Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[UteFan]

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 .

Thanks for the quote Rollo.

The more I learn about this the more it makes sense.

What a horrible "doctrine".

[Log]

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.

Tsk. In context, this is precisely what is meant by moderns using the word "stewardship."

[Blink]

Tsk. In context, this is precisely what is meant by moderns using the word "stewardship."

You're putting a modern spin on Brigham's words. I think Brigham's actions are a bit more indicative of what he meant than your spin.

[USU78]

I had asked:

So . . . you find XIXth Century womanhood incapable of such decisions unaided?

No, I think women from the XIXth century could make such decisions, but it doesn't make those decisions right?

{snip}

And you are so positioned to judge the rightness/wrongness of Zina's decisions . . . exactly how?

[awyatt]

What was BY's mentality in doing this?

[urroner]

What is so terrible about this?

Because it ain't the picture those who fight against the Church want to paint it in. That's what so terrible about it.

[Teancum]

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

One thing that always bugged ne about this even when I heard it as a teen. Why was it Jospeh's place to dish out and Abrahmic test? IRC it was God who challenged Abraham-directly. Not some other man.

I always thought this and awful way to test a mans loyalty and in fact a bit odd.

Teancum

[Teancum]

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.

As noted, the comments made to Henry by BY were utterly horrible and if actually said reveal Brigham to be a very egotistical power hungry man. Essentially he said that Henry was not good enough for Zina but the he, Brigham, was.

I find it odd that such disgust should be shown here, in this forum, for something that all three individuals evidently agreed to, when much worse behavior will be watched on TV tonight by most of the people reading this.

I am not sure what this has got to do with it. I don't particularly watch disgusting TV.

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?

I certainly do. Yes.

But again, what has this got to do with it?

Teancum

[Teancum]

Nighthawk,

I know quite a bit about Nauvoo and plural marriage.

The entires you brought up do not portray Henry as a poor provider by any means. Yours seems a desperate attempt to portray Henry as such. You are grasping.

Why did he work on someone elses home? Perhaps he was getting paid, to buy food, you know.

Would you jump ship from your hubby if he were a poor provider and for someone else that was more powerful?

You ignore the fact that Brigham himself at the time in question was not all that great of a provider. His family had been fairly destiture much due to the man ymissions he left home for.

There is really no way, based on the hsitorical fact we have, to see this other then either a power grab by Brigham, a desertion of a man by his wife for another more appealling and powerful man, or both.

I certianly do not find any godliness at all in this sad tale.

Now, fire away and give me some more of your nastiness. Seeme to me like that it the best you can do.

Teancum

[Teancum]

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.

Now this is just choice.

Rather secret Nauvoo theology allowed it. Theology very few knew about. Theology Joseph hid form hi own wife. Theology that allowed him to use his power to convince women to marry him. Theology that was not publicized to the church until 1851 or 1852. Theology that some accounts imply Joseph may have abandoned. Theology that was publicly denied in a affidavit written and signed by Priesthood and relief Society members many of them knowingly participating in plural marriage at the time. Accept that is for Emma. She really believed the document she signed. Oh but wait, they used "code" words. They did not really mean "Celestial" marriage. Right.

Tough. Sure. What I think of this does not mean diddly poo right now. I don't like it. And I don't like [those] who are nasty when someone challenges it in a decent way. I am seeing this more and more with so called defenders of the faith, of which on many topics I am one. But not for plural marriage. Not anymore.

However, it does reflect on the practice and those who participated in it.

I have always honored Joseph. Always though Brigham was an odd duck but most likely then man for the job. And hey I can even believe that the work they brought forth was great and good. But to defend these actions as they relate to plural marriage as godly? I don't think so.

Teancum

Edited by admin for civility.

[awyatt]

Teancum said: One thing that always bugged ne about this even when I heard it as a teen. Why was it Jospeh's place to dish out and Abrahmic test? IRC it was God who challenged Abraham-directly. Not some other man.

God tests prophets, and prophets test men. Seems orderly to me.

Teancum said: I always thought this and awful way to test a mans loyalty and in fact a bit odd.

But, as you said, it is God's place to make that determination. So why would you find it odd?

-Allen

[awyatt]

Teancum said: There is really no way, based on the hsitorical fact we have, to see this other then either a power grab by Brigham, a desertion of a man by his wife for another more appealling and powerful man, or both.

Did you actually think about the above before you wrote it? This whole thread has been discussing other ways to view the historical facts, yet here you are, nine pages and four days later, saying there is "no way" except the one that seems so obvious to you.

Amazing!

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

I noticed this when Rollo first posted the text, but didn't say anything then; let me say it now: Nice cut and paste from the Tanners, Rollo. (Salt Lake City Messenger, January 1988.)

You'll pardon me if I don't lend a lot of credence to the Tanners; they aren't terribly good at disclosing all the information behind their selected ellipses, which has been commented upon time and again even by non-LDS.

Now, lest I be accused of ad hominem against the messenger, a subset of this same quote is provided by Todd Compton in his book (In Sacred Loneliness). Todd points out, however, something that the Tanners never even recognize (and Rollo fails to note, as well)--that nobody can "take" someone else's wife. Examine the wording; it says specifically "and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife." In other words, the present husband has complete veto power.

Look at the conditions that BY lays out: (1) if a man forfeits his covenants, the wife or wives are free (their choice); or (2) if a woman seeks protection from a priesthood leader, and that priesthood leader wants to rescue her, and the husband OKs it, the wife can become married to the priesthood leader.

Where, exactly, does unrighteous dominion enter into this? Both instances begin with the woman's choice, not a man's choice. The second way for a woman to get out of a marriage seems specifically designed to "rescue" a woman in cases of abuse (else why would she need rescuing and protection?). There are checks and balances in place, even in this incomplete Tanner distillation.

Allen:

1. I notice that you don

[Teancum]

Teancum said: There is really no way, based on the hsitorical fact we have, to see this other then either a power grab by Brigham, a desertion of a man by his wife for another more appealling and powerful man, or both.

Did you actually think about the above before you wrote it? This whole thread has been discussing other ways to view the historical facts, yet here you are, nine pages and four days later, saying there is "no way" except the one that seems so obvious to you.

Amazing!

-Allen

Sorry Alan,

I guess I find the arguments you and others have made on this one lacking. What is so amazing about that?

Teancum

[UteFan]

I noticed this when Rollo first posted the text, but didn't say anything then; let me say it now: Nice cut and paste from the Tanners, Rollo. (Salt Lake City Messenger, January 1988.)

You'll pardon me if I don't lend a lot of credence to the Tanners; they aren't terribly good at disclosing all the information behind their selected ellipses, which has been commented upon time and again even by non-LDS.

Now, lest I be accused of ad hominem against the messenger, a subset of this same quote is provided by Todd Compton in his book (In Sacred Loneliness). Todd points out, however, something that the Tanners never even recognize (and Rollo fails to note, as well)--that nobody can "take" someone else's wife. Examine the wording; it says specifically "and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife." In other words, the present husband has complete veto power.

Look at the conditions that BY lays out: (1) if a man forfeits his covenants, the wife or wives are free (their choice); or (2) if a woman seeks protection from a priesthood leader, and that priesthood leader wants to rescue her, and the husband OKs it, the wife can become married to the priesthood leader.

Where, exactly, does unrighteous dominion enter into this? Both instances begin with the woman's choice, not a man's choice. The second way for a woman to get out of a marriage seems specifically designed to "rescue" a woman in cases of abuse (else why would she need rescuing and protection?). There are checks and balances in place, even in this incomplete Tanner distillation.

What is so terrible about this? The marital concepts and protection for the woman is very liberal and open, especially for frontier America in the mid 1800s.

-Allen

Allen if you have a fuller quote pleas post it.

I saw the "condition" in the quote when I read it before and while Rollo didn't say it it was bolded, so I don't think he was really trying to hide the fact that the husband had to agree.

But here you have a righeous man whose wife wants to be with the prophet. And clearly the prophet wants her (he asked for her to marry him before she married Henry)

Henry clearly didn't want to give Zina to Joseph or Brigham, but was compelled to because he believed in the church. So its not really his free choice.

I see your point Allen but I don't think it changes much with this doctrine.

[yaanufs]

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?

As it happens I'm not outraged. I just feel what happened regarding the situation we are discussing was, on balance, wrong.

I can accept polygamy brings good and bad things with the practice. In this case the bad outweighs the good in my opinion.

And yes I also consider the antics of Henry VIII to be wrongs also. Although I'm not sure how his actions link in with polygamy instituted by the prophets of the only true church on the earth.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. I notice that you don

[awyatt]

Teancum said: I guess I find the arguments you and others have made on this one lacking. What is so amazing about that?

The amazing part is your use of absolute terminology: "no way." Yes, there is another way, which your absolute fails to even recognize. I understand that you may find the other ways of viewing it as unpersuasive, but that does not mean there is "no way" of viewing history other than yours.

-Allen

[Teancum]

Teancum said: I guess I find the arguments you and others have made on this one lacking. What is so amazing about that?

The amazing part is your use of absolute terminology: "no way." Yes, there is another way, which your absolute fails to even recognize. I understand that you may find the other ways of viewing it as unpersuasive, but that does not mean there is "no way" of viewing history other than yours.

-Allen

Ok.

Agreed.

No way was to strong.

But I have yet to find the arguments compelling.

Perhaps I am really not the man of God like Grant refers to.

I used to think so.

But maybe I was wrong as I just cannot seem to convince myself that this topic we are discussing was godly in any way.

So either it was not or I am not.

Certainly the latter is a high possibility.

Teancum

BTW, Allen,

YOu seem like a gentlemen when it comes to discussing. Thanks.

[USU78]

Teancum said, quite appropriately:

Perhaps I am really not the man of God like Grant refers to.  I used to think so.

But maybe I was wrong as I just cannot seem to convince myself that this topic we are discussing was godly in any way.

So either it was not or I am not.  Certainly the latter is a high possibility.

I am quite impressed with Teancum's ability, here demonstrated, to see clearly and humbly the limitations on his own knowledge and his own perceptions. Bravo, sir!

[Rollo Tomasi]

Allen:

1. As far as I can tell BY was

[awyatt]

Teancum said: BTW, Allen,

YOu seem like a gentlemen when it comes to discussing. Thanks.

That's very nice of you to say. Perhaps, someday, we shall have the opportunity to sit down and discuss things.

Do you live in Utah? Perhaps you could come to the FAIR Conference in six weeks.

-Allen

[Teancum]

Teancum said: BTW, Allen,

YOu seem like a gentlemen when it comes to discussing. Thanks.

That's very nice of you to say. Perhaps, someday, we shall have the opportunity to sit down and discuss things.

Do you live in Utah? Perhaps you could come to the FAIR Conference in six weeks.

-Allen

Allen,

I am far from Utah but would like to attend a conference at some point. Maybe this year if my money situation is right. I do have a family reunion that will be hled in Idaho just a few days before the conference. Maybe I can work both in.

Teancum

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. As far as I can tell BY was

[Rollo Tomasi]

Allen:

1. I can certainly understand why you don