Joseph's backstory

[blazerb]

For some reason I have been very interested lately in the development of Joseph Smith’s backstory. The material shared by el-asherah has been really fun for me to read. I have noticed a definite progression in the stories Joseph told about himself. It all starts with the scrying and the con games involved with treasure seeking. Then he reports that a native American spirit appeared to him in a dream telling him where to find the gold plates. There were vague references to the ministering of angels. He publishes the BoM and a church is started. After a few years, he was telling more concrete stories of receiving visits and ordinations from specific angelic persons. At about this time, we start to see stories of being visited by God. But, none of the stories were told commonly until well after Joseph died.

Joseph did not write much unlike many of his contemporaries. This is not surprising since his writing ability was pretty bad. However, his ability to speak was, by all accounts, amazing. His charisma must have been incredible. While his writing was not good, he was a story teller. His ability to dictate a great plot is obvious. He clearly did not use the First Vision or Moroni’s visit or any other spiritual manifestation as the reason people should follow him. It seems to me that he considered the BoM and the other “translations” he produced as his argument for his calling.

I have read some apologetics on the subject. A common argument is that Joseph considered his experiences so sacred that he told only a few people, and then only years after each experience. This makes no sense to me. Why would God call a prophet and give him special authority if He did not expect the prophet to explain to everyone the source of the prophet’s calling?

So my question right now is this: why did Joseph tell so few people about what he supposedly experienced. One reason that occurs to me is that Joseph knew the value in maintaining a sense of mystery. By telling a few people, there would be rumors of fantastic occurrences that would fascinate the commoners. Is there a better reason?

Is there someone who has investigated the development of the Joseph Smith story over time in more detail? In contrast to what I am suggesting, Bushman wanted to study how Mormonism was experienced by those who joined so he took the stories at face value. Has anyone taken a different approach to see exactly how the story developed?

[Culper Jr.]

I've been reading Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, and it has been very enlightening. With that as a basis, it is interesting to see how this all started, and the culture that all of this originated from. It is not a light read, and his resources are pretty exhaustive.

The correlated story of the "restoration" is ridiculously far removed from reality. I was surprised at how much later the narrative was formed; early on Joseph seemed to tell all kinds of different versions of things depending on the audience. The details he gave his fellow treasure seekers about the angel and the plates fit their worldview, and changed as the church grew and morphed from a sort of christian-occult hybrid to a wannabe respectable religion.

As a couple of examples, according to an early account, when getting the plates he opened the stone box and found a frog sitting on the plates. The frog then morphed into Moroni (or maybe it was still Nephi at this point, can't remember), sort of like manimal I guess. Also, Joseph claimed Moroni told him he had to have a second "chosen" person with him to get the plates. At first this was Alvin. When Alvin died, everyone was afraid Joseph wouldn't be able to get the plates. There was some discussion about how a wife could be this chosen person, and at one point Joseph had his fellow treasure hunters speak to Emma and her father to convince her to marry him or else he wouldn't be able to get the treasure. (Similar tactic he used later... marry me or an angel will make terrible things happen!)

I was recently listening to an IoT podcast they did about who wrote the BoM. John Hamer's part was really great, and listening with this background from Quinn's book fresh in my mind really fleshed out a lot of what was going on then.

[Palerider]

So my question right now is this: why did Joseph tell so few people about what he supposedly experienced. One reason that occurs to me is that Joseph knew the value in maintaining a sense of mystery. By telling a few people, there would be rumors of fantastic occurrences that would fascinate the commoners. Is there a better reason?

My conclusion is two fold:

1. Joseph had to see if anyone was buying the charade. Then as he experienced success he got better at elaborating. Practice makes perfect as they say.

2. Some stories/revelations were made up as the need arose and then back-dated to appear as if they had been there all along.

So the upshot is that he wasn't telling anyone the stories because they hadn't really happened.....that is until he fabricated them when needed.

[Corsair]

My impression from reading "Rough Stone Rolling" was that Joseph Smith really did believe what he was saying for the most part. Perhaps, it was getting more fanciful, but he was sincere. Certainly Richard Bushman really has to assert this idea for "Rough Stone Rolling" to be considered a faithful book. Does the idea of being piously self-deluded fit this idea of Joseph's evolving back story?

[moksha]

There was a Sunstone Symposium presentation called Four Views Of Joseph Smith: Historians Debate The Prophet Puzzle. All very interesting. One in particular presents unique information on Joseph's backstory. Here is a good audio version of that presentation by Christopher Smith.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/christ ... et-puzzle/

[blazerb]

My impression from reading "Rough Stone Rolling" was that Joseph Smith really did believe what he was saying for the most part. Perhaps, it was getting more fanciful, but he was sincere. Certainly Richard Bushman really has to assert this idea for "Rough Stone Rolling" to be considered a faithful book. Does the idea of being piously self-deluded fit this idea of Joseph's evolving back story?

Certainly the development of the backstory was occurring if Joseph was deluded. The story told in 1835 was different from the story being told in 1830.

I think a year ago, I would have asserted that Joseph believed, but that has become more difficult for me. Maybe his stories are consistent with self-delusion, but I have a harder time believing that. If he did believe what he was telling, he had a very malleable memory. Perhaps someone can comment on that possibility. I know that my memory is fallible, but I can't see myself changing the story so much and still believing what I am saying.

[blazerb]

I've been reading Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, and it has been very enlightening. With that as a basis, it is interesting to see how this all started, and the culture that all of this originated from. It is not a light read, and his resources are pretty exhaustive.

The correlated story of the "restoration" is ridiculously far removed from reality. I was surprised at how much later the narrative was formed; early on Joseph seemed to tell all kinds of different versions of things depending on the audience. The details he gave his fellow treasure seekers about the angel and the plates fit their worldview, and changed as the church grew and morphed from a sort of christian-occult hybrid to a wannabe respectable religion.

I need to read this book. I can totally see that, as the audience changed, his story changed.

There was a Sunstone Symposium presentation called Four Views Of Joseph Smith: Historians Debate The Prophet Puzzle. All very interesting. One in particular presents unique information on Joseph's backstory. Here is a good audio version of that presentation by Christopher Smith.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/christ ... et-puzzle/

Thanks. This should be really interesting.

[blazerb]

My conclusion is two fold:

1. Joseph had to see if anyone was buying the charade. Then as he experienced success he got better at elaborating. Practice makes perfect as they say.

2. Some stories/revelations were made up as the need arose and then back-dated to appear as if they had been there all along.

So the upshot is that he wasn't telling anyone the stories because they hadn't really happened.....that is until he fabricated them when needed.

I think this picture explains some things, but there are still some real puzzles. In 1836, Joseph writes in his journal about the visit of Moses, Elias, and Elijah. Then he tells no one about it. He continues to talk as if Elijah will come in some future day. (The apologists say that he did not tell anyone because the event was so sacred, but what good are restored keys if you don't tell anyone you have them?) So, was he writing down the story to see how it read before he trotted it out at some later date?

I am assuming that the dating of his writing is accurate. As you mentioned, stories get backdated. Everyone from Joseph to TSM has an interest in keeping the dates as reported. Critical eyes are missing in the process. Lying about when something was written down, especially in a private journal, is not that hard.

[LostGirl]

If he did believe what he was telling, he had a very malleable memory. Perhaps someone can comment on that possibility. I know that my memory is fallible, but I can't see myself changing the story so much and still believing what I am saying

Maybe he had ASD. I say this only half joking. Someone I know with ASD twists memories around in his head and truly believes that they happened the way he thinks they did. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to do a DSM evaluation on him? Too difficult I would imagine.

[alas]

If he did believe what he was telling, he had a very malleable memory. Perhaps someone can comment on that possibility. I know that my memory is fallible, but I can't see myself changing the story so much and still believing what I am saying

Maybe he had ASD. I say this only half joking. Someone I know with ASD twists memories around in his head and truly believes that they happened the way he thinks they did. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to do a DSM evaluation on him? Too difficult I would imagine.

To do a DSM kind of diagnosis on him, we have to be able to get him to answer questions, like does he really believe the updated version of an event, or is he aware that he is making stuff up. We can make assumptions, such as there was no angel with a drawn sword telling him to marry this girl, then the angel comes back to threaten him again saying he has to marry that girl, rinse repeat. But unless we can run some tests on him, and ask questions, then we are just guessing anyway. Was it a delusion? A hallucination? A lie? A drug induced trip?

Looking at historical evidence we can see some evidence of narcissism, some that looks like a group drug experience, some evidence that he was fully aware that he was lying, and some evidence that he was delusional, and even evidence that he could lead others through a form of hypnosis. We see evidence that he was charismatic, and that he was manipulative.

We can compare him to other charismatic men who started religious movements, and we find that he compares pretty well to Jim Jones and David Koresh, but we don't have them here to get a diagnosis on either, and even if David Koresh fit the definition of sociopath, what about the differences between them?

So, we are back to guessing about did he really believe his claims or did he know he was a con man? We have to answer that question before we could answer the questions in DSM.

[Hagoth]

I need to read this book. I can totally see that, as the audience changed, his story changed.

The funny thing is that the guy who wrote the book says he believes. One of the times I heard Quinn speak he stated that he believes there really were gold plates and an angel.

[Thoughtful]

If he did believe what he was telling, he had a very malleable memory. Perhaps someone can comment on that possibility. I know that my memory is fallible, but I can't see myself changing the story so much and still believing what I am saying

Maybe he had ASD. I say this only half joking. Someone I know with ASD twists memories around in his head and truly believes that they happened the way he thinks they did. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to do a DSM evaluation on him? Too difficult I would imagine.

If you look into memory research, we all do this. Each time to remember something, you're remembering the most recent memory of it, rather than the actual event.

Joseph was probably too charismatic to qualify for the social communication deficits needed for ASD diagnosis though. I don't recall hearing about stereotypy of movements either.

Sociopath/ narcissist seem to fit better.

I've worked with some clients who lie constantly, but they actually appear to believe their own lies. We get nowhere in therapy unless the starting point is accepting their version of events as the only possibility or they can't follow the conversation. They are black and white thinkers, but "the facts" we work with are very skewed and very self serving. It's a time consuming process to make headway.

[blazerb]

I need to read this book. I can totally see that, as the audience changed, his story changed.

The funny thing is that the guy who wrote the book says he believes. One of the times I heard Quinn speak he stated that he believes there really were gold plates and an angel.

I just got the book and read the preface and introduction where he declares his belief. I don't know how. I consider myself a "DNA Mormon," but my belief went out the window when I started asking if the whole thing could be false. So much was explained by that premise that I could not recreate the house of cards that characterized my TBM days.

I would still like to find a book or paper that tries to cover the development of the story we tell today.

[blazerb]

To do a DSM kind of diagnosis on him, we have to be able to get him to answer questions, like does he really believe the updated version of an event, or is he aware that he is making stuff up. We can make assumptions, such as there was no angel with a drawn sword telling him to marry this girl, then the angel comes back to threaten him again saying he has to marry that girl, rinse repeat. But unless we can run some tests on him, and ask questions, then we are just guessing anyway. Was it a delusion? A hallucination? A lie? A drug induced trip?

Looking at historical evidence we can see some evidence of narcissism, some that looks like a group drug experience, some evidence that he was fully aware that he was lying, and some evidence that he was delusional, and even evidence that he could lead others through a form of hypnosis. We see evidence that he was charismatic, and that he was manipulative.

We can compare him to other charismatic men who started religious movements, and we find that he compares pretty well to Jim Jones and David Koresh, but we don't have them here to get a diagnosis on either, and even if David Koresh fit the definition of sociopath, what about the differences between them?

So, we are back to guessing about did he really believe his claims or did he know he was a con man? We have to answer that question before we could answer the questions in DSM.

Are there people who make up a big lie and then believe it afterwards? I'm thinking of the doublethink in 1984. Is knowing that a story is false always an impediment to believing it?

[Palerider]

I need to read this book. I can totally see that, as the audience changed, his story changed.

The funny thing is that the guy who wrote the book says he believes. One of the times I heard Quinn speak he stated that he believes there really were gold plates and an angel.

I've heard this before as well. I wonder if his excommunication had any impact on his statement of belief? I also wonder whether his statement of belief kept the doors of the church history department open for his continued research until he was finally deemed as persona non grata?

[Hagoth]

I've heard this before as well. I wonder if his excommunication had any impact on his statement of belief? I also wonder whether his statement of belief kept the doors of the church history department open for his continued research until he was finally deemed as persona non grata?

It was only a few years ago that I heard them say that, so well after his excommunication. I doubt it keeps doors open for him with the church but maybe it's useful for creating some mystery around his work and possibly keeping some minds a little bit more open. It makes him seem less like less of a threat if he claims to be a believer. I'm not questioning his sincerity, but I can't help but wonder whether his testimony is felt deeply or intellectually spread on the surface.