife.

http://lds-mormon.com/zina.shtml

So, could the writer have read such accounts that give an unhappy account?

Like I've said before, I presume the writer of the friend article was unaware of the facts and not knowingly distorting them.

The fact remains that there are 3 official main sources on Zina, the third RS President. They are collectively inaccurate.

If there are inaccurate biographies feeding inaccurate biographies (as you suggest may have happened in this case) then the third one will be...?

[Stone holm]

Who are the leadership? If you mean the editors of the magazines, then, yes, they should have caught it. But if they also believed that Henry abandoned his wife based on their own information, then what?

Although I agree that it would do more harm than good to print a retraction now, I believe Church leadership is accountable for what goes into Church Magazines. The Church admonishes the membership to have them in their homes and encourages the membership to read them. I do not think it is too much to ask that the leadership read them and to be especially cognisant of potentially slanderous statements which can be easily neutralised without taking away from the substance of the article. I will not give them a pass on that, and I don't think they should expect one.

[TruthBridge]

My 2 cents.  As per Brigham's implication, Joseph and Zina were "Kindred Spirits" (See: William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed (Cincinnati, Ohio: I. Hart and Company, 1852), 43-44.)  To me this means that they had been sealed before this life and that they were re-affirming that sealing during this life.    (For the record, I am pro-lds).