New First Vision Video

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

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.

Sorry, none of that is evidence that it was either common or normal for a 14 year old girl to marry a man in his late thirties during that era in Nauvoo (or surrounding areas).  Read Calm's post on this too.

Factor in that Joseph was already legally married and also married to dozens of other women, and this marriage was anything but common.

As I've stated though, the age difference is only one aspect that is troubling.  Who these teenagers were to Joseph is also disturbing (daughter of one of his best friends, house girls that were thought of as daughters in the Smith household, etc.).

There is a reason there was so much secrecy.  

Edited March 7, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

In JSH Joseph first tells his mother after the first vision that "Presbyterianism is not true". 

In the first edition of the history (the one Brigham ordered members to destroy) or in the later, revised edition (where the first vision was inserted)?

Edited March 7, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Normal needs to be defined.

It was with statistical norms for 14/15 year olds to marry someone Joseph's age according to the data.

That is not saying it was common (which is a subjective, not a mathematical term and which I define as 5% or greater).

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Normal needs to be defined.

It was with statistical norms for 14/15 year olds to marry someone Joseph's age according to the data.

That is not saying it was common (which is a subjective, not a mathematical term and which I define as 5% or greater).

But again, that's only the one aspect of the marriages Joseph was involved in.  That's the point I originally was making.  I'll back out now and let you and others continue discussing only the ages involved.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Normal needs to be defined.

It was with statistical norms for 14/15 year olds to marry someone Joseph's age according to the data.

That is not saying it was common (which is a subjective, not a mathematical term and which I define as 5% or greater).

My apologies if you said already, but how are you defining "within statistical norms"? 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

My apologies if you said already, but how are you defining "within statistical norms"? 

The FM study has all that detail...sorry, just can't get any interest up today.  It is rude, but I have tried.  Maybe it will come back tomorrow (big day yesterday means big pain today, whine, whine, whine, huge self pity party, going to go breed some dragons).

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The FM study has all that detail...sorry, just can't get any interest up today.  It is rude, but I have tried.  Maybe it will come back tomorrow (big day yesterday means big pain today, whine, whine, whine, huge self pity party, going to go breed some dragons).

Best of luck with the dragons!

[Calm]

Thanks.

[cinepro]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Normal needs to be defined.

It was with statistical norms for 14/15 year olds to marry someone Joseph's age according to the data.

That is not saying it was common (which is a subjective, not a mathematical term and which I define as 5% or greater).

I don't think you have to do much research to know whether something was morally acceptable and/or legal in their culture.  Just look and see if they kept it hidden or not, and who they kept it hidden from if they did.

Honestly, I don't think many people in our day really have a problem with the idea of a 38-year-old man living on the frontier in the 1840s marrying a teenage girl.  Sure, we might blanch at the idea of the girl being 14, but it's easy to recognize the culture and circumstances in which that might happen.

But I do understand the problem people might have with an already married 38-year-old man secretly marrying a 14-year-old girl after that man told the girl her family's eternal condition might depend on such an arrangement, with that man having a position as the second-only-to-Jesus religious leader of said family.

If the defense of Joseph's actions relies on trying to convince people that the first scenario is equivalent to the second, then I'm glad I haven't taken the mantle of that defense upon myself, because I don't think I could even pretend to believe that argument. 

The better way to handle the situation is to adopt a "First Vision" approach and tailor the story to the audience and leave out as much of the damaging info as possible and hope they never hear the full story.  It may not be the ideal way to handle it, but in the end it might be the best way. Because arguing for moral relativity and equivalence seems like an attempt to convince people of Joseph's morality at the risk of them doubting your sanity.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by cinepro

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

You keep asserting that that kind of thing, but the article doesn't indicate that JS doesn't recall or failed to mention anything. I think you should transcribe the whole of Elder Young's article to show how he reconciled the rhetorical question he posed, concluding how the 1838 account is irrefutably accurate and correct.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But I do understand the problem people might have with an already married 38-year-old man secretly marrying a 14-year-old girl after that man told the girl her family's eternal condition might depend on such an arrangement, with that man having a position as the second-only-to-Jesus religious leader of said family.

I think the bigger problem is willfully putting this forth as the whole truth and the proven fact when there are additional facts and context to consider, or not being willing to consider a larger truth fleshed out by those facts and context.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

In the first edition of the history (the one Brigham ordered members to destroy) or in the later, revised edition (where the first vision was inserted)?

Not sure what happened in the 1838 JSH the lines on Presbyterianism and his interactions with his mother after the first vision are missing.  In the JSP scans it refers to a note B where it says Willard Richards added it in.  (Richards, Journal, 2 Dec. 1842.)  In the 1832 scans it has this line crossed out, " about that time my  mother  and" 

The Presbyterian record says they sent out 4 presbyterian elders on March 10, 1830 to meet with hiram smith,  lucy smith, and samuel harrison smith "reported that they had visited them and received no satisfaction they acknowledged that they had entirely neglected the ordinances of the church for the last eighteen months and that they did not wish to unite with us anymore."

 

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Not sure what happened in the 1838 JSH the lines on Presbyterianism and his interactions with his mother after the first vision are missing.  In the JSP scans it refers to a note B where it says Willard Richards added it in.  (Richards, Journal, 2 Dec. 1842.)  In the 1832 scans it has this line crossed out, " about that time my  mother  and" 

The Presbyterian record says they sent out 4 presbyterian elders on March 10, 1830 to meet with hiram smith,  lucy smith, and samuel harrison smith "reported that they had visited them and received no satisfaction they acknowledged that they had entirely neglected the ordinances of the church for the last eighteen months and that they did not wish to unite with us anymore."

It would be interesting to see what was written about the Prebyterian elders in Lucy's original edition.  There is no reference to or mention of the first vision in that edition (only the angel appearing first in Joseph's bedroom).  I'll take a look too when I get the chance.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you mean immanent?

That's what I mean, Meadowchik, and that is just my point:  You are remarkable.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

Exactly, as long as we correct the word to immanent.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, none of that is evidence that it was either common or normal for a 14 year old girl to marry a man in his late thirties during that era in Nauvoo (or surrounding areas).  

Well there you go.  What a way to not address anything I wrote.  Almost as bad as an apologist.

 

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Well there you go.  What a way to not address anything I wrote.  Almost as bad as an apologist.

You didn't address what I had issues with regarding Joseph's marriages.  I'll refer you to Cinepro's post above.  He stated what I was attempting to say a lot better than I did. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You didn't address what I had issues with regarding Joseph's marriages.  I'll refer you to Cinepro's post above.  He stated what I was attempting to say a lot better than I did. 

I believe I was responding directly to your post, not Cinepro's post. 

[JulieM]

10 hours ago, Danzo said:

I believe I was responding directly to your post, not Cinepro's post. 

I've repeatedly stated that the age difference is only one aspect of what I find disturbing regarding Joseph's plural marriages.  Cinepro stated my feelings well.  If you want to focus solely on the age difference, I understand, but for me there is more to the discussion regarding Joseph's marriages.

Maybe answer this question and you'll see where I'm coming from:

Why such secrecy if Joseph's marriage to Helen and others were so common for back then?

Edited March 8, 2017 by JulieM

[carbon dioxide]

15 hours 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).  

 

 

 

Yes there are differences.  A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Europe and visit many WW2 related sites that really impressed me.  One site that I saw in particular was the Dachau prison camp in Germany.  Many things about that camp I found interesting and left a deep impression on me.  If I was to retell my day at Dachau to different people at different times, my stories would share many similar things.  There would be many differences as well.  I might be impressed to talk about one aspect to one person more than to another.  In my account I might even contradict myself a little here and there based on how I remember things back then.  Despite all of this, nobody could say that because my different accounts of my day at Dachau had differences that they could conclude that I did not go there and see and experience the things that day.  In your attempt to nitpick here and there, you blind yourself in the total perspective that Joseph gave regarding the First Vision.  You perhaps reject it completely but your conclusion is no more valid than if someone was to discount my visit to Dachau because I might not tell my story exactly the same every time or give emphasis to every detail that you believe you would do if you were in my shoes.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's what I mean, Meadowchik, and that is just my point:  You are remarkable.

Well thank you.  

Feel free to elaborate   I'm kidding, maybe.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes there are differences.  A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Europe and visit many WW2 related sites that really impressed me.  One site that I saw in particular was the Dachau prison camp in Germany.  Many things about that camp I found interesting and left a deep impression on me.  If I was to retell my day at Dachau to different people at different times, my stories would share many similar things.  There would be many differences as well.  I might be impressed to talk about one aspect to one person more than to another.  In my account I might even contradict myself a little here and there based on how I remember things back then.  Despite all of this, nobody could say that because my different accounts of my day at Dachau had differences that they could conclude that I did not go there and see and experience the things that day.  In your attempt to nitpick here and there, you blind yourself in the total perspective that Joseph gave regarding the First Vision.  You perhaps reject it completely but your conclusion is no more valid than if someone was to discount my visit to Dachau because I might not tell my story exactly the same every time or give emphasis to every detail that you believe you would do if you were in my shoes.

Think about how your retellings alter and how you choose to alter them based on the audiences or circumstances. Now imagine a third party is trying to use your witness accounts as evidence of your experience, and you are writing a thesis based on your experience visiting Dachau.

Now imagine that, chronologically, the changes in your retelling correspond to significant changes to your thesis made over time, with details changing to support that thesis. Can you understand that your witness testimony changing when it seems to be convenient should generate doubt in anyone charged to evaluate your thesis?

Edited March 8, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes there are differences.  A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Europe and visit many WW2 related sites that really impressed me.  One site that I saw in particular was the Dachau prison camp in Germany.  Many things about that camp I found interesting and left a deep impression on me.  If I was to retell my day at Dachau to different people at different times, my stories would share many similar things.  There would be many differences as well.  I might be impressed to talk about one aspect to one person more than to another.  In my account I might even contradict myself a little here and there based on how I remember things back then.  Despite all of this, nobody could say that because my different accounts of my day at Dachau had differences that they could conclude that I did not go there and see and experience the things that day.  In your attempt to nitpick here and there, you blind yourself in the total perspective that Joseph gave regarding the First Vision.  You perhaps reject it completely but your conclusion is no more valid than if someone was to discount my visit to Dachau because I might not tell my story exactly the same every time or give emphasis to every detail that you believe you would do if you were in my shoes.

IMO, there is a huge difference between just seeing Jesus and seeing God and Jesus (just look at the examples below).  I think it's reasonable for him to include both in the first recorded account in 1832.  This is seeing God and Jesus for the first time...not having to remember 100 digits of Pi.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly, as long as we correct the word to immanent.

Right, imminence has more of an eschatological feel to it.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Think about how your retellings alter and how you choose to alter them based on the audiences or circumstances. Now imagine a third party is trying to use your witness accounts as evidence of your experience, and you are writing a thesis based on your experience visiting Dachau.

Now imagine that, chronologically, the changes in your retelling correspond to significant changes to your thesis made over time, with details changing to support that thesis. Can you understand that your witness testimony changing when it seems to be convenient should generate doubt in anyone charged to evaluate your thesis?

I attended a lecture by Carol Lynn Pearson once in which she emphasized the value of her regular journals -- a lifelong practice.  She said that she relied upon them for material for her writing.  They provided enormously important detail.

The reason I mention that is my own surprise at how differently my memory varied from my immediate, written, first person accounts of events from many decades ago in my own life.  I had forgotten that I had written detailed letters to my mother all those many years ago, based on my immediate experience in the midst of some pretty extraordinary events.  My memory of those events had faded, and I had misremembered many details, even conflating unrelated matters in some cases.  Before she died, my Mom gave all those letters to me.  First, I had forgotten having written them.   Second, I was astonished at how alien to me that guy was who wrote those letters to her, even though it was me.

I have seldom kept a journal during my life, but my letters constitute a kind of journal.

As to Dachau, Hugh Nibley visited Dachau the day of its liberation, but he never wrote or spoke about it, so far as we know.  He came there as a member of U.S. 6th Army Group HQ (Gen Jacob Devers commanding).  He may have been too stunned and appalled to write anything about it that day.