Friday, June 23, 2006

Joseph Smith and Phrenology


The subdivision of the brain into different functional areas is a basic concept that probably most people are familiar with. This understanding has roots that run through the discarded notion of phrenology, which was conceived in the late 1700's and made its way to America in the 1830's. The idea behind phrenology was that different functions of the brain were divided within certain areas of the brain, that the size of those areas translated into abilities, and that the shape of the skull was a reflection of the shape of the brain.

Phrenologists claimed that feeling or measuring the contours of the skull provided insight into a person's character. For example, a person might have a bump or depression in the skull indicating the presence or absence of honesty. Although there were skeptics all along, phrenology was generally discredited by the early part of the the twentieth century.(For more information, see The History of Phrenology on the Web, and The Skeptic's Dictionary.)

Davis Bitton and Gary Bunker have written about the intersection of phrenology with Mormons in their article, Phrenology Among the Mormons, in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Vol. 9 No. 1). It was a topic that even Joseph Smith weighed in on during the Nauvoo period. (Note: Apparently Michael Quinn's book, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, contains discussion of phrenology. I do not have the book; I would be happy to have someone summarize his discussion in the comments.)

Continue Reading


5 January 1841 -

Minutes: One night Joseph Smith said to D Ells [Dr. Josiah Ells] and to the congregation that he for a length of time thought on phrenology, and that he had a revelation, the Lord rebuking him sharply in crediting such a thing; and further said there was no reality in such a science, but [it] was the works of the devil. (Words of Joseph Smith, p.61)

2 July 1842 - With Joseph's permission, a phrenologist published his evaluation of Joseph in the Nauvoo Wasp. History of the Church contains the findings followed by this comment:
I give the foregoing in my history for the gratification of the curious, and not for [any] respect [I entertain for] phrenology. (HC 5:55)

6 May 1843 -
In the morning, had an interview with a lecturer on Mesmerism and Phrenology. Objected to his performing in the city. (HC 5:383)

13 and 14 October 1843 -
Dr. Turner, a phrenologist, came in. I gratified his curiosity for about an hour by allowing him to examine my head....In the morning, at home, having a long conversation with a physiologist and mesmeriser. I asked them to prove that the mind of man was seated in one part of the brain more than another. (HC 6:56)
(Note: the above quotations are collected in Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings by Larry Dahl and Donald Cannon.)

Joseph's skepticism of phrenology was apparently prophetic, but perhaps he went too far in his dismissal. Although the practice of phrenology was discredited, some of the underlying ideas have been shown to be correct. The functions of the brain are divided into specific areas, and in at least some cases function correlates with size.

In spite of Joseph's disapproval of phrenology, some Mormons continued to take an interest in the topic. Church leaders had differing views on it, but generally refrained from either endorsing or condemning. Bitton and Bunker note that, in some respects, phrenology had little to offer Mormons. Phrenology had a component of self-improvement to it--something already contained in Mormon theology. And whereas phrenology claimed to give insight into a person's character, providing strengths and weaknesses, Mormons had patriarchal blessings that, to some extent, did the same thing. By the middle of the twentieth century, the phrenology fad was dead.

5 comments:

Jared* 6/23/2006 12:00:00 PM  

Thanks, RT. It looks like Quinn relied heavily on the Bitton and Bunker article.

Anonymous,  6/23/2006 05:13:00 PM  

So, my question is were Church members interested in phrenology because they saw it as having some points of contact with Church doctrine, or were they just taken in by the fad?

Jettboy 6/23/2006 07:14:00 PM  

Not to mention Quinn is completly wrong in his saying "Smith" (I don't know about other Church authorities) encouraging or endorsing the practice. He simply allowed it to happen with strict denunciation he thought it was bunk. In other words, I think he thought it was harmless in practice, but "satanic" in principle.

Jared* 6/23/2006 09:24:00 PM  

Jettboy: I think you are right.

Brock: I think it was both. There were theological connections that could be made, and Mormons and phrenologists shared some of the same enemies (eg. orthodox Christianity). Also, during a time when the public image of Mormons was rather negative, phrenologists were giving much more positive reports about Mormons.

You can read the Bitton and Bunker article for free--I linked to it in the post.

Anonymous,  6/27/2006 04:07:00 AM  

Certainly there may be something to the idea that brain size correlates to certain abilities. Phrenology, however, claimed to be able to tell all sorts of things about a person's character simply from certain measurements. It was quite popular and led to the idea that things like sunken eyes being associated with untrustorthiness being scientifically supporable. Such things not only perpetuated prejudices, but as a teaching this would tend to disrupt the idea of agency--i.e., some people are just born to be honest, while others have a dishonest, or adulterous, or whatever. The idea was quite current through much of the period that one could tell the man who would be a murderer, thief, etc., if one was a good enough phrenologist, just by looking. It's not so obscure. Just read a lot of the fiction going around. It could be very scientific or be reduced to a "knack," but either way it made apperance the basis of character, which, I think, Joseph was wisely cautioned against by the Lord (as if there was any other sort of counsel from the Lord.)

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP