Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[rameumptom]

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

If you had been reading, you would have noted a few in my previous post. For example, God commanded, "Thou shalt not kill", but then Moses and Joshua were committing genocide against the civilizations they came across. Samuel slew an unarmed prisoner. Shall I go on with this example?

Some ancient Jewish traditions actually have Abraham killing Isaac, only to have God raise him from the dead afterward.

God gave the Law of Moses as an "eternal covenant", only to have it rescinded/superceded by Jesus.

Jesus commanded the apostles not to preach to the Gentiles, and then changed the rules later, so that Peter could preach to Cornelius.

If you look, you'll find many other examples. You see? The Lord has a standard commandment for us to follow under normal circumstances. But he has the right to make exceptions to his own commands. And he often does so to test people.

[AlvinMayker]

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.

Founded on the Rock? What is the Rock? The "Rock" is your undertanding of Christ and your relationship to Him, as it exists in your mind. What is that understanding of the relationship based on? It's based in large part on the explanations and doctrine of Christ as "revealed" by Joseph Smith and the "prophets" who came after.

Thus, an attempt to divorce your understanding of Christ and the relationship that exists to him in your mind, is futile. The two are inseperable. If they weren't, then all Chrisitans who suppose they have a relationship with Christ would believe in the same manner as you do, a believing LDS.

So if your idea of your relationship to Christ is based on (at least in part) lies told by men who's teachings and manueverings were directed at worldly power, then to that extent (that it relies on their teachings) your "rock" or your idea of it is unstable itself.

Notice I've used the qualifier "if" here - If Joseph and Brigham et al were all telling the 100% "gospel" truth, and they *are* Christ's representatives etc., then your testimony is on solid ground.

But to say that anyone who's testimony is shaken by their discovery that Joseph and Brigham trifled with the lives of other men and took their wives (fact) never had a testimony etc., is idle blabber. Just because you're unwilling to seriously entertain the possibility (because of your investment and pre-formed idea that no matter what, Joseph Smith etc al are who they said they were) doesn't put you on ground that is more solid.

Now, if you've had a conversation with Jesus lately and he's revealed to you that Brigham and Joseph were the shiznit, then that's another story - But short of this, you're in a glass house throwing rocks at those you deem to be on shakier ground than you.

Funny, really - That you think you can somehow separate your "testimony" of Christ and your Spiritual witness from the very people who prescribed precisely how to gain that testimony - Based on their words and teachings and the truth or falisty of them. How could JS be a "true" prophet and representative of Christ if he really was guilty of trifling with peoples lives in the same fashion as David Koresh, or any other charismatic figure that has come or gone through the centuries? (I guess you figure that b/c Joseph's organization was luckier and thrived where many others based on charismatic leaders who treated their followers like toys for their amusement failed).

[Teancum]

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

If you had been reading, you would have noted a few in my previous post. For example, God commanded, "Thou shalt not kill", but then Moses and Joshua were committing genocide against the civilizations they came across. Samuel slew an unarmed prisoner. Shall I go on with this example?

Some ancient Jewish traditions actually have Abraham killing Isaac, only to have God raise him from the dead afterward.

God gave the Law of Moses as an "eternal covenant", only to have it rescinded/superceded by Jesus.

Jesus commanded the apostles not to preach to the Gentiles, and then changed the rules later, so that Peter could preach to Cornelius.

If you look, you'll find many other examples. You see? The Lord has a standard commandment for us to follow under normal circumstances. But he has the right to make exceptions to his own commands. And he often does so to test people.

Ok.

This seems to me still to be a case of another man wanting someone else's wife.

Maybe I am just a poor slob who is coming to the conclusion that God really does not command to commit genocide, kill your child, slay a man standing unarmed, run two people caught in the sex act through with a spear, send a bear to kill people for making fun of a fellow with a bald head, kill babies and take others wives or promise a teenager exaltation for her and her family if she will wed him. Maybe the idea of having more wives because you are a church leader or having more wives gets you that much farther ahead in heaven seems rather preposterous and that much of such behavior is using God to manipulate and control men and women to get gain.

Man I am I headed to Hell now!!!!!!!!!

Teancum

[cinepro]

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.

Here's the version of the story as related to the children of the Church:

Chariton Jacobs, Zina

[Log]

Now, if you've had a conversation with Jesus lately and he's revealed to you that Brigham and Joseph were the shiznit, then that's another story.

That's just 'bout the content of the word testimony as I use it.

I suppose Henry Jacobs was either the stupidest man who ever lived, or he knew something you guys don't. Something to consider.

[Nisfor]

Now, if you've had a conversation with Jesus lately and he's revealed to you that Brigham and Joseph were the shiznit, then that's another story.

That's just 'bout the content of the word testimony as I use it.

So... do you actually hear and/or see Jesus, as claimed by early prophets of the church? Or do you just get a "feeling" as claimed by more recent prophets?

If you actually see and/or hear him - either you're hallucinating or Jesus is actually instructing you directly - either way what Jesus is telling you is "real" to you, so I'm not going to argue there. If it's just a feeling - how do you know that you're not just reacting favorably to either what you personally believe, or what you are conditioned to accept as "good" by your social group?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Cinepro:

As many feel, the Henry Jacobs story breaks my heart more than any other within the context of polygamy. I can only imagine how I would feel if my children were stolen from me like that, not only for time but also for eternity. Kinda makes one wonder about the LDS mantra of "families are forever."

This episode reminds me of a policy that still exists in the LDS Church today (although many don't know about it because it's "hidden" in the Handbook only issued to certain Church leaders). It has to do with the sealing of children to parents; specifically, how children sired by a second husband can be given to the first husband in the eternities:

"If a woman who has been sealed to a former husband remarries, the children of her later marriage are born in the covenant of the first marriage unless they were born after the sealing was canceled or after it was revoked due to excommunication or name removal." (page 74).

So beware those of you who marry a widow and who have children with her -- if she has been sealed to her dead husband, your kids (along with her) go to him in the next life, much like Henry's sons with Diantha went with Brigham after he sent Henry on a mission, and will go to Joseph in the hereafter.

With stories like these, it is very easy for me to see why one's testimony could be shaken by such a horrid doctrine and practice as polygamy.

[Truth]

Henry seems genuinely humble and trusting in God, God will bless him and make him happy. May I have that level of trust in God and be true and faithful like this.

[Log]

I feel no need to explain to it in public, including to anonymous persons. I'm simply saying that to have been spoken to by Father directly is the definition of testimony as I use the word. Frankly, do the scriptures admit of any other definition, in this context?

But I will echo Bitton: I have no testimony of church history.

[Log]

This episode reminds me of a policy that still exists in the LDS Church today (although many don't know about it because it's "hidden" in the Handbook only issued to certain Church leaders).  It has to do with the sealing of children to parents; specifically, how children sired by a second husband can be given to the first husband in the eternities:

"If a woman who has been sealed to a former husband remarries, the children of her later marriage are born in the covenant of the first marriage unless they were born after the sealing was canceled or after it was revoked due to excommunication or name removal." (page 74).

Well, thanks in part for posting that from the handbook - which, of course, probably was acquired in violation of copyright, but we won't dwell on that.

I would ask you to consider the bigger picture.

Since we all are brothers and sisters - marrying each other, even - and in the hereafter will revert to something like that relationship again, does it matter who is sealed to whom, with respect to children? That relationship won't pertain; we'll just be brothers and sisters again. The content of "families can be together forever" has never been sufficiently explained to me such that I can see a difference who is sealed to whom in the Celestial world, apart from husbands and wives.

PS - the thanks were sincere. Just to clarify.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I would ask you to consider the bigger picture.

Since we all are brothers and sisters - marrying each other, even - and in the hereafter will revert to something like that relationship again, does it matter who is sealed to whom, with respect to children? That relationship won't pertain; we'll just be brothers and sisters again. The content of "families can be together forever" has never been sufficiently explained to me such that I can see a difference who is sealed to whom in the Celestial world, apart from husbands and wives.

Lognormal:

1. My access to the Handbook is not in violation of copyright laws.

2. I agree with you that the whole "families are forever" thing is vague and seemingly unmanageable, which is to say that the traditional, nuclear family the LDS Church promotes in this mortality may not be the actual way of the CK (but, rather, as you suggest, more like brothers and sisters), but this is certainly not the way it is presented to the non-LDS world or even in the Church itself. Most leaders and members sing songs, preach sermons, paint pictures, etc., that at least imply application to one's immediate family as the "fundamental unit" in this life and the next (and at least two apostles have comforted parents that their "less than faithful" children will still be part of their family in the next life), but when pressed on details of how this all really works we are told it's unimportant, that the only important thing is that we are sealed, regardless of to whom. And the part I quoted from the Handbook demonstrates how true this is.

3. Just goes to show that you shouldn't get too attached to your family in this life, because you may get stuck with a different one in the next.

[Log]

Well,

1) My assumption is that you accessed it online, which, if true, means that the handbook (of course, not your accessing it) is posted in violation of copyright - that's what I meant.

2 and 3 are cogent, and I largely agree. If anyone knows anything different, I'd like to hear about it.

[Teancum]

I would ask you to consider the bigger picture.

Since we all are brothers and sisters - marrying each other, even - and in the hereafter will revert to something like that relationship again, does it matter who is sealed to whom, with respect to children?

[stn9]

For a better understanding of a multi-level familial structure after this life (as opposed to the one-dimensional brother-sister model), see the explanation for the disgram of the kingdom of God published in Millennial Star 9 [15 January 1847]: 23-24. I don't have a URL (I have my own copy), but search on "The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God."

[T-Shirt]

I would ask you to consider the bigger picture.

Since we all are brothers and sisters - marrying each other, even - and in the hereafter will revert to something like that relationship again, does it matter who is sealed to whom, with respect to children?  That relationship won't pertain; we'll just be brothers and sisters again.  The content of "families can be together forever" has never been sufficiently explained to me such that I can see a difference who is sealed to whom in the Celestial world, apart from husbands and wives.

Lognormal:

1. My access to the Handbook is not in violation of copyright laws.

Rollo,

If, as you say, your posession of the Handbook is legitimate, might I suggest that you cease your hypocricy and immediately return the handbook to your priesthood leader and report to him that you have lost your faith. Why would you continue to pretend to be something you are not?

T-Shirt

[Blink]

The only difference that I can see between the Henry/Zina situation and the Uriah/Bathsheba situation is that Brigham sent Henry on a mission to get him out of the way, and David managed to get Uriah killed by putting him on the front line in the next battle.

Both had the same result: the man who was the prophet and/or king ended up with the girl, even though the husbands were worthy and righteous.

[AlvinMayker]

Had Big Brigham come after my wife I would have thrashed him.

It's a nice sentiment - But if BY had come after your wife and you thrashed him, you'd have more than likely wound up dead at the hands of Wild Bill Hickman, Porter Rockwell or other poster-children for the LDS "Christian" movement.

The fact is, even men of those times who were powerful and well established in their own right - Like William Law - Who went against Joseph even verbally or parted business ways etc. - Were absolutely trashed by JS's smear-campaign machine.

One of the biggest surprises I got after being taught from the time I was young about wicked, perdition-bent apostates like William Law, was to actually READ their own accounts.

William Law knew Joseph personally for many years and served faithfully under him. He lived to a ripe old age to tell the entire story. For any faithful LDS, its worth the read. You can see how a character beyond reproach (Except for the reproach of those whoms unlawful, illegal and immoral actions he dared condemn) who actually knew Joseph but was no longer under his spell saw him.

I guess William didn't take too well to the advances on his wife.

But I really doubt you or anyone of that era could have thrashed Joseph or his wife - The same powers that would interpret Henry as a "deserter" of his children and smear the Laws as perdition, would no doubt not take your thrashing in a Christian way.

[UteFan]

Since I've yet to hear an explanation about Zina Jacobs that resolves my issues with her relationships. I think I've come to the realization I either "Just need to accept it" or recieve some personal revelation that will resolve it for me. We don't know the whole story. What if it really was Gods will to "give" Zina to Joseph, although it turns my stomach maybe it's something we can't understand with our limited minds.

The one "fact" we have that somewhat supports this is gods will is Henry agreed and somewhat supported the "sealings." Though it appears he may have questioned it later in life, he was able to to reconsile what was happening. He remained faithful in the church.

If my wife was "given" to the prophet. I would need some sort of visitation or unmistakable spirtual experience, to know this really is gods will. I would think Henry would have the same feelings.

[truth dancer]

Hey ute fan...

Since I've yet to hear an explanation about Zina Jacobs that resolves my issues with her relationships. I think I've come to the realization I either "Just need to accept it" or recieve some personal revelation that will resolve it for me. We don't know the whole story. What if it really was Gods will to "give" Zina to Joseph, although it turns my stomach maybe it's something we can't understand with our limited minds.

I understand your position here.

The thing I struggled with is this...

Jesus came to earth and taught some very clear and beautiful principles... for example, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

We supposedly were ALL given the light of Christ...

We have a conscience...

We have compassion...

Many have a sense of "morality"....

We have teachings of marriage and family....

We have the beauty of loving our spouses....

And yet we should toss it ALL OUT THE DOOR because someone claims to have received revelation that dismisses (at best) everything else?

We are supposed to forget what Christ taught... forget what our conscience tells us... forget any teachings of right and wrong and trust that someone spoke to God and God said to ignore it all?

So, I wondered what is God about?

~dancer~

[Brackite]

Hi Dale,

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.

Brigham Young already had at least 12 wives when he married Zina for time. Why did Brigham Young need to marry Zina??? Henry Jacobs ' letters to Zina are heart breaking. Henry did Not deserve to get his wife and two children stolen from him.

[UteFan]

And yet we should toss it ALL OUT THE DOOR because someone claims to have received revelation that dismisses (at best) everything else?

We are supposed to forget what Christ taught... forget what our conscience tells us... forget any teachings of right and wrong and trust that someone spoke to God and God said to ignore it all?

No I don't think we do have to do this. There are some very strange things that happen in the bible that I don't understand. I don't think I have to throw the bible and christ teachings out because I don't understand everything.

What if....

Joseph knew that if Henry remained with Zina, he would fall into some sin and wouldn't have made it. Maybe the only way Joseph could save Henry and Zina in the next life was to split them up in this one?

[noel00]

Hi Dale,

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.

Brigham Young already had at least 12 wives when he married Zina for time. Why did Brigham Young need to marry Zina??? Henry Jacobs ' letters to Zina are heart breaking. Henry did Not deserve to get his wife and two children stolen from him.

This issue along with the BOA issue is one of the things that convinced me that the LDS church was not God's church on earth. Wrecking families is not what God is about. Jacob's children were deprived of their natural father. I know as someone who lost their Dad in a fire when I was nine years old, the pain of not having a Dad to grow up with. No man loves his kids as much as their natural Dad would. This was abuse of religious power.

[Nighthawke]

Zina must have been a goodlooker with so many men wanting her.

And yet she and Brigham Young only had one child, their daughter Zina was born in 1850--four years after Brigham and Zina were sealed for time in the Nauvoo Temple.

With reference to Joseph's widows, Compton provides the following information:

We are told that the Prophet Joseph requested the Quorum to marry and take care of his widows, which many of them did.

- Cannon, Oa J., "Zina Diantha Huntington Young," 23.

Compton also quotes a similar statement by Susa Young Gates:

Emily Partridge and the other bereaved young plural widows were approached by Pres. Young and the Twelve after the Martyrdom with an offer of their shelter and sustenance, "for time only," of these brave brave girls who had dared ridicule and even mobs and death to enter into that order. They were free to select any of these associates of the Prophet as their earthly protector.

This was a tremendous undertaking for Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and their associates. Emily Partridge had been "given" to the Prophet by his first wife Emma, as had Eliza R. Snow. Emily, with Louisa Beman, Zina D. Huntington, accepted Brigham's offer in the spirit in which it was given. Eliza R. Snow, after reaching the valley, was glad to accept shelter and protection under his [roof], but she, like several other widows, was never his wife in actual fact ...

Father and the Twelve Apostles felt the death of the Prophet far more keenly than did the people; and as we believe that children are a part of the glory we inherit hereafter, it seemed a cruel thing that the beloved leader and Prophet should be striken down in the prime of life, and left without issue in this Church. [Emma apostatized.] Father went to those noble women who had accepted the principle of celestial marriage with the Prophet as their husband, and he told them that he and his brethren stood ready to offer themselves to them as husbands for time, and the widows might choose for themselves. Four of these young widows chose father, and he accepted the charge thus laid upon him. He felt the grand old Hebrew impulse, to be himself the instrument by which posterity for his dead brother might be born in this life. All honor to the great men who could make and carry out such splendid tributes to the dead leader and friend.

And one last quote, Compton writes:

[Maureen Ursenbach] Beecher, ["Each in Her Own Time:] Four Zinas", 128, reads Zina's 1844 journal and concludes that Zina's marriage to Jacobs was not entirely happy. This is possible, as Jacobs eventually had three other mariages which did not last.

I have Maura's Dialogue article which Compton references. On p. 128, Beecher writes, "However less than ideal Zina's and Henry's marriage may have been, her dissatisfaction with her lot explains her sealing to the two prophets." Beecher notes in a footnote that in an interview, Zina "is clear on two issues: she had a spiritual affirmation of the correctness of plural marriage, and she knew "by testimony from God that Joseph Smith was a Prophet."

- Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. "Each in Her Own Times: Four Zinas". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Summer 1993): 119-38.

[Scott Gordon]

And one last quote, Compton writes:

[Maureen Ursenbach] Beecher, ["Each in Her Own Time:] Four Zinas", 128, reads Zina's 1844 journal and concludes that Zina's marriage to Jacobs was not entirely happy. This is possible, as Jacobs eventually had three other mariages which did not last.

I have Maura's Dialogue article which Compton references. On p. 128, Beecher writes, "However less than ideal Zina's and Henry's marriage may have been, her dissatisfaction with her lot explains her sealing to the two prophets." Beecher notes in a footnote that in an interview, Zina "is clear on two issues: she had a spiritual affirmation of the correctness of plural marriage, and she knew "by testimony from God that Joseph Smith was a Prophet."

- Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. "Each in Her Own Times: Four Zinas". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Summer 1993): 119-38.

I have read here how terrible Joseph Smith was, and how Zina's expeience shows the church isn't true.

And yet we find that Zina was not happy in her marriage. We hear that Henry may not have been a good husband. We could claim it was simply Joseph Smith's propoganda machine, except that Henry went through THREE other marriages. It sounds like Henry had some problems.

Isn't it possible that Joseph Smith knew Henry wasn't all he was cracked up to be and he wanted to save Zina from the pain? We know that Zina went to Brigham on her own and no one forced her to go. Certainly, Joseph Smith didn't force her to go because he was dead at that point.

I guess there are many on this board who would have rather had Zina stay in the unhappy marriage. It sounds to me that Zina was given options that she otherwise wouldn't have had. She certainly couldn't divorce Henry and go on welfare because that program didn't exist.

Its just like those bad Mormons to give women rights, options, and choices! Shame on them! (tongue in cheek)

[Dale]

Hi,

I think Henry wrecked his own marriage. If he was such a great husband Zina wouldn't have accepted Brigham Young's offer. Who say's it's neccessary to respect a bad marriage relationship. She was better off without Henry. I have no symphathy for the whiner.

Joseph's marriage to Zina looks like a pretend marriage to me. Joseph respected Henry's marriage to Zina. There was never at any time any sex between Joseph & Zina. It was never consumnated & it's slander to say it was. Her name was borrowed for an odd ceremony nothing more nothing less.

Sincerely,

Dale