Joseph Smith: Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[_charity]

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).

So, did you just make up your statement with no basis of facts, zoid? Would you like to post some of the "nasty statements" you find so objectionable so we can see what your speculations about Anderson's book are based on?

[_Runtu]

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.

Then why on earth are you reducing it to black-and-white, true/not true, pro/con?

[_guy sajer]

Anyone out there read "Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith" by Robert D. Anderson?
I think Narcissistic Personality Disorder explains so much about Joseph Smith.

What do you think?

ktall

I am very sorry about your experience with your husband. You and your children should get appropriate counseling to help you deal with this devastating experience.

Speaking as a person with training in psychology, it is next to impossible to diagnose a person who is not available for interivew. Dr. Anderson, who is a psychiatrist, should know better. Psychobiolgraphies are a pop pheneomenon. Really popular because you can take potshots at a target which cannot be proven. It is always easy to go backwards in a person's life and prove almost anything you want.

For instance, he makes a major point that Joseph Smith had a "troubled" childhood. What events were cited? Poverty. Childhood illness. Death of a close family member. How many people can you name who would fit that profile? Abraham Lincoln for one.


When you only have a historical record, any event can be interpreted in different ways. What do you do when one witness says the person was cold and unfeeling, and another says he was warm and loving? When a major event is interpreted by two different eye witnesses in the different ways?

Psychobio's are on shaky ground.

Again, I am sorry for your experience. Please get help.

So, tell us Charity, precisely what specifically are your credentials in psychology that you seem to enjoy touting so much?

I'm skeptical about your claims to expertise.

Studying something in an undergraduate program decades ago (if this is the case) hardly makes one an expert. I know hundreds of Econ undergrads, for example, and I can tell you that not a single one of them can credibly be called an economist or claim any particular "expertise" in economics.

So, what of it?

[_Yoda]

So, tell us Charity, precisely what specifically are your credentials in psychology that you seem to enjoy touting so much?

I'm skeptical about your claims to expertise.

Studying something in an undergraduate program decades ago (if this is the case) hardly makes one an expert. I know hundreds of Econ undergrads, for example, and I can tell you that not a single one of them can credibly be called an economist or claim any particular "expertise" in economics.

So, what of it?

I respect Charity's expertise in this field. She has Master's degree in Psychology, and is a retired Associate Professor of Psychology.

[_charity]

So, tell us Charity, precisely what specifically are your credentials in psychology that you seem to enjoy touting so much?

I'm skeptical about your claims to expertise.

Studying something in an undergraduate program decades ago (if this is the case) hardly makes one an expert. I know hundreds of Econ undergrads, for example, and I can tell you that not a single one of them can credibly be called an economist or claim any particular "expertise" in economics.

So, what of it?

I have a master's degree in psychology from Portland State University. I got my bachelor's degree in psych in 1962 from BYU. Stayed home and raised 6 children. Went back to graduate school in 1988, got the master's degree in 1991, and taught psychology in a community college until I retired in 2003. My master's thesis was in the area of behavioral psychology.

Thanks, liz. In the community college system we didn't have any kind of professor rankings. I was an instructor. I taught general psych, human sexuality, and developmental psych. I also taught some psych courses in the criminal justice program at times. Those were more in the field of abnormal psych.

[_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).

So, did you just make up your statement with no basis of facts, zoid? Would you like to post some of the "nasty statements" you find so objectionable so we can see what your speculations about Anderson's book are based on?

With pleasure. Davis Bitton about Palmer from The Charge of a Man with a Broken Lance (But Look What He Doesn't Tell Us):

He has lived a life of deceit for many years.

How often does Palmer attend sacrament meeting? He doesn't tell us.

Midgley (Prying into Palmer - the title alone speaks volumes) accuses him of having "anti-mormon handlers" and admits to "probing Palmer's background (or beliefs)". More:

Palmer appears to have filled the empty space generated by his cynicism with sentimentality about Jesus

Mitton and James on Quinn (A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of
Latter-day Saint History):

Quinn's agenda-driven history is written from a homosexual point of view. It reflects a sexual preoccupation contrary to his Latter-day Saint background and represents a complete break with his Mormon past. Quinn's book is an attempt to rewrite Latter-day Saint history in his own image accompanying his movement from authentic, traditional Latter-day Saint values to homosexual activism.

Tom Nibley about the Tanners (A Look at Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon
): "the febrile brains of our dedicated cognoscenti".

Even John A. Twetdtnes admits that people at FARMS engage in ad homs in his "review" of our honorable founder's article.

But feel free to wallow in your denial, which I find even more puzzling given that you yourself are prone to making judgements about repressed sexual desires people supposedly have.

Edited: if Anderson actually does diagnose Joseph Smith and speaks in absolute terms in his book, he shouldn't be calling himself a psychologist. In that case, he would be right up there with Dr. Phil. But since people, especially Shades, have given positive reviews of it, I highly doubt that.

And stop rubbing your degrees in everyone's face. You only pull them out when it's convenient for you. You prefer to ignore the fact that neuroscience has offered a possible and very plausible (definitely more so than gold plates carried away by an angel) explanation of religious experience.

[_moksha]

And most of these psychbios 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.

I an uncertain of this. I have read speculation that many of the Prophets may have had a bi-polar illness. One could argue for delusional thinking, but is it not possible that this condition may actually make them more prone to receiving messages from God? This mystery can potentially rest upon the knowledge that when one is in an altered state, one is able to discern an alternate reality.

[_Blixa]

My books and notes are packed up for my flight later tonight, or I could add to Zoidberg's list, as well. As it is let me just mention the sneering use of "housewife" in reference to Sandra Tanner by Lou Midgley. I only have a post I made on RfM in 2005, in which I don't find the title of the article I was responding to, but I'm sure it would be easy to find---it was a round up of EV "anti-mormonism":

"I hardly think the topic was worth that amount of coverage. The kind of "anti-mormon" groups he targets are hardly worth giving half a thought to, let alone beating and beating and beating to death at such length.

Which is why the whole thing suspiciously sounds like "protesting too much." It must upset the Brethren no end that their wonderful, marvelous, "fastest growing," little social club can't draw a better class of detractors. Especially when there's not a whole lot of difference between them in the first place!

What else would necessitate unleashing the dogs on people that are, by FARMS own admission, "cranks" that no one even takes seriously? "Countercultists see nothing odd in this kind of rhetorical exaggeration and overkill." Yeah, well, takes one to know one, Midgley.

Personally I prefer rhetoric like "Mormonism is a damnable heresy from the toilet of hell" to the ad hominem pettiness of FARMS and FAIR: "In addition, Jerald Tanner, who is shy and reclusive, lacks the ability to function as a preacher," or this gem of hypocrisy, "Sandra Tanner, a Salt Lake City housewife..." I wonder if Sister Midgley is used to hearing "housewife" as a term of disparagement?"

[_Zoidberg]

My books and notes are packed up for my flight later tonight, or I could add to Zoidberg's list, as well. As it is let me just mention the sneering use of "housewife" in reference to Sandra Tanner by Lou Midgley. I only have a post I made on RfM in 2005, in which I don't find the title of the article I was responding to, but I'm sure it would be easy to find---it was a round up of EV "anti-mormonism":

"I hardly think the topic was worth that amount of coverage. The kind of "anti-mormon" groups he targets are hardly worth giving half a thought to, let alone beating and beating and beating to death at such length.

Which is why the whole thing suspiciously sounds like "protesting too much." It must upset the Brethren no end that their wonderful, marvelous, "fastest growing," little social club can't draw a better class of detractors. Especially when there's not a whole lot of difference between them in the first place!

What else would necessitate unleashing the dogs on people that are, by FARMS own admission, "cranks" that no one even takes seriously? "Countercultists see nothing odd in this kind of rhetorical exaggeration and overkill." Yeah, well, takes one to know one, Midgley.

Personally I prefer rhetoric like "Mormonism is a damnable heresy from the toilet of hell" to the ad hominem pettiness of FARMS and FAIR: "In addition, Jerald Tanner, who is shy and reclusive, lacks the ability to function as a preacher," or this gem of hypocrisy, "Sandra Tanner, a Salt Lake City housewife..." I wonder if Sister Midgley is used to hearing "housewife" as a term of disparagement?"

Mormon housewife - fulfilling her divine role. Anti-mormon housewife - backwoods and incompetent ignoramus. Come on, Blixa, you've got to realize that God is only pleased with housewifery when it is done in righteousness. Otherwise, all those donuts, casseroles and quilts will bring the family unto destruction.

[_charity]

With pleasure. Davis Bitton about Palmer from The Charge of a Man with a Broken Lance (But Look What He Doesn't Tell Us): (Add Midgely in here to consolidate.)


Thanks zoid. I am glad you are bringing these up. Do you remember what Palmer titled his book? An Insiders View of Mormon Origins. He made himself a part of the text. Why do you suppose he titled it that? Because "outsiders" are seen as objective (read "dull") while an insider spices it up. But by doing so, then he made his insiders status part of the text to be looked at and criticized if needed. Anything that examines his insider status is part of the necessary review.


Mitton and James on Quinn (A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of
Latter-day Saint History):.

Is it important to know if a person is expressing a viewpoint with an agenda in mind? When you read [i]Das Kapital/i] does it make any different to you who the author is and what you know about him? Agenda's make a difference.


Tom Nibley about the Tanners (A Look at Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon
): "the febrile brains of our dedicated cognoscenti".

I will accede to that, if there is no backup reasoning for that. And why would I disagree with anything Tvetdnes says (with a V and not a W of course.
But feel free to wallow in your denial, which I find even more puzzling given that you yourself are prone to making judgements about repressed sexual desires people supposedly have.

The only time I have mentioned repressed sexual desires is when people are making charges of sexual desires against other people. Kind of if you want to dish it out, you ought to be able to take it.

Edited: if Anderson actually does diagnose Joseph Smith and speaks in absolute terms in his book, he shouldn't be calling himself a psychologist. In that case, he would be right up there with Dr. Phil. But since people, especially Shades, have given positive reviews of it, I highly doubt that.

And if all Anderson has to say is "maybe, possibly, could be" what value is there in that? Don't you people here keep insisting on facts, not beliefs, not opinions? But only when it suits you?

And stop rubbing your degrees in everyone's face. You only pull them out when it's convenient for you. You prefer to ignore the fact that neuroscience has offered a possible and very plausible (definitely more so than gold plates carried away by an angel) explanation of religious experience.

I was asked, for Pete's sake, zoid. And I know neuroscience has given a possible and plausible explanation for religious experience. Even if they could PROVE that this adeuqately explains SOME religious experiences, they couldn't PROVE it causes ALL religious experiences.