Book of Mormon as a failed money-making scheme

[rkminc]

Various theories have been ascribed to Joseph Smith's motivations for producing the Book of Mormon. I'm curious if there's been any scholarly attempt to ascribe the motivation and production of the Book of Mormon purely as a profit-making venture? To me, it seems a pretty compelling argument for the existence of the Book of Mormon, but I haven't seen much emphasis on it in my readings. Key points might include:

• Original price for the Book of Mormon was to be $1.75 x 5000 copies for the original print run would be $8,750 in 1830 which would be $275K-$300K in today's dollars (gross revenue)
• In Early 1830 Joseph sent Hiram P., Oliver C., Joseph K., Josiah S. to Canada to sell the Copyright expecting to fetch $8000. In today's dollars around $250K-$270K.
• Total expected haul: $525K-$570K in today's money.
• If Joseph and his family took a significant share of this it would've placed his family squarely in the upper-middle class of society by today's statistics. Not bad for a couple of years work, if that.
• Quote ascribed to Martin Harris (the "Angel Investor" if you will) to his wife: "if you will let me alone I will make money out of it"

The fact that the business plan was not a very good one - and fully failed - is kind of irrelevant, at least in my mind. And yes, obviously Joseph soon moved on to other motivations and machinations, but for a minute there, book and copyright sales seemed like a lucrative possibility. I'm mainly just curious if the argument has been seriously considered or given treatment anywhere when considering the amount of wealth that would have been at stake.

[Dr. Shades]

Hmm. With all due respect, I thought this was the standard assumption among all disbelievers in the Book of Mormon as to the motive behind its creation.

[Moksha]

Hmm. With all due respect, I thought this was the standard assumption among all disbelievers in the Book of Mormon as to the motive behind its creation.

Doesn't Dan Vogel believe the book's creation stems from an act of piety?

[Dr. Shades]

Hmm. With all due respect, I thought this was the standard assumption among all disbelievers in the Book of Mormon as to the motive behind its creation.

Doesn't Dan Vogel believe the book's creation stems from an act of piety?

Dan Vogel’s belief is non-standard.

[drumdude]

Doesn't Dan Vogel believe the book's creation stems from an act of piety?

Dan Vogel’s belief is non-standard.

How does one know what the standard belief is?

[Physics Guy]

I think the standard non-Mormon view is that Smith was trying to do what he actually did, namely become a cult leader. Making money directly, from selling the Book of Mormon, was probably not the main aim, though it could certainly have been a side project.

My own reason for thinking this is that the dictation process for the Book of Mormon seems to have been staged to make it seem mysterious. Perhaps it was only staged that way for occasional visitors, but the sheet and rock and hat and dictation spiel might even have been consistent enough to keep people like Martin Harris and maybe Emma Smith believing that, whether or not the Book was a real revelation, it was really dictated from behind a sheet, with a stone in a hat.

Composing the book by dictating to a scribe would probably just have been easier for Smith than writing it out himself. Plenty of writers wrote that way in the past, and some do it even today, with dictation software. The sheet and hat and rock rigmarole, on the other hand, was surely an inconvenience that was only worth doing in order to mount a pretence that this was all miraculous revelation. I don't think Smith would have bothered with it as he did, if he had only been planning to write a book that would sell.

Conceivably the supernatural trappings were only a marketing scheme to make the book sell better, but I expect that Smith had probably seen more prosperous preachers than prosperous authors, and was thinking primarily about becoming a professional prophet, right from the start.

In my mind this would have been perfectly consistent with Smith pursuing book sales as a side project. I don't think it would have interfered with his bid to be a prophet at all, even if it had become well known that he had gotten rich from selling his miraculous book. On the contrary, I reckon he would have used publishing success to bolster his case as a prophet, and I figure the pitch would have worked. A text for which thousands of people had paid would have been seen as more likely to be a new Scripture, not less.

[Kishkumen]

Knowing the historical Joseph Smith to the extent that I do, I think it is fair to say that he thought it completely non-contradictory to make money for himself and do good in the world by being a prophet. Other people see that as being a con artist, but I do not agree that a money-making motive is exclusive of sincere religious belief. It is possible for both qualities to reside in the same person or enterprise. Whether that is a good thing or not is another question.

[Physics Guy]

For that matter, I think he could have been both a sincere prophet and a conscious con artist. I don't think there's a sharp line between those at all. A pious fraud honestly thinks that they're tricking people into believing the truth. And being a prophet is a pretty good gig, at least unless things go wrong, so honestly believing that one is a prophet is not necessarily a noble conviction that's incompatible with criminal intent. It could be narcissism.

[huckelberry]

For that matter, I think he could have been both a sincere prophet and a conscious con artist. I don't think there's a sharp line between those at all. A pious fraud honestly thinks that they're tricking people into believing the truth. And being a prophet is a pretty good gig, at least unless things go wrong, so honestly believing that one is a prophet is not necessarily a noble conviction that's incompatible with criminal intent. It could be narcissism.

Physics Guy, I agree. For me this sort of line of thought is the only way that makes sense of Joseph Smith. A person might decide that producing a theater, plates and all, to sell a truth that the person believes people need is justified. The transaction could financially and socially benefit the author making the transaction more attractive. Yes narcissism could facilitate the deal to overcome the qualms most people would have about such a transaction.

[sock puppet]

For that matter, I think he could have been both a sincere prophet and a conscious con artist. I don't think there's a sharp line between those at all. A pious fraud honestly thinks that they're tricking people into believing the truth. And being a prophet is a pretty good gig, at least unless things go wrong, so honestly believing that one is a prophet is not necessarily a noble conviction that's incompatible with criminal intent. It could be narcissism.

Physics Guy, I agree. For me this sort of line of thought is the only way that makes sense of Joseph Smith. A person might decide that producing a theater, plates and all, to sell a truth that the person believes people need is justified. The transaction could financially and socially benefit the author making the transaction more attractive. Yes narcissism could facilitate the deal to overcome the qualms most people would have about such a transaction.

That might explain the different notions inside one's, namely Joseph Smith, Jr.'s, cranium. But what about the paradox of Jesus being involved in choosing a narcissist to carry forth the word of God? In Matthew 22:36-40, we learn that the second great commandment is to love your neighbor as thyself. One who treat his fellow mankind with love the polar opposite of a narcissist who only thinks about and loves himself. How can one be a conscious con artist and in any way, to any degree be approaching satisfying that second great commandment? Is Jesus that bi-polar that 1800 years after pronouncing that one is to love his fellow man as he loves himself, Jesus can choose as his "faithful" vessel a narcissistic con artist to restore gospel in its fullness? (It should be kept in mind that the LDS constantly claim that one must be worthy for a calling.)