Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[yaanufs]

Henry went through THREE other marriages. It sounds like Henry had some problems.

As it happens one of the problems with people getting re-married is that they bring along all their personal baggage with them from their previous marriages.

If you were Henry and felt your wife and children had been taken from you without justification then you would probably take some pretty big issues with you into your following marriages. It is not at all surprising that Henry went through several marriages because he never got over his first one and always had thoughts of his first wife and children in his mind.

It can be simply argued that the failed marriages were heavily influenced by the internal demons he carried from his first marriage. In other words, the way the marriage was destroyed turned Henry into a emotional wreck unable to cope with a marriage.

[Golden Tapir]

y:

Point well taken.

Why oh why, when people do terrible things to each other, don't - Shouldn't we expect other terrible results - collateral damage , though unforseen, unintended, to occur?

ARE WE THAT STUPID????

Could THIS be why we read in THREE separate places in the N.T. NOT to return Evil for Evil? 1st Peter 3:8-9; 1st Thes 5:14-15; Romans 12:17

Wadda ya think?

[Rollo Tomasi]

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?

You should not equate my questions and doubts with a "loss of faith."

[Rollo Tomasi]

As for Joseph, I kind of think he had his eye on Zina as well and Henry let himself be bullied into it.

I agree. According to Compton, JS proposed to Zina before she ever married Henry, so he had his eye on her for some time before they were later sealed. I've seen pictures of Zina in her later life, and she was an attractive woman then, so I imagine as a 20-year old she was quite a catch in her day.

I also agree that the whole polygamy "doctrine" was indeed man-made. Given what we know of how it was practiced, I just can't see any good reason for it other than lust under the guise of following God. Just my $.02.

[Teancum]

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.

Blink,

Good point.

Teancum

[Scott Gordon]

Henry went through THREE other marriages. It sounds like Henry had some problems.

As it happens one of the problems with people getting re-married is that they bring along all their personal baggage with them from their previous marriages.

If you were Henry and felt your wife and children had been taken from you without justification then you would probably take some pretty big issues with you into your following marriages. It is not at all surprising that Henry went through several marriages because he never got over his first one and always had thoughts of his first wife and children in his mind.

It can be simply argued that the failed marriages were heavily influenced by the internal demons he carried from his first marriage. In other words, the way the marriage was destroyed turned Henry into a emotional wreck unable to cope with a marriage.

Except that still doesn't explain Zina LEAVING her marriage of her own choice. This wasn't a slave auction. Zina left on her own.

His wife and children weren't "taken" from him without justification. That is a mischaracterization of what we know and is a rewrite of history.

This is just an excuse for an attack on Joseph Smith.

[yaanufs]

Except that still doesn't explain Zina LEAVING her marriage of her own choice.

My comments were not aimed at answering the issue of Zina leaving her first husband. They were squarely aimed at the issue of trying to say that because a distraught man was unable to maintain a relationship after his first marriage was pulled apart that it showed his first marriage was bad because of him.

It does no such thing.

It is interesting what people will do when their religion asks it of them. Some people will go to the extreme of being willing to kill their own child because God has asked him to. It is not beyond belief that Zina left because she was told God told her 3rd husband that she should do so, not because she was in a desperate marriage. Particularly as her life as one of a collection of wives was hardly a bundle of fun and closeness with a husband.

This is just an excuse for an attack on Joseph Smith.

I believe JS (2nd husband) was dead when Zina left her 1st husband to go with her 3rd husband. So I don't see anyone blaming JS for her leaving as he obviously wasn't around to do it, and when he was alive he didn't require her to leave her husband.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: I agree. According to Compton, JS proposed to Zina before she ever married Henry, so he had his eye on her for some time before they were later sealed. I've seen pictures of Zina in her later life, and she was an attractive woman then, so I imagine as a 20-year old she was quite a catch in her day.

I also agree that the whole polygamy "doctrine" was indeed man-made. Given what we know of how it was practiced, I just can't see any good reason for it other than lust under the guise of following God. Just my $.02

I think your $.02 (second paragraph) may help explain why you came to the conclusion you did in the first paragraph.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

His wife and children weren't "taken" from him without justification. That is a mischaracterization of what we know and is a rewrite of history.

I don

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think your $.02 (second paragraph) may help explain why you came to the conclusion you did in the first paragraph.

That, among other things, starting with Fanny Alger and ending with Nancy Winchester, with many attractive teenage girls in between.

[Ray Agostini]

Just for the record, let's try to understand what Zina thought of polygamy:

It is the duty of a first wife to regard her husband not with a selfish devotion... she must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy... we believe in the good old custom by which marriages should be arranged by the parents of the young people

I think you'll find that Zina practised polygamy out of "obedience", not love. But then, which woman would practice polygamy out of love? Or even personal choice. She subdued her natural feelings to be obedient.

[Log]

I think you'll find that Zina practised polygamy out of "obedience", not love. But then, which woman would practice polygamy out of love? Or even personal choice. She subdued her natural feelings to be obedient.

Well, I have it on good authority many women do so in monogamous relationships even today... it's certainly not a hallmark of polygamy, and Zina's experience was not necessarily universal. But you are obfuscating with respect to personal choice: she did choose to be obedient, however you wish to slice it.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: I don

[Rollo Tomasi]

Allen:

You are correct about Van Wagoner's description of what occurred in Mt. Pisgah. But this only serves to convince me even more of the inappropriate intent and actions of BY. From the quote you give, can there be any doubt that BY just outright stole Henry's family (i.e., "and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property")? And to ensure that Henry wouldn't be around to cause any trouble, BY sent him to the other side of the world (there was precedent for this, of course -- Joseph Smith's sending Orson Hyde to Palestine in order to marry Orson's wife, Marinda) -- how noble.

As someone noted above, it appears that Henry was easily bullied. Most men (even faithful LDS men), I think, faced with their families being taken away from them, would fight back with everything they had. It appears that Henry meekly went on his mission, but that doesn't excuse BY's actions, imo. I don't see how Henry could be described as anything other than a "victim" of Brigham's "bullying." Face it, Brigham used his power and position to take another man's family; I simply cannot see any way to excuse that.

And there was no reason to take Zina from Henry in order to raise up a righteous seed to Joseph. Henry had already sired two sons with Zina for Joseph, and likely would have sired more if he had been permitted to stay with her (BY only sired one child with Zina -- so much for Brigham's raising up a righteous seed for Joseph). The evidence demonstrates that Henry was indeed a faithful LDS member -- how many men would agree to go on a mission after their Church leader just took their family? Henry had been made one of the presidents of the Seventy in 1845, and had served numerous missions. Why, pray tell, couldn't Henry be allowed to raise up a righteous seed unto Joseph? He was certainly doing a good job of it ... until Brigham decided he wanted Henry's wife and sons.

Your arguments do not help Brigham Young. There is no way to excuse what he did with Henry Jacobs, imo. It is the most blatant example of unrighteous dominion that I know of (although the way JS emotionally manipulated so many women to marry him, is a very close second).

What was BY's mentality in doing this? Perhaps this 1861 teaching by him best explains it:

"I will give you a few words of Doctrine,... Br Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories.... Can a woman be freed from a man to whom she is sealed? Yes, but a bill of divorcement does not free her.... How can a woman be made free from a man to whome she has been sealed for time and all eternity? There are two ways.... The second way in which a wife can be seperated from her husband, while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood, I have not revealed, except to a few persons in this Church, and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of seperation, you can discover, there is no need for a bill of divorcement. To recapitulate. First if a man forfeits his covenants with a wife, or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God, and his priesthood, that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second if a woman claims protection at the hands of a man, possessing more power in the priesthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife he can do so without a bill of divorcement." ("A few words of Doctrine," a speech given by President Brigham Young in the Tabernacle on Oct. 8, 1861; photocopy of a document in the Mormon Church Historical Department, Brigham Young Addresses, Ms/d/1243/Bx 49/fd .

EDITED TO ADD:

Btw, I do not believe that BY was driven by lust to take plural wives; for him, I think it was more about power (see his above teaching). But I do think the genesis for polygamy, via Joseph Smith, was more about lust than anything else (which is why Joseph Smith could marry Fanny Alger 3 years BEFORE receiving the sealing keys in the Kirtland Temple -- that marriage obviously had nothing to do with "sealing"). I think eventually "celestial marriage" (what they called polygamy back then) took on a life of its own, morphing into the "doctrine" that flourished under BY. Just my $.02, of course.

[cinepro]

except that Henry went through THREE other marriages.

How many other marriages did Joseph and Brigham have?

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: From the quote you give, can there be any doubt that BY just outright stole Henry's family...

Yes, there can be doubt. You missed (or ignored) the major thrust of my post--we don't know all the details. We, from 150 years later, "see through a glass darkly." We have snippets of conversations and incomplete reports by third parties, yet we make up our minds and judge the people involved as if we had all the details.

That, Rollo, is uncharitable--plain and simple. You abhor polygamy; you think it is man-made, that it is rooted in lust and grew to feed egos and build power. With such a mindset you are incapable of seeing the facts in any other way than in a way that supports those conclusions. If I was of the same mindset, I would judge the same way.

But I am not of the same mindset, and that is where the doubt comes in. I am willing to admit that we don't have all the information and to reserve judgment. (I would rather reserve judgment than to judge unrighteously based upon incomplete information.)

-Allen

[T-Shirt]

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?

You should not equate my questions and doubts with a "loss of faith."

Okay, so would I be correct in saying that you are a priesthood leader who is faithful to the Church and who has a strong testimony that it is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, who just happens to spend time on message boards inflicting as much damage as he can to the Church, not showing anything positive or any hint of a testimony, and blatantly violating his covenants to not speak evil of the Lord's annointed?

Does your priesthood leader know about this?

T-Shirt

[yaanufs]

But I am not of the same mindset, and that is where the doubt comes in. I am willing to admit that we don't have all the information and to reserve judgment. (I would rather reserve judgment than to judge unrighteously based upon incomplete information.)

I don't whish to be pedantic here but you are taking incomplete information and making a judgement based upon it and your existing mindset.

You have decided the whole deal was inspired of God and with that mindset you interpret the facts to agree with your personal view.

I don't see it as any different to what you accuse RT about. It's just you have a different mindset giving you a different take. It doesn't make you better or give you a moral high ground, because fundamentally you make a judgement based on incomplete information, as is he.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You abhor polygamy; you think it is man-made, that it is rooted in lust and grew to feed egos and build power. With such a mindset you are incapable of seeing the facts in any other way than in a way that supports those conclusions. If I was of the same mindset, I would judge the same way.

Allen:

I did not miss the "thrust" of your message -- and I agree that we do not have all the details, nor do we with any circumstance -- my statements are based on the details we DO know. If there are details that contradict my take on the situtation, then I'd love to hear them, but, as you say, we don't have them. Thus, I'm left with the details we do have, and they ain't pretty.

You are also correct that I abhor polygamy. Call me a romantic and idealist, but to me marriage (whether for "time" or "eternity") ought to be based on love, not obedience or duty. Yes, I think polygamy was a man-made evil caused by very human lustful desires. I am glad it's gone. But, for the life of me, and as I discover more of the "details," I cannot see any reasonable explanation or good coming from polygamy (as practiced in the LDS Church). Learning how Joseph emotionally manipulated young women (many teenagers and many living in his home under his protection), as well as already married women, turns my stomach.

[Rollo Tomasi]

T-Shirt:

1. I don't see how my discussing questions of Church history and other concerns on this bb constitutes "damage" to the LDS Church. It is exactly your mindset (i.e., only speaking of "faith-promoting" history, etc.) that causes the type of crisis of faith which many members experience when they are first confronted with the truth in LDS history (rather than the white-washed version). The only reason I'm here is to engage in open and truthful debate and discussion about matters of an LDS nature, including history, doctrine, practices, policies, etc. How in the hell does that "damage" the Church?!

2. I have never considered criticism of Church leaders as "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." I think everyone and everything is open to criticism; if not, then things never get better. I do not put Church leaders on a pedestal; I do not treat them as near-Deity; I do not treat them as rock stars; I do not treat them as infallible. I see and treat them as I would any other person. And if they screw up, as we all do, then I do not fear to bring it up, even when others try to suppress my thoughts and force my compliance by claiming I am somehow speaking "evil" of the Lord's anointed. I do not equate "criticism" with "evil-speaking." You do, and that's where we'll have to differ, I guess.

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt:

1. I don't see how my discussing questions of Church history and other concerns on this bb constitutes "damage" to the LDS Church.

I didn't say that you have damaged the Church, I said you were "inflicting as much damage as he can", in other words, you are trying to inflict damage.

It is exactly your mindset (i.e., only speaking of "faith-promoting" history, etc.) that causes the type of crisis of faith which many members experience when they are first confronted with the truth in LDS history (rather than the white-washed version).  The only reason I'm here is to engage in open and truthful debate and discussion about matters of an LDS nature, including history, doctrine, practices, policies, etc.  How in the hell does that "damage" the Church?!

This is a joke. A faithful priesthood leader would not approach these matters in the way you have. I have no problem with dealing with difficult issues, and I do not promote, "white washing". If you are what you have lead us to believe, I would expect to see at least some degree of defense of your faith, or sharing of your testimony.

2.  I have never considered criticism of Church leaders as "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed."

Then what would you define as "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed"?

  I think everyone and everything is open to criticism; if not, then things never get better.  I do not put Church leaders on a pedestal; I do not treat them as near-Deity; I do not treat them as rock stars; I do not treat them as infallible.  I see and treat them as I would any other person.  And if they screw up, as we all do, then I do not fear to bring it up, even when others try to suppress my thoughts and force my compliance by claiming I am somehow speaking "evil" of the Lord's anointed.  I do not equate "criticism" with "evil-speaking."

What would you call this:

Rollo Tomasi Posted on Jun 21 2005, 10:46 AM

Yes, I think polygamy was a man-made evil caused by very human lustful desires.

You do, and that's where we'll have to differ, I guess.

Yes, I take my temple covenants seriously.

T-Shirt

[Blink]

I hope Teancum is reading this thread, because this quote from Brigham explains a great deal about the reason why the Zina situation happened.

If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her he can do so

.

That is so completely the opposite of what we believe now. A man with higher power and authority? What does power and authority have to do with being married to someone, with celestial marriage, with exaltation? Nothing. But that's what early LDS polygamy was all about: power and authority. Those men who were higher up the power ladder could have the pick of all willing women, without ever the woman needing to divorce the current, less powerful husband.

The eternal ramifications for this doctrine are huge. It calls into question how an individual's exaltation is based. Our current interpretation of this doctrine is the complete opposite of Brigham's interpretation of this doctrine. Currently, the interpretation is that exaltation is based on one's personal righteousness, not how high on the leadership power chain one climbs nor how high one's husband is. The wife of a building scheduler can reach the same exaltation as the wife of the prophet, according to our current interpretation, if they both live equally righteously. Using Brigham's interpretation, the wife of the prophet would be much higher than the wife of the lowly building scheduler, and if she got the chance, the woman should ditch the building scheduler and move in with and have a child by the prophet.

There is much room for unrighteous dominion using Brigham's interpretation. And the Henry/Zina situation shows what havoc that unrighteous dominion and unrighteous outside interference in a marriage can cause. Their marriage was interfered with from the beginning. Joseph started pushing into the Henry/Zina relationship before they were even married, and continued to interfere long afterwards. That Joseph considered Zina his "spiritual wife" is immaterial, since Zina was Henry's legal wife. If Henry's children really were going to be Joseph's via "spiritual wifery", then Joseph (and later Brigham) had nothing to worry about: Henry and Zina had children. thus Joseph's "spiritual" line was protected. That Brigham would tell Henry to buzz off, because Joseph said Zina was his spiritual wife is also a huge overstepping of priesthood authority. Neither Joseph nor Brigham had priesthood authority to override Henry's marriage vows to Zina, but that did not stop them from doing so. They interfered repeatedly, they practice unrighteous dominion repeatedly, and they eventually negated the marriage vows between Henry and Zina. Brigham continued the unrighteous dominion of both Henry and Zina until he managed to completely push Henry out of the picture, take Henry's children, and father a child of his own with Zina. By fathering a child of his own with Zina, Brigham shows his true colors of why he wanted Henry out of the picture.

No wonder so many people look at this situation with raised eyebrows and ask questions. The whole basis of the gospel is in question because of this situation. Is our exaltation based on our personal righteousness, or is it based on how high in the church leadership heirarchy we or our spouse climbs?

Aside to Tshirt: when you become Rollo's bishop, you can worry about him then. Until then, he is not under your stewardship, you receive no inspiration about him or his situation, and he does not answer to you. Perhaps you might rethink asking your question, since you have no part in any communication between Rollo and his priesthood leaders.

[Rollo Tomasi]

T-Shirt:

1. I don

[awyatt]

Yaanufs said: You have decided the whole deal was inspired of God and with that mindset you interpret the facts to agree with your personal view.

I don't see it as any different to what you accuse RT about. It's just you have a different mindset giving you a different take. It doesn't make you better or give you a moral high ground, because fundamentally you make a judgement based on incomplete information, as is he.

Pedanticly, you are correct.

My judgment concerning polygamy is not based solely on the facts related to polygamy, however. I believe that the Restoration was divinely instigated and led. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, as was Brigham Young. If I see information that in incongruant with such a belief, and that information is incomplete, I don't throw out my beliefs based on the incomplete information. To do so would be, quoting the old maxim, to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."

My approach is not unlike the approach that we all take in life in other venues. Let me give you an example from my own life; one that is surely not unique to me.

When I was young, perhaps in my mid teens, someone at school told me about all the terrible things that my sister (two years my junior) had done to her. My sister was not there, and it was clear that I was only getting one side of the story. Hearing the bad things about my sister, I had three choices:

1. Agree and say "yeah, my sister is a jerk."

2. Disagree and defend my sister.

3. Postpone judgment until I had more complete information.

I chose to take the third option, waiting until I had a chance to talk to my sister. I did this because the things I was hearing from the schoolmate were incongruant with what I knew of my sister. This is not taking the moral high ground; it is simply being pragmatic and realistic about a prudent course of action.

The same occurs with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (or any historical figure). I know the men based upon years of study, and I have studied both pro and con sources. When I come across incomplete information that somehow seems damning, I choose the third option because (1) I don't have complete information, (2) the information I have doesn't match what I do know, and (3) I firmly believe that I will have a chance to discuss the matter in the hereafter with the individuals involved, just as I could discuss the schoolmate's statements with my sister.

Whether Rollo or anyone else believes as I do is not the point; they may never expect to be able to get more information. To my viewpoint, that is their loss, and operating with a "limited" view on these matters colors their judgment harshly and improperly.

-Allen

[yaanufs]

3. Postpone judgment until I had more complete information.

I wouldn't say you were postponing judgement though in this particular case. You have made a judgement and you judge all new facts based upon this prior judgement.

Your position is no different to those who view the facts and make a different judgement to yourself.