FREE TIME - A POEM

FREE TIME 

7/30/98

I don’t want to get out of bed today
I’ll just roll over and it will all go away.
Time for something different, time for something new.
Ripe for something yellow, or better something blue.

Time, this time you bow my servant
Time sublime, of you I’m recreant
Hiding in peaceful, restful repose
Dreaming bare and free, no care for clothes

Through the mist I lose its calling after me
while running naked careless toward the open sea
The waves crashing a sound like ringing, singing 
bringing psalms; the palms, the sand, and sea,
pluck the harp, the heart, which lingers listfully

And now a large wet lunging tongue, 
a wave of strength enormous 
licks me from the golden beach, undone
the size that can deform us
Within its wash machining mouth,
I roll and reel till numb
still the ringing drones incessant 
in an underwater hum

And just about when air's ran out, 
the light to leave my head
It spits me like a sickly trout 
upon the beach instead.
Sudden stunned and shocking, 
I’m full awake in bed
clock's clanger continues knocking 
its tiny ball of lead
Muted pillows me are mocking 
caught in smug and twisted sheets
all these things conspiring 
revel gleeful their deceit

Five fleeting minutes, or less than, 
and I’ll be late for work 
certain now, predestined, 
to arrive the office jerk.
I hop out madly, dress quite badly, askance
and slop myself half fed, 
And leaving cast one last glance 
longing t'ward beguiling bed

If we knew and true conceived 
vast possibilities outside our zones
all bosses would quick be bereaved
as awakened we could see to leave
the altar of their ringing phones.

Life is more than punching keys, 
or smoozing clients on your knees
Life for me's the gentle breeze 
blowing through tall green majestic trees, 
or the grandeur of blue rushing seas.  
Dream I do so much of these.

Dead like everyone before me, 
dread like everyone to come
chained to a life that bores me 
while working drone and numb.

Much to be said for escaping.  
Imagination's wild joyful rides
For happy free and fantasy 
we seek wild soulful sides.

Pony Expression & Horse Sense:

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I have the intolerable ability to ride a metaphor to its bitter end. I ride it, and I ride it hard whipping it into a frothing sweaty state of fast frenzy, until at last we both reach the next outpost exhausted. 

I then quickly switch horses, keeping my saddle, and continue to convey these valuable messages to their destination. I'm sure this ability is insufferable at times, especially to the one being ridden and doing most of the work (the metaphor bearing my saddle, and enduring my kicks). 

I will even at times continue to beat a dead horse. Maybe in an attempt to figure out why it died, or what I may have done to kill it. 

If my intensity causes you to froth and sweat into a state of intolerance, please know that I appreciate your conveyance and strength...eat a bag of oats on me as I pat your head in gratitude and respect. Or you can always tell me to 'climb off' and give it a rest, even in the horsiest of ways. But ultimately we both have a destination that is served by cooperation.  And we would both soon see the futility of changing horses in midstream, or in the desert wild.

Mankind owes a lot to the strong, mostly gentle, and tolerant horse; and the horse would not realize its true strength both of character or survival without being ridden and learning to bear it well.  

If I ever own a horse again in my life I will name it Metaphor, or better yet Metaphorse.   

"Hi-Yo Metaphorse! Away!"

Why So Shy Little Guy?

As a child I was painfully shy and did not say much, especially to strangers or authority figures (adults).  A childhood acquaintance, now good friend, recently admitted to me that he interpreted that silence to mean I didn't have much going on upstairs - that made me laugh.  He, being a grade school teacher, then asked me to expound on the mind of a shy child.  I've given it much thought and deliberation and think I am now prepared to respond.  Let me first make clear that I can only speak my own mind on this topic.  My shyness might not be the same mix of character traits found in other people who suffer shyness.

Although I was shy, I was also a very curious child.  I was very exploratory and interested in why things are what they are, how things work. What is going on inside that clock? Often because of my quiet, non-assertive, nature I went unnoticed in a group.  I have encountered that experience many times as an adult, often being last, overlooked, or ignored.  I should also note that often, despite the exclusion, I was perfectly fine in my own head exploring thoughts and ideas. Silence leads to observation and listening - I call it passive learning with an active mind. I was also quite content alone.  Although I had a few good friends, I didn't have a strong drive for friends.

I chalk up my shyness and unassertive nature to an extreme sense of my own deficiencies.  As a child you are quite deficient, knowledge of such causes you to be unassertive. I was a keen observer of other people and found much evidence that they were better, stronger, faster, smarter than me.  I was average, or worse, less than.  This was my subjective assessment of self which I thought objective based on experiences with others.  Call it extreme halo bias toward others, or lack of a healthy ego in myself.  Peers were not peers, and adults were even higher, especially when in authoritative and uniformed positions.

I wrote a poem titled Run-Ron-Run, about a childhood experience.  My third grade teacher Mrs. Olsen took her new batch of students out to the playground lawn to play a game of duck duck goose.  I was unfortunate in that, once tagged, I could not catch anyone.  My timid nature had kicked in (I was at a new school (Carl Sandberg) and knew very few of my classmates).  Nonagressive in my running, I eventually was winded fell and passed out on the grass.  When I came to, I saw the sweet face of my teacher and the faces of my grinning, sneering classmates all standing around me in a circle.  How embarrassing.  


RUN RON RUN        7-17-98

Run Ron run
You can get it done!
‘Neath the scorching sun
The turtle made to run

Catch them, 
Catch them, 
Catch them if you can
You the prize to win
Peers giggle and grin
On your trip, your knees you skin

A rotating flip head to chin to head
lands you upon your can instead
you land there, laid out bare
The children circle round to stare

Children in a circle
Standing on the lawn
I feel like Dr. Jerkyl
As over me they fawn

I wheeze and gasp, 
soon to out pass, 
lying limp upon the grass
Laughs, tittles, giggles, 
taunting wondering eyes
Jeer the simple fool 
who could not catch the prize
as laid out on the grass, 
in agony he lies

And loving teacher kind, 
not amused at all
redirects mean mocking minds, 
marching them down the hall

But remember the simple story
of the turtle's patient glory
with his slow insightful care, 
the first to make it there
And in the end to humble the
The quick and cocky hare


I am the turtle slow but wise, 
and in my own time I'll win the prize

I also recall as a young boy a trip to the dentist.  My dentist, a very outgoing and jovial man whom I admired, was talking up a storm to me, with the attendant devices and fingers stuffed in my mouth.  At one point he said, "You don't say much do you?"  Which expectation I found immediately ironic.  Then he added, "Well, I guess it's true what they say, still waters run deep"  THAT - was a memorable and impactful moment in my life.  A man, an adult, whom I admired, had thought I was deep.  Of course I returned nothing but a silent, mouth loaded, smile.  Deep?  Wow!  I knew (believed) I was, I just found it highly perceptive that he sensed that about me in all my silence. Maybe it was just small talk, but I took it to heart.  I thought incessantly about things and people - a resort necessarily taken when you don't talk much.

Because of my non-assertive shy nature I was passed over a lot in school.  I wasn't great academically or physically.  The other kids were more adept at social interactions and activities necessary to garner positive attention.  I'm sure some of my teachers assessed me as dull and stupid as well.  And to some degree I was. The adage, "Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" comes to mind.   

I was certainly unskilled in social interaction, simply because I did not engage and experience it in a degree needed to develop that skill.  I still somewhat suck at it.  Whenever in a group conversation with my wife, this point is driven home.  She is very gifted socially, and I, by comparison, am clumsy.  As such most of people's attention in conversation is focused on her.  I usually resign to just sit in on the conversation and listen, nod, smile and observe.

In my home my father was an emotional authoritarian, and my mother a self-obsessed chatterbox (I mean that in the nicest of ways possible, she was and is a great mother in so many ways).  In both cases you learn to shut your mouth and listen to get along.  

I was very good at pleasing my father, and highly skilled at zoning out into my own world when trapped in the car for two hours a day with my garrulous mother (I helped her fold and throw a paper route).  This learned ability to focus and detach amid a constant stream of information proved beneficial to me. 

I am very much a middle child - third of six, and the middle of three middle boys. (from that you should be able to deduce the girls). This position often tends toward being ignored and lost in the middle.  I realize that birth order is a controversial topic in child psychology, but I count it as an environmental factor that shapes experience, and hold currently to some of the ideas re environmental influence and context shaping expression of personality.

At one point of self discovery, trying to understand and explore my bipolar illness, I stumbled upon a wiki site about Latency Inhibition, and particularly the section on Low Latency Inhibition.  Much of it resonated.  Especially the part about intelligence reducing the severity of the disorder - that was a clue to me on how to solve my problem - I needed knowledge and to improve my intelligence.  Knowledge was key to coping with it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_inhibition

(edit - after initially posting this, the following link was brought to my attention, and seems to fit what I wrote here, and resonates with me in many areas upon reading it. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person)

Although I realize the weaknesses of my shy condition, I am also very aware of its strengths.  Sometimes we would all do well to just shut up and listen and observe.  Observe objectively.  Being shy my subjective nature was naturally objective.  I found flaws in myself that were real and faced them, much of my physicality and intellect made me face them.  This causes a lot of insecurity and pain. 

As I've grown and learned into adulthood, the notion of being wrong and checking myself and incoming information, especially information that tended to make me feel better about my world and myself, has served me well  (see my previous blog on the power of the negative).

In my ongoing study of cognition I recently came across an article on bias that indicated depressive people are very good at avoiding self serving bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias  

In this case my ability to be objective about myself, although quite painful, is also quite powerful.  Stark reality is depressing.  Many things which are true are not happy nor comfortable.

In my youth I also loved animals and nature (like a lot of kids).  I particularly was drawn to monkeys and apes, and had many a pet lizard, toad, frog or bird.  One of my favorite reptiles was the chameleon - I never actually had a real chameleon, only green anoles which could change from green to brown.  I admired it for its ability to be silent and blend in.   I admire animals that seek protection by not doing harm, or non permanent harm, much like the skunk. 

I find it interesting that the Chameleon's skills are used for both protection and predation.  I wrote a poem about the Chameleon, which I think is a nice way to wrap it up.  It's called The Strength of the Chameleon

THE STRENGTH OF THE CHAMELEON

7/24/98

The strength of the chameleon is that he does well know

when to turn from green to brown

and which hue he should show.

Each color is a part of him

Creeping changing on a limb

Eyes independent, mine when blurring

Two tiny twisting telescopes

Their masterful conductor, lobes a whirring

Hitting all the drifting stirring notes

Silent notes unstruck, unplucked 
Master of colors, motion 
still 
and stuck, 
unstirring.

A sight so delicate and refined

that man has captured and confined

To shape him, make him change, conform

Prized vanished specter against the norm

To rid him of his fanciful whims,

behind glass hidden on brown dry limbs

Much sooner to die in captivity

this kaleidoscope guy of longevity free

Listening to those who think they know

He gets a year full and more

Still and calm as their wild winds blow

Keeping it all up there in quiet store

He learns to hide his full glory

on bent limbs crouching still and down

With all senses listening to the pageantry

frozen he moves, blending green from brown

Quiet little guy

Why stay there still and shy?

You're a miracle hid in our plain sight

Your tongue can flick the sky's delight

Chameleon, vermilion, master of the blend

Your strength is not how fast you move, 

but messages you don’t send.

You are the jungle’s silent friend

Clever and quick (in your own way), and strange

Chameleon, hidden, frozen, mute -

I Love You.  Don’t You Ever Change.

If you find all this talk of self as a sign of arrogance or self-indulgence, please know that a shy person such as myself is innately painfully humble and self checking, I hope that concept is the main thesis of this blog.  I am painfully aware at how talking about myself can appear as unchecked ego or narcissistic. But in my later years I can only say, "What the hell, everyone else is doing it, and I think I've listened enough and at this point I think I finally have something important to say!"  

So piss off!  :)

Negative Space - The Value of Wrong

The most attractive thing I find in others (male or female) is a security of self, divorced from the need to be right.

We live in a society that places a high emphasis on being right, having the answers - this instills the confidence of others and puts the one wielding the right behavior and thinking in a place of authority and power.  No one wants to follow a sage who deals in maybes, much worse negativity.  Yet, learning best happens in an environment where there is plenty of space and praise for failure, for getting it wrong and understanding why it didn't work.  We live too much in a world that doesn't extol the value of being wrong, of learning from mistakes.  Much of this is because we are punishing apes, with a high sensitivity against doing things wrong.

When a person gets too attached (married) to their ideas, and self-identifies with them, they can become stuck by them, trapped in a bubble of sorts, where the bubble boundary represents the extent that they dare to question their own thinking.  As such, challenging the idea = challenging the person.  This makes it hard to have meaningful conversations, or to engage in critical thinking with other people without offense being found and anger taking over. It becomes a major blockage to either party discovering what is real or true and being open to facts they otherwise dismiss (yes, 'facts' are a tricky thing).

If you are my friend, even casual, please know that I sincerely care about you, even enough to point out when you may be wrong, even at the risk of you not liking me anymore.  I would hope you would feel free to do the same for me, as I also strive to be open to correction.  My life experiences have taught me to absolutely hate any form of deception (self, or externally practiced or imposed), and as such I seek the truth over comfort, both in my internal conversations and those with others.  This is my definition of integrity - seeking the truth over comfort. This approach can cause problems when I assume in my conversations that other people are like me (projection bias, theory of mind), and when I treat people how I would like to be treated.  It doesn't always make a person feel comforted or happy, but being bipolar I can tell you that happy is over-rated. I think I have benefited from this extreme ability to hold onto something terribly sad and discomforting. Almost always, the truth we need to hear and understand is uncomfortable, sometimes sad, and maybe extremely so in both respects. There is immense value in understanding the negative.

Many people think that being civil in conversation means always being nice and agreeable. I don't.  Although I enjoy the positives of pleasant and jovial interaction, I think the best way to be responsible in civic engagement is to point out thinking errors or ways people may be being deceived when these issues pop up in conversation.  Although I always strive to direct my conversation at the idea and not the individual, I realize that people often respond negatively to correction, criticism, or confrontation, and often respond badly by making all kind of arguments from fallacy and cognitive bias - ad hominem and straw man being two favorites.  Often the urge is to respond back in kind, mirroring their nasty ways.  Many times I've found myself fighting this impulse, swallowing it down, and really trying to consider what the other person is saying; counting ten, so to speak. This immediate response is hard wired into our brains, it's called fight or flight and triggered when the amygdala becomes excited and perceives threat or aggression.   It's a well tuned mechanism that people engage without even thinking.  This response shuts off the logic centers in the brain which are usually open to evaluate incoming information critically and rationally.  The "go with what you know" center takes over, so that while fighting or fleeing may be protective, nothing is gained (except personal safety), and nothing is learned (but better fighting/fleeing skills). This is the mechanism of bubble preservation.

The best way to escape your bubble (cognitive bias) is to honestly seek understanding in the things that you avoid, oppose, hate, find scary, confrontational, or uncomfortable.  The best way to be right is to painfully realize where you are, or may be wrong.  If you must always seek to be right and comfortable you will almost assuredly be stuck being wrong.

I write this in hope that people who may be getting undeservedly offended on FB or elsewhere may better understand why they are feeling so when a person is talking about an idea.  Why are they attaching so strongly to an idea.   Offense is usually a sign of insecurity in an idea.  Offense can be a protection mechanism that jumps in to save an insecure idea.  

I also write it to examine why I behave as I do.  I realize some fault in this behavior, in that correcting of countering people should be applied judiciously, or sometimes even withheld entirely.   Confronting people with facts rarely changes their minds, but instead only convinces them that you are wrong, and maybe a jerk for challenging their ideas.  By such, any contradiction or correction should be lathered with expressions of acceptance and approval.  Dissension is critical within a group to overcome many of the psychological mechanisms which ensure conformity, but to be effective, a dissenter must be seen as an in-group motivated reasoner.  They must want what I want, and share my goals, otherwise as an outsider, their dissension will be viewed as a trick, as a way to deceive me and mine, and ruin my chances at achieving the goal of the group.   Since correction is oft seen as mean, it takes a pretty close and loving relationship to endure much of it.

This correction with kindness and in confidence is a hard line to find and I often miss the mark.  It's almost impossible to correct someone in public.  Maybe with time I will just learn to "shut it" and smile, and only answer when my advice is sincerely sought with an open mind in a safe space.  As a painfully shy kid, fully aware of my weaknesses and inadequacies, I have much experience being quiet, maybe I should resort to that at times.

Due to my experiences and personality, I have a pretty healthy appreciation for negative space.  I see the value and the gift of being wrong, of looking for and closely examining what is wrong. Wrong has far more corrective value in our lives than right.  I had to realize what was wrong with my brain and my thinking and try to understand it and correct it. 
As such, I realize that a person's relationship with wrong is a personal journey, one best undertaken of their own choosing.  Part of my journey of realizing that I was wrong came about through a manic breakdown involving god and my religion that felt so right.  I was diagnosed Bipolar I.

So the thinking I needed to acquire to overcome a lot of my mental errors involves having a deep understanding of cognition, which involves flawed heuristics and biases.  This is the 1st tenet of my ideology, that I strive to live against via better understanding of the human propensity for poor thinking:

Cognitive Biases
Confirmation Bias
Motivated Reasoning
Bias Blind Spot
Better that Average Bias
Halo Bias
Self Serving Bias
Introspection Illusion
Illusory Correlation
Illusion of Asymmetric Insight
Projection Bias
Framing
Anchoring
Backfire Effect (Belief Perseverance)
Hindsight Bias
Belief Bias
Distinction Bias
Fundamental Attribution Error
Neglect of Probability
In-group bias
Out-group Homogeneity Bias
Attentional Bias
.
.
.
The list is huge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

The 2nd tenet is understanding and living against Logical Fallacies, which are closely linked to the 1st, and possibly an outcropping.

Logical Fallacies:
Special Pleading, ad hoc reasoning
Straw Man
Ad Hominem
Ad Ignorantiam
Argument from Authority
Moving the Goalpost
Slippery Slope
Tu Qouque
Band Wagon
Excluded Middle
.
.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies

This ideology might be seen as a 'belief' or practices that places too much emphasis on the recognition of the negative, but when we avoid looking at anything which is not flattering, positive, or happy about ourselves or our world we engage in the worst kind of deception - that of self.  It's easy to behave the other way, and to gain friends and make people happy with agreement and thumbs up.  This makes them want to continue an interchange that makes them feel good by only experiencing positive, complimentary, and non-confrontational interactions.  We are socially wired to agree and get along with the group.  The positives in this respect really need no further introduction.  We're very good at it socially and religiously - rewards and positive motivations. Mansion in heaven anyone?  

Come on over to the dark side - it really illuminates the light and makes it richer.  By dark side I do not mean evil, sin and debauchery.  I mean critical thinking and skepticism.  I mean considering what is wrong or in error, or even suspect about your behaviors and ideas.  There is power in the negative to define and shape the positive.  This is captured in the Japanese concept of negative space.  The trick is not to be consumed by either side, and to find balance in the middle way.  I only promote the negative because I think most people are very averse to considering it, and very prone to only accepting the positives.

That said, it may help you to know that the 3rd tenet is to seek understanding via love and respect, and to avoid fear, hate, and intolerance in all that I think and do.  'Fight or Flight' is a form of intolerance and based on hate and fear. If we truly love our fellow humans we will seek association with them regardless of whether or not they agree with us.  I find some of my richest experiences have been by association with people who are different than me in some way, and whom I have maybe misjudged via the cursory evaluation that limited time and shallow experiences usually allow.  I am genuinely interested in interesting people, and I think everyone has hidden gems, hence interesting.  Some of my greatest mistakes have been in underestimating a person based on appearances or snap judgments.  I like to imagine in my interactions with people that with regularity I have stood by someone of greatness, talent, or high achievement and just didn't know it.

Lastly, I also realize that the way I communicate often sounds bombastic or heavy handed. <- Exhibit A.   But this is truly who I am, sorry if you find it annoying. (If you do maybe that's indication of something to be learned?)  I am striving to be genuine and to be painfully aware of my flaws, especially the inner wiring that causes me to misjudge or be biased about myself or others.  I hope to be loving and kind while still striving to be honest and maintain personal integrity, facing the negatives as much as I enjoy the positives.  I think this is as much as we can ask and expect of anyone.  

BOM: Why I Know What I Know

"He who hath ears to hear . . . . . . . . . . let him hear"

Jesus was pretty good at couching possibly harmful or upsetting ideas within easily digested parables. I wouldn't even know how to begin laying out all the disheartening evidence on the Book of Mormon (BoM) in a way that wouldn't harm or threaten someone who wants to believe it for what they believe it is into taking offense. People who are not ready to hear and consider these things are highly prone to commit all the bad reasoning driven by the backfire effect and belief perseverance. As such, I must just lay it all out as plainly as possible.  But here is my Warning:

WARNING
If your desire is to continue believing in the BoM stop right here. Do not read past this paragraph. In the text to follow I intend to lay out all the key evidence based reasons why I can no longer accept the BoM for what it's claimed to be.  I do this in order to explain my position to friends and family on why I know what I know concerning it. One of the things I've been told by these loving people is, "You just need to read the BoM and pray about it."  I don't think they comprehend just how silly that sounds. I also compile this as a kind of inventory of all the problems that have annoyed me over the years when reading it, for my own mental sorting and clarity.  I feel that through my faithful activity and membership in the LDS church I've undergone and participated in years of disinformation and misinformation concerning this book, and other aspects of my religion.  I still love some aspects of the church, and it has some wonderful people and programs that do a lot of good, and are genuinely concerned for the spiritual and temporal welfare of others.  The heart is good and generally in the right place, but the head is a little whack@!&*  This can be said for both the people and the organization. It can also be said about many people in general, including me. As a former True Blue Mormon the same was true for me.  If you cannot read further, I would simply ask that you jump to the section Wrapping Up, at the bottom.  That said, let the un-whacking begin.

Synopsis of the BOM:
The book is claimed to be a collection of ancient records written by the ancient people of America, from approximately 2200 BC to AD 421, who were of Hebrew origin, coming from Jerusalem in seafaring vessels in three separate seafaring migrations (The Jaredites, 2200 BC at the scattering of the tower of Babel; The Nephites, 600 BC prior to the fall of the Jerusalem, as Zedekiah the last king of Judah, appointed by Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, was overthrown by the same; And the Mulekites, 587 BC after the fall of Jerusalem, Mulek being the only son of Zedekiah who escaped).   

These records kept by ancient Hebrew Americans were said to be written in reformed Egyptian on metal plates, and passed along through a varied succession of leaders and/or prophets. At a certain point they were gathered and abridged, and engraved onto plates of gold by the Nephite prophet Mormon, and then finished by his son Moroni adding his last farewell.  Moroni then hid them, along with other items, in a stone box buried in a hill, now called Cumorah, which is in Manchester, New York, near the current residence of Joseph Smith (JS).  These plates and the other items were reported to be brought forth and delivered into the hands of JS on Sept 22, 1827 (autumnal equinox) by an angel who is now called Moroni (originally the name of the angel plate guardian was recorded as Nephi). There are varied reports from JS and others as to how he found the plates, and varied related events surrounding obtaining them, some contradictory.  For example, one account says that he saw the location of the plates by looking through a peep stone, found earlier while hired to "dig a well" in 1822 on the property of his friend and fellow treasure seeker Willard Chase.  The far more popular version is from a later account, where the angel Moroni/Nephi shows him in a vision exactly where the plates were deposited during his visit.

Along with the plates, Smith said there was also included special interpreters, described as a pair of transparent stones set in large silver spectacles (later to be referred to as the the urim & thummim, which is Hebrew for light and perfection), for the purpose of translating the plates, which would indicate a character by character translation by looking 'through' them at the plates. In actuality the object used was the brown egg-shaped peep stone, put in a hat, and Joseph's face put into the hat to obscure the light where he could look at the rock to see and read the interpretation of the characters from the plates (which were nowhere in sight), and repeat the outmoded King James English words to his scribe.  This was how key people such as Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Emma Smith (all first hand accounts), described the translation process.  No one involved ever reports JS looking at the plates, or the plates being directly visible.

It is important to note that the method of putting his face over a darkened hat 'looking' at a special stone was the same one he used to look for buried treasure.  Accounts of JS's treasure seeking date from 1820 to 1827, but likely occurred sooner, as his family and father were steeped in folk magic and treasure seeking. 

Other reported items included in the stone box were a breastplate said to be for use with the spectacles in the translation process, and two other items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the sword of Laban and the Liahona, or directors which led Lehi's family in the wilderness.  A reason for including the last two items is never given and they are hardly mentioned.  The breastplate is necessary to complete the later referring to the peepstone as the urim & thummim, since in the Old Testament they are stones set in a breastplate.
This video gives a more detailed treatment.

Once 'translating' them from reformed Egyptian into King James English, rather than the common vernacular of his time, the golden plates were said by Smith to be delivered back into the hands of the angel Moroni.  There are many stories of this angel moving the plates around in various forms, but it is said that he ultimately took them and put them, just where? Nobody knows.

The first edition of the Book of Mormon was printed by E.B. Grandin and went on sale at the bookstore of E. B. Grandin on March 26, 1830, in Palmyra, Wayne County, New York, United States. 


Reception by Other Authors:

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet. 
Mark Twain, Roughing It.

"If... the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin; that a person of Joseph Smith's limitations in experience and education, who was of the vicinage and of the period that produced the book - if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.... [T]here is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency...Is this all sober history ... or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history?" 
B.H. ROBERTS, Book of Mormon Studies, LDS Historian and General Authority (1857-1933)

"This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to. How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle, than were the holy twelve, and Paul to assist them!!! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostasy, and infallibly decided, by his authority, every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!!"

- Alexander Campbell, An analysis of the book of Mormon with an examination of its internal and external evidences, and a refutation of its pretenses to divine authority.

Claims & Assertions by LDS Church Reps:

First we need to be painfully aware of the Do or Die Claims made by general authorities in the LDS church concerning the Book Of Mormon:

"This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God... If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it... If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason...""But on the other hand, if investigation should prove the Book of Mormon true ... the American and English nations ... should utterly reject both the Popish and Protestant ministry, together with all the churches which have been built up by them or that have sprung from them, as being entirely destitute of authority."  - Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1-2


“While the coming forth of The Book of Mormon is but an incident in God's great work of the last days, . . . still the incident of its coming forth and the book are facts of such importance that the whole work of God may be said in a manner to stand or fall with them. That is to say, if the origin of The Book of Mormon could be proved to be other than set forth by Joseph Smith; if the book itself could be proved to be other than it claims to be, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its messages and doctrines, which in some respects may be said to have risen out of The Book of Mormon, must fall; for if that book is other than it claims to be; if its origin is other than that ascribed to it by Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith says that which is untrue: he is a false prophet of false prophets; and all he taught and all his claims to inspiration and divine authority, are not only vain but wicked; and all that he did as a religious teacher is not only useless, but mischievous beyond human comprehending.”  (Studies of the Book of Mormon, B.H. Roberts)

“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."


“Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior”  - Ezra Taft Benson - A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19

"I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literally, historically, or theologically." - Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” New Era, June 1995, Page 64 

“Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” - Prophet Gordon B Hinckley, "Loyalty" April 2003 Semi-Annual General Conference.

"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. - Gordon B.  Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of our Faith.” October 2002 Semi-Annual General Conference.


Critical Analysis of These Claims:
As you can see, these sudden death, no middle ground statements about the BoM are made with some frequency by representatives in the highest positions of authority in the church.  These statements clearly stake an all or nothing position on the book, with extreme consequences at both ends.  So the stakes are high, the uncertainty is high (these talks try to insert uncertainty by seeming to explore the other 'false' extreme.  Maybe some are genuinely considering that the book is a fraud, but that is doubtful.), and there are a lot of other people telling you it's true, people you trust (or have committed to trust and follow).  Hmmm - This situation sounds familiar...guess what?  This combination of conditions is a well known, scientifically proven, mechanism of social psychology used to achieve blind conformity...evidence doesn't matter, follow the group.  Google 'Asch conformity experiments', or watch a good presentation of it HERE  (This entire video series is well worth watching).

Let's look at one extreme quote by the author himself, a quote which can be shown to be the source of almost all of the previous 'all in' assertions. 

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”  - Joseph Smith 

So by claiming that the BoM is the keystone of the religion, the result is that the Church stands or falls over the veracity of this book. This is a Do or Die, Sudden Death, All or Nothing stance.  Sounds pretty important to get it right, eh? 

Raising the stakes with all in behavior is usually seen as a sign of a serious bluff.  The leaders of the church have constantly pushed all their chips to the center of the table, betting it all on the BOM, and being led this direction by JS.  

Upping the stakes is an age old sales technique, and a psychological conformance technique as shown by the previous video.  As a stone peeper leading treasure expeditions JS learned this technique early on, as well as other methods to gain the confidence of others.  Extreme stances and behavior are signs of unbalanced thinking, insecurity, and often the sign of an under developed and immature mind.  Sometimes it's a bluff to show strength, puffing yourself up to look bigger and fend off criticism or doubt ... but sometimes in the animal kingdom puffing yourself up backfires, and only makes the attacker salivate at seeing a heartier meal.

By such claim NONE of the other issues or problems in Mormonism either doctrinal, or within LDS church history really matter (and there are many).  They may be interesting and curious to study, but not central to the question of the veracity of the church (or Joseph Smith).  Of course, there will be those who move the goalpost if they concede the evidence and admit that the BoM is not what it is claimed.  This always happens when people are emotionally committed to an idea.

I used to think (foolishly it now appears) that the LDS church could/should find a middle ground to its truth, but obviously with this pervasive 'all-in' rhetoric there is very little room for that in LDS thinking, and fundamentalist religions in general, and this 'no middle' attitude is coming from and dictated by the brethren, who lead and decide the doctrine and direction of the church, and whom every member pledges to honor, sustain, and follow.

If we continue to follow the brethren, we are told to doubt our doubts, strengthen our faith, and not to be intellectually critical in our study of the BoM, but instead to seek a believing spirit of inquiry.  To paraphrase Dallin H. Oaks - Those who question the historical authenticity of the BoM cannot call themselves LDS.  It is also bad scholarship to employ critical thinking alone in evaluating the BoM - Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, The Historicity of the Book of Mormon, FARMS annual dinner on October 29th, 1993.

Wow - Talk about sealing the deal.  Oaks just iced the cake.  Forget intellectual inquiry or fact checking, if you reject it or discredit it solely on that approach, that's poor scholarship. You must also use faith, prayer, and believe in revelation to get the full picture.  I find this statement from the address particularly curious:

"There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates. This approach is not even good scholarship." 

Really?  So does Oaks mean LDS people should apply this thinking and approach to other religious texts such as the Upanishads, the Koran, Urantia, or Nemelka's Sealed Portion?

Oaks' advice to Dorothy when she noticed something amiss would have been the same as the wizard's, "Pay no mind to that man behind the curtain, continue listening to the great and powerful Oz."  There's a reason why members are encouraged to use faith, prayer, and revelation, follow the leaders, and forego intellectual inquiry into the BoM; because the book simply cannot withstand it, and they the brethren know that it can't.  

The LDS church LOVES taking 'All or Nothing' positions to reinforce faith. As such they've created a situation where someone thinking logically needs only expose and pull on one thread and the whole sweater unravels.  The teachings are very extreme in the degree that they are presented.  'The ONLY true church on the face of the earth, containing the FULLNESS of the gospel of Jesus Christ.'  'Ultimate salvation (celestial kingdom) comes ONLY through the church and its ordinances.' 'Joseph Smith was a most virtuous and upright man, second only to the character of Jesus Christ.'  'For you shall live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God' - i.e. The Prophet, god's mouthpiece (Caveat: This holds only when he's speaking as a prophet, which turns out to be the times when what he says isn't obviously wrong.  When wrong he is only speaking as a man and according to his own limited understanding.)

Yet intellectual inquiry is encouraged by the brethren as well - LDS doctrine is conflicted over the topic of intelligence.  On one hand they praise it and on the other they discourage it.   The message is, you can be intelligent just as long as the truth you accept from your intellectual inquiry agrees with the truth claims made by the brethren.  This is also true about spiritual inquiries and personal revelation.  Whenever their is conflict you are to fall back to the church, with the admission that we cannot know everything, and if and when we do it will all make sense in line with the teachings of the church.

Open Calls to Criticism: "The Book of Mormon must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest. Indeed, it must be submitted to every analysis and examination. It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to higher criticism." (B.H. Roberts, Senior President of the Seventy, The Improvement Era, 1911).


"To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study - a search for truth." (Apostle John A. Widtsoe, In Search of Truth, 1930)

So let's logically look at some exposed threads in the BoM...or pull back the curtain so to speak.


Book of Mormon Problems:

01. Reformed Egyptian & The Book of Abraham: Are we to believe that Joseph Smith had the ability to translate Reformed Egyptian when he clearly demonstrated later his inability to translate real Egyptian?  We need only consider the case of the Book of Abraham (BoA), which was said to be a translation from Egyptian scrolls, to gain insight into what most likely happened in the production of the BoM.  The case of the BoA provides the advantage of having the original source text, the Egyptian scrolls, which we can now translate and date.  The translation and analysis of the scrolls completely refutes the BoA, and what it purports about the scrolls, specifically as being the writings of Abraham, or anything to do with Abraham for that matter. They are identified as common Egyptian funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC.  Everything that JS purported them to be was patently false.

Whereas, the golden plates, if they actually ever existed, cannot be examined to check the translation of the reformed Egyptian characters. There is also a problem with the language of Reformed Egyptian not existing, and as of yet not being discovered anywhere. Add to that the characters said to be copied from the plates repeatedly said by scholars to not be anything near Egyptian or any other language, but simple scribbles. 

The facts surrounding the Book of Abraham as derived from Egyptian funerary scrolls from first century BC shed much light on what was probably happening when Joseph Smith 'translated" the BoM - lots of imagining and mental borrowing.  Many of the ideas contained in the Book of Abraham can be traced to a contemporary book titled, Philosophy of a Future State, by Thomas Dick.  This book is known to be in the possession of Joseph Smith as it is recorded in a list of books he donated to the Nauvoo Library and Literary Institute, 31 January 1844.


02. Jews wrote in Egyptian?: Hebrews coming from Jerusalem wrote in Reformed (modified) Egyptian!?  On metal plates, not scrolls? Mormon, a main character in the Book, tells us that “the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us” and that “none other people knoweth our language” (Mormon 9:32,34).   This explanation basically insulates any logical approach which would include the stance that there is no real world record of Reformed Egyptian, and very little old world evidence of of Jews writing in Egyptian, instances of such being akin to a needle in a haystack.  

Some apologists want to claim that the hieratic and demotic forms of Egyptian, which were altered modes of hieroglyphs were in use in Lehi's time and that these can properly be termed "reformed Egyptian".  But Mormon expressly said, speaking of Reformed Egyptian, "None other people know our language.", so, FAIL... unless you want to throw Mormon under the bus.

That's fine, but moreover why is there NO Archaeological evidence of anything approaching Egyptian or Hebrew in all the discoveries concerning new world peoples? There is no record of any inscriptions, carvings, pictographs, etc, anywhere in the new world of anything remotely resembling Egyptian, or Hebrew.

Plus you have the problem of maintaining a uniformity of an esoteric language within multiple new world cultures which were said to split, divide, and diverge over hundreds of years, between three major migrations of Jewish people, and especially maintaining the retention and uniformity of "reformed Egyptian" among the literate of each of these separate new world people, the main purpose of which is the economy to condense the transmission of ideas when writing on metal plates (another issue).  No mention is made by Mormon as to the obvious situation he would face of transcribing authors unschooled in the use of this reformed Egyptian, since each separate culture could not be expected to reform the Egyptian in the same manner, or that each person keeping a record knew how to write in it, being a secondary language for the esoteric purpose of communicating ideas in reformed Egyptian on metal plates, of which there is also NO new world evidence.  It seems in order to carry this out, there must have always been a portion of the population of literate people among three separate populations who could write in this language specifically retained for the purpose of condensed writing on metal plates, plates that we learn were not even used to translate the BoM.  For more detail and a great interview with a new world archaeologist, take the time to hear what Michael Coe has to say on the historicity of the BoM on Mormon Stories - Michael Coe - BoM Archaeology


03. The Anthon Affair:  In February of 1828, JS purportedly copied some characters from the plates and gave this paper to Martin Harris to be taken to Charles Anthon, a well-known classical scholar at Columbia College,for an expert opinion on the authenticity of the characters and the translation.  This was most likely done by JS to provide himself a backdrop to derive an account based on Isaiah 29:11-12, but also possibly to allay the fears of Mr. Harris about his huge investment in this BoM venture, in the hope that someone scholarly would give him a positive review of the scrawls, or anything that could be used, even if they reported. " I can't make anything out of them" this could be turned into a faith promoting story when Harris returned to JS, and then JS citing the Isaiah passages and putting it in that context.

Much is revealed from a careful study of this event. First is that the written characters were not anything remotely resembling Egyptian, both according to Anthon's accounts, and modern scholars who have looked at the supposed original 'caracters' document purported to be the slip taken to Anthon, now in the possession of the Community of Christ (RLDS).  Second, it reveals by contradicting with Anthon's version of events, the high probability that Joseph Smith is greatly misrepresenting what transpired in his account, shaping the story to bolster the authenticity of the BoM by having Anthon declare them true which Anthon claims he declared the exact opposite.  Also JS's telling makes a great effort to tie the event to a passage in the OT, Isaiah 29:11-12. If you look at the motivations of each person, Smith has more reasons, having more at stake, to bend the story than does Anthon. And, Martin was a man easily bent.

Anthon's account also contains evidence that people were being forbidden and scared away from looking at the plates. When Anthon told Harris he was being deceived and should demand to see said plates, Harris said he was unable to examine the plates for fear and threat of a terrible curse.  This provides evidence that JS told people they could not look upon the plates with their natural eyes without being cursed or killed, and supports the idea that no one saw them directly.  After the event with Anthon, JS took the liberty to include quite a detailed telling of the event in the BoM as prophecy from one of his characters.  Anthon's two reports of the event, both in letter form to another party, are quite damning logically to the version told by JS, which was being circulated among the early saints to bolster the BoM, and as told by the Church to this day for the same means.  In a situation full of controversy and contradiction (JS leaves a trail of such events), which indicates one of the two claimants are lying, do you trust the guy prone to tell tall tales with a magical worldview, or the one who has devoted his life to science and education?


04. Metal Plates as a Medium: This brings us to the problem of the claim of ancient people keeping records on metal plates with the intent to preserve their extensive writings.  There is no evidence of this being done in the format and extent supposed by the resultant 521 pages of text which the BoM contains, all claimed to be derived through metal plates, the end result of which are the golden plates, being an abridgment of the many other metal plates containing writing of this type and intent. 

Writing on plates was/is highly laborious and impractical.  Imagine the effort of finding the precious ore, smelting it, rolling it thin to uniform thickness, cutting it to uniform dimensions, engraving on it (on both sides), passing it on from person to person over hundreds of years, with each person needing to know how to make blank plates for writing AND how to inscribe upon them, UNLESS metal stationary stores where common, or one of the originators made enough blanks for all the guys who would follow. At any rate making plates would need to be a common craft, passed on through time, just like the esoteric knowledge of reformed Egyptian, which new world archaeology shows that it was not.  

Most ancient writings, including those of Lehi's time, are found on papyrus, parchment, paper, clay, or leather,  These are all more convenient mediums to produce and write upon.  The BoM makes mention of vast libraries being kept in this metal plate format, yet nothing to date has been found which matches the kind of records being presented in the BoM.

The Gold plate story also aligns quite well with treasure lore, and buried treasures, as do many elements within the stories surrounding their coming forth.


05. Translation: Contrary to what is taught openly, JS is never reported to have had the Golden Plates in front of him when performing the translation, making the use of the word translation misleading.  All primary accounts (by people involved) report that the plates were not used to get the current text in the BoM, but instead, by first hand accounts, the plates were wrapped in a cloth on the table, hidden in the house, wrapped in a cloth and stowed in a box, or hidden in the woods, whilst the translation was being performed.  JS is reported many times by these first hand witnesses to peer into a peep stone inside a hat with his face pressed over it looking into the magic rock to translate, and the plates not being visible.  This peeping activity is the very same method he employed when scrying to find buried treasure for other people, and with the very same stone (it should be noted he never ever found any treasure for people who employed him to do so, but he did learn how to manipulate their belief in that treasure and in him and his abilities).  The prominent translation method reported was his favorite peep stone, found years before the plates story, which he used for treasure seeking, was placed in a hat to which he pressed his face obscuring the light to read characters from the stone.

Many members surprisingly don't see this as an issue, however, the story of the plates is central to the story of the BoM.   Joseph Smith not using the plates to 'translate' the BoM breaks the story in so many places and ways ... unless your mind is not amenable to logic. 


06. Hidden Plates: No one is ever reported to actually behold the golden plates with their physical eyes.  They are either hefted inside a box, handled through a covering of cloth, or seen in a vision. There is no report of anyone seeing actual gold plates with their physical eyes.  From accounts there is evidence that JS told people they would die or be sorely cursed should their natural eyes look upon the plates, and that such was reserved only for the Lord's anointed who should perform the translation. 

There is of course the conflict of the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses with the claim that no one directly saw the plates.  But further examination of these accounts reveals an indirect or non physical nature of 'beholding' the plates.  Joseph Smith wrote both of the witness statements which he then had the people involved 'sign' (we don't have their signatures).  It is reported that some of them were a little put off by the language of the witness testimony being too literal and not representing what had actually happened, but hesitant they signed it anyway. 

It should be noted that all the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. All the witnesses had ties to treasure seeking as well, with its attendant beliefs in magic and the occult.  Martin Harris had a substantial financial stake in the success of the Book of Mormon, having literally bet the farm on it.  Moreover, in the upcoming years, many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions.  By 1847, not one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.  It's often stated that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony, but this is common behavior.  Why would they out themselves in public as someone not to be trusted for his word.  Saying, "Yeah, I lied", or "It wasn't as I was made to report it.", reveals a person not to be trusted.   This is social suicide.  Most people defend their credibility when questioned in a manner where they know their response will be made public.  Most public admissions of this type are exposed through the broken confidences of others.


07. Isaiah: Isaiah is used and quoted heavily within BoM, yet some passages used are now known by scholars to have not been written until 550BCE (Deutero Isaiah).  Lehi and his family are said in the BoM to have left Jerusalem (with the brass plates of Laban containing these Isaiac passages) in 600 BCE.   These writings appearing in the BoM are anachronistic.

There is also the resource problem of copying Isaiah into the BoM from more durable plates(brass) onto less durable plates (gold). Why would anyone practically do that, especially considering the great effort it took to manufacture metal plates, and the time and effort it would take to copy onto that medium?  Why would Nephi expend that effort IF he already had it, already recorded on PLATES OF BRASS?

It makes sense however, that JS, thinking Isaiah would have been known to his characters at the time, and be included on the Brass Plates, would use this source (Isaiah from his 1769 KJV bible) to provide filler material in his book to flesh it out,possibly while he was experiencing a blockage but still expected to perform that day with his scribe.  We know that Joseph Smith owned a 1769 version of the King James bible, which edition contained translation errors which show up in the BoM Isaiah passages.  The Book of Mormon quotes extensively from Isaiah, including entire chapters.  When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they
would occasionally put their own words into the text to make the English more
readable.  These words were italicized and not part of the original text of Isaiah, yet these same italicized words show up in the BoM, along with other errors that leave a fingerprint of the 1769 KJV bible Joseph Smith possessed.

08. Brass Plates: Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc.  The plates of Laban were said to be made of brass, and in existence prior to 600 BCE (who knows how old they were), in Palestine ... Even though the understanding of how to make brass did not exist in Egypt or Palestine until Roman times.  If the technology to intentionally make brass were present, we can very rightly expect to find brass objects dating to that time in that region ... we don't.  However troublesome the use of the word brass is, it can be said that it simply falls in line with the Shakespearean English form of the word 'brass' which can mean any bronze alloy, or copper, rather than the strict modern definition of brass.

More problematic is that these brass plates were said to contain many of the writings of Jeremiah, an Old Testament prophet who would have been contemporary with Lehi. It is extremely unlikely though that many, if any, of Jeremiah's words had already been written down, inscribed into brass, compiled in book form as wicked Laban's brass plates, and written in Egyptian! In fact, Nephi talks about Jeremiah being thrown into prison (1 Nephi 7:14), when this did not occur until the tenth year of the reign of Zedekiah, years after Lehi's family reportedly left Jerusalem.


09. Angels and Plates:  Early on in the BoM (See 1st Nephi chapters 3 and 4) Nephi is told to go back to Jerusalem with his brothers and fetch the Brass plates from Laban.  After a number of failures and loss of their family fortune his brothers Laman and Lemuel get angry and start to beat the tar out of him and younger brother Sam.  At this point an angel appears and rebukes them and tells them to go back one more time.

However, in the popularized story of obtaining the gold plates, also told by JS, the angel Moroni/Nephi is said to be able to move the plates about, giving and taking them from JS.

So if angels can move plates why couldn't Nephi's angel simply bring the plates to him, thus avoiding the need for god to command Nephi to lie, deceive, and murder?  This may seem to be a trivial observation, but it shows an inconsistency with angels and plates, and an easy solution god could have used to get the plates to Nephi and his brothers without making them break his commandments.

The Laban/Plates story contains other illogical elements:
 - Historically, in Jerusalem, important religious and historical records were kept in the Temple in the custody of the priests, not at private residences such as Laban's.

- Important records, especially records of any length, were made on papyrus or parchment rolls in Lehi's time. Why would this one record be different?

- The Brass plates were said to be a cannon (collection) containing the five books of Moses, a record of the Jews from the beginning down to the reign of Zedekiah,as well as other prophets not known in the OT.  Yet, no mention of such a canon or collection appears in any history of the Jews. The earliest such collection was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Hebrew sacred books, made in the third century BC.

- On the first attempt to get the plates Laman simply asks Laban to hand them over without anything in exchange. If Laban were the greedy and ill tempered man he is portray to be, the Lehi boys would have known this and not assumed they could simply get the plates by walking in and asking for them. A popular explanation is that the plates originally belonged to Lehi, and Laban knowing this might turn them over if he were in a kind mood. However, there is nothing in the BoM text which says this, which is further negated by the fact that Lehi had obviously never seen them before, since he is surprised at their content when he gets them.  (It is a common tactic used by apologists, as we shall see demonstrated in points 13 & 14, to add non evidentiary explanations, even non evidence based ideas counter to the evidence, in order to maintain or rescue a position.  This type of reasoning is called Ad Hoc Argumentation, or Ad Hoc Rescue)

- Why would a wealthy prominent man such as Laban go out of his house at night and into the city drinking without bodyguards?

- When you're about to kill a man in a city street with his own sword do you take the time to notice it's exceeding craftsmanship and details?

- Nephi reports that he held Laban by the hair of his head and swung the sword with his other arm.  The physics involved using a sword in this manner to remove a head make this act very hard to perform.   The human neck would be quite difficult to sever in such close quarter with one hand.  Most beheadings are done with both hands, at a distance from the victim that allows for a full swing of momentum, with the victim's neck against a hard stationary surface.  This would make a good experiment for Mythbusters, although not knowing the particulars about the sword (length, shape, weight, sharpness) would be problematic.

- After cutting off Laban's head his clothes would be very bloody, yet Nephi put these bloody clothes on (every whit) and fooled Laban's servants by impersonating him in blood drenched clothes.

- Without resorting to magic, how is it that Laban's servant didn't recognize Nephi, a young man, impersonating Laban an older man.  The differences seem obvious and the likelihood that Nephi could have replicated his voice and manner, let alone his physical appearance (while drenched in blood) to someone absolutely familiar with Laban seems quite a tall tale - without the employment of magic that is.

- Nephi gives the reason for convincing Laban's servant Zoram to go with them so that the Jews wouldn't know of their flight into the wilderness and pursue and destroy them.  Yet, why wouldn't the more problematic discovery of the naked and decapitated body of an important man such as Laban stir up an immediate search for his killer, and for the missing plates, and for his missing servant?

 - Why did Nephi so painstakingly preserve the words of Isaiah, in the current form that we have them, yet omit all the writings of the unknown purported prophets on those plates who are not contained in today's bible?  Lehi prophesied that having obtained these brass plates it was assured that they should never perish or be dimmed by time.   Their contents seem pretty dim today.


10. Angel Confusion: Historically and according to JS's own recorded accounts, the angel who visited him and told him of the plates was first said to be Nephi and later became Moroni.  The earliest records (newspaper accounts, journals) record the angel's name as Nephi. JS was the editor of the paper that published the angel's name as Nephi.  Lucy Mack Smith in her biography calls him Nephi. Later accounts cite his name as Moroni. Some of these accounts were later changed from Nephi to Moroni after JS's death.  Apparently JS or the church was conflicted as to who should be the plate guardian, the first guy or the last guy.  Having trouble keeping significant facts straight is often a good sign of lying.  There are many other instances of text/accounts being changed to fit the latest version of the story, or to agree with evolving doctrine of a growing and dynamic religion.  These changes reflect stark contradictions (Mother of God vs Mother of the Son of God,  White and delightsome vs Pure and delightsome...).  There are also conflicting accounts of how JS found out about the location of the plates and how he obtained them.


11. Rampant Plagiarism: 
Joseph's 19th century Bible - Borrowed New Testament and anachronistic Old Testmant scripture are written almost verbatim from a 19th century copy of the bible, complete with errors of that edition in the BoM.  There is evidence of borrowing as well from the Apocrypha, which was contained within the 1769 KJ bible that can be shown in JS's possession.  There is also too much foreknowledge of Christ and Christian ideas as contained in the NT within the BoM prior to Christ's recorded visit to the Americas.  Are we to believe that these guys were a super strain of prophet when compared to those in the OT?

Languages - Foreign or anachronistic words or phases appear in the BoM, Shakespeare, French, Characters with Greek names, etc. Shakespeare was read by Nephi 2200 years before he was born? - 'The silent grave from whence no traveler returns'.

Experiences of People He Knew - JS records two of his father Joseph's dreams as Lehi's dreams.  In Lucy Mack Smith's biography she states that her husband Joseph had the dreams in 1811. It was the subject of many a Smith family 'Family Home Evenings'. As such it must be that Joseph Smith heard his father's dreams growing up and used them in his creative writing, being had by a character who is the personification of his father.

King Benjamin - The story of King Benjamin bears a striking similarity to an actual account of a retiring Minister in JS's area who spoke to his congregation, preaching and bidding them farewell, and admonishing them toward love and the Savior, with them falling to the ground, all just like the account of king Benjamin.  This was an event that JS likely attended and by which he was moved.

"The revival of 1826 hosted a beloved and well known retiring minister by the name of Bishop William M’kendree and preacher Benjamin G. Paddock. Visitors pitched their tents facing the raised revival stand in a semi-circle where they heard a valedictory speech of the sickly, older pastor M’kendree. The camp being referred to as God’s temple was a reminder of the tabernacle that the Israelites would set up and take down as they wandered the desert.


The congregation of more than 10,000 heard Bishop M’kendree express his love for them and their need of a Savior. The altar call proved fruitful as nearly everyone accepted the invitation to ask Jesus into their hearts. The revival further solidified unity amongst the various denominations in their fight to keep unorthodox teachings about the Bible from the Christian pulpits."

Doctrinal Controversies of His Time - The doctrines preached within the BoM are very much in line with the ideas being preached in New York, during the 2nd great awakening in the burnt over district where JS lived.  They also reflect the doctrinal controversies within his home between Presbyterianism (mom, congregationalist) and Universalism (dad, non-congregationalist).  These two beliefs are at odds with each other on many key points of Christianity.

Prior Publications on the Jewish Indian Theory - Other books present at the time of JS contain most of the conceptual content in and surrounding the story of the BoM.  For example, the same migration hypothesis of the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the Native Americans. This idea is known as the Jewish Indian Theory and was popular long before the BoM laid out this central idea.  These books were written and published in close geographical proximity and were available to JS BEFORE the BoM.  Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature published in 1826, Ethan Smith's A View of the Hebrews published in 1825, and Solomon Spalding's - Manuscript Found.  The Jewish Indian theory began in the 17th century and was widespread and well speculated by the time of JS.  Modern archaeology, anthropology, and DNA studies have soundly refuted this idea.

Other Influential Books - There are two books worth noting that have arisen from a recent big data search showing heavy correspondence,  These are The Late War , a popular school reader published in 1819, and written in King James Biblical style for New York state school children, and The First Book of Napoleon which also has a heavy correspondence with BoM text.  For further exploration of this study see also:
http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/ 
http://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

Anachronistic plagiarisms are highly problematic.  To continue acceptance of the BoM we must assume a very loose imagining and borrowing going on during 'translation', and not a literal character per character translation ... but JS and others claim it was a literal translation.  An assertion that can leave no room for creative writing, copying other ideas or texts within your time frame, or insertion of your own ideas and experiences.


12. BoM as BalM: As stated in the previous section but worth exploring further, the doctrines put forth in the BoM conveniently address the conflict going on within the home of JS jr, with his mother and three of his siblings (Hyrum, Samuel, and Sophronia) practicing Presbyterianism, and his grandfather Asael, father Joseph Sr., and brother William being a Universalist.  This put the family at odds internally. The doctrine of the BoM both promotes and attacks ideas from both sides in an attempt to correct ideas from both sides into a sort of reconciliation upon which all can agree.  There was much religious controversy going on with the preaching and revivals and ensuing religious debates in his area as well.  Joseph Smith grew up in a society steeped in these controversies.

"This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to. How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle, than were the holy twelve, and Paul to assist them!!! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostasy, and infallibly decided, by his authority, every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!!"

- Alexander Campbell  http://lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtml

13. Population Problems: Population growth cannot account for the huge numbers reported to have fought in battles between the Lamanites & Nephites so early after the small group arrived in the Americas and split into these two groups.  Even when starting with a liberal estimate of the number of those first arriving, and applying a very high birthrate, and a low mortality it still becomes impossible to generate the numbers claimed within the times they are claimed to have been present. Especially problematic is when you start adding in all those killed in the fighting and battles and wars so popular throughout the BoM...now mortality rates must be raised. The math just can't be stretched to account for the numbers reported in many of the battles. Modern apologists have corrected this problem by adding an already existing population to the story when Nephi's group arrived.  However, it's hard to believe that Nephi would have omitted such a salient story element if they did encounter a large population of native people, any number of people for that matter.  This addition also negates the prominent claim that the native Americans were of Hebrew descent.  Now the story whose main thrust was explaining where the Native American Indians came from fails to explain where these supposed pre-existing people came from.


14. DNA Evidence: The true origin of the native American peoples has been shown quite conclusively to be Asian.  There is NO Hebrew/Jewish DNA present when looking at indigenous people of America. Studies show that these people are predominantly of Indo-chinese descent.  The pre-existing population assertion (non documented anywhere in the BoM) is used here as well to explain why no Hebrew DNA is found.  But the explanation of other people being there is a blatant omission, and contradicts Lehi's proclamation after arriving in the New World (and just prior to dying), "Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves."  (2 Nephi 1:9)

Encountering a population of people and integrating with them would be quite a salient bit of information, the absence and omission of such seeming highly illogical. It would be counter to Lehi's claim. It is far too much to try and logically defend, no matter how hard you want to rescue the story problems of DNA and population growth.


15. Archaeology: There is a complete absence of archaeological evidence of anything mentioned in the BoM.  There is nothing in the new world archaeology to support what the BoM claims, despite much effort and attempt to find it. Certain crops, animals, metals, buildings, coinage, steel, wheels, chariots, armor, swords, large battles, horses, elephants, chickens, pigs, sheep, wheat, barley, silk, linen, and on and on.  Much of what is told and described in the BoM would have left archaeological evidence, or to be correct it would have described the archaeological evidence and cultures that we do find.  It does neither.

16. Clueless Christ: In the BoM (2 Nephi 10:3) An angel reveals to Jacob (and thus the Nephites ) the name of the Messiah. His name is ... wait for it ... Christ! Wow!  Problem is that Christ is a Greek word derived from an Aramaic term that means roughly the same thing as Messiah does in Hebrew.  Umm, Christ (Messiah) is a title, not a name! Christ's name was Jesus.  It's the equivalent of saying, Hey, our future leader's name has been revealed to me and it's Commander, when his actual name turns out to be Charles. Furthermore, in the first edition of the Book of Mormon the word Christ is used before this point, contradicting Jacob's assertion that an angel had to reveal it to him. Later editions fixed this by changing the earlier reference to read Messiah instead of Christ.  At any rate Christ was a title, not a name.

Also Christ, when appearing in the new world fails to tailor his message to his audience, basically telling them the same things he told the Jews now living under Roman rule and culture.  Some of these Greek/Roman references would have been completely foreign and unintelligible to them, having been separated from that culture for over 600 years.  For example, the whole thing about the hen gathering her chicks must have been confusing to them because chickens did not exist in the new world until after Columbus.  Even the latest discovery of a chicken bone in South America dates it to between 1321 and 1407 AD, and DNA show it to be of Polynesian origin. Chickens originated in the Far East.  So why did Jesus talk to them about chickens?


 17. Errors: The first edition of the BOM was riddled with grammatical errors (and theological/logical errors). This alone questions whether the text was written by man or translated divinely. There were also several more significant errors in the early editions of the BOM such as changing the name of King Benjamin to King Mosiah (King Benjamin was already dead at this point) or changing that Mary was the 'mother of God' to the 'mother of the son of God'.
Overall there have been some 3,913 textual changes to the first edition of BoM, which does not include punctuation, or adding verse numbers and chapter headings. This is the book Joseph called 'the most correct book on earth'. 


18. Witness Problems: - As already covered in 06, all of the witnesses were involved in money digging, were possessed of a magical worldview, and were either family or friends of Joseph Smith.  Their spiritual vision of the plates is recorded as a physical occurrence in both affidavits written by JS, which the men reportedly signed.  However, the closest thing we have to actual signatures is a printer’s manuscript written by Oliver Cowdery, where every signature is written in Oliver’s handwriting.  The testimony of the three is recorded as happening to all three men simultaneously, Martin Harris may have been a day later, definitely taken aside by JS and encouraged/guided to "see" the plates. MH was easily influenced by others.  JS was a man of great influence, charisma, and manipulative prowess.  Each man involved thought to make money from the publishing of the BoM.  Martin Harris asserted firmly that NONE of the witnesses, the 3 or the 8 had beheld the plates with their natural eyes.  For a more in-depth treatment see the two part video series produced by Dan Vogel.  I retreat this again because this element is one of the most cited reasons for belief in the BoM by LDS people.  It was one of my solids...until I dug deeper.


19. Money Digging/Guardian Spirits: There are so many similarities with the story surrounding how the plates came forth and were translated, with JS enacting the very same behaviors as when involved in money digging.  I've already mentioned the peep stone and the hat.  The fact that the plates were gold (treasure), and guarded by a guardian spirit (also of treasure seeking folklore), as well as slippery treasures, the elusive nature of the plates and trial and testing required by the guardian spirit and coming each year on the autumnal equinox wearing the right clothes (black) and riding the right horse (black) or bringing the right person, etc.  


20. The Logical Problems of the Lost 116 Pages: 
After translating the plates of Lehi and arriving at 116 pages Martin Harris begged to take the manuscript to show friends and family as proof to them that he was not being deceived. From some accounts it's obvious that he was under criticism from friends and family about his foolish involvement with Smith and squandering his time and money. Apparently Martin had judged the content of the manuscript as sufficient to set them at ease.  At a certain point of Harris's begging to show the manuscript, Joseph relented, likely seeing that it was necessary to secure Mr Harris's further involvement. The pages were subsequently reported lost by Harris to Joseph Smith.  It was rumored that Lucy Harris, his wife, had burned them.

Joseph's reasoning for not translating them again is full of holes, as the manuscript was written in Harris's handwriting in ink on foolscap.  Altering the pages would require the involvement of Harris and a rewrite of the story. They couldn't simply cross out, erase, or add words without the alteration being obvious. 

If JS could re translate them in the true sense of the word translate, reproducing the pages would not be a problem should Harris be hiding the original.  Likewise should Martin not be involved in the theft, anything offered by the evil men could be clearly shown not to be in Martin's hand, especially with Martin still alive. Expert forgers, should the evildoers resort to trying to find one, can reproduce existing characters and words, but would have trouble producing new words and story elements and have it still pass the scrutiny of Harris, or anyone else comparing the handwriting, especially if comparing the pages of writing from a forger and that from Martin side by side.  The alteration story is simply a cover up to hide that fact that JS could not reproduce the pages in a manner which would support his claim to be performing an actual literal translation as he told Martin and others he was doing.

For a deeper treatment see: 116 Pages Lost! Logical Smackdown


21. Racist Teachings on Skin Color
Recently the LDS church wrote an essay that essentially throws all the previous explanation on skin color (curse and mark of evil or inferior people to avoid interbreeding), under the bus, along with all those leaders (Hi Brigham) who taught and espoused them since the beginning of the church.  

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. - Race and The Priesthood, LDS.org

Problem is that this concept is rampant within the BoM, and most likely fed much of the thinking and doctrines in the church regarding skin color and priesthood, etc.  We completely understand skin color and pigmentation today. Leaders of the church have called these ideas incorrect and misinformed thinking of an earlier time. Why then are these racist and incorrect ideas in a book, written by the gift and power of god, and purported to be the most correct book on earth?  Shouldn't we disavow that too?


Wrapping Up:
These problems are merely a brief synopsis and the tip of the iceberg.  There is more to each of these problems, and there are many more BoM problems that I did not include.  These are the prominent points which come to mind when considering this topic. These issues soundly demonstrate to me what the BoM really is.  As a lifelong member of the church at the age of 34, I had read and studied the book extensively, yet was always discouraged from taking a critical examination of the book, or exploring the content from the outside in (objectively-rationally). If a person chooses to believe, and desires to believe, they can believe anything...it's only when you suspect you may be being lied to and manipulated that you start thinking critically and apply a little skepticism and critical thinking.  Once you admit the sh*t it all starts to fit.  If you never really seriously examine and test what could be wrong, you will never be fully right.  This is confirmation bias in action.  It's pervasive in human thinking and really good at getting people stuck in their wrong ideas.

The Good News:
The good news is that goodness & joy survives.  You don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Much like the LDS religion, the Book of Mormon might not be capital T R U E, but there is truth within its pages, and inside the doors of the LDS church, especially as they teach and reinforce core values like honesty, virtue, service, hard work, persistence, and loving and respecting other people. I wish they would focus more on these things rather than such narcissistic staring at themselves in the mirror, being so fixated on their polished history and foundational stories. 

God, if existent, or if you need to believe such, is not confined to Mormonism.  If your anchor was/is Christianity, then consider that Christ is not confined to Mormonism either.  The Christ present in Mormonism is a bit different kind of Christ, occluded by all the talk of Joseph Smith and the restoration stories, but nonetheless there is much about Christ in Mormonism.  Remember, Jesus also said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free"  What he failed to add was, "but the discovery process is painful as hell, and it will offend people who are not ready to hear it (Maybe even make them angry to the point that they want you tortured and dead)."  Even with all the effort to speak to people within their ability to understand, Christ offended people who were not ready to hear his truth.  So I will likely fail as well.

It's truly no longer my desire to offend anyone, and shut off their thinking and make them retreat even deeper with facts they can't fit.  I do however desire to live in a world with people amenable to facts and truth. I seek truth, and to accept true that which I find to be the truth through logical inquiry, regardless of the pain or discomfort it may cause me.  I was hooked deeply, and removing that hook gutted me.  It is a rough road, but a straight and narrow road at that, which doesn't lead where expected. 

If you find that you don't believe in Christ, or any religion for that matter, keep your mind open to the idea that what you know now may not be the end of knowledge, and that life is still worth living even if it ends at death, which would be a great shame to all of us who love it.  You will find that you still have the desire to be good, and to love others, to have and spread joy regardless of any posthumous awards or existence, maybe even more so. You can still assign a purpose to your life, very good and valid goals, and work toward those goals and fulfillment.

The truth you need to hear (accept) is often very painful and uncomfortable.  It really sucks to discover that the something you believed in, put your trust in, followed and gave your heart and time to was actually a fraud, and was all along deceiving and lying to you in some respects, not admitting the whole of what they really were ... maybe thinking they were protecting you, and maybe even out of love or good intentions.  Trust me on this, I have lived it twice.  First with my Father in 1987, next with my religion in 1997.

The good news - there is still joy to be found.  Joy is not confined to a religion.  Yes, goodness can be found in any religion, and in a lot of the things it was and taught you to be.  Some people knowing the hard facts choose to stay LDS, mostly for the community, and these positives and not the doctrine. 

Joy abides outside religion as well, as does morality and goodness, contrary to what is commonly taught by religions. Were I to have my wish it would be that we all quickly outgrow much of the religious thinking errors we are prone to commit. I see religious thinking as overall divisive, and harmful to both the individual and society.  As a soft atheist-agnostic, I have left religion quite completely, but I know that for some people baby steps are easier, and some belief in god is necessary to keep their chin up.  In all cases, keep the baby. Love the baby...but bath time is over and the baby is naked. Time to throw out the bathwater, and dress the baby.  Time for the child to become an adult, yet retain the joy of childhood - fully and completely.   Just like Santa, the Book of Mormon is not what you were told it was.  It is clearly a 19th century book from the mind and surroundings of Joseph Smith.  And I bear you this testimony, in the name of truth, our savior - Amen.