Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[Teancum]

Henry Jacobs was a devoted Latter-day Saint. He was faithful.

So:

Let's assume that plural marriage was instituted by God (which is tough for me to believe right now based on the way it was handled especially in Nauvoo) and the purpose of a sealing to Joseph was primarily for exaltation. Further assume that some of the women Joseph married that were already married had really bad husbands (may or may not have been the case) and that their marriage to Joseph was for eternal purposes and exaltation only.

Then:

1: Why did Zina need Joseph? Henry could have been sealed to her. He was worthy.

2: After Joseph died why was Zina sealed to Brigham for time only? In other words he took her as a wife in the temporal sense and poor Henry was left out to dry.

Why, why, why did Joseph need to be sealed to her and why in the world did Brigham need her for time?

Teancum

[Brackite]

Hello Teancum,

Then:

1: Why did Zina need Joseph? Henry could have been sealed to her. He was worthy.

2: After Joseph died why was Zina sealed to Brigham for time only? In other words he took her as a wife in the temporal sense and poor Henry was left out to dry.

Why, why, why did Joseph need to be sealed to her and why in the world did Brigham need her for time?

Teancum

These are really Great Questions Teancum. Reading about the story of Zina, Henry, Joseph, and Brigham is what mainly damaged my testimony of Joseph and Brigham being righteous Prophets of the Lord God. A rather old LDS Apologists response to this is that because Henry and Zina had a kind of unhappy marriage. However, there are a few problems with this old LDS Apologist Response. First, Joseph Smith started proposing to Zina before Zina even married Henry. Second, Joseph just right after the wedding of Zina and Henry proposed to Zina again. When Zina finally got married and/or sealed to Joseph Smith, Henry and Zina had only been married for about 7 1/2 months, and Zina was about 6 1/2 months pregnant with Henry's baby. Third, there was a diary of Zina that was discovered about 1979 about here life in Nauvoo. In that diary there seem to be no mentioned of that much of an unhappy Marriage to Zina. There are a few Passages in Zina's diary that seems that Zina's and Henry's Marriage was pretty good a lot of the times and pretty happy at some times. Here is the link to Zina's Diary:

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

[noel00]

When Richard Bushman was here in Australia speaking at Griffith University, I asked him about the issue of Zina Huntington, he replied somewhat vaguely about we can't really understand yet what was going on there.

Zina must have been a goodlooker with so many men wanting her. There seems to be an attempt by Ted Compton to make Jacobs sound like a wuss or weak man.

[Ray Agostini]

Polygamy is also one of the things that put a severe dent in my belief. And this episode in particular. VanWagoner's article on polygamy in Dialogue in the 80s put my head into a spin from which it never recovered. I don't believe polygamy is driven so much by sexual lust, but by power. Brigham Young's discourses proved that to me. So that's my answer to the "why". Why did Solomon need a thousand wives? When some men get revelations is always seems to include an abundance of wives. I think polygamy is spiritual and ecclesiastical abuse. No question of it.

[maxrep12]

Teancum,

great points. The only explanation that comes to mind is half in jest - that these men were trying to be doubley sure that this attractive gal would make it to the CK.

[Log]

I'm trying to present the problem as I see it.

Person Dis B. Leev is brought up in some type of normative religious culture. Event A in the history of the normative religion upon which the culture is based doesn't conform to the culture. Cognitive dissonance sets in, where DBL is torn between faithfulness to the current religious culture and emancipation therefrom wherein DBL may retain his fastidiousness with regards to the historical point and its contrast with his now former culture and get the benefits of other behaviors, probably of lesser degree, which his former culture prohibits.

What is the nature of the testimony which can possibly be damaged in such a situation? Clearly such an one as DBL is not founded on the Rock, since he has been shaken. But testimony is just that: to be founded on the Rock. Hence, when one says one's testimony has been shaken or damaged by such an event as described above, one is actually saying one does not, and did not, have a testimony.

[Ray Agostini]

What is the nature of the testimony which can possibly be damaged in such a situation?  Clearly such an one as DBL is not founded on the Rock, since he has been shaken.  But testimony is just that: to be founded on the Rock.  Hence, when one says one's testimony has been shaken or damaged by such an event as described above, one is actually saying one does not, and did not, have a testimony.

I don't see that as being the case at all. The three witnesses all opposed polygamy and one can hardly say they "never had a testimony".

[Log]

"I opposed principle A" and "My testimony was damaged by the historical fact of principle A" are not quite the same thing at all.

edit - In fact, the three witnesses illustrate my point.

[Dale]

Hi,

Joseph Smith respected Henry's marriage to his wife. The temple sealing was a calling to a future relationship not an earthly one. Perhaps the calling to the ceremony was a mistake but I see no evidence of improper sexual relations between Joseph & Zina behind Henry's back. She never left Henry for Joseph. People spread those rumors to sell books not because the evidence backs up such slander.

Zina Huntington was very clear that she was told the earthly marriage between Zina & Huntington was to continue. Even though Todd Comptom in Sacred Lonlines had no evidence about sex he slanders Joseph & Zona by saying "sexuality was probably included." No offense to Todd Comptom but he doesn't know what he is talking about. He presents no proof only speculates sex where no quote say's any such thing. People need to know there was no sexuality in that marriage at all end of story.

To be fair to Brigham Young Zina had no regrets leaving Henry so it's her fault not Brigham Youngs alone. Henry's issues with it wern't Zina's who who clearly chose Brigham over Henry. It sounds truthfully that she was unhappy with Henry & needed preferred Brigham Young as a husband.

I read some of Henry's statements & he sounds like a stalker. He needed to get on with his life & accept that they were no longer married.

These 21st century books books conclusions are no better than Charles A. Shook's old The True Origins of Mormon Polygamy. Nothing new is known about Joseph Smith & MOrmon polygamy. Everything that was believed was published in the 19th century. The only thing new is the commentary gets more speculative each time one of these scholars decides to write a new book. No disrespect to Todd Comptom personally but other than some interestring quotes I feel he weaves a fictional story far removed from the truth.

I personally like Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy over the rest of Signature Book's best polygamy book's. It's free to view online at http://www.restorationbookstore.org to read.

Richard & Pamela Price are misread as denying Joseph Smith Jr. was involved in any marriage speculations in Nauvoo. They themselves candidly publish Joseph 3rds interview with Melissa Lott Willes who showed Joseph 3rd a family Bible with a note by Cornelius Lott which recorded the sealing. Her own sisters doubted her claim to sexuality as did Joseph 3rd. She had her claim in court & the decision in the Te,ple Lot case went against her claim. It's amazing how testimony gets cited from this case yet the decision doesn't merit even a comment. These claims are legally weak & it's highly likely William Laws claim's in the Expositor were slander not proveable in court.

None of the above documents unquestionably links Joseph Smith Jr. with behaving improperly behind Henry's back with his wife. These documents may be read as implicating Joseph Smith Jr. in possibly as Joseph 3rd suggested making agreements or associations for worlds to come with Zina but that's all.

The only items which may be read as implicating Joseph in earthly polygamy are items like William Clayton's diaries. Unless of course the document was created after the event & in Utah. I assume Richard & Pamela Price view the diary as later fakes concocted by William Clayton. The motive for a re-write would be that the original diary contradicted William Clayton's later claims & he felt a need to revise his journal for later students of Mormon history. Without a study of the paper, ink & date by real experts I have to admit they possibly may be seen as authentic. Nobody has studied the date of the paper everybody just cites from it so I feel it's ok at the same time to be open to further studies of the diaries authenticity being conducted.

I know Joseph had instructed his scribes to keep evidence of his innocence which William Clayton ignored. Ch. 19 of the Price's book gets into that.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Teancum]

Joseph Smith respected Henry's marriage to his wife. The temple sealing was a calling to a future relationship not an earthly one. Perhaps the calling to the ceremony was a mistake but I see no evidence of improper sexual relations between Joseph & Zina behind Henry's back. She never left Henry for Joseph. People spread those rumors to sell books not because the evidence backs up such slander.

I did not say Joseph and Zina were sexually active. I asked why Henry could not have married her for eternity. She had a faithful husband. She did not need another for exaltation which is one of the reasons given to explain Joseph's marriage to women married to other men.

Zina Huntington was very clear that she was told the earthly marriage between Zina & Huntington was to continue. Even though Todd Comptom in Sacred Lonlines had no evidence about sex he slanders Joseph & Zona by saying "sexuality was probably included." No offense to Todd Comptom but he doesn't know what he is talking about. He presents no proof only speculates sex where no quote say's any such thing. People need to know there was no sexuality in that marriage at all end of story.

While it is not certain that sexual relations ever occurred certainly your comments are not the end of the story. But again, sexual relations are not my question.

To be fair to Brigham Young Zina had no regrets leaving Henry so it's her fault not Brigham Youngs alone. Henry's issues with it wern't Zina's who who clearly chose Brigham over Henry. It sounds truthfully that she was unhappy with Henry & needed preferred Brigham Young as a husband.

While all the factor of her decision are not clear at all and whether she had regrets at all is not known this really is not the point. Why did Brigham need her for time. She had child by Brigham. What was the deal with Henry? If she preferred Brigham over Henry then why not divorce Henry first? It really seems to me that Brigham wanted her and that Henry was pushed out of the way. And sure, maybe Zina was heady about powerful men. So she has Joseph forever and Brigham for now. That certainly does not condone dumping poor Henry the way she was. Just because she preferred to be with Brigham? Gee, what if your wife comes in one day and says "Dale, I prefer to be married to Stake President Jones. So long honey."

I read some of Henry's statements & he sounds like a stalker.

Wow. Such compassion for a man who was apparently muscled out by his Prophet who took his wife.

He needed to get on with his life & accept that they were no longer married.

Really? Were they divorced? Is yes why? If not was Brigham wrong in taking Zina as a wife?

Teancum

[Blink]

The doctrine of eternal marriage was lived differently back then. Then, the higher up the authority chain, the better deal a woman and all her family got in the CK. That's the reason Helen Mar Kimball's father gave her, when he was trying to convince her to be sealed to Joseph. It's not outside the bounds of common sense to think that Zina wanted to be eternally aligned with the highest authority she could align with, and that was Joseph. Jacob was never in the running. As for living with Brigham on earth, the difference between bearing a prophet's children and bearing an ordinary man's children is obvious.

Currently the doctrine of eternal marriage is interpreted differently. Now, each worthy man is equal to all over worthy men, so there's no incentive to be sealed to the prophet.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Joseph Smith respected Henry's marriage to his wife. The temple sealing was a calling to a future relationship not an earthly one. Perhaps the calling to the ceremony was a mistake but I see no evidence of improper sexual relations between Joseph & Zina behind Henry's back.

...

People need to know there was no sexuality in that marriage at all end of story.

People also need to know that the evidence of sexuality between Joseph and Zina remains uncertain. Zina's biographers noted that she signed an affidavit that she was JS's wife "in very deed," which they took as evidence that the marriage was consummated. (See Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier, (Signature Books 2000), pages 115, 137). In her review of Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, BYU historian Kathryn Daynes interprets Zina's statement "in very deed" the same way. (See Pacific Historical Review 68 (August 1999), pages 466-68).

[Teancum]

People also need to know that the evidence of sexuality between Joseph and Zina remains uncertain.  Zina's biographers noted that she signed an affidavit that she was JS's wife "in very deed," which they took as evidence that the marriage was consummated.  (See Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier, (Signature Books 2000), pages 115, 137).  In her review of Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, BYU historian Kathryn Daynes interprets Zina's statement "in very deed" the same way. (See Pacific Historical Review 68 (August 1999), pages 466-68).

If her relationship with Jospeh was more then just eternal that exacerbates the problem.

Still she was sexual with Brigham and Henry lost his wife.

This troubles me. Even without Jospeh being physical with her this troubles me.

Teancum

[Log]

Why does this bug anyone? I've never heard it concretely described.

Suppose - pure hypothetical - that God has, at times, commended or even commanded all manner of incestuous marriages, polygamy, polyandry, and so forth, but never abusive, neither unconsensual, relationships, whether sexually so or not. What then is the problem?

[Teancum]

Why does this bug anyone? I've never heard it concretely described.

Suppose - pure hypothetical - that God has, at times, commended or even commanded all manner of incestuous marriages, polygamy, polyandry, and so forth, but never abusive, neither unconsensual, relationships, whether sexually so or not. What then is the problem?

Show me wher God has commanded this.

Teancum

[Log]

Let me repeat: Suppose - pure hypothetical - &c.

[Nisfor]

Why does this bug anyone?  I've never heard it concretely described.

Suppose - pure hypothetical - that God has, at times, commended or even commanded all manner of incestuous marriages, polygamy, polyandry, and so forth, but never abusive, neither unconsensual, relationships, whether sexually so or not.  What then is the problem?

This doesn't bug me at all - if it were a true description of early LDS (or modern FLDS) polygamy. The part that I disagree with is the description as "but never abusive, neither unconsensual" - I see reports of Joseph Smith's "proposals" to polygamous brides being basically religious manipulation such as "God told me that if you marry me your entire family will gain salvation." or "If you refuse to marry me your family will burn.", etc.

There are cases in both early LDS and modern apostate groups, where polygamous relationships were consensual and agreeable to all parties involved. I don't have a problem with that.

I don't care what kind of relationships (sexual or otherwise) that consenting adults engage in - but if the relationship isn't consenting (such as manipulation that "God has commanded it") I see that as a problem.

[Truth]

Whether you believe it or not, or even care, it should not damage a testimony.

I personally don't see an issue here, don't think all the facts are there, and don't matter anyway. If you have a testimony of the restored Gospel and Church, and this bothers you, get your testimony strengthened, over come the trial.

[Teancum]

Let me repeat: Suppose - pure hypothetical - &c.

I am not interested in hypothetical. I am discussion what ACTUALLY happened.

Teancum

[Log]

Nisfor, is the point of my hypothetical so obscure that you cannot for one post even entertain it?

Tea: then why bother responding to my post?

[Teancum]

Whether you believe it or not, or even care, it should not damage a testimony.

I personally don't see an issue here, don't think all the facts are there, and don't matter anyway.  If you have a testimony of the restored Gospel and Church, and this bothers you, get your testimony strengthened, over come the trial.

I really do not think this is an answer.

There are facts.

We know Joseph married Zina for at least eternity.

We know at that time Henry was faithful.

We know the Brigham married Zina for time and had a child with her.

We know Henry was faithful. The man was even at the ceremony when Zina was sealed to Jospeh and to Brigham.

This seems rather ungodly to me given the hyper strong teachings we have been given about sex and chastity by LDS leaders and the scriptures.

Just strengthening a testimony and saying oh well seems to be simplistic.

Teancum

[Nisfor]

Nisfor, is the point of my hypothetical so obscure that you cannot for one post even entertain it?

I stated that I have no problem with your hypothetical statement.

I do have a problem with the manipulation and other methods used in the practice of the hypothetical.

So... can you hypothetically accept that the most important thing to God is loving relationships - the number and gender of participants isn't a factor - as long as the relationship is loving and consensual?

[rameumptom]

Whether you believe it or not, or even care, it should not damage a testimony.

I personally don't see an issue here, don't think all the facts are there, and don't matter anyway.  If you have a testimony of the restored Gospel and Church, and this bothers you, get your testimony strengthened, over come the trial.

I really do not think this is an answer.

There are facts.

We know Joseph married Zina for at least eternity.

We know at that time Henry was faithful.

We know the Brigham married Zian for time and had a child with her.

We know Henry was faithful. The man was even at the ceremont.

This seems rather ungodly to me given the hyper stromg teachings we have been given about sex and chastity by LDS leaders and the scriptures.

Just strengthening a testimony and saying oh well seems to be the approach of a simpleton.

Teancum

The real issue is: were these men prophets? If they were, then what they were doing was within the tasks given by God.

Does God ask prophets to do difficult things sometimes? Let's see: Abraham to human sacrifice Isaac, Moses and Joshua commanded to commit genocide, Samuel slays an unarmed king/prisoner, Gideon commands 100 men to march to war against thousands, Jacob must work 21 years for his wives and flocks, Jeremiah tells Judah to accept bondage to the Babylonians, and the list goes on.

Are tough tests required of God sometimes? Let's see:

Job has everything taken from him, children killed, has boils, and above all this, his wife nags him.

One man tried steadying the ark and was slain by God.

King Saul awaited Samuel to offer a sacrifice prior to going to war. Samuel was extremely late, the enemy was beginning to hit his troops and they were deserting. Saul felt he had no choice but to offer the sacrifice himself in order to save his people. Immediately after the sacrifice, Samuel shows up and rejects him as king, because he didn't wait.

Jesus tells the rich young man to give away his riches. He tells others to pick up the cross and follow him.

And, of course, Abraham had to slay Isaac.

Just what part of this pattern do we not understand? Being obedient is easy if nothing tough is required of us. Obeying when our common sense says otherwise is not always the way God works. And If we can determine that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets of God, then we can establish that this really was a test given to those people.

[Golden Tapir]

I keep wondering about the PRACTICLE issues here: Loyalty between husband & wife, showing the children the proper examples. Continuity of the family unit. Honoring mother & father. Tellling the TRUTH (old fashioned???).

[Teancum]

The real issue is: were these men prophets? If they were, then what they were doing was within the tasks given by God.

Does God ask prophets to do difficult things sometimes? Let's see: Abraham to human sacrifice Isaac, Moses and Joshua commanded to commit genocide, Samuel slays an unarmed king/prisoner, Gideon commands 100 men to march to war against thousands, Jacob must work 21 years for his wives and flocks, Jeremiah tells Judah to accept bondage to the Babylonians, and the list goes on.

Are tough tests required of God sometimes? Let's see:

Job has everything taken from him, children killed, has boils, and above all this, his wife nags him.

One man tried steadying the ark and was slain by God.

King Saul awaited Samuel to offer a sacrifice prior to going to war. Samuel was extremely late, the enemy was beginning to hit his troops and they were deserting. Saul felt he had no choice but to offer the sacrifice himself in order to save his people. Immediately after the sacrifice, Samuel shows up and rejects him as king, because he didn't wait.

Jesus tells the rich young man to give away his riches. He tells others to pick up the cross and follow him.

And, of course, Abraham had to slay Isaac.

Just what part of this pattern do we not understand? Being obedient is easy if nothing tough is required of us. Obeying when our common sense says otherwise is not always the way God works. And If we can determine that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets of God, then we can establish that this really was a test given to those people.

I would suggest that God has nevef commanded someone to do that which is contrary to His commandments and allow them to go through with it.

In this case the issue is adultery and the taking of another faithful man's wife. Can you demonstrate this pattern in the scriptures anywhere?

If so you may be able to assist me with my preplextion over this.

Teancum