Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs


Teancum

Recommended Posts

{snip}

I hope this better explains my argument. The destruction of the Expositor was indeed an act of hubris, by the outraged Mayor of Nauvoo (remember, the slander in the paper was about him, by and large), as well as illegal.

I happen to disagree with Oaks' conclusions on the illegality of the abatement of the press under then Illinois State law. Remember, the Vth Amendment doesn't apply to the States in the 1840s. That didn't happen until after the Civil War and adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments, as interpreted much later than that by the Supreme Court. Matty Van Buren was right when he told JSJr. he could do nothing for the Saints after Missouri aided and abetted the mob in its thievery. Only Missouri could do so, given then prevailing constitutional law.

The Nauvoo City Council got the best legal advice available at the time on abatement of nuisances by Cities. It's the same law that gives cities today the right to make the encroached upon farmer get rid of his pigs. They acted in accordance with that advice and abated the nuisance after making a finding that the press was a public nuisance.

Naturally, following Reconstruction, Free Speech would trump nuisance laws nearly every time, but prior to the Civil War, that was simply not the case.

Ironic, isn't it, that the same group that claimed violations of the Ist Amendment by the Nauvoo City Council and JSJr. and assassinated JSJr. and Hyrum therefor (as you claim) are the same ones who were protected in their violations of the Saints' Vth Amendment rights in Missouri (as Matty Van claimed)?

Link to comment
The question, one more time, is what constituted "legally and lawfully" in the 1840s. If a couple could be legally and lawfully married just by a religious leader pronouncing them husband and wife, do you have any evidence that their belief (and the laws of the Iowa Territory) wouldn't allow for the same religious leader to pronounce their marriage ended?

Allen:

So, since you finally concede that Henry and Zina were legally and lawfully wedded (regardless of the procedures in place, since we both now agree that they were married under Illinois law -- that is what "legally" and "lawfully" mean), what evidence (or even hint of evidence) do you have that Henry and Zina ever legally dissolved this marriage? None, I suspect, or you would have given it by now.

Even if Henry and Zina considered themselves' "divorced" because Brother Brigham said so, does not mean they were legally divorced; Brigham had no authority to legally dissolve their marriage. I realize that JS (and probably BY) disregarded the civil laws when it came to religious marriage (which is why JS was so successful in marrying so many women, including those already married under the civil laws), but that doesn't change the fact that Brigham religiously "married" (and later cohabited with) a woman who continued to be legally married to Henry.

So much for the 12th Article of Faith (at least back in those days) .... :P

As this is my 10th post of the day (the max allowed under agreement with the Mods), I must bid you adieu until tomorrow ....

Link to comment

And you diligently bypassed the point of his post:

The question, one more time, is what constituted "legally and lawfully" in the 1840s. If a couple could be legally and lawfully married just by a religious leader pronouncing them husband and wife, do you have any evidence that their belief (and the laws of the Iowa Territory) wouldn't allow for the same religious leader to pronounce their marriage ended?
Link to comment
Rollo Tomasi said: So, since you finally concede that Henry and Zina were legally and lawfully wedded (regardless of the procedures in place, since we both now agree that they were married under Illinois law -- that is what "legally" and "lawfully" mean), what evidence (or even hint of evidence) do you have that Henry and Zina ever legally dissolved this marriage? None, I suspect, or you would have given it by now.

Nice spin, Rollo. (Do you work for a PR firm or a politician?) You use "concede" to imply that I've been trying to say that they weren't legally and lawfully married, when, in fact, I never said any such thing. Let's just be clear that such an assertion is nothing but your spin, required for the promulgation of your theories as to how Brigham victimized Henry and "stole" his wife and kids.

I will be glad to provide you with whatever evidence I have abou the legality of Zina and Henry's divorce once you can provide me with information as to what constituted a "legal" divorce in the Iowa Territory while Zina and Henry were there. For us to assert illegality without such information is to, once again, wallow in the fallacy of presentism.

Minus any information to the contrary, it is very possible that both Henry and Zina felt that all that was necessary for a divorce was a pronouncement by a religious authority that their marriage was dissolved. Such an understanding is consistent with both Zina and Henry's subsequent behavior, a fact which you have failed to address.

Rollo Tomasi said: Even if Henry and Zina considered themselves' "divorced" because Brother Brigham said so, does not mean they were legally divorced; Brigham had no authority to legally dissolve their marriage.

The finality with which you assert this leads me to believe that you must have evidence to back it up. What, exactly, constituted a "legal" divorce in territorial Iowa of that time? Please be kind enough to provide your information.

Rollo Tomasi said: I realize that JS (and probably BY) disregarded the civil laws when it came to religious marriage (which is why JS was so successful in marrying so many women, including those already married under the civil laws), but that doesn't change the fact that Brigham religiously "married" (and later cohabited with) a woman who continued to be legally married to Henry.

I'll be glad to address this when you provide the evidence that I asked for above.

Rollo Tomasi said: So much for the 12th Article of Faith (at least back in those days) ....

Cute. But only on target if you can provide information as to what the law was in the Iowa Territory back in those days.

-Allen

Link to comment

As much as we love our critics, I am seeing something that is not healthy in too many threads. When you have presented your position or theory and have gotten responses, if those responses ask for clarifying information you do have a responsibility to provide it. Come on, folks. That is just common courtesy. Do not expect to come in here and critique Mormonism without being as responsive to them as you expect those you question to be. Nothing destroys a board environment faster than a one sided conversation.

Respond to specific requests or move on to a different topic.

Link to comment

Even if Zina and Henry were civilly married, what is the big deal if they weren't civilly divorced? Really? What is the point of the objection?

Today, people live together, have children, and break up without the "benefit" of marriage or divorce.

If Henry was upset about any of this, he could have gone to the civil authorties about his wife and his children. He didn't, did he? I think they thought they were on sound religious grounds in what they did.

But, what is the real objection any of you have to there being no civil divorce? Like, so what?

Link to comment
I am aware that there were a few biographies later written that described Zina and Henry Jacobs marriage as unhappy.  I am also aware that Zina did testified very late her in life in the Temple lot case that her marriage to Henry Jacobs was unhappy.    However, while Zina and Henry may have had a couple of unhappy moments in their marriage, I don
Link to comment

Is this where we start making our lists of everything that everybody else does that offends us? And here we are back to talking about women as if they were potted plants being passed around.

.

Oh sure.

BY said the Henry that he (BY) was Jospeh's proxy. Therefore Ziana was not Henry's property but Brigham. She belinged to Brigham according to Brigham

Are you ready to slame Mr. Young now or later?

Teancum

Link to comment
BY said the Henry that he (BY) was Jospeh's proxy. Therefore Ziana was not Henry's property but Brigham. She belinged to Brigham according to Brigham

Are you ready to slame Mr. Young now or later?

Huh? Too many typos. Zina spoke for herself. We have her words. She is not a potted plant. I "belong" to my husband, too. So what? Zina still has a mouth and she used it. Are you going to go back into the 19th century with Brigham? That is what I am seeing here and that is what I have said. I don't see much changing in attitudes towards women when what they say becomes inconvenient and I find it disturbing.

Link to comment
Henry Jacobs did Not deserve to have his family taken away from him.

Any decent man would have just handcuffed Zina to the kitchen stove.....uppity woman.

Oh puhleeze :P

Is this the new spin, Zina was a sassy independant woman? There was no divorce, therefore Zina had no right to take Henry's children away from him. Even sassy independent women don't do that.

I think the spin here is that people try to use Zina to vilify Brigham and Joseph. Nowhere in the historical record do we have anything that suggests this is warranted. We talk about Brigham "stealing" Zina as if she doesn't have a mind of her own or isn't a real person. The decision was Zina's. She made statements about it in court. Why can't we accept what the woman says about it?

We certainly do have evidence.

Joseph asked Zina to marry him (Oh BTW, he was already married-moreh then once)

Zina says Nope.

Zina marriies Henry.

Jospeh asks Zina to marry him again for eternity but stay for time with Henry. Zina does so. One owners why Henry, a president of the 70's could not do this.

Joseph is killed.

Brigham stands in for Jospeh as proxy and Zina is again sealed to Jospeh amd married to Brigham for time.

Brigham tells Henry in Mt Pisgah that Zina is his property and that Henry has not lived upp the her. Then he sends Henry on a mission.

Zina moves in with Brigham.

One can view the facts a A OK or one can see them as rather straange and two powerful men involved.

Zina may have been fine with dumping Henry.

That does not justify Joseph, Brigham or her. Unless of course this is all of God. Then anything goes with it I guess.

Once again Scott, I hope you are sympathetic if your wife decides she is done with you and runs off with another fellow.

Teancum

Link to comment
<Try as you might, I don't see any way for Brigham to come out of this sordid affair smelling like a rose.

OK, let's go back to BY's statement:

"Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for your wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him.

(she does not belong to you in eternity. she is sealed to JS, not to you)

"I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property.

(I have a stewardship over Joseph Smith's affairs, and I intend to fulfill that stewardship in this matter)

"You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit"

(Again, she is not your eternal mate, and to continue to keep her is not in your best interests, nor hers. I advise you to get over it, learn to accept matters as they are, and to find an eternal mate who will suit your needs and personality.)

You call this a "sordid affair" because, presumably, you see BY as someone full of sexual desire, desiring sex wherever he can find it.

On the other side, I see Brigham Young as a spiritual leader, a prophet. I see him as an individual who sees his responsibility, and has the courage to do his duty regardless of how unpleasant it would be, and how it appeared to others.

I may not agree on how he handled the situation, but he did what he felt needed to be done.

I could not give two hoots about sexual issue.

If you can really say that BY was just fullfilling a stewadship by telling Henry his wife and children were not his property and feel good about it....What can I say.

Once again, if this were you and your wife what would you do? Could you be so cavelier about it?

Teancum

Link to comment
Once again Scott, I hope you are sympathetic if your wife decides she is done with you and runs off with another fellow.

Women don't make decisions in this thread. The guy took her. I suggest that Scott makes sure that she has no contact with any other men to protect her from herself.

Link to comment
Once again Scott, I hope you are sympathetic if your wife decides she is done with you and runs off with another fellow.

Women don't make decisions in this thread. The guy took her. I suggest that Scott makes sure that she has no contact with any other men to protect her from herself.

I would aks you once again, do you have any criticism of BY for stating that Ziana and he chidlren were his property?

Sure, Zina can run off. More power to her. I think it speak poorly of her. But it is BY who said that she was HIS PROPERTY.

Teancum

Link to comment
I would aks you once again, do you have any criticism of BY for stating that Ziana and he chidlren were his property?

I think it was customary speech in the 19th century. Do we like it now? Of course not. I counter much worse things in my studies of early Christianity and sometimes it is difficult to keep my 21st century sensibilities on the shelf. But it has to be done if you are going to understand and learn from something rather than sit in judgement as a morally superior being with the benefit of centuries of armchair hindsight paid for with other people's pain and suffering.

Link to comment
I will be glad to provide you with whatever evidence I have abou the legality of Zina and Henry's divorce once you can provide me with information as to what constituted a "legal" divorce in the Iowa Territory while Zina and Henry were there. For us to assert illegality without such information is to, once again, wallow in the fallacy of presentism.

Allen:

1. I didn

Link to comment
Insufficient. Specific relevant response would have been to cite the law.

I don't have access to "the law." Allen is the one asserting they may have legally divorced. The onus is on him to back it up. If you would like to take a stab at the why the evidence I've given does not back up my conclusions, then have at it. Add something substantive to the conversation, or join another thread.

Link to comment
Even if Zina and Henry were civilly married, what is the big deal if they weren't civilly divorced? Really? What is the point of the objection?

Today, people live together, have children, and break up without the "benefit" of marriage or divorce.

If Henry was upset about any of this, he could have gone to the civil authorties about his wife and his children. He didn't, did he? I think they thought they were on sound religious grounds in what they did.

But, what is the real objection any of you have to there being no civil divorce? Like, so what?

We call this adultery (if either or both of the parties involved are married to someone else) or fornication (if neither of the parties is married to someone else) today. Are you saying Zina was living with Brigham in an adulterous lifestyle?

Link to comment
I asked this earlier:  So what?  So what if they didn't get a civil divorce?

Like I said before, it matters little to me because whatever happened I still think Brigham stole Henry's family. I've only raised these issues because others here seem to imply (or expressly state) that: (i) Henry's and Zina's legal marriage was dissolved, (ii) somehow a divorce would justify how BY treated Henry, or (iii) Zina was not a polyandrous wife to BY. To me, it's just more "whitewashing" or downplaying what happened; I just want a spade to be called a spade.

Link to comment
Insufficient.  Specific relevant response would have been to cite the law.

I don't have access to "the law." Allen is the one asserting they may have legally divorced. The onus is on him to back it up. If you would like to take a stab at the why the evidence I've given does not back up my conclusions, then have at it. Add something substantive to the conversation, or join another thread.

The onus is on you to show they were "legally" married and could not have been legally divorced. Mayor's record of marriages does not suffice. Law is the issue.

Capiche?

Link to comment
The onus is on you to show they were "legally" married and could not have been legally divorced.  Mayor's record of marriages does not suffice.

Apparently you are the one not getting it. My reference above is to the marriage records of Hancock County (a copy is at BYU's Lee Library if you don't want to trapse to Illinois to see the original). It is a public record of their legal marriage in Illinois, officiated by John C. Bennett in his capacity as mayor of Nauvoo, legally recognized under the Nauvoo Charter issued by the Illinois legislature. Are you seriously going to argue this is not evidence of Zina's and Jacob's legal marriage in Illinois?

And there is no evidence of a legal divorce or dissolution of that legal marriage, because none exists. If you have something, then show us.

Put up or shut up, bub.

Link to comment
And there is no evidence of a legal divorce or dissolution of that legal marriage, because none exists.  If you have something, then show us.

Put up or shut up, bub.

Right back atcha. That's called "argument from ignorance."

The onus is on you to show they were "legally" married and could not have been legally divorced.

Note crucial conjunction "and." Conditions not met.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...