Zina Huntington Jacobs (Find a Grave)

[Maureen]

Ever since I discovered Zina Hungtington Jacobs I've been fascinated by her life. I came across this information in Find a Grave. The link attached is about Zina and at the bottom are additional links of her children, parents and sealed spouses. Some of the links give a surprisingly enormous amount of information.

Zina Diantha Huntington Young (1821 - 1901) - Find A Grave Memorial

M.

[rameumptom]

Great site, thanks!

[Surehand]

Wasn't this woman not married at the same time with her husband and Joseph Smith? I remember indistinctly to have read a little bit of an internet site of former Mormons about them. Therefore, it should have been married when she has married Joseph Smith in a confidential ceremony. Is this correct? And if it is correct, would it not be a case of bigamy?

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Next, please?

[Surehand]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Next, please?

Has bigamy not been against the law? At that time and today? Nevertheless, with it both had made themselves punishable? I do not understand this. Is the LDS for it, to break the law? Hard to believe!

[HiJolly]

Has bigamy not been against the law?

Yes.

At that time and today?

Yes, then and now.

Nevertheless, with it both had made themselves punishable?

Not really. Joseph's eternal, or temple, sealing to Zina was not a marriage in the sense that a prosecuting attorney would think of it. It was a religious ceremony only, not involving cohabitation. It was Brigham Young who took it to the next level, not Joseph.

I do not understand this. Is the LDS for it, to break the law? Hard to believe!

It *is* hard to believe. Study helps a lot. This whole Zina business is not a simple thing.

Articles of Faith 1

Doctrine and Covenants 134

[Surehand]

Not really. Joseph's eternal, or temple, sealing to Zina was not a marriage in the sense that a prosecuting attorney would think of it. It was a religious ceremony only, not involving cohabitation. It was Brigham Young who took it to the next level, not Joseph.

Meanwhile I have investigated on the Internet something. Besides, following came out:

Zina Jacobs was married with another man who was sent by Joseph Smith on mission (thus the statement of John D. Lee, his missionary's colleague). And as Lee and other wrote also, this "marriage" was not "spiritual", but sexual. Unclearly till this day it is whether Zina had become pregnant by Smith (there is different supposition on it).

Smith took with other men married women than his polygamous wives, as well as persons under age (after today's point of view). One of these women said on the deathbed of her daughter that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. A secret that it preserved up to her death.

Who stands shortly before the death, says the truth. Other reports of other women also exist in historical documents. This allows the conclusion for me that also Zina could have had a sexual relationship with Smith. Moreover, there is still this statement:

He [Joseph] preached polygamy.... It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle he would slay him....

I asked him if Emma knew about me and he said, "Emma thinks the world of you." I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin, but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things....

Joseph came up the next Sabbath..... My husband was far away from me at the time, ... I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing and Heber C. Kimball the blessing.

I knew he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two of them are living today, they are not known as his children as they go by other names (Speech by Mary E. Lightner, Brigham Young University, April 14, 1905, typed copy).

This would not be possible with a "spiritual" marriage, or?

[NeuroTypical]

Surehand, it's obvious that you are here to beat us over the head with this story. Just like Gerlinde and others before you. Sometimes we get folks who come here, harp on this story, refuse to do anything besides paint the issue in the darkest terms possible, and get themselves banned. You're heading that way yourself.

The saddest part is, this criticism doesn't hold any water.

There is a DNA research project out there. They were able to test the DNA of a descendant of Zebulon Jacobs, one of Zina's kids supposedly fathered by Joseph. It was confirmed that Henry Jacobs was the father - not Joseph.

Check out the website yourself.

It sounds like Mary E. Lightner was misinformed, lied to, was lying herself, or otherwise incorrect. DNA science cannot do many things, but the things it can do, it does with a great deal of certainty. And disprove the claims of ancestry is one of them.

LM

[Maureen]

Surehand, since you're from Germany, I'm going to assume English is a second language, because I'm having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say about what you think you know.

Yes, plural marriage existed during Zina's life. She married Henry Jacobs in March 1841, was sealed to Joseph Smith in October 1841, while she was pregnant with her and Henry's first child. She accepted and believed in the doctrine of plural marriage. After giving birth to her 2nd child, her husband Henry was sent on a mission and eventually over time it appears that Zina and Henry's marriage ended. It's not clear how or why or if they even got a divorce, but Zina became a plural wife of Brigham Young and they had a daughter together. Henry himself remarried and had other children. It was the 19th century and plural marriage was a prominent doctrine in the LDS Church at the time.

M.

[HiJolly]

Meanwhile I have investigated on the Internet something. Besides, following came out:

Zina Jacobs was married with another man who was sent by Joseph Smith on mission (thus the statement of John D. Lee, his missionary's colleague). And as Lee and other wrote also, this "marriage" was not "spiritual", but sexual. Unclearly till this day it is whether Zina had become pregnant by Smith (there is different supposition on it).

Smith took with other men married women than his polygamous wives, as well as persons under age (after today's point of view). One of these women said on the deathbed of her daughter that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. A secret that it preserved up to her death.

Who stands shortly before the death, says the truth. Other reports of other women also exist in historical documents. This allows the conclusion for me that also Zina could have had a sexual relationship with Smith. Moreover, there is still this statement:

This would not be possible with a "spiritual" marriage, or?

Your personal standard for truth is way too low, Surehand.

HiJolly

[Just_A_Guy]

What? John D. Lee is an impeccable standard for truth and righteousness. [Aside from that unfortunate business at Mountain Meadows. And we all know that that was really Brigham Young's fault--right?]

[Maureen]

What? John D. Lee is an impeccable standard for truth and righteousness. [Aside from that unfortunate business at Mountain Meadows. And we all know that that was really Brigham Young's fault--right?]

Are you being sarcastic JAG?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you have to ask, I must be doing it wrong.

Seriously - I'll try to behave a little better.

[Surehand]

Your personal standard for truth is way too low, Surehand.

HiJolly

If me a subject occupies, I search first everything what I can find. Then read and value I the facts. Is a source plausible, partly plausible, or improbably? If are the sources of Christians who were, e.g., former Mormons, she is for me only causes useful. Since they condemn the LDS to strengthen own faith. But also sources of the LDS are only conditioned useful, because they try to preserve own faith. The best sources from my point of view, are neutral sources. From scientists, and before all historian.

Something else to John D. Lee. He was a Danite, responsibly for this massacre, but, like plausible sources, also such of the LDS, book, he followed only on order of his leaders from Cedar city. Whether Brigham Young was involved in it, could be neither booked nor be disproved. It was for Zina Jacobs (according to her marriage name at that time) only one document for the fact that Smith married also married women, and sent the men on mission. Since he was companion from Zina's husband.

[Surehand]

Surehand, it's obvious that you are here to beat us over the head with this story. Just like Gerlinde and others before you. Sometimes we get folks who come here, harp on this story, refuse to do anything besides paint the issue in the darkest terms possible, and get themselves banned. You're heading that way yourself.

The saddest part is, this criticism doesn't hold any water.

There is a DNA research project out there. They were able to test the DNA of a descendant of Zebulon Jacobs, one of Zina's kids supposedly fathered by Joseph. It was confirmed that Henry Jacobs was the father - not Joseph.

Check out the website yourself.

It sounds like Mary E. Lightner was misinformed, lied to, was lying herself, or otherwise incorrect. DNA science cannot do many things, but the things it can do, it does with a great deal of certainty. And disprove the claims of ancestry is one of them.

LM

I have never stated that Joseph Smith can be the father of Zina's children. I said only that he had with at least some of his wives sexual contact from which children arose. And what concerns "Gerlinde", please does not compare me to her. "It" is a nuisance for me.

And something else: Though children are the visible proof of a sexual activity. But many have sex to have become pregnant or generated without child,. To me it was important the question wether they have had sex or not.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Surehand

[Just_A_Guy]

The best sources from my point of view, are neutral sources. From scientists, and before all historian.

To understand that there is no such thing as a "neutral source"--even among scientists and historians--is the beginning of wisdom.

Something else to John D. Lee. He was a Danite, responsibly for this massacre, but, like plausible sources, also such of the LDS, book, he followed only on order of his leaders from Cedar city. Whether Brigham Young was involved in it, could be neither booked nor be disproved. It was for Zina Jacobs (according to her marriage name at that time) only one document for the fact that Smith married also married women, and sent the men on mission. Since he was companion from Zina's husband.

Yes, that Smith and Jacobs were married is independently confirmed. To the extent that Lee claimed the relationship was sexual--first, he personally has an axe to grind here; second, as far as I know this specific claim is un-correlated; and third, I can't help but wonder how he could possibly know whether Joseph was in fact having sex with anyone.

Did Smith have intercourse with any of his wives other than Emma? I'm inclined to think that he probably did. What of it?

Did he have intercourse with Zina? We just don't know. Say what you want about Joseph; but I'd suggest you be careful about accusing a dead woman of adultery when her only real accuser was a convicted murderer who at that point in his life was spouting a mixture of truth and fiction in an attempt to scrub his own personal reputation and take the Mormon hierarchy down with him.

[NeuroTypical]

Say what you want about Joseph; but I'd suggest you be careful about accusing a dead woman of adultery when her only real accuser was a convicted murderer who at that point in his life was spouting a mixture of truth and fiction in an attempt to scrub his own personal reputation and take the Mormon hierarchy down with him.

Very well said.

[Surehand]

Say what you want about Joseph; but I'd suggest you be careful about accusing a dead woman of adultery when her only real accuser was a convicted murderer who at that point in his life was spouting a mixture of truth and fiction in an attempt to scrub his own personal reputation and take the Mormon hierarchy down with him.

I have read several Internet sites about John D. Lee and the massacre. Also some sides which was made by descendants of those who died with the massacre. Also Internet sites with articles of historians, from Mormons and non-Mormons. And, besides, came out that Brigham Young had justified the massacre afterwards, and protected all culprits first. Then when he and the church ran the risk to be accused independently, he sacrificed John D. Lee. It is right, John D. Lee is a convicted murderer, and, so much I had found out, he had done as a Danite many awful things (by order of his local church leaders). But does mean this which was implausible his statement? No, because to his statement still there come the others which state similar. And if two or more witnesses confirm the same one, a statement is confirmed.

In my opinion Joseph Smith was quite a normal man with normal sexual needs. A woman did not reach to him. But because in the American society adultery was not seen with pleasure (although almost all men made it), he wanted to realise his desire legally, why he introduced the polygamy. This is my opinion. Here maybe it is not seen with pleasure, and maybe I am punished for it (by ban me), but this makes no difference to me. It is my opinion. Nevertheless, I can be persuaded with pleasure of the opposite.

And, BTW, if a woman who is married, marry another man, this is bigamy and against the law. No matter if they had sex or not.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Surehand

[HiJolly]

And, BTW, if a woman who is married, marry another man, this is bigamy and against the law. No matter if they had sex or not.

Not if it wasn't a civil marriage.

HiJolly

[Just_A_Guy]

And, besides, came out that Brigham Young had justified the massacre afterwards, and protected all culprits first.

Cover it up, yes. Justified it? Said it was a right and good thing to have done? Not really. Young was anything but sympathetic to a participant who later confessed his role to Young; who basically told him that his options were to turn himself over to the law or else to commit suicide. See Arrington's biography of Young.

Then when he and the church ran the risk to be accused independently, he sacrificed John D. Lee.

Said Lee.

It is right, John D. Lee is a convicted murderer, and, so much I had found out, he had done as a Danite many awful things (by order of his local church leaders).

Said Lee.

But does mean this which was implausible his statement? No, because to his statement still there come the others which state similar. And if two or more witnesses confirm the same one, a statement is confirmed.

If you have other witnesses to a sexual relationship between Smith and Jacobs, name them. Otherwise, Occam's Razor suggests Lee was simply trying to impugn the honor of the woman who, at the time of his statements, was one of the most influential and articulate Mormon women of the era (and a wife of Brigham Young, to boot).

In my opinion Joseph Smith was quite a normal man with normal sexual needs. A woman did not reach to him. But because in the American society adultery was not seen with pleasure (although almost all men made it), he wanted to realise his desire legally, why he introduced the polygamy. This is my opinion. Here maybe it is not seen with pleasure, and maybe I am punished for it (by ban me), but this makes no difference to me. It is my opinion. Nevertheless, I can be persuaded with pleasure of the opposite.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

It is my opinion that, given Smith's obvious talents and the motivations of which you accuse him, he'd have done a lot better to have sold patent medicines and moved into a town with a decent brothel. (Probably would have lived longer, too.)

And, BTW, if a woman who is married, marry another man, this is bigamy and against the law. No matter if they had sex or not.

If you can support your assertion with a cite to the Illinois Compiled Statutes (1841 edition, if you please), kindly do so. Otherwise, kindly refrain from lecturing Americans about the intricacies of American law.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Surehand]

Not if it wasn't a civil marriage.

HiJolly

It makes no difference whether it was a civil or ecclesiastical wedding. She was already officially married with another man, and married Joseph Smith. This is bigamy!!!! What is so difficult in it to understand? They both have broken the law!

[Surehand]

If you can support your assertion with a cite to the Illinois Compiled Statutes (1841 edition, if you please), kindly do so. Otherwise, kindly refrain from lecturing Americans about the intricacies of American law.

Here a quote I found few minutes ago at the internet:

Polygamy was prohibited by the Justinian Code in

the sixth century C.E., is generally forbidden in Europe and the Americas, and was strictly against Illinois law when the Mormons secretly introduced the practice in 1841.

And the footnote said:

4. Through the Nauvoo period, polygamy was a criminal act under the Illinois 1833 antibigamy laws, which remained unchanged during statute revision in 1845. Polygamy, thus defined, was punishable by fines of $1,000 and two years imprisonment (previously married persons) or $500 and one year imprisonment (previously single persons) (Revised Laws of Illinois 1833 and Revised Statutes of the State of Illinois 1845, sees. 121,122, University of Chicago Law Library).

Found in: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_135.pdf

Maybe this was one of the reasons why Smith keep his polygamous relationships silent?

[Just_A_Guy]

Please bear in mind: I'm not saying affirmatively that Joseph was acting in compliance with Illinois law. I'm just saying that, if you are going to argue that he wasn't, you need to think about what you're saying before you say it.

You initially said:

And, BTW, if a woman who is married, marry another man, this is bigamy and against the law. No matter if they had sex or not.

So, did Zina "marry" Joseph for the purposes of the Illinois statute?

You sure about that?

Even if there was no wedding certificate?

Even if there was no marriage license?

These are the kinds of issues you need to resolve, if you're really interested in the whole issue of legality. The first step in determining whether a law has been broken, is generally to read the law. I realize it's difficult to do that with a centuries-old-law in a jurisdiction thousands of miles away; but the fact is--you haven't done it yet, and are thus not well qualified to make absolute pronouncements about was or wasn't "legal" in 1841 Illinois. That's not an insult--by this standard, lots of us are not qualified to make pronouncements about lots of things--it's just a statement of fact as it pertains to this particular discussion.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[HiJolly]

It makes no difference whether it was a civil or ecclesiastical wedding.

That depends.

She was already officially married with another man, and married Joseph Smith.

Again, it depends on how you look at it.

What is so difficult in it to understand?

That's what I keep asking myself about you.

The reality is that there is a world of nuance and detail that you just don't seem to realize, or care about. So you'll always be missing what's really relevant here.

HiJolly

[Surehand]

The reality is that there is a world of nuance and detail that you just don't seem to realize, or care about. So you'll always be missing what's really relevant here.

Than explain it to me. Tell me the difference between marriage A and marriage B. The Law states, that they is NO DIFFERENCE