Joseph Smith: Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[_Zoidberg]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is BS. I'm sure he was using his insider status to add some credibility to himself, but when has that become a crime? And it doesn't matter if he was not active at the time of writing the book (I'm not sure if he has or has not); if he has ever been a member, he has earned the title of an insider. So in order to be an insider, you need to be going to church at the time of claiming to be one? Then all the dead LDS are not insiders, I suppose. Besides, Palmer's book is not titled "What is being taught in LDS chapels at the time of writing this book"; it's about Mormon origins. He was clearly not there at the time, so how is his own history of membership relevant to the actual Mormon origins other than that he can compare what was being taught about them at church to what actually happened? If you want to nitpick semantics, if he were not active at the time of writing the book, it could have been his view while he was still being active, thus making it an insider's view.

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.

I've done plenty of reading of Das Kapital in college, and I honestly didn't care what Marx was like in his personal life and who he was sleeping with. Surprising, I know.

Of course, we all know that Joseph Smith had no personal agendas whatsoever that could perhaps be explained in a book devoted to his personality, instead of a review of his work that should have nothing whatsoever to do with his possible agenda.

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.

I can take it. But to deny that Joseph Smith and BY had sexual desires towards more than one woman is rather misguided, especially with Joseph Smith writing love letters to his plural wives.

And if all Anderson has to say is "maybe, possibly, could be" what value is there in that?

At least as much value as in saying "Book of Mormon horses could possibly maybe be tapirs". It makes sense when your paradigm incorporates a testimony of the Book of Mormon. Similarly, if you prefer to rely on objective evidence, it makes a lot of sense to say "maybe Joseph Smith seeking prophetic status could be accounted for by a personality disorder" as a possible explanation of his behavior.

Don't you people here keep insisting on facts, not beliefs, not opinions? But only when it suits you?

I don't. I think everything an individual perceives is not very far from opinion or belief. I think of facts as truth by consensus.

I think Joseph Smith was definitely an interesting and unusual historical figure and there is nothing wrong with writing a book about him from some other perspective than that of a TBM; and I'm definitely more intersted in his personality than the actual details of his biography. So even speculation in this area would be of great interest to many. Hopefully, the author isn't trying to make it look like "facts".

Even diagnostic criteria and what is considered to be a disorder have changed throughout the years. So facts are pretty fluid. But I think it very possible that today Joseph Smith would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, as TD has said.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Zoid...

But I think it very possible that today Joseph Smith would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, as TD has said.

Actually I go with Delusion Disorder Grandiose type. :-) But who knows?

Grandiose type: Patients believe that they possess some great and unrecognized talent, have made some important discovery, have a special relationship with a prominent person, or have special religious insight (APA, 2000).

~dancer~

[_Zoidberg]

Hi Zoid...

But I think it very possible that today Joseph Smith would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, as TD has said.

Actually I go with Delusion Disorder Grandiose type. :-) But who knows?

Grandiose type: Patients believe that they possess some great and unrecognized talent, have made some important discovery, have a special relationship with a prominent person, or have special religious insight (APA, 2000).

~dancer~

That's right. Sorry for the confusion. Sounds about right. Maybe he'd get both?

[_charity]

I'm sorry, but this is BS. I'm sure he was using his insider status to add some credibility to himself, but when has that become a crime? And it doesn't matter if he was not active at the time of writing the book (I'm not sure if he has or has not); if he has ever been a member, he has earned the title of an insider.

Maybe he could call himself a "former" insider. But it loses a little punch, don't you think? And being a current insider is important because it identifies the agenda. If one is a "former" insider, then what is the axe they have to grind? I am sure you understand this in terms of bias. If I am no longer an insider, then why am I not and will that affect my ability to retain an unbiased attitude? Don't you say this about apologists all the time? "They are believing members, you can't trust them." Well, the opposite is true, too, then. "They are unbelieving members. YOu can't trust them to tell the truth."

If you want to nitpick semantics, if he were not active at the time of writing the book, it could have been his view while he was still being active, thus making it an insider's view.

Then isn't it a good question to determine when he was active or inactive? And the fact that he was writing against the Church under a pen name during the time he was writing the book has some probititve value.

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.

I've done plenty of reading of Das Kapital in college, and I honestly didn't care what Marx was like in his personal life and who he was sleeping with. Surprising, I know.

It isn't irrelevant personal life and it isn't who a person is sleeping with. It is their viewpoint and what they hope to get out of it that determines agenda. Suppose someone was writing about adoption issues, and they are writing persuasively about eliminating all the limitations on adoptive parents, no age limits, no income requirements, no health requirements. Then you find out they have been trying to adopt a baby and have been refused because they are too old, too poor, and too sick. So then, you would want to look really closely at their sorces and arguments because they have an AGENDA!

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.

I can take it. But to deny that Joseph Smith and BY had sexual desires towards more than one woman is rather misguided, especially with Joseph Smith writing love letters to his plural wives.

I have no quarrel with men loving their wives and writing them love letters. I would hope all the plural wives were loved. What I am referring to is the "they did it just because they wanted sex" type of statements.

And if all Anderson has to say is "maybe, possibly, could be" what value is there in that?

At least as much value as in saying "Book of Mormon horses could possibly maybe be tapirs". It makes sense when your paradigm incorporates a testimony of the Book of Mormon. Similarly, if you prefer to rely on objective evidence, it makes a lot of sense to say "maybe Joseph Smith seeking prophetic status could be accounted for by a personality disorder" as a possible explanation of his behavior.

Okay, let's just get this little double standard thing out in the open. What do you say when someone says, "horses could really be tapirs?" You laugh yourself silly. But you read "possibly Joseph had a personality disorder" and you nod wisely and say what a great insight? At least be consistent.

Don't you people here keep insisting on facts, not beliefs, not opinions? But only when it suits you?

I don't. I think everything an individual perceives is not very far from opinion or belief. I think of facts as truth by consensus.

That is an interesting thought. So if a bunch of people agree that a set of facts mean something, then it is true? I don't think I agree with that. What about others here on the board. ????

I think Joseph Smith was definitely an interesting and unusual historical figure and there is nothing wrong with writing a book about him from some other perspective than that of a TBM; and I'm definitely more intersted in his personality than the actual details of his biography. So even speculation in this area would be of great interest to many. Hopefully, the author isn't trying to make it look like "facts".

I hope everyone can be a sophisticated reader, as it appears you are, and realize that one man's speculation can't be taken as absolute truth.

Even diagnostic criteria and what is considered to be a disorder have changed throughout the years. So facts are pretty fluid. But I think it very possible that today Joseph Smith would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, as TD has said.

Or not.

[_Runtu]

Maybe he could call himself a "former" insider. But it loses a little punch, don't you think? And being a current insider is important because it identifies the agenda. If one is a "former" insider, then what is the axe they have to grind? I am sure you understand this in terms of bias. If I am no longer an insider, then why am I not and will that affect my ability to retain an unbiased attitude? Don't you say this about apologists all the time? "They are believing members, you can't trust them." Well, the opposite is true, too, then. "They are unbelieving members. YOu can't trust them to tell the truth."

All you are doing here is reinforcing the idea that you believe ad hominem is a valid argument. I don't know about you, but I evaluate people's arguments and then decide whether they're trustworthy. Apparently you don't.

Then isn't it a good question to determine when he was active or inactive? And the fact that he was writing against the Church under a pen name during the time he was writing the book has some probititve value.

What possible probitive value does it have in evaluating the validity of his evidence? Again, ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason.

It isn't irrelevant personal life and it isn't who a person is sleeping with. It is their viewpoint and what they hope to get out of it that determines agenda. Suppose someone was writing about adoption issues, and they are writing persuasively about eliminating all the limitations on adoptive parents, no age limits, no income requirements, no health requirements. Then you find out they have been trying to adopt a baby and have been refused because they are too old, too poor, and too sick. So then, you would want to look really closely at their sorces and arguments because they have an AGENDA!

So, what you're saying is that if someone agrees with your agenda, you're less likely to look closely at their sources and arguments. Okay, then.

I have no quarrel with men loving their wives and writing them love letters. I would hope all the plural wives were loved. What I am referring to is the "they did it just because they wanted sex" type of statements.

I agree that's an oversimplistic statement.

Okay, let's just get this little double standard thing out in the open. What do you say when someone says, "horses could really be tapirs?" You laugh yourself silly. But you read "possibly Joseph had a personality disorder" and you nod wisely and say what a great insight? At least be consistent.

I think horses as tapirs are funny because they're a much bigger stretch than the "Joseph had a personality disorder" theory.

That is an interesting thought. So if a bunch of people agree that a set of facts mean something, then it is true? I don't think I agree with that. What about others here on the board. ????

No, it just means there's consensus. All we have are perceptions and our interpretations of them. There's really no way of approaching "truth" that doesn't involve agreeing that a set of facts mean something.

I hope everyone can be a sophisticated reader, as it appears you are, and realize that one man's speculation can't be taken as absolute truth.

I'll buy that.

[_charity]

Hi, runtu.

Zoidberg siad, "What possible probitive value does it have in evaluating the validity of his evidence? Again, ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason

The I replied: "So then, you would want to look really closely at their sorces and arguments because they have an AGENDA!

And you responded: "So, what you're saying is that if someone agrees with your agenda, you're less likely to look closely at their sources and arguments. Okay, then."

We aren't talking about all of us sophisticated critical thinkers. We are talking about the mass book market, you know those people who believe if it appears in print and looks authentic (like the actors on TV in white coats selling aspirin) they take it in whole, hook line and sinker. The ones for whom "insider" gives them the chills and they can hardly wait to read the juicy little stuff. Do they ever examine sources?

[_Runtu]

Hi, runtu.

Zoidberg siad, "What possible probitive value does it have in evaluating the validity of his evidence? Again, ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason

The I replied: "So then, you would want to look really closely at their sorces and arguments because they have an AGENDA!

And you responded: "So, what you're saying is that if someone agrees with your agenda, you're less likely to look closely at their sources and arguments. Okay, then."

We aren't talking about all of us sophisticated critical thinkers. We are talking about the mass book market, you know those people who believe if it appears in print and looks authentic (like the actors on TV in white coats selling aspirin) they take it in whole, hook line and sinker. The ones for whom "insider" gives them the chills and they can hardly wait to read the juicy little stuff. Do they ever examine sources?

Oh, so you're talking about stupid people. LOL.

As for me (I hope I'm not included in the group of stupid people, though I admit to not being particularly sophisticated), I hope I'm not dissuaded by a white lab coat or an ad hominem attack on someone's book.

[_charity]

O someone making grandiose claims about privileged knowledge?

[_Runtu]

O someone making grandiose claims about privileged knowledge?

Sheesh, the word is "insider," and my understanding is that it was the publisher's requested title. Grandiose? Honestly.

[_beastie]

Whenever a conversation like this arises, I try to remember to qualify my statements by conceding that it is impossible to accurately diagnose a dead person. It can be very difficult to accurately diagnose a living person. So this is just speculation, but interesting speculation.

I do tend to the theory that Joseph Smith had some form of bipolar. I do see clues of mood swings in his history, and people with bipolar can suffer from hallucinations which usually are religious in origin, but these alone would not persuade me. What I find very important is the fact that his son, David, did suffer from bipolar. His diagnosis was pretty conclusive, using the language of the time period. This is a red flag that the tendency to mood disorders existed somewhere in the family line. Emma certainly does not appear to have suffered from a mood disorder. Unless one accepts Joseph Smith as a true prophet, then it is undeniable that he suffered from grandiosity. I think his period of marrying several young wives in a short time span could indicate hypersexuality, which is a symptom of bipolar mania, to say nothing of crowning himself king, declaring himself a serious candidate for president, etc. The depressive episodes are more hidden, as they often are, but clues in his diaries and journals are still there.

People who suffer from untreated bipolar disorder for a long period of time often develop comorbid personality disorders along with the primary disorder. Their inner lives are confusing and even chaotic, and when people are suffered from fractured internal lives, they develop dysfunctional mechanisms to try and control the world. I think it would be expected that someone suffering from long untreated bipolar eventually develop narcissistic personality traits as well.

I have mixed feelings about whether or not he could be considered a full-blown narcissist. I don't mean to nit-pick, but to me, a full blown narcissist is literally incapable of seeing other human beings as "real", as having feelings and needs to be respected. Other people are just things to be manipulated, and often full blown narcissist will be violent within his/her family. While Joseph Smith certainly emotionally abused Emma with his philandering, I haven't seen good evidence that he was physically abusive of her or their children, and he was capable of great acts of kindness as well as acts of extraordinary selfishness. So, for me, I would view the narcissism as a trait, not a full blown disorder, and tend to associate it with untreated bipolar.

Full disclosure - I have three close family members who suffer from various forms of bipolar disorder, and studied it quite a bit in order to best help them. It is possible that having focused on it so much has made me 'see' it when it doesn't exist, if you know what I mean. But, again, I think the fact that David had serious bipolar that left him institutionalized is serious evidence.