New First Vision Video

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What does it matter that they can be objectively measured if their importance or lack of it is subjectively chosen?  Beyond a personal and thus subjective experience?

An example just to clarify my point...if I chose as one of my subjective measures of a true prophet was an avid student, which I chose the objective measure of number of books in his possession and classes he took from experts, this might be relatively easy to measure in an objective manner if we have a record of his library as well as a history of how he studied.  But if no one else agrees it is a useful measure to demonstrate someone is a true prophet, it has no objective value for the question of true prophethood no matter how accurate I can provide an objective measure.

I don't want to talk about specifics before understanding methodology.

4 am here.  Takes 2 hours usually for me to fall asleep, hopefully less tonight, but must sign off. Hope we can continue this tomorrow.

Let's look at what I provided:

If, for example, Joseph Smith represented fictional stories or other's stories as truths and objects of revelation, then he's not a prophet.

This may be subjectively chosen by me, but there is arguably an objective connection to it and the legitimacy of the ability to prophecy. We are warned about false prophets.  Isn't it then reasonable to be able to disqualify a person from being the prophet if their prophecies are dishonest, borrowed, and/or faked?

If Joseph Smith committed adultery, but denied it and never repented of it, he was not a prophet.

We're not worthy to make the covenants that Joseph said God revealed to him if we commit adultery and haven't yet repented. It would then stand to reason, that God would not hold us to a standard revealed to us by someone not worthy of that standard at the time it was supposedly revealed.

(Why?  Because prophecy is not equivalent to a messenger delivery service.  A person does not have to be a cook to delivery a recipe book, but they need to be able to carry the book itself somehow. And in revelation, we are able to grow in light and knowledge of a principle according to our faith and obedience in that principle.)

Hopefully that last part addressed your last 4am questions.  And I hope you were able to rest a bit

There are probably many more objective standards we could introduce.  These are objective standards subjectively picked out as examples.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Meadowchik

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Right...because I've mentioned numerous times on this site in other threads that I think JS was extremely brilliant and great at telling stories; even his family members made mention of that.  What I find interesting is that JS can recall the detail of an angel "with a flaming sword" when supposedly told to practice polygamy; however, when it comes to documenting the First Vision (for the first time in 1832), he forgets to mention that God himself was there with Jesus (pretty big oversight).    

And around this same time period, JS established the School of the Prophets.  The following was said about JS:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith “loved learning,” wrote George Q. Cannon. “He loved knowledge for its righteous power. Through the tribulations which had surrounded him from the day when first he made known to a skeptical world his communion with the heavens, he had been ever advancing in the acquisition of intelligence. The Lord had commanded him to study, and he was obeying. … His mind, quickened by the Holy Spirit, grasped with readiness all true principles, and one by one he mastered these branches and became in them a teacher.” 

Perhaps JS simply forgot (as many people do); nevertheless, you can see why this might cause a great deal of discrepancy for somebody trying to believe the First Vision story, especially when the account used by the church is from 1838 -- 18 years following this event.    

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng

This is a good example of your bias. How do you know from the historical record that he was supposedly told to practice polygamy? How do you know he forgot and committed a pretty big oversight in his records of the First Vision? Your questions are not about so-called contradictions, discrepancies and differences in the accounts, they are about your personal opinion of Joseph Smith.

People were gracious in accommodating your OP, and you’ve been offered numerous explanations for the differences, some personal opinion, experience and philosophy and some rooted in scholarly discipline. And as far as I can tell, none were based on their high regard of Joseph Smith. Your reactions have been simply to reject them outright and repeat your original position without offering any insight (or precision) for your conclusions, more evidence of your bias.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Let's look at what I provided:

If, for example, Joseph Smith represented fictional stories or other's stories as truths and objects of revelation, then he's not a prophet.

This may be subjectively chosen by me, but there is arguably an objective connection to it and the legitimacy of the ability to prophecy. We are warned about false prophets.  Isn't it then reasonable to be able to disqualify a person from being the prophet if their prophecies are dishonest, borrowed, and/or faked?

If Joseph Smith committed adultery, but denied it and never repented of it, he was not a prophet.

We're not worthy to make the covenants that Joseph said God revealed to him if we commit adultery and haven't yet repented. It would then stand to reason, that God would not hold us to a standard revealed to us by someone not worthy of that standard at the time it was supposedly revealed.

(Why?  Because prophecy is not equivalent to a messenger delivery service.  A person does not have to be a cook to delivery a recipe book, but they need to be able to carry the book itself somehow. And in revelation, we are able to grow in light and knowledge of a principle according to our faith and obedience in that principle.)

Hopefully that last part addressed your last 4am questions.  And I hope you were able to rest a bit

There are probably many more objective standards we could introduce.  These are objective standards subjectively picked out as examples.

Objective standards (such as these examples) are always subjectively applied. As you did do, you decided that JS dishonestly represented fiction as fact and truth, and that he committed adultery.

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

If Joseph Smith committed adultery, but denied it and never repented of it, he was not a prophet.

We're not worthy to make the covenants that Joseph said God revealed to him if we commit adultery and haven't yet repented.

I have a question:

Do you believe Abraham committed adultery?

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

It was common, and not that long ago.

Are you stating that it was common for 14 year old girls to marry men in their thirties back in the 1840's?

Or common for 14 year old girls to marry a man of any age man?

Do you have references showing that either one of those statements are a fact?

Just because it did happen and some married that young doesn't mean it was "common".  But I am interested to see what references you have on this.

Edited March 7, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Objective standards (such as these examples) are always subjectively applied. As you did do, you decided that JS dishonestly represented fiction as fact and truth, and that he committed adultery.

In these posts I actually left them open-ended for the purpose of discussion. (Keep in mind that a discussion board is not a real-time logging of the search process. Many times it is a review of specific points already searched out. So please discontinue playing the gotchya game, k?)

Whatever my conclusions may be, the point is to formulate objective standards in the first place.  So, in your view, is there any line a prophet cannot cross and more specifically, Joseph Smith?

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moroni 10:4-5 is prevalent within Mormon theology, and it is frequently attacked by mainstream Protestants as being too closely tied to emotional "feelings" -- for the same reasons that such Protestants typically denounce their Pentecostal brothers, and definitely cannot stand the long history of Roman Catholic visions.

However, it is arguable that all Christian testimony is based on that same emotional "feeling," since there is no actual evidence that any miraculous biblical event ever took place.  There is no epistemic base in reality from which one could conclude that the Bible is true, or that Jesus actually was the literal Son of God.  Thus, if the Holy Spirit is all a lie, and if the biblical claims are all wild folklore, what basis in epistemology do we have for believing anything?

Alma 32:26-43 provides a slightly different approach, in which the experimental method can gradually be applied -- and conditioned by a feedback mechanism.  Most Mormons have no idea that their epistemology is so sophisticated and variegated, nor that their religion is basically and fundamentally humanistic and naturalistic (non-miraculous).  Nor does it really matter.  For, if it is not of God it will fail, if it is of God, well:  Que sera, sera.

Yes, at the heart of it, all religious conviction comes down to the emotional pull of the transcendent personal experience. I see no difference between the testimony of a Latter-day Saint and the testimony of a Baptist or a Catholic or a Muslim. God transcends specific religious traditions. 

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

How are these "objective"?  I am not sure you and I are using the word the same way.

In what way can you objectively measure these behaviors?  In what way can you first test that a true prophet would do these things this way and not another?  Or set up a list of behaviors that must be present in a true prophet and others that must be absent?  And would these be for a percentage of time allowed, but over that is unacceptable...since I assume you don't believe in infallibility so even true prophets will err and sin.

How do you see creating an objective measure for being in harmony with the Gospel?  Is this like a temple recommend interview or the checklists someone comes up with?

(serious questions, I am trying to understand your perspective.)

I agree, none of this is objective. There are certainly reasonable moral standards that one might hold to a prophet of God, but none of it is objective. 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This is a good example of your bias. How do you know from the historical record that he was supposedly told to practice polygamy? How do you know he forgot and committed a pretty big oversight in his records of the First Vision? Your questions are not about so-called contradictions, discrepancies and differences in the accounts, they are about your personal opinion of Joseph Smith.

All are from what the church has said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Accounts

There are other differences among the various First Vision accounts (in addition to the accounts of 1832 and 1838).  

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Fortunately for me I rely heavily on the Alma 32 approach, and I also have long noted that a blessing is dependent upon obedience to the law on which it is predicated...therefore that experimental process is applicable in developing an increasingly precise understanding of a given principle.

I agree that there is no way to prove the divinity of Jesus. And there is no way to objectively prove Joseph Smith was a prophet. However, if we have objective standards for a prophet or Joseph as prophet in particular, hypothetically certain information could contradict such a claim of being prophet.

In other words, we cannot prove Smith was a prophet even if he was, but we might be able to prove he was not a prophet if he wasn't.

I may have underestimated you, Meadowchik.  Remarkable.  

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, at the heart of it, all religious conviction comes down to the emotional pull of the transcendent personal experience. I see no difference between the testimony of a Latter-day Saint and the testimony of a Baptist or a Catholic or a Muslim. God transcends specific religious traditions. 

Yes, but what if God is not transcendant, but imminent?  Would that make any difference?

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Your reaction to my comments then seem not to be to my actual comments, but what you see as the typical argument.  Perhaps it would be best if you don't quote me in discussing your opinion about the most typical argument in support of Joseph's marriages....

You are the one who engaged with me on this after I'd stated:

"This is just one aspect of Joseph's marriages (marrying a 14 year old).  None of the terms you use above can be used to describe his marriages."

You replied with "Actually they can."

So, I'll ask you which of these terms describe Joseph's marriages since you say "they can" (be used):

"normal", "median", "standard" or "average"?  (These are the terms that were used.)

Edited March 7, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

I agree, none of this is objective. There are certainly reasonable moral standards that one might hold to a prophet of God, but none of it is objective. 

What is not objective about them?

( Here is some elaboration from a subsequent post of mine:

Let's look at what I provided:

If, for example, Joseph Smith represented fictional stories or other's stories as truths and objects of revelation, then he's not a prophet.

This may be subjectively chosen by me, but there is arguably an objective connection to it and the legitimacy of the ability to prophecy. We are warned about false prophets.  Isn't it then reasonable to be able to disqualify a person from being the prophet if their prophecies are dishonest, borrowed, and/or faked?

If Joseph Smith committed adultery, but denied it and never repented of it, he was not a prophet.

We're not worthy to make the covenants that Joseph said God revealed to him if we commit adultery and haven't yet repented. It would then stand to reason, that God would not hold us to a standard revealed to us by someone not worthy of that standard at the time it was supposedly revealed.

(Why?  Because prophecy is not equivalent to a messenger delivery service.  A person does not have to be a cook to deliver a recipe book, but they need to be able to carry the book itself somehow. And in revelation, we are able to grow in light and knowledge of a principle according to our faith and obedience in that principle.)

...

There are probably many more objective standards we could introduce.  These are objective standards subjectively picked out as examples.)

Edited March 7, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I may have underestimated you, Meadowchik.  Remarkable.  

How do you mean?

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but what if God is not transcendant, but imminent?  Would that make any difference?

Do you mean immanent?

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but what if God is not transcendant, but imminent?  Would that make any difference?

Maybe what I mean is the experience transcends ordinary life, even if God is in fact imminent, wholly a part of the universe. (I know transcendent is often used to refer to a God who is totally outside of the universe and laws of nature - personally I don't see God that way.) It's the "numinousness" of the God experience. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is not objective about them?

( Here is some elaboration from a subsequent post of mine:

Let's look at what I provided:

If, for example, Joseph Smith represented fictional stories or other's stories as truths and objects of revelation, then he's not a prophet.

This may be subjectively chosen by me, but there is arguably an objective connection to it and the legitimacy of the ability to prophecy. We are warned about false prophets.  Isn't it then reasonable to be able to disqualify a person from being the prophet if their prophecies are dishonest, borrowed, and/or faked?

If Joseph Smith committed adultery, but denied it and never repented of it, he was not a prophet.

We're not worthy to make the covenants that Joseph said God revealed to him if we commit adultery and haven't yet repented. It would then stand to reason, that God would not hold us to a standard revealed to us by someone not worthy of that standard at the time it was supposedly revealed.

(Why?  Because prophecy is not equivalent to a messenger delivery service.  A person does not have to be a cook to deliver a recipe book, but they need to be able to carry the book itself somehow. And in revelation, we are able to grow in light and knowledge of a principle according to our faith and obedience in that principle.)

...

There are probably many more objective standards we could introduce.  These are objective standards subjectively picked out as examples.)

All morality is subjective. All standards for prophethood are subjective. I don't say that to minimize the importance of moral standards. They're vitally important to our species. 

Even trying to find some kind of objective determination based on subjective standards seems impossible. Let's say a prophet is disqualified from being a prophet if he/she commits adultery. Can you objectively determine that Joseph did that? I don't think you can. You can make a strong case for it, but it's not like the boiling point of water at sea level, which on earth is always 100 degrees C, given no change in atmospheric composition/pressure. It's like trying to make an objective political argument - it can't be done. There are GOOD arguments to make, certainly, but not objective ones. Is polygamy adultery? To some people, yes. To others, no. 

I would say it's REASONABLE to look at Joseph Smith's behavior and conclude he was a false prophet, from a given set of presuppositions about morality. But that's always subjective.

Personally I use the word prophet in more of a sociological sense. Joseph Smith was a prophet because he was considered to be a prophet. He was a dynamic spiritual leader. I don't think he always made good moral choices. But I also consider MLK Jr. a prophet, and he cheated on his wife. For me it's not about whether the person is literally communicating messages from God. It's more about how they're functioning in society. I don't assume that everything a prophet says or does is right. Each prophetic message must be evaluated on its own merits. 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Gray

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Are you stating that it was common for 14 year old girls to marry men in their thirties back in the 1840's?

Or common for 14 year old girls to marry a man of any age man?

Do you have references showing that either one of those statements are a fact?

Just because it did happen and some married that young doesn't mean it was "common".  But I am interested to see what references you have on this.

Debate has raged regarding how unusual this pairing was based on the couple's age and blood relationship. Noted Poe biographer Arthur Hobson Quinn argues it was not particularly unusual, nor was Poe's nicknaming his wife "Sissy" or "Sis".^[28] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Eliza_Clemm_Poe

"The American colonies followed the English tradition, but the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old".^[1] Reliable data for when people would actually marry are very difficult to find. In England, for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period come from records relating only to those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seems that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages, giving a biased sample. Additionally, 20th- and 21st-century historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding a young age of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

" Historically, child marriage was common around the world. The practice began to be questioned in the 20th century, with the age of individuals' first marriage increasing in many countries and most countries increasing the minimum marriage age. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

 

Just the other day, A husband and wife came in to do their taxes, since the tax code in the US intrudes into every facet of life, I noticed that the eldest child had just started college and was 19.  The mother was 34.  You can do the math, I hope.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In these posts I actually left them open-ended for the purpose of discussion. (Keep in mind that a discussion board is not a real-time logging of the search process. Many times it is a review of specific points already searched out. So please discontinue playing the gotchya game, k?)

Whatever my conclusions may be, the point is to formulate objective standards in the first place.  So, in your view, is there any line a prophet cannot cross and more specifically, Joseph Smith?

That sounds like a gotcha question... I thought you were sharing conclusions that I took as biased. I think the Lord has the same expectations of prophets as He has the rest of us, and He accomplishes His work with, without and despite us, especially despite us.

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

All are from what the church has said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Accounts

There are other differences among the various First Vision accounts (in addition to the accounts of 1832 and 1838).  

Of course there are many differences, and I appreciate any information and new information about the accounts, and especially any newly discovered accounts. From any reliable source. But where does it say that he forgot and committed a pretty big oversight in his records of the First Vision? That is the bias you keep referring to, with your bias about Joseph Smith as a person or a prophet.

[blueglass]

On 3/5/2017 at 2:36 PM, JulieM said:

And yet, Lucy did not mention or write about what we now call the first vision in this history.  I'd have to read it again, but iirc, Lucy only wrote about the angel appearing to Joseph in his room for the first time."

So, even though Lucy specifically states that she's writing the history of the church to relate "Joseph's getting the plates and seeing the angel at first", no mention of his experience in the sacred grove by his own Mother?  I find that odd.

In JSH Joseph first tells his mother after the first vision that "Presbyterianism is not true".  The problem is when did his mother Lucy and 3 siblings join the Presbyterian faith.  Was it in 1820 like it says in JSH, or later in 1824 according to William Smith?  If they joined in 1820, why didn't they leave after he retells to them his first vision?  and why the evidences that they may have joined later in 1824 after the death of Alvin?   A presbyterian minister performs the funeral for Alvin, and Joseph hates that the minister proclaims that Alvin is going to hell for not being baptized.  I can see that the minister would be upset and rubbing it in if Joseph and Alvin had been the hold outs when his mother and other siblings joined.  It really estranged him from his family.  

[blueglass]

What I find fascinating are the notes from the meeting between LaMar Petersen and Levi E. Young in Feb 3, 1953.  In Petersen's notes there is that account of Young saying that this was a "strange account" of the first vision which was "put back in vault".
Petersen says it "was written in Joseph's own hand and which had been concealed for 120 years in a locked vault."  It wasn't revealed until Dean Jesse's paper in 1969, after Joseph Fielding Smith returned the cut out parts to the historian's office and authorized Cheesman to use it in his Master's thesis.  
In the JS papers on the source note it talks about this weird "excision" of the three pages of the 1832 JS vision, and says that there are still "8 leaves which have not been located" ?  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What I find fascinating are the notes from the meeting between LaMar Petersen and Levi E. Young in Feb 3, 1953.  In Petersen's notes there is that account of Young saying that this was a "strange account" of the first vision which was "put back in vault".
Petersen says it "was written in Joseph's own hand and which had been concealed for 120 years in a locked vault."  It wasn't revealed until Dean Jesse's paper in 1969, after Joseph Fielding Smith returned the cut out parts to the historian's office and authorized Cheesman to use it in his Master's thesis.  
In the JS papers on the source note it talks about this weird "excision" of the three pages of the 1832 JS vision, and says that there are still "8 leaves which have not been located" ?  

Oh the mystery of what might have be on those 8 pages that haven't been located, maybe there was a second more hidden vault?  I wonder how many secret passageways there are in church office buildings?  Church history is so fascinating with mystery and intrigue.  

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

That sounds like a gotcha question... I thought you were sharing conclusions that I took as biased. I think the Lord has the same expectations of prophets as He has the rest of us, and He accomplishes His work with, without and despite us, especially despite us.

Of course there are many differences, and I appreciate any information and new information about the accounts, and especially any newly discovered accounts. From any reliable source. But where does it say that he forgot and committed a pretty big oversight in his records of the First Vision? That is the bias you keep referring to, with your bias about Joseph Smith as a person or a prophet.

It's an opinion I and many others have today, to include, previous church leaders.  

Example below:

Elder Young of the 70 said the following in 1957:

"I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story,.concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith. I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings. This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?"

https://ia800801.us.archive.org/20/items/improvementera6006unse/improvementera6006unse.pdf

Like I said, JS can remember the detail of an angel with a flaming sword, but doesn't recall (or failed to mention) that he saw God in the 1832 account.  

[cinepro]

On 3/5/2017 at 3:47 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts exactly parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

*****

I personally think we are doing people an enormous disservice -- at minimum, on an intellectual level -- by not pointing out (lovingly and patiently, of course) when their 'historical concerns' are based on false assumptions and/or historiographical naivety.

Sorry, but your analogy fails in one huge regard.  It totally ignores the religious and metaphysical implications of the context for each version of the stories.

The hypothetical would be more like this:

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary (Jose) reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.  During this meeting, the ruler indicated that the island would be ruled by the Jesuits after his death.  The ruler had died in 1564.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.  He also told him that the Jesuits could rule the island after his death, but only the group of Jesuits led by that specific missionary.  The other Jesuits had to stay off the island.  Coincidentally, after the 1565 report, several other groups of Jesuits had shown interest in occupying the island and participating in its governance.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.  In addition to telling the Jesuit that he, specifically, would be the ruler of the island after the King died, Elizabeth I, the Queen of England, was in attendance, and afterwards, the King showed the Jesuit his personal zoo which held several species of previously unknown animals which today can only be described as "Dinosaurs", as well as a vault in a hill containing tons of gold ore.  The King then took the Jesuit for a ride on his magic aerial carpet, in which they sailed high overhead the different islands.

 

If that were the progression of stories, then I'm not sure I would begrudge anyone from questioning the additional details added, professional historian or not. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

You are the one who engaged with me on this after I'd stated:

"This is just one aspect of Joseph's marriages (marrying a 14 year old).  None of the terms you use above can be used to describe his marriages."

You replied with "Actually they can."

So, I'll ask you which of these terms describe Joseph's marriages since you say "they can" (be used):

"normal", "median", "standard" or "average"?  (These are the terms that were used.)

If you remove the aspect of plural marriage to study the age of his wives in the context of his environment (if you don't remove polygamy, there is really nothing in my opinion to be compared given polygamy was an extreme outlier behaviour in ruralAmerica), data yields this:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

"When we study others in Joseph's environment, we find that it was not. A sample of 201 Nauvoo-era civil marriages found that 33.3% were under twenty, with one bride as young as twelve. [4] Another sample of 127 Kirtland marriages found that nearly half (49.6%) were under twenty. [5] And, a computer-aided study of LDS marriages found that from 1835–1845, 42.3% of women were married before age twenty. [6] The only surprising thing about Joseph's one third is that more of his marriage partners were not younger.

Furthermore, this pattern does not seem to be confined to the Mormons (see Chart 12 1). A 1% sample from the 1850 U.S. census found 989 men and 962 who had been married in the last year. Teens made up 36.0% of married women, and only 2.3% of men; the average age of marriage was 22.5 for women and 27.8 for men. [7] Even when the men in Joseph's age range (34–38 years) in the U.S. Census are extracted, Joseph still has a lower percentage of younger wives and more older wives than non-members half a decade later. [8]"

So he doesn't follow the typical pattern, having a higher percentage of older wives than his general environment.

"One hundred and eighty Nauvoo-era civil marriages have husbands and wives with known ages and marriage dates. ^[20] Chart 12 2 demonstrates that these marriages follow the general pattern of wives being younger than husbands....

When the age of husband is plotted against the age of each wife, it becomes clear that almost all brides younger than twenty married men between five and twenty years older (see Chart 12-3)."

This would indicate his marriages with younger women taken individually follow his community norm's.

I don't have time today to spend in discussion on this.  The above is what I meant in my original comment.  If you do not wish to examine the issue of age separate from the issue of plural marriage, I don't feel a need to offer more information.  If you do, I believe the study the FM page is derived from is the most thorough and accurate one to date.  Probably better just to read that and process the data in context than have me say anything in addition.  If you have studies that challenge that data, I would be interested in seeing them.