Tags
Written by David Bridgstock
In the clamour of our veneration for Joseph Smith, the founding prophet, we sing: Praise to the Man. Would we be singing his praises if we took time out to better discern his mind from a closer look at his life and history, instead of accepting the streamlined and sanitized version of who he was?
Joseph Smith, in all probability was neither a complete charlatan or a true prophet. There is a tendency to make him one or the other. Faithful LDS hold him whiter than white. In contrast, the X-Mormons tend mostly to see him only as an imposter. However, I see him somewhere in between. Like all of humanity, he was a mixture of both praiseworthy traits and the very opposite.
Having spent a few years forensically looking at Smiths life, one cannot help but keep stumbling upon inconsistences and disparities. In the early days one is seeking for confirmation of how true the work is, as we say, but unease and suspicion gradually stir inwardly as the sheer number of odd anomalies increases. In the end you give up counting disturbing characteristics that keep popping up in the restoration story. The trouble is, that Joseph becomes the main problem. The saints are just following him, and in the main, good loyal people, until they too have doubts about his leadership or the direction that his theology is taking them.
I have formed opinions about his character in various ways and then, as I have read books written by historians, who have studied his life before me, I found that where my opinions were heading about him, though not fully substantiated, were vindicated and confirmed by these historians; thus, solidifying and clarifying that my judgements were probably fairly accurate.
So, I now proceed to describe and try to explain Smiths character- motives, which, to say the least are very tangled, so much so that even Joseph himself, was not at one with conflict in his own soul. It is telling that even though he kept a life-long journal or history, to insure he could leave a legacy of himself, yet he says: “No man knows my history. I cannot tell it.” But then ends by saying: ” When I am brought to stand before God…you will all know me then.” I feel this is a strange remark, because, though having wrote out all his personal history, he says: “No man knows it, I cannot tell it?“ Well, if we cannot fathom it by looking at his history, is there some other history about him that he was not willing to reveal? And further, he seems to be confident that God will justify whatever his real-life story was.
Here goes. Let me say what I think about JS’s motives and personal agenda. I will not try to prove everything I say. Just know that I will say nothing based on a personal inkling or mere opinion, but based on many points of evidence that I have gathered about his life, the restoration and his interpersonal relationships with others.
He had reoccurring dreams and themes in his own mind, which I believe grew with intensity; driven by desires to be someone of importance. He had some very specific talents. He was a great, believable story teller. He read and pondered upon religious and historical books in his local print shop, where he collected newspapers regularly for his father. He was full of information from religious authors in the nineteenth and eighteenth century’s; these he mulled over and digested, along with his own biblical conjectures; which made him a strong disputant in a local debating club he joined up with. He had read of those prominent preachers who foretold that a great awakening was imminent and he saw himself as the main player in a restoration of Christ’s true church, in frontier America, with the true gospel being established. All this was part of the religious theme and scene in his day.
He grew with ambitions of prominence and respectability, after all he knew he was part of the lower classes, unwashed, and from a poverty-stricken family. He wished to somehow improve his situation to rise up with more power than he had, and be a person of influence. His charisma as a speaker would advance his progress and his ego would do the rest. His mother is recorded to have said that her boy Joseph felt that he was cleverer and better than all his fellows.
Perhaps at first, he only had a modest vision, to be a notable preacher, as he had witnessed many revival meetings and noted the persuasive power in the oratory of various ministers, famous in his day.
It is obvious that wealth and riches also occupied his mind, as he began treasure digging and claiming to be a Seer in that respect. The finding of his own treasure, which was to be ancient writings from God the amazing Gold Plates with scripture on them, was a play to entice and encourage others to trust and follow him. His family were the first ones to believe it was all authentic. It would be appealing to his fellow frontier communities who were regularly and on occasions riveted and on fire with religious fervour.
Joseph knew there was an interest and a breeding ground full of promise for anyone claiming to represent God. With Jo Smith, what greater and more overpowering message than the promise of new scripture from prophets of his own continent?
Some will reject the ideas that we can accurately conjecture Smith’s motives; that while we can determine his theology and decipher more accurately it’s truth or falsehood, we should not assume to know the inner workings of his mind as if they were facts. But I think this is a cop-out. We can ascertain a good deal from what he said, to how he behaved and reacted under pressure or criticism, etc.
In 1838 Joseph recorded the restoration history, and what an astounding narrative it was – and still is, with successive prophets from Smith up until our own time, 200 years later.
I would ask: is it not important to verify whether the message of Smith is authentic, for its promises are quite compelling and binding upon us. If it’s true and we remain faithful to it, we are promised eternal life. But if we do not remain loyal to its principles, we could find ourselves in a less glorious world, or damned.
It is therefore a subject that rightly should bear the weight of scrutiny – if it’s true, without prejudice from faithful members who choose not to investigate our history, in the same way we wish to.
We are encouraged in the New Testament to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good, to be wise and prudent, but not to exhibit faith in something which is suspect at first investigation of the founder’s life.
Motive, I agree, is difficult to ascertain, but I found some common-sense rationale in the statement by Fischer, a German Historian, who said: There can be no primary, direct evidence of any past motive. But there is a tacit logic of inference which can attain a high degree of probable accuracy
I totally agree with this statement. It is all very well having faith, but to have faith in something where the weight of evidence screams against the clear truth of its validity is completely nonsensical and foolish.
Joseph Smith’s father was a Universalist, which meant in terms of salvation, that the majority of mankind will be saved. Joseph’s Book of Mormon teaches the opposite to that theological stance on the same subject. For instance, it teaches that one has to keep the commandments and become righteous or damnation will be the majority of mankind’s lot. This is spelled out heavily in the Book of Mormon. Joseph however, after writing the Book of Mormon and in his later years, turned toward Universalism in that he proclaims, for instance, in the Doctrine & Covenants: The Father saves all the works of his hands. Because of this new stance, which he kept very much to himself, it was easier for him to, at times, use some deception, under the perception that God would allow a sense of fear and judgement to distil upon humanity, if it produced or led to some greater good.
Early on in the Book of Mormon, in the chapter where Nephi is contemplating cutting off Labans head, we read the words: – “Never at any time have I shed the blood of man,“ but the act of doing so in the narrative – written by Smith – was an indication of his own internal struggle to bend or flout the moral and ethical laws. (Thou shalt not kill)
Nephi becomes convinced that Labans death was necessary, for it was the best way to accomplish a greater good and it therefore had God’s approval. Joseph said one time that: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, maybe, and often is, right under another.” Smith wrote also that: “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is” I will go on to show a few, but not all, for there are so many examples of how the Prophet used this kind of excuse to lie and deceive, while at the same time feeling justified of God in doing so on many occasions in order to achieve his desired outcome, or the GREATER GOOD.
He speculated on this strategy, for it afforded him considerable latitude in furthering his kingdom; for instance, in Doctrine and Covenants 19, we find Joseph Smith showing by revelation that even God doesn’t tell the whole truth about the duration of Hell; that it is ETERNAL. Smith clarifies for us that eternal damnation doesn’t really mean it has no end, but that God deceitfully uses the phrase only to pretend – it’s never ending, so that it might encourage us through fear, to repent, etc. This is an admission by God, so Joseph reveals that he (God) sometimes tells lies. So why can’t Joseph on occasions for a greater good, do the same. This is Smith’s interpretation.
Looking back on my own previous writings on the subject of D&C 19 and God seeming to have lied (Says Smith) in that section; I wrote the following, which was just another way of expressing how Joseph viewed what he felt was God willing to play tricks (Dishonesty) which he (Joseph ) thought was also acceptable for him to do. I said:
“Look also at the 19th Section of the Doctrine & Covenants, where the explanation for centuries of scaremongering, by use of the phrase ‘endless punishment’, (verses 5-7) according to Smith, was only allowed to be there so as to scare us into greater obedience… hence, Joseph says of it: “wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men….” Whether he was right about this or not, the point is that he could be economical with the truth or invent anything, if it might enhance the work of the kingdom. God himself was prone to do it, he assumes, therefore he could do it. The end justifies the means. So it was, as I have said earlier about his former treasure digging, Smith didn’t always distinguish clearly between the parameters of honesty and deception. The lines had always been blurred from his childhood onwards. Reality and a splendid imagination were hard for him to separate.”
How this delusional or warped thinking might work in the mind of Joseph, in respect to inner visions of heart and mind, which he later wrote were literal visions or visitations, becomes apparent to me. I also have had spiritual experiences which I have not embroidered or fantasised beyond what, in reality, actually happened. (I am more honest than Smith)
Copying again from previous writings in my book: Mormonism – The True Church of Christ or Counterfeit?
“I have had my own spiritual theophanies. Each time, as I try to re-describe how I felt or what happened, it is impossible to do so. You cannot give another, thoughts or transcendent feelings about such experiences. So, what do you do? You invent what feels like an honest comparison or parallel to your inner vision. For example, once I felt the awesome power and magnitude of the atonement encompassing myself and the entire universe. In trying to describe it, I compared it to a type of huge galactic machine that had in its grip all galaxies in the universe, etc. Anyone hearing me might assume that I saw with my own eyes such a thing. Over time, even my own memory might conjure up the fanciful idea that I had seen a machine. Joseph had read and heard of others seeing the Father and the Son; seeing angelic Beings or Spirits. Like the supposed visit of Peter James and John and John the Baptist – restoring authority, or Moroni in his bedroom – these were descriptions of what was in his imagination or dreams, clouding his mind, supposing them to be literal apparitions, like in treasure seeking mode, they were notions he simply wanted to adopt as real into his narrative, to bolster his continuing story and enhance believability within his audiences.”
Again, touching on the subject of Smith rationalising away some deceptions ‘for the greater good,’ compare also how he wrote in Moroni 7:16, where it says: “For everything that invited to do good and to persuade to believe in Christ is sent forth by the gift and power of Christ therefore he may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God”
Thus, it is quite feasible that Smith could morally and ethically write the Book of Mormon himself, instead of it being a literal historical document. This he could do justifiably, because though it came via his own fantastic imagination, combined with his excellent memory of King James scriptural language, to persuade people to come unto Christ and influence them to do good and believe…. it will be therefore sent forth by the gift and power of God.
This reasoning, I have to say, is bizarre, but Smith was capable of this warped justification. Most Normal people are not.
I recall, but know not where to find it, a statement by Him, which suggests that he himself, wished to write how biblical and Book of Mormon history should, or could have been written, in a way that more fully edifies us all. For instance, Joseph wrote about Enoch; this narrative is found in Moses chapter 7. It was how Joseph imagined Enochs life and faith to have been and he tries to sell it to us as revelation. Pity, for Moses 7 is, or WAS, one of my most favourite chapters. It’s hard to write it off as fiction, but because of so much that is inexplicable with Smith, I cannot believe or trust one single word he has given us. I heard a statement from David Bokovoy, an expert scholar who holds a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East and a MA in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from both Brandeis University and a BA from Brigham Young University. He confirms that JS read of ancient Prophets and then tried to Actualise them, which means – he wrote a narrative about them (Moses, Enoch, Abraham, etc) from his own perspective of what he perceived they did or said. This does not mean he falsified an account, but that he genuinely believed he was revealing the truth about them. To what extend he was aware that it was fired from solely his own imagination, or from God, we will never be able to know.
Please note, that Joseph brings into the Book of Mormon miraculous stories, like the biblical ones, but Josephs portrayal and story-line, is hype -up and altogether more Epic than the New Testament. This was Josephs ego and grandiose personality coming out in fiction.
One definition of a ‘pious fraud’ is a ‘sincere charlatan.’ He was a mixture of both Holy man, (Pious) which he desperately wanted to be and a Fraud, rationalising the ethical conflict of using deception in God’s name. And since he at heart believed in Universalism, (Like his own Father always did) he may not have feared God’s disapproval or punishment. It explains why in one moment he can believe he was a prophet, full of divine inspiration, yet in another moment, have the psychological and mental gymnastical ability to be promiscuous and a sexually predator of women and young girls.
To justify such behaviour, he began to imagine that polygamy was something that should be restored and conjectured an eternal theological purpose behind it, or to explain it by doing away with monogamy and introducing plural wives, along with the fixation to restore everything else from the Old Testament. This was Rigdon’s influence on Smith. So, they bring back Polygamy, Temples Rituals, Ceremonies, Sacrifices, and Priesthoods. All of which, in truth, were fulfilled in Christ and unnecessary – except Polygamy, which was never even God’s law in the first place, though Joseph said it was)
Most scriptural verses that speak of a Restoration, were not as Smith assumed; they were simply promises that a messiah would come, or a resolve in Israel as a people, to restore themselves from sin or apostacy as a nation. In the New Testament, restoration only had one meaning, that of being restored to a state of righteousness through the atonement!
For Smith and Rigdon the New Covenant (The Gospel of Christ) was not enough to get you sealed up and exalted; they wanted the Old Covenant brought back, which in my mind negates the atonement completely. But it’s ok, because Joseph was the prophet. They followed him. He used his influence, as mentioned above. He could get the early saints to believe white was black and black was white. Remembering of course: “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is” Thus, all the early Saints trusted ANYTHING Joseph declared was a commandment, given him from God.
It was not a breach of civil law, in Joseph mind, to marry a fellow Saint’s wife, even without the husband’s permission, because in the eyes of God, so he thought – no earthly contracts/promises, were binding, unless sealed through priesthood authority. In this respect, Smith was a law unto himself. And let’s not give the prophet, the benefit of our doubts, or to say to ourselves: “Well, he was the Prophet and God must have ordained that he would not lead us astray, let us continue to sustain and follow him. All will be revealed one day.”
Can I venture to say: THIS IS A COP-OUT again? He was not only out of order, he was a womaniser, a philanderer of the deadliest religious kind, the type that sanctioned his own bent morality and taught others to accept it in the name of God and while justifying it in the Lord’s name, as prophet, Seer and Revelator.
Others towed the line and got sucked into the worst kind of leadership. So, this was Joseph telling lies. One could call it spiritual duplicity. There is strong evidence to suggest that he believed in his own delusions. How else can any of us act immorally and in the next moment give a sermon with astounding confidence and conviction. This was Smith’s Gift, though out of touch with reality and truth. But it was only workable in him, as long as he could maintain a skewed justification for it and he did it, until his own demise.
His motivation was to become powerfully admired and respected, and within this came the huge desires for relationships with women, to the point of extreme manipulation and control.
All of this was opposite to his own admonition in scripture, to the decree that– “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood . . .”
Two opposing motives in one’s character don’t mix. His immorality with respect to Women negates him being able to be a Bonafede prophet and likewise, to be a real prophet, one cannot also be immoral half the time. One or the other has to go.
He possessed a powerful charisma and an ability to quote scripture from virtual photographic memory. He could speak for hours without notes. What his audience assumed was the spirit emanating from him, was not necessarily that at all, but their misplaced faith in him as God’s mouthpiece.
All human beings have the capacity to feel emotional elation even for something false, if they sense it could be true or praiseworthy, or should be genuine, causing a ‘burning in the bosom,’ etc.
He operated and schemed with dark and sinister motives to obtain what he desired, which was more physical and sexual than it really was spiritual, but because he cloaked it all in divine dogma, he even, I’m sure, believed that by following him they were coming unto Christ.
You will almost certainly be extremely reticent to accept my view of our prophet. It will run so counter to your faith in him, that it feels blasphemous. All I can say is, I felt the same as you previously, but after years of studying our history, our theology, Smiths Life and all facets or parts of the restorational story, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it being the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH, and as touching Smith, one’s confidence in him being a prophet, slowly crumbles and finally obliterates completely.
To quote another longish passage from my previous book, where I roll out quite a few spectacular failed predictions and recall Smith’s ability to reinvent himself as prophet, I wrote:
“The Angel Moroni had instructed him to bring his older brother Alvin in order to obtain the plates, but Alvin got sick and rapidly passed away before it could happen. (Seems like even heaven was getting it wrong) Also, he had prophesied that the unborn child that his mother was pregnant with was designated by the angel to accompany Smith to retrieve the plates, when the boy was old enough to do so. This was a stipulation.
The reader needs to be aware that there were countless excuses about why he could not obtain the said ancient plates from a local hillside. Unfortunately, the child died at birth or was still born, whichever it was, it was both sad, but also embarrassing to Smith; an omen of many such unfulfilled Seership predictions, alerting my mind and any who are willing to find the details of his life – will highlight a man, whose success rate at forecasting anything accurately by the power of God, as catastrophically poor; from the establishment of Zion, to many other predictions, like his failed Bank, that was meant to become one of the greatest in the world? Also, the declaration of the eventual triumph of the system of polygamy, over the gentile arrangement of monogamy, or finding riches to bail him out of debt by visiting the city of Salem, where God told him to go and where treasure was awaiting him; that to utterly failed.
These things, along with scores of smaller prognostications all his life, ended up not being fulfilled. (See Jim Whitefield’s book: The Mormon Delusion.) Any one of these failed predictions, would be enough to make an average man want to dig a hole and hide in it, but not so Smith. He seemed to have no trouble re-inventing himself by conjuring up justifications for virtually everything that failed. For instance, he caused the circumstances that allowed for many to lose their savings in his failed bank.
Others were persecuted in Missouri and driven out of their homes, beaten-up, murdered, etc, because they had faith in his so-called prophetic promises. As a fully-fledged prophet in a growing church, his showmanship and chancy way of operating, had not abated since his former days when he hired himself out to supervise treasure diggings, until he contrived his final treasure that he felt would turn his fortunes upwards and get the recognition he craved.”
Lastly, can I mention Zion (Though there are many more examples). Joseph had a concept of the ancient city of Zion, established by Enoch and his people. In his mind he had visions of a similar city of God for our days. There was a specific date in September 1831, when Joseph said that Zion would begin to be established in Missouri. Edward Partridge was the Saint chosen to be Bishop, and with a number of saints sold their homes and made an arduous pilgrimage to Missouri, with faith to do as the prophets predicted; to prepare the way, buy land, build homes, create a sustainable thriving community. But it all went pear-shaped.
Too many outlaws, Indians, mobs, infertile land, and a vast opposition to their presence there and their religious designs. Elder Partridge began to lose faith in Smiths Seership. 1831 had gone and nothing was progressing. Zion was not flourishing as he had prophesied; fearing his position as the Lords instrument was threatened, Joseph decided to argue and show that it wasn’t just himself requesting the Missouri Saints persevere, but that he was doing the bidding of angels, sent from God.
Joseph had said nothing of either John the Baptist appearing in 1829 to confer the Aaronic priesthood, or Peter, James and John coming in the summer of that same year. Strange – not until around 1832 did he ever speak to a soul of John appearing and not until 1835 did he speak of the visitation of the 3 ancient Apostles bringing the higher priesthood.
Because of the dire situation in Missouri, Smith decided to ask Cowdery to write the story of John the Baptist coming. This was accordingly done in a beautifully descriptive manner. Only trouble is, it was a lie. A lie because it never got entered into the Book of Commandments, which should have included all of Joseph’s visions and revelations. So, though he wrote of it happening years after it was supposed to have happened, what he actually did was to retrofit the tale back in time and because it was not real, he must have felt a reticence to include it in the Book of Commandments.
Interestingly, even the first vision never got to go in either. Surely these visions should have been the most major events to be published to the world? Needless to say, for a time, the story of the visit of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith, presented to Bishop Partridge, helped to enhance Smiths credentials in his eyes, as a genuine prophet acting under command of Angels.
Whether before or after Cowdery’s John the Baptist narrative sent to Bishop Partridge, there was a bit of a showdown between Partridge and Smith, when Ezra Booth (A recent good Christian Convert to Mormonism) witnessed the prophet in harsh tones telling Partridge that He had seen Zion and it would transpire. Alas, it did not. Booth said later to Bishop Partridge, that if he were a prophet, you would not see me act in the way he acted with you. (Words to that effect) Booth had witnessed Smith getting furious with Partridge.
Smith, not wanting to be seen as one who got things wrong, later blamed in a revelation, the failure of Zion on the sins and lack of faith of the Saints. You will notice on many such prediction failures of Smithy, that he always exonerates himself, usually by inventing a revelation from God, using this divine condemnation that always absolves his own delusions, wrong doing and accountability.
In this and other episodes where his egotistical projections did not materialise, he was able, with confident self-assurance, to pull excuses out of his revelatory/prophet magic knapsack. This is his talent with emotional, mental and spiritual/psychological gymnastics, where, in JS’s mind, the lines between fantasy and reality, truth and deception, become indistinct.