Joseph Smith: Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Any otolaryngologists out there wanna analyze my take on Joseph Smith's sinus issue?

[_charity]

I get the sense that some folks use the term "narcissistic" in the sense one is full of him/herself which is different than NPD which is more a person with very low self-esteem who wants to appear great. So long as there is the applause and glory they seem to manage but when the lights go down, or when others aren't clapping, another person appears.

I'm not an expert but I truly get the sense that Joseph Smith did indeed believe he was divinely appointed from God which is consistent with delusions of grandure. In addition he seems to think he is receiving messages from God everywhere and in everything. (Very similar to others I know with this disorder). The voices in his head, the peep stones, the hat, the papyri, a skeleton, and anything else, seem to him to be some sort of revelation. Again this fits with delusion disorder.

The thing is to truly diagnose someone with a mental illness, particularly a personality disorder, one must be very familiar with all the possible multiple variables. It is a rather complicated process.


~dancer~

This is where the rubber hits the road. The diagnosis or suspicion of a diagnosis rest squarely on only one question. Were Joseph Smith's visions real? If they were then he was divinely apponted from God, there are no delusions of grandeur, and yes, he was receiving messages form God.

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.

[_karl61]

I get the sense that some folks use the term "narcissistic" in the sense one is full of him/herself which is different than NPD which is more a person with very low self-esteem who wants to appear great. So long as there is the applause and glory they seem to manage but when the lights go down, or when others aren't clapping, another person appears.

I'm not an expert but I truly get the sense that Joseph Smith did indeed believe he was divinely appointed from God which is consistent with delusions of grandure. In addition he seems to think he is receiving messages from God everywhere and in everything. (Very similar to others I know with this disorder). The voices in his head, the peep stones, the hat, the papyri, a skeleton, and anything else, seem to him to be some sort of revelation. Again this fits with delusion disorder.

The thing is to truly diagnose someone with a mental illness, particularly a personality disorder, one must be very familiar with all the possible multiple variables. It is a rather complicated process.


~dancer~

This is where the rubber hits the road. The diagnosis or suspicion of a diagnosis rest squarely on only one question. Were Joseph Smith's visions real? If they were then he was divinely apponted from God, there are no delusions of grandeur, and yes, he was receiving messages form God.

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.

I submit this for the post of the month!

[_Blixa]

The month, how 'bout the millenium?

Good grief.

[_charity]

Thank you, but it isn't really that deep an insight. After all, any of the other questions that are debated around here, ad nauseum, are really made moot with the answer to that one question.

[_Zoidberg]

Thank you, but it isn't really that deep an insight. After all, any of the other questions that are debated around here, ad nauseum, are really made moot with the answer to that one question.

I support the nomination. Is it mentally unhealthy to arrive at conclusions based on available evidence?

[_beastie]

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.

This is incorrect, anyway. Even if Joseph Smith was really a prophet, sane people could still refuse to believe him because there is no empirical evidence supporting that claim. Believers justify this by explaining that God wants to try our faith. The only reason faith is necessary is due to the lack of empirical evidence. Hence, sane people would still be justified to refuse to believe him, they would just end up surprised by a strange God who concocted a bizarre test.

[_charity]

Thank you, but it isn't really that deep an insight. After all, any of the other questions that are debated around here, ad nauseum, are really made moot with the answer to that one question.

I support the nomination. Is it mentally unhealthy to arrive at conclusions based on available evidence?

But when you pick and choose between which evidence you want to believe, it complicates the decision making process.

How grounded in reality was the O.J. Simpson jury? One juror didn't believe the DNA because she took a pregnancy test once and it was wrong. If they really were representative of the population, at least three of thr jurors made their decision based on the belief that a sport star wouldn't do something like that. They all looked at the evidence and decided he was innocent. And then what about all those idiots who think that because the jury found him not guilty that he really wasn't?

[_Runtu]

Thank you, but it isn't really that deep an insight. After all, any of the other questions that are debated around here, ad nauseum, are really made moot with the answer to that one question.

I support the nomination. Is it mentally unhealthy to arrive at conclusions based on available evidence?

But when you pick and choose between which evidence you want to believe, it complicates the decision making process.

How grounded in reality was the O.J. Simpson jury? One juror didn't believe the DNA because she took a pregnancy test once and it was wrong. If they really were representative of the population, at least three of thr jurors made their decision based on the belief that a sport star wouldn't do something like that. They all looked at the evidence and decided he was innocent. And then what about all those idiots who think that because the jury found him not guilty that he really wasn't?

Yeah, I'm always amazed at people who filter out information that they don't like.

[_charity]

Yeah, I'm always amazed at people who filter out information that they don't like.

I know, runtu. You are meaning to say the LDS are doing this. I think many anti's do this, too.

Then there are others who look at it all, evaluate it for credibility, chose that which is credible, and discard the rest. I think that applies to both LDS and anti's. Remember my friend Givens--there is evidence enough for a life of credible belief or dismissive denial. What we chose says more about who we are than the nature of the evidence.