Four Views Of Joseph Smith

"…the mystery of Mormonism cannot be solved until we solve the mystery of Joseph Smith."

"What we have in Mormon historiography are variations on two Josephs: the one who started out digging for money and when he was unsuccessful, turned to propheteering; and the one who had visions and dreamed dreams, restored the church, and revealed the will of the Lord to a sinful world. While the shading was varied, the portraits have pretty much remained constant; the differences are differences of degree not kind."

--Jan Shipps in "The Prophet Puzzle: Suggestions Leading Toward a More Comprehensive Interpretation of Joseph Smith".


I stated in my post of July 13, 2016 (bold added):

I told her [my wife] that people think of him [Joseph Smith] as a con-man or a pious fraud (or at the least he used some degree of deception) or that he was a prophet. I wondered if there was a middle ground. I laid out his treasure seeking background, the seer stone and the Book of Mormon, his polygamy, etc. and my theory (see upcoming post).

On July 23, 2016, I came across "Four Views Of Joseph Smith Historians Debate The Prophet Puzzle" on the Sunstone website. I was there figuring out if they were LDS-critical or LDS-supportive for my research bibliography.

The Four Views Presented are:

1. Pious Fraud View by Dan Vogel [4:41 to 19:34]
2. Sincere Visionary View by Ann Taves [20:20 to 42:07]
3. Con-Man View by Christopher C. Smith [42:24 to 55:43]
4. True Prophet by Don Bradley [57:01 to 1:20:01]
5. Questions [1:20:44 to 1:28:04]

My theory (still upcoming) is very similar to the Sincere Visionary View by Ann Taves.

Fair and Balanced

Well, I think that the initial "shock" of seer stones, money digging, polygamy, the Book of Abraham, etc. has worn off.  I said I was going to concentrate on the Book of Mormon, but got side tracked into reading (and watching YouTube) about various topics for about a month. I have literally been devouring information.

I noticed that I was tending to read LDS-critical sources. I think this is natural.  The "shock" of the information left me (and I assume others) with the feeling that the LDS Church has been hiding or lying about things. This leads you to read LDS-critical sources to find the "truth."

As I said in my original post:

I’ll see what the critics have to say, what LDS-friendly folk (FAIR, FARMS, etc.) have to say, what information the Church (General Authorities, Ensign, Gospel Topic Essays, etc.) has, and what my own research yields.

Therefore, I am making a bibliography of my research divided into 2 sections: LDS-Supportive and LDS-Critical. I do this for 3 reasons:

1. To ensure I read both the LDS-Supportive and the LDS-Critical side of each issue.
2. To more equally balance the amount of LDS-Supportive and LDS-Critical I read. Not that my reading will be equal, but that it doesn't become unduly lopsided.
3. To document what sources I used to draw my conclusions.

With this said, I don't have the time to research and read all (or a lot of) the material on a topic. I'm not a scholar; I have a day job.  

I Voiced My Concerns

Well, on Sunday (July 10, 2016) I told my wife about my concerns that I have about Joseph Smith. I told her that people think of him as a con-man or a pious fraud (or at the least he used some degree of deception) or that he was a prophet. I wondered if there was a middle ground.

I laid out his treasure seeking background, the seer stone and the Book of Mormon, his polygamy, etc. and my theory (see upcoming post). My wife listened for 40 minutes.

At the end of it, the full meaning of my theory of Joseph Smith hit me--it didn't make him a conscious fraud but it also meant that he was not a prophet. I guess in the end Joseph is either a prophet or he is not--there is no middle ground. My wife asked if I was going to stop going to church.  I said No and that I was testing my theory. Still trying to figure it out.