Talk:Zina D. H. Young

Removed Quote

The quote by Brigham Young cited in the Hall source was removed. Hall is the only one to have it recorded it. It does not seem like a very reliable source of information, since there are no other records that indicate that Brigham Young said that.

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_Brigham_Young_tell_Henry_Jacobs_in_front_of_hundreds_of_people_that_he_needed_to_find_another_wife? Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions

A couple of questions I have from reading this article.

1. Did she give blessings as a priesthood holder? This is fascinating and I would like this to be a bit more clear.
2. Did she marry Joseph eternally or temporally? Was she still married to her first husband or was he dead or disaffected? Why did she do this?
3. Same things with Brigham Young. She had one child so I know she we at least married to him temporally. But what happened to her first husband? (Obviously, Smith was dead at that point.)
4. Was she working against the church or its members or was she supported by the church and its members as she advocated her social causes? Was she controversial? I can't tell by reading this.
5. The two timelines make it confusing. When did she get baptized and how did that affect her life? We should talk about the most important things first, and then the details later.

I would love to see these points clarified. Great article, nonetheless. Jgardner 21:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind I'm working from just a couple of LDS Church sources here, and she is a "woman," so many of the details are vague. I know there is at least one full length biography published but I haven't tracked it down yet. So, from what I know --

1. Info from the Enc/of/Mormonism. Not uncommon in the period for women to give blessings to one another and to their children and occasionally to men, particularly if they were ill. These did not invoke the priesthood but the power of the Holy Ghost. Eliza R. Snow was also known for blessing others. In addition, the public expression of the "gifts of the spirit" was more common and more appreciated than in our skeptical age.
2. No info -- but my memory says he became disaffected with the Church and they were divorced. She was well acquainted with both Joseph and Emma - so perhaps it was a matter of caring for her after her first husband was out of the picture.
3. No info -- but they did have one child, she cared for his children by another wife and they spent public time together at least. A very different marriage than the distant and formal one Brigham had with ERSnow, which was probably never consummated.
4. The church was very socially progressive at the time about the rights of women and social causes. Before becoming a US territory, all Mormon women in Deseret had the right to vote. That was one of the things the feds required them to eliminate if they were going to be part of the union. Brigham Young was strongly in favor of women's rights (in the context of the time), believing that women should vote, receive an education, go into the professions (he personally sponsored several women to medical/dental schools) and own businesses. One of the sources says he sent Zina to the "east" on women's suffrage business, asking her to represent the church's viewpoint and to clarify rumors and concerns about polygamy.
5. She was baptized with her family when she was fourteen, and then they all went through the Kirkland and Missouri experiences together. (I think I gave the baptism date in my original version -- but Wiki ate my first draft and I had to start over.)

The role of women in the early church is a fascinating topic and quite historically obscure to most Mormons - I think it was quite controversial during the "feminist" movement of the 1960's and 70's. There might be an article in it. I will refine this article once I find a more comprehensive source. The next RS article on Bathsheba Smith will also be somewhat cursory to begin with. Please put in anything else you find. WBardwin 23:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zina Young's Marriages

AHA! Regarding questions #2/3 above. Bad memory. Sealed to Joseph Smith with husband's permission. He also approved her sealing "for time" to Brigham Young. Will look for his death date.

"With all that openness, there is still enough restraint to keep a careful covering around the intimate Zina. Her relationship to Henry Bailey Jacobs, the husband who stood approving as her earlier sealing to Joseph Smith was confirmed by proxy in the Nauvoo Temple and who witnessed her sealing "for time" to Brigham Young, seems not uncordial here. That first marriage, described in later biographical studies as an unhappy one, is not overtly so in these accounts. Zina shows pride in Henry's calling as seventies president; she accepts as dear friends the Saints who were kind to him on his missions; she cares for him in sickness and notes his progress on their house. There is little of the intimate view of their lives, but one cannot expect that, considering the times and the mores of Victorian America. On the whole, if she is not an enthusiastic bride, Zina does seem a contented wife." (From discussion about the contents of Zina's diary -- see external link on page.) WBardwin 00:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But this must be what I remembered. "....Sister Zina was married in Nauvoo, and had two sons, but this not proving a happy union, she subsequently separated from her husband. Joseph Smith taught her the principle of marriage for eternity, and she accepted it as a divine revelation, and was sealed to the Prophet after the order of the new and everlasting covenant, October 27, 1841, her brother Dimick officiating." by Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 1951.

"Arriving in Winter Quarters in 1847, both men (Jacobs and Oliver Huntington) were excommunicated for bringing plural wives with them but were later rebaptized. Continued on to Utah in 1848. In 1851 he (Jacobs) was disfellowshipped and later excommunicated. Moved to California, remaining there until 1880, when he returned to Salt Lake City, where he died" in 1886. BYU Studies/Mormon Biographical Register.

Brigham Young married Zina D. Huntington 1846. One child: Zina Prescinda, born 1850.

Contradictory. Plural marriage was always a thorny thing!! WBardwin 00:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know stories were made up about Henry Bailey Jacobs because they could not justify the marrying of his wife. Henry had no choice. They had a second child after Zebulon named Henry Chariton Jacobs because he was born in a wagon while the wagon train led by Brigham Young was crossing the Chariton River in Iowa. Here is an excerpt from that time with the citation. I was told that all she wanted after she had Henry Chariton Jacobs was a cup of coffee. At that time the Mormons has not disavowed coffee. I have a more detailed account if that birth that has been passed down in my family as I am a direct descendant of Henry Chariton Jacobs. Magzami (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Additions and reorganization

Primarily I added som e information regarding her plural marriages, but I also reorganized the text, so that it tells the story in chronological order. I"ve always preferred to read a story in chronological order. Can anyon expand the following sentence. It lacks parallelism. The following statement could be improved: She was taught household skills, such as spinning, soap making, and weaving, and received a basic education, inlcuding ...--ErinHowarth 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Henry?

Suddenly she is married to Brigham Young and her first husband is gone. Divorce? Widowed? Where'd he go?

Yes, did he die? --TrustTruth (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry had no choice but to accept that Brigham was taking Zina as a plural wife in 1846. Although Henry & Zina left Nauvoo together as a couple, and had another child together the next year, during the trek west (in Iowa) Henry was (a cynic would say conveniently) sent on a mission overseas. By Utah, Brigham & Zina were a 'couple' and Zina & Henry were not, although they never received a divorce, temple or otherwise. Henry himself took other wives as early as 1850, left the Mormon church, then came back again. Henry died in 1886 in SLC. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He was actually exiled after he came home from his mission. His two sons with Zina: Zebulon and Henry Chariton became Brigham Young’s drivers. I have read many letters that were written to Zina requesting to see his boys. The letters are pretty heartbreaking. I don’t believe he took other wives. He is buried alongside Zina, Zebulon, and Zebulon’s wife in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. It does not have the name Father, or Husband or anything on his small grave stone. As a direct descendant of Zina and Henry B. Jacobs I find that disheartening. Magzami (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magzami: First off, I wish you a very big welcome to Wikipedia. I think it is great that you are contributing. I feel I owe you an explanation for reverting your recent edits to this article. Wikipedia reflects current scholarship. Original material is not allowed on Wikipedia. It also must be verifiable. I think these letters you are referencing are fascinating. I recommend finding a venue where they can be published. You are in possession of a real treasure. After they are published, then they can be referenced on Wikipedia (see WP:OR). As far as including "Jacobs" as her name, on Wikipedia, the usual form of the name is used, which does not include "Jacobs" (see WP:MAIDEN) Epachamo (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The truth is still the truth. Her gravestone and legal name were verifiably Jacobs. I figured this would happen. The LDS church asked my family long ago never to speak of this. So I was expecting the edits. Sad. Magzami (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not the end of this story. I think you will one day feel regret for editing this name. Magzami (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magzami: There is a picture of her gravestone in this article, and it does not include "Jacobs." If you can find a reliable source that can be verified that "Jacobs" was what she was commonly referred to as, then I will gladly support the change. Epachamo (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I will head to Utah and get you what you need to change it. Most of the evidence is in “Closed” church records that are not available to the public. I have some of those records and if they need publication for the reference to be changed, then I can do that too. I also have an interview at the end of her (Zina’s) life where she was asked why she married Henry Bailey Jacobs, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. (At the time they were all basically sealed in the beginning.) She said that she wanted a higher place in heaven. Her two boys would have maybe been able to see their father? They were never officially divorced to my knowledge. I may have the marriage certificate in the box that was given to my by my great aunt Oa Jacobs. Until I make that journey I understand why you have to do this. The church records have numerous citations that she was married to Henry Bailey Jacobs so I am unsure of why the name needs to be dropped. She was buried next to Henry Bailey Jacobs, her son Zebulon Jacobs and his wife. The her stone also says “wife of Brigham Young.” I am assuming the funds that paid for that headstone would also be invested in that same narrative. I can’t remember if her daughter Zina Card was buried there too. Having a child with Brigham may have made it necessary to remove the name Jacobs as he was still living. Henry B. Jacobs was exiled to California I have those records as well. I am sure the “Smith” stands because he had passed away before she took Brighams name. H.B. Jacobs wanted his two sons back or at least access to see them. I also have those letters Of his heartfelt requests he referred to them as his “two little lambs.” Anyway, I will do what I can. Revisionist history is distasteful to me regardless of its intention. We are living in a “post-truth” era. Being an actual living descendant of Zina and Henry Jacobs is reason enough for me to feel somewhat irked. I respect your diligence to rules, and will continue this journey. More soon. Magzami (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zinayoung.gif

Image:Zinayoung.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zinayoung.gif

Image:Zinayoung.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A member of the Smith family?

Regardless of whether or not Zina Young was married to Joseph Smith in a clandestine polygamous union, the law in the Midwest US states is quite clear that only one spouse is legal and recognized by the state. Young was therefore never a member of the Smith family, and I have removed her from the category. Young was never acknowledged by the Smith family as ever having been a part of it, nor did she conceive any Smiths. With all due respect, including her in the Smith family category seems more based on denominational politics than legal fact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not sure if the "legal" status should be determinative in cases like this. If she considered herself one of Smith's wives, that should be enough. I don't think it has anything to do with "denominational politics", really, unless you know about some push by the LDS Church or its members to have her recognized as a member of the Smith family. Judging by their reluctance to bring up Smith's polygamy, I doubt that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy was legal at the time of Joseph Smith. See Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act Loveonearth (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that the plural wives of Joseph Smith, as well as all other LDS participants, are part of the "family." My polygamous ancestors certainly thought all the sister wives were family members, recorded them as such, and interacted as family. The "private" nature of JSmith's plural marriages may complicate the historical issue, but not the personal relationships. WBardwin (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between JSJr's plural wives and Young's, for example, is that a) Smith's are subject to controversy and not consensus (per wife) whereas Young's wives were well-known and lived openly as polygamous wives, b) the alleged wives were not recognized by the laws of the land as being wives, and c) the wives were not accepted by the Smith family itself (and were actually rejected by the family, including Emma Smith and Joseph's children). Even today, these women are not listed within the Smith family organizations (Organization of the Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith Foundation or Joseph Smith Jr. Family Organization, of which I am a member, as being within the Smith family. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, those differences do exist, but the points mentioned above still stand—if she self-identified as one of Smith's wives, then really that's good enough for me. Maybe there is "denominational politics" at play, but I didn't realise you were saying it was you who was playing it! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard isn't to take a person's claim at face value. These women were simply not members of the Smith family, unless you can prove that they were. Did any take on the name Smith or were recognized as such by any court of law? Focusing on religion, were any of the weddings sanctioned by the church proper in which a single church document exists re: solemnization? There isn't any. Sure, many women claimed to have been married to Smith in the flesh, and perhaps some of them were, but are we to merely add that ALL women making the claim were actually in the Smith family, regardless of whether there is a shred of evidence or even an endorsing historian? The article on Joseph Smith's polygamous wives has conflicting info - so are they all Smiths despite this? Messianic Judaism claims to be a part of Judaism, but as they are rejected by all denominations of Judaism, they aren't included at Wikipedia as being a denomination of Judaism. I again state that none of these women were ever recognized by a) the state, b) the church at the time, or c) the Smith family - they simply aren't Smiths. Oh, yeah - except for Emma Smith ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean the self-identification alone is enough. What I meant was the self-identification plus the evidence of the spiritual marriage is enough. I don't think the evidence of the spiritual marriage is as questionable as A Sniper states, and I was just taking it for granted that people acknowledge that this took place. I guess not. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are in the clear minority A Sniper - Just because their marriage was not recognized by the state does not mean it didn't happen. Think of all the fundamentalist polygamous mormons that have been living with their wives for decades - these marriages have also not been recognized by the state, but they would all strenuously object to anyone saying they were not part of the same family. And yes there are many "endorsing historians" and lots of "shreds" of evidence that these women did marry Smith. And you are wrong about the church - the LDS church itself recognizes many of these women as members of his family. Also, I would like to see a reference that Smith's family did not recognize these marriages as part of their family. I know Emma and Joseph III may not have, but what about his extended family?--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to resolve this dispute is to make a sub-category of the Smith Family category called "Wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.". Then you could divide the two groups of people, but still show that there is a correlation between the two. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone for smashing into the hive. I didn't mean to start a debate on polygamy. My main point, lost under my own reckless enthusiasm, was that these women were not actually Smiths. This is despite whether they were married to JSJr. in secret ceremonies or not. I would state that there is actually a very big difference between Smith's polygamous marriages and those of Brigham Young or, as Descartes1979 offered, fundamentalist polygamous Mormons - namely there is still a debate as to which women were married to JSJr. (see JSJr. wives article) because all of this was done in secret, without the sanction of the corporate church (or the knowledge of many of the church members), unlike BY and today's fundamentalists; Young and today's FLDS married polygamous women in church-sanctioned weddings (living with the women in public, for all to see). The issue of the law of the land is also important - Smith was actually only technically married to one woman - that woman could legitimately consider herself a Smith by marriage, or do we actually disregard the legal status? Indeed, nobody denies that JSJr. went out of his way to deny that he had any other wives other than Emma, and to excommunicate those accused of the practice - so, even if he married many of the women, were they actually Smiths? Did Smith, like Brigham Young or any FLDS today, actually live as man & wife with this large group of women - have kids and raise them, live openly as polygamists, etc? As for Smiths, go to [1] and see if any of these women are listed as Smiths - this is the official JSJr. family org, run by an LDS JSJr. descendant Michael A. Kennedy. Anyway, I apologize for creating a hassle with anyone. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding 'Smith'

Again attempts have been made to add the surname Smith without any discussion. As above, my objections aren't based on whether or not the allegations of a wedding to JSJr. are agreed by every reputable historian - it isn't about that. My argument is based on the fact that this was never her legal name. The 'marriage' to Smith, if & when it occurred, was clandestine, not sanctioned either by the church or by the state, and not even widely known. Whereas Young was married openly to the woman, living as husband & wife, this was not the case with Smith & this woman. She never went to any municipality or government office to take on the name legally. She is not recognized as having been married into the Smith family at either the Smith family organization (run by LDS member Michael Kennedy) nor titled as a Smith at the wikipedia articles about the Smith family or even the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. I therefore contend that posthumously adding Smith to her name in the article is, at best, a good faith error, and at worst, POV-pushing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Smith name is included in her name in several sources, including at least Quinn (1994), Compton (1997), Bradley & Sontag (2000), Van Wagoner (1989), and several other books and journal articles that are not cited in this article but you can find them in Google Books. Some of her family apparently proudly use the Smith name--which is understandable considering that Smith was the most prestigious or her husbands, and that marriage places her high-up within the heavenly hierarchy. The fact that the Smith name is not always included is why the name was in parentheses. I don't think there's a requirement in Wikipedia that all names referring to people be legal names. If that were the requirement, then I don't think we could use the name "Young", either. After all, her marriage to Young was not legal, either. Nevertheless, I really don't care that much about the issue, and I'm not going to revert. COGDEN 02:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A Sniper, out of the 5 people who have expressed opinions about including the "Smith" name, you are the only one who is in favor of removing it. Unless you can get a majority to agree to remove it, it should stay. I've re-added it. Please do not remove it again, unless you can get agreement here in the talk page first.MoKo365 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That line of thinking is laughable. If a majority of users believed JFK was killed by aliens, that wouldn't justify changing it. This woman wasn't a Smith. Simply because she may have had a secret wedding ceremony with Smith, not sanctioned by either her state or even her church, does not mean that Smith was added to her name. A Sniper (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, a number of reliable sources have been provided—this is not just a group of editors claiming something weird to be the case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to get into an edit war with several editors over this. I am happy in the knowledge that this woman was not legally a Smith, her marriage to Smith not recognized by the municipality, the state, the church or anyone in Joseph Smith's family. In addition, she is not regarded as a Smith today by the Smith family organization. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sniper, I appreciate the fact that you would care about this topic because of your family connection to the Smiths, but it's usually not a good idea to get involved in these issues on WP if you have outside interests in the area or are related to the subjects, etc. It may be true that the Smith family doesn't recognise this person as a wife of JSJ, but many sources outside the influence of the family do. I'm not suggesting that you aren't welcome to edit in this area, but I am suggesting that the connection you've revealed above tells me that WP:COI might be engaged [no pun intended] here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, I appreciate your insight Good Ol’factory. However, the issue for me isn't whether or not there was a wedding - for the sources acceptable to Wikipedia clearly state that there was. I'm far more interested in there being no marriage - they didn't live together nor have an history as a 'couple', the wedding was not recognized by any authority (neither state nor organized religion), and there isn't even bona fide proof that the woman went by the surname Smith at any point prior to 1844 or in the period just subsequent. I understand that anyone can refer to him/herself by any name but I would caution against giving that credibility in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, I can't see any reason to deny her the ability to use Young as a surname, since they lived openly in a polygamous relationship, the marriage would have been sanctioned by the LDS church and would have at least been allowable in Deseret. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Determining Zina's official full name is a separate issue in my mind from the nature of her relationship to Joseph Smith.

To avoid anachronisms, we need to know Zina's full name during her lifetime. Modern writers might include "Smith" to emphasize Joseph Smith's sensational polygamy, or they could exclude "Smith" to avoid drawing attention to the touchy polyandry issue. The Manual of Style seems to favor legal names, which I like. But did people on the 19th century frontier often use legal processes to change their names? What about for women through multiple marriages? What about women in plural marriage, often wed on the underground? If legal names aren't always authoritative, where else can we go? Sources may have motives for including or excluding "Smith":

the church: At one time the church publicized Joseph Smith's polygamy, to counter RLDS claims that the practice originated with Brigham Young. This changed after the church discontinued polygamy and de-emphasized its teaching. Depending on the times, the church may have liked or disliked "Smith" in Zina's name.

the media: Pro-Mormon publications would probably follow the church way, and anti-Mormon publications would probably oppose it.

Zina herself: Did Zina consider "Smith" part of her full name? Did she change the composition of her full name over time? It doesn't matter if she adopted it after Joseph Smith's death, since people can decide their own names. Could "Smith" have been used informally or like a title of honor?

The Manual of Style also reminds us that a woman's most common name doesn't always include her husband's surname. I don't always see "Jacobs" in her full name either. Should we evaluate its inclusion too? ——Rich jj (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving lead

Does any editor here have any objections to my writing a more comprehensive lead for her article? It's going to be her 200th birthday soon, and I'd like the article to be at its best. (It might get some traffic.) If I start now, I might be able to get her on "On this day" in time. Cstickel(byu) (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No objections, that would be great! Be bold, she had an incredible life, very much underdiscussed. Epachamo (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)