Joseph Smith as Fraud

Notes from a manuscript:

Drawing on principles enunciated by the great German scholar Friedrich Blass, Hugh Nibley has argued that, in examining the authorship of a document whose authenticity is in dispute, the initial presumption should always be that the document is what it claims to be. Lightly assuming the existence of a genius forger is, for a number of reasons, not a sound scholarly method.[1] Yet, of course, that is precisely what is most commonly done in the case of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the other documents that he gave to the world.

It was long felt that Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon, for example, out of a deliberate desire to deceive. Perhaps (rather foolishly, considering the way his life actually turned out) Joseph thought that the scheme was a good way to make money. As Hugh Nibley remarks, Joseph is assumed to be “a forger who at one moment is so clever and adroit as to imitate the archaic poetry of the desert to perfection and supply us with genuine Egyptian names, and yet so incredibly stupid as to think that the best way to fool people and get money out of them is to write an exceedingly difficult historical epic of six hundred pages.”[2] Nonetheless, and despite its credibility problems, this remains a popular view in many circles.[3]  Still, more recently, a few have suggested a kinder, gentler version of the thesis that he was a conscious deceiver. They contend that, perhaps, he wrote the Book of Mormon as a pia fraus, a well-intended deception, a “pious fraud.”[4] For instance, a Lutheran pastor wrote a book in 1980 in which he argued that Joseph designed, by means of his Book of Mormon, to combat the heresy of deism, to reconcile sectarian factions, and to defend the existence of God.[5] There have also been discussions, to which we shall return below, about whether or not Joseph acted alone in creating the Book of Mormon and, indeed, Mormonism in general. Many have believed that he must have had allies and co-conspirators.

With regard to the notion that Joseph might have been sincere but mistaken, many theories have been proposed. It has been suggested, for instance, that Joseph was an epileptic—as if that, even if it were true, would really explain anything. It has also been proposed that he was paranoid, or psychologically dissociative. For reasons that will partially but clearly appear below, such explanations simply will not account for the facts. It seems, therefore, that, as Hugh Nibley has insisted, “Joseph Smith was either telling the truth or he was a criminal—not just a fool—and no sentimental compromises will settle anything.”[6] Finally, though, some, particularly among fundamentalist Protestants, have contended that he was demonic.[7] Such charges are, by nature, more difficult to deal with, since they can accept virtually all evidence but, by turning it on its head, effectively dismiss it.  Again, though, as we shall see, the overall tenor of Joseph Smith’s story and the content of the works he produced seems to rule them out.

[1] See Hugh Nibley, “New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study,” in Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989), 55-57; also Friedrich Blass, “Hermeneutik und Kritik,” in Iwan von Müller, ed., Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 1, Einleitende und Hilfs-Disziplinen (Munich: Beck, 1886), 127-272 (especially 268-271). [See Blass.]

[2] Nibley, “New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study,” 59.

[3] Insert source from Barnes and Noble.

[4] The notion, and the phrase, are borrowed from Ovid, Metamorphoses, 9:711. 

[5] Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism: Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1980); reissued in revised form as Robert N. Hullinger, Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992).

[6] Nibley, “New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study,” 65.

[7] See Louis C. Midgley, “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Critics and Their Theories,” in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo: FARMS, 1997), 101-139, for a chronicle and analysis of several basic responses to the Book of Mormon.

***

By the way, an extraordinarily — but characteristically — vicious new column has appeared in the Deseret News:

“Love and the divine fellowship”

The malignant narcissism of its author is almost overpowering.