Joseph in the Hands of an Angry Pseudo-scholar

It is of little surprise to those few readers I may have that I have responded multiple times to Jonathan Neville and his cabal. If even one person can recognize his faulty arguments, poor scholarship, and poor historiography based on anything they may read here, I will consider myself a success.

One of Neville’s latest pet theories has been the influence of Jonathan Edwards’s sermons and writings on the young Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon. This has been the base for multiple online interviews and even an entire book. Having found his arguments made online to be poor, ill-thought out, and easily disproven with a rudimentary knowledge of Church history, I was saddened to see Neville invited to speak at the Mormon Historical Association this year, presenting on his findings (if they can indeed be called that) of Edwardsian influence. That is without even acknowledging the track record Neville has accrued of saying he will speak on one topic at an academic conference and deciding to speak at another. 

While I may not know what was going through the MHA board members’ heads as they decided to accept Neville’s presentation, I can offer some correction, limited in scope as it might be:

Jonathan Edwards had absolutely zero influence on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Having now read two of Jonathan Neville’s recent books regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, I can truly say that Neville’s treatment of Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the Book of Mormon and its translation places these stalwarts in the hands of an angry pseudo-scholar, much like the spiders held by Jonathan Edwards’s cruel god (and, because Neville has raised the concern in his book about only focusing on Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” I also recommend you read Edwards’s “The Eternity of Hell’s Torments,” wherein Edwards tells his audience that the cries of the damned in hell go to God without any possibility of moving Him to mercy or compassion). Neville is a poor historiographer determined to dismiss any sources he disagrees with, and goes to great lengths to do so even at the expense of the characters of Joseph, Martin, and others. I will have much more to say on this in the very near future. 

Like Edwards’s false image of god, Neville’s theories are easily dismissed and proven to be the poor historiography and baseless claims that they are. For now, the following posts from my blog may be of use in a response for the time being to the fallacious claims that Neville makes in his books and will make at MHA this week.

Another Response to Jonathan Neville, Critic of the Church

Translations and Seer Stones: A Response to Critics of the Church 

A Response to Strange Theories Regarding the Translation of the Book of Mormon

Jonathan Neville, Seer Stones, and Misquoted Historical Sources (Again) 

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

Misrepresenting Mesoamerica, The Book of Mormon, and Agreeing with Critics of the Church: A Response to Jonathan Neville’s Latest Interview (Part Three) 

 Note: I have since listened to Neville's presentation offered at MHA. Every single point Neville raised in his presentation, he has covered in his book Infinite Goodness and had nothing new to contribute. I was pleased to hear that Mark Ashurst-McGee pushed back on Neville's presentation for a breach of conference etiquette. It is also worth raising the point: for one who claims to have far more information on Jonathan Edwards's influence on Joseph Smith, why has Neville yet to raise any additional evidence in his multiple online interviews or, better yet, a conference specifically designed for new research that has not yet been published? As I will show in the very near future, Neville's evidence thus presented is lacking, and should he already be sharing the best evidence he can provide, it would make sense why he is so reticent about his alleged findings.