Jonathan Edwards’s Purported Influence on Joseph Smith: A Response to Jonathan Neville’s Latest Interview (Part Two)

I recently watched and began a series of responses to Jonathan Neville’s latest appearance on the YouTube channel Mormon Book Reviews. Part one is already posted, and here, in part two, I will address claims made by Jonathan Neville regarding his new book Infinite Goodness and the claim that Jonathan Edwards, a preacher from the 1700s, had a profound effect on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon and later theology as well. Part three will discuss other false claims made by Neville.

While I am not inherently opposed to the possibility of Edwardian language (which was more than likely used by the preachers that Joseph Smith heard from) influencing Joseph Smith’s religious vocabulary and as such finding place in the translation of the Book of Mormon as God spoke to Joseph in Joseph’s own language, Neville makes many leaps of logic that cannot be followed and misrepresents historical sources to draw stronger connections than what can likely be merited.

 Was Joseph Smith an Avid Reader?

At 18:58, Neville discusses a source that claims that Joseph Smith was often found in the Palmyra print shop and would pester the shopkeepers to such a degree that they would hit him with their ink daubers to get him to leave. This source is one that I am unfamiliar with and have as yet been unable to track down. As such, if anyone does know of the exact source, I would be extremely grateful for any feedback.

I did, however, find one article written by Robert Paul in BYU Studies that does deal with the amount of libraries and bookstores that were in Palmyra. Although “Joseph Smith had access to a wide range of books” due to the fact that he “lived in proximity to libraries and bookstores,” Paul concludes that “whether he made use of these materials… continues to elude definitive treatment.”[1] Based on quotes from his mother Lucy Mack Smith, Paul ultimately remained unconvinced that Joseph Smith had much to do with reading in his early childhood.

While Paul determined the matter to be inconclusive, Neville remains convinced that Joseph did in fact read at a young age. At 20:38, Neville describes how certain scholars told him that “Joseph Smith was ignorant, he was virtually illiterate, the only book he read was the Bible.” When Neville asked how they knew what they claimed, he claims they said, “Well, because – well, we really don’t know how we know that.” Neville says, “They didn’t have a good explanation other than this narrative that developed over time that Joseph Smith was too ignorant to have produced the Book of Mormon, but that was kind of an apologist narrative that came later.”

However, it really isn’t a later narrative introduced by apologists. I discussed this in part one of my original response to Neville from his previous interview – Joseph’s own family described him as illiterate for the beginning years of his life. Emma Smith recalled Joseph’s near illiteracy and struggle to formulate (or dictate/read) even a well-written letter.[2] His own mother stated that he was not given to reading like others in his family were.[3] While I don’t think ignorant is a proper term to use, and Joseph almost certainly had read some additional books beyond the Bible during his brief education at the very least, nearly illiterate does come close to describing Joseph Smith’s reading and writing abilities during his early life. That changed later as he did end up giving himself to learning all he could, but part of the miracle of the Book of Mormon as seen by Lucy and Emma Smith was how such an unlearned and nearly illiterate youth could bring the Book of Mormon out of darkness and unto light.

Ultimately, I think that Neville misrepresents his scholarly friends, since Emma and Lucy Mack's witnesses are well-known. If, however, he is not, they do not seem to be aware of well-known historical sources and I would call them into question.

For a further discussion on what Joseph’s family described, see the subheading “Did Joseph Smith Read Jonathan Edwards' Writings in Depth?” here.

Another claim along these lines comes at 22:10, where Neville asserts that Joseph Smith’s leg surgery led to his literacy as he had nothing but to sit in bed and read at his uncle Jesse’s house in Salem, Massachusetts. While certainly one possibility, this is  strictly speculation, and no source suggests that he was reading during this time (in fact, his own mother and his own wife would throw doubts on such a feat being done by the young Prophet-to-be). While he may have read, we simply do not know, and it is disingenuous to suggest that anything can be concluded from what little we know regarding that visit.

Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon

At 23:02, Neville asserts that Joseph Smith had to have read so he could accurately translate the Book of Mormon and draw upon his mental language bank. This disregards how Joseph Smith’s definition of “translation” doesn’t always align neatly with what we consider to be translations. See my first response to Neville’s interviews under the subheading “What Did Joseph Mean by the Word ‘Translate’?” for a further discussion on this matter.

Joseph Smith's Prophetic Preparation as a Young Boy

At 37:50, Neville asserts:

[Joseph Smith was prepared to restore the Church by reading Jonathan Edwards's teachings about] the glories of the church in the latter days, how the gospel of Christ would be taken to the entire world, it’d be more powerful than ever before… and particularly the idea that it’d all come from America… I just envision Joseph Smith as a young boy reading this and even having a desire to see it fulfilled. And he kind of alludes to that in his 1832 history… he says he was concerned with these issues, he was convicted of his sins, which is a very Edwardian term that all the ministers used at the time, but still, it was concern for his soul. Why would he be so concerned for his soul just by reading the Bible?

According to Neville, because the ministers were the ones convicting people of their sins with the Bible, it is impossible to read the Bible and be convicted of your sins yourself. Now, I do agree that people often misread the Bible so the Bible does come off more harsh than what it actually says, and these ministers especially would have done so during the Second Great Awakening. However, by Neville’s own admission, it was the ministers who were having this deeply profound effect on Joseph’s young mind  to make him feel convicted of his sins. He would have us believe this language also came from Joseph Smith reading Jonathan Edwards, but glosses over the fact that a more likely source for Edwardian language in Joseph’s journals is from the ministers themselves, whom Joseph verifiably heard and listened to.

Neville also insinuates that Joseph saw himself in light of the fulfillment of Edwards’s dreams of the gospel spreading from America to the world. If Joseph had Edwards’s teachings on his mind, he never made any allusion to it, and Joseph Smith was very good at detailing his sources and how others had come to similar conclusions that the Restored Gospel offered (for example, he publicly spoke about the book View of the Hebrews as a book that postulates Israelites – in this case the lost ten tribes – coming to America as an interesting idea that is actually discussed in the Book of Mormon detailing a small Israelite family coming to the New World).

Plural Marriage and Edwards's Teachings

At 49:22, Neville asserts:

I have a little section in there [his book Infinite Goodness] on polygamy as a hypothesis that I found fascinating, and I started to wonder, “I wonder if he might have adjusted the translation of the Book of Mormon [in Jacob 2:23-35] if he had run across that Edwards passage before he translated it… [Edwards] says that Solomon was a type for the Church in the latter days because Solomon had wives from all the different nations, bringing them under his kingdom, and in the latter days, Christ would bring people from all around the world into His kingdom. And so… the idea of [Solomon] having many wives was a type of Christ in the last days bringing people from all around the word into the Kingdom. And it’s a beautiful metaphor – I mean, people get offended by polygamy, but as a metaphor it makes perfect sense. And so I can see that as a genesis and inspiration for Joseph’s thinking and later inspiration-revelation about polygamy.

Again, Neville appears to invent a link to an 1830 publication of Edwards that simply does not exist.

Neal Rappleye has previously discussed (along with a KnoWhy by Book of Mormon Central) Jacob’s apparent condemnation of polygamy in a biblical context as breaking the Law of Moses regarding the king – the Nephite elites desired to multiply wives exponentially to themselves. This is similar to how David, who took Bathsheba to wife, and Solomon, who took close to a thousand wives and concubines, broke that commandment.

Jacob condemned David and Solomon for this very cause – their pride and desire got the better of them and they practiced unauthorized plural marriages. Other figures, such as Abraham and Jacob, received no such condemnation despite their having multiple wives – they, unlike Solomon, had entered into these through the authorized means established by God and did not do so out of desire or sin.

I have high doubts that Jacob would have changed his mind about Solomon’s unauthorized and lustful polygamy even if he had heard Edwards’s metaphor, and it is highly ironic for Neville (who earlier insinuated that Joseph had to draw on his mental language bank to provide a faithful, word-for-word translation of the Book of Mormon) now claims that Joseph would have ignored such a rule to insert Edwardian teaching into the Book of Mormon instead.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that such a metaphor regarding polygamy, again, had any impact on Joseph Smith. He viewed plural marriage as a way to unite the human family together, sealing everyone to each other, not as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God. Joseph even makes it clear where the genesis for his inspiration on plural marriage came from – the early verses of D&C 132 indicate it was as Joseph was reading the Bible, likely during his inspired revision/translation of that sacred text in 1831 (see the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay here for more information).

Jonathan Edwards’s metaphor finds little reference in D&C 132 – Solomon is mentioned twice in D&C 132, and the Lord says that David and Solomon only sinned wherein they “received not of [the Lord]” (D&C 132:38). Had Edwardian thought been used as the inspiration leading to this revelation, we would expect to find any reference to it – but none is found, and it is even stated that Solomon sinned when he took in so many wives and concubines, casting doubt on Neville’s proposition.

While Edwards’s metaphor can be one interpretation and a way to see Christ’s love in the Bible, such a metaphor is not found in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.

Elias, Jonathan Edwards, and John the Baptist

Neville asserts at the 53:00 minute mark that Edwards was an Elias/forerunner to Joseph Smith. This may or may not be true – but Neville makes many claims regarding Jesus and John the Baptist that simply are not true and show a lack of understanding the biblical text.

According to Neville, Joseph never described Edwards as an Elias figure because Jesus never identified John the Baptist as the forerunner, except once in a small and insignificant synagogue. It was left to the Gospel authors to link John with the forerunner described in the Old Testament.

However, even a cursory reading of Luke 7:25-30 shows otherwise. Jesus clearly identifies John as a forerunner to the Messiah, and He is the Messiah. This was done in front of many people too – those baptized by John were justified by their actions as Jesus spoke, but the Pharisees hardened their hearts even more. Jesus was not silent about his and John’s fulfillment of prophecy.

Conclusion

While I have yet to read Neville’s book, so far I am not impressed with the treatment of sources offered by Neville. I am open to the idea that revivalist language championed most prominently by Jonathan Edwards that carried on into the early 1800s influencing the young Joseph Smith and his translation of ancient scripture, I am unconvinced of many of Neville’s assertions regarding that influence.

I do remain unfamiliar with much of Jonathan Edwards’s sermons and admire Neville’s level of research into this topic, but cannot help but wonder if, in order to draw connections where there may be none, he has inserted an Edwards-mania into his reading of the Book of Mormon. This has led him to mistreat other historical sources, such as Lucy Mack Smith and Emma Smith’s testimonies, and basic Church history regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon and the early revelations Joseph would receive.

---

[1] Robert Paul, "Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," BYU Studies Quarterly 22, no. 3 (1982): 341.

[2] Emma Smith, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 290.

[3] "Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, Page [1], bk. 4," p. [1], bk. 4, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 15, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/43.