The Book of Mormon: A Divine Conspiracy Theory

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

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?

Are you assuming the purposes of FARMS and BYU, as pertaining to Book of Mormon history/archaeology/etc., are to find clearer historical evidence of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness? If so, I disagree. I agree with Elder Maxwell, FARMS's primary proponent within the Church hierarchy, when he said (it's in Hafen's biography of Elder Maxwell) the purpose of FARMS is not to play offense (i.e. prove the truth of the gospel), but instead to play defense (by providing quality scholarly counterarguments to those who attempt to tear down the Church.)

FARMS is not out to prove the Book of Mormon is true; rather, it is out to prove the fallaciousness of those who attempt to disprove the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

[BlueHair]

I have two recurring thoughts. The first one is that when I meet my maker, he's going to give me the "ye of little faith" rebuke. The other thought is that if I choose to return to church he going to say something like, "I gave you all the signs you were following a false prophet. How could you ignore all of the evidence?".

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I have two recurring thoughts. The first one is that when I meet my maker, he's going to give me the "ye of little faith" rebuke. The other thought is that if I choose to return to church he going to say something like, "I gave you all the signs you were following a false prophet. How could you ignore all of the evidence?".

It would seem you're screwed. A religious Catch-22 of sort.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

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.

The DNA criticisms make little to no sense to me. The Book of Mormon makes clear that all of the Nephites were killed. That leaves us with the Lamanites (who were seriously weakened following their destruction of the Nephites). The BOM also notes that there were other groups in the Americas (who may have come from many different routes to arrive in the Americas). Is it not plausible that one such group destroyed the Lamanites? Why not, if you say it is not?

It isn't an issue of "changing the Lamanite DNA." It may simply be an issue of the Lamanites being exterminated.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The DNA criticisms make little to no sense to me. The Book of Mormon makes clear that all of the Nephites were killed. That leaves us with the Lamanites (who were seriously weakened following their destruction of the Nephites). The BOM also notes that there were other groups in the Americas (who may have come from many different routes to arrive in the Americas). Is it not plausible that one such group destroyed the Lamanites? Why not, if you say it is not?

It isn't an issue of "changing the Lamanite DNA." It may simply be an issue of the Lamanites being exterminated.

If this is so, and it may well be, it is at odds with what the church has taught for 99% of its existence.

From the introduction to the BOM:

"The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

I give "principal" its ordinary meaning here. There may be an exlanantion, but the above makes extermination a hard sell for me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If this is so, and it may well be, it is at odds with what the church has taught for 99% of its existence.

From the introduction to the BOM:

"The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

I give "principal" its ordinary meaning here. There may be an exlanantion, but the above makes extermination a hard sell for me.

There is an article when the derivation of this concept was debated. Originally Oliver Cowdery was agains that foreward, but I forget who actually penned those lines. I do not believe it was Josephn but somebody like Phelps who did. As we can see in textual criticism, once a tradition gets started, it's hard to uproot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If this is so, and it may well be, it is at odds with what the church has taught for 99% of its existence.

From the introduction to the BOM:

"The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

I give "principal" its ordinary meaning here. There may be an exlanantion, but the above makes extermination a hard sell for me.

No, I recall reading recently that the phrase about "principal ancestors" was a recent addition to the introduction and was not in the original printing. In fact, I seem to recall that it was added in the 20th century. But I could be wrong.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

No, I recall reading recently that the phrase about "principal ancestors" was a recent addition to the introduction and was not in the original printing. In fact, I seem to recall that it was added in the 20th century. But I could be wrong.

I'm good at confusing stuff, but the addition was the result of a tradition, not a prophetic interpretation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm good at confusing stuff, but the addition was the result of a tradition, not a prophetic interpretation.

Yes, it was added in 1981. Here is one article that references the date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...Book_of_Mormon

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm good at confusing stuff, but the addition was the result of a tradition, not a prophetic interpretation.

That has always been my understanding as well. I think it was tied to a comment made by Pres. Kimball.