The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is it good or of God to be inaccurate (the means) if the end is promoting the faith of milk drinkers?

Intentionally? No. But people have made all kinds of mistakes in sincerely attempting to create historical narratives. This is not a Church-specific problem. It was precisely this situation that I faced in writing my PhD thesis.

[CASteinman]

Thanks, will bare that (bear that?) in mind.

I guess 'CFR' starts as a call for references (which is a neutral statement) but often has the implication of 'I don't believe you, prove it' so for some may be taken as a confrontation.

Well it's not just that. But once issued (at least to me --I've seen exceptions for other people) I get thread banned if I fail. In fact I might get thread banned just for delaying. I was banned once before for saying I would have to get back later. And it might happen again I suppose. I can never tell.

So I sort if think they can be serious matters and I think they are weaponized sorts of things

You are usually removed from threads for being combative and insulting. You are close to being removed from this one.

[canard78]

Intentionally? No. But people have made all kinds of mistakes in sincerely attempting to create historical narratives. This is not a Church-specific problem. It was precisely this situation that I faced in writing my PhD thesis.

From a professional researcher to a professional historian, I agree with you (on this and your previous post). I would agree that we can't know 'the truth' but can be very confident (95% is usually good enough for my clients!). I also am comfortable discarding data. If 10 independent but reliable data points tell the same story and one contradicts, it's not worth discarding the story for the one point but instead discard the one.

I don't believe the Friend article (for example) was actively seeking to deceive. I am very confident that it was simply ignorance. But the online biography could be easily updated to be accurate. It has no reference to Joseph and it also structures it to look like she first had two kids with Henry, then separated, then finally married Brigham.

The church is certainly selective in the historical information it shares. There is absolutely no official source that registers her marriage to Joseph (nor any of his polyandry) that I can find. The BY manual timeline does not mention polygamy, neither does JS's.

As a historian, is 'selective' considered 'accurate.' Of course you can never include all sources and information, but there is still a duty of care to be thorough.

If I wrote a book about Henry VIII and only mentioned his first wife in the whole process, would that be appropriately selective or inaccurate?

I suppose some may answer that the church is not in the business of writing history books but saving souls. But they still publish some history and some books to do so. Is selectivity ok? Maybe for the milk drinkers.

My conversations with with my 6 year olds about 'where babies come from' will be very different to the ones I have when they are 12 and 16. Milk before meat I suppose. But I fully intend to be the one who has those conversations and answer their questions. It would seem that the leadership have only wanted to have the '6yo' conversation about church origins (the milk) but avoid the meat conversations.

I welcome some of the new work on history.lds.org. It is still selective and a little limited. But they at least seem to be moving towards a little bit of providing meat. I wonder how long before Zina's story becomes more accurate and less selective/inaccurate.

[canard78]

Well it's not just that. But once issued (at least to me --I've seen exceptions for other people) I get thread banned if I fail. In fact I might get thread banned just for delaying. I was banned once before for saying I would have to get back later. And it might happen again I suppose. I can never tell.

So I sort if think they can be serious matters and I think they are weaponized sorts of things

You are usually removed from threads for being combative and insulting. You are close to being removed from this one.

I won't be requesting any thread ban if you can't. I would rather you investigate and tell us either way. If you don't find then info simply come back and revise your conclusions about what has happened.

As a researcher I always tell my team:

I'd rather you be wrong 10 times in a row if it means the 11th answer is right one and the best one available.

[Calm]

I won't be requesting any thread ban if you can't. I would rather you investigate and tell us either way. If you don't find then info simply come back and revise your conclusions about what has happened.

I've seen people banned for refusing to answer a CFR, but not for wanting to but not being able to and simply stating that. The only way I can see a CFR being used as a 'weapon' is by insisting a person back up a claim they've made....which seems only fair in a discussion forum. Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

I would agree that we can't know 'the truth' but can be very confident (95% is usually good enough for my clients!). I also am comfortable discarding data. If 10 independent but reliable data points tell the same story and one contradicts, it's not worth discarding the story for the one point but instead discard the one.

But what exactly can we know with 95% confidence in relation to Zina et al.? The dates of some of the events and the probable chronological order of some others? We should of course be as accurate as possible in reporting such data -- which means that corrections need to be made -- but what 'story' does such information tell? What Henry was thinking? How Zina felt? What motivated either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? This is quite clearly a very messy story -- as most real stories are -- but any story told will be an assumption-laden interpretation which seeks to include the data points.

As a historian, is 'selective' considered 'accurate.' Of course you can never include all sources and information, but there is still a duty of care to be thorough.

And since 'true' thoroughness would be literally an infinitely large task, all storytellers must begin by first determining what is important to talk about -- a choice which predetermines the shape of any narrative that later emerges. As an example, at one point I served as the president of the postgraduate student association at the uni where I completed my PhD. One of the student reps on the governing council of the association suggested we should do the students a favour by preparing an 'objective voting guide' for the upcoming national election. I asked her how we would 'objectively' determine which issues should be considered in the guide. She looked confused and then rattled off a list straight out of Marx, all of which could indeed be examined and answered objectively. I pointed out to her, however, that there was actually an infinite number of other issues one could use to frame such an inquiry and quickly gave her a list of some alternates that, if employed with equal objectivity, would have had the effect of encouraging students to vote in a far different manner to the one she was hoping to champion. Needless to say, we ended up not producing the guide ... though she kept insisting that her original vision was not ideologically informed in any way.

If I wrote a book about Henry VIII and only mentioned his first wife in the whole process, would that be appropriately selective or inaccurate?

It would depend entirely on the scope, purpose, and focus of the book. I would be displeased, however, if the book contained factual errors, and I would hope those errors would be corrected by later writers. I have the same hope in regards to Church history.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

1) I agree that the original misinformation is probably through ignorance and not through intentional receipt. But should this be clarified and corrected when we can? Is it ok to only give part of the truth even when we have all of it?

2) But we can at least state facts. Zina was sealed for eternity to the deceased Joseph Smith and then to Brigham for time only while married to her first husband and expecting her second child with him. The temple records show this. So he had not deserted her when Brigham married her.

What is 'sealed for time' if not a basic 'till death do us part' marriage? There's no meaningful sealing actually happening.

Did Zina think she was still married to her first husband when she married Joseph or Brigham? Did Zina want to marry Joseph or Brigham. During this time both men and women were sealed to Joseph and others; their objective was to be together as family in the world to come rather than live as husband/wife here in mortality. You are correct, a sealed for time creates a relationship only for this life and continues to be done today for those who have spouses already pass on and would like to have a companion to spend their last days.

[CV75]

No, I'm saying that if people search lds.org for information on Zina Huntington today (using google site search), the first three and the mast comprehensive articles the church has published officially on her (that I can find) have misinformation in them. All three of them.

I'm not saying anyone based their testimony on a 1980s friend article about a little known woman in the church and their faith is undermined when the history turns out differently... I'm saying that if someone today has their faith challenged by discovering the real story of Zina it can be further challenged if they go to official sources and if looks like a 'cover-up.'

I'm not even saying the 1980s articles are intentional cover-ups. They might be simple misinformation through ignorance (though that would surprise me in the case of the article by the great grand daughter given the primary sources she had access to).

But I am saying the church sources on Zina + Henry/Joseph/Brigham are inaccurate and could be made 'not so' if they wanted to. That's their choice. As I've mentioned to CASteinman, perhaps the ends justify the means. Maybe those that can't deal with the confusing history+latter-day misinformation are simply collateral damage. If the majority have their faith increased through a limited sharing of the facts (sprinkled with a few 'non-facts') then maybe that's the best option available.

As you can see from the comments on this thread, the historical record(s), sources, interpretations and presentations are highly debatable. Anyone researching any subject should know that. The confusion and conflict someone might feel about the various tellings of Zina's story, and that the confusion and conflict serve as a trigger a more general loss of faith, are not resolved by creating a strict synthesis of all the tellings, but by helping someone understand the nature of historical documentation, and why/how there are various versions for various purposes and audiences, and why history (like science) is not a reliable or all-encompassing evidence for spiritual things.

[ERayR]

The problem I see is that you are looking for definitive, simple answers to complex relationships. Look about you even in our monogamous relationships couples sometimes separate for reasons that they often can not explain to themselves and their families. The opportunities of polygamy just adds another layer of complexity. Even with what is written we will never get inside their heads for definitive answers. Things like the upheaval of the expulsion, the uncertainty of whether they were going to starve all played into the dynamics of Zina's decisions. I really caution you in your attempts to find simple solutions from our modern position of ease and comfort.

Bump for your consideration.

[sjdawg]

Here is a question that hasn't been asked as far as I can tell. If my wife makes a decision to marry another man and I subsequently decide to move on with my life, have I left her or has she left me? Seems like she left me at least by normal standards.

[canard78]

Did Zina think she was still married to her first husband when she married Joseph or Brigham? Did Zina want to marry Joseph or Brigham. During this time both men and women were sealed to Joseph and others; their objective was to be together as family in the world to come rather than live as husband/wife here in mortality. You are correct, a sealed for time creates a relationship only for this life and continues to be done today for those who have spouses already pass on and would like to have a companion to spend their last days.

Re. sealed for time that's what I thought. So what's the point? For polygamy I guess it's a way of having a 'marriage' with no legal document.

But today... They get legally married either way. What does a sealing for time provide that a 'till death do us part' marriage doesn't.

Why would Zina need to be married to BY when she was already married with a child from Henry and another on the way. What care did Brigham give that Henry was unable to.

They've been described as 'Levirate marriages' is that their words or our modern words retro-fitted?

I'll have to go and recheck the sources.

[Calm]

They've been described as 'Levirate marriages' is that their words or our modern words retro-fitted?

Don't know if the actual term was used but the essence appears to have been there:

The words of Susa Young Gates are reported by Zina’s biographers:

“We are told that the Prophet Joseph requested the Quorum to marry and take care of his widows,” Zina’s granddaughter would write, “and in some cases Joseph Smith’s plural wives were given their choice of the Twelve as their husbands for time, to give them the full honor and protection of marriage with an apostle.”

http://www.fairlds.o...h-young#enloc24 Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Bump for your consideration.

Thanks. Sorry for not replying earlier. I'd read it and had also given it done thought. From my own, complicated, extended family I'm aware that relationships are complex.

I'm not trying to simplify it. I'm trying to understand it as best I can. Zina was married to Joseph at a time when they were not staring into the abyss of the Wild West track. On the other hand she may have felt that the Brigham marriage/sealing for time gave stronger security to her and her 2 sons, one of which unborn at the time of her marriage to him. Or it might not have been like that at all. I'll be interested to read want CASteinman's sources may be able to add.

Beyond the motives there is still a question of the key events. Should the church hide the polyandry or discuss it openly? Currently they choose to hide it and focus on milk not meat. Maybe that's for the best but I wish they could also provide a thorough and balanced source of the meat.

[CV75]

Should the church hide the polyandry or discuss it openly? Currently they choose to hide it and focus on milk not meat. Maybe that's for the best but I wish they could also provide a thorough and balanced source of the meat.

I'm not so sure it's a matter of doctrinal milk and meat. The Church first and foremost teaches current doctrine and practices. Not teaching past doctrine and practices is not the same as hiding them.

Also, keeping a faithful record of revelations, consecrations, genealogies, "important things... concerning my church," libel against the church and ordinances (all types of histories to be kept by commandment in D&C) is not the same as keeping a personal historical record of individuals.

[bcuzbcuz]

Here is a question that hasn't been asked as far as I can tell. If my wife makes a decision to marry another man and I subsequently decide to move on with my life, have I left her or has she left me? Seems like she left me at least by normal standards.

I agree. In principle. But if she doesn't declare, or if she claims she wants to remain faithful ...to the church, and asks for forgiveness, and you insist that you don't need to repent of anything, that the fault is hers, then you get banished. Then the "who made who" do what, becomes unimportant.

[Questing Beast]

Here is a question that hasn't been asked as far as I can tell. If my wife makes a decision to marry another man and I subsequently decide to move on with my life, have I left her or has she left me? Seems like she left me at least by normal standards.

That seems to be the conclusion of Todd Compton. "In Sacred Loneliness" covers Zina Diantha with complete fairness to the sources, as much as humanly possible, because Compton does not have an "oar in" one way or the other, he's only interested in exploring as much factual evidence as possible and then not leaving anything pertinent out of the arranging of that evidence. He has Zina Diantha not very happy in her marriage with Henry Jacobs, and being happier "married" to first Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young. As polygamy was at first repulsive to her "Victorian sensibilities" she had to convert to it before consenting to be sealed to Joseph Smith. The whole issue of cohabitation with both husbands, while living openly with her legal husband Jacobs, is left as undecided as the evidence itself, in Compton's biography of Zina Diantha. He does allow the likelihood that she went along with all efforts to "marry up", i.e. linking herself to "higher priesthood", a doctrine widely believed at the time. One's entire family was asserted to benefit in the eternities by marrying the highest priesthood holder in Zion one could possibly marry. Henry Jacobs was "only an elder", and shows evidence of being indecisive, even dilatory in his duty toward the Church and his family, but there is no evidence to support the notion that he abandoned them. He tried polygamy himself, evidently, whether with permission or presumptuously is not known, but clearly he did not try other marriages until his relationship with Zina had already ceased or was virtually dead in the water, because of Brigham Young's presence and Zina Diantha's own choice to go with him instead of Jacobs.

The rest of it: the controversy over a deliberate Church cover-up or glossing over of the facts, is going to remain an individual interpretation.

My interpretation is that most, not all, of the Church's published versions of Zina Diantha's biographical details are glossed over. Her prominence in Church history is too well known to assume fairly that the Church is in ignorance about the controversial character of her story. The whole distancing of Church history from polygamy (e.g. not a single word in the Brigham Young's teachings manual on plural marriage, even though it is possibly the most famous single facet of his private, even public, life), demands that not a word be said to bring it up, thus the choosing of words to carefully avoid mention of polygamy, especially in the "Friend".

I believe that more detail in official Church biographical articles will be forthcoming. Too many people knowing far more than the Church offers will compel the Church's historians to include what almost everybody else already knows, which is the state of knowledge rapidly developing right now. To not include a more fulsome, accurate history of Zina Diantha, for example, smacks of willful ignorance. Is the Church going to want that kind of reputation for its online offerings of Church history?

Vis-a-vis the always attendant problem of incomplete history as presented: I go along with the concept that the target audience needs as much information as possible and practical, with references "for further reading" always included, since there is always further reading to be done. The Church's present approach is quite the opposite of this, which is remiss, imho....

[Nevo]

As you can see from the comments on this thread, the historical record(s), sources, interpretations and presentations are highly debatable.

As far as I can tell, most of those commenting on this thread have not undertaken a careful study of Zina's history or engaged with those historians who have, so I'd say it's premature to declare the historical evidence "highly debatable" on the basis of the discussion taking place here.

The confusion and conflict someone might feel about the various tellings of Zina's story . . . are not resolved by creating a strict synthesis of all the tellings, but by helping someone understand the nature of historical documentation, and why/how there are various versions . . . why history (like science) is not a reliable or all-encompassing evidence for spiritual things.

I disagree. I think anyone feeling confused or uneasy about Zina's story would do well to examine the historical sources more thoroughly and carefully (not less!), and, yes, perhaps even try to synthesize them. I think such a person ought to read everything they can and not simply assume that the historical evidence is hopelessly controverted and therefore not worth investigating.

Your approach strikes me as unduly pessimistic (bordering on a kind of nihilism). Of course examining the sources can't tell us everything—there are limitations—but it can tell us quite a lot. And perhaps we will even find our understanding enlarged along the way.

(Here is a starting point for anyone interested in learning more: http://mormonhistory...on jacobs&1,33,)

Edited April 30, 2013 by Nevo

[ERayR]

Thanks. Sorry for not replying earlier. I'd read it and had also given it done thought. From my own, complicated, extended family I'm aware that relationships are complex.

I'm not trying to simplify it. I'm trying to understand it as best I can. Zina was married to Joseph at a time when they were not staring into the abyss of the Wild West track. On the other hand she may have felt that the Brigham marriage/sealing for time gave stronger security to her and her 2 sons, one of which unborn at the time of her marriage to him. Or it might not have been like that at all. I'll be interested to read want CASteinman's sources may be able to add.

Beyond the motives there is still a question of the key events. Should the church hide the polyandry or discuss it openly? Currently they choose to hide it and focus on milk not meat. Maybe that's for the best but I wish they could also provide a thorough and balanced source of the meat.

I reject the premise that the Church hides anything. Study it all you want. The Church will not do anything to sabotage your efforts but why should they expend time and energy on it? The issue is irrelevant to the current mission of the church. The issue is also irrelevant to your and my salvation as we don't have to make any decisions one way or another.

[cinepro]

I'm not so sure it's a matter of doctrinal milk and meat. The Church first and foremost teaches current doctrine and practices. Not teaching past doctrine and practices is not the same as hiding them.

If only we had a venue where we could get the adults together for 40 minutes during Church every week and teach them about Church History.

Edited April 30, 2013 by cinepro

[sjdawg]

That seems to be the conclusion of Todd Compton. "In Sacred Loneliness" covers Zina Diantha with complete fairness to the sources, as much as humanly possible, because Compton does not have an "oar in" one way or the other, he's only interested in exploring as much factual evidence as possible and then not leaving anything pertinent out of the arranging of that evidence. He has Zina Diantha not very happy in her marriage with Henry Jacobs, and being happier "married" to first Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young. As polygamy was at first repulsive to her "Victorian sensibilities" she had to convert to it before consenting to be sealed to Joseph Smith. The whole issue of cohabitation with both husbands, while living openly with her legal husband Jacobs, is left as undecided as the evidence itself, in Compton's biography of Zina Diantha. He does allow the likelihood that she went along with all efforts to "marry up", i.e. linking herself to "higher priesthood", a doctrine widely believed at the time. One's entire family was asserted to benefit in the eternities by marrying the highest priesthood holder in Zion one could possibly marry. Henry Jacobs was "only an elder", and shows evidence of being indecisive, even dilatory in his duty toward the Church and his family, but there is no evidence to support the notion that he abandoned them. He tried polygamy himself, evidently, whether with permission or presumptuously is not known, but clearly he did not try other marriages until his relationship with Zina had already ceased or was virtually dead in the water, because of Brigham Young's presence and Zina Diantha's own choice to go with him instead of Jacobs.

The rest of it: the controversy over a deliberate Church cover-up or glossing over of the facts, is going to remain an individual interpretation.

Thank you. Reading "In Sacred Loneliness" is on my to-do list.

[CV75]

As far as I can tell, most of those commenting on this thread have not undertaken a careful study of Zina's history or engaged with those historians who have, so I'd say it's premature to declare the historical evidence "highly debatable" on the basis of the discussion taking place here.

I should have said the historical evidence on this subject is “highly debated,” as demonstrated on this thread. Even to the point of evaluating what evidence is good and what evidence isn't.

I disagree. I think anyone feeling confused or uneasy about Zina's story would do well to examine the historical sources more thoroughly and carefully (not less!), and, yes, perhaps even try to synthesize them. I think such a person ought to read everything they can and not simply assume that the historical evidence is hopelessly controverted and therefore not worth investigating.

I agree--my point was that a) having the Church synthesize it for them will not do the job; b) to do so is not a priority role of the Church; c) it isn't smart to rely too heavily on a non-spiritual route to solving a spiritual problem. This also gets to the point that is often pointed out: that people are responsible for their own peace in faith and/or their own faith crisis. But I'm not sure that is what the OP invites us to discuss.

Your approach strikes me as unduly pessimistic (bordering on a kind of nihilism). Of course examining the sources can't tell us everything—there are limitations—but it can tell us quite a lot. And perhaps we will even find our understanding enlarged along the way.

It is quite an optomistic, and in fact, a purely faithful view that processes that build spiritual peace and certitude trump any other process that would undermine them.

(Here is a starting point for anyone interested in learning more: http://mormonhistory...on jacobs&1,33,)

Thank you for the link. There are many motives to learning more, and not all are based in faith crisis or apologetics.

The OP is about how faith crisis is caused by various historical evidences about Zina, and what the Curch or its members should do about that. Faith crisis can happen being exposed to any number of fields of knowledge--it's not about the field of study, the studies therein, or the quality of the information. It is about how one manages them and his spirituality, and how we can help each other manage our exposure to and pursuit of knowledge in various fields, keeping the spiritual a priority, through spiritual means.

[CV75]

If only we had a venue where we could get the adults together for 40 minutes during Church every week and teach them about Church History.

Which is only in support of current doctrine and practices, and with a spiritual bent.

[cinepro]

Which is only in support of current doctrine and practices, and with a spiritual bent.

I've never seen the problem so clearly explained.

[ERayR]

Here is a question that hasn't been asked as far as I can tell. If my wife makes a decision to marry another man and I subsequently decide to move on with my life, have I left her or has she left me? Seems like she left me at least by normal standards.

Unless there are lawyers and a lot of money involved it is irrelevant and dwelling on it certainly isn't going to help you.

[pogi]

I reject the premise that the Church hides anything. Study it all you want. The Church will not do anything to sabotage your efforts but why should they expend time and energy on it? The issue is irrelevant to the current mission of the church. The issue is also irrelevant to your and my salvation as we don't have to make any decisions one way or another.

The reason they should spend time and energy on it is because people are leaving the church in droves. When well intentioned and faithful members discover difficult-to-swallow church history from non-church sources, it plants the seeds of doubt, leading to disillusionment, and apostasy in many cases. It is an epidemic as of late. One of the present greatest threats to the Church, is it's own history as told from the internet. Why not tell it from our perspective first, making it as palatable as possible to our current culture and spiritual understanding?

One of the missions of the Church is to "perfect the saints." I believe that making great strides to be as transparent and open with our history as we can, would go a long way to perfecting the saints. I believe that retention rates would sky rocket. Membership might drop initially, while many misinformed or unaware saints struggle through some of this information, but at least they would be hearing it from the Church. The Church could then carefully walk it's members by the hand through some of it's more difficult to understand past, from a spiritual and supportive stance. If the church is not walking it's members through it's history, someone else will be, of that we can be sure.

Our own history is the weapon of choice of many of our enemies. It is like a biological weapon that slowly spreads and infects individuals with doubt and disillusionment. I believe that we can go a long way in combating this infectious spread of disease through controlled dosages of transparency from a spiritual perspective. Vaccines, which create an immune response to fight disease, are nothing more than an attenuated version of the same virus that causes the disease in the first place. I believe that an open and honest effort from the church would act as a vaccine of sorts to much of this information. It would disarm our enemies.