I used have a blog post by that title, "Did Joseph Smith have Narcissistic Personality Disorder?" but my blog got accidentally deleted. Anyway, I decided to repost that article again if anyone is interested at:

https://www.postmormonperspective.com/2018/09/did-joseph-smith-have-narcissistic.html

I also added some new material.

I saw that a lot of exMormons found it helpful and linked to it, so thought I should make sure it is back on the web.

Cheers

How funny I was just reading a book about how co-dependents who exist to caretake others selflessly, are drawn like magnets to narcissists who demand adoration while never returning affection.

And I think that definitely operates in the cult which demand so much without giving anything back.

It does seem like NPD people have structured the cult.

I agree completely. Just look at who seems most in charge, those like Dallan Oaks. I remember being a 19 year old missionary in the MTC in 1995 and hearing him speak and thinking even back then as a TBM of sorts, that he was full of himself. I would say now that he likely had/has NPD or at least narcissistic tendencies.

Codependents are definitely drawn to Narcissists and vice versa, so it's not wonder why the top LDS leaders try to mold the rank and file member into a codependent role, as they take on the "father knows best" controlling role. Swearing temple oaths, no loud laughter, "follow the prophet" hymn, garments, all generate codependents. I mean, many TBMs won't even watch a movie if their daddies in Utah won't approve of it! WTF.

This site is interesting on this: http://humanmagnetsyndrome.com/

Wonder-Full Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Codependents are definitely drawn to Narcissists

Yes I was reading Rosenberg book on human magnets, also the Malkin one which you reference in your article. Great insights there!!!

You article is an amazing feat of scholarship.

I completely agree with the points you raised.

And after I read Rosenberg I saw the parallel... the worship of the men, the selfless giving required from the women, the fault finding.

Being seen but not heard, that role. Thank you for a most interesting article!
>

full-blown psychopathy.

Everything in the historical record indicates that Joseph Smith fits somewhere in the personality disorder spectrum, probably solidly in the middle or near the extreme end of the narcissistic personality disorder range.

I can't really think of any episode in the historical record where Joseph Smith demonstrated any genuine concern, anxiety or empathy with regard to the well-being of anyone other than himself.

It was always and in every instance ALL about him. How great he was, how persecuted he was, how inspired he was, how close to God and angels he was....

He would make up a bunch of self-serving pronouncements and then call up God on the revelation hot line to get God's ex post facto confirmation. (See D&C 132).

Even the story of the origin of the Word of Wisdom reveals how shallow and self-absorbed the guy was. There is no historical evidence that indicates that he was greatly concerned about the health and welfare of his followers and spent many late nights pleading with the Lord for guidance on things that could be done to protect them from disease and death. By all accounts, the only thing indicated in the historical record was that his "revelation" about the Word of Wisdom was an expedient measure to get Emma to stop nagging him about the mess the guys were making with their tobacco spitting--and Joe, in a classic demonstration of pettiness, threw in a prohibition on tea drinking to show Emma and her friends who was still boss.

If a deal had been on the table for him at Carthage that meant selling out all the "Saints" in Nauvoo (and if he thought he could get away with it without being lynched by the "Saints"), he probably would've taken it in a heartbeat.

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't really think of any episode in the historical record where Joseph Smith demonstrated any genuine concern, anxiety or empathy with regard to the well-being of anyone other than
himself.

Yes, the two authors referenced by the OP, Rosenberg and Malkin, sum up the characteristics of those with NPD, and JS fits every one: being handsome, charismatic, being dedicated to talking people into doing what he wanted (30 wives!), being self-absorbed, believing in his own superiority. Lack of empathy.

One of the points the authors made was the emphasis from NPD disordered people of valuing people only for their "doing" not their "being."

As an example, it's not enough to come to church, be present, be dressed up, "being" in other words. Your value is from "doing"-- teaching, callings, bringing food, cleaning the toilets.

So people are always running around trying to "do" things to win praise. They can't just "be."

Those books, and this parallel, really opened my eyes. It looked to me that the church and JS, absolutely are set up like NPDs set up to use their partnered co-dependents: do what I need. YOUR needs aren't important.

There have been lots of stories on here, Messygoop being denied help after his house fire, for example, of the church not coming through or helping members in need despite their years of sacrifice for the church. Just like a narcissist with a co-dependent, who is catering to their every need, with the hope of getting some praise or attention back.

> If a deal had been on the table for him at Carthage that meant selling out all the "Saints" in Nauvoo (and if he thought he could get away with it without being lynched by the "Saints"), he probably would've taken it in a heartbeat.

Yes, because to the NPD individual, other people aren't important. Fits perfectly with the personality profile.

Now for me, the trick will be: not to fall into being that all-giving, all-forgiving, all-sacrificing 'co-dependent' caretaker to an NPD individual, or a cult, which will never return any of the good things that are promised.

Good insights, Mel. I've often wondered if Joe's personality disorder dysfunction transferred to the structure and leadership of the church.

Narcissistic founder, narcissistic church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2019 08:07PM by summer.

Yes, it does appear that it was all about him all of the time. He may have had some empathy depending on where he was exactly at on the NPD spectrum. But its hard to tell what was real empathy from making sure others felt good and their well-being taken care of, or he was concerned about this self-image, or to maintain his narcissistic supply. I was just listening to the audiobook Rough Stone Rolling, and a horse carriage ran loose and Smith "saved the say." You can read about it on page 392 of Rough Stone Rolling, which you can read free on google books. Just search "rough stone rolling horses baby out the window"

would not be a particularly persuasive item as evidence of empathy and caring. For one thing, the NPD types usually arrange for themselves to be portrayed in heroic terms, whether by exaggeration, staging events or simply making stuff up. Also in any situation where an opportunity presents itself and it's not particularly dangerous, an NPD type would see the opportunity before anyone else...and then be happy to let people believe it was much more dangerous and death-defying than it really was. An NPD type person would also be capable of very heroic exertions when their own life is at stake.

In the story in question (if it's the one I'm thinking of), it should be pointed out that JS was riding in the carriage himself, so he had every personal motivation imaginable for getting the horses under control. Additionally, the story, as told by a "Dr. Foster" is presented as an eyewitness story, but Dr. Foster was not actually there. It is indeed an exciting and very heroic scenario the way it is described.

JS comes across like an Indiana Jones character. You can almost hear the Indiana Jones theme music playing (duh-duh-duh-duh~~~duh-duh-duh~~~duh-duh-duh-duh~~~~duh-duh-duh-duh-duh...) as Joseph Smith calms a frightened woman with infant child, just before he heroically swings himself out of the carriage and into the driver's seat, where he masterfully grabs hold of the reigns and brings the carriages safely to a stop.

Here's the exciting story:

"We will begin with the trip itself, where after nearly a month on the road, a notable event occurred that endures as an indicator of Joseph Smith’s character. Dr. Foster, the young physician who joined the Prophet’s small entourage en route to Washington, wrote:

----> After we got to Dayton, Ohio, we left our horses in care of a brother in the church, and proceeded by stage, part of us; and the same coach that conveyed us over the Allegheny Mountains also had on board, as passengers, Senator Aaron of Missouri, and a Mr. Ingersol, a member of congress, from New Jersey or Pennsylvania, I forget which, and at the top of the mountain called Cumberland Ridge, the driver left the stage and his four horses drinking at the trough in the road, while he went into the tavern to take what is very common to stage drivers, a glass of spirits. While he was gone the horses took fright and ran away with the coach and passengers. There was also in the coach a lady with a small child, who was terribly frightened. Some of the passengers leaped from the coach, but in doing so none escaped more or less injury, as the horses were running at a fearful speed, and it was down the side of a very steep mountain. The woman was about to throw out the child, and said she intended to jump out herself, as she felt sure all would be dashed to pieces that remained, as there was quite a curve in the road, and on one side the mountain loomed up hundreds of feet above the horses, and the other side was a deep chasm or ravine, and the road only a very narrow cut on the side of the mountain, about midway between the highest and lowest parts. At the time the lady was going to throw out the child, Joseph Smith . . . caught the woman and very imperiously told her to sit down;, and that not a hair of her head or any one on the coach should be hurt. He did this in such confident manner that all on board seemed spell-bound; and after admonishing and encouraging the passengers he pushed open one of the doors, caught by the railing around the driver’s seat with one hand, and with a spring and a bound he was in the seat of the driver. The lines were all coiled around the rail above, to hold them from falling while the driver was away; he loosened them, took them in his hands, and although those horses were running at their utmost speed, he, with more than herculean strength, brought them down to a moderate canter, a trot, a walk, and at the foot of Cumberland Ridge to a halt, without the least accident or injury to passenger, horse or coach, and the horses appeared as quiet and easy afterward as though they had never run away.[1]

"Of course, this is quite a story. And there are parts of it that are demonstrably true based on other documentation. But as one can ascertain from the narrative, the writer presents himself as an eyewitness to the event. The difficulty with this is that the narrator, Dr. Foster, who had stayed behind in Ohio with Sidney Rigdon to help him recuperate, was likely not on board the stage. He constructed the story, including names of government officials, for reasons that we do not know."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-and-seer/joseph-smith-goes-washington-1839-40

Joe had a big personality--probably in both senses. ;) And lots of charisma. He was the kind who just leapt before looking. He was horny as hell. He was a bad boy with an edge.

In short, Joseph was all the things that attract a lot of people. Nice will only get you so far. Power seduces. A nice head of hair helps. See also; David Koresh or Jesus.

Certain people reach out and just grab. It works.


I don't have issue so much with the Joe's of the world as I do with those who idolize them and defer to their ways because they have never dug deep and found their own moral code and sense of self. The moral code that just being human has given us through thousands of years of learning that reciprocity is everything. Kindness, working together, forgiveness and understanding are all rooted in reciprocity. Sez I, anyway.

Done & Done Wrote:

> Kindness, working together, forgiveness and understanding are all rooted in reciprocity. Sez I, anyway.

Yes. The books the OP was referencing study the phenomenon of people being mostly 'takers' and their attraction to, and for, those who are mostly 'givers'. I couldn't help see the parallel with the church, it's emphasis on selfless giving (give us 2 years! Then when you're retired, give us another year!) and the Narcissist Personality Disorder.

Reciprocity is a great thing. I just didn't see it in the church or the members in real-life terms. Sure, I "received" the "gift" of the Holy Ghost....he's around here somewhere....

(out of the loop) Is NPD an official / recognized diagnosis?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (out of the loop) Is NPD an official / recognized diagnosis?

I'm not positive it is in the DSM but if you read any recent books on NPD they are pretty consistent in identifying it, and identifying common behaviors, such as the "narcissistic rage" which was why I started reading up about it.

It was my SS teacher, he would get outrageously, furiously, filled with rage over the smallest things! I kept wondering, why is he like that? And I started reading up on it and it all became clear.

I think the cult provides an atmosphere where men can develop even more NPD tendencies than they would have elsewhere. The cult with the men in the leadership positions, reinforces the view that this world is ruled by them. IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

It's explicitly listed in the DSM under cluster B personality disorders.

East Coast Exmo Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's explicitly listed in the DSM under cluster B personality disorders.

Thanks East Coast!

Yeah, ole sleazy Joe had a personality disorder alright which is called Carnal Conniving Conman Disorder.

The definition of such a disorder is a person, a conman, who is always willing and able to slyly swindle his mark out of their money, labor, and any and all the girls/women in the vicinity.

This person has the gift of gab, an unbelievable story-teller, and is a born salesman. One should always be aware that when he is standing close to your young, very attractive daughter, charming her with complements, it is time to quickly put distance between you and him.

presleynfactsrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, ole sleazy Joe had a personality disorder alright which is called Carnal Conniving Conman Disorder.

Ha! Good one. I recently watched the "Fyre" festival documentary and the man who ran that scan also got all these people to give him money and believe in his promises. He was also good looking and charismatic.

You are right to quickly move your daughters away from his vicinity!!!

Given how difficult it is to diagnose LIVING people, I'm very suspicious of any attempt to diagnose the dead. Especially someone we have no film of, and no decent photographs.

Biffo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given how difficult it is to diagnose LIVING
> people, I'm very suspicious of any attempt to
> diagnose the dead. Especially someone we have no
> film of, and no decent photographs.

When you read the OP's article, linked to in the OP, you will see that the analysis is based on deep, deep research and scholarship. Based on JS's own words, written records of his conversations and actions at the time. I think the OP has strong grounds, scholarly and research-based grounds, for that diagnosis. The records, from contemporaneous books and surviving letters, obviate any requirement for film or photographic evidence, since they provide a much more complete and detailed record of the man, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but there are so many stories of *living* people getting diagnosed wrongly, or being given different diagnoses by different doctors, that I just don't buy this. For example, thirty or forty years ago, Aspergers was pretty much unknown, and people with it would have been diagnosed as depressives, common-or-garden psychopaths or schizophrenics etc... Now it has got to the point where it is possibly overdiagnosed, which raises another question of what some of these people have.

In order to assess a patient properly, a shrink has to meet the person in question and cross-examine them. In extreme cases they may be kept in overnight. If there are witnesses to the behavior, then they are cross-examined too. Just going by a few writings alone is not sufficient. The shrink needs to be ae to see the subject in action and also to measure responses to their questions and to pick up on things which others usually don't - voice intonation, eye contact, body language, how they describe certain aspects of their experience in reply to questions e.g. are they a morning person? Do they feel light headed? A bit wooly? Racing thoughts etc? You wouldn't find such details in most letters.

Smith has had many posthumous diagnoses. He's X, he's Y or he's Z. Like the interpretations of the origin of the Book of Mormon, they contradict one another to the extent that they can't all be true. Some of the conditions that Smith is said to have had are rarely, if ever co-morbid.

mel is right and I concur. As the author of the article of this thread, I wrote in my post:

"It was after reading Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon by Robert D. Anderson, that I first realized that Joseph Smith probably suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD for short)."

I based this "probably" on the research in the article, and as rightly Mel put it, using Smith's own words and deeds; and drew upon many, many, other professional historians and psychologists who agree with me.

Having read many bios of Smith, even historians who don't use the NPD designation, nonetheless, use terms like "Egoist" or "megalomaniacal," etc. I talk about this as well in a recent follow up article where I respond to someone who says bipolar is a better diagnosis and therein I further argue that NPD is the best diagnosis of Smith, see:

https://www.postmormonperspective.com/2019/03/did-joseph-smith-have-narcissistic.html

Thus I think it is justified to say that Smith "probably/likely" had NPD.

Fascinating. I believe NPD fits best as per you hypothesis in this part 2.

It is interesting to think of it as an adaptation as is explained in Elinor Greenberg’s book “Borderline, Narcissistic, and Schizoid Adaptations: The Pursuit of Love, Admiration, and Safety”.

I believe your theory perfectly elucidates the circumstances of JS childhood which led to these adaptations and his adult environment which encouraged his egoism.

Thank you for some excellent research and scholarship. I am still working my way through the links!

—Melanie

Thanks for your comments Melanie,

I do think Smith's childhood indeed impacted his psyche. I tried as best I could to point out in both my posts that NPD is a disorder and those with NPD should not be vilified for merely having it. It is what they "do" that is the problem. I know of many people who have NPD but manage it through various forms of therapy or self-therapy. Smith obviously never got any help for his NPD and it only festered as time went on in my opinion.


Behind the boasting and posturing of those with NPD is often a very fragile person inside. I was just listening to Rough Stone Rolling audiobook and Smith writes Emma from jail and if my memory is correct, he kind of fears that his loss of power and status being jailed may cause her to withdraw her friendship or loyalty from him, or something like that, wish I could quote the letter exact. But the feeling I got from it was Smith was deep down fragile and needed constant praise and status and attention to feel well inside. It reminded me of The Sopranos when Tony get's one-upped in a fight by a member of his team and he is worried his wife will withdraw her approval of him because he was not top dog.

As Dan Vogel points out in all his books and articles and YouTube videos, Smith was a sincere religious person on a deep level, some of his intentions were noble. Many of his doctrines were an improvement over Calvinism, etc. But unfortunately, his drive for power and control to feed his ego led to him harming a lot of people and establishing a very controlling and shaming religion; that it is like that till this day as his NPD has an "energy" about it that is all over Mormonism.

Amyjo,

A lot of what you said about Smith being a pious fraud (i.e. genuinely sincere believer yet a deceiver for righteous ends) is covered in Dan Vogel's The Prophet Puzzle here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4JlJaD2fks

See also the print version:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N03_139.pdf

I think pious fraud describes Smith well up to 1835. Up to that point I think his NPD was moderated by his religious convictions to a large degree. But after 1835 you see his theology changing from monotheism to polytheism, you see him cheating on his wife, and studying Hebrew which led to his view of polytheism. You see his First Vision versions going from being concerned about being forgiven for his sins, and only Jesus appearing, in the 1832 version; to then two personages appearing and telling him only his religion is the truth in the 1838 version (which was a power move). Thus we can see his view of God changing. All of this led to him relaxing the "pious" part of his conscience and we see him becoming very amoral, as in when we see him telling Nancy Rigdon that God is more "liberal in his views" as he sought to seduce her into plural marriage. What a far cry in attitude from the narrative voice of the BoM!

As Dan Vogel covers, as a secret Universalist when composing the BoM, he did not fear hell in composing the BoM which he did to sincerely convert people to Christ. But by the 1840s, be basically stopped believing in a "Supreme Being" (the First Cause type of God of monotheism) and thought "he" was God essentially. He argued that the human soul was eternal/self-existent and the Gods of this earth are just spiritually evolved men. So Smith had a divine uncreated soul and in D&C 132 he is guaranteed exaltation (see D&C 132:49–50), i.e. he is assured Godhood.

So in my view, the area of malignant narcissism as a possibility (if not a probability) occurs gradually from 1835 onward, until eventually we have Smith seducing and coercing young girls into his bed and setting up a theo-democracy (as The Joseph Smith Papers put it) or what I would call a dictatorship via Mormon theocracy, and thinking he is king of the earth, etc. Even Bushman admits he hated America in many ways. Smith clearly thought his religion was superior to all other ruling bodies and he was above the law, stemming back to breaking the law as a Juggler/peep stone con man in his teens, to practicing polygamy, to him ordering the destruction of a newspaper, etc.

As an agnostic humanist I think morality is rational and grounded in science in many ways. I think a lot of former Fundamentalists form an ethical code outside the Fundamentalist mindset. Whether its Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, Stoicism, or a modern ethical theory, they maintain their conscience and ethics.

I think Smith never made that ethical development toward the end of his life. You see him craving more and more power and control, and willing to manipulate, shame, control and harm others for selfish gain. If Smith was not stuck in a religious milieu and joined another society and formed a rational basis for ethics maybe he would have been different. But stuck in Bibliolotry he began to form a twisted amoral system of thought that allowed him to deceive and harm.

A good demonstration of "two-faced Smith" with pious Smith presented in public and amoral Smith behind closed doors, is in this from wikipedia, both quotes were written in the 1840s, my words in brackets:

A succinct statement of ethics by Smith is found in his 13th Article of Faith:

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Smith said his ethical rule was, "When the Lord commands, do it".

He also taught [via the letter to Nancy Rigdon]:

"that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the elders of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right ... even things which may be considered abominable to all those who do not understand the order of heaven."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Joseph_Smith

Hence in my view, by the 1840s, Smith had abandoned the God of Protestant puritanism; as his younger (early 1830s) self had a very pious ethic when composing the BoM and soon after. He was that typical holier than thou Fundamentalist type, only a con man combined, like many televangelists today. Yet by the 1840s he is way more Machiavellian if you will, way more power hungry, way more deceptive and manipulative than he had ever been before.

Before, in the early 1830s he wanted to deceive to convert people to Christ and his version of Protestantism and bring people to his Zion to await the end of days. But by the 1840s it was more about converting people to himself, to be under his thumb, to be his next concubine, to acknowledge his Godhood as mouthpiece for God, as King on earth, the ruler of the earth.

Amyjo,

I responded to what you wrote above, not sure why my post response to yours is above your post rather than below it. Still learning how to post here.

Biffo,

I agree with you that we should not go throwing around labels at just anyone, especially not living persons when a professional should do that. But I think Lot's Wife is right with what she said. And Smith deserves a magnifying glass given he is praised by the LDS church and a lot is at stake when it comes to what one thinks of Smith.

Smith said "no man knows my history." Well if modern tools can help us understand his history and psyche (even if only by estimates or probabilities), which can then help us understand him and why he did what he did, that may better help explain his behavior and accomplishments (as opposed to just saying he was getting real revelations and saw angels), then I think understanding him via NPD is justified. Yet I do understand your hesitation.

You said, "Just going by a few writings alone is not sufficient." If you read bios on Smith and his own writings and dictations and my articles, I think you will see that it not a "few writings alone." Keep in mind as well that Smith, unlike most people, wrote or dictated everything he thought and did all the time, in his journal, in sermons, everything almost all the time. He was obsessed with putting his life and thoughts into words. There is a lot of material to delve into. You mentioned witnesses and we have a lot of witnesses as to Smith's personality as well.

Oh, I see now what happened. The post you last made hitches onto the post you made before, unless/until you back out of the thread completely, and re-enter in to post again where you choose to.

It's a quirk.

BPD and NPD typically begin by a person's 20's. So does sociopathy. Although in predatory diabolical criminal types that is known also to begin in early childhood.

My point about Smith is that while the MNPD may have evolved into a deepening madness for him as his religious zealotry took over his life and world, it was beginning all the way back in Palmyra when he was getting arrested for treasure hunting and other misdemeanors of the law in upstate New York.

His philandering with Fanny Alger was early on in his marriage to Emma. His womanizing didn't begin with his revelations on polygamy. That was an excuse and rationalization to condone his adulterous lifestyle. And to justify his usurping the dowries and inheritances of the young & middle aged women he illegally wed. He only selected women of means. If they didn't bring something of monetary value to the table they were of no worth to him. When he died ALL his wealth was owned wholly by him. Not one whit of it belonged to TSCC. Emma was awarded it ALL by the state of Illinois in a legal battle between her and Brigham Young. That was how JS planned it to be. He was the sole benefactor of all his fringe cult acquired.

When BY died the same thing occurred, in SLC. Most all of TSCC wealth belonged to HIM at that time.

Nice racket each man had going. BY knew a good gig when he saw it. Hence the power struggle to become kingpin upon JS's demise.

I'd say they both suffered from NPD. They both couldn't rule at the same time. The timing worked out for Young, and was as calculated if not moreso, than his predecessor.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2019 06:14PM by Amyjo.

It's a good thing they caught him in that jail cell. An actual trial carried far too great a risk of acquittal.

Something had to be done, and fast. Those damn jugglers were out of control!

The NPD fits Smith and others of his ilk before and after. He fit the pattern of starting a fringe religious cult where he was the religious ICON, that people worshiped, paid money to, and sat on a pedestal. He saw a way out of poverty by becoming a pious fraud.

He didn't want to make an honest living. He had no problem lying or plagiarizing in order to create the fiction that became his American folklore religion.

He was manipulative, deceptive and designing by trade.

Modern historians only need study his life, and psychologists, to find similar conclusions as to his stability and his penchant for dishonesty.

Charisma draws people in, but it fades. Once the magnetic lure has won some prey, they will eventually wise up to their folly and lose interest in the charismatic leader when they realize the ruse. Joseph Smith didn't fool most people. Only the few he did became followers. And of those there was a falling away of some.

Psychiatry has another name for NPD when it becomes sociopathic, and that is Malignant NPD. Given how his life story evolved, it's fair to say Smith had both. Compare his bio to that of Warren Jeffs, and he is the living incarnation of Smith were he alive today. You can see how different the times are we're living in. Vigilante justice caught up to Smith. The FBI caught up to Jeffs with different outcomes, but men both put away for good.

My ex-husband being a narc... I’m leaning toward this theory. What better way to fill his narcissistic supply than by being the prophet of “the one TRUE Church” having discovered “the truest book on earth”. All other religions or affiliations being beneath him as he brought the world out of Apostasy. The Word of Wisdom? His narcissistic attempt to get back at Emma but of course he had to throw stuff in there in regards to his own vices too or it wouldn’t be convincing. He just wouldn’t follow it later. Being sealed to multiple wives and their only source of exaltation? What better way to fulfill his sick sexual desires while also justifying it all with his religion... “Baby, Heavenly Father told me to do it... I have to now”. Never, practiced what he preached or... the rules for him were often far different for everyone else. He was always the poor, innocent victim, in the whole scheme while also believing simultaneously he was the bee’s knees and above everyone else. Yeah, sounds like a narcissist to me.

Biffo is right. It is always difficult to diagnose people whom the specialist has not met extensively. But there is still value in making estimates before engaging someone in, say, business or politics or diplomacy. And when trying to understand the past, tentative psychology can be enlightening.

Another important point arises from ECEx's reference to Cluster B. The cluster B disorders--borderline, narcissism and anti-social, perhaps less so histrionic--share a lot of common properties. They tend to arise from similar childhoods, and the boundaries between them are tenuous. They all involve weak senses of self, a need for approval, and limited concern for others; they are sometimes grouped together as empathy disorders.

In practical terms, the mentality of narcissists and sociopaths are very similar; the distinctions mainly ones of behavior. It isn't infrequent for a narcissist to do sociopathic things even if s/he isn't a full sociopath. And when under intense stress borderlines can also act sociopathically.

So was JS a narcissist or a sociopath? I'd guess he was a narcissist who sometimes did sociopathic things. Brigham Young strikes me as somewhat closer to a pure sociopath.

And I would not be surprised if a number of their followers were something approaching borderlines who lacked a sense of self and found an identity in an all-encompassing, all-demanding religion. Borderlines and narcissists tend to "find" each other, which is of course Mel's point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2019 03:10PM by Lot's Wife.

...could be, but more like DID. As a child, Smith suffered immense and incredible pain with the leg repair sessions. This so-called dissociative behavior is a typical response to this type of traumatic pain episode. Mental breakup and confusion/disorientation and the compartmentalization of thoughts and reasoning occur as a natural by-product. For sure, Smith was screwed up, but only as a result of massive pain. The mind will dissociate from pain, and fragment into compartmental operation.

MKULTRA much?.............

Dissociation can be a symptom of Cluster B disorders, particularly BPD, but those generally arise from problems in the first three years of life. So if JS was a narcissist or suffered from ASPD, it was probably a consequence of things that happened well before his surgery at age 7.

...OK. But some researchers and shrinks have found that DID will occur with higher percentages with pre-adolescent children who have been exposed to the physical/pain abuse. If Smith was exposed to extreme physical pain at an early age, there is the possibility that whatever pre-teen medical procedures occurred, piled on to whatever infant/toddler/environmental upbringing he had, just add that on top..........BAD OUTCOME!

...he was also said to be meglomaniacal. Which is another by-product of a schizophrenic/dissociative split-personality behavior. Not necessarily reclusive or self-abusive. He was very much the charismatic showman..........a 1830's Benny Hin.

Interesting.

I do believe the surgeries and recovery probably exacerbated pre-existing patterns. I am for a few reasons more skeptical, however, about their creating major psychological disorders.

First, dissociation is a symptom of several different disorders. Borderlines, for instance, dissociate in a lot of cases. So you can't see dissociation and conclude from it that there is dissociative disorder or schizotypal problems. The same is true of megalomania: it is a natural part of NPD and ASPD, and it often exists episodically in BPD, so there's no reason to go beyond one of those Cluster B diagnoses.

Second, and more important, are you confident JS was dissociative or suffered from some sort of schizotypal tendencies? I'm not aware of anyone who has ventured such an observation.

Third--and this is where it gets interesting--dissociation and/or some form of schizophrenic tendency would lend credence to the idea that JS believed his own BS because at least some of his prophesies may have felt real to him. Do you believe that? Do you think he was sincere or more purely a con man?

I tend to think con man.

"Another important point arises from ECEx's reference to Cluster B. The cluster B disorders--borderline, narcissism and anti-social, perhaps less so histrionic--share a lot of common properties. They tend to arise from similar childhoods, and the boundaries between them are tenuous. They all involve weak senses of self, a need for approval, and limited concern for others; they are sometimes grouped together as empathy disorders."...

...let's look at what we know.

JS was given to wild yarns and fantasy...Imaginative, with a need to present self validation/importance/intellect.
JS was known to hype his own self-worth and credibility. A hybrid form of megalomania and narcissism.
JS was capable of influencing and manipulating others; not a typical anti-social trait.
JS was in a command and control situation of his operational con...a functional, authoritarian trait.
JS had the trust, cooperation and assistance of others he had conned...domineering.
JS was always on the prowl for weak and unsuspecting individuals in which he could prey on, influence and/or manipulate...agenda driven.

The list could go on but I think it helps disproves the idea that he was a weak and feckless individual. He had all the charisma and danger of a Jim Jones or a David Koresh....or worse Warren Jeffs.

Comments below.


-------------------
> JS was given to wild yarns and
> fantasy...Imaginative, with a need to present self
> validation/importance/intellect.

Yes. That need for self-validation is a feature of NPD.


----------------
> JS was known to hype his own self-worth and
> credibility. A hybrid form of megalomania and
> narcissism.

Megalomania is not a recognized personality disorder. It is, however, a trait common to several--including NPD and sociopathy.


--------------
> JS was capable of influencing and manipulating
> others; not a typical anti-social trait.

Actually, charisma, charm and manipulative skills are pretty common in NPD and textbooks characteristic of anti-social personality disorder.


--------------
> JS was in a command and control situation of his
> operational con...a functional, authoritarian
> trait.
> JS had the trust, cooperation and assistance of
> others he had conned...domineering.
> JS was always on the prowl for weak and
> unsuspecting individuals in which he could prey
> on, influence and/or manipulate...agenda driven.

All three of these traits are compatible with NPD and ASPD.


---------

> The list could go on but I think it helps
> disproves the idea that he was a weak and feckless
> individual.

Yes.


----------
> He had all the charisma and danger of
> a Jim Jones or a David Koresh....or worse Warren
> Jeffs.

Yup. And all three of those men were likely narcissists or sociopaths. Those men represent exactly the category I think JS belongs in.

Fascinating stuff. These comments blow me away, really! Very insightful posts.

Seeing TSSC with these diagnoses just makes me understand more and more that the male-control and rigid rules and preoccupation with intimate relations HAS indeed come down unchanged in TSSC as set up by an egoist.

And I think setting the men up to run the services and to have leadership just reinforces any NPD members.

I am enjoying this post and these comments so much!!!

Has anyone written on the possibility of whether Smith had schizophrenia?

His youngest son, David, was in an insane asylum the last years of his life. Valleen Tippets Avery wrote a good bio of his life. She was the same person who co-authored the book of Emma Smith's life as Enigma that caused her to leave TSCC and question the religion she was born into. She didn't realize what a scoundrel Joseph Smith Jr was prior to researching the book she co-wrote with Linda Newell.

If Joseph Smith was delusional and possibly had schizophrenia that went undiagnosed and untreated, in addition to the other maladies he may have suffered from, it is possible to have more than one - and it can be hereditary.. Which could explain in turn that David inherited this from his father. Although David did not have the same tendencies as Joseph because he lived a vow of poverty; rejected the doctrine of polygamy; and really was a gentler, kinder version of his father - despite the mental illness that he became hospitalized for in his later years.

I have not looked into Smith having schizophrenia as most experts on Smith I have studied don't seem to offer that as a good theory. I have heard it thrown around on the web as a possibility though. I personally don't think there is enough evidence to say he was schizophrenic.

I think Dan Vogel's theory of Smith as pious fraud fits best, in that Smith was not literally hearing voices like the voice of Jesus or angels, but was acting in the role of a pious fraud. As for the alleged visions, many scholars have explained this as second sight, see https://www.mormoninformant.com/second-sight

In other words, through the information on second sight, I think Smith was voluntarily imagining things (like seeing angels) and getting others to imagine these same things as well.

I think one could also argue that the dictations of alleged revelations as the voice Jesus was an expansion of his claim to see and hear the activities of guardian spirits when he was leading treasure seeking expeditions and looking into the seer stone.

The way he describes his first First Vision version in 1832, does not strike me in any way as a schizophrenic vision of some kind. As many have pointed out, his 1832 First Vision sounds just like many other vision experiences/encounters with the risen Jesus who forgives sins. See http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/first-vision-plagiarized.html

So I am not ruling it out that he was schizophrenic in some way, I just have not seen much convincing evidence. For me, it is much easier to fit the data on Smith into the theory that he was a pious fraud and experienced a kind of automatic writing when composing the BoM and other dictations. In his essay Automaticity and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon, Scott Dunn concludes, "It is clear that Smith's translation experience fits comfortably within the larger world of scrying, channeling, and automatic writing."

Add to that Harold Bloom saying Smith was a "religious genius", and I think Smith was capable of making the whole think up on his own, of his own cognizance.

Some pathological liars whether they are sociopathic or schizophrenic, who knows, are so delusional that they convince themselves of their own lies - that could have been what happened to Smith regarding his revelations and all the other prophecies he spouted.

On the crime shows like Investigation Discovery the police & prosecutors make note that's what happens at times when pathological liars pass lie detector tests - is that they come to believe their own lies well enough that they fool the polygraph. Which is another reason why they don't hold up in court necessarily as a "smoking gun," hence are excluded as admissible evidence. Of course the other reason is the false positive.

Wonder-Full Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The way he describes his first First Vision
> version in 1832, does not strike me in any way as
> a schizophrenic vision of some kind. As many have
> pointed out, his 1832 First Vision sounds just
> like many other vision experiences/encounters with
> the risen Jesus who forgives sins. See
> http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/first-vision-pl
> agiarized.html

Thank you for this link, wonder-full. I had not been on this site before and it explained things in a very concise and factual way. The evidence of the comparable visions is compelling as are the notes that some authors even visited JS town.

Also people here had referred to the Book of Abraham and I didn’t know what they were talking about, but this Mormon handbook site explains it very clearly and impressively, laying out all the comments by true Egyptologists. Very entertaining.

In my 18 months in TSCC as a convert there was so much i was told to read that it was overwhelming since I hadn’t committed to giving up 100% of my time to just church stuff. So I read the gospel principles book and what the SS teacher recommended, and the occasional article in Ensign or conference talk, and tried to read bits of the BoM, but didn’t get too far.

So it is very interesting to read these factually based analyses that you write and post about the man and his writings. I hope you will continue to post from time to time as I am learning much from you studies and research.

So far my thought is that JS was a charismatic individual who could attract followers who would give him money (or he would take it i.e. their dowries) who had a talent for storytelling and no compunction about borrowing other’s works or pretending to expertise he did not posses. Fits with NPD fragility and egoism.

Very interesting theses, thank you. Learning about his keeping the dowries from one of your links, and also that he did not leave his money to the church, were real eye-openers about his “true” belief in his own church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2019 05:21PM by mel.

Glad my research is helpful mel,

I will try and post more stuff here and there on this message board. You can also visit my site if you like where I will add stuff periodically: https://www.postmormonperspective.com/

Wonder-full,

I enjoyed your essay (linked to) about the garments. It cast a new light on the cult for me. Imagine how crazy that you cannot be in a religion unless you wear the right undies, but that is what you point out and I like to look at it that way now.

I never did the Temple mostly because I am also prone to rashes--the idea of wearing tight clothes day and night and also under clothes in the summer was too much for me. So essentially, they lost me as a convert because of the garments, and they lost you as a RM for mostly the same reason.

Insane!!!

Yea, it is really quite ridiculous isn't it.

I don't buy the argument by LDS that Mormons wear garments like a priest wears the collar or other clergy wear robes, etc. I am pretty sure the average person at that church in the pew does not wear a white collar like the priest. And I don't think the priest is required to wear the collar 24/7 or he is warned Satan can attack him (as LDS are basically told in the temple). And I used the first example that came to mine, obviously Protestant clergy would be even less focused on wearing religious vestments. Apples to oranges if you ask me.

But I do have a confession, I now wear a bath robe 24/7 after converting to dudeism, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=815ndzaDZoA

I love the lampoon movies!

Mel,

I responded to your garment comment above ...

As to how I got interested in reading the books linked in my article as the OP of this thread, the answer is that I have always been fascinated with psychology ever since I took an abnormal psychology class in college.

In my lifetime I have dealt with my share of abnormal psychology in dealing with persons on a day to day basis, from that random guy yelling a cashier in a grocery store to that A-hole coworker, etc., so I just wanted to understand these people I kept running in to throughout my life.

But I first got interested in narcissism in particular after reading the book I mentioned in the post, Robert D. Anderson's book Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. That was the book that got me started. I then kept hearing biographers of Smith keep referring to him in narcissistic terms without using NPD terminology.

Then I later saw that some of my female friends would date very arrogant men (who I'd now say had NPD), and I began to intuit a pattern in the social dynamics of these couplings, which led to a Google search and the human magnet syndrome and how codependents are often drawn to narcissistic types and vice versa.

So like everything else it was a branching effect of one thing leading to another.

wonderfull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But I do have a confession, I now wear a bath robe
> 24/7 after converting to dudeism,

Ha! That was a funny movie! I need to rewatch it. Also liked another Jeff bridges movie called Racho Deluxe I think.

Wonder-full,

Also, I am very interested to know how and/or why you got to reading those books on NPD and connecting it with JS. If you ever wanted to write about it that would be great.

I ask because I have never run into anyone else who has read those books that you reference. :)

Ever seen that movie "National Lampoon, European Vacation? 1985" With Chevy Chase?... Just put in some lines about the Book of Mormon and you got Joe Smith on camera!
1) Extremely lucky, but always getting into trouble,
2) good looking, and loveable,
3) constantly chasing other women, and getting caught doing it
4) talks a lot about himself
5) he can be a little creepy, but...

It's a great movie, everyone should watch it!

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever seen that movie "National Lampoon, European Vacation? 1985"

Funny! Yes I have seen the movie! I think you may be right though Chevy Chase at least was relatively harmless.

I love the lampoon movies!

Mel,

I responded to your garment comment above ...

As to how I got interested in reading the books linked in my article as the OP of this thread, the answer is that I have always been fascinated with psychology ever since I took an abnormal psychology class in college.

In my lifetime I have dealt with my share of abnormal psychology in dealing with persons on a day to day basis, from that random guy yelling a cashier in a grocery store to that A-hole coworker, etc., so I just wanted to understand these people I kept running in to throughout my life.

But I first got interested in narcissism in particular after reading the book I mentioned in the post, Robert D. Anderson's book Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. That was the book that got me started. I then kept hearing biographers of Smith keep referring to him in narcissistic terms without using NPD terminology.

Then I later saw that some of my female friends would date very arrogant men (who I'd now say had NPD), and I began to intuit a pattern in the social dynamics of these couplings, which led to a Google search and the human magnet syndrome and how codependents are often drawn to narcissistic types and vice versa.

So like everything else it was a branching effect of one thing leading to another.

Very interesting. I will have to read that Anderson book.

And yep I see the human magnet syndrome everywhere now that I read that book and also Malkin. I liked his strategy or test..show empathy and if they can’t respond, time to move on. Malkin page 118.

Malkin's book is also interesting because he uses a spectrum, from Echoism to Extreme Narcissism, with healthy self-esteem in the middle.

While reading his book I was also reading a lot of Nietzsche who speaks about a healthy Egoism which I think aligns with Malkin's healthy levels of narcissism.

Wonder-full

Yes, I agree in principle with Malkin's spectrum, when dealing with NPD people, except I'm not sure it matters much if they are are a 1 or a 3 on the scale, if they are unable/low on empathy, caring, you are going to get hurt. They might feel a little remorse or none, but that won't really help you. As a practical matter I'm not sure distinguishing their place on the spectrum will help in daily life, and might lead you to feel sorry for them and give them additional chances (to continue to hurt you) that they shouldn't get.

I haven't read Nietzsche but admire your ability to, I've heard it is hard going.

I took a deep breath and purchased one of Rosenberg's seminar packages, the hours-long lectures. I did not find them as helpful as the short, free, you-tube clips, or his Magnet Syndrome book.

In short, I believe, until I had read those 2 books and a few more, I would have naively fallen under JS's spell, I would have worshipped his revelations, given him all my worldly goods, tolerated his triangulation of me with all the other ladies, and been left disillusioned. I believe the church embodies the worship of one person, just as it was designed to revolve around him, and indeed could be an institutional NPD.

Now that I am familiar with the syndrome and my own part in attraction/continuance with such, I hope I will not get caught again. :)

Mel,

You make a really good point about the church revolving around Smith, making it an NPD organization. I agree that it's important to distinguish between analyzing versus practicality when it comes to dealing with NPD types. If I lived in the 1830s I would not care if he was an eight to ten on Malkin's narcissism spectrum (which is the high pathological end of narcissism), I would be focused on how to not let him hurt me and my loved ones.

Nietzsche is indeed very difficult to read. I am convinced he wrote that way on purpose. His work is designed to be read two or three times.I started with the birth of tragedy and the genealogy of morals and the other book on morals, the name escapes me. I'm also reading the joyful science and human all too human right now, while simultaneously reading Thus spoke zarathustra in the Graham parkes' translation and then reading the same section in the version that is available online for free. As a philosopher/lover of wisdom, I got tired of hearing people's opinion about Nietzsche and decided to read him myself.

After reading much of his work myself I think he is greatly misunderstood most of the time. but I also think his work is not for everyone because he did attempt to dismantle anything platonic or Puritan and in my estimation was trying to liberate man from the shackles of religious and political dogma to become a more healthy species.

In the process of taking his hammer to piety and traditional morality he might have swung the hammer and swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction at times (at least that is what some of his modern critics say). However, I'm not convinced of this. I think that you have to read Nietzsche in perspective and realize he was reacting against the Lutheran piety of his upbringing.

A careful reading of all he had to say, including biographies about him, shows that he was not this "anything goes" kind of guy,as some people think he was, but was actually a polite and ethical man in his daily life.

A lot of scholars have pointed out that he actually presents a Virtue Ethics akin to Aristotle's. After reading the first part of his zarathustra, what sticks out to me is the "bestowing virtue," and the fact that Nietzsche was so concerned with liberating humanity shows a deep compassion for humanity even while criticizing pitying people as he saw it as weakening people.

So I think there's more to it the most people realize.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2019 07:36PM by wonderfull.

In my view those are the weaker Nietzshe. His stronger ones are AntiChrist, Twilight of the Idols/Gode, and of course Beyond Good and Evil.

Zarathustra is good but I thought the fourth book almost reflected sadness at failure.

Lots Wife,

Yes, I forgot to mention those books which were actually some of the first books I read by Nietzsche.

I've just finished the first part of his Zarathustra, and look forward to getting to the fourth part to see what you are talking about.

Something I have found interesting while studying Nietzsche from the perspective of various scholars, is that he appears to have appreciated the Jewish religion to a degree, especially its more homeric aspects if you will.

I have read one essay by a scholar who points out interestingly enough that in his Antichrist, his focus is on mostly the apostle Paul and his despising of the body as he puts it in his Zarathustra. But Nietzsche, if I'm recalling the essay correctly, leaves out criticizing the Gospel of John and appears to have many positive things to say about the historical Jesus as conveyed to him by the progressives Christian scholars of his day. Then of course there is the interesting statement in the will to power which was never meant to be published, where he defines the ideal Overhuman as having a combination of the strength of Caesar and the soul of Christ, or something like that. One can Google the exact quote.

"There's nothing Neitzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist..."

Lottie and Wonderfull,

I am in awe of your scholarship and understandings! Whew! You are .....almost.....tempting me to try and read some Nietzsche!!!

:)

Thanks Mel,

If you are curious about Nietzsche I would recommend this free pdf:

The Sickness Unto Life: Nietzsche's Diagnosis of the Christian Condition by Frank Shepard
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8MS40ZM

I assume it's safe to download, but you can check to make sure that is safe. I'm no expert on internet stuff. I downloaded the pdf to my Kindle. I have read the first part and it was very illuminating, and good summary of his philosophy and goals.

Z strikes me as an impossible project: describe a superman and the ways in which he views the world and creates an entirely new intellectual system. After three books of doing so fairly optimistically, the fourth seems to indicate a let-down, an inability to produce what the author had hoped.

You are right that Nietzsche's attitude towards Jews and Christianity. Some of his closest friends and teachers were Jews, and he severed his friendship with Wagner and Cosina largely over their anti-semitism. He likewise viewed Jesus as a superman and blamed Paul and the successive bureaucrats as the monsters who transformed Jesus's teachings into the herd worship of the aunts who raised him.

Did you notice that Nietzsche called Jesus an "idiot" a few times? That was not a sign of disrespect; it was adaptation of Dostoevsky's attempt at a psychological biography of Jesus, entitled The Idiot, and well worth reading. Nietzsche, the arch-atheist, described Dostoevsky, the religious conservative, "the only psychologist from whom I have every learned." Dostoevsky's The Idiot, his accounts of his experiences in Siberia, and his Notes from Underground come very close to Nietzsche's philosophy.

I seriously doubt Nietzsche thought there were any "progressive Christian scholars of his day" since he thought modern Christianity was nothing more than herd mentality raise to the level of faith. He also despised mythology and metaphysics of the kind in John.

His reading of Jesus and Judaism is positive although it was also selective. His goal in the late 19th century was to establish a new universal culture that was atheistic and celebrated humanity alone.