Joseph Smith: Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[_Dr. Shades]

Anyone out there read "Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith" by Robert D. Anderson?

I have. It's a great book.

Joseph Smith is an enigma to me.

At times selfless and generous; at other times incredibly self-absorbed.
Humble, yet boasting.
Religious yet concerned about the things of the world.
A loving husband, yet a secretive serial polygamist.

Much of this is explained quite neatly under the narcissistic personality disorder paradigm (heh). The "good" Joseph would manifest around people who were in his good graces; the "bad" Joseph would manifest when in the presence of people he found valueless.

[_charity]

What a strange way to look at Joseph Smith. Strictly speaking, the above is quite wrong. What we have is the sum total of every witness to what Joseph Smith did and said. And we create a "version" (your word) by how we interpret that totality of evidence. Trying to squeeze a complicated and often contradictory life into "pro" and "con" versions seems rather self-serving.

What we have is SOME of what Joseph did and said. And very little of it which came from any individuals who were not firmly on one side or the other. I think when we have this kind of situation, it is even more difficult to come very close to what is true.

[_Blixa]

What a strange way to look at Joseph Smith. Strictly speaking, the above is quite wrong. What we have is the sum total of every witness to what Joseph Smith did and said. And we create a "version" (your word) by how we interpret that totality of evidence. Trying to squeeze a complicated and often contradictory life into "pro" and "con" versions seems rather self-serving.

What we have is SOME of what Joseph did and said. And very little of it which came from any individuals who were not firmly on one side or the other. I think when we have this kind of situation, it is even more difficult to come very close to what is true.

And yet you seem to know already what is "true."

And most of these pscychobio's have to discount what Joseph Smith said because the psychologist/psychiatrist paradigm does not allow for visions, revelations, etc. So, if at the beginning you disallow the truth, then everything else built on that foundation is false.

In other words, it is only from one "side" that we can and do get the truth, and anything other than that side---including the vast work of psychologists of all stripes---is false.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I diagnosed him with diabetes.

[_truth dancer]

Actually, dancer, we have two pretty consistent views of Joseph Smith, the pro and the con.

Wow... I completely disagree. Maybe you see it this way but I do not think most people who study the life of Joseph Smith agree with you.

It is not possible to reconcile the two.

Of course it is possible to acknowledge all sides of a human and form a picture of him or her. Perhaps you cannot do so, but it certainly is done frequently and with many enigmatic historical figures.

And most of these pscychobio's have to discount what Joseph Smith said because the psychologist/psychiatrist paradigm does not allow for visions, revelations, etc. So, if at the beginning you disallow the truth, then everything else built on that foundation is false.

Ohhh dear. Come now. Disallowing the truth?

Most good psychologists would proceed to diagnose Joseph Smith like any other person, and arrive at a diagnosis based on various symptoms, behaviors, test results, etc. etc. etc.

This was my point. If Joseph Smith were alive today, he would most certainly be diagnosed with a form of personality disorder.

Joseph Smith was a human man, why do you think he should be treated so differently than all others who make similar claims, engage in similar behavior, and present similar stories?

~dancer~

[Guest]

What we have is SOME of what Joseph did and said. And very little of it which came from any individuals who were not firmly on one side or the other. I think when we have this kind of situation, it is even more difficult to come very close to what is true.

And yet you seem to know already what is "true."

No. I don't know what Joseph Smith was like personally. I never met the man, irregardless of how old my grandhcildren think I am, I am not that old. There were people who lived and worked with him who loved him and said he was a good man. There were others, who at one time or another, were in that close cirlce, who hated him and said he was the worst man that ever lived.

I don't know if he had a personality disorder or not. But neither does anyone else.

The truth that I do know, is that whatever he was or was not, he was a propeht of God. But that isn't what we are talking about in this thread.

And most of these pscychobio's have to discount what Joseph Smith said because the psychologist/psychiatrist paradigm does not allow for visions, revelations, etc. So, if at the beginning you disallow the truth, then everything else built on that foundation is false.

In other words, it is only from one "side" that we can and do get the truth, and anything other than that side---including the vast work of psychologists of all stripes---is false.

I haven't read all the psychobio's. But I know that Vogel's attempt starts with the position that you cannot explain any of Joseph Smith's behavior by a real vision, a real revelation, a real contact with God because those things do not exist. So, after he has eliminated those, then he only has what is left. What kind of scientific endeavor starts out with a "this cannot be considered" theory?

Believe me, I know the world of psychologists. We are a squirrely bunch. Lots of nuts. That is what draws most of us in. We are trying to explain our own behavior. Not that psychology doesn't have a lot to tell us about cognitive processes and human behavior. But I would say, just off the top of my head, that psychology has also contributed more cockamaimey theories that have been debunked over time than any other discipline.

The idea that you can diagnose without the presence of the subject is one of those. But the things is, you can't disprove them because, guess what, you can never check back with the subject. Pretty slick little trick. Say something that cannot possibly be disproved becuase you lack the evidence and won't ever be able to get it.

Ask me about the evidence for reincarnation sometime./b]

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I have it on good word that it is possible Joseph Smith had acid reflux.

[_Zoidberg]

Although I haven't read the book, I highly doubt that the author is actually diagnosing Joseph Smith. He's probably just presenting a hypothesis. And I'm willing to bet his choice of terminology is much more professional than that of the so-called "scholars" at FARMS when they are engaged in "reviewing" (read: making nasty statements about people's motives and intelligence).

[_Yoda]

No. I don't know what Joseph Smith was like personally. I never met the man, irregardless of how old my grandhcildren think I am, I am not that old.

LOL!

I love this! This is signature-worthy!

;)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Although I haven't read the book, I highly doubt that the author is actually diagnosing Joseph Smith. He's probably just presenting a hypothesis. And I'm willing to bet his choice of terminology is much more professional than that of the so-called "scholars" at FARMS when they are engaged in "reviewing" (read: making nasty statements about people's motives and intelligence).

Does FARMS ever make a good point in a review?