Our Qualitative Existence: Three Essays On Key Inserts in the Writings of Joseph Smith

By William Call

Objects are ideas of assumed entities conceived in the mind. Their modifying qualities are perceived in the world by the senses. The essentials of a qualitative existence are succinctly summarized in a statement published in the Book of Mormon in 1830. In the statement Joseph Smith introduced the phrase "a compound in one," which effectively challenges the claims of the intellectual establishment and successfully addresses questions regarding the difference between knowledge and belief that from ancient times to the present have confounded the best minds of science, religion, and philosophy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Apr 1, 2019
• ISBN: 9781543967760

Book preview

Enlargement

1

Puppetry

Joseph was a martyr but with bigger fish to fry. The singular tragedy of his life was not the persecution he suffered or his violent demise at the hands of a disgruntled mob. His death came too soon and without sufficient notice. Having made a discovery that would impact humanity universally, he buried it in his writings, telling no one what to look for or where to find it. When he died his secret died with him. Just weeks before, in an oration to a large congregation he said, You don’t know me, you never will. 

Did he mean his followers, however loyal or dedicated, failed to understand him and would accordingly fail to realize what they had lost once he was gone? Others could fill the ecclesiastical position he held, but none could take his place. In his absence there was no choice but to declare his work of restoration complete. 

Joseph was paradoxical like no other. That his cohorts misread him should come as no surprise. Those both for and against him made the same mistake. They thought his authenticity depended on his capacity to commune with higher powers, and their judgments concerning him were accordingly categorical. For them he was real or fake with no middle ground in between. They viewed him as either an instrument in God’s hands or the Devil’s agent. If the first, he said only what God told him to say. If the second, he was Satan’s mouthpiece. Regarded as a puppet either way, the two sides, although at odds, made the same point: Joseph as a person didn’t matter. If a prophet, God deserved the credit. If an impostor, may the deceiver-in-chief stand and take a bow.

Joseph was preoccupied with something of far greater significance than his judges pro or con could have imagined. The debate concerning him was, from his vantage point, small potatoes. He was an insider with firsthand information. He had no need to question what to him was obvious. No one knew what he knew, and he was unusually adept at choosing what to and what not to divulge. He told his story while keeping everyone in the dark as to its origins, meaning, and real intent. He, for example, convinced three witnesses to put their names on a statement claiming they saw the angel and golden plates he spoke of even though they had no means of identifying either the angel or the plates of which they claimed to be witnesses. 

Joseph’s honesty could be and was questioned, but his story as a story wasn’t. It was real, and its creator went out of his way to make it known while carefully omitting certain details. Both his devotees and his distractors acknowledged the story. Not what he said but what he didn’t say was the subject of endless debate. The debate persisted, and soon enough Joseph, a young man still in his twenties, was famous. Some, of course, said he was infamous. The ambiguity was the price he had to pay.  He was well aware that his fame rested on an unresolved dissonance that resonated among both friends and enemies. His followers believed what he said even though evidence was lacking. He attracted attention by implying something that wasn’t verifiable, then after some declared their belief, let belief itself serve as proof. The strategy, though not original, was effective. His success established a place for him both at the helm of an institution and in the annals of history.

But it wasn’t enough. He had bigger fish to fry. His claim that he was in direct communication with higher powers had unlimited potential. It implied superior knowledge, judgment, wisdom, etc. It was a kind of prophecy of what the future could bring. Joseph was daring to a fault, willing to take risks like few before or after. What he actually produced was of mixed quality. Most of his output, written to put out fires and address immediate circumstances, was mediocre. Only on occasion was his work extraordinary. The part that excels more than atones for the humdrum with which it is mixed. Unfortunately, those who claimed him as their prophet were unable to distinguish the one from the other. 

The test of truth for believers is in their feelings. If it’s true and right it will feel good. Although feelings come for many reasons, when attempting to convince a crowd, generating good feelings will succeed where logic and scholarly evidence fail. Do people think with their hearts? In groups they do, or at least they think they do. How do they know when the truth has been spoken? By their feelings, and that is especially the case when they stand to tell their story.  Did God intervene on their behalf? A narrative of how it happened shared with fellow believers leaves the narrator doubly satisfied.

At the conclusion of the Book of Mormon is the claim that if readers ask with a sincere heart, with real intent the truth of these things will be manifested to them. What things? The book claims to contain more than a thousand years of Christian history in ancient America. To be true the narrative and what actually happened must not conflict. According to the claim, however, the requisites for determining if the two coincide are not diligent study, careful examination, or exhaustive research. All that is needed is a sincere heart and real intent. If what is desired is attained it will be a gift from above, and the resulting truth rather than residing in the inquirer’s intellect will be found in the feelings of the believer’s heart.             

At issue is not merely the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Joseph’s authenticity is itself at stake. His prophetic utterances were repeatedly questioned, first as a treasure hunter, then as the discoverer of an ancient record, later as a translator of an ancient language, and then as the leader of a new religious movement. According to Christian belief a real prophet communes with the divine while a fake speaks for himself. Views in this regard have, however, evolved. For many people today the reverse is the case. A person who is dependent on someone else lacks credibility. To be genuine, people must be capable of critical evaluation both of their own work and the work of others. 

Analogous to believers who feel beholden to a higher power are puppets dependent on someone up there to pull their strings. The puppet is the actor on stage. The manipulator above is in charge. Puppets can be replaced. The string-puller is indispensable. Although Joseph was, in the eyes of his devotees, a prophetic puppet with God dictating what he said and did, he viewed himself from a different perspective. His followers could, at least in principle, choose between their leader and a higher power. Joseph’s sense of self-identity didn’t allow him that option. His calling as he defined it was unconventional. 

Feigning make-believe, Joseph only pretended to be a puppet. He mimicked both control from above and the back-and-forth ventriloquistic dialogue audiences at puppet shows expect. Although Joseph as a pretended puppet confused everyone, his pretense allowed him to pull his own strings, an option not available to those who look to a higher power to pull theirs. While puppets are dependent, Joseph was his own man. Regarding the show of which he was the star, both the Man-up-There and the puppet on stage were only imagined. These two phantoms joined together set a unique precedent. A duo like no other, they made a series of appearances, and their performances were, as history attests, a smash hit!

Mediocrity, however, reflected adversely on both the pretended puppeteer and the fake puppet. While the show was popular, parts of it were subject to criticism. When things went well credit was given to the mystic string-puller, but when the reverse was the case, because any criticism would have reflected negatively on higher powers, it was condemned as sacrilegious.  Through it all the peerless one of necessity remained insulated from the fray. His costume for the show was invisibility, and he was obliged to wear it. For divinity to appear in person on stage would not only be demeaning, it would violate puppeteer protocol and cause an unnecessary uproar. Such an interruption would not only ruin the show, it could result in serious trauma,