NOM

While reading Hagoth's annotated essay on the multiple First Vision stories, (which I highly recommend) I also read Joseph's lament on how he said he was treated by the local ministers and people. How they according to him, drew together to shun and persecute him because he believed differently from them.

I wondered if anyone else would see the irony in Joseph's statement below in contrast with the way the church treats someone who decides to leave today?

"Being of very tender years and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends, and to have treated me kindly and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavoured in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me..."

It's also significant when thinking of how Joseph in turn treated those in his day who decided to leave his church. Especially women who refused his advances.

JS seemed so manic in how he treated people: You're out! Then your in. Then you're out again! What you want back in? Absolutely, I will do you a favor by bringing you back in (just swear loyalty to me).

I do have to say, it is much easier then to get back in when JS was around. Now there are countless interviews, pay tithing, letters to First Presidency. Much bigger deal than JS just pulling you into a bear hug and then having a stick pull competition

Raylan Givens wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:04 pm JS seemed so manic in how he treated people: You're out! Then your in. Then you're out again! What you want back in? Absolutely, I will do you a favor by bringing you back in (just swear loyalty to me).

That's one of the things that leads me to believe that JS had one of the "cluster B" personality disorders. I'm not trying to stigmatize people with mental illnesses, I just feel like it helps to explain the puzzle that was JS.

Someone with a personality disorder may be prone to splitting and fluctuating rapidly between idealization and devaluation in their relationships with others. That's what the behavior you describe sounds like. Demanding loyalty falls into that category as well. Someone with a personality disorder often deals with crippling levels of insecurity. Demands for loyalty and rocky relationships can be byproducts of those deep insecurities. It's sad because those behaviors tend to push people away, which only serves to reinforce those feelings of insecurity and abandonment. It becomes a feedback loop.

Like I said. No stigma. Personality disorders occur along a spectrum, we probably all fall somewhere along it; having traces of one thing, mounds of another.

Fascinating observations!

A solid psychological evaluation of Joseph Smith would answer a lot of questions. I wonder if proper medication might have resulted in a dramatically different church - or none at all?

Note: that was Jfro18's essay commentary, not mine. His website has a playful tossed salad of input from both of us.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:02 am Fascinating observations!

A solid psychological evaluation of Joseph Smith would answer a lot of questions. I wonder if proper medication might have resulted in a dramatically different church - or none at all?

Note: that was Jfro18's essay commentary, not mine. His website has a playful tossed salad of input from both of us.

Is it at all possible to stitch together a plausible evaluation based on all first hand JS writings and first hand witness observational writings?

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:17 pm
Is it at all possible to stitch together a plausible evaluation based on all first hand JS writings and first hand witness observational writings?

I suppose it depends on what you define as plausible.

For me the First Vision stuff isn't even top 5 or maybe even top 10... the importance (to me) is that it shows that as how Joseph Smith's theology changed so did his First Vision.

And think about that in the overall pattern -- Joseph Smith also changed revelations to fit his changing theology and even the Book of Mormon to remove the trinity.

Then on top of the changes, we have a pattern where Joseph Smith acts like a sponge and repurposes materials around him. Joseph's 1832 FV account matches Solomon Chamberlain's account almost too well, and we know even through Saints that Solomon visited the Smith household with a pamphlet detailing his own vision account well before Joseph wrote his first account.

So I suppose I'm dodging your overall question because I don't really know that you'd make too much headway trying to find a way to tie them all together in a way that either critics or apologists would agree to, but I think the changes point to the bigger pictures as to how 'Joseph did it.'

Well if you had any doubts that JS was a humble sincere guy and not the narcissistic or boasting person much of his actions and writings would suggest, FAIRMo got you!

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... m/Boasting

It's amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.

I love that last paragraph! Apologists would never dare use that method, said no logical and sane person ever!

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:06 am Well if you had any doubts that JS was a humble sincere guy and not the narcissistic or boasting person much of his actions and writings would suggest, FAIRMo got you!

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... m/Boasting

It's amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.

I love that last paragraph! Apologists would never dare use that method, said no logical and sane person ever!

It's even better when you know that Daniel Peterson wrote that FAIR wiki on the boasting quote: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... stful.html

There are so many issues with DCP's take there:

1. If you're going to insist that the History of the Church is unreliable when it doesn't suit you, then you can never use to bolster your other arguments.

2. Citing a Joseph Smith quote in 1832 and then again in 1844 to show that he was always humble isn't helpful. I think most people would argue that the Joseph Smith of 1844 was a much different person than the 1832 JS was.

3. The idea that the scribes would wait years and then just make this stuff just does not line up with the facts. These scribes would write this stuff down in journals and then years later transfer them over to the History. No one is going to pull that info from memory and just spit it out like that years later.

4. If you're going to argue that anything Joseph didn't personally write is tainted, that would be another problem. Some of his revelations were written in a 3rd person format early on and then changed to first person later... does that mean those revelations are now unreliable?

It's the vintage tactic of wanting it both ways, and DCP is so good at that while chastising those who criticize the church.

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:06 am Well if you had any doubts that JS was a humble sincere guy and not the narcissistic or boasting person much of his actions and writings would suggest, FAIRMo got you!

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... m/Boasting

It's amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.

I love that last paragraph! Apologists would never dare use that method, said no logical and sane person ever!

That's hilarious. We know there were real gold plates because Emma once said she rustled them with her finger through a cloth, right?