Dan Vogel'S Video On Smith Family Dynamics

[Dan Vogel]

This video explains how the dynamics of Joseph Smith’s family was a significant motivating factor for launching his prophetic career and that he founded Mormonism, in part, to resolve family conflict over religion and the eternal fate of his un-baptized older brother, Alvin.

This is a version of Dan Vogel’s paper "Joseph Smith's Family Dynamics" delivered at John Whitmer Historical Association Annual Conference in Kirtland, Ohio, 27 September 1997, and Sunstone Theological Symposium in Salt Lake City, 30 July 1998, and subsequently published in John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 22 (2002): 51-74. It was also incorporated in Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

[Robert F. Smith]

Nice video, Dan, although you really ought get someone to read it who is articulate and fluid of speech (your reading is too wooden). I would also recommend that you rely on Lavina's Lucy's Book as your source rather than hard to obtain MSS or the edited Biographical Sketches.

I think the application of systems theory is a good idea and am sure that some useful insights can be gained from family dynamics, but such work can be marred by an a priori assertion that the Book of Mormon therefore becomes "Smith's imposture." The problem is that systems theory can also be applied to certain characteristics of the Book of Mormon which are astonishingly accurate representations of a biblical world unknown until over a century after Joseph Smith Jr. Otherwise, you find yourself enmeshed in a vicious chicken-egg cycle. Are we, for example, to interpret the career of JFK through a similar analysis of family dynamics in which the eldest son of Joseph P. Kennedy (the chosen one?) died prematurely in WW II? And the assassination of his two prominent brothers?

[wenglund]

I can see how, from a non-believers perspective, if one looks at the Smith family dynamics through the lens of systems theory, one may find plausible motives for the founding of Mormonism--particularly if one is looking through that lens without formal training in sociological or psychological theories, over 170 distant from the events in question, and selectively relying upon relatively scant and at times questionable historical data, and more particularly if one is looking at family dynamics in isolation.

However, when one reasonably includes in the mix counter-motivating factors such as the likely significant psychological trauma of Joseph and his family being frequently subjected to public ridicule, criticism, and violent persecution in response to religious claims, especially when experienced at the tender age of twelve, I would think the family dynamic hypothesis would seem a bit of a stretch even for non-believers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 3, 2012 by wenglund

[Dan Vogel]

Nice video, Dan, although you really ought get someone to read it who is articulate and fluid of speech (your reading is too wooden). I would also recommend that you rely on Lavina's Lucy's Book as your source rather than hard to obtain MSS or the edited Biographical Sketches.

Couldn’t you tell I was doing my best Steven Wright impression?

Thanks for the honest appraisal.

I think the application of systems theory is a good idea and am sure that some useful insights can be gained from family dynamics, but such work can be marred by an a priori assertion that the Book of Mormon therefore becomes "Smith's imposture."

I don’t think systems theory is designed to prove the BOM is Smith’s imposture, but if you believe the BOM is an imposture then systems theory might help explain JS’s motivations for doing so.

The problem is that systems theory can also be applied to certain characteristics of the Book of Mormon which are astonishingly accurate representations of a biblical world unknown until over a century after Joseph Smith Jr.

I realize for you BOM historicity is still an open issue and that you want to keep coming back to it as a means for forestalling examination of JS from a non-believer’s point of view, it’s really not necessary. I’m not using family systems to prove JS wrote the BOM. I’m offering it as an interpretation of the data assuming the BOM is JS’s work. I should add that Bushman’s interpretation includes some of the elements I outlined.

Otherwise, you find yourself enmeshed in a vicious chicken-egg cycle. Are we, for example, to interpret the career of JFK through a similar analysis of family dynamics in which the eldest son of Joseph P. Kennedy (the chosen one?) died prematurely in WW II? And the assassination of his two prominent brothers?

Family systems isn’t a set pattern that one imposes on similar families. The family is a socio-political unit, and family systems tries to uncover the alliances.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Cobalt-70]

However, when one reasonably includes in the mix counter-motivating factors such as the likely significant psychological trauma of Joseph and his family being frequently subjected to public ridicule, criticism, and violent persecution in response to religious claims, especially when experienced at the tender age of twelve, I would think the family dynamic hypothesis would seem a bit of a stretch even for non-believers.

There is no evidence that Smith experienced public ridicule, criticism, or violent persecution in response to religious claims" at the age of twelve. Other than a Methodist minister who apparently politely disagreed with him at about age 14, the religious troubles didn't really start until about age 21-22, by which time he had already committed to translating the Book of Mormon, was married, and had moved away from his parents. He got into a little bit of hot water at age 20 because of his occultic activities, but that had nothing to do with his religious claims. Nothing I can think of that could be considered attempts at "violent persecution" happened until 1829 or 30. The first successful violent persecution against him I can think of is dated 1832. (The treasure-digging gang who apparently tried to get the golden plates from him on his way back from Cumorah in 1827 were not religiously motivated.)

[Robert F. Smith]

Couldn’t you tell I was doing my best Steven Wright impression?

O.K., Dan,

That is great stuff! Very funny!!

If you can write jokes as well as Steven Wright, you can do the delivery, and that might be a very refreshing approach to Joseph Smith.

I don’t think systems theory is designed to prove the BOM is Smith’s imposture, but if you believe the BOM is an imposture then systems theory might help explain JS’s motivations for doing so.

Just as I said, if you take an a priori stance, you can prove anything -- without bothering to be evenhanded. That's bad historiography. Very unprofessional.

I realize for you BOM historicity is still an open issue and that you want to keep coming back to it as a means for forestalling examination of JS from a non-believer’s point of view, it’s really not necessary. I’m not using family systems to prove JS wrote the BOM. I’m offering it as an interpretation of the data assuming the BOM is JS’s work. I should add that Bushman’s interpretation includes some of the elements I outlined.

Again, that is my very point: You decide the issues before the fact, and are determined not to allow any other matters to mitigate.

To his credit, Richard Bushman covers a very wide range of phenomena and then makes an evenhanded assessment. For example, on the notion that the Book of Mormon reflects Joseph's world because it is his own creation (rather than an ancient text), Bushman takes note of contents which certainly do not reflect Joseph's world -- R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 84-105; cf. Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), xviii, "if Joseph . . . is commenting on contemporary politics or theological disputes or ethnographic speculations, he does so only indirectly, . . ." ; 11, and quoting Daniel Howe, " . . , the dominant themes are biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal, not democratic or optimistic."

Edited October 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[WalkerW]

If one believes in revelation, one could argue that Smith's family dynamics is the very reason he was open to many of the radical doctrines he taught. I believe Truman Madsen noted that Alvin's death planted the seeds for what later became redemption for the dead.

[stemelbow]

Other than a Methodist minister who apparently politely disagreed with him at about age 14, the religious troubles didn't really start until about age 21-22, by which time he had already committed to translating the Book of Mormon, was married, and had moved away from his parents. He got into a little bit of hot water at age 20 because of his occultic activities, but that had nothing to do with his religious claims.

I'm not sure about your claim here. He could very well have went through what he did when he was 19 and 20 because of religious claims. It seems likely, afterall. JS claimed to have found or had seen gold colored plates. Stowell hearing of his skill and believing his story, sought to get him to come help find buried treasure. Joseph hesitated but ended up going for the pay. After it failed, Joseph was blamed because he had claimed and Stowell believed him, to have found buried treasure, in the form of metal plates. It is also true that Smith himself did not claim to have used any sort of treasure seeking extra-terrestrial skill to find the place where to dig for Stowell's party. He did claim to have convinced stowell to stop looking altogether--not that doing so suggests that Smith was employing folk magic to help the cause. Others, related to Stowell, went after the teenage Smith in court because they did not find what they had probably been pretty excited to find. he became a pretty easy target thanks to Stowell himself who relied on JS' religious claims.

I'm just saying there is room to question your confident sounding claim.

Nothing I can think of that could be considered attempts at "violent persecution" happened until 1829 or 30. The first successful violent persecution against him I can think of is dated 1832. (The treasure-digging gang who apparently tried to get the golden plates from him on his way back from Cumorah in 1827 were not religiously motivated.)

I don't know that your confident claim here is all that apparent either.

[wenglund]

There is no evidence that Smith experienced public ridicule, criticism, or violent persecution in response to religious claims" at the age of twelve. Other than a Methodist minister who apparently politely disagreed with him at about age 14, the religious troubles didn't really start until about age 21-22, by which time he had already committed to translating the Book of Mormon, was married, and had moved away from his parents. He got into a little bit of hot water at age 20 because of his occultic activities, but that had nothing to do with his religious claims. Nothing I can think of that could be considered attempts at "violent persecution" happened until 1829 or 30. The first successful violent persecution against him I can think of is dated 1832. (The treasure-digging gang who apparently tried to get the golden plates from him on his way back from Cumorah in 1827 were not religiously motivated.)

Yes, of course you are right. Anyone who knows anything about Josephs youth and young adulthood will surely see it as a veritable picnic. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Yes, of course you are right. Anyone who knows anything about Josephs youth and young adulthood will surely see it as a veritable picnic. LOL

It was not a picnic, sure. But the point is that the early troubles were not because of the young Joseph's religious claims. They were troubles brought upon the Smiths by themselves, ultimately influenced according to Vogel's thesis by disfunctional family dynamics.

[Cobalt-70]

...It is also true that Smith himself did not claim to have used any sort of treasure seeking extra-terrestrial skill to find the place where to dig for Stowell's party....

That is not correct. That Smith used his stone in the Stowell expedition is well documented in the transcripts of his 1826 trial or hearing. Plus, Lucy Mack Smith noted that Stowell sought Smith out because he had special powers of seership. It would not have made sense for Stowell to travel such a long distance to hire Joseph Smith as a treasure seer, if Joseph was never actually going to use his stone.

[wenglund]

It was not a picnic, sure. But the point is that the early troubles were not because of the young Joseph's religious claims. They were troubles brought upon the Smiths by themselves, ultimately influenced according to Vogel's thesis by disfunctional family dynamics.

I disagree with your point. I think the negative public reactions to Joseph's religious beliefs during his youth and on into his 20's and 30's were not insubstantial and logically should be factored into the motivational equation along with his family dynamics. You, of course, are free to turn a blind eye.

Here is how Joseph depicts what you absurdly described as a "polite disagreement":

Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as ^avisions or ^brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great ^apersecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an ^bobscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure ^aboy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily ^blabor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter ^cpersecution and ^dreviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. (JS-H 21-23--emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Joseph's mother records the following about what has been absurdly described as "polite disagreements":

....It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my [Joseph's] life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?....

From this time until the twenty-first of September 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labor with his father and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance--though he suffered every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists. (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p. 74--emphasis mine)

In the HoC, Joseph describes the persecution in his youth as "severe," and to have extended beyond religionists to also include "all classes of men," and this because he "continued to affirm that I had seen a vision." (HoC Vol. 1, Chap 2, p.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 4, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Here is how Joseph depicts what you absurdly described as a "polite disagreement":

There's no evidence that the Methodist preacher stood up and threw a chair at him. You know what happened: Joseph Smith came to him in confidence and told him about his theophany. The preacher, having heard this story too many times before, tried to firmly but lovingly disabuse him of the notion that the average Joe could just go out into the woods and get a vision of God. You think that is going to be more traumatic to the adolescent Joseph than his deadbeat father's alcoholism?

[wenglund]

According to the HoC, the severe persecution (or "firmly and lovely" or "polite disagreements" as Cobalt calls it) in response to the visions, followed Joseph from the Palmyra area to Susquehanna, and was significant enough in January of 1827 to require moving Joseph and Emma's wedding to South Bainbrige. (ibid. p.17)

The following September, after returning to Palmyra/Manchester and receiving the plates, Joseph said the persecution was even "more bitter and severe than before," and that it "became so intolerable that I was under the necessity to leaving Manchester." (ibid.) So, he and Emma returned to Susqehanna.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 4, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Joseph's mother records the following about what has been absurdly described as "polite disagreements":

...

In the HoC, Joseph describes the persecution in his youth as "severe," and to have extended beyond religionists to also include "all classes of men," and this because he "continued to affirm that I had seen a vision." (HoC Vol. 1, Chap 2, p.

Lucy Mack's description is dependent on Joseph's. And Joseph's claim of persecution is not very credible the way it was written in 1838. Undoubtedly, he suffered persecution, but it was much later than he said, and mainly related to his magic. By the time he wrote his 1838 account, he had basically put all of his early magic in a religious context. His "visions" included what he saw in the reflections of seer stones, too. If there were specific instances in his mid-teens where he was the victim of "severe" persecution, don't you think he, or his mother or siblings would have mentioned them? Smith went through the trouble of recalling his visit with a Methodist minister, and he had every motive to trump up any early examples religious persecution, had they existed.

The Smiths could look back, from the late 1830s and 1840s, and remember having a bad reputation in the community, and remember being severely persecuted later. But it doesn't even seem that Smith's own family was aware of his first vision. And prior to 1827, Smith apparently only told his family and a few close friends about his Moroni vision. So how could he have been "severely" persecuted for something nobody knew about?

[Cobalt-70]

According to the HoC, the severe persecution (or "firmly and lovely" or "polite disagreements" as Cobalt calls it) in response to the visions, followed Joseph from the Palmyra area to Susquehanna, and was significant enough in January of 1827 to require moving Joseph and Emma's wedding to South Bainbrige. (ibid. p.17)

That "persecution" being the fact that Emma's father thought Smith was an irresponsible loser who dabbled in the occult. So they had to elope.

The following September, after returning to Palmyra/Manchester and receiving the plates, Joseph said the persecution was even "more bitter and severe than before," and that it "became so intolerable that I was under the necessity to leaving Manchester." (ibid.) So, he and Emma returned to Susqehanna.

That "persecution" being the fact that Smith had advertised the fact that he was going to dig up a treasure on the autumnal equinox of 1827, and that his treasure-hunting associates like Samuel Lawrence (who had evidently accompanied Smith on one of his unsuccessful visits to the hill Cumorah) were being cut out of their booty shares.

[wenglund]

There's no evidence that the Methodist preacher stood up and threw a chair at him. You know what happened: Joseph Smith came to him in confidence and told him about his theophany. The preacher, having heard this story too many times before, tried to firmly but lovingly disabuse him of the notion that the average Joe could just go out into the woods and get a vision of God. You think that is going to be more traumatic to the adolescent Joseph than his deadbeat father's alcoholism?

You have given me no reason to believe you have anything close to an accurate grasp of Joseph's circumstances, let alone the point that I actually made, though the glaring inanity of your question gives me ample reason to believe that you don't.

And, I will continue to post evidence to give even more reason to believe that you don't.

You, of course, are free to bury your head in the sand and invent whatever absurd and dismissive caricatures that suit your confirmation bias, and delude yourself that you, more than 170 years after the fact, are in a better position than Joseph to know what Joseph personally experienced.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 4, 2012 by wenglund

[Dan Vogel]

Just as I said, if you take an a priori stance, you can prove anything -- without bothering to be evenhanded. That's bad historiography. Very unprofessional.

I think you are confused, Robert. This statement doesn’t make any sense. I only said I wasn’t using family systems to disprove the BOM. I didn’t say that I simply assume the BOM isn’t history, a priori. But I don’t have to convince you that the BOM is non-historical before I can develop explanations of JS based on that conclusion.

Again, that is my very point: You decide the issues before the fact, and are determined not to allow any other matters to mitigate.

Again, my rejection of the BOM as historical is based on other data unrelated to an explanation of JS’s motives.

To his credit, Richard Bushman covers a very wide range of phenomena and then makes an evenhanded assessment. For example, on the notion that the Book of Mormon reflects Joseph's world because it is his own creation (rather than an ancient text), Bushman takes note of contents which certainly do not reflect Joseph's world -- R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 84-105; cf. Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), xviii, "if Joseph . . . is commenting on contemporary politics or theological disputes or ethnographic speculations, he does so only indirectly, . . ." ; 11, and quoting Daniel Howe, " . . , the dominant themes are biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal, not democratic or optimistic."

Why does the BOM as JS’s creation have to be like JS’s world? Why does it have to be a direct commentary? Why can’t it reflect biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal themes dominantly and democratic themes also, especially since it’s advocating theocracy? But this discussion is separate from family systems.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[volgadon]

That "persecution" being the fact that Emma's father thought Smith was an irresponsible loser who dabbled in the occult. So they had to elope.

That "persecution" being the fact that Smith had advertised the fact that he was going to dig up a treasure on the autumnal equinox of 1827, and that his treasure-hunting associates like Samuel Lawrence (who had evidently accompanied Smith on one of his unsuccessful visits to the hill Cumorah) were being cut out of their booty shares.

Emma, but not Hale, Smith, but not Joseph? Hmm...

[Robert F. Smith]

It was not a picnic, sure. But the point is that the early troubles were not because of the young Joseph's religious claims. They were troubles brought upon the Smiths by themselves, ultimately influenced according to Vogel's thesis by disfunctional family dynamics.

Yeh. Blame the victim . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

That "persecution" being the fact that Emma's father thought Smith was an irresponsible loser who dabbled in the occult. So they had to elope.

That "persecution" being the fact that Smith had advertised the fact that he was going to dig up a treasure on the autumnal equinox of 1827, and that his treasure-hunting associates like Samuel Lawrence (who had evidently accompanied Smith on one of his unsuccessful visits to the hill Cumorah) were being cut out of their booty shares.

Whether he "advertised" it or not, it is true that Joseph came back each year for four years on the same date, and yes it was the autumnal equinox. The problem is that 1827 was the first year that it coincided with 1 Tishri, the Jewish New Year (Rosh haShana), and the end of a sabbatical year (which was an important sequence from Joseph's birth). Joseph hid the plates in a hollow log, and came back for them 10 days later, on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

Joseph was carrying out his mission as the Apostle of the Lord who receives the heavenly tablets and oracles in order to carry out his mission.*

* Geo Widengren, Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950), 7-11, 87, 89, 91, and passim, for a masterful presentation of the relevant motifs. The Book of Mormon itself opens with the same motifs (H. Nibley, “Last Call,” Sunstone [Jan 1988], 14, citing especially Klaus Koch, Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik [1970], 11-12). Midrash Seder `Olam Rabba, 6, says that Moses brought down the second set of Tablets of the Law from the Mount on Tishri 10 (Bloch, Biblical and Historical Background, 28),

[stemelbow]

That is not correct. That Smith used his stone in the Stowell expedition is well documented in the transcripts of his 1826 trial or hearing. Plus, Lucy Mack Smith noted that Stowell sought Smith out because he had special powers of seership. It would not have made sense for Stowell to travel such a long distance to hire Joseph Smith as a treasure seer, if Joseph was never actually going to use his stone.

I think it's fair to question it. After all those who said a stone was used was those who were hostile to Smith. I dont' mean to suggest that he absolutely did not use a stone to seek treasure in this instance, but I don't know that he did either.