Phrenology, the idea that the contours of one’s skull reveal something about one’s personality, was apparently fairly popular in Joseph Smith’s time. (And some today continue to regard it as somewhat reliable; I had a brief phrenological “exam” done while on my mission. I consider the results tainted because the examiner knew me for some time beforehand, but it was interesting.) Documentary History of the Church records the results of Joseph Smith’s phrenological exam. It may be interesting to compare this with other reports and analyses of the prophet.

Saturday, 2 [July 1841].

In this day’s Wasp, I find the following:—

Mr. Editor:

Sir:—

I take the liberty to inform you that a large number of persons in different places have manifested a desire to know the phrenological development of Joseph Smith’s head. I have examined the Prophet’s head, and he is perfectly willing to have the chart published. You will please publish in your paper such portions of it as I have marked, showing the development of his much-talked-of brain, and let the public judge for themselves whether phrenology proves the reports against him true or false. Time will prove all thing, and a “word to the wise is sufficient.”

Yours respectfully,

A. Crane.

A Phrenological Chart of Joseph Smith the Prophet by A. Crane, M.D., Professor of Phrenology.

Propensities.

Amativeness—11, L. Extreme susceptibility; passionately fond of the company of the other sex.

Philoprogenitiveness—9, L. Strong parental affection, great solicitude for their happiness.

Inhabitiveness—5, F. Attached to place of long residence; no desire to change residence.

Adhesiveness—8, F. Solicitous for the happiness of friends, and ardent attachments for the other sex.

Combativeness—8, L. Indomitable perseverance, great courage; force, ability to overpower.

Destructiveness—6, M. Ability to control the passions, and is not disposed to extreme measures.

Secretiveness—10, L. Great propensity and ability to conceal feelings, plans, &c.

Acquisitiveness—9, L. Strong love of riches, desire to make and save money.

Alimentativeness—9, L. Strong relish for food; keen and severe appetite.

Vitativeness—4, M. or S. Indifference to life; views the approach of death without fear.

Feelings.

Cautiousness—7, F. Provision against prospective dangers and ills, without hesitation or irresolution.

Approbativeness—10, L. Ambition for distinction; sense of character; sensibility to reproach, fear of scandal.

Self-esteem—10, L. High-mindedness, independence, self-confidence, dignity, aspiration for greatness.

Concentrativeness—7, F. Can dwell on a subject without fatigue, and control the imagination.

Sentiments.

Benevolence—10, L. Kindness, goodness, tenderness, sympathy.

Veneration—6, F. Religion, without great awe or enthusiasm; reasonable deference to superiority.

Firmness—10, L. Stability and decision of character and purpose.

Conscientiousness—8, L. High regard for duty, integrity, moral principle, justice, obligation, truth, &c.

Hope—10, L. Cheerfulness, sanguine expectation of success and enjoyment.

Marvelousness—10 L. Wonder, credulity, belief in the supernatural.

Imitation—5, M. Inferior imitative powers; failure to copy, describe, relate stories, &c.

Prepossession—8, L. or F. Attached to certain notions; not disposed to change them, &c.

Ideality—9, L. Lively imagination; fancy, taste, love of poetry, elegance, eloquence, excellence, &c.

Perceptives.

Admonition—8, F. or M. Desirous to know what others are doing; ready to counsel, and give hints of a fault or duty, &c.

Constructiveness—7, F. Respectable ingenuity, without uncommon skill, tact or facility in making, &c.

Tune—5, F. or M. Love of music, without quickness to catch or learn tunes by the ear.

Time—11, V. L. Distinct impressions as to the time when, how long, &c.

Locality—11, V. L. or L. Great memory of place and position.

Eventuality—11, V. L. Extraordinary recollection of minute circumstances.

Individuality—10, L. Great desire to see; power of observation.

Form—10, F. Cognizance, and distinct recollection of shapes, countenances, &c.

Size—11, N. L. or F. Ability to judge of proportionate size, &c.

Weight—9, V. L. L. F. Knowledge of gravitation, momentum, &c.

Color—9, F. or M. Moderate skill in judging of colors, comparing and arranging them.

Language—6, F. Freedom of expression, without fluency or verbosity; no great loquacity.

Order—9, L. Love of arrangement, everything in its particular place.

Number—7. Respectable aptness in arithmetical calculations, without extraordinary talent.

Reflectives.

Mirthfulness—10, L. Wit, fun, mirth, perception and love of the ludicrous.

Causality—9, L. Ability to think and reason clearly, and perceive the relation of cause and effect.

Comparison—11, V. L. Extraordinary critical acumen; great power of analysis.

There are four temperaments. The lymphatic or phlegmatic, in which the secreting glands are the most active portion of the system, produces both corporeal and mental languor, dullness, and inactivity. The sanguine in which the arterial portion of the system is most active, gives strong feelings and passions, and more ardor, zeal, and activity, than of strength or power. The bilious, in which the muscular portion predominates in activity, produces strength, power, and endurance of body, with great force and energy of mind and character. The nervous, in which the brain and nervous system are most active, gives the highest degree of activity, with clearness of perception and of thought, but less endurance. Sharp and prominent organs denote activity; smooth and broad ones intensity and strength.

Explanation of the Chart.

The written figures opposite the organs and ranging in a scale from 1 to 12, indicate the various degrees in which the respective organs are developed in the head of the individual examined; thus 1, 2 indicate that the organ is very small or almost wholly wanting; 3, 4 means small, or feeble, and inactive; 5, 6 moderate or active only in a subordinate degree; 7, 8, full or fair, and a little above par; 9, 10, large, or quite energetic, and having a marked influence upon the character; 11, 12, mean very large, or giving a controlling influence, and extreme liability to perversion. The size of the brain, combinations of the faculties and temperament of the individual, may be indicated in the same manner as the degrees of the faculties or organs.

The initials V. L. denote very large, L. large, F. full, M. moderate, S. small, V. S. very small.

[Joseph or his editors added the following note:] I give the foregoing a place in my history for the gratification of the curious, and not for [any] respect [I entertain for] phrenology.

(History of the Church 5:52-55)

0 people like this post.

Like 

The Lectures on Faith emphasize that we must become like Jesus:

Let us ask—Where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimilated, in order that we may be made partakers of life and salvation? or, in other words, where shall we find a saved being? for if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain without much difficulty what all others must be in order to be saved. We think that it will not be a matter of dispute, that two beings who are unlike each other cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved; and if we find one saved being in all existence, we may see what all others must be, or else not be saved. We ask, then, where is the prototype? or where is the saved being? We conclude, as to the answer of this question, there will be no dispute among those who believe the bible, that it is Christ: all will agree in this, that he is the prototype or standard of salvation; or, in other words, that he is a saved being. And if we should continue our interrogation, and ask how it is that he is saved? the answer would be—because he is a just and holy being; and if he were anything different from what he is he would not be saved; for his salvation depends on his being precisely what he is and nothing else; for if it were possible for him to change, in the least degree, so sure he would fail of salvation and lose all his dominion, power, authority and glory, which constitute salvation; for salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him. (Lectures on Faith 7:9)

However, because of his unique parentage and role, we often perceive a distinction, for better and worse, between “mere mortals” and Jesus. This can make it difficult for us to understand how we can become precisely like Jesus Christ (in fact, in some of my discussions with Church members, some have denied that we can become precisely like him because of his role as unique Savior).

However, in revelation received after the Lectures on Faith, we are told: “Abraham … hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne… Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham … and ye shall be saved.” (Doctrine & Covenants 132:29,32)

Here we have another prototype, and this time one without the “barriers” of a unique role as Redeemer or a virgin birth. This is a prototype that we may not have quite as hard a time relating to, and may not be as uncomfortable comparing ourselves to, as to the sinless Christ.

Yet for me, the example of Abraham is more challenging than the example of Christ. Clearly, my life cannot compare to the sinless life of Christ, but I can envision myself progressing in his footsteps, developing compassion, power in faith to heal, the gift of teaching by the Spirit, and so forth, even to the sacrificing of my own life for others. I have a much harder time imagining myself in the shoes of Abraham: asked by my God to kill my own child.

I don’t know whether this is merely a deficiency of faith on my part. Could I develop the faith to accept such a command? If Alma is correct that the beginning of faith is the desire to believe, I doubt I could. I’m not sure I desire to worship a being who would command me to kill my innocent child. Is this something that we should desire? If I am not able to develop this desire and faith, it seems that it is impossible for me to receive the blessings of Abraham.

Neal A. Maxwell has often taught that the only thing we can give to God is our will. Does this require that we give up our own notions of right and wrong in order to conform to the instructions of our God? Are we required literally to lose ourselves in order to gain eternal life? If so, this is not only a step beyond the edge of the light into the dark, but into an abyss that terrifies me.

0 people like this post.

Like 

Moroni tells us that “by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things.” Modern prophets have taught that the witness of the Spirit is more powerful than any evidence that comes to us through the physical senses. Certainly, our ears and eyes can be deceived. We might conclude from all this that the only way to know something is by the Spirit (and I have heard some people make a claim like this).

But the necessity of our physical embodiment in the divine plan suggests otherwise to me. It suggests that we can know by virtue of our physical senses, and that this kind of knowledge is essential to our spiritual progression. Otherwise, what is the point of physical embodiment?

In fact, the scriptures suggest that this kind of knowledge was essential for the God of Israel, so much so that he condescended to become embodied like us, “that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people” (Alma 7:12, emphasis added).

It is interesting to note that the same verse and many others use physical terms to describe some aspects of this knowledge: “that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh.”

The practice of fasting and the observance of the Word of Wisdom also point us to knowledge that is available only to embodied beings; indeed, one of the major promises of the Word of Wisdom is “treasures of knowledge.”

As a result, it seems that we cannot and should not claim that reliance on the Spirit alone is sufficient for all essential knowledge. It seems necessary that we claim knowledge by virtue of our physical senses, as well as reason (which, at a minimum, involves the body at the level of the brain).

What say ye? Is it equally important to learn by sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and reason as it is to learn by our spiritual senses? What are the things that we can only learn by virtue of our embodiment?

0 people like this post.

Like 

As I became more comfortable with the online communities, I felt less of a need for the protection of anonymity. However, in order to maintain continuity with what I have written in the past, I continue to use the pseudonym.

What does this have to do with Mormonism? The connection is in our use of esotericism: teachings that are available only to the initiated, either because they are completely hidden or because they are couched in language understandable only by the intitiated. The clearest example of our use of esotericism is the temple: the ordinances of the temple are hidden from the world, intended only for the intitiated.

There are many other examples, from the use of code names in early editions of the Doctrine & Covenants to scriptural commandments to “show not these things unto the world” (see Ether 3:21, D&C 10:34-37, D&C 19:21-22) to Jesus’ private teachings to his disciples to Abinadi’s use of a disguise to re-enter the city of Nephi, to the fact that the priesthood session of General Conference is closed to all but male Church members.

It appears that there are two motivations for using esotericism: one is to protect the speaker, as in the case of code names in the D&C; the other is to protect the hearer, as in the case of Jesus’ use of parables or scriptural injunctions of secrecy. The whole “milk before meat” principle is based on this function of esotericism.

What of the drawbacks of esotericism? It can be interpreted as dishonesty — a sort of “bait-and-switch”: We only tell converts a little bit and then eventually spring the temple ceremony on them. It can be interpreted as arrogance: Do we really suppose that we know whether a person is only ready for milk and not meat? It can be interpreted as fear: We are afraid that people won’t accept us or our ideas if we tell them all at once. It can create barriers between people.

It seems to me that we are now confronted with a new challenge to esotericism: the Internet. Temple ceremonies are available online; “deeper” doctrines are available to anyone, regardless of spiritual preparation. And the availability of previously obscure information is reportedly having a significant impact on members of the Church and investigators.

A few questions that arise out of all this:

• Is esotericism necessary? If so, why? If not, why is it so frequently used in the scriptures?
• Are there other benefits and drawbacks to esotericism I have not identified here? (For example, it seems to me that esotericism also serves the purpose of establishing community boundaries.)
• Do the benefits of esotericism outweigh the drawbacks?
• Is it possible to have the benefits of esotericism in the Internet Age?
• Do we need to change our approach to spiritual preparation, given that we may not have the option of introducing ideas gradually?
• Does esotericism post ethical challenges? If so, how do we negotiate them?
• Do we need to maintain ties to esoteric practices for historical continuity, as I continue to do with my pseudonym?

0 people like this post.

Like