The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[canard78]

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

http://www.fairlds.o...h-young#enloc24

Interesting thank you. The status gained by (plural) marriage to an apostle is evident in this. It ties in somewhat with the post I made a page or two ago about the RS presidents all having the status of being the wives of early church leaders.

It does also make me wonder if the statement supposed to have been made by BY to Henry had some truth to it but became distorted ("You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.")

[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.

Zina was pregnant with Henry's first child when she was married to Joseph and then had another child later. Both DNA linked to be Henry's kids. So there was obviously something between them. They also continued living together as husband and wife for a few years after the marriage to Joseph and for a few months after being sealed for time to Brigham.

[canard78]

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.

I can't on my phone, but I'll 'rep' you for this when I'm near a computer. It's an excellent summary of why the church really does need to be involved in telling its own story. We cede ground far too much if we don't.

[canard78]

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 opposite of 'hide' is 'show.' Do the church 'show' the full history of Zina? There is an official biography of Zina on LDS.org. Where is her marriage to Joseph shown? It is not. Anywhere.

If I want to go and study it, the church offers no safe haven to do so. There is no meat after milk from them. In effect, most people find out 'from the kids in the playground.' It's a place of half-truth and misinformation.

[Danzo]

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?

What is this "leaving the church in droves?"

Other than on the internet, I haven't met anyone who left the church because of its history. I wonder how big the problem is?

[pogi]

Danzo, if you are older than 40-50, or outside of Utah, you may not notice as much. I have almost lost count of the friends and family I know who have become disillusioned due to historical reasons.

A quick google search came up with this article where Elder Marlin Jensen acknowledges the problem:

http://uk.reuters.co...E80T1CP20120130

From this article I have learned that Pres. Monson has actually launched a program called "The Rescue" to combat this problem. It addresses some of the more sensitive issues including history and homosexuality, etc. Has anyone else heard about this initiative? Very interesting.

Edited April 30, 2013 by pogi

[Danzo]

I'm not from Utah

Danzo, if you are older than 40-50, or outside of Utah, you may not notice as much. I have almost lost count of the friends and family I know who have become disillusioned due to historical reasons.

A quick google search came up with this article where Elder Marlin Jensen acknowledges the problem:

http://uk.reuters.co...E80T1CP20120130

From this article I have learned that Pres. Monson has actually launched a program called "The Rescue" to combat this problem. It addresses some of the more sensitive issues including history and homosexuality, etc. Has anyone else heard about this initiative? Very interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited April 30, 2013 by Danzo

[CV75]

I've never seen the problem so clearly explained.

Since this is a reply to my post, exactly what is the problem, and how is it clearly explained (or not)?

Or, why should the Church not focus on current doctrine and practices, and not have a spiritual bent?

Edited April 30, 2013 by CV75

[noel00]

In the next life will those children fathered by Henry belong to Smith? Imagined conversation of Zina with children. "daddy has been sent away on a mission, another Daddy (Joseph Smith is in the spirit world), you now have a new daddy, the prophet Brigham Young. Of course you will have lots of women who you can call Aunty."

[CV75]

Our own history is the weapon of choice of many of our enemies.

Anything can be used as a weapon against faith. I don't think the Church will beat its enemies with a history lesson; they were enemies before they used it as a weapon, and once we get into a bash over it, well, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." I maintain that faithful people manage their knowledge by the Spirit, and when they struggle with that, rendering spiritual help is warranted, but not on the same non-spiritual terms they have chosen for their doubt. It doesn't amke sense to choose a weapon against oneself.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CV75

[pogi]

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

I don't have any more info regarding "The Rescue" initiative. I was hoping someone here could tell me more, this is the first I have heard about it.

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

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

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

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

Our history has the tendency to do that I think. It either strengthens or eats away at our testimonies. That's why I feel it crucial that we, as a church, should be the ones telling the history in a safe way, leaving out the false conclusions and assumptions.

Edited April 30, 2013 by pogi

[ERayR]

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.

Could you please point me to where the information of people leaving the church in droves comes from. I would like to read and evaluate it for myself.

Thanks

[ERayR]

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.

I really doubt that people are leaving in droves over historical issues. It goes against my personal observations. In HP meeting this last week the issue of people leaving over historical issues came up and out of about 25 HP none could understand it. The most common comments expressed a disbelief that was the reason or a statement that they were focusing on trivia. In some areas members may be leaving and professing historical issues.

[pogi]

Anything can be used as a weapon against faith. I don't think the Church will beat its enemies with a history lesson; they were enemies before they used it as a weapon, and once we get into a bash over it, well, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." I maintain that faithful people manage their knowledge by the Spirit, and when they struggle with that, rendering spiritual help is warranted, but not on the same non-spiritual terms they have chosen for their doubt. It doesn't amke sense to choose a weapon against oneself.

I respect your beliefs but disagree. If there is anything to this "Rescue" initiative, Pres Monson disagrees as well. I am not talking about living by the sword as spoken of in scripture. I am talking about putting on the armor of God, which has a sword by the way. Truth is a critical element of that armor. A history lesson in truth can do more good than harm, it strengthens our armor. What harm can come from it? If we are going to teach history in our church (which we do), we might as well do it right so as to avoid disillusionment , and the feeling of being lied to, which many say they feel. We should listen to these people and find ways to avoid this problem in the future if we truly mean to perfect the saints.

[pogi]

Could you please point me to where the information of people leaving the church in droves comes from. I would like to read and evaluate it for myself.

Thanks

See post 131

[ERayR]

In the next life will those children fathered by Henry belong to Smith? Imagined conversation of Zina with children. "daddy has been sent away on a mission, another Daddy (Joseph Smith is in the spirit world), you now have a new daddy, the prophet Brigham Young. Of course you will have lots of women who you can call Aunty."

And

[Danzo]

In the next life will those children fathered by Henry belong to Smith? Imagined conversation of Zina with children. "daddy has been sent away on a mission, another Daddy (Joseph Smith is in the spirit world), you now have a new daddy, the prophet Brigham Young. Of course you will have lots of women who you can call Aunty."

This is the problem with church history, You end up speculating on things you know nothing of, just for the sake of trying to tear someone else down.

If there were something interesting to say about it, Henry, Zina or one of the children would have said it.

The truth just probably wasn't that interesting.

Of course, after over 150 years, we know the truth must be more interesting!

We know, that everyone kept silent about it even though today the church can't stop gossip.

We know, that Brigham Young forced everyone into obedience, even though the prophet today can not even get us to do home teaching.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Danzo

[pogi]

It doesn't amke sense to choose a weapon against oneself.

The truth is not a weapon against the church and never will be. We don't need to be afraid of it. By avoiding the truth, you simply give fuel to the adversary to twist it and manipulate it against us.

[Calm]

If I want to go and study it, the church offers no safe haven to do so. There is no meat after milk from them. In effect, most people find out 'from the kids in the playground.' It's a place of half-truth and misinformation.

What do you think of the Church History website that Nevo linked to?

Here is the link again for those who didn't look before: http://mormonhistory.byu.edu/search/dYoung,+Zina+Diantha+Huntington+Jacobs/dyoung+zina+diantha+huntington+jacobs/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=dyoung+zina+diantha+huntington+jacobs&1%2C33%2C

[Calm]

In the next life will those children fathered by Henry belong to Smith? Imagined conversation of Zina with children. "daddy has been sent away on a mission, another Daddy (Joseph Smith is in the spirit world), you now have a new daddy, the prophet Brigham Young. Of course you will have lots of women who you can call Aunty."

What happens in the case of divorce and stepparents every day in this day and age is not much different.

[pogi]

I really doubt that people are leaving in droves over historical issues. It goes against my personal observations.

Not mine. Like I said, I have almost lost count. It is terribly sad.

Here is a question asked to Elder Marlin K. Jensen:

"Has the church seen the effects of Google on membership? It seems like the people who I talk to about church history are people who find out and leave quickly. Is the church aware of that problem? What about the people who are already leaving in droves?"

He answered:

"The fifteen men [First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve] really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now; largely over these issues." Speaking of historical issues.

He further said:

"There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with [this generation], tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

I was very happy to hear these words!

This blog post is much more informative than my last link. It looks like the Church is going to be making some serious changes in regards to church manuals etc. including addressing polyandry and other difficult historical topics. This is such good news to me. It truly is a breath of fresh air. I, for one, am excited to see the changes.

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/01/rescue-plan-to-address-difficulties-of.html

[Danzo]

Most of your links are over a year old. Anything more recent?

[canard78]

I really doubt that people are leaving in droves over historical issues. It goes against my personal observations. In HP meeting this last week the issue of people leaving over historical issues came up and out of about 25 HP none could understand it. The most common comments expressed a disbelief that was the reason or a statement that they were focusing on trivia. In some areas members may be leaving and professing historical issues.

I've always found it interesting that most people who join or leave the church were in a frame of mind to facilitate it. People talk about a question or problem or crisis that was important which then later led to an investigation. It's very unlikely that a faith growth or loss happens independent if circumstances. I guess that's why two people can read the same history and feel differently.

Perhaps you're right that I'm only wrestling with symptoms and not the root cause of spiritual 'illness.' But sometimes symptoms need to be managed to be able to later deal with the cause. I guess you have to staunch the bleeding before stitching a wound. But... If I only ever staunch the bleeding and never stitch the wound, I could still bleed to death.

[cdowis]

I recently was given an assignment to give a sacrament talk on the First Vision.

I decided to give it also on the apostacy, explaining the historical background and need for the FV. I was rather nervious because the talk moved away from stict doctrine to historical issues -- Council of Nicea, abit of Nibley, etc. Quite frankly I felt perhaps I had crossed the line, but I was surprised on how many came to me afterward to thank me for the talk.

FWIW, the theme for the YM in April was the Apostacy and Restoration.

[canard78]

What do you think of the Church History website that Nevo linked to?

Here is the link again for those who didn't look before: http://mormonhistory.byu.edu/search/dYoung,+Zina+Diantha+Huntington+Jacobs/dyoung+zina+diantha+huntington+jacobs/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=dyoung+zina+diantha+huntington+jacobs&1%2C33%2C

Thanks for reflagging this. I wasn't aware of it. Is it a search engine for Mormon a publications? Do BYU do it?

I was able to link through to a couple of the articles which was useful. I'll bookmark it.