How is Joseph Smith viewed by the average American and non LDS historian?

Dr. Richard Bushman, noted historian and one of the general directors of the Joseph Smith papers said: “Most educated, informed Americans, as well as historians view Joseph Smith as a fraud. Perhaps he is a colorful and lovable fraud but still a charlatan of some sort, really is the prevailing view among my colleagues in the history field, and, of course, we know why.

It’s because Joseph Smith asked people to believe the unbelievable. In a modern time, to believe in an angel appearing, gold plates buried, an ancient record, a translation of this record…

When Joseph has his first vision he is told by a minister that it is not to be believed and that it is a satanic delusion. Joseph is stunned and angry at this reaction. Research tells us that between 1785 and 1850 there were at least 33 recorded accounts of various types of visions by individuals other than Joseph.

The reason that Joseph Smith ran into trouble with clergymen was not because his vision was strange and out of the way, but because it was so common. The Methodists by 1830 were trying to calm down the membership to discourage that culture. They were on their way to respectability.

All of these visions were a little too rash for them. Between 1790 and 1850 they were one of the fastest growing churches in the nation. However, when you move away from the first vision and on to the next major event, namely the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, you find just the reverse, (it was not common at all).

This is an unusual circumstance and requires explanation. One of the puzzling things about the Book of Mormon is why Joseph Smith would have written a book. Now there is the heavenly explanation, he was commanded to do so by an angel and has no choice, as it were.

But to someone outside the church trying to look at it from a historical perspective, it’s curious. Why would he try to write a book when he was unschooled? That was not the common way you started a religious career.

Take the case of a near contemporary, Charles G. Finney, that became the preeminent revivalist of his generation.

He also had a vision in 1821; he lived only a few miles from Joseph Smith’s house. After his vision of a man that appears to him but says nothing, he is elated and believes he has seen the Savior and begins preaching to anyone who will listen. He eventually attracts thousands of people to hear him.

That is the customary career path for anyone who had religious urgency. They demonstrated their preaching ability, collected congregations and grew.

Joseph Smith does not follow that path. He is not known to have preached a sermon before the Church was organized in 1830. He has no reputation as a preacher and even after the Church is organized, he is not known as a charismatic preacher.

What he does instead is to dictate and publish a book, something that you would hardly expect of him. It was unusual for him and puzzling because of what the book was. What is the Book of Mormon?

Historians coming (casually) to it are more likely to say it’s a version of deep Indian history, because there were many books like that. However, the Book of Mormon is not like those books.

If you were reading it, you would have a great difficulty finding out where it spoke about Indians. You can’t even prove it took place in America, looking at the text. What the Book is if you look at it in comparison with other literature is a Bible. That’s how the first people who looked at it described it. It was a gold bible.

In reality it is the most massive apocryphal (hidden) work in existence, an extension of the Bible story, with many new events and sermons.

It contains prophesies like the Bible, preachments, visions, the warning of prophets to rulers. It’s obsessed with the rise and fall of Israel. It’s written in KJV Bible language and evokes a civilization, it not just a set of preachments, like the General Conference reports.

It has all sorts of history, there is an architecture to discern, there is a lot of politics, an economy, stories of battles and military strategy and a profusion of characters, over 250 people and places and different names. It is a very rich account of a religious people conducting their lives.

The question we have from all of this is how was such a work produced? Every description we have of Joseph Smith, from friends and foes alike, is as an unlearned farm boy. The second question is how did it survive, when the Bible is supposed to be the only source of religious truth?

To present a rival or competitor to the Bible is a very daring thing to attempt. It raises another question. Why would anyone believe that? A similar problem is with the Book of Moses, trying to find where it fits. (For historians) It’s a puzzler.”