Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Secret Combinations Vs. Conspiracy Theories:


Recommended Posts

1. How can we avoid falling into the trap of mistaking conspiracy theories for secret combinations? I am guessing that the real people behind “secret combinations” must have a good laugh every time conspiracy theorists come up with a new addition to their theory!

Facts and logic.

Examples:

1. The Muslim Brotherhood desires to take over the government of Egypt and would like to implement a caliphate throughout the world. (Easily provable with facts and logic)

2. George W. Bush brought down the WTC with CIA operatives who imploded the buildings. (No facts or logic behind it)

3. Obama faked his brith certificate and birth announcements so he could be president. (No facts or logic behind it)

4. Fabian socialists seek to control and reshape the world and have wide influence on many powerful people of today's world. (Easily provable with facts and logic)

To me it is very easy to tell if something is straight up crazy or not. Usually there are huge jumps from a place where real facts are used to begin a crazy theory to the injection of the "theory" aspect of it.

It is not hard at all to find people and groups who are trying to "overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries". There are constantly calls for a "caliphate" or "global governance" or a "new world order". There may very well be mafia types seeking to run the entire world too, but I have not seen the facts regarding those group's efforts. As you yourself quoted earlier it is a commandment to be aware of different efforts by such people so that you can "suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you".

I am curious about this "load of crap" that Benson was pushing around. I would be interested in some specific examples of "crap". I must tell you though that if you think that communists wanting to take over America is "crap" then you are dreadfully wrong and it can very easily be proven. But please provide examples of crap from Benson, as I believe it could exist but have not been privy to it myself.

2. How can we successfully combat such forces (as suggested in the Book of Mormon) without making unwise choices which might be counterproductive? How does the Book of Mormon suggest we should combat secret combinations?

Already very well answered

Link to comment

I believe that the Book of Mormon model of "secret combinations" is best reflected in modern society in the form of what is today described as "organized crime". That is what they were in the Book of Mormon times.

Of course, when regulatory and enforcement capacity becomes sufficiently compromised within a nation, warlords, warring tribes and factions and terrorists may rule the day instead of government, and “organized” and “crime” as a unified concept may have evolved into something else. I wonder if many saints have been killed by that kind of activity (in modern Africa for example), which occurred in the book of Mormon as well.

I do think there is sometimes a distinction between conspiring men (as in Word of Wisdom), the strong who profit from the weak (sweatshops, diamond and silver mines), and political intrigue, religious/denominational financial scams and cover-ups (priestcrafts) and "secret combinations," but the root of each is pretty much the same and they can easily overlap.

Link to comment

To zero-in on organized crime, keeping a current temple recommend is a great start, as tithing addresses the lure of financial temptation and the Word of Wisdom and Law of Chastity address the lures of moral temptations, and so forth. Keeping the Holy Ghost as a constant guide as He communicates through various media (scriptures, leaders, discernment, personal revelation, etc.). The Proclamation on the Family keeps the personal compromises made for power and gain at bay. These also help the higher the crime gets and more national in scale it becomes.

Yes, I agree.

Ether 8:22 makes the connection between national-scale secret combinations and the blood of the saints. For example, in the late 70’s I knew Church members who were assassinated for their political views (real or imagined by their murderers), and others who were just in the way of the commotion around them. I would categorize the underlying activity that brought this about as a form of organized crime.

That is possible. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist myself LOL! :D I find the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana to have take place under suspicious circumstances.

Link to comment

Of course, when regulatory and enforcement capacity becomes sufficiently compromised within a nation, warlords, warring tribes and factions and terrorists may rule the day instead of government, and “organized” and “crime” as a unified concept may have evolved into something else. I wonder if many saints have been killed by that kind of activity (in modern Africa for example), which occurred in the book of Mormon as well.

I think what that scripture means is the "blood of the innocents," not necessarily "saints" as in Church members.

I do think there is sometimes a distinction between conspiring men (as in Word of Wisdom), the strong who profit from the weak (sweatshops, diamond and silver mines), and political intrigue, religious/denominational financial scams and cover-ups (priestcrafts) and "secret combinations," but the root of each is pretty much the same and they can easily overlap.

I think those crime syndicates have the greatest potential to evolve into secret combinations, if they haven't done so already.

Link to comment

That is possible. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist myself LOL! :D I find the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana to have take place under suspicious circumstances.

The saints I knew were killed were hit intentionally by one of the groups taking a stand in the civil conflict that was underway, to send a message. Others that were killed were not targeted but simply in the crossfire of other incidents. The government had lost its ability to protect them from its enemy or control its own agencies.

Link to comment

I think what that scripture means is the "blood of the innocents," not necessarily "saints" as in Church members.

In either case, it's a bad thing, and if it means "innocents," that would broaden the scope. It could go so far as to include Church members who qualify as "innocent" and any person who does not participate in the secret combinations regardless of their church affiliation and personal worthiness.

Link to comment

The saints I knew were killed were hit intentionally by one of the groups taking a stand in the civil conflict that was underway, to send a message. Others that were killed were not targeted but simply in the crossfire of other incidents. The government had lost its ability to protect them from its enemy or control its own agencies.

That is quite possible. In some countries with weak central governments these forces can almost take over the government, or make it ungovernable. In countries like Afghanistan and Yemen, such forces could almost take over the government at some point in time. Even in a more stable country like Mexico, look at all the gangland murders that the drug cartels have committed. It all depends on how stable the central government is. And sad though it may be to admit, modern revelation suggests that that is the fate that one day awaits the United States. But there is a silver lining in the cloud. According to the same prophecies, Zion will emerge like the Phoenix from the ashes of a ruined United States to bear victorious the standard of liberty and truth to all nations. So Latter-day Saints can yet afford to be optimistic about what lies in the future.

Link to comment

In either case, it's a bad thing, and if it means "innocents," that would broaden the scope. It could go so far as to include Church members who qualify as "innocent" and any person who does not participate in the secret combinations regardless of their church affiliation and personal worthiness.

Yes, ultimately I believe that is where we are heading, according to these prophecies:

D&C 45
:

68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

Link to comment

Yes, ultimately I believe that is where we are heading, according to these prophecies:

D&C 45
:

68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

This takes the discussion beyond what the Book of Mormon has to say about it, but obviously that is consistent with the Book or Mormon teachings.

Link to comment

What some have seen first hand, others only deem as possible. At any rate, I agree that organized crime is one way that secret combinations are manifest.

I did not mean to question your report. It is just something that I did not have first hand knowledge of.

Link to comment

I did not mean to question your report. It is just something that I did not have first hand knowledge of.

No offense taken--I had a chance to view the YouTube clips which caused me to think about it in those terms. Some obviously question Elder Benson's report of his first-hand experience with communism, or his perceptions and conclusions; some take them a bit far. The concern I have about the clips is they are presented without indicating when, where and in what capacity he was speaking (General Conference, BYU, Rotary Club, etc.). The second one in particular, with the official portrait implying that he was speaking in behalf of the Church, but the sound recording seemed otherwise (???). In any case, I don't see his remarks as fanning hysteria, paranoia or extremism, but then again I consider myself a fairly even-keeled individual anyway.

My father was an FBI special agent after WWII and during the McCarthy era, and much of what he did had to do with disrupting communist cells. After he left the FBI when I was a teenager, he told stories and opined he thought it was really a waste of time. I probably lean a bit to the right of him, having lived through the fomenting and early days of the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan civil wars. I was a new member at the time, and didn't know about Elder Benson's stance on things. but I was impressed by what I saw and what the Book of Mormon had to say about Gadianton robbers. The communists and socialists weren't the only ones exploiting people in poverty to extort the landowners and get into the government. There were people in all camps that did awful things. My landlord was a police officer, and when I asked him what he did with the force, he said "I kill communists." There were a lot of young people being killed that way in those days, and I doubt many of them were actively engaged against the government. I can't even recall which side machine-gunned the LDS family. But I must admit the "marxist" guerillas and their sympathizers, as nice as they could be socially, seemed to take the words of Giddianhi right out of his mouth, which I took as fulfillment of the Book of Mormon prophecies, or at least the MO of someone working as a robber in a secret combination.

Link to comment

No offense taken--I had a chance to view the YouTube clips which caused me to think about it in those terms. Some obviously question Elder Benson's report of his first-hand experience with communism, or his perceptions and conclusions; some take them a bit far. The concern I have about the clips is they are presented without indicating when, where and in what capacity he was speaking (General Conference, BYU, Rotary Club, etc.). The second one in particular, with the official portrait implying that he was speaking in behalf of the Church, but the sound recording seemed otherwise (???). In any case, I don't see his remarks as fanning hysteria, paranoia or extremism, but then again I consider myself a fairly even-keeled individual anyway.

According to the information on the YouTube channel, the first clip is from his April 1972 conference talk, and the second clip from a talk given at BYU in 1966 entitled “Our Immediate Responsibility”. I don’t think his remarks will “fan hysteria, paranoia or extremism” either. I have two problems with them: Firstly, they fail to identify the real source of the danger, and instead divert attention from it by pointing to the wrong source. Secondly, they give certain group of people who already have that psychological vulnerability the excuse to be misled by “conspiracy theories” instead of having a sober understanding of “secret combinations,” as taught in scripture.

My father was an FBI special agent after WWII and during the McCarthy era, and much of what he did had to do with disrupting communist cells. After he left the FBI when I was a teenager, he told stories and opined he thought it was really a waste of time. I probably lean a bit to the right of him, having lived through the fomenting and early days of the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan civil wars. I was a new member at the time, and didn't know about Elder Benson's stance on things. but I was impressed by what I saw and what the Book of Mormon had to say about Gadianton robbers. The communists and socialists weren't the only ones exploiting people in poverty to extort the landowners and get into the government. There were people in all camps that did awful things. My landlord was a police officer, and when I asked him what he did with the force, he said "I kill communists." There were a lot of young people being killed that way in those days, and I doubt many of them were actively engaged against the government. I can't even recall which side machine-gunned the LDS family. But I must admit the "marxist" guerillas and their sympathizers, as nice as they could be socially, seemed to take the words of Giddianhi right out of his mouth, which I took as fulfillment of the Book of Mormon prophecies, or at least the MO of someone working as a robber in a secret combination.

Thank you, interesting stories. My understanding of the scriptures is that LDS who remain true and faithful will be offered protection against those murders and evils which are said to come upon us in the last days (e.g. 1 Nephi 14:14).

Link to comment

According to the information on the YouTube channel, the first clip is from his April 1972 conference talk, and the second clip from a talk given at BYU in 1966 entitled “Our Immediate Responsibility”. I don’t think his remarks will “fan hysteria, paranoia or extremism” either. I have two problems with them: Firstly, they fail to identify the real source of the danger, and instead divert attention from it by pointing to the wrong source. Secondly, they give certain group of people who already have that psychological vulnerability the excuse to be misled by “conspiracy theories” instead of having a sober understanding of “secret combinations,” as taught in scripture.

Regarding the danger and its source: What is your take on the specific danger being addressed, and are you saying its source is organized crime?

To me, the clips address a topic that wasn’t all that unusual for saints living in America 1966-72, but I understand the transcripts were edited to remove the endorsement of the book, so there must have been some backlash at the time.

Psychologically and otherwise vulnerable people are misled by statements made by the Lord’s anointed all the time, pending the object/subject of their fixation and fears. It appears to me that the Church takes measures to reduce this by editing the transcripts of live talks once an unintended reaction reaches a particular threshold. I’ve even noticed that even some of the humorous comments are removed (either to avoid the impression of light-mindedness or offending in translation into other languages). But after that is done, and someone seeks out and filters statements from Church leaders to support a position, or takes a couple of statements and sound-bites and runs with them, it goes beyond something the Church can manage. But I do think it does what it can.

Thank you, interesting stories. My understanding of the scriptures is that LDS who remain true and faithful will be offered protection against those murders and evils which are said to come upon us in the last days (e.g. 1 Nephi 14:14).

I too believe in and have been the recipient of the Lord’s protection in such circumstances. As far as connecting it specifically with a secret combination, there was one instance when a Jeep full of angry protestors during a cordoning off of a section of San Salvador pulled in front of me and said they were going to kill me. One had a pistol aimed at me, and I saw no one else around to witness it, but suddenly they got back in and sped away. I suppose elements of a secret combination were underlying the trouble in El Salvador, which in turn set that brief exchange in motion.

Link to comment

Regarding the danger and its source: What is your take on the specific danger being addressed, and are you saying its source is organized crime?

No. The threats were (and are) genuine secret combinations as taught in the Book of Mormon. Organized crime is one of the possible manifestation of it. But it is the one that would be the most obvious to identify and observe.

To me, the clips address a topic that wasn’t all that unusual for saints living in America 1966-72, but I understand the transcripts were edited to remove the endorsement of the book, so there must have been some backlash at the time.

Psychologically and otherwise vulnerable people are misled by statements made by the Lord’s anointed all the time, pending the object/subject of their fixation and fears. It appears to me that the Church takes measures to reduce this by editing the transcripts of live talks once an unintended reaction reaches a particular threshold. I’ve even noticed that even some of the humorous comments are removed (either to avoid the impression of light-mindedness or offending in translation into other languages). But after that is done, and someone seeks out and filters statements from Church leaders to support a position, or takes a couple of statements and sound-bites and runs with them, it goes beyond something the Church can manage. But I do think it does what it can.

I don't suppose I explained that very well. What I meant was that Ezra Taft Benson had himself given way to the "conspiracy theory" mentality instead of a sober assessment of "secret combinations". By so doing he also sidetracked others who were vulnerable to it to go down that road.

I too believe in and have been the recipient of the Lord’s protection in such circumstances. As far as connecting it specifically with a secret combination, there was one instance when a Jeep full of angry protestors during a cordoning off of a section of San Salvador pulled in front of me and said they were going to kill me. One had a pistol aimed at me, and I saw no one else around to witness it, but suddenly they got back in and sped away. I suppose elements of a secret combination were underlying the trouble in El Salvador, which in turn set that brief exchange in motion.

I don't know enough about that anecdote to be able to comment on it. Since you are more familiar with it, you would be in a better position to judge.

Link to comment

Ezra Taft Benson had himself given way to the "conspiracy theory" mentality instead of a sober assessment of "secret combinations". By so doing he also sidetracked others who were vulnerable to it to go down that road.

I don't know enough about his mentality, or about him, to know that he had a greater impact on sidetracking the vulnerable than their own predispositions/prejudices. I tend to support him as a righteous servant of the Lord who experienced a certain thing, felt strongly about it, and spoke out against it.

But I do think one answer to the OP question, "How can we avoid falling into the trap of mistaking conspiracy theories for secret combinations?" (or mistaking a theory as fact), is to do plenty of fact-checking, but the initial interest has to be there. We often aren't interested with ugly facts until we experience them first hand, and then we do more to pre-empt further experiencing them than to get more facts. Obviously those who are overzealous about the theory of something are those who have not experienced the actual thing the theory addresses.

Link to comment

I don't know enough about his mentality, or about him, to know that he had a greater impact on sidetracking the vulnerable than their own predispositions/prejudices. I tend to support him as a righteous servant of the Lord who experienced a certain thing, felt strongly about it, and spoke out against it.

Have you read the book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? I recommend it. It will answer your question.

But I do think one answer to the OP question, "How can we avoid falling into the trap of mistaking conspiracy theories for secret combinations?" (or mistaking a theory as fact), is to do plenty of fact-checking, but the initial interest has to be there. We often aren't interested with ugly facts until we experience them first hand, and then we do more to pre-empt further experiencing them than to get more facts. Obviously those who are overzealous about the theory of something are those who have not experienced the actual thing the theory addresses.

I am sure that is correct. It would also be helpful if the leader you trust isn't already pointing you in that direction.

Link to comment

The idea of “secret combinations” in gospel related content is introduced for the first time in the Book of Mormon. I am not aware of it being mentioned in the Bible, at least not explicitly. In the Book of Mormon, however, it plays a significant role as the history of the people unfolds; and at one point Moroni declares:

Ether 8
:

20 And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among
all people,
and they are had among the Lamanites.

21 And they have caused the destruction of this people [Jaredites] of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.

22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

And then he proceeds to give us this stark warning:

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which
shall be among you;
or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; . . .

Modern day prophets and Church leaders have also confirmed this:

I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.) —
.

The latest remarks I heard by a General Authority on this subject was in a talk given by Elder M. Russell Ballard quite recently, but unfortunately I was not able to find it. Perhaps someone can identify it and post a link. So from a Mormon perspective there can be no doubt that “secret combinations” do exist, and we should take seriously the warnings given in the Book of Mormon of the threats they pause.

On the other hand, there is also the danger that some will fall into the trap of mistaking “secret combinations” with “conspiracy theories,” and be led down a blind alley that serves the purpose of the adversary rather than the good of society. A conspiracy theory has been defined by a number of online dictionaries as follows:

Cambridge Dictionaries Online
:

a belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people

Dictionary.com
:

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

World English Dictionary
:

the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp. when any such involvement is denied

The Free Dictionary
:

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
:

a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Macmillan Dictionary
:

the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event

MSN Encarta Dictionary
:

a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance

So I would say that the difference between the two is that belief in “secret combinations” is a scripturally based belief asserting that such things do exist, and pose a threat to society, without attempting to clearly identify it; whereas a “conspiracy theory” is a paranoid attempt to see the hand of such “combinations” in every suspicious (and non-suspicious) event, or at the head of a government without credible evidence to support it. It is the devil’s counterfeit measure to sidetrack us from the real thing. The questions therefore that I would like to pose for discussion are:

  1. How can we avoid falling into the trap of mistaking conspiracy theories for secret combinations? I am guessing that the real people behind “secret combinations” must have a good laugh every time conspiracy theorists come up with a new addition to their theory!
  2. How can we successfully combat such forces (as suggested in the Book of Mormon) without making unwise choices which might be counterproductive? How does the Book of Mormon suggest we should combat secret combinations?

Zerinus, I’m coming in late to this thread, so will have to play catch-up.

I think it’s good you raise the issue of Secret Combinations and conspiracy theories in its own thread. An exceedingly important topic in these days. But I also think it’s unfortunate you seem to be opposing the two in your title, though you do clarify you are talking about conspiracy theories driven by paranoia and no evidence. These certainly do exist.

However the 7 definitions you give of conspiracy theory say nothing about them being driven by paranoia or having no evidence to back them up. So I assume this is your interpolation; your attempt to narrow the topic down to something you want to talk about.

Your model seems to be that most if not all conspiracy theories are in fact driven by paranoia and have nothing to back them up. And further, we need to be on guard against them. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Of course, this formulation is apt to completely miss the category of conspiracy theories driven by real evidence, not paranoia.

This being the case, maybe someone should start a thread discussing this category: Something like: Modern Day Secret Combinations and the Conspiracy Theories That Strongly Support Their Existence; with a subtext of: how do we prevent ourselves from missing the evidence for real modern day conspiracies.

In my view, missing real conspiracies AKA secret combinations (and I think Moroni in Ether 8 would agree), is far more dangerous that believing in those that are largely unsubstantiated. However, if a conspiracy theory is actually a good model for an aspect of criminal behavior, it can be used for prediction as long as you can clearly differentiate the prediction from the actual evidence for the original theory.

In normal usage, a theory is a hypothesis with enough confirmation to be able to advance to the theory stage. It’s only been recently that so much additional meaning and baggage has been attached to the word theory used in conjunction with the word conspiracy. Some of this baggage includes: derision, disdain, invective, ridicule and contempt; even to the point that people avoid like the plague being labeled as someone who believes in conspiracy, conspiracy theories, or as being conspiratorial or a conspiracy theorist, etc., for fear of being tainted with the attached disdain directed at anyone so labeled.

On the other hand, there are those who love to hand out those kinds of labels. Doing so tends to make them feel superior, smarter, more-in-the know. It also stops any reasonable discussion of conspiracies dead in its tracks, gives the labelers the seeming last word; and garners assenting and knowing winks and grins from those cozying up to the one throwing out these accusatory labels.

Unfortunately, the ones using these labels in such a flippant fashion don’t seem to be aware of what a low-grade rhetorical technique this is; or they just don’t care, for whatever reason.

Now I’m going to give a brief description of a scientific theory (in the real sense) that opposes the official governmental view of how the 3 WTC building came down on 9/11. It is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ per se, but certainly implies a conspiracy theory that either subsumes, goes beyond or is completely different than the conspiracy theory advanced by the government to explain those events.

Dr. Steven Jones of BYU heard the idea advanced in early 2005 that the WTC buildings, including Building 7, were not brought down by fire/minimal damage but by explosives/incendiaries. He had never thought about this before and it piqued his curiosity enough to take a closer look. His investigations were NOT driven by paranoia, but by curiosity.

Eventually, he came up with 10-15 reasons why the explosives hypothesis fit the data much better than fire/minimal damage, and presented his ideas before a group of highly skeptical BYU professors (many from technical backgrounds), and by the end of his presentation had convince all but one that the evidence called for a much deeper investigation of those events (the lone dissenter gave in, the next day). Subsequently, he went on to find actual evidence for explosive residues and actual explosive remnants in every dust sample he and others looked at; the results of which were published in peer-reviewed journals.

This is a clear example of a theory with attendant conspiracy theory (perps not yet identified; suspicious individuals identified) that controverts the official governmental conspiracy theory. When I say “attendant’ conspiracy theory”, I mean that further investigation needs to be conducted to root them out, but it also means that those who are officially tagged as the perpetrators could not do what was done in terms of setting explosives/incendiaries. Some of them were certainly involved, but there were many others, unidentified and unnamed at this time.

Link to comment

Zerinus, I’m coming in late to this thread, so will have to play catch-up.

There are only about 42 posts in this thread so far, most of which are small, so that shouldn’t be hard!

I think it’s good you raise the issue of Secret Combinations and conspiracy theories in its own thread. An exceedingly important topic in these days. But I also think it’s unfortunate you seem to be opposing the two in your title, though you do clarify you are talking about conspiracy theories driven by paranoia and no evidence. These certainly do exist.

I am not “opposing the two”. I support belief in “secret combinations” and oppose “conspiracy theories”. I see the second as the devil’s counterfeit of the first. It is his way of sidetracking gullible folks from the real thing.

However the 7 definitions you give of conspiracy theory say nothing about them being driven by paranoia or having no evidence to back them up. So I assume this is your interpolation; your attempt to narrow the topic down to something you want to talk about.

That is implied in the definitions. The “evidences” for them are at best circumstantial, and not sufficient to cause a sober minded person to act. Most often the evidences are not even circumstantial. They amount to nothing more than paranoya.

Your model seems to be that most if not all conspiracy theories are in fact driven by paranoia and have nothing to back them up. And further, we need to be on guard against them. Correct me if I’m wrong.

That is about right.

Of course, this formulation is apt to completely miss the category of conspiracy theories driven by real evidence, not paranoia.

This being the case, maybe someone should start a thread discussing this category: Something like: Modern Day Secret Combinations and the Conspiracy Theories That Strongly Support Their Existence; with a subtext of: how do we prevent ourselves from missing the evidence for real modern day conspiracies.

I think this is the right thread to discuss both of them. If you have any real evidence, bring it to the table so it can be examined.

In my view, missing real conspiracies AKA secret combinations (and I think Moroni in Ether 8 would agree), is far more dangerous that believing in those that are largely unsubstantiated. However, if a conspiracy theory is actually a good model for an aspect of criminal behavior, it can be used for prediction as long as you can clearly differentiate the prediction from the actual evidence for the original theory.

You have just highlighted one of the dangers of “conspiracy theories”. It can lead those who believe them down the wrong paths, or cause them to take actions that are unwise and counterproductive, or even dangerous and destructive. As I pointed out in the other thread, many “conspiracy theorists” advocate measures which if put into practise, would be the surest way of “destroying the Constitution”.

In normal usage, a theory is a hypothesis with enough confirmation to be able to advance to the theory stage. It’s only been recently that so much additional meaning and baggage has been attached to the word theory used in conjunction with the word conspiracy. Some of this baggage includes: derision, disdain, invective, ridicule and contempt; even to the point that people avoid like the plague being labeled as someone who believes in conspiracy, conspiracy theories, or as being conspiratorial or a conspiracy theorist, etc., for fear of being tainted with the attached disdain directed at anyone so labeled.

On the other hand, there are those who love to hand out those kinds of labels. Doing so tends to make them feel superior, smarter, more-in-the know. It also stops any reasonable discussion of conspiracies dead in its tracks, gives the labelers the seeming last word; and garners assenting and knowing winks and grins from those cozying up to the one throwing out these accusatory labels.

Unfortunately, the ones using these labels in such a flippant fashion don’t seem to be aware of what a low-grade rhetorical technique this is; or they just don’t care, for whatever reason.

That may be true of some people; but on the other hand there are others like myself who have genuine disagreement with the “conspiracy theorist” approach to the subject, as distinct from the “secret combinations” talked about in the Book of Mormon.

Now I’m going to give a brief description of a scientific theory (in the real sense) that opposes the official governmental view of how the 3 WTC building came down on 9/11. It is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ per se, but certainly implies a conspiracy theory that either subsumes, goes beyond or is completely different than the conspiracy theory advanced by the government to explain those events.

Dr. Steven Jones of BYU heard the idea advanced in early 2005 that the WTC buildings, including Building 7, were not brought down by fire/minimal damage but by explosives/incendiaries. He had never thought about this before and it piqued his curiosity enough to take a closer look. His investigations were NOT driven by paranoia, but by curiosity.

Eventually, he came up with 10-15 reasons why the explosives hypothesis fit the data much better than fire/minimal damage, and presented his ideas before a group of highly skeptical BYU professors (many from technical backgrounds), and by the end of his presentation had convince all but one that the evidence called for a much deeper investigation of those events (the lone dissenter gave in, the next day). Subsequently, he went on to find actual evidence for explosive residues and actual explosive remnants in every dust sample he and others looked at; the results of which were published in peer-reviewed journals.

This is a clear example of a theory with attendant conspiracy theory (perps not yet identified; suspicious individuals identified) that controverts the official governmental conspiracy theory. When I say “attendant’ conspiracy theory”, I mean that further investigation needs to be conducted to root them out, but it also means that those who are officially tagged as the perpetrators could not do what was done in terms of setting explosives/incendiaries. Some of them were certainly involved, but there were many others, unidentified and unnamed at this time.

Thank you. When considering an “evidence” of this kind, I like to look at all sides of the argument, not just one side. A quick search of the subject revealed that Dr. Steven Jones was opposed by BYU and eventually lost his job over the issue. See here, here, and here for more information. So no, I don’t regard Dr. Jones’ findings as credible evidence for what you claim. That is a good example of a “conspiracy theory,” not a “conspiracy fact,” nor the scripturally based “secret combination”. I think it is telling that you are willing to trust Dr. Jones more than the board of governors of BYU on this issue.

The third link I gave above goes so far as to make oblique suggestions that LDS Church is part of the “conspiracy”. Great! Now the LDS Church is in league with the conspirators, and the “conspiracy theorists” have found us out! That highlights exactly what is wrong with “conspiracy theories”. It is the devil’s counterfeit. It works to turn the tables on the victim of the crime rather than the perpetrator of the crime. It shields the criminal, while at the same time pointing the finger of suspicion on the victim.

Edited by zerinus
Link to comment
I support belief in “secret combinations” and oppose “conspiracy theories”. I see the second as the devil’s counterfeit of the first. It is his way of sidetracking gullible folks from the real thing.

Since secret combinations originate with the devil, your dilemma seems "a house divided".

The devil tells us that he is no devil because there is none. It seems to me that the thrust of pooh-poohing "conspiracy theories" is to say the same thing about secret combinations: there are no secret combinations, they're just conspiracy theories."

As someone has already pointed out: just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

The anti-conspiracy theory meme could easily be another ploy of Satan's, trying to get many people to ignore his efforts in destroying the work of God.

Does anyone really believe that the Nephites of late Helaman were so blind as to ignore the wickedness of the Gadianton Robbers" But, like most people, they just got used to the heat in their pot as the water temperature rose. I'm sure they told each other, "Nephi's just a conspiracy theorist."

Lehi

Link to comment

Have you read the book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? I recommend it. It will answer your question.

I am sure that is correct. It would also be helpful if the leader you trust isn't already pointing you in that direction.

I took a look at the book on the link but lost interest quickly, mostly because it seems to be a poorly copied .pdf or transcribed incorrectly—large chunks of type duplicated. But also because critiquing Elder Benson’s mentality and its impact on the vulnerable 40+ years ago and a best-seller from the cold war era don’t quite resonate with me. I prefer discussing the application of Book of Mormon teachings on the subject of interest.

It’s like the difference between criticizing the Church’s teachings and promoting something that is worthwhile as a means to better the world. Or even bothering with old news--what is the relevant difference between Elder Benson endorsing a book be cause it’s so on-target, and someone else suggesting to read it because it’s so off-base—why not endorse an alternative on-target book instead?

Which you have indicated would be the Book of Mormon—what are your thoughts about it relative to question #1 in the OP?

Link to comment

I took a look at the book on the link but lost interest quickly, mostly because it seems to be a poorly copied .pdf or transcribed incorrectly—large chunks of type duplicated. But also because critiquing Elder Benson’s mentality and its impact on the vulnerable 40+ years ago and a best-seller from the cold war era don’t quite resonate with me. I prefer discussing the application of Book of Mormon teachings on the subject of interest.

I haven't read the PDF. I read the original many years ago; and as far as I can recall, it was just as bad! :) I doubt if the PDF is much different. You can also buy it, if you have nothing better to do with your money. And it was Elder Benson who made it a best seller. People went and bought it out of curiosity (as I did), just to find out what the fuss was all about.

It’s like the difference between criticizing the Church’s teachings and promoting something that is worthwhile as a means to better the world. Or even bothering with old news--what is the relevant difference between Elder Benson endorsing a book be cause it’s so on-target, and someone else suggesting to read it because it’s so off-base—why not endorse an alternative on-target book instead?

Which you have indicated would be the Book of Mormon—what are your thoughts about it relative to question #1 in the OP?

The Book of Mormon does not appear to have an answer to Question 1. The Book of Mormon people appear to have had a problem only with “secret combinations,” not with “conspiracy theories”. At least, I cannot recall a passage in the Book of Mormon that might relate to that. “Conspiracy theories” appear to be a modern day problem, not one that the Nephites had to contend with. So we don’t have a Book of Mormon precedent to fall upon to guide us to combat the problem of “conspiracy theories” in modern world. Maybe somebody else can think of a passage that escapes me, but I can’t think of any—except that Satan is a great deceiver. He is very good at creating counterfeits to the truth to lead people astray.

Edited by zerinus
Link to comment

And it was Elder Benson who made it a best seller.

The Book of Mormon people appear to have had a problem only with “secret combinations,” not with “conspiracy theories”

And it was Elder Benson who made it a best seller.: Now that I find hard to believe! Even in his role as former Secretary that is hard to believe that he alone inspired millions of purchases.

The Book of Mormon people appear to have had a problem only with “secret combinations,” not with “conspiracy theories”: I think "rumors of wars," a subset of conspiracy theory, was a major issue for them, particularly if the prophecies in 1 Nephi 12 came to pass, which I believe they did. Also a subset of conspiracy theory: the lies against Alma and Amulek (Ether 8 and Helaman 4 also talk about coordinated lies; 3 Nephi 2:2 talks about imagining vain thins to stir people up); Korihor accusing the religious establishment of a conspiracy to glut themselves on the labors of the people.

Link to comment
I am not “opposing the two”. I support belief in “secret combinations” and oppose “conspiracy theories”. I see the second as the devil’s counterfeit of the first. It is his way of sidetracking gullible folks from the real thing.

It was your choice to use the abbreviated word: vs. in the title of this thread, which means: in opposition to. Maybe a poor choice on your part, eh? You are obviously stuck on the loaded meaning attached to the phrase ‘conspiracy theories’, neglecting the possibility that there may be very valid conspiracy theories with adequate and sufficient reasons to give them a range of credibility.

That is implied in the definitions. The “evidences” for them are at best circumstantial, and not sufficient to cause a sober minded person to act. Most often the evidences are not even circumstantial. They amount to nothing more than paranoya.

Actually the definitions you supplied imply nothing of the sort that I can see. Re-read them. Disagree? Parse the statements and show where they imply what you say they do.

You have just highlighted one of the dangers of “conspiracy theories”. It can lead those who believe them down the wrong paths, or cause them to take actions that are unwise and counterproductive, or even dangerous and destructive. As I pointed out in the other thread, many “conspiracy theorists” advocate measures which if put into practise, would be the surest way of “destroying the Constitution”.

This argument can be turned on its head, of course. If you neglect to identify very powerful, real conspiracies, you won’t be able to combat them or prepare for what they may have prepared for you. Exactly what measures if implemented by many people who subscribe to a particular conspiracy theory, “would be the surest way of destroying the Constitution”?? Give me some examples, if you would.

That may be true of some people; but on the other hand there are others like myself who have genuine disagreement with the “conspiracy theorist” approach to the subject, as distinct from the “secret combinations” talked about in the Book of Mormon.

From my point of view, you seem to be handicapping yourself. After all, a secret combination IS a conspiracy by definition. Why take the position that theorizing, or better, hypothesizing about such things is taboo? You have to start somewhere. It’s called research. Of course you want it to be backed up by as much evidence as possible. But remember, we are dealing with secret combinations, and probably aren’t going to be privy to many of their secrets. You can still look at things they may do that are observable; and that point to them and their intentions , etc.

Thank you. When considering an “evidence” of this kind, I like to look at all sides of the argument, not just one side. A quick search of the subject revealed that Dr. Steven Jones was opposed by BYU and eventually lost his job over the issue. See here, here, and here for more information. So no, I don’t regard Dr. Jones’ findings as credible evidence for what you claim. That is a good example of a “conspiracy theory,” not a “conspiracy fact,” nor the scripturally based “secret combination”. I think it is telling that you are willing to trust Dr. Jones more than the board of governors of BYU on this issue.

The third link I gave above goes so far as to make oblique suggestions that LDS Church is part of the “conspiracy”. Great! Now the LDS Church is in league with the conspirators, and the “conspiracy theorists” have found us out! That highlights exactly what is wrong with “conspiracy theories”. It is the devil’s counterfeit. It works to turn the tables on the victim of the crime rather than the perpetrator of the crime. It shields the criminal, while at the same time pointing the finger of suspicion on the victim.

Zerinus, these are reports of what allegedly happened. You might suspect that they may contain inaccuracies, including exaggerations and spin. Actually, the one from Greg Szymanski is quite accurate. I had little problem with it. And it does NOT cast Dr. Jones in a bad light, so scratch it from your list.

I’ll have to say, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board has some rabid anti-Jones posters if the locked-down thread: ‘Steven Jones’ “Last Lecture” is any example. This is an indicated of how controversial and emotion-driven this topic is and how it sticks in the craw of so many LDS.

The second report is a KSL.Com article discussing Dr. Jones being put on Administrative Leave from BYU. They got most of their information from a Deseret News article from the same day (8 Sep 2006). This shows how exaggeration creeps in. The quote from DesNews reads: Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

KSL takes this and spins it to read: According to a copyrighted Deseret Morning News article, Dr. Steven Jones is on paid leave for suggesting the government is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center.

So it morphed from saying Jones was in a movement who has members accusing unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, to saying Jones is on paid leave for suggesting the government is responsible for the WTC destruction.

The third article isn’t too bad, either, though it’s assertion that: . . when pressed [Jones] cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East, needs some documentation or at least should have provided a quote from Jones backing up this allegation. The article also says: But BYU's explanation for Jones's review [does not cite] the quality of his research into the collapse's physics, the discipline in which errors would suggest a lack of fitness to carry on his job.

Your last comment about the article implicating the LDS Church with the ‘conspiracy’ is a real stretch. It simply paraphrases Fetzer and Barrett’s suggestion that Bush may have brought pressure on the Church to let Steve go. That doesn’t implicate the Church in anything that I can see, except maybe the higher ups may have had a hand in putting Prof. Jones on administrative leave. But I actually doubt that.

Incidentally, Professor Jones was NOT fired. There was some pressure to force him into early retirement and Dr. Jones accepted in order to avoid the school further embarrassment over the controversy. He could have stayed and forced a review of his 9/11 research by the school, which they had said they were going to do, but really wanted to avoid. He was allowed to stay on for over two and-a-half years doing the research that led to at least two more papers. The final paper on nano-thermite was reviewed by the school and was published with their OK after making changes they suggested, in April of 2009.

So you have to ask yourself, zerinus, why did the school allow this? Could it be because they thought it was good science? With your last comment you are mixing up science with conspiracy theory. However, it is true that the science indicates a larger circle of conspiracy hardly touched by the official theory.

I’m posting a link to where interested readers can get Dr. Jones’ latest paper. You can then judge for yourself about Dr. Jones' credibility. It is called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe:

http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf

Here is a video narrated by David Chandler of the North Tower showing very clear evidence of the explosive fronts cascading down the faces of the building and numerous explosive squibs errupting an various points below this moving front. Especially notice how the upper building largely disintegrates in mid-air. If you have eyes to see, you will begin to understand, if you don’t, you won’t (its being trapped by your own model, kind of thing, in my strongly held view; ref. Thomas Kuhn):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0

Link to comment

Since secret combinations originate with the devil, your dilemma seems "a house divided".

The devil tells us that he is no devil because there is none. It seems to me that the thrust of pooh-poohing "conspiracy theories" is to say the same thing about secret combinations: there are no secret combinations, they're just conspiracy theories."

“Conspiracy theories” serve the purpose of the devils in two ways: In the hands of those who are obsessive about it and blindly pursue it, it achieves the aims of the devil directly, by furthering and accomplishing the very cause it pretends it is trying to avoid—the destruction of the United States and its Constitution. If the policies you are advocating and the aims and objectives you are pursuing were put into effect, it would so weaken the central Government of the United States that it would destroy it; and with it the Constitution. If there were no central government, or if it were so weakened as to render it ineffective, then there would also be no Constitution, because that is the primary reason why the Constitution was set up in the first place. That is what the “secret combination” tried to do, and ultimately achieved among the Nephites:

3 Nephi
:

1 Now behold, I will show unto you that they did not establish a king over the land; but in this same year, yea, the thirtieth year, they did destroy upon the judgment-seat, yea, did murder the chief judge of the land.

2 And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends;
and thus they did destroy the government of the land
.

3 And every tribe did appoint a chief or a leader over them; and thus they became tribes and leaders of tribes.

4 Now behold, there was no man among them save he had much family and many kindreds and friends; therefore their tribes became exceedingly great.

5 Now all this was done, and there were no wars as yet among them; and
all this iniquity had come upon the people because they did yield themselves unto the power of Satan
.

6 And the
regulations of the government were destroyed,
because of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets.

Their wickedness in accomplishing that aim was considered so great in the eyes of God that they received the severest punishment at the hand of the Lord when He visited the Nephites after His resurrection:

3 Nephi 9
:

9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was
above all the wickedness of the whole earth,
because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was
they that did destroy the peace of my people
and the government of the land
;
therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

That is what the “secret combinators” in the United States are trying to do. They want to destroy the central government so that they can have a free hand in doing what they want, without a strong central government which has the mens to oppose or obstruct them. And you are helping them along. They have deceived you into thinking that you are opposing them when you are in fact helping them. You are pursuing the same aims and objectives as they are without realizing it.

The “conspiracy theories” also help the purpose of the devil in another way: For the majority of the people who do not have that obsession, and therefore can see through the folly of the “conspiracy theorists,” it shields the real “secret combinations” by identifying it in their minds with your “conspiracy theories” which they rightly reject for being fanciful and obsessive, and not grounded in reality or fact. It is a very clever deception of Satan. It is a double edged sword which aims to achieve the purpose of the devil in very subtle and clever ways.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...