A few years ago I presented a paper at the 2006 FAIR Conference entitled Zina and Her Men concerning the tangled (and much misunderstood) marital relationships of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. In preparing for the limited presentation time available in the conference format, I was not able to present much of the information that I had gathered relative to Zina and her relations with Joseph.
When considering the relationship of Zina and Joseph, it is natural in today’s voyeuristic society to ask a blunt question: Was Joseph Smith sexually active with Zina as one of his plural wives?
Critics and historians over the years have come to differing opinions, all of which have been considered in my studies, and some of those considerations are found in the FAIR presentation. There is one piece of evidence sometimes cited as irrefutable proof of sexual relations between Zina and Joseph—an 1869 affidavit by Zina. Reference to this evidence first appears in Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier. The authors note the following:
Zina does not record if she and Joseph consummated their union, although Zina later signed an affidavit that she was Smith’s wife in “very deed.” 1
The reference provided by the authors is “Joseph F. Smith, Affidavit Books, 4 vols., 1:5, 4:5, LDS Church Archives.”2 With such a reference, it is easy enough to check the source. Doing so does reveal an affidavit by Zina relative to the reality of her marriage to Joseph Smith. The following is the full text of the affidavit at Volume 1, page 5 of the cited source:
Territory of Utah
County of Salt LakeBe it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for said county personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington Young who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the twenty-seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in said Church, according to the laws of the same, regulating marriage; in the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington
[signed] Zina D.H. Young
Subscribed and Sworn to by
the said Zina D.H. Young, the
day and year first above written
[signed] E. Smith
Probate Judge3
An examination of the affidavit in Volume 4, page 5, shows that it is textually the same, although written in a different hand. They are the same affidavit. Both are signed by Zina and the judge. The only difference, besides minor punctuation, is that the second copy (4:5) refers to “Fanny Mariah Huntington” instead of “Fanny Maria Huntington.”
Minor transcription differences aside, the obvious problem with the affidavit is that it doesn’t say what the authors of Four Zinas say that it says; there is nothing about Zina being Joseph’s wife in “very deed.” While it could be that the authors simply cited the wrong affidavit, a search of the LDS Archives turned up no other affidavits from Zina.
A more likely explanation is that the authors of Four Zinas confused an affidavit by Melissa Lott Willes, another plural wife of Joseph’s, with Zina’s affidavit. According to author Todd Compton, Melissa did, in her affidavit, say that she was Joseph’s wife “in very deed.”4 It is interesting to note that in a review of Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness, one reviewer noted that one deficiency in the book was that it didn’t “quote Zina Huntington’s affidavit that she was Smith’s wife in ‘very deed.'”5 It would obviously seem out of place to quote an affidavit that doesn’t exist.6
The bottom line is that there is no evidence that Zina made a definitive statement concerning the consummation of her marriage to Joseph Smith. My experience with this evidence also illustrates the danger in relying upon second-hand information when coming to any conclusions.
Notes
1 Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 114-115.
2 Ibid., 137, note 53.
3 Affidavit of Zina D.H. Young, Affidavits on Celestial Marriage, May 1, 1869, Vol. 1:5 and 4:5, LDS Church Archives (MS 3423).
4 Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 12. Compton provides as his source the following on page 637: Affidavit of Melissa Willes, August 3, 1893, quoted in Raymond Bailey, “Emma Hale, Wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” master’s thesis (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1952), 98-100. In looking up the source provided by Compton, it appears that the original Willes affidavit is no longer extant. The information typed in the thesis on the referenced pages is cited as “The above copy is from a letter received by the writer [Raymond Bailey] from Myrtle Willes Bailey, December 11, 1949. Myrtle Willes Bailey is a granddaughter of Malissa Willes.” It is unknown whether Raymond Bailey was related to Myrtle Willes Bailey. The affidavit is dated 1893 and is given largely in a question and answer format, where “Joseph Smith Jr.” (actually Joseph Smith III) is doing the questioning and Willes the response. The question posed was “Q. Was (sic) you a wife in very deed?” and the answer was “A. Yes.” Willes and Smith were married nine months before Smith’s death, and she provided the affidavit when she was sixty-nine years old.
5 Katherine Daynes, Pacific Historical Review 68 (August 1999), 467.
6 It is unknown upon what the reviewer was relying for such a statement. Compton’s book appeared in 1997, the review appeared in 1999, and Four Zinas appeared in 2000. It is possible that the reviewer was relying upon a pre-publication copy of the incorrect Four Zinas as a basis for the criticism.
Thank you for this reminder of the importance of checking primary sources and accuracy in research.
Over at Gently Hew Stone, we are told that there is no genetic proof the Jossph Smith had children by any of his plural wives.
Nice work, Allen. Some Mormons seem to have the view that the problem with polygamy was that it led to a man having sex with several different women, and that if we can just cleanse the sex from the record of plural marriage, then polygamy would be okay or more defensible. This is a very strange way to look at polygamy. I view it as obvious that Joseph had relations with at least some of the women he was sealed to. To try and prove otherwise simply gives credence to the strange view that the problem with polygamy is sex, as if the ideal form of marriage is an unconsummated one. That is certainly not the Mormon view of things and never has been.
For Dave, and also for others.
The case of Zina is not a case of simple polygamy as we tend to view the subject. Reason being is that Zina was putatively married to two men at once. (This blog post doesn’t make that clear, but I assumed that was why the subject was of interest. A jaunt over to the FAIR piece on Zina, which the author linked to, reveals that this is, in fact, the case.)
Polyandry, as Zina’s relationship would superficially appear to qualify as, is quite counter to apparent doctrine. This reality has been used by some anti-Mormons to try to gain leverage against the church.
Fortunately, there exist considerations that rationalize the practice with the doctrine, and the question of whether or not Zina or others like her had sex with Joseph is fundamental to many of these considerations. (In particular, this question is fundamental to the consideration that the scopes of such polyandrous marriages did not overlap.)
Perhaps there are also other reasons that these considerations are important. (My understanding of the issues may be a little simpler than others’.) For my part, I’m very pleased to see this bit of research published. Thanks, Allen.
There were recently some interesting discussions at the MADB about Zina. As a result of the discussion, the Church even changed their (previously inaccurate) Zina bio on the website.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37799
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=38053
From the bio and Ensign articles, it is obvious the Church itself still hasn’t come to grips with Zina’s unusual situation.
Actually, the Church didn’t change the bios because of the discussion at MADB. It changed them because I suggested to the right people at the Church that it be changed.
Whether “the Church itself” has come to any knowledge about Zina or not is beside the point. The Church is made up of individuals. Some are familiar with the study of history, some are not. In this case, someone familiar with it (me) informed and educated someone unfamiliar with it (those responsible for the web sites).
It is nothing simpler than that–people talking to people.
-Allen
Ahhh…for some reason, I had incorrectly thought that Scott Lloyd had facilitated the update.
Now if we could just get the Ensign and Friend articles corrected, the Church members could actually look to the Church website for the most accurate account of Church history and Zina’s life.
This is great information, Allen. I’ve had the experience of chasing footnotes of Quinn and Bagley and have come back somewhat jaded about the abilities of editors to catch errors or overstatements.
Bob
Don’t be so hard on the editors of the Friend and Ensign, Bob. They can’t be expected to know everything about Church history. 😉
The reason people bring up Zina is because of the issue of polyandry, not the classic issue of polygyny (having more than one wife).
If you read Brother Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling” you will find that the issue is did Joseph Smith have sexual relations with his wives who were simultaneously married to other men or were these sealings merely a method of creating links within the church.
There is a story Brother Bushman tells, admitting it is second-hand and only traceable to after the death of Brigham Young, but the story claims that Eliza R. Snow was pregnant but was pushed down the stairs by Emma Smith.
I should also be noted that Brother Wyatt in no way tryies to downplay the evidence that seems to suggest that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with Melissa Lott (later Wiles). However since she was 19 when married to Joseph and was not married to any other man at the time, this case neither helps the cause of those who call Joseph a stealer of other men’s wives or the cause of those who call him a pedophile for allegedly having sexual relations with wives under the age of 18.
Besides the fact that it seems an arbitary line imposed from out culture onto their, I would advise reading Brother Alexander’s biography of Wilford Woodruff where he argues that a study of the evidence strongly suggests that Wilford Woodruff refrained from sexual relations with his wives until they were 18.
“There is a story Brother Bushman tells . . .”
The ‘folk legend’ about Eliza Snow and the stairs was addressed in Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, Winter 1982, 86-96.
http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/22.1Allen.pdf?zoom_highlight=eliza+snow+stairs#search=“eliza snow stairs”
Why do you suggest that the question of whether JS and ZH had a sexual relationship is a voyeuristic one? Do you intend to imply that it is not a legitimate question, that those who would ask it suffer from an unhealthy preoccupation with others’ personal lives and no other motive?
And, whether they did or did not have sex, would the answer make a difference?
JK,
I did not say that the question is a voyeuristic one. I said that we live in a voyeuristic society. I think that in such a society the question is quite legitimate.
To my mind the answer as to whether they did or didn’t have sex makes very little difference. But I understand that with other people that may not be the case.
-Allen
Voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder where a person is sexually aroused by secretly watching others undress or engage in sexual acts. It is also defined as a fascination, obsession and preoccupation with the sordid or scandalous lives of others, manifest perhaps by the popularity of reality TV. Obviously, “voyeuristic” has a negative connotation.
You said, “I think that in such a [voyeuristic] society the question is quite legitimate.”
Your comments suggest that the question of whether JS and ZH had a sexual dimension to their relationship is motivated by a dirty inquiring mind, or a profound boredom with one’s own life such that the personal acts of others become an object of morbid fascination. Your comments further imply that in a non-voyeuristic society, people would have the “decency” to not ask such a personal question as whether a man had sexual relations with other mens’ wives in a polyandrous arrangement. Was that your intent?
Also, why would it make very little difference to you if they did have sex? I thought D&C 132 restricted the practice of polygamy to virgins?
What difference does it make if the marriage was consummated or not? One of the problems I see is that Emma, in her last interview before she died, said that Joseph never preached nor practiced polygamy. Either she is lying, which makes her testimony about his translating the plates less credible, or he did a very good job of deceiving her.
Onika said:
To me it makes no difference, but to some people it does. People are all over the board on the issue.
If Emma lied about this one item, that doesn’t make her a pathological liar; she could still tell the truth about other things. There is credible evidence that Emma did, indeed, know about polygamy, regardless of what she may have later claimed.
-Allen
“If Emma lied about this one item, that doesn’t make her a pathological liar; she could still tell the truth about other things. There is credible evidence that Emma did, indeed, know about polygamy, regardless of what she may have later claimed.”
And while it does not make her a pathological liar, it does challenge her credibility. The question one must, because as you say, it is likely that Emma did know about polygamy inspite of her testimony to the contrary, what motivated her to discount Joseph’s involvement in polygamy? If perhaps her motive was to protect her deceased husbands memory, for either the sake of her children or her own worldview, could she not also verify his religious experiences with the same intent in mind. The point is, we don’t know exactly what the truth is, and we also can say that Emma is likely to have lied about some aspects of Church history, so how credible can her witness be?
Emma wouldn’t be the first wife to go into denial about stuff going on at home that she just couldn’t accept.
The importance of whether Joseph consummated his marriage to Zina relates to whether Joseph was a prophet or an oversexed fraud. Most critics argue that Joseph’s practice of polygamy was nothing more than to satisfy his sexual desires. However, if Joseph did not consummate the marriage, then alternate, and possibly more favorable, explanations for polygamy become more probable.
dblagent007:
That is the issue.