The Book of Mormon: A Divine Conspiracy Theory

[All-American]

Frankly, I'm largely in agreement with Rocky on this one.

The Book of Mormon claims throughout, from cover to cover, that it is what it is. Our understanding of those claims may change, and our understanding of its composition and transmission may change, but if it doesn't attempt to document ACTUAL events, I'm out of here.

Does it agree completely with our understanding of history and science? Of course it doesn't-- why should it, incomplete as it is? I believe that when all things are fully known and revealed, we won't have any problem reconciling scripture and history.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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.

For as much as you loathe politicians you sure "talk"/write and answer questions like one. No offense.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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.

Does this mean I have a dishonest testimony of the Bible because I believe it was inspired by God, while not believing that God flooded the Earth and killed most of humanity while putting every last species on a big boat, turned people into pillars of salt, created the world in six days, created Eve out of Adam's rib, and kept a dude alive in a whale's tummy for three days?

[Venkman]

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.

I agree. Personally, I could not accept the Book of Mormon as historical fiction. I believe the events described in the BOM actually took place.

If you believe the account of the angel Moroni delivering plates to JS, I just can't understand how you can believe that the BOM isn't historical. Why would Moroni deliver a work of fiction to JS? Either Moroni is lying (he never actually fought and fled from the Lamanites) or Joseph Smith is lying and there is no angel Moroni. I would have a hard time accepting either scenario.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Frankly, I'm largely in agreement with Rocky on this one.

The Book of Mormon claims throughout, from cover to cover, that it is what it is. Our understanding of those claims may change, and our understanding of its composition and transmission may change, but if it doesn't attempt to document ACTUAL events, I'm out of here.

Does it agree completely with our understanding of history and science? Of course it doesn't-- why should it, incomplete as it is? I believe that when all things are fully known and revealed, we won't have any problem reconciling scripture and history.

I don't disagree with your conclusions in this manner, what I disagree with is the temptation to ignore the interpretive mode of all scripture, its hagiographic and midrashic nature and tendency and incompleteness of understanding of observers.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't disagree with your conclusions in this manner, what I disagree with is the temptation to ignore the interpretive mode of all scripture, its hagiographic and midrashic nature and tendency and incompleteness of understanding of observers.

lol..you're trying way to hard Arch.

Hagiographic?

Midrashic Nature?

lol.......

[Indy 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.

Why did God have the Gold Plates taken away from Joseph Smith after the translation was over and only provided 11 other witnesses of the plates' existence? Surely it wasn't merely a security issue. Even if it was a security issue then, couldn't we get those plates back now? If the church was willing to sink enough money and manpower into securing the plates, why won't God return the plates for the public to see and verify their contents?

Surely this would be a more authoritative way to verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than all of this indirect scholarship going on now.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why did God have the Gold Plates taken away from Joseph Smith after the translation was over and only provided 11 other witnesses of the plates' existence? Surely it wasn't merely a security issue. Even if it was a security issue then, couldn't we get those plates back now? If the church was willing to sink enough money and manpower into securing the plates, why won't God return the plates for the public to see and verify their contents?

Surely this would be a more authoritative way to verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than all of this indirect scholarship going on now.

But what if they were nothing more than Aztec burial rituals acting as touchstones for the prophet to receive inspirations? Bad joke I know.

On a serious note, we've gotten this far without them, why return them now?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why did God have the Gold Plates taken away from Joseph Smith after the translation was over and only provided 11 other witnesses of the plates' existence? Surely it wasn't merely a security issue. Even if it was a security issue then, couldn't we get those plates back now? If the church was willing to sink enough money and manpower into securing the plates, why won't God return the plates for the public to see and verify their contents?

Surely this would be a more authoritative way to verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than all of this indirect scholarship going on now.

There are things in there for which we are not ready. If God gave them to us, we would be under the obligation of doing everything we can to understand what is in them. Becuase we are not ready for those things, we do not have them.

On an earlier note: textual criticism of the Bible is a horse of a different color when compared with textual criticism of the Book of Mormon. The entire book of Luke can be a complete fabrication without affecting the veracity of Matthew, Mark, or John. If it turns out that 2 Peter was a forgery, I'm not going to throw out the book of Judges. The Bible is a book that was transmitted over thousands of years, gradually being compiled into the volume we have now-- and each individual component of the volume and the process by which it came into being can be independently evaluated. What's more, if certain portions of the Bible are imperfect, it doesn't necessitate a conversion to a different faith.

The Book of Mormon came to us in one solid block. If Moroni wasn't the author of Moroni 10:3-5, it discredits 1 Nephi. Furthermore, if Joseph Smith was the guy who put in the Isaiah chapters, not only am I not so sure the book is true, I don't know that I want to be in his church. You can accept the possibilities of error that naturally come from the composition and transmission of a book that took place over a thousand year period of time, but if the core claims of the book are not what they say they are, the entire book is good for nothing and we Mormons are little more than liars.

Evaluation of the Book of Mormon is another game in and of itself. Our understanding may be imperfect, and the book itself may be imperfect-- it makes no other claim, after all. But try as I might, I can't agree with the view that the Book of Mormon was false, though inspired.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why did God have the Gold Plates taken away from Joseph Smith after the translation was over and only provided 11 other witnesses of the plates' existence? Surely it wasn't merely a security issue. Even if it was a security issue then, couldn't we get those plates back now? If the church was willing to sink enough money and manpower into securing the plates, why won't God return the plates for the public to see and verify their contents?

Surely this would be a more authoritative way to verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than all of this indirect scholarship going on now.

The only answer I can give to this is a little thing called faith.

If one needs to see in order to believe, there is no faith nor is there a need for faith and therefore, no need for God. Having faith in things not seen is what allows us to feel within ourselves that God exists, that he loves us and that he is there for us.

I don't think the plates are as important as the message that came to us by Joseph Smith from those plates. He could have translated the writings on the wall inside cave rather than get the teachings in the Book of Mormon from golden plates. It doesn't matter where it came from, only that it is here.