DiscussMormonism.com

truth dancer wrote:
So there are a hundred married men who all claim God told them to marry/sleep with/take/seal/whatever girls and women and you believe Joseph Smith but no one else. You don't see a problem with this?

There have been hundreds of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ and I only believe Jesus and no one else. And I don't see a problem with that.

truth dancer wrote:The point is, the very same behavior in other men would be condemned, in Joseph Smith it is ignored, discounted, or even celebrated.

THIS is what I find so odd.

I see Joseph in the same category as Abraham, Moses, Jacob. But you don't. THIS is what I find so odd.

truth dancer wrote:

If you know some details, doesn't mean you know enough to make bold assertions that you know a lot more.

What bold assertions? The only assertions I hear are ones documented and accepted by critic and apologist alike. What are you talking about here?

Please list or clarify for us.

That Joseph was not commanded by God, that the marriages were a product of his desire for power, or lust, etc. Those assertions.

truth dancer wrote:

The fact is that most of the women did not make any statements concerning their level of relationship with Joseph Smith, some made some statements which did not state that the realtionship was physical, and others made some statements which are ambiguous at best.

So? I do not think anyone cares. There is enough documented evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with some of the girls and women he "married". One documented case is enough to know he slept with a girl or woman other than his wife.

They were his wives. That is where you are making a mistake. A plural wife is a WIFE.

truth dancer wrote:

I repeat, a question, what right is it of anyone to pry into any one else's relationships?

I repeat the answer. People have a right to learn about the integrity, honesty, behavior, ideas, and actions of a man who claims to be the restorer of God's church on earth. The fact that you do not understand this is odd.

I'm all for that. If the answers are availalbe. But they aren't in this case. And continually asking the question over and over again isn't going to get the answer. The historical record is simply not complete, and the participants aren't here to answer the questions. The only place to get the answer is from God. And He doesn't post on this message board.

truth dancer wrote:

I think the "God said" excuse is overused, myself. But I think even more overused is the "you can't possible know if God said that" excuse. It is a problem for some people to know what God says. It is a problem for some people to know that God hasn't told them something when they think He has. That is the whole point of life. To figure it out. LIFE IS A TEST.

And the only people who pass the test are believers in Joseph Smith. Well guess what? JW's think they are the only ones who have it right. Scientologists believe they are the ones who have it right. Muslim's think they are the ones who have it right. The FLDS think THEY are the ones who are true followers of Joseph Smith.

So, yeah, it seems odd that most religions think they have it right. What a strange God who would create a test where everyone thinks they have the right answers.

As strongly as YOU believe YOU are the one to pass the test, the world is filled with others who believe equally as strong.

And you aren't handing out the grades. God is. I'm not so sure that there aren't JW's, or Muslims, etc. who aren't passing their tests.

truth dancer wrote:

I am completely able and willing to understand that most critics of Joseph Smith do want the truth. What is clear to me, but seems not to be clear to the critics is their motivation in wanting the truth.

OK, please give us some evidence of critics of Joseph Smith's demonstrating their "real" motivation for wanting truth.

You have a tendency to read into things that are not there so I am interested in what proof you have for this accusation.

1. You ask questions for which you KNOW there is no answer. (Because of a lack of evidence and the participants not being available to give testimony.)

2. The fact that the situation is already assumed to be despicable behavior.

3. All the critics here, except one that I can think of, already believe that Joseph Smith was a fraud, a con man, etc. They aren't looking for any evidence that he was a prophet. So just what is this "truth" that you are supposedly looking for?

4. When Liz asks for doctrinal evidence of plural marriage, you hope off onto excoriating Joseph Smith.

Hmmmmm.. I wonder what I got that idea. Enough said?

truth dancer wrote:

Truth because all truth is equally valuable? Then why not focus on some other "truth?"

Read the board, there are plenty of questions, ideas, scriptures, thoughts, teachings past and present that are topics of discussion. Joseph Smith is at the core of all of Mormonism hence he gets some attention nevertheless, he is hardly the sole focus of interest.

Or could it possibly be that they are wanting some "truth" to confirm in their own minds that Joseph Smith could not possibly have been a prophet, and they are thereby relieved of the responsbility to take anything he said seroiusly?

I think this is an example of you creating from your own mind what you want to believe.

See post above.

truth dancer wrote:
With NO exceptions (I can recall), the critics I have encountered are not trying to confirm Joseph Smith was a bad guy. The exact opposite occurs. People WANT to believe but find disturbing behavior and history and find it impossible to continue to do so.

There is plenty of evidence to believe and plenty of evidence to disbelief. It is a choice.

truth dancer wrote:

What is this search for truth going to prove to you?

To be clear, I am not searching for anything in the church. I think most critics have at one time or another wanted to search for truth and the desire to learn is what brought them to their knowledge.

As I see it, their let their desire to learn take them down a sidetrack which is only leading to disaster, if not here, in the life to come.

truth dancer wrote:

Is any search into the details of the personal life of Joseph and these women going to provide you with any truth about WHY he was married/sealed?

What are you talking about?

The whole crux of the matter of Joseph's plural marriages was if they were commanded of God or not. Trying to figure out who he slept with or who he didn't, isn't going to answer that question. And so trying to determine intimate details then becomes a mere sleazy exercise in peeping into people's bedrooms.

truth dancer wrote:Who is searching for more details of Joseph Smith's personal life? I am not. I do not know of anyone who is. I think for most critics and believers alike they are pretty clear on what happened.

Then why did this thread go so rapidly to Joseph Smith and not stay with the doctrinal questions?

The heart of the matter is exaclty that. I do not deny that Joseph practiced plural marriage. The real issue is did God tell him to or not? Nothing you are trying to discover is going to answer that question. So what do you want? More intimate details of the lives of people who have been dead for 150 years? What exactly will that tell you about God's commands?

I do not want anything. What gave you the impression I wanted something ? I'm not trying to discover anything. I do not care about intimate details of the lives of Joseph Smith. I seriously do not know what you are talking about here.

I do not believe in the LDS God and have no interest in discovering God's commands as interpreted by Joseph Smith. [/quote]

And why are in this thread then, if you have no interest?

Is this your "quest for truth?" How does this exactly tell you what God said, or did not say to Joseph Smith?

Again to be clear, I was suggesting that those who want to understand the life of Joseph Smith are on a question for truth as opposed to trying to prove Joseph Smith was a bad guy or looking for some titillating information.

Again, believers and followers, and even observers have a right to learn about anyone who claims to be the restorer of God's one and only true church.

One's honesty, integrity, morality, choices, behaviors, actions, not only ARE important topics for discussion but SHOULD be, in my opinion.

I understand that very well. But the source of information for whether or not he was a prophet does not come from him, does not come from any personal characteristics. It comes from God, Himself. We are not to trust in the arm of flesh. We are not to use our own puny powers of logic, deduction, interpretation, whatever you call it, to determine what is of God and what isn't. The Spirit tells us, and then we have sure knowledge.

Again, while you think YOU are right, billions of people the world over think THEY are right and YOU are wrong. You do not seem to comprehend this. [/quote]

For Pete's sake. Of course, I comprehend this. You say it in almost every discussion we have had. What you do not seem to comprehend is that it doesn't matter how many people make a claim. The important thing is if there is a RIGHT, TRUE, etc. honest one.

As I said in another post, a lot of crazy people have claimed to be Jesus Christ. That does not diminish the fact that there is a REAL, ACTUAL Jesus Christ. This is what you don't seem to comprehend.

truth dancer wrote:Funny, that you say the source of information is infallible yet prophets and leaders cannot even figure out how to get it right.

Shades said we should treat each other as a favorite grandmother. I'm sorry, TD, that post makes you sound just lke my grandma. A lovely lady, but was she ever dotty.

truth dancer wrote:

TD: This isn't a battle.

Charity: Oh, yes it is. It is a war for the souls of men. Anyone who believes a lie about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and who lets that lie keep them from accepting the Gospel is a casualty of that war. It is very serious business.

TD: I think it is sad to go through life as if you are in a war. I seriously do. I wonder about a God who would set up a world where people live feeling like they are in a war... always fighting, always in battle, always on alert for the enemy, always in fear.

I do not think it is a healthy or holy way to live.

Search the scriptures for references to this, opposition in all things, if you are not for me you are against me, etc. You can deny it if you want.

I do not believe the scriptures are God breathed. And I question any God who would set up a world where life is one big war. I just do not see it.

Oh, yes, I am not always in fear. It's like a football game. If your team is ahead 40-7, you don't really have to worry about who is going to win, just as long as you keep playing.

truth dancer wrote:Funny how so many religions think they are on the winning team. Seems religionists think God is on their side regardless of what side that is.

To me this mindset is leftover from the primitive days of warrior Gods... my God is more powerful than yours. :-)

I hope humankind can move beyond this unhealthy mindset and embrace a world view that is not so cruel and hurtful.

If there is a God, I hope that God would think of our world as a human family, working together to bring peace, compassion, and care to each other. Not a world where every tribe is looking at others as the enemy.

We are a family, and we are gathered around to protect each other from the wolves.

Jason Bourne wrote:

As to polyandry, my position remains the same. There was a difference between being married for eternity only and for time or time and eternity. Joseph and Brigham married some women for eternity who were married for time to other men, or the "time" marriages were not valid or became invalid by reason of the husband's faithlessness. Henry Jacobs is an example

This is not correct. Brigham married Zina for time while Henry stood by in the Nauvoo temple and Henry was still faithful. Zina moved in with Brigham while still married to Henry while Henry was faithfully serving a mission. Not with standing since when did a husbands lack of faith justify the wife marrying another man while her marriage was still in force to the unbeliever? This also contradicts Paul who tells the believing spouse to remain with the unbelieving spouse.

Now could you go back in the thread please about three pages and address the question Liz and I ask of you?

I am correct. Zina was married for eternity to Joseph, and not for time. (Compton, p. 83.) Even Compton admits there is no evidence that she and Joseph lived together as husband and wife. He reports that there is no evidence that Joseph lived or cohabited with any of these "for eternity" only wives, the ones you call polyandrous. (Compton, p. 90.) All of Joseph's wives, young and elderly, were parceled out to various men "out of a sense of responsibility" for offers of marriage; not all accepted. (Compton, p. 83.)

The "for eternity" wives presented problems; why should they worry about care when they already had husbands? But the apostles still felt an obligation to take care of them in some sense. That was somehow taken care of in Zina's case by a marriage to time under the authority of the priesthood to Brigham, but Zina continued to live with and cohabit with Henry. I don't think the distinction between time and eternity were well understood, particularly with Joseph's wives the apostles felt a need to account for.

It appears in 1845 that Zina and Henry had a falling out. Zina's journal notes a "problem" Henry has had. In June 1845, Zina went to Brigham Young to talk about Henry's "problem." Compton says it is speculation to say what the "problem" might be. (Compton, 87.)

When Henry was serving a mission to England, Zina became destitute and Brigham Young took her into his household at Winter Quarters. Compton claims that during this arrangement, Zina decided to leave Henry and live with Brigham as his earthly wife, but Compton admits that the documentary evidence of this does not exist. (Compton, 92.) It appears that right at this time, while Jacobs was on his mission, he committed a disciplinary offense of adultery or consenting to the adultery of WW Phelps, and Jacobs was indeed disciplined. It appears he was not excommunicated but disfellowshipped. (Compton, 92.) Jacobs began living with a woman he had married without priesthood consent on his mission; thereafter Zina and Henry separated, divorced and Henry was excommunicated. Zina formally married Brigham Young.

I just don't think you are deeply read enough to carry on this dialogue. Again, I have problems with your post; coming out openly and publicly against the doctrines and teachings of the church. Not willing to read the sources before openly embarrassing the Church. See the church's position on Peter Danzig at http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... -the-flock. At least he had the courage to not be anonymous. You and John W should resign; show the character of your convictions.

I just don't think you are deeply read enough to carry on this dialogue. Again, I have problems with your post; coming out openly and publicly against the doctrines and teachings of the church. Not willing to read the sources before openly embarrassing the Church. See the church's position on Peter Danzig at http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... -the-flock. At least he had the courage to not be anonymous. You and John W should resign; show the character of your convictions.

Not withstanding your condescension I am actually quite well read on this topic. Well enough to know your spin is exactly that. Henry entered into plural marriage based on the idea that what was good for the goose was good enough for him. Brigham had already claimed Zina for his own before Henry went on this mission. Henry took a wife perhaps in a moment of hoping for revenge. Goodness knows the poor fellow had been a dupe to Joesph and Brigham over this issue. I am sure when he learned his wife had moved in with Brigham it broke his heart. It is sad indeed that you are to hard to consider that just perhaps Henry was a victim here.

As for your problems with my post I do not really care. I have a problem with a alleged bishop encouraging people to resign membership. Your whining is boring, a one note song. Do you treat your flock this shabbily? I imagine that most of your flock fears you.

As for my complaints about polyandry and my allegedly coming out openly against the church and its doctrines please show me where this it is required to believe that this activity was and is doctrine.

As for your suggestion I should resign, since this is the celestial forum I will refrain from telling you what part of my body you can kiss.

I just don't think you are all that read. Henry was disfellowshipped for his relationship with Aseneth while on his mission. I don't see it all that difficult to see the circumstances which led to Zina's divorce of Henry. Most wives would do the same thing today.

Moreover, it is undisputed that Henry was then excommunicated.

If this is "spin," these are pretty heavy facts supporting the spin. Plus, I have cited chapter and verse, and you haven't.

I have a problem with a alleged bishop encouraging people to resign membership. Your whining is boring, a one note song.

You're right. You should print out your posts and take them to your bishop. Although I don't agree with what Peter Danzig did, at least he did it openly. Not behind anonymous posts. Not leading a double life. Not saying nice things to friends and leaders in Church on Sundays and evil things the rest of the week on a public board created, designed and maintained to hurt and embarrass the Church. Shame on you. Shame on your character.

rcrocket

You're right. You should print out your posts and take them to your bishop. Although I don't agree with what Peter Danzig did, at least he did it openly. Not behind anonymous posts. Not leading a double life. Not saying nice things to friends and leaders in Church on Sundays and evil things the rest of the week on a public board created, designed and maintained to hurt and embarrass the Church. Shame on you. Shame on your character

.


Hey Bishop Bob

Is your memory short? I have told you time and time again that I have discussed everything that I discuss here with my bishop and with my SP. I hold a responsible calling and told them they should release me. Theyopted not too. In my last TR recommend I discussed all my concerns with my SP and he opted to still give me a recommend. Not everyone is a monolithic Mormon like you are. Shame on you for judging me unrighteously. But I forgive you.

Now please stop the personal discussions of my Church status. It is not becoming of you at all and your obsession with it is an embarrassment to the Church even more than my only honest and open discussions of real issues. To bad we can't have open conversations like this at Church.

Jason Bourne wrote:

You're right. You should print out your posts and take them to your bishop. Although I don't agree with what Peter Danzig did, at least he did it openly. Not behind anonymous posts. Not leading a double life. Not saying nice things to friends and leaders in Church on Sundays and evil things the rest of the week on a public board created, designed and maintained to hurt and embarrass the Church. Shame on you. Shame on your character

.


Hey Bishop Bob

Is your memory short? I have told you time and time again that I have discussed everything that I discuss here with my bishop and with my SP. I hold a responsible calling and told them they should release me. Theyopted not too. In my last TR recommend I discussed all my concerns with my SP and he opted to still give me a recommend. Not everyone is a monolithic Mormon like you are. Shame on you for judging me unrighteously. But I forgive you.

Now please stop the personal discussions of my Church status. It is not becoming of you at all and your obsession with it is an embarrassment to the Church even more than my only honest and open discussions of real issues. To bad we can't have open conversations like this at Church.

Have you printed out your posts? Do they know you are publishing very disparaging things against the Church?

I don't know what it means to be "monolithic" -- some sort of jargon you employ. I don't ask you to agree with me. I just ask you to do your homework before pretending to talk on a subject.

There have been hundreds of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ and I only believe Jesus and no one else. And I don't see a problem with that.

Exactly. You think what you believe is truth, just as believers in virtually all other religions. You are no different than all the others in your claims.

I see Joseph in the same category as Abraham, Moses, Jacob. But you don't. THIS is what I find so odd.

Really? You find this odd? The world is filled with people who believe in the Bible and NOT Joseph Smith.
And the world is filled with people who do not believe in any Christian scriptures. What is odd about this? LDS believers are far away in the minority here Charity.

That Joseph was not commanded by God, that the marriages were a product of his desire for power, or lust, etc. Those assertions.

You believe Joseph Smith was the one exception, others believe their cult or religious leader is the exception. And y'all think you know because God told you. Oh well...

They were his wives. That is where you are making a mistake. A plural wife is a WIFE.

Call them what you will. The law did not recognize multiple partners.

I'm all for that. If the answers are availalbe. But they aren't in this case. And continually asking the question over and over again isn't going to get the answer. The historical record is simply not complete, and the participants aren't here to answer the questions. The only place to get the answer is from God. And He doesn't post on this message board.

Charity, I repeat... what questions do you think I am asking? I am NOT asking anything regarding this topic. I do not know if you have me mixed up with another poster or what.

You keep repeating this mantra and no one is arguing with you. AGAIN, I understand no one knows 100% of every little thing. There is however clearly enough information to give us a picture of what went on.

And you aren't handing out the grades. God is. I'm not so sure that there aren't JW's, or Muslims, etc. who aren't passing their tests.

You seemed to have missed the point. The point being, religionists all seem to think THEY are the ones with the real/complete/correct truth. You are just one of a billion or so.

What sort of God sets up such a crazy, chaotic, unreliable, twisted system where everyone thinks they are right, where everyone thinks God is speaking to them, where everyone believes they are the true followers of God?

1. You ask questions for which you KNOW there is no answer. (Because of a lack of evidence and the participants not being available to give testimony.)

I'm NOT asking any questions about this topic. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

2. The fact that the situation is already assumed to be despicable behavior.

Yes, I find such behavior as we have addressed despicable, whether from Joseph Smith or any other man.

3. All the critics here, except one that I can think of, already believe that Joseph Smith was a fraud, a con man, etc. They aren't looking for any evidence that he was a prophet. So just what is this "truth" that you are supposedly looking for?

I am NOT looking for some truth here. For the third time, let me explain. People look into the history of the church and the life of Joseph Smith to discover truth, NOT to find a way to prove Joseph Smith was not a prophet. I agree that most folks here are already familiar with early documents.

4. When Liz asks for doctrinal evidence of plural marriage, you hope off onto excoriating Joseph Smith.

I gave her my opinion... it is difficult to discuss what is a doctrine required for exaltation without discussing the founder of such doctrine.

There is plenty of evidence to believe and plenty of evidence to disbelief. It is a choice.

To you maybe. Not to most of the world.

As I stated, to me, (and most of the world who does not believe in Joseph Smith), it is like saying I have a choice to believe in Santa Clause.

As I see it, their let their desire to learn take them down a sidetrack which is only leading to disaster, if not here, in the life to come.

And there are billions of people who believe YOU are the one misled and headed for Hell.

The whole crux of the matter of Joseph's plural marriages was if they were commanded of God or not. Trying to figure out who he slept with or who he didn't, isn't going to answer that question. And so trying to determine intimate details then becomes a mere sleazy exercise in peeping into people's bedrooms.

Charity... how many times do people have to repeat something before you can understand?

Seriously this is getting tiresome...

Who is trying to discover the intimate sleazy details of the sex lives of Joseph Smith? Who? No one.

AGAIN... if Joseph Smith engaged in what most consider questionable, unethical, manipulative, unlawful, hurtful behavior, believers, followers, and those who want to learn about the LDS church have a right to question his behavior. Most people believe the behavior and actions of a leader are important in determining if a leaders is a decent, honorable, respectable, honest human being.

If you understand this point why not stop repeating the nonsense?

Then why did this thread go so rapidly to Joseph Smith and not stay with the doctrinal questions?

Joseph Smith's behavior is intimately tied to the practice he began.

And why are in this thread then, if you have no interest?

Does one have to want something to be interested in a topic? What sort of weirdness is this?

I'm interested in the topics of marriage, women's history, the history of wives, patriarchy, partnering patterns, evolution, mating, etc. etc. etc. Liz asked a question, I shared my opinion. That simple.

Again, believers and followers, and even observers have a right to learn about anyone who claims to be the restorer of God's one and only true church.

One's honesty, integrity, morality, choices, behaviors, actions, not only ARE important topics for discussion but SHOULD be, in my opinion.

For Pete's sake. Of course, I comprehend this. You say it in almost every discussion we have had. What you do not seem to comprehend is that it doesn't matter how many people make a claim. The important thing is if there is a RIGHT, TRUE, etc. honest one.

Again, you are among a billion or so folks who think you are right. Of course YOU know the real truth. (smile)

Shades said we should treat each other as a favorite grandmother. I'm sorry, TD, that post makes you sound just lke my grandma. A lovely lady, but was she ever dotty.

And you wonder why people do not treat you well here?

We are a family, and we are gathered around to protect each other from the wolves.

As I stated, I think this mindset is harmful to individual lives and our human family.

rcrocket wrote:
I am correct. Zina was married for eternity to Joseph, and not for time. (Compton, p. 83.) Even Compton admits there is no evidence that she and Joseph lived together as husband and wife. He reports that there is no evidence that Joseph lived or cohabited with any of these "for eternity" only wives, the ones you call polyandrous. (Compton, p. 90.) All of Joseph's wives, young and elderly, were parceled out to various men "out of a sense of responsibility" for offers of marriage; not all accepted. (Compton, p. 83.)

The "for eternity" wives presented problems; why should they worry about care when they already had husbands? But the apostles still felt an obligation to take care of them in some sense. That was somehow taken care of in Zina's case by a marriage to time under the authority of the priesthood to Brigham, but Zina continued to live with and cohabit with Henry. I don't think the distinction between time and eternity were well understood, particularly with Joseph's wives the apostles felt a need to account for.

The Following important information is from LDS Author, Todd Compton:

Some, like Emma Smith, conclude that Joseph's marriages were for eternity only, not for time (thus without earthly sexuality). But many of Joseph's wives affirmed that they were married to him for eternity and time, with sexuality included. Eliza Snow, in her autobiography, wrote that "I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and eternity, in accordance with the Celestial Law of Marriage which God has revealed." Furthermore, there are no known instances of marriages for "eternity only" in the nineteenth century.

Some have pointed out that Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner said in 1905, "I ... was sealed to Joseph for Eternity." Thus, they argue, Smith had no relations with her, a polyandrous wife, as he was married to her for eternity only. However, Lightner apparently was merely emphasizing eternity in this statement; she testified in three different places that she was also sealed to Smith for time. For example, in a 1902 statement, she said, "Brigham Young Sealed me to him [Smith], for time & all eternity."

Zina Huntington Young also had a polyandrous relationship with Smith and her first husband, Henry Jacobs. Some point out that she gave an interview in which she referred to her marriage to Smith as "eternal," not for "time." However, in the same interview she emphasized that she was married to the Mormon leader for time, as well:

[Zina:] ... he [Joseph Smith] married me ... When Brigham Young returned from England, he repeated the ceremony for time and eternity. ... I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity.

[Question:] Mrs. Young, you claim, I believe, that you were not married to him "for time?"

[Zina:] "For eternity." I was married to Mr. Jacobs, but the marriage was unhappy and we parted ...

[Q:] Is it a fact then, Mrs. Young, that Joseph was not married to you only in the sense of being sealed "for eternity?"

[Zina:] As his wife for time and eternity.

[Q:] Mrs. Young, you have answered that question in two ways; for time, and for time and eternity.

[Zina:] I meant for eternity.

Some interpreters place great weight on these statements, as showing that Zina's marriage was "spiritual" only. But the interview is so contradictory on this issue, as the elderly Zina sounds defensive and confused while answering an RLDS judge's harsh questions, that it cannot be used as solid evidence. One even wonders if early Mormons did not use the term "marriage for eternity" to encompass "time and eternity," as Mormons do today.


( Excerpts From In Sacred Loneliness: )

rcrocket wrote:
It appears in 1845 that Zina and Henry had a falling out. Zina's journal notes a "problem" Henry has had. In June 1845, Zina went to Brigham Young to talk about Henry's "problem." Compton says it is speculation to say what the "problem" might be. (Compton, 87.)

When Henry was serving a mission to England, Zina became destitute and Brigham Young took her into his household at Winter Quarters. Compton claims that during this arrangement, Zina decided to leave Henry and live with Brigham as his earthly wife, but Compton admits that the documentary evidence of this does not exist. (Compton, 92.) It appears that right at this time, while Jacobs was on his mission, he committed a disciplinary offense of adultery or consenting to the adultery of WW Phelps, and Jacobs was indeed disciplined. It appears he was not excommunicated but disfellowshipped. (Compton, 92.) Jacobs began living with a woman he had married without priesthood consent on his mission; thereafter Zina and Henry separated, divorced and Henry was excommunicated. Zina formally married Brigham Young.

The Following important information is from a Post, From the "FAIR"/MA&D Message Board, Posted By Rollo Tomasi:

And the only reason Zina and Henry were split apart was because in June 1846 BY sent Henry on a mission to England when Henry was halfway across Iowa (in Mt. Pisgah), driving a covered wagon with Zina and their two sons, one a newborn. After Henry left, Zina and the boys eventually made it Winter Quarters, where she began to live openly as BY's wife. It is likely Henry had no idea this was going on. It was only when Henry had arrived in New York in August 1847, on his return trip from the mission, that Henry was read a letter from Zina to her sister-in-law stating that Zina now considered herself married to BY, and not Henry. (Source: Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pages 83-92).


( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 8893&st=40 )

The Following important information is from another Post, From the "FAIR"/MA&D Message Board, Posted By 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, in my opinion. 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, in my opinion. It is the most blatant example of unrighteous dominion that I know of (although the way Joseph Smith 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 8).

EDITED TO ADD:

by the way, 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)...


( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 8893&st=60 )

Please See Also:

ZINA HUNTINGTON JACOBS

rcrocket wrote:I just don't think you are all that read. Henry was disfellowshipped for his relationship with Aseneth while on his mission. I don't see it all that difficult to see the circumstances which led to Zina's divorce of Henry. Most wives would do the same thing today.

Moreover, it is undisputed that Henry was then excommunicated.

If this is "spin," these are pretty heavy facts supporting the spin. Plus, I have cited chapter and verse, and you haven't.

This is Not when, and is Not really The Reason why Henry Jacobs was dis-fellow-shipped from the LDS Church. The Following information is from the LDS Apologist, Allen of 'FAIR':

Besides marrying Aseneth, there is evidence that Henry married Sarah Taylor in Arizona in 1850. 76 He was also disfellowshipped in January 1851, 77 in abstentia, apparently in relation to performing an unauthorized plural marriage for W.W. Phelps as Henry was traveling with Phelps to Winter Quarters from Cambria, New York. (Phelps was excommunicated for having entered the marriage; Henry was disfellowshipped for having performed the marriage.) 78

...

77 Journal History, 26 January 1851, LDS Church Archives

78 Henry did not learn of the disfellowshipment until some time later, first mentioning it in a September 1858 letter to Zina. [Letter from Henry B. Jacobs, September 2, 1858, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 2.]


( 'FAIR'. )