Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[awyatt]

Truth Dancer said: Maybe I have misread something along the way but do we not have clear evidence of JS specifically asking a man to give him his wife? If this is not an example of a woman being property I don't know what is...

There were three instances that I know of. Joseph asked, individually, Heber C. Kimball, Brigham Young, and John Taylor for their wives. All three men, after much soul searching, offered their wives to the prophet. In all three instances Joseph turn them down, characterizing the request as an 'abrahamic test' to see where the brethren stood.

-Allen

[Dale]

Hi,

He never asked her to be his real wife in life she was not property. People ignore the fact JS respected Henry's earthly relationship with Zina. The thing was a sealing nothing more nothing less. Get over the fact sealings wern't bad.

Their is absolutely nothing indication Joseph's behavior towards Zina was improper. She was talked into a fake marriage ceremony that had no earthly power behind it. I figured Joseph felt she wasn't his real wife because the ceremony was meant for eternity & words for time wern't made to be applicable for mortality. The ceremony had no earthly function but only eternal consequences. As Joseph 3rd(Joseph's son suggested) that whenever the documents meant married or sealed they meant agreements to or associations for worlds to come. When the earthly claim's were examined in the Temple Lot case the decision went against the claim they were his wives. Todd Comptom quoted everything from the case wiuth the exception of the Judges decision which was unfavorable to the claim they were Joseph's wives. A book getting into the problems of polygamy claim's & Joseph is online at http://www.restorationbookstore.org. The only a few documents documents that may be read as implicating Joseph in polygamy among them is William Clayton's Nauvoo diaries. Everything else is so weak it was knocked down in the courts. Joseph is legally innocent of polygamy questions remaining not-withstanding about a few later published documents.

William Law was slandering Joseph in the Expositor. Under U.S. law citizens are innocent until proven guilty. The courts did side with Joseph's innocence.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Brackite]

Hello Scott,

I find this whole line of reasoning really offensive. You have portrayed this as a tug of war between two men. Isn't a woman involved here? I think you have to start giving Zina some respect in her decisions. We have discussed stealing Zina and having her "taken" from Henry as if she were an object or property. Henry, on the other hand is the "victim of bullying."  You need to start posting what ZINA had to say about this matter and find out how ZINA felt. She is the one who made the decision, not Henry, Brigham, or Joseph.

Scott, why would a rational woman leave a monogamous husband who loved her and especially her children to marry a polygamous man who already had at least 12 wives when BY took Zina as another wife of his. IMO, there must have been some Religious Manipulation or Religious Motivation and reason BY gave to Zina in order for her to live as his wife.

[awyatt]

Laban the Younger said: OK, I will take Zina's decision into account, and lets even say that she was an independent women who entered into polygamy on her own accord, without any pressure. So Zina is happy, she made her decision, yay for Zina. OK, now that that's out of the way, how does that make the situation any better?

Are you assuming I'm trying to make it "better?" That would be a false assumption; I'm not. You can find my feelings on the matter elsewhere in this thread--there is no need to rehash them here.

Assuming that you were serious, however, about the above, you could answer one question: If you assume that it was Zina who made the decision, how does her decision prove that (1) polygamy was evil, (2) polygamy only fed men's gratification, or (3) the Church is false?

I'm not saying you believe these typical anti-Mormon criticisms. I'm must wondering if you can shed light on how Zina's decision feeds such common Anti-Mormon sentiments.

-Allen

[awyatt]

Brackite said: Why did Brigham Young need to send Henry Jacobs on a far-away mission in order to steal his wife and take his sons???

You haven't read the entire thread, have you? It has already been established (and Rollo agreed) that the above didn't happen. BY sent Henry on a mission after the marital change was made.

In other words, the mission wasn't a pretext for stealing someone's wife. Henry knew what was going on, as did Zina and BY. I find it odd that such disgust should be shown here, in this forum, for something that all three indivduals evidently agreed to, when much worse behavior will be watched on TV tonight by most of the people reading this.

Do Rollo, Laban the Younger, Yannufs, Brackite and the other outraged individuals here show similar dismissal of, for instance, the Church of England because of its well-documented roots in the sexual appetites and marital proclivities of King Henry the Eighth?

-Allen

[awyatt]

Brackite said: Scott, why would a rational woman leave a monogamous husband who loved her and especially her children to marry a polygamous man who already had at least 12 wives when BY took Zina as another wife of his. IMO, there must have been some Religious Manipulation or Religious Motivation and reason BY gave to Zina in order for her to live as his wife.

Unfortunately, the way you've chosen to answer the question you've posed says more about your preconceptions than it does about any of the people being discussed, and it doesn't shed much light on what really went on.

-Allen

[Laban the Younger]

Laban the Younger said: OK, I will take Zina's decision into account, and lets even say that she was an independent women who entered into polygamy on her own accord, without any pressure. So Zina is happy, she made her decision, yay for Zina. OK, now that that's out of the way, how does that make the situation any better?

Are you assuming I'm trying to make it "better?" That would be a false assumption; I'm not. You can find my feelings on the matter elsewhere in this thread--there is no need to rehash them here.

Assuming that you were serious, however, about the above, you could answer one question: If you assume that it was Zina who made the decision, how does her decision prove that (1) polygamy was evil, (2) polygamy only fed men's gratification, or (3) the Church is false?

I'm not saying you believe these typical anti-Mormon criticisms. I'm must wondering if you can shed light on how Zina's decision feeds such common Anti-Mormon sentiments.

-Allen

I already believe 1, 2, and 3, and I don't think the Zina/Henry/Joseph/Brigham affair proves anything other than the same things are going on with the FLDS today - "unworthy" men having their wives and families taken from them and given to high ranking priesthood holders. Polygamy is a rotten system, and it doesn't take the Zina affair, or the FLDS to prove it.

[awyatt]

Laban the Younger said: I already believe 1, 2, and 3, and I don't think the Zina/Henry/Joseph/Brigham affair proves anything other than the same things are going on with the FLDS today - "unworthy" men having their wives and families taken from them and given to high ranking priesthood holders. Polygamy is a rotten system, and it doesn't take the Zina affair, or the FLDS to prove it.

Thank you for letting me know where you stand, but you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask if you believed those things; I asked if you could shed any light on how Zina's decision supports such assertions.

Would you like to try again (assuming you misunderstood), or should I assume that you can't provide any light on the issue?

-Allen

[Laban the Younger]

much worse behavior will be watched on TV tonight by most of the people reading this.

Really, what's on TV tonight?

Do Rollo, Laban the Younger, Yannufs, Brackite and the other outraged individuals here show similar dismissal of, for instance, the Church of England because of its well-documented roots in the sexual appetites and marital proclivities of King Henry the Eighth?

-Allen

I'm not familiar with that story, but I do believe most organized religions have rotten foundations and none should be immune from scrutiny, mockery, and ridicule.

[Dale]

Hi,

There was nothing rotten about Joseph's behavior towards Zina.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Laban the Younger]

Laban the Younger said: I already believe 1, 2, and 3, and I don't think the Zina/Henry/Joseph/Brigham affair proves anything other than the same things are going on with the FLDS today - "unworthy" men having their wives and families taken from them and given to high ranking priesthood holders. Polygamy is a rotten system, and it doesn't take the Zina affair, or the FLDS to prove it.

Thank you for letting me know where you stand, but you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask if you believed those things; I asked if you could shed any light on how Zina's decision supports such assertions.

Would you like to try again (assuming you misunderstood), or should I assume that you can't provide any light on the issue?

-Allen

First of all, I don't believe Zina made the decision on her own accord, but that's just my opinion. But if she did abandon her husband, and take away his children without a legal divorce (kidnapping), it shows her true character, and it shows the true character of a so called prophet of God for supporting such an action. It doesn't prove any of your 3 listed items, it simply supports what most people already believe.

[awyatt]

Jan said: Can someone post a link (URL) for Zina's diary? I went through the entire thread and didn't see it (I'm sure I just missed it) so if someone has it handy, can they do me the favor?

You can find a free PDF download of it at this location.

This page lists all BYU Studies articles by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher. She had the journal printed. Look for the article entitled All Things Move in Order in the City: The Nauvoo Diary of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.

-Allen

[awyatt]

Laban the Younger said:...it simply supports what most people already believe.

Careful; your hyperbolic tendencies are showing!

-Allen

[awyatt]

Laban the Younger said: ...I do believe most organized religions have rotten foundations and none should be immune from scrutiny, mockery, and ridicule.

Is that your purpose here, then? (I'm just curious, as it will help me know how to react to your posts in the future.)

-Allen

[Dale]

Hi,

Who say's the action was wrong? It was a bad marriage & Zina prefereed Brigham Young. I suppose Brigham Youngs option was to allow Zina to remain in an unhappy marriage & that would be a better action for a prophet of God. I don't feel a prophet allowing for a divorce for Zina would be a kinder thing to do. I am not sure Brigham Young is a prophet but if he was then he made the right choice based on modern revelation. Jesus is the judge of Brigham Young's actions not you or I.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Nighthawke]

Please demonstrate that Henry did not put a roof over her head.

Zina writes that she "Bought a small piece of a lot of my[br[other] William Huntington" in September 1844 yet in March 1845 all that Henry has managed to put up is the frame and stone--the house is never finished and they move from place to place in Nauvoo. And have you counted the number of times that they receive charity? Flour, eggs, cash... they do not have enough to eat. We read about Zina "laboring at the [spinning] wheel to procure an honest living", sewing "until 12 o'clock at knight" and braiding hats. What was Henry doing I wonder? Oh hang on, "Henry worked on Joseph Youngs house." What about working on his house?

I was not lewd or crass.  So, as you empathize with Zina are you saying that you would willingly leave your husband for another man if you feel he may not be a good provider?  At what point are you justified in such and action?

You keep asking us what we would do and yet we're discussing Zina and Henry so I don't see what the point is of your asking these personal "iffy" questions.

Why?  Because Henry was not as prominant as Brigham?  Which is more important?  Faithfulness to a spouse or being RS Pres?

*sigh* Did I say that? No, what I said was "I strongly doubt she would've even made it to the Salt Lake Valley."

I am discussing this in sinceruty and it is not juvenile.  ANd I have not seen anything from you of much help.  Point it out if I missed it.  I may have.  And I will go back and read the dairy again.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in facts about Zina, written by competent scholars and historians. My mistake. Knowing you don't give a hoot will save me the time from typing such comments in the future. For instance, I was going to type up Kathryn Daynes' comments but shall not bother now that I know you "have not seen anything of much help".

Many women and men had poor living conditions in Nauvoo.  THis justifies Brigham taking a wife from someone?

BTW, your rude remarks are unecessary.  I will resist posting bakc in like kind.

Stop playing the blame game. Such comments only demonstrate your utter lack of familiarity with the topic of Nauvoo plural marriage. Zina chose Joseph Smith--twice. Once when he was alive and again after his death. She then chose Brigham Young. Nauvoo plural marriage theology at that time permitted it. You don't like it? Tough.

My remarks aren't so much rude as they are impatient. Impatient with people who profess to want to know about something and then pays scant attention to responses. People who read diaries so lightly that they miss the fact that Zina had no home and lived from place to place accepting charitable donations from people and mending old clothes, "Reparing my silk dress that my Parents got for me in the state of[N[ew][Y[ork] 10 years ago".

[Nighthawke]

Can someone post a link (URL) for Zina's diary?

[Nighthawke]

We could also note that during the period of the diary it is noted that Henry was on at least two missions. That could add to the difficulty of putting a roof over ones head though Zina does not say anything about it.

Teancum

And how long were those two missions?

[Dale]

Hi,

Nauvoo plural marriage issues upset many people unnecesarily. I am not sure what exactly bothers people from just the issue of sex. There are so many views on Joseph & polygamy it's hard to satisfy everyone. I would prefer to avoid it but I try & help people when I can.

I could repeat the old RLDS "Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. He had no children by plural wives." But the issues been made more complex by documents being published in recent years like William Clayton's diaries. I doubt legally that Joseph was guilty of polygamy. I also doubt evidences for children I have seen. But I can't imagine that Joseph Smith Jr. disrespected women either single or married based on the same things the critics know of. At most I see the possibility of some sex but not that Joseph Smith disrespected women.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Brackite]

Hello awyatt,

Brackite said: Scott, why would a rational woman leave a monogamous husband who loved her and especially her children to marry a polygamous man who already had at least 12 wives when BY took Zina as another wife of his. IMO, there must have been some Religious Manipulation or Religious Motivation and reason BY gave to Zina in order for her to live as his wife.

Unfortunately, the way you've chosen to answer the question you've posed says more about your preconceptions than it does about any of the people being discussed, and it doesn't shed much light on what really went on.

-Allen

I believe that there is a family tradition among Zina

[awyatt]

Further to Nighthawke's comments about Henry and Zina's life together in Nauvoo, Zina's diary is very sparse and direct in her comments. She comments very few times about Henry, and when she does the majority of entries are about (1) him being sick, (2) him leaving on a mission, or (3) him doing Church work.

I found very interesting her entries from early May through early June, 1845. On May 5 she notes that Henry turned 28 years old. Four days later (May 9) she states "Comfort us, yes, Hnery in his trouble, for he has not repined a word." (Repined means to "murmer discontentedly.")

The next time she mentions Henry is in her entry for May 27, and all she says is "All well but Henry. O He that comforts the afflicted, draw nigh."

The next entry that mentions Henry is June 10/11, when she states "Henry went to see Pres. B. Young to be councel upon his and families situation." (The misspellings are in the original.) Four days later (June 15) Zina states:

"Henry is quite sick. Pres Josep Youngs and Father Jacobs administered to him. It is Sunday. I could not attend meeting. I heard that Orson Hide preached. The saints had a good meeting this evening. H[enry] is a little better since the brethren administered to him. They told him that he should live, be blest, &c. All good."

That's it; four mentions of Henry in six weeks, at a time when he wasn't on a mission. This frequency of mention is not uncommon for the entire length of the diary. (It covers June 1844 to September 1845, some 15 months.)

In all, Zina is quite circumspect in what she enters relating to her life with Henry. Reading the entire Nauvoo-period diary, however, one gets the feeling that all wasn't terribly well with Henry, and that Zina spends most of her days longing for relief from her troubles (not necessarily only with Henry, but with the toubled times) and seeking God's blessings.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

Zina chose Joseph Smith--twice. Once when he was alive and again after his death.

Actually, JS proposed to Zina before she ever married Henry, and she turned him down. JS was nothing if not persistent in pursuing plural wives, but I think this shows that Zina did not desire to become Joseph's wife. And it was only after Joseph sent her brother, Dimick Huntington, with the message that an angel with a drawn sword was threatening Joseph, that Zina acquiesed to enter polyandry. (Source: Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, pages 79-81).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Brackite said: Why did Brigham Young need to send Henry Jacobs on a far-away mission in order to steal his wife and take his sons???

You haven't read the entire thread, have you? It has already been established (and Rollo agreed) that the above didn't happen. BY sent Henry on a mission after the marital change was made.

In other words, the mission wasn't a pretext for stealing someone's wife. Henry knew what was going on, as did Zina and BY. I find it odd that such disgust should be shown here, in this forum, for something that all three indivduals evidently agreed to, when much worse behavior will be watched on TV tonight by most of the people reading this.

Do Rollo, Laban the Younger, Yannufs, Brackite and the other outraged individuals here show similar dismissal of, for instance, the Church of England because of its well-documented roots in the sexual appetites and marital proclivities of King Henry the Eighth?

-Allen

Allen:

I agree that BY stole Henry's family outright and to his face; I also think Henry's mission to England was Brigham's pretext to ensure that Henry was not around to cause any problems when Brigham and Zina got down to the traditional "man and wife" arrangement (remember, Zina did not move in with Brigham until she arrived at Winter Quarters, several months after Henry had left for his mission).

And, no, I do not agree with the sexual appeitites, etc. of Henry the VIII or anyone else. But stealing one's family, to me (as a family man), is just about the worst thing one can do. If Brigham had tried that with me, I would have killed him (or at least tried).

Just my $.02.

[Rollo Tomasi]

We have discussed stealing Zina and having her "taken" from Henry as if she were an object or property.

Apparently you do not recollect Brigham saying to Henry, concerning the latter's wife and sons: "I am [Joseph's] proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property." From BY's view, "property" is exactly what we are talking about.

[Blink]

I fear, however, that our determination of what constitutes a "mistake" is based on our feeling that our hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, our hindsight is never completely 20/20 because of the incomplete information we have both cited. This means that we can just as easily make mistakes in our determination as could the early leaders. We don't see our mistakes, but are quick to see those of others, particularly historical leaders.

Are you saying that we should never label anything in church history as a "mistake," because we never have the complete picture, Mr Wyatt?

We just don't know. But to judge the entire system as somehow wrong, as a mistake borne of men, is, I believe, short-sighted. We sit on our perch at the pinnacle of history and pass judgments on people who were trying to live their lives the best they could. They tried to implement in their lives those things they felt strongly came from God. And it is--I believe--wrong for us, as their religious successors, to sit in judgment of them.

I don't doubt that they were trying to do what they thought was right. The question is: how does that take away from our freedom to study them, to point out where they went wrong, to sit in judgment of them? Because they lived it, we are required to judge it one way or another. We are required to judge other religions the same way: are the Jews right to think that they are entitled to the West Bank bcause of some religious tradition? Are the African tribes right to think that they are entitled to circumsize their girls without the rest of the world judging them harshly because it is part of their culture and religion? Should we not judge parents who deny medical help for their ill children because they have religious convictions that allow their children to die unnecessarily? Laying a superficial religious reason over an unrighteous outrageous act does not take away the subsequent generations right to judge the rightness of that act.

My fear for the long run is that we, today, will be judged just as uncharitably by our children's children's children as we judge our ancestors. I pray that those descendents show mercy toward me in their judgments, and I, by my actions, must likewise show mercy toward my ancestors.

Then you're saying you hope your ancestors never progress and learn more than you have. You condemn them to make your generation's mistakes over and over again.

The problem with your statement is that I don't see much flexibility on the part of those who abhor polygamy. To them it is wrong, period--end of story. That is not being flexible; it is being dogmatic.

I see little flexibility on the part of those who abhor female circumcism, or who condemn parents who allow their children to die without medical treatment because of religious beliefs, or who denounce believers kill millions of people in the name of religion. To them, female circumcism, allowing children to die when they could be saved, or invading other countries is wrong, period--end of story. Are they being dogmatic too? How is that materially different? It's okay to abhor female circumcism, but it's not okay to abhor polygamy? It's okay to harshly judge those who allow children to die unnecessarily, but it's not okay to harshly judge those who participated in plural marriage?

Wrong is done in the name of religion every day. Placing polygamy on a different playing field than any other perceived wrong done in the name of religion is a strange request.