The Book of Mormon: A Divine Conspiracy Theory

[Indy Coug]

It's my opinion that God went to extreme lengths to ensure that no one could determine the veracity of the Book of Mormon by any conventional means, whether it be by Mitochondrial DNA, dating of Isaiah texts, Archaeology, and so forth as opposed to the method outlined in Alma 32, Moroni 10 and elsewhere.

That doesn't mean there aren't scholarly evidences that would lend themselves to substantiate the BOM, simply that there isn't enough of it for an "independent" researcher to definitely conclude such.

Discuss.

[MikeWaters]

the Book of Mormon does not appeal to intellect. It appeals to the spirit. However not everyone that reads it with true intent will experience that, IMO. Some have referred to this as "believing blood."

For a supposed forgery/fraud, it's quite the miracle that the BoM is a still a playa.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's my opinion that God went to extreme lengths to ensure that no one could determine the veracity of the Book of Mormon by any conventional means, whether it be by Mitochondrial DNA, dating of Isaiah texts, Archaeology, and so forth as opposed to the method outlined in Alma 32, Moroni 10 and elsewhere.

That doesn't mean there aren't scholarly evidences that would lend themselves to substantiate the BOM, simply that there isn't enough of it for an "independent" researcher to definitely conclude such.

Discuss.

I wonder then why He saw the need to provide eyewitnesses who gave testimony. This homage to our judicial process for finding truth seems to discredit your theory.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I wonder then why He saw the need to provide eyewitnesses who gave testimony. This homage to our judicial process for finding truth seems to discredit your theory.

Your lack of faith discredits your "intellectualism".

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's my opinion that God went to extreme lengths to ensure that no one could determine the veracity of the Book of Mormon by any conventional means, whether it be by Mitochondrial DNA, dating of Isaiah texts, Archaeology, and so forth as opposed to the method outlined in Alma 32, Moroni 10 and elsewhere.

That doesn't mean there aren't scholarly evidences that would lend themselves to substantiate the BOM, simply that there isn't enough of it for an "independent" researcher to definitely conclude such.

Discuss.

On the surface, this kind of idea seems really absurd. However...

Because God could very easily wipe away the need for faith by appearing on CNN and declaring what's true and what's not, logically this concept of faith and trust in the unprovable seems to be very important.

And since God's knows in advance at some point these humans are going to get smart enough to figure a lot of stuff out for themselves, it also follows logically that He would purposefully create some confusion to force humans to continue to rely on faith.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's my opinion that God went to extreme lengths to ensure that no one could determine the veracity of the Book of Mormon by any conventional means, whether it be by Mitochondrial DNA, dating of Isaiah texts, Archaeology, and so forth as opposed to the method outlined in Alma 32, Moroni 10 and elsewhere.

That doesn't mean there aren't scholarly evidences that would lend themselves to substantiate the BOM, simply that there isn't enough of it for an "independent" researcher to definitely conclude such.

Discuss.

Despite having read a lot, I still have insufficient knowledge how it came to be. Its pages work for me, not due to textual compliance with scholarly observance of how an ancient text should read. I don't even know how that should look. I don't read the ancient languages, don't have sufficient familiarity with Semitic cultures or the cultures extant at the time Lehi is said to come here.

Its message is consistent with most Christian teachings familiar to me, and its testament of Christ is compelling. As an article of faith, it works. I'm still curious and perplexed as to how it was rendered into English, (which I'm assuming it to be a valid text). It does not appear to be a scholarly rendition, as Joseph Smith could not have rendered such. It may well have been a midrashic compilation, with Joseph Smith acting as an inspired translator/scribe, interpreter and redactor.

So, if I am deceived, I do not care, as its message has improved me.

Could it be a divine comedy intentionally confused to encourage faith? I suppose, but I don't think so. OTH, I see it more a natural occurrence given the difficulties of learning any reliable about our hemisphere, the times of the 1900s. I understand God wanting us live by faith, but the total fogginess of the rendition process need not have been so obfuscated. Ah well, for strange reasons I wasn't consulted on the issue.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's my opinion that God went to extreme lengths to ensure that no one could determine the veracity of the Book of Mormon by any conventional means, whether it be by Mitochondrial DNA, dating of Isaiah texts, Archaeology, and so forth as opposed to the method outlined in Alma 32, Moroni 10 and elsewhere.

That doesn't mean there aren't scholarly evidences that would lend themselves to substantiate the BOM, simply that there isn't enough of it for an "independent" researcher to definitely conclude such.

Discuss.

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.

[Archaea]

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.

Hellenic Gods did that all the time.

[jay santos]

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.

Well, really, what the hell is he doing up there on his throne making himself so mysterious to mankind?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Well, really, what the hell is he doing up there on his throne making himself so mysterious to mankind?

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.