Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[Rollo Tomasi]

Allen:

1. The evidence we have that BY practiced polyandry in the 1840

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. You say there are

[Rollo Tomasi]

What, precisely, in my posts makes you think I was villifying Henry? If it came across that way, then you are presuming intent that I never had.

Allen:

1. I interpreted your tone to suggest that Henry was not up to snuff as a husband, such as your focus on his many illnesses. If I misinterpreted your tone, then I apologize.

2. Frankly, I have not counted, but is there anyone else specifically mentioned by name in Zina's diary more than 46 times, as Henry was? I doubt it. I think he plays a relatively important role in her diary.

[awyatt]

Teancum said: You keep bringing up playing by our rules today. But what about the rules of their day. They certianly were not playing by those rules either.

I'm not sure what the rules of that day were, to tell you the truth. Remember that the "evil event" took place in Mt. Pisgah, Iowa, a resting place for exiled saints. Zina and Henry had left Nauvoo on February 9, 1846, and arrived at Mt. Pisgah shortly thereafter. Iowa was not yet a state (it didn't become a state until December 28, 1846), and I don't know what the "rules" for divorce, if any, would have been in that territory.

Of course, it is very possible that the saints understood themselves to be wanderers through the wilderness, on their way to the West, in much the same way that the ancient Israelites wandered as they left Egypt. The Israelites established their own transient community, with its own rules and regulations, and abided by them. (They didn't abide by the laws of whatever areas they were traversing through.) Similarly, the saints could easily have looked to Brigham as their lawgiver during this transitory period.

Further, I can certainly understand any reticence for the saints, in their exodus, to visit a nearby judge or justice of the peace to procure a divorce. (Assuming, for a moment, that territorial laws provided for such a process; I don't know that they did.) The saints had not fared well at the hands of the law, and they would have no expectation that they would in this instance, either.

Please don't take any of this as justification; it isn't. I'm just saying that things may not be as clear-cut as we want them to be (or as critics proclaim they must be), and I am willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt.

Teancum said: Of course, they may have been playing by their rules whcih I will concede that THEY believed were of God.

Exactly my point. It doesn't matter whether we think the rules were of God or not; they obviously did, and they acted in accordance with those rules. Were they wrong? Their belief that the rules were of God may have been (just see the comments of any critic on this board), but their being true to those beliefs would not be wrong. I cannot fault people for following their beliefs.

-Allen

[Dill Pickles]

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. The evidence we have that BY practiced polyandry in the 1840

[awyatt]

Dill Pickles said: This statement by Birgham Young in 1861 is incorrect.

According to your understanding it is. During this period Utah was a US territory under official military rule. However, the marital rules of the day don't correspond to our own, nor do they correspond to the rules in the states at that time.

Presentism, folks, presentism. We have to see things the way the early saints did in order to understand why they did what they did.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

I'm glad you notice that the rules today regarding polygamy are different than they were in the mid 1800s. You've made my point, precisely, without even realizing it. (The rules were different then, and we can't hold them to our rules.)

Allen:

Clever, but unconvincing. By arguing "their rules were different than ours" I took you to mean that the "rules" of that day were more lenient or moderate regarding polygamy and polyandry -- my quote of polygamy as one of "twin relics of barbarism" shows that this indeed was not the case. If anything, such nontraditional unions as polygamy were more against "the rules" of the Victorian era than they would be today.

[Dill Pickles]

Dill Pickles said: This statement by Birgham Young in 1861 is incorrect.

According to your understanding it is. During this period Utah was a US territory under official military rule. However, the marital rules of the day don't correspond to our own, nor do they correspond to the rules in the states at that time.

Presentism, folks, presentism. We have to see things the way the early saints did in order to understand why they did what they did.

-Allen

The 1861 statement may cover the territory of Utah, and the laws of the territory of Utah may have allowed women to move out of a legally binding marriage without a writ of divorcement, but it does not cover the state of Illinois. Zina needed a divorce decree because she was legally married in the state of Illinois to Henry. Zina and Brigham's marriage was not solemnized in Utah. Zina and Brigham were married in Nauvoo. Zina was still married to Henry when she was married, for time, to Brigham, in Nauvoo, on Feb 2, 1846. They left Nauvoo on Feb 6, but they were married, in the Nauvoo temple, for time, prior to leaving. Which by my count, makes Zina married to two men at the same time. And since she never divorced Henry, according to the laws of the state of Illinois at the time, she was married to two men all the rest of her life.

source: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp

Without a divorce decree for Zina, separating her legally from Henry, both Zina and Brigham were at odds with the 1833 Anti-Bigamy Law of Illinois as of Feb 2, 1846.

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

How is that presentism?

[Jan]

Please, please dont' use FamilySearch.org as proof of anything unless the data is coming from extracted files which are somewhat reliable.

The rest of the data is submitted my members and non-members with uncertain reliability.

What you say may be true, DP, but using FamilySearch.org as the evidence is NOT the way to demonstrate it.

[SlackTime]

Besides which, since the Nauvoo charter had already been annulled would a Nauvoo temple wedding performed by any member of the church be recognized as a legal wedding performed as though performed by an authorised representative of the state? If not then even if they were married for time and eternity the state wouldn't have recognised the validity of the ceremony. Did they in fact actually obtain the license?

Since I don't know, I ask the question in ignorance seeking understanding from you.

-Ed

[awyatt]

Dill Pickles said: Zina needed a divorce decree because she was legally married in the state of Illinois to Henry. Zina and Brigham's marriage was not solemnized in Utah. Zina and Brigham were married in Nauvoo.

And your point? Do you want us all to proclaim "You're right; it's all a fraud!"

Sorry; won't work. Scholars for years have recognized that the LDS--starting with a few in Kirtland, growing to many in Nauvoo, and finally to full public disclosure in Utah--believed and practiced polygamy. They didn't believe that the marriage norms of the day applied to them, so they set about changing them. Many in the early days practiced polygamy. Some in the early days even practiced polyandry. So what?

The LDS have always, from the beginning, tried to follow what they've understood to be God's will. Did they do it perfectly in the 1800s? No. Do they do it perfectly now? No. Did they do it consistently in the 1800s? No. Do they do it perfectly now? No. Did they make everyone happy then or now? No. Does it matter if everyone is happy then or now? No.

Regardless of how much polygamy or polyandry upsets you, me, or the person down the street, the fact is that the early saints muddled through implementing the principle under what they viewed as divine approbation from God. Later, when the manifesto came--again under what they viewed as divine approbation--they were equally muddling in getting it stopped.

Don't point out how "this wasn't right" or "that wasn't right" as if such revelations somehow "prove" that the Church was or is all screwed up; they don't. They only prove that the saints were obedient to what they believed, and that they did the best they could.

-Allen

[Dill Pickles]

Dill Pickles said: Zina needed a divorce decree because she was legally married in the state of Illinois to Henry. Zina and Brigham's marriage was not solemnized in Utah. Zina and Brigham were married in Nauvoo.

And your point? Do you want us all to proclaim "You're right; it's all a fraud!"

Sorry; won't work. Scholars for years have recognized that the LDS--starting with a few in Kirtland, growing to many in Nauvoo, and finally to full public disclosure in Utah--believed and practiced polygamy. They didn't believe that the marriage norms of the day applied to them, so they set about changing them. Many in the early days practiced polygamy. Some in the early days even practiced polyandry. So what?

The LDS have always, from the beginning, tried to follow what they've understood to be God's will. Did they do it perfectly in the 1800s? No. Do they do it perfectly now? No. Did they do it consistently in the 1800s? No. Do they do it perfectly now? No. Did they make everyone happy then or now? No. Does it matter if everyone is happy then or now? No.

Regardless of how much polygamy or polyandry upsets you, me, or the person down the street, the fact is that the early saints muddled through implementing the principle under what they viewed as divine approbation from God. Later, when the manifesto came--again under what they viewed as divine approbation--they were equally muddling in getting it stopped.

Don't point out how "this wasn't right" or "that wasn't right" as if such revelations somehow "prove" that the Church was or is all screwed up; they don't. They only prove that the saints were obedient to what they believed, and that they did the best they could.

-Allen

Is there some reason you're attacking me? I'm not your enemy, I'm just refuting one point from one poster here: that there was no polyandry. I gave no opinions, no value statements, no indication of how I feel about this subject, personally.

My point is simple: Zina never got a divorce from Henry prior to marrying Brigham in Illinois. Someone (lognormal?) said Mormons never practiced polyandry (that a woman has more than one husband at the same time). Mormons certainly did practice polyandry, and they practiced it in Nauvoo; Zina is a case in point. Other women were in much the same boat, married to one man for time and another for eternity, but I don't know how many were actually married to more than one man at the same time, as Zina was.

Any other point you may think I'm making, I'm not making. All a fraud? That's not for me to say. Marriage norms? Not for me to say. I'm not an expert on marriage laws in the 1800's. God's will? That's not for me to say. Rightness? Not for me to say.

I have some opinions, but I'll keep them to myself. I only came out of the woodwork because of the polyandry comment. Otherwise, I have no dog in this fight.

[Dale]

Hi,

Maybe God thought human laws wern't his laws. The idea expressed is God has to have Zina go through a proper divorce before commanding a servant of God to marry her. I am not sure of plural marriage myself, but if God did command it then he saw those human anti-polygamy laws, divorce laws as being ignoreable. In either case I see the main problem is people don't trust God over man's laws. Although I am not advocating polygamy hypo-thetically Zina's marriage to Joseph Smith Jr. & Brigham Young could have been just them doing what they felt God told them to do.

Certainly a mistake was made in not having a proper divorce in Brigham Young's case. But considering Zina became his plural wife U.S. law had a problem with that. In Joseph's case he did not sin becaause he respected Henry's relationship with her for life. If Brigham was really told to take her to wife then I would trust God completely. And if he wasn't commanded to do so then his plural marriage to Zina & his failure to divorce her were two sins.

I recall this story of these two priests who were under a vow of chastity. They come to a water obstacle & find a beautiful woman. And one of the priests carries her across the stream. Along they go & the other priest gets quite upset at what the other priest did. The other priest grows tired of the abuse & says "When I crossed the stream I put her down. But you have been carrying her around since." A lot of people who get upset over polygamy & Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young reminds me of that story. If neither men were prophets then they havn't practiced polygamy for years. And if they were we are going to have to get over the fact they are still practicing polygamy in the eternities. People are carrying all their so-called wives with them & they can't let themselves get over it.

There are two Community of Christ responses to the polygamy issue one is that he was guilty & there is no reason to defend him. The other view is that he was innocent. Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy which is online representative of the traditional RLDS view is at http://www.restorationbookstore.org

Sincerely,

Dale

[awyatt]

Dill Pickles said: Is there some reason you're attacking me? I'm not your enemy, I'm just refuting one point from one poster here: that there was no polyandry. I gave no opinions, no value statements, no indication of how I feel about this subject, personally.

I was not attacking you; I'm sorry you took it that way. I also must have missed your connection between your post and what you were answering. Your posts seemed to have more to do with the supposed illegality of the marriage between Brigham and Zina than anything else.

Dill Pickles said: My point is simple: Zina never got a divorce from Henry prior to marrying Brigham in Illinois. Someone (lognormal?) said Mormons never practiced polyandry (that a woman has more than one husband at the same time). Mormons certainly did practice polyandry, and they practiced it in Nauvoo; Zina is a case in point. Other women were in much the same boat, married to one man for time and another for eternity, but I don't know how many were actually married to more than one man at the same time, as Zina was.

You are correct; polyandry did occur, although not as a general rule. (Polygamy was the rule; polyandry seemed to be done only in exceptional cases and is, in fact, considered abberational by some scholars.)

Dill Pickles said: Any other point you may think I'm making, I'm not making. All a fraud? That's not for me to say. Marriage norms? Not for me to say. I'm not an expert on marriage laws in the 1800's. God's will? That's not for me to say. Rightness? Not for me to say.

I have some opinions, but I'll keep them to myself. I only came out of the woodwork because of the polyandry comment. Otherwise, I have no dog in this fight.

Please feel free to come "out of the woodwork" as much as you want. I'm sorry if my comments came across harsh; they were not meant that way.

-Allen

[Nighthawke]

How is that presentism?

Well for one thing the Saints didn't believe they were practicing bigamy but polygamy. Something about bigamy where the spouse isn't aware of the other marriage.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You are correct; polyandry did occur, although not as a general rule. (Polygamy was the rule; polyandry seemed to be done only in exceptional cases and is, in fact, considered abberational by some scholars.)

Allen:

You are correct that after JS, and certainly after BY and Heber Kimball, polyandry was the exception, not the rule. But some forget that nine of JS's first 12 plural marriages were of the polyandrous type. Perhaps he realized that a single woman as his plural wife was less complicated than a married one, which is why polyandry was practiced less and less, but when he began the practice with greater frequency, polyandry was more the rule than the exception.

[Blink]

How is that presentism?

Well for one thing the Saints didn't believe they were practicing bigamy but polygamy. Something about bigamy where the spouse isn't aware of the other marriage.

From what I understand, that was part of the problem. Emma was kept in the dark until very late in this process. She continued to deny that Joseph participated in it until her dying day.

[Teancum]

Dill Pickles said: Zina needed a divorce decree because she was legally married in the state of Illinois to Henry. Zina and Brigham's marriage was not solemnized in Utah. Zina and Brigham were married in Nauvoo.

And your point? Do you want us all to proclaim "You're right; it's all a fraud!"

Sorry; won't work. Scholars for years have recognized that the LDS--starting with a few in Kirtland, growing to many in Nauvoo, and finally to full public disclosure in Utah--believed and practiced polygamy. They didn't believe that the marriage norms of the day applied to them, so they set about changing them. Many in the early days practiced polygamy. Some in the early days even practiced polyandry. So what?

The LDS have always, from the beginning, tried to follow what they've understood to be God's will. Did they do it perfectly in the 1800s? No. Do they do it perfectly now? No. Did they do it consistently in the 1800s? No. Do they do it perfectly now? No. Did they make everyone happy then or now? No. Does it matter if everyone is happy then or now? No.

Regardless of how much polygamy or polyandry upsets you, me, or the person down the street, the fact is that the early saints muddled through implementing the principle under what they viewed as divine approbation from God. Later, when the manifesto came--again under what they viewed as divine approbation--they were equally muddling in getting it stopped.

Don't point out how "this wasn't right" or "that wasn't right" as if such revelations somehow "prove" that the Church was or is all screwed up; they don't. They only prove that the saints were obedient to what they believed, and that they did the best they could.

-Allen

That is all fine Allen.

And I am sure most, if not all, were convinced, or convinced themsleves, that this was of God.

So what? The question is really was such behavior godly and really of God? It seems that it flew in the face of the morals, both biblical, religous and cultural, of the day. How do we determine it was really of God? What standards can we use to judge.

Islamic susicide bombers believe they are godly. Do you apply the same "well this is just what they believed so it is A OK?" I am sure you do not.

I believe in order to determine the divine call of those who claimed to be God's prophets and apostles there must be some bar to judge by. You know the term. Let's raise the bar. By their fruits. The fruits from the Zina example is bad fruit at least judged by the norm of the day and the norm from then until now. The fruits of Nauvoo plural marriage seem rather rotten as well. Emma, Willima Law, William Marks, and on and on certianly thought so. We are fortunate that plural marriage did not destroy the church. It almost did until President Woodruff disbanded it and the rotten fruits continued and still do.

I guess I used to be able to say, oh well, that was then this is now. But I find that ever more diffiuclt for me.

And indeed this is troublesome. Very troublesome for me.

Teancum

[Teancum]

There are two Community of Christ responses to the polygamy issue one is that he was guilty & there is no reason to defend him. The other view is that he was innocent. Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy which is online representative of the traditional RLDS view is at http://www.restorationbookstore.org

Sincerely,

Dale

Dale,

DO you really beleive Jospeh Smith fought against polygamy?

Do you really believe he did not take plural wives such as Eliza Snow, Emily Patridge, Helen Mar Kimball.......?

Teancum

[Ray Agostini]

I'm still waiting for an explanation how Jews living in 590BC knew Christian doctrine better than Christians know today? To live the Law of Moses at the same time as the Law of Christ? This has been verified by the best Judaic scholars.

Can you name them?

Ray, how 'bout starting a new thread specifically for this topic? -Dunamis

[Dale]

Hi,

Teancum the claim's of all the main plural wives were considered & rejected by Judge John F. Philips in the Temple Lot case. I believe a lot of the evidence Todd Comptom relied on In Sacred Lonliness is trumped up in Utah. The only items I am really open to considering free of possible perjury is diaries like William Clayton's Nauvoo diaries. Although I am open to the possibility they could have been tampered with, or re-written at any time. After experts originally jumped the gun with Mark Hoffman's documents I feel it's best to hold that document with some caution. William Clayton was a fanatical pro-polygamy activist & he knew the value of making statements in documents implicating Joseph Smith Jr. in polygamy.

Perhaps if someonce could present a study of the paper & inks in William Clayton'sto make sure the document dates to Nauvoo my concerns could be calmed.

The Price's book is well documented. Vision magazine has a continuous discussion of polygamy evidences. The book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is being published in installments. That Joseph Smith Fought polygamy is well documented.

James Whitehead had told Joseph 3rd Joseph's son he had seen the original of D.&C. 132 & it had no statements allowing for earthly polygamy. With the original of D.&C. 132 probably destroyed there's no way to know it had not been tampered with prior to publication to cause it to agree with William Law's allegations in the Expositor. And if William Clayton had misrepresented the published 1852 copy as authentic then why should I trust his other affidavits, or diary? If he had had a hand in doctoring D.&C. 132 he could have doctored his own diaries to make them agree with his later statements.

Don't misunderstand Richard & Pamela Price book. They don't deny Joseph Smith Jr. may have been involved in the making of agreements for plural marriages for eternity. But they feel the claim's he was guilty of earthly polygamy suffers from various kinds of problems. The book extensively shows problems with Eliza R. Snows claim's.

The Price's book is masterful because it documents that Eliza R. Snow's statements are actually an embarrassment to those who rely on them. Emily Partridge affidavits were rejected in court. I own the Price's reprint of the Temple Lot case & looked up Jerald & Sandra Tanners quotes from the case related to Eliza Snow. One thing they left out was a letter Eliza R. Snow had written that denied she was Joseph's wife.

At the Restoration Book store there's a book which is entitled Joseph Smith Who Was He? Did He Teach Or Practice Polygamy? I forget the authors name. I don't have the book now. While I caution against some of the arguments used he pointed out perjury in Emily Partrides date for the marriage. Basically from what I recall Joseph was busy on that date so to make her statement more convincing she swore to a false date.

With Helen Mar Kimball she never at any time lived with, or had sexual relations with Joseph Smith Jr. After Joseph's death in an attempt to contradict claim's of Joseph's innocence pressure was put on person's involved in innocent temple sealings to swear they were his earthly wives. Joseph Smith Jr. had never at any time behaved improperly towards Helen Mar Kimball. The claim she was supposed to be his earthly wife is untrue. She knew better before they confused her.

Whatever marriage speculations that happened in Nauvoo Joseph Smith Jr. has been legally exonerated of the charge he broke Illinois polygamy laws. Unfortunately the murder of Joseph & Hyrum prevented them from a fair trial. But after his death the Church of Christ Temple Lot got Utah-LDS person's male & female to swear they knew of Nauvoo Joseph Smith Jr.'s polygamous activities. The decision in that case exonerated Joseph & put the blame on Brigham Young. I know of no Signature Book's writer who faces the numerous problems with polygamy evidences. Instead they cite the parts of the Temple Lot case that favors their flawed interpretations & ignores other items that makes them look foolish.

The major problem is not that we don't have documents which may be read as implicating Joseph in polygamy, but a massive failure of scholars & anti-Mormons to read what we have correctly.

With Benjamin F. Johnsons claim about Almira being one Joseph's wives I noticed a major problem. He has Hyrum Smith being involved in convincing Almira at a time before Hyrum Smith had had a supposed testimony of polygamy. Neither Comptom in his In Sacred Lonliness, or Mormon Enigma by Newell or Avery noticed the problem. If he made up stories in Utah his claims of his sister looks like fraud & collusion to me. His claim's of sleepovers at his house with Joseph's wives looks made up to me.

Joseph 3rd contrary to Todd Comptom had totally discredited Melissa Lott Willes claims of sexuality between her & Joseph. He added apologetic notes & left out parts of Joseph 3rds interview with her to make Joseph 3rd look like he was reducing dissonance. No disrespect to the guy intended I know he's sincere but his book should never have been published because it confuses people about a difficult area of Latter Day Saint history.

Does what I say help you any? The Price's book is right on there's no need to agree to polygamy evidences as if they were unquestionable.

Sincerely,

Dale

---------

Ray one of the scriptural justification for Book of Mormon knowledge having to be equal to Old Testament knowledge is Ephesians 3:1-9. But that scripture only say's what was made known to mankind in the old world & had no knowledge of what others may have or may have not known. Paul was a weak witness. At FARMS website the FARMs REview of book the new one has proof the Old Testament once had knowledge closer to the Book of Mormon prior to creative editing. David himself knew it was by grace we are saved after all we can do.(Romans 4:6) Works truly are innsuficient for salvation after all we can do.(2 Nephi 25:23)

Sincerely,

Dale

[USU78]

How is that presentism?

Well for one thing the Saints didn't believe they were practicing bigamy but polygamy. Something about bigamy where the spouse isn't aware of the other marriage.

From what I understand, that was part of the problem. Emma was kept in the dark until very late in this process. She continued to deny that Joseph participated in it until her dying day.

Yet the Partridge girls, Eliza Snow, and others of JSJr's wives lived in the Mansion House.

'Splain dat, Lucy.

[Teancum]

Dale,

How about William McLellins insitince to Jospeh III that Joseph Jr. did practice polygamy and McLellins encouragemtn for Joseph III not to follow his fathers path. What about Marks's and his insistance that Joseph was prepared to cease the practice. What about Nancy Rigdon's testimony that she was proposed to by Jospeh and the letter Joseph wrote to her to persuade her?

Honestly it seems that prrof is overwhelming. Perhaps I need to look at your sources more.

Teancum

[Blink]

How is that presentism?

Well for one thing the Saints didn't believe they were practicing bigamy but polygamy. Something about bigamy where the spouse isn't aware of the other marriage.

From what I understand, that was part of the problem. Emma was kept in the dark until very late in this process. She continued to deny that Joseph participated in it until her dying day.

Yet the Partridge girls, Eliza Snow, and others of JSJr's wives lived in the Mansion House.

'Splain dat, Lucy.

I usually see myself more as a Peppermint Patty type.

The same syndrome that makes it so Bill Clinton could have his affair behind Hillary's back makes it possible to believe that Emma was completely in the dark about what was happening behind her back. What's that old song? Man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest? So does woman.