The Book of Mormon: A Divine Conspiracy Theory

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I have a hard time with this, since IMO it would be God toying with us. It would go beyond ensuring that no one could verify the BOM. It goes all the way to 'let's make it look contradictory to a reasonable application of the evidence'. There is a big distinction between the two. The former is understandable, but IMO the latter would be inexcusable. If God really changed Lamanite DNA, for example, to make the book of Mormon look false, or changed the BOA manuscript to read like the book of the Dead, then what the hell is he doing? Does he want to keep historians and Egyptologists away from His church? I just don't like the idea of a god who plays games.

I don't believe in a God who plays games either, but the DNA argument doesn't fly. That Australian dude who was excommunicated really oversimplified the DNA issue, and it's a huge overinterpretation of data. Certainly, the vast majority of DNA in the Americas is derived from Asian peoples, but that doesn't mean there weren't groups of people from other continents in the Americas. Tracing DNA through all tribes of the Americas throughout all of history and linking it to continents of origin is not really a reasonable thing to draw such conclusions from, but that's beside my main point...

As far as the BOM and BOA go, there is no question that the books do not fit known history, and that the books actually contradict known history. The real question is whether a person CARES about all of this for religious purposes--for anything beyond an academic point of view.

Most people are Mormon because they enjoy being Mormon--not because they feel like everything is completely based on historical facts. As far as JS goes--I believe he was sincere in his belief that God was speaking through him. And it's enough for me to believe JS was mostly genuine and sincere (and probably a genius), and that the Church leaders and people are genuinely good people who are trying to do what they feel is right..

At the same time, most Mormons accept everything in Mormon history as genuine 100% pure from God, but only because that's the easiest thing to do. I always tell non-Mormons that Mormons accept all of these stories not because they are easy to believe or convincing, but because they enjoy being Mormon. You can show certain people evidence till the day they die, and it won't change their views...because their perception of history and facts is secondary to the lifestyle that they prefer to live.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

...what the hell is he doing? Does he want to keep historians and Egyptologists away from His church?

It's really quite simple: he's put forth the explicit formula to gaining a knowledge of the truthfulness of the BOM and doesn't want people looking for shortcuts or alternate routes to get to that point.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Well, if you believe that he communicates with mankind, then you also believe that he is a god of truth, and there is no lie in him. Or so it is said. I have an intellectual friend who actually believes that God is "playing games" with us. We have this discussion all the time. This whole idea is very curious to me.

"Playing games" with us is troubling to me, too. I haven't thought through this enough to form a strong opinion but the overriding principle to me, at least logically, is that faith is a critical component. More critical and important than I'm able to grasp. And the inability to prove doctrinal points using the tools of man seems an important part of this. Thus I wonder if there's a solution to this problem that satisfies that but doesn't send God into the "dishonest/playing games" category.

The Tower of Babel story/parable comes to mind for some reason.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's really quite simple: he's put forth the explicit formula to gaining a knowledge of the truthfulness of the BOM and doesn't want people looking for shortcuts or alternate routes to get to that point.

How do you know this? Shouldn't the church disband FARMS and BYU immediately? Or I guess this is your own personal hobbyhorse, since the church is referring to FARMS scholars more and more in their pronouncements on these kinds of issues. I've never heard any GA say anything like what you've just said. I've ONLY heard that answers involve the application of brainpower COMBINED with prayer. To say that God wants it this way is grasping at shadows. Where is this coming from?

[RockyBalboa]

Call me weird but I think it was sent as another testament for Jesus Christ.

Or course there are some who've mentioned they think the stories aren't historical...which if you believe in the Book of Mormon doesn't wash. Either the Book and the accounts therein are true or they aren't.

Either you believe historically that Christ visited the Americas or you don't believe in The Book of Mormon.

Either you believe historically that Lehi and his sons really built a boat and came over to the America's or you don't believe in The Book of Mormon.

Of course there are things to be taken as emblematic in the Book, like the tree of life, those are obvious, but along with my belief in the book coincides with the things that happened in them as being HISTORICAL accounts of many things that actually happened.

I've heard and read where some people state that while they believe in The Book of Mormon, they don't believe it's really an historical account,,,which of course is one of the more ridiculous oxymorons I've ever read or heard of.

For those who believe you already know HOW the Book came to be as it's been taught ad nauseum and there's many things to read up on about how it came to be. I'm really surprised at how many torture themselves on things like this. I'm glad I don't have to live with that kind of odd thought process, but hey whatever works I guess.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Call me weird but I think it was sent as another testament for Jesus Christ.

Or course there are some who've mentioned they think the stories aren't historical...which if you believe in the Book of Mormon doesn't wash. Either the Book and the accounts therein are true or they aren't.

Either you believe historically that Christ visited the Americas or you don't believe in The Book of Mormon.

Either you believe historically that Lehi and his sons really built a boat and came over to the America's or you don't believe in The Book of Mormon.

Of course there are things to be taken as emblematic in the Book, like the tree of life, those are obvious, but along with my belief in the book coincides with the things that happened in them as being HISTORICAL accounts of many things that actually happened.

I've heard and read where some people state that while they believe in The Book of Mormon, they don't believe it's really an historical account,,,which of course is one of the more ridiculous oxymorons I've ever read or heard of.

I don't believe this is accurate.

You presented a false dichotomy. I believe it's perfectly logic to accept that Joseph Smith also abridged and inserted information in the book which he was inspired to do. By not being a history book, I mean, it was given relating stories relevant to religius teachings by a compilation of prophets and seers. Some mean the stories never occurred. It was never mean to be an accurate recording of historical events. If so, it would have left markers for verification. So we don't have an either/or dichotomy.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe this is accurate.

You presented a false dichotomy. I believe it's perfectly logic to accept that Joseph Smith also abridged and inserted information in the book which he was inspired to do. By not being a history book, I mean, it was given relating stories relevant to religius teachings by a compilation of prophets and seers. Some mean the stories never occurred. It was never mean to be an accurate recording of historical events. If so, it would have left markers for verification. So we don't have an either/or dichotomy.

So you agree that Christ visiting the America's is a historical fact then?

You agree that many of the things occurred in the book are historical facts then?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Call me weird but I think it was sent as another testament for Jesus Christ.

Or course there are some who've mentioned they think the stories aren't historical...which if you believe in the Book of Mormon doesn't wash. Either the Book and the accounts therein are true or they aren't.

Either you believe historically that Christ visited the Americas or you don't believe in The Book of Mormon.

Either you believe historically that Lehi and his sons really built a boat and came over to the America's or you don't believe in The Book of Mormon.

Of course there are things to be taken as emblematic in the Book, like the tree of life, those are obvious, but along with my belief in the book coincides with the things that happened in them as being HISTORICAL accounts of many things that actually happened.

I've heard and read where some people state that while they believe in The Book of Mormon, they don't believe it's really an historical account,,,which of course is one of the more ridiculous oxymorons I've ever read or heard of.

For those who believe you already know HOW the Book came to be as it's been taught ad nauseum and there's many things to read up on about how it came to be. I'm really surprised at how many torture themselves on things like this. I'm glad I don't have to live with that kind of odd thought process, but hey whatever works I guess.

Some people would regard it as an odd thought process to believe a book is historic and literal when there is so much factual evidence to the contrary. My point is that for spiritual reasons, I still think regarding the Book of Mormon as historical fact is an unnecessary thing to do, although it's convenient for most people. I think the only relevant thing is whether there are true and good teachings that were inspired by God and are contained in the Book.

For me, it's an odd thought process that some Christians believe the Earth was created in 6 days, despite the fact that all the evidence disproves this idea. Similarly, I don't think it's really any different from automaticaly accepting the Book of Mormon as historical fact despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I don't think it's about a thought process. It's about what a person feels. People who feel good about the truth in the Book of Mormon usually automatically accept it as fact, but I don't think that's a requirement for believing that it was inspired by God.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

So you agree that Christ visiting the America's is a historical fact then?

You agree that many of the things occurred in the book are historical facts then?

I believe Christ visited America, although I'm uncertain as to timelines and exact events surrounding the visit. I believe the persons lived and their lives were construed in a manner most favorable for a religious audience, as for the most part, as in all scripture, the persons are described hagiographically. I understand the other options, but find no reason to believe them over my version. Even if the events did not occur as reported, the book is useful and has brought people to a belief in Christ. It did for me. So I could accept it, if it were found to be "inspired fiction". Much of our best literature as moving as it might be is fiction. I don't believe that, but make room intellectually for that possibility.

For example I could easily see that Joseph Smith added the provisions of Isaiah 48 and 49 pursuant to instruction. I believe it is probably a typical exaggeration to say Mormon led ten thousand warriors. In ancient times, do you know how many people that is, and what the logistical problem that would present? So some of the details sound like euphemisms, midrashic massages or simply human exaggerations.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Some people would regard it as an odd thought process to believe a book is historic and literal when there is so much factual evidence to the contrary. My point is that for spiritual reasons, I still think regarding the Book of Mormon as historical fact is an unnecessary thing to do, although it's convenient for most people. I think the only relevant thing is whether there are true and good teachings that were inspired by God and are contained in the Book.

For me, it's an odd thought process that some Christians believe the Earth was created in 6 days, despite the fact that all the evidence disproves this idea. Similarly, I don't think it's really any different from automaticaly accepting the Book of Mormon as historical fact despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I don't think it's about a thought process. It's about what a person feels. People who feel good about the truth in the Book of Mormon usually automatically accept it as fact, but I don't think that's a requirement for believing that it was inspired by God.

We disagree. Either you believe many accounts in The Book of Mormon happened or you don't...and if you don't then one can not have an HONEST testimony of the book. I just don't agree with you. It's like having a testimony of The Da Vinci Code...there's some historical fact presented as background to the book, but it's a work of fiction.

One can still like the book and get the "good feeling", but that doesn't really mean that they have an honest testimony of it if they don't believe that many things actually occurred.