The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[CASteinman]

But you do seem to make presumptions about other people's faith.

Not at all. I may err, but I do not seek to make presumptions on that. I believed that you had expressed it yourself and I believed I was taking you at your word.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[canard78]

Certainly is negative in appearance. Which is fine for children in my opinion. But, she apparently married Brigham Young in his presence. Apparently not exactly on a mission then.

Well, that would depend.

I agree with you it could have been worded better. And it could have been worded in a way that would have not made anyone to look bad. And that is probably what people would like to see. That does not make what was said untruthful. Just not well said or matching what most people would think of as "the facts as I see it".

I will give an example of how it could have been worded better -- but also, while I do this, I am not sure this would make one bit of difference to children:

"After Henry decided she should be married to one of the Apostles, she chose to be married to Brigham Young." But this is not really any better for children and is possibly more confusing.

CFR that Henry decided she should be married to an apostle.

[CASteinman]

CFR that Henry decided she should be married to an apostle.

I would have to find it. It will take a while. Cause I don't remember where I read about it.

Does it really matter all that much?

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[omni]

I think that you are reading more into that scripture than is actually there. You need to read all of section 132 in context.

Section 132 Verse 39 states, "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

David married at least one woman who was not a virgin at the time. Abigail had been married to Nabal, a Carmelite until this Nabal was smote by the Lord that he died. Upon hearing of this, Davis sent for Abigail and took her to wife. Verse 39 states that all of David's wives and concubines were given to him except Bathsheba. So, being a virgin is not a requirement to becoming a plural wife in the new and everlasting covenant.

Glenn

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse ^aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

I'm still not understanding how the polygamous wife isn't required to be a virgin. Pointing out that David had a polygamous wife who was not a virgin only strengthens the claim that Joseph wrote this while not realizing the precedent set in the OT.

[CASteinman]

'Unthruthful' simply means 'inaccurate information.'

An idiosyncratic definition -- or at least only partial. Dictionaries describe it thusly: "not truthful; wanting in veracity; diverging from or contrary to the truth; not corresponding with fact or reality."

[canard78]

I would have to find it. It will take a while. Cause I don't remember where I read about it.

Does it really matter all that much?

If we're talking about making inaccurate or accurate statements it does. If that's your claim I'm asking you to back it up.

It also provides a strong piece of evidence in defence of the whole messy business that can be added to FAIR and maybe one day to a more accurate account by the church.

[CASteinman]

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse ^aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

I'm still not understanding how the polygamous wife isn't required to be a virgin. Pointing out that David had a polygamous wife who was not a virgin only strengthens the claim that Joseph wrote this while not realizing the precedent set in the OT.

You would have to show two things for this to be a valid concern:

1. That the scripture says it is required.

2. That the meaning of virgin is not a bit unorthodox and does not pertain to marriage (esp eternal marriage) and only to "carnal knowledge".

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[canard78]

I didn't think of patronizing you with assumptions. I thought you had said this previously. Maybe I was in error.

Moroni Chapter 7 verses 12 and 13. I am sure that there are more.

I firmly believe in that, but I was thinking of something else. Namely: "But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and benticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God"

No, you presented a hypothetical. An offensive one at that. I presume its a hypothetical. I am not supposing it is an assumption -- which would have been worse.

How would I know? I don't know you. I am not a mind reader. Apparently I haven't even read things correctly -- and you are still a believer. In which case, how would I know something that isn't even a matter of fact?

Perhaps, thinking that they have discovered truths that they understood correctly. Or perhaps thinking that they actually had faith in the work previously. Or perhaps sin that entered and allowed doubts to come in through other means. There are so many ways. and different people are each unique.

Moroni chapter 7.

Your use of Moroni 7 throws out an interesting moral dilemma:

If the fruit is 'more good' is the root always justifiable? And is it always of God?

If I lie to someone but their behaviour improves, is that ok?

If I beat someone but their behaviour improves, is that ok?

If I kill one man but a whole nation's behaviour improves, is that ok?

Where does Moroni 7 draw the line?

Does that imply a hierarchy of commandments or principles/ordinances?

Is breaking one commandment (e.g. lying) ok if it leads to a better state (e.g. Increased faith or Baptism)

Are you also saying that in some cases 'more good' (LDS members' faith) can only achieved if the 'lesser good' (being honest about church history) is abandoned?

To be clear, I'm not saying these 3 articles are intentionally lying or trying to deceive. But they are all inaccurate. But if one of the authors had knowingly and intentionally 'adapted' the story to promote faith, would Moroni 7 still make that ok?

One of the three are aimed at children, but 2 are in the Ensign. This isn't simply about 'dumbing down' for kids. This is dumbing down for everyone.

[canard78]

An idiosyncratic definition -- or at least only partial. Dictionaries describe it thusly: "not truthful; wanting in veracity; diverging from or contrary to the truth; not corresponding with fact or reality."

Thanks for expanding on the definition. All of them apply to this statement:

"After Henry deserted Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young"

[CASteinman]

If we're talking about making inaccurate or accurate statements it does.

I wasn't actually talking about that. I was suggesting what I think would have been a better way to word it.

If that's your claim I'm asking you to back it up.

I never considered that I was making a claim. But I don't mind that you want to put it that way.

It also provides a strong piece of evidence in defence of the whole messy business that can be added to FAIR and maybe one day to a more accurate account by the church.

I would be surprised if FAIR didn't have it somewhere. But, to be honest, I have not looked!

I don't have the reference at the quick -- ready to go. Lots of things are in my head and I have to look them up. This is one of them. But as I recall, its like this:

The marriage to Henry was never formally recognized by the Church. Joseph was sealed to her for eternity. After he was dead, then for time and eternity. Afterward, all of Joseph's wives -- of which she was one of her own accord and based upon a revelation she received after being married to Henry -- were to be looked after by the 12 Apostles -- with the wives being able to choose which of the 12. Henry agreed with this and she chose Brigham Young. He was there at the ceremony where she was sealed to Brigham Young for time.

Truth is, this does not tug at me so much as the story of Hyrum's wife, who seems to have faced much hardship on the trip west despite being in the care of Heber C Kimball.

[omni]

1. Where does the word "Must be a virgin" show up in the revelation? When it uses that 'virgin', what does it mean by the term?

2. Why are you ignoring verse 65?

3. Where does the term "live with" appear in 132? Where does it say that people cannot live together?

4. The only justification you have seen for the principle of it. However, that also is the principle behind ordinary monogamous marriage. Yet when people are not able to have children we do not violate the marriage and trade partners. And if a person has already had "enough" children we do not prevent them from remarrying. So your logical concern here ends up having no real logical foundation.

5. What is "often said" is sort of vague. Give attribution and the specific instance may be discussed. However, the marriage to BY has been explained in this thread. Why ignore that?

1. I give up...humor me. What does virgin mean in this instance?

2. "65-Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor..."

How could Emma not believe in the law if she hadn't received it yet?

3. Really?

4. Okay what other justification in the scriptures have you seen for polygamy? What justification could you possibly see for Joseph to marry an already married pregnant woman without Emma's knowledge while claiming that if it didn't happen an angel with a sword would take his life? Do you believe that God would have allowed an angel to kill Joseph if Zina continued to rebuff his advances?

5. I didn't ignore this, I think the marriage to BY was shown on this thread to have no legitimate justification.

Edited April 30, 2013 by omni

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is it ok to only give part of the truth even when we have all of it?

Three (perhaps) important points from a professional historian:

(1) We don't have truth; we have data. All history is interpretation of data, and all interpretations rest upon both stated and unstated assumptions.

(2) We don't have all of the data, ever -- not just in this situation but in all situations.

(3) It is impossible to include all of the limited data in the narratives that we construct because, as José Ortega y Gasset has pointed out, communication requires that, out of the literally infinite things that could be said, we leave the vast majority of them unexpressed.

So yes, it is OK to 'give part of the truth' because this is precisely what occurs in all historical production.

Having said that, if the accounts that people have created contain demonstrable factual errors, they should be corrected.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[CASteinman]

Your use of Moroni 7 throws out an interesting moral dilemma:

Moroni explains his audience: I would speak unto you that are

• of the church
  
• that are the peaceable followers of Christ
  
• and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.
  

If the fruit is 'more good' is the root always justifiable? And is it always of God?

I agree with Moroni: "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God". I agree with him because he seems to me to be preaching the doctrines of that were taught by Christ. And I believe Christ.

If I lie to someone but their behaviour improves, is that ok?

If I beat someone but their behaviour improves, is that ok?

If I kill one man but a whole nation's behaviour improves, is that ok?

These are hypotheticals.

Where does Moroni 7 draw the line?

I do not know if it is exactly a line but this might be the answer:

The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

And on a related note:

Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

Does that imply a hierarchy of commandments or principles/ordinances?

I don't know that it implies such a thing but it seems that there are hierarchies of commandments. There are certainly greater and lesser sins.

Is breaking one commandment (e.g. lying) ok if it leads to a better state (e.g. Increased faith or Baptism)

Only as long as we use an imperfect human and mortal sense of lying. In which case -- Maybe. If we use God's standards (which we are not able to do ) then No.

Are you also saying that in some cases 'more good' (LDS members' faith) can only achieved if the 'lesser good' (being honest about church history) is abandoned?

I haven't said anything like that.

To be clear, I'm not saying these 3 articles are intentionally lying or trying to deceive. But they are all inaccurate.

It is impossible to be perfectly accurate. No article can measure up to that.

But if one of the authors had knowingly and intentionally 'adapted' the story to promote faith, would Moroni 7 still make that ok?

Yes, especially for Children.

One of the three are aimed at children, but 2 are in the Ensign. This isn't simply about 'dumbing down' for kids. This is dumbing down for everyone.

So you say. But how can you know, really?

[omni]

You would have to show two things for this to be a valid concern:

1. That the scripture says it is required.

2. That the meaning of virgin is not a bit unorthodox and does not pertain to marriage (esp eternal marriage) and only to "carnal knowledge".

Ha ha! I'm beginning to think you and ERayR are the same person. I could say the sky is blue and you could find a way to spin it that it's red. Don't take that the wrong way, you're two of my favorites on here to debate. If I remember correctly you're an accountant of some sorts, but your true calling should be in PR, you could make a killing!

[Glenn101]

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse ^aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

I'm still not understanding how the polygamous wife isn't required to be a virgin. Pointing out that David had a polygamous wife who was not a virgin only strengthens the claim that Joseph wrote this while not realizing the precedent set in the OT.

Where in that verse or in in other verse does it say that a woman has to be a virgin????

Joseph may not have been fully cognizant of the precedent set in the Old testament, but God, the originator of the revelation certainly was.

Glenn

[Calm]

never mind, I see a CFR was already issued; canard can decide whether he thinks it responded to enough.

Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I wasn't actually talking about that. I was suggesting what I think would have been a better way to word it.

I never considered that I was making a claim. But I don't mind that you want to put it that way.

I would be surprised if FAIR didn't have it somewhere. But, to be honest, I have not looked!

I don't have the reference at the quick -- ready to go. Lots of things are in my head and I have to look them up. This is one of them. But as I recall, its like this:

The marriage to Henry was never formally recognized by the Church. Joseph was sealed to her for eternity. After he was dead, then for time and eternity. Afterward, all of Joseph's wives -- of which she was one of her own accord and based upon a revelation she received after being married to Henry -- were to be looked after by the 12 Apostles -- with the wives being able to choose which of the 12. Henry agreed with this and she chose Brigham Young. He was there at the ceremony where she was sealed to Brigham Young for time.

Truth is, this does not tug at me so much as the story of Hyrum's wife, who seems to have faced much hardship on the trip west despite being in the care of Heber C Kimball.

Given I know I can often take a critical or negative stance I always try my best to back it up with a source and rarely (never?) a blatant anti one. As I've said elsewhere, my confidence in some of the church's claims has been knocked but I'm trying to be responsible in checking sources before accepting or rejecting a claim.

Making a statement like yours needs sources:

"After Henry decided she should be married to one of the Apostles, she chose to be married to Brigham Young."

Your second summary from memory doesn't even match your original statement.

V1) After Henry decided she should be married to one of the Apostles, she chose to be married to Brigham Young.

V2) Afterward, all of Joseph's wives... were to be looked after by the 12 Apostles -- with the wives being able to choose which of the 12. Henry agreed with this and she chose Brigham Young.

"Henry decided..." and "were to be looked after" are two different things. Did Henry or a leader decide she would be married off to one the apostles? And where does it say Zina got her pick of the 12?

Please feel free to check some references before answering. One of the reasons I appreciate this board is people's diligence to evidence.

CFR still stands.

[CASteinman]

1. I give up...humor me. What does virgin mean in this instance?

I am not sure that I am the authority to declare this for you as though it were a fact. But here's the thing: You would need to prove it was not some alternative and not entirely unreasonable alternative definition that you have not considered. Because it's you who is declaring that it can only be one thing. Where is the proof of this?

This is not mere sophistry. The revelation is peculiarly worded and involves a peculiar doctrine. It should not be completely out of reason that it might use a possible but peculiar definition of the word.

How could Emma not believe in the law if she hadn't received it yet?

She couldn't. But when it was revealed to her, she did not receive it. That was long long before it was written down.

3. Really?

Absolutely really. Based on my experience with Genealogy, sometimes women would live in other households while married to a husband. This was not common but it happened. (It was usually related to some hardship.) So where does the revelation forbid this?

4. Okay what other justification in the scriptures have you seen for polygamy?

D&C 132. Jacob 2.

What justification could you possibly see for Joseph to marry an already married pregnant woman without Emma's knowledge while claiming that if it didn't happen an angel with a sword would take his life?

132:65 and the truth of the matter.

Do you believe that God would have allowed an angel to kill Joseph if Zina continued to rebuff his advances?

I don't think Joseph was telling her that.

5. I didn't ignore this, I think the marriage to BY was shown on this thread to have no legitimate justification.

No, it has not been so shown. On the contrary. Levirate marriages are not invalid.

[CASteinman]

CFR that it was Henry's decision and not Zina's.

Someone made the decision. I don't know that it is recorded exactly how that went down. I suspect it was a private matter. But the information is that his decision first and she then consented to marry Brigham Young.

Again, this will take some time. I don't have this stuff just right here on my desk. I have to search for it. Its weird to me that this is so important and that what I have said is so offensive that it requires a formal CFR.

nevermind.. I shall have to look for it.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Calm]

I would have to find it. It will take a while. Cause I don't remember where I read about it.

Does it really matter all that much?

Yes. It would affect significantly the usual picture of how Henry viewed Zina based on his letters to her. Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Ha ha! I'm beginning to think you and ERayR are the same person. I could say the sky is blue and you could find a way to spin it that it's red. Don't take that the wrong way, you're two of my favorites on here to debate. If I remember correctly you're an accountant of some sorts, but your true calling should be in PR, you could make a killing!

I am not the same as ERayR and really, I do not know that person.

The points are made are not mere random contradiction. You have taken a position that does not comport with the scriptures that you are quoting. I am showing that.

I actually tend to work in something called "Strategy".

[CASteinman]

Yes. It would affect significantly the usual picture of how Henry viewed Zina based on his letters to her.

Why on earth would it do that? He loved her. That's almost irrelevant though. How on earth would that make any difference at all? I don't see it for a second.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Calm]

An idiosyncratic definition -- or at least only partial. Dictionaries describe it thusly: "not truthful; wanting in veracity; diverging from or contrary to the truth; not corresponding with fact or reality."

Nothing there speaks to intent, simply accuracy. Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Given I know I can often take a critical or negative stance I always try my best to back it up with a source and rarely (never?) a blatant anti one. As I've said elsewhere, my confidence in some of the church's claims has been knocked but I'm trying to be responsible in checking sources before accepting or rejecting a claim.

Your second summary from memory doesn't even match your original statement.

I think it does.

V1) After Henry decided she should be married to one of the Apostles, she chose to be married to Brigham Young.

V2) Afterward, all of Joseph's wives... were to be looked after by the 12 Apostles -- with the wives being able to choose which of the 12. Henry agreed with this and she chose Brigham Young.

I think that they do match. You seem to think that they are mutually exclusive. I don't see that.

"Henry decided..." and "were to be looked after" are two different things. Did Henry or a leader decide she would be married off to one the apostles? And where does it say Zina got her pick of the 12?

You really believe it can't be both?

CFR still stands.

Okie dokie.

[CASteinman]

Nothing there speaks to intent, simply accuracy.

Not to accuracy either.