Talk:Zina D. H. Young

message: 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%3F
Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Quote

message: A couple of questions I have from reading this article.
#Did she give blessings as a priesthood holder? This is fascinating and I would like this to be a bit more clear.
#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?
#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.)
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Questions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additions and reorganization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What happened to Henry?

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Zinayoung.gif

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Zinayoung.gif

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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  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)
thread_title: A member of the Smith family?

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