Tuesday, July 9, 2013

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.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Believing vs. Knowing, Part 2: In Defense of Science and Rational Thinking


Often I hear the tired statement, "I do not believe in 'insert scientific principle here.', (Big Bang, carbon dating, age of the earth/universe, evolution, climate change, I'm an Ape, etc)", which causes me to mentally respond, "Wow! We really are blowing Science Education in this country!".  When questioned as to why they do not 'believe' in that particular point of science, they usually demonstrate a shallow understanding on that point, if any at all.  What they really mean is they don't accept it, and they don't accept it because they have not invested the effort to really understand it, and they have not invested the effort to understand it because it makes them uncomfortable and challenges a held belief. It is a true situation of the willful ignorance of confirmation bias.

But why should that surprise me? Many of these (almost always religious) people don't understand and have not fully investigated their own beliefs either. Many fail to comprehend the historical/cultural context of what they are reading when they hold their book of scripture, nor can they even tell you accurately where, when, or by whom it was written. When you inform them of some of these facts, some will dismiss it, maybe thinking it inconsequential. Some will deny it! They apply very little rational evaluation of the material as from whence and whom it came. To them it came from God through his prophets. It is viewed in a spiritual, mystical, and supernatural light. These other physical explanations are of little consequence because they do not choose to know with their minds.  They know with their heart and feelings.

So in light of this, I must be forgiving of their misapplication of the word “believe” when discussing scientific evidence, because in their vernacular, as pointed out by part 1, believing IS knowing. So in actuality what they are really saying when they say they don't believe in a particular principle of science is, “I do not know much about that principle of science.” Fair enough.  Of course, this is not what they mean, they actually mean that what they know religiously trumps what is known scientifically, and that science is wrong. 

Conversely, when they say, “I KNOW that such & such religious idea is TRUE, what they are actually trying to express is, “ I really really really believe it a lot”. 

To be on the same page a translating device is needed, much like that used in a Sci-Fi movie when an alien visitor needs to communicate with the natives.

I know this can come off sounding like a trivial exercise in semantics, but I think the words we use to express our ideas are very important. Words and choice of words are the foundations of logic and reasoning, and provide for clear communication of ideas.  When you hear the word semantics, it's most often used in a trivializing or dismissive way, which might cause you to think that paying too much attention to what words mean is stupid. Actually, semantics is a very important area of language. Most people have a weak command of their native tongue and have trouble expressing their ideas clearly and without ambiguity or confusion. It is my hypothesis that people are only as intelligent as the language they use and understand, and that words lie at the heart of our ability to think conceptually. Words prop up concepts. Concepts prop up intelligence.

At one point in my life I fixated on the idea that for every thought I wished to convey there existed a perfect combination of words to convey it, even a streamlined efficiency of words, an economy of words. Maybe even ONE word! (As you can see, I've taken the shot-gun option of words in this piece). Synonyms possess nuance, each one conveying a color to the thought communicated.

Accepting this concept of the “perfect word” I soon became frustrated as the weakness with my native language became even more apparent. This caused me to do something most people laugh at... I took to reading the dictionary and highlighted every word I did not either fully understand, use with frequency, or use correctly.  

I'm not claiming any superiority here. I'm still a work in progress, and there are so many people smarter than me on so many topics. I come from intellectually humble beginnings.  I was raised in a home where religion was emphasized much more than education.  I attended one of the poorest ranked high schools as far as academic rigor is concerned, and was a poor student, in that I took the minimal required courses in that lax High School (My attendance and grades were good, 3.6 GPA). Yet I've always admired people with great minds and abilities. I think this valuing of intelligence has caused me to push myself to know more and understand more. My one redemptive quality was that I have always been a very curious person. I was one of those nightmare WHY children, and am now a nightmare WHY adult...torturing even myself with the questioning.

I know this can come off sounding pompous, or a bit egotistical. But you see, that's just it, we have a real problem in our American culture ->  Anti-intellectualism, and kids get that message loud and clear. Girls should be soft and pretty. Guys should be tough and athletic. Neither should be smart, that's what we call a nerd. Don't try to be smart or talk intelligently, that's not cool. Don't use big words – uncool, “Look at you, puttin' on airs” Don't talk about ideas – uncool, even boring. Talk about events or people. “Is Joe taking Sally to the Prom? Did you know he chews tobacco and still goes to church? I wonder what Sally's parents would do if they found out?” These are the typical topics of conversation.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
The point is, if you are not careful with your words, how can you be careful with your thoughts or ideas? If we do not value ideas and expressing those ideas with intelligence, how does that effect the makeup of our culture? We need to do more to promote and esteem intelligent men and women in society, and steer our conversations more toward ideas, and away from all the other tripe that clogs our public dialogue.

Foremost, we have to stop allowing the crap to fly against science, and people seeking to be intelligent critical thinkers.  Here are a few gems I've heard, followed by my mental response.

“I take science with a grain of Salt” 
 Oh really? You must take your religion with the whole shaker then?

"Science tries to tell us all that we are animals. We are not animals!"
Ummm....wow...you know you are a hairless ape, right?

“Science doesn't know everything.” 
 That's right and that's a good thing.  Science has a pretty good grip on what it does and doesn't know.

“Science is sometimes wrong - look at cold fusion.” 
At least it admits when its wrong, and is highly self correcting...in fact the whole Scientific Method is set up to prove itself wrong. Peer review is wonderful.  You cannot fly an idea without having the whole community double checking it, replicating it, trying to prove it wrong. It is only by having a willingness and directive to prove yourself wrong that you can ever know when you are right. If you must always be right, you will most assuredly get stuck being wrong. 

Science strives to prove itself wrong, religion strives to prove itself right. As such, I trust Science more when they say they've got it right (or better stated - We've got a really good and robust approximation (accuracy over precision).

We are animals with big brains ... I hope that we can evolve enough to use those brains and grow past all the stupid shit we do and throw about, especially that thrown against what can serve to advance and refine us.  Part of that involves realizing the errors of our cognition, taking our brains down a few pegs so that they can operate accurately within their known error zones. (Knowing the mechanics of cognition will actually allow you to read people's minds in many situations = true empathy).

When we claim to know things that can only be believed we commit a serious mental error.  When we continue to believe things that have been soundly shown to be false, well that is the worst part of faith, and the definition of ignorance and delusion. Belief perseverance and backfire effect are serious defects within our cognition.   I encourage you to explore those two.

From Part One: Go ahead and believe things, as long as you keep a healthy dose of doubt mixed into that belief - belief without doubt is not belief, it is a bastard of thought that looks a lot like "knowing".

Now to end all this with a wonderful poem:


  1. God moves in a mysterious way
    His wonders to perform;
    He plants His footsteps in the sea
    And rides upon the storm.
  2. Deep in unfathomable mines
    Of never failing skill
    He treasures up His bright designs
    And works His sov’reign will.
  3. Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
    The clouds ye so much dread
    Are big with mercy and shall break
    In blessings on your head.
  4. Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
    But trust Him for His grace;
    Behind a frowning providence
    He hides a smiling face.
  5. His purposes will ripen fast,
    Unfolding every hour;
    The bud may have a bitter taste,
    But sweet will be the flow’r.
  6. Blind unbelief is sure to err
    And scan His work in vain;
    God is His own interpreter,
    And He will make it plain.

God Moves in a Mysterious Way | William Cowper

Fresh courage take my friends of faith :)

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Believing vs Knowing



"It does feel like something to be wrong. It feels like being right. Realizing you're wrong is a different feeling entirely." - Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong, (10 Best Non Fiction Books of 2010)

Many times when discussing ideas with people of faith it becomes blatantly apparent that they confuse just what faith really is (and also what counts for evidence). For example, consider the following actual statement from an LDS person, made during a discussion on the LDS religion.

"It's easy to believe in things that don't require faith; Anyone can do that."


What!?  It's impossible to believe in things which don't require faith, by very definition. Things which don't require faith CAN BE KNOWN. Things which require faith MUST BE BELIEVED. Many people of faith fail to make this distinction between knowing and believing, committing a serious mental error of mistaking belief for knowledge. The first principle of the LDS gospel is FAITH, not knowledge. I don't think this is unique, since faith in a belief is the first principle of any religion.  But many members of many Faiths are very uncomfortable with faith alone (<--Irony), and thus make the leap to "Knowledge".

"Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step, and one easily taken." - Mark Twain

Walking about stating that you know a thing which cannot be known is not faith, it is ignorance; It is arrogance. So go ahead and disrespect your Faith and say you KNOW when what you're really doing is believing, if that's what it takes to feel better about the uncertainty of the human condition, but please be aware that you are not living your religion - you've mentally copped out on faith. LDS theology states that one of the major reasons people are put here on Earth, to live out our days, is to learn FAITH in God. Claiming knowledge is not practicing nor learning faith, it is a mental cheat. There is great incentive within many religions to show forth a fantastic unfaltering faith since this is the main measure of worthiness and position within the group.  Belief is the main measure of acceptance by the god of these religions.  However, quite ironically, a person who acknowledges doubt and uncertainty while yet remaining faithful is practicing much more faith than a person who resorts to "knowing" the unknowable. These "knowing" people have checked out on faith, like a lion tamer performing her act outside the cage.

Daring to be wrong and acknowledging uncertainty are attitudes of FAITH. Faith, by very definition, is NOT Knowing. Certainty in the arena of faith is close mindedness. A close minded person is the victim of their own confirmation bias, as well as a whole host of cognitive biases. It is my opinion that every human being should have the right to an education which includes a sound course in cognitive science.  We as humans need to seriously study the innate flaws in our thinking in order to become aware of and hopefully combat and overcome the ever present fault that lies within EVERY human mind. 

Faith without doubt is not belief, it is the mistake of knowing something which can only be believed at best.

Faith is fine, as long as those practicing it keep it on the chain of doubt.  Many don't, and act according to Twain's insight, taking that small step.  Go ahead and believe things, as long as you keep a healthy dose of doubt mixed into that belief - belief without doubt is not belief, it is a bastard of thought that looks a lot like "knowing"

Problems With Perspective


For years now we've had this painting by Manet hanging in our living room.   I've looked upon it many times while I lay on the couch pondering the universe, or trying to nap.  Every time I would point my mental focus on it I was a bit bothered by the apparent lack of proper perspective...things don't line up.  I viewed it with contempt and a little disgust.  We're pretty unforgiving in art when that art is an attempt to portray of reality.  Things are supposed to reflect reality, and line up.In this form, perspective matters, a lot.  So naturally each time I viewed it I bad mouthed Manet in my mind.  I didn't understand why, if he were such a great artist, would he paint something so obviously wrong.  One day recently, as I was again lying on the couch and again looking at this seemingly bad perspective painting, the thought occurred to me, "Maybe he did it on purpose to force upon the viewer a certain experience, a disconnect of sorts.  Maybe there was more to the story?"  So I got up and researched it online (god bless the Internet!).

Turns out, it was neither.  He did not make a mistake knowingly or unknowingly.  He played a prank of perspectives.  This painting is actually accurate, and reproducible in real life, although tricks are employed to fool you into thinking the woman and the man are looking at each other and engaged is some kind of interchange.

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/manet_bar/looking_glass.html



WoW!  Now this painting becomes so full of messages and morals in my mind about perspective and appearances, and wrongfully assessing people and ideas.   The big one: Some things that may not appear to be correct may in actuality be so, you are just looking at it wrong, and applying your rules.  I have oft suspected that this may be the case in what we perceive as reality...maybe it's an inverted, twisted, skewed version of the infinite.  Inherent in symmetry is inversion.  The mirror in this painting is a form of metaphor, etc, etc, on, and on.  Suddenly now this painting comes alive to me...just goes to show (at least to me), anything you look at long enough and try to understand becomes all the richer.  I now love this painting... now that I understand it better, and this the result that I was no longer content to merely continue laying about and casting self righteous judgement on it, and rather I sought to understand it, or maybe to assume depth and purpose behind something that at face value looked so stupid .  I think about how some people may be making the same mistakes when we consider the artist god.  Maybe god or the universe is pranking our perspective, intentionally hiding things from our viewpoint to teach us something, or to make life more rich, deep, and profound.  Maybe from our current position, and inability to get up from our current perspective, we are unable to consult, or even understand the cosmic internet.  I think I'll go muse on it again as I ponder in my view from the couch...maybe even enjoy a nap.







Friday, July 5, 2013

Scientific Agnostic Theism (SAT) Church/Club

Irony: Many scientists are atheists, yet hard atheism as an ideological position is unscientific.  If you ever meet a scientist who tells you they are an hard line atheist, feel free to let them know that their approach violates the Scientific Method.


I find it curious that atheists usually tout the very thing that they violate by being atheist - A Scientific Approach. Science at its best is supposed to refrain from ultimate conclusions. Each "proven" theory is held tentatively with the possibility that it might be proven incorrect in the future - this is the strength of science. To draw ultimate conclusions on something that cannot be observed is unscientific. If god truly is an infinite being/intelligence, we may not be able to comprehend that with the logical human mind or observe that with science. Many scientists place far too much "faith" in the ability of intellectual inquiry to discover the truth of all reality without the profound realization that the very nature of our reality at its core is comprised of unobservable infinite components, thus unfathomable by science or the rational mind.  Our senses are limited as is our cognition.

No one follows a sage who deals in maybes.  Although I feel that Agnostics have the right approach, you should never hear an agnostic say, "Agnostics are Right!", especially when discussing the unknown. A true agnostic says, "Heck, I can't know".  A scientific agnostic theist, as I call myself, would add, "but I hope there's a point to all of this intricately organized and ordered stuff I'm observing, this finely tuned universe, this growth of complexity that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics".   I do not believe that all I observe in the universe, all I observe in the miracle of life, all that I pursue within my own life of growth and education is an ultimate waste of time and energy. Yes, I said miracle but I use the term loosely.  Science still fails to explain the emergence of life from chemistry, or account for the trillions of years that emergence would theoretically take upon an Earth that is merely, by comparison, 4.5 billion years old. The evidence just as easily points to a higher intelligence at work as it does to the workings of natural causes, which I posit, may even be the very same thing. Ultimately it is my view that intellectually we will never discover the infinite (god), but we can approach it and make some pretty valuable discoveries. (A calculus joke).  

Just by our existence, and observance of the great diversity of living things, it is obvious that life is programmed into the equation of how the universe unfolds.  The universe has gone from a level of simple basic things to a very complex and varied system of order and interactions, and most of all sentience.  It is growing in complexity and diversity.  By this it seems to follow that there is possibility of an intelligence and sentience of greater depth and understanding than what humans - simian lifeforms - apes, are capable of achieving.

Sure, there is a case of absence of evidence of such an intelligence, and this DOES provide evidence of absence (contrary to the famous platitude), but maybe the experiment has been framed incorrectly on the faulty assumptions put forth by religious 'thinkers' (a term we must also use loosely) about who/what god really is.  Maybe god is absent or hidden from logical inquiry.  Could it be possible that god, if existent or extant, is not the god portrayed within the bible (or any other religious writings for that matter)...I think that is why almost all atheist have a problem with god..because the bible portrays him, for one thing, as a vengeful needy jerk who separates his 'chosen' people from all the rest of humanity.

Some people when they consider the Bible see a book containing the infallible word of god, written by his very finger...Others see it coming from God to lesser degrees. I see a book written by men thinking about god.  Men conceptualizing him anthropomorphically, and having him say things to benefit their particular sex, views, and culture (tribe). If you ask someone about the nature of god, and discuss that at any length what they will reveal to you is actually their perception of themselves.  All religious writings are basically this - an imagination of god(s) wrapped in the culture, or persons, describing "him" (a reflection or projection of them). 

To it's credit, the Bible contains some true gems of wisdom, and valid observations on human behavior and situations, but so does Greek mythology.  So it boils down to men thinking about stuff within a god based ideology and writing it down. I'm always for people thinking (and loving) and writing things down, it can produce some beautiful stuff, even when that thinking (or love) is misguided.

So do I not believe in God? No, I don't not believe in God :) (spoken like a true agnostic), but I don't believe in god as presented by any religions that I've looked at.  I see it all as speculations on the unknown and unknowable, that overtime tend to become quite detailed and defined. I do believe that God, if existent, has not very much to do with most of what is portrayed in any religious book (at least any that I have read).  But none of these books I've read are devoid of truth, or basic sociological and moral concepts that appeal to humans.  If you throw enough darts blindfolded, you're certain to hit the target at some point.  If you want to find god you would do better to do it eyes wide open. Study astronomy, biology, or one of the natural sciences. It is my belief that god has hidden himself and his truths inside reality ... the fingerprint of god if you will.  I believe (under my strict definition of the word believe) that we are infinite beings, inside a finite reality, which is itself a projection of the infinite.  

Sometimes I like to speculate that, life, and all that emerges from the cosmos is programmed into the equations, and that god is there in a sort of pantheistic way, waiting to unfold.  We are an expression of the universe, at this stage of sentience, whose best job is to be aware, sentient, and strive to understand and comprehend it in awe and appreciation.   There may be higher stages of greater understanding ahead, and there may be greater stages out there already.  I like to think that it is all unfolding into greater understanding and deepening awe.



The irony here is that you will find god exactly where you think he is not. He is not confined within a church or a book (and this goes for science too).  God is not the god portrayed in the bible, and this is why logical thinking people have no problem dismissing THAT god  (For this article I use the term he. I have no idea if god even possesses a gender.  It is no coincidence that the god professed within patriarchal societies describe "him" is male.

Atheists (and Theists) cast aspersions on Agnostics as fence sitters, or spineless undeciders...I guess it really bothers them that agnostics can handle cognitive dissonance so well, and combat the need for closure, to which they have succumbed.   Hard Atheist have filled in the gap too, based on their need for closure.  They have decided that case and moved on.  As for god, as absent as he/it/that may seem to be, the case is still open...in fact it's a very wide and profound gap. 

As indicated earlier, the core (center/middle) of my ideology is agnosticism.  Scientific Agnostic Theism (SAT). I wish there were a 'church' (club) for those who are knowledgeable in and revere science, who believe (literal definition) in god or a higher state, and cover it all with doubt (skepticism) when approaching the gap.  Were I to start one my first thought would maybe be to call it "The Church of Scientists", but that's too close to that other idiot church that has nothing whatsoever to do with science...hmmm.  Maybe SAT United? Anyway,its overriding ideology would be Scientific Agnostic Theism.  And its goal would be to promote discussion of ideas using whole brain thinking.

If you really want to map your ideology, or your core way of thinking and approaching the world to your brain (and practice a holistic way of employing that brain and thinking) Scientific Agnostic Theism is the ticket.  Science representing the Left Brain, Theism representing the Right, and Agnosticism representing the Center (corpus collosum), which mediates information between the two halves, and which serves to referee any conflicts, and facilitate even communication.  A good shot of doubt in the middle pointed in each directions to allow the two to communicate, yet prevent either party from seducing the other, forcing themselves on them, and producing bastard children (extreme unbalanced thinking).



I have written about the principle of opposition and adversity in another blog.  The structure of our brains reveals the same thing - opposition is at play.   It should be noted that the Left-Right description of the brain is somewhat flawed, since most studies where these traits have been uncovered involve subjects whose corpus collosum has been severed, or brain function has been impaired in one side(region) or the other.  Although there is some localization of function going on with most thinking, scans reveal that much of our cognitive functionality involves activity from both halves.   It is also helpful, and more accurate, when speaking of intuition (emotion)  vs. logic (rational thinking), to divide the brain horizontally rather than laterally, where we have the inner brain (limbic system) which is concerned with instinct(intuition) and mood, and the outer brain (cortex), which is involved with logic and reasoning, as well as higher physical functions.

Put very simply, Scientists are people who value and treasure Thinking and Logic.  Theists (religious people) are people who value and treasure Feeling and Emotion.  Both are vital parts of being human.  Both sides when sought to extremes miss the mark, and are unbalanced.  However, religious thinking tends to be more unbalanced, and more delusional, since many religions contain tenets which promote, or better, dovetail quite easily with the flawed aspects of our reasoning, namely Heuristics, Cognitive biases, and logical fallacies.  All human thinking and reasoning is prone to these hard wired pitfalls.  Where science succeeds is that science strives to overcome this flaw by the scientific method which involves validation, criticism, and peer review by people trying to disprove your position.  Science recognizes that we are flawed and biased and sets methods in place to overcome that.  Religion thinks that we are divine, has a hard time reconciling our flawed brains given to us from a divine or perfect being, and relies on intuition and feelings, and belief to confirm things as real or true.  Be these things as they are, this i the brain we have.  And there are some good things to be salvaged from the religious mind.

This is the true nature of the god-head - the head that god gave you.  As you may notice, it is a holy trinity as well...holy being holistic. We like to spout that there are two sides to every story, when in actuality there are three.  We have a long history of ignoring or marginalizing the third side (the middle), when it is really the most important side of all toward bringing balance and holding accurate ideas.  This SAT approach is actually the cure for my bipolar illness, that I felt I was promised from god within my last full blown manic episode (A very controlled episode, unlike others I've had).  Afterward, I felt I'd been led in my thinking toward the crystallization of this ideology of how to retain the middle.  Was it god, or the eruptions of my own mind?  I don't know.  I do know that when manic it feels very powerful, like communing with and being directed by the universe (god).  Many times I think the 'revelations' we have are just the under currents of our current ken, which bubble up into realizations.

I have the unfortunate ability to inhabit each 'side' of my brain in extremes = bipolar.  I have a theory that it may be due to a weakness in the makeup or structure of my corpus collosum, analogous to a referee who judiciously serves as a mediator of fairness between conflicting sides.  It may also be a sort of brain rash or seizure, where certain aspects of my thinking are inhibited and/or others excited.  When I am too 'left brain' in interpreting my experiences I suffer depression (nihilistic pessimism), and that depression continues up to a point where it hits the wall and bounces rapidly toward the right.  When I am too 'right brain' in my interpretation I suffer delusional, mystical, visions, much like a trip on LSD or DMT (although I've never taken either).  When manic I experience god and the infinite.  

An interesting read that really helped me understand my illness was a book - My Stroke of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor.  She is a neuroscientist who suffered a stroke on the left  side of her brain, severely impairing the ability of it to function.  The result she describes sounded strikingly familiar to my experience when manic.   I think many scientists would benefit from having her experience.  One 'miracle' she experienced was that she was able to 'fully' recover  from the stroke using her knowledge of the brain coupled with much hard work and therapy.  But with this experience so profound, she did not recover into the same person.  She is far more spiritual now, and sensitively tuned to energies such as love, peace, and compassion.

About my bipolar illness, there are some anomalies which don't fit the mold, and which I find curious and maybe worthy of investigation.  First is the onset.  Typically this illness presents itself in the late teens.  Mine manifested itself when I was 34.  Prior to that I had experienced normal highs and lows common to the life experience of most people.  I can recount a few depressive episodes, but each was of the situational type most people experience.   The second anomaly is I have no history drugs or alcohol usage which is typically present within the case history of people with bipolar illness.  The theory for this is they are seeking to self medicate their condition.  This restraint may be due to my religious upbringing (LDS).  However, even after the onset of bipolar illness and mentally leaving my religious beliefs I still have no inclination toward drug or alcohol use.  I think this is why I was able to find a cure to my condition, much like Jill, using my mind.  Escaping conflict rather than dealing with it head on gets a person no progress beyond their issues. (This is the crux of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, CBT).  Besides, if I really want to get high I can do it without drugs, and that high can last for days, if not weeks ;)

It is also important to realize that at this time I was under a lot of stress, at church, at work, and at home.  I think I was subconsciously tuning into the things that my religion had taught me and putting those things to the test in truly seeking god with all my 'heart might mind and strength'.

The subsequent years of depression and demotivation I experienced was due to the diagnosis of being mentally ill and the attendant loss of all the things I treasured, the thinking that gave my life meaning and direction.  I was unwittingly going through Religious Trauma Syndrome, and experiencing the 'Death of one's previous life'.

I know that it is in our nature to interpret things from our current perspective and think that this perspective is accurate in defining the world around us.  We then bump into others who have a view out of their windows that they see as the defining view as well.  We disagree with ideas that don't suit our thinking, and to accept those which do.

So about that church club, I doubt I could get a bunch of differing and opposing views in a room together without heavy discussion, disagreement, and the sharing of endless tangential trivia or irrelevant factoids...Or a lot of, "yeah, but have you considered this?"   So, the first rule of church club would need be, there is no fighting in church club.

The second rule of church club would possibly be that people involved should try to see, at worst, the middle view, which would best facilitate understanding when approaching the opposing views of others, or those ideas dealing with either the unknown or the unknowable.  You can't know, and you may be wrong.   As said earlier on agnosticism, which I think comprises this middle position, can be very uncomfortable and produce much cognitive dissonance driving the need for closure one direction or the other.

Maybe I'll come up with more rules later, but that should suffice for now.

Much like Larry Donner said in Throw Mama From The Train, "Hate makes you impotent, love makes you crazy. Somewhere in the middle you can survive."  

Throw some different words into that related to this post and it works just as well.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Life is a Banquet - OR - Why We Poop

Warning! NSFP  (Not Suitable For Prudes)
I recently came across an interchange that happened online with some prominent people in the LDS community that got me thinking about how much I love it when people behave toward each other in real and honest ways.

In 2007 Richard Dutcher, a pioneer of LDS film making, blew a haughty kiss goodbye to the LDS film industry.  I read his goodbye and I loved it. He seemed a bit inflated, sounding a bit like, "Now listen Children!", but it was what he was really thinking and feeling at the time, uncensored, unadorned, a bit reckless, and I loved him for that.  Kieth Merril (another filmmaker) then responded in a very real and self-justified way at Richard's ego and what he saw as delusion (I could see that too from his perspective).  Again, unrestrained and raw.  I loved that.  Beautiful stuff.  He later issued a formal apology to Richard ... meh OK, that's good too.  I like to see people get along and admit their mistakes as well.  But more-so, I love it when people dare to be real and have real emotions, opinions, and responses.
Richard Dutcher: Parting Words on Mormon Movies
Kieth Merril: Dutcher Comments Showed Arrogance
Keith Merril Apology

In our society there is so much pressure to always smile and show the best, most positive sides, of who we are.  That's good n all...but it's also a little phony and plastic. People who tune in too heavily to this broadcast become passive aggressive pleasers, among other personality disorders caused by not expressing your true thoughts and emotions, and our get along and go along nature which causes us to stuff it down more than we let it out.

I love it when people are not afraid to show a bit of the underbelly when having a spine.  I love it when people have a bit of grit and backbone to their personality.  I hate FAKE.   If you know me, that's one thing you will know loud and clear.  I abhor deception and people and things hiding who and what they really are.  I don't like artificial or pretend when it comes to people ... and in order to get that I will walk along the shitty roads with you.  I adore real, and I strive to be real...maybe a real weirdo, or a real idiot, or a real jerk...but hopefully I'm real.

In a recent conversation with a friend on FaceBook (FB) they mentioned how they get tired of people on FB constantly promoting their perfect wonderful lives.  I responded, "Yeah, it's almost lie a contest eh?"   I noticed the spelling error so I texted again, "I meant like, but lie works too"  A hearty agreement was returned.  I call my friend's reaction to this FB kind of sharing, The Pollyanna Reflex Syndrome.  As many know, Pollyanna is a little fictional girl who is always so sweet, kind, and full of hope.  So wonderfully optimistic ... So terribly punchable in the face!

Punchable that is, if you're like most people whose lives are not like that.  The urge to punch her in the face when she won't concede anything negative about anything is The Pollyanna Reflex Syndrome, when Pollyanna pushes it too far and might just benefit from a serious punch in the face (Hey - I'm not condoning violence toward children - it's metaphor people!)

Just sayin, maybe Pollyanna needs to get real ... go through a major depressive episode? ... of course we only see her when she's young and full of hope and her naive and wonderful optimism, a sweet adorable dopey little head full of only the best ideals.

Yeah, let her live long enough in the real world and life will  inevitably beat some reality into that curly little head.   Ahhh! - Did I really just say that?  I'm horrible I guess.

Point is, the optimism portrayed in that movie is NOT REAL.  Sure, she goes through some adversity when she gets hit by a car and has to adjust to being crippled, but in real life she would NOT walk again.  Spinal injuries are a bit that way.  Some things you simply cannot solve with positive mental attitude (PMA), although PMA can make life happier, and more tolerable.

Many people get annoyed by the imbalance of unbridled PMA and must inject some pessimism into the equation to balance it out.  Life is a brutal teacher ... if you don't keep moving, striving, working ... it will kick your ass and take you down.  Dreams do not work if you don't. If you stand still your dreams will bury you. Sometimes it even takes you down when you're doing everything right.  Life is kinda fickle that way.  Butt - Big BUT, You WILL endure it better if you can maintain a PMA, but PMA alone will not save you from hardship, or miraculously mend your spine, without the work and the willpower to see the bad things through, and some bad things you simply never get through, or over, you just deal ... and keep dealing.

I came across this excellent presentation when in the middle of thinking about this - http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-brilliant-form-of-social-control-ever-invented-is-right-here?g=2

This is the insidious myth that we continue to teach our children (well meaning as it may be), that if you are good and positive (righteous) that God will protect you and keep bad things from happening in your life ( I actually heard an adult say this recently to a group of young cub scouts).   This unfortunately contains the burrowing mind worm message that should something bad happen in their lives (which it inevitably will), that it is somehow their fault, and God let it happen (e.g. parents divorcing or death).  God doesn't/didn't love and protect them because of some issue within them.  Somehow they cosmically brought it on themselves.

This thinking is the reason why society has a tendency to blame the victim, because we still sell this idea that people always deserve what they get. If god doesn't heal your crippled legs - guess what YOU SUCK!, or your attitude sucks.  More benign, yet still insidious, is the message "He's trying to teach you a lesson".  Really?  Then, what a mean Bastard God is!  He could help me out...but he chooses to let me suffer?  He could have prevented your brutal beating and rape...but He allowed it to teach you a lesson. (again the message that your suffering is due to some failing within you, something you need to be taught or learn, or have fixed by trial)  If only I had prayed more, and was more faithful and good...this would not have happened.  This making lemonade with God is just another form of PMA taken too far.

It's no surprise that we humans have invented a vengeful deity in our image.  We are punishing apes, bent on justice and consequences, who have no trouble handing down severe punishments.  Nor do we have much trouble imaging a god who favors those who agree with him, and punishes those who don't, until they're beaten down enough to get it.  And if they never do, there's a special place of  time-out in store.  As such, it's not hard to make the mental jump of assuming success and failure as assignments of the individual by God.

This social phenomenon of blaming people for their misfortunes is ancient, and likely goes back far beyond our species.  It is present today among other species which ostracize the weak and wounded from the flock or herd.  we too are flock and herd animals.  It's no surprise that we carry this behavior.  It is based on superstition and wrong headed thinking, but it likely promoted survival by causing people to distance themselves from anyone who encountered misfortunes, or who were generally unsuccessful, and to stick with those who were successful and then attribute it to the favor of the gods, rather than maybe the behaviors that group of people were engaging in.  "The gods favor the righteous and punish the evil, and if the gods can punish you so can we.  If you experience trouble and hardship, the gods are cursing you because of something evil within you."  It is baffling that this craptastical  thinking still goes on today!

In this world of chaos and chance, is it too much to just admit that sometimes bad things happen for no reason at all?  Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people...and of course the two other well spouted combinations.  You don't always earn/deserve what you get.  Sorry, life is not always fair.  But THAT can be liberating news for some people operating under the false assumption that it is, or should be.  Of course, should you work hard and apply effort to achieving things, you will likely get what you deserve, and the contrary to that as well.  There is a degree of controlling our outcomes, but when chaos and chance, and other people are at play, this thinking turns to shit.

Most maddening to me is when people who have had really terrible things happen in their lives fall prey to this thinking and turn their pain inward, engaging in behaviors and thinking that only serve to harm themselves and stifle their growth.  This thinking reaches outward from them and impacts anyone close to them, especially their family, specifically their children.  They are living in shit and spreading that shit around liberally.

When ideas and thoughts are not balanced against each other, they become platitudinous in isolation.  Words are the tools we use to think.  We should be careful not to adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought terminating cliches"). These one sided ideas and words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, hackneyed "buzz words".  Most importantly, spreading these unbalanced ideas harms people.  Optimism is great.  You'll be happier and live longer taking the higher route with your thoughts.  We should all strive to be optimistic, and full of hope.  But at the same time we must not oversell the idea.  PMA is the not a magical key to success and happiness.  You can be an optimist and have some terrible things happen to you.

You may have many wonderful things in your life, and for that I truly am glad, Share away! It's fun. It's joyful.  It's uplifting. But if we are always ashamed/afraid to be real with one another, and maybe admit that things aren't always so great, and maybe we aren't always so great, or delightedly happy, it all comes off feeling a bit phony and shallow ... even irritating. I'm sure that if I invested the time with any one of my Facebook friends I would discover their "realness"; it's sad that time (and stalking laws) don't permit that. ;)

I have been able to develop some real experiences with people on the Internet, and the Internet has been an enhancement to my relationship with real life friends.   Conversely, via the Internet I think I've also lost some friends who didn't like my views, or realized they didn't want to associate with someone so weird or who didn't agree with their values or beliefs.  Too bad life is so fragile.  I try to associate and learn from everyone, especially if they don't agree with my ideas.  But I totally understand why some people don't like being around me ... because I see myself as an ape, and apes as you know feel free to fling their shit, and I feel that this association and identity gives me license to do the same.

Like I said in an earlier blog, FB is not the place to share your inner weirdo.  Social psychology dictates that we always display strength in the herd, unless we want to be pushed to the fringes, or fall to the rear of the pack where we'll become more susceptible to predation.  Weakness or strange erratic behavior is seen as a
predator magnet by other members of the group...it sparks fear.  Unfortunately this shapes life in society into little more than a beauty or popularity contest.  Too bad for all you fat, ugly, untalented, inarticulate (oh wait, that's perfectly admissible)...u hmm, graceless, toothless, idiots (oh wait, admissible again!).

One of the things we have trouble with is admitting our flaws, admitting our weaknesses. Admitting that we may be wrong at the very core of what we believe. Admitting the vulgarity of our basic animal nature.  We try to hide and deny it.   Many people when questioned will not agree that they are an animal, let alone an ape.  We feel ourselves separate and apart from animals, and in some real ways we are, but beneath it all WE ARE ANIMALS.  Animals with some real hang-ups about our animal behaviors (Sex, attraction, eating,
digestion, defecation, grooming, etc.).  We also have a strong aversion to admitting that our brains and thinking isn't so perfect, being full of flaws, prone to a huge laundry list of flawed heuristics, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies.

Growing up from a child and into a young adult, and then beyond, society will continually pound home the shame and embarrassment you should feel for these aspects of being human.  When you are told by authority figures that these things about yourself deserve to be stifled and hidden, that they are embarrassing, offensive or 'vulgar' it begins to rub off on how you view yourself - vulgar, offensive, full of sin.  As a young person/adult if you are told that your  attraction to the opposite sex is "evil" and sinful and that looking with lust is equal to adultery, and you've sinned in your heart - WOW!  No wonder people are so hung up about sex.

One day while sitting on the toilet and stinking up the joint (come on we all do it) it occurred to me how much I hated this aspect of my life....how demeaning it was.  IF god made us why do we poo?  Why must poo be so ...poopy, and foul? I hate that I have to poo...I hate that I stink.  If I had my way I would never have to be physically offensive in any way. But I am.  Why would God make me this way?   It occurred to me, most people can't admit the shit.  Most people do not like the idea that they shit and that their shit stinks.   It's too vulgar, crude, unrefined.  If you're thinking right now, "Oh why must you talk about all of this...it's vulgar"  I would say, "Exactly - try to keep up."  I'm reminded right now of how much I love the song All Things Dull & Ugly, by Eric Idle, I think it captures what I'm after here.  "All things dull & ugly, all things short and squat, all thing rude and nasty, the lord God made the lot."

Like most things in life, thinking of the shit requires establishing a balance ... finding the middle.   Temperance does not mean prohibition. Whenever a culture makes a thing evil and forbidden it only incites more aberrant behavior in that thing. Abuse of women and children goes up within cultures that stifle and get hung up on
human sexuality.   Proven Scientific Fact!  Whenever we suppress and shame a natural
behavior or drive all it does is cause that behavior to become "constipated', perverted, pushing into the underground, and causing people to obsess unnaturally over it.  Somewhat like prohibition made drinking a taboo and only served to cause all sorts of problems with alcohol, and actually increased crime AND drinking, esp among women (interesting in that it was women who were pushing prohibition).  http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/

Wrongheaded ideas tend to make things more complicated. If there is a god, (which I believe there is) our concept of how that God is involved with us is wrong.  Sin in my book is inefficiency.  Anything that slows or  stifles growth, happiness, and people living productively together is sin  Correct ideas tend to make life easier and interaction less complicated...but the paradox is that the real answers are usually very complicated.  There are few easy answers.

One thing that may help you find the answers is this little rhyme -  Once you admit the shit everything starts to fit. It denotes that when thinking about a matter, the fewer contortions and explanations you need to make the more likely it is that you're right, or getting close.  There were such problems in my life that became so much easier to understand by looking at it with due weight to the not so desirable elements in the equation.   Once those elements were given their proper weight many other contorted explanations dropped away.

Also, consider this thought nugget that occurred to me while on the toilet:
Everyone is full of crap - God designed us such that at least once a day we would be reminded of this important realization.

I should maybe amend it to read - "at least once a day (if healthy)". Some people suffer from constipation (This applies to the mind as well as the body). If you want to be happy (healthy) be sure you release your crap upon the world at least once every day.

Maybe a poem would say it better:

Life Is a Banquet

To say life is a banquet

we must also admit
that along with the feasting
comes a great deal of shit

with pressure, relief

with pleasure, too grief
and release of the pressure
brings pleasure too brief

Those whose views choose to lose

issues south of the mouth,
will find it quite crass, 
all my talk of the ass

But perspective depends,

my fair weathered friends,
whether not you'd defend
crap can come from both ends.

This poem is the proof 

that I speak the truth
especially if you
find it uncouth.

So consider the crap 

like you value the meal
Just like a storm 
makes weather a thrill
Don't just look at one side 
when you choose to 'get real'
The end you despise 
doth comprise the ideal.


Well, I think I'm finished...time to clean up and climb off.  Maybe you didn't quite like this installment.  Maybe you found it crude, stupid, offensive?  I've allowed myself to be quite a bit more vulgar than I usually am, but it's art, the content pushes the concept...reinforces the theme.  If you find me vulgar, well, what can I say?...these are my thoughts.  They're not all gems...but they are all real.  I took very little effort to polish this installment...the adage of polishing turds springs to mind. I just let it spill out of me, in a very natural way.  So it may appear scattered and a bit disorganized, and distasteful, but how fitting when thinking on shitting. Oh, and I'll be sure to leave the fan on for awhile.









Saturday, June 29, 2013

Sociopaths: A Personal Study



Lately I've been studying sociopaths - an interest sparked by exposure to the weird life and escapades of Chris Nemelka. (http://chrisnemelka.com/).  He is one among a long list of others I've noticed who exhibit these same 'interesting' personality traits.  I thought it finally time that I delve into it and actually try to understand the behavior a little better.

Here's a little "study sheet" I'm working on:

Sociopath vs Psychopath: Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is the clinical term for the disorder associated with the traits of sociopaths. In popular culture, the term psychopath and sociopath are often loosely used as interchangeable. But there is a difference in the connotation each word carries, as each one describes the expression and degree of the same basic personality disorder, with psychopaths expressing in a more organized, planned, diabolical and aggressive way, and sociopaths being less intentional and behaving more haphazardly.  But, with any division between two things this is also a spectrum blend. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

Females are said to suffer from this disorder to a lesser extent than males, but it may just be a case of how societal roles direct the expression of the disorder.  To date there is no reliable percentage of occurrence withing society, or between males and females, but it is evident that the disorder is expressed differently according to societal roles and gender identity. 
As with any human trait the traits of a sociopath/psychopath are a exhibited within a broad spectrum, with varying degrees of intensity.  In some respect, to some degree, normal people also display these traits (see #11). 

Before getting to the list of traits it is important to note and understand that the predominant trait of a sociopath is that they lack the capacity for empathy - and true remorse for hurting others.  Empathy is the ability to share, experience, and understand what others might be feeling from their perspective.  Because of this they are entirely motivated by their own self interests.  This lack of the ability for empathy underlies many of the traits of someone with APD.

All that said, following are the outstanding traits associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder:

1. Grandiose Sense of Self and Entitlement. This heightened ego will justify behaviors they may outwardly condemn, and may also inwardly recognize as wrong, but rationally allow due to their perceived special status. Once it is rationally allowed due to their special status it is no longer perceived inwardly as wrong.  This is somewhat a case of the Special Pleading fallacy.

2. General Lack of Conscience and Remorse for Harming Others. Sociopaths lack internal respect toward other people, all of whom they deem as inferiors, but they are masters of outward shows of respect, niceties and flattery. They are deceitfully nice and outwardly respectful as a way to manipulate others (for the most part). This point is related to points 1&3.  

3. A Manipulative Personality Covered by Superficial Charm. Friendships, alliances, and romantic partners are often sucked in and frequently disregarded and replaced when the relationship no longer suits their self-centered needs.  Cheating comes easy too. They have no problem conning, lying to, or taking advantage of other people, even people they profess to love.  Love is a very shallow concept, if even understood.  These people usually have a long line of former friends, lovers, and associates who now hate and despise them.

4. Chronic Lying. Chronic lying is a characteristic of nearly all sociopaths (i.e. 99.99%). Much power and importance is derived from this form of controlling and manipulating others via information. They do this with ease due to trait #2. Not all liars are sociopaths (we're all liars to some degree) but all sociopaths are liars, many to the extent of being pathological. They lie with straight faced ease, and their sophistication with lying often works best on family members and friends they've conned, thereby gaining admiration and devotion, and a blindness to the manipulation. They know how to manipulate the 'truth' to make themselves look good, and to gain trust and belief.  Over time the more charismatic and manipulative sociopaths can gather a following. The seek love and adoration, and the more people the better.  They have a 6th sense when it comes to reading people and knowing just what to say to ingratiate and promote themselves within the minds of their followers, and promote trust, confidence and compliance. (See #3)

5. Use People as Means. They use people as a means to getting what they want, and view other people in general as means not ends. Objectification of other people is their primary view and tact.  Their inability for empathy causes them to view other people as merely a means whereby they can achieve their own self interests, and to do so without regard for the interests or welfare of others.

6. Shifting of Blame. Considering the above it becomes easy to understand why they have very little sense of remorse or guilt. They will seldom if ever take blame for anything offensive or hurtful they've done to anyone, even if they're family or friend. They are very skilled at deflection and finding reasons why it is not their fault, and the fault of their opponent, or things outside their control.  They are very good at assigning blame on others and launching character assassinations against anyone who opposes them in any way.  They seldom if ever will say or admit anything about themselves, even mild slights or foibles, that may harm their reputation.  They seriously think and rationalize that they do no wrong.  They have a serious inability to apologize, but will feign apology if it advances their cause.


7. Instability. They are unstable in their own lives.  They usually have a long string of failed relationships and jobs, and do not stay in one place for very  long (geographically, housing, or work).  They are parasitic in nature and usually will live off other people if given the opportunity.  In this sense they love to oversee and manage work, rather than do work.  Physical manual labor is beneath their superior skill set.  They typically have a long string of sexual partners, and may seek out multiple sexual partners, thinking that just one person is not enough for a person of their caliber. (Polygamy with its inherent male dominion is very attractive to male sociopaths, Sex as a weapon, power, or form of manipulation is popular with females.  Prostitutes may also be sociopaths).

8. Aggressive Retribution on Slights. They can be dangerous when challenged, slighted, or if they perceive they've been cheated by a person or life circumstances (usually blamed on others, see #6), or if they feel they have not garnered the respect and attention they deserve. They are especially vindictive and dangerous when they feel they have been wronged in some way.  Because of points 1 & 2 they have a heightened sense of retribution when wronged.  They typically pay back in multiples of the original wrong.

After the ones who succeed via 'approved' social pathways, the next most dangerous sociopaths can be the ones who fail to some degree in their desires - sociopathic underachievers.  These are they which resort to violence and mass murder, or serial killing. This may seem an inverted ranking but consider how many people a sociopath in power can harm or have killed.

9. Seek Positions of Power and Influence. Because of the above charming and manipulative traits the more intelligent and charming sociopaths find it easy to gather a following, and rise to the top of social groups and societies. They seek positions of influence, power, management, and rule.  Historically, and most likely presently, there are many world leaders and public figures who could be classified as sociopaths. Power and popularity can bring latent sociopathic tendencies to the foreground, and cause them to blossom. 

Here’s a list of jobs with the highest rates of sociopathy, in no particular ranking:

    1. CEO
    2. Lawyer
    3. Media (Television/Radio)
    4. Salesperson
    5. Surgeon
    6. Journalist
    7. Police Officer
    8. Clergy person
    9. Chef
   10. Civil Servant (Politics)

Again we should be careful to say that not all people in these positions are sociopaths, but these are the typical positions sociopaths gravitate toward.

10. Narcissistic. This disorder is closely related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder, with overlapping manifestations.

11. Degrees of Sociopathy. This is not a trait but rather a category to reinforce again the concept of nuance and a spectrum of degrees.  When considering this disorder it is important to employ analog over digital thinking – degrees not compartments. These are traits common to every human being to varying degrees, with sociopaths taking them much farther, and psychopaths utilizing them to the nth degree.  It is very easy to see these behaviors in people we dislike and instantly jump to the assessment of sociopath.  Not all liars are sociopaths, but all sociopaths are liars.  Not all sociopaths are sociopaths to the same degree.  There is such thing as a mild sociopath.  I have always believed that a trait seen and observed in others must also be simultaneously recognized in oneself, and admitted to the degree it exists. These traits are all the not so pretty realizations of being human.  Being aware of them can protect you from being the victim of them, either self inflicted or inflicted by others, and maybe a call to work on your empathy skills.

In my "research" I found this response to a blog article on sociopaths particularly interesting:

Helen 6/13/2013 - I found out today that my dad is a sociopath. Half the people he has dealt with hate him and half just love him.

This resonated strongly with a statement made by a religious leader concerning himself*, that in essence half the world would hate him and half the world would love him.  In my study of the man I assess him to have been a sociopath, maybe operating under the self delusion of good intentions, but a sociopath nonetheless.  This behavior especially came to the foreground and exploded in his later years when he became the head of a thriving theocracy.

* This statement was made as a prophecy Joseph Smith said was communicated to him by an angel in 1823, yet it was recorded in 1838, at a time when people were doing just as described (hating him, acting against him, others defending him). It was a heavenly message to explain why so many people hated him currently...esp judging the time he first recalled this supposedly earlier angelic prophesy (1838) was a time of turmoil for him, and the angel's 1823 visit and prophecy was fulfilled by the time it was first recorded in 1838 during the Kirtland Crisis, where many high ranking and prominent members of the church, and others, were leaving in droves, citing dishonest dealings and actions of the "prophet" as the reason why they had left.  They were of course slandered and libeled, by the prophet JS and other still faithful church leaders, as liars, sinners, and apostates.  This revelation is a clear example of backdating to make the present situation true.

If this article offends you, or you find yourself described in some of these descriptors... yet rationalizing "why" it's OK or justified in your particular situation - You just might be a Sociopath.

The following link on sociopaths is one of the best I came across during my exploration, even though it's from the oft disparaged wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy