DiscussMormonism.com

I have copied a thread from John Larsen over at MADB. Hope he doesn't mind. :)

Its been quite some time since I've seen apologetic intellectual dishonesty that can equal the nonsense being offered up on this thread. Here it is:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=37799

The Church’s website contains, in my opinion, a clear and deliberate misrpresentation of history.

This is the biography of Zina Diantha Huntington Young, the second president of the Relief Society: http://www.LDS.org/pa/display/0,17884,5511-1,00.html (downloaded 9/12/08). I have included the complete text here:

”Zina D. H. Young, a midwife and an educator, worked closely with Eliza R. Snow in the Relief Society. In 1870 Brigham Young called Sister Young to promote silk production among the women of the Church as part of the Church’s emphasis on home industry and self-sufficiency. During her presidency the Relief Society affiliated with the United States National Council of Women and campaigned for women’s suffrage. Sister Young continued the Relief Society’s emphasis on health care, grain storage, education, and compassionate service. Widowed by her first husband, she raised two sons from that marriage, one daughter from her later marriage to Brigham Young, and four of Brigham Young’s other children”

Notice the chronology offered by the text: “widowed by her first husband” and then “later marriage to Brigham Young”. In fact her first husband died 9 years after Brigham.

Here is the actual time line of events:
7 Mar 1841 Marriage to Henry Jacobs
27 Oct 1841 Marriage to Joseph Smith
2 Jan 1842 Birth of Zebulon Jacobs, fathered by Henry Jacobs
27 Jun 1844 Death of Joseph Smith
2 Feb 1846 Marriage to Brigham Young (Zina was 8 months pregnant)
22 Mar 1846 Birth of Henry C. Jacobs, fathered by Henry Jacobs
3 Apr 1850 Birth of Zina Young, fathered by Brigham Young
29 Aug 1877 Death of Brigham Young
1 Aug 1886 Death of Henry Jacobs

Some key elements bear review:
*Zina was married to Jacob in Nauvoo by Mormon clergy. It was a legal and lawful marriage by both US law and Mormon law.
*Both Zina and Henry were active believing members before their marriage.
*Joseph Smith took Zina in a celestial marriage a mere 7 months after she was married to Jacob.
*The marriage to Jacob was obviously still recognized by Zina and Henry since she bore 2 children with Henry after the marriage.
*Brigham Young and Heber Kimball married all of the Joseph Smith “widows” following his death regardless of their relationship to their first husbands.
*Zina did not need to be taken care of; she had a husband who was active in the church.
*Henry never left the Church, he died in Salt Lake City.
*Henry and Zina were never divorced.
*Brigham Young’s relationship with Zina went beyond taking care of a widow since she was no widow and he sired a daughter with her.

Given the above information, the Church’s official biography can only be seen as a lie. This information is well known inside and outside of the Church.

These dates can be verified at http://www.familysearch.org/:
Henry Bailey JACOBS (AFN: 1ZH6-9X)
Zina Diantha HUNTINGTON (AFN: 8R65-S9)
Brigham YOUNG (AFN: 3ZD8-KC)
Zebulon William JACOBS (AFN:234B-S6)
Henry Chariton JACOBS (AFN:1875-4N)
Zina Presendia YOUNG (AFN:1CK9-M2)

You can also read FAIR’s bizarre response to this at:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... r_Men.html

I don't understand why this is so surprising. Dallin Oaks codified lying for the Lord several years ago. Church history is only "official" if it's faith promoting. There's nothing faith promoting about Zina's story. It's a story of lust on the part of Joseph and Brigham, and ambition on Zina's part. And Henry is the loser on all sides.

harmony wrote:I don't understand why this is so surprising. Dallin Oaks codified lying for the Lord several years ago. Church history is only "official" if it's faith promoting. There's nothing faith promoting about Zina's story. It's a story of lust on the part of Joseph and Brigham, and ambition on Zina's part. And Henry is the loser on all sides.

Its not surpising that LDS.org would attempt a stunt like this. What surprised me was the absurd nature of the arguements used to try and justify the history purported on LDS.org.

One classic was the defense used based on the term "widow", and how "widow" could reasonably apply to Zina since she was "separated" from Henry. Henry writes that he longs for Zina and his little ones, yet LDS history would have her remembered as the widow....

Despite the numbers of apologists, John Larsen held his own, and quite well from what I observed!

Maxrep wrote:

harmony wrote:I don't understand why this is so surprising. Dallin Oaks codified lying for the Lord several years ago. Church history is only "official" if it's faith promoting. There's nothing faith promoting about Zina's story. It's a story of lust on the part of Joseph and Brigham, and ambition on Zina's part. And Henry is the loser on all sides.

Its not surpising that LDS.org would attempt a stunt like this. What surprised me was the absurd nature of the arguements used to try and justify the history purported on LDS.org.

One classic was the defense used based on the term "widow", and how "widow" could reasonably apply to Zina since she was "separated" from Henry. Henry writes that he longs for Zina and his little ones, yet LDS history would have her remembered as the widow....

Despite the numbers of apologists, John Larsen held his own, and quite well from what I observed!

Personally, I don't see why we would expect the man who institutionalized racism in the church to behave with integrity with women. Brigham had his strengths; integrity wasn't one of them.

And some people wonder why the honesty of the LDS church is questioned.

:-(

~td~

Yeah, that's pretty lame.

There are some awful contortions and attempted diversions on that thread, but obiwan take the cake on being the biggest asshat:

Scottie@MA&D wrote:Very good points.

But it is still wrong, in my opinion, for the church to say that she was widowed from her first husband.

No it's not....!!!

"Widowed" in some English vernacular cases can and has been used to simply mean "separated". Not DEATH as your thinking.

So, get some intelligence for a change!

Keep the church TRUE, at all costs.

What a mor[m]on tool.

by the way, Scottie was right back on obiwanker like stink on sh*t:

Oh

my

gosh!!!


THIS is your argument???? That SOMETIMES, in extremely rare cases, widowed can mean "seperated"?????

And you want ME to get some intellegence??? This argument is beyond laughable.

Do you honestly think that the person writing this article used that word to mean seperated??? I am literally dumbfounded.

Oh, by the way, CFR on widowed meaning seperated.

"Widowed" in some English vernacular cases can and has been used to simply mean "separated". Not DEATH as your thinking.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Through the Looking Glass.

Like I said on MAD, I'm willing to give LDS.org the benefit of the doubt. It is entirely possible that whoever wrote this article simply got their facts wrong. This article may or may not have been reviewed by someone else who didn't catch the mistake.

Honestly, if they had their facts straight, they could have written it like this:

"She raised two sons from her first marriage to Henry Jacobs, one daughter from her later marriage to Brigham Young, and four of Brigham Young’s other children."

Simple. Why even mention where Henry was at all? The church is still just fine and it is factually accurate.

It really looks like a mistake, not a coverup.

Oh, and by the way, Obiwan is on my list of anti-Mormons who pose as insane Mormons to make them look even worse. Most of his posts I read and wonder how anyone could be SO stupid.